Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible

Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible

HELLENISTIC CULTURE AND SOCIETY General Editors: Anthony W. Bulloch, Erich S. Gruen, A . A . Long, and A n d r e w F. Stewart I. Alexander to Actium: T h e Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic A g e , by Peter Green II. Hellenism in the East: T h e Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander, edited by Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White III. T h e Question of "Eclecticism": Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edited by J. M . Dillon and A . A . L o n g V A History of Macedonia, by R. M a l c o l m Errington, translated by Catherine Errington V I . Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., by Stephen V Tracy V I I . T h e Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora V I I I . Hellenistic Philosophy of Mind, by Julia Annas I X . Hellenistic History and Culture, edited by Peter Green X . T h e Best of the Argonauts: T h e Redefinition of the Epic Hero in Book O n e of Apollonius' Argonautica, by James J. Clauss X I . Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics, by A n d r e w Stewart X I I . Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the Hellenistic World, edited by by A . W. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A . A . Long, and A . Stewart X I I I . From Samarkhand to Sardis: A N e w Approach to the Seleucid Empire, by Susan Sherwin-White and Amelie Kuhrt X I V Regionalism and C h a n g e in the Economy of Independent Delos, 314-167 B.C., by G a r y Reger X V Hegemony to Empire: T h e Development of the R o m a n Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C., by Robert Kallet-Marx X V I . Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius, by Arthur M . Eckstein X V I I . T h e Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, T h e Islands, and Asia Minor, by Getzel M . Cohen X V I I I . Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337-90 B.C., by Sheila L. A g e r X I X . Theocritus's U r b a n Mimes: Mobility, Gender, and Patronage, by Joan B. Burton X X . Athenian D e m o c r a c y in Transition: Attic Letter Cutters o f 340 to 290 B.C., by Stephen V Tracy X X I . Pseudo-Hecataeus, " O n the Jews": Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, by Bezalel Bar-Kochva X X I I . Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic Period, by K e n t J. Rigsby X X I I I . T h e Cynics: T h e Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy, R. Bracht Branh a m and Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze, editors

XXIV

T h e Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their K o i n o n in Early Hellenistic Era, 279-217 B.C., by Joseph B . Scholten

X X V T h e Argonautika by Apollonius Rodios, translated, with introduction, commen­ tary, and glossary, by Peter Green X X V I . Hellenistic Constructs: Culture, History, and Historiography, edited by Paul Cartledge, Peter Garnsey, and Erich Gruen X X V I I . Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, by Louis H . Feldman X X V I I I . Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, by K a t h r y n J. Gutzwiller X X I X . For Health and Safety: Religion in Hellenistic Athens, by Jon D. Mikalson X X X . Heritage and Hellenism: T h e Reinvention of Jewish Tradition, by Erich S. Gruen X X X I . T h e Beginnings of Jewishness, by Shaye D. C o h e n X X X I I . Thundering Zeus: T h e M a k i n g of Hellenistic Bactria, by Frank L. Holt

JOSEPHUS'S INTERPRETATION OF

THE

LOUIS

H.

BIBLE

FELDMAN

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley

Los Angeles

London

University o f California Press Berkeley and L o s Angeles, California University o f California Press, Ltd. London, England © 1998 by T h e Regents o f the University o f California

Library o f C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publication D a t a Feldman, Louis H . Josephus's interpretation o f the B i b l e / L o u i s H . Feldman. p.

cm.—(Hellenistic culture and society)

Includes bibliographic references and index I S B N 0-520-20853-6 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. criticism.

2. J u d a i s m — A p o l o g e t i c works

3. J e w s — H i s t o r y — T o 70 A.D.—Historiography.

Biography.

I. Title.

DS116J744.F45

History and

4. Heroes in the B i b l e —

II. Series

1998

22i.6'o92—dc2i

97-36613 r97

Printed in the U n i t e d States o f A m e r i c a 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

T h e p a p e r used in this publication meets the m i n i m u m requirements o f A m e r i c a n National Standards for Information S c i e n c e s — P e r m a n e n c e o f Paper for Printed L i b r a r y Materials, A N S I Z39.48-1984.

To our children and their spouses: Moshe

and Nova, Sara and Eddie, Leah and

Brad,

who have brought us and, we are confident, will continue to bring us so much n a c h a s , through their love of and devotion to our Torah

tradition.

c

Veheshiv lev-^avoth al-banim MALACHI

c

velev banim al ^avotham. 3:24

CONTENTS

PREFACE

/

xiii

PART ONE •GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS i. Josephus's Historiographical Predecessors

/

2. Josephus as Rewriter of the Bible

/

14

3. T h e Qualities of Biblical Heroes

/

74

4. Josephus as Apologist to Non-Jews and to Jews 5. Stylistic and Other Changes P A R T T W O -J O S E P H U S ' S

/

/ 3

/

132

163

BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

6. A B R A H A M

/

223

7. I S A A C

/

290

8. J A C O B

/

304

9. J O S E P H

/

3

10. M O S E S

/

374

11. J O S H U A

/

3

5

443

12. S A M S O N

/

461

13. S A M U E L

/

490

14. S A U L 15. D A V I D

/

509 /

537

/

/

221

xii

CONTENTS

16. S O L O M O N

/

17. D A N I E L

/

CONCLUSION

/

570 629

659

ABBREVIATIONS

/

671

BIBLIOGRAPHY

/

6>J

INDEXES

/

703

Passages from A n c i e n t Writers a. Jewish Scriptures

/

703

b. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls c. New Testament d. Josephus e. Philo and Pseudo-Philo, f.

/ /

g. Rabbinic Literature, Medieval Jewish

Writers

/

/

i. Inscriptions and Papyri

/ /

773

/

775

k. Classical Latin Authors

/

789

G e n e r a l Index

/

793

Greek, Latin, and H e b r e w and A r a m a i c Words M o d e r n Scholars

/

771

Greek Authors

Classical

753

759

Works, Samaritan Literature

h. Christian Church Fathers

j.

721

727

Biblical Antiquities

Other Graeco-Jewish

/

725

/

831

/

811

761

PREFACE

T h e J e w s , as F e r g u s M i l l a r (1987, 147) h a s r e m a r k e d , w e r e the o n l y p e o p l e u n d e r R o m a n rule w h o n o t o n l y h a d a l o n g r e c o r d e d history b u t k e p t it, r e i n t e r p r e t e d it, a n d a c t e d o n it. T h o s e r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

are t o b e f o u n d in s u c h w r i t e r s as

Demetrius, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus, Cleodemus Malchus, A r i s t e a s , P s e u d o - H e c a t a e u s , T h e o p h i l u s , T h a l l u s , a n d Justus o f T i b e r i a s , d a t i n g f r o m the t h i r d c e n t u r y B.C.E. t o the first c e n t u r y C.E.; b u t these survive o n l y i n frag­ m e n t a r y f o r m . T h e r e are r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s e x t a n t in the n u m e r o u s treatises in the A p o c r y p h a a n d the P s e u d e p i g r a p h a , as w e l l as in the N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d the S a m a r i t a n tradition; b u t these consist g e n e r a l l y o f c o m m e n t s o n i n d i v i d u a l p a s ­ sages a n d a r e h a r d l y s y s t e m a t i c . T h e r e are m a n y c o m m e n t s to b e f o u n d in t h e D e a d S e a Scrolls, b u t a g a i n these d e a l w i t h i n d i v i d u a l p a s s a g e s ; a n d e x c e p t for the Genesis Apocryphon, w h i c h exists in a v e r y f r a g m e n t a r y f o r m , t h e y d o n o t d e a l i n a s y s t e m a t i c w a y w i t h the historical b o o k s o f the B i b l e . P h i l o d o e s c o m m e n t at l e n g t h o n the B i b l e , b u t his c o n c e r n is m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h a n historical; a n d , i n a n y c a s e , h e restricts himself, at least in the e x t a n t treatises, t o the P e n t a t e u c h , w i t h o n l y the briefest allusions to the o t h e r b o o k s o f the B i b l e . T h e r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m d o c o v e r the h i s t o r i c a l p o r t i o n s o f the B i b l e ; but, b e i n g , o n the w h o l e , s e r m o n i c i n n a t u r e , t h e y d o n o t p r o c e e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n d often digress. M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h t h e y d o u b d e s s c o n t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l , w h a t is p r o b a b l y the earliest o f t h e m , Genesis Rabbah, is a p p a r e n t l y n o t r e c o r d e d until the b e g i n n i n g o f the fifth century. O f s y s t e m a t i c r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o n e m i g h t say t h a t the earliest a n d m o s t c o m ­ p l e t e is the S e p t u a g i n t , the translation o f the P e n t a t e u c h into G r e e k , w h i c h , a c ­ c o r d i n g to the Letter of Aristeas, w a s c o m m i s s i o n e d b y K i n g P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s o f E g y p t a b o u t the y e a r 270 B.C.E., a l t h o u g h s o m e h a v e t h o u g h t it to d a t e f r o m a c e n ­ t u r y later. O f a similar n a t u r e are the A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e s k n o w n as t a r g u m i m ; b u t t h o u g h they, like the S e p t u a g i n t , c o n t a i n o l d e r t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l , t h e earli­ est w a s a p p a r e n d y n o t r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g until the s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E. It is signiXlll

xiv

PREFACE

ficant t h a t J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f (Ant. 1.10-12) cites the S e p t u a g i n t as the p r e c e d e n t for his Antiquities. S i n c e h e a p p a r e n t l y f o u n d its style deficient a n d its m e t h o d uncriti­ c a l , h e d e c i d e d to d o , in effect, a s e c o n d e d i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , the S e p t u a g i n t a n d the t a r g u m i m are, for the m o s t p a r t , v e r y close translations o r p a r a p h r a s e s o f the text a n d m a k e relatively little a t t e m p t to e x p l a i n o r i n t e r p r e t it. A w o r k m o r e c o m p a r a b l e to J o s e p h u s ' s revision o f the B i b l e is the Biblical An­ tiquities o f P s e u d o - P h i l o , g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t to b e a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s . B u t it is m u c h briefer, b e i n g a b o u t one-fifth t h e l e n g t h o f J o s e p h u s for the p e r i o d t h a t it c o v e r s . P s e u d o - P h i l o e n d s w i t h the d e a t h o f S a u l , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s c o v e r s the entire historical p e r i o d o f the B i b l e ; m o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s to c o v e r the entire b i b l i c a l h i s t o r y s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a n d t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e s u c c e e d s in d o i n g so, P s e u d o - P h i l o m a k e s n o s u c h p r o m i s e a n d , in fact, o m i t s o r a b b r e v i a t e s drastically n u m e r o u s p o r t i o n s . T h u s J o s e p h u s e m e r g e s as the earliest systematic c o m m e n t a t o r o n t h e B i b l e a n d is c o n s e q u e n d y o f the g r e a t e s t v a l u e . T h e p r e s e n t v o l u m e is a n a t t e m p t to e x ­ a m i n e this w o r k a n d to d e t e r m i n e t h e p r i n c i p l e s t h a t g u i d e d J o s e p h u s in his u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g o f the B i b l e . T w o b a s i c q u e s t i o n s t h a t this w o r k addresses are the e x ­ t e n t to w h i c h , in his r e w r i t i n g o f the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e his o w n c r e a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n , a n issue t h a t h a s b e e n p o i n t e d l y raised in a r e c e n t a n d carefully b a l ­ a n c e d w o r k b y P e r B i l d e (1988, 1 4 1 - 5 0 ) , a n d the e x t e n t to w h i c h h e h a s a m a r k e d a n d g e n e r a l l y consistent p o i n t o f view, c o n s o n a n t w i t h c e r t a i n t h e m e s in his w o r k . I n the late n i n e t e e n t h a n d e a r l y t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s , J o s e p h u s w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d as the o n l y h i s t o r i a n w h o p r e s e n t s a c o n n e c t e d a c c o u n t o f J e w i s h h i s t o r y f r o m the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. t o the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e in the y e a r 70, a n d as a w r i t e r i n d i s p e n s a b l e for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t e r a . N e v e r t h e ­ less, h e w a s g e n e r a l l y v i e w e d as a n e n c y c l o p e d i a o f d a t a a n d as a c o m p i l e r o f s o u r c e s r a t h e r t h a n as a n intelligent author. T h e s u s p i c i o n a t t a c h e d t o his c h a r a c ­ ter, p a r t i c u l a r l y his role in the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , w a s e x t e n d e d to his a i m s a n d ability as a w r i t e r ; a n d s c h o l a r s h i p c o n c l u d e d t h a t h e m u s t h a v e b o r r o w e d v i r ­ tually e v e r y t h i n g a n d w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d i s c e r n i n g w h a t those s o u r c e s w e r e . It w a s t h o u g h t t h a t s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y o b v i o u s in the first h a l f o f his m a j o r w o r k , t h e Jewish Antiquities, c o n t a i n i n g his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . T h e p o s ­ sible v a l u e o f this study e x t e n d s b e y o n d the B i b l e e x e g e s i s t h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as it m a y g i v e us s o m e c l u e s for e v a l u a t i n g J o s e p h u s as a h i s t o r i a n a n d the factors t h a t i n f l u e n c e the w a y in w h i c h h e w o r k s w i t h his sources, this b e i n g the o n l y p a r t o f his w o r k (together w i t h his p a r a p h r a s e o f the Letter ofAristeas a n d the First B o o k o f M a c c a b e e s ) w h e r e w e c a n c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s w i t h his p r e s u m e d sources at s o m e l e n g t h . T h e p r e s e n t w o r k falls into t w o g e n e r a l divisions. I n the first p a r t , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e t o u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e s a n d t e c h n i q u e s in retelling the B i b l e . I n the s e c o n d p a r t , c a s e studies o f t w e l v e k e y b i b l i c a l figures are p r e s e n t e d to test the d e g r e e t o w h i c h these p u r p o s e s a n d t e c h n i q u e s are fulfilled. If, as is h e r e c o n ­ t e n d e d , J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k is, t o a g r e a t d e g r e e , a p o l o g e t i c , it s h o u l d n o t b e surpris-

PREFACE

xv

i n g t h a t h e p l a c e s p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s o n a n s w e r i n g t h e c h a r g e s o f s u c h influential w r i t e r s as A p i o n (Ag. Ap. 2.135) a n d A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (Ag. Ap. 2.148) t h a t t h e J e w s h a d failed t o p r o d u c e r e m a r k a b l e m e n o r e m i n e n t sages a n d h a d c o n t r i b u t e d n o useful i n v e n t i o n to c i v i l i z a t i o n . H i s t r e a t m e n t o f s u c h i m p o r t a n t figures in J e w i s h h i s t o r y as A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a m s o n , S a m u e l , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d D a n i e l is c r u c i a l in his r e s p o n s e t o these c h a r g e s . T h e r e a d e r m a y w o n d e r w h y it is n e c e s s a r y in t h e first p a r t o f the p r e s e n t w o r k t o r e h e a r s e a l a r g e n u m b e r o f e x a m p l e s o f the qualities o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s w h e n e a c h c h a p t e r in the s e c o n d p a r t is g o i n g to c o v e r this g r o u n d . T h e r e a r e t w o r e a ­ sons for this. I n t h e first p l a c e , it is useful to c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f v a r ­ ious p e r s o n a l i t i e s so far as i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r traits a r e c o n c e r n e d , so as to d e ­ t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e consistent p a t t e r n s . S e c o n d l y , t h e e x a m p l e s in t h e first p a r t a r e d r a w n n o t m e r e l y f r o m t h o s e p e r s o n a l i t i e s w h o a r e d i s c u s s e d in t h e sec­ o n d p a r t b u t also f r o m m a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l figures as w e l l , so t h a t t h e r e a d e r m a y j u d g e to w h a t e x t e n t t h e p a t t e r n s t h a t a r e m e n t i o n e d a r e a p p l i c a b l e t h r o u g h o u t Josephus's paraphrase. T h e r e a d e r will n o t e that I h a v e r e s e r v e d for a n a p p e n d i x to c h a p t e r 2 m y c o m ­ m e n t s o n J o s e p h u s ' s r e l a t i o n to t h e traditions t h a t a r e f o u n d r e c o r d e d at a m u c h later t i m e in t h e r a b b i n i c c o r p u s . M y v i e w s o n this m a t t e r r u n c o u n t e r to t h e view, d o m i n a n t in m a n y circles, t h a t r a b b i n i c literature h a s a g e n d a o f its o w n p e r t a i n i n g to its t i m e o f c o m p o s i t i o n a n d t h a t it w o u l d b e a n a c h r o n i s t i c to use it d i r e c t l y for i l l u m i n a t i o n o f a first-century w r i t e r s u c h as J o s e p h u s . B u t w h e t h e r m y v i e w is c o r ­ r e c t o r n o t o n this m a t t e r is r e a l l y n o t d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to m y m a j o r thesis, n a m e l y , t h a t J o s e p h u s is, o n t h e w h o l e , a c r e a t i v e a n d consistent historian. T h e first p a r t o f this b o o k a p p e a r e d in a p r e l i m i n a r y f o r m as " U s e , A u t h o r i t y , a n d E x e g e s i s o f M i k r a in t h e W r i t i n g s o f J o s e p h u s , " in Mikra:

Text,

Translation,

Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, e d . M a r t i n J. M u l d e r a n d H a r r y S y s l i n g (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, sect. 2, v o l . 1; A s s e n : V a n G o r c u m , 1988), 4 5 5 - 5 1 8 . It h a s b e e n v a s d y e x ­ p a n d e d a n d g r e a d y r e v i s e d . P r e l i m i n a r y studies o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s h a v e b e e n p u b l i s h e d , a n d I a m grateful to the p u b l i s h e r s for p e r m i s s i o n t o utilize t h e m h e r e i n a c o n s i d e r a b l y r e v i s e d f o r m : " A b r a h a m t h e G r e e k P h i l o s o p h e r in J o s e p h u s , " TAPA 9 9 (1968): 1 4 3 - 5 6 ; " A b r a h a m t h e G e n e r a l in J o s e p h u s , " in Nour­ ished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, e d . F r e d e r ­ ick E . G r e e n s p a h n , E a r l e H i l g e r t , a n d B u r t o n L . M a c k ( C h i c o , Calif.: S c h o l a r s Press, 1984), 4 3 - 4 9 ; "Josephus as a B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t e r : t h e Aqedah," JQR

75

(1984-85): 2 1 2 - 5 2 ; " H e l l e n i z a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities: T h e Portrait o f A b r a ­ h a m , " in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, e d . L o u i s H . F e l d m a n a n d G o h e i H a t a (Detroit: W a y n e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1987), 5 9 - 8 0 ; " J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f I s a a c , " RSLR

29 (1993): 3 - 3 3 ; " J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f J a c o b , " JQR

" J o s e p h u s ' Portrait o f J o s e p h , " RB99 o f M o s e s , " JQR

J

J

79 ( 1 9 8 8 - 8 9 ) : 1 0 1 - 5 1 ;

1

( 992): 3 7 9 - 4 ? , 5 0 4 - 2 8 ; " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t 0

82 ( i 9 9 - 9 2 ) : 2 8 5 - 3 2 8 ; 83 (1992-93): 7~5 > 3^33^

P o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , " HTR

"Josephus'

82 (1989): 3 5 1 - 7 6 ; " J o s e p h u s ' V e r s i o n o f S a m s o n , " JSJ

xvi

PREFACE

19 (1988): 1 7 1 - 2 1 4 ; " J o e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t o f S a m u e l , " Abr-Nahrain "Josephus'

P o r t r a i t o f S a u l , " HUCA

D a v i d , " HUCA

30 (1992): 1 0 3 - 4 5 ;

53 (1982): 4 5 - 9 9 ; "Josephus'

Portrait o f

60 (1989): 1 2 9 - 7 4 ; "Josephus as a n A p o l o g i s t to the G r e c o - R o m a n

W o r l d : H i s P o r t r a i t o f S o l o m o n , " HUCA

6 6 (1995): 1 - 6 5 ; a n d " J o s e p h u s ' P o r t r a i t

o f D a n i e l , " Henoch 14 (1992): 3 7 - 9 6 . I a m grateful t o t h e G u g g e n h e i m F o u n d a t i o n , w h i c h g r a n t e d m e a f e l l o w s h i p in 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 to b e g i n this w o r k , a n d to the A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Society, the M e m o r i a l F o u n d a t i o n for J e w i s h C u l t u r e , the A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o f L e a r n e d S o ­ cieties, the W u r z w e i l e r F o u n d a t i o n , the A n n e n b e r g R e s e a r c h Institute, t h e Insti­ tute for A d v a n c e d S t u d y in P r i n c e t o n , t h e L i t t a u e r F o u n d a t i o n , a n d t h e A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y for J e w i s h R e s e a r c h for assistance in h e l p i n g m e to c o m p l e t e it. I w i s h to e x p r e s s m y s p e c i a l t h a n k s to C h r i s t o p h e r B e g g , S t e v e M a s o n , a n d the r e a d e r s o f this m a n u s c r i p t for the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, as w e l l as P e t e r D r e y e r , w h o e d i t e d it for p u b l i c a t i o n , for v e r y m a n y helpful suggestions. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d , citations o f the B i b l e in this b o o k are to c h a p t e r a n d verse in the H e b r e w text.

PART ONE

General Considerations

C H A P T E R

O N E

Josephus's Historiographical Predecessors

THE

SCHOOLS OF ISOCRATES AND ARISTOTLE

J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y i n f l u e n c e d b y the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l ideals o f his G r e e k p r e d e ­ cessors. T w o s c h o o l s , in particular, v i e d for J o s e p h u s ' s a l l e g i a n c e , the first the r h e t o r i c a l s c h o o l a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the n a m e o f Isocrates ( 4 3 6 - 3 3 8 B.C.E.), t h e s e c o n d the scientific s c h o o l f o u n d e d b y A r i s t o d e (384-322 B.C.E.) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 5 1 , 2 3 - 5 2 ) . T h e f o r m e r e m p h a s i z e d the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f fictitious s p e e c h e s i n t o the n a r r a t i v e , the use o f digressions often l o o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the m a i n t h e m e , the 1

i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a s t r o n g strain o f t r a g e d y , a n d the stress o n m o r a l i z i n g a n d o n p s y ­ c h o l o g i z i n g . I n particular, Isocrates, as a n orator, insisted o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f o b ­ s e r v i n g p r o p r i e t y in the use o f historical e x e m p l a (Panegyricus 9; cf. Helen 11). H e p i ­ o n e e r e d in the w r i t i n g o f eulogistic b i o g r a p h y in his Evagoras, the p u r p o s e o f w h i c h w a s t o s h o w t h a t E v a g o r a s , k i n g o f S a l a m i s in C y p r u s , s u r p a s s e d e v e n the l e g ­ e n d a r y p r i n c e s o f a n c i e n t t i m e s in valor, piety, a n d j u s t i c e — t h r e e k e y qualities that, as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s singles o u t for praise in his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s .

2

A r i s t o d e ' s interest in scientific investigation e m b r a c e d e v e r y a s p e c t o f life, in­ c l u d i n g h i s t o r y a n d b i o g r a p h y . I n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the g e n r e o f h i s t o r y f r o m t h a t o f

1. Despite his championship of propriety in discourse, Isocrates included in his orations (e.g., Panathenaicus 121-22; cf. Archidamus 8,10) certain exaggerated rhetorical and poetic effects a n d devices, w h i c h were later carried over into the historical prose of his pupils. S u c h a passage as the vivid enumeration of all the crimes perpetrated in cities other than Athens (Panathenaicus 121-22) surely introduced some­ thing o f the feeling o f horror a n d sensationalism that he elsewhere deplored. Isocrates sounds like a prose tragedian w h e n he moralizes that, despite the m a n y ills incident to man's nature, m a n has brought m o r e u p o n himself than necessity has imposed u p o n him by engendering wars with his fellow m e n and factionalism within his o w n g r o u p (Panegyricus 167-68). Instead o f lamenting the calamities fabricated b y the poets, says Isocrates, people should w e e p at the tragedy of real life resulting from war. 2. Avenarius 1956 demonstrates that Lucian's Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit illustrates the fusion of critical and rhetorical historiography. 3

4

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

poetry, h e cites, as a n e x a m p l e o f the c o n c e r n o f history, w h a t A l c i b i a d e s d i d o r 3

h a d d o n e t o h i m (Poetics 9.1451B10). H i s focus h e r e is o n h i s t o r y as b i o g r a p h y . O n e o f the c a r d i n a l p r i n c i p l e s o f A r i s t o t l e ' s s y s t e m is t h a t m a n is free to c h o o s e a m o n g several t y p e s o f life. T h i s l e d his followers, t h e Peripatetics, starting w i t h his suc­ cessor, T h e o p h r a s t u s , to try to classify t y p e s o f lives, j u s t as t h e y d i d t y p e s o f a n i ­ m a l s a n d plants; a n d this n a t u r a l l y l e d t h e m t o w r i t e b i o g r a p h i e s illustrating these v a r i o u s t y p e s o f life. T o this e n d , t h e y u s e d a n e c d o t e s a n d historical incidents. I n r e s e a r c h into the h i s t o r y o f philosophy, the Peripatetics u s e d b i o g r a p h i c a l details as offensive a n d defensive w e a p o n s ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971b, 14). T h e schema o f A r i s ­ totelian ethics w a s u s e d as a n i n s t r u m e n t to classify the m o d e s o f c o n d u c t o f indi­ v i d u a l s . V o n Fritz h a s a r g u e d t h a t b i o g r a p h y , w h i c h , as a g e n r e , b e c a m e so p o p u ­ lar d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , is d i r e c d y i n d e b t e d to the Peripatetics a n d t h a t w i t h o u t A r i s t o t e l i a n ethics as its g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e , H e l l e n i s t i c b i o g r a p h y is u n i n ­ telligible a n d a l m o s t i n c o n c e i v a b l e (von Fritz 1958b, 8 5 - 1 4 5 ) . T h i s is h a r d to p r o v e , since H e l l e n i s t i c b i o g r a p h y s h o w s a far g r e a t e r v a r i e t y o f t y p e s t h a n the t h e o r y o f 4

its Peripatetic o r i g i n w o u l d a l l o w ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971b, 14); b u t t h e r e is significance in the fact t h a t N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o w a s J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n s o u r c e , n o t o n l y for the l a r g e p a r t o f the Antiquities p e r t a i n i n g to H e r o d , b u t also, p e r h a p s , for m u c h 5

else, w a s a Peripatetic p h i l o s o p h e r w h o w r o t e a b i o g r a p h y , n o w lost, o f A u g u s t u s . T h i s b i o g r a p h y u n d o u b t e d l y i n f l u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s a p p r o a c h t o the c h a r a c t e r s o f his history, in t h a t N i c o l a u s ' s w o r k w a s , t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , a n e t h i c a l trea­ tise in the Peripatetic t r a d i t i o n a n d h a d a h i e r a r c h i c a l s y s t e m o f v a l u e s b a s e d o n the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s a r o u n d w h i c h , as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s built s e v e r a l o f his b i b l i c a l p o r t r a i t s ( W a c h o l d e r 1 9 6 2 , 46). N i c o l a u s m a y w e l l h a v e i n f l u e n c e d J o s e ­ p h u s ' s p r a c t i c e , in his e a g e r n e s s t o e m p h a s i z e a lesson, o f i n s e r t i n g m o r a l i z i n g a c ­ counts. A n d y e t , A r i s t o d e , u n l i k e d o c t r i n a i r e p h i l o s o p h e r s , d i d n o t try to i m p o s e a sin-

3. H o m e y e r 1962, 75-85, suggests that Aristode m a y have been thinking o f the digression on A l ­ cibiades in bk. 10 o f T h e o p o m p u s ' s Philippica. 4. H o m e y e r 1962, 75-85, contends that biographies are already to be found in Herodotus, w h o , in­ deed, organized his material according to the principles o f formal biography. M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 39, argues that biography goes b a c k to the fifth century B.C.E. and hence antedates Aristode. V o n Fritz 1958a, 130, on the other hand, maintains that there is no true biography before Aristode, and that what looks like biography, for example, X e n o p h o n ' s Agesilaus, is really only an e n c o m i u m , and lacks the unity and the description o f the formation o f character that characterize a true biography. 5. W a c h o l d e r 1962 argues that Nicolaus w a s Josephus's source, not only for the H a s m o n e a n and Herodian periods, but also for earlier Jewish history as well. Nicolaus apparendy used a panegyrical approach to H e r o d , as well as perhaps in the rest o f his huge universal history, consisting o f 144 books. A s to Josephus's alleged use o f Nicolaus for earlier Jewish history, Nicolaus's interest in the earlier p e ­ riod is, so far as the few extant fragments indicate, based on his connection with his native city o f D a m ­ ascus. It w o u l d seem strange for Josephus, learned as he claimed to be, to use a non-Jewish source for the biblical period, except occasionally to provide external evidence for the historicity o f its narrative.

JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS

5

gle f u n d a m e n t a l i d e a o r p r i n c i p l e o f e x p l a n a t i o n u p o n the w h o l e c o u r s e o f h i s t o r y b u t , scientist t h a t h e w a s , v i e w e d t h e v a r i o u s p h a s e s o f the historical p r o c e s s e m ­ p i r i c a l l y (von Fritz 1958a, 1 3 4 - 3 5 ) . T h i s g a v e h i m g r e a t e r credibility, a n d c o n s e q u e n d y his i n f l u e n c e o n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s p r o f o u n d . A f t e r I s o c r a t e s a n d A r i s t o d e h a d d e f i n e d their r e s p e c t i v e attitudes t o w a r d his­ t o r i o g r a p h y , their successors c h o s e to identify t h e m s e l v e s p r e d o m i n a n d y w i t h o n e o r t h e o t h e r s c h o o l . I s o c r a t e s w a s definitely t h e m o r e p o p u l a r o f t h e t w o ; a n d o n e o f his successors, T h e o d e c t e s , a c t u a l l y w r o t e fifty t r a g e d i e s , i n c l u d i n g a n e n c o m i ­ astic o n e o n M a u s o l u s , the k i n g o f C a r i a . P r e s u m a b l y , i f t h a t d r a m a w e r e e x t a n t , o n e m i g h t h a v e b e e n a b l e to see the i n f l u e n c e o f h i s t o r y a n d r h e t o r i c o n tragedy. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e line d i v i d i n g t h e I s o c r a t e a n s f r o m t h e Peripatetics w a s n o t so c l e a r - c u t ; a n d w e h e a r t h a t this s a m e T h e o d e c t e s f o l l o w e d his father f r o m t h e I s o c r a t e a n to t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n s c h o o l . A n o t h e r o f t h e p u p i l s o f Isocrates, E p h o r u s , w a s n o t e d for the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f s w e e p i n g p a n e g y r i c s , p r e c i s e l y w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t s o f his m a j o r b i b l i c a l figures, a n d tirades, s u c h as w e p e r c e i v e in his a c c o u n t s o f p o s t b i b l i c a l l e a d e r s s u c h as H e r o d . I n his h a n d s , h i s t o r y b e c a m e , like o r a t o r y a n d poetry, e p i d e i c t i c a n d d e s i r e d to s h o w o f f the v i r t u o s i t y o f t h e a u ­ thor. A n o t h e r o f I s o c r a t e s ' disciples, T h e o p o m p u s , is c r i t i c i z e d b y P o l y b i u s (2.8.10) for b u i l d i n g his h i s t o r y a r o u n d a m a n , P h i l i p II, r a t h e r t h a n a r o u n d

Greece.

T h e o p o m p u s ' s m a j o r a c h i e v e m e n t , as D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s so e l o q u e n t l y r e m a r k s , w a s t o e x a m i n e c r i t i c a l l y t h e h i d d e n m o t i v e s o f t h e a c t i o n s o f his histor­ i c a l figures a n d to p r o b e b e n e a t h t h e surface o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r s (Epistula ad Pompeium 6). " I n d e e d , " h e says, "it s e e m s t o m e t h a t t h e f a b l e d e x a m i n a t i o n in H a d e s o f souls w h o h a v e b e e n s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e i r b o d i e s b e f o r e t h e j u d g e s o f t h a t d r e a d p l a c e is n o t so e x a c t i n g as t h a t in t h e w r i t i n g o f T h e o p o m p u s . " W i t h T h e o p o m p u s , t h e g o a l o f h i s t o r y w a s n o l o n g e r restricted to t h e n a r r a t i o n a n d e x p l a n a t i o n o f g r e a t e v e n t s b u t also i n c l u d e d a n d e v e n e m p h a s i z e d t h e e v a l u a ­ t i o n o f t h e feelings a n d m o t i v e s o f m a j o r c h a r a c t e r s in h i s t o r y ( C o n n o r 1 9 6 7 , I33-54)-

6

It is p r e c i s e l y this t e n d e n c y to a b a n d o n the t i m e - h o n o r e d distinction b e t w e e n 7

h i s t o r y a n d b i o g r a p h y a n d to c o n v e r t h i s t o r y into b i o g r a p h y (cf. P o l y b i u s 10.24 a n d P l u t a r c h , Alexander 1 . 2 ) — o n e is a l m o s t t e m p t e d to say p s y c h o - h i s t o r y — t h a t w e shall see in J o s e p h u s t o a n e v e n g r e a t e r d e g r e e t h a n in t h e B i b l e itself. T h e v e r y

6. C o n n o r contends that T h e o p o m p u s sees not only the strengths but also the weaknesses o f his main character, Philip. Yet, as he notes, T h e o p o m p u s is important for introducing a personal, almost a biographical, history; and this approach h a d a profound influence u p o n Josephus, w h o similarly, as w e shall see, c a n discern the strengths and the weaknesses o f a personality such as Saul. 7. M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 1-7, stresses that the distinction during the Hellenistic period between his­ tory and biography has been less than generally accepted, and that instead biography c a m e to be rec­ ognized as a type o f history.

6

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

title, Philippica, o f T h e o p o m p u s ' s w o r k i n d i c a t e s t h a t h e h a d d e p a r t e d f r o m the in­ terest in t r a d i t i o n a l h i s t o r y a n d h a d t u r n e d to b i o g r a p h y a n d p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l ­ o g i z i n g — t h a t is, a n analysis o f p e o p l e ' s t r u e m o t i v e s , e s p e c i a l l y the role p l a y e d b y fear a n d e n v y — i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l . M o r e o v e r , this s c h o o l f r e q u e n d y s o u g h t to r e v e a l the c o n s c i o u s , r a t i o n a l m o t i v e s t h a t lie b e h i n d m e n ' s actions. I n particular, T h e o p o m p u s is f o n d o f c o m p a r i n g the r e a c t i o n o f t w o his­ t o r i c a l figures t o similar o c c u r r e n c e s . It w a s this c o m p a r a t i v e a p p r o a c h

that

P l u t a r c h m a d e f a m o u s , a n d t h a t w e see, for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m p a r i s o n o f A g r i p p a I a n d H e r o d (Ant. 1 9 . 3 2 8 - 3 1 ) . T h i s e m p h a s i s u p o n t h e p e r s o n a l e m o t i o n s o f the c h a r a c t e r s o f h i s t o r y is t o b e s e e n e v e n in t h e o p p o n e n t s o f I s o c r a t e s ' s c h o o l , t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s . T h u s , D u r i s o f S a m o s , o n e o f the p u p i l s o f A r i s t o d e ' s successor, T h e o p h r a s t u s , s h o w s in his n o w - l o s t h i s t o r i c a l w o r k s t h e s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e o f tragedy. It w a s a l m o s t as i f h e h a d b e e n i r k e d b y A r i s t o d e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t p o e t r y is m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h a n h i s t o r y (Poetics 9 . 1 4 5 1 B 5 - 1 1 ) ; a n d so h e t r i e d t o c o r r e c t this i m b a l a n c e b y m a k i n g h i s t o r y m o r e p o e t i c a l (von Fritz 1 9 5 8 a , 133). H e m o v e s t h e f e e l i n g s o f his r e a d e r s with the most ornate pathetic scenes, precisely materials similar to Saul's seance w i t h t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r (1 S a m . 2 8 : 7 - 2 5 ) , w h i c h J o s e p h u s b u i l d s u p to a h i g h d e ­ gree. T h e fact t h a t A r i s t o d e s h a r p l y

distinguishes

tragedy and

h i s t o r y (Poetics

9 . 1 4 5 1 A - B ) l e a d s U l l m a n to c o n c l u d e t h a t D u r i s , w h o w r o t e h i s t o r y in t r a g i c t e r m s , m i g h t h a v e d e s e r t e d f r o m the Peripatetic to the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l ( U l l m a n 1942, 2 5 - 5 3 ) ;

D U t

m

o

r

e r e c e n t s c h o l a r s h i p h a s q u e s t i o n e d this h a r d a n d fast dis­

t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the t w o schools. A c t u a l l y , d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , w i t h the sole e x t a n t e x c e p t i o n o f P o l y b i u s , historians, b o t h I s o c r a t e a n a n d

Peripatetic,

w r o t e w o r k s full o f r h e t o r i c . H e n c e , w e c a n n o t , as W a l b a n k , S a c k s , a n d S t e r l i n g h a v e n o t e d , a c c e p t U l l m a n ' s thesis t h a t the origins o f tragic h i s t o r y a r e t o b e f o u n d in Isocrates ( W a l b a n k i 9 6 0 , 2 1 6 - 3 4 ; S a c k s 1 9 8 1 , 1 4 4 - 7 0 ; S t e r l i n g 1992, 6 - 7 ) . It m a y b e t h a t the p o p u l a r i t y o f t r a g i c h i s t o r y in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d w a s o w i n g , in p a r t at least, to the fact t h a t f e w t r a g e d i e s w e r e p u t o n the stage d u r i n g this e r a , a n d t h a t r e a d e r s l o o k e d for their t r a g e d y in a n o t h e r s o u r c e , n a m e l y , r e a l l i f e — t h a t is, b i o g r a p h y o r b i o g r a p h i c a l history. W a l b a n k , to b e sure, a r g u e s t h a t the " t r a g i c h i s t o r y " s h o u l d b e d i s c a r d e d , i n a s m u c h as the e x i s t e n c e o f a

term

separate

s c h o o l o f tragic history, w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r o r i g i n a n d history, is a figment o f i m a g i ­ n a t i o n . A s a m a t t e r o f fact, t h e r e h a d l o n g existed a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n h i s t o r y a n d tragedy, since b o t h w e r e b a s e d u p o n a c o m m o n subject matter, the G r e e k m y t h s , w h i c h , o f c o u r s e , w e r e r e g a r d e d as historically true ( W a l b a n k 1972, 38). B o t h a p p e a l e d t o the e m o t i o n s w h e n r e a d a l o u d (for history w a s also so read), b o t h e m p h a s i z e d the m o r a l lessons t o b e c o n v e y e d , a n d b o t h h a d a c o m m o n r h e t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d . T h e t e r m " t r a g i c h i s t o r y " is e m p l o y e d m e r e l y t o g i v e a w o r k a b a c k ­ h a n d e d c o m p l i m e n t r a t h e r t h a n to classify it a c c o r d i n g to a p a r t i c u l a r

genre

( D o r a n 1979, 1 0 7 - 1 4 ) . Similarly, P h y l a r c h u s , a n o t h e r A r i s t o t e l i a n , is c e n s u r e d b y P o l y b i u s for a i m i n g

JOSEPHUS'S HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PREDECESSORS

7

to m o v e his r e a d e r s to tears (2.56.63). A c c o r d i n g to P l u t a r c h , P h y l a r c h u s , as i f i n a tragedy, all b u t e r e c t e d a stage m a c h i n e for his a c c o u n t o f T h e m i s t o c l e s ' f u n e r a l (Themistocks

32.3). H e n c e w e c a n see t h a t these historians, b o t h I s o c r a t e a n a n d

e v e n P e r i p a t e t i c , tried t o a r o u s e these e m o t i o n s o f p i t y a n d t e r r o r w h i c h A r i s t o d e felt to b e p e c u l i a r t o t r a g e d y (Poetics 9 . 1 4 5 2 A 1 - 2 ) .

8

JOSEPHUS AND DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS D u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d t h e g a p b e t w e e n historical e n c o m i u m , b i o g r a p h y , a n d h i s t o r y h a d n a r r o w e d , so that, in effect, it b e c a m e i m p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e m ( M o m i g l i a n o 1971a, 83). H e n c e , despite C i c e r o ' s a t t e m p t to justify s t r e t c h i n g the t r u t h in a p r o p o s e d m o n o g r a p h a b o u t his c o n s u l s h i p (Ad Familiares 5.12), for p r a c ­ tical p u r p o s e s the difference h a d d i m i n i s h e d . E v e n P o l y b i u s himself, w h o is so crit­ i c a l o f the I s o c r a t e a n s c h o o l , w r o t e a n e n c o m i u m o f P h i l o p o e m e n , w h i c h h a s a n e m o t i o n a l a n d t r a g i c c o m p o n e n t . P r e s u m a b l y , h e felt t h a t his e n c o m i u m w a s justified so l o n g as the p a n e g y r i c w a s n o t i n c l u d e d in his history. J o s e p h u s , like D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , s e e m s to h a v e fused the t w o . 9

A s s e v e r a l s c h o l a r s h a v e n o t e d , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e f o l l o w i n g in a n u m b e r o f respects in the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l footsteps o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , w h o w r o t e a w o r k w i t h a similar tide, Roman Antiquities, in t w e n t y b o o k s , w h i c h n a r r a t e d the fortunes t h a t befell his p r o t a g o n i s t s (TLGL xpyoaiievoi 1.6, a n d TLGL Tvxais

7

G

L JL€V0L

XP 1 ^ I

i

n

TVXT)T€voavTos) in Jose­ phus (Ant. 5.120, 159), whereas the biblical passage has n o mention o f prophesying (Judg. 20:27-28). Furthermore, in Josephus, Saul orders the high priest to d o n his high priesdy robes a n d to prophesy (Ant. 6.115), whereas there is n o mention o f prophesying in 1 S a m . 14:18. A g a i n , it is through the p r o p h e c y o f the high priest A b i m e l e c h that D a v i d learns w h a t is to b e (Ant. 6.254, 257), whereas in the Bible, D a v i d inquires direcdy o f the L - r d (1 S a m . 22:10). Similarly, it is the high priest Eli through w h o m G - d prophesies concerning his posterity, a message omitted in the biblical text (1 S a m . 22:16-23). Furthermore, in Josephus, N o b is the city not only of priests (1 S a m . 22:9-23) but also o f prophets (Ant. 6.262 a n d 268). A g a i n , in the Bible before g o i n g to batde against the Philistines, Saul inquires o f the L - r d , w h o does not answer h i m either by dreams or by the U r i m or by prophets (1 S a m . 28:6); Josephus evidendy conflates the three, since he states merely that Saul asked G - d through the prophets (Ant. 6.328). Additionally, it is the high priest A b i a t h a r w h o m D a v i d approaches to prophesy before going to batde against the Amalekites (Ant. 6.359), whereas the Bible does not mention p r o p h e c y here (1 S a m . 30:7). Before going to batde, K i n g D a v i d consults the high priest for a prophecy (Ant. 7.72-73, 76), whereas in the Bible, he consults G - d direcdy (2 S a m . 5:19, 23). Conversely, the prophet assumes priesdy functions, as w e see w h e n K i n g H e z e k i a h sends a delegate to ask the prophet Isaiah not merely to pray to G - d but also, in a n extrabiblical addition (cf. 2 K i n g s 19:4), to offer sacrifices (Ant 10.12). 80. T h e TSalmud declares that n o priest is inquired o f through the U r i m a n d T h u m m i m w h o does not speak through the H o l y Spirit, that is, through p r o p h e c y (Toma 73b). In particular, Josephus notes the prophetic gift o f the high priest J o h n H y r c a n u s in b e i n g able to declare that his sons h a d just de­ feated A n t i o c h u s (Ant. 13.282-83). A t the beginning o f the w a r against the R o m a n s , it w a s in the T e m ­ ple that a voice was heard declaring that the Presence o f G - d was departing (War 6.299-300). Jose­ phus, to b e sure, says that the U r i m a n d T h u m m i m ceased two hundred years before the composition o f the Antiquities (Ant. 3.218), that is, presumably after the reign o f J o h n Hyrcanus, w h o is presented as having attained the summit both o f the priesthood a n d o f p r o p h e c y (War 1.68-69, Ant. 13.299-300). O n Josephus's views c o n c e r n i n g the cessation o f prophecy, see Feldman 1990, 400-407. 81. T h a t it w a s not possible, after the reign o f Artaxerxes, to have prophets in the sense o f people w h o were able to c o m p o s e H o l y Scripture m a y b e seen from the w a y in w h i c h Josephus deals with the seventy (or seventy-two) translators o f the T o r a h into Greek. Philo speaks o f the translators "as if they

JOSEPHUS A S R E W R I T E R O F T H E BIBLE

In particular, w e m a y r e m a r k that a n u m b e r o f passages in rabbinic ( n o t a b l y Midrash

Lamentations

Rabbah),

61

literature

n o t r e d u c e d t o w r i t i n g , t o b e sure, u n t i l a

later period, indicate a parallel b e t w e e n the events l e a d i n g u p to the destruction o f t h e t w o t e m p l e s ; a n d N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , t h e d e s t r o y e r o f t h e First T e m p l e , a n d Titus, the destroyer o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e , are frequendy described in similar t e r m s (e.g., Gittin 5 6 b ) . J o s e p h u s i m p l i e s a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e t w o w h e n h e states that the p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h not only predicted the misfortunes that w e r e to c o m e u p o n t h e c i t y o f J e r u s a l e m in his o w n d a y b u t a l s o left b e h i n d w r i t i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e s e n t - d a y c a p t u r e o f t h e c i t y (Ant. 1 0 . 7 9 ) . s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s as p r o p h e t

82

I n d e e d , as w e shall see, J o s e p h u s ' s

a n d priest explains a n u m b e r

o f f e a t u r e s o f his

rewriting o f the Bible.

J O S E P H U S ' S PRIESTLY BIAS W h e n M o o r e r e m a r k s t h a t J o s e p h u s is a s o m e w h a t d i s a p p o i n t i n g s o u r c e for t h e r e l i g i o n o f his t i m e s a n d t h a t h e h a d l i t d e interest i n r e l i g i o n for its o w n s a k e , w h a t h e m e a n s is t h a t J o s e p h u s tells u s less a b o u t r e l i g i o u s beliefs a n d t h e o l o g i c a l issues t h a n w e m i g h t e x p e c t ( M o o r e 1927, 1:210). S u r e l y J o s e p h u s h a d a t r e m e n d o u s i n ­ terest i n r e l i g i o n ; b u t t h e p o i n t t o b e m a d e is t h a t for h i m t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n c e n ­ tered on the T e m p l e a n d the priesthood, o f w h i c h he w a s such a p r o u d m e m b e r , r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e o l o g y as s u c h . , T h i s is t h e v e r y first p o i n t t h a t h e m a k e s i n his a u t o b i o g r a p h y (Life 1).

were divinely inspired" (Kaddirep (Trpo€<j>rjT€vov)

ivdovatwvTes)

a n d describes their work b y the term "prophesied"

(De Vita Mosis 2.7.37). Josephus, o n the other hand, carefully avoids saying that they

prophesied, since this w o u l d put them in the same category as the prophets w h o c o m p o s e d biblical books (Ant. 12.103-9). Instead, he says that they set out to work as ambitiously and painstakingly as pos­ sible (Ant. 12.104). T h e fact that h e adds that they washed their hands in the sea a n d thus purified them­ selves each day (Ant. 12.106) does not indicate that they expected divine inspiration, any more than does a present-day T o r a h scribe w h o immerses himself in a mikveh each time before writing the divine name. Finally, the fact that after the completion o f the translation, the people requested that it should remain as it was a n d not b e altered (Ant. 12.108) is an indication, not o f the prophetic status o f the translators, but o f Josephus's v i e w that o n e should not alter Scripture in the slightest (Ag. Ap. 1.42), at least in the­ ory, w h e n c e his o w n enigmatic promise, in v i e w o f his modifications o f Scripture, that h e will neither add to nor subtract anything from the scriptural text (Ant. 1.17). 82. T h e parallel between the destroyers o f the two temples, Babylon a n d R o m e , m a y be seen in the fact that the reference to the place o f origin o f the First Episde of Peter (dating from after 70 a n d before the early 90s) is to B a b y l o n (5:13) but is actually to R o m e (Elliott 1992, 5:276-77). T h i s letter was writ­ ten roughly at the time w h e n Josephus was c o m p o s i n g his Antiquities, since Josephus states that he c o m ­ pleted that work in the thirteenth year o f the emperor Domitian, that is 9 3 - 9 4 (Ant. 20.267). T h e B o o k of Revelation, dating apparendy from after 70 a n d most likely about 9 5 - 9 6 ( A . - Y . Collins 1992, 5:700-701), appears to equate B a b y l o n with R o m e (Rev. 14:8,16:19,17:5, 18:2, 10, 21). Likewise, the a u ­ thor of 2 B a r u c h 6 - 8 (cf. 11:1, 67:7), a younger contemporary of Josephus's, apparendy denominates the R o m a n s as C h a l d a e a n s , that is, Babylonians, a n d seems to refer to R o m e as Babylon. T h i s equation is likewise implied in 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) (3:1, 2, 28, 31), written at about the same time, as well as in the Sibylline Oracles (5.143, 158-61), dating from a somewhat later period.

62

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

S e t h S c h w a r t z h a s n o t e d in J o s e p h u s a n u m b e r o f p r o - p r i e s t l y revisions o f b o t h the l e g a l a n d n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s o f t h e B i b l e (S. S c h w a r t z 1990, 8 8 - 9 0 ) . I n p a r t i c ­ ular, J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h e priests a l o n e , r a t h e r t h a n t h e L e v i t e s , w e r e p e r m i t t e d to c a r r y t h e a r k (Ant. 3.136, 4.304); t h a t t h e k i n g m i g h t d o n o t h i n g w i t h o u t c o n ­ sulting t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e G e r o u s i a (Ant. 4.224); t h a t M o s e s c o n s i g n e d the h o l y b o o k s to the priests a l o n e (Ant. 4.304); a n d t h a t M o s e s g a v e e q u a l p o r t i o n s to t h e priests a n d t h e L e v i t e s f r o m t h e b o o t y t a k e n f r o m the M i d i a n i t e s (Ant. 4.164), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t M o s e s a s s i g n e d to t h e L e v i t e s t e n t i m e s as m u c h as h e g a v e to t h e priests ( N u m . 3 1 : 2 7 - 3 0 ) . Significantly, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e e n u m e r a t e s p r i n c e s , L e v i t e s , a n d priests w h o m K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t sent to t h e cities o f J u d a h to t e a c h t h e m t h e l a w (2 C h r o n . 17:7-8), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e L e v i t e s (Ant. 8.395) ( a l t h o u g h n i n e o f t h e m a r e a c t u a l l y m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ) . H e likewise, in e n u m e r a t i n g t h e officers w h o m J e h o s h a p h a t a p p o i n t e d , o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e L e v i t e s (2 C h r o n . 19:11 v s . Ant. 9.6) (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 161). A s a priest, J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to t h e a t t e m p t s o f the L e v i t e s to u s u r p t h e status o f t h e priests ( N u m . 16:10), e s p e c i a l l y t h e L e v i t e K o r a h ' s a t t e m p t to u s u r p t h e p r i v i l e g e o f t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d , a n issue t h a t w a s still v e r y m u c h alive in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y (see F e l d m a n i 9 9 3 i , 411). J o s e p h u s m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n think­ i n g o f the i n c i d e n t , d u r i n g t h e p r o c u r a t o r s h i p o f A l b i n u s ( 6 2 - 6 4 C.E.), in w h i c h those L e v i t e s w h o w e r e singers o f h y m n s s u c c e e d e d in p e r s u a d i n g K i n g A g r i p p a II t o c o n v e n e t h e S a n h e d r i n a n d to g r a n t t h e m p e r m i s s i o n to w e a r l i n e n r o b e s o n e q u a l t e r m s w i t h t h e priests (Ant. 2 0 . 2 1 6 - 1 8 ) . T h i s , says J o s e p h u s , w a s c o n t r a r y to the a n c e s t r a l l a w s , a n d h e o m i n o u s l y d e c l a r e s t h a t s u c h t r a n s g r e s s i o n w a s b o u n d to m a k e t h e J e w s liable t o p u n i s h m e n t , p r e s u m a b l y b y G - d h i m s e l f (Ant. 2 0 . 2 1 8 ) .

83

SUMMARY A s a m o d e l for t h e r e w r i t i n g o f t h e B i b l e , J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e t u r n e d t o J e w i s h w o r k s , n o t a b l y the B i b l e itself a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t , as w e l l as e x e g e t i c a l w o r k s s u c h as Jubilees, t h e D e a d S e a Genesis Apocryphon, t h e D e a d S e a P e s h a r i m , P h i l o , P s e u d o P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, a n d r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m a n d t a r g u m i m . O f these, t h e m o d e l s t h a t a r e closest to the Antiquities a r e the S e p t u a g i n t a n d t h e t a r g u m i m ; b u t J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s their m e t h o d o f r e t e l l i n g the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e w i t h t h e critical m e t h o d t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m t h e G r e e k historians, e s p e c i a l l y T h u c y d i d e s . In addition, he m i g h t have consulted those w h o h a d rewritten E g y p t i a n a n d B a b y l o n i a n h i s t o r y o n t h e basis o f their s a c r e d c h r o n i c l e s . B u t w h i l e J o s e p h u s praises t h e c h r o n i c l e s o n w h i c h t h e y w e r e b a s e d as h a v i n g b e e n m a i n t a i n e d w i t h e x e m p l a r y c a r e , h e d o e s n o t t u r n to s u c h w r i t e r s o f O r i e n t a l a n d E g y p t i a n h i s t o r y

83. O n the b a c k g r o u n d to this dispute, see Feldman 1965, 9:504-5, n. b; Vogelstein 1889; and M e y e r 1938, 721-28, esp. 727.

JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE

63

as H e c a t a e u s , B e r o s s u s , M e g a s t h e n e s , a n d M a n e t h o as m o d e l s o f critical histori­ o g r a p h y . N o r d o e s h e t u r n for his m o d e l s , w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e J e w s o r non-Jews, t o those, s u c h as D e m e t r i u s , E u p o l e m u s , P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s , a n d A r t a p a n u s , w h o h a d w r i t t e n J e w i s h history, since t h e y w e r e far f r o m a c c u r a t e a n d , in s o m e cases, were guilty o f syncretism. J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y h a d a c c e s s to the B i b l e in t h r e e v e r s i o n s — H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d a n A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e . H i s use o f these v e r s i o n s v a r i e s f r o m b o o k t o b o o k o f the B i b l e . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e w e r e in J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e d i v e r g e n t texts o f the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k v e r s i o n s . T o use the s p e l l i n g o f p r o p e r n a m e s as a litmus test for w h i c h text J o s e p h u s u s e d is u n f o r t u n a t e , i n a s m u c h as copyists often c h a n g e d t h e s p e l l i n g to c o n f o r m w i t h the l a n g u a g e t h e y w e r e e m p l o y i n g . T h e task o f d e t e r m i n i n g his s o u r c e is difficult, i n a s m u c h as h e is p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d e l a b o r a t i n g r a t h e r t h a n m e r e l y translating. M o r e o v e r , h e m a y b e f o l l o w i n g a tradition i n d e p e n d e n t o f b o t h the H e b r e w a n d the S e p t u a g i n t texts, as w e m a y infer f r o m his o c c a s i o n a l dis­ a g r e e m e n t s w i t h b o t h a n d his a g r e e m e n t w i t h P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical

Antiquities.

I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x c e l l e n t e d u c a t i o n in H e b r e w , o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d h i m to c o n s u l t the o r i g i n a l H e b r e w text o f the B i b l e . B u t i f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m c o m m e n t s in the Letter of Aristeas, f r o m the differences b e t w e e n the t e x t o f frag­ m e n t s f o u n d in the D e a d S e a c a v e s a n d the text o f the H e b r e w B i b l e as w e h a v e it today, a n d f r o m v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s c i t e d in r a b b i n i c literature, h e m a y h a v e h a d a text that differed f r o m o u r H e b r e w M a s o r e t i c text. S i n c e h e w a s r e w r i t i n g the B i b l e in G r e e k , o n e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e p h u s to b e m o r e d e p e n d e n t u p o n the G r e e k text o f the S e p t u a g i n t ; b u t h e m a y h a v e shied a w a y f r o m u s i n g t h a t text b e c a u s e its style w a s inferior to t h a t o f the classical G r e e k a u t h o r s . I n a n y case, t h e r e is n o g u a r a n t e e t h a t w h e r e h e w a s u s i n g a G r e e k text, it w a s the t e x t o f the S e p t u a g i n t as w e h a v e it t o d a y in a n y o f the a p p r o x i ­ mately t w o thousand manuscripts that have survived. T h e A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e s in the t a r g u m i m m u s t h a v e b e e n attractive t o J o s e ­ p h u s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y d o , to a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , w h a t h e a t t e m p t s t o d o — namely, t o p a r a p h r a s e a n d e x p o u n d the text, often w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e latitude; a n d he m a y w e l l h a v e h e a r d the T o r a h r e a d a n d e x p o u n d e d t h u s in the s y n a g o g u e . I n ­ d e e d , the s a m e f r e e d o m in p a r a p h r a s i n g m a y b e f o u n d also in r a b b i n i c literature. T h e n u m b e r o f specific instances p o i n t i n g to use o f a n A r a m a i c t a r g u m is n o t , however, great. For the P e n t a t e u c h , J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n s o u r c e s a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n a H e b r e w text a n d a n A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e , a l t h o u g h it is h a r d , t o b e sure, to p r o v e at a n y g i v e n p o i n t w h a t t e x t J o s e p h u s is r e l y i n g u p o n . W h e r e h e s e e m s t o b e u s i n g a G r e e k text, h e m a y b e a d o p t i n g the l a n g u a g e o f P h i l o , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the a c c o u n t o f the C r e a t i o n . I n a n y case, h e d o e s n o t follow the S e p t u a g i n t blindly. Significandy, J o s e p h u s , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the o r d e r o f the stones o n the b r e a s t p l a t e o f the h i g h priest, d i s a g r e e s in several instances w i t h b o t h the H e b r e w t e x t a n d the S e p t u a g i n t . W i t h J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e closer to the H e b r e w text, b u t w i t h J u d g e s

64

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

a n d R u t h , h e is q u i t e free. I n S a m u e l , w h e r e w e n o w h a v e a c o n s i d e r a b l e f r a g m e n t f r o m the D e a d S e a caves, h e is close to the S e p t u a g i n t in the p r o t o - L u c i a n i c v e r ­ sion. For K i n g s a n d C h r o n i c l e s , h e u s e d a S e p t u a g i n t - l i k e t e x t ( a l t h o u g h the e v i ­ d e n c e is n o t c o n c l u s i v e t h a t for these b o o k s h e u s e d a p r o t o - L u c i a n i c text), as w e l l as, o n o c c a s i o n , a p r o t o - M a s o r e t i c H e b r e w text, a n d h a d a c c e s s to t r a d i t i o n s in e x ­ tant targumim. For E z r a , J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y u s e d t h e a p o c r y p h a l G r e e k b o o k o f i o r 3 E s ­ dras. For Esther, h e u s e d a G r e e k t e x t for t h e a d d i t i o n s to the B o o k o f Esther, b u t for the t e x t as a w h o l e , h e h a d a c c e s s t o H e b r e w , G r e e k , a n d A r a m a i c v e r s i o n s . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s his r e a d e r s t h a t h e will n o t a d d to o r s u b t r a c t f r o m the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , the fact is t h a t h e d o e s d o so o n n u m e r o u s o c c a s i o n s , u s u a l l y for a p o l o g e t i c r e a s o n s . P a r t i c u l a r l y striking is his a p p r a i s a l o f K i n g J e h o i a c h i n o f J u d a h , w h e r e h e is at c o m p l e t e v a r i a n c e w i t h the b i b l i c a l text. V a r i o u s t h e o r i e s h a v e b e e n p u t f o r w a r d t o e x p l a i n these d i v e r g e n c e s : t h a t J o s e p h u s c o u n t e d o n the i g n o r a n c e o f his r e a d e r s (but w e k n o w o f at least s e v e n n o n - J e w s w h o w r o t e w h o l e treatises o n the J e w s , a n d t h e r e w e r e c e r t a i n l y m a n y J e w s , e s p e c i a l l y in the D i a s ­ p o r a , w h o c o u l d h a v e c o n s u l t e d the S e p t u a g i n t ) , o r t h a t the p r o m i s e is s i m p l y a stock f o r m u l a for a f f i r m i n g o n e ' s a c c u r a c y . A p r e c e d e n t for s u c h c h a n g e s m a y b e f o u n d in the fact t h a t the b i b l i c a l B o o k o f C h r o n i c l e s , a l t h o u g h often closely p a r a l l e l i n g the B o o k o f K i n g s , d i v e r g e s f r o m it. A n o t h e r p r e c e d e n t m a y b e f o u n d in the S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h w a s r e g a r d e d as p e r f e c t b y the A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s a n d as d i v i n e l y inspired b y the r a b b i s , a l t h o u g h it di­ v e r g e s f r o m the H e b r e w text. A p p a r e n t l y , t h e r e w e r e t w o distinct t h e o r i e s o f trans­ lation, o n e t h a t the t r a n s l a t o r h a d to g i v e a v e r b a t i m v e r s i o n a n d the o t h e r a u t h o ­ r i z i n g h i m to take c o n s i d e r a b l e liberties in the a c t u a l l a n g u a g e o f the translation. A n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n for J o s e p h u s ' s a p p a r e n t failure to live u p to his p r o m i s e is t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d the b i b l i c a l t r a d i t i o n t o i n c l u d e n o t o n l y the w r i t t e n t e x t b u t the tradition later e m b o d i e d in s u c h w o r k s as the m i d r a s h i m . T h i s p a r a l l e l s the liber­ ties G r e e k s t o o k in d e a l i n g w i t h H o m e r i c e p i s o d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the t r a g e d i e s o f A e s c h y l u s , S o p h o c l e s , a n d E u r i p i d e s , in w h o s e w o r k s J o s e p h u s w a s so w e l l v e r s e d . M o r e o v e r , the v e r y w o r d s t h a t J o s e p h u s uses for " t r a n s l a t e " are a m b i g u o u s a n d i n c l u d e the c o n c e p t o f p a r a p h r a s i n g a n d amplifying. J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r t h a t h e is d i r e c t i n g his w o r k p r i m a r i l y t o a n o n - J e w i s h a u ­ d i e n c e , as w e c a n see f r o m his e x p l a n a t i o n s o f simple p r a c t i c e s t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n k n o w n to J e w s w h o h a d the m o s t e l e m e n t a r y b a c k g r o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e i r religion. M o r e o v e r , a m a j o r p u r p o s e o f his w o r k w a s t o c o u n t e r anti-Jewish slan­ ders. H e m a y also h a v e s o u g h t t o p o i n t o u t the attractions o f J u d a i s m to p o t e n t i a l converts. T h e r e are also, h o w e v e r , i n d i c a t i o n s that J o s e p h u s h a d a J e w i s h a u d i ­ e n c e in m i n d , as s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his t r e a t m e n t o f the e p i s o d e s o f the M i d i a n ite w o m e n a n d o f S a m s o n , in his effort t o c o u n t e r assimilation a n d i n t e r m a r r i a g e . A s to J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l sources, t h e r e is e v i d e n c e o f his use o f the A p o c ­ r y p h a , n o t a b l y in his use o f 1 o r 3 E s d r a s , the A d d i t i o n s t o Esther, a n d the Wisdom of Solomon, as w e l l o f his use o f s u c h P s e u d e p i g r a p h i c b o o k s as Jubilees.

JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE

65

A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t e x p e c t J o s e p h u s to h a v e u s e d H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n s s u c h as E u p o l e m u s as s u b s t a n t i v e a n d stylistic m o d e l s , h e a p p a r e n d y d i d n o t d o so. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t h e d i d d r a w u p o n P h i l o , p a r t i c u l a r l y for his a c c o u n t o f t h e C r e a t i o n a n d for his a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . J o s e p h u s s a w a k i n s h i p b e t w e e n h i m s e l f as h i s t o r i a n a n d t h e H e b r e w p r o p h e t s in the a b i l i t y t o a n a l y z e the p a s t a n d p r e s e n t a c c u r a t e l y a n d to p r e d i c t t h e future. I n particular, h e s a w p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n the d e s t r u c t i o n s o f the First a n d S e c o n d T e m p l e s . M o r e o v e r , as a p r o u d priest, J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n u m b e r o f p r o p r i e s d y r e v i s i o n s o f b o t h the l e g a l a n d n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s o f t h e B i b l e . Finally, J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to h a v e i n t r o d u c e d details o f his o w n , e s p e c i a l l y for apologetic reasons a n d u n d e r the influence o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events. O n

the

w h o l e , h e is a c a r e f u l a n d c o n s i s t e n t author.

APPENDIX: J O S E P H U S AND RABBINIC T R A D I T I O N T h e n u m e r o u s w o r k s o f J a c o b N e u s n e r h a v e l e d s o m e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t to say t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the o r a l t r a d i t i o n as later r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g b y t h e r a b b i s is a n a c h r o n i s t i c a n d that, in g e n e r a l , r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l is late a n d h e n c e n o t v e r y reliable. A n d y e t , N e u s n e r h i m s e l f asserts t h a t r a b b i n i c m a t e r i a l is " t h e o r a l T o r a h , as it h a d r e a c h e d w r i t i n g b y t h e e n d o f late antiquity," the c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g , as S a n d e r s p o i n t s o u t , t h a t N e u s n e r s u b s c r i b e s to the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t G - d really d i d r e v e a l all o f r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n at a n earlier d a t e ( N e u s n e r 1987, 5 - 6 ; S a n d e r s 1990, 112). T h e possibility t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h traditions t h a t a r e f o u n d r e c o r d e d in later r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n m a y b e g l e a n e d f r o m his r e m a r k s o n his e x c e l ­ lent e d u c a t i o n , p r e s u m a b l y in t h e l e g a l a n d a g g a d i c traditions o f J u d a i s m , w h i c h h e r e c e i v e d in his n a t i v e c i t y o f J e r u s a l e m , t h e n the c e n t e r o f J e w i s h l e a r n i n g . J o s e ­ p h u s says t h a t h e a c q u i r e d a r e p u t a t i o n for his e x c e l l e n t m e m o r y a n d u n d e r s t a n d ­ ing

(fJLvrjfxrj

re KCLI avveais) a n d t h a t h e a l r e a d y h a d w o n u n i v e r s a l a p p l a u s e for his

love o f l e a r n i n g (^tAoypajLc/xarov) (Life 8-9) b y the a g e o f f o u r t e e n . H e is n o t afraid to assert t h a t his c o m p a t r i o t s a d m i t t e d t h a t in J e w i s h l e a r n i n g (iTaiheiav)—and

it is

h a r d to b e l i e v e t h a t this w o u l d b e restricted to t h e w r i t t e n B i b l e o r t o p r i e s d y tra­ d i t i o n a l o n e — h e far e x c e l l e d t h e m (Ant. 20.263). A f t e r r e m a r k i n g t h a t in the Antiq­ uities, h e h a s g i v e n a t r a n s l a t i o n (fxedrjpfxrivevKa) o f t h e s a c r e d b o o k s , h e states, clearly in this c o n t e x t r e f e r r i n g to his k n o w l e d g e o f t h e B i b l e , t h a t h e is w e l l v e r s e d in t h e p h i l o s o p h y ((fyiXoao^ias) o f t h o s e w r i t i n g s (Ag. Ap. 1.54). H e r e the w o r d " p h i ­ l o s o p h y " i m p l i e s k n o w l e d g e a b o v e a n d b e y o n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t it­ self—that is, p r e s u m a b l y , o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n , w h e t h e r w r i t t e n o r o r a l ( M a s o n , 1991, 2 4 0 - 4 3 ) .

84

W h i l e it is p r o b a b l y t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s n o t a v e r s e t o

b o a s t i n g , h e h a d so m a n y e n e m i e s t h a t it s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e m a d e s u c h b r o a d c l a i m s unless t h e r e w e r e s o m e basis t o t h e m .

84. K a m e s a r 1994, 67, assumes that the reference is to the tradition as transmitted orally.

66

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

J o s e p h u s e x p l i c i t l y refers to a l e g a l t r a d i t i o n s u p p l e m e n t i n g the P e n t a t e u c h w h e n h e e x p l a i n s t h a t the P h a r i s e e s h a v e p a s s e d o n to the p e o p l e c e r t a i n r e g u l a ­ tions (vo/xt/xa) h a n d e d d o w n b y their fathers a n d n o t r e c o r d e d in the l a w s o f M o s e s , for w h i c h r e a s o n t h e y are r e j e c t e d b y the S a d d u c e e s , w h o r e g a r d as v a l i d o n l y w h a t w a s w r i t t e n d o w n in the S c r i p t u r e s (Ant. 1 3 . 2 9 7 ) .

85

W h e t h e r w e understand

t h a t this s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n w a s w r i t t e n , as a r g u e d b y M a s o n (1991, 240-43), o r o r a l , as m o s t s c h o l a r s (e.g., B a u m g a r t e n 1 9 7 2 , 7 - 2 9 ) insist, i n f l u e n c e d b y the com­ munis sensus t h a t the m a i n difference b e t w e e n the P h a r i s e e s a n d the S a d d u c e e s w a s t h e refusal o f the latter to a c c e p t the o r a l L a w , t h e r e w a s a b o d y o f s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n identified w i t h the P h a r i s e e s , t o w h o m J o s e p h u s a d h e r e d in his p u b l i c c a ­ reer.

86

M o r e o v e r , as B a c h e r h a s a r g u e d , d u r i n g the T a n n a i t i c p e r i o d , t h e r e w a s n o

c l e a r distinction b e t w e e n halakhah a n d aggada as far as their r e l a t i o n s h i p to tradi­ t i o n w a s c o n c e r n e d ( B a c h e r 1903, 1:475-89). A s B r o o k e h a s r e m a r k e d , the use o f the d e s i g n a t i o n " m i d r a s h " for n o n r a b b i n i c exegesis h a s b e e n m u c h q u e s t i o n e d , l a r g e l y b e c a u s e it suggests t o o m u c h c o n t i n u ­ ity b e t w e e n r a b b i n i c a n d earlier f o r m s o f scriptural i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . B r o o k e c o n ­ c l u d e s t h a t the D e a d S e a c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n e s i s (4Q252) t h a t h e t h e r e ( B r o o k e 1994, 174-75) discusses s h o u l d b e c l a s s e d as e x h o r t a t o r y historical exegesis, the c h i e f h a l l m a r k o f w h i c h is the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f the p a s t either in o r d e r to e n c o u r a g e o r a d m o n i s h r e a d e r s to e m u l a t e their f o r e b e a r s o r t o d i s s u a d e t h e m f r o m c o p y i n g t h e m . B y s u c h a s t a n d a r d , e s p e c i a l l y in v i e w o f w h a t J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the p u r ­ p o s e o f his w o r k in the p r o e m o f his Antiquities, t h a t w o r k m i g h t w e l l b e c l a s s e d sim­ ilarly as e x h o r t a t o r y historical exegesis. L i k e w i s e , in his a t t e m p t t o classify P s e u d o P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, P e r r o t distinguishes b e t w e e n texte explique, w h e r e the focus is o n e x p l a i n i n g the w r i t t e n b i b l i c a l text, w h i c h i n c l u d e s m i d r a s h , a n d texte continue, w h e r e the focus is o n the s a c r e d h i s t o r y f o u n d in the B i b l e a n d o t h e r traditions, w h i c h i n c l u d e s J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish Antiquities a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o (Perrot 1976, 2:24-28; M u r p h y 1 9 9 3 , 4 - 5 ; J a c o b s o n 1 9 9 6 , 2 2 4 - 4 1 ) . B u t the i m p o r t a n t p o i n t h e r e is n o t w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s is p r i m a r i l y interested in e x p l i c a t i n g the w r i t t e n b i b l i c a l t e x t b u t w h e t h e r h e h a d a n d u s e d o t h e r traditions a v a i l a b l e to h i m i n c o m m o n w i t h tradi­ tions a v a i l a b l e t o the r a b b i s o f his e r a a n d e v e n t u a l l y r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g . J o s e p h u s a n d the r a b b i s m a y h a v e p u t those traditions to different p u r p o s e s , b u t t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y s h a r e d the traditions t h e m s e l v e s . M o r e o v e r , the Q u m r a n i c f r a g m e n t s k n o w n as S e c o n d E z e k i e l c o m b i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f g e n ­ r e s — n a m e l y , r e w o r k i n g o f a b i b l i c a l text, a p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c f r a m e w o r k b a s e d o n a n a p o c a l y p t i c c o n t e x t , a n d a h i s t o r i c i z i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S u c h a c o m b i n a t i o n , as S t r u g n e l l a n d D i m a n t h a v e r e m a r k e d , w e h a v e h i t h e r t o f o u n d o n l y in s e p a r a t e w o r k s ; h e n c e , as t h e y c o n c l u d e , w e are in n e e d o f a r e e v a l u a t i o n o f the role, func-

85. Josephus likewise refers to the oral tradition as transmitted by the Pharisees w h e n he states that Q u e e n S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a restored the regulations "introduced by Pharisees in accordance with the tradition o f their fathers" (Ant. 13.408). 86. See the closely reasoned analysis o f this key passage (Life 12) by M a s o n 1991, 342-56.

JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF THE BIBLE

67

t i o n , a n d distinctness o f the v a r i o u s literary t y p e s c u r r e n t in e a r l y J e w i s h literature (Strugnell a n d D i m a n t 1988, 57). A l t h o u g h the J e w i s h m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n h a d n o t y e t b e e n w r i t t e n d o w n , for the m o s t p a r t , b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , it c o n t a i n e d m a n y o f the a g g a d i c traditions f o u n d in J o s e p h u s .

87

S c h a l i t h a s e v e n g o n e so far as to s u g g e s t t h a t w h i l e h e w a s

l i v i n g in R o m e , J o s e p h u s h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to d e e p e n his k n o w l e d g e o f the J e w ­ ish t r a d i t i o n (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , n x x x v ) ; b u t this s e e m s u n l i k e l y in v i e w o f the fact that h e w a s l o o k e d u p o n w i t h d i s d a i n a n d bitterness b y the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y g e n e r a l l y (Life 423—25) b e c a u s e o f w h a t t h e y r e g a r d e d as his traitorous b e h a v i o r in the w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e is r o o m t o c o n j e c t u r e t h a t s o m e o f the r a b b i s , in their c o n s t a n t visits to R o m e , c h o s e t o see h i m ( a l t h o u g h t h e r e is n o r e f e r e n c e to h i m i n the entire t a l m u d i c c o r p u s ) in the h o p e o f g a i n i n g his inter­ cession w i t h the R o m a n e m p e r o r , the i n f a m o u s D o m i t i a n , w i t h w h o m h e , a l m o s t a l o n e , c l a i m s t o h a v e r e m a i n e d o n g o o d t e r m s (Life 4 2 9 . )

88

T h a t t h e r e w a s a n a g g a d i c r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n a v a i l a b l e to J o s e p h u s s e e m s likely in v i e w o f the fact t h a t t h e r e a r e n u m e r o u s instances w h e r e the S e p t u a g i n t p a r a l ­ c

lels r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Prijs 1948). For e x a m p l e , the p l a g u e o f arob is u n d e r s t o o d b y the s e c o n d - c e n t u r y R a b b i N e h e m i a h to consist o f s t i n g i n g insects (Exodus

Rabbah

11.3), w h e r e a s t h e H e b r e w is g e n e r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t o refer to v a r i e d w i l d beasts; this is also the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 8:17). T h a t R a b b i N e h e m i a h d e r i v e d this f r o m a c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n f r o m the S e p t u a g i n t s e e m s m o r e likely in v i e w o f the fact t h a t w h e r e the r a b b i s refer t o c h a n g e s m a d e b y the translators, t h e y a l w a y s cite a c t u a l e m e n d a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n differences in u n d e r ­ s t a n d i n g the w o r d s o f the t e x t (Megillah 9 a - b , Soferim 1:7). A g a i n , i n a s m u c h as the s e c o n d - c e n t u r y R a b b i M e i r states, as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t (Esther 2:7), t h a t M o r d e ­ c a i h a d m a r r i e d E s t h e r (Megillah 13a), it is m o r e likely t h a t the translators o f the

87. R a p p a p o r t 1930, x x - x x i i i , concludes that Josephus h a d a written source for aggadic traditions. 88. Perhaps w e m a y identify Josephus with the nameless philosopher w h o m four great s a g e s — Joshua b e n Hananiah, A k i v a , G a m a l i e l , and Eleazar ben A z a r i a h — a r e said to have met in R o m e to­ w a r d the end o f Domitian's reign, seeking his aid in getting D o m i t i a n to revoke his alleged decision to kill all the Jews in the R o m a n Empire (Derek Ere% Rabbah 5). In view o f the fact that, so far as w e know, Josephus w a s the one J e w in R o m e w h o continued to have influence with D o m i t i a n , being an adopted Flavian, it w o u l d seem reasonable for the envoys to call u p o n him for his assistance. Psychologically, w e m a y add, Josephus w a s eager, because o f the m a n y accusations against him, to prove his loyalty to the Jewish people, as he did in his last written works, notably the Antiquities and, especially, Against Apion. A c ­ cording to the T a l m u d i c text, Joshua, w h o was known for his colloquies with such thinkers, before vis­ iting the philosopher, asked G a m a l i e l , the patriarch, whether they should visit him; and G a m a l i e l at first objected. T h i s reply should, w e m a y add, be understood against the b a c k g r o u n d o f the fact that Gamaliel's father h a d attempted to recall Josephus from his c o m m a n d in Galilee. Identifying the philosopher as Josephus w o u l d seem to have some plausibility, especially w h e n w e note that Josephus refers to himself as well versed in the philosophy o f the Scriptures (Ag. Ap. 1.54). Moreover, there is a strange similarity between the H e b r e w letters for Flavius Josephus and the H e b r e w letters for the w o r d philosophos. T h a t the philosopher in this anecdote is referred to as a p a g a n m a y be because the rabbis sharply attacked Josephus for b e i n g so deeply immersed in G r e e k language and literature.

68

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

S e p t u a g i n t w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h this a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n t h a n t h a t R a b b i M e i r c o n ­ sulted the S e p t u a g i n t , since the o n l y r e f e r e n c e s to the S e p t u a g i n t a l traditions in the r a b b i n i c c o r p u s are t o the c h a n g e s m a d e b y the translators i n i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s in the P e n t a t e u c h r a t h e r t h a n to p a s s a g e s in the P r o p h e t s a n d t h e W r i t i n g s . M o r e o v e r , t h e r e is n o w e v i d e n c e f r o m Q u m r a n t h a t h a l a k h i c m a t e r i a l r e c o r d e d o n l y m u c h later in the T a l m u d d a t e s f r o m at least the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d (see Schiffman 1991, 138-46; B a u m g a r t e n 1991, 147-58). T h u s Y a d i n has noted that t h e r e are p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s classification o f the l a w s a n d t h a t o f the a u ­ t h o r o f the Temple Scroll from Q u m r a n ( Y a d i n 1977, 1:62, 9 3 - 9 4 , 305). T h e r e are e v e n p a r a l l e l s in p o i n t s o f detail: for e x a m p l e , b o t h the Temple Scroll (63:5) (like the S e p t u a g i n t ) a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 4.222) assert t h a t the p u b l i c officers o f the n e a r e s t t o w n are to w a s h their h a n d s in h o l y w a t e r o v e r the h e a d o f a heifer in e x p i a t i o n for a n u n d e t e c t e d m u r d e r e r , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t t h e y are to w a s h their h a n d s o v e r the heifer, w i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g the h e a d ( D e u t . 21:6). M o r e o v e r , a c c o r d ­ i n g to b o t h the H e b r e w B i b l e (1 K i n g s 21:13) a n d the S e p t u a g i n t (1 K i n g s 20:13), t h e r e w e r e t w o false witnesses a g a i n s t N a b o t h , w h i l e J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f t h r e e (Ant. 8.358); f r o m this, G i n z b e r g c o n c l u d e s t h a t J o s e p h u s is f o l l o w i n g a n earlier h a l a k h a h t h a t r e q u i r e d t h r e e witnesses (that is, o n e a c c u s e r a n d t w o witnesses) in cases o f c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t ( G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:312, n. 39). T h e D e a d S e a Dam­ ascus Covenant (9:17, 22) similarly r e q u i r e s t h r e e witnesses i n c a p i t a l cases. B a u m ­ g a r t e n c o n c l u d e s t h a t the S a d d u c e a n c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t P h a r i s a i c laxities in the s p h e r e o f purity, as f o u n d in t a l m u d i c literature, are consistent w i t h the l a w s f o u n d in the Temple Scroll a n d o t h e r Q u m r a n w r i t i n g s ( B a u m g a r t e n 1980, 157-70). M o s t recently, Q i m r o n a n d S t r u g n e l l h a v e n o t e d a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n M M T , w h i c h is d a t e d a b o u t 150 B.C.E., a n d M i s h n a h Tadaim 4:7, w h i c h is close t o it linguistically a n d f o r m - c r i t i c a l l y ( Q i m r o n a n d S t r u g n e l l 1994). A n d Q u m r a n i c h a l a k h a h s o m e ­ times p a r a l l e l o n e side o f a r a b b i n i c d i s p u t e (Schiffman 1990 4 3 5 - 5 7 ) . F u r t h e r ­ m o r e , w e h a v e e v i d e n c e t h a t the o r a l L a w w a s p u t into w r i t i n g in the T a n n a i t i c p e ­ riod, roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y with Josephus; a n d a newly discovered manuscript o f the T a l m u d (Avodah ^arah 8b, M S . M a r x - A b r a m s o n ) d e c l a r e s t h a t R a b b i Y e h u d a h b e n B a v a , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s , r e c o r d e d l a w s o f fines ( G o l d e n b e r g 1978, 18). W h a t is m o s t d i r e c d y r e l e v a n t t o o u r discussion o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f J o s e p h u s to a g g a d i c t r a d i t i o n as r e c o r d e d m u c h later in r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m is the o c c u r ­ r e n c e o f s u c h traditions in the D e a d S e a Scrolls. I n a c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n . 9:25, " C u r s e d b e C a n a a n , a l o w l y slave shall h e b e t o his b r e t h r e n , " a f r a g m e n t a r y scroll a d d s : " H e d i d n o t c u r s e H a m , b u t r a t h e r his son, for G - d h a d b l e s s e d the sons o f 89

N o a h " ( 4 Q 2 5 2 ) . T h e p a r a l l e l in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 36.7 is r e m a r k a b l y similar: " A n d h e said, " C u r s e d b e C a n a a n , e t c . " H a m sins a n d C a n a a n is c u r s e d ? A dis-

89. See the comments by Bernstein 1994a, i o - n . Nevertheless, Bernstein (11, n. 36) is w a r y o f see­ ing a connection between Q u m r a n i c and rabbinic exegesis, since he believes that the simple-sense na­ ture o f the readings makes such hypotheses tenuous. B u t as the examples begin to multiply with the

JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R OF T H E BIBLE

6g

p u t e b e t w e e n R a b b i J u d a h a n d R a b b i N e h e m i a h . R a b b i J u d a h says, " B e c a u s e it is w r i t t e n , ' A n d G - d b l e s s e d N o a h a n d his sons,' a n d t h e r e is n o c u r s e in t h e p l a c e o f blessing." D i m a n t h a s n o t e d a r e m a r k a b l e affinity o f traditions c o n c e r n i n g J e r e m i a h in B

t h e Q u m r a n f r a g m e n t ( 4 Q 3 8 5 ) , d a t i n g f r o m a b o u t 5 0 - 2 5 B.C.E., a n d 2 M a c e . 2 : 1 - 6 , Paraleipomena Ieremiou, 2 Apocalypse ofBaruch,

a n d t h e r a b b i n i c Pesiqta Rabbati

26 (in particular, t h a t J e r e m i a h a c c o m p a n i e d t h e d e p o r t e e s o n l y to the r i v e r E u ­ phrates). S h e e x p l a i n s this affinity as d u e to a c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n . S h e r e m a r k s that, s u r p r i s i n g l y e n o u g h , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a lost a p o c r y p h o n o n J e r e m i a h in H e b r e w w a s postulated l o n g a g o b y several s c h o l a r s

90

w o r k i n g o n the a p o c r y p h a l , pseude-

pigraphical, a n d midrashic compositions (Dimant 1 9 9 4 , 1 3 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 28-29). D i m a n t a n d S t r u g n e l l h a v e also n o t e d the affinities o f t h e m e a n d t e r m i n o l o g y s h a r e d b y t h e D e a d S e a f r a g m e n t s o f S e c o n d E z e k i e l a n d the later r a b b i n i c Hekaloth litera­ ture, a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y p o i n t to a u n d e r l y i n g c o m m o n e x e g e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n ( D i m a n t a n d S t r u g n e l l 1990, 347). L i k e w i s e , P h i l o also s e e m s t o h a v e d r a w n u p o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n , i n a s m u c h as h e says, q u i t e explicitly, t h a t for his a c c o u n t o f M o s e s , h e h a s d r a w n u p o n b o t h " t h e s a c r e d b o o k s , " t h a t is, f r o m the w r i t t e n B i b l e , a n d " t h e elders o f the n a t i o n " edvovs 7Tar€pcov

7Tp€G^vr€pcov)

SiaSoxrjs

(rov

(De Vita Mosis 1.1.4), a p h r a s e c l e a r l y p a r a l l e l t o J o s e p h u s ' s e/c (Ant. 13.297). T h e r e f e r e n c e is to t h e s u p p l e m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n ,

w h e t h e r w r i t t e n or, m o r e p r o b a b l y , o r a l , since h e g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t h e h a s inter­ w o v e n w h a t h e w a s t o l d (that is, the o r a l tradition) w i t h w h a t h e h a s r e a d (that is, the w r i t t e n tradition). T h a t P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical Antiquities d r e w u p o n a n c i e n t traditions similar to those u p o n w h i c h t a r g u m i m d r e w is c l e a r f r o m his translation (3.4) o f t h e H e ­ b r e w gopher b y cedrinis ( " c e d a r " ) , w h i c h is f o u n d in T a r g u m P s e u d o - J o n a t h a n

on

G e n . 6:14 a n d in several m i d r a s h i c sources. T h e r e are at least f o u r t e e n o t h e r s u c h e x a m p l e s . T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n P s e u d o - P h i l o a n d m i d r a s h i m a r e l e g i o n , as c i t e d b y A z a r i a h d e i R o s s i ( 1 5 7 3 - 7 5 , 104 ff.) a n d C o h n (1898, 3 1 4 - 3 2 ; cf. F e l d m a n 1 9 7 1 , lxviii-lxx). M o r e o v e r , o n e o f t h e p a i n t i n g s o f the t h i r d - c e n t u r y c . E . D u r a E u r o p o s s y n a ­ c

g o g u e d e p i c t s H i e l (1 K i n g s 16:34), a c o n f e d e r a t e o f the priests o f B a a l , c r o u c h i n g b e n e a t h t h e altar w h i l e a s n a k e a p p r o a c h e s to bite h i m ; b u t s u c h a story is n o t m e n t i o n e d in a H e b r e w s o u r c e until m u c h later m i d r a s h i m (Exodus Rabbah 15.15, Pesiqta Rabbati 4.13a) a n d n o t fully until the t h i r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Talqut (on 1 K i n g s 18:26). H e n c e t h a t t r a d i t i o n m u s t h a v e b e e n m o r e a n c i e n t . T h e r e h a s b e e n m u c h d e b a t e as to w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s d e p e n d e d p r i m a r i l y u p o n

publication o f previously unpublished fragments, the likelihood of a c o m m o n tradition increases, espe­ cially where, as here, the language is similar. 90. G i n z b e r g 1902, 2:555, argues that the author o f Pesiqta Rabbati h a d before h i m an old H e b r e w midrash.

jo

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

w r i t t e n o r u p o n o r a l s o u r c e s for m i d r a s h i c - l i k e traditions. S c h a l i t b e l i e v e s t h a t d e ­ tails i n v o l v i n g e x p o s i t i o n o f specific v e r s e s d e r i v e f r o m o r a l traditions, since this is the m i d r a s h i c style as it w a s e v e n t u a l l y r e c o r d e d , w h e r e a s l o n g e r traditions, s u c h as the a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s , are t a k e n f r o m w r i t t e n s o u r c e s (Schalit 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , i : x x x i x - x l i ) . S i n c e the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f J o s e ­ p h u s ' s c h a n g e s are, i n d e e d , m i n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l verses, this w o u l d i n d i c a t e the p a r a m o u n t i m p o r t a n c e o f o r a l sources. R a p p a p o r t , o n t h e

other

hand, believes that Josephus w a s d e p e n d e n t u p o n written sources exclusively ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, x v ) . T h e fact, w e m a y a d d , t h a t t h e r e are n u m e r o u s details t h a t J o s e p h u s shares w i t h P s e u d o - P h i l o ,

91

his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y , w o u l d s e e m to

i n d i c a t e a c o m m o n s o u r c e . It is i m p o s s i b l e to identify this o r a n y o t h e r m i d r a s h i c s o u r c e , a l t h o u g h , as i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , it is p e r f e c d y possible t h a t J o s e p h u s d i d h a v e a c c e s s to w r i t t e n m i d r a s h i c s o u r c e s a k i n t o t h e Genesis Apocryphon, despite the fact t h a t m o s t scriptural exegesis, w h e t h e r i n s y n a g o g a l t a r g u m i m o r s e r m o n s o r a c a d ­ e m i e s , i n J o s e p h u s ' s d a y w a s still, q u i t e obviously, o r a l in n a t u r e . T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t to b e d i s c e r n e d is J o s e p h u s ' s c h o i c e o f c e r t a i n m i d r a s h i c details f r o m w h a t ­ e v e r s o u r c e a n d his r e a s o n s for s u c h a c h o i c e . J o s e p h u s h a s a p r o p e n s i t y for g i v i n g specific n a m e s o r o t h e r s u c h d a t a for v a g u e b i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e s — f o r e x a m p l e , t h e n a m e o f the m a n w h o i n s p i r e d the b u i l d i n g o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , N i m r o d (Ant. 1.113); the n a m e o f P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r w h o a d o p t e d M o s e s , T h e r m u t h i s (Ant. 2.224);

a

n

d the n a m e o f the p r o p h e t w h o re­

b u k e d A h a b for r e l e a s i n g B e n - h a d a d , M i c h a i a h (Ant. 8.389). W e m a y g u e s s t h a t this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d e r i v e d f r o m r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m . B u t the fact t h a t details o f this t y p e are f o u n d in s u c h p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c w o r k s as Jubilees, in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities, in s e c t a r i a n w o r k s s u c h as the D e a d S e a Scroll's Genesis Apocryphon, a n d 92

in the S a m a r i t a n Asatir

w o u l d s e e m t o i n d i c a t e t h a t w e are d e a l i n g w i t h a P a l e s ­

tinian a n d n o t m e r e l y r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n . M o r e o v e r , despite J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t the J e w s , u n l i k e the G r e e k s , d o n o t possess m y r i a d i n c o n s i s t e n t b o o k s (Against Apion 1.38), the fact is t h a t the o r a l t r a d i t i o n d o e s c o n t a i n n u m e r o u s v a r y i n g inter­ p r e t a t i o n s o f a n d a d d i t i o n s to the b i b l i c a l stories. A c l u e t o s u p p o r t the v i e w t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f a n d r e l y i n g u p o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n (cf. Berakot 10a; J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d Sanhedrin 10.28b) in his r e v i s i o n o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e m a y b e s e e n i n his a w a r e n e s s t h a t K i n g H e z e k i a h w a s childless w h e n his sickness befell h i m (Ant. 10.25-27) ( B e g g 1995c, 368). L i k e w i s e , i n his c o m -

91. See Feldman 1971, lviii-lxvi, a n d 1974, 306-7. I have noted thirty parallels between Josephus a n d Pseudo-Philo (and Z e r o n 1980,45, n. 43, has a d d e d another) that are to be found in n o other work that has c o m e d o w n to us and fifteen cases w h e r e Josephus is not alone in agreeing with Pseudo-Philo but where both m a y reflect a c o m m o n tradition. T h a t the relationship b e t w e e n Josephus and PseudoPhilo is not a simple matter may, however, be d e d u c e d from the fact that I have noted thirty-six in­ stances where they disagree. 92. For parallels between Josephus and. Asatir, see Gaster 1927, 6 5 - 7 9 , the evidence.

w n o

n a s

> however, stretched

JOSEPHUS AS REWRITER

OF THE

BIBLE

7/

merits a b o u t J e h o i a c h i n , J o s e p h u s , as n o t e d , s e e m s to c h a n g e the b i b l i c a l t e x t c o m p l e t e l y , so t h a t i n s t e a d o f c h a r a c t e r i z i n g J e h o i a c h i n , as d o e s the B i b l e , as o n e w h o h a d d o n e w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:9, 2 C h r o n . 36:9), h e is d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g k i n d (xprjaros;) a n d j u s t (SIKOLIOS) (Ant. 10.100). R e m a r k a b l y , the r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n h a s o n l y c o m p l i m e n t a r y statements a n d n o t a single n e g a ­ tive r e m a r k a b o u t h i m (e.g., Midrash

Leviticus Rabbah

19.6; cf. o t h e r citations in

G i n z b e r g 1928, 6:379, n. 132; see F e l d m a n 1995, 27-30). W e h a v e a similar instance in the case o f J e h o a s h (Joash), the k i n g o f Israel. T h e Bible uses the familiar f o r m u l a that " h e d i d w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d " (2 K i n g s 13:11). A s if that w e r e n o t e n o u g h , it a d d s that " h e d i d n o t d e p a r t f r o m all the sins o f J e r o b o a m the son o f N e b a t , w h i c h h e m a d e Israel to sin, b u t h e w a l k e d in t h e m . " T h e fact that h e seized all the g o l d a n d silver a n d all the vessels o f the T e m ­ ple in J e r u s a l e m w o u l d , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t , l e a d J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s so p r o u d o f his status as a priest, to c o n d e m n h i m utterly. Y e t J o s e p h u s h a s the v e r y opposite v i e w o f h i m , r e m a r k i n g that h e w a s a g o o d (ayaQos) m a n a n d in n o w a y like his father, J e h o a h a z , in c h a r a c t e r (Ant. 9.178). It is unlikely that J o s e p h u s , w h o writes so e x t e n ­ sively a b o u t the kings o f J u d a h a n d Israel, has confused J e h o a s h w i t h the p e r s o n o f the s a m e n a m e w h o w a s k i n g o f J u d a h . N o r is there a n y indication that J e h o a s h h a d repented. O n the o t h e r h a n d , there is a r a b b i n i c tradition that J e h o a s h w a s re­ w a r d e d w i t h v i c t o r y o v e r the A r a m e a n s b e c a u s e h e h a d refused to listen to the a c ­ cusations b r o u g h t against the p r o p h e t A m o s b y A m a z i a h (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 16.88). A similar h i n t t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a t r a d i t i o n t h a t w e find later r e d u c e d to w r i t i n g in the T a l m u d m a y b e f o u n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Z e d e k i a h . A c ­ c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , Z e d e k i a h is c l e a r l y c o n d e m n e d for h a v i n g d o n e w h a t w a s evil in the sight o f the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:19). O n the o t h e r h a n d , the r a b b i n i c tradition, while,- t o b e sure, c r i t i c i z i n g h i m for the e g r e g i o u s c r i m e o f s w e a r i n g falsely to N e b ­ u c h a d n e z z a r a n d n o t a b i d i n g b y his o a t h (Pesiqta Rabbati

26.129; Nedarim

65a;

Tanhuma B Exod. 33), also cites h i m as a n e x a m p l e o f the l e a d e r w h o w a s v i r t u o u s , w h e r e a s his g e n e r a t i o n w a s n o t (Arakin 17a). J o s e p h u s , like the r a b b i s , p r e s e n t s b o t h sides o f Z e d e k i a h , o n the o n e h a n d r e m a r k i n g t h a t h e w a s c o n t e m p t u o u s o f j u s t i c e a n d d u t y (Ant. 10.103),

a

n

d o n the o t h e r h a n d m e n t i o n i n g his g o o d n e s s a n d

sense o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 10.120). I n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o u g h , a f r a g m e n t f o u n d in t h e D e a d S e a c a v e s also presents the t r a d i t i o n t h a t casts Z e d e k i a h in a f a v o r a b l e light, w i t h the s t a t e m e n t t h a t " Z e d e k i a h shall e n t e r in t h a t d a y into the c o v e n a n t t o p e r f o r m a n d to c a u s e the p e r f o r m a n c e o f all the l a w " (4Q470) ( L a r s o n 1994, 2 1 0 - 2 6 ) . T h e fact that traditions k n o w n to the w r i t e r s o f the D e a d S e a m a n u s c r i p t s a n d t o J o s e ­ p h u s t u r n u p later in r a b b i n i c literature c a n m o s t r e a d i l y b e e x p l a i n e d b y the h y ­ pothesis t h a t b o t h d r e w u p o n a c o m m o n tradition; that the r a b b i s d r e w u p o n J o s e ­ p h u s s e e m s unlikely, in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t t h e y n e v e r m e n t i o n h i m b y n a m e , w h e r e a s it is t h e p r a c t i c e o f the r a b b i s to cite their s o u r c e s w h e n k n o w n to t h e m . A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f m i d r a s h i c tra­ dition is his t r e a t m e n t o f the p a s s a g e ( D a n . 1:4) that speaks o f D a n i e l a n d his c o m ­ p a n i o n s as y o u t h s " w i t h o u t b l e m i s h , " w h e r e a s t h e r e is a r a b b i n i c tradition, b a s e d

72

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

o n the p a s s a g e t h a t the k i n g i n s t r u c t e d his c h i e f e u n u c h to e d u c a t e the y o u t h s ( D a n . 1:3), t h a t t h e y w e r e e u n u c h s (Sanhedrin 93b). J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the tradition, resolves t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f t h e i r b e i n g e u n u c h s a n d b y stating t h a t t h e y w e r e e n t r u s t e d to " t u t o r s " (TraiSaycuyots) (Ant. 10.186). R a p p a p o r t cites 299 i n s t a n c e s w h e r e J o s e p h u s p a r a l l e l s m i d r a s h i c t r a d i t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t r e c o r d e d until a later, often m u c h later, p e r i o d ( R a p p a p o r t 1930, 1-71). T o these m a y b e a d d e d n u m e r o u s o t h e r i n s t a n c e s n o t e d i n this v o l u m e dealing w i t h Josephus's portrayal o f various biblical personalities. For e x a m p l e , w e m a y note that Josephus w a s a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the equation o f Esau a n d R o m e (hinted at in Ant. 1.275), w h i c h is l a t e r f o u n d also i n r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Gen­ esis Rabbah 65.21). J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n , also f o u n d in the r a b ­ b i n i c a g g a d a ( t a r g u m o n 2 K i n g s 4 : 1 1 ; Midrash Hagadol [ed. S c h e c h t e r , 1.337]; Ex­ odus Rabbah 3 1 . 4 ; T a n h u m a Mishpatim

9), t h a t O b a d i a h , the s t e w a r d o f A h a b ,

s u p p o r t e d p r o p h e t s w i t h t h e m o n e y t h a t h e h a d b o r r o w e d (Ant. 9.47). H e l i k e w i s e is a w a r e o f the t r a d i t i o n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e w i d o w for w h o m E l i s h a p e r f o r m e d t h e m i r a c l e w i t h t h e j a r o f oil as t h e w i f e o f O b a d i a h (Ant. 9.47; cf. Tanhuma Ki Tissa 5, Midrash

Proverbs 31.27). T h e C h u r c h F a t h e r s , i f w e m a y j u d g e f r o m E u s e b i u s

(Demonstratio Evangelica 6 . 1 8 . 3 4 - 4 2 ) , w e r e a w a r e o f J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e o f t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n , s i n c e E u s e b i u s t h e r e calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact t h a t a l t h o u g h the e a r t h q u a k e t h a t o c c u r r e d i n t h e t i m e o f K i n g U z z i a h ( Z e c h . 14:5) is n o t m e n ­ t i o n e d in t h e B o o k o f K i n g s , J o s e p h u s , w r i t i n g , as h e says, o n the basis o f the Sevrepajois—that

is, t h e o r a l t r a d i t i o n — n o t o n l y m e n t i o n s it b u t g i v e s a d d i t i o n a l

details o f it (Ant. 9.225). M o r e o v e r , the r a b b i s t h e m s e l v e s in the r e a d i n g o r t r a n s l a t i o n o f c e r t a i n e m b a r ­ r a s s i n g p a s s a g e s f r o m the B i b l e , d e c l a r e t h a t in the s y n a g o g u e , the f o l l o w i n g are to b e r e a d b u t n o t translated: the i n c i d e n t o f R e u b e n ' s i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h his father's c o n c u b i n e ( G e n . 35:22) a n d the s e c o n d a c c o u n t o f the G o l d e n C a l f ( E x o d . 32:21-25) ( M i s h n a h , Megillah 4:10). P a r t i c u l a r l y striking is the r u l i n g stated h e r e t h a t the b l e s s i n g o f the priests ( N u m . 6:24-27), the i n c i d e n t o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 1 7 ) , a n d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the i n c i d e n t o f A m n o n a n d T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:1) are n o t o n l y n o t to b e t r a n s l a t e d b u t a r e n o t e v e n to b e r e a d . Interestingly, J o s e p h u s is in a c c o r d w i t h the M i s h n a h in o m i t t i n g the i n c i d e n t o f R e u b e n a n d B i l h a h , the s e c o n d a c c o u n t o f the G o l d e n C a l f , a n d the b l e s s i n g o f the priests, a l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t o m i t the i n c i d e n t s o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a a n d A m n o n a n d T a m a r . M o r e o v e r , t h e r a b b i s (ibid.) e x p r e s s l y d e c l a r e t h a t the i n c i d e n t o f J u d a h a n d T a m a r ( G e n . 38) a n d the first a c c o u n t o f t h e G o l d e n C a l f ( E x o d . 32:1-20) a r e b o t h r e a d a n d t r a n s l a t e d , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s o m i t s b o t h . I n

the

G e m a r a o n the a b o v e p a s s a g e s , the r a b b i s a d d to the list o f p a s s a g e s t h a t are to b e r e a d a n d t r a n s l a t e d the a c c o u n t o f c r e a t i o n ( G e n . 1), the story o f L o t a n d his d a u g h t e r s ( G e n . 1 9 : 3 1 - 3 8 ) , the c u r s e s a n d blessings p r o m i s e d to Israel (Lev. 26 a n d D e u t . 27), the story o f the c o n c u b i n e in G i b e a h (Judg. 1 9 - 2 0 ) , the p a s s a g e f r o m E z e k i e l (16:1) a b o u t J e r u s a l e m ' s a b o m i n a t i o n s , a n d the rest o f the i n c i d e n t o f A m n o n a n d T a m a r (2 S a m . 13:2-22) (Megillah 2 5 a - b ) ; J o s e p h u s h a s all o f these b u t

JOSEPHUS AS R E W R I T E R O F T H E BIBLE

73

does n o t actually e n u m e r a t e the blessings a n d curses a n d omits the passage from E z e k i e l (as h e d o e s m o s t p r o p h e t i c p a s s a g e s ) . F r o m this w e c a n see t h a t t h e r a b b i s did take the liberty o f omitting the translation or even the v e r y r e a d i n g o f certain p a s s a g e s ; a n d f r o m t h e c o m m e n t s o f t h e G e m a r a o n t h e list, w e c a n r e a d i l y d e d u c e t h a t t h e r e w e r e d i s p u t e s a m o n g t h e r a b b i s as t o h o w t o d e a l w i t h specific p a s s a g e s . Here, too, Josephus a n d the rabbis a p p e a r to b e d r a w i n g u p o n a c o m m o n tradi­ tion. W i t h r e g a r d t o this l i b e r a l i s m i n t r e a t i n g t h e B i b l e , w e m a y p e r h a p s

find

a

closer parallel in the w a y in w h i c h the talmudic rabbis treat the incident o f D a v i d a n d B a t h s h e b a . A l t h o u g h the p r o p h e t N a t h a n in the Bible seems to say v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t D a v i d , i n s m i t i n g U r i a h t h e H i t t i t e a n d t a k i n g his w i f e t o b e his w i f e , h a d " d e s p i s e d t h e w o r d o f t h e L - r d , t o d o w h a t is evil i n H i s s i g h t , " a n d a l t h o u g h D a v i d h i m s e l f (2 S a m . 12:13) a d m i t s , " I h a v e s i n n e d a g a i n s t t h e L - r d " (2 S a m . 12:9), R a b b i S a m u e l b a r

Nahmani

in t h e

name

o f the

third-century

Rabbi

J o n a t h a n , d i r e c d y c o n t r a d i c t s t h e B i b l e b y s t a t i n g t h a t w h o e v e r says t h a t D a v i d s i n n e d is h i m s e l f e r r i n g (Shabbat 5 6 a ) .

9 3

I n c o n c l u s i o n , if, as w e h a v e n o t e d , t h e r e a r e so m a n y p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t r a d i ­ tions f o u n d

in J o s e p h u s ,

the

Septuagint, Philo, Pseudo-Philo, the D e a d

Sea

S c r o l l s , t a r g u m , a n d m i d r a s h i m , t h e m o s t l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n is n o t t h a t o n e d r e w from another but rather that they h a d a c o m m o n basic s o u r c e .

9 4

93. T h e rabbis seek to free D a v i d from blame in the Bathsheba affair by remarking that h e h a d de­ creed that everyone g o i n g forth to batde was required to divorce his wife, so that Bathsheba h a d actu­ ally been divorced b y U r i a h w h e n D a v i d h a d relations with h e r (Shabbat 56a). Still another v i e w pre­ sented there is that D a v i d did not g o through with the act at all but merely contemplated it, o r that Uriah deserved death for disobeying David's order to g o h o m e to his wife. E v e n those w h o admit that David did sin exonerate h i m because o f his wholehearted penitence after the deed (Shabbat 30a). Inter­ estingly, however, Josephus does not cover u p David's sin but candidly declares that although D a v i d was b y nature righteous a n d G - d - f e a r i n g , nevertheless he fell into this grave error (Ant. 7.130). In fact, Josephus considerably elaborates the account (2 S a m . 11:17) o f the death o f Bathsheba's husband U r i a h by adding to the bravery that he showed (Ant. 7.139-40), thus augmenting the guilt o f D a v i d . Josephus then elaborates o n David's repentance a n d o n G - d ' s acceptance o f that repentance, remarking that David admitted his impiety with tears o f grief, "for he was, as all agreed, a G - d - f e a r i n g m a n a n d never sinned in his life except in the matter o f Uriah's wife" (Ant. 7.153). Josephus, as w e see, was not averse to taking considerable liberties in his treatment o f other biblical personalities; if so, w e m a y well ask w h y h e did not d o so in the case o f this incident b y omitting it, as h e did several other such embarrass­ ing incidents. T h e reason m a y b e that since Josephus himself was descended from the H a s m o n e a n kings rather than from the line o f D a v i d , h e d o w n g r a d e d D a v i d because o f the latter's importance for Christianity as the ancestor o f the messiah, and that, in general, he was eager not to antagonize the R o ­ mans with talk o f a messianic king 94. For extended critiques o f the m e t h o d o l o g y and views o f J a c o b Neusner, see E l m a n 1 9 8 2 , 1 7 - 2 5 ; S . J D . C o h e n 1983, 4 8 - 6 3 ; a n d Sanders 1990, 309-31.

C H A P T E R

T H R E E

The Qualities of Biblical Heroes

T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s c e n t e r s his n a r r a t i v e u p o n g r e a t h e r o e s , s u c h as A b r a ­ h a m , J a c o b , Joseph, M o s e s , Saul, D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , w o u l d defend the J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e (Ag. Ap. 2.135) t h a t t h e y h a d failed to p r o d u c e

marvelous

(davjjLaaTovs) m e n , s u c h as i n v e n t o r s o f t h e arts o r o u t s t a n d i n g l y w i s e m e n . H e n c e , J o s e p h u s d e t e r m i n e d to f o l l o w t h e P e r i p a t e t i c tradition (his m a i n s o u r c e for t h e last h a l f o f t h e Antiquities w a s , it a p p e a r s , N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , a w e l l - k n o w n Peri­ patetic) a n d to stress t h e role o f g r e a t m e n in history. I n his a p o l o g e t i c w o r k Against Apion (2.136), h e refers the r e a d e r to this g o a l o f the Antiquities w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t " o u r o w n f a m o u s m e n are d e s e r v i n g o f w i n n i n g n o less p r a i s e t h a n the G r e e k w i s e 1

m e n a n d are f a m i l i a r to r e a d e r s o f o u r Antiquities."

T h u s , in his history, h e seeks to

a s c e r t a i n t h e h u m a n m o t i v e s o f his h e r o e s , w h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e m o r e often stresses the role o f G - d as d i r e c t i n g h u m a n a c t i o n s ( H e i n e m a n n 1 9 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 8 5 ; L o w y 1977, 482). T h i s s a m e t e n d e n c y to b u i l d u p J e w i s h b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , is to b e f o u n d in s u c h H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s as A r i s t e a s (in his Letter), A r t a p a n u s , E z e k i e l the t r a g e d i a n , P h i l o t h e Elder, a n d P h i l o t h e p h i l o s o p h e r . A n d y e t , signifi­ c a n t as t h e s u b j e c t is, o n e c a n assert t h a t t h a t the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f b i b l i c a l p e r s o n ­ alities in H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h literature h a s n o w o n l y j u s t b e g u n (van d e r M e u l e n 1978, xiii).

1. In this buildup o f personalities, Josephus is akin to his alleged c o n t e m p o r a r y Pseudo-Philo in the latter's Biblical Antiquities; and this m a y explain the latter's particular attention to the B o o k o f Judges, inasmuch as that biblical b o o k organizes history around great Israelite leaders (Nickelsburg 1984, 108). Nickelsburg (ibid., 109) emphasizes that for Pseudo-Philo, g o o d or b a d leadership is an important con­ stituent in the strong or w e a k religious and m o r a l fiber o f the nation. W e m a y note that Josephus in the Antiquities shares this emphasis. O n this theme o f the focusing u p o n personalities, see also Nickelsburg 1980, 4 9 - 6 5 . 74

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

75

O n e m e a s u r e o f the a m o u n t o f interest t h a t a g i v e n p e r s o n a l i t y h a s for J o s e ­ p h u s m a y b e s e e n in t h e s h e e r a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e d e v o t e s to t h a t p e r s o n . T a ­ bles 1 a n d 2 i n d i c a t e t h e ratio o f t h e a m o u n t o f s p a c e in J o s e p h u s ( T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 ; M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 ) as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w text ( M a l b i m n.d.) a n d the G r e e k t e x t o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Rahlfs 1935). I n s u r v e y i n g these statistics o n e is struck b y the t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n in t h e at­ t e n t i o n g i v e n to t h e v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l figures, r a n g i n g , in t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s , f r o m Z e d e k i a h , w h o s e a c c o u n t in J o s e p h u s is 7.45 t i m e s as l o n g as t h e v e r s i o n in t h e B i b l e , a n d K o r a h , w h o s e a c c o u n t is 3.41 t i m e s as l o n g , t o N e h e m i a h , w h o s e a c ­ c o u n t is o n l y .24 t i m e s as l o n g , a n d A a r o n , w h o s e a c c o u n t is o n l y .62 t i m e s as l o n g . T h e r e is e s p e c i a l l y g r e a t v a r i a t i o n in the a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n g i v e n to i n d i v i d u a l c

e p i s o d e s : t h u s t h e A q e d a h e p i s o d e ( G e n . 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ) h a s 35 lines in t h e H e b r e w , 4 4 lines in the S e p t u a g i n t , a n d 100 lines in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.222-36), g i v i n g a ratio o f 2.86 for J o s e p h u s ' s t e x t as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h a t o f the H e b r e w a n d 2.27 as c o m ­ p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t . J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.9-38) h a s g r e a d y e x p a n d e d t h e a c ­ count o f Joseph's dreams a n d subsequent enslavement ( G e n . 37:1-36), w h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 57 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 78, a n d J o s e p h u s 186, g i v i n g a ratio o f 3.26 for J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e H e b r e w a n d 2.38 as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e S e p t u ­ agint. O f s u p r e m e interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) is the e p i s o d e o f J o s e p h a n d Potiphar's wife ( G e n . 39:7-20), w h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 22 lines, the S e p t u a g i n t 32, a n d J o s e p h u s 120, g i v i n g a ratio o f 5.45 o f J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the H e b r e w , a n d 3.75 o f J o s e p h u s as c o m p a r e d w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t . L i k e w i s e o f g r e a t interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 1 2 4 - 5 9 ) is t h e a c c o u n t o f the final test b y J o s e p h o f his b r o t h e r s ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 - 3 4 ) , w h e r e t h e H e b r e w h a s 53 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 7 3 , a n d J o s e p h u s 217, g i v i n g a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f 4.09, a n d to t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f 2.97. T h e m e e t i n g o f the Q u e e n o f S h e b a w i t h K i n g S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 1 0 : 1 - 1 0 , 2 C h r o n . 9 : 1 - 1 2 ) is o f s p e c i a l interest to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8 . 1 6 5 - 7 5 ) . H e r e t h e H e b r e w in the v e r s i o n o f K i n g s h a s 18 lines, the v e r y similar v e r s i o n in C h r o n i c l e s h a s 24 lines, a n d J o s e p h u s as 75 lines. T h i s gives a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f K i n g s o f 4.17, a n d t o t h e v e r s i o n o f C h r o n i c l e s o f 3.13. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e a c ­ c o u n t o f the d e a t h s o f J a c o b a n d o f J o s e p h ( G e n . 47:28-50:26) is o f m i n i m a l inter­ est to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 . 1 9 4 - 9 8 ) , w h e r e the H e b r e w h a s 132 lines, t h e S e p t u a g i n t 219, a n d J o s e p h u s 3 6 , g i v i n g a ratio o f J o s e p h u s to t h e H e b r e w o f .27 a n d to t h e S e p t u a g i n t o f .16. I f w e e x a m i n e h o w m u c h a t t e n t i o n P s e u d o - P h i l o , in his r e w r i t t e n B i b l e , gives to v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l figures ( H a r r i n g t o n 1976), w e a g a i n n o t e a t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n (see table 3). O n t h e o n e h a n d , P s e u d o - P h i l o d e v o t e s 2.60 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e to D e b o r a h as d o e s the H e b r e w , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s h a s m i n i m i z e d h e r role, a s s i g n i n g h e r o n l y .63 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e as d o e s t h e H e b r e w . J e p h t h a h is o f m u c h g r e a t e r interest to P s e u d o - P h i l o , o c c u p y i n g 1.89 times as m u c h s p a c e as d o e s the H e b r e w , w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s t h e ratio is o n l y .94. T h e m o s t o u t s t a n d i n g c a s e is K e n a z , w h o in the H e b r e w is m e n t i o n e d o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his father (Judg. 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) a n d o c c u p i e s o n l y five lines, w h e r e a s P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s a c c o u n t is n o less t h a n 9 6 . 8 0

TABLE i

Biblical

Figure

Biblical

C i t a t i o n s o f B i b l i c a l P e r s o n a l i t i e s in H e b r e w B i b l e , S e p t u a g i n t , a n d J o s e p h u s

Citation

Lines in Hebrew

Lines in Septuagint

Citation in Josephus, Ant.

Lines in Josephus

Noah

Gen. 5:28-9:29

155

217

1.74-108

Abraham

Gen. 1 1 : 2 6 - 2 5 : 1 1

595

698

1.148-256

713

Isaac

Gen. 2 2 : 1 - 1 9 ; 2 4 : 1 - 6 7 ; 2 6 : 1 - 3 3 ; 27:1-28:5

281

384

1.222-36, 2 4 2 - 5 5 , 2 5 9 - 6 4 ,

293

Jacob

Gen. 2 5 : 1 9 - 3 4 ; 27:1-37:3, 3 2 - 3 5 ; 4 2 : 1 - 2 ;

662

1003

1.257-58, 2 6 7 - 3 4 6 ; 2 . 1 - 8 ,

215

267-75 45:25-28; 4 6 : 1 - 2 6 ; 4 7 : 7 - 1 2 , 2 8 - 3 1 ; 4 8 : 1 - 2 ;

718

168-88, 194-97

49:1-50:14 Joseph

Gen. 37; 3 9 - 4 8 ; 5 0 : 1 - 2 6

Moses

Exod. 2 : 1 - 1 9 : 25; 2 4 : 1 - 1 8 ; 3 2 : 1 - 3 4 ; 33:1-36:6;

627

856

2,406

3,384

2.9-167, 189-93, 198-200

1,025

2.205-3.107, 188-192,

2,816

4 0 : 3 1 - 3 5 ; Num.11:1-14:45; 1 6 : 1 - 1 7 : 2 8 ;

212-13, 265-68,

20:1-21:35; 25:16-18; 27:1-23; 31:1-32:42;

300-22; 4.1-66, 7 6 - 1 0 1 ,

Deut. 1:1-4:49; 8 : 1 1 - 1 1 : 3 2 ; 2 9 : 1 - 3 4 : 1 2

141-44, 156-71, 176-95, 302-31

Jethro

Exod. 2 : 1 6 - 2 1 ; 4:18; 1 8 : 1 - 2 7

Aaron

Exod. 4 : 1 4 - 1 6 , 2 7 - 3 1 ; 5 : 1 - 2 1 ; 7 : 1 - 1 3 , 1 9 - 2 1 ;

48

76

461

613

2 . 2 5 8 - 6 4 , 277; 3 . 6 3 - 7 4

120

2 . 2 7 9 , 3 1 9 ; 3.54, 64,

287

8:1-21; 9:8-10, 27-28; 10:3-8, 1 6 - 1 8 ;

188-92, 205-11,307,

11:10; 1 2 : 1 , 2 8 - 3 1 , 4 3 , 50; 16:2-3, 6 - 7 ,

310; 4.15, 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 3 - 2 4 ,

9 - 1 0 , 3 3 - 3 4 ; 17:10; 19:24; 24:1, 9 - 1 0 , 14;

2 6 - 3 4 , 46, 5 4 - 5 8 ,

2 8 : 1 - 3 , 3 5 - 3 9 ; 29:44; 30:30; 3 2 : 1 - 2 5 , 35;

64-66,

83-85

Lev. 8 : 1 - 3 6 ; 10:3; Num. 6:22-27; 1 2 : 1 - 1 2 ; 14:5, 2 6 - 3 5 ; 16:3, 1 0 - 1 1 , 1 6 - 2 2 ; 1 7 : 6 - 2 5 ; 1 8 : 1 - 7 ; 20:2, 6, 10, 12, 2 3 - 2 9 Korah

Num. 1 6 : 1 - 3 5

Balaam

Num. 22:2-25:9; 31:8, 16; Deut. 2 3 : 5 - 6

58

75

174

273

4.11-56

198

4.102-58

363

Joshua

Ehud

Exod. 1 7 : 8 - 1 4 ; 24:13; 3 2 : 1 7 - 1 8 ; 33:11; Num.l3:8, 16; 1 4 : 6 - 1 0 , 30; 27:15-23; 34:17; Deut.l:38; 3:21; 3 1 : 3 - 8 , 14, 23; 32:44, 34:9; Joshua 1 - 2 4 Judg. 3 : 1 2 - 3 0

Deborah

Judg. 4:1-5:31

104

Gideon

Judg. 6 : 1 1 - 8 : 3 5

150

Jephthah

Judg. 1 0 : 1 7 - 1 2 : 7

82

Samson

Judg. 13:2-16:31

159

Ruth Samuel

Ruth 1:1-4:22 1 Sam. 1:2-4:1; 7:3-10:27; 1 1 : 1 2 - 1 2 : 2 5 ; 1 3 : 8 - 1 5 ; 1 5 : 1 - 3 , 1 0 - 1 6 : 1 3 ; 1 9 : 1 8 - 2 1 ; 15:1; 28:11-19 1 Sam. 9 : 1 - 2 Sam. 1:27 1 Sam. 1 6 : 1 - 1 Kings 2:11 Sam. 2 : 1 3 - 3 1 ; 3:22-31, 39; 8:16; 1 0 : 7 - 1 4 ; 1 1 : 6 - 7 , 1 1 , 1 4 - 2 5 ; 12:26-28; 1 4 : 1 - 3 , 1 8 - 2 4 , 2 9 - 3 3 ; 1 8 : 2 - 5 , 1 1 - 2 3 , 29; 1 9 : 1 - 8 , 13; 20:7-23; 2 4 : 3 - 9 ; 1 Kings 1:7; 2 : 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 3 5

155 436

Saul David Joab

1,048

29

1,065 1,839 245

1755

3 . 4 9 - 5 2 , 59, 3 0 8 - 1 0 ; 4.165, 1 7 1 , 1 8 6 , 3 1 1 , 315, 324, 326; 5 . 1 - 1 1 9

46 (Version A) 5 . 1 8 5 - 9 7 48 (Version B) 172 (Version A) 5 . 2 0 0 - 1 0 166 (Version B) 245 (Version A) 5 . 2 1 3 - 3 3 242 (Version B) 131 (Version A) 5 . 2 5 7 - 7 0 129 (Version B) 276 (Version A) 5 . 2 7 6 - 3 1 7 271 (Version B) 5.318-37 202 5.341-51; 6.19-67, 83-94, 701 100-5, 131-33, 141-66, 221-23, 292-94, 322-36 6.45-7.6 1,632 6.157-7.394 3,022 7 . 1 1 - 1 9 , 3 1 , 3 9 , 45, 398 64, 66, 1 1 0 , 1 2 2 - 2 6 , 129, 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 - 4 1 , 144-45, 159-60, 1 8 1 - 8 7 , 1 9 1 - 9 3 , 233, 2 3 6 - 4 2 , 2 4 5 - 4 7 , 250, 253-57,281-92,318-20, 3 4 6 - 4 7 , 350, 352, 359, 386; 8.9, 1 3 - 1 6

828

71 66 135 77 242 115 814

2,332 4,239 602

(continued)

TABLE i

Biblical

Figure

Biblical

Citation

(continued) Lines in Hebrew

Lines in Septuagint

Citation in Josephus, Ant.

Lines in Josephus

Absalom

2 Sam. 1 3 : 2 0 - 1 9 : 8

317

508

Solomon

1 Kings 1 : 1 1 - 1 1 : 4 3 ;

672

1,070

122

181

214

360

8.205-45, 265-87

463

8.212-24,246-65

214

8.286, 2 9 0 - 9 7 , 3 0 4 - 6 ,

104

7.172-257 7.335-42, 348-62,

580 1721

3 7 0 - 8 8 , 392; 8 . 2 - 2 1 1 1 Chron. 22:2-23:1; 2 8 : 1 - 2 9 : 3 0 Jeroboam

1 Kings 1 1 : 2 6 - 4 0 ; 1 2 : 1 - 1 4 : 2 0 ; 2 Chron. 1 3 : 1 - 2 0

Rehoboam Asa

1 Kings 1 2 : 1 - 2 4 ; 1 4 : 2 1 - 3 1 ;

61

90

2 Chron. 1 0 : 1 - 1 2 : 1 6

91

136

2 Chron. 1 4 : 1 - 1 6 : 1 4

75

113

314-15 Ahab

1 Kings 6:29-22:40

340

527

8.316-92, 398-420

Elijah

1 Kings 1 7 - 1 9 , 2 1 : 1 7 - 2 9 ; 2 Kings 1:3-2:12

221

350

8.319-54, 360-62; 9.20-28

336

Jehoshaphat

2 Kings 3:7-27 + 2 Chron. 1 7 : 1 - 2 1 : 1

201

297

8.393-9.17; 9 . 1 9 - 4 4

405

Jehoram of Israel

2 Kings 3 : 1 - 2 7 ; 6:8-23; 7 : 1 0 - 2 0 ; 8 : 2 8 - 2 9 ;

164

212

9.27, 2 9 - 4 1 , 5 1 - 5 2 , 6 0 - 7 3 ,

316

9:15-26 Elisha

2 Kings 2 : 1 - 2 5 ; 3 : 1 1 - 2 0 ; 4 : 1 - 4 4 ; 5:8-7:2;

672

81-86, 105-6, 112-19 278

425

7:16-8:15; 9:1-3; 13:14-21

9.28, 3 4 - 3 7 , 4 6 - 6 0 , 6 7 - 7 4 ,

308

8 5 - 9 2 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 175, 178-83

Jehu

2 Kings 9 : 1 - 1 0 : 3 6

123

203

9.105-39, 1 5 9 - 6 0

247

Hezekiah Jonah Manasseh

2 Kings 1 8 - 2 0 + 2 Ghron. 2 9 - 3 2 Jonah 1 - 4

353 47

542 111

9.160-76; 10.1-36 9.207-14

2 Kings 2 0 : 2 1 - 2 1 : 1 8 +

364 70 69

106

10.37-46

63

106 113 24

157 184

10:48-78

181

Jehoiachin

2 Chron.32:33-33:20 2 Kings 22:1-23:30; 2 C h r o n . 34:1-35:27 2 Kings 2 4 : 8 - 1 7 ; 25:27-30

Zekekiah Gedaliah

2 Kings 24:17-25:21 2 Kings 25:22-26; Jer. 4 0 : 1 - 4 1 : 1 8

42 146

(LXX: 4 7 : 1 - 4 8 : 1 8 ) Dan. 1 - 6 , 8

407

Josiah

Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Esther

Ezra 7 - 1 0 (LXX: 1 Esd. 8-9) Neh. 1 - 1 3 (LXX: 2 Esd. 1 1 - 2 3 ) Esther 1 - 1 0

183 589 378

38 60

10.97-102 1 0 . 1 0 2 - 5 0 , 154

38 313 133

102

10.155-75

790 304

10.186-218, 232-81 11.121-58

792 615

11.159-83

537 224 144

11.184-296

515

8o

GENERAL

TABLE 2

CONSIDERATIONS

R a t i o o f Josephus to H e b r e w Bible a n d Septuagint; E u l o g i e s o f B i b l i c a l F i g u r e s in J o s e p h u s

Biblical

Figure

Ratio of Josephus to Hebrew Text

Ratio of Josephus to Septuagint

Eulogy (citation)

Eulogy (no. of words)

Noah

1.30

.99

Abraham

1.20

1.02

1.256

14

Isaac

1.04

.76

1.346

27

Jacob

1.08

.72

2.196

19

Joseph

1.63

1.20

2.198

33

Moses

1.17

Jethro

2.16

1.68

Aaron Korah

.62 3.41

2.64

Balaam

2.09

1.33

Joshua Ehud

.79 2.45

.83.

4.328-31

127

.47

.47

5.118

43

5.317

52

1.54 (Version A) 1.48 (Version B)

Deborah

.63

Gideon

.90

.38 (Version A) .40 (Version B) .55 (Version A) .56 (Version B) .59 (Version A)

Jephthah Samson

.94

.60 (Version B)

1.52

.88 (Version A) .89 (Version B)

Ruth

.74

.57

Samuel

1.87

1.16

6.292-94

86

Saul

2.19

1.43

6.343-50

373

David

2.31

1.40

7.390-91

109

Joab

2.46

1.51

Absalom

1.83

1.14

Solomon

2.56 (to 1 Kings)

1.61 (to 1 Kings)

2.17 (to 1 Kings

1.38 (to 1 Kings

+ 1 Chron.) Jeroboam Rehoboam Josiah

22

9.182

26

+ 1 Chron.)

2.16

1.29

3.51 (to 1 Kings)

2.38 (to 1 Kings)

2.35 (to 2 Chron.)

1.57 (to 2 Chron.)

1.71 (to 2 Kings)

1.15 (to 2 Kings)

1.60 (to 2 Chron.)

8.211

.98 (to 2 Chron.)

Asa

1.39

.92

Ahab

1.98

1.28

Elijah

1.52

.96

Jehoshaphat

2.01

1.36

1.93

1.49

1.11

.72

Jehoram of Israel Elisha

Biblical Figure

Ratio of Josephus to Hebrew Text

Ratio of Josephus to Septuagint

Jehu Jonah Hezekiah Manasseh Jehoiachin Zekekiah Gedaliah

2.01 .67 2.18 .91 1.58 7.45 .91

1.22 .42 1.51 .59 1.00

Daniel Ezra Nehemiah

1.32 1.22 .24 1.36

Esther TABLE 3

Biblical

Figure

Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob Joseph Moses Aaron Korah Balaam Joshua Kenaz Deborah Gideon Jephthah Samson Samuel Saul

Eulogy (citation)

Eulogy (no. of words)

5.22 1.30 .68 .74 .18 .84

B i b l i c a l Personalities in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical

Citation in Bib. Ant.

No. of lines

3.4-4.1 6.11-8.3 8.3-4 8 8.4, 8 . 6 - 9 8.9-10 9.1-11.5,14; 12.1-18.1; 19.1-16 12.2-3 16.1-7 18.2-14 20.1-24.6 25.1-28.10 30.5-33.6 35.1-36.4 39.2-40.9 42.1-43.8 50.1-53.13; 55.1-59.3; 64.5-8 56.4-65.5

73 109 8 24 13 601

Antiquities

Ratio o/'Bib. Ant. to Hebrew text Al .18 .03 .02 .02 .25

17

.04

42 100 284 484 270 88 155 125 428

.72 .57 .27 96.80 2.60 .56 1.89 .79 .98

360

.34

times as l o n g . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , P s e u d o - P h i l o h a s g r e a d y d i m i n i s h e d t h e role o f J o s e p h , f r o m t w i c e as m u c h s p a c e in J o s e p h u s to .02 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e i n P s e u d o - P h i l o , as w e l l as t h e role o f S a u l , f r o m 2.19 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e in J o s e ­ p h u s to .34 t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e in P s e u d o - P h i l o . I f w e ask w h y a figure s u c h as R u t h is n o t built u p b y J o s e p h u s , t h e a n s w e r w o u l d s e e m to b e t h a t she w a s n o t a m a j o r historical figure a n d h e n c e h a r d l y a

82

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

m o d e l for t h e r a n g e o f v i r t u e s to b e e m u l a t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s . M o r e o v e r , b e i n g a w o m a n , she w a s s u b j e c t t o J o s e p h u s ' s p a t e n t m i s o g y n y , as s e e n , for e x a m ­ ple, in his snide r e m a r k (War 7.399) a b o u t t h e w o m a n at M a s a d a w h o w a s " s u p e ­ rior in s a g a c i t y a n d t r a i n i n g t o m o s t o f h e r s e x . " O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s d e ­ v o t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e t i m e s as m u c h s p a c e to his e n c o m i u m o f S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) as to his e u l o g y o f M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 3 2 8 - 3 1 ) o r D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 ) , four t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i u m o f S a m u e l (Ant. 6.292-94), a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n t i m e s as m u c h as to his e n c o m i a o f I s a a c (Ant. 1.346), J a c o b (Ant. 2.196), J o s e p h (Ant. 2.198), J o s h u a (Ant. 5.118), S a m s o n (Ant. 5.317), a n d S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.211). F r o m this w e m a y see s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s identified h i m s e l f w i t h S a u l , w h o , like h i m , h a d b e e n a g e n e r a l , a n d l o o k e d u p o n h i m as a f o r e m o s t p a r a d i g m for e x p r e s s i n g t h e g o a l s o f his w o r k , in t e r m s o f its specific a p o l o g e t i c a i m s .

THE C A N O N OF QUALITIES OF G R E A T MEN T h a t Josephus w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the type o f rhetorical exercises k n o w n

aspro-

gymnasmata ( N e y r e y 1994, esp. 178-80) a n d , in particular, w i t h t h a t b r a n c h d e a l i n g w i t h e n c o m i a , s e e m s likely in v i e w o f t h e fact t h a t in his defense o f t h e J e w i s h c o n ­ stitution (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 5 ) , h e a p p a r e n t l y f o l l o w e d the s t a n d a r d p a t t e r n for s u c h e n c o m i a , as d e s c r i b e d m o s t fully in t h e later h a n d b o o k b y t h e M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (IJepl

third-century

emSet/cri/cow) ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 3 : 3 3 1 - 4 4 6 ; B a l c h

1974; 1975, 1 8 7 - 9 2 ; 1982, 1 0 2 - 2 2 ) . T h e r h e t o r i c i a n T h e o n in his p r e f a c e n o t e s t h e utility o f r h e t o r i c a l exercises for t h e w r i t i n g o f h i s t o r y ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 2:60 ff.; B u t t s 1986); a n d w e m a y r e c a l l C i c e r o ' s f a m o u s r e m a r k (De Legibus 1.5) t h a t h i s t o r y is a n opus . . . unum . . . oratorium maxime ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 1 , 1 4 9 - 6 9 ) .

2

Isocrates, in his Evagoras (71), o n e o f t h e earliest o f b i o g r a p h i e s , lists six items as c r u c i a l to h a p p i n e s s : a n o b l e l i n e a g e b e y o n d c o m p a r e , u n e q u a l e d p h y s i c a l a n d m e n t a l gifts, s o v e r e i g n t y g l o r i o u s l y a c h i e v e d a n d c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h life, i m m o r t a l f a m e , a life p r o l o n g e d to o l d a g e b u t free f r o m the ills t h a t afflict o l d a g e , a n d offspring b o t h n u m e r o u s a n d g o o d l y . X e n o p h o n , in his Agesilaus (10.4), likewise o n e o f the earliest o f b i o g r a p h i e s , calls his h e r o b l e s s e d b e c a u s e h e h a d r e a l i z e d m o s t c o m p l e t e l y a m o n g m e n o f his t i m e his y o u t h f u l p a s s i o n for r e n o w n , b e c a u s e n e v e r t h r o u g h o u t his r e i g n w a s h e b a l k e d in his h i g h a m b i t i o n s , a n d b e c a u s e , h a v i n g at­ t a i n e d the farthest limit o f h u m a n life, h e d i e d w i t h o u t h a v i n g i n c u r r e d offense ei­ t h e r as r e g a r d s t h o s e w h o m h e l e d o r t h o s e a g a i n s t w h o m h e m a d e w a r . P l i n y t h e E l d e r (Natural History 7.43.139), in his e n c o m i u m o f L u c i u s C a e c i l i u s M e t e l l u s , re­ p o r t s t h a t h e a c h i e v e d t h e t e n g r e a t e s t a n d m o s t e x c e l l e n t t h i n g s in the q u e s t for w h i c h m e n o f w i s d o m s p e n d their lives: t o b e a c h a m p i o n w a r r i o r , t h e b e s t orator, t h e b r a v e s t g e n e r a l , c o m m a n d e r in t h e g r e a t e s t u n d e r t a k i n g s , r e c i p i e n t o f t h e

2. O n progymnasmatic exercises and, in pardcular, their apparent use by historians, see M a r r o u 1956, 194-205; N o r t h 1956, 234-42; and C l a r k 1957, 177-212.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

83

h i g h e s t official p r e f e r m e n t , a l e a d e r in w i s d o m , the l e a d i n g senator, possessor o f g r e a t w e a l t h g a i n e d b y h o n e s t m e t h o d s , father o f m a n y c h i l d r e n , a n d the m o s t dis­ t i n g u i s h e d m a n o f the state. I n the t y p e o f s p e e c h k n o w n as a n e n c o m i u m , as d e ­ l i n e a t e d in T h e o n o f A l e x a n d r i a ' s h a n d b o o k , attention w a s g i v e n to a p e r s o n ' s o r i ­ g i n a n d b i r t h , n u r t u r e a n d training, d e e d s o f the b o d y (beauty, strength, agility, m i g h t , health), d e e d s o f the soul (justice, w i s d o m , t e m p e r a n c e , m a n l i n e s s , piety), d e e d s o f fortune (power, w e a l t h , friends, n u m b e r a n d b e a u t y o f c h i l d r e n , f a m e , fortune, l e n g t h o f life, h a p p y death), a n d c o m p a r i s o n w i t h like p e r s o n a l i t i e s ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 7 9 - 8 0 ) . It is these s a m e factors a n d qualities u p o n w h i c h J o s e p h u s focuses in his o w n a u t o b i o g r a p h y a n d in portraits o f his m a j o r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s . I f w e e x a m i n e s u c h k e y figures in J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e as A b r a h a m , J a c o b , J o s e p h , M o s e s , S a m s o n , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d Esther, w e shall see t h a t stress is g e n e r a l l y p l a c e d o n the e x t e r n a l qualities o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature, the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f c h a r a c t e r — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s ­ t i c e — , a n d the spiritual attribute o f piety. L e s t o n e think p i e t y a J e w i s h a d d i t i o n to the list o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, o n e s h o u l d take n o t e o f S o c r a t e s ' q u e s t i o n in P l a t o ' s Protagoras (349B): " A r e w i s d o m a n d self-control a n d c o u r a g e a n d j u s t i c e a n d p i e t y five n a m e s t h a t d e n o t e the s a m e t h i n g ? " H e n c e , p i e t y is the fifth o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, as w e see also in t h e o u t l i n e o f the e n c o m i u m as n o t e d a b o v e . I n g e n e r a l , the J e w i s h h e r o m u s t b e a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in the P l a t o n i c style, a h i g h priest, a p r o p h e t , a n d a v e r i t a b l e Pericles as d e s c r i b e d b y T h u c y d i d e s . S i n c e J o s e p h u s w a s a d d r e s s i n g a p r e d o m i n a n d y n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , his h e r o h a d to fulfill the q u a l i ­ fications a s c r i b e d b y T a c i t u s to his r e v e r e d father-in-law, A g r i c o l a (Tacitus, Agricola 4 4 - 4 5 ) : a life e n d e d in its p r i m e b u t r i c h in glory, a t t a i n m e n t o f the true blessings o f virtue, c o n s u l a r a n d t r i u m p h a l h o n o r s , w e a l t h sufficient for his desires, d e a t h before t h a t o f wife a n d c h i l d , i n t e g r i t y o f p o s i t i o n a n d r e p u t a t i o n , u n s e v e r e d links o f r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d friendship, a n d a v o i d a n c e o f the m a s s a c r e s p e r p e t r a t e d b y the e m p e r o r D o m i t i a n , w h i c h t o o k p l a c e o n l y after his d e a t h . T h e r e c i t a t i o n o f A g r i c o l a ' s v i r t u e s is a v e r i t a b l e aretalogy, s u c h as w a s p o p u l a r in H e l l e n i s t i c times, e s p e c i a l l y for rulers ( G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 5 5 - 1 0 4 ; H a d a s 1 9 5 9 , 1 7 0 - 8 1 ; v a n d e r M e u l e n 1978, 5 1 - 6 0 ) . O n e m i g h t a r g u e t h a t these qualities w e r e h a r d l y restricted t o G r e e k s o r R o m a n s , a n d that t h e y w e r e i m p o r t a n t t o J e w s as well. B u t w h a t is decisive is the p h r a s e o l o g y J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s , w h i c h is so often reminiscent o f G r e e k writers, especially Dionysius o f Halicarnassus.

Antiquity T o establish the stature o f a p e o p l e , it w a s first o f all n e c e s s a r y to establish its a n ­ tiquity ( F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 , 1 7 7 - 2 0 0 ) . A s J o s e p h u s states, e v e r y n a t i o n a t t e m p t s to t r a c e its o r i g i n b a c k to the r e m o t e s t a n t i q u i t y in o r d e r n o t to a p p e a r to b e m e r e i m i t a ­ tors o f o t h e r p e o p l e s (Ag. Ap. 2.152). I n his a p o l o g e t i c essay Against Apion (1.7-8), J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t the G r e e k s w e r e relative n e w c o m e r s to c i v i l i z a t i o n , " d a t i n g ,

84

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

so to speak, f r o m y e s t e r d a y o r the d a y b e f o r e " ; in the f o u n d a t i o n o f cities, the in­ v e n t i o n o f the arts, a n d the c o m p i l a t i o n o f a c o d e o f laws, t h e y h a d b e e n antici­ p a t e d b y the E g y p t i a n s , the C h a l d a e a n s , the P h o e n i c i a n s , a n d , a b o v e all, the J e w s . O n e recalls the r e m a r k o f the a g e d E g y p t i a n priest to S o l o n , " Y o u G r e e k s are al­ w a y s c h i l d r e n ; in G r e e c e t h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g as a n o l d m a n " (Plato,

Timaeus

22B). T h e E g y p t i a n sneers at the g e n e a l o g i e s o f the G r e e k s , w h i c h , h e says, are lit­ tle b e t t e r t h a n n u r s e r y tales (Plato, Timaeus 23B). G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c h as P y t h a g o r a s (Ag. Ap. 1.162-65), T h e o p h r a s t u s (Ag. Ap. 1.166-67),

a

n

d A r i s t o t l e (Ag. Ap. 1.176-82), historians s u c h as H e r o d o t u s (Ag. Ap.

1.168-71), H e c a t a e u s (Ag. Ap. 1.183-205), a n d A g a t h a r c h i d e s (Ag. Ap. 1.205-12), p o e t s s u c h as C h o e r i l u s (Ag. Ap. 1.172-74), a n d m a n y o t h e r s c i t e d o n l y b y n a m e (Ag. Ap. 1.216) establish the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s a n d often e x p r e s s a d m i r a t i o n for their w i s d o m a n d piety. I n d e e d , in the v e r y first s t a t e m e n t in the treatise Against

Apion,

J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t h e h a s , in the Antiquities, m a d e c l e a r t h e e x t r e m e antiq­ uity o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h e v e r y title o f the Antiquities, literally " a n c i e n t l o r e , " u n d e r l i n e s this. F u r t h e r m o r e , the title Against Apion is n o t J o s e p h u s ' s o w n ; a n d o n e o f the titles in the m a n u s c r i p t , IJepl apxcuorrjTos

'IovSaicw,

Concerning the Antiquity

of the Jews, e m p h a s i z e s this t h e m e . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f says (Ag. Ap. 1 . 2 - 3 )

m a t

n

s

u r

^ P "

p o s e in w r i t i n g the treatise is to d i s p r o v e those w h o discredit the statements in his p r e v i o u s historical w o r k c o n c e r n i n g the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s a n d w h o c l a i m that the J e w s are relatively m o d e r n . It is significant t h a t in the first four sections o f the treatise, J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d dpxoaoXoyia apxaiorrjs,

three times (1.1, 2, 4) a n d the w o r d

likewise m e a n i n g "antiquity," o n c e (1.3).

3

T h e earliest G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s to d e a l w i t h celestial a n d d i v i n e p h e n o m e n a , s u c h as P h e r e c y d e s o f S y r o s , P y t h a g o r a s , a n d T h a l e s , a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y J o s e p h u s as b e i n g , b y u n i v e r s a l a g r e e m e n t , disciples o f the E g y p t i a n s a n d C h a l d a e a n s (Ag. Ap. 1.14). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , the E g y p t i a n s t u r n o u t to b e students o f A b r a h a m in m a t h e m a t i c s a n d a s t r o n o m y (Ant. 1 . 1 6 6 - 6 8 ) , g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as the m o s t i m ­ p o r t a n t o f the s c i e n c e s in a n c i e n t times. W h e n J o s e p h u s w i s h e s t o e m p h a s i z e the g r e a t w i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , h e c o m p a r e s h i m w i t h the E g y p t i a n s a n d says t h a t e v e n they, " w h o are said to e x c e l all m e n in u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w e r e n o t only, w h e n c o m ­ p a r e d w i t h h i m , a little inferior b u t p r o v e d to fall far short o f the k i n g in s a g a c i t y " (Ant. 8.42). J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s t o stress t h a t e v e n s u c h critics o f the J e w s as the E g y p t i a n M a n e t h o , as w e l l as the T y r i a n archives, D i u s , M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s , a n d the C h a l d a e a n B e r o s u s , b e a r w i t n e s s to the a n t i q u i t y o f the J e w s (Ag. Ap. 1.69-160). T h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t the R o m a n s a t t a c h e d to establishing their a n t i q u i t y m a y b e seen f r o m the d e t e r m i n e d a t t e m p t o f V i r g i l in his Aeneid to t r a c e the a n c e s t r y o f the R o m a n s b a c k t o the f a m e d T r o j a n s a n d specifically to A e n e a s , the son o f

3. T h e r e are indications that even anti-Jewish writers such as A p i o n admitted that the Jews were an ancient people. See Feldman 1987-88, 199-206.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

85

V e n u s , the d a u g h t e r o f Jupiter. W e m a y r e c a l l L i v y ' s f a m o u s c o m m e n t in his pref­ a c e (7) t h a t i f a n y n a t i o n d e s e r v e s the p r i v i l e g e o f c l a i m i n g a d i v i n e ancestry, t h a t n a t i o n is R o m e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d w h y J o s e p h u s p l a c e d s u c h stress, in his a p o l o g e t i c s , o n his c l a i m t h a t M o s e s w a s the m o s t a n c i e n t legislator w h o e v e r l i v e d 4

(Ag. Ap. 2.154), n e x t to w h o m s u c h f a m o u s l a w g i v e r s as L y c u r g u s o f S p a r t a , S o l o n o f A t h e n s , a n d Z a l e u c u s o f L o c r i s " a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n b o r n yesterday," w h e r e a s a n e t e r n i t y h a s p a s s e d since M o s e s (Ag. Ap. 2.279). Genealogy W h e n P l a t o (Hippias Maior 2 8 5 D ) defines apxaioXoyia

( w h i c h h a p p e n s t o b e the

tide o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , Antiquities), the first subject w h i c h h e says it i n c l u d e s is g e ­ n e a l o g i e s o f h e r o e s a n d o f o r d i n a r y m e n . Its i m p o r t a n c e is seen in the

Menexenus

a s c r i b e d to h i m , w h e r e h e says, " T h e y w e r e g o o d b e c a u s e t h e y s p r a n g f r o m g o o d fathers." W i t h r e g a r d to g e n e a l o g y , the first o f the thirty-six stages, a c c o r d i n g to the G r e e k r h e t o r i c i a n T h e o n o f A l e x a n d r i a , w h e n p r a i s i n g a p e r s o n , w a s to l a u d his a n c e s t r y ( S p e n g e l 1 8 5 4 - 9 4 , 2 : 6 0 - 1 3 0 ; T a l b e r t 1980, 135). I n d e e d , the G r e e k s m a d e a v i r t u e o f g o o d b i r t h in a n d o f itself. I n H o m e r , w h e n G l a u c u s m e e t s D i o m e d e s , t h e y first e x c h a n g e g e n e a l o g i e s (Iliad 6 . 1 2 3 - 2 3 1 ) . H e r o d o t u s

(7.204,

8.131) m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f t r a c i n g the i n d i v i d u a l g e n e a l o g i e s o f K i n g L e o n i d a s a n d L e o t y c h i d e s b a c k t w e n t y g e n e r a t i o n s , n a m i n g all their a n c e s t o r s g o i n g b a c k t o H e r a c l e s . H e similarly t r a c e s the g e n e a l o g y o f T h e r a s o f S p a r t a (4.147), L a i u s o f T h e b e s (5.59), A r i s t o d e m u s o f S p a r t a (6.52), a n d the Persians A b r o c o m e s a n d H y p e r a n t h e s (7.224). M o r e o v e r , A n t i g o n e in S o p h o c l e s ' p l a y (line 38) is d e s c r i b e d as w e l l - b o r n b y n a t u r e (evyevrjs -n-e^vKas). W e see the s a m e e m p h a s i s in A r i s t o d e ' s d e ­ scription o f the g r e a t - s o u l e d m a n (pLeyaXoi/tvxos)

as w e l l - b o r n (evyevr)s)

(Mco-

machean Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 4 A 2 1 - 2 2 ) . W h e n A r i s t o d e c o n s i d e r s the gifts o f fortune b y w h i c h h u m a n c h a r a c t e r is affected, his first t o p i c o f discussion is g o o d b i r t h (Rhetoric 2 . 1 5 . 1 3 9 0 B 1 1 - 3 0 ) . T h e w e l l - b o r n w i l l l o o k d o w n , h e says, e v e n o n t h o s e w h o are as g o o d as their o w n a n c e s t o r s . W h e n C o r n e l i u s N e p o s (Epaminondas

1)

b e g i n s his life o f E p a m i n o n d a s , h e speaks o f his f a m i l y a n d o n l y t h e n g o e s o n t o discuss his e d u c a t i o n a n d his p e r s o n a l qualities. Similarly, w e m a y n o t e t h e g e ­ n e a l o g i e s o f f a m o u s h e r o e s in the f o l l o w i n g : P l u t a r c h , Theseus 3; Fabius Maximus Brutus 1 - 2 ; Pyrrhus 1; Lycurgus 1; Philostratus, Life of Apollonius

1.4; Historia

1;

Augusta,

5

Hadrian 1 . 1 - 2 ; and Antoninus Pius 1.1—7 ( T a l b e r t 1980, 135). W e c a n also see the i m ­ p o r t a n c e o f g e n e a l o g y in the b i o g r a p h y o f A g r i c o l a (4) b y J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o ­ r a r y T a c i t u s . A n d , o f c o u r s e , w e s h o u l d n o t e the i m p o r t a n c e g i v e n t o g e n e a l o g i e s o f J e s u s in the G o s p e l s o f M a t t h e w (1:2-16) a n d L u k e (3:23-38). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t

4. S o also Eupolemus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Eu 9.26.1).

5. Even so, the Egyptians, if w e m a y j u d g e from Plato (Timaeus 22B), had sneered at the genealo­ gies of the Greeks as being litde better than nursery tales.

86

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

the h e r o o r h e r o i n e s h o u l d b e o f lofty b i r t h is o n e o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features o f 6

H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s . S o m u c h stress w a s p l a c e d o n g e n e a l o g y t h a t the m a t t e r b e ­ c a m e a fit s u b j e c t for satire, as w e see in the p a r o d y o f H o m e r k n o w n as " T h e B a t tie o f the F r o g s a n d M i c e , " w h e r e (line 13) a frog asks a m o u s e : " W h o are y o u , stranger? W h e n c e d o y o u c o m e t o this s h o r e ? A n d w h o is the o n e w h o b e g o t y o u ? " J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f b e g i n s his a u t o b i o g r a p h y w i t h a d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t o f his p e d i ­ g r e e , t r a c i n g b a c k b o t h his priestly a n d his r o y a l a n c e s t r y (Life 1-6). H e also stresses t h a t b e f o r e m a r r y i n g a w o m a n , a priest m u s t investigate h e r p e d i g r e e , " o b t a i n i n g the g e n e a l o g y f r o m the a r c h i v e s a n d p r o d u c i n g a n u m b e r o f w i t n e s s e s " (Ag. Ap. 1.31-32). T h i s e m p h a s i s o n g e n e a l o g y , h e a d d s , is to b e s e e n n o t m e r e l y in J u d a e a b u t also w h e r e v e r J e w s are settled. H e h i m s e l f w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o u d t h a t the C r e ­ tan w o m a n w h o m he married c a m e o f very distinguished parents—indeed,

the

m o s t n o t a b l e p e o p l e in C r e t e [Life 427). I n c o n t r a s t , at a p p r o x i m a t e l y the t i m e w h e n J o s e p h u s w a s stressing the i m p o r ­ t a n c e o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d ancestry, a l t h o u g h s o m e o f the r a b b i s , s u c h as J u d a h H a n a s i , w e r e said t o b e o f d i s t i n g u i s h e d g e n e a l o g y , m a n y h a d a n c e s t o r s o f n o p a r ­ ticular note. I n d e e d , s o m e , s u c h as S h e m a i a h , A b t a l i o n , a n d M e i r , w e r e d e c l a r e d to b e d e s c e n d e d f r o m s u c h n o t o r i o u s a n c e s t o r s as Sisera, S e n n a c h e r i b ,

Haman

(Gittin 57b), a n d N e r o (Gittin 5 6 a ) — a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the stress w a s p l a c e d n o t u p o n g l o r i o u s g e n e a l o g y b u t u p o n o n e ' s o w n l e a r n i n g a n d piety. P e r h a p s b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s so p r o u d o f his ancestry, b e i n g d e ­ s c e n d e d f r o m the first o f the t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s o f the priests, as w e l l as (on his m o t h e r ' s side) f r o m the H a s m o n e a n s [fife 1-8), h e f r e q u e n t l y a d d s s u c h details w h e n t h e y are n o t f o u n d e x p l i c i t l y in the B i b l e . T h u s , J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t A b r a ­ h a m w a s the t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after N o a h (Scripture s i m p l y e n u m e r a t e s his a n c e s ­ tors) a n d a d d s t o his a n t i q u i t y b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t h e w a s b o r n 992 y e a r s after the F l o o d (Ant. 1.148). H e t h e r e b y i n c r e a s e s b y s o m e 701 y e a r s the i n t e r v a l b e t w e e n the F l o o d a n d the b i r t h o f A b r a h a m . J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h u s s e e m to b e a n s w e r i n g s u c h d e t r a c t o r s o f the J e w s as A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 9 . 2 - 3 ) , w h o h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t A b r a h a m w a s b o r n o n l y t h r e e g e n e r a t i o n s after N o a h . I n a n e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , A b r a h a m ' s s e r v a n t E l i e z e r c o m m e n d s R e b e k a h for h e r g o o d b i r t h (evyevetas) a n d g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t (Ant. 1.247). W h e n J a c o b first m e e t s R a c h e l , h e gives his g e n e a l o g y at s o m e l e n g t h (Ant. 1.288-90). I n e x p l a i n i n g w h y J a c o b l o v e d J o s e p h m o r e t h a n his b r o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s a d d s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h ' s b e a u t y o f p e r s o n , w h i c h h e o w e d n o t o n l y to his e x ­ c e l l e n c e o f c h a r a c t e r b u t also to his g o o d b i r t h (euyevetav), t h a t is, to the fact t h a t his m o t h e r , R a c h e l , w a s e x c e p t i o n a l l y beautiful (Ant. 2.9). A m r a m , M o s e s ' father, is d e s c r i b e d as o f n o b l e b i r t h (ev yeyovorcov) (Ant. 2.210), w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y

6. See S c h m e l i n g 1980, 21, w h o notes that genealogy w o u l d have been the first thing on a H e l ­

lenistic author's mind as he b e g a n his novel, and that this is true o f X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus's Habrocomes

andAnthia, as well as of the tale of C u p i d and Psyche in Apuleius's Metamorphoses (4.28) and o f the novel

Apollonius of Tyre. Cf. Goethals 1959,1 ff.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

87

d e s c r i b e s h i m as " a m a n f r o m the h o u s e o f L e v i " ( E x o d . 2:1). K o r a h t o o is d e ­ s c r i b e d as b e i n g a m o n g the m o s t e m i n e n t o f the H e b r e w s b y r e a s o n b o t h o f his b i r t h (yevei) a n d o f his riches (Ant. 4.14). M o s e s speaks o f the n o b i l i t y o f b i r t h o f his b r o t h e r A a r o n as n o t b e i n g the f a c t o r t h a t justifies the b e s t o w a l o f the h i g h priest­ h o o d u p o n h i m (Ant. 4.26), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t o t h e r s m i g h t t h i n k so. Similarly, in e x t r a b i b l i c a l additions, G i d e o n ' s father is d e s c r i b e d as o n e o f the f o r e m o s t (ev oXiyots)

a m o n g the tribe o f M a n a s s e h (Ant. 5.213), J e p h t h a h as a

m i g h t y m a n b y r e a s o n o f the v a l o r o f his a n c e s t o r s (hid TTJV irarpojav 5.257), S a m s o n ' s father as o n e o f the f o r e m o s t (ev oXiyots

dperrjv) (Ant.

dpiaros)

D a n a i t e s (Ant. 5.276), S a u l ' s father K i s h as o f g o o d b i r t h (ev yeyovcos,

a m o n g the Ant. 6.45),

S a l l u m o s ( S h a l l u m , the h u s b a n d o f the p r o p h e t e s s H u l d a h ) as o f h i g h r e p u t e a n d o f illustrious f a m i l y (oV evyevetav

ein^avovs,

Ant. 10.59) ( w h e r e a s the B i b l e speaks

o f h i m [2 K i n g s 22:14] as m e r e l y the k e e p e r o f the w a r d r o b e ) , G e d a l i a h (the g o v ­ e r n o r o f J u d a e a ) as c o m i n g f r o m a n o b l e f a m i l y (rtov ev yeyovorwv,

Ant. 10.155),

7

a n d E s t h e r as d e s c e n d e d f r o m a r o y a l f a m i l y (Ant. 11.185). I f J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e l a b o r a t e o n E z r a ' s g e n e a l o g y as f o u n d in the B i b l e ( E z r a 7 : 1 - 5 ) it is p e r h a p s b e ­ c a u s e h e w i s h e d t o stress E z r a ' s s u b o r d i n a t i o n to M o s e s . J o s e p h u s ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h n o b l e b i r t h is also s e e n in the a c c o u n t o f D e c i u s M u n d u s ' s love affair w i t h P a u l i n a , w h o w a s h e l d in h i g h r e g a r d " b e c a u s e o f h e r d e s c e n t f r o m n o b l e R o ­ m a n s " (Ant. 18.66) O n the o t h e r h a n d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n , slaves are disqualified f r o m b e i n g witnesses b e c a u s e o f their l o w birth (dyeveia) (Ant. 4.219). Birth T h e r e are m a n y parallels to the p r e d i c t i o n s a n d w o n d r o u s events a t t e n d i n g the 8

birth o f b o t h the m y t h o l o g i c a l a n d the historical h e r o , i n c l u d i n g the motifs o f the p r e d i c t i o n o f his greatness, o f his a b a n d o n m e n t b y his m o t h e r , a n d o f his o v e r ­ c o m i n g the ruler o f the l a n d . J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s m a y best b e a p p r e c i a t e d w h e n his a c c o u n t is c o m p a r e d w i t h parallels in classical literature,

9

which were un­

d o u b t e d l y w e l l k n o w n t o m a n y o f J o s e p h u s ' s literate r e a d e r s , as w e l l as w i t h m i d r a s h i m a n d w i t h the S a m a r i t a n tradition. I n t h e p e r i c o p e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s the p r e d i c t i o n o f the E g y p t i a n sa­ c r e d scribe t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e b o r n to the Israelites a c h i l d w h o w o u l d s o m e d a y a b a s e the s o v e r e i g n t y o f the E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.205). O n e is t h e r e b y r e m i n d e d o f the story, so c e n t r a l in A e s c h y l u s ' s Prometheus trilogy, o f the t h r e a t e n e d o v e r t h r o w o f

7. Moreover, Josephus's preoccupation with noble birth is seen in the account of Decius Mundus's love affair with Paulina, w h o was held in high regard "because o f her descent from noble R o m a n s " (Ant. 18.66). 8. See R a n k 1909, Norden 1924, and T h o m p s o n 1957,5:50, M 311 (s.v. "Prophecy, future greatness of unborn child") for numerous references in various mythologies. 9. O n Josephus's knowledge of Greek literature, see Feldman 1984b, 392-419, 819-22, and 935-37. O n his knowledge o f Latin literature, see Thackeray 1929, 119-20, Nadel 1966, 256-72, and D a u b e 977, 9 - 9 4 J

I

I

88

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Z e u s , since T h e t i s , w h o m h e is c o u r t i n g , is d e s t i n e d to h a v e a s o n m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n the father. O n e also thinks o f the o r a c l e t h a t h a d d e c l a r e d t h a t D a n a e , the d a u g h t e r o f A c r i s i u s , the k i n g o f A r g o s , w o u l d give b i r t h to a s o n w h o w o u l d kill his grandfather, a n d o f A c r i s i u s ' s v a i n a t t e m p t to k e e p his d a u g h t e r shut u p in a s u b t e r r a n e a n c h a m b e r (or t o w e r ) .

10

O n e thinks o f O e d i p u s , w h o s e father L a i u s

h a d b e e n w a r n e d b y a n o r a c l e t h a t i f h e b e g a t a son, h e w o u l d b e slain b y h i m . H e r e , t o o , the infant w a s e x p o s e d b u t w a s s a v e d a n d e v e n t u a l l y d i d slay his father. O t h e r s u c h parallels in G r e e k m y t h o l o g y m a y b e cited: A c h i l l e s , Paris, T e l e p h u s , and Heracles. F r o m R o m a n m y t h o l o g y , the births o f R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s m a y b e c i t e d ;

11

in

their case, K i n g A m u l i u s o f A l b a L o n g a n o t o n l y forcibly d e p r i v e d his o l d e r b r o t h e r N u m i t o r o f the t h r o n e t h a t w a s rightfully his b u t p l o t t e d to p r e v e n t N u mitor's descendants from seeking revenge b y m a k i n g Numitor's daughter, R h e a Silvia, a V e s t a l V i r g i n , t h u s p r e c l u d i n g h e r f r o m m a r r y i n g . T h i s p l o t w a s foiled, h o w e v e r , w h e n she b e c a m e , b y t h e w a r g o d M a r s , the m o t h e r o f twins, w h o , al­ t h o u g h t h r o w n into the T i b e r R i v e r (thus p a r a l l e l i n g P h a r a o h ' s o r d e r s t h a t m a l e c h i l d r e n b e d r o w n e d ) , w e r e w a s h e d a s h o r e , s u c k l e d b y a she-wolf, a n d

then

b r o u g h t u p b y the r o y a l h e r d s m a n Faustulus; e v e n t u a l l y t h e y o v e r t h r e w A m u l i u s a n d r e s t o r e d N u m i t o r t o the t h r o n e . A p a r a l l e l in classical literature to J o s e p h u s ' s e l a b o r a t i o n s o f the b i r t h o f s u c h h e r o e s as M o s e s a n d S a m s o n is the a n n u n c i a t i o n b y the P y t h i a n priestess at D e l ­ p h i t o the father o f P y t h a g o r a s t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e b o r n to h i m a s o n o f e x t r a o r ­ d i n a r y b e a u t y a n d w i s d o m ( I a m b l i c h u s 5.7). T h e r e is also a l e g e n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h P l a t o o f the c h i l d w h o will o v e r c o m e a ruler ( D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 3.2). L i k e w i s e , t h e a p o c a l y p t i c t e c h n i q u e is s e e n in D i d o ' s p r e d i c t i o n o f t h e b i r t h o f o n e w h o w o u l d a v e n g e h e r b e i n g j i l t e d , n a m e l y , H a n n i b a l ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 4.625) ( H a d a s 1948, 413). T h e r e are similar historical p a r a l l e l s t h a t w e r e c o n c e i v a b l y w e l l k n o w n to J o s e ­ p h u s a n d t o his r e a d e r s . T h u s , H e r o d o t u s (1.107) tells o f the d r e a m o f A s t y a g e s , k i n g o f the M e d e s , t h a t his d a u g h t e r M a n d a n e w o u l d h a v e a s o n w h o w o u l d c o n ­ q u e r A s i a . W h e n the son, C y r u s , is b o r n , A s t y a g e s , like P h a r a o h , o r d e r s t h a t h e b e killed; b u t a h e r d s m a n saves h i m a n d rears h i m . T h e son u l t i m a t e l y b e c o m e s k i n g o f Persia a n d defeats A s t y a g e s in battle. M o s e s w o u l d t h u s b e e q u a t e d w i t h C y r u s , the g r e a t n a t i o n a l h e r o o f the Persians.

10. Nevertheless, D a n a e b e c a m e the m o t h e r o f the hero Perseus through her uncle or through Zeus, w h o visited her in the form o f a shower o f gold. Acrisius ordered the m o t h e r and her son to be exposed at sea in a chest (so reminiscent o f the one in w h i c h Moses w a s exposed), but they were res­ cued. Eventually the prophecy was fulfilled w h e n during funeral games for Polydectes, the king o f S e riphos, where the chest landed, the disc thrown b y Perseus w a s carried by the w i n d against the h e a d o f Acrisius and killed him. 11. See Dionysius o f Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.76.1). O n Josephus's knowledge o f Dionysius, see Feldman 1984b, 407-8, 9 3 5 - 3 6 .

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

8g

W e m a y also n o t e t h a t p r i o r to the b i r t h o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t , his father, Philip, d r e a m e d t h a t h e w a s p u t t i n g a seal in the figure o f a l i o n in his wife's w o m b (Plutarch, Alexander 2.5); a n d the seer A r i s t a n d e r o f T e l m e s s u s i n t e r p r e t e d this t o m e a n t h a t Philip's wife O l y m p i a s w a s p r e g n a n t w i t h a s o n w h o w o u l d s o m e d a y p r o v e as stout a n d c o u r a g e o u s as a l i o n . I :

1 2

T h e r e is a c o m p a r a b l e p a s s a g e in L u k e

I —

3 3 3 ? w h e r e the a n g e l G a b r i e l p r e d i c t s to M a r y the f o r t h c o m i n g b i r t h o f a c h i l d

w h o will r e i g n o v e r the h o u s e o f J a c o b forever ( R o b b i n s 1981, 2 9 5 - 9 6 ) . T h e r e is a n affinity b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the b i r t h o f M o s e s after the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d scribe h a s p r e d i c t e d the b i r t h o f a n Israelite c h i l d w h o will o v e r t h r o w the E g y p ­ tians a n d the o r d e r s g i v e n b y P h a r a o h to destroy all m a l e c h i l d r e n b o r n to the Is­ raelites (Ant. 2.205-9), o n the o n e h a n d , a n d the story o f the b i r t h o f Jesus a n d the s l a u g h t e r o f the i n n o c e n t s ( M a t t . 2:16), o n the o t h e r (Ferrari d ' O c c h i e p p o 1 9 7 7 , 1 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , in his Life of Augustus (94), S u e t o n i u s gives a n a c c o u n t o f the o m e n s t h a t o c c u r r e d before A u g u s t u s w a s b o r n , as w e l l as those t h a t a p p e a r e d o n the v e r y d a y o f his b i r t h a n d afterwards, f r o m w h i c h , h e c o n c l u d e s , it w a s possible to a n t i c i p a t e his future g r e a t n e s s a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d g o o d fortune. I n particular, h e relates (94.4) that A u g u s t u s ' s m o t h e r fell a s l e e p in the T e m p l e o f A p o l l o , a n d t h a t the b i r t h o f A u g u s t u s n i n e m o n t h s later s u g g e s t e d a d i v i n e paternity. I n d e e d , D i o C a s s i u s (45.1) r e p o r t s the b e l i e f t h a t A p o l l o e n g e n d e r e d A u g u s t u s . H e i n c l u d e s t h r e e d r e a m s a m o n g f o u r t e e n s u c h i t e m s ; for e x a m p l e , a m a n d r e a m e d o f the s a v i o r o f the R o m a n p e o p l e , a n d t h e n , o n m e e t i n g A u g u s t u s for the first time, d e c l a r e d t h a t h e w a s the b o y a b o u t w h o m h e h a d d r e a m e d . Similarly, Philostratus tells o f a p o r ­ tent at the b i r t h o f the p h i l o s o p h e r A p o l l o n i u s ; " N o d o u b t , " h e r e m a r k s , " t h e g o d s w e r e g i v i n g a r e v e l a t i o n — a n o m e n o f his brilliance, his e x a l t a t i o n a b o v e e a r t h l y things, his closeness t o h e a v e n " (Life of Apollonius ofTyana 1 . 5 ) .

13

J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s c o n s i d e r a b l y b o t h the a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d the e x p e c t a t i o n s u r r o u n d i n g the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f M o s e s ' b i r t h (Ant. 2 . 2 1 0 - 1 6 ) . I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s a d d s e x t r a b i b l i c a l details d e s c r i b i n g the birth itself, n o t i n g that J o c h e b e d g a v e birth w i t h g e n d e n e s s a n d w i t h o u t a n y v i o l e n t throes (Ant. 2.218), thus i m p l y i n g t h a t this w a s the b i r t h o f a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y child. L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s g o e s c o n s i d e r a b l y b e y o n d the B i b l e in h e i g h t e n i n g the e x ­ p e c t a t i o n s s u r r o u n d i n g the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f S a m s o n ' s b i r t h (Ant. 5 . 2 7 6 - 8 4 ) . H i s

12. Cf. Q u i n t u s Curtius, History of Alexander 1, w h o notes a portent plus an interpretive prophecy. 13. See Talbert 1980, 129-41, w h o cites similar examples from Suetonius's lives o f the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, N e r o , Vespasian, and Titus, as well as from Plutarch's lives o f Pericles (6.2-3), M a r ius (3.3-4.1), and Lycurgus (5), and from the lives o f the emperors H a d r i a n (2.4, 8, 9), Severus (1.7-8), and Antoninus Pius (3.1-5) in the Historia Augusta. T h e convention, as Talbert remarks, being subject to perversion, could be ridiculed in satire, as in Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet. S u c h analogies might support the arguments o f Gressmann 1913 and Freud 1939 that M o s e s was the son o f Pharaoh's daugh­ ter and that the real intention o f Pharaoh's c o m m a n d was not to drown the H e b r e w children but rather to secure the death o f his daughter's child. But neither Josephus nor any o f the Jew-baiters w h o m he cites in the essay Against Apion make such a claim, and it is hazardous to conjecture. A n o t h e r a n a l o g y would be with O e d i p u s .

go

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

father, w e are told, w a s m a d l y in love w i t h his wife a n d i n o r d i n a t e l y j e a l o u s (Ant. 5.277); a n d the s c e n e o f the a n g e l ' s a p p e a r a n c e t o M a n o a h ' s wife is g r e a t l y e m ­ b e l l i s h e d (Ant. 5 . 2 7 7 - 7 8 ) . Precociousness O n e o f the subjects t h a t a n e n c o m i u m w a s to c o v e r w a s the p e r s o n ' s n u r t u r e a n d t r a i n i n g ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 8 2 - 8 3 ) . M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (2.371.17-372.2) cites as a t o p i c to b e c o v e r e d w h e t h e r the p e r s o n w a s r e a r e d in a p a l a c e a n d w a s b r o u g h t u p f r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g in a r o y a l setting. T h e e n c o m i u m s h o u l d s p e a k o f his " l o v e o f l e a r n i n g , his q u i c k n e s s , his e n t h u s i a s m for study, his e a s y g r a s p o f w h a t w a s t a u g h t h i m . " I n this respect, J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h a v e m o l d e d his b i b l i c a l h e ­ roes in his o w n i m a g e (or v i c e versa), since h e cites his o w n p r e c o c i t y , n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e still a m e r e y o u t h , a b o u t f o u r t e e n y e a r s o f age, h e w o n u n i v e r s a l a p p l a u s e for his love o f letters, a n d t h a t the c h i e f priests a n d the l e a d i n g m e n o f J e r u s a l e m u s e d t o c o m e t o h i m c o n s t a n d y for p r e c i s e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to the l a w s (Life 9). O n e o f the t y p i c a l motifs o f H e l l e n i s t i c , R o m a n , C h r i s t i a n , a n d r a b b i n i c

1 4

bi­

o g r a p h i e s o f a h e r o e s alike w a s the e x c e p t i o n a l p h y s i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t , beauty, selfc o n t r o l , a n d p r e c o c i o u s intellectual d e v e l o p m e n t attributed child.

15

to the h e r o as a

I n the c a s e o f a h e r o s u c h as R o m u l u s , it is his s u p e r i o r i t y o f stature a n d

strength o f b o d y t h a t i m p r e s s his g r a n d f a t h e r N u m i t o r w h e n his identity is n o t y e t k n o w n (Plutarch, Romulus 7 . 3 - 4 ) . A g a i n , it is w h i l e still a b o y t h a t A l e x a n d e r s h o w s s u c h r e m a r k a b l e self-restraint w h e n it c o m e s to p l e a s u r e s o f t h e b o d y , k e e p i n g his spirit serious a n d lofty in a d v a n c e o f his y e a r s , despite his t e n d e n c y to i m p e t u o s i t y a n d v i o l e n c e in o t h e r m a t t e r s (Plutarch, Alexander 4.8). Similarly, J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' g r o w t h in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (avveais)

far

o u t s t r i p p e d his p h y s i c a l g r o w t h , a n d t h a t e v e n in his g a m e s , h e d i s p l a y e d his s u p e ­ riority (Trepiovolav), so t h a t his a c h i e v e m e n t s e v e n at t h a t t e n d e r a g e g a v e p r o m i s e o f g r e a t e r d e e d s y e t to c o m e (Ant. 2.230).

16

W h i l e y e t a n infant, M o s e s flings to the

14. See Perrot 1967, 481-518, w h o has collected the aggadic materials relating to the childhood of N o a h , A b r a h a m , Isaac, Moses, Samson, Samuel, and Elijah. T h u s w e hear, for example, that A b r a ­ ham in his third year recognized that all the idols of his father were naught and destroyed them (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 38, T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 11:28). 15. O n e m a y note the examples, cited b y Talbert 1980, 135, in Plutarch's Theseus (6.4), Solon (2), Themistocks (2.1), Dion (4.2), Alexander (5.1), Romulus (8), a n d Cicero (2.2); Quintus Curtius's History of Alexan­ der (1); Philostratus's Life of Apollonius ofTyana (1.7. n ) ; Pseudo-Callisthenes' Alexander Romance; 1 Enoch 106:11 (where N o a h blesses G - d while still in the hands of a midwife); Philo's De Vita Mosis (1.5.20-24, 1.6.25-29); and Jubilees 11-12 (Abraham as a child prodigy). See Bieler 1935, 1:34-38, and Usener 1912, 4:127-28. T h e latter cites the examples of Evangelos of Miletus (Conon, Narrationes 44), Amphoteos and A k a r n a n the son o f Callirhoe (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1.7.4). C f Luke 2:40, 52, where we are told that the child Jesus "grew a n d became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of G - d was upon him. . . . A n d Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature a n d in favor with G - d and man." See Scherb 1930, cited by Levy 1927, 141, n. 4. 16. T o be sure, Moses' precocity is also recognized b y Philo, w h o notes that the young Moses did not engage in fun, frolic, and sport like an infant, even though his guardians were utterly lenient, but

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

gi

g r o u n d the c r o w n p l a c e d u p o n his h e a d b y P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.233), t h u s p r e s a g i n g his later l e a d e r s h i p o f the r e b e l l i o n o f the H e b r e w s .

1 7

S u c h a p i c t u r e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f

that o f t h e t e n - y e a r - o l d future P e r s i a n k i n g C y r u s , w h o s e p a r e n t a g e w a s d i s c o v ­ ered through an incident while he was playing with village boys, w h e n he ordered o n e o f t h e m t o b e b e a t e n b e c a u s e h e h a d d i s o b e y e d his c o m m a n d . L i k e w i s e , w e m a y n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s the t h e m e o f the p r e c o c i o u s n e s s o f S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.2, 211) a n d o f J o s i a h (Ant. 10.50) (see F e l d m a n 1993k, 1 1 5 - 1 6 ) .

Physical Attractiveness A l s o to b e c o v e r e d in a n e n c o m i u m , a c c o r d i n g to the r h e t o r i c i a n s , are the p e r s o n ' s " a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s " (eVtTTySeu^aTa) a n d " d e e d s " (irpd^eis). I n the f o r m u l a t i o n s o f the r h e t o r i c i a n s H e r m o g e n e s , A p h t h o n i u s , a n d T h e o n , the o n e c o m m o n d e n o m ­ i n a t o r t h a t is s i n g l e d o u t u n d e r the h e a d i n g o f " d e e d s o f the b o d y " is b e a u t y ( N e y r e y 1994, 1 8 3 - 8 7 ) . I n his consistent e m p h a s i s u p o n the h a n d s o m e n e s s o f his h e r o e s , J o s e p h u s re­ m i n d s us o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f p h y s i c a l b e a u t y for H o m e r — a s , for e x a m p l e , in the s c e n e w h e r e t h e G r e e k s r u n to g a z e u p o n the stature (forjv) a n d a d m i r a b l e f o r m (etSos dyrjTov) o f H e c t o r after h e h a s b e e n slain b y A c h i l l e s (Iliad 22.370). T h i s stress o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f p h y s i c a l b e a u t y calls to m i n d Plato's r e m a r k t h a t the p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s s h o u l d b e , so far as possible, the m o s t h a n d s o m e

(eveiheardrovs)

p e r s o n s (Republic 7.535 A n - 1 2 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , S o c r a t e s ' c l o s i n g p r a y e r in the Phaedrus (279) is t h a t his o u t e r a n d i n n e r b e a u t y m a y b e as o n e . T h i s s e e m s to b e a s t o c k r e m a r k a b o u t the future g r e a t m a n , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in the s t a t e m e n t o f A p o l l o n i u s - I a m b l i c h u s (10, p . 1 1 , lines 6 - 7 ; cf. A p u l e i u s , Florida) t h a t e v e r y o n e t u r n e d (eWaTpepovr)Trjs) c a n j u s t l y b e a p p l i e d o n l y t o s u c h as h a v e e m u l a t e d S a u l , since h e e n g a g e d in his e x p l o i t s k n o w i n g b e f o r e h a n d that h e w a s d e s t i n e d to die (Ant 6.347). W h e n S a m u e l m i s t a k e n l y thinks t h a t Jesse's eldest s o n is t h e o n e to b e s e l e c t e d as king, G - d tells h i m t h a t t h e qualities t h a t H e seeks in a k i n g a r e piety, j u s t i c e , b r a v e r y (dvSpeia), a n d o b e d i e n c e (Ant

6.160). J o s e p h u s likewise u n d e r l i n e s

the

c o u r a g e o u s e x p l o i t o f D a v i d in w i n n i n g the h a n d o f S a u l ' s d a u g h t e r M i c h a l b y slaying six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant 6 . 1 9 6 - 2 0 4 ) . E l s e w h e r e the Israelites e x p r e s s their fear t h a t t h r o u g h his b r a v e r y (dvhpeiav)

a n d z e a l (TTpoBvpLiav), D a v i d m i g h t

suffer injury a n d thus d e p r i v e t h e m o f his p r o t e c t i o n (Ant 7.300); a n d in his e u l o g y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t h e w a s b r a v e (dvhpeios) as n o o n e else w a s (Ant 7.390). Finally, w e m a y n o t e s u c h a m i l i t a r y a d d i t i o n , i n f l u e n c e d p e r h a p s b y details from T i t u s ' s siege, as H u s h a i ' s s p e a k i n g o f the siege m a c h i n e r y a n d u n d e r g r o u n d m i n e s o f t h e a t t a c k e r s (Ant 7.220), O n e striking e x c e p t i o n to J o s e p h u s ' s m a g n i f y i n g o f t h e q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e o f his biblical h e r o e s is to b e s e e n in his t r e a t m e n t o f H e z e k i a h . N o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s n o t e n h a n c e H e z e k i a h ' s c o u r a g e , b u t h e e v e n g o e s to t h e e x t r e m e o f asserting t h a t it w a s o u t o f c o w a r d i c e (heiXias) t h a t w h e n the A s s y r i a n s e n c a m p e d b e f o r e t h e walls o f J e r u s a l e m a n d a s k e d h i m t o p a r l e y w i t h t h e m , H e z e k i a h d i d n o t c o m e o u t h i m s e l f to m e e t t h e m b u t sent three friends i n s t e a d (Ant 10.5 v s . 2 K i n g s 18:18). A l ­ t h o u g h , to b e sure, J o s e p h u s ' s g e n e r a l p o r t r a i t o f H e z e k i a h is t r u e to t h e B i b l e in n o t i n g his g o o d n e s s , j u s t i c e , a n d p i e t y (Ant 9.260), J o s e p h u s , l o o k i n g at H e z e k i a h from a p u r e l y m i l i t a r y p o i n t o f view, m a y h a v e s e e n a p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n t h e situa­ tion in w h i c h H e z e k i a h f o u n d h i m s e l f o p p o s i n g the m i l i t a r y p o w e r o f his d a y — A s ­ s y r i a — i n s t e a d o f realistically a c c o m m o d a t i n g h i m s e l f to it, a n d t h e situation in w h i c h the v a r i o u s J e w i s h r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p s o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y c h o s e t h e suicidal p a t h o f w a r a g a i n s t t h e m i g h t y R o m a n E m p i r e r a t h e r t h a n o f s e e k i n g a m o d u s v i v e n d i w i t h it. A s o n e w h o h a d c h o s e n t h e latter route, J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m a y h a v e b e e n a r g u i n g in self-defense in his distinct l a c k o f e n t h u s i a s m

for

H e z e k i a h ' s m i l i t a r y j u d g m e n t (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 5 9 7 - 6 1 0 ) . Temperance and Modesty.

O n e o f the t w o f a m o u s m o t t o e s i n s c r i b e d at D e l p h i

w a s pbrjBev dyav, " n o t h i n g in e x c e s s . " T h a t this m o t t o h a d t o b e i n s c r i b e d w o u l d s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e G r e e k s w e r e i n c l i n e d to g o to excess. I n G r e e k literature,

no

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

too, o n e finds d i s p a r a g e m e n t o f rashness, s u c h as I s m e n e ' s bitter c o m m e n t to h e r sister A n t i g o n e in the Antigone (88) o f S o p h o c l e s : " Y o u h a v e a h o t h e a r t [deppurjv . . . Kdphiav] o v e r chilly t h i n g s . " Similarly, the Israelites h a d to b e e x h o r t e d b y M o s e s b e f o r e his d e a t h to l e a r n m o d e r a t i o n (oto<j)povr)oeiv) (Ant. 4.189), w h i c h h e identi­ fies w i t h c l e m e n c y a n d modesty. It is significant t h a t it is this q u a l i t y o f t e m p e r ­ a n c e , otoepois, " l u x u r i o u s , " "effeminate") p e o p l e , slaves t o p l e a s u r e in g e n e r a l a n d t o a l o v e o f l u c r e , s l a c k to labor, a n d c o n s e q u e n d y j e a l o u s o f the p r o s p e r i t y o f t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 2.201). I n contrast, the b i b l i c a l t e x t says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e excesses o f t h e E g y p t i a n s b u t r a t h e r states as t h e c a u s e o f t h e E g y p t i a n e n s l a v e m e n t o f the Israelites t h a t t h e Is­ raelites w e r e m o r e n u m e r o u s a n d m i g h t i e r t h a n t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d t h a t t h e y feared t h a t t h e y w o u l d j o i n a n e n e m y in fighting a g a i n s t t h e m ( E x o d . 1 : 9 - 1 0 ) .

37

It

is h o t - h e a d e d n e s s (deppuorepov) t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s the E g y p t i a n s , w h o , after b e i n g saved b y M o s e s , t h e n c o n c e i v e a h a t r e d for h i m a n d p u r s u e their plots u p o n his life w i t h g r e a t e r a r d o r (Ant. 2.254). T h e r e a d e r will r e c a l l t h a t it w a s p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f self-control (aKpaoias) in r e v o l t i n g a g a i n s t M o s e s in t h e w i l d e r n e s s after l e a v i n g E g y p t t h a t t h e Israelites w e r e c o n d e m n e d t o w a n d e r for forty y e a r s (Ant. 3.314). I n his e u l o g y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s refers to h i m as self-controlled (oaxfrpcuv) a n d m i l d (ernei/c^s) (Ant. 1

7-39 )- W e see t h e

antithesis

o f moderation

in N a b a l ' s w a n t

of judgment

(dcppoovvrj) in refusing to p r e s e n t gifts to D a v i d (Ant. 6.302). T o Josephus, hot-headedness w a s the defining characteristic o f the revolution­ aries a g a i n s t R o m e w h o m h e so d e s p i s e d ; h e n c e w e c a n see t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s c l e a r c o n d e m n a t i o n o f J e r o b o a m , w h o m h e d e p i c t s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , as h o t - h e a d e d (OeppLos) b y n a t u r e (Ant. 8.209). F u r t h e r m o r e , it w a s A n tiochus E p i p h a n e s ' u n g o v e r n a b l e (aKpaoias)

p a s s i o n s t h a t l e d h i m to p e r s e c u t e t h e

J e w s (War 1.34). A n d it is this s a m e l a c k o f self-control (aKpaolav)

that characterizes

the G r e e k divinities (Ag. Ap. 2.244). A b o v e all, J o s e p h u s , as a l w a y s , w a s t h i n k i n g o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y situation. T h i s w e c a n see, for i n s t a n c e , in his r e m a r k t h a t o n e o f the factors p r o v o k i n g t h e

37. Apparendy, Josephus, self-conscious about the vast increase in the number of Jews in his o w n day, largely through proselytism, preferred not to remind his readers o f the population explosion of the Jews and the fear of the Romans that their pagan religion would be overwhelmed by the Jews. Cf. Jose­ phus, Against Apion 2.282: " T h e masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious ob­ servances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian,. . . to which our customs have not spread." T h e fact that Josephus speaks of the masses (TrX^OeoLv) and that he refers to their zeal (£r}Xos) indicates that we are dealing with a mass movement. Further evidence of the spread of the Torah throughout the world may be seen in Josephus's analogy comparing the spread o f the Law, that is, o f Judaism, to the degree to which G - d permeates the universe (Ag. Ap. 2.284). H e comments on the gracious welcome extended by Jews to all w h o wished to adopt their laws (Ag. Ap. 2.210). H e states that many of the Greeks had agreed to adopt the laws o f Jews (Ag. Ap. 2.123). O n the success of Jews in winning proselytes dur­ ing the Hellenistic-Roman period, see Feldman 1993a, 288-341.

H2

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

r e v o l u t i o n w a s the a c t i o n b y s o m e o f the m o r e h o t - h e a d e d (ol deppLorepoi) o f the J e w i s h y o u t h s in a t t a c k i n g the b u i l d e r s o f w o r k s h o p s a n d t r y i n g to disrupt o p e r a ­ tors o n

a site n e x t t o the

s y n a g o g u e (War

2.286). A

similar

hot-blooded

(Oeppborepovs) c h a r a c t e r is e v i d e n c e d b y the Z e a l o t s , w h o p l u n g e d b o l d l y into the h e a r t o f the city o f J e r u s a l e m a n d o p e n e d the gates to their allies, the I d u m a e a n s (W^r 4.292). T h e i d e n t i c a l t e r m is u s e d , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s a b h o r r e n c e o f civil w a r , o f the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , w h o t h o u g h d e s s l y r u s h e d into a r m s , their h a n d s yet h o t (Qeppids) w i t h the b l o o d o f their c o u n t r y m e n (War 6.122). T h e s a m e c h a r ­ acteristic is to b e s e e n in the a d v i c e g i v e n b y t h o s e — c l e a r l y b o t h T i t u s a n d J o s e ­ p h u s are in d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e m — i n T i t u s ' s c o u n c i l o f w a r w h o w e r e m o r e h o t - h e a d e d (OeppLorepois) a n d w h o a d v o c a t e d b r i n g i n g u p his entire force a n d at­ t e m p t i n g to c a r r y the w a l l o f J e r u s a l e m b y s t o r m (War 5.491). T e m p e r a n c e , for the a n c i e n t s , w a s s h o w n p r i m a r i l y in o n e ' s e a t i n g habits; a n d , i n d e e d , a m a j o r criticism l e v e l e d a g a i n s t t h e J e w s b y the p a g a n w r i t e r s is t h a t t h e y are g u i l t y o f s t u b b o r n e x c l u s i v e n e s s a n d s e p a r a t i s m , l a r g e l y b e c a u s e o f their o b ­ s e r v a n c e o f the d i e t a r y l a w s ( F e l d m a n 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 , 28-30). A n d y e t , w h e n A r i s t o d e , a c c o r d i n g to his disciple C l e a r c h u s o f S o l i , m e t a J e w in A s i a M i n o r in the fourth c e n t u r y B.C.E., h e w a s i m p r e s s e d w i t h the J e w ' s t e m p e r a n c e (acoc^poavvrjv) in his w a y o f life

(SICUT^)

(ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.182). T h e G r e e k w o r d

SIAITA,

w h i c h is

h e r e u s e d for " w a y o f life" o r " r e g i m e n , " refers particularly, as d o e s its E n g l i s h d e ­ rivative, to diet. T h e s a m e w o r d , S u u r a , is u s e d four t i m e s in d e s c r i b i n g the diet o f D a n i e l a n d his c o l l e a g u e s (Ant. 10.187, 190, 1 9 1 , 192). Q u i t e clearly, the hiana

of

D a n i e l a n d his c o l l e a g u e s is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h a t o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , w h o s e w a y o f l i v i n g w a s c h a n g e d to t h a t o f beasts (Ant. 10.242). C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h m o d e r a t i o n is the q u a l i t y o f m o d e s t y , w i t h w h i c h J o s e ­ p h u s identifies it (Ant. 6.63). A n d y e t , the p a g a n s t e n d e d to f r o w n u p o n m o d e s t y . Aristotle, for e x a m p l e , is critical o f the u n d u l y h u m b l e m a n w h o , a l t h o u g h w o r t h y o f g o o d things, r o b s h i m s e l f o f w h a t h e d e s e r v e s (Nicomachean Ethics 4 . 4 . 1 1 2 5 B 7 - 2 7 ) . A r i s t o d e ' s c h a r g e t h a t the u n d u l y h u m b l e m a n d o e s n o t k n o w h i m s e l f is p a r t i c u ­ larly serious, e s p e c i a l l y since h e also says t h a t u n d u e h u m i l i t y is m o r e o p p o s e d to p r i d e t h a n is vanity, b e i n g b o t h c o m m o n e r a n d w o r s e . O n the o t h e r h a n d , M o s e s ' m o d e s t y is s h o w n b y the fact t h a t h e w a s w i l l i n g t o t a k e a d v i c e f r o m his father-inl a w a n d t h a t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d this assistance (Ant. 3.74). L i k e w i s e , M o s e s m o d e s d y r e c o r d e d the p r o p h e c i e s o f B a l a a m , a l t h o u g h h e c o u l d easily h a v e a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e m for himself, since t h e r e w a s n o w i t n e s s to c o n v i c t h i m (Ant. 4.157). T h u s M o s e s w a s n o t g u i l t y o f the sin o f p l a g i a r i s m , so f r e q u e n d y p r a c t i c e d in a n t i q u i t y .

38

S a m s o n s h o w s the q u a l i t y o f h u m i l i t y in a c k n o w l e d g i n g , after h e h a d b e e n s e i z e d b y a m i g h t y thirst, t h a t h u m a n v i r t u e (dperrj) is n o t h i n g , since all is attributable to G-d

(Ant. 5.302). S a u l is p r a i s e d for his restraint (eyKpdreiav)

and

modesty

38. For examples of plagiarism, see Aristophanes' accusation of Eupolis (Clouds 553-54) and Eupolis's o f Aristophanes (fr. 78, Kock). Plato was accused o f deriving the idea o f the Republic from the Sophist Protagoras. In Hellenistic Alexandria, investigations of plagiarism were apparendy frequent.

THE

QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

113

(pa)(j>poavvrjv) w h e n Jie is c h o s e n k i n g (Ant. 6.63). Finally, S o l o m o n , as w e h a v e n o t e d a b o v e , exhibits m o d e s t y in r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a T y r i a n lad, A b d e m o n , w a s able to solve riddles t h a t h e h a d p r e p a r e d , w h e r e a s h e h i m s e l f h a d failed to solve A b d e m o n ' s riddles (Ant. 8 . 1 4 6 - 4 9 ) . For J o s e p h u s oaxfrpoovvr} is closely c o n n e c t e d w i t h the issue o f o b e d i e n c e a n d respect for a u t h o r i t y ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . T h e antithesis o f this q u a l i t y is a t h o u g h t ­ less, reckless attitude, s e e n in the ill-advisedness (afiovXia) o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.163) a n d in the l a c k o f j u d g m e n t (ticfrpoovvrj) o f P h a r a o h in his r e s p o n s e t o M o s e s (Ant. 2.307). Justice and Truth.

T h e c r o w n o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, as w e see f r o m the fact t h a t

it is the subject o f Plato's m o s t f a m o u s d i a l o g u e , The Republic, is j u s t i c e ; a n d , in­ d e e d , this is the m o s t inclusive t e r m for v i r t u e in g e n e r a l . H e r e , t o o , J o s e p h u s e m ­ p h a s i z e s this q u a l i t y in his m a j o r h e r o e s .

39

A r i s t o d e states t h a t m e n h o n o r m o s t the

j u s t a n d the c o u r a g e o u s , a n d h e c l e a r l y i m p l i e s t h a t j u s t i c e is s u p e r i o r e v e n to c o u r a g e , since, h e r e m a r k s , c o u r a g e is useful to o t h e r s in w a r , w h e r e a s j u s t i c e is useful b o t h in w a r a n d in p e a c e (Rhetoric 1 . 9 . 1 3 6 6 B 5 - 6 ) . P l u t a r c h gives still a n o t h e r r e a s o n w h y j u s t i c e is s u p e r i o r to c o u r a g e — n a m e l y , t h a t s o m e c o u r a g e o u s p e o p l e h a v e a start o r a d v a n t a g e s u p p l i e d b y the g e n e r o s i t y o f n a t u r e , w h e r e a s all m e n start at the s a m e p o i n t in their q u e s t for j u s t i c e (Cato the Younger 44.8). H e d e s c r i b e s the t e r m "just" as the m o s t r o y a l a n d d i v i n e o f tides (Aristides 6.2). T h a t it is a tide o f g r e a t p r a i s e is c l e a r f r o m its h a v i n g b e e n a p p l i e d to the f a m o u s A t h e n i a n states­ m a n A r i s t i d e s . H e t h e n g o e s o n to r e m a r k that m e n e n v y the g o d s b e c a u s e o f their incorruptibility; w e fear their p o w e r , b u t w e love a n d h o n o r the g o d s for their j u s ­ tice. P l u t a r c h r e m a r k s t h a t j u s t i c e is the m o s t b e c o m i n g f u n c t i o n t h a t a k i n g h a s t o c a r r y o u t (Demetrius 4 2 . 5 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s says t h a t a k i n g s h o u l d h a v e a p e r p e t u a l c a r e for j u s t i c e a n d v i r t u e in e v e r y o t h e r f o r m (Ant. 4.223). It is, h o w e v e r , as r a r e as it is useful ( P l u t a r c h , Titus

1 1 . 4 - 5 ) . T h e r e a s o n for its rarity, a c c o r d i n g to

P l u t a r c h , is that, e v e n t h o u g h it w i n s the c o n f i d e n c e o f t h e m a n y , it p r o v o k e s t h e e n v y o f o n e ' s p e e r s (Cato the Younger 4 4 . 1 1 - 1 4 ) , as w e also see i n the c a s e o f M o s e s , w h o is e n v i e d b y his p e e r K o r a h . B u t t h e g r e a t e s t a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e j u s t m a n , as w e see i n P l u t a r c h ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f Pericles, is t h a t h e n e v e r uses his p o s i t i o n to d e ­ stroy his p o l i t i c a l e n e m i e s (Precepts on Public Life), this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e i n g illus­ t r a t e d b y the f o r b e a r a n c e w i t h w h i c h M o s e s deals w i t h his g r e a t rivals, K o r a h , D a t h a n , a n d A b i r a m . A n d y e t , g r e a t as j u s t i c e is, the q u e s t i o n arises o f w h e t h e r the j u s t m a n is useful o n l y t o o t h e r s a n d n o t to h i m s e l f ( P l u t a r c h , Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 3 - 4 ) . T o J o s e p h u s , j u s t i c e (hUrj) is a u t o n o m o u s (Ant. 6.305, 13.294; War 5.27, 5.34),

39. Attridge (1976a, 115) states that the quality of justice is ascribed by Josephus to almost every

positively evaluated figure in his Antiquities; but while he then proceeds to cite eight biblical figures as examples, he omits Moses.

ii4

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

a n d the L a w is similarly d e p i c t e d (Pfeifer 1967). J o s e p h u s p r o u d l y r e m a r k s t h a t w h i l e c u s t o m s v a r y e v e n w i t h i n a g i v e n n a t i o n , j u s t i c e is r e g a r d e d as m o s t useful b y b o t h the G r e e k s a n d the n o n - G r e e k s , a n d t h a t the l a w s o f the J e w s e v i d e n c e t h e greatest sense o f j u s t i c e , so that, i f t h e y are k e p t properly, the J e w s m u s t b e k i n d a n d friendly to all m e n (Ant. 16.176). J o s e p h u s , in e x p a n d i n g o n the b i b l i c a l state­ m e n t "Justice, o n l y j u s t i c e shalt t h o u p u r s u e " ( D e u t . 16:20), g i v e s a t h e o l o g i c a l r e a ­ son w h y a j u d g e must show n o favoritism—namely, that otherwise G - d w o u l d ap­ p e a r to b e a c c o u n t e d w e a k e r t h a n t h o s e to w h o m , f r o m fear o f strength, the j u d g e a c c o r d s his v o t e . G - d ' s strength, h e says, is j u s t i c e , a n d o n e w h o g i v e s this a w a y o u t o f favor to p e r s o n s o f r a n k m a k e s t h e m a p p e a r m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n G - d H i m ­ self (Ant. 4.217). Justice, h e c o n c l u d e s , is the sole d i v i n e attribute t h a t it is w i t h i n the p o w e r o f m a n to attain. It is m o s t profitable for all m e n , G r e e k s a n d n o n - G r e e k s alike, h e e m p h a s i z e s , to p r a c t i c e j u s t i c e , " a b o u t w h i c h o u r l a w s are m o s t c o n ­ c e r n e d " (Ant. 16.177). W h a t h i g h e r j u s t i c e is there, e x c l a i m s J o s e p h u s i n his p e r ­ o r a t i o n at the e n d o f the essay Against Apion (2.293),

m

a

n

o b e d i e n c e to the l a w s ?

Justice is i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f law, as w e see, for e x ­ a m p l e , in S o c r a t e s ' c o m m e n t t h a t the lawful is i d e n t i c a l w i t h the j u s t (ap. X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia 4.4.12). T h e ruler, a c c o r d i n g to the first-century p h i l o s o ­ p h e r M u s o n i u s , J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y , m u s t h i m s e l f b e " A n i m a t e L a w , " t h a t is, t h e e m b o d i m e n t o f law, c r e a t i n g a l a w - a b i d i n g spirit a n d u n a n i m i t y a n d t h r u s t i n g 40

o u t lawlessless a n d strife (On Kingship, ap. S t o b a e u s 4 . 7 . 6 7 ) . W i t h o u t j u s t i c e , says the p h i l o s o p h e r D i o t o g e n e s (ap. S t o b a e u s 4.7.61), n o o n e w o u l d b e k i n g , a n d w i t h ­ o u t law, t h e r e w o u l d b e n o j u s t i c e . L a w , says the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y B.C.E. p h i l o s o p h e r A r c h y t a s o f T a r e n t u m (ap. S t o b a e u s 4 . 1 . 1 3 2 , 1 3 5 - 3 8 , 4.5.61), b e a r s the s a m e rela­ t i o n s h i p to the h u m a n soul a n d life as h a r m o n y to h e a r i n g a n d s p e e c h . R e s p e c t for l a w w a s a q u a l i t y o f s u p r e m e i m p o r t a n c e to the R o m a n s , w h o p l a c e d s u c h a p r e ­ m i u m u p o n a n d t o o k so m u c h p r i d e in their a l l e g i a n c e t o a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f law. T h e J e w s , for their p a r t , says J o s e p h u s , strive e s p e c i a l l y to e d u c a t e their chil­ d r e n to k e e p the l a w s a n d the a n c i e n t p i e t y (Ag. Ap. 1.60). J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r sensitive t o the i m p o r t a n c e o f o b s e r v a n c e o f the tradi­ t i o n a l l a w s , since his favorite historical m o d e l , T h u c y d i d e s , c o n s t a n t l y stresses the dire results arising f r o m their d i s r e g a r d , as for e x a m p l e d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f the p l a g u e in A t h e n s (2.52-53). T h e R o m a n s felt strongly, in the w o r d s o f E n n i u s , t h a t their state a n d its v e r y strength d e p e n d e d u p o n a l l e g i a n c e t o the a n c i e n t l a w s (Moribus antiquis res stat Romana viresque). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s re­ m a r k s t h a t K i n g D a v i d w a s b y n a t u r e " s t r o n g l y o b s e r v a n t o f the a n c e s t r a l l a w s " (Ant. 7.130). I n fact, it is a c o n t i n u i n g t h e m e in J o s e p h u s t h a t the k i n g s o f Israel c a m e to g r i e f p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t o b s e r v e the a n c e s t r a l l a w s . T h e H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n p h i l o s o p h e r s c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d a r e s p e c t for l a w

40. G o o d e n o u g h 1928, 63, cites Isocrates: " O b e y the laws which the kings lay d o w n , but bear in mind that the mightiest law is the kings' disposition" (Ad Demonianum 36).

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

115

w i t h piety. T h u s M u s o n i u s , in his p o r t r a y a l o f the i d e a l ruler, singles o u t t w o q u a l ­ ities in particular, his e m b o d i m e n t o f l a w a n d his c a r e in the w o r s h i p o f Z e u s ; t h e r o y a l i d e a l is a n imitatio dei, a n d the k i n g is to b e , like Z e u s , a father t o his subjects. T h e reverse, napavopula,

" l a w l e s s n e s s , " l e a d s to daejSeta, " i m p i e t y , " the m a r k o f the

tyrant, w h o , as S o c r a t e s is r e p r e s e n t e d as s a y i n g , rules n o t a c c o r d i n g t o the l a w s b u t a c c o r d i n g t o his o w n w i s h e s (ap. X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia

4.6.12).

41

T o J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o is b o t h the m o s t a n c i e n t a n d the best o f legislators in the h i s t o r y o f the w o r l d , in t h a t his state w a s a t r u e t h e o c r a c y , r u l e d b y G - d H i m s e l f (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 5 4 - 8 9 ) . I n d e e d , the d i v i n e l y g i v e n L a w t h a t h e t r a n s m i t t e d to the Israelites parallels P l a t o ' s Laws in m a n y respects (Ag. Ap. 2.168, 257; see A m i r 1994)J o s e p h u s stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f r e s p e c t for those w h o are c h a r g e d w i t h the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n to his s u m m a r y o f l a w s in the P e n t a t e u c h , h e stresses t h a t the L a w r e q u i r e s t h a t those w h o s e d u t y it is t o a d m i n i s t e r j u s t i c e b e h e l d in all h o n o r , a n d those w h o a p p e a r b e f o r e t h e m are n o t p e r m i t t e d to b e a b u s i v e o r insolent in their p r e s e n c e (Ant. 4.215). B y b e h a v i n g r e v ­ erentially t h u s b e f o r e j u d g e s , h e r e m a r k s , p e o p l e will c e r t a i n l y n o t b e c o n t e m p t u ­ ous o f G - d . I n p r e s e n t i n g this view, J o s e p h u s , w h o shortly b e f o r e this p a s s a g e in­ terprets the w o r d Elokim in E x o d . 22:27 to m e a n " g o d s , " a n d t o signify t h a t o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d to s p e a k in d e r o g a t o r y fashion a b o u t o t h e r p e o p l e ' s g o d s

(Ant.

4.207), h e r e a d d s the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f o u n d in the r a b b i n i c tradition, t h a t the w o r d refers to j u d g e s (Tevamot 22b) (see P e a r c e 1995). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e , j u s t i c e is d i s p l a y e d b y A b r a h a m , w h o is termed a just

(hiKaios)

m a n in a p a s s a g e J o s e p h u s q u o t e s f r o m the B a b y l o n i a n his­

torian B e r o s s u s (Ant. 1.158). A g a i n , w e r e a d t h a t e v e r y o n e c a m e t o M o s e s t h i n k i n g t h a t o n l y t h u s w o u l d t h e y o b t a i n j u s t i c e (rov htKalov)

(Ant. 3.66), so t h a t e v e n t h o s e

w h o lost their cases w e r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t it w a s j u s t i c e (biKaioovv-qv) r a t h e r t h a n c u ­ p i d i t y t h a t h a d d e t e r m i n e d their fate (Ant. 3.67). T o p a r a l l e l the e m b e z z l e m e n t c h a r g e a g a i n s t Pericles (Plato, Gorgias 5 1 6 A ) , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s the p o i n t t h a t M o s e s d i d n o t a c c e p t a p r e s e n t f r o m a single H e b r e w to p e r v e r t j u s t i c e (Ant. 4.46), t h e r e b y e x h i b i t i n g o n e o f the qualities o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n , w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o T h u c y d i d e s (2.60.5), m u s t b e a b l e to resist a b r i b e .

4 2

W h e n the p e o p l e d e m a n d t h a t S a m u e l n a m e a k i n g for t h e m s e l v e s , h e is sorely a g g r i e v e d b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e sense o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 6.36); a n d in his e u l o g y o f h i m , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s h i m as a j u s t (Si/ccuos) a n d k i n d l y m a n (Ant. 6.294). W h e n J o n a t h a n a p p e a l s to S a u l , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t thus a j u s t c a u s e (SUaios

\6yos)

p r e v a i l e d o v e r a n g e r a n d fear (Ant. 6.212). O n e o f the qualities G - d tells S a m u e l to l o o k for w h e n h e is a b o u t to select D a v i d as k i n g is j u s t i c e (Ant. 6.160). W h e n D a v i d

41. Cf. Seneca, De Clementia 1.5.2. See N o r t h 1966, 235, 248-49. 42. Similarly, just as Pericles is depicted by T h u c y d i d e s as not being appreciated by the Athenians despite all his efforts on their behalf, so M o s e s is unappreciated by the Israelites despite his toil for them.

n6

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

spares S a u l ' s life, the latter c o m p l i m e n t s h i m for h a v i n g s h o w n the r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SiKaioovvrjv)

o f the a n c i e n t s (Ant. 6.290). J o s e p h u s editorializes in d e c l a r i n g t h a t

D a v i d w a s j u s t (SIKOLIOS)

b y n a t u r e , a n d t h a t h e l o o k e d o n l y t o w a r d the t r u t h in giv­

i n g j u d g m e n t (Ant. 7.110); a n d in his final e u l o g y o f the k i n g , o n e o f the qualities s i n g l e d o u t for praise is t h a t h e w a s j u s t (Ant. 7.391). S o l o m o n , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , w a s n o t h i n d e r e d b y his y o u t h f r o m d i s p e n s i n g j u s t i c e (hiKaioovv-qv) (Ant. 8.21); a n d G - d , in H i s t u r n , p r o m i s e s t o p r e s e r v e t h e k i n g d o m for his d e s c e n d a n t s if h e c o n ­ tinues t o b e r i g h t e o u s

(hUaios).

Similarly, K i n g J o s i a h , w h e n a m e r e t w e l v e y e a r s o l d , gives e v i d e n c e o f his p i e t y a n d r i g h t e o u s n e s s (StKaioGvvrjv) w h e n h e u r g e s the p e o p l e t o g i v e u p their i d o l a t r y (Ant. 10.50). G e d a l i a h , the g o v e r n o r o f J u d a e a , is d e s c r i b e d as k i n d a n d j u s t (hiKaiov) (Ant. 10.155). D a n i e l is s p o k e n o f as g o o d a n d j u s t (hiKalov) e v e n b y B e l s h a z z a r , t o w h o m h e h a d b r o u g h t evil tidings (Ant. 10.246). W h e n E z r a is first in­ t r o d u c e d t o the reader, h e is t e r m e d a r i g h t e o u s (SIKCLIOS)

m a n (Ant. 11.121); a n d

t h a t m a t t e r s t u r n e d o u t w e l l for h i m is d u e , says J o s e p h u s , t o the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f G - d , w h o d e e m e d h i m w o r t h y o f s u c h a n o u t c o m e b e c a u s e o f his g o o d n e s s a n d r i g h t e o u s n e s s (hiKtxioovvinv)

(Ant. n . 139). I n a n u n s c r i p t u r a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s e u ­

l o g i z e s N e h e m i a h as a m a n o f k i n d a n d j u s t (St/catov) n a t u r e (Ant. 1 1 . 1 8 3 ) .

43

C o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is the e n o r m o u s responsibility t o tell the truth. A p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , as w e see f r o m the a g e d C e p h a l u s in Plato's Republic (1.331C), is s p e a k i n g the truth. T h a t the G r e e k s r e a l i z e d its i m p o r t a n c e is t o b e seen in the fact t h a t H e r o d o t u s (1.136) quite o b v i o u s l y a d m i r e s the fact t h a t P e r s i a n b o y s are carefully instructed to s p e a k the t r u t h a n d r e g a r d it as the m o s t disgraceful t h i n g in the w o r l d to tell a lie (1.139), this in c o n t r a s t to the r e p u t a t i o n that the G r e e k s t h e m s e l v e s h a d , f r o m O d y s s e u s o n d o w n , for c l e v e r n e s s in lying, a n d in c o n t r a s t p a r t i c u l a r l y to the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the C r e t a n s , the p r o v e r b i a l liars o f a n t i q u i t y ( E p i m e n i d e s 1). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to e x p l a i n w h y A b r a h a m h a s t o d e v i s e a l y i n g s c h e m e w h e n h e c o m e s t o P h a r a o h (Ant. 1.162) a n d later t o A b i m e l e c h w i t h his wife S a r a h (1.207); a n d h e o m i t s the p a s s a g e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h r e b u k e s A b r a ­ h a m for his d e c e i t ( G e n . 20:9 vs. Ant. 1.209). H e d e s c r i b e s M o s e s as o n e w h o h a d in n o r e s p e c t d e v i a t e d f r o m the t r u t h (Ant. 4.303). L i k e w i s e , h e r e m a r k s t h a t D a v i d w a s o f j u s t n a t u r e a n d that w h e n h e g a v e j u d g m e n t , h e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y the t r u t h (Ant. 7.110). A g a i n , M e p h i b o s h e t h d e c l a r e s his c o n f i d e n c e t h a t n o c a l u m n y will e n t e r D a v i d ' s m i n d , "for it is j u s t a n d loves the t r u t h " (Ant. 7.269). C o u p l e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the v i r t u e o f h u m a n i t y (^iXavQpumla),

as w e see in

4 4

P h i l o , j u s t as its L a t i n e q u i v a l e n t , humanitas, is likewise c o n n e c t e d w i t h the v i r t u e

43. Attridge 1976a, 115, n. 2, cites seven passages in which Josephus refers to biblical figures as just but omits the rest. H e also incorrecdy cites Ant. 2.149, as alluding to Jacob as just, and Ant. 6.308, as re­ ferring to David as just. 44. Philo, De Mutatione Nominum 40.225; De Vita Mosis 2.2.9; Decalogo 30.164. See the discussion in Wolfson 1947, 2:218-20, especially the passage in Macrobius in his commentary on Cicero's Somnium

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

of justice.

45

ny

O n e o f the m a j o r a i m s o f J o s e p h u s in his retelling o f the B i b l e is to w i n

the favor o f his n o n - J e w i s h r e a d e r s b y a n s w e r i n g the c h a r g e s so often d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the J e w s in those d a y s . O n e o f the m o s t f r e q u e n t s u c h c h a r g e s w a s t h a t the J e w s h a t e d o t h e r p e o p l e s . T h u s , e v e n H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a , w h o is o t h e r w i s e v e r y f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o w a r d the J e w s , d e c l a r e s t h a t M o s e s , as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e e x p u l s i o n o f his p e o p l e , instituted a w a y o f life t h a t h e t e r m s ( " s o m e w h a t m i s a n t h r o p i c , u n s o c i a l " ) a n d paao^evov

dTrdvdpamov

riva

("hostile to strangers") (ap.

D i o d o r u s 40.3.5). T h e A l e x a n d r i a n L y s i m a c h u s ( p r o b a b l y first c e n t u r y B.C.E.) re­ flects this c h a r g e w h e n h e says t h a t M o s e s instructed the Israelites " t o s h o w g o o d ­ will to n o m a n , to offer n o t the best b u t the w o r s t a d v i c e a n d t o o v e r t h r o w a n y t e m p l e s a n d altars o f g o d s t h a t t h e y f o u n d " (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 1.309). A p i o n h a d c h a r g e d t h a t J e w s t o o k a n o a t h to s h o w n o g o o d w i l l t o a n y alien, e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e G r e e k s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.121); a n d h e refers t o t h e m as h a t i n g m a n k i n d (p,ioavQp(x)TTovs) (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.148). T a c i t u s r e m a r k s t h a t w h i l e the J e w s are e x ­ t r e m e l y l o y a l to o n e a n o t h e r a n d a l w a y s r e a d y to s h o w c o m p a s s i o n to c o m p a t r i o t s , t h e y sit a p a r t at m e a l s a n d sleep a p a r t a n d feel o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d all o t h e r p e o p l e s (Histories 5.5.1). J u v e n a l g o e s so far as to a t t a c k the J e w s for n o t s h o w ­ i n g the w a y o r a f o u n t a i n s p r i n g t o a n y b u t fellow J e w s (Satires 14.103-4). H a m a n , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , c h a r g e d t h a t the J e w s refused to m i n g l e w i t h o t h e r s (dpiiKTov, a t e r m u s e d o f the C e n t a u r s in S o p h o c l e s , Trachiniae 1095, a n d o f the C y ­ c l o p e s in E u r i p i d e s , Cyclops 429), w e r e u n s o c i a l (dovpicfrvXov, " n o t a k i n , " " i n c o m ­ p a t i b l e , " " u n s u i t a b l e " ) , a n d w e r e in c u s t o m s a n d p r a c t i c e s the e n e m i e s n o t o n l y o f the Persians b u t o f all m a n k i n d (Ant. 11.212). E v e n the e m p e r o r C l a u d i u s , g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as friendly t o the J e w s or, at a n y rate, " e v e n - h a n d e d , " in his e d i c t a d ­ dressed t o the e m p i r e at l a r g e , enjoins the J e w s t o b e " m o r e

reasonable"

(i7TL€iK€OT€pov) " a n d n o t to set at n o u g h t the beliefs a b o u t the g o d s h e l d b y o t h e r p e o p l e s " (Ant. 19.290) ( T c h e r i k o v e r 1957, 7 3 - 7 4 ) . O n e c l e a r sign o f p r i m i t i v e n e s s to the G r e e k s a n d the R o m a n s w a s the p r a c t i c e o f h u m a n sacrifice. T h e c h a r g e w a s m a d e a g a i n s t the C a r t h a g i n i a n s ( V i r g i l , Aeneid, 1.525), the G a u l s ( S t r a b o 4.4.5.198), a n d the T h r a c i a n s ( S t r a b o 7.3.7.300). T h e historian D a m o c r i t u s , in a p p r o x i m a t e l y the first century, t u r n e d this c h a r g e into w h a t w a s , in effect, a b l o o d l i b e l — n a m e l y , that the J e w s c a p t u r e d a n d sacri­ ficed a s t r a n g e r e v e r y s e v e n y e a r s (ap. S u i d a s , s.v. AapuoKpiros); a n d his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y A p i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t the J e w s a n n u a l l y fattened u p a n d sacrificed a G r e e k a n d s w o r e a n o a t h o f hostility to the G r e e k s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2 . 8 9 - 9 6 ) . In the G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d , the S t o i c s in p a r t i c u l a r stressed the b r o t h e r h o o d o f m a n k i n d ; a n d this b l o o d - l i b e l c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s t h u s e s p e c i a l l y seri­ ous. I n reply, J o s e p h u s stresses, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the sacrifice

Scipionis (De Re Publica, bk. 6). In general, see Spicq 1 9 5 8 , 1 6 9 - 9 1 ; id. 1978, 2:922-27; and L e D e a u t 1964, 255-9445. Cf. M a c r o b i u s on Cicero's Somnium Scipionis 1.8, cited in Wolfson 1947, 2:220, n. 146.

n8

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

o f Isaac, w h i c h w a s not c o n s u m m a t e d , a n d that o f Iphigenia, w h i c h w a s actually c a r r i e d o u t (Ant. 1.233). ^

n

particular, h e p u t s a s p e e c h into the m o u t h o f G - d ,

r a t h e r t h a n o f a n a n g e l , as in G e n . 22:11, t h a t H e d o e s n o t c r a v e h u m a n b l o o d a n d t h a t H e is n o t c a p r i c i o u s in t a k i n g a w a y w h a t H e h a s g i v e n (Ant. 1.233-36). T h i s is, b y i m p l i c a t i o n , in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o A r t e m i s , w h o "rejoices in h u m a n sacrifices" (Euripides, Iphigenia atAulis

1524-25).

T h e c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s h a d a n i m p l a c a b l e h a t r e d o f all o t h e r p e o p l e s (see, e.g., T a c i t u s , Histories 5.5.1) a n d w e r e d e v o i d o f p i t y for a n y o n e w h o w a s n o t o f their r e l i g i o n is refuted b y J o s e p h u s in s e v e r a l e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l s .

46

H e stresses t h a t the

M o s a i c c o d e w a s d e s i g n e d to p r o m o t e h u m a n i t y t o w a r d the w o r l d at l a r g e (Ag. Ap. 2.146), t h a t " o u r l e g i s l a t o r " — t h a t is M o s e s — i n c u l c a t e d the d u t y o f s h a r i n g w i t h others, a n d t h a t n o t o n l y m u s t the J e w furnish f o o d a n d supplies t o those w h o a s k e d for t h e m b u t t h a t h e m u s t s h o w c o n s i d e r a t i o n e v e n for d e c l a r e d e n e m i e s . I n this c o n n e c t i o n , h e e v e n a d d s u n s c r i p t u r a l provisions, s u c h as t h a t J e w s w e r e for­ b i d d e n to b u r n u p the c o u n t r y o f their e n e m i e s a n d to d e s p o i l fallen c o m b a t a n t s (Ag. Ap. 2 . 2 1 1 - 1 3 ) .

47

T h i s g e n d e n e s s (rjpLepoTrjra) a n d h u m a n i t y (<j>i\avdpa>TTiav) e x ­

t e n d e v e n t o a n i m a l s , their use b e i n g a u t h o r i z e d o n l y in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the L a w ( T e r i a n 1985, 1 4 1 - 4 9 ) . M o s t effectively, J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e the s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h , p r e s u m a b l y in c o n t r a s t t o the p r e v a i l i n g x e n o p h o b i c attitude o f the E g y p ­ tians, sold g r a i n n o t o n l y to natives b u t also t o strangers, "for J o s e p h h e l d t h a t all m e n , in v i r t u e o f their kinship, s h o u l d r e c e i v e s u c c o r f r o m t h o s e in p r o s p e r i t y " (Ant. 2.94 a n d 101). I n a n s w e r to the c h a r g e , s u c h as m a d e b y J u v e n a l (14.103), t h a t the J e w s w e r e c o m m a n d e d to p o i n t o u t the w a y o n l y to their fellow c o u n t r y m e n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t J e w s are r e q u i r e d to p o i n t o u t the r o a d to those w h o are i g ­ n o r a n t o f it (Ant. 4.276). A n d y e t , w e m a y n o t e t h a t the B i b l e itself instructs the Israelites, o n c e t h e y e n t e r C a n a a n , to d e s t r o y the C a n a a n i t e altars, pillars, s a c r e d p o l e s , a n d idols (see, e.g., D e u t . 7:5). J o s e p h u s resolves this p r o b l e m b y m a k i n g a distinction b e t w e e n

46. T h u s , w h e n K i n g J e h o r a m o f Israel, K i n g Jehoshaphat of Judaea, and the king o f I d u m a e a see the king o f M o a b sacrifice his eldest son, they show pity for him, being m o v e d by h u m a n e

(avOpooinvov)

and compassionate (eAeeivov) feelings, and lift their siege o f M o a b (Ant. 9.43). Likewise, D a n i e l expresses pity for the C h a l d a e a n wise m e n w h o had been unjusdy ordered to be put to death by N e b u c h a d n e z ­ zar (Ant. 10.204). 47. T h e latter remark would appear to be contradicted by the fact that the Israelites, before leav­ ing Egypt, despoiled the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36), and by the further fact that, after the victory over the Amalekites, M o s e s ordered the corpses o f the enemies to be stripped (Ant. 3.59). S o also Ant. 4.93, after the victory o f the Amorites, and Ant. 4.162, after the defeat o f the Midianites. Likewise, Philo e m p h a ­ sizes the humanity (iAavdpu)7Tias) shown by M o s e s in being unwilling to take revenge against the Canaanites, since they were his kinsmen (De Vita Mosis 1.44.249). Inasmuch as M o s e s is depicted as the greatest o f legislators, Philo's discussion o f the virtues o f the legislator is particularly relevant (De Vita Mosis 2.2.8-11). T h e r e he enumerates four: love o f humanity (i\dvdpcu7Tov), of justice, and o f goodness, and hatred o f evil.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

ng

m e a s u r e s t o b e a d o p t e d i n p e a c e t i m e a n d those d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y i n e x t r a o r d i ­ n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s {Ant. 4 . 2 9 2 - 9 5 ) . I n t h e J o s h u a p e r i c o p e as w e l l , it is a p p a r e n t that J o s e p h u s h a s s o u g h t t o c o u n t e r c h a r g e s o f atrocities a n d h e n c e h a s t o n e d d o w n t h e Israelites' c r u e l t y t o t h e C a n a a n i t e k i n g s considerably. J o s e p h u s h a s k e p t the instructions t o w i p e o u t t h e C a n a a n i t e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h their t e m p l e s (Ant. 4 . 1 9 1 - 9 2 ) ; b u t this is d e e m e d n e c e s s a r y lest t h e y c o r r u p t t h e a n c e s t r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Israelites. For t h e rest, J o s e p h u s utterly c o n t r a d i c t s t h e p a s s a g e i n D e u t e r o n o m y b y stat­ i n g t h a t t h e l a w p r o h i b i t s r o b b i n g foreign t e m p l e s o r t a k i n g treasures t h a t h a d b e e n d e d i c a t e d i n t h e n a m e o f a n y g o d (Ant. 4.207). F o l l o w i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t " E l o k i m l o t e k a l l e l " in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( E x o d . 22:27 [28]) a n d P h i l o (De Specialibus Legibus 1.9.53), J o s e p h u s says t h a t it forbids J e w s t o b l a s p h e m e the g o d s o f o t h e r s o u t o f r e s p e c t for t h e v e r y w o r d " g o d " (Ant. 4.207 a n d Ag. Ap. 2.237); a n d it is o n l y b e c a u s e t h e a c c u s e r s o f t h e J e w s a t t e m p t t o refute t h e m b y c o m p a r i n g J u d a i s m w i t h o t h e r religions t h a t t h e J e w s m u s t a n s w e r i n self-defense. T h e S p a r t a n s , w h o e x p e l l e d foreigners a n d d i d n o t a l l o w their o w n citizens t o travel a b r o a d , m i g h t w i t h m o r e j u s t i c e b e a c c u s e d o f d i s c o u r t e s y a n d m i s a n t h r o p y (Ag. Ap. 2.259). I n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e J e w s f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f i n t o l e r a n c e o f o t h e r religions, c

J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h G i d e o n pulls d o w n t h e altar o f B a a l t h a t his father h a s built a n d destroys t h e A s h e r a h tree that w a s w o r s h i p p e d b e s i d e it (Judg. 6:25-32). L i k e w i s e , i n o r d e r t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f i n h u m a n i t y , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h G i d e o n kills t h e t w o c a p t u r e d k i n g s o f t h e M i d i a n i t e s (Judg. 8:18-21). It is i n line w i t h this t o l e r a n t attitude t o w a r d t h e religions o f o t h e r s t h a t w e find J o s e p h u s o m i t t i n g t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t K i n g A s a p u t a w a y t h e idols f r o m t h e l a n d o f J u d a h (2 C h r o n . 15:8 v s . Ant. 8.297) (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 5 4 - 5 6 ) , j u s t as h e omits J e h o s h a p h a t ' s r e m o v a l o f t h e p a g a n h i g h p l a c e s a n d t h e A s h e r i m f r o m t h e l a n d o f J u d a h (2 C h r o n . 17:6 v s . Ant. 8.394) (

s e e

F e l d m a n 1993I, 1 7 2 - 7 3 ) .

M o r e o v e r , D a v i d , far f r o m b e i n g a m i s a n t h r o p e , is d e s c r i b e d , i n J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y o f his c h a r a c t e r , as tf>i\dvdpLOTTos, " h u m a n e , " t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f a7rdvdpoj7Tos

(Ant. 7.391). I n a n s w e r t o t h e s a m e c h a r g e o f misanthropy, J o s e p h u s ' s

K i n g S o l o m o n , i n d e d i c a t i n g t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m , asks t h a t G - d g r a n t t h e p r a y e r s n o t o n l y o f H e b r e w s b u t also o f foreigners, so t h a t it m a y b e r e a l i z e d t h a t " w e a r e n o t i n h u m a n [dTrdvOpamoi] b y n a t u r e n o r u n f r i e n d l y t o those w h o a r e n o t o f o u r c o u n t r y b u t w i s h t h a t all m e n e q u a l l y s h o u l d r e c e i v e a i d f r o m T h e e a n d enjoy T h y b l e s s i n g s " (Ant. 8 . 1 1 6 - 1 7 ) . K i n d n e s s a n d love o f his f e l l o w m a n (i\dvdpamov) a r e qualities e x p e c t e d in t h e y o u n g R e h o b o a m (Ant. 8.214); a n d w h e n h e asks t h e d e l e g a t i o n s e e k i n g r e l a x a t i o n o f t h e b o n d a g e o f t h e p e o p l e for three d a y s t o c o n s i d e r their request, h e arouses their suspicions. I n d e e d , t h e T e m ­ ple, Z e r u b b a b e l reiterates, is o p e n t o all p e o p l e for w o r s h i p , e v e n t h e S a m a r i t a n s , w h o h a d tried t o i m p e d e its b u i l d i n g (Ant. 11.87). In his c o n c e r n t o defuse J e w i s h - G e n t i l e hostilities, J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t t h e

120

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

n e i g h b o r i n g p e o p l e s c o n t i n u e d t o c h e r i s h K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t o f J u d a h (Ant. 8.396), w h e r e a s his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e attributes t h e i r r e m a i n i n g at p e a c e w i t h J e h o s h a p h a t to t h e fear o f t h e L - r d falling u p o n t h e m (2 C h r o n . 17:10) (see B e g g 1 9 9 5 & 44). It is, m o r e o v e r , m o s t effective t h a t J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e s t o K i n g J e h o r a m o f Israel a n d K i n g J e h o s h a p h a t o f J u d a h t h e qualities o f h u m a n i t y a n d c o m p a s s i o n in t h e i n c i ­ d e n t w h e n M e s h a , k i n g o f M o a b , offers his o w n s o n as a sacrifice (Ant. 9.43). W e see a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f J e h o r a m ' s c o m p a s s i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h t h e w o m a n w h o h a s m a d e the p a c t w i t h h e r n e i g h b o r to e a t their sons b e g s h i m to h a v e p i t y u p o n h e r (Ant. 9.64) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 4 ^ 1 3 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the h o s p i t a l i t y o f J e w s t o w a r d n o n - J e w s in his n o n s c r i p tural a d d i t i o n t h a t K i n g H e z e k i a h g l a d l y r e c e i v e d t h e e n v o y s sent b y t h e k i n g o f B a b y l o n , feasted t h e m , s h o w e d t h e m his treasures, a n d sent t h e m b a c k w i t h gifts (Ant. 10.31) ( B e g g 1995c, 3 7 8 - 7 9 ) . I n t h e c a s e o f J e h u , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a d i l e m m a , in that, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e B i b l e , J e h u ' s m e n w e r e o b v i o u s l y less t h a n t o l e r a n t o f o t h e r reli­ c

g i o n s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y b r o k e d o w n the h o u s e o f B a a l a n d m a d e it a latrine " u n t o 48

this d a y " (2 K i n g s 1 0 : 2 7 ) . C l e a r l y , m a k i n g a shrine o f a n o t h e r nation's g o d s i n t o a latrine w o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as insulting, as e s p e c i a l l y w o u l d the r e m a r k t h a t it h a d b e e n a latrine d o w n until t h e p r e s e n t day. J o s e p h u s has, therefore, v e r y d e l i b e r ­ ately o m i t t e d these details a n d i n s t e a d retains o n l y the c o m m e n t t h a t t h e y b u r n t c

d o w n the t e m p l e o f B a a l , thus p u r g i n g S a m a r i a o f s t r a n g e rites (Ant. 9.138). A R o m a n , f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e b a n n i n g o f t h e B a c c h a n a l i a n revels in 186 B.C.E., w o u l d have understood such a suppression. L i k e w i s e , in o r d e r n o t to offend n o n - J e w s a n y m o r e t h a n w a s t r u l y justified, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t S e n n a c h e r i b w r o t e letters t o cast c o n ­ t e m p t o n t h e G - d o f Israel (2 C h r o n . 32:17). H e also o m i t s , as a p p a r e n d y t o o strong, the p r o p h e t Isaiah's b l i s t e r i n g p r o m i s e o f G - d t h a t H e w o u l d p u t his h o o k in A s s y r i a ' s n o s e a n d his b i t in t h e A s s y r i a n s ' m o u t h (2 K i n g s 19:28, Ant. 10.16) (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 6 0 7 - 8 ) . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e m e n t i o n s t h a t J o s i a h k n o c k e d d o w n t h e statues b e l o n g i n g t o a l i e n religions (2 C h r o n . 3 4 : 3 - 7 ) , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s J o s i a h ' s positive a c h i e v e ­ m e n t s in t u r n i n g t h e p e o p l e to t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d (Ant. 10.53). I n t h e interest o f d o w n g r a d i n g J o s i a h ' s assault u p o n p a g a n w o r s h i p , J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e l o n g a c c o u n t o f J o s i a h ' s d e m o l i t i o n o f p a g a n t e m p l e s a n d m o n u m e n t s (2 K i n g s 2 3 : 7 - 1 9 v s . Ant. 10.65),

a

s

w

e

^

a

s

his e l i m i n a t i o n o f the n e c r o m a n c e r s a n d d i v i n e r s

(2 K i n g s 23:24) (see F e l d m a n 1993k, 1 2 5 - 2 9 ) . Significandy, a l t h o u g h h e g e n e r a l l y follows c l o s e l y the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n C , w h i c h c o n t a i n s E s t h e r ' s p r a y e r to G - d , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e d e t e s t a t i o n o f n o n - J e w s

48. T h e w o r d for "latrine" as it appears in the written text is limehordot, signifying a place for a privy. It c o m e s from the stem hor, " a hole," and alludes to the orifice from w h i c h the solid wastes are ex­ creted. A s it is read, the w o r d is lemo^dot and signifies a place for excretion.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

121

expressed b y Esther.(C 26-27). A g a i n , although Additions A a n d F were available t o J o s e p h u s , h e o m i t s t h e m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e in t h e m the struggle b e t w e e n H a m a n a n d M o r d e c a i is v i e w e d n o t as a p e r s o n a l o n e b u t as p a r t o f the e t e r n a l conflict b e t w e e n J e w a n d n o n - J e w (see F e l d m a n 1970b, 1 6 3 - 6 5 ) . A c t u a l l y , a n s w e r s J o s e p h u s , the J e w i s h c o d e is n o t a b l e for its e q u i t a b l e treat­ m e n t o f aliens; a n d m e m b e r s h i p in the J e w i s h n a t i o n h a s b e e n t h r o w n o p e n u n ­ g r u d g i n g l y to all w h o w i s h to j o i n (Ag. Ap. 2.209). I n e x c l u d i n g those w h o h a v e c h o ­ sen a different m a n n e r o f life (Ag Ap. 2.258), the J e w s a r e n o t u n i q u e , b u t a r e similar t o s u c h G r e e k poleis as S p a r t a . S o g r e a t is the T o r a h ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n for o t h ­ ers t h a t J e w s a r e c o m m a n d e d to furnish fire, water, a n d f o o d t o t h o s e w h o ask for it, a n d n o t to l e a v e a c o r p s e u n b u r i e d , to d e s p o i l the e n e m y , o r to mistreat p r i s o n ­ ers o f w a r (Ag. Ap. 2 . 2 1 1 - 1 2 ) . S u r e l y o n e o f t h e m o s t serious c h a r g e s t h a t m i g h t b e b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e Is­ raelites b y n o n - J e w s w a s the s e e m i n g l y c r u e l c o m m a n d t o w i p e o u t all the d e s c e n ­ d a n t s o f A m a l e k ( E x o d . 1 7 : 1 4 - 1 6 ; D e u t . 2 5 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) . T h i s w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e earliest f o r m o f g e n o c i d e . I n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n S a m u e l sends S a u l to fulfill this c o m m a n d , h e q u o t e s G - d as s a y i n g t h a t H e r e m e m b e r s w h a t A m a l e k d i d to the Israelites w h e n h e a t t a c k e d t h e m in the w i l d e r n e s s w h e n t h e y h a d c o m e o u t o f E g y p t (1 S a m . 15:2). J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l presents a c a s e t h a t w o u l d b e m o r e c o n ­ v i n c i n g to his R o m a n r e a d e r s in particular, since h e stresses t h a t t h e c o m m a n d w a s to take v e n g e a n c e for w h a t the A m a l e k i t e s h a d d o n e t o the forefathers o f t h e Is­ raelites (Ant. 6.133). T h e R o m a n s , w h o h a d s u c h a h i g h r e g a r d for their a n c e s t o r s , w o u l d h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d this t o u c h . It is the q u a l i t y o f love o f m a n k i n d t h a t is the m o s t o b v i o u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e R o m a n k i n g s in the n a r r a t i v e o f D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s a n d t h a t o c c u r s m o s t f r e q u e n d y in his n a r r a t i v e s o f c o n q u e s t (Fox 1993, 3 1 - 4 7 ) . A s for J o s e p h u s , A b r a ­ h a m is m o v e d w i t h c o m p a s s i o n for his friends a n d n e i g h b o r s the S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.176); a n d R e u b e n , in his s p e e c h to J o s e p h , d e c l a r e s his c o n f i d e n c e in his b r o t h e r ' s h u m a n i t y (vXovs) w i t h the c l e m e n c y t h a t the R o m a n s s h o w e d t o w a r d the J e w s , a l t h o u g h t h e y w e r e a n a l i e n r a c e (aXXocf>vXovs) (War 1.27). A p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t o f the l o v e o f m a n k i n d is the q u a l i t y o f hospitality, a v i r t u e v e r y m u c h p r i z e d in the entire a n c i e n t w o r l d , b o t h in the N e a r E a s t a n d in G r e e c e a n d R o m e , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in the e p i s o d e o f G l a u c u s a n d D i o m e d e s at the b e g i n n i n g o f b o o k 6 o f H o m e r ' s Iliad. T o t h e a n c i e n t s , to b e a g o o d h o s t a n d to b e a g o o d g u e s t w e r e m a j o r virtues, a n d the a l l e g e d inhospitality o f t h e J e w s w a s re­ g a r d e d as a m a j o r i n d i c t m e n t o f t h e m ( F e l d m a n 1993, 1 2 5 - 3 1 ) . T o t h e G r e e k s , a m a j o r test o f c i v i l i z a t i o n w a s the m a n n e r in w h i c h a s t r a n g e r (£evos) w a s d e a l t w i t h ( R a d i n 1915, 183); a n d the m o s t d a m n i n g c h a r g e a g a i n s t P o l y p h e m u s t h e C y c l o p s i n the Odyssey ( 9 4 7 8 ) is his i n h o s p i t a l i t y t o w a r d strangers. S o i m p o r t a n t w e r e the rights o f t h e ^ivos t h a t it w a s Z e u s himself, u n d e r the e p i t h e t tjevios, w h o w a s re­ g a r d e d as the p r o t e c t o r o f strangers. J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o refute the i n d i c t m e n t o f inhospitality b y n o t i n g t h a t J e w s are c o m m a n d e d n o t to b e selfish b u t to b e g e n e r o u s t o w a r d t h o s e w h o m t h e y m e e t a n d w h o w i s h to e a t o f the g r a p e s t h a t t h e y are c a r r y i n g t o the w i n e vats (Ant. 4 . 2 3 5 - 3 8 ) ; a n d the e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e a s o n h e gives for the p e n a l t y o f thirty-nine stripes inflicted o n o n e w h o v i o l a t e s this p r e c e p t is t h a t " t h r o u g h slavery t o l u c r e , h e h a s o u t r a g e d his d i g n i t y " (Ant. 1.238).

49

W e see t h e trait o f h o s p i t a l i t y e v i d e n c e d in the w a r m g r e e t i n g g i v e n b y M o s e s t o his f a t h e r - i n - l a w J e t h r o w h e n the latter visits h i m after the e n c o u n t e r w i t h the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 3.63). T h e B i b l e says t h a t J e t h r o offered sacrifices, a n d t h a t A a r o n a n d the p e o p l e j o i n e d h i m in the s a c r e d m e a l , b u t n o t h i n g is said a b o u t a p u b l i c feast g i v e n b y M o s e s ( E x o d . 18:12). I n J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o offers the sacrifi­ ces a n d m a k e s a feast for the p e o p l e . T o s h o w the r e s p e c t t h a t J e w s h a v e for n o n J e w s , J o s e p h u s h a s a n e x t e n d e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f this b a n q u e t g i v e n b y M o s e s in h o n o r o f his father-in-law, w h e r e a n e c u m e n i c a l spirit prevails, w i t h A a r o n a n d his c o m p a n y b e i n g j o i n e d b y J e t h r o in c h a n t i n g h y m n s to G - d as the a u t h o r a n d dis­ p e n s e r o f their s a l v a t i o n a n d their l i b e r t y (Ant. 3.64). J o s e p h u s stresses the v i r t u e o f hospitality in a d d i t i o n s to the story o f R u t h in the B i b l e . T h e attentive n e i g h b o r s a r e said t o h a v e p r o v i d e d N a o m i w i t h f o o d (Ant.

49. T h e rabbis also stress the importance o f the virtue o f hospitality in the following passage, a m o n g others: " H e w h o receives his fellowman kindly is regarded as though he h a d received the Shekinah" (Midrash Hagadol 1.267.)

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

123

5.326); a n d B o a z g e n e r o u s l y b i d s R u t h t a k e as m u c h b a r l e y as she c a n c a r r y (Ant. 5.330). A g a i n , t h e g e n e r o s i t y o f the w i t c h o f E n d o r is p r a i s e d at l e n g t h for n o t t u r n ­ i n g a w a y S a u l as a s t r a n g e r b u t offering h i m s y m p a t h y a n d c o n s o l a t i o n despite the fact t h a t she k n e w that she w o u l d r e c e i v e n o benefit f r o m h i m in r e t u r n (since h e w a s a b o u t t o die) (Ant. 6.339-42). J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s his e u l o g y o f h e r w i t h e l o ­ q u e n t w o r d s in p r a i s e o f hospitality: "It is w e l l , t h e n , t o t a k e this w o m a n for a n e x ­ a m p l e a n d s h o w k i n d n e s s t o all w h o a r e in n e e d , a n d t o r e g a r d n o t h i n g as n o b l e r t h a n this o r m o r e befitting the h u m a n r a c e o r m o r e likely to m a k e G - d g r a c i o u s a n d r e a d y t o b e s t o w u p o n us H i s b l e s s i n g s " (see B r o w n 1992, 190-205). W e l i k e w i s e see this trait o f hospitality in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t , to w h i c h n o t h ­ i n g in t h e B i b l e c o r r e s p o n d s , t h a t w h e n the tribal l e a d e r s c a m e to p a y h o m a g e t o D a v i d at H e b r o n , h e e n t e r t a i n e d a n d t r e a t e d t h e m h o s p i t a b l y (i\ocf)povr}odpL€vos) a n d t h e n sent t h e m to b r i n g all the p e o p l e to h i m (2 S a m . 5:3 v s . Ant. 7.54). C o n n e c t e d w i t h this quality o f cfyiXavSpco-nia is the trait o f s h o w i n g gratitude. W h i l e it is true that this is also f o u n d in traditional J e w i s h sources, the G r e e k r e a d e r s o f J o s e p h u s ' s text m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n r e m i n d e d o f the hospitality s h o w n b y the p o o r a n d p i o u s o l d c o u p l e P h i l e m o n a n d B a u c i s to Z e u s a n d H e r m e s , a n d the re­ w a r d g r a n t e d b y the g o d s — n a m e l y , that t h e y w e r e saved from the F l o o d a n d w e r e g r a n t e d their p r a y e r that t h e y b e t o g e t h e r priest a n d priestess o f the t e m p l e into w h i c h their h u m b l e c o t t a g e h a d b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d ( O v i d , Metamorphoses 8 . 6 1 1 - 7 3 7 ) .

50

J o s e p h u s , in a s u p p l e m e n t t o the B i b l e , h a s J o s e p h g i v e t h a n k s t o his b r o t h e r s for h e l p i n g to b r i n g G - d ' s p u r p o s e s to fruition (Ant. 2.152). J o s e p h u s m a k e s s p e c i a l n o t e o f t h e g r a t i t u d e t o w a r d M o s e s s h o w n b y R e u e l ' s (Jethro's) d a u g h t e r s

(Ant.

2.262). L i k e w i s e , J e t h r o g o e s b e y o n d t h e b i b l i c a l text in c o m p l i m e n t i n g M o s e s for his sense o f g r a t i t u d e ( E x o d . 2:20 v s . Ant. 2.262). I n his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to the Is­ raelites, M o s e s r e n d e r s t h a n k s t o G - d for a i d i n g h i m in his struggle to b e t t e r t h e i r lot (Ant. 4.316). J o s h u a s h o w s g r a t i t u d e to R a h a b for p r o t e c t i n g his spies (Ant. 5.30), thanks t h e R e u b e n i t e s for their m i l i t a r y h e l p (Ant. 5.74), a n d , in a f a r e w e l l address, says t h a t h e will forever b e grateful to those tribes w h o d w e l t b e y o n d the J o r d a n for their h a v i n g s h a r e d his perils w i t h h i m (Ant. 5.95). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t S a u l t h a n k e d G - d for his v i c t o r y o v e r the A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 6.145)

a

n

d

w

a

s

grateful to

D a v i d for s p a r i n g his life (Ant. 6.316). J o a b u r g e s D a v i d to t h a n k his soldiers for their e a g e r n e s s in f i g h t i n g a n d for their v i c t o r y (Ant. 7.256). D a v i d , says J o s e p h u s , in a d d i t i o n t o his o t h e r fine qualities, a l w a y s s h o w e d g r a t i t u d e to t h o s e w h o h a d b e n e f i t e d h i m at a n y t i m e (Ant. 7 . i n ) . T h u s h e d o e s n o t slay A r a u n a in g r a t i t u d e for the latter's k i n d n e s s to h i m (Ant. 7.69), d e m o n s t r a t e s his g r a t i t u d e to his g e n e r a l J o a b for his l o y a l t y a n d faithfulness (Ant. 7.160), a n d , b y p r o m i s i n g t o p r o v i d e for h i m as for a father, s h o w s his g r a t i t u d e t o B a r z i l l a i for f u r n i s h i n g h i m w i t h supplies (Ant. 7 . 2 7 2 - 7 4 ) . I n t u r n , h e u r g e s his friends a n d g e n e r a l s to s h o w g r a t i t u d e t o h i m ­ self b y b e i n g m i n d f u l o f w h a t e v e r fair t r e a t m e n t t h e y m i g h t h a v e r e c e i v e d f r o m

50. For further parallels, see T h o m p s o n 1957, 2:433-34, E 341.

124

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

h i m (Ant. 7.235). D a v i d ' s subjects, in t u r n , give t h a n k s t o h i m for all the blessings t h a t h e h a s g r a n t e d t h e m (Ant. 7.381). Moreover, Jehoshaphat

is d e p i c t e d as offering t h a n k s t o G - d

(Ant.

H e z e k i a h also offers g r a t i t u d e to G - d for his r e c o v e r y f r o m illness (Ant. 10.29)

9.2). a

n

d

for b e i n g s a v e d f r o m the A s s y r i a n s (Ant. 10.24). P u r i m , says M o r d e c a i , is a t i m e for the J e w s t o give t h a n k s to G - d for h a v i n g e s c a p e d f r o m H a m a n ' s p l o t to d e s t r o y t h e m (Ant. 11.294). J o s e p h u s m a k e s a s p e c i a l p o i n t o f a t t a c k i n g the i n g r a t i t u d e o f the J e w s t o w a r d G-d

a n d j u s t i f y i n g their b e i n g p u n i s h e d for this i n s o l e n c e b e f o r e the e m e r g e n c e o f

the p r o p h e t e s s D e b o r a h (Ant. 5.200). A n d J o s e p h u s h a s p u t into t h e m o u t h o f N e b ­ u c h a d n e z z a r a n attack, w i t h w h i c h h e o b v i o u s l y a g r e e s , o n K i n g Z e d e k i a h for his v i o l a t i o n o f treaties (Ant. 10.138) a n d his i n g r a t i t u d e in h a v i n g f o u g h t a g a i n s t h i m who

h a d b e s t o w e d his k i n g d o m u p o n h i m in the first p l a c e (Ant. 10.139). " G r e a t is

G-d,"

J o s e p h u s ' s N e b u c h a d n e z z a r c o n c l u d e s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , " w h o ,

in H i s a b h o r r e n c e o f y o u r [ Z e d e k i a h ' s ] c o n d u c t , h a s m a d e y o u fall into o u r hands." C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e a n d gratefulness is the q u a l i t y of generosity. T h u s J o s e p h u s describes as g e n e r o u s (xprjoros,

"kind," "morally g o o d , " "excellent," "up­

right," " g e n u i n e , " " g e n d e , " " b e n e v o l e n t , " " c o n s i d e r a t e , " " g o o d - h e a r t e d , " "worthy," " d e c e n t , " "honest," "friendly," "well-disposed") a n d just (SIKCUOS) the p r o p h e t S a m u e l (Ant. 6.194). H e similarly d e s c r i b e s the h i g h priest J e h o i a d a , w h o s a v e d J o a s h f r o m the h a n d s o f the w i c k e d Q u e e n A t h a l i a h a n d p r o c l a i m e d h i m k i n g (Ant. 9.166), a n d J e h o n a d a b , w h o a c c o m p a n i e d K i n g J e h u o n his w a y t o slay the priests o f c

51

B a a l (Ant. 9 . 1 3 3 ) . T h a t these t w o epithets i n d e e d constitute a t r e m e n d o u s c o m ­ p l i m e n t m a y b e s e e n f r o m the fact t h a t in his final e u l o g y o f S a m u e l , J o s e p h u s sin­ gles o u t his j u s t (SIKCUOS)

lf

aT

a n d k i n d l y (xp ) ^)

n a t u r e a n d states t h a t it w a s p r e ­

cisely b e c a u s e h e possessed these t w o qualities t h a t h e w a s d e a r to G - d

(Ant.

s

6.294). I* i significant t h a t w h e n the g o o d K i n g H e z e k i a h is first i n t r o d u c e d to the reader, h e is d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g a c h a r a c t e r t h a t w a s g o o d (xprj arrj), ]mt a n d p i o u s (evoeprjs) (Ant. 9.260). Significandy, the c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n s , a n d SiaKaioovvrj,

(SiKata), xpyarorris

are u s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o K i n g J e h o i a c h i n (Ant. 10.100), as w e l l as

K i n g Z e d e k i a h (Ant. 10.120), w h o , like J e h o i a c h i n , is r e h a b i l i t a t e d b y J o s e p h u s , d e ­ spite his n e g a t i v e p o r t r a y a l in the B i b l e , b e c a u s e , like J e r e m i a h a n d J e h o i a c h i n , h e s u b m i t t e d to the B a b y l o n i a n s . Finally, the s a m e p a i r o f qualities are a s c r i b e d to E z r a ; a n d , in a n editorial c o m m e n t J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e thinks t h a t it w a s b e ­ c a u s e E z r a possessed these v i r t u e s t h a t G - d d e e m e d h i m w o r t h y to o b t a i n his d e ­ sires (Ant. 11.139). The

T0

v e r y positive q u a l i t y a s s i g n e d to the e p i t h e t xpy°" 's

m

a

Y h e s e e n in its

u s a g e in the S e p t u a g i n t , w h e r e it m e a n s " g o o d , " " s e r v i c e a b l e , " " k i n d , "

and

51. Josephus likewise makes a point o f describing as generous (xpyoTos) K i n g Ptolemy Philometor of E g y p t (Ant. 13.114), w h o was clearly a favorite of Josephus's because he favored the Alexandrian Jews in their dispute with the Samaritans (Ant. 13.74,76).

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

125

" b e n e v o l e n t , " a n d w h e r e it is often u s e d as a n e p i t h e t for G - d (e.g., Ps. 106:1; Jer. 33:11). P h i l o uses it in a v e r y positive sense o f " g r a c i o u s , " "friendly," a n d " k i n d , " especially w i t h r e f e r e n c e to G - d a n d to rulers (e.g., Dejosepho

43.264). I n the N e w

T e s t a m e n t , its m e a n i n g is " g o o d , " " k i n d , " a n d " g r a c i o u s " ; a n d it is u s e d t h u s p o s ­ itively w i t h r e f e r e n c e b o t h t o p e o p l e a n d t o G - d ( L u k e 6:35; 1 Peter 2:3). T h e c o r ­ r e s p o n d i n g n o u n xpyaTQTVS

h a s similar associations o f " g o o d n e s s , " " k i n d n e s s , "

" g r a c i o u s n e s s , " "friendliness," " c l e m e n c y , " "honesty," "piety,"

"magnanimity,"

"piety," a n d " w o r t h i n e s s . " T h e r a n g e o f m e a n i n g is similar in J o s e p h u s . T h u s , N i c a n o r , a n o l d friend o f J o s e p h u s , w h o is sent b y the g e n e r a l V e s p a s i a n to p e r ­ s u a d e J o s e p h u s to s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s , d w e l l s o n the i n n a t e ar

v

(XPV ^ )

°f

m

e

R °

m

a

n

s

t

o

generosity 52

those w h o m t h e y h a v e s u b d u e d (War 3-347), c l e a r l y a

c o m p l i m e n t to the R o m a n s , w h o b e c a m e J o s e p h u s ' s p a t r o n s a n d w h o s e a p p r o v a l h e s o u g h t in w r i t i n g his w o r k . V e r y significandy, it is this q u a l i t y (xprjoTorrjTos)

that

J o s e p h u s ascribes to the e m p e r o r V e s p a s i a n w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s the k i n d n e s s t h a t V e s p a s i a n a l w a y s d i s p l a y e d t o w a r d h i m (Life 423). In

the Antiquities,

L o t is said

to b e

a

student

of Abraham's

liberality

(XprjoTorrjTos) (Ant. 1.200). A b r a h a m ' s s e r v a n t E l i e z e r c o m m e n d s R e b e k a h for h e r g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t (xprjarorrjTos)

in n o t h e s i t a t i n g to m i n i s t e r to the n e e d s o f the

others at the cost o f h e r o w n toil (Ant. 1.247). J o s e p h u s also c o m m e n d s I s a a c for his g o o d n a t u r e (xprjarorrjra)

in b e c o m i n g r e c o n c i l e d w i t h A b i m e l e c h (Ant. 1.264).

J u d a h in his d e s p e r a t e , a p o l o g e t i c s p e e c h to J o s e p h a p p l i e s this e p i t h e t to his father J a c o b (Ant. 2.149). J u d a h a p p e a l s to J o s e p h ' s g e n e r o s i t y (xprjororrjros;)

(Ant. 2.140,

157); a n d , u p o n his d e a t h b e d , in l a v i s h i n g praise u p o n J o s e p h , his father J a c o b sin­ gles o u t the g e n e r o s i t y (xprjarog) t h a t J o s e p h h a d s h o w n t o w a r d his b r o t h e r s (Ant. 2.195). A g a i n , the p e o p l e i m p l o r e the p r o p h e t S a m u e l as a k i n d (xprjorov) a n d g e n ­ d e father (Ant. 6.92). T h i s e p i t h e t is also u s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the e x c e l l e n t (Xpyo-Tfj) c o u n s e l g i v e n b y J o n a t h a n to D a v i d (Ant. 6.208). It is u s e d as w e l l o f S a u l ' s k i n d l y (xprjara)

r e a s s u r i n g attitude t o w a r d D a v i d (Ant. 6.212). I n a l o n g editorial­

like e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t a b o u t S a u l , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t the g r e a t n e s s o f kings' p o w e r forbids n o t m e r e l y their b e i n g b a d to their subjects b u t e v e n b e i n g less t h a n w h o l l y g o o d (xpyorols)

t o w a r d t h e m (Ant. 6.349. K m g D a v i d , b e c a u s e h e

s h o w e d g r i e f for A b n e r , is d e s c r i b e d as k i n d (xprjarcp) a n d g e n d e in n a t u r e (Ant. 7.43); m o r e o v e r , the o l d w o m a n , in s e e k i n g to g e t D a v i d to b e c o m e r e c o n c i l e d w i t h A b s a l o m , a p p e a l s to D a v i d ' s k i n d n e s s (Ant. 7.184). M e p h i b o s h e t , S a u l ' s g r a n d s o n , c o m p l i m e n t s D a v i d as f o r b e a r i n g a n d k i n d (xprjoros),

even though Saul's family

w a s a c t u a l l y d e s e r v i n g o f e x t i n c t i o n (Ant. 7.270). I n a h i g h c o m p l i m e n t , n o t f o u n d

52. In his note on this passage in the L o e b edition, T h a c k e r a y (1926-34, 2:674), points to the par­ allel language in Virgil's Aeneid 6.851-53, which summarizes the mission of the Romans: T u regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.

126

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

in the B i b l e , J o s e p h u s c o m m e n d s A r a u n a , o n w h o s e t h r e s h i n g floor D a v i d is or­ d e r e d b y G - d t o b u i l d a n altar, for offering this l a n d as a gift (Ant. 7.332). H e also praises h i m for his l i b e r a l i t y a n d his g r e a t n e s s o f soul (pueyaXoi/jvxias,

the A r i s ­

totelian w o r d [Nichomachen Ethics, 2.7.1107B22]) in p r o v i d i n g the site t h a t D a v i d fit­ t i n g l y c o n s e c r a t e s for the future t e m p l e (Ant. 7.332). I n his e x t r a b i b l i c a l e n c o m i u m o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s singles o u t his q u a l i t y o f b e i n g k i n d (xprjoros)

t o t h o s e in trou­

b l e (Ant. 7.391). Similarly, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S o l o m o n ' s g r e a t spirit (pueyaXo^poovvrj)

in g i v i n g gifts t o the Q u e e n o f S h e b a is p r a i s e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant.

8.175)T h a t this is a k e y q u a l i t y o f a k i n g m a y b e inferred f r o m t h e fact t h a t w h e n t h e l e a d e r s o f the p e o p l e a n d J e r o b o a m a p p r o a c h R e h o b o a m , t h e y u r g e h i m to b e m o r e l e n i e n t (xprjororepov)

t h a n his father S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.213). T h e c l e a r i m p l i ­

c a t i o n is t h a t i f R e h o b o a m h a d , in fact, s h o w n this quality, h e w o u l d h a v e p r e ­ v e n t e d t h e disastrous b r e a k u p o f the k i n g d o m . T h e y stress t h a t k i n d n e s s

(xprjorov)

a n d friendliness are a n e a s y matter, e s p e c i a l l y for a y o u n g m a n (Ant. 8.214). S i g n i ficandy, k i n d n e s s is also a s c r i b e d t o G e d a l i a h (Ant. 10.164), w h o , like J e r e m i a h , Z e d e k i a h , a n d J e h o i a c h i n , a d o p t e d a s u b m i s s i v e attitude t o w a r d t h e B a b y l o n i a n s . It is also a q u a l i t y a s c r i b e d t o the P e r s i a n K i n g X e r x e s , w h i c h E z r a , in his e x u l t a ­ tion, asserts w a s c o n f e r r e d u p o n h i m b y G - d H i m s e l f (Ant. 11.131). I n the latter p o r t i o n o f his Antiquities, this e p i t h e t is a p p l i e d in p r a i s e to the h i g h priest H y r c a n u s , w h o is d e s c r i b e d as n a t u r a l l y d e c e n t (xpV^os)

in refusing to lis­

t e n to s l a n d e r (Ant. 14.13). A u g u s t u s ' s a n d H e r o d ' s friend M a r c u s V i p s a n i u s A g r i p p a , w h o w a s c l e a r l y a favorite o f J o s e p h u s ' s b e c a u s e o f his s t r o n g r e a f f i r m a ­ t i o n o f the rights o f J e w s (Ant. 1 6 . 1 6 7 - 7 3 ) , is d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s as k i n d a n d g e n ­ e r o u s (xprjoros

Kal pLtyaXoifjvxos)

in g r a n t i n g to those w h o a s k e d for t h e m w h a t ­

e v e r favors m i g h t b e o f profit to t h e m , w i t h o u t c a u s i n g loss t o o t h e r s (Ant. 16.25). A n o t h e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s favorites, A g r i p p a I, is d e s c r i b e d as n o t o n l y b e n e v o l e n t t o those o f o t h e r n a t i o n s b u t also as b e i n g e v e n m o r e g e n e r o u s (xprjoros)

and

m o r e c o m p a s s i o n a t e to his c o m p a t r i o t s (Ant. 19.330). I n e x e r c i s i n g this quality, J e w s are f o l l o w i n g the e x a m p l e o f G - d Himself, as w e c a n see f r o m t h e fact t h a t K i n g I z a t e s o f A d i a b e n e , in his d e s p e r a t e prayer, a p p e a l s to G - d ' s g o o d n e s s (xprjororrjros, Piety.

Ant. 20.90).

T h e fifth o f the c a r d i n a l virtues is piety, as w e see in P l a t o (Protagoras 3 3 0 B ,

349B) a n d in the S t o i c s (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.64.40; D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.119). A r i s t o d e defines p i e t y as e i t h e r a p a r t o f j u s t i c e o r a n a c c o m p a n i m e n t t o it (De Virtutibus et Vxtiis 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 B 2 2 - 2 3 ) . M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (1.17-20) identifies the p a r t s o f j u s t i c e as "piety, fair d e a l i n g , a n d r e v e r e n c e : p i e t y t o w a r d the g o d s , fair d e a l i n g t o w a r d m e n , r e v e r e n c e t o w a r d the d e p a r t e d . " D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s praises X e n o p h o n for d i s p l a y i n g first o f all the v i r t u e o f p i e t y (Ant. Rom. 4.778). D i o d o r u s (1.2.2) in his p r o l o g u e stresses t h a t i f m y t h s a b o u t H a d e s inspire m e n t o p i e t y a n d j u s t i c e , " h o w m u c h m o r e m u s t w e s u p p o s e history, the i n t e r p r e t e r o f t r u t h a n d the s o u r c e o f all p h i l o s o p h y , c a p a b l e o f s h a p i n g m e n ' s c h a r a c t e r s in h o n o r a b l e

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

ways?"

5 3

127

T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y p a r t i c u l a r l y for t h e R o m a n s , m a y b e s e e n in t h e

fact t h a t t h e k e y q u a l i t y o f A e n e a s in V i r g i l ' s g r e a t n a t i o n a l p o e m is pietas. I n a n s w e r i n g t h e anti-Jewish attacks o f A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d t h e rest, w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h a t t h e l a w s o f t h e J e w s t a u g h t i m p i e t y {aoefieiav)

{ap. Ag.

Ap. 2.291), J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h a t t h e first q u a l i t y t h a t the M o s a i c c o d e is d e ­ s i g n e d to p r o m o t e is p i e t y {Ag. Ap. 2.146). H e stresses t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f p i e t y w h e n he declares that even Jewish w o m e n a n d children agree that piety must be the m o ­ tive o f all o n e ' s efforts in life {Ag. Ap. 2.181). J o s e p h u s , i n his p e r o r a t i o n at t h e e n d o f the essay Against Apion (2.293), e x c l a i m s , " W h a t g r e a t e r b e a u t y t h a n i n v i o l a b l e p i e t y ? " J o s e p h u s is b a s i c a l l y r e d e f i n i n g e x c e l l e n c e {aperr/) as p i e t y

{evoefieLa),

w h i c h w a s , i n d e e d , a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f dperrj, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S t o i c s ( H o l l a d a y igyy,

98). It is t h e

(jxeyaXoi/jvxlo:),

r e l a t e d v i r t u e s so i m p o r t a n t

c o u r a g e {dv8p€La), p a t i e n t

in

endurance

Stoicism—magnanimity {Kaprepta),

{avveais) (Epictetus, ap. A r r i a n , Dissertationes 1.6.28-29)—that

and

sagacity

bring a b o u t those

g r e a t d i v i d e n d s , so p r o m i n e n t in M o s e s ' life as w e l l — f r e e d o m f r o m

perturbation

a n d distress. For the J e w a n d e s p e c i a l l y for J o s e p h u s , t h e priest w h o t o o k s u c h p r i d e in b e ­ l o n g i n g t o t h e first o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s o f priests {Life 2), d e v o t i o n t o t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m w a s t h e p r i m a r y i n d i c a t i o n o f piety. H e n c e , t h e m a j o r sin o n the p a r t o f J e r o b o a m w a s t h a t h e set u p his o w n a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m ­ ple. W h e r e a s J e r o b o a m g i v e s n o r e a s o n s in t h e B i b l e for p r e v e n t i n g his p e o p l e from g o i n g t o J e r u s a l e m (1 K i n g s 12:28), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n {Ant. 8.227-28), h e gives n o f e w e r t h a n five r e a s o n s for this i m p i o u s a c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , J o s e p h u s a m p l i ­ fies the sins o f J e r o b o a m b y r e f e r r i n g t o h i m as c o m m i t t i n g a n o u t r a g e a g a i n s t G - d a n d t r a n s g r e s s i n g H i s l a w s , so t h a t e v e r y d a y h e s o u g h t to c o m m i t s o m e n e w a c t m o r e h e i n o u s t h a n t h e reckless acts o f w h i c h h e w a s a l r e a d y g u i l t y {Ant. 8.245). T o J o s e p h u s t h e priest, J e r o b o a m ' s g r e a t e s t sin w a s the fact t h a t h e c o n t i n u e d t o erect altars a n d to a p p o i n t priests f r o m a m o n g t h e c o m m o n p e o p l e {Ant. 8.265). P i e t y is c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o j u s t i c e , i n a s m u c h as j u s t i c e a p p l i e s to relations a m o n g m e n , w h i l e p i e t y p e r t a i n s t o m a n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G - d ( A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 115). T h u s , Dionysius o f Halicarnassus remarks that the great R o m a n lawgiver N u m a Pompilius introduced t w o virtues b y reason o f w h i c h the city w o u l d be prosper­ ous—justice a n d p i e t y {Ant. Rom. 2 . 6 2 - 5 ) .

54

T h e same juxtaposition of justice and

53. D o w n i n g 1980, 64, n. 8, is correct in noting that Attridge 1976a, 183, is wrong, at least in the cases o f Dionysius and Diodorus, in denying that the G r e e k historians placed a stress on piety similar to that found in Josephus. In particular, D o w n i n g (52-53) notes that Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 2.68 et pas­ sim) h o p e d to reassert a trust in divine providence, that repentance (fxerdvo ia), so frequendy found in Josephus's additions in the Bible, is also stressed by Dionysius, and that the use o f the term

avfifiaxos

in reference to G - d as an ally, w h i c h is so c o m m o n in Josephus, in the sense o f divine grace a n d h u m a n responsibility, w a s perhaps b o r r o w e d from Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 6.63). 54. S o also the terms are used together b y X e n o p h o n , Memorabilia 4 - 8 , 11; Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 2

r

1.5.2, 1.5.3, - 8> 4-92, 6.62, 13.5.3; and D i o d o r u s 1.2.2, cited in Attridge 1976a, 115. A d d D i o d o r u s 12.20.1-3.

128

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

p i e t y is a p p l i e d b y J o s e p h u s to the k i n g s S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.120), J e h o s h a p h a t

(Ant.

9.16), J o t h a m (Ant. 9.236), a n d H e z e k i a h (Ant. 9.260) (Schlatter 1932, 37). T h a t p i e t y is c o u p l e d w i t h the o t h e r virtues is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s

statement

t h a t it w a s u n d e r t h e g r e a t l a w g i v e r M o s e s t h a t the Israelites w e r e t r a i n e d in p i e t y (evoepeiav)

a n d the e x e r c i s e o f the o t h e r v i r t u e s (Ant. 1.6). H e i n d i c a t e s the i m p o r ­

t a n c e o f p i e t y w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t w h e n o n c e M o s e s h a d w o n the o b e d i e n c e o f the Israelites to the dictates o f piety, h e h a d n o further difficulty in p e r s u a d i n g t h e m o f all the r e m a i n i n g v i r t u e s (Ant. 1.21). I n d e e d , it is the p i e t y o f A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses in his a c c o u n t o f the r e a d i n e s s o f A b r a h a m to sacrifice his s o n (Ant. 1.222-36). I n his o n e - s e n t e n c e e u l o g y o f J a c o b , t h e sole v i r t u e t h a t h e m e n t i o n s is his piety, in w h i c h q u a l i t y J a c o b is said to b e s e c o n d t o n o n e o f the forefathers (Ant. 2.190). I n his e m b e l l i s h m e n t o f the i n c i d e n t o f K o r a h ' s r e b e l l i o n , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s M o s e s ' p i e t y (Ant. 4.47). I n e n u m e r a t i n g the qualities o f a l e a d e r s u c h as J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s stresses t h e o u t s t a n d i n g p i e t y t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m his m e n t o r , M o s e s (Ant. 3.49). I n singling o u t the attributes that S a m u e l is to l o o k for in a king, G - d first m e n ­ tions p i e t y (evoefieia)

a n d o n l y t h e n the virtues o f justice, bravery, a n d o b e d i e n c e ,

d e c l a r i n g that these are the qualities o f w h i c h b e a u t y o f soul consists (Ant. 6.160). A s to S a u l ' s piety, J o s e p h u s stresses his r e s p e c t for a n o a t h (Ant. 6.124),

a

m a t t e r so i m ­

p o r t a n t to the R o m a n s , as w e see in C i c e r o (De Officiis 1.13.39-40, 3.26.99-31.112); a n d w h e n J o n a t h a n faces d e a t h f r o m his father b e c a u s e o f his v o w , h e d e c l a r e s that h e w o u l d b e v e r y g l a d to die for p i e t y (evoepecas,

Ant. 6.127). E v e n w h e n the B i b l e

exhibits S a u l ' s l a c k o f p i e t y in offering a sacrifice before w a i t i n g for S a m u e l (1 S a m . 13:8-14), J o s e p h u s offers a n e x c u s e — n a m e l y , that h e d i d so o u t o f necessity b e c a u s e o f the desertion o f his f r i g h t e n e d troops (Ant. 6.103). D a v i d , m o r e o v e r , instructs S o l o m o n to b e p i o u s , j u s t , a n d b r a v e (Ant. 7.338); a n d in r e p e a t i n g these instruc­ tions, h e e x h o r t s his son to rule p i o u s l y a n d j u s d y (Ant. 7.356). F u r t h e r m o r e ,

as

n o t e d , the g o o d K i n g H e z e k i a h is d e s c r i b e d as kindly, u p r i g h t , a n d p i o u s (Ant. 9.260). A n d e v e n in the case o f the non-Jewish k i n g X e r x e s , successor to D a r i u s as k i n g o f Persia, J o s e p h u s a d d s to the scriptural a c c o u n t b y e x p r e s s i n g a d m i r a t i o n for his p i e t y t o w a r d G - d a n d his w a y o f s h o w i n g h o n o r to H i m (Ant. 1 1 . 1 2 0 ) .

55

O n e a s p e c t o f p i e t y t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n e s p e c i a l l y a p p r e c i a t e d b y the R o ­ m a n s w a s filial piety. T h i s trait w o u l d h a v e struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d in the R o ­ m a n s , w h o p e r c e i v e d pietas p a r t i c u l a r l y in the l o v i n g c a r e t h a t A e n e a s s h o w e d for his father, A n c h i s e s , in the s c e n e o f t h e d e p a r t u r e f r o m T r o y ( V i r g i l , Aeneid 2.634-751). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f filial p i e t y so far as J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d m a y b e s e e n in his

55. Attridge 1976a, 183, denies that the Hellenistic historians stressed the importance o f the speci­ fically religious response (ciWjScia) to the facts o f providence. But, w e m a y note, Dionysius o f Halicar­ nassus praises X e n o p h o n for displaying, first o f all, the virtue o f piety (Ant. Rom. 4.778). Moreover, D i o d o r u s (1.2.2), in his prologue, likewise stresses piety and justice as the t w o virtues that historians extol in their heroes.

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

129

i n c r e a s e d s y m p a t h y for E s a u b e c a u s e o f t h e latter's p i e t y t o w a r d his father I s a a c .

5 6

I n his l o n g a n d p o i g n a n t s p e e c h to J o s e p h , w h o at this p o i n t h a s n o t y e t r e v e a l e d his i d e n t i t y t o his b r o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s ' s J u d a h a p p e a l s to h i m in the n a m e o f fa­ t h e r h o o d , his c h i e f p o i n t b e i n g t h a t in s h o w i n g p i t y for t h e a g e d J a c o b , J o s e p h w o u l d b e h o n o r i n g his o w n father (Ant. 2.152). W e m a y also d i s c e r n this attribute o f filial d e v o t i o n i n J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f S a u l .

5 7

Likewise, Josephus expands on

the p i e t y s h o w n b y S o l o m o n t o w a r d his father, D a v i d , at t h e latter's f u n e r a l (Ant. 7.392), as w e l l as t o w a r d his m o t h e r (Ant. 8.8). I f w e ask w h y J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t dis­ cuss this q u a l i t y w h e n h e d e a l s w i t h t h e story o f C a i n , w h o killed his b r o t h e r A b e l (Ant. 1.53-59)? o r w i t h A b i m e l e c h , w h o killed all o f his father's sons e x c e p t o n e (Ant. 5.234), t h e a n s w e r w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e t h a t J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s the t h e m e o f frat­ ricide in t h e c a s e o f c h a r a c t e r s , s u c h as J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s a n d A b s a l o m , w h o a r e a b l e a n d b a s i c a l l y g o o d b u t w h o s u c c u m b to i r r a t i o n a l e m o t i o n a l drives. J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e e n o r m i t y o f filial i m p i e t y in his p o r t r a y a l o f A b s a l o m . I n his d e s i g n s u p o n t h e k i n g s h i p , A b s a l o m , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , is g u i l t y o f a d o u ­ ble impiety, first a g a i n s t G - d , since H e h a d n o t g r a n t e d h i m the sovereignty, a n d s e c o n d l y a g a i n s t his father, D a v i d (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 4 - 1 2 ) . T h e v i r t u e o f p i e t y is p a r t i c u l a r l y m a n i f e s t in the h o n o r g i v e n to the d e a d , as w e c a n see i n b o o k 24 o f H o m e r ' s Iliad, in b o o k 11 o f H o m e r ' s Odyssey, a n d in S o p h o ­ cles' Antigone. D u e r e s p e c t for t h e d e a d w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to t h e R o m a n s , as w e see in P o l y b i u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f a R o m a n funeral in his b o o k 6, as w e l l as in b o o k 6 o f V i r g i l ' s Aeneid. It is this v i r t u e t h a t is s i n g l e d o u t in J o s e p h u s ' s p r a i s e o f J o a b , for e x a m p l e (Ant. 7.18).

SUMMARY T o d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e y h a d failed to p r o d u c e o u t s t a n d ­ ingly w i s e m e n , J o s e p h u s , like o t h e r H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h w r i t e r s , a n d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e P e r i p a t e t i c s c h o o l , stresses t h e role o f g r e a t l e a d e r s . A t

56. T h e Bible unabashedly admits that Isaac favored Esau because he loved to eat his venison (Gen. 25:28); Josephus carefully omits this reason and declares simply that his father favored him espe­ cially (ioTTovSdKet., "pursue with zeal," "spend all one's energies," "spare no effort," the same verb that is used o f Esau's relationship with his wife Basemath [Ant. 1.277],

a

n

indication that he m a t c h e d in his

relationship to his wife the devotion that his father showed toward him). Josephus depicts Esau as re­ ciprocating his father's devotion toward him. T h u s , while the biblical passage states that Esau w e n t (vayelek) to the field to get venison for Isaac (Gen. 27:5), Josephus presents him as acting with m u c h greater enthusiasm, since he says that Esau sped (i^copfirjaev, "rushed," "started rapidly") to the chase (Ant. 1.269). 57. T h u s , in the Bible, after S a m u e l anoints Saul and sends him forth, he cites a n u m b e r o f signs that will c o m e to pass and says, in all vagueness, that w h e n they occur, he is to d o whatever his h a n d "finds to d o " (1 S a m . 10:7). Josephus, on the other hand, uses this as an occasion to reinforce the theme of Saul's pietas, since S a m u e l specifically sends him to salute his father and his kinsfolk after the pre­ dicted signs have c o m e about (Ant. 6.57).

130

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

the s a m e t i m e , t h e r e is t r e m e n d o u s v a r i a t i o n in J o s e p h u s , as in the r e w r i t t e n B i b l e o f P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical Antiquities, in the attention g i v e n to these figures a n d e v e n t o i n d i v i d u a l e p i s o d e s . A s to relative l a c k o f a t t e n t i o n to c e r t a i n figures, this m a y b e b e c a u s e o f their c o m p a r a t i v e u n i m p o r t a n c e historically f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t o f view, o r b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r e j u d i c e s — f o r e x a m p l e , a g a i n s t w o m e n . I n the a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t J o s e p h u s g i v e s t o e n c o m i a for his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , the d e t e r m i n i n g factors a r e the lessons t h a t h e is t r y i n g to c o n v e y a n d the d e g r e e t o w h i c h h e h i m s e l f identified w i t h the c h a r a c t e r in q u e s t i o n . I n listing the qualities t h a t h e a d m i r e d in his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , J o s e p h u s follows the l e a d o f the t r a d i t i o n e m b o d i e d i n Isocrates, X e n o p h o n , P l i n y the Elder, a n d T a c i t u s in their a r e t a l o gies. I n the first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s stresses the antiquity o f his heroes, a p o i n t especially a p p r e c i a t e d b y b o t h the G r e e k s a n d the R o m a n s , since t h e y w e r e r e g a r d e d b y such p e o p l e s as the E g y p t i a n s as l a t e c o m e r s o n the scene o f history. N e x t , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the e m p h a s i s p l a c e d b y rhetoricians a n d as illustrated in the w o r k s o f H o m e r , H e r o d o t u s , A r i s t o d e , C o r n e l i u s N e p o s , a n d Plutarch, h e gives p r o m i n e n c e to his o w n lofty birth a n d the g e n e a l o g y o f his heroes, notably, A b r a h a m , R e b e k a h , J a c o b , Joseph, A m r a m , A a r o n , G i d e o n , Jephthah, Samson, Saul, Shailum, Gedaliah, and Esther. P a r a l l e l i n g the p r e d i c t i o n s a n d w o n d r o u s events a t t e n d i n g the b i r t h o f h e r o e s , b o t h historical a n d m y t h o l o g i c a l , J o s e p h u s stresses these c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n c o n n e c ­ tion w i t h M o s e s a n d S a m s o n in particular. T h e g r e a t h e r o , as w e see in d e p i c t i o n s o f R o m u l u s , C y r u s , a n d A l e x a n d e r , m u s t b e p r e c o c i o u s p h y s i c a l l y a n d intellectu­ ally; a n d t h u s J o s e p h u s , w h o b o a s t s o f his o w n p r e c o c i o u s n e s s , e m p h a s i z e s this characteristic, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the c a s e o f M o s e s . I n a s m u c h as H o m e r , Plato, Isocrates, a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s attach i m ­ p o r t a n c e to p h y s i c a l b e a u t y in a leader, J o s e p h u s calls attention to this attribute in his p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , J o s e p h , S a u l , D a v i d , a n d A b s a l o m . M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e the J e w s h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h b e i n g a n a t i o n o f b e g g a r s , J o s e p h u s , like the rabbis, g o e s o u t o f his w a y to h i g h l i g h t the w e a l t h o f A b r a h a m , M o s e s , S o l o m o n , a n d J o s i a h . J o s e p h u s , like T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o , e m p h a s i z e s the i m p o r t a n c e o f e n l i g h t ­ e n e d l e a d e r s h i p a n d expresses d i s d a i n for the masses. H e stresses M o s e s ' w i l l i n g ­ ness to u n d e r g o toil a n d his careful a v o i d a n c e o f bribery. L i k e P l a t o ' s p h i l o s o p h e r king, M o s e s e x c e l s as a n e d u c a t o r . T h e g r e a t leader, as s e e n in the i n s t a n c e o f S o l o m o n , s h o w s his ability in b r i n g i n g a b o u t p e r f e c t p e a c e . J o s e p h u s a t t a c h e s p a r t i c u l a r significance t o the possession b y his b i b l i c a l h e r o e s o f the c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , to w h i c h is a d d e d the fifth v i r t u e , as r e c o g n i z e d b y P l a t o , o f piety. B e c a u s e the J e w s h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f n o t h a v i n g p r o d u c e d w i s e m e n c o m p a ­ r a b l e to S o c r a t e s , J o s e p h u s lays s p e c i a l stress o n the w i s d o m o f A b r a h a m , J a c o b , J o s e p h , a n d M o s e s . A b r a h a m is p o r t r a y e d as possessing i m p e c c a b l e l o g i c a n d as p r e s e n t i n g a u n i q u e p r o o f for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d . T h e ability t o r e a s o n is as­ c r i b e d to I s a a c , J a c o b , a n d S o l o m o n . J o s e p h a n d D a n i e l are e s p e c i a l l y s i n g l e d o u t

THE QUALITIES OF BIBLICAL HEROES

131

for their w i s d o m in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s . M o s e s is e u l o g i z e d as s u r p a s s i n g in u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g all those w h o h a v e e v e r lived. E v e n those, s u c h as J o s h u a a n d S a m s o n , w h o are n o t n o t a b l e for their w i s d o m in the B i b l e , are p r e s e n t e d as p o s s e s s i n g w i s ­ d o m . J o s e p h u s also stresses t h a t the gift o f p r o p h e c y w a s possessed b y M o s e s . E x ­ c e l l e n c e in the sciences, p a r t i c u l a r l y m a t h e m a t i c s a n d astronomy, w h i c h w e r e so h i g h l y r e g a r d e d in the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d , is e m p h a s i z e d b y J o s e p h u s in his p o r ­ trayal o f A b r a h a m in particular. A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s s h o w o p e n - m i n d e d n e s s in their w i l l i n g n e s s to listen to others. T h e ability to p e r s u a d e is e x t o l l e d b y J o s e p h u s , e s p e c i a l l y in his p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m a n d , m o s t strikingly in v i e w o f the b i b l i c a l m e n t i o n o f his s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t , M o s e s , a l t h o u g h h e also n o t e s t h a t this q u a l i t y m a y b e u s e d negatively, as s e e n in s u c h a figure as K o r a h . E v e n e x c e l l e n c e in m u s i c , w h i c h w a s so h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d b y the G r e e k s , is seen e x e m p l i f i e d in M o s e s , w h o likewise is p o r t r a y e d as e x c e l l i n g in the art o f m a g i c , w h i c h so i m p r e s s e d the ancients. I n a s m u c h as the J e w s a n d J o s e p h u s in p a r t i c u l a r h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f c o w ­ ardice, J o s e p h u s takes g r e a t p a i n s to e m p h a s i z e the c o u r a g e a n d skill in b a t d e o f s u c h l u m i n a r i e s as A b r a h a m , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , a n d D a v i d . T h e q u a l i t y o f t e m p e r a n c e (and its allied v i r t u e o f m o d e s t y ) , w h i c h w a s so i m ­ p o r t a n t to the G r e e k s t h a t it w a s i n s c r i b e d as a m o t t o in D e l p h i a n d w a s stressed b y the S t o i c s in particular, is e m p h a s i z e d in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , e s p e c i a l l y b e c a u s e h e d e c r i e d its a b s e n c e in the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s o f his o w n day. Justice, the c e n t e r p i e c e o f Plato's Republic, is the q u a l i t y p a r e x c e l l e n c e o f the ruler a n d is e x e m p l i f i e d in m a n y e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m , Moses, Samuel, D a v i d , S o l o m o n , Josiah, G e d a l i a h , Daniel, Ezra, and N e h e m i a h . C l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the responsibility to tell the t r u t h , as e x e m p l i f i e d in M o s e s a n d D a v i d . I n a s m u c h as o n e o f the r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s their a l l e g e d h a ­ tred o f m a n k i n d , J o s e p h u s takes e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y to stress the h u m a n i t y o f A b r a ­ h a m , J o s e p h , a n d D a v i d a n d calls a t t e n t i o n to the m e r c y s h o w n p a r t i c u l a r l y b y D a v i d . H e takes p a i n s to d e f e n d S a u l a g a i n s t the c h a r g e t h a t h e h a d b e e n m e r c i ­ less in s l a u g h t e r i n g the w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n o f the A m a l e k i t e s . C o n n e c t e d w i t h j u s t i c e is the trait o f s h o w i n g gratitude, as e x e m p l i f i e d b y J o s e p h , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , D a v i d , J e h o s h a p h a t , a n d M o r d e c a i . J o s e p h u s stresses the g e n e r o s i t y a n d kindness o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h , S a m u e l , S a u l , D a v i d , a n d G e d a l i a h . T h e q u a l i t y o f hospitality, so m u c h p r i z e d in the N e a r East, is m a g n i f i e d in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f M o s e s a n d o f D a v i d . Finally, piety, a q u a l i t y so c e n t r a l to the R o m a n s , as w e see n o t a b l y in the g r e a t n a t i o n a l p o e m , V i r g i l ' s Aeneid, is u n d e r l i n e d b y J o s e p h u s in m a n y a d d i t i o n s , e s p e ­ cially in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , M o s e s , J o s h u a , S a u l , D a v i d , S o l o m o n , a n d H e z e k i a h . It is e x t r e m e l y effective for J o s e p h u s to j u x t a p o s e the virtues o f j u s t i c e a n d p i e t y in S o l o m o n , J e h o s h a p h a t , J o t h a m , a n d H e z e k i a h . I n particular, h e stresses the filial p i e t y s h o w n b y E s a u , J o s e p h , a n d D a v i d .

C H A P T E R

F O U R

Josephus as Apologist to Non-Jews and to Jews

A N S W E R S T O THE C H A R G E S OF A N T I - J E W I S H W R I T E R S I f w e seek to identify t h e g e n r e o f J o s e p h u s ' s Antiquities, w e shall find t h a t it c o m e s closest to a p o l o g e t i c h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , w h i c h , in the c o n t e x t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c A g e , G r e g o r y S t e r l i n g h a s carefully d e f i n e d as " t h e story o f a s u b g r o u p o f p e o p l e in a n e x t e n d e d p r o s e n a r r a t i v e w r i t t e n b y a m e m b e r o f the g r o u p w h o follows the g r o u p ' s o w n traditions b u t H e l l e n i z e s t h e m in a n effort to establish the identity o f t h e g r o u p w i t h i n the setting o f the l a r g e r w o r l d " (Sterling 1992, 17). W h i l e a n u m ­ b e r o f w o r k s — s u c h as t h o s e o f B e r o s s u s , M a n e t h o , D e m e t r i u s , A r t a p a n u s , E u ­ p o l e m u s , a n d P s e u d o - E u p o l e m e u s — b e l o n g t o this c a t e g o r y , t h e greatest, b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e l y a n d qualitatively, is c l e a r l y t h e Antiquities. A p p a r e n d y , at a n earlier p o i n t in his life (ca. 7 9 - 8 1 C.E., w h e n w r i t i n g his a c ­ c o u n t o f t h e Jewish

War, J o s e p h u s h a d d e c i d e d t h a t it w a s s u p e r f l u o u s t o n a r r a t e

t h e a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f the J e w s , i n a s m u c h as m a n y J e w s h a d a l r e a d y d o n e so, a n d i n a s m u c h as these a c c o u n t s h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d b y c e r t a i n o f t h e G r e e k s into their 1

n a t i v e t o n g u e w i t h o u t serious d e p a r t u r e f r o m the t r u t h (War 1.17). Later, a p p a r ­ endy, h e d e c i d e d to w r i t e s u c h a h i s t o r y b u t w a s d e t e r r e d b y t h e s h e e r size o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e (Ant. 1.6-7). J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f states t h a t the i m p e t u s for w r i t i n g t h e w o r k c a m e f r o m his p a t r o n E p a p h r o d i t u s (Ant. 1.8-9);

D

U

t

w

e

m

a

v

conjecture that

t h e r e a l m o t i v e w a s t h a t h e felt e i t h e r t h a t the p r e v i o u s v e r s i o n s w e r e unsatisfac­ t o r y o r t h a t t h e r e w a s i n c r e a s e d n e c e s s i t y for a n a n s w e r to m a l i c i o u s critics o f t h e J e w s . T h e p a g a n s h a d a p p a r e n d y n o t , in g e n e r a l , c o n s u l t e d t h e S e p t u a g i n t , i f w e

1. T h a t Josephus is not referring here, as T h a c k e r a y 1927, 2:10-11, w o u l d have us believe, to the works o f Demetrius, Philo the Elder, Eupolemus, and so on, w o u l d seem to be indicated by his state­ ment that these accounts h a d b e e n translated by certain o f the Greeks into their native tongue. T h e r e is no indication that the G r e e k o f Demetrius, Philo, Eupolemus, and Artapanus, for example, is a trans­ lation.

132

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

133

m a y j u d g e f r o m t h e p a u c i t y o f r e f e r e n c e s to it in classical literature (the o n l y c l e a r r e f e r e n c e is t h a t in P s e u d o - L o n g i n u s 9.9); a n d it is m a n i f e s t f r o m a w r i t e r s u c h as T a c i t u s , w h o gives n o f e w e r t h a n six different t h e o r i e s as t o the o r i g i n o f t h e J e w s (Histories 5.2-3) (see F e l d m a n 1991a, 3 3 1 - 6 0 ) , t h a t h e h a d n o t b o t h e r e d t o ask t h e J e w s t h e m s e l v e s for their v e r s i o n (so R a j a k 1982, 475). I n a d d i t i o n t o a n s w e r i n g the anti-Jewish c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e J e w s h a d p r o ­ d u c e d n o g r e a t m e n , J o s e p h u s seeks to a n s w e r o t h e r c h a r g e s (see H a d a s - L e b e l x

995)- L i v i n g in R o m e d u r i n g the p e r i o d f r o m 70 to the e n d o f the century, J o s e ­ 2

p h u s m a y h a v e h a d c o n t a c t w i t h t h e w r i t i n g s , o r at least t h e ideas, o f s u c h critics o f t h e J e w s as Q u i n t i l i a n a n d M a r t i a l , a n d p e r h a p s T a c i t u s a n d J u v e n a l . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective for J o s e p h u s to h a v e n o n - J e w s p r a i s e t h e J e w s . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , the n o n - J e w J e t h r o expresses a d m i r a t i o n for M o s e s ' g a l l a n t r y in h e l p i n g his d a u g h t e r s (Ant. 2.262), a n d , in a striking a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l text, h e e v e n a d o p t s M o s e s as his s o n (Ant. 2.263). It is m o s t effective, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , to h a v e the n o n - J e w i s h p r o p h e t B a l a a m p r o n o u n c e t h e Is­ raelites t h e m o s t b l e s s e d o f m e n (Ant. 4.118) a n d t o p r e d i c t t h a t t h e y w i l l n e v e r b e o v e r w h e l m e d , since d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e is p r o t e c t i n g t h e m (Ant. 4 . 1 2 7 - 2 8 ) . I f the J e w s a r e h a t e d , says J o s e p h u s , it is b y i n d i v i d u a l s , r a t h e r t h a n b y w h o l e nations. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is t h e A m a l e k i t e s as a n a t i o n w h o b e s e t t h e Is­ raelites in the d e s e r t ( E x o d . 1 7 : 8 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , it is t h e k i n g s o f t h e A m a l e k i t e s w h o are to b l a m e for s e n d i n g m e s s a g e s to the kings o f n e i g h b o r i n g tribes e x h o r t ­ i n g t h e m to m a k e w a r o n t h e Israelites (Ant. 3.40).

E S T A B L I S H M E N T OF THE H I S T O R I C I T Y OF BIBLICAL E V E N T S O n e o f the r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s , e s p e c i a l l y as w e m a y see f r o m J o s e ­ phus's v i g o r o u s r e p l y in his essay Against Apion, is t h a t t h e B i b l e l a c k s historicity (see G e r b e r 1994). D e s p i t e his c o u n t e r a t t a c k t h a t the G r e e k historians a r e t h e m s e l v e s unreliable, b e i n g m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h style t h a n w i t h a c c u r a c y , a n d often c o n t r a ­ dict o n e a n o t h e r (Ag. Ap. 1.15-27), J o s e p h u s , in his Antiquities, f r e q u e n d y resorts t o these v e r y historians to s u p p o r t the historicity o f b i b l i c a l events. J o s e p h u s e s t a b ­ lishes the historicity o f the F l o o d b y u s i n g the s a m e w o r d for N o a h ' s ark (XdpvaKa) that is u s e d b y A p o l l o d o r u s (1.7.2), L u c i a n (De Dea Syria 12), a n d J o s e p h u s ' s c o n ­ t e m p o r a r y P l u t a r c h (De Sollertia Animalium 13.968F) in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the ark o f D e u c a l i o n , the s u r v i v o r o f t h e G r e e k f l o o d story, r a t h e r t h a n the w o r d (/ajStoros), w h i c h is e m p l o y e d b y t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( G e n . 6:14) a n d P h i l o (De Plantatione 11.43) (Ant. 1.77) (see F e l d m a n 1988b, 4 4 - 4 6 ) . T o refute the c l a i m t h a t the F l o o d , as d e ­ s c r i b e d in the B i b l e , is a m y t h , J o s e p h u s cites the e v i d e n c e o f t h e B a b y l o n i a n Berossus, t h e E g y p t i a n H i e r o n y m u s , M n a s e a s o f P a t a r a , a n d N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s ­ c u s — a l l o f t h e m n o n - J e w s (Ant. 1.93-94).

2. O n the question o f Josephus's knowledge o f Latin, see T h a c k e r a y 1929, 119-20, N a d e l 1966, 256-72, D a u b e 1977, 191-94, and Feldman 1984a, 836.

134

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

O c c a s i o n a l l y , to b e sure, J o s e p h u s cites i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m n o n - J e w i s h historians t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s the B i b l e . T h u s , in his discussion o f the F l o o d , h e q u o t e s the state­ m e n t o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s t h a t m a n y refugees f r o m the F l o o d f o u n d safety o n a m o u n t a i n in A r m e n i a (Ant. 1.95). T h i s , o f c o u r s e , c o n t r a d i c t s the b i b l i c a l state­ m e n t , w h i c h J o s e p h u s a d o p t s , t h a t o n l y N o a h a n d his f a m i l y s u r v i v e d (Ant. 1.89). O n e w o u l d t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d nevertheless h a v e a v o i d e d c i t i n g s u c h a c o n f i r m i n g a u t h o r in v i e w o f the fact t h a t h e also c o n t r a d i c t s the B i b l e ; a n d p r e ­ s u m a b l y s o m e o f his r e a d e r s , n o t a b l y those w h o h a d a c c e s s t o the

Septuagint,

w o u l d h a v e n o t i c e d this. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s cites h i m w o u l d h a v e c o n f i r m e d his o w n r e p u t a t i o n as a fair a n d critical h i s t o r i a n w h o d i d n o t h e s ­ itate t o cite s o u r c e s w h e r e v e r h e m i g h t find t h e m , e v e n i f t h e y d i d n o t w h o l l y c o n ­ firm the b i b l i c a l text. I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s r e a s o n for q u o t i n g N i c o l a u s , as h e m a k e s c l e a r in c i t i n g a n u m b e r o f n o n - J e w i s h a u t h o r s (Ant. 1.93), is m e r e l y t o establish the historicity o f the F l o o d a n d the fact t h a t the ark c a m e to rest in A r m e n i a (cf. B o w ley 1994, 2 0 9 - 1 1 ) . H e also p o i n t s to the e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l r e m a i n s o f the ark p r e ­ s e r v e d in A r m e n i a (Ant. 1.95 a n d 20.25). T o establish the historicity o f the story o f the b u i l d i n g o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , J o s e p h u s cites the S i b y l l i n e O r a c l e s , w h i c h w e r e w i d e l y r e v e r e d in b o t h the G r e e k a n d R o m a n w o r l d s (Ant. 1.118). I n v i e w o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f A b r a h a m as f o u n d e r o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e , it w a s i m p o r t a n t for J o s e p h u s t o establish his historicity. H e n c e , o n c e a g a i n , h e t u r n s to n o n - J e w i s h historians w h o m e n t i o n h i m , since b y d o i n g so h e seeks t o s h o w his i m ­ partiality as a researcher. I n particular, h e cites the B a b y l o n i a n B e r o s s u s for confir­ m a t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s d a t e in the t e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after the F l o o d a n d o f his p l a c e o f o r i g i n a m o n g the C h a l d a e a n s , Berossus's o w n p e o p l e (Ant. 1.158). H e t h e n m e n ­ tions the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n H e c a t a e u s , w h o , h e says, a c t u a l l y w r o t e a w h o l e b o o k a b o u t A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.159). Finally, h e n o t e s t h a t N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s r e p o r t s t h a t A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y r e i g n e d in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159-60); p r e s u m a b l y , since this w a s N i c o l a u s ' s n a t i v e city, s u c h d a t a w o u l d h a v e i m p r e s s e d r e a d e r s .

Josephus

c l i n c h e s his p o i n t b y c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o c o n t e m p o r a r y e v i d e n c e — n a m e l y , N i c o ­ laus's s t a t e m e n t t h a t the n a m e o f A b r a m is still c e l e b r a t e d in the r e g i o n o f D a m a s ­ cus, a n d t h a t t h e r e is a v i l l a g e c a l l e d " A b r a m ' s a b o d e " n a m e d after h i m (Ant. 1.160). A s to the historicity o f A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s b y K e t u r a h , J o s e p h u s r e c o r d s the e v i d e n c e o f the prolific non-Jewish p o l y m a t h A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o , in t u r n , cites the historian C l e o d e m u s - M a l c h u s , w h o states that t w o o f the sons o f A b r a h a m b y K e t u r a h j o i n e d H e r a c l e s ' c a m p a i g n in A f r i c a , a n d that H e r a c l e s , w i t h o u t d o u b t the greatest G r e e k h e r o o f t h e m all, m a r r i e d the d a u g h t e r o f o n e o f t h e m (Ant. 1.240). J o s e p h u s establishes the a u t h e n t i c i t y o f e v e n t s in the r e i g n o f K i n g S o l o m o n b y c i t i n g the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s , w h o s e v a l u e is all the g r e a t e r since, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , h e a c t u a l l y translated

the T y r i a n r e c o r d s

from

P h o e n i c i a n into G r e e k (Ant. 8 . 1 4 4 - 4 9 , Ag. Ap. 1.116-20). J o s e p h u s buttresses his c a s e b y c i t i n g the G r e e k h i s t o r i a n D i o s , w h o refers to the riddles e x c h a n g e d b y S o l o m o n a n d K i n g H i r a m o f T y r e (Ant. 8 . 1 4 7 - 4 9 ) .

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

135

I n a s m u c h as r e a d e r s m i g h t w e l l q u e s t i o n the historicity o f e v e n t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h the m i r a c l e s p e r f o r m e d b y the p r o p h e t E l i j a h , J o s e p h u s a p p e a l s to t h e e v i ­ d e n c e o f the h i s t o r i a n M e n a n d e r o f E p h e s u s in o r d e r t o c o n f i r m the B i b l e ' s a c ­ c o u n t o f a d r o u g h t d u r i n g the r e i g n o f A h a b (Ant. 8.324). It w a s d u r i n g s u c h a d r o u g h t , h e n o t e s , t h a t the w i d o w for w h o m E l i j a h p r o p h e s i e d n o l a c k o f f o o d , h a d n o t h i n g in h e r h o u s e save a h a n d f u l o f m e a l a n d a little oil. H o w e v e r , M e n a n d e r also states t h a t the d r o u g h t w a s e n d e d w h e n K i n g I t h o b a l o s o f T y r e m a d e s u p p l i ­ c a t i o n to the P h o e n i c i a n g o d s (Ant. 8.324). N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h i l e this latter s t a t e m e n t surely d o e s c o n t r a d i c t the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , J o s e p h u s passes o v e r it in silence, since his r e a s o n for c i t i n g it is to c o n f i r m t h e historicity o f the d r o u g h t itself, as h e m a k e s c l e a r in his c l o s i n g s t a t e m e n t (ibid.): " T h i s , t h e n , is w h a t M e n a n d e r w r o t e , refer­ r i n g to the d r o u g h t t h a t c a m e in A c h a b ' s r e i g n , for it w a s in his t i m e t h a t I t h o b a ­ los w a s k i n g o f T y r e " (Ant. 8.324). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h e r e cites the full p a s s a g e in M e n a n d e r ' s w o r k , i n c l u d i n g the c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f the B i b l e , w o u l d h a v e s e r v e d , in the eyes o f c r i t i c a l l y m i n d e d r e a d e r s , to reinforce J o s e p h u s ' s status as a n i m p a r ­ tial, critical h i s t o r i a n , w h i l e c o n f i r m i n g t h e o n e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e seeks t o c o n ­ f i r m — n a m e l y , t h e historicity o f the d r o u g h t .

THE REHABILITATION OF N O N - J E W I S H L E A D E R S A s p a r t o f his overall p l a n o f a p o l o g e t i c s , a n d in p a r t i c u l a r to u n d e r l i n e his i m p a r ­ tiality a n d his respect for authority, J o s e p h u s g o e s further in his rehabilitation o f n o n J e w i s h leaders. T h u s , J o s e p h u s c o m e s to the defense o f the p h a r a o h w h o t o o k S a r a i into his h o u s e ( G e n . 12:15) b y r e m a r k i n g that o n c e h e d i s c o v e r e d h e r identity, h e a p o l o g i z e d to A b r a m , stressing t h a t h e h a d w i s h e d to c o n t r a c t a legitimate m a r ­ riage alliance w i t h h e r a n d n o t to o u t r a g e h e r in a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (Ant. 1.165). M o r e o v e r , w e a d m i r e J o s e p h ' s P h a r a o h , i n a s m u c h as h e expresses his a p p r e c i a t i o n o f J o s e p h w i t h m u c h g r e a t e r e n t h u s i a s m t h a n d o e s his b i b l i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t ( G e n . 41:39 vs. Ant. 2.89). P h a r a o h is likewise m o r e m a g n a n i m o u s t o w a r d J o s e p h ' s b r o t h ­ ers in p e r m i t t i n g t h e m to c o n t i n u e in their o c c u p a t i o n as s h e p h e r d s (Ant. 2.185 vs. G e n . 46:34). E v e n the p h a r a o h o f the E x o d u s e m e r g e s m o r e favorably, since, in J o s e ­ phus's v e r s i o n , t h e b l a m e is p l a c e d n o t o n h i m p e r s o n a l l y b u t r a t h e r o n the E g y p ­ tians, w h o are d e s c r i b e d as a v o l u p t u o u s a n d l a z y p e o p l e (Ant. 2.201). A s to the d e ­ cree to p u t all m a l e b a b i e s to d e a t h , the b l a m e is transferred f r o m P h a r a o h to o n e o f the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d scribes (Ant. 2.205 vs. E x o d . 1:8-10) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 b , 4 9 - 6 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , b y shifting the focus f r o m B a l a a m ' s p e r s o n a l i t y to t h e historical, m i l ­ itary, a n d p o l i t i c a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Israel a n d h e r e n e m i e s , J o s e p h u s g i v e s a relatively u n b i a s e d p o r t r a i t o f B a l a a m (see, e.g., Ant. 4.105, 106, 112), t h e p a g a n p r o p h e t w h o s o u g h t to c u r s e Israel, e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e c o m p a r e his v e r s i o n w i t h that o f P h i l o , t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , a n d the b o o k o f N u m ­ b e r s itself (see F e l d m a n i 9 9 3 g , 4 8 - 9 3 ) . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e illustrating J o s e p h u s ' s e a g e r n e s s n o t t o cast a s p e r s i o n s o n non-Jews m a y b e s e e n in his r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f E g l o n , the k i n g o f M o a b . I n s t e a d o f

136

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

b l a m i n g E g l o n for s u b j u g a t i n g t h e Israelites, h e p l a c e s t h e o n u s u p o n t h e Israelites t h e m s e l v e s for their a n a r c h y a n d for t h e failure to o b e y t h e l a w s (Ant. 5.185). H e likewise o m i t s s u c h d i s p a r a g i n g e l e m e n t s as E g l o n ' s o b e s i t y (Judg. 3:17) a n d his d e f e c a t i n g (Judg. 3:24 a c c o r d i n g t o T a r g u m J o n a t h a n ) (see F e l d m a n

i994d,

E v e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , w h o w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e First T e m p l e , e m e r g e s m o r e favorably, i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e c r u e l d e c r e e t h a t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r issued, in w h i c h h e d e c l a r e d t h a t a n y o n e w h o s p o k e a w o r d a g a i n s t t h e J e w i s h G - d s h o u l d b e t o r n l i m b f r o m l i m b ( D a n . 3:29). M o r e o v e r , Josephus considerably tones d o w n the g r u e s o m e picture o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s be­ h a v i n g like a n a n i m a l (Ant. 10.217). L i k e w i s e , o n e m i g h t w e l l b e critical o f D a r i u s for s i g n i n g his n a m e t o a n e d i c t a r b i t r a r i l y f o r b i d d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n i n g o f a n y g o d o r m a n for thirty d a y s ( D a n . 6:7, 9); b u t J o s e p h u s p r o t e c t s D a r i u s ' s r e p u t a t i o n b y e x ­ p l a i n i n g t h a t D a r i u s e n d o r s e d t h e d e c r e e o n l y b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n m i s l e d b y his advisers (Ant. 10.254) (

s e e

Feldman 1993b, 52-54).

W h a t is m o s t striking a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f A h a s u e r u s is t h a t there is n o t e v e n a single hint in it t h a t is n e g a t i v e . J o s e p h u s stresses A h a s u e r u s ' s r e s p e c t for law. H i s a p p a r e n t l y c a p r i c i o u s t r e a t m e n t o f Q u e e n V a s h t i is e x p l a i n e d as b e i n g b e ­ c a u s e o f h e r i n s o l e n c e after she h a d b e e n s u m m o n e d r e p e a t e d l y b y h e r h u s b a n d (Ant. 1 1 . 1 9 1 - 9 2 ) . A n d e v e n t h e n , J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s o n A h a s u e r u s ' s d e e p love for h e r a n d o n his r e m o r s e (Ant. n . 195). A s to A h a s u e r u s ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Esther, al­ t h o u g h t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to q u e s t i o n its n a t u r e , J o s e p h u s insists t h a t it w a s l a w ­ ful (Ant. 11.202). H e e x p a n d s o n A h a s u e r u s ' s g e n d e a n d t e n d e r c o n c e r n for E s t h e r (Ant. 11.236). I n d e e d , A h a s u e r u s is glorified as the i d e a l r u l e r w h o s e g o a l is p e a c e a n d g o o d g o v e r n m e n t for his subjects (Ant. 11.216). H e is p a r t i c u l a r l y m a g n a n i ­ m o u s t o w a r d t h o s e w h o d o favors for h i m (Ant. 11.252). I f h e d i d s e n d o u t t h e e d i c t c o n d e m n i n g all t h e J e w s in his r e a l m t o d e a t h , t h e b l a m e is p l a c e d u p o n his a d ­ visers (Ant. 11.215, 2 7 5 - 7 6 ) (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 1 7 - 3 9 ) . Finally, in c o n t r a s t t o t h e e x t r e m e l y n e g a t i v e v i e w o f E s a u f o u n d in t h e P s e u d e ­ p i g r a p h a , P h i l o , a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y a w a r e o f the e q u a ­ t i o n o f E s a u a n d R o m e , is careful n o t t o offend his R o m a n p a t r o n s a n d thus says n o t h i n g , for e x a m p l e , a b o u t E s a u ' s d e s p i s i n g his b i r t h r i g h t ( G e n . 25:34). H e thus arouses m o r e s y m p a t h y for E s a u in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E s a u ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his father I s a a c , as w e l l as in t h e s c e n e i n w h i c h I s a a c blesses his sons.

THE P R O B L E M O F A S S I M I L A T I O N AND

INTERMARRIAGE

O n e o f t h e r e c u r r i n g c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in T a c i t u s (Histories 5 . 5 . 1 - 2 ) , w a s t h a t t h e y s u n d e r e d t h e m s e l v e s o f f f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e s (the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t t h e y w e r e s u p e r i o r to all others) a n d re­ fused t o i n t e r m a r r y w i t h t h e m . T h i s l e d T a c i t u s to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t w h i l e J e w s w e r e e x t r e m e l y l o y a l t o o n e a n o t h e r , t h e y felt o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d others. E v e n H e c a t a e u s , w h o is o t h e r w i s e so a p p r e c i a t i v e o f J e w i s h v i r t u e s , r e m a r k s , i n his

JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST

137

o n e n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t , t h a t t h e J e w s a r e s o m e w h a t u n s o c i a l a n d hostile to strangers (d7rdv6pa>7T6v n v a Kal puootjevov) (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.4). J o s e p h u s t h u s felt a n u r g e n t n e e d t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s ' s e p a r a t i s m a n d refusal t o i n t e r m a r r y . J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f assimilation a n d i n t e r m a r r i a g e . W e m a y see this f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e d w e l l s o n the Israelites' sin w i t h t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , e x p a n d i n g it f r o m n i n e v e r s e s ( N u m . 2 5 : 1 - 9 ) to t w e n t y - f i v e p a r a g r a p h s (Ant. 4 . 1 3 1 - 5 5 ) (

v a n

U n n i k 1974, 2 4 1 - 6 1 ) . I n d e e d , t h e s p e e c h o f Z a m b r i a s s e e m s t o

reflect the a r g u m e n t s o f a s s i m i l a t e d J e w s o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y (Ant. 4 . 1 4 5 - 4 9 ) . T h e s a m e c o n c e r n m a y also b e s e e n in the m o r a l t h a t h e p o i n t s o u t in his treat­ m e n t o f the S a m s o n narrative—namely, that one must not debase u s e d o f coins) o n e ' s rule o f life (oianav)

(Trapexdpaootv,

b y i m i t a t i n g f o r e i g n w a y s (Ant. 5.306).

T h e r e is a similar lesson d r a w n in his a c c o u n t o f A n i l a e u s a n d A s i n a e u s , t w o J e w ­ ish b r o t h e r s w h o e s t a b l i s h e d a n i n d e p e n d e n t state in M e s o p o t a m i a in the first c e n ­ tury, o n l y t o lose it w h e n , at t h e v e r y p e a k o f their success, A n i l a e u s h a d a n affair w i t h a P a r t h i a n g e n e r a l ' s wife (Ant. 18.340). T h e c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d t h e m e , t h a t o n e m u s t not, as d i d S a m s o n , s u b m i t to o n e ' s p a s s i o n a t e instincts, is f r e q u e n t in J o s e p h u s . T h u s J o s e p h tries to t u r n P o t i p h a r ' s wife f r o m p a s s i o n (oppLrjv) to r e a s o n (Xoyiopiov) (Ant. 2.53). T h e E g y p t i a n s are a t t a c k e d as a v o l u p t u o u s (rpv^epols)

p e o p l e a n d slack (pdOvpiois) to labor, slaves

to p l e a s u r e s (r)8ovtov) in g e n e r a l a n d to a l o v e o f g a i n in p a r t i c u l a r (Ant. 2.201). M o s e s , in a s p e e c h to the p e o p l e at t h e t i m e o f the s e d u c t i o n o f t h e Israelite y o u t h s b y the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , asserts, in a J o s e p h a n a d d i t i o n , t h a t c o u r a g e consists, n o t in v i o l a t i n g t h e l a w s , b u t in resisting t h e p a s s i o n s (ZinQvpLiais) (Ant. 4.143). T h e Is­ raelites in t i m e o f p e a c e b e c o m e c o r r u p t t h r o u g h a b a n d o n i n g t h e o r d e r o f their constitution a n d l i v i n g lives o f l u x u r y (rpv^rf) a n d v o l u p t u o u s n e s s (rjSovrf) (Ant. 5.132). J o s e p h u s asserts t h a t t h e d e g e n e r a c y o f t h e Israelites u n d e r t h e C a n a a n i t e s w a s c a u s e d b y t h e i r drifting f r o m their o r d e r e d c o n s t i t u t i o n into l i v i n g in a c c o r ­ d a n c e w i t h their o w n p l e a s u r e (r)hovr)v) a n d c a p r i c e (PovXrjow), a n d t h a t t h e y t h u s b e c a m e c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h t h e v i c e s c u r r e n t a m o n g t h e C a n a a n i t e s (Ant. 5.179). L i k e w i s e , in his d y i n g c h a r g e to S o l o m o n , D a v i d e x h o r t s h i m to y i e l d n e i t h e r t o favor, flattery, lust (emfltYxia), n o r a n y o t h e r p a s s i o n (TrdOei) (Ant. 5.384). A m n o n is d e s c r i b e d as g o a d e d (pLvajm^opievos) b y the spurs (Kevrpois) (Ant. 7.169); a n d S o l o m o n ' s e x c e s s e s o f p a s s i o n (aKpaoia a n d t h o u g h d e s s p l e a s u r e (r)8ovr) dXoyLOTOS.

o f passion

(irdOovs)

dpooioiojv [Ant. 8.191])

Ant. 8.193) are likewise c o n d e m n e d .

J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y f o u n d h i m s e l f in a d i l e m m a , h o w e v e r , i n a s m u c h as a l ­ t h o u g h t h e B i b l e itself d e c i s i v e l y forbids i n t e r m a r r i a g e ( D e u t . 7:3), h e a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t t o o s t r e n u o u s a n o b j e c t i o n to it w o u l d p l a y into t h e h a n d s o f t h o s e o p ­ 3

ponents o f the J e w s w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h misanthropy. H e therefore care­ fully o m i t s t h e m a r r i a g e s o f I s a a c ' s s o n E s a u w i t h Hittite w o m e n , w h i c h , a c c o r d ­ ing to the B i b l e , m a d e life b i t t e r for I s a a c a n d R e b e k a h ( G e n . 26:35 v s . Ant. 1.266).

3. W e m a y here note, of course, that "marrying out" was frowned upon by many ancient nations. In particular, the Greeks disapproved even of marrying citizens of other Greek cities.

138

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

L i k e w i s e , in d e a l i n g w i t h H a m o r ' s r e q u e s t for the h a n d o f D i n a h ( G e n . 34:6), J o s e ­ p h u s carefully b a l a n c e s a g a i n s t the r a n k o f the p e t i t i o n e r the fact t h a t it is u n l a w ­ ful to m a r r y o n e ' s d a u g h t e r t o a f o r e i g n e r (Ant 1.338). A g a i n , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y J o s h u a ' s w a r n i n g n o t t o m i x w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s (Josh. 2 3 : 1 2 - 1 3 v s . Ant

5.98). J o s e p h u s n o t a b l y m o d u l a t e s the severe o b j e c t i o n s o f S a m s o n ' s p a r e n t s to his

p r o p o s e d i n t e r m a r r i a g e ; a n d in p l a c e o f "Is t h e r e n e v e r a w o m a n a m o n g the d a u g h t e r s o f t h y b r e t h r e n , o r a m o n g all m y p e o p l e , t h a t t h o u g o e s t t o t a k e a wife o f the u n c i r c u m c i s e d Philistines?" (Judg. 14:3), h e h a s the m e r e d e c l a r a t i o n that " t h e y w e r e for refusing b e c a u s e she w a s n o t o f their r a c e " (Ant 5.286). H e leaves w i t h o u t q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d d e s i g n e d the m a r r i a g e in the inter­ ests o f the H e b r e w s a n d t h u s o m i t s a n y c a s t i g a t i o n o f S a m s o n at t h a t p o i n t b e ­ c a u s e o f this i n c i d e n t , r e a l i z i n g p r e s u m a b l y t h a t to criticize S a m s o n w o u l d b e to criticize G - d , since, after all, a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , S a m s o n ' s m a r r i a g e w i t h the T i m n i t e w o m a n w a s p a r t o f a d i v i n e p l a n (Judg. 14:4). I n his final estimate o f S a m ­ son, J o s e p h u s e x c u s e s his b e h a v i o r in a l l o w i n g h i m s e l f to b e e n s n a r e d b y a w o m a n b y i m p u t i n g this to h u m a n n a t u r e , " w h i c h s u c c u m b s to sins," a n d is q u i c k to a d d t h a t " t e s t i m o n y is d u e t o h i m for his s u r p a s s i n g e x c e l l e n c e [aperrjs] in all the rest" ^nt

5.317). Significantly, o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s , w h e n the B i b l e m e n t i o n s t h a t R u t h w a s

a Moabitess, Josephus

o m i t s s u c h references, j u s t as h e o m i t s m e n t i o n

M o a b i t e s s e s in his r e f e r e n c e to the f o r e i g n w i v e s w h o m S o l o m o n m a r r i e d

of (Ant

8.191; cf. 1 K i n g s 11:1). It is r e m a r k a b l e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n m a r r i a g e w i t h M o a b i t e s in his list o f p r o h i b i t e d m a r r i a g e s (Ant 3 . 2 7 4 - 7 5 , 4 . 2 4 4 - 4 5 ) , p r e ­ s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d to a v o i d the issue o f h o w B o a z c o u l d h a v e m a r r i e d a M o a b i t e w h e n this is p r o h i b i t e d in the P e n t a t e u c h ( D e u t . 23:4) (see F e l d m a n 1991c, 4 9 - 5 0 ) . I n the last analysis, J o s e p h u s b a s e s his o p p o s i t i o n t o i n t e r m a r r i a g e , in the cases o f the Israelites w i t h the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n a n d o f S a m s o n , n o t so m u c h o n o p p o s i t i o n to t a k i n g f o r e i g n w i v e s as t o y i e l d i n g to p a s s i o n . I n the case o f E z r a , a l t h o u g h his b r e a k i n g u p o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e s is c e n t r a l t o his activities, in J o s e p h u s , h e d o e s n o t t a k e the l e a d in d o i n g so. I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t the initiative t o enforce the l a w r e g a r d i n g inter­ m a r r i a g e c a m e f r o m others, w h o b e s o u g h t E z r a t o take a c t i o n (Ant 11.141 v s . 1 E s ­ dras 8:68-70). It is o n e o f the J e w s n a m e d S h e c a n i a h ( J e c h o n i a s ) w h o b o l d l y calls o u t a n d asks E z r a t o take s t r o n g a c t i o n to dissolve the i n t e r m a r r i a g e s (1 E s d r a s 8:92-95); b u t in J o s e p h u s , this is w a t e r e d d o w n , so t h a t A c h o n i o s ( = S h e c a n i a h ) tried to p e r s u a d e (eireide) E z r a t o adjure the J e w s to p u t a w a y their f o r e i g n w i v e s a n d the c h i l d r e n b o r n o f t h e m (Ant 11.145). T h e use o f the i m p e r f e c t tense o f the v e r b " t o p e r s u a d e " indicates t h a t h e h a d to a t t e m p t r e p e a t e d l y to c o n v i n c e E z r a . W h e n the b i b l i c a l E z r a is t o l d a b o u t the i n t e r m a r r i a g e s , h e sits a p p a l l e d , full o f h e a v i n e s s , u n a b l e to act, b u t w e are n o t t o l d w h y (1 E s d r a s 8:72). J o s e p h u s is e x ­ plicit in telling his r e a d e r s t h a t t h e r e a s o n w h y E z r a is i m m o b i l i z e d is t h a t h e rea­ sons t h a t the i n t e r m a r r i e d J e w s w i l l n o t listen t o h i m in a n y c a s e if h e c o m m a n d s

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

jjg

t h e m to p u t a w a y their w i v e s a n d c h i l d r e n (Ant. 11.142). I n t h e b i b l i c a l text, w h e n E z r a is a p p r o a c h e d b y J e c h o n i a s , h e d o e s take a c t i o n a n d d o e s a s s u m e r e s p o n s i ­ bility, f o r c i n g all the J e w s to s w e a r t h a t t h e y w i l l d o as h e dictates (1 E s d r a s 8:96). J o s e p h u s ' s E z r a stresses t h a t h e d o e s so b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n p e r s u a d e d (Treiodeis) b y the c o u n s e l o f A c h o n i o s (Kara, TTJV Ayovlov

av^ovXiav)

(Ant. 11.146). E z r a ' s

p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e r n , in a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e , is n o t w i t h i n t e r m a r r i a g e g e n ­ erally b u t r a t h e r w i t h m i x t u r e in t h e strain o f priestly families s u c h as his o w n (1 E s ­ dras 8:70 v s . Ant. 11.140). M o r e o v e r , a careful c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e B i b l e w i t h J o s e p h u s w i l l s h o w t h a t w h e r e a s in the f o r m e r (1 E s d r a s 9:8-9), E z r a o r ­ ders the J e w s to s e n d a w a y their f o r e i g n w i v e s , in t h e latter (Ant. n . 149), h e d i p l o ­ m a t i c a l l y suggests m e r e l y t h a t t h e y w i l l b e d o i n g w h a t is p l e a s i n g t o G - d a n d b e ­ neficial to t h e m s e l v e s i f t h e y d o so. W h e n the J e w s finally d o s e p a r a t e t h e m s e l v e s from their f o r e i g n w i v e s , it is n o t , as in t h e b i b l i c a l text (1 E s d r a s 9 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) , E z r a w h o takes the initiative, b u t r a t h e r the o t h e r l e a d e r s (Ant. 11.151). J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e l o n g list o f n a m e s o f s i x t e e n priests, six L e v i t e s , f o u r t e m p l e singers a n d d o o r k e e p e r s , a n d seventy-five Israelites w h o h a d t a k e n f o r e i g n w i v e s , offering n o e x c u s e for this o m i s s i o n o t h e r t h a n t h a t h e thinks it u n n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e their n a m e s (Ant. n . 1 5 2 ) . B u t aside f r o m t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t t h a t this w o u l d h a v e c a u s e d their d e s c e n d a n t s , t h e o m i s s i o n also serves to further d i m i n i s h t h e e m p h a ­ sis o n t h e v a s t n u m b e r o f i n t e r m a r r i a g e s r e c o r d e d in t h e B i b l e . Finally, as in t h e case o f t h e M i d i a n i t e w o m e n a n d S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o s i t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is b a s e d o n his o p p o s i t i o n to y i e l d i n g to p a s s i o n — g r o u n d s t h a t w o u l d h a v e a p ­ p e a l e d e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e S t o i c s in his a u d i e n c e — a n d o n his c o n v i c t i o n t h a t inter­ m a r r i a g e v i o l a t e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n (TToXireiav) a n d b r o k e the l a w s o f t h e c o u n t r y ; consequently, w h e n t h e J e w s d o dismiss their f o r e i g n w i v e s , h e , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , r e m a r k s t h a t in d o i n g so t h e y h a d m o r e r e g a r d for the o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e laws t h a n for t h e o b j e c t s o f their affection (cfriXrpcov " l o v e p o t i o n s " ) (1 E s d r a s 9:20 vs. Ant. 11.152). H e r e , t o o , w e see t h e e m p h a s i s o n o b e d i e n c e to l a w t h a t w a s so i m ­ p o r t a n t to the P e r s i a n g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h a t w o u l d b e so i m p r e s s i v e to his R o m a n readers. E z r a ' s a c h i e v e m e n t , in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l text, is v i e w e d n o t so m u c h as r e s o l v i n g t h e i m m e d i a t e m a t t e r o f m i x e d m a r r i a g e s b u t r a t h e r as setting a s t a n d a r d o f o b e d i e n c e to the law, " s o t h a t it r e m a i n e d fixed for the f u t u r e " (1 E s ­ dras 9:36 v s . Ant. 11.153) ( F e l d m a n 1993b, 204-7). O n c e the m a t t e r o f m i x e d m a r ­ riages is f o r m u l a t e d , as it is b y J o s e p h u s , in p o l i t i c a l t e r m s — n a m e l y , the n e c e s s i t y for the state to p r e s e r v e t h e h o m o g e n e o u s c h a r a c t e r o f its p o p u l a t i o n — t h e r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l h a v e t h o u g h t o f t h e p a r a l l e l to the c i t i z e n s h i p l a w o f 4 5 1 / 4 5 0 a t t r i b u t e d to the m u c h - a d m i r e d Pericles, w h i c h restricted c i t i z e n s h i p to t h o s e w h o c o u l d 4

p r o v e t h a t b o t h their p a r e n t s w e r e citizens o f A t h e n s . A b o v e all, this w o u l d h a v e served to defuse t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s h a t e strangers.

4. See O s t w a l d 1986, 182-83,

a n

d

m

e

literature cited there. O s t w a l d notes that after the restora­

tion o f d e m o c r a c y u p o n the conclusion o f the Peloponnesian War, this restrictive provision o f the citi­ zenship law was revived (ibid., 507-8).

140

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

APPEAL TO POLITICAL INTERESTS T o further a p p e a l t o t h e n o n - J e w s a n d s e c u l a r l y e d u c a t e d J e w s in his a u d i e n c e , J o s e p h u s c a t e r e d t o their p o l i t i c a l , military, a n d g e o g r a p h i c interests. T h u s , in his p r o e m , h e sets forth as t h e g o a l o f his w o r k t h a t it s h o u l d e m b r a c e , n o t o n l y t h e e n ­ tire a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s , b u t also a n e v a l u a t i o n o f their p o l i t i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n (Sidra^Lv rod TTOXLT€V pharos) (Ant. 1.5). H e a p p e a l s t o his p o l i t i c a l l y m i n d e d a u d i ­ e n c e b y stressing t h e t h e m e o f civil strife (ardais) so f a m i l i a r t o r e a d e r s o f T h u c y ­ dides

5

d e s c r i p t i o n (3.82-84) o f r e v o l u t i o n at C o r c y r a . T h i s t h e m e w o u l d h a v e

struck a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d in m a n y o f J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s , w h o m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e terrible c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e lawlessness

(dvopiia)

b r o u g h t o n b y t h e p l a g u e in A t h e n s ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.53.1). T h e R o m a n s , w h o t h e m ­ selves h a d e x p e r i e n c e d a c e n t u r y o f c o n s t a n d y r e c u r r i n g civil strife f r o m t h e strug­ gle o f t h e S e n a t e a g a i n s t t h e G r a c c h i , o f S u l l a a g a i n s t M a r i u s , o f C a e s a r a g a i n s t Pompey, o f Brutus against Antony, a n d of A n t o n y against O c t a v i a n , a n d w h o h a d a g r e a t t r a d i t i o n o f r e s p e c t for l a w g o i n g b a c k at least t o t h e T w e l v e T a b l e s , w o u l d surely h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d s u c h a n e m p h a s i s o n t h e dire c o n s e q u e n c e s o f i n t e r n e c i n e bloodshed. The

t h e m e o f t h e d r e a d f u l effects o f a n a r c h y a n d civil w a r is a c e n t r a l m o t i f in

b o t h t h e Jewish War a n d t h e Antiquities. T h u s w e m a y n o t e , for e x a m p l e , t h e strik­ ing c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t t h e p h r a s e t h a t J o s e p h u s uses t o d e s c r i b e J e r o b o a m ' s sedi­ t i o n — t h a t h e w a s " a m b i t i o u s o f g r e a t t h i n g s " (pLeydXwv i7ndvpLrjrr)s TTpaypbdrcov, Ant. 8.209)—is similar t o t h o s e t h a t h e uses t o d e s c r i b e b o t h t h e a r c h r e v o l u t i o n a r y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (iindvpiiqaas

/xeyaAcov, War 2.587) a n d his o w n l i t e r a r y a r c h r i v a l ,

Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h o w a s " a m b i t i o u s for n e w e r t h i n g s " (vetorepcov . . . TrpayfjudrcDv,

kir^dv^i

Life 36) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 3 - 4 6 ) . V e r y pointedly, h e contrasts t h e

b r u t a l t r e a t m e n t b y these " t y r a n t s " o f their fellow c o u n t r y m e n (opuocfrvXovs) w i t h the c l e m e n c y that the R o m a n s s h o w e d t o w a r d the Jews, although the J e w s were a n a l i e n r a c e (dXXocfrvXovs) ( War 1.27). One

o f t h e leitmotifs o f b o t h t h e Jewish

War a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a u t o b i o g r a p h y is

t h a t it w a s civil strife t h a t c o s t t h e J e w s m o s t d e a r l y in t h e w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s . I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his o w n c o m m a n d i n G a l i l e e , h e n o t e s t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l insti­ g a t o r o f t h e m o b c l a i m i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s w a s a traitor w a s a c e r t a i n J e s u s s o n o f S a p p h i a s , t h e c h i e f m a g i s t r a t e o f T i b e r i a s , w h o m J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s as " u n r i v a l e d in f o m e n t i n g sedition (araoLOTToios) a n d r e v o l u t i o n (v€coT€piOTr)s)"

(Life 134).

J o s e p h u s also d e p i c t s civil dissension as a p u n i s h m e n t inflicted b y G - d for sin. T h u s he portrays the penalty imposed b y G - d u p o n the builders o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l i n c a u s i n g t h e m t o s p e a k v a r i o u s l a n g u a g e s (Ant. 1.117) as d i s c o r d (ordcns,

a

w o r d n o t f o u n d in t h e S e p t u a g i n t p a r a l l e l , G e n . 11:9). A g a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e ­ p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s unjust p a s s i o n for S a r a i b y b r i n g i n g a b o u t a n o u t b r e a k o f disease a n d o f p o l i t i c a l strife (ardaei

rwv Trpaypidrcov) (Ant.

1.164). Similarly, i n his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t it w a s a s e d i t i o n (ardois)

"for w h i c h w e k n o w o f n o parallel, w h e t h e r a m o n g

JOSEPHUS

AS A P O L O G I S T

141

G r e e k s o r b a r b a r i a n s " (Ant. 4.12), c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t sedi­ tions w a s familiar t o his r e a d e r s . O n e will r e c a l l t h a t for J o s e p h u s , as w e see in the e p i s o d e w i t h K o r a h , the w o r s t p o l i t i c a l b e h a v i o r is w h e n p e o p l e t r o o p to the as­ s e m b l y in d i s o r d e r l y w i s e w i t h t u m u l t a n d u p r o a r (rapaxys)

(Ant. 4.22); a n d , in­

d e e d M o s e s a p p e a l s to the p e o p l e to desist f r o m their sedition a n d d i s t u r b a n c e (rapaxys).

It is this t u r b u l e n c e (rapaxrf)

t h a t K o r a h h a s a r o u s e d a n d t h a t w e find

referred to n o f e w e r t h a n four t i m e s in the b r i e f p a s s a g e d e s c r i b i n g the e x c i t e m e n t a n d d i s o r d e r l y c o n d u c t o f the p e o p l e (Ant. 4.22, 32, 3 5 , 36) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 2 - 1 5 ) . It is a g a i n in p o l i t i c a l a n d m i l i t a r y t e r m s t h a t J o s e p h u s discusses the c o n ­ s e q u e n c e s o f the s e d u c t i o n o f the H e b r e w y o u t h b y the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n , stating, as h e d o e s , t h a t the w h o l e a r m y w a s s o o n p e r m e a t e d b y a sedition (OTOLOLV) far w o r s e t h a n t h a t o f K o r a h (Ant. 4.140). A g o o d p o r t i o n o f b o o k 4 ( 1 1 - 6 6 , 1 4 1 - 5 5 ) o f the Antiquities is d e v o t e d to a c c o u n t s t h a t illustrate the d e g r e e t o w h i c h ardois

is t h e

m o r t a l e n e m y o f p o l i t i c a l states, a subject p a r t i c u l a r l y stressed b y J o s e p h u s as a c o m m e n t o n the w a r r i n g factions in c o n t e m p o r a r y J u d a i s m d u r i n g the w a r against the R o m a n s . I n particular, u n l i k e the B i b l e , w h i c h m e r e l y p r e s e n t s t h e c o m m a n d m e n t n o t to r e m o v e o n e ' s n e i g h b o r ' s l a n d m a r k ( D e u t . 19:14), J o s e p h u s a d d s a r e a s o n , a g a i n in p o l i t i c a l t e r m s — n a m e l y , t h a t r e m o v a l o f l a n d m a r k s l e a d s to w a r s a n d seditions (ardoewv)

(Ant. 4.225). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l p e t i t i o n p u t into t h e m o u t h o f M o s e s , h e

asks that, after t h e y h a v e c o n q u e r e d the l a n d o f Israel, the Israelites n o t b e o v e r ­ c o m e b y civil strife (ordoews),

" w h e r e b y y e shall b e l e d t o a c t i o n s c o n t r a r y t o

those o f y o u r fathers a n d d e s t r o y the institutions t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d "

(Ant.

4.294). J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s , in a p a s s a g e i m i t a t i n g T h u c y d i d e s (6.72), t h a t d i v i d e d c o n t r o l (iroXvapxio)

m a k e s p r o m p t g o v e r n m e n t a l a c t i o n i m p o s s i b l e a n d t h u s in­

j u r e s those w h o p r a c t i c e it (Ant. 4.297). T h e r e is a further p u r p o s e in s u c h a dis­ cussion in t h a t o n e o f t h e c h a r g e s m a d e b y the anti-Jewish A p i o n is t h a t t h e J e w s f o m e n t e d s e d i t i o n (seditionis) i n A l e x a n d r i a (ap. Ag. Ap. 2.68); J o s e p h u s , o n t h e c o n ­ trary, stresses t h r o u g h o u t t h a t the Israelites are c o n s p i c u o u s l y w e l l a w a r e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f s u c h strife, a n d t h a t it is the e n e m i e s o f the J e w s (namely, the E g y p ­ tians) w h o a r e t h e r e a l p r o m o t e r s o f s e d i t i o n , w h e r e a s the J e w s are n o t e d for t h e i r concord. In a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that b y his p a c i f y i n g w o r d s to the a g g r i e v e d tribe o f E p h r a i m , G i d e o n r e s c u e d t h e m f r o m civil strife (ordoeojs),

thus

p e r f o r m i n g a g r e a t e r s e r v i c e for the H e b r e w s t h a n h e d i d b y his m i l i t a r y success (Ant. 5.231) (see F e l d m a n 1993], 2 2 - 2 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , D a v i d c o m p l a i n s that, in a d ­ dition to i n g r a t i t u d e , A b s a l o m h a s b e e n g u i l t y o f the m u c h g r e a t e r sin o f l a w l e s s ­ ness (7TapavopLO)T€poLs) in h a v i n g designs u p o n the k i n g s h i p (Ant. 7.198). T h e s e d e ­ signs, h e says are d o u b l y sinful in t h a t the k i n g s h i p h a d n o t b e e n g i v e n t o h i m b y G - d . W h e r e a s the S e p t u a g i n t t e r m s S h e b a , w h o i n c i t e d the Israelites a g a i n s t D a v i d , a transgressor (irapdvopios)

(2 S a m . 20:1), J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s p o l i t i c a l l a n ­

g u a g e a n d calls h i m a l o v e r o f dissension (ordaei

xcupcov) (Ant. 7.278). It is signifi­

c a n t that in his s u m m a r y o f D a v i d ' s instructions to S o l o m o n c o n c e r n i n g the T e r n -

142

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

pie, J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e , h a s G - d p r o m i s e t h a t H e will g r a n t the H e b r e w s the greatest o f all blessings, w h i c h are t h e n e n u m e r a t e d as " p e a c e a n d f r e e d o m f r o m civil dissension [ardoecovY (Ant. 7.337). T h e r e are several i n d i c a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f J e h o s h a p h a t o f his desire to p r o m o t e the u n i t y o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t it w a s b y g u i l e t h a t K i n g A h a b o f Israel p e r s u a d e d J e h o s h a p h a t (2 C h r o n . 18:2), J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to s m o o t h relations b e t w e e n the J e w i s h k i n g d o m s , says m e r e l y that A h a b i n v i t e d J e h o s h a p h a t t o b e c o m e his ally (Ant. 8.398). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s c o n s i d e r a b l y the w a r m t h w i t h w h i c h A h a b g r e e t e d J e h o s h a p h a t

(Ant.

8.398).

A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t t h e k i n g s o f Israel, J u d a h , a n d E d o m j o i n e d in their e x p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t the M o a b i t e s (2 K i n g s 3:9), J o s e p h u s , c l e a r l y s e e k i n g to s h o w t h a t the a l l i a n c e w a s m o r e t h a n o n e o f c o n v e n i e n c e , a d d s t h a t J e h o r a m , the k i n g o f Israel, r e c e i v e d a s p l e n d i d r e c e p t i o n b y J e h o s h a p h a t (Ant. 9.31). W e t h e n see t h a t J e h o r a m a n d J e h o s h a p h a t

are true p a r t n e r s in f o r m i n g their m i l i t a r y

s t r a t e g y (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) . W h e n the k i n g d o m o f Israel c o m e s to a n e n d a n d J o s e p h u s seeks to a n a l y z e the u n d e r l y i n g c a u s e o f its d e m i s e , h e insists t h a t Israel's troubles b e g a n w i t h its c h o i c e o f J e r o b o a m as k i n g , a r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t the l e g i t i m a t e k i n g , R e h o b o a m

(Ant.

9.282). It is a l m o s t as if J o s e p h u s is h e r e a n a l y z i n g the d e m i s e o f the J e w i s h state o f his o w n day, w h i c h h e likewise ascribes to r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t the l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r ­ ity, in this case, R o m e . I n a w o r d , J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s J e r o b o a m ' s lawlessness (TrapavofjLLav) (Ant. 9.282), the v e r y q u a l i t y t h a t h e d e n o u n c e s in the r e v o l u t i o n a r ­ i e s — n o t a b l y , in his bitter a t t a c k o n the S i c a r i i as the first t o set a n e x a m p l e o f l a w ­ lessness (TTapavofiias) a n d c r u e l t y ((LpLOTrjTos)

to their k i n s m e n (War 7.262) (see

F e l d m a n 1993$ 4 3 - 4 6 ) . J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d to e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f s h o w i n g r e s p e c t for the l e g i t i m a t e ruler o f a n a t i o n , e v e n if t h a t ruler m i g h t b e g u i l t y o f r e p ­ r e h e n s i b l e acts. O n e r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d s w h y J o s e p h u s a d o p t e d this p o s i t i o n , i n a s m u c h as h e w a s the r e c i p i e n t o f a m u l t i t u d e o f favors f r o m the R o m a n a u t o ­ crats. W e m a y see this t e n d e n c y p a r t i c u l a r l y in his portraits o f those t w o a r c h r o g u e s A h a b a n d M a n a s s e h . O f the t w o , A h a b is at least p a r d y e x c u l p a t e d in the i n c i d e n t w i t h N a b o t h b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h h e h a d u s e d m i l d w o r d s w i t h N a b o t h , h e w a s still insulted b y h i m (Ant. 8.356). T h e fact t h a t the J e w s , a n d J o s e p h u s in particular, h a d b e e n a c c u s e d o f b e i n g c o w a r d s m a k e s all the m o r e m e a n i n g f u l his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A h a b as a g r e a t t a c t i c i a n a n d a b r a v e l e a d e r w h o is, a b o v e all, c o n c e r n e d for his p e o p l e (Ant. 8.370, 415). Finally, in a n editorial c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to a b s o l v e A h a b o f b l a m e for l i s t e n i n g to a false p r o p h e t ; rather, it is i n e x ­ o r a b l e a n d i n e v i t a b l e fate t h a t is b l a m e d (Ant. 8.409) (see F e l d m a n 1992b, 373-77). L i k e w i s e , in his p o r t r a y a l o f M a n a s s e h , w e are told, in details t h a t g o b e y o n d the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , o f M a n a s s e h ' s m a j o r a c h i e v e m e n t s in i m p r o v i n g the city o f J e r u s a l e m (Ant. 10.44). I*

1

a

n

e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w e h e a r t h a t the d e g r e e o f

Manasseh's repentance w a s such that he w a s a c c o u n t e d a blessed a n d enviable m a n (Ant. 10.45).

JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST

143

J o s e p h u s finds n o r e d e e m i n g features at all in J e r o b o a m ; h e is a d e m a g o g u e w h o m i s l e a d s the p e o p l e a n d c a u s e s t h e m to transgress the l a w s (Ant. 8.229). S u c h d e m a g o g u e r y , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , in a n editorial r e m a r k , w a s the b e g i n n i n g o f the J e w s ' misfortunes a n d l e d to their defeat in w a r a n d their b e i n g t a k e n c a p t i v e b y o t h e r p e o p l e s (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 - 4 3 ) . A b o v e , all, J e r o b o a m is a n o u t s t a n d ­ i n g e x a m p l e o f the disaster b r o u g h t o n b y secession a n d civil strife. J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n t l y m a k e s a p o i n t o f c o n n e c t i n g GTOLOLS in the f a m i l y w i t h rit­ u a l p o l l u t i o n . W e see this c o n n e c t i o n o f fratricide w i t h p o l l u t i o n i n R e u b e n ' s s p e e c h to his b r o t h e r s d e c l a r i n g t h a t s l a u g h t e r i n g their b r o t h e r J o s e p h w o u l d b e far fouler (puapwrepov)

t h a n m u r d e r i n g s o m e o n e w h o w a s n o t their k i n (Ant. 2.22).

L i k e w i s e , w h e n A m n o n a p p r o a c h e s his sister T a m a r to v i o l a t e her, she u r g e s h i m to give u p his u n r i g h t e o u s (OLSLKOV) a n d u n c l e a n (puapas) desire (Ant. 7.168). S i m i ­ larly, A r i s t o b u l u s I confesses to c o m m i t t i n g i m p i o u s ( d a e / f e W ) a n d

polluted

(jjLiapois) c r i m e s , a n d q u i c k l y a d d s , d e f i n i n g those c r i m e s , t h a t "swift p u n i s h m e n t has o v e r t a k e n m e for the m u r d e r o f m y k i n , " a l l u d i n g to his m u r d e r o f his m o t h e r a n d his b r o t h e r A n t i g o n u s (Ant. 13.316). M o r e o v e r , H e r o d a c c u s e s his sons o f sav­ age a n d u n h o l y (pnapov) h a t r e d , asserting t h a t t h e y h a d s o u g h t to kill h i m (Ant. 16.93). T h e t h e m e t h a t the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s d a y w e r e p o l l u t e d b y the m u r d e r o f their o w n k i n s m e n is r e i t e r a t e d several times. W e m a y n o t e , for e x a m ­ ple, T i t u s ' s addresses to the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s as m o s t a b o m i n a b l e

(pLiapwraToi,

" m o s t p o l l u t e d " ) ( War 6.124, 347). W e m a y cite J o s e p h u s ' s o w n editorial s u m m a r y c o n c e r n i n g the r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p s , in w h i c h h e refers to the I d u m a e a n s

as

"those m o s t p o l l u t e d [pLiapcoTarot] w r e t c h e s " (War 7.267). T h r o u g h o u t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e , o n e c a n see that J o s e p h u s is c o m ­ m e n t i n g o n the c u r r e n t situation in his o w n day. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says v e r y simply that S a m u e l ' s sons d i d n o t w a l k in the w a y s o f their father (1 S a m . 8:3), J o s e p h u s uses the o c c a s i o n to p r e a c h a lesson in politics, n o t i n g t h a t these sons fur­ nish a c l e a r illustration a n d p r o o f t h a t sons n e e d n o t b e similar in c h a r a c t e r t o their fathers, a n d that, in fact, s o m e t i m e s g o o d , h o n e s t folk are s p r u n g f r o m k n a v e s , while the offspring o f v i r t u o u s p a r e n t s h a v e p r o v e d to b e d e p r a v e d (Ant. 6.33). O n e wonders w h e t h e r Josephus m a y not here obliquely be suggesting that D o m i t i a n , the e m p e r o r at the t i m e w h e n h e c o m p l e t e d the Antiquities (so Ant. 20.267), h a d t u r n e d o u t to b e m u c h inferior in c h a r a c t e r to his father, V e s p a s i a n . J o s e p h u s ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h the t e r m i n o l o g y o f politics is e s p e c i a l l y m a n i f e s t in his g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h is a n a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f the scriptural a c c o u n t , o f the results o f the p e a c e t h a t the Israelites m a d e w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s after their ini­ 5

tial e n t r y into C a n a a n (Ant. 5 . 1 3 2 - 3 5 ) . T h e s e q u e n c e o f l u x u r y (Tpv^rjs),

volup­

tuousness (r)8ovrjs), d e l i g h t in l u c r e (r)oovfj rov KepSaiveiv), a n d gross recklessness

5. A similar criticism o f luxury (rpv^dv) a n d o f lack o f exertion (dirovojs) is to be found in Moses' condemnation of the tribes of G a d , Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh for requesting the recendy won Amorite land for their flocks (Ant. 4.167). Likewise, Samuel's sons are condemned for abandoning themselves to luxury (rpv^-qv), thereby acting in defiance o f G - d (Ant. 6.34). O n the contrary, w h e n

144

GENERAL

(aSeiav,

CONSIDERATIONS

" l a c k o f s c r u p l e , " " l a c k o f restraint"), l e a d i n g to d i s d a i n for the o r d e r

(KOO/JLOV) o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n (TroXirelas) a n d for the l a w s (vopucuv), a n d h e n c e to g r a v e sedition (ordois

. . . oeivrj), t h u s c o r r u p t i n g the a r i s t o c r a c y

(apiOTOKparlav),

w o u l d h a v e b e e n f a m i l i a r to r e a d e r s o f the G r e e k a n d R o m a n o r a t o r s a n d histori­ ans.

6

T h e effect o f a p l a g u e o r a f a m i n e u p o n the m i n d s o f p e o p l e w a s a s u b j e c t that g r e a d y interested p o l i t i c a l historians s u c h as T h u c y d i d e s , as w e see f r o m the lat­ ter's r e m a r k s (2.61.3) t h a t s u c h a s u d d e n a n d u n e x p e c t e d o c c u r r e n c e enslaves the m i n d (SovXot . . . (f)p6vr)p,a). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s , a p p e a l i n g to the student o f polit­ ical s c i e n c e w h o r e a d s h i s t o r y for its lessons, c o m m e n t s t h a t the f a m i n e p r e d i c t e d b y J o s e p h e n s l a v e d (iSovXov) n o t o n l y the b o d i e s o f the E g y p t i a n s b u t also their m i n d s (Siavolas)

(Ant 2.191).

T h e t h e m e o f the effect o f l u x u r y u p o n the b o d y politic, w h i c h so i n t r i g u e d a n ­ c i e n t historians s u c h as L i v y (see his p r e f a c e ) , is d e v e l o p e d b y J o s e p h u s n o t o n l y in the p a s s a g e s c i t e d a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h vfipis b u t also in his s t a t e m e n t c o n ­ c e r n i n g the l a w s g i v e n b y G - d t h r o u g h M o s e s , w h i c h , h e r e m a r k s , are so e x c e l l e n t that " n e i t h e r in p e a c e , t h r o u g h l u x u r y (rpv^rjs), n o r in war, u n d e r constraint, h a v e H e b r e w s t r a n s g r e s s e d a n y o n e o f t h e s e " (Ant 3.223). I n contrast, the E g y p t i a n s are d e s c r i b e d as l u x u r y - a d d i c t e d (rpv^epois)

p e o p l e w h o are l a z y a n d slaves to p l e a ­

sure in g e n e r a l a n d to a love o f g a i n in p a r t i c u l a r a n d w h o s e e n v y o f the H e b r e w s l e a d s first to their o p p r e s s i n g t h e m a n d later to their o w n d o w n f a l l (Ant 2.201). It w a s l u x u r y (rpv^yv) t h a t l e d the Israelites to cast a w a y all the p r o s p e r i t y t h a t t h e y h a d w o n t h r o u g h v a r i o u s l a b o r s (Ant 5.180). J o s e p h u s , c i t i n g S a u l ' s c u r s e u p o n the H e b r e w s if a n y o n e s h o u l d eat b e f o r e p u r ­ s u i n g the e n e m y , r e c o r d s the a p h o r i s m t h a t m e n are a p t to lose c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n w h e n blessed b y g o o d fortune (Ant 6.116). I n c o m m e n t i n g o n R e h o b o a m ' s d e g e n ­ eracy, J o s e p h u s a g a i n s e e m s to b e r e c o r d i n g a n a p h o r i s m w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is the v e r y g r e a t n e s s in m e n ' s affairs a n d the i m p r o v e m e n t in their p o s i t i o n that l e a d s to evil a n d lawlessness (Ant 8.251). F u r t h e r m o r e , h e says t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f his successes, his brilliant g o o d fortune, a n d his g r e a t p o w e r t h a t K i n g U z z i a h d e g e n e r a t e d into sin (Ant 9.222). J o s e p h u s also a p p e a l s to his e d u c a t e d r e a d e r s b y his c o m m e n t s o n the q u e s t i o n o f the i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t . A s e a r l y as H e r o d o t u s (3.80-83) in the fifth c e n ­ t u r y B.C.E., w e see a n interest in c o m p a r i n g the v a r i o u s f o r m s o f g o v e r n m e n t — m o n a r c h y , oligarchy, a n d d e m o c r a c y — t o d e t e r m i n e the best. Similarly, P l a t o , after d e s c r i b i n g the i d e a l f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , discusses the v a r i o u s d e g e n e r a t e f o r m s — t i m o c r a c y , oligarchy, d e m o c r a c y , a n d t y r a n n y (Republic 8.543-9.576). I n his p r o e m , J o s e p h u s sets forth as the g o a l o f his w o r k that it s h o u l d e m b r a c e n o t o n l y

David refuses to succumb to idleness or slackness (firjSev dpyov firjSe padv^xov), this leads to victory over the Philistines and his other enemies (Ant. 7.96). 6. Cf. Polybius, 6.57, and Livy, preface to bk. 1, for the political effects o f prosperity and luxury.

JOSEPHUS ASAPOLOGIST

145

the e n t i r e a n c i e n t h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w s b u t a l s o a n e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i r p o l i t i c a l c o n ­ stitution (Ant. 1.5). T o J o s e p h u s , a r i s t o c r a c y , w h i c h for h i m m e a n t t h e r u l e o f t h e b e s t , w h i c h h e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e o c r a c y o r t h e r u l e o f G—d, a n d l i k e w i s e as t h e r u l e o f law, w a s 7

t h e b e s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t (Ant. 4 . 2 2 3 ) . J o s e p h u s

insists t h a t it w a s in

the

s u p r e m e i n t e r e s t o f t h e Israelites t o h a v e t h e b e s t o f all r u l e r s at t h e i r h e a d , G - d H i m s e l f . W e see this e m p h a s i s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , w h e n t h e Israelites a s k S a m u e l t o c h o o s e a k i n g for t h e m s e l v e s . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t this d i s p l e a s e d S a m u e l (1 S a m . 8:6), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s at s o m e l e n g t h w h y S a m u e l w a s g r i e v e d at this r e q u e s t — n a m e l y , b e c a u s e o f his i n n a t e r i g h t e o u s n e s s (oLKaioavv-qs) a n d his h a ­ t r e d o f k i n g s ; b y c o n t r a s t , h e w a s k e e n l y (oeivcos) e n a m o r e d (rJTTrjro) o f a r i s t o c r a t i c g o v e r n m e n t (rrjs apiGTOKparias)

(Ant. 6.36).

J o s e p h u s b e t r a y s his c o n t e m p t for t h e i g n o r a n t m o b in his c i t a t i o n o f t h e c o m ­ m e n t o f P l a t o , w h o w a s p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s i n g l e i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r c e in t h e p r o c e s s o f h e l l e n i z a t i o n in t h e E a s t d u r i n g t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d (so H a d a s 1 9 5 8 ,

7. D . R . Schwartz 1983-84, 30-52, is troubled by the apparent contradiction in Josephus concern­ ing forms of government, even though it is clear, as he remarks, that Josephus h a d given a great deal o f thought to providing a consistent theory about the political status o f the Jewish nation. O n the o n e hand, Josephus designates the period o f the Judges as an aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), but at a n ­ other point, he refers to it as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229). A n o t h e r apparent contradiction arises in Jose­ phus's designation o f the period from the return from the Babylonian Captivity until the H a s m o n e a n s as an aristocracy a n d a n oligarchy (Ant. 11.111), while elsewhere (Ant. 20.234), he refers to the govern­ ment during this period as a democracy. Schwartz conjectures that the contradiction m a y reflect diff­ erent sources, but concludes that it is more likely that it reflects a shift between the time w h e n he wrote the early part of the Antiquities and the period w h e n he concluded the work, perhaps, h e thinks, because of a change in historical circumstances. W e m a y here respond that it is more likely that Josephus used the term "aristocracy" to refer, not to a particular form of government, but rather, as the e t y m o l o g y o f the term implies, to the government by the best, w h i c h for him means the rule o f G - d , that is, a theoc­ racy. Therefore, the government under M o s e s (Ant. 4.223), under the Judges, a n d under the high priests after the return from the Babylonian Captivity is termed a n aristocracy, the c o m m o n denominator in both periods, from Josephus's point o f view, being that the nation was in reality being ruled b y G - d . Hence, the appropriateness of the term "theocracy," a term that Josephus apparendy invented for such a government (Ag. Ap. 2.165. W h e n Josephus designates the period o f the Judges as a monarchy (Ant. 20.229), even though he has previously referred to it as an aristocracy, he is using the term " m o n a r c h y " in the etymological sense a n d is stating that it consisted o f a single ruler; this is not in contradiction to his earlier statement that it was a n aristocracy (Ant. 6.36, 84-85, 268), that is, the government by the best, inasmuch as the rulers, that is, the Judges, were directed by G - d . T h a t Josephus is using the term "monarchy" in this sense is clear from the fact that h e states that the period o f monarchy was followed by the rule o f kings (Ant. 20.229), the latter term being a reference to a form o f government. O n e con­ tradiction does remain, namely, that between Josephus's designation o f the government o f the Jews during the period between the return from the Babylonian Captivity a n d the rise o f the H a s m o n e a n s as an oligarchy (Ant. 11.111) a n d his subsequent designation o f this period as a d e m o c r a c y (Ant. 20.234). Perhaps the solution to this apparent contradiction is that Josephus regarded the rule o f the high priests—clearly the rule of the few a n d hence a n oligarchy—during this period as having the approval of the people at large.

146

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

3-13;

1 9 5 9 , 7 2 - 8 2 ) , t h a t it is h a z a r d o u s to d i v u l g e t h e t r u t h a b o u t G - d to t h e i g ­

n o r a n t m o b (oxAcov) (Ag. Ap. 2.224). T h u c y d i d e s , w h o m J o s e p h u s a d m i r e d a n d i m ­ itated so m u c h , p o i n t s o u t (2.65.4) t h e t r u i s m t h a t the w a y o f t h e m u l t i t u d e is fickle, as s e e n b y t h e fine t h a t t h e A t h e n i a n s , in their a n g e r at t h e terrible losses t h a t h a d b e f a l l e n t h e m d u r i n g t h e g r e a t p l a g u e , i m p o s e d u p o n their g r e a t l e a d e r Pericles, o n l y to r e v e r s e t h e m s e l v e s s h o r d y thereafter a n d to c h o o s e h i m a g a i n as g e n e r a l . T h u c y d i d e s (2.49-53) g r a p h i c a l l y p o r t r a y s t h e effects o f t h e p l a g u e u p o n the A t h e ­ nians, e s p e c i a l l y u p o n their m i n d s , n o t i n g t h a t it l e d to d e s p a i r a n d lawlessness (2.51.4, 2.53.4, 2.61.3). C o n s e q u e n d y , o n e o f t h e m a j o r qualities o f t h e i d e a l states­ m a n , as w e see in T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t (2.60) o f Pericles, is t h e ability to p e r s u a d e the masses. J o s e p h u s also stresses t h a t m a n k i n d is b y n a t u r e m o r o s e (dvoapeorov, t e n t e d , " " g r u m b l i n g , " "irritable") a n d c e n s o r i o u s (L\CUTIOV,

"discon­

" f o n d o f h a v i n g re­

p r o a c h e s at h a n d " ) (Ant. 3.23). H e c o m m e n t s o n t h e effects o f t h e E g y p t i a n f a m i n e in t h e d a y s o f J o s e p h t h a t it e n s l a v e d n o t o n l y t h e b o d i e s o f t h e E g y p t i a n s b u t also their m i n d s (Siavoias,

"thought," "intelligence," "understanding") and drove them

thereafter to d e g r a d i n g m e a n s o f s u b s i s t e n c e (Ant. 2.191). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s a d d s a snide r e m a r k , d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e r a b b l e (6'xAo?) o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , w h o , h e says, w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for v i t i a t i n g t h e n o b l e r instincts o f t h e Israelites in the d e s e r t (Ant. 3.5). H e d e s c r i b e s t h e r e b e l l i o u s Israelite assembly, in t e r m s f a m i l i a r f r o m P l a t o (Laws 2.671 A ) , as a t u m u l t u o u s (dopvfiajorj) m a s s (opu\os), w i t h its i n n a t e d e l i g h t in d e c r y i n g t h o s e in a u t h o r i t y a n d r e a d i n e s s to b e s w a y e d b y w h a t a n y o n e said (Ant. 4 . 3 6 - 3 7 ) . H e r e t u r n s to t h e t h e m e o f the fickleness o f t h e m o b w h e n h e speaks s n e e r i n g l y o f " a l l t h a t a c r o w d , e l a t e d b y success, is w o n t t o u t t e r a g a i n s t t h o s e w h o w e r e o f late d i s p a r a g i n g t h e a u t h o r s " o f their g o o d fortune (Ant. 6.81). T h a t J o s e p h u s is t h i n k i n g in c o n t e m p o r a r y t e r m s in his snide r e m a r k s a b o u t 8

t h e m a s s e s m a y b e s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e War. T h e use o f t h e w o r d o^Ao? in c o n ­ n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m o b (6'xAov) o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n d r a f t e d b y J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , t h a t m o s t d e s p i s e d o f r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , is h i g h l y significant ( ^ 7 - 4 . 1 0 7 ) .

9

It is i n d i c a t i v e o f J o s e p h u s ' s n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d r e v o l t a g a i n s t established a u t h o r i t y t h a t h e asserts t h a t J e r o b o a m w a s c a l l e d to p o w e r b y t h e l e a d e r s o f the r a b b l e (rtov b'xXojv) i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e d e a t h o f K i n g S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.212) (see

8. In War i.iJ2, w e read o f K i n g Aristobulus o f J u d a e a disencumbering himself o f his rabble (6'xAtov) o f inefficient followers. S u c h language is also used with reference to the revolutionaries during the w a r against R o m e , as w e see in Titus's address to his troops in w h i c h he remarks that the Jews, how­ ever daundess and reckless o f life they m a y be, are undisciplined and deserve to be called a mere rab­ ble (oxAo?) rather than an a r m y (War 3475). 9. Similar disparaging remarks in Josephus's War about the m o b o f revolutionaries are found at 3.542: " T h e remainder o f the m o b [who h a d congregated at T a r i c h a e a e ] — a c r o w d o f seditious indi­ viduals and fugitives to w h o m their infamous careers in peacetime gave w a r its attractions"; 6.283: "the p o o r w o m e n and children o f the populace and a m i x e d multitude (had taken refuge [in the Temple])."

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

I _

Feldman 1993^ 4 4 3 ) -

1 0

147

J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f s h o w s his c o n t e m p t for the m a s s e s

w h e n h e r e m a r k s t h a t the advisers o f K i n g R e h o b o a m o f J u d a h w e r e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the n a t u r e o f c r o w d s (6'xAOJV), i m p l y i n g that s u c h m o b s are fickle a n d u n r e l i ­ able, a n d t h a t t h e y u r g e d the k i n g to s p e a k to t h e m in a friendly spirit a n d in a m o r e p o p u l a r style t h a n w a s u s u a l for r o y a l t y {Ant. 8.215). T h a t J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n the c o m m o n p e o p l e w i t h c o n t e m p t m a y b e s e e n from a p e j o r a t i v e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e m b y T i t u s in the War (3.475), w h e r e h e d e s c r i b e s those at T a r i c h a e a e as u n d i s c i p l i n e d , a m e r e r a b b l e (6'xAos" . . . aAAoo?), r a t h e r t h a n a n army. L i k e w i s e , w e h e a r o f the m e r e r a b b l e (6'xAov aAAoos) o f J e w s at M a c h a e r u s 11

(Wary.191).

J o s e p h u s shares w i t h T h u c y d i d e s a n d P l a t o a d i s d a i n for d e m a g o g u e s . T h i s c o n t e m p t g r e w o u t o f e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t e a c h s a w as d e s t r o y i n g his state in his o w n lifetime. O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the w a y in w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to T h u c y d i d e s (3.36, 6.19), the A t h e n i a n m a s s e s w e r e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s s u c h as G l e o n a n d A l c i b iades, as w e l l as o f the t e c h n i q u e b y w h i c h the gullible c a p t a i n o f the ship, r e p r e ­ senting the m a s s e s , in Plato's p a r a b l e , i n s t e a d o f listening to the true n a v i g a t o r , is w o n o v e r b y the f a w n i n g sailors (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 2 - 8 9 A 2 ) . In particular, J o s e p h u s c o n n e c t s the a c t o f a d e m a g o g u e c u r r y i n g favor w i t h t h e c r o w d to r e b e l l i o n , as seen, for e x a m p l e , in his c o m m e n t t h a t A b s a l o m , w h e n re­ b e l l i n g a g a i n s t his father, D a v i d , c u r r i e d favor (SrjfjLaywycjv, " a c t i n g as a d e m a ­ g o g u e " ) w i t h the m u l t i t u d e ; w h e n h e t h o u g h t t h a t the l o y a l t y o f the p o p u l a c e (oxAcov) h a d b e e n s e c u r e d , h e p r o c e e d e d to p l o t a g a i n s t the state, w h e r e u p o n a g r e a t m u l t i t u d e (6'xAos) s t r e a m e d t o h i m (Ant. 7.196) (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 1 7 - 2 1 ) . A n aphoristic c o n t e m p t for the m o b m a y likewise b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t all the p e o p l e s w a r m e d a r o u n d the b o d y o f A m a s a a n d , "as is the w a y o f c r o w d s [6'xAos], p r e s s e d f o r w a r d to w o n d e r at it" (Ant. 7 . 2 8 7 ) .

12

O n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r s t f o r m o f g o v e r n m e n t , as in P l a t o

(Republic

8 . 5 6 6 C - 8 0 B ) , is tyranny. T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s that the r e b e l N i m r o d g r a d u a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d his state into a tyranny, c o m p l e t e l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n his o w n p o w e r (Ant. 1.114). A g a i n , w h e n Z a m b r i a s (Zimri) attacks M o s e s , it is for a c t i n g t y r a n n i c a l l y (rvpavviKcos),

u n d e r p r e t e x t o f law, b u t a c t u a l l y

10. Weinfeld 1 9 8 2 , 1 8 9 - 9 4 , notes that w e find here the concept o f the king as the servant o f the p e o ­ ple; but it is quite clear from the context that the aristocratic Josephus himself views such a relationship disparagingly. 11. T h e same pejorative attitude toward the masses is evident in the fact that Josephus frequendy uses the w o r d 6'xAo? in conjunction with w o m e n and children, for w h o m he seems to have litde regard. T h i s attitude is evident in Josephus's remark that w h e n N a i a was captured, a crowd (o^Aos) o f children, w o m e n , and slaves were taken (Ant. 5.48). 12. Similar negative connotations o f the w o r d 6'xAo? m a y be seen in the following statements: " O f the impious people [o^Aou], A z a e l o s shall destroy some and J e h u others" (Ant. 8.352); " T h e entire mul­ titude [oxAos] [during the reign o f Zadekiah] had license to act as outrageously as it pleased" (Ant. 10.103).

148

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

r o b b i n g t h e Israelites o f t h e s w e e t t h i n g s o f life a n d o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n e^ovGiov) (Ant. 4 . 1 4 6 ) .

13

(avr-

M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s attacks A b i m e l e c h , the s o n o f G i d e o n ,

for t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e g o v e r n m e n t into a tyranny, a c t i n g in d e f i a n c e o f t h e l a w s a n d o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e (Ant. 5.234). L i k e w i s e , the b e h a v i o r o f t h e sons o f t h e h i g h priest E l i is said to differ n o t at all f r o m a t y r a n n y in their v i o l a t i o n o f all t h e l a w s (Ant. 5.339). O n e m i g h t a l m o s t say t h a t l i b e r t y is t h e l e i t m o t i f o f the h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e as J o s e p h u s sees it. It is M o s e s w h o d e v o t e s all his efforts t o p r o c u r i n g his p e o p l e ' s l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)

f r o m t h e o p p r e s s i v e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.290). W h e n t h e

Israelites c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t h i m b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f f o o d a n d w a t e r in the desert, M o s e s a n s w e r s t h e m b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t it is n o t f r o m n e g l i g e n c e t h a t G - d h a s t h u s t a r r i e d in h e l p i n g t h e m b u t r a t h e r t o test their m a n h o o d a n d their d e l i g h t i n l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav)

(Ant. 3.19). I n d e e d , w h e n M o s e s addresses his p e o p l e o n t h e

b o r d e r s o f C a n a a n , j u s t b e f o r e t h e spies a r e sent i n t o Palestine t o s c o u t t h e l a n d , h e r e m i n d s t h e n a t i o n t h a t G - d h a d r e s o l v e d to g r a n t t h e m t w o blessings, l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)

a n d t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f a f a v o r e d l a n d (Ant. 3.300; cf. 4.2).

T h e Israelites, S a m u e l insists, o u g h t n o t to b e c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o y e a r n for lib­ e r t y (iXevdepias),

b u t o u g h t to d o t h e d e e d s n e c e s s a r y to attain it (Ant. 6.20). A g a i n ,

J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t (1 S a m . 10:19), e m p h a s i z e s t h e l i b e r t y (iXevdeplav)

t h a t G - d h a d g r a n t e d t h e m in d e l i v e r i n g t h e m f r o m E g y p t (Ant. 6.60).

W h e n t h e Philistines, a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , m u s t e r a h u g e a r m y a g a i n s t t h e Is­ raelites a n d r e d u c e t h e m to t r e m b l i n g (1 S a m . 13:5-7), S a u l , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , sends h e r a l d s t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y t o c a l l u p the p e o p l e in t h e n a m e o f l i b e r t y (iXevdepia)

t o w a r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.98). Significandy, J o s e p h u s e m ­

p h a s i z e s t h a t u n d e r S o l o m o n , t h e J e w s e n j o y e d the fullest m e a s u r e o f f r e e d o m (Ant. 8.38). I n d e e d , R o m a n r e a d e r s w o u l d r e c a l l t h a t in t h e c o n s p i r a c y to assassi­ n a t e t h e m a d G a i u s C a l i g u l a , t h e p a s s w o r d a d o p t e d b y the c o n s p i r a t o r s w a s the s a m e w o r d , " L i b e r t y " (iXevOepca) (Ant. 19.54).

J O S E P H U S AND

NATIONALISM

A t the y o u n g a g e o f t w e n t y - s i x , J o s e p h u s w a s a l r e a d y w e l l e n o u g h k n o w n to b e sent t o R o m e o n t h e v e r y d e l i c a t e m i s s i o n o f s e e k i n g to free f r o m c a p t i v i t y s o m e priests w h o h a d b e e n sent in c h a i n s t o R o m e b y the p r o c u r a t o r Felix o n a trifling c h a r g e (Life 13). T h r o u g h the g o o d offices o f a J e w i s h a c t o r n a m e d A l i t u r u s , w h o was

a s p e c i a l favorite o f t h e e m p e r o r N e r o ' s , h e w a s i n t r o d u c e d to P o p p a e a

S a b i n a , N e r o ' s c o n s o r t , t h r o u g h w h o s e a i d h e m a n a g e d t o w i n t h e l i b e r a t i o n o f the priests. J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e c r y p t i c s e n t e n c e t h a t P o p p a e a , w h o m h e h a d j u s t m e t ,

13. Cf. V a n Unnik 1974, 255-56, w h o notes the philosophico-ethical context in which this word oc­ curs in Epictetus (ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 4.1.62 and 4.1.68), Diogenianus Epicureus (fr. 3, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 6.8.36), and C l e m e n t of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvetur 10.1). O n the other hand, Moses is praised for leaving nothing, however insignificant, to individual discretion (avretjovoLov) (Ag. Ap. 2.173).

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

149

g a v e h i m l a r g e gifts, after w h i c h h e says h e r e t u r n e d t o Palestine (Life 16). It is surely significant t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y after this s e n t e n c e , h e writes: " T h e r e I f o u n d r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s a l r e a d y o n foot a n d w i d e s p r e a d e l a t i o n at the p r o s p e c t o f revolt f r o m R o m e . I a c c o r d i n g l y e n d e a v o r e d to repress these p r o m o t e r s o f sedi­ tion a n d to b r i n g t h e m o v e r to a n o t h e r f r a m e o f m i n d " (Life 17). H e says t h a t h e u r g e d t h e m to p i c t u r e to t h e m s e l v e s the n a t i o n o n w h i c h t h e y w e r e a b o u t t o m a k e war. T h e i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f the successful m i s s i o n to R o m e , the m e e t i n g w i t h P o p p a e a , the l a r g e gifts t h a t she g a v e h i m , a n d J o s e p h u s ' s efforts t o d i s s u a d e the r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w o u l d s e e m to i n d i c a t e t h a t the trip to R o m e i m p r e s s e d J o s e ­ p h u s w i t h the p o w e r o f R o m e a n d the fruidessness o f r e b e l l i o n ; a n d o n e is surely t e m p t e d t o t h i n k t h a t P o p p a e a h o p e d , w i t h the gifts, to i n f l u e n c e J o s e p h u s t o h e l p defuse the i n c i p i e n t r e v o l u t i o n .

14

J o s e p h u s w a s k e e n l y a w a r e t h a t his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e also h a d c o n s i d e r ­ able c o n t e m p o r a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n v i e w o f the loss o f J e w i s h s o v e r e i g n t y in the w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s w a s f a c e d w i t h the d e l i c a t e task of, o n the o n e h a n d , a n s w e r i n g the c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s w e r e a r a c e o f w e a k l i n g s , w h i l e , o n the o t h e r h a n d , m a k i n g sure n o t to give the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e y w e r e so c o n f i d e n t o f their p o w e r as o n c e a g a i n to seek a c t u a l i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m R o m a n rule, as in­ d e e d t h e y d i d a m e r e t w o g e n e r a t i o n s after the terrible d e b a c l e o f the w a r o f 6 6 - 7 4 . H i s s o l u t i o n is to e m p h a s i z e t h a t the J e w s are a m i g h t y p e o p l e b u t also l o y a l to their rulers. T h i s is s h o w n , for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s p r i d e in the fact t h a t P t o l e m y P h i l o m e t o r a n d his c o n s o r t C l e o p a t r a in the s e c o n d c e n t u r y B.C.E. e n ­ trusted their entire r e a l m to J e w s a n d p l a c e d their a r m y u n d e r the c o m m a n d o f t w o J e w i s h g e n e r a l s , O n i a s a n d D o s i t h e u s (Ag. Ap. 2.49). Similarly, in his v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e , a n d e s p e c i a l l y in his c o n c e r n t o b u i l d u p further the p e r s o n a l i t y o f J o s e p h , J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s his p o w e r . T h u s , the b i b l i ­ c a l v e r s i o n d e s c r i b e s the s h e a v e s o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s as b o w i n g d o w n to his s h e a f ( G e n . 37:7), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , the l a n g u a g e is m u c h stronger, in t h a t the s h e a v e s b o w d o w n like slaves b e f o r e their m a s t e r s (Ant. 2.11). T h a t J o s e p h , the p r o t o t y p e o f the J e w i s h p u b l i c s e r v a n t , t u r n s o u t to b e a n i d e a l administrator, o n t h e o n e h a n d loyal to his s o v e r e i g n a n d o n the o t h e r h a n d c o n c e r n e d for the w e l f a r e o f the

14. Sterling 1992, 231, n. 24, cites m y statement (Feldman 1984a, 782) that the gifts were given by Poppaea to Josephus because he promised to try to defuse the revolution that was starting in J u d a e a and remarks that there is n o basis for this whatsoever. B u t if so, w e m a y ask, w h y w o u l d Poppaea, w h o m Nero, according to Suetonius (Nero 35.3), dearly loved and w h o w a s clearly influential with him, have given the y o u n g Josephus, w h o m she h a d just met, not only gifts but large gifts? A n d w h y d o w e find, immediately after the mention o f these gifts, the statement that Josephus found revolutionary move­ ments afoot w h e n he returned to Judaea? Sterling says that the gifts were probably personal, since if they had been otherwise, Josephus w o u l d certainly have mentioned it, inasmuch as he w a s eager in the Life to defend his hesitancy to j o i n the revolutionaries. But if Josephus h a d stated openly that the gifts were given with the understanding or h o p e that he w o u l d defuse the revolution, this w o u l d have played into the hands o f his accusers, w h o would, and with g o o d reason, have charged h i m with b e i n g b o u g h t off by the R o m a n s and as b e i n g a traitor to their cause.

/jo

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

E g y p t i a n p e o p l e , is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i b l e . I n t h e H e b r e w , P h a r a o h tells J o s e p h : " T h o u shalt b e o v e r m y h o u s e , a n d a c c o r d i n g u n t o t h y w o r d shall all m y p e o p l e b e r u l e d " ( G e n . 41:40). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t P h a r a o h g a v e J o s e p h the p o w e r to a c t as h e t h o u g h t fit " b o t h for the p e o p l e o f E g y p t a n d for their s o v e r e i g n " (Ant. 2 . 8 9 ) . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t P h a r a o h set J o s e p h o v e r all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 41:43), J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s b y n o t i n g the s y m b o l s o f J o s e p h ' s a u t h o r i t y — h i s seal a n d r o b e s o f p u r p l e — a n d t h e c h a r i o t in w h i c h h e d r o v e t h r o u g h o u t t h e l a n d (Ant. 2 . 9 0 ) .

15

T h a t J e w s a r e l o y a l to their m a s t e r s is also the t h e m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i ­ cal a d d i t i o n in J o s e p h ' s s t a t e m e n t to t h e b u d e r t h a t e v e n t h e l u r e o f his o w n p l e a ­ sure w o u l d n o t i n d u c e h i m to d i s h o n o r his m a s t e r P o t i p h a r (Ant. 2 . 6 8 - 6 9 ) . J o s e ­ p h u s is careful to stress J o s e p h ' s l o y a l t y to P h a r a o h e v e n w h e n , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e o f his t r e m e n d o u s a c h i e v e m e n t in s a v i n g the c o u n t r y f r o m starvation, h e m i g h t h a v e r u l e d himself, a n d h a d , in fact, b e e n r o b e d in p u r p l e b y P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.90). T h a t J o s e p h is o b e d i e n t to his s o v e r e i g n m a y b e i n f e r r e d f r o m the fact t h a t w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t J o s e p h , as P h a r a o h ' s vizier, c a m e h o m e a n d g r e e t e d his b r o t h e r s , w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g f r o m w h a t p l a c e h e w a s c o m i n g ( G e n . 43:26), J o s e p h u s , e a g e r to stress J o s e p h ' s loyalty, fills this l a c u n a b y stating t h a t h e c a m e f r o m his a t t e n d a n c e (depanelas,

"service," "attention," " h o m a g e , " "alle­

g i a n c e , " " c o n c e r n " ) u p o n t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.121). J o s e p h u s strives e a g e r l y t o m a k e c l e a r t h a t J o s e p h h a d n o d e s i g n to s u p p l a n t P h a r a o h a n d c o n s e q u e n d y o m i t s s o m e t h i n g t h a t the B i b l e h a s J u d a h s a y to J o s e p h : " T h o u art e v e n as P h a r a o h " (Gen.

16

4 4 : 1 8 v s . Ant. 2 . 1 4 0 ) . J o s e p h u s is careful to a v o i d r e p e a t i n g t h e scriptural

s t a t e m e n t o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s to J a c o b t h a t J o s e p h is t h e r u l e r o f all t h e l a n d o f E g y p t ( G e n . 45:26); i n s t e a d , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e r e a d t h a t J a c o b is t o l d t h a t J o s e p h is s h a r i n g (OVV8L€7TCUV " a d m i n i s t e r i n g s o m e t h i n g w i t h s o m e o n e " ) t h e g o v ­ e r n m e n t o f E g y p t w i t h P h a r a o h a n d h a s a l m o s t the w h o l e c h a r g e o f it in his h a n d s (Ant. 2.168). T h u s , w h e n G - d d e s c r i b e s J o s e p h ' s status i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E g y p t , H e says t h a t H e h a s m a d e h i m l o r d o f E g y p t a n d t h a t his status differs o n l y s l i g h d y (ws dXiyco) f r o m t h a t o f t h e k i n g (Ant. 2.174). I n particular, J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d to a n s w e r the c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s o f d u a l loyalty. T h u s A p i o n , in t h e earlier p a r t o f the first century, n o t o n l y a c c u s e d t h e J e w s o f sedition a n d failure t o w o r s h i p the civic deities b u t also e x p r e s s e d as­ t o n i s h m e n t t h a t t h e y w e r e c a l l e d A l e x a n d r i a n s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.38). W e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t this c h a r g e o f d o u b l e l o y a l t y w a s also a f a c t o r in a w e l l - d o c u ­ m e n t e d c o u r t case. C i c e r o ' s client F l a c c u s h a d s e i z e d m o n e y t h a t t h e J e w s o f A s i a M i n o r h a d s o u g h t to ship o u t o f t h e p r o v i n c e to the T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m . T h i s

15. Similarly, Philo mentions that P h a r a o h bestowed the royal seal and a sacred robe u p o n Joseph (De Josepho 21.120). 16. T h e rabbinic tradition actually speaks of Joseph as having been appointed "king in E g y p t " (Sifre Deuteronomy 334.3). T h e Septuagint resolves this delicate problem by reading <Papaa>, w h i c h the Vulgate renders as "after P h a r a o h . "

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

75/

m a y w e l l h a v e s e e m e d u n p a t r i o t i c t o the R o m a n s b e c a u s e o f the scarcity o f m o n e y t h r o u g h o u t the R e p u b l i c at this t i m e . I n 63 B.C.E., four y e a r s b e f o r e the trial, the S e n a t e h a d p a s s e d a r e s o l u t i o n f o r b i d d i n g the e x p o r t o f g o l d a n d silver f r o m Italy b e c a u s e o f the s h o r t a g e ; a n d F l a c c u s h a d sent the J e w i s h m o n e y to R o m e for d e ­ posit in the p u b l i c treasury. C i c e r o therefore t o o k c a r e t o i m p l y t h a t the J e w s w e r e u n p a t r i o t i c , s a y i n g , " T h e r e is n o l a c k o f m e n , as y o u w e l l k n o w , t o stir these fellows u p a g a i n s t m e a n d e v e r y p a t r i o t i c c i t i z e n " (Pro Flacco 28.66). H e u r g e d the j u r y to s h o w their c o n c e r n for the w e l f a r e o f the state a n d to r e b u f f the J e w i s h p r e s s u r e group. I n a n s w e r t o t h e c h a r g e o f e c o n o m i c a g g r e s s i v e n e s s b y the J e w s , s u c h as w e find in this c a s e c i t e d in C i c e r o , J o s e p h u s h a s J o s e p h tell P h a r a o h t h a t his b r o t h e r s are s h e p h e r d s , so t h a t t h e y m a y n o t a p p e a r to b e c o m p e t i n g w i t h the E g y p t i a n s , w h o w e r e f o r b i d d e n t o o c c u p y t h e m s e l v e s w i t h this c a l l i n g (Ant. 2 . 1 8 5 - 8 6 ) . T h i s is in di­ r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o the B i b l e , w h e r e J o s e p h tells his b r o t h e r s to s a y t h a t t h e y are k e e p e r s o f cattle, since s h e p h e r d s are a n a b o m i n a t i o n to the E g y p t i a n s ( G e n . 46:34). J o s e p h u s a n s w e r s this c h a r g e o f e c o n o m i c a g g r e s s i o n w i t h p a r t i c u l a r effective­ ness in his v e r s i o n o f the J o s e p h story, n o t i n g t h a t a l t h o u g h J o s e p h m i g h t w e l l h a v e t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f the fact t h a t it w a s h e w h o h a d s a v e d the k i n g d o m f r o m f a m i n e , a n d h e thus m i g h t h a v e r e s e r v e d the l a n d o f E g y p t for his o w n benefit, h e nevertheless d i d n o t d o so b u t r a t h e r r e t u r n e d the l a n d to the o r i g i n a l o w n e r s , thus i n c r e a s i n g the g r a t i t u d e a n d l o y a l t y o f the E g y p t i a n s to their s o v e r e i g n (Ant. 1

1 7

s.ig ^)T h e r e is r e a s o n to think, despite the efforts o f d e J o n g e ( 1 9 6 6 , 1 3 2 - 4 8 ) , N e u s n e r (1987b), a n d o t h e r s (e.g., H o r s l e y 1992, 4 : 7 9 1 - 9 7 ) , t h a t e x p e c t a t i o n o f a m e s s i a n i c figure, w h e t h e r o r n o t h e w a s c a l l e d b y the n a m e " m e s s i a h , " w a s w i d e s p r e a d a m o n g J e w s . I n particular, w e call attention to J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h a t m o r e t h a n all else i n c i t e d the J e w s to w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s in 6 6 w a s " a n a m ­ b i g u o u s o r a c l e , likewise f o u n d in their s a c r e d scriptures, t o the effect t h a t at t h a t time, o n e f r o m their c o u n t r y w o u l d b e c o m e r u l e r o f the w o r l d " (War 6.312). T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t this, m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else, d r o v e the J e w s to w a r w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t it w a s a s t r o n g l y a n d w i d e l y h e l d belief. T h a t it w a s i n d e e d w i d e l y h e l d s e e m s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t a similar p r e d i c t i o n is m e n t i o n e d b y T a c i t u s , w h o states t h a t the m a j o r i t y (pluribus) w e r e p e r s u a d e d t h a t " t h e i r a n c i e n t p r i e s d y w r i t i n g s c o n t a i n e d the p r o p h e c y t h a t this w a s the v e r y t i m e w h e n the E a s t s h o u l d g r o w s t r o n g a n d t h a t m e n starting f r o m J u d a e a s h o u l d possess the w o r l d " (Histories 5.13.2). S i m i l a r e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h a b e l i e f w a s w i d e l y h e l d is to b e f o u n d in S u e t o n i u s , w h o r e p o r t s t h a t " t h e r e h a d s p r e a d o v e r all the O r i e n t a n o l d a n d es­ t a b l i s h e d belief, t h a t it w a s fated at t h a t t i m e for m e n c o m i n g f r o m J u d a e a to rule

17. Similarly, Josephus goes so far in his rehabilitation o f the wicked B a l a a m as to indicate that B a ­ laam's motive in seeking to curse the Israelites was not Jew-hatred but rather loyalty to his sovereign; and this, in Josephus's eyes, is certainly praiseworthy.

ij2

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

the w o r l d " (Vespasian 4.5). M e n a h e m , the l e a d e r o f the S i c a r i i , w h o a p p e a r e d in the T e m p l e d r e s s e d in r o y a l r o b e s (War 2.444), c e r t a i n l y gives the a p p e a r a n c e o f a m e s siah-like figure, as d o e s the J e w f r o m E g y p t w h o , w i t h 30,000 followers, p r o p o s e d to o v e r p o w e r the R o m a n g a r r i s o n in J e r u s a l e m (War 2 . 2 6 1 - 6 3 ) . T h e fact t h a t n o t l o n g after the g r e a t revolt, L u k u a s - A n d r e a s in 115 a n d B a r K o c h b a in 132 a p ­ p e a r e d as m e s s i a n i c figures w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t the y e a r n i n g for a m e s s i a h w a s persistent a n d w i d e s p r e a d (see T c h e r i k o v e r 1957, 1:88; B e n - S a s s o n 1971). J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t b e l i e f in a m e s s i a h ipso facto i m p l i e d revolt a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , o m i t s all r e f e r e n c e to D a v i d as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h . H e is c o n t e n t to say t h a t D a v i d ' s h o u s e will b e g l o r i o u s a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 7.94). W h e r e a s i n the b i b l i c a l text, the p r o p h e t N a t h a n assures D a v i d that G - d will establish the t h r o n e o f his k i n g d o m f o r e v e r (2 S a m . 7:13; 1 C h r o n . 17:12), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t D a v i d r e j o i c e d g r e a d y to k n o w t h a t t h e r o y a l p o w e r w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h his d e ­ s c e n d a n t s , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t this w o u l d b e so forever (Ant. 7.94). L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e refers t o G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f a n everlasting l a m p for D a v i d a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s (2 K i n g s 8:18; 2 C h r o n . 21:7), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t G - d d i d n o t w i s h utterly to d e s t r o y D a v i d ' s line (Ant. 9.96), since the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t i m p l i e s m e s s i a n i c aspirations (see B e g g , 1 9 9 3 - 9 4 , 328). I n contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o r e m a r k s t h a t the p r o p h e t S a m u e l , m i s t a k e n l y think­ i n g t h a t E l i a b , the oldest s o n o f Jesse, w a s the o n e to b e a n o i n t e d k i n g , d e c l a r e d , " B e h o l d , the h o l y o n e , the a n o i n t e d o f the L—rd [sanctus christus=meshiah doshY

(Bib. Ant. 59.2), c l e a r l y a l l u d i n g t o h i m as m e s s i a h , " a n o i n t e d , "

J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s the w o r d

1 8

ha-qa-

whereas

19

xp^ds.

It is surely significant t h a t despite the fact t h a t E l i j a h w a s m o r e p o p u l a r w i t h the m a s s e s t h a n w a s his p u p i l E l i s h a , J o s e p h u s identified h i m s e l f m o r e c l o s e l y w i t h E l i ­ sha, p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e E l i j a h w a s r e g a r d e d as a p a t r o n o f the z e a l o t s a n d b e c a u s e h e w a s r e g a r d e d as the f o r e r u n n e r o f t h e m e s s i a h (see Baba Me^ia 8 3 b - 8 4 a a n d Sanhedrin 98a). T h i s p r e f e r e n c e m a y p e r h a p s b e seen in the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s a e u l o g y for E l i s h a (Ant. 9.182), b u t n o t for E l i j a h . M o r e o v e r , in his a d d i t i o n s to the B i b l e , h e c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e often refers to E l i s h a t h a n h e d o e s t o E l i j a h as a p r o p h e t . It is o n l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E l i s h a t h a t J o s e p h u s m a k e s a c o n n e c t i o n b e ­ t w e e n the p r o p h e t a n d his o w n craft o f history. E l i s h a is a g e n d e r p r o p h e t in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e t h a n h e is in the B i b l e . I n particular, J o s e p h u s , in his a c c o u n t o f E l i s h a ' s d o i n g s , o m i t s g o r y s c e n e s t h a t w o u l d b e r e d o l e n t o f a r e v o l u t i o n a r y figure (see F e l d m a n 1994a, 6 1 - 8 6 ; 1 9 9 4 b , 1-28). For p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s , J o s e p h u s is a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y e v a s i v e in his r e m a r k t h a t B a l a a m foretold w h a t c a l a m i t i e s w e r e to c o m e for "cities o f the h i g h e s t

18. T h e rabbis likewise portray D a v i d , in the days to come, as the viceroy o f the messiah, w h o also will be n a m e d D a v i d (Sanhedrin 98b). 19. T h e w o r d does appear in the much-disputed Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63) pertaining to Jesus, as well as in the passage (Ant. 20.200), generally regarded as genuine, pertaining to James, the brother o f Jesus, " w h o w a s called the Christ."

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

133

c e l e b r i t y (of w h i c h s o m e h a d n o t y e t so m u c h as b e e n i n h a b i t e d at all)" (Ant. 4.125). O n e m a y g u e s s t h a t t h e r e is h e r e a v e i l e d hint o f the o v e r t h r o w o f the R o m a n E m ­ pire, b u t J o s e p h u s is careful to k e e p t h a t h i n t as v a g u e as possible (see F e l d m a n i g 9 3 g , 5 9 - 6 1 ) . T h e r e is similar a m b i g u i t y w i t h r e g a r d to the m e a n i n g o f the stone that, in N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s d r e a m , destroys the k i n g d o m o f i r o n ( D a n . 2 : 4 4 - 4 5 v s . Ant. 10.210). T h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , w h i c h p r e d i c t s a m e s s i a n i c k i n g d o m , a p p a r e n d y t h a t o f J u d a e a , t h a t will d e s t r o y all p r e v i o u s k i n g d o m s ( p r e s u m a b l y i n c l u d i n g R o m e ) , a n d t h a t will itself last f o r e v e r ,

20

w o u l d c l e a r l y h a v e b e e n r e p u g n a n t t o the

R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s ' s p a t r o n s . J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t this w o u l d h a r d l y e n d e a r h i m t o his R o m a n hosts, w h o h a d g i v e n h i m a tract o f l a n d outside J e r u s a l e m , s o m e s a c r e d b o o k s , the l i b e r a t i o n o f v a r i o u s friends, R o m a n citizenship, l o d g i n g in the f o r m e r h o m e o f V e s p a s i a n , a n d a p e n s i o n (Life 423), c r y p t i c a l l y r e m a r k s t h a t h e h a s n o t t h o u g h t it p r o p e r to relate the m e a n i n g o f the stone, since h e is e x p e c t e d , as a historian, t o w r i t e o f w h a t is p a s t a n d n o t o f the future. I n d e e d , this is the o n l y p l a c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s m a k e s s u c h a s t a t e m e n t as to the role o f the historian; a n d , in fact, n o o t h e r a n c i e n t h i s t o r i a n m a k e s a n y s u c h r e m a r k . O f c o u r s e , i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s is h i g h l y selective, e s p e c i a l l y in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the p r o p h e t s , h e m i g h t s i m p l y h a v e o m i t t e d the p a s s a g e a b o u t the stone, w h i c h , stricdy s p e a k i n g , is n o t r e l e v a n t t o his history. T h e fact t h a t h e d o e s n o t is a n i n d i ­ c a t i o n o f d e l i b e r a t e a m b i g u i t y in his a t t e m p t t o r e a c h b o t h his a u d i e n c e s , the n o n J e w s a n d the J e w s . P e r h a p s h e felt t h a t to o m i t it a l t o g e t h e r w o u l d h a v e b e e n re­ g a r d e d b y J e w i s h r e a d e r s as a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e h a d sold o u t t o the R o m a n s . Significandy, w h e n J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s it, h e a d d s the e v a s i v e r e m a r k t h a t i f a n y ­ o n e w i s h e s t o o b t a i n m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t it, h e s h o u l d r e a d the B o o k o f D a n i e l . Surely, J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e d t h a t o n l y J e w s w e r e likely t o d o so a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e a w a r e o f a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this p a s s a g e as r e f e r r i n g to the m e s s i a n i c t r i u m p h o v e r the R o m a n E m p i r e . T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this p a s s a g e m a y b e s e e n also in his o m i s s i o n , in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B o o k o f D a n i e l , o f the p a s s a g e in w h i c h it is m a d e c l e a r t h a t the fifth, w o r l d ­ w i d e , a n d e v e r l a s t i n g e m p i r e w o u l d b e r u l e d b y a p e o p l e o f "saints o f the M o s t H i g h " ( D a n . 7:18), t h a t is, the J e w s — a p a s s a g e t h a t w o u l d , to the o b v i o u s e m b a r ­ r a s s m e n t o f J o s e p h u s as s p o k e s m a n for the R o m a n s , i m p l y the o v e r t h r o w o f Rome. T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s r e a l l y w a l k i n g a t i g h t r o p e in his p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t the R o ­ m a n s m a y b e s e e n in his a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y a m b i g u o u s c o m m e n t t h a t D a n i e l w r o t e a b o u t the e m p i r e o f the R o m a n s , a n d t h a t J e r u s a l e m w o u l d b e t a k e n b y

20. Josephus's excuse for omitting this passage is that, as an historian, he is expected to discuss the past and not to predict the future, although Josephus certainly saw a kinship between the prophet and the historian (see Feldman 1990, 397-400), particularly since he must have been aware o f the dictum o f T h u c y d i d e s (1.22.4),

o

n

e

o f his favorites (see D r u n e r 1896, 1-35; T h a c k e r a y 1929, 110-14), that " w h o ­

ever wishes to have a clear v i e w o f the events that have happened and o f those that will some day, in all h u m a n probability, h a p p e n again in the same or a similar w a y " will find his history useful.

154

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

t h e m a n d t h e T e m p l e l a i d w a s t e (Ant. 10.276). B u t , as this t e x t s h o w s , J o s e p h u s w a s a p p a r e n t l y r e l u c t a n t t o tell t h e r e a d e r w h a t D a n i e l w r o t e a b o u t t h e R o m a n s — n a m e l y , t h a t t h e R o m a n E m p i r e w o u l d itself b e o v e r t h r o w n a n d t h a t t h e J e w s w o u l d ultimately triumph. Indeed, although h e devotes m o r e attention to D a n i e l than to a n y other prophet, h e omits a n y reference to the celebrated seventy-weeks p r o p h e c y o f D a n . 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , w h i c h foretells t h e c o m i n g o f a m e s s i a n i c r e d e e m e r .

21

L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s , w r i t i n g f r o m R o m e u n d e r t h e p a t r o n a g e o f the R o m a n e m ­ p e r o r a n d in t h e w a k e o f the disaster o f the J e w i s h revolt o f 6 6 - 7 4 , p l a c e s less e m ­ p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f Palestine t o A b r a h a m (see A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 2 0 1 - 2 9 ) ; i n d e e d , J o s e p h u s is m o r e interested in p o r t r a y i n g t h e m a r r i a g e a l l i a n c e a r r a n g e d b y A b r a h a m t h a n h e is i n t h e b i b l i c a l t h e m e o f t h e fulfillment o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s will i n h e r i t t h e L a n d o f Israel (Bailey 1987, 162). S u r e l y t h e latter t h e m e w o u l d h a v e a p p e a r e d t r e a s o n o u s t o R o m a n s i n his a u d i ­ e n c e . I n fact, this p r o m i s e is o m i t t e d in t h e p a s s a g e (Ant. 1.157) t h a t p a r a l l e l s G e n . 12:7, as w e l l as in t h e p a s s a g e (Ant. 1.170) t h a t parallels G e n . 1 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 , i n t h a t (Ant. 1.184) p a r a l l e l i n g G e n . 15:18, a n d i n t h a t (Ant. 1.193) p a r a l l e l i n g G e n . 1 7 : 1 9 - 2 1 . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e p a s s a g e a b o u t G - d ' s blessing t o I s a a c p r o m i s i n g t h e l a n d t o A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s ( G e n . 2 6 : 3 - 5 ) . I n s t e a d , J o s e p h u s shifts t h e stress f r o m t h e c o v e n a n t e d L a n d o f Israel, so d e a r t o t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s , t o t h e b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s t h e m s e l v e s a n d t o t h e role o f t h e D i a s p o r a . I n fact, J o s e p h u s n e v e r uses t h e w o r d " c o v e n a n t " (SiadrjKr)), w h i c h is t h e S e p t u a g i n t ' s e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e 22

H e b r e w berit.

I n p l a c e o f p r o m i s e s t h a t the J e w s will h a v e t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n , w e

h a v e p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t t h e y will i n h a b i t it. W e m a y see this shift a w a y f r o m l a n d t h e o l o g y also i n t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f J e h o s h a p h a t ' s p r a y e r w h e n h e p r e p a r e s for w a r a g a i n s t t h e M o a b i t e s a n d A m m a n i t e s (Ant. 9 . 8 - 9 ) . W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , J e h o s h a p h a t r e m i n d s G - d t h a t it w a s H e w h o d r o v e o u t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f the l a n d a n d g a v e it t o t h e d e s c e n d a n t s o f A b r a h a m as a n e t e r n a l possession (2 C h r o n . 2 0 : 5 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s ' s J e h o s h a p h a t speaks o f G - d as h a v i n g g i v e n t h e l a n d t o t h e Israelites as a (KaToiKrjoiv) (Ant. 9 - 9 ) .

23

habitation

T h e c e n t r a l focus o f his p r a y e r is n o t o n t h e l a n d b u t o n

the T e m p l e ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , J o s e p h u s h a s c o n v e r t e d a p o l i t i c a l gift o f G - d into a religious o n e (see F e l d m a n 1993I, 173-74). W e c a n see a n o t h e r o f the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s in t h e o r d e r g i v e n b y M a r -

21. T h a t the later rabbis did understand the stone (Dan. 2:44-45) to refer to the messiah is clear from Tanhuma B 2.91-92 a n d Tanhuma Terumah 7. 22. Paul 1985, 473-80, suggests that Josephus's substitution o f the w o r d navXav ("truce") for the w o r d berit (Gen. 9:9, Septuagint, SiadrjKrjv) arises from his desire to dissociate himself from the N e w Testament's emphasis o n the doctrine o f the " n e w covenant." But see Feldman 1988b, 5 6 - 5 7 , in w h i c h I note, a m o n g other things, that if Josephus were writing a n anti-Christian polemic, h e w o u l d have been expected to b e m o r e o p e n about it, inasmuch as Christians were few in n u m b e r a n d hardly held in favor b y D o m i t i a n , under w h o m Josephus wrote his Antiquities. 23. T h i s is the reading adopted b y M a r c u s 1934-37, 6:6. S o m e manuscripts, to b e sure, read Kardaxcatv, "possession."

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

/JJ

sus, the g o v e r n o r o f S y r i a , to A g r i p p a I, to b r e a k u p , b e c a u s e o f the s u s p i c i o n t h a t A g r i p p a w a s t r y i n g to o r g a n i z e a c o n s p i r a c y a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , the c o n f e r e n c e o f v a r i o u s k i n g s t h a t A g r i p p a h a d c o n v e n e d at T i b e r i a s (Ant. 1 9 . 3 4 0 - 4 2 ) .

24

Jose­

phus's r e p l y t o a similar c h a r g e , as it a p p e a r s in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t in J o s e ­ phus's v e r s i o n o f the B a l a a m e p i s o d e , is t h a t G - d h a s f o r b i d d e n the J e w s to inter­ fere in the affairs o f o t h e r n a t i o n s (Ant. 4.102). J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y h a d a v e s t e d interest in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the e v e n t s l e a d i n g to the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the First T e m p l e , i n a s m u c h as h e s a w a striking p a r a l l e l to the events p r e c e d i n g the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e in his o w n day. H e c o n s e ­ q u e n t l y felt a s p e c i a l n e e d t o d e f e n d J e h o i a c h i n ' s d e c i s i o n t o s u r r e n d e r to the e n e m y a n d d e v o t e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f s p a c e to it as c o m p a r e d w i t h the b i b ­ lical text; a n d , v e r y significantly, in the o n e p l a c e in the Jewish War (6.103-4) w h e r e h e refers t o this p e r i o d , h e recalls the e x a m p l e o f J e h o i a c h i n as a n o b l e p r e c e d e n t in s e e k i n g to spare his c o u n t r y a n d to save the T e m p l e f r o m d e s t r u c t i o n ( F e l d m a n 2

2

i995> 5 - 7 ) A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , the p r o p e r attitude t o w a r d the o c c u p y i n g p o w e r , R o m e , was s u b s e r v i e n c e . T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f a i m , in his r e w o r k i n g o f the b i b l i c a l a c ­ counts o f E z r a (Feldman

1993b, 190-214) a n d

Nehemiah

(Feldman

1992c,

187-202), is to stress t h e i r l o y a l t y t o t h e i r rulers a n d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , t o u n d e r s c o r e the similar l o y a l t y o f J e w s t o the g o v e r n m e n t o f the state in w h i c h t h e y reside. F r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f the P e r s i a n k i n g a n d in the c o n t e x t o f the o c c u p a t i o n o f Palestine's c o a s t a n d E g y p t b y the forces o f the D e l i a n L e a g u e in the m i d d l e o f the fifth

c e n t u r y B.C.E., E z r a ' s m i s s i o n w o u l d a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n i n t e n d e d

to

strengthen the c o n t r o l o f the Persians o v e r this strategic a r e a ( M a r g a l i t h 1 9 8 6 , no-12).

2 5

It is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t , therefore, t h a t w h e n h e is first i n t r o d u c e d to his readers b y J o s e p h u s , E z r a is t e r m e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n n o t t o b e f o u n d in 1 E s d r a s 8:4, " f r i e n d l y " (cj>i\os, Ant. 11.121) to K i n g X e r x e s . T h e office o f b o d y ­ g u a r d o f the k i n g w a s h e l d o n l y b y "friends o f the k i n g , " as the n u m e r o u s e x a m ­ ples cited b y L a m m e r t (1927) i n d i c a t e .

26

A p r e c e d e n t for E z r a ' s status m a y b e s e e n

in J o s e p h u s ' s references to H e z e k i a h , w h o w a s i n v i t e d b y the k i n g o f B a b y l o n ,

24. D . R . S c h w a r t z argues convincingly that actually Marsus was jealous of A g r i p p a , and that he took advantage of this opportunity to cast a shadow upon his n a m e (D. R . S c h w a r t z 1990, 137-40). 25. A s M . Smith 1971, 122-23, has noted, in appointing, financing, and authorizing Ezra, the Per­ sian court was motivated not by pure piety but by practical reasons. In particular, E g y p t in 458 B.C.E., supported by some two hundred A t h e n i a n galleys, was in the midst of a major revolt against Persia; a n d the Athenians themselves were fighting on the coast o f Syria and Palestine, a mere fifty miles from Jerusalem. T h e loss o f Jerusalem w o u l d have cut the line o f communications between Persia a n d Egypt. 26.

O n the tide "friend o f the king," see D o n n e r 1961, 269-77. Cf. Ant. 13.45, where A l e x a n d e r

Balas, the king o f Syria, writes to J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n that he is electing him high priest o f the Jews with the tide o f "friend." Cf. also Ant. 14.250, where Josephus quotes a decree o f the R o m a n S e n ­ ate exempting K i n g Ptolemy o f E g y p t from taxation on the ground that he is "our ally a n d friend."

IJ6

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

B e r o d a c h - b a l a b a n , to b e c o m e his ally a n d " f r i e n d " (Ant. 10.30), as w e l l as to D a n i e l , w h o w a s g i v e n the e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y h i g h h o n o r of b e i n g d e s i g n a t e d b y K i n g D a r i u s o f M e d i a as the first o f his " f r i e n d s " (Ant. 10.263), a n d to Z e r u b b a b e l , w h o h a d a n " o l d f r i e n d s h i p " w i t h K i n g D a r i u s o f Persia a n d w h o w a s o n t h a t a c c o u n t " j u d g e d w o r t h y o f a p l a c e in the k i n g ' s b o d y g u a r d " (Ant. 11.32). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E z r a himself, J o s e p h u s ' s stress is o n his l o y a l service to the k i n g a n d o n his c o n c e r n for u p h o l d i n g the law. T h u s , w h e r e a s in 1 E s d r a s 8:36, it is the J e w i s h exiles w h o d e l i v e r the o r d e r s o f the P e r s i a n k i n g t o the g o v e r n o r s o f the p r o v i n c e A c r o s s the R i v e r , in J o s e p h u s , it is E z r a h i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 11.138); a n d this results, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a p o l o g e t i c a d d i t i o n , in the g o v e r n o r s ' b e i n g c o m p e l l e d t o h o n o r the J e w i s h n a t i o n a n d to assist t h e m in all n e c e s s a r y w a y s . W h e r e a s w e are t o l d in the b i b l i c a l t e x t t h a t the l e a d e r s a n d p r i n c i p a l m e n o f the J e w s s h a r e d in the v i o l a t i o n o f the l a w (1 E s d r a s 8:70), a n d w h e r e a s w e are i n f o r m e d b y J o s e p h u s t h a t t h e y v i o l a t e d the c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d b r o k e their a n c e s t r a l l a w s (Ant. 11.140), E z r a is s o u g h t b y s o m e o f the l e a d e r s to c o m e t o the a i d o f the l a w s (Ant. 11.141). It is this q u a l i t y o f o b e d i e n c e t o the l a w t h a t is stressed b y J o s e ­ p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e (1 E s d r a s 8:68), w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t E z r a t o o k the l e a d e r s h i p in p l a n n i n g (i^ovXevaaro),

b u t t h a t it w a s d u e to G - d t h a t all

t u r n e d o u t w e l l for h i m , since G - d s a w fit to r e w a r d h i m for his g o o d n e s s (xprjarorrjTa)

a n d for his r i g h t e o u s n e s s (SiKcuoavvrjv) (Ant. 11.139). It is this latter

t e r m , " r i g h t e o u s n e s s , " t h a t is c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e l a w (81/07) (see F e l d m a n 1993b, 1 9 8 - 2 0 4 ) . A litmus test is J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d G e d a l i a h , w h o w a s a p p o i n t e d b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r as a p u p p e t g o v e r n o r o f J u d a e a (see F e l d m a n 1993c, 1-10). O n e w o u l d h a r d l y t h i n k t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d e v i n c e s y m p a t h y for this p u p p e t g o v e r ­ n o r — a c o l l a b o r a t o r o f a c o n q u e r i n g k i n g w h o h a d b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for the d e ­ struction o f the T e m p l e , the c e n t r a l feature o f the religious s y s t e m o f the J e w s . How

to justify s u c h s u b s e r v i e n c e , w h e t h e r in the case o f G e d a l i a h o r in J o s e p h u s ' s

own

case, m u s t h a v e p r e s e n t e d J o s e p h u s w i t h a real p r o b l e m . H i s a n s w e r is t h a t it

was

a c a s e o f m i l i t a r y necessity. T h a t t h e r e w a s n o m i l i t a r y possibility o f c o n t i n u ­

ing

the w a r a g a i n s t N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t

10.155)

t n a t

(Ant.

t h o s e w h o w e r e left in J u d a e a a n d o v e r w h o m G e d a l i a h w a s m a d e g o v ­

e r n o r w e r e the p o o r (so also Jer. 40:7) a n d the deserters ( J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n ) . On

the o t h e r h a n d , in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f I s h m a e l , the s o n o f N e t h a n i a h , w h o

was r e s p o n s i b l e for the assassination o f G e d a l i a h , J o s e p h u s refers to h i m as w i c k e d (TTOVTJPOS) a n d v e r y crafty (SOXIMTCLTOS)

(Ant. 10.160). It is n o c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t these

epithets are also, o n a n u m b e r o f o c c a s i o n s , u s e d of J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , J o s e p h u s ' s bitter r i v a l (Life 85, 102; War 2.585, 4.208, 4.389, 5.441). I n his p o r t r a y a l o f D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to stress D a n i e l ' s l o y a l t y to his s o v e r e i g n a n d , in particular, his c o n c e r n n o t to a p p e a r b r a z e n . H e n c e , w h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, D a n i e l g o e s d i r e c d y t o K i n g N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , a s k i n g h i m to give h i m t i m e to solve the riddle o f his d r e a m ( D a n . 2:16), J o s e p h u s ' s D a n i e l o b s e r v e s p r o t o c o l in r e q u e s t i n g the c o m m a n d e r o f the k i n g ' s b o d y g u a r d , A r i o c h e s , to a p -

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

757

p r o a c h t h e k i n g in o r d e r to p u t o f f t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e k i n g ' s w i s e m e n for a d a y (Ant 10.198). T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s h i g h l y sensitive to t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s w e r e d i s l o y a l to t h e r e i g n i n g a u t h o r i t y m a y b e s e e n in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h certain C h a l d a e a n s accuse the Jewish youths S h a d r a c h , M e s h a c h , a n d A b e d n e g o , w h o m N e b u c h a d n e z z a r h a d a p p o i n t e d to h i g h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e posts, o f p a y i n g n o h e e d to h i m , as w i t n e s s e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e y d i d n o t serve his g o d s o r w o r s h i p his i m a g e — o b v i o u s l y i m p o r t a n t s y m b o l s in m a i n t a i n i n g t h e u n i t y a n d a l l e g i a n c e o f the m a n y e t h n i c g r o u p s in his k i n g d o m ( D a n . 3 : 8 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e is careful to shift t h e e m p h a s i s f r o m t h e failure o f t h e J e w s t o serve N e b u c h a d n e z ­ zar's g o d s a n d to w o r s h i p his i m a g e — a p o l i t i c a l d e m a n d — t o t h e religious m o t i v e o f the y o u t h s — n a m e l y , t h e i r u n w i l l i n g n e s s to transgress t h e i r fathers' l a w s (Ant 10.214). I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s sensitivity to t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w s c o n s t i t u t e d a n a t i o n w i t h i n a n a t i o n , w h o s e a l l e g i a n c e , w h e r e v e r t h e y w e r e scattered, w a s to t h e L a n d o f Israel, a n d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e f o r e v e r s u b v e r s i v e until their r e t u r n f r o m c a p t i v ­ ity, it is instructive to n o t e J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f the w a r n i n g issued b y t h e p r o p h e t A z a r i a h to K i n g A s a . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , if the J e w s forsake G - d , H e w i l l p u n i s h t h e m b y f o r s a k i n g t h e m ; " t h e y w i l l b e b r o k e n in p i e c e s , n a ­ tion a g a i n s t n a t i o n a n d city a g a i n s t c i t y " (2 C h r o n . 15:6). J o s e p h u s , in his p a r a ­ phrase, i n t r o d u c e s a n e w e l e m e n t w h e n h e d e c l a r e s t h a t as a p u n i s h m e n t ,

G-d

will scatter t h e J e w s o v e r the f a c e o f the e a r t h , so t h a t t h e y w i l l l e a d a life as aliens (€7rr)Xvv) a n d w a n d e r e r s (dXrfrrjv) (Ant 8 . 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) . F r o m this w e m i g h t c o n c l u d e t h a t the D i a s p o r a is a c u r s e a n d a p u n i s h m e n t , w h e r e a s o n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d J o s e ­ p h u s , w h o s p e n t t h e s e c o n d h a l f o f his life in the D i a s p o r a u n d e r R o m a n p r o t e c ­ tion, to h a v e glorified this e v e n t in J e w i s h history, since h e c l e a r l y o p p o s e d a n in­ dependent Jewish state.

27

H o w e v e r , w e m u s t n o t e t h a t t h e r e is n o h i n t h e r e o f t h e

traditional J e w i s h h o p e t h a t t h e J e w s w i l l s o m e d a y b e g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r f r o m t h e exile a n d r e t u r n to t h e L a n d o f Israel.

RESPONSE TO PROSELYTISM O n e o f t h e m o s t serious c h a r g e s m a d e a g a i n s t the J e w s w a s a g g r e s s i v e n e s s in p r o s ­ elytism (see F e l d m a n 1993, 2 8 8 - 3 4 1 ) . T h u s H o r a c e , in t h e first c e n t u r y B.C.E., speaks o f t h e m i s s i o n a r y z e a l o f t h e J e w s as s o m e t h i n g p r o v e r b i a l : " W e , like t h e J e w s , will c o m p e l y o u to j o i n o u r t h r o n g " (Satires 1.4.139-43). A l t h o u g h satirists e x ­ a g g e r a t e , the p o i n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n lost if t h e r e h a d n o t b e e n s o m e basis to t h e c h a r g e o f m i s s i o n a r y activity. J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y T a c i t u s a l l u d e s bitterly to the m i s s i o n a r y z e a l o f t h e J e w s , n o t i n g t h a t the m o s t d e g r a d e d o f o t h e r r a c e s ,

27. Pace S h o c h a t 1953, 43-50, w h o points to this passage as evidence that Josephus viewed the D i ­ aspora as a punishment.

158

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

s c o r n i n g t h e p e o p l e s o f their o r i g i n , b r o u g h t to the J e w s their c o n t r i b u t i o n s a n d gifts, thus a u g m e n t i n g the J e w s ' w e a l t h (Histories 5.5). T h e R o m a n s w e r e p a r t i c u ­ larly sensitive to the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a p r o s e l y t e give u p his b e l i e f in the R o m a n g o d s , since for t h e m r e l i g i o n a n d state w e r e o n e a n d indivisible, a n d since t h e y b e ­ l i e v e d t h a t the g r o w t h a n d t r i u m p h o f R o m e w e r e d u e t o the f a v o r o f the g o d s , as w e see t h r o u g h o u t the e a r l y b o o k s o f L i v y ' s history. C o n v e r t s t o J u d a i s m , o n the o t h e r h a n d , a c c o r d i n g to T a c i t u s , w e r e t a u g h t to despise all the g o d s , to d i s o w n their country, a n d to d i s r e g a r d their families. P e r c e i v i n g a d e c l i n e in p i e t y (see, for e x a m p l e , the p r e f a c e t o L i v y ' s history), the R o m a n s b e c a m e i n c r e a s i n g l y bitter a b o u t those w h o w e r e t r y i n g t o d r a w t h e m a w a y f r o m their a n c e s t r a l r e l i g i o n a n d v a l u e s . T h e e x p u l s i o n o f 139 B.C.E. (as re­ p o r t e d b y V a l e r i u s M a x i m u s 1.3.3)

a

n

o

o

a p p a r e n d y , t h a t o f 19 C . E . ( J o s e p h u s , Ant.

1 8 . 8 1 - 8 4 ; T a c i t u s , Annals 2.85.4; S u e t o n i u s , Tiberius 3 6 . 1 ; D i o C a s s i u s 5 7 . 1 8 . 5 a )

28

w e r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h the a l l e g e d a t t e m p t s o f the J e w s to c o n v e r t n o n - J e w s to J u ­ d a i s m ; a n d w e m i g h t n o t e t h a t s u c h drastic a c t i o n h a d t a k e n p l a c e despite the g e n ­ e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e attitude o f the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t t o w a r d the J e w s . It is surely significant t h a t in the Antiquities, aside f r o m the p a s s a g e a b o u t the c o n v e r s i o n o f the r o y a l f a m i l y o f A d i a b e n e (Ant. 2 0 . 1 7 - 9 6 ) ( w h i c h w a s , after all, u n d e r P a r t h i a n d o m i n a t i o n a n d h e n c e o f n o i m m e d i a t e c o n c e r n to the R o m a n s ) , J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e p r o p a g a n d i z e s for p r o s e l y t i s m as s u c h . If, in t h e essay Against Apion, h e d e c l a r e s (2.261) t h a t the J e w s g l a d l y w e l c o m e a n y w h o w i s h t o share their c u s t o m s , h e is careful to n o t e t h a t J e w s d o n o t take the initiative in s e e k i n g o u t t o

p r o s e l y t e s a n d that, in fact, t h e y t a k e p r e c a u t i o n s ( 2 . 2 5 7 ) p r e v e n t f o r e i g n e r s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h t h e m at r a n d o m . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h a t w h e n the G a l i l e a n J e w s tried to c o m p e l s o m e non-Jews to b e c i r c u m c i s e d as a c o n ­ d i t i o n for d w e l l i n g a m o n g t h e m , h e refused to a l l o w a n y c o m p u l s i o n t o b e u s e d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t e v e r y o n e s h o u l d w o r s h i p G - d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the dictates o f his o w n c o n s c i e n c e (Life 113). O n e w o u l d h a v e t h o u g h t t h a t the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e in 70 C.E. a n d the t r e m e n d o u s loss o f p r e s t i g e for the J e w s t h a t m u s t h a v e a c c o m p a n i e d it w o u l d h a v e d e a l t the p r o s e l y t i z i n g m o v e m e n t a b l o w f r o m w h i c h it w o u l d n o t h a v e r e c o v e r e d . A n d y e t , it w a s after this p e r i o d t h a t t h e m o v e m e n t w a s a p p a r e n d y m o s t success­ ful in official circles in R o m e , e s p e c i a l l y u n d e r D o m i t i a n , p r e c i s e l y the t i m e

2 9

when

28. See A b e l 1968, 383-86. Williams 1989, 765-84, argues that the expulsion o f 19 C.E. w a s the conventional response o f a beleaguered administration to a group d e e m e d to be posing a threat to law a n d order, but her case is hardly convincing. Moreover, according to Suetonius (Claudius 25.4), the e m ­ peror Claudius in the middle o f the first century expelled the Jews, w h o h a d been constandy making disturbances at the instigation o f Chrestus (presumably Christus), from R o m e . T h e N e w Testament (Acts 18:2) explicidy states, in agreement with Suetonius, that Claudius c o m m a n d e d all the Jews to leave R o m e . 29. Josephus (Ant. 20.267) says that he completed his Antiquities in the thirteenth year o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n , that is, 93-94.

JOSEPHUS AS APOLOGIST

759

30

J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g the Antiquities ( G r a e t z 1 8 8 4 ) . I n d e e d , in the r e i g n o f D o m i t ­ i a n (95 C.E.), w e h e a r t h a t F l a v i u s C l e m e n s , the c o u s i n o f D o m i t i a n , a n d his wife, F l a v i a D o m i t i l l a , the e m p e r o r ' s n i e c e , w e r e c h a r g e d , t o g e t h e r w i t h m a n y o t h e r s , w i t h a t h e i s m a n d w i t h h a v i n g drifted (igoKeWovres) (rd ro)v lovhaiaiv

i n t o the p r a c t i c e s o f the J e w s

rjdrj) ( D i o C a s s i u s 67.14; cf. S u e t o n i u s , Domitian 15.1). I n v i e w o f

D i o ' s l a n g u a g e , a n d e s p e c i a l l y the w o r d "drifted," w e c a n n o t b e sure t h a t it w a s a question o f actual proselytes; they m a y rather have b e e n "sympathizers" w h o adopted certain Jewish practices without actually converting.

31

I n a n y c a s e , in a

bitter attack, J u v e n a l ( 1 4 . 9 6 - 1 0 6 ) c h a r g e s t h a t s y m p a t h y w i t h J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s i n o n e g e n e r a t i o n l e a d s in the n e x t g e n e r a t i o n to full c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m . J o s e p h u s therefore h a d to b e e x t r e m e l y careful n o t to offend his R o m a n hosts b y r e f e r r i n g t o the i n r o a d s t h a t the J e w s h a d m a d e t h r o u g h p r o s e l y t i s m into the R o m a n p o p u l a c e . I n d e e d , his a i m in the Antiquities is t o follow in the footsteps o f P t o l e m y P h i l a d e l p h u s in s e e k i n g to m a k e the B i b l e b e t t e r k n o w n a n d c o n s e q u e n d y to g a i n r e s p e c t for the J e w s , r a t h e r t h a n to c o n v e r t the p a g a n s . O n e sees this sensitivity t o the c h a r g e o f p r o s e l y t i s m in J o s e p h u s p a r t i c u l a r l y in his h a n d l i n g o f t h e J e t h r o e p i s o d e . I n the B i b l e , the fact t h a t J e t h r o blesses G - d for h a v i n g d e l i v e r e d the Israelites f r o m the E g y p t i a n s a n d e v e n offers a sacrifice to G - d ( E x o d . 1 8 : 8 - 1 2 ) w o u l d l e a d the r e a d e r to a s s u m e t h a t J e t h r o h a d c o n v e r t e d to J u d a i s m .

3 2

J o s e p h u s q u i t e carefully o m i t s J e t h r o ' s s t a t e m e n t a b o u t G - d ' s g r e a t ­

ness a n d h a s M o s e s offer the sacrifice (Ant. 3.63). M o r e o v e r , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g a b o u t R u t h ' s c o n v e r s i o n to J u d a i s m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d t o a v o i d l e n d i n g c r e d e n c e t o the c h a r g e t h a t the J e w s w e r e a g g r e s s i v e missionaries (see F e l d m a n 1991c, 5 0 - 5 2 ) . A c c o r d i n g to the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n K i n g A s a o f J u d a h w a s g a t h e r i n g his

30. U n d o u b t e d l y the main reasons for the success o f proselytism were political, social, a n d reli­ gious developments in R o m e itself and, above all, the inherent appeal o f Judaism. See Feldman 1993a, 288-341. Perhaps this success w a s also, in part, o w i n g to admiration for the heroism that the Jews h a d shown in the great w a r against the R o m a n s . T h u s , even Tacitus, although showing utter contempt for the Jews, grudgingly admits that during the siege "both m e n and w o m e n showed the same determina­ tion; and if they were forced to change their h o m e , they feared life more than death" (Histories 5.13.3). D i o Cassius (66.5), in a detail omitted, one w o u l d guess, intentionally by the p r o - R o m a n Josephus, notes that a n u m b e r o f R o m a n soldiers defected to the Jews during the course o f the siege, persuaded that the city was actually impregnable. W e m a y further suggest that Josephus's extensive account o f the defenders o f M a s a d a (War 7.252-406), w h i c h w a s relatively unimportant from a military point o f view, and o f their grisly act o f committing mutually assisted suicide rather than submitting to the R o m a n s , might have aroused the admiration o f the R o m a n s , as, indeed, it did o f the R o m a n soldiers w h o en­ tered M a s a d a a n d w h o were "incredulous o f such a m a z i n g fortitude" (War 7.405). 31. Christian tradition makes C l e m e n s and Domitilla martyrs during Domitian's persecution o f the Christians; but by the time o f D i o (150-235) the distinction between Jews a n d Christians w a s p r o b ­ ably clear to the R o m a n world, as L e o n i 9 6 0 , 3 3 - 3 4 , remarks, although D i o himself never mentions the Christians by name. 32. In the rabbinic tradition, Jethro is represented as a proselyte (Exodus Rabbah 1.32; Tanhuma B , Exodus 71).

i6o

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

a r m y , a n u m b e r o f J e w s f r o m t h e k i n g d o m o f Israel w h o h a p p e n e d to b e s o j o u r n ­ i n g in the k i n g d o m o f J u d a h d e s e r t e d t o h i m w h e n t h e y s a w t h a t G - d w a s w i t h h i m (2 C h r o n . 15:9). T h e S e p t u a g i n t , in its v e r s i o n o f this p a s s a g e , d e c l a r e s t h a t Asa

assembled the

(irpooT)\vTovs)

tribes

of Judah

and

Benjamin,

together

with

strangers

t h a t d w e l t w i t h t h e m . T h e w o r d h e r e t r a n s l a t e d as " s t r a n g e r s " is the

s a m e as t h e w o r d for p r o s e l y t e s a n d i m p l i e s t h a t t h e y w e r e a c t u a l l y c o n v e r t s . J o s e ­ p h u s , i n his sensitivity to t h e issue, o m i t s this p a s s a g e (see F e l d m a n 1994c, 56). A g a i n , in t h e J o n a h p e r i c o p e , it is c l e a r t h a t the B i b l e l o o k s u p o n t h e p e o p l e o f N i n e v e h n o t o n l y as r e p e n t i n g b u t also as a c t u a l l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e G - d o f Is­ 33

r a e l , a n d h e n c e o f c o n v e r t i n g t o J u d a i s m ( J o n a h 3 : 5 ) . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , totally o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t the N i n e v i t e s b e l i e v e d in G - d . H e a v o i d s t h e issue b y s i m ­ p l y n o t i n d i c a t i n g to w h i c h g o d s t h e sailors a r e p r a y i n g (Ant. 9.209) (see F e l d m a n i992d, 21-26). Moreover, the biblical statement that the Ninevites feared the L - r d exceedingly ( J o n a h 1:16) m i g h t w e l l h a v e r u n g a b e l l a m o n g r e a d e r s as a r e f e r e n c e to t h e socalled " G - d - f e a r e r s , " w h o accepted certain practices of Judaism without actually c o n v e r t i n g (see F e l d m a n , 1993, 3 4 2 - 8 2 ) , a n d w h o are w e l l k n o w n f r o m the e l e v e n p a s s a g e s i n A c t s (10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 4 3 , 50; 16:14, 17:4, 17; 18.7) r e f e r r i n g to v). Similarly, in E u r i p i d e s ' Helen (1301), the D i o s c u r i d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y d i d n o t save

21. O n Josephus's indebtedness to Herodotus, see also Brune 1913, 164-68, w h o gives a list o f 63 words from b o o k 1 o f Herodotus that are distinctive with him and appear in Josephus. From the other books o f Herodotus, he counts over 1,100 expressions that are used b y Josephus. For further parallels, see also Schmidt 1894, 509-10, and Ek 1945-46, 27-62, 213, esp. 3 9 - 4 9 . 1 have already remarked above that the phrase em yripaos ot>8a> ("on the threshold o f old age"), w h i c h I cited from Homer, also ap­ pears in Herodotus (3.14). In all fairness, I should note that here Herodotus (1.30) actually says some­ thing slighdy different from Josephus (Ant. 1.223), f °

r n

e

speaks o f the blessing o f living to see grand­

children b o r n to one's sons, whereas Josephus speaks o f the hope o f seeing one's son unscathed.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

their sister C l y t e m n e s t r a , "for M o i r a ' s c o m p u l s i o n \dvdyKrj\ €(

V

XP *> ]"

177

l e d w h e r e it m u s t [ T O

O n e also recalls h o w , in H e r o d o t u s (7.14-18), after a delusive d r e a m

w a r n s X e r x e s t h a t unless h e u n d e r t a k e s the w a r a g a i n s t G r e e c e , h e will b e b r o u g h t l o w as swiftly as h e h a d b e c o m e g r e a t , a similar d r e a m o c c u r s to A r t a b a n u s , X e r x e s ' u n c l e , w a r n i n g h i m a g a i n s t o p p o s i n g " w h a t m u s t b e " (7.17,

€

TO

V

XP ° )>

w h e r e u p o n X e r x e s is c o n v i n c e d t h a t this is a d i v i n e w a r n i n g . T h u s w e see, as C h r y s i p p u s the S t o i c p u t it, t h a t t h e r e w a s n o w a y in all o f these cases t o a v o i d t h e dire p r e d i c t i o n s , b e c a u s e o f the necessity t h a t is p a r t o f fate (von A r n i m 1903, i:27o~7i).

22

T h e influence o f T h u c y d i d e s u p o n Josephus w a s profound, w h e t h e r direcdy a n d / o r i n d i r e c d y t h r o u g h D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , w h o w r o t e a treatise o n T h u c y d i d e s ' style a n d w h o s e Roman Antiquities, t h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n to b e l i e v e , infl­ u e n c e d J o s e p h u s ' s Jewish Antiquities. T h a t J o s e p h u s a d m i r e d h i m g r e a d y is c l e a r f r o m his r e m a r k , in his c o u n t e r a t t a c k o n G r e e k historians, t h a t e v e n T h u c y d i d e s is a c c u s e d o f e r r o r b y s o m e critics (Ag. Ap. 1.18), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t T h u c y ­ dides r e p r e s e n t s the h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d o f the art o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . H e t h e n p r o ­ c e e d s t o m e n t i o n T h u c y d i d e s ' r e p u t a t i o n for w r i t i n g the m o s t a c c u r a t e h i s t o r y o f his t i m e . H i s t o r i c a l a c c u r a c y , as J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s , is the m o s t i m p o r t a n t crite­ r i o n in j u d g i n g historians (War 1.2). J o s e p h u s m a y also h a v e b e e n a t t r a c t e d to the p e r s o n a l i t y o f T h u c y d i d e s b e ­ c a u s e h e t o o , b e c a m e i n v o l v e d in politics, s e r v e d as a g e n e r a l , w a s e x i l e d f r o m his native country, a n d w r o t e a h i s t o r y o f a w a r in w h i c h his c o u n t r y h a d b e e n d e ­ f e a t e d l a r g e l y t h r o u g h i n t e r n a l strife a n d in w h i c h h e h a d s e r v e d so unsuccessfully. T h e i n f l u e n c e o f T h u c y d i d e s m a y b e s e e n b o t h c o n c e p t u a l l y a n d linguistically. A s to t h e former, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e s are to b e s e e n in the m o l d i n g o f b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , n o t a b l y M o s e s , in the guise o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f his i d e a l leader, Pericles. Just as T h u c y d i d e s (2.60) u n d e r l i n e s P e r i c l e s ' ability t o p e r s u a d e the m a s s e s , so J o s e p h u s , despite the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t M o s e s h a d a s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t ( E x o d . 4:10 a n d 6:12), stresses (Ant. 4.328) M o s e s ' ability to find favor w i t h the m a s s e s in e v e r y w a y t h r o u g h s p e e c h . B o t h T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.4) a n d J o s e ­ p h u s (Ant. 3.23, 4 . 2 2 - 2 3 , 26) h i g h l i g h t the fickleness o f the m a s s e s a n d their r e a d i ­ ness to b e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s , w h o m b o t h despise so g r e a d y . L i k e T h u c y d i d e s in his p o r t r a y a l o f Pericles, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the c o n s t a n t criticism b y the m a s s e s o f their g r e a t leader, M o s e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , T h u c y d i d e s stresses t h a t civil strife (oraois)

is the g r e a t e n e m y o f

22. Likewise, H e c a b e , before giving birth to Paris, dreamt that she had given birth to a firebrand that c o n s u m e d all o f T r o y and consequendy exposed the infant, only to have h i m suckled by a bear, found by a shepherd, and eventually raised to fulfill the prophecy (Apollodorus 3.12.5; Hyginus, Fabulae 91). A g a i n , an oracle foretold that the son o f D a n a e , the daughter o f K i n g Acrisius o f A r g o s , w a s des­ tined to kill Acrisius, w h e r e u p o n he shut her up in an underground chamber, only to have Z e u s visit her and beget a child, Perseus, w h o , indeed, fulfilled the prophecy (Apollodorus 2.4.1; Hyginus, Fabulae 63).

iy8

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

s t a b i l i t y (3.82-84); a n d J o s e p h u s o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n m e n t i o n s this t h e m e , n o t a b l y i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e r e b e l l i o n o f K o r a h (Ant. 4 . 1 1 - 6 6 ) a n d t h e a p o s t a s y o f Z i m r i ( Z a m b r i a s ) (Ant. 4 . 1 4 1 - 5 5 ) . O n e p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e t h a t w i l l illustrate J o s e p h u s ' s d e p e n d e n c e u p o n T h u c y ­ d i d e s is his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p l a g u e t h a t f o l l o w e d D a v i d ' s c e n s u s . T h e B i b l e (2 Sam.

2 4 : 1 0 - 1 7 ) g i v e s n o d e s c r i p t i o n at all o f this p l a g u e , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s

(Ant.

7.324-26) presents several details that b e a r a striking r e s e m b l a n c e to T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t (2.48-52) o f t h e g r e a t p l a g u e t h a t afflicted A t h e n s at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r (Kottek 1994, 156-60). D r u n e r ( 1 8 9 6 , 1 - 3 5 ) , T h a c k e r a y (1929, 1 1 0 - 1 4 ) , a n d S h u t t ( 1 9 6 1 , 6 8 - 7 5 )

n

a

v

e

c i t e d J o s e p h u s ' s u s e o f a n u m b e r o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f style t h a t a r e f a v o r i t e s o f Thucydides.

2 3

In particular,

i n his a c c o u n t o f t h e flight o f t h e A m o r i t e s

(Ant.

4 . 8 9 - 9 5 ) , J o s e p h u s h a s d r a w n u p o n T h u c y d i d e s ' d e s c r i p t i o n (7.83-84) o f t h e r e ­ treat from S y r a c u s e ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, i n ) . I n a s m u c h as P l a t o w a s p r o b a b l y t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t s i n g l e i n t e l l e c t u a l f o r c e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f h e l l e n i z a t i o n i n t h e E a s t d u r i n g t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d (see H a d a s 1958, 1—13; 1 9 5 9 , 7 2 - 8 2 ) , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s d i s p l a y s his k n o w l e d g e o f P l a t o in a n u m b e r o f p l a c e s . T h u s h e b o r r o w s , w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c a l l y m e n t i o n i n g it, f r o m t h e Timaeus ( 2 2 B - C ) t h e n o t i o n t h a t " i n t h e G r e e k w o r l d e v e r y t h i n g w i l l b e f o u n d t o b e m o d e r n , a n d d a t i n g , so t o s p e a k , f r o m y e s t e r d a y o r t h e d a y b e f o r e " (Ag. Ap. 1.7). H e c o r r e c d y r e m a r k s t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f P l a t o is a d d r e s s e d o n l y t o

23. T h a c k e r a y 1929, n o , goes so far as to posit a " T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " whose assistance to Jose­ phus is particularly evident in books 1 7 - 1 9 o f the Antiquities. W e m a y question this theory, w h i c h also posits an assistant steeped in the works o f Sophocles for books 15 a n d 16 o f the Antiquities, for the fol­ lowing reasons: (1) Josephus's statement (Ag. Ap. 1.50) that he used fellow workers for the sake o f the G r e e k occurs in his discussion o f the composition o f the War, where T h a c k e r a y (106) is ironically forced to admit that he cannot pinpoint the nature a n d extent o f their help, although, o f course, w e m a y add, it w a s not u n c o m m o n in antiquity for an author to indicate a source where h e employed none a n d to fail to indicate it where h e did use it; (2) there are S o p h o c l e a n a n d T h u c y d i d e a n traces throughout the War a n d the Antiquities, as E . Stein 1937 has shown; (3) the presence o f m a n y o f the S o p h o c l e a n a n d T h u c y d i d e a n phrases in the other G r e e k works o f the period, notably Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, as L a d o u c e u r 1977 has pointed out, shows that they are characteristic o f first-century G r e e k rather than reflecting the proclivities o f a special assistant; (4) the fact that Josephus used Strabo in books 1 3 - 1 5 shows that there is not a sharp dividing line, as T h a c k e r a y contends, between Josephus's work ending in b o o k 14 a n d the assistant's work, c o m m e n c i n g in b o o k 15; (5) if Josephus used an assistant for the An­ tiquities, w e w o u l d expect h i m to have used o n e for Against Apion, which w a s completed not l o n g after­ wards and, b y T h a c k e r a y ' s o w n admission, shows great literary skill, but for the writing o f w h i c h he postulates n o assistant; (6) the Antiquities w a s written after Josephus h a d been in R o m e for twenty years. If he h a d h a d a n y contact with the Jews o f R o m e , it must have been in Greek, to j u d g e from the in­ scriptions o f the Jewish catacombs. H e n c e , h e h a d hardly the same need for assistants for the Antiqui­ ties as for the War. M o s t likely, Josephus himself w a s at that time m a k i n g a special study o f T h u c y d i d e s , for example, a n d hence the T h u c y d i d e a n phraseology. See m y review o f T h a c k e r a y ' s Josephus: The Man and the Historian (Feldman 1970a, 545-46). T h a c k e r a y ' s assistant hypothesis is also criticized by Richards 1939, 36-40; Shutt 1961, 30-35, 59-77; Pelletier 1962a, 251 ff.; Rajak 1984, 6 2 - 6 3 , 233-36; a n d Bilde 1988, 132-34.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

179

t h e few, w h e r e a s t h e T o r a h ' s t e a c h i n g s are i n t e n d e d for t h e m a n y (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 6 8 - 6 9 ) . H e d e l i b e r a t e l y c o m b a t s t h e i d e a t h a t G - d h a d c o l l a b o r a t o r s in t h e w o r k o f c r e a t i o n (Ag. Ap. 2.192), a l t h o u g h h e m e n t i o n s t h e n a m e s o f n e i t h e r P l a t o n o r P h i l o , w h o h e l d s u c h a view. H e cites P l a t o b y n a m e as o n e a d m i r e d b y t h e G r e e k s for his d i g n i t y o f c h a r a c t e r a n d p e r s u a s i v e e l o q u e n c e b u t r i d i c u l e d b y selfstyled e x p e r t s t a t e s m e n (Ag. Ap. 2.223). T h a t h e w a s a c q u a i n t e d w i t h P l a t o is c l e a r f r o m his r e m a r k t h a t if o n e e x a m i n e s P l a t o ' s l a w s , t h e y will f r e q u e n d y b e f o u n d less d e m a n d i n g than the Jewish c o d e a n d m o r e closely a p p r o x i m a t i n g the practice o f the m a s s e s (Ag. Ap. 2.224). H e k n o w s (ibid.) t h a t P l a t o h i m s e l f h a s a d m i t t e d t h a t it is n o t safe to e x p r e s s the t r u e o p i n i o n a b o u t G - d t o t h e i g n o r a n t m a s s e s

(Timaeus

2 8 C ) . H i s use o f t h e w o r d 8rj paovpyet in referring t o G - d ' s c r e a t i o n o f a n i m a l s (Ant. 1.32) is p r e s u m a b l y i n t e n d e d to r e m i n d t h e r e a d e r o f P l a t o ' s Srjpuovpyos,

the cre­

a t o r o f P l a t o ' s visible w o r l d in the Timaeus (40C). H e cites t h e o p i n i o n o f t h o s e w h o r e g a r d P l a t o ' s d i s c o u r s e s as brilliant b u t e m p t y (Ag. Ap. 2.225). H e is a w a r e t h a t P l a t o b a n i s h e s the p o e t s , i n c l u d i n g H o m e r , f r o m his i d e a l state in o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m o b s c u r i n g w i t h t h e i r fables t h e c o r r e c t d o c t r i n e a b o u t G - d (Ag. Ap. 2.256). Finally, h e d e c l a r e s t h a t P l a t o f o l l o w e d M o s e s in p r e s c r i b i n g t h a t all the cit­ i z e n s m u s t s t u d y t h e l a w s a n d l e a r n t h e m v e r b a t i m , a n d t h a t foreigners m u s t n o t b e p e r m i t t e d to m i x at r a n d o m w i t h t h e citizens (Ag Ap. 2 . 2 5 7 ) .

24

J o s e p h u s ' s k n o w l e d g e o f A r i s t o d e is c l e a r f r o m his s e v e r a l m e n t i o n s o f A r i s t o d e by n a m e

2 5

a n d f r o m his a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h A r i s t o t e l i a n t e r m i n o l o g y .

26

W e m a y l i k e w i s e see h e l l e n i z a t i o n in J o s e p h u s ' s a s s o c i a t i o n o f the d i v i n e spirit w i t h p y r o m a n c y , w h e r e B a l a a m d i s c o v e r s G - d ' s r e v e l a t i o n in t h e color, s m o k e , disfigurations, o r f l a m e s o f t h e sacrificial v i c t i m s (Ant. 4 . 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) , s u c h as w e find in E u r i p i d e s (Phoenissae 1 2 5 5 - 5 8 ) ( L e v i s o n 1994, 1 2 6 - 2 7 ) . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s ' s d e ­ scription o f t h e n a t u r e o f B a l a a m ' s i n s p i r a t i o n (Ant. 4. n 9) is c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d in P l a t o (Symposium 2 0 2 E - 3 A ) a n d P l u t a r c h (De Defectu Oraculorum 4 1 8 D ; De Genio Socratis 5 8 0 B - 8 2 C , 5 8 8 B - 8 9 F ) a n d is n o t to b e f o u n d in t h e B i b l e o r in o t h e r J e w ­ ish s o u r c e s ( L e v i s o n 1994, 130-32).

D R A M A T I C M O T I F S AND

LANGUAGE

In addition to including m a n y phrases from Aeschylus, Sophocles, a n d Euripides, J o s e p h u s also seeks t o w i n his i n t e l l e c t u a l a u d i e n c e b y p r e s e n t i n g t h e m w i t h t h e m e s f a m i l i a r t o t h e m f r o m the t r a g e d i a n s . T h u s his b i b l i c a l figures a r e s o m e ­ times p o r t r a y e d as t r a g i c h e r o e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the d e s c r i p t i o n in A r i s t o d e (Po­ etics 1 3 . 1 4 5 3 A 7 - 1 7 ) . K i n g Z e d e k i a h o f J u d a h , for e x a m p l e , as B e g g h a s n o t e d , is, like t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n t r a g i c h e r o , g o o d a n d r i g h t e o u s , l o y a l to f a m i l y a n d friends, y e t suffering f r o m a decisive flaw, his inability to assert h i m s e l f a g a i n s t friends a n d

24. O n Josephus's indebtedness to Plato, see further Briine 1 9 1 3 , 1 9 4 - 9 8 . 25. See Feldman 1965, index, s.v. "Aristode." 26. See the numerous examples cited in Briine 1913, 210-14.

180

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

false p r o p h e t s w h o d o n o t h a v e his o r the c o u n t r y ' s true interests at h e a r t ( B e g g 1989b, 1 0 2 - 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , G e d a l i a h is p r e s e n t e d as a s e c o n d D a v i d , since the four t e r m s a p p l i e d t o h i m b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 10.155, 164) are p r e c i s e l y t h o s e t h a t a p p e a r in J o s e p h u s ' s e u l o g y o f D a v i d (Ant. 7.391). A n d y e t , his sterling qualities are v i t i a t e d b y the f l a w t h a t h e is so n a i v e l y n e g l i g e n t in his d e a l i n g s w i t h I s h m a e l ( B e g g 1994a, 39-40)M o r e o v e r , w e f r e q u e n d y find t h e m o t i f o f vfipis a n d its c o n s e q u e n c e s . For e x ­ a m p l e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s p e a k s m e r e l y o f t h e w i c k e d n e s s a n d the evil t h o u g h t s o f s o m e o f the sons o f G - d ( G e n . 6:5), J o s e p h u s c o n v e r t s this i n t o the l a n g u a g e o f G r e e k t r a g e d y b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e o v e r b e a r i n g (vfipiords)

a n d disdainful

(v7T€po7TTas) o f e v e r y v i r t u e , b e i n g o v e r c o n f i d e n t o f their strength (Ant. 1.73). W h e r e the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d d e c i d e d to d e s t r o y the h u m a n r a c e b e c a u s e the e a r t h w a s c o r r u p t a n d filled w i t h v i o l e n c e ( G e n . 6 : 1 1 - 1 3 ) , J o s e p h u s , e m p l o y i n g the l a n ­ g u a g e o f tragedy, says t h a t h e d i d so b e c a u s e o f the o u t r a g e s (e£ujfyn£ov) w i t h w h i c h m a n k i n d m e t G - d ' s r e v e r e n t r e g a r d a n d g o o d n e s s (Ant. 1.100). J o s e p h u s , in a n e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , d w e l l s o n the willful b l i n d n e s s (dpuaOias, " i g n o r a n c e , " "stupid­ ity") o f the g e n e r a t i o n o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l in refusing to listen to G - d ' s a d v i c e t o f o u n d c o l o n i e s (Ant. 1.110) (an a d d i t i o n t h a t the G r e e k s , so r e n o w n e d for the f o u n d a t i o n o f c o l o n i e s in the s e v e n t h a n d sixth c e n t u r i e s B.C.E., w o u l d surely h a v e a p p r e c i a t e d ) a n d in failing in t h e i r insolent p r i d e to p e r c e i v e t h a t their blessings w e r e d u e to G - d ' s b e n e v o l e n c e a n d n o t to their o w n m i g h t (Ant. I . I I I ) . H e d e ­ scribes

the

events

in

terms

o f the

(evSoLLpioveiv), insolent c o n t e m p t (vfipis

t y p i c a l tragic

sequence

of

prosperity

. . . Kal Karcufrpovrjoiv), a n d p u n i s h m e n t

(au/xo/oafr"calamities," Ant. 1.110, 113). A n o t h e r s c e n e r e m i n i s c e n t o f G r e e k t r a g e d y is t h a t in w h i c h G - d

thwarts

P h a r a o h ' s c r i m i n a l p a s s i o n for S a r a i b y c a u s i n g a n o u t b r e a k o f disease (Ant. 1.164), w h i c h is r e m i n i s c e n t o f the p l a g u e inflicted u p o n T h e b e s b e c a u s e o f O e d i p u s ' s in­ cest. I n d e e d , in o r d e r t o find a r e m e d y for the p l a g u e , P h a r a o h , like O e d i p u s , c o n ­ sults priests (tepefr), w h o d e c l a r e t h a t G - d is w r a t h f u l b e c a u s e P h a r a o h h a d w i s h e d to o u t r a g e (vfipioai)

the stranger's wife (Ant. 1.164).

T h e h a r s h b e h a v i o r o f S a r a i t o w a r d h e r h a n d m a i d H a g a r ( G e n . 16:6), w h o , a c ­ c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , d e s p i s e d S a r a i after she ( H a g a r ) h a d b e c o m e

pregnant

t h r o u g h A b r a h a m ( G e n . 16:4), is m o r e c l e a r l y justified in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l l a n g u a g e , w h i c h h a s the r i n g o f G r e e k tragedy, t h a t H a g a r ' s p l i g h t w a s d u e to h e r a r r o g a n t (dyvwpiova,

"unreasonable," "obstinate," "rebellious," "unruly")

and

s y n o n y m o u s l y p r e s u m p t u o u s (avddSrj, " a r r o g a n t , " " i n s o l e n t , " " s t u b b o r n , " " r e b e l ­ lious") b e h a v i o r t o w a r d h e r mistress (Ant. 1.189). O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the s t u b b o r n ­ ness (avOaSiav) o f P r o m e t h e u s in A e s c h y l u s ' s Prometheus Bound (1034) a n d o f C r e o n ' s s t a t e m e n t t o O e d i p u s t h a t " i f y o u t h i n k o b s t i n a c y [avOaSiav] w i t h o u t t h o u g h t to b e s o m e t h i n g , y o u are m i s g u i d e d " ( S o p h o c l e s , Oedipus the King 5 4 9 - 5 0 ) , as w e l l as o f the C h o r u s ' s s t a t e m e n t in E u r i p i d e s ' Bacchae (884-86) t h a t the g o d s b r i n g to c o r ­ r e c t i o n those m e n w h o h o n o r a r r o g a n c e (dyvajpuoovvav) a n d w h o d o n o t , in their s o u n d j u d g m e n t , foster t h i n g s d i v i n e .

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

181

I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n t o J u d g . 4:3, J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t d u r i n g t h e t w e n t y - y e a r p e r i o d o f suffering b e f o r e t h e a d v e n t o f D e b o r a h ' s j u d g e s h i p , G - d h a d s o u g h t to t a m e t h e i n s o l e n c e (vfipw) t h a t the Israelites, t h r o u g h their a r r o g a n c e (dyvcopuoovvrj,

" o b s t i n a c y , " t h e n o u n c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h e adjective,

dyvcLpuova,

n o t e d a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h H a g a r ) , h a d s h o w n t o w a r d H i m , so t h a t t h e y m i g h t b e m o r e m o d e r a t e (ow(f>povd)oiv) in the future (Ant. 5.200). T h i s is t h e lesson in m u c h o f G r e e k t r a g e d y ; o n e m a y cite, as a n e x a m p l e , t h e p a s s a g e in A e s c h y l u s ' s Agamemnon (176-78) t o t h e effect t h a t Z e u s , w h o h a s g u i d e d m e n to think, h a s l a i d d o w n t h e rule t h a t w i s d o m c o m e s o n l y t h r o u g h suffering (irdOei pudOos). T h e Philistines, in details a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , s h o w i n s o l e n c e (evvfiplowoiv) w a r d S a m s o n o v e r their c u p s ; a n d h e , his p r i d e insulted (vfipi^opuevos)

to­

by such

m o c k e r y , d e t e r m i n e s to g e t r e v e n g e (Ant. 5 . 3 1 4 - 1 5 ) . A g a i n , Eli's sons a r e c o n ­ d e m n e d as b e i n g insolent (vfipiorai)

to m e n a n d i m p i o u s t o w a r d G - d (Ant. 5.339).

T h a t J o s e p h u s is, i n d e e d , t h i n k i n g in t e r m s o f t r a g e d y m a y b e s e e n in his use o f t h e w o r d " s t a g e m a s k s " (7rpooco7T€ia), w h e r e , in c o m m e n t i n g o n S a u l ' s c r u e l t y in s l a u g h t e r i n g t h e priests o f N o b , h e reflects t h a t it is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h u m a n n a t u r e t h a t w h e n m e n attain to p o w e r , t h e y p u t aside their m o d e r a t e a n d j u s t w a y s " a s i f t h e y w e r e stage m a s k s " a n d i n s t e a d a s s u m e a n attitude o f audacity, recklessness, a n d c o n t e m p t for t h i n g s h u m a n a n d d i v i n e (Ant. 6.264). W e r e a d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t K i n g A m a z i a h , after his m i l i t a r y v i c ­ tories, w a s u n a b l e t o c o n t a i n h i m s e l f at his g o o d fortune (evirpayiais)^ r a g e d (igvppi^ev)

a n d out­

G - d , f r o m W h o m h e h a d r e c e i v e d it (Ant. 9.196). C o n s e q u e n t l y ,

J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t s t h a t h e thinks t h a t it w a s G - d W h o u r g e d A m a z i a h o n t o m a k e w a r a g a i n s t the k i n g d o m o f Israel so t h a t h e m i g h t suffer p u n i s h m e n t for his t r a n s g r e s s i o n s a g a i n s t H i m (Ant. 9.199) (see B e g g 1995b, 29). L i k e w i s e , U z z i a h ' s l e p r o s y is s a i d to b e t h e p e n a l t y t h a t h e p a i d for his i n s o l e n c e in t h i n k i n g t h a t h e c o u l d r e a c h a station h i g h e r t h a n m a n ' s (Ant. 9.226) ( B e g g 1 9 9 5 b , 1 9 - 2 0 ) .

27

F u r t h e r m o r e , w e m a y n o t e , K i n g A h a s u e r u s is said t o h a v e b e e n insulted (v^pLaOetrj) b y Q u e e n V a s h t i (Ant.

11.192-94). Josephus,

moreover, castigates

H a m a n , in t e r m s o f G r e e k tragedy, for n o t s h o w i n g m o d e r a t i o n in t i m e o f p r o s ­ p e r i t y : h e n e i t h e r b o r e his g o o d fortune (evrvxtav) w i s e l y n o r m a d e t h e b e s t use o f his p r o s p e r i t y w i t h p r u d e n t r e a s o n (oaxfrpovi Xoyiopbtp) (Ant. 11.277). O n e o f t h e w a y s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s interest in his n a r r a t i v e is b y in­ c r e a s i n g suspense, n o t a b l y in his v e r s i o n o f t h e J o s e p h n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e w e l e a r n m e r e l y t h a t the b r o t h e r s e n v i e d J o s e p h ( G e n . 37:11), J o s e p h u s says t h a t t h e b r o t h e r s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t J o s e p h ' s d r e a m s p r e d i c t e d t h a t h e w o u l d e x e r c i s e p o w e r a n d m a j e s t y a n d s u p r e m a c y o v e r t h e m (Ant. 2.12); h o w e v e r , t h e b r o t h e r s r e v e a l e d n o t h i n g o f this to J o s e p h , p r e t e n d i n g t h a t t h e d r e a m s w e r e u n ­ intelligible t o t h e m . T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l e b u i l d u p o f suspense in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r ­ sion o f t h e s e a r c h for J o s e p h ' s c u p in t h e sacks o f his b r o t h e r s . I n t h e B i b l e , e a c h o f

27. It is true that the rabbis and Pseudo-Philo also expatiate on the sins o f the Israelites, but they d o not use the language and the conceptual framework o f G r e e k tragedy.

/&?

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

t h e b r o t h e r s , w e a r e told, o p e n e d his sack, a n d the s e a r c h p r o c e e d e d f r o m t h e o l d ­ est to the y o u n g e s t ( G e n . 4 4 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) ; J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s b y d e s c r i b i n g t h e f e e l i n g o f relief t h a t e a c h felt w h e n t h e c u p w a s n o t f o u n d in his s a c k (Ant. 2.133). H e n o t e s t h e c o n f i d e n c e t h e y felt, ironically, t h a t t h e g o b l e t w o u l d n o t b e f o u n d in B e n ­ j a m i n ' s sack, a n d c o n c l u d e s w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the a b u s e t h a t t h e y p o u r e d u p o n their p u r s u e r s for i m p e d i n g their j o u r n e y (Ant. 2.133). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e story o f Esther, t h e r e is a h e i g h t e n i n g o f d r a m a t i c suspense i n J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f H a r b o n a h at a n earlier p o i n t t h a n h e a p ­ p e a r s in t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n t h e B i b l e , it is n o t until H a m a n h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b y E s t h e r as t h e o n e w h o s o u g h t to d e s t r o y h e r p e o p l e t h a t H a r b o n a h r e m a r k s (Esther 7:9) t h a t H a m a n h a d also b u i l t g a l l o w s for M o r d e c a i ; a n d t h e k i n g t h e r e ­ u p o n o r d e r s H a m a n t o b e h a n g e d t h e r e o n . I n J o s e p h u s (Ant. n . 2 6 1 ) , H a r b o n a h , o n e o f E s t h e r ' s e u n u c h s sent to h a s t e n H a m a n ' s c o m i n g t o t h e b a n q u e t , n o t i c e s t h e g a l l o w s a n d l e a r n s t h a t it h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d for the q u e e n ' s u n c l e M o r d e c a i , b u t for t h e t i m e b e i n g h o l d s his p e a c e . A s a s t o r y t e l l i n g d e v i c e , this detail b u i l d s u p suspense, a n d H a r b o n a h ' s later r e v e l a t i o n is therefore all the m o r e effective (Feld­ m a n 1970b, 153). J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e d r a m a t i c e x c i t e m e n t in a series o f a d d i t i o n s to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w e are g i v e n a v i v i d p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m as a g e n e r a l w h o d e t e r ­ m i n e s t o h e l p t h e S o d o m i t e s w i t h o u t delay, w h o sets o u t in h a s t e a n d falls u p o n t h e A s s y r i a n s o n t h e fifth n i g h t in a n a t t a c k in w h i c h h e c a t c h e s t h e e n e m y b y surprise b e f o r e t h e y h a v e t i m e to a r m t h e m s e l v e s . T h e n w e a r e g i v e n t h e g r a p h i c details o f his s l a u g h t e r o f the e n e m y , h o w h e slays s o m e w h i l e t h e y a r e still a s l e e p , w h i l e h e p u t s to flight o t h e r s w h o a r e n o t y e t a s l e e p b u t w h o a r e i n c a p a c i t a t e d b y d r u n k e n ­ ness (Ant. 1.177). T h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d o e s n o t s p e a k o f t h e t i m e a n d cir­ c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a t t a c k ( G e n . 14:14) a n d says m e r e l y t h a t A b r a h a m c o n t i n u e d his p u r s u i t o f t h e e n e m y , after n i g h t h a d fallen, w i t h d i v i d e d forces ( G e n . 14:15). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is A b r a h a m w h o b u i l d s t h e altar for the sacrifice o f I s a a c ( G e n . 22:9), J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s t h e d r a m a t i c interest b y h a v i n g I s a a c h i m s e l f s

c o n s t r u c t t h e altar for his o w n sacrifice (Ant. 1.227). ^ i l i k e w i s e m o r e d r a m a t i c to h a v e A b r a h a m r e c a l l his p r a y e r s for a s o n w h i l e h e is a b o u t to p l a c e I s a a c o n t h e altar to b e sacrificed a n d to h a v e h i m r e c o l l e c t t h a t at t h a t t i m e , h e h a d h a d n o t h o u g h t o f h i g h e r h a p p i n e s s t h a n t o see I s a a c g r o w to m a n ' s estate a n d t o l e a v e h i m at his o w n d e a t h t o b e h e i r t o his d o m i n i o n (Ant. 1.228). J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e K o r a h r e b e l l i o n is u n u s u a l l y d r a m a t i c . I n p a r t i c u ­ lar, w e m a y n o t e t h e s c e n e d e s c r i b i n g t h e e x c i t e d r e a c t i o n o f t h e m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 4.22), as w e l l as the g r a p h i c d e p i c t i o n o f t h e e a r t h q u a k e t h a t e n g u l f e d D a t h a n ' s c o m p a n y (Ant. 4.51) a n d t h e fire t h a t c o n s u m e d K o r a h ' s c o m p a n y (Ant. 4 . 5 4 - 5 6 ) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 9 3 ^ 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) . I n the c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s supplies a n u m b e r o f d r a m a t i c details to e n ­ h a n c e his m i l i t a r y r e p u t a t i o n ; thus, in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e b a t d e w i t h A m a l e k , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e a d v e r s a r i e s m e t in a h a n d - t o - h a n d c o n t e s t a n d f o u g h t w i t h g r e a t spirit a n d m u t u a l shouts o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t (Ant. 3.53). T h e r e is also in-

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

183

c r e a s e d d r a m a in M o s e s ' r e p l y t o the c h a r g e s o f K o r a h , w i t h M o s e s m a k i n g q u i t e a s c e n e , r a i s i n g his h a n d s to h e a v e n a n d s p e a k i n g i n s t e n t o r i a n t o n e s (Ant. 4.40). E v e n in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i c a l l y q u o t e s w h a t the t h r e a t e n e d trees w o u l d s a y i f t h e y w e r e e n d o w e d w i t h v o i c e s (Ant. 4.299). F u r ­ t h e r m o r e , the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the w a i l i n g for M o s e s ' a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h is m u c h m o r e g r a p h i c (Ant. 4.320-22). T h e d r a m a o f S a u l ' s s e l e c t i o n b y G - d is i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e it is at n i g h t (Ant. 6.37-40) a n d n o t d u r i n g the d a y (1 S a m . 9:15); a n d it is w h i l e S a m u e l is tossing w i t h sleeplessness t h a t G - d instructs h i m to c h o o s e the k i n g w h o m H e will p o i n t o u t . T h i s d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t is a u g m e n t e d still m o r e b y the fact t h a t o n the d a y b e f o r e S a u l ' s a r r i v a l , G - d h a s d e c l a r e d t h a t at p r e c i s e l y t h a t h o u r o n the f o l l o w i n g day, S a u l w o u l d a r r i v e (Ant. 6.49), w h e r e a s the H e b r e w d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e the p r e c i s e h o u r b u t m e r e l y d e c l a r e s t h a t it will b e " t o m o r r o w a b o u t this t i m e " (1 S a m . 9:16), a n d the S e p t u a g i n t d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the h o u r at all. J o s e p h u s builds u p the d r a m a s u r r o u n d i n g D a v i d ' s c h a l l e n g e t o G o l i a t h a n d a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 17:26) t h a t w h e n D a v i d h e a r d the Philistine g i a n t r e v i l i n g a n d a b u s i n g the Israelite army, h e b e c a m e i n d i g n a n t (Ant. 6.177). A n ­ o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f i n c r e a s e d d r a m a is to b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f A b s a ­ l o m ' s r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t a n d later r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h his father, K i n g D a v i d . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , D a v i d finally a g r e e s t o m e e t A b s a l o m a n d kisses h i m (2 S a m . 14:33), n o s t a t e m e n t b y D a v i d is c i t e d at the m o m e n t o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . I n J o s e ­ p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e , as A b s a l o m t h r o w s h i m s e l f d o w n to t h e g r o u n d a n d asks p a r d o n for his sins, w h e r e u p o n D a v i d , i n t u r n , raises h i m u p a n d specifically p r o m i s e s to forget w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d (Ant. 7.193). A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c effect is J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the cli­ m a c t i c i n c i d e n t in w h i c h D a n i e l is cast into the l i o n s ' d e n . A c c o r d i n g to the b i b l i ­ c a l n a r r a t i v e , w h e n K i n g D a r i u s h e a r d f r o m the satraps t h a t D a n i e l h a d v i o l a t e d his e d i c t , h e w a s v e r y u p s e t a n d set his h e a r t to d e l i v e r D a n i e l a n d tried until sun­ d o w n to w o r k o u t a p l a n t o save h i m ( D a n . 6:14). J o s e p h u s a d d s to the a p p r e h e n siveness o f the s c e n e b y d e p i c t i n g the plotters a n t i c i p a t i n g t h a t D a r i u s m i g h t treat D a n i e l w i t h g r e a t e r favor t h a n t h e y h a d e x p e c t e d a n d t h a t h e m i g h t b e r e a d y t o p a r d o n h i m despite his c o n t e m p t for the r o y a l d e c r e e (Ant. 10.257). J o s e p h u s e v e n a d d s at this p o i n t t h a t t h e y w e r e e n v i o u s o f D a n i e l b e c a u s e o f the r e g a r d in w h i c h h e w a s h e l d b y D a r i u s a n d h e n c e refused to a d o p t a m i l d e r c o u r s e . T h e d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t is i n c r e a s e d b y the a d d i t i o n a l detail, w h i c h a p p e a r s in the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n b u t n o t in the H e b r e w text o r in the S e p t u a g i n t , t h a t w h e n H a m a n tells M o r d e c a i t o dress h i m s e l f in r o y a l g a r m e n t s so t h a t h e m a y l e a d h i m t h r o u g h the city, M o r d e c a i at first is suspicious o f his intentions, a n d , t h i n k i n g t h a t h e is b e i n g m o c k e d , r e m a r k s "Is this the w a y y o u m a k e sport o f m y m i s f o r t u n e s ? " (Ant. 11.257). O n e k e y e l e m e n t t h a t r e n d e r s J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e m o r e effective is i n c r e a s e d irony. T h e i r o n y o f the b i r t h o f I s a a c is h e i g h t e n e d b y the fact t h a t A b r a h a m is " o n the t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (inl

yrjpws

ovSto) (Ant. 1.222), a p h r a s e b o r r o w e d , as

184

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

n o t e d , f r o m H o m e r , w h o uses it o f P r i a m w h e n h e addresses his s o n H e c t o r b e f o r e the latter g o e s off to the c o m b a t w i t h A c h i l l e s t h a t will b r i n g a b o u t his d e a t h (Iliad 22.60), thus h i g h l i g h t i n g the p a t h e t i c p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n the a g e d father a n d the p r o m i s i n g s o n w h o is a b o u t to die. H o m e r also uses the p h r a s e in n o t i n g t h a t A c h i l l e s ' father, Peleus, w a s as o l d as P r i a m , " o n the d e a d l y t h r e s h o l d o f o l d a g e " (oXocp c m yrjpaos

ovSco) (Iliad 24.487). H e n c e the literate r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l h a v e

s e e n the p a r a l l e l s a m o n g the a g e d A b r a h a m , P r i a m , a n d P e l e u s o n the o n e h a n d , a n d y o u t h f u l I s a a c , H e c t o r , a n d A c h i l l e s , all a p p a r e n d y d o o m e d to die at a n e a r l y age. I n particular, w e m a y call a t t e n t i o n t o the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s , in the b r i e f p e r i c o p e in w h i c h he paraphrases

A b r a h a m ' s intended

sacrifice o f I s a a c

(Ant.

1.222-36), o n five o c c a s i o n s uses a w o r d for h a p p i n e s s . T h i s s h o w s , o n the o n e h a n d , h o w m u c h h a p p i n e s s m e a n t to A b r a h a m , a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h o w r e a d y h e w a s t o f o r g o t h a t h a p p i n e s s b e c a u s e o f his faith in G - d . T h e i r o n y is in­ c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m s o u g h t t o l e a v e his s o n diradrj (Ant. 1.223), a w o r d t h a t h a s t w o v e r y different m e a n i n g s , b o t h o f w h i c h are a p p l i c a b l e h e r e : " u n s c a t h e d , " in the sense t h a t in the e n d , I s a a c will b e u n h a r m e d ,

and

" e m o t i o n l e s s , " in the sense t h a t I s a a c will a c t u a l l y w e l c o m e his b e i n g sacrificed. T h e r e is likewise a d d e d i r o n y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f D a n i e l , w h e n h e e m e r g e s u n s c a t h e d f r o m the l i o n s ' d e n . T h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e states t h a t K i n g D a r i u s o r ­ d e r e d t h a t D a n i e l ' s a c c u s e r s b e cast into the l i o n s ' d e n , t o g e t h e r w i t h their w i v e s a n d c h i l d r e n , w h e r e u p o n the lions b r o k e all their b o n e s into p i e c e s ( D a n . 6:24). T h e r e is m u c h g r e a t e r d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the first p l a c e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t D a n i e l ' s e n e m i e s tell the k i n g their t h e o r y t h a t the r e a s o n w h y D a n i e l w a s n o t h a r m e d w a s t h a t the lions w e r e sated, w h e r e u p o n the k i n g takes t h e m at their w o r d a n d feeds the lions a l a r g e q u a n t i t y o f m e a t b e f o r e t h r o w i n g t h e m into the l i o n s ' d e n , w h e r e , fittingly e n o u g h , t h e y are c o n s u m e d (Ant. 10.260). T h i s is the s a m e k i n d o f i r o n y t h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t o n the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the fact t h a t H a m a n s h o u l d h a v e b e e n h a n g e d o n the g a l l o w s t h a t h e h a d p r e ­ p a r e d for his e n e m y M o r d e c a i , a n d o n G - d ' s w i s d o m a n d j u s t i c e in b r i n g i n g this a b o u t (Ant. 11.268). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the i r o n y in his v e r s i o n o f the E s t h e r n a r r a t i v e b y i n t r o d u c i n g G - d ' s ironic l a u g h t e r at H a m a n ' s h o p e s j u s t b e f o r e the reversal o f for­ 28

t u n e c a l l e d a nepnTeTeia.

W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , A h a s u e r u s asks H a m a n w h a t

s h o u l d b e d o n e for the m a n w h o m the k i n g w i s h e s to h o n o r (Esther 6:6), J o s e ­ p h u s ' s A h a s u e r u s a d d s to the i r o n y b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e k n o w s t h a t H a m a n is the o n l y friend l o y a l to h i m (Ant. 11.252). T h e i r o n y is i n c r e a s e d , for w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t H a m a n t o o k the a p p a r e l a n d the h o r s e a n d a r r a y e d M o r d e c a i (Es­ t h e r 6:11), J o s e p h u s stresses the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n M o r d e c a i c l o t h e d in s a c k c l o t h a n d in the n e w p u r p l e r o b e t h a t h e is n o w t o l d b y H a m a n t o p u t o n (Ant. 11.256). J o s e p h u s u n d e r s c o r e s the s u p r e m e i r o n y t h a t H a m a n w a s h a n g e d o n the v e r y

28. O n the theme of irepLireTeia

in Josephus, see Attridge 1976a, 98.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

185

s a m e g a l l o w s t h a t h e h a d p r e p a r e d for M o r d e c a i , m a r v e l i n g at G - d ' s w i s d o m a n d j u s t i c e in b r i n g i n g a b o u t the result (Ant. 1 1 . 2 6 7 - 6 8 ) , a n d a d d s t o the d r a m a o f t h e s c e n e b y h a v i n g Q u e e n E s t h e r s h o w the k i n g t h e letter in w h i c h H a m a n h a d or­ d e r e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f all the J e w s (Ant. 11.270). I n a d d i t i o n to u s i n g d r a m a t i c t e c h n i q u e s , J o s e p h u s m a k e s his w o r k m o r e r e a d ­ a b l e a n d instructive in t h e t r a d i t i o n o f t h e a n c i e n t historians g e n e r a l l y b y i n c l u d ­ i n g g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d a p h o r i s m s . E x a m p l e s o f s u c h s a y i n g s in J o s e p h u s a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : T h o s e w h o o b e y w e l l w i l l k n o w h o w to rule w e l l (Ant. 4.186); T r o u ­ bles a n d perils m u s t n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r for m a n (Ant. 4.293); N o t h i n g is m o r e d e ­ ceitful t h a n a w o m a n w h o b e t r a y s o u r s p e e c h (Ant. 5.294); M e n a r e affected m o s t b y t h o s e s h o c k s t h a t fall u n e x p e c t e d l y (Ant. 5.358); S o n s n e e d n o t b e like their fa­ thers (Ant. 6.33); M e n lose c o n t r o l o f r e a s o n w h e n blest b y fortune (Ant. 6.116); J u s ­ tice p r e v a i l s o v e r a n g e r a n d fear (Ant. 6.212); Fears o v e r c o m e t r u t h (Ant. 6.259); W h e n m e n attain to p o w e r , o f f c o m e s the m a s k (Ant. 6.262); M e n o f p o w e r listen t o unsifted a c c u s a t i o n s (Ant. 6.267); M e n e m u l a t e t h o s e w h o h a v e b e s t o w e d s o m e k i n d n e s s u p o n t h e m o r flatter t h e m in a d v a n c e (Ant. 6.341); T h e g r e a t n e s s o f k i n g s ' p o w e r forbids t h e m to b e less t h a n w h o l l y g o o d (Ant. 6.349); W e h a v e m o r e faith in w h a t w e d o o u r s e l v e s t h a n in w h a t is d o n e t h r o u g h o t h e r s (Ant. 7.29); T r e a c h e r o u s m e n often a s s u m e the role o f g o o d m e n to a v e r t s u s p i c i o n (Ant. 7.34); P r o s p e r i t y m a k e s o n e a n o b j e c t o f e n v y (Ant. 7.84); K i n g s are m o r e i n f l u e n c e d b y p a s s i o n t h a n b y j u s t i c e (Ant. 7.147); C r o w d s are a t t r a c t e d to l o o k at a c o r p s e (Ant. 7.287); W a t e r is w o r t h m o r e t h a n m o n e y (Ant. 7.312); It is n o t terrible to serve e v e n a f o r e i g n m a s ­ ter, let a l o n e o n e ' s b r o t h e r (Ant. 7.373); E v i l d o e r s g a i n n o t h i n g b y p o s t p o n e m e n t o f their p u n i s h m e n t s (Ant. 8.20); T o p r e s e r v e is g r e a t e r t h a n to a c q u i r e (Ant. 8.121); P r o s p e r i t y b e g e t s sin (Ant. 8.251); T o s h o w a p p r o v a l o f t h e acts o f kings, subjects m u s t i m i t a t e t h e m , e v e n w h e n t h e y a r e evil (Ant. 8.252); Fate is n o t d e c e i v e d b y a c h a n g e o f g a r m e n t s (Ant. 8.413); O n e s h o u l d n o t b e l i e v e flattery m o r e t h a n t r u t h (Ant. 8.418); T h e p o w e r o f fate secretly enters i n t o the souls o f m e n a n d flatters t h e m w i t h fair h o p e s (Ant. 8.419); It is m o s t p l e a s a n t for a g o o d m a n to see t h e w i c k e d p u n i s h e d (Ant. 9.133); S u c c e s s e s a n d brilliant g o o d fortune l e a d to t h e r u i n o f k i n g s (Ant. 9.223); D e s t i n y seeks a p r e t e x t for d e s t r u c t i o n (Ant. 10.76); W h a t is w i s e a n d d i v i n e c a n n o t b e b o u g h t w i t h gifts (Ant. 10.241); B u i l d i n g s , like m e n , in t i m e t u r n g r a y a n d lose strength a n d b e a u t y (Ant. 10.265); B e f o r e t h e y e x p e r i e n c e m i s f o r t u n e , m e n d o n o t u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is g o o d for t h e m (Ant. 13.152).

ROMANTIC

MOTIFS

J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e his n a r r a t i v e m o r e a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s b y intro­ d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs r e m i n i s c e n t o f H o m e r in t h e Odyssey, A e s c h y l u s ' s a c c o u n t (Choephoroe 6 1 3 - 2 2 ) o f S c y l l a ' s b e t r a y a l o f h e r father o u t o f love for M i n o s (cf. O v i d , Metamorphoses 8 . 6 - 1 5 1 ) , X e n o p h o n ' s Cyropaedia, a n d H e l l e n i s t i c novels. H e a p p a r ­ e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t the r e a d e r ' s interest c o u l d h a r d l y b e m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h t w e n t y

186

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

b o o k s o f p o l i t i c a l a n d m i l i t a r y h i s t o r y w i t h o u t digressions in the f o r m o f p u r p l e p a s s a g e s a n d e s p e c i a l l y o f r o m a n t i c n a r r a t i v e s (see M o e h r i n g 1957). I n this r e s p e c t , J o s e p h u s follows in t h e footsteps p a r t i c u l a r l y o f H e r o d o t u s ; o n e thinks o f H e r o d o t u s ' s a c c o u n t o f C a n d a u l e s ' wife a n d G y g e s (Histories 1.8-12), as w e l l as the e p i s o d e o f the S c y t h i a n y o u t h s a n d the A m a z o n w o m e n

(Histories

4 . 1 1 1 - 1 6 ) . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t t h a t h a s n o r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l , J o s e ­ p h u s m e n t i o n s the E g y p t i a n s ' f r e n z y for w o m e n a n d A b r a m ' s fear t h a t P h a r a o h will p u t h i m to d e a t h so as to h a v e S a r a i (Ant. 1.162). T h e erotic m o t i f is further d e ­ v e l o p e d i n P h a r a o h ' s m e e t i n g w i t h S a r a i , w h e r e , in terror, h e asks w h o she is a n d w h o the m a n is w h o h a s a c c o m p a n i e d h e r (Ant. 1.165). T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), o n the o t h e r h a n d , e m p h a s i z e s n o t P h a r a o h ' s terror b u t A b r a m ' s grief. T h e r e is m o r e r o m a n c e in J o s e p h u s t h a n in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 12:19) in P h a r a o h ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e h a d set his affections o n S a r a i b e c a u s e h e h a d b e l i e v e d t h a t she w a s A b r a m ' s sister, a n d h e h a d h o p e d to m a r r y r a t h e r t h a n o u t r a g e (itjvpploaL)

h e r in

a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (KCLT* eiriOvpLiav (hpparjpievos, i.e., " h a v i n g r u s h e d h e a d l o n g into p a s s i o n " ) (Ant. 1.165). J o s e p h u s also i n t r o d u c e s a n u m b e r o f o t h e r r o m a n t i c el­ e m e n t s in his a c c o u n t s o f A b i m e l e c h ' s a t t e m p t e d s e d u c t i o n o f S a r a h (Ant. 1.208). T h e r e is a n a d d e d r o m a n t i c flavor in J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the e p i s o d e o f E l i e z e r ' s s e a r c h for a wife for I s a a c . T h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l t o u c h r e m i n i s c e n t o f H e l l e n i s t i c novels, J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s the difficulty o f his j o u r n e y , in t h a t h e m u s t pass t h r o u g h a c o u n t r y t h a t is m u d d y in w i n t e r a n d p a r c h e d b y d r o u g h t i n s u m m e r a n d t h a t is infested b y b r i g a n d s (Ant. 1.244). F u r t h e r m o r e , w h e n E l i e z e r arrives, the o t h e r m a i d e n s , j u s t as in H o m e r ' s Odyssey ( 6 . 1 3 7 - 4 1 ) , e x c e p t for R e b e k a h , refuse t o s h o w h i m hospitality (Ant. 1.245). R e b e k a h r e b u k e s the o t h e r m a i d e n s (Ant. 1.246) in t e r m s r e m i n i s c e n t o f N a u s i c a a ' s a d d r e s s to h e r c o m p a n i o n s (Odyssey 6 . 1 9 8 - 2 1 0 ) . T h e r e u p o n , Eliezer, i n a r e m a r k t h a t r e m i n d s the r e a d e r o f O d y s s e u s ' s r e a c t i o n to N a u s i c a a ' s hospitality, d e c l a r e s t h a t the p a r e n t s o f s u c h a c h i l d s h o u l d b e c o n g r a t u l a t e d a n d t h a t she d e s e r v e s to b e m a r r i e d to the s o n o f his m a s t e r (Ant. 1.247). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the erotic e l e m e n t in his a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s falling in love w i t h R a c h e l at first sight (Ant. 1.288) a n d the p r o t r a c t e d n e g o t i a t i o n s b e t w e e n J a c o b a n d L a b a n in o r d e r to e m p h a s i z e t h e i r love (Ant. 1.298); D i n a h ' s s e d u c t i o n at a festival (Ant. 1.337) a n d H a m o r ' s r e q u e s t t h a t D i n a h b e g i v e n to S h e c h e m (Ant. 1.338); the infatuation o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife w i t h J o s e p h (Ant. 2 . 4 1 - 5 9 ) ; M o s e s ' m a r ­ r i a g e w i t h the E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s (Ant. 2.252-53), p e r h a p s b a s e d o n the S c y l l a l e g e n d ( B r a u n 1938, 9 7 - 1 0 2 ) ; the c o n n e c t i o n that J o s e p h u s establishes b e ­ t w e e n the story o f B a l a a m a n d the s e d u c t i v e w o r d s o f the M i d i a n i t e w o m e n to the Israelite y o u t h s , the l e i t m o t i f b e i n g h o w t o s u b v e r t o n e ' s e n e m y t h r o u g h sex (Ant. 4.129);

29

the failure o f the L e v i t e c o n c u b i n e to r e t u r n the love o f h e r h u s b a n d (Ant.

29. V a n U n n i k 1974, 243, notes the significant fact that Josephus expands at great length (Ant. 4.126-51) the story of the seduction o f the Israelite youths by the Midianite w o m e n , whereas he deals

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

187

5 . 1 3 6 - 3 7 ) ; t h e a p o l o g y offered for t h e r a p e o f the w o m e n o f S h i l o h b y t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s — n a m e l y , t h e failure o f t h e p e o p l e o f S h i l o h to p r o t e c t t h e i r d a u g h t e r s (Ant 5.171), a n d t h e a c t u a l s e i z u r e o f t h e w o m e n o f S h i l o h b y t h e B e n j a m i n i t e s (Ant 5 . 1 7 2 - 7 3 ) , in a m a n n e r r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e r a p e o f t h e S a b i n e w o m e n b y t h e R o ­ m a n s ( L i v y 1.9); M a n o a h ' s m a d l o v e for his wife a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y his i n o r d i n a t e (oLKpartbs, i.e., " w i t h o u t c o m m a n d o v e r o n e s e l f o r o n e ' s p a s s i o n , " " i n c o n t i n e n t , " " i m m o d e r a t e , " " i n t e m p e r a t e " ) j e a l o u s y (^rjXorvTros) (Ant 5.277); t h e e n h a n c e m e n t o f t h e r o m a n t i c a s p e c t in t h e e p i s o d e o f S a m s o n a n d t h e T i m n i t e w o m a n b y J o s e ­ p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s in t h e c o u r s e o f his c o n s t a n t visits to h e r h o m e t h a t h e p e r f o r m e d his first g r e a t e x p l o i t , s t r a n g l i n g t h e l i o n (Ant 5.287); t h e e x a g g e r a t i o n o f t h e m e l o d r a m a i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h S a m ­ son's w i f e b e g s h i m , b u r s t i n g (TrpoTTnrTovorjs, " r u s h i n g h e a d l o n g " ) into tears, to r e ­ v e a l t h e a n s w e r to t h e r i d d l e (Ant 5.292); the d e s c r i p t i o n o f D e l i l a h as a c o u r t e s a n (iTaipo£,opL€vr)s) (Ant 5.306) r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h o s e for w h o m t h e G r e e k s w e r e fa­ m o u s , r a t h e r t h a n as a h a r l o t (Tropvirj), as in t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Judg. 16:1); t h e dis­ h o n o r i n g b y t h e sons o f E l i , t h e h i g h priest, o f t h e w o m e n w h o c a m e to w o r s h i p (Ant 5.339); t h e fact t h a t D a v i d ' s e x p l o i t s a r e c e l e b r a t e d b y m a i d e n s (Ant 6.193), w h e r e a s S a u l ' s a r e e x t o l l e d b y o l d e r w o m e n ; the fact t h a t S a u l ' s d a u g h t e r M i c h a l h a s s u c h a g r e a t p a s s i o n for D a v i d t h a t it b e t r a y s h e r (Ant 6 . 1 9 6 , 215); t h e fact t h a t D a v i d ' s love, in r e t u r n , for M i c h a l is so g r e a t t h a t h e p r o c e e d s t o fulfill S a u l ' s d e ­ m a n d for six h u n d r e d Philistine h e a d s as a d o w r y w i t h o u t s t o p p i n g to c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r it is p o s s i b l e to d o so (Ant 6.203); the lovesickness o f A m n o n , D a v i d ' s s o n , b e c a u s e o f his i n f a t u a t i o n w i t h his sister T a m a r , w h o m h e r a p e s (Ant 7.164); t h e a m p l i f i c a t i o n o f D a v i d ' s affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a (Ant 7 . 1 3 0 - 5 3 ) ; A h a s u e r u s ' s s e a r c h for b e a u t i e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e entire h a b i t a b l e (oiVou/xeVq) w o r l d (Ant n . 196), in c o n ­ trast to t h e B i b l e , w h e r e his r e s o l v e t o find a r e p l a c e m e n t for the d e p o s e d Q u e e n V a s h t i is a p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n , s u g g e s t e d b y the k i n g ' s a t t e n d a n t s (Esther 2:2); t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s g i v e s t h e e x a c t n u m b e r o f m a i d e n s (400) in A h a s u e r u s ' s h a r e m (Ant

11.200), j u s t as t h e H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s a r e a d d i c t e d to p r e s e n t i n g e x a c t d a t a

a b o u t e r o t i c m a t t e r s ; t h e m o r e e x p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e (in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A h a s u e r u s ' s s e a r c h for a r e p l a c e m e n t for Q u e e n V a s h t i ) to s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e (Ant 11.201); A h a ­ suerus's a c t u a l l y falling i n l o v e w i t h E s t h e r (Ant 11.202); a n d J o s e p h u s ' s e x a g g e r a ­ t i o n o f t h e b e a u t y o f a n u m b e r o f w o m e n — R a c h e l (Ant 1.288), S a m s o n ' s m o t h e r (Ant

5.276), B a t h s h e b a (Ant

7.130), D a v i d ' s d a u g h t e r T a m a r (Ant

(Ant 11.190), a n d E s t h e r (Ant 1 1 . 1 9 9 ) .

30

7.162), V a s h t i

W e m a y well conjecture that Josephus re­

w o r k e d t h e a b o v e b i b l i c a l stories w i t h full a w a r e n e s s o f his p o s t b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t s ,

only briefly with the Phinehas episode (Ant. 4.152-55), even though they are o f approximately equal length in the Bible ( N u m . 25:1-5 a n d 6-13). 30. If Josephus, in his paraphrase o f the story o f Ruth (Ant. 5.318-37), compresses, rather than ex­ pands, as one might expect in view o f w h a t w e have noted above, the potentially sexually c h a r g e d scene o f the threshing floor, this m a y be, not because Josephus failed to realize the erotic potential o f the scene, but because he apologetically sought to avoid suspicion o f immoral behavior o n the part o f the

188

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

in w h i c h p r o m i n e n t a n d influential m e n w e r e b r o u g h t t o g r i e f b y their p a s s i o n for b e a u t i f u l w o m e n (see B a i l e y 1987, 170). Similarly, J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s t h e r o m a n t i c interest i n his a c c o u n t s o f a n u m b e r o f e v e n t s o f his o w n era: H e r o d ' s p a t h o l o g i c a l p a s s i o n for M a r i a m n e (War 1 . 4 3 1 - 4 4 , Ant 15.202-36), A n t o n y ' s p a s s i o n for C l e o p a ­ tra (War 1.243; Ant 14.324), C l e o p a t r a ' s a t t e m p t t o s e d u c e H e r o d (Ant 1 5 . 9 6 - 1 0 3 ) , D e c i u s M u n d u s ' s p a s s i o n a t e love for t h e v i r t u o u s P a u l i n a (Ant 18.65-80), a n d t h e J e w i s h r o b b e r - b a r o n A n i l a e u s ' s p a s s i o n a t e affair w i t h a P a r t h i a n g e n e r a l ' s wife (Ant 18.342-52).

APPEAL TO S O C I A L INTERESTS: JOSEPHUS'S ATTITUDE TO WOMEN D a u b e h a s c o m m e n t e d o n J o s e p h u s ' s self-identification w i t h J o s e p h ( w h o w a s also falsely a c c u s e d ) , J e r e m i a h ( w h o w a s similarly a p r o p h e t w h o suffered at t h e h a n d s o f his f e l l o w J e w s ) , D a n i e l (a p r o p h e t w h o w a s e n v i e d a n d s l a n d e r e d b y his rivals), E s t h e r ( w h o u s e d h e r h i g h p o l i t i c a l status t o h e l p h e r p e o p l e ) , a n d M o r d e c a i ( w h o 3 1

also w a s totally c o m m i t t e d t o h e l p i n g his p e o p l e ) ( D a u b e 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 ) . L i k e w i s e , w e m a y e x p e c t J o s e p h u s ' s portraits o f w o m e n t o reflect t h e w o m e n i n his o w n life. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a l t h o u g h p e r h a p s significantly, J o s e p h u s tells u s n e x t t o n o t h i n g a b o u t his m o t h e r , n o t i n g o n l y t h a t s h e w a s d e s c e n d e d f r o m t h e r o y a l h o u s e o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s (Life 2). H e n e g l e c t s t o g i v e e v e n h e r n a m e , or, for t h a t matter, t h e n a m e s o f a n y o f his o t h e r f e m a l e a n c e s t o r s . P l u t a r c h , a n a l m o s t e x a c t c o n t e m p o ­ r a r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s , o n t h e contrary, a p p a r e n d y t h o u g h t t h a t it w a s i m p o r t a n t t o k n o w t h e n a m e s o f the m o t h e r s o f f a m o u s m e n , since h e m e n t i o n s his surprise t h a t although Nicias, Demosthenes, Lamachus, Phormio, Thrasybulus, a n d T h e r a m e n e s w e r e all f a m o u s m e n i n A l c i b i a d e s ' t i m e , w e d o n o t so m u c h as k n o w t h e n a m e o f the m o t h e r o f a n y o f t h e m (Alcibiades 1.2). O n e guesses t h a t J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e b e e n difficult t o live w i t h , t o j u d g e f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e w a s , it a p p e a r s , m a r r i e d t h r e e t i m e s (Life 4 1 4 - 1 5 , 4 2 6 - 2 7 ) . D e s p i t e his fondness for g i v i n g p r e c i s e n a m e s , h e fails t o g i v e t h e n a m e o f a n y o f his w i v e s , e v e n o f his t h i r d wife, w h o m h e praises as h a v i n g s u r p a s s e d m a n y w o m e n i n c h a r ­ acter

(rjdei

noXXcov

yvvcuKwv

Sta^e'/oouaav), " a s h e r s u b s e q u e n t life s h o w e d " (Life

427). T h e c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n o f this s t a t e m e n t is t h a t w o m e n c a n b e p r a i s e d o n l y i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r w o m e n , since t h e y a r e o b v i o u s l y inferior t o m e n .

3 2

A sim-

ancestors o f K i n g D a v i d . Moreover, to have e x p a n d e d such a n episode w o u l d have diverted the reader's attention from the p r i m a r y historical thrust o f his narrative, since the whole story o f Ruth is re­ ally secondary to Josephus's main interest in the history of the Jewish people; a n d h e r story is told only because she is the great-grandmother o f D a v i d . 31. T o this list w e m a y add Josephus's identification with Saul, w h o m he v i e w e d as a martyred gen­ eral like himself. See also Johnson 1983, 337-46, w h o comments o n the similarities between the life o f Josephus a n d those o f the biblical Joseph, Jeremiah, D a n i e l , a n d Esther-Mordecai. 32. T o b e sure, S t a g g a n d S t a g g 1978,45, assert that Josephus can b e positive in his attitude toward w o m e n , as w h e n he refers to " a certain wise a n d intelligent old w o m a n " (yvvaiov

. . . n ouxfrpov

Kal

S T Y L I S T I C A N DO T H E R C H A N G E S

i8g

i l a r p h r a s e a n d i m p l i c a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s r e f e r e n c e t o a f e m a l e r e l a ­ tive o f t h e l e a d e r o f t h e S i c a r i i at M a s a d a , E l e a z a r b e n Jair, w h o is d e s c r i b e d as su­ p e r i o r i n s a g a c i t y a n d t r a i n i n g t o m o s t w o m e n (^pov^aei Kal iraiheia vaiKwv

bia<j)€povaa) (War 7 . 3 9 9 ) .

One

TrXeiarwv

yv-

33

m a y g e t a c l u e t o J o s e p h u s ' s a t t i t u d e t o w o m e n i n his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e

Hasmonean queen Salome Alexandra.

3 4

J o s e p h u s d i s p a r a g e s h e r for l i s t e n i n g t o

t h e P h a r i s e e s w i t h t o o m u c h d e f e r e n c e (irepiGoov,

" e x c e s s i v e l y " ) a n d for a l l o w i n g

t h e m t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e o f h e r n a i v e t e (a7TX6rrjra, " s i m p l i c i t y , " " p l a i n n e s s , " " s i m plemindedness,"

" g u l l i b i l i t y " ) (War

1. 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) — h a r d l y a d e s i r a b l e q u a l i t y i n

a

q u e e n . T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , she p e r m i t t e d the Pharisees to b e c o m e the r e a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t h e state, s o t h a t , in effect, a l t h o u g h she r u l e d t h e n a t i o n , t h e P h a r i s e e s r u l e d her. T h i s c r i t i c i s m is p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g i n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t J o s e p h u s e v e n t u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d h i m s e l f w i t h t h e s e s e l f s a m e P h a r i s e e s (Life 12) after h a v i n g t r i e d t o live b y t h e p r e c e p t s o f all t h r e e J e w i s h s e c t s — t h e P h a r i s e e s , t h e S a d d u c e e s , a n d t h e E s ­ s e n e s — , as w e l l as w i t h t h e h e r m i t B a n n u s . M o r e o v e r , s u c h a n i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e War o f P h a r i s a i c i n f l u e n c e o n t h e q u e e n is all t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e i f t h e r e is a n y validity in M o r t o n Smith's o b s e r v a t i o n that the Pharisees h a r d l y figure in Jose­ p h u s ' s a c c o u n t i n t h e War, a n d t h a t it is i n t h e Antiquities t h a t t h e c l a i m is first m a d e t h a t P a l e s t i n e is u n g o v e r n a b l e w i t h o u t P h a r i s a i c s u p p o r t .

3 5

P r e s u m a b l y o u t o f m i s o g y n y , J o s e p h u s cites a n u m b e r o f a d d i t i o n a l u n f l a t t e r i n g d e t a i l s in h i s p o r t r a i t o f S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a in t h e Antiquities.

T h u s he blames her

y o u n g e r s o n , A r i s t o b u l u s , a n d his s u p p o r t e r s for " l e t t i n g a w o m a n , g o n e m a d i n

OVV€T6V) (Ant. 7.289) w h o saved the city o f S h e b a b y appealing to Joab, w h o w a s besieging it. W e may, however, counter b y remarking that the biblical passage o n w h i c h this is based (2 S a m . 20:16) also speaks of a wise w o m a n (ishah hakamah); moreover, a n d significandy, Josephus refers to her not as a y vvr) ("woman") but as a yvvaiov

("litde w o m a n , " " w e a k w o m a n " ) , a w o r d frequendy employed by Josephus

in a contemptuous sense (cf. LSJ, s.v.) a n d often coupled with "children." 33.

T h e fact that this w o m a n , together with the others w h o h a d hidden in the subterranean aque­

ducts at M a s a d a , is regarded (Ant. 7.404) as a yvvaiov,

a term, as noted, often implying w o m a n i s h weak­

ness a n d even contempt, confirms the v i e w that Josephus did not admire even her very m u c h , despite her sagacity. 34.

S e e M a c u r d y 1937, 6 3 - 9 1 , w h o , after examining Josephus's portraits o f S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a ,

Herod's sister Salome, Herod's wife M a r i a m n e a n d his other wives, Herodias, and Julia Berenice, con­ cludes that these Jewish queens a n d princesses acted in typically Hellenistic ways a n d that, with the names a n d places changed, the same type o f court could b e found in any o f the other Hellenistic monarchies. T h e talmudic rabbis, w e m a y remark, poured lavish praise u p o n S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , not­ ing (Sifra Behuqotai 1.1, ed. Weiss n o b ; cf. Taanit 23a) that during h e r tenure as queen, rain fell every W e d n e s d a y a n d Sabbath evening, so that grains of w h e a t g r e w to b e as large as kidneys, grains of bar­ ley like the stones o f olives, a n d lentils like golden denarii, a n d that the scribes preserved samples o f these growths to show future generations the effects of piety. 35.

M . Smith 1956, 6 7 - 8 1 . T h e theory is supported b y Neusner 1971, 1:137-41; 1972a, 224-44;

1972b, 5 7 - 7 0 ; 1973, 4 5 - 6 6 ; 1978, 1 4 - 1 9 . For dissenting voices, see M a n t e l 1977, 9 9 - 1 2 3 , 346-51; R i v k i n 1978,

4 9 - 6 3 ; Feldman 1984b, 560-62; M a s o n 1988, 4 5 5 - 6 9 ; 1991, 32-39, a n d passim; B a u m g a r t e n

1991,

109-26; a n d D . S. Williams 1993-94, 29-42.

igo

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

h e r lust for p o w e r , r u l e u n r e a s o n a b l y , e v e n t h o u g h h e r sons w e r e in t h e p r i m e o f life" (Ant. 12.417). E v e n w h e n , in his s u m m a r y o f h e r life, h e s e e m i n g l y d o e s p r a i s e her, h e d o e s so g r u d g i n g l y b y c o m p a r i n g h e r w i t h o t h e r w o m e n a n d c o n c l u d i n g t h a t " s h e w a s a w o m a n w h o s h o w e d n o n e o f t h e w e a k n e s s o f h e r s e x " (Ant. 13. 430). A n d y e t , in t h e last analysis, J o s e p h u s b e r a t e s h e r for a c t i n g in a f a s h i o n u n b e ­ c o m i n g a w o m a n (Ant. 13. 431), c r i t i c i z i n g h e r for v a l u i n g t h e p r e s e n t m o r e t h a n t h e future, for m a k i n g e v e r y t h i n g s e c o n d a r y t o a b s o l u t e rule, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y for s h o w i n g n o c o n s i d e r a t i o n for t h e q u a l i t i e s m o s t c r u c i a l in a r u l e r — n a m e l y , d e ­ c e n c y (KCLXOV) a n d j u s t i c e (SIKCLIOV).

It is she w h o is b l a m e d for t h e loss o f s o v e r e i g n

p o w e r b y t h e H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y " b e c a u s e o f h e r desire for t h i n g s u n b e c o m i n g a w o m a n " (cmdu/xia rwv

fxrj TrpoarjKovrojv yvvaiKi).

S h e is specifically c a s t i g a t e d

(Ant. 13. 432) for the m i s f o r t u n e s a n d d i s t u r b a n c e s t h a t afflicted t h e r o y a l f a m i l y e v e n after h e r d e a t h , since these a r e said b y J o s e p h u s t o h a v e a r i s e n f r o m p u b l i c m e a s u r e s t a k e n d u r i n g h e r lifetime. It is o n l y i n o n e last s e n t e n c e t h a t J o s e p h u s is a b l e t o a d m i t t h e fact t h a t despite h e r r e i g n i n g as she d i d , she h a d k e p t t h e n a t i o n at p e a c e (Ant. 13. 4 3 2 ) .

36

I n v i e w o f t h e t r e m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n a n d p r a i s e t h a t J o s e p h u s lav­ ishes o n t h e E s s e n e s , it w o u l d s e e m t h a t e c h o i n g C y n i c a n d S t o i c diatribes (see G u i l l a u m o n t 1 9 7 1 , 3 9 5 - 4 0 4 ) , J o s e p h u s a g r e e d w i t h the E s s e n e s ' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t b r i n g i n g w i v e s i n t o a r e l i g i o u s c o m m u n i t y o p e n e d t h e w a y to dissension

(ordaecos)

(Ant. 18.21), a c o n d i t i o n so s h a r p l y c o n d e m n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s favorite T h u c y d i d e s (3.82-84) a n d , as n o t e d , b y J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f t h r o u g h o u t t h e War. C o n s e q u e n d y , t h e E s s e n e m a i n s t r e a m d i s d a i n e d m a r r i a g e , s e e k i n g to p r o t e c t t h e m s e l v e s a g a i n s t w o m e n ' s lechery, b e i n g p e r s u a d e d t h a t n o n e o f t h e sex k e e p s h e r p l i g h t e d troth t o o n e m a n (War 2 . 1 2 1 ) .

37

I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e in the Antiquities, J o s e p h u s h a s a n u m b e r o f sneers d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t w o m e n . T h u s h e r e p e a t s the c o m m o n classical t h e m e o f t h e evil w r o u g h t b y w o m a n i s h c o u n s e l w h e n h e says t h a t G - d p u n i s h e d A d a m for y i e l d ­ i n g (TJTTOVOL, " b e i n g inferior") to w o m a n i s h (yvvaiKeias)

c o u n s e l (Ant. 1.49) (see

36. Similar snide remarks about w o m a n i s h w a y s m a y be seen in Josephus's remark (Ant. 15.69) that M a r i a m n e , Herod's wife, in w o m e n ' s fashion (yvvaiKcicos) did not take seriously

(igcipcovcvofjicvcw,

"ridiculed," "turned into jest") the statements o f Joseph, in whose charge H e r o d h a d left her, about Herod's affection a n d great love for her. A g a i n , Josephus seems to connect w o m a n i s h w a y s with ag­ gressiveness, for in speaking (Ant. 15.168) o f A l e x a n d r a , the mother o f Herod's wife M a r i a m n e , he says that she h a d an aggressive (iX6veiKov, "contentious") and w o m a n l y (yvvaiKctov) nature. Moreover, he connects w o m a n l y w a y s a n d cruelty, as w e see in his statement (Ant. 15.219) that M a r i a m n e c o m b i n e d within her something w o m a n l y (yVVCLIKCIOV)

a n d cruel (xaXcnov).

37. W e m a y here note that Philo similarly, in an even sharper attack on w o m e n ' s wiles (Hypothetka 11. 14-17), whether or not it expresses his o w n view, declares that the reason w h y the Essenes d o not m a r r y is that " a wife is a selfish creature, excessively j e a l o u s and an adept at beguiling the morals o f her husband and seducing h i m by her continued impostures." H e then attacks w o m e n for their fawning talk, for playing their parts like actresses on a stage, for ensnaring sight and hearing, and for a r r o g a n d y a n d audaciously compelling children to c o m m i t actions that are hostile to society, so that someone w h o is b o u n d by the lures o f his wife has, in actuality, passed from freedom to slavery.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

igi

F e l d m a n 1 9 6 8 , 345). A similar slight d i r e c t e d at w o m e n m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t w h e n P o t i p h a r ' s wife d e t e r m i n e d u p o n v e n g e a n c e a g a i n s t J o s e p h for s p u r n i n g h e r a d v a n c e s , t h e i d e a o f a c c u s i n g J o s e p h o f t a k i n g t h e initiative s e e m e d t o h e r " a l i k e w i s e a n d w o m a n l y " (yvvaiKeiov)

(Ant. 2. 54).

A s n e e r a g a i n s t w o m e n is also t o b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t " t h e n o b l e r instincts o f M o s e s ' a r m y w e r e v i t i a t e d b y a r a b b l e [oxAos] o f w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , t o o f e e b l e t o r e s p o n d to o r a l a d m o n i t i o n " (Ant. 3.5). L i k e w i s e , i n his v e r s i o n o f t h e s t o r y o f S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s s h o w s his m i s o g y n y in S a m s o n ' s r e m a r k , p r o v e r b i a l , t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g " m o r e deceitful [SoXepwrepov]

apparendy

than a w o m a n w h o

b e t r a y s o u r s p e e c h t o y o u " (Ant. 5, 294). A g a i n , in his s u m m a r y o f t h e T e n C o m ­ m a n d m e n t s , h e a d d s t h e detail, n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e , t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f w o m e n is i n a d m i s s i b l e in J e w i s h l a w b e c a u s e o f their l e v i t y (Kov(f>6rr)Ta) a n d b e ­ c a u s e o f t h e b o l d n e s s (Opdoos) o f their s e x (Ant. 4. 2 1 9 ) .

38

S u c h misogynistic remarks w o u l d doubdess have been appreciated by Jose­ p h u s ' s literate a u d i e n c e , since O d y s s e u s , in t h e m u c h r e v e r e d H o m e r ' s Odyssey ( 1 1 . 4 3 6 - 3 9 ) , c o m m e n t s w i t h similar i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t Z e u s f r o m t h e first v i s i t e d h a ­ tred u p o n the house o f Atreus because o f the counsels o f w o m e n povXds).

(yvvaiKeias

P l a t o h a s a similar d e r o g a t o r y c o m m e n t a b o u t w o m e n , s a y i n g t h a t all

m e n w h o a r e c o w a r d l y a n d w h o s p e n d their lives in w r o n g d o i n g a r e r e b o r n as w o m e n (Timaeus 90E). A r i s t o d e , i n d e e d , g o e s so far as t o s a y t h a t t h e f e m a l e is a n i m p e r f e c t h u m a n b e i n g (De Generatione Animalium 7 7 5 A ) . It is this latter v i e w , in p a r ­ ticular, t h a t is r e f l e c t e d in P h i l o ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f w h y M o s e s c o m m a n d e d t h e Is­ raelites t o t a k e a p e r f e c t m a l e s h e e p — n a m e l y , t h a t this w a s b e c a u s e t h e m a l e is m o r e p e r f e c t t h a n the f e m a l e , " w h e r e f o r e it is said b y t h e naturalists t h a t t h e fe­ m a l e is n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a n i m p e r f e c t m a l e " (Quaestiones in Exodum 1.7 o n E x o d . i2: ).

3 9

5

38. W e m a y note that while the rabbis (Sifre 109b) also declare that w o m e n ' s evidence is not ac­ ceptable, n o such reason is given by them. Shabbat 33b says that w o m e n are light-minded, w h i c h refers to their inability to withstand torture, whereas Josephus, in his prejudice, cites their character defects to explain w h y they are invalidated from bearing witness. T h e equation o f womanishness and lightheadness is likewise to b e seen in Josephus's remark (Ant. 17.121) that Doris, the mother o f Herod's son Antipater, spoke to certain people with " w o m a n i s h frivolousness" (Kovo\oyia ywauceia)).

Similarly,

s S3

H e r o d the Tetrarch (Ant. 18.255) * *d to have been divinely punished for listening to a w o m a n ' s friv­ olous chatter (ywauKeicav

. . . Kovo\oyia)v), namely, that o f his wife Herodias. D r a z i n 1940, 124-25,

conjectures that Josephus was here influenced by G r e e k and R o m a n attitudes toward w o m e n . I m a y here call attention to a passage, missed by D r a z i n , containing language remarkably similar to that o f the T a l m u d , in Gaius's Institutes (1.44): " T h e early lawyers held that w o m e n , even at full age, should be in tutela on a c c o u n t o f their instability of j u d g m e n t [propter animi laevitatem]." Josephus (Ant. 11.49-54) seems to contradict this view of women's weakness in the speech that Z e r u b b a b e l gives to K i n g D a r i u s proving that w o m e n are even m o r e powerful than wine and the king; but even here it is not so m u c h the strength as the wiliness, seductiveness, and impudence of w o m e n that are said to give them such in­ fluence. 39 W e g n e r 1 9 8 2 , 5 5 1 - 6 3 , notes, in particular, Philo's derogatory view of w o m e n as expressed in his exposition (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.148) of G e n . 25:5-6: " T h e sons of the w o m e n and those of inferior descent

IQ2

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

I n v i e w o f this g e n e r a l l y n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d w o m e n , J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r e m e l y positive p o r t r a y a l o f A b i g a i l is all t h e m o r e r e m a r k a b l e (Ant. 6 . 1 9 5 - 3 0 9 ) , e s p e c i a l l y since t h e r a b b i n i c attitude t o w a r d h e r is a m b i v a l e n t (Megillah 14a; J e r u s a l e m T a l ­ m u d , Sanhedrin 2.20; Midrash Samuel 20). T h e e x p l a n a t i o n , as B e g g h a s s u g g e s t e d , is t h a t J o s e p h u s cites t h e n a r r a t i v e in o r d e r to c o n f i r m w h a t h e states is t h e m a i n les­ s o n t o b e l e a r n e d f r o m his history: t h a t t h o s e w h o c o n f o r m to the w i l l o f G - d p r o s ­ per, w h e r e a s those, s u c h as N a b a l , w h o transgress G - d ' s l a w s suffer disaster (Ant. i-i4) ( B e g g 1 9 9 6 a , 34).

APPEAL TO PHILOSOPHIC

INTERESTS

T h e v e r y fact t h a t J o s e p h u s c o m p a r e s t h e religious g r o u p i n g s o f t h e J e w s to t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the P h a r i s e e s a r e a sect v e r y s i m i l a r to t h e S t o i c s c h o o l (Life 12) ( i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e S a d d u c e e s a r e c o m p a r a b l e to t h e E p i ­ c u r e a n s ) a n d t h a t t h e E s s e n e s follow the P y t h a g o r e a n w a y o f life (Ant. 15.371), is a n i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l interests t h a t h e e x p e c t e d his a u d i e n c e to h a v e , since s u c h c o m p a r i s o n s w o u l d h a r d l y a p p e a r to b e g e r m a n e t o t h e r e l i g i o u s d i ­ m e n s i o n s o f these g r o u p s . F r o m t h e v e h e m e n c e w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s criticizes the E p i c u r e a n s for e x c l u d ­ i n g p r o v i d e n c e f r o m h u m a n affairs (Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 7 - 8 1 ) , a c r i t i c i s m t h a t h e later r e p e a t s (Ag. Ap. 2.180), w e c a n see t h a t h e w a s w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e s o f this group. O n a n u m b e r o f occasions, Josephus appears to be answering the Epicure­ ans; the fact t h a t h e c h o s e to c o n c l u d e his a c c o u n t o f D a n i e l a n d , i n d e e d , o f b o o k 10 o f t h e Antiquities—that

is t h e first h a l f o f t h e entire w o r k — w i t h n o f e w e r t h a n

five p a r a g r a p h s (Ant. 10.277-81) d e m o n s t r a t i n g h o w m i s t a k e n t h e E p i c u r e a n s a r e in asserting t h a t t h e w o r l d r u n s b y its o w n m o v e m e n t (avroixdrcjs) (TJVLOXOV, " c h a r i o t e e r " ) o r a n o t h e r ' s c a r e (ap6vTioTov)

without a guide

(Ant. 10.278) is a n i n d i c a t i o n

o f h o w m u c h i m p o r t a n c e h e a t t a c h e d t o this lesson a b o u t the p o w e r o f p r o v i d e n c e in h u m a n a f f a i r s .

40

T h u s i f w e ask why, in J o s e p h u s , it is G - d r a t h e r t h a n A d a m

w h o gives n a m e s to t h e a n i m a l s (Ant. 1.35), t h e a n s w e r w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h a t the E p i c u r e a n s r i d i c u l e d t h e i d e a t h a t o n e m a n a s s i g n e d their n a m e s b y s p o n t a n e o u s d e c l a r a t i o n (see L u c r e t i u s 5 . 1 0 4 1 - 5 5 . ) . It is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s e p h u s , w h o h a d tried all t h e J e w i s h sects a n d

finally

o p t e d for t h e P h a r i s e e s , w h o m h e c o m p a r e s to the S t o i c s , s h o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d p a r t i c u l a r l y to S t o i c i s m — t h e favorite p h i l o s o p h y o f H e l l e n i s t i c intellectuals (see

[emphasis added] are certainly to b e called female and unvirile, for which reason they are litde ad­ mired as great ones." Likewise, Philo (De Posteritate Caini 48.166), commenting o n Exod. 32:2, sneers at w o m e n in his remark that the G o l d e n C a l f was, appropriately, made of women's earrings, since a man­ ufactured god is not for sight but for the ear to hear of, "and that too a woman's ear, not a man's, for to entertain such trash is the work of an effeminate and sinewless soul." 40. T h e attack o n the Epicureans in Against Apion 2.180 is similarly centered o n their denial o f G - d ' s providential care (irpovoiav) for mankind. S o also in Philo, De Conjusione Linguarum 23.114.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

T a r n a n d Griffith 1952, 325; M a r t i n 1981, 1 2 7 - 3 7 ) — narrative,

41

m

193

his r e c a s t i n g o f the b i b l i c a l

o r t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d J e w i s h t h e o l o g y in a f o r m r e m i n i s ­

cent o f Stoicism.

42

O n e r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y a t t r a c t e d to the

v i e w s o f the S t o i c s is p e r h a p s that h e s h a r e d their attitude o f o b e d i e n c e to t h o s e in authority. A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f his a c c o u n t , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s S t o i c t e r m i n o l ­ o g y in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d h a d d e c r e e d for A d a m a n d E v e a life 43

o f h a p p i n e s s u n m o l e s t e d (anaO-i}) b y a n y troubles (Ant. 1.46). W e s h o u l d n o t e t h a t the t e r m a7ra0r)s, w h i c h is likewise f o u n d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s i r o n i c h o p e t h a t h e w i l l l e a v e his s o n I s a a c u n s c a t h e d (airaOrjs) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) dies (Ant. 1.223),

a

s

w

e

^

a

s

m

e c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n aTrddeia ( f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n a l

disturbance), are c o m m o n Stoic terms denoting freedom from emotion. T h a t S t o i c i n f l u e n c e is at w o r k h e r e is s u g g e s t e d b y the fact that J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t in e i ­ t h e r p a s s a g e e m p l o y the s y n o n y m o u s w o r d djSAajSrfc, w h i c h m e a n s

"unharmed"

a n d w h i c h h e uses o n six o c c a s i o n s in the first h a l f o f the Antiquities. T h e S t o i c s b e l i e v e d t h a t a d e c l i n e h a d o c c u r r e d f r o m the i d e a l o f the G o l d e n A g e , so t h a t " l u x u r y arose, d e a d l i e s t o f ills, a l u r i n g p e s t " ( P s e u d o - S e n e c a , Octavia 4 2 7 - 2 8 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s p i c t u r e o f the d e c l i n e f r o m this p r i m i t i v e a g e (Ant. 1.60-62) is w i t h i n this S t o i c t r a d i t i o n ( P s e u d o - S e n e c a , Octavia 4 2 7 - 2 8 ) . J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a ­ b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , m e n t i o n s A d a m ' s p r e d i c t i o n o f " a d e s t r u c t i o n o f the u n i v e r s e , in o n e c a s e b y a v i o l e n t fire a n d in a n o t h e r b y a m i g h t y d e l u g e o f w a t e r " (Ant. 1.70) (see F e l d m a n 1 9 6 8 , 3 5 1 - 5 2 ) . T h e d o c t r i n e o f the u l t i m a t e a b s o r p t i o n o f the u n i ­ v e r s e at the e n d o f the annus magnus in a p r i m a l fire p l a y e d a p r o m i n e n t role in the w r i t i n g s o f the Stoics, so t h a t C l e a r c h u s speaks o f successive r e i n t e g r a t i o n s o f the u n i v e r s e f r o m fire (ap. S t o b a e u s , Eclogues 1, p . 171); a n d M a r c u s A u r e l i u s n o t e s t h a t in the c o n f l a g r a t i o n , all t h i n g s that exist will either pass into v a p o r o r else b e dis­ p e r s e d into their c o n s t i t u e n t a t o m s (Meditations 6.4). T h e S t o i c t e r m npovoia

a p p e a r s n o f e w e r t h a n s e v e n t y - f o u r t i m e s in the first

41. Cf. Flusser 1963, 3 1 8 - 1 9 , w h o asserts that Josephus used Stoic philosophic terms in transmit­ ting the teaching o f the three main Jewish sects. Flusser 1977, 6 1 - 6 7 , suggests that Josephus w a s infl­ u e n c e d b y G r e e k philosophic thought and adapted Jewish thought to it, that it is therefore difficult to reconstruct from his description the real opinion o f the Sadducees about providence and free will, a n d that w e c a n deduce merely that the Sadducees w e a k e n e d the impact o f G - d ' s providence a n d stressed the importance o f h u m a n responsibility m o r e than the other Jewish groups. O n the other hand, Pines 1977, 38-43, argues that Josephus's terminology about fate is not necessarily Stoic and that the terms he uses b e l o n g e d to the general philosophic lexicon. See, however, M a s o n 1991, 393-95, w h o forcefully challenges Pines' thesis that Josephus's source is the Platonism in Apuleius's treatise On Plato and His Doctrine. 42. O n Josephus's indebtedness to the Stoics, especially in phraseology, see Briine 1913, 210-14. 43. T h e Stoic S e n e c a (Epistles 90.40) remarks that in those days "the very soil was more productive w h e n untilled, and yielded more than e n o u g h for peoples w h o refrained from despoiling one another." Pseudo-Seneca (Octavia 404-5) asserts that in that age, the glad earth o f her o w n accord (ultro) laid bare her fruitful breast. See Feldman 1968, 344, 348, and N o d e t 1993, 5-40. T h e Stoics had a g l o w i n g pic­ ture o f a G o l d e n A g e during w h i c h m e n lived in h a r m o n y with nature and h a d n o blind love o f gold (Seneca, Phaedra 486, 527-28).

194

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

h a l f o f t h e Antiquities. T h u s , i n t h e p r i m i t i v e

Utopia,

all t h i n g s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o e n ­

j o y m e n t a r e said t o s p r i n g u p s p o n t a n e o u s l y t h r o u g h G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e

(irpovoiav)

(Ant. 1.46). L i k e w i s e , A b r a h a m ' s t e l e o l o g i c a l p r o o f o f t h e e x i s t e n c e o f G - d f r o m the irregularities o f t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s (Ant. 1.156) is i n t h e f o r m o f t h e p r o o f s a d ­ v a n c e d b y t h e G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y t h e S t o i c s , as w e c a n see f r o m s e v e r a l favorite S t o i c e x p r e s s i o n s (7rpovofjoou, evra^ta, ficant

rov KeXevovros).

It is signi­

t h a t i n t h e v e r y n e x t s e n t e n c e after c i t i n g this proof, J o s e p h u s h a p p e n s t o

mention the C h a l d a e a n s , to w h o m Philo imputes certain conceptions o f G - d that a r e definitely S t o i c (De Migratione Abrahami 32.179); s u c h a j u x t a p o s i t i o n m a y w e l l b e m o r e t h a n s h e e r c h a n c e ( W o l f s o n 1947, 1 : 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 2:78). Similarly, i n his a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m ' s r e a d i n e s s t o sacrifice his s o n I s a a c , J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t t o p r e ­ sent A b r a h a m as b e i n g m o t i v a t e d b y m e r e b l i n d faith w o u l d n o t h a v e m a d e a g o o d i m p r e s s i o n u p o n his c u l t u r e d G r e e k r e a d e r s , d e p i c t s h i m i n t h e guise o f a k i n d o f S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r , w h o r e a s o n s t h a t " a l l t h a t befell H i s [ G - d ' s ] f a v o r e d o n e s " w a s o r d a i n e d b y H i s p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoias)

(Ant. 1.225).

M o s e s is p r e s e n t e d as a S t o i c s a g e , r e m a r k a b l e f o r his " c o n t e m p t for toils" (TTOVOJV Kara(f)povrja€L)

(Ant. 2.229),

a

typically Stoic phrase. M o s e s ' emphasis o n

l a w (vopuos) is i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e S t o i c v i e w t h a t r e g a r d e d vopuos as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e c o s m o s a n d t h a t v i e w e d m a n as a KoopLOTroXirrjs

w h o m u s t o r d e r his life i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h u n i v e r s a l l a w ( H o l l a d a y 1977, 102). H e n c e , b y a l l e g o r i c a l l y i m ­ p u t i n g cosmic significance to the tabernacle, the twelve loaves, the c a n d e l a b r u m , t h e tapestries, a n d t h e h i g h priest's g a r m e n t s (Ant. 3 . 1 8 1 - 8 7 ) , J o s e p h u s w a s a p p e a l ­ ing to the Stoic v i e w that l a w must have a cosmic dimension. W e m a y call partic­ u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , i n his e x t e n d e d r e ­ flections

a b o u t the career o f K i n g Saul, that the history o f S a u l will persuade

e v e r y o n e t h a t G - d is p r e s e n t i n a l l t h a t h a p p e n s i n life (Ant. 6.263). T h e r e is S t o i c c o l o r i n g i n J o s e p h u s ' s p e r o r a t i o n s u m m a r i z i n g J e w i s h l a w w h e n h e asks w h a t is m o r e b e n e f i c i a l t h a n t o b e c o n v i n c e d t h a t e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e u n i v e r s e is u n d e r t h e eye a n d d i r e c t i o n o f G - d ? (Ag. Ap. 2.294). I n stressing t h e role o f fate o r destiny, w h i c h is so p r o m i n e n t i n G r e e k tragedy, J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y a p p e a l i n g t o his S t o i c a u d i e n c e , i n a s m u c h as t h e v i e w o f s u c h l e a d i n g S t o i c s as G l e a n t h e s (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 1.527), G h r y s i p p u s , P o s e i d o n i u s , a n d B o e t h u s ( D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.149) is t h a t all t h i n g s h a p p e n i n a c c o r ­ d a n c e w i t h fate (see G r e e n e 1944, 340). T h e r e is s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s uses a k e y S t o i c t e r m f o r fate, elpuappLevr),

n o fewer than twenty times.

4 4

I n particular, w e m a y call attention to

t h e p a s s a g e i n w h i c h h e states t h a t it w a s t h e d e c r e e o f fate

(elpLappLevr)s)—here

equivalent to the will o f G - d ( M a s o n 1991, 134)—that w a s responsible for the d e a t h s o f t h e h i g h priest A n a n u s a n d his g u a r d s (War 4.297). T h e e q u i v a l e n c e o f Trpovoia a n d elpuappievrj

m a y b e seen from the passage in w h i c h Josephus notes, in

44. See the excellent discussion by M a s o n 1991, 133-42.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

795

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h his o w n l i b e r a t i o n f r o m b o n d a g e , t h a t V e s p a s i a n , w h o s e p o i n t o f v i e w h e , as his p r o t e g e , c l e a r l y s h a r e d , " w a s l e d t o t h i n k t h a t d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e [Trpovoias]

h a d assisted h i m t o g r a s p t h e e m p i r e a n d t h a t s o m e j u s t

[elpLappbevrj]

destiny

h a d p l a c e d t h e s o v e r e i g n t y o f t h e w o r l d w i t h i n his h a n d s "

(War

4.622) L i k e w i s e , it w a s d e s t i n e d , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r e d i c t i o n b y a n E g y p t i a n p r o p h e t (Ag. Ap. 1.236)—destiny, it w o u l d s e e m , m i g h t b e f o r e s e e n b y n o n - J e w s as w e l l — , t h a t t h e H y k s o s w o u l d b e c o m e m a s t e r s o f E g y p t for a p e r i o d o f t h i r t e e n y e a r s , as i n d e e d a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d (Ag. Ap. 1.247). W h e n t h e d e s t i n e d

(TrenpajpLfEvov)

p e r i o d h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d , w e hear, t h e e x i l e d E g y p t i a n k i n g d e f e a t e d t h e H y k ­ sos a n d r e g a i n e d his c r o w n (Ag. Ap. 1.266). I n t h e War, TO X P * > is c l e a r l y e q u i v a l e n t to i n e x o r a b l e fate, w h i c h e v e n t r a n ­ € C

V

s c e n d s d e a t h a n d m a y l e a d to a p r e m a t u r e d e a t h , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , i n J o s e ­ €C

p h u s ' s r e m a r k t h a t destiny ( T O XP *>V)

d e r i d e d the h o p e s o f M a l i c h u s , A n t i p a t e r ' s

assassin, o f r a i s i n g a n a t i o n a l r e v o l t a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , o f d e p o s i n g H y r c a n u s , a n d o f m o u n t i n g t h e t h r o n e h i m s e l f (War 1.233). A g a i n , w e r e a d t h a t fate ( T O Xpecov) o u t s t r i p p e d H e r o d ' s z e a l (War 1.275). A similar u s a g e m a y b e s e e n i n J o s e ­ p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t d u r i n g t h e siege o f J e r u s a l e m , m a n y J e w s w e n t forth t o t h e i r €(

V

d e a t h s e v e n b e f o r e fate ( T O X P * > )

w

a

s

u p o n t h e m (War 5.514). T h e r e v o l u t i o n a r ­ €c

ies, w e a r e told, w e r e b l i n d e d b y fate (rod xp *>v), w h i c h w a s n o w i m m i n e n t € (

5.572). T h a t T O X P ^

V

(War

s

i e q u i v a l e n t to the i n e v i t a b l e m a y b e d i s c e r n e d f r o m t h e

s t a t e m e n t o f T i t u s to his t r o o p s t h a t i f m e n a r e d o o m e d t o a n i n e v i t a b l e e n d , it w o u l d b e i g n o b l e t o d e n y t o t h e p u b l i c service w h a t m u s t b e s u r r e n d e r e d t o fate €(

V

(rep XP *> ) (War 6.49). M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s m a k e s clear, in c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e o r ­ a c l e t h a t i n c i t e d t h e J e w s t o r e v o l t a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , t h a t "it is i m p o s s i b l e for €C

m e n to e s c a p e their fate [ T O XP *>V]

e v e n t h o u g h t h e y foresee it" (War 6 . 3 1 4 ) .

45

T h e i d e a o f fate is l i k e w i s e i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in s e v e r a l e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d ­ ditions. T h u s , w e r e a d t h a t it w a s n e c e s s a r y (e'Sei) for S a m s o n to fall a v i c t i m to € (

c a l a m i t y (Ant. 5.312). I n particular, t h e t e r m T O X P ^

V

m

J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e

e q u a t e d w i t h t h a t w h i c h is i n e v i t a b l e , a n d , in particular, d e a t h , t h e m o s t irre­ v e r s i b l e o f events. T h u s , w h e n D a v i d is a b o u t to die, h e tells his s o n S o l o m o n t h a t €(

V

h e is n o w g o i n g t o his destiny ( T O XP *> ) (Ant. 7.383). W e a r e t o l d t h a t B a a s h a , t h e k i n g o f Israel, h a d n o further o p p o r t u n i t y t o m a r c h a g a i n s t A s a , t h e k i n g o f J u d a h , b e c a u s e h e w a s v e r y s o o n o v e r c o m e b y fate (TOV xP ^ ) e(

v

(Ant. 8.307). T h e c a p r i -

c i o u s n e s s o f fate m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t it w a s fate t h a t w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e fact t h a t t h e p r o p h e t Z e d e k i a h , w h o h a d foretold t h e future falsely to K i n g A h a b , s e e m e d m o r e c o n v i n c i n g t o h i m t h a n t h e true p r o p h e t M i c a i a h (Ant. 8.409) ( B e g g

m

45. O n the concept of TO xp*v Josephus, see Attridge 1976a, 101-2, w h o concludes that it does not refer to a cosmic power apart from G - d but rather to a divine determinism or moral providence. Most recendy, Villalba i Varneda 1986, 60, has stressed the active character and personalizing treat­ ment o f T O XP *> > l notes that the verbs that accompany it are more in line with h u m a n conduct. €(

V

a n


s

w

e

c

a

n

s

e

e

m

J o s e p h u s ' s state­

m e n t (Ant. 10.246) t h a t d e s p i t e the fact t h a t D a n i e l h a d p r e d i c t e d a n evil e n d for B e l s h a z z a r , t h e latter d i d n o t w i t h h o l d f r o m h i m the gifts t h a t h e h a d p r o m i s e d , o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t D a n i e l w a s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e for his d o o m , w h i c h w a s p a r t o f B e l s h a z z a r ' s p e c u l i a r a n d i n e x o r a b l e d e s t i n y (avdyKrjs,

a l t e r n a t e r e a d i n g 7T€7Tpa)pL€vrjs:)

(Ant. 10.142). Finally, w h e n K i n g A g r i p p a I sees a n o w l p e r c h e d o n a r o p e o v e r his h e a d , h e r e a l i z e s t h a t h e h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d to d e a t h , a n d t h a t h e m u s t a c c e p t his d e s t i n y (TT€7rpojpL€vrjv) (Ant. 1 9 . 3 4 6 ) .

48

€ C

O n e salient fact stands o u t : T O X P * >

V

n

a

s

n

o

r e g a r d for t h e m o r a l q u a l i t y o f

p e o p l e , since, as J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , it b r i n g s a b o u t t h e c o m m o n r u i n o f the i n n o ­ c e n t a n d t h e guilty, t h o s e w h o a r e l o y a l a n d t h o s e w h o a r e r e b e l s (War 5.355). A n i m p o r t a n t k e y in this r e g a r d is t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e r o o t m e a n i n g o f t h e w o r d XP^OJV

€

a n d the w o r d X P ^

t h u s stressing t h e irreversibility a n d i n e v i t a b i l i t y v

o f w h a t m u s t b e ( V i l l a l b a i V a r n e d a 1 9 8 6 , 5 9 - 6 0 ) . F o r J o s e p h u s , T O xp^

is e q u i v ­

a l e n t to T O 0€LOV, so t h a t " t h e m u s t - b e " o r t h e i n e v i t a b l e is t h e d e i t y ( M o o r e 1 9 2 9 , 3 8 8 - 8 9 ) . S i n c e , as J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s in his p r o e m , his h i s t o r y is i n t e n d e d to t e a c h a m o r a l l e s s o n (Ant. 1.14), h e p a u s e s at t h e e n d o f his l o n g p e r i c o p e o n A h a b

46.

c

In associating the deaths of Josiah a n d A h a b , w e m a y recall that w h e n the T a l m u d (Mo ed Qa-

tan 28b) speaks o f the most extensive m o u r n i n g , the laments for Josiah a n d A h a b are regarded as the greatest. 47.

O n fate, see further the secondary literature cited in B e g g 1993a, 268, n. 1800.

48.

Blenkinsopp 1974,

€

V

239-62, appositely remarks that the extrabiblical idea o f T O XP °

J

m

a

t

s

i>

necessity, entering into the soul of a d o o m e d m a n through some psychological flaw is clearly paralleled in G r e e k tragedy a n d notes the similar cases of Saul (Ant. 6.335)

a n
06vco) a n d ambition o f his uncle, H e r o d the Tetrarch, and, in particular, o f Herod's wife Herodias, the sister o f A g r i p p a , whose envy is referred to twice (Ant. 18.240, 241) within two paragraphs. W e are then told (Ant. 18.255)

t n a t

G - d H i m s e l f visited the punishment o f exile upon her a n d h e r husband for h e r envy

(66vov). 53. S e e the discussion in M a s o n 1991, 225-27, 243-45, 358-59. Because this theme is found throughout Josephus's works, M a s o n convincingly concludes that Josephus's source for these passages critical o f the envy harbored b y the Pharisees is not Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s but Josephus himself.

STYLISTIC A N DO T H E R CHANGES

(66vov) (Ant

203

13.288). I n d e e d , o n his d e a t h b e d , A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a d v i s e s his

wife, S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , to m a k e p e a c e w i t h the P h a r i s e e s , i n a s m u c h as t h e y h a d t h e full c o n f i d e n c e o f t h e m a s s e s , e v e n w h e n t h e y s p o k e h a r s h l y a b o u t s o m e o n e o u t o f e n v y ( 333)T h e role o f G - d is also c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e d i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B o o k o f J o n a h , w h e r e H i s role in the b i b l i c a l t e x t is p a r a m o u n t . T h u s , w h e r e a s the b i b ­ lical n a r r a t i v e states v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t it w a s G - d w h o h u r l e d a g r e a t w i n d u p o n the sea ( J o n a h 1:4), J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e role o f G - d a n d says o n l y t h a t a v e r y severe s t o r m c a m e u p (Ant. 9.209). W h e n the s t o r m h a s o v e r w h e l m e d the ship c a r r y i n g J o n a h , a n d the sailors c r y t o their r e s p e c t i v e deities, the c a p t a i n u r g e s J o n a h to call u p o n his G - d ( J o n a h 1:6), b u t in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n t h e r e is n o s u c h e n c o u n t e r , a n d G - d is o m i t t e d f r o m the p i c t u r e (Ant. 9.209). L i k e w i s e totally o m i t t e d is the t h e o l o g i c a l lesson o f the qiqayon—namely,

t h a t if J o n a h t o o k p i t y o n the qiqayon, a

m e r e p l a n t , for w h i c h h e d i d n o t labor, a n d t h a t g r e w a n d p e r i s h e d o v e r n i g h t , surely G - d s h o u l d t a k e p i t y u p o n H i s g r e a t city o f N i n e v e h , a n d J o n a h s h o u l d n o t o b j e c t to G - d ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h a t city's r e p e n t a n c e ( J o n a h 4 : 6 - 1 1 ) . M o s t signifi­ cantly, J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m o f h o w a n d w h y G - d r e p e n t e d f r o m p u n ­ i s h i n g N i n e v e h ( J o n a h 3:10) b y o m i t t i n g this p o i n t altogether, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e m e n t i o n o f G - d ' s r e p e n t a n c e m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d as a n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t J o n a h ' s initial p r o p h e c y a b o u t N i n e v e h h a d t u r n e d o u t t o b e false (see Feld­ m a n i992d, 8-14).

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

209

L i k e w i s e , in o r d e r t o e m p h a s i z e m o r e g r e a d y the a c h i e v e m e n t s o f N e h e m i a h , J o s e p h u s o m i t s his p r a y e r to G - d ( N e h . 4:9 v s . Ant. n . 177), as w e l l as his s t a t e m e n t to his w o r k e r s t h a t G - d will fight for t h e m ( N e h . 4:20). Instead, h e m e n t i o n s o n l y N e h e m i a h ' s o r g a n i z i n g a c h i e v e m e n t s a n d his o r d e r s to his m e n (see F e l d m a n 1992c, 194). I n the c a s e o f the B o o k o f Esther, the reverse is the case, for in the H e b r e w f o r m o f the b i b l i c a l b o o k , t h e r e is n o t a single m e n t i o n o f G - d ; a n d the S e p t u a g i n t a n d J o s e p h u s , for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, a t t e m p t t o r e m e d y this l a c k in several p l a c e s . T h u s , w h e n t h e r e is a n o b v i o u s suppression o f G - d ' s n a m e in the p a s s a g e w h e r e M o r d e c a i tells E s t h e r t h a t i f she d o e s n o t s p e a k t o the k i n g , d e l i v e r a n c e will c o m e to the J e w s " f r o m a n o t h e r p l a c e " (Esther 4:14), the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n a n d J o s e p h u s (Ant. 11.227) specify t h a t this relief will c o m e f r o m G - d . Y e t , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n ; for w h e r e the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n ( D 8) d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d c h a n g e d the spirit o f A h a s u e r u s into m i l d n e s s , J o s e p h u s qualifies this s t a t e m e n t b y the p h r a s e " I b e l i e v e " (offxai) (Ant. 11.237). W h e r e the A p o c r y p h a l A d d i t i o n ( D 13) r e p o r t s t h a t E s t h e r e x p l a i n s t h a t she h a d fainted w h e n she h a d s e e n A h a s u e r u s as a n a n g e l o f G - d , J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to d i m i n i s h the s u p e r n a t u r a l , says t h a t she fainted w h e n she s a w h i m " l o o k i n g so g r e a t a n d h a n d s o m e a n d t e r r i b l e "

(Ant.

11.240) (see F e l d m a n 1970b, 1 6 8 - 7 0 ) . O n e o f the stock c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s is credulity, as w e c a n see f r o m H o ­ r a c e , w h o h a s a p r o v e r b , " C r e d a t I u d a e u s A p e l l a , " r e f e r r i n g to the fact t h a t o n l y the c r e d u l o u s J e w A p e l l a w o u l d b e l i e v e t h a t f r a n k i n c e n s e c a n m e l t w i t h o u t fire (Satires 1.5.97-103). T o the G r e e k s , as w e c a n see f r o m H e r o d o t u s ' s criticism (1.60) o f the e a s e w i t h w h i c h the A t h e n i a n s a l l o w e d t h e m s e l v e s t o b e d e c e i v e d b y Peisistratus's ruse in r e t u r n i n g t o p o w e r , s u c h c r e d u l i t y w a s h a r d l y a d m i r a b l e . I n d e e d , it w a s a s t a n d a r d t e n e t o f the E p i c u r e a n s that the g o d s d o n o t i n t e r v e n e in h u m a n affairs, a n d t h u s d o n o t p e r f o r m m i r a c l e s . I n d e a l i n g w i t h m i r a c l e s , J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y in a d i l e m m a . O n the o n e h a n d , as a b e l i e v i n g Jew, h e c o u l d h a r d l y d e n y the c e n t r a l i t y o f s u c h m i r a c l e s as the p l a g u e s in E g y p t , the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s , a n d the r e v e l a t i o n at S i n a i . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h e h a r d l y w i s h e d t o e x p o s e h i m s e l f t o ridicule for b e i n g so c r e d u ­ lous a n d insisted t h a t M o s e s w r o t e n o t h i n g t h a t w a s u n r e a s o n a b l e , a n d t h a t e v e r y ­ t h i n g in S c r i p t u r e w a s in k e e p i n g w i t h the n a t u r e o f the u n i v e r s e (Ant. 1.24). M i r a c l e s a c t u a l l y p r e s e n t e d less o f a p r o b l e m for J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , t h a n o n e m i g h t h a v e t h o u g h t , i n a s m u c h as the S t o i c s , the d o m i n a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l in R o m e in J o s e p h u s ' s day, d i d a l l o w for d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n in the w o r l d (see D i o n y ­ sius o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , Ant. Rom. 2 . 6 8 . 1 - 2 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n d y (e.g., Ant. 1.108, 3.81, 3.322, 4 . 1 5 8 , 1 0 . 2 8 1 , 1 7 . 3 5 4 ; cf. 3.268, 8 . 2 6 2 , 1 9 . 1 0 8 , a n d War

5.257)

e m p l o y s the t i m e - h o n o r e d f o r m u l a , f o u n d n o t m e r e l y in D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s ­ sus, L u c i a n , a n d Pliny, b u t also earlier in H e r o d o t u s a n d T h u c y d i d e s ,

6 0

allowing

60. Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.48.1,1.48.4, 2.40.3, 2.74.5, 3-36-5; L u c i a n , Quomodo His­

toria Conscribenda Sit 10; Pliny, Natural History 9.18; Herodotus, 2.123, 5.45; T h u c y d i d e s , 6.2.1.

2io

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

t h e r e a d e r t o m a k e u p his o w n m i n d . T h i s f o r m u l a , as D e l l i n g ( 1 9 5 7 - 5 8 , 2 9 1 - 3 0 9 ) a n d M a c R a e (1965, 1 3 6 - 4 2 ) h a v e r e m a r k e d , is m o r e a n e x p r e s s i o n o f c o u r t e s y t o his p a g a n r e a d e r s t h a n a c o n f e s s i o n o f his d o u b t a b o u t t h e v e r a c i t y o f these a c ­ counts. O n the w h o l e , J o s e p h u s t e n d s t o d o w n g r a d e m i r a c l e s , as w e see e s p e c i a l l y w h e n w e c o m p a r e , for e x a m p l e , his d e p i c t i o n o f A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s as t a l e n t e d g e n e r a l s w i t h t h e r a b b i n i c p o r t r a i t s o f these l e a d e r s as p r e v a i l i n g b e c a u s e o f G - d ' s m i r a c u l o u s assistance. T h u s t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e a n g e l w i l l r e t u r n a n d t h a t S a r a h will b e a r a s o n " a c c o r d i n g t o this s e a s o n o f life," t h a t is, a y e a r f r o m t h e n ( G e n . 18:10), is t o n e d d o w n in J o s e p h u s , w h o states m e r e l y t h a t o n e o f t h e a n g e l s w i l l r e t u r n s o m e d a y i n t h e future (Ant. 1.197). T h e n , w h e n t h e b i r t h t a k e s p l a c e , J o s e p h u s says s i m p l y t h a t it o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r (Ant. 1.214). A g a i n , t h e s c e n e o f t h e r a m b e i n g c a u g h t in t h e t h i c k e t b y its h o r n s m a y h a v e s e e m e d g r o t e s q u e a n d t o o m u c h o f a m i r a c l e for a r a t i o n a l i z i n g G r e e k i n t e l l e c t u a l ( G e n . 22:13). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s it a n d says m e r e l y t h a t G - d b r o u g h t t h e r a m f r o m o b s c u r i t y i n t o view, i m p l y i n g t h a t it h a d a l w a y s b e e n there. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t state e x p l i c i d y as d o e s t h e B i b l e , t h a t A b r a h a m offered t h e r a m in p l a c e o f his s o n ( G e n . 22:13), p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e w i s h e d t o a v o i d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t it w a s a substitute for t h e sins o f m a n . W e c a n see t h e d e l i c a c y w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s a p p r o a c h e s t h e s u b j e c t o f m i r a ­ cles in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t o f t h e b u r n i n g b u s h . T h e B i b l e states t h a t a n a n g e l o f t h e L - r d a p p e a r e d to M o s e s in a f l a m e o f fire o u t o f t h e m i d s t o f a t h o r n b u s h ( E x o d . 3:2). J o s e p h u s r e a l i z e s t h a t his skeptical, l a r g e l y p a g a n , a u d i e n c e w o u l d h a v e difficulty a c c e p t i n g t h e i d e a t h a t a n a n g e l a p p e a r e d t h u s a n d m i g h t e v e n r i d i c u l e t h e i n c i d e n t . H e therefore a t t e m p t s to i n t r o d u c e t h e i n c i d e n t b y a d ­ m i t t i n g t h a t it w a s a n a m a z i n g p r o d i g y (Ant. 2.265). H e t h e n c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s t h e role o f t h e a n g e l a n d d e s c r i b e s in m o r e e x a c t detail t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e b l a z i n g b u s h . A s for t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e c r o s s i n g o f t h e S e a o f R e e d s , J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h e p a r a l l e l to this m a r v e l o u s e v e n t in t h e p a r t i n g o f t h e P a m p h y l i a n S e a b e f o r e t h e t r o o p s o f A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t (Ant. 2.347-48). W e m a y d i s c e r n t h e d e e m p h a s i s o n m i r a c l e s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G i d e o n in t h e o m i s s i o n o f G i d e o n ' s c h a l l e n g e t o t h e a n g e l to p r o d u c e m i r a c l e s c o m p a r a b l e to t h o s e t h a t t h e Israelites' a n c e s t o r s h a d e x p e r i e n c e d (Judg. 6:13 v s . Ant. 5.214), as w e l l as t h e o m i s s i o n o f a r e q u e s t for signs t o p r o v e t h a t it is r e a l l y G - d w h o h a s s p o k e n t o G i d e o n (Judg. 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) . J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e o m i t s t h e d o u b l e m i r a c l e o f t h e fleece o f w o o l o n t h e t h r e s h i n g floor t h a t d e v e l o p s d e w u p o n it w h i l e all t h e g r o u n d a r o u n d it is dry, as w e l l as v i c e v e r s a (Judg. 6 : 3 6 - 4 0 v s . Ant. 5.215). J o s e p h u s , m u c h as h e m i g h t h a v e l i k e d t o e x a g g e r a t e S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t s in o r d e r to b u i l d u p his stature as a h e r o , is careful t o o m i t m i r a c u l o u s a n d m a g i c a l e l e ­ ments. W h e r e a s the Bible declares that S a m s o n broke the bowstrings b i n d i n g h i m , "as a string o f t o w s n a p s w h e n it t o u c h e s t h e fire" (Judg. 16:9), J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o m i t s t h e m i r a c u l o u s e l e m e n t , a n d w e a r e left w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e burst t h e shoots a s u n d e r (Ant. 5.310). T h e B i b l e r e m a r k s t h a t S a m s o n s n a p p e d t h e r o p e s o f f

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

211

his a r m s as i f t h e y w e r e a t h r e a d (Judg. 16:12), b u t J o s e p h u s states m e r e l y t h a t D e l i l a h ' s p l o y m e t w i t h n o success (Ant. 5.311). T h a t , in the p o p u l a r m i n d , Elijah's d o m i n a n t a s s o c i a t i o n w a s w i t h m i r a c l e s m a y b e s e e n in t h e G o s p e l s , w h e r e , i m m e d i a t e l y after J e s u s a n d his followers p e r ­ f o r m m i r a c l e s , n o t a b l y in c a s t i n g o u t devils a n d h e a l i n g the sick, h e is identified as E l i j a h ( M a r k 6:15). N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n t h e m i r a c l e o f the f e e d i n g o f Elijah b y the ravens. A skeptical p a g a n might well be astonished to read the bib­ lical s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d c o m m a n d e d t h e r a v e n s to f e e d E l i j a h (1 K i n g s 17:2-4) a n d w o n d e r w h e t h e r G - d gives c o m m a n d s to birds; h e n c e , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , w e a r e told, w h a t is m u c h easier to b e l i e v e , m e r e l y t h a t the r a v e n s b r o u g h t f o o d t o h i m e v e r y day, p r e s u m a b l y o f their o w n a c c o r d (Ant. 8.319). E v e n the e x t e n t o f t h e m i r a c l e is t o n e d d o w n : the B i b l e is v e r y specific in stating e x a c t l y w h a t t h e r a v e n s b r o u g h t E l i j a h — n a m e l y , b r e a d a n d m e a t — a n d h o w often t h e y c a m e — n a m e l y , in t h e m o r n i n g a n d in t h e e v e n i n g — w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , w h o is g e n e r a l l y m o r e specific t h a n t h e B i b l e , is a p p a r e n d y d e l i b e r a t e l y m o r e v a g u e in stating t h a t the r a v e n s b r o u g h t h i m f o o d e v e r y day, w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g w h a t t h e y b r o u g h t a n d e x a c d y w h e n they came. J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s the s e e m i n g l y i m p o s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e fire o f G - d l i c k e d u p t h e w a t e r in t h e t r e n c h in the c o n t e s t o n M o u n t C a r m e l b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t w h e n t h e fire c o n s u m e d t h e altar, the w a t e r w e n t u p as s t e a m (1 K i n g s 18:38 vs. Ant. 8.342). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a t t e m p t to e l i m i n a t e o r p l a y d o w n t h e m i r a c u ­ l o u s fire f r o m h e a v e n ( B e g g 1993, 188); b u t i f h e d o e s n o t d o so, it is b e c a u s e his r e a d e r s w e r e r e a d y t o a c c e p t s u c h p r o d i g i e s , as w e c a n see f r o m t h e p a g e s o f Livy, Plutarch, a n d Suetonius. Likewise, Josephus makes m o r e credible the a c c o u n t o f t h e r a i n t h a t m i r a c u l o u s l y d e s c e n d e d u p o n the l a n d after the c o n t e s t b e t w e e n E l i ­ c

j a h a n d the priests o f B a a l . I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , E l i j a h tells A h a b t o g o u p t o e a t a n d drink, since the s o u n d o f t h e r u s h i n g o f r a i n is a l r e a d y p r e s e n t , e v e n t h o u g h a c t u a l l y t h e r e is n o sign o f r a i n at all (1 K i n g s 18:41). J o s e p h u s is m o r e c a u t i o u s a n d d e c l a r e s , n o t t h a t the r a i n is a l r e a d y p r e s e n t , b u t r a t h e r t h a t the r a i n w o u l d c o m e in a litde w h i l e (jier* oXiyov) (Ant. 8.343). W h e n E l i j a h sends his s e r v a n t t o see w h e t h e r the r a i n is c o m i n g , the latter is t o l d m e r e l y t o l o o k t o w a r d the sea (1 K i n g s 18:43). T h e J o s e p h a n E l i j a h is m o r e d e t a i l e d a n d m o r e scientific; h e tells his ser­ v a n t p r e c i s e l y w h a t t o l o o k for: t o d i s c e r n w h e t h e r a c l o u d is rising in a n y d i r e c ­ t i o n , i n a s m u c h as t h e sky h a d b e e n c l e a r until t h e n (Ant. 8.344). W h e n E l i j a h flees f r o m J e z e b e l , a n a n g e l , a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , visits h i m a n d supplies h i m w i t h f o o d for forty d a y s a n d n i g h t s (1 K i n g s 19:8); J o s e p h u s , o m i t t i n g t h e m i r a c u l o u s el­ e m e n t (Ant. 8.349),

s

a

v

s

nothing about an angel, but rather that Elijah found food

a n d w a t e r after s o m e o n e h a d a w a k e n e d h i m (Ant. 8.349); a n d h e d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e h o w l o n g h e w a s s u s t a i n e d b y this f o o d . M o r e o v e r , h e h a s totally o m i t t e d t h e s p e c ­ t a c u l a r m i r a c l e o f E l i j a h striking t h e J o r d a n R i v e r w i t h his m a n d e a n d p a r t i n g the w a t e r so t h a t h e a n d E l i s h a c a n cross it (2 K i n g s 2:8 v s . Ant. 9.28). I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h his r a t i o n a l i z i n g tendency, J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g either a b o u t the s p e c t a c u l a r m i r a c l e o f E l i j a h g o i n g u p in a w h i r l w i n d in a c h a r i o t o f fire into h e a v e n (2 K i n g s

212

GENERAL

CONSIDERATIONS

1:11—12); instead, in a p a s s a g e , h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the s c e n e at the e n d o f S o p h o ­ cles' Oedipus at Colonus ( 1 6 5 5 - 6 0 ) , w e are t o l d m e r e l y t h a t h e d i s a p p e a r e d

from

a m o n g m e n , a n d t h a t t o this d a y n o o n e k n o w s his e n d (Ant. 9.28) (see F e l d m a n i994a 74-8i). 3

J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s the m i r a c l e p e r f o r m e d b y E l i s h a in c u r i n g the w a t e r s o f J e r i ­ c h o (2 K i n g s 2 : 1 9 - 2 3 v s . War 4 . 4 6 2 - 6 4 ) in n a t u r a l t e r m s . H e totally o m i t s this m i r ­ a c l e f r o m the Antiquities,

w h e r e his r e a d e r s h i p a p p a r e n d y c o n s i s t e d p r i m a r i l y o f

non-Jews, a n d inserted it in t h e War, w h e r e his r e a d e r s h i p , at least originally, since the w o r k w a s c o m p o s e d in A r a m a i c (War 1.3), consisted o f J e w s .

6 1

S u r e l y the m o s t

a m a z i n g m i r a c l e p e r f o r m e d b y E l i s h a is the r e v i v a l o f the d e a d c h i l d o f the S h u n a m m i t e w o m a n (2 K i n g s 4:34), b u t J o s e p h u s o m i t s the entire i n c i d e n t (see Feld­ m a n 1994b, 20-24). A l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t o m i t the c o m p a r a b l e m i r a c l e o f Elijah's r e v i v a l o f the w i d o w ' s s o n (Ant. 8.325-27), as n o t e d , h e t o n e s d o w n several o t h e r miracles attributed to Elijah. J o s e p h u s ' s i n c l u s i o n o f the m i r a c l e o f J o n a h ' s r e m a i n i n g alive for t h r e e d a y s in the b e l l y o f the b i g fish ( J o n a h 1:17) w o u l d s e e m to b e a n e x c e p t i o n to this ten­ d e n c y o f J o s e p h u s ' s to d o w n g r a d e m i r a c l e s ; b u t e v e n h e r e a careful r e a d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s text s h o w s t h a t h e presents it as a H e r o d o t u s - l i k e story (Xoyos,

Ant.

9.213), w h i c h h e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e n d o r s e . M o r e o v e r , h e o m i t s the s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d s p o k e to the fish t h a t h a d s w a l l o w e d J o n a h ( J o n a h 2:10) (see F e l d m a n i952d, 14-16). J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z e d t h a t a n g e l s w o u l d p r e s e n t a p r o b l e m to his J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , w h o , if t h e y w e r e purists in t h e o l o g y , w o u l d w o n d e r a b o u t spiritual b e ­ ings w h o w e r e i n t e r m e d i a r i e s b e t w e e n G—d a n d h u m a n s . T o P h i l o , for e x a m p l e , a n g e l s s e e m e d t o limit G - d ' s u n i q u e n e s s a n d o m n i p o t e n c e (see W o l f s o n 1947, 1:375-76). H i s n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e m i g h t w e l l ask w h a t difference t h e r e w a s b e ­ t w e e n these a n g e l s a n d the v a r i o u s g o d s a n d d e m i g o d s in the p a g a n p a n t h e o n . T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is a n a n g e l w h o smites the S o d o m i t e s w i t h b l i n d n e s s ( G e n . 19:10), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 1.202). It is significant t h a t in t h e B i b l e , it is a n a n g e l w h o a p p e a r s to A b r a h a m telling h i m n o t t o slay his s o n ( G e n . 22:11), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.233),

a

s

m

Philo

(DeAbra-

hamo 32.176), it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o addresses h i m . A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e speaks o f a n g e l s a s c e n d i n g a n d d e s c e n d i n g in J a c o b ' s d r e a m ( G e n . 28:12), J o s e ­ phus rationalizes, declaring that J a c o b thought that he saw a ladder reaching from e a r t h t o h e a v e n (Ant. 1.279);

a

n

d i n s t e a d o f a n g e l s , J o s e p h u s h a s p h a n t o m s (oifjeis,

" a p p e a r a n c e s , " " v i s i o n s , " " a p p a r i t i o n s " ) . T h e s e p h a n t o m s a r e c o m p a r e d to m o r ­ tals b u t are said to b e m o r e a u g u s t (aepuvorepov) in nature. L i k e w i s e , w h e n J a c o b , o n his r e t u r n to C a n a a n after his r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h L a b a n , m e e t s a n g e l s ( G e n . 32:2), J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e h a d visions ( ^ a v r a a / x a r a , " s p e c t e r s , "

"apparitions,"

61. Apparendy, those w h o helped Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1.50) with the translation into G r e e k did not tamper with the content o f the actual text.

STYLISTIC AND OTHER CHANGES

213

" p h a n t o m s " ) t h a t i n s p i r e d h i m w i t h g o o d h o p e s (Ant. 1.325). J o s e p h u s also e l i m i ­ n a t e s t h e r e f e r e n c e to a n g e l s in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f E p h r a i m a n d M e n a s s e h ( G e n . 4 8 : 1 6 v s . Ant. 2.195). A similar substitution o f G - d for a n a n g e l in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r ­ rative m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f G - d ' s r e b u k e t o t h e Israelites u p o n t h e i r e n t e r i n g C a n a a n . I n t h e b i b l i c a l text, it is a n a n g e l w h o criticizes t h e Is­ raelites for n o t d r i v i n g o u t t h e C a n a a n i t e s (Judg. 2:1), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r ­ sion, it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o d o e s so (Ant. 5.133). P r e s u m a b l y , to h a v e a s s i g n e d t h e role t o a n a n g e l w o u l d h a v e r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s for t h e p a g a n reader, w h o w o u l d n o t b e so s k e p t i c a l i f t h a t role w e r e a s s i g n e d to a deity. T h e H e b r e w t e x t d e c l a r e s t h a t a n a n g e l a p p e a r e d to G i d e o n , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s says t h a t a s p e c t e r (6v) (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.19.2). I n d e e d , at t h e v e r y start o f his a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m , J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s h i m as skilled in l o g i c a n d p e r s u a s i o n (Ant. 1.154), a k i n d o f J e w i s h Pericles (cf. T h u c y d i d e s 2.65). A b r a h a m is a m a n gifted in i n t e l l i g e n c e (heivos a>v ovvievai), derstanding

9

t h a t is, c l e v e r in u n ­

o n all m a t t e r s , p e r s u a s i v e (iriQavos) t o his h e a r e r s (rois aKpocjopuevois,

a w o r d u s e d e s p e c i a l l y o f students w h o listen to lectures in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools) (see L S J 1940, 5 6 , s.v. aKpodopbat) a n d n o t m i s t a k e n in his i n f e r e n c e s (irepi re a>v eLKaoeiev ov StapLaprdvcov) (Ant. 1.154-55). It is b e c a u s e o f these gifts t h a t A b r a h a m is said b y J o s e p h u s t o h a v e a r r i v e d at m o r e lofty c o n c e p t i o n s ((frpovetv 10

pbei^ov)

o f v i r t u e t h a n o t h e r m e n a n d to h a v e a b a n d o n e d t h e f a l s e h o o d o f c u r r e n t

t h e o l o g i c a l ideas. The

c h i e f g o a l o f t h e s t u d y o f p h i l o s o p h y in a n t i q u i t y w a s n o t h i n g less t h a n

c o n v e r s i o n (so M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 206, a n d N o c k 1933, 1 6 4 - 8 6 ) . I n his d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w A b r a h a m i n s t r u c t e d the E g y p t i a n s , J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s intellectual gifts a n d skill in p e r s u a s i o n (Ant. 1.167). T h u s h e is said to h a v e g a i n e d t h e E g y p ­ tians' a d m i r a t i o n as a m a n o f t h e h i g h e s t s a g a c i t y (avvercoraros),

gifted (Setvos) n o t

o n l y w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e (vorjocu), as p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d (Ant. 1.154), b u t w i t h the p o w e r to c o n v i n c e a n y o n e o n w h a t e v e r subject h e c h o s e t o t e a c h . A b r a h a m ' s sons,

9. Note the similar phrase, pov€iv . . . Sewov, applied b y Teiresias to Oedipus (Sophocles, Oedi­ pus the King 316). 10. Note the same words (pov€iTU) /u,ef£ov) applied b y C r e o n to his son H a e m o n (Sophocles, Antigone 768).

ABRAHAM

229

i n a p h r a s e i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h a t u s e d o f A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.154), are likewise, in a n e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t e r m e d gifted in u n d e r s t a n d i n g (heivol

ovvievcu) (Ant. 1.238).

T h e first a n d m o s t p r o m i n e n t e x a m p l e o f A b r a h a m ' s p o w e r o f l o g i c a l d e d u c ­ t i o n c i t e d b y J o s e p h u s is his p r o o f o f m o n o t h e i s m (Ant. 1.156).

11

W h e n c e did Jose­

p h u s d e r i v e his v e r s i o n o f this p r o o f o f G - d ' s e x i s t e n c e ? A t h o r o u g h c h e c k o f a n ­ c i e n t p r o o f s o f the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d i n d i c a t e s t h a t J o s e p h u s is the o n l y figure in the h i s t o r y o f a n c i e n t p h i l o s o p h y w h o c h a n g e d the P l a t o n i c (Laws 12.966E) a n d S t o i c a r g u m e n t for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d as b a s e d u p o n the r e g u l a r i t y o f celestial p h e ­ n o m e n a into a n a r g u m e n t b a s e d u p o n c e r t a i n irregularities o b s e r v e d in these p h e ­ n o m e n a . T h e s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t a r i e s a n d b o o k s a b o u t J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , all o m i t m e n t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l i t y o f this a r g u m e n t o n the p a r t o f J o s e p h u s . T o b e sure, the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the w i s e m a n is h a r d l y o r i g i n a l w i t h J o s e ­ p h u s , since w e r e a d in P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s t h a t A b r a h a m s u r p a s s e d all o t h e r m e n in w i s d o m (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9.17.3); b u t the details a p p e a r t o b e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n . J o s e p h u s p l a c e s a d d i t i o n a l stress o n his p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the a s t r o n o m e r a n d l o g i c i a n b y stating n o t merely, as d o e s the B i b l e ( G e n . 12:1), t h a t h e left C h a l d a e a b e c a u s e G - d h a d b i d d e n h i m t o g o to C a n a a n (Ant. 1.154), b u t also t h a t h e d e ­ p a r t e d b e c a u s e o f o p p o s i t i o n (oTaoLaodvTcov) to the inferences t h a t h e d r e w f r o m 12

his scientific a n d p h i l o s o p h i c o p i n i o n s . J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f later r e m a r k s t h a t A b r a ­ h a m h a d b e e n d r i v e n o u t o f M e s o p o t a m i a b y his kinsfolk (avyyevwv) (Ant. 1.281); b u t J o s e p h u s p u t s the stress o n the o b j e c t i o n o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s t o the scientific a n d p h i l o s o p h i c b a c k g r o u n d o f t h a t faith r a t h e r t h a n o n a m e r e test o f the faith it­ self.

13

O n e o f the r e c u r r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p r e - S o c r a t i c p h i l o s o p h e r s , as t h e y

11. A s G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:210, n. 16, a n d 217-18, n. 49, has remarked, the Apocalypse of Abraham (ch. 7), Jubilees (12:17), and the rabbinic sources (Genesis Rabbah 39) stress the fact that A b r a h a m arrived at the idea o f monotheism through his o w n reasoning about the heavenly bodies a n d their directing Creator. See the citations in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 15, no. 65, and in Beer 1859, 102, n. 30. T h e M i d r a s h (Numbers Rabbah 14.2) mentions three m e n w h o acquired knowledge o f G - d "by t h e m s e l v e s " — A b r a ­ h a m , Job, a n d H e z e k i a h . T h e fourth, according to this tradition, will be the messiah. In the rabbinic sources, A b r a h a m arrives at his p r o o f by observing h o w the elements subdue one another (water sub­ dues fire and, in turn, is subdued by earth, w h i c h is dried u p by the sun, w h i c h is obscured by clouds, etc., so that finally only G - d , w h o m a d e all these elements and heavenly bodies, is worthy o f worship). 12. B o t h reasons are found in Judith 5:7-8, as noted in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 15, no. 67. Josephus, as R a p p a p o r t 1930, 16, no. 67, remarks, perceived a contradiction between these two motives for A b r a ­ ham's migration to C a n a a n , for he says (Ant. 1.157): "It was, in fact, o w i n g to these opinions that the C h a l d a e a n s and the other peoples o f M e s o p o t a m i a rose against him; and he, thinking fit to emigrate, at the will and with the aid o f G - d , setded in the land o f C a n a a n . " T h e rabbis (see citations in R a p ­ paport 1930, 102, n. 81), as well as Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 6.3-18), to be sure, have m a n y accounts o f persecutions, including his being cast into a fiery furnace, suffered by A b r a h a m in C h a l d a e a because o f his faith. 13. O n e should accordingly modify R a p p a p o r t ' s statement (1930,100, n. 83), that Josephus wished to make both N o a h and A b r a h a m martyrs o f their faith, and that in this he agreed with the rabbinic aggada.

230

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

w e r e v i e w e d i n H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s , is t h a t t h e y v i s i t e d E g y p t t o b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h E g y p t i a n science a n d other esoteric lore a n d to e n g a g e in discussions w i t h Egyptian wise m e n .

1 4

A b r a h a m ' s j o u r n e y t o E g y p t in J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s t h e e n ­

trance o f the h e a d o f a school o f Hellenistic philosophy to dispute w i t h the h e a d o f a r i v a l s c h o o l ( S c h a l i t 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , i : l x x ) . I n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , t h e sole r e a s o n for A b r a h a m ' s j o u r n e y t o E g y p t is t o e s c a p e t h e f a m i n e i n C a n a a n ( G e n . 12:10); J o s e ­ p h u s , i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f a s h i o n , g i v e s this r e a s o n b u t a l s o a d d s t h a t h e s o u g h t t o b e ­ c o m e a s t u d e n t (dKpodrrjs—like

aKpocDpuevois, Ant. 1.154, as n o t e d a b o v e , u s e d o f

b e c o m i n g a d i s c i p l e in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s ) o f E g y p t i a n p r i e s t s in m a t t e r s o f t h e o l o g y (Ant. 1 . 1 6 1 ) .

15

T h e J e w s in Hellenistic times w e r e sometimes a c c u s e d o f

b e i n g p r o v i n c i a l a n d n a r r o w - m i n d e d — a b o v e all, b y s u c h l e a d i n g S t o i c s as P o s i d o n i u s a n d A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2.79, 1 4 5 - 5 0 ) . T h e s e S t o i c s m u s t h a v e s e e n t h e J e w s as d a n g e r o u s a n d o f t e n successful r i v a l s t o t h e i r m i s s i o n ­ ary propaganda.

1 6

It is i n t h e spirit o f H e l l e n i s t i c p h i l o s o p h i c d i s p u t a t i o n s

A b r a h a m is s a i d t o b e r e a d y t o a d o p t (KaraKoXovd-qaei)

that

(cf. P h i l o d e m u s , Volumina

rhetorica 2 . 1 4 6 [ S u d h a u s ] ) t h e E g y p t i a n p r i e s t s ' d o c t r i n e s i f h e finds t h e m s u p e r i o r t o his o w n (Ant. 1 . 1 6 1 ) ,

17

or, if h e s h o u l d w i n t h e d e b a t e , t o c o n v e r t (pLeTaKoopurjoeiv,

" r e a r r a n g e , " " m o d i f y " ) t h e m t o his beliefs. A b r a h a m is p o r t r a y e d as n o t c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o a r r i v e at t h e c o r r e c t c o n c e p t i o n o f G - d ; h e is m u c h m o r e a m b i t i o u s in his d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o r e f o r m a n d c h a n g e t h e i d e a s u n i v e r s a l l y c u r r e n t c o n c e r n i n g G - d (Ant. 1.155). W e see, for e x a m p l e , in t h e case o f the c o n t a c t o f Josephus's older c o n t e m p o r a r y A p o l l o n i u s o f T y a n a w i t h the

14. In the Bible, reference is m a d e to the w i s d o m o f Egypt, which is surpassed only by Solomon's w i s d o m (1 K i n g s 5:10); a n d the rabbis e x p a n d o n this by recounting the incident o f the p h a r a o h N e c h o ' s unsuccessful attempt to outwit S o l o m o n (Numbers Rabbah 19.3). But there is nothing in rabbinic lore o f a j o u r n e y to E g y p t to imbibe E g y p t i a n w i s d o m . Burnet 1945, 15 ff., together with most histori­ ans o f G r e e k philosophy, discounts the idea that the Greeks borrowed their philosophy from the E g y p ­ tians, contending that Herodotus w o u l d n o t have omitted it if he h a d k n o w n it, since it w o u l d have confirmed his o w n v i e w that G r e e k religion a n d culture w e n t back to Egyptian origins. Plato, w h o w a s a w e d by the antiquity o f the Egyptians (Republic 4,435E; Timaeus 22 A), implies that they h a d n o gift for philosophy, " w h i c h is ascribed chiefly to o u r o w n part o f the world," a n d that, in contrast with the Greeks, they were especially noted for their love o f m o n e y (Republic 4,435E). 15. In this, Josephus makes A b r a h a m parallel to Pythagoras, w h o , according to Aristoxenus (fr. 13, Wehrli), traveled to E g y p t and, according to Isocrates (Busiris 28), b e c a m e a disciple o f the priests there, studying their sacrifices a n d cult practices a n d later introducing their philosophy to the Greeks. T o b e sure, Isocrates later (12.33),

m

effect, admits that this tale was invented; but that it was accepted as true

is indicated b y a certain A n t i p h o n (ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 8.3), w h o tells h o w Pythagoras learned the se­ crets, especially the mathematical secrets, o f the E g y p t i a n priests. Indeed, according to Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica 11, Pythagoras spent twenty-two years in Egypt. See v o n Fritz 1 9 6 3 , 1 8 0 - 8 6 ; Philip 1966, 189-91. 16. Cf. H o r a c e , Satires 1.4.142-43; Juvenal 14.96-106; a n d Tacitus, Histories 5.5.1. S e e Feldman 1993a, 288-341. 17. T h i s episode has n o parallel in a n y other account o f A b r a h a m , according to Schalit 1944-63, 1:31. Apparendy, says Schorr 1940, a d l o c , Josephus is expounding G e n . 12:13; but that passage has n o connection with Josephus's account.

ABRAHAM

231

M a g i , the I n d i a n s , a n d the E g y p t i a n s (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius

1.26,

3.16 ff., a n d 6.10 ff.) t h a t the H e l l e n i s t i c w i s e m a n visits foreigners, b o t h to l e a r n f r o m t h e m a n d t o t e a c h t h e m . J o s e p h u s similarly tells o f a l e a r n e d J e w w h o c a m e t o visit A r i s t o d e in A s i a M i n o r to c o n v e r s e w i t h h i m a n d to test his l e a r n i n g , b u t w h o , in the e n d , i m p a r t e d to A r i s t o d e s o m e t h i n g o f his o w n (Ag. Ap. 1.176-82). I n ­ d e e d , o n e is r e m i n d e d o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e x p e r i e n c e in t r y i n g o u t the t h r e e s e c t s — P h a r i s e e s , S a d d u c e e s , a n d E s s e n e s — f o u n d a m o n g the J e w s to see w h i c h o n e p l e a s e d h i m the m o s t (fife

io-ii).

1 8

T h e r a b b i s , like J o s e p h u s , s p e a k o f A b r a h a m as a m i s s i o n a r y (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:220, n . 61); b u t w i t h t h e m t h e r e is n o p h i l o s o p h i c a l setting in t h e H e l ­ lenistic style o f r e a l d e b a t e , i n c l u d i n g a w i l l i n g n e s s to b e c o n v e r t e d i f d e f e a t e d in a r g u m e n t . I n s t e a d , the p i c t u r e is o f a d o g m a t i c m i s s i o n a r y p r o c e e d i n g systemati­ c a l l y t o m a k e c o n v e r t s . A g a i n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , after P h a r a o h d i s c o v e r s the i d e n t i t y o f A b r a h a m , h e ( A b r a h a m ) c o n s o r t s (or, a c c o r d i n g to a v a r i a n t r e a d i n g , is g i v e n p e r m i s s i o n to consort) w i t h the m o s t l e a r n e d (TOLS Xoyicordrois

"possessed o f

r e a s o n , " "intellectual") o f t h e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 1.165). A s a result, his e x c e l l e n c e (aperrjv) a n d r e p u t a t i o n (86gav), like those o f S o l o n , w h o similarly is said to h a v e visited E g y p t (Plato, Timaeus 21E), b e c o m e m o r e m a n i f e s t (eTn^avearepav).

The

c o n c l u s i o n o f the e p i s o d e o f A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h in E g y p t is n o t , as in the B i b l e — w i t h its stress o n the n a r r a t i v e a s p e c t — t h e i r h a s t y dismissal b y P h a r a o h or, as i n the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20)—in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e S a r a h - A b i m e l e c h e p i s o d e , a n d stressing G - d ' s r o l e — , A b r a h a m ' s p r a y e r t o G - d t o lift the p l a g u e . O n the contrary, in J o s e p h u s , the p e r i c o p e ends, as A b r a h a m ' s E g y p t i a n e x c u r s i o n h a d b e g u n , w i t h e m p h a s i s o n A b r a h a m the scientist

and

p h i l o s o p h e r c o n v e r s i n g w i t h the E g y p t i a n s . A t t h e e n d o f his visit to E g y p t , w e are s h o w n A b r a h a m , in the f a s h i o n o f a H e l ­ lenistic p h i l o s o p h e r , r e m i n i s c e n t o f the n e o - A c a d e m i c C o t t a i n C i c e r o ' s Deorum, e x p o s i n g

1 9

(hiairrvaacDv—literally,

DeNatura

"opening and spreading out," "unfold­

i n g " ) the a r g u m e n t s t h a t the E g y p t i a n s p r e s e n t in s u p p o r t o f their v i e w a n d d e m o n s t r a t i n g (dire^aive)

t h a t these a r g u m e n t s are w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n

" e m p t y , " " i d l e , " "ineffectual") a n d d e v o i d o f t r u t h (purjSiv exovras 1.166).

20

(K€VOVS,

dXrjdes)

(Ant.

U n l i k e the Genesis Apocryphon, w h i c h (col. 19, lines 2 6 - 2 7 ) speaks b o t h o f

18. T h e only comparable passage in the T a l m u d is one telling o f Joshua ben Hananiah's contest with the A t h e n i a n sages (Bekorot 8b), in w h i c h both parties agreed that the one w h o was defeated should be left entirely at the m e r c y o f the victor; but there the contest is apparendy not for the sake o f conver­ sion but for the sake o f physically annihilating the opponent. 19. R e a d i n g

SICLITTVOOCDV

(Thackeray's emendation, 1926-34, 2:158, s.v.). T h e manuscript reading

SianTvcDv w o u l d m e a n "spitting u p o n , " and seems altogether out o f character with the picture o f A b r a ­ h a m being presented by Josephus. 20. T h e r e m a y be a parallel to this aspect o f A b r a h a m in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, line 24), which speaks o f three Egyptian nobles and o f goodness, wisdom, a n d truth (although it is not clear whether these are A b r a h a m ' s or their qualities). A b r a h a m proclaims his words before them, perhaps, w e m a y conjecture, pointing out their errors. But the Apocryphon lacks the Hellenistic flavor o f Josephus,

232

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

A b r a h a m ' s i n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d a lavish b a n q u e t g i v e n for h i m b y t h e E g y p t i a n n o b l e s , J o s e p h u s focuses a t t e n t i o n solely o n A b r a h a m t h e p h i l o s o p h e r a n d teacher. T h e p i c t u r e g i v e n b y J o s e p h u s o f A b r a h a m in his c o n v e r s a t i o n s (ovvovoicus,

"so­

cial i n t e r c o u r s e , " " c o m m u n i o n " ) w i t h the E g y p t i a n s is that o f a n e x t r e m e l y intelli­ g e n t (avvercoraros),

w e l l - e d u c a t e d Hellenistic g e n d e m a n , p a r t i c u l a r l y gifted (Sewos)

in the v e r y areas m o s t c u l t i v a t e d b y t h e Hellenistic G r e e k s — l o g i c , philosophy, rhetoric, a n d s c i e n c e (Ant. 1.167; a similar p o r t r a y a l is to b e f o u n d in Ant. 1.154). I n his ability to c o n v i n c e his h e a r e r s o n a n y subject that h e u n d e r t o o k to t e a c h , A b r a ­ h a m passes the u l t i m a t e test o f the Hellenistic a n d R o m a n student o f r h e t o r i c .

21

B o t h P l a t o a n d I s o c r a t e s in t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y B.C.E. h a d e m p h a s i z e d t h e i m ­ p o r t a n c e o f m a t h e m a t i c s n o t o n l y for its p r a c t i c a l v a l u e b u t also for s h a r p e n i n g t h e m i n d ( M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 7 3 , 83). I n line w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n s c i e n c e a n d m a t h e m a t ­ ics (cf. M a r r o u 1 9 5 6 , 1 7 6 - 8 5 ) , J o s e p h u s presents A b r a h a m as t h e o n e w h o t a u g h t t h e E g y p t i a n s t h e v e r y s c i e n c e s for w h i c h t h e y later b e c a m e so f a m o u s . T h e B i b l e p o r t r a y s A b r a h a m as b e i n g t o l d b y G - d to l o o k at t h e h e a v e n s a n d to c o u n t t h e stars, since his offspring w i l l b e as n u m e r o u s as t h e y ( G e n . 15:5). T h i s picture, together with the general v i e w that the C h a l d a e a n s , a m o n g w h o m A b r a ­ h a m w a s b o r n , w e r e t h e o r i g i n a t o r s o f t h e s c i e n c e o f a s t r o n o m y a n d a s t r o l o g y (Ant. 1.168), g a v e rise t o t h e figure o f A b r a h a m as the a s t r o n o m e r p a r e x c e l l e n c e . J o s e ­ p h u s , in o n e o f t h e relatively f e w p l a c e s w h e r e h e cites a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s o u r c e for the e a r l y b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e , n o t e s t h a t t h e B a b y l o n i a n h i s t o r i a n B e r o s s u s refers to Abraham

2 2

as v e r s e d in celestial lore (rd ovpdvia

ZpLireipos) (Ant. 1.158). T h e e a r l y

G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s , n o t a b l y T h a l e s , w e m a y r e c a l l , a r e d e p i c t e d as w e l l v e r s e d in science, e s p e c i a l l y a s t r o n o m y ; a n d A b r a h a m c o n f o r m s to this m o d e l . T o b e sure, this a s p e c t o f A b r a h a m is n o t o r i g i n a l w i t h J o s e p h u s , for w e find it in P s e u d o E u p o l e m u s , w h o d e c l a r e s t h a t A b r a h a m d i s c o v e r e d a s t r o l o g y a n d G h a l d a e a n sci­ e n c e (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9 . 1 7 . 3 ) ,

23

a n d t h a t A b r a h a m t a u g h t t h e P h o e n i c i a n s (ap.

for there is n o picture o f A b r a h a m conferring with each philosophic sect o f the Egyptians and o f c o m ­ ing to convince or be convinced. 21. It is true that the rabbinic midrashim also k n o w o f disputations carried on b y A b r a h a m , but these are, characteristically, not with other philosophers but with his father T e r a h and with N i m r o d (Genesis Rabbah 38.13). A g a i n , A b r a h a m ' s powers o f persuasion are likewise celebrated by the rabbis, al­ though likewise it is in disputations not with other philosophers but with visitors to his tent w h o m A b r a ­ h a m seeks to convert to monotheism (Genesis Rabbah 39.14). 22. Josephus himself states that Berossus did not refer to A b r a h a m by n a m e (Ant. 1.158); and, as W a c h o l d e r 1963,102, comments, there is n o reason to believe that the passage quoted by Josephus nec­ essarily alluded to A b r a h a m . I:

23. Freudenthal 1874-75, 94> followed b y W a c h o l d e r 1963, 102, asserts that Pseudo-Eupolemus's description o f A b r a h a m is so close a paraphrase o f Berossus's statement as quoted by Josephus that there can be n o doubt that Pseudo-Eupolemus b o r r o w e d it from him. B u t the very element in c o m m o n is the assertion that A b r a h a m was versed in astronomy; and Pseudo-Eupolemus might well have indep e n d e n d y arrived at such a v i e w from the association o f A b r a h a m with the C h a l d a e a n s . Moreover, there is every reason to believe that Pseudo-Eupolemus antedates Josephus, since his fragments are

ABRAHAM

233

E u s e b i u s , Pr. En 9 . 1 7 4 ) a b o u t the m o v e m e n t s o f the sun, m o o n , a n d o t h e r h e a v ­ enly b o d i e s .

2 4

S o g r e a t w a s this f a m e o f A b r a h a m as a s t r o n o m e r a n d a s t r o l o g e r

t h a t in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y C.E., V e t t i u s V a l e n s , in his a s t r o l o g i c a l w o r k , refers t o h i m as " m o s t w o n d e r f u l " (davfjuaoicoTaTos) a n d n o t e s t h a t A b r a h a m w r o t e b o o k s a b o u t v a r i o u s t h i n g s t h a t h e d i s c o v e r e d a n d tested, e s p e c i a l l y o n a s t r o l o g i c a l n a ­ tivities i n c l i n e d to t r a v e l i n g (Anthologiae 2.28). A similar tribute to A b r a h a m as a n a s t r o l o g e r is t o b e f o u n d in the f o u r t h - c e n t u r y F i r m i c u s M a t e r n u s , w h o c o u p l e s Abraham

with

the

much-revered

Orpheus

as

an

astrologer

(Mathesis

4,

P r o o e m i u m 5) a n d e v e n calls h i m " d i v i n e " (divinus) (Mathesis 4.17.2). It is J o s e p h u s ' s a d o p t i o n o f this p o r t r a y a l o f A b r a h a m as a scientist w i t h a n in­ ternationalist s c h o l a r l y o u d o o k t h a t is o f i m p o r t a n c e , for it s h o w s t h a t h e , like P s e u d o - E u p o l e m u s , s o u g h t t o a p p e a l to his G r e e k r e a d e r s b y c o n f o r m i n g to the scientific spirit o f the H e l l e n i s t i c A g e ( W a c h o l d e r 1 9 6 3 , 1 0 2 - 3 ) . P h i l o , it is interest­ i n g to n o t e , g r a n t s A b r a h a m ' s k n o w l e d g e o f a s t r o n o m y ; b u t in a n effort t o m a k e o f h i m a p u r e r p h i l o s o p h e r , h e asserts t h a t in l e a v i n g C h a l d a e a , h e d e p a r t e d f r o m his a b s o r p t i o n w i t h the visible w o r l d a n d e n t e r e d the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the invisible a n d the intelligible w o r l d (DeAbrahamo

1 5 . 6 8 - 7 1 ) ^ . S a n d m e l 1956, 144).

25

T h e im­

p o r t a n c e o f a s t r o n o m y to J o s e p h u s is o b v i o u s , for e v e n in his discussion o f the e a r l y p a t r i a r c h s , s u c h as N o a h , h e a d d s to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b y s a y i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e p e r m i t t e d t o live l o n g lives n o t o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e b e l o v e d b y G - d a n d b e c a u s e o f their diet a n d their merits, b u t also to g i v e t h e m a n o p p o r t u n i t y to p r o g r e s s in their k n o w l e d g e o f a s t r o n o m y a n d g e o m e t r y , "for t h e y c o u l d h a v e p r e ­ d i c t e d n o t h i n g w i t h c e r t a i n t y h a d t h e y n o t l i v e d for 600 y e a r s , t h a t b e i n g the c o m ­ p l e t e p e r i o d o f t h e g r e a t y e a r " (Ant. 1.105-7). A b r a h a m g r a c i o u s l y g i v e s (xapi^erai,

Ant. 1.167) the E g y p t i a n s his k n o w l e d g e o f

a r i t h m e t i c a n d t r a n s m i t s his a s t r o n o m i c a l lore to t h e m . T h i s w a s a s c i e n c e o f w h i c h the E g y p t i a n s h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n i g n o r a n t , a n d t h a t w a s to b e c o m e t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o f the four b r a n c h e s o f m a t h e m a t i c s in H e l l e n i s t i c t i m e s ( M a r r o u , 1956,

1 8 2 ) — t h e o n e t h a t a r o u s e d the m o s t curiosity b e c a u s e o f the p r a c t i c a l i m ­

p o r t a n c e o f astrology. It w a s A b r a h a m ' s unselfishness in s h a r i n g his scientific k n o w l e d g e w i t h the E g y p t i a n s that, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for G r e e k k n o w l e d g e o f t h o s e fields, since the G r e e k s , in t u r n , b o r r o w e d it f r o m the Egyptians. Artapanus, l o n g before Josephus, h a d declared that A b r a h a m

had

quoted b y Eusebius as c o m i n g from A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor, w h o flourished in the middle of the first cen­ tury B.C.E. H o l l a d a y 1983, 1:159-60, cites further evidence suggesting a date for Pseudo-Eupolemus in the first half o f the second century B.C.E. 24. A s W a c h o l d e r 1963, 102, comments, while A b r a h a m ' s piety is not neglected b y PseudoEupolemus, the emphasis is on his scientific contributions. T h e same, w e might add, might well be said about Josephus's portrayal of A b r a h a m . 25. W h i l e some of the rabbinic sources acknowledge A b r a h a m ' s greatness as an astrologer, most o f them state that G - d counseled A b r a h a m to give up his interest in astrology. See rabbinic passages cited by W a c h o l d e r 1963, 103, n. 130, w h o concludes that the belief concerning A b r a h a m ' s mastery o f as­ trology w a s a major motif of Jewish folklore.

234

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t a u g h t P h a r a o h a s t r o l o g y (ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9 . 1 8 . 1 ) ;

26

i n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , it is

n o t P h a r a o h b u t t h e E g y p t i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d scientists w h o m A b r a h a m structs.

Far from

h o a r d i n g his k n o w l e d g e , A b r a h a m , w i t h his

s c h o l a r l y o u d o o k , s h a r e s it c h e e r f u l l y a n d f r e e l y w i t h his f e l l o w p h i l o s o p h e r s scientists.

and

27

ABRAHAM'S Josephus

in­

internationalist

COURAGE

q u o t e s t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . E . N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s

2 8

as s t a t i n g t h a t

A b r a h a m w a s a n i n v a d e r (eTrrjXvs) w h o h a d c o m e f r o m C h a l d a e a w i t h a n

army

a n d w h o h a d r e i g n e d in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159). T h e r e , a c c o r d i n g t o N i c o l a u s , his f a m e w a s still c e l e b r a t e d in N i c o l a u s ' s o w n d a y a n d t h e r e a v i l l a g e w a s p o i n t e d o u t n a m e d " A b r a m ' s a b o d e " after h i m (Ant. 1.160). A n o t h e r non-Jew, t h e c o n t e m p o ­ r a r y A u g u s t a n h i s t o r i a n P o m p e i u s T r o g u s , m e n t i o n s a n A b r a h a m e s as k i n g o f D a m a s c u s (ap. J u s t i n , Historiae Philippicae 3 6 , Epitoma 2.3). P h i l o , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n t e r p r e t s t h e p a s s a g e i n w h i c h A b r a h a m is r e f e r r e d t o as a p r i n c e a l l e g o r i c a l l y

26. Freudenthal 1874-75,

I : i

^ 9 , notes that the form o f the n a m e Pharaothes, w h i c h Joseph prefers

to Pharao, comes closest to Artapanus's spelling, as found in the best manuscripts, J a n d B . PseudoEupolemus likewise speaks o f A b r a h a m , as well as E n o c h , as the inventor o f astrology a n d other such things (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.8). A similar picture to that o f A b r a h a m as inventor o f sciences is also found with regard to Moses. T h u s Eupolemus says that M o s e s was the first wise m a n a n d that he in­ vented the alphabet (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.26.1). 27. T h e ninth-century Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica 377.20-22 (ed. A . A . Mosshammer), says that A b r a h a m instructed the Egyptians in calendar-reckoning, w h e n c e the Greeks later derived this art. See A d l e r 1989, 91, n. 66. T h e rabbis also depict A b r a h a m as knowledgeable in astronomy (for ci­ tations, see R a p p a p o r t 1 9 3 0 , 1 6 - 1 7 , no. 69); but it is not until a late Midrash, Sefer Tuhasin (cited by R a p ­ paport 1930, 102, n. 85) that A b r a h a m is mentioned as teaching mathematical sciences in E g y p t o f w h i c h there h a d previously b e e n n o knowledge. T h e r e is, moreover, a rabbinic tradition (Sanhedrin 91a; see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:265, n. 313) that A b r a h a m bequeathed to the sons o f his concubines the se­ crets o f the unhallowed arts, that is, knowledge o f sorcery a n d black magic; but there the picture is not o f A b r a h a m the philosopher in converse with fellow philosophers a n d scientists, but o f A b r a h a m the magician. M o s t o f the rabbis, moreover, look askance at A b r a h a m ' s proficiency in astronomy (or as­ trology), a n d note that it was astrology that misled h i m into believing that he w o u l d not beget children (see passages cited b y G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:227, n. 108; for Shabbat 150a read 156a). 28. Wacholder's theory (1962), that Nicolaus was Josephus's source, not only for his account o f H e r o d but also for the books o f the Antiquities that parallel the Bible, rests chiefly o n the four citations from Nicolaus (Ant. 1.94-95, 1.108, 1.159-60, 7.101-3) in these early books. B u t it seems highly ques­ tionable to erect such a theory o n the basis of so few a n d such short fragments. Moreover, o n e m a y well w o n d e r h o w a non-Jew could have b e e n acquainted with the numerous traditions that Josephus has in­ corporated into his history. Finally, it w o u l d seem remarkable that the Byzantine excerpters, w h o were usually interested in Jewish matters a n d w h o are o u r chief source for the fragments o f Nicolaus, should have neglected to include a single fragment dealing with the biblical period. S u c h a fragment as the o n e about A b r a h a m reigning in D a m a s c u s (Ant. 1.159) might have been included by Nicolaus as a passing reference in his account o f the kings o f D a m a s c u s , his native city, in w h i c h he took such pride.

ABRAHAM

235

( G e n . 23:6), a n d c o m m e n t s t h a t h e w a s so d e s i g n a t e d b e c a u s e h e p o s s e s s e d a k i n g l y soul (De Virtutibus 3 9 . 2 1 6 ) .

29

J o s e p h u s d o e s m u c h t o b u i l d u p the m i l i t a r y prestige o f A b r a h a m . T h u s w e r e a d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , t h a t the m i l i t a r y f o r m a t i o n a d o p t e d b y the A s ­ syrians a g a i n s t the five k i n g s o f S o d o m w a s to d i v i d e their a r m y into four c o n t i n ­ g e n t s , w i t h o n e g e n e r a l in c o m m a n d o f e a c h (Ant. 1.172). W e l e a r n , in a n o t h e r e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l detail, t h a t the b a t d e b e t w e e n the A s s y r i a n s a n d the S o d o m i t e s w a s a s t u b b o r n (Kaprep&s) c o n t e s t (Ant. 1.175). A l l o f this l e a d s u p to the p r o w e s s in battle s h o w n b y A b r a h a m . I n a series o f a d d i t i o n s t o the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t A b r a h a m d e t e r m i n e d to h e l p the S o d o m i t e s w i t h o u t delay, t h a t h e set o u t in haste a n d fell u p o n the A s s y r i a n s

3 0

o n the fifth n i g h t in a n a t t a c k in w h i c h h e

c a u g h t the e n e m y b y surprise b e f o r e t h e y h a d t i m e to a r m (Ant. 1.177). T h e n w e are g i v e n t h e v i v i d details o f his s l a u g h t e r o f the e n e m y : s o m e h e slew w h i l e t h e y w e r e still a s l e e p ; others, w h o w e r e n o t y e t a s l e e p b u t w h o w e r e i n c a p a c i t a t e d b y d r u n k ­ enness, h e p u t to f l i g h t .

31

T h e B i b l e d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the t i m e a n d c i r c u m s t a n c e s

o f the a t t a c k ( G e n . 14:14) a n d says m e r e l y t h a t h e c o n t i n u e d his p u r s u i t o f the e n e m y after n i g h t h a d fallen, w i t h d i v i d e d forces ( G e n . 1 4 : 1 5 ) .

32

P h i l o says t h a t A b r a h a m a t t a c k e d the A s s y r i a n s at n i g h t a n d , in a detail m u c h like t h a t o f J o s e p h u s , a d d s t h a t this w a s after the e n e m y h a d e a t e n a n d w e r e p r e p a r i n g t o g o to s l e e p — p r e s u m a b l y the best t i m e to a t t a c k a n e n e m y (De Abrahamo 40.233). S o m e w e r e slain in their b e d s , w h i l e o t h e r s w h o a t t e m p t e d to resist w e r e similarly killed. T o b e sure, P h i l o d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the d r u n k e n n e s s o f the A s s y r i a n s o r o f t h o s e w h o fled (see S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 64, n. 253). H e insists t h a t A b r a ­ h a m trusted, n o t in his s m a l l force, b u t in G - d , w h e r e a s for J o s e p h u s , it is a p e r ­ s o n a l t r i u m p h o f g e n e r a l s h i p b y A b r a h a m himself. T h e r a b b i s d i v e r g e utterly f r o m this p i c t u r e , for t h e y s p e a k o f a n a n g e l n a m e d N i g h t a t t a c k i n g the e n e m y , t h u s d e t r a c t i n g f r o m the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m the g e n ­ e r a l (Sanhedrin 96a). T h e y stress the m i r a c u l o u s side o f this w h o l e e p i s o d e , b y n o t ­ ing that A b r a h a m himself w a s actually a g i a n t ,

3 3

t h a t the v i c t o r i o u s b a t d e w i t h the

29. T h e rabbis, to be sure, speak o f coins struck by A b r a h a m (Baba Qamma 97b; Genesis Rabbah 12.11; see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:216, n. 46), but their emphasis is hardly on A b r a h a m the king; and, as G i n z b e r g (ibid.) remarks, they note that scholars are called kings and stress A b r a h a m ' s knowledge o f the T o r a h even before its revelation. 30. Genesis Apocryphon, col. 22, adds that A b r a h a m surrounded the Assyrians on all four sides. 31. In his description o f David's surprise attack on the Amalekites and o f his massacre o f them, Josephus similarly adds that he fell u p o n some w h o , under the influence o f strong drink, were plunged in sleep (Ant 6.363). 32. Pseudo-Eupolemus, as W a c h o l d e r 1963, 105, has noted, adds to the biblical c o m m e n t by re­ porting that A b r a h a m captured the wives and children o f the A r m e n i a n s (rather than the Assyrians) (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.4). H e further aggrandizes the picture o f A b r a h a m the general by implying that he invaded A r m e n i a . 33. Midrash Tanhuma B 1 (pp. 73-74, ed. Buber) and parallels cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:225, n. 97-

236

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

k i n g s t o o k p l a c e o n the

fifteenth

o f N i s a n (the n i g h t r e s e r v e d for s u c h miracles)

(Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 17), t h a t all t h e w e a p o n s t h r o w n at A b r a h a m m i r a c u l o u s l y p r o v e d h a r m l e s s {Genesis Rabbah 42.3; Midrash Psalms n o [p. 4 6 6 , e d . B u b e r ] ) , t h a t the p l a n e t J u p i t e r m a d e t h e n i g h t b r i g h t for h i m (Genesis Rabbah 42.3, a n d p a r a l l e l s c i t e d b y G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:225, n. 98), a n d t h a t the 318 m e n w h o , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e ( G e n . 14:14), assisted h i m r e a l l y a m o u n t e d to his s e r v a n t E l i e z e r a l o n e , the n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f the letters o f w h o s e n a m e a d d s u p to 318 (Midrash

Tanhuma

B 1 [p. 7 3 , e d . B u b e r ] , a n d p a r a l l e l s c i t e d b y G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 5:224, n. 93). W h e r e J o s e p h u s ' s p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m is o f o n e u n a f r a i d o f b l o o d a n d , in fact, r e a d y to slay t h e e n e m y in their b e d s , t h e r a b b i s d e p i c t h i m as in d e e p a n g u i s h t h a t he h a d violated the prohibition against the shedding o f h u m a n b l o o d Tanhuma B 1 [ p p . 7 5 - 7 6 , e d . B u b e r ] ; Midrash

(Midrash

Tanhuma Lek Leka 15); a n d it is c o n s e -

q u e n d y n e c e s s a r y for t h e r a b b i s to h a v e G - d s o o t h e A b r a h a m ' s c o n s c i e n c e in this m a t t e r (Genesis Rabbah 4 4 . 4 - 5 ) . T o t h e m , in brief, A b r a h a m ' s v i c t o r y is r e a l l y a v i c ­ t o r y for G - d , w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l h e l p t h a t h e h a d . J o s e p h u s l o o k s u p o n it as a h u m a n v i c t o r y o f a masterful g e n e r a l a n d sees in it lessons for the s t u d e n t o f m i l i t a r y s c i e n c e ; A b r a h a m ' s success, h e says, p r o v e s t h a t m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y d e p e n d s n o t o n n u m b e r s (TrX-qOei) a n d m u l t i t u d e o f h a n d s (TTOXVX^LPLO) o n the z e a l (irpoSvpiia, " e a g e r n e s s " ) a n d m e t d e (yevvaiov

but

"nobility," "excellence")

o f t h e c o m b a t a n t s (Ant. 1.178). T h e r e is further a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f A b r a h a m t h e g e n e r a l in t h e fact t h a t h e is e x t o l l e d b y M e l c h i z e d e k , t h e k i n g o f S a l e m , u p o n his r e t u r n f r o m t h e m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A s s y r i a n s (Ant. 1.181). M e l c h i z e d e k h o s p i t a b l y (ixopr/yrjae,

entertains

"furnish a b u n d a n d y w i t h a t h i n g , " u s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y o f d e f r a y i n g t h e

cost o f b r i n g i n g o u t a chorus) A b r a h a m ' s army, p r o v i d i n g a b u n d a n d y for all their needs.

3 4

Later, w h e n , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ,

G - d a p p e a r s t o A m r a m , w h o is t o b e t h e father o f M o s e s , in a d r e a m , it is G - d ' s h e l p to A b r a h a m in this c a m p a i g n t h a t is r e c a l l e d , a l t h o u g h e v e n there, J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the g r e a t p r o w e s s t h a t A b r a h a m d i s p l a y e d (rivSpaydOrjae,

" b e h a v e in a

m a n l y , u p r i g h t fashion") in w a r (Ant. 2.214). A g a i n , in t h e w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s , u r g i n g the J e w s to s u r r e n d e r b y a r g u i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e w a r r i n g n o t a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s a l o n e b u t also a g a i n s t G - d , cites t h e historical p r e c e d e n t o f A b r a h a m , w h o d i d n o t a v e n g e h i m s e l f o n P h a r a o h in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e a b d u c ­ tion o f S a r a i , since h e c o u l d n o t d o so w i t h o u t G - d ' s h e l p (War 5.380). T h e r e , t o o , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s speaks o f A b r a h a m as b e i n g in c o m m a n d o f 318 officers, e a c h 35

w i t h a b o u n d l e s s force (Svvapnv).

I n a n y case, in t h e m a i n b o d y o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r e ­

sentation o f A b r a h a m , t h e e m p h a s i s is o n his o w n m i l i t a r y qualities.

34. T h e relationship between A b r a h a m and Melchizedek is hardly businesslike, as Wacholder 1963, 106, would have us believe, in contrast with the relationship depicted in Pseudo-Eupolemus. Melchizedek is the perfect host, giving an abundant feast and praising his guest; and A b r a h a m , in turn, is the perfect guest, reciprocating with a gift of his own. 35. Niese's index (1885-95, ° l - 7) takes this to mean wealth, but more likely it refers to troops for v

ABRAHAM

237

T h e stress o n A b r a h a m the g e n e r a l is c o n t i n u e d in a r e m a r k a b l e a d d i t i o n to t h e biblical narrative, w h e r e w e are informed that A b r a h a m ' s tradition o f generalship w a s c o n t i n u e d b y his g r a n d s o n b y K e t u r a h , E o p h r e n , w h o c o n q u e r e d L i b y a , a n d t h a t his (Eophren's) g r a n d s o n s w h o s e t d e d t h e r e n a m e d t h e l a n d A f r i c a after h i m (Ant. 1.239). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o u d l y q u o t e s the n o n - J e w i s h w r i t e r A l e x a n d e r P o l y ­ histor, w h o r e p o r t s that, a c c o r d i n g to C l e o d e m u s the p r o p h e t , also c a l l e d M a l c h u s , t w o o f A b r a h a m ' s sons b y K e t u r a h j o i n e d the g r e a t h e r o H e r a c l e s in his c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t L i b y a a n d A n t a e u s , the g i a n t s o n o f E a r t h , a n d t h a t H e r a c l e s a c t u a l l y m a r ­ r i e d t h e d a u g h t e r o f o n e o f t h e m , w h o b e c a m e the a n c e s t o r o f the c a l l e d S o p h a k e s (Ant. 1 . 2 4 0 - 4 1 ) .

barbarians

36

ABRAHAM'S TEMPERANCE I n t h e A b r a h a m p e r i c o p e , w e find a n u m b e r o f i n s t a n c e s w h e r e o t h e r s d o n o t o b ­ serve t h e b o u n d s o f t e m p e r a n c e . T h u s , w h e n A b r a m a n d S a r a i l e a v e C a n a a n b e ­ c a u s e o f a f a m i n e a n d c o m e t o E g y p t (Ant. 1.161), t h e E g y p t i a n s a r e p o r t r a y e d as h a v i n g a f r e n z y for w o m e n (Ant. 1.162), a n d P h a r a o h h i m s e l f k n o w s n o b o u n d s i n his p a s s i o n (Ant. 1.162). O n e m i g h t h a v e e x p e c t e d A b r a m , as a result, t o g o to e x ­ t r e m e s h i m s e l f in his c o n t e m p t for the E g y p t i a n s ; instead, h e s h o w s e x e m p l a r y m o d e r a t i o n , a n d w e are told that he consorted with the most learned o f the E g y p ­ tians a n d c o m p a r e d his scientific v i e w s w i t h theirs (Ant. 1.165). Similarly, A b i m e l e c h , t h e k i n g o f G e r a r , is, at first, d e p i c t e d as l a c k i n g in m o d ­ e r a t i o n i n t h a t h e h a s a lustful i n t e n t (iiridviJLia) t o w a r d S a r a h a n d is p r e p a r e d to s e d u c e h e r (Ant. 1.207). W h e n A b i m e l e c h is r e s t r a i n e d f r o m his lust b y a g r i e v o u s disease v i s i t e d u p o n h i m b y G - d , A b r a h a m d o e s n o t seek r e v e n g e b u t r a t h e r s h o w s a d m i r a b l e m o d e r a t i o n in m a k i n g a c o v e n a n t w i t h A b i m e l e c h w h e r e b y t h e y a g r e e t o d e a l h o n e s d y w i t h e a c h o t h e r a n d s w e a r a n o a t h to t h a t effect. T h e S o d o m i t e s , like P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h , are d e p i c t e d as utterly l a c k i n g in self-control in b e i n g c a r r i e d a w a y b y their p a s s i o n for t h e a n g e l s , w i t h their re-

war, and is so taken by T h a c k e r a y and M a r c u s 1930-55, s.v. hvvafxis

(6)(b). Rengstorf 1973-83, vol. 1,

s.v, does not indicate the specific m e a n i n g in this passage. 36. Perhaps there is some connection between this and the statement in 1 M a c e . 12:10, 20 and 14:20 and 2 M a c e . 5:9 and Ant. 12.226 (the letter o f Areios, the Spartan king, to Onias), that the Spar­ tans were regarded as descended from A b r a h a m . Similarly, in the decree o f the people o f P e r g a m u m cited by Josephus, there is mention that in the time of A b r a h a m , the ancestors o f the Pergamenes were friends o f the H e b r e w s (Ant. 14.255). T h e only hint in midrashic literature connecting A b r a h a m with the Greeks is the statement (Talqut Reubeni, G e n . 26.2.36c) that K e t u r a h was the daughter o f Japheth, the traditional ancestor o f the Greeks (perhaps to be identified with Iapetos, the father o f i:i

Prometheus?). See Freudenthal 1874-75, 30~~36, 215. W e m a y conjecture that this notion connecting A b r a h a m with the Greeks m a y just possibly have contributed to the bracketing o f the Jews and the B r a h m a n s ( A b r a h a m w o u l d equal B r a h m a n with a prothetic vowel) found in Megasthenes, Indica (ap. C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, Stromata 1.5.72.5; cf. Aristode, ap. Clearchus o f Soli, De Somno, ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.179, w h o declares that the Jews are descended from the Indian philosophers).

238

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

m a r k a b l e fair a p p e a r a n c e , w h o a r e g i v e n h o s p i t a l i t y b y L o t (Ant. 1.200). T h e y a r e b e n t o n l y o n v i o l e n c e (ftiav) a n d o u t r a g e (vfipiv), qualities t h a t a r e a g a i n t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f t e m p e r a n c e . H e r e J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t L o t a d j u r e d t h e m to s h o w selfc o n t r o l (aa)(f)pov€Lv) a n d , i n d e e d , w e n t so far as to offer t h e m his o w n d a u g h t e r s to gratify t h e i r lust so t h a t t h e y s h o u l d n o t defile these s t r a n g e r s (Ant. 1.201). T h a t this a c t r e d o u n d s n o t o n l y to L o t ' s b u t also t o A b r a h a m ' s c r e d i t is m a d e c l e a r b y J o s e ­ p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t L o t h a d l e a r n e d t h e lesson o f l i b e r a l i t y f r o m A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.200). J o s e p h u s m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f self-control in his a c c o u n t o f H a g a r , A b r a h a m ' s c o n c u b i n e , w h o , w h e n she resolves to flee f r o m h e r mistress S a r a h , is a d v i s e d b y a n a n g e l to r e t u r n to h e r m a s t e r a n d mistress a n d is a s s u r e d t h a t she w i l l attain a h a p p i e r l o t t h r o u g h self-control (oaxfrpovovoav)

(Ant. 1.189).

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , h e r p l i g h t is d u e to h e r a r r o g a n t (ayvco/xova, " u n r e a s o n a b l e , " " o b s t i n a t e , " " r e b e l l i o u s , " " u n r u l y " ) a n d p r e s u m p t u o u s (avdddrj,

"arrogant," "in­

s o l e n t , " " s t u b b o r n , " " r e b e l l i o u s " ) attitude, the qualities t h a t a r e t h e v e r y o p p o s i t e o f t e m p e r a n c e . W h e n she gives u p h e r a r r o g a n c e a n d p r e s u m p t i o n a n d s h o w s selfc o n t r o l in r e t u r n i n g to h e r m a s t e r a n d mistress, they, in t u r n , s h o w n o t v i n d i c t i v e ness b u t self-control in f o r g i v i n g h e r (Ant. 1.190). T h e r e w a r d o f h e r o w n selfc o n t r o l is, as t h e a n g e l p r o m i s e d her, t h a t she b e c o m e s t h e m o t h e r o f a s o n w h o is to reign over the country o f C a n a a n .

ABRAHAM'S JUSTICE C o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e is t h e e n o r m o u s responsibility t o tell t h e truth. H e n c e t h e p a i n s t a k e n b y J o s e p h u s , as w e shall see, to e x p l a i n w h y A b r a m h a d to lie w h e n h e c a m e to P h a r a o h w i t h S a r a i (Ant. 1 . 1 6 2 ) .

37

Likewise, Josephus attempts

to justify A b r a h a m ' s lie t o A b i m e l e c h ( G e n . 20:2-3), c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h a t w h i c h h e h a d t o l d to P h a r a o h , t h a t S a r a h w a s his sister. H e e x p l a i n s t h a t h e h a d a c t e d f r o m fear (^ojSov), for h e d r e a d e d (eSeSiei) A b i m e l e c h , w h o w a s p r e p a r e d t o s e d u c e S a r a h (Ant. 1.207). J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e in w h i c h A b i m e l e c h bitterly r e m o n s t r a t e s w i t h A b r a h a m for d e c e i v i n g h i m ( G e n . 20:9); i n s t e a d , w e are t o l d t h a t A b i m e l e c h sent for A b r a h a m a n d b a d e h i m h a v e n o further fear o f a n y in­ d i g n i t y to his wife. I n a s m u c h as S a r a h is so c l o s e l y identified w i t h A b r a h a m , b o t h h e r c h a r a c t e r a n d his a r e t a r n i s h e d b y t h e fact t h a t she s h o w s l a c k o f faith b y l a u g h i n g w h e n t h e a n g e l s p r e d i c t t h a t she w i l l g i v e b i r t h t o a s o n ( G e n . 18:12) a n d t h e n lies in d e n y i n g t h a t she l a u g h e d ( G e n . 18:15). It is a further d e f e c t in h e r c h a r a c t e r w h e n she e x -

37. Similarly it m a y be noted, the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 19, lines 14-21) attempts to justify A b r a ­ ham's deceit: it speaks of a dream in which A b r a h a m sees two trees, a cedar and a palm, with a group of men planning to cut down the cedar (representing Abraham) and to leave the palm (representing Sarah). T h e r e u p o n the palm, in tears, warns the m e n that if they cut down the cedar, they will b e cursed.

ABRAHAM

239

p l a i n s t h a t n o t o n l y is she o l d b u t t h a t h e r h u s b a n d is t o o ( G e n . 18:12), t h e latter re­ m a r k b e i n g c e r t a i n l y s u p e r f l u o u s a n d a n insult t o A b r a h a m . T o c o m p o u n d t h e p r o b l e m , t h e B i b l e h a s a s c e n e in w h i c h G - d confronts A b r a h a m a n d , in a p p a r ­ e n t i n d i g n a t i o n , asks w h y S a r a h l a u g h e d a n d t h e n , r e p o r t i n g S a r a h ' s w o r d s , o m i t s h e r s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e r h u s b a n d is o l d ( G e n . 18:13). J o s e p h u s resolves these p r o b ­ l e m s b y o m i t t i n g t h e role o f G - d a l t o g e t h e r a n d b y h a v i n g t h e discussion t a k e p l a c e b e t w e e n o n l y the a n g e l s a n d A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h , b y h a v i n g S a r a h smile r a t h e r t h a n l a u g h , b y o m i t t i n g t h e s c e n e in w h i c h S a r a h d e n i e s t h a t she l a u g h e d , a n d b y n o t h a v i n g G - d c o n f r o n t A b r a h a m at all w i t h S a r a h ' s lie, thus o m i t t i n g G - d ' s s e e m i n g d i s s i m u l a t i o n in r e p o r t i n g S a r a h ' s w o r d s (Ant. 1.198). I n t h e B i b l e , A b r a h a m a p p e a r s t o b e d i s i n g e n u o u s in telling the y o u n g m e n w h o a c c o m p a n y h i m to the s c e n e o f the sacrifice o f I s a a c t h a t h e a n d I s a a c w i l l w o r s h i p a n d r e t u r n to t h e m ( G e n . 22:5); t h e r a b b i s in Genesis Rabbah 56.2 e x p l a i n this d e c e p t i o n b y s a y i n g t h a t A b r a h a m is h e r e p r o p h e s y i n g u n c o n s c i o u s l y t h a t t h e y w i l l r e t u r n . J o s e p h u s characteristically, for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, o m i t s this s t a t e m e n t altogether. A final p r o b l e m w i t h r e g a r d t o A b r a h a m ' s r e p u t a t i o n for j u s t i c e arises b e c a u s e the B i b l e a s c r i b e s to A b r a h a m a n a p p a r e n t u n e q u a l t r e a t m e n t o f his sons ( G e n . 2 5 : 5 - 6 ) . H e is said to h a v e b e q u e a t h e d all t h a t h e h a d t o I s a a c a n d to h a v e g i v e n o n l y gifts t o his sons b y K e t u r a h . J o s e p h u s , for a p o l o g e t i c reasons, o m i t s a l t o g e t h e r this distribution o f his p r o p e r l y b y A b r a h a m .

A B R A H A M ' S HOSPITALITY J o s e p h u s e n d e a v o r s to a n s w e r the c h a r g e a g a i n s t the J e w s o f inhospitality b y p o r ­ t r a y i n g A b r a h a m as b o t h t h e p e r f e c t h o s t

3 8

a n d the p e r f e c t guest. W e first see

A b r a h a m g r a c i o u s l y r e c i p r o c a t i n g M e l c h i z e d e k ' s lavish hospitality w i t h a m o s t g e n e r o u s offer o f a tithe o f all t h e spoils t h a t h e h a s t a k e n in t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A s s y r i a n s . It is n o t c l e a r f r o m the B i b l e w h e t h e r A b r a h a m g a v e the t e n t h o r re­ c e i v e d it f r o m M e l c h i z e d e k ( G e n . 1 4 : 2 0 ) ; Genesis Apocryphon (col. 22, line 1 7 )

40

39

a n d J o s e p h u s is h e r e in line w i t h t h e

and Jubilees ( 1 3 . 2 5 - 2 7 )

41

in i n t e r p r e t i n g this p a s ­

s a g e t o m e a n t h a t A b r a h a m g a v e a t e n t h to M e l c h i z e d e k . T h i s is n o business arrangement

consisting o f a return

for the

lavish h o s p i t a l i t y t e n d e r e d

by

M e l c h i z e d e k to A b r a h a m ' s a r m y ; it is t h e n o r m a l G r e e k w a y o f r e c i p r o c a t i n g h o s ­ pitality. It is significant for t h e e m p h a s i s p l a c e d b y J o s e p h u s o n the p r o p e r a c t i o n

38. For midrashic parallels to the elaboration o f Abraham's hospitality, see Ginzberg 1909-38, 5:235, n. 140, and 5:248, n. 223. 39. Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.6, says only that A b r a h a m received gifts from Melchizedek. See Wacholder 1963, 106. 40. Since, according to the Genesis Apocryphon, the tithe was given from the actual w a r loot, only A b r a h a m could have given it, since the loot was in his custody. 41. S o also rabbinic tradition: Nedarim 32b; Sotah 5a; Genesis Rabbah 43, cited by Wacholder 1963, 106.

240

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

o f a h o s t a n d o f his e a g e r n e s s to a g g r a n d i z e A b r a h a m t h a t J o s e p h u s follows t h e B i b l e in h a v i n g M e l c h i z e d e k first e x t o l A b r a h a m a n d thereafter bless G - d ( G e n . +2

i4:i9)A n o u t s t a n d i n g e x a m p l e o f A b r a h a m ' s hospitality is t o b e s e e n in t h e r e c e p t i o n h e g i v e s the t h r e e s t r a n g e r s w h o c o m e t o visit h i m after his c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.196). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e identifies t h e m s i m p l y as t h r e e m e n ( G e n . 18:2), J o s e ­ p h u s e m p h a s i z e s A b r a h a m ' s h o s p i t a l i t y b y stating t h a t h e t o o k t h e m for m e r e strangers (Ant. 1 . 1 9 6 ) .

43

J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , n o t e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s n e p h e w L o t l e a r n e d t h e lesson o f h o s p i t a l i t y (xprjaroTrjTos,

" g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t , " " k i n d n e s s " ) to strangers

f r o m A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.200). It is t r u e t h a t the r a b b i s

4 4

similarly state t h a t L o t

l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m ; b u t t h e y s p e a k in g e n e r a l t e r m s o f hospitality, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s specifies t h a t h e l e a r n e d t o b e

(f>tXdv0p(x)7Tos,

p r e s u m a b l y in a n s w e r t o

t h o s e anti-Jewish critics w h o c a l l e d the J e w s m i s a n t h r o p i c . T h e r e a d e r o f t h e B i b l e m a y w e l l w o n d e r why, i f L o t h a s risked his life b y fight­ i n g as a n ally o f t h e S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.175), a n d is so h o s p i t a b l e t o strangers t h a t h e is r e a d y t o offer the S o d o m i t e s his t w o d a u g h t e r s in o r d e r t o save t h e strangers f r o m t h e m ( G e n . 19:8), it is o n l y b e c a u s e G - d r e m e m b e r s A b r a h a m t h a t H e res­ c u e s L o t ( G e n . 19:29). O n c e a g a i n J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m b y s i m p l y o m i t ­ t i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d r e s c u e d L o t b e c a u s e h e r e m e m b e r e d A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.204). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h o s p i t a l i t y is l i k e w i s e stressed in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling o f t h e story o f A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h . J o s e p h u s e x p r e s s l y states t h a t G - d inflicted a dis­ ease u p o n A b i m e l e c h in o r d e r to v i n d i c a t e t h e rights o f his g u e s t (£evos) a n d t o p r e ­ serve his wife f r o m v i o l e n c e (Ant. 1.208). I n the later e p i s o d e o f A b i m e l e c h a n d I s a a c , J o s e p h u s recalls A b r a h a m ' s h o s p i t a l i t y b y a d d i n g to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e ( G e n . 26:1) t h a t A b i m e l e c h w e l c o m e d I s a a c b e c a u s e o f t h e f o r m e r hospitality (^eviav) a n d friendship o f A b r a h a m a n d c o n s e q u e n t i y s h o w e d h i m t h e u t m o s t g o o d w i l l (Ant. 1.259). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to t h e B i b l e , R e b e k a h is p r a i s e d for h e r g o o d n e s s o f h e a r t in m i n i s t e r i n g to a n o t h e r at t h e c o s t o f h e r o w n toil (Ant. 1.247). B u t

a

m

a

n

m

Greek

s o c i e t y m u s t n o t give gifts to a w o m a n w h o m h e d o e s n o t k n o w , a n d so, w h e r e a s in

42. T h i s sequence is sharply criticized by the rabbis, w h o remark that because o f it, M e l c h i z e d e k was deposed from his priesthood, w h i c h office passed over to A b r a h a m , with whose descendants it thereafter remained (Nedarim 32b and Leviticus Rabbah 25.6, cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:226, n. 104). 43. Philo also stresses A b r a h a m ' s hospitality in noting that even though he h a d m a n y slaves, he in­ sisted on personally preparing the m e a l for his guests (Quaestiones in Genesin 4.10). 44. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25, Genesis Rabbah 50.4, and Tanhuma Vayera 15a, cited in S a n d m e l 1956, 68, n. 298, and R a p p a p o r t 1930, 105, n. 97. T h e rabbis, as S a n d m e l 1956, 68, n. 294, adds, contrast Lot's stature and A b r a h a m ' s ; and they remark that the angels accepted A b r a h a m ' s offer o f hospitality im­ mediately, whereas they h a d to be persuaded by L o t (Genesis Rabbah 50.4). Josephus, on the other hand, omits the biblical statement that at first the angels declined to accept Lot's hospitality and only later agreed to do so after being urged by L o t (Gen. 19:2).

ABRAHAM

241

the B i b l e , E l i e z e r gives gifts to R e b e k a h b e f o r e h e l e a r n s h e r identity ( G e n . 24:22), in J o s e p h u s , h e first l e a r n s h e r identity (Ant. 1.248) a n d o n l y t h e n , since she h a s w o n the c o n t e s t o f c o u r t e s y a n d hospitality, p r o d u c e s the gifts (Ant. 1.249). H e t h e n takes a d v a n t a g e o f the safe hospitality offered b y R e b e k a h (Ant. 1.250); a n d h e is p a r t i c u l a r l y grateful for this, as h e s h o w s b y b e s t o w i n g a n e c k l a c e a n d o t h e r o r n a ­ m e n t s u p o n her. F r o m the v i r t u e s t h a t E l i e z e r a d m i r e s in others, o n e c a n , as n o t e d , s u r m i s e w h a t h e h a s l e a r n e d f r o m his master, A b r a h a m . H e p a r t i c u l a r l y a d m i r e s kindliness (<j)i\avdpa)7Tiav) (Ant. 1.250), a q u a l i t y t h a t w e h a v e s e e n e x e m p l i f i e d b y A b r a h a m . A n d , like a g o o d guest, h e d o e s n o t w i s h t o b e b u r d e n s o m e to his hosts a n d offers to p a y for their g r a c i o u s hospitality (faXogevias)

a n d to live at his o w n e x p e n s e . R e ­

b e k a h , the g r a c i o u s hostess, a k i n d o f J e w i s h N a u s i c a a , r e b u k e s h i m for s u s p e c t i n g h e r p a r e n t s o f m e a n n e s s (puKpoXoyovs)

a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t h e shall h a v e e v e r y t h i n g

free o f c h a r g e , a l t h o u g h she m u s t first g e t the c o n s e n t o f h e r b r o t h e r L a b a n (Ant. 1.251). I n t h e B i b l e , E l i e z e r d e c l a r e s t h a t h e will n o t eat until h e h a s t o l d his e r r a n d ( G e n . 24:33); b u t the g o o d g u e s t m u s t eat first, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , w h e n T e l e m a c h u s visits N e s t o r (Odyssey 3 . 6 7 - 6 8 ) ; a n d so J o s e p h u s reverses the b i b l i c a l o r d e r (Ant. 1.252). I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s r e a d i n e s s to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c , J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s b e c a u s e D a m o c r i t u s (ap. S u i d a s , s.v. AapLOKpiros) a n d A p i o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ag. Ap. 2 . 9 1 - 9 6 ) h a d , in effect, e x p r e s s e d a b l o o d libel a g a i n s t the J e w s , g o e s to g r e a t l e n g t h s to p o i n t out, in a s p e e c h p u t into the m o u t h o f G - d , r a t h e r t h a n a n a n g e l as in G e n . 22:11, t h a t the G - d o f the J e w s d o e s n o t c r a v e h u m a n b l o o d , is n o t c a p r i c i o u s in t a k i n g a w a y w h a t H e h a s g i v e n , a n d h a s g i v e n H i s c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m o n l y " t o test his soul a n d see w h e t h e r s u c h o r d e r s w o u l d find h i m o b e ­ d i e n t " (Ant. 1.233-36). T h r o u g h o u t his n a r r a t i v e , J o s e p h u s , in his c o n c e r n w i t h a n s w e r i n g G e n t i l e c h a r g e s o f misanthropy, a d d s e x t r a b i b l i c a l details to s h o w J e w i s h g e n e r o s i t y t o ­ w a r d o t h e r p e o p l e s . T h u s , w h e r e a s the Book of Jubilees h a s a n a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m s m a s h i n g a n d b u r n i n g the idols o f N i m r o d a n d o f his father T e r a h ,

4 5

Josephus,

p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e s u c h a tale w o u l d h a v e b e e n offensive to his G r e e k a u d i e n c e , w h o w o u l d h a v e r e g a r d e d it as d e m o n s t r a t i n g i n t o l e r a n c e , m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f it ( S a n d m e l 1956, 7 6 , n. 354). It is in a n s w e r t o T a c i t u s ' s reiteration o f the c h a r g e t h a t J e w s feel o n l y h a t e a n d e n m i t y t o w a r d a n y o n e w h o is n o t o f their r e l i g i o n (Histories 5.5.1) t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s A b r a h a m s h o w s p i t y for his friends the S o d o m i t e s (Ant. 1.199). T h e fact t h a t the S o d o m i t e s a r e d e p i c t e d e v e n m o r e n e g a t i v e l y in J o s e p h u s t h a n in the B i b l e g l o r i ­ fies still m o r e the figure o f A b r a h a m for his p i t y t o w a r d t h e m a n d for his p r a y i n g in their behalf. M o r e o v e r , L o t , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m t o b e L\dv0paj7Tos (Ant. 1.200); t h u s J o s e p h u s a n s w e r s those critics w h o c l a i m e d t h a t the

45. S o also rabbinic tradition, as cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:217, nn. 4 9 - 5 0 .

242

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

J e w s w e r e m i s a n t h r o p e s . L i k e w i s e , A b r a h a m s h o w s d e v o t i o n a n d k i n d n e s s to A b i m e l e c h in o r d e r to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t h e w a s in n o w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for the k i n g ' s illness b u t , rather, w a s e a g e r for his r e c o v e r y (Ant. 1.211). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the p a t h e t i c s c e n e ( G e n . 21:16) in w h i c h H a g a r w e e p s w h e n cast o u t into the w i l d e r n e s s b y S a r a h , since this m i g h t reflect u n f a v o r a b l y o n A b r a h a m as pitiless (Ant. 1.218). B i b l i c a l A b r a h a m ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h P h a r a o h a n d his readiness to sacrifice his s o n I s a a c m i g h t w e l l b e r e g a r d e d as instances o f m i s a n t h r o p y a n d b a r b a r i s m ; J o s e p h u s therefore takes p a i n s to d e f e n d h i m a n d the J e w s against these c h a r g e s . P h a r a o h , for his p a r t , is e x c u s e d , as w e h a v e seen, in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S a r a i , as h a v i n g a c t e d u n d e r the i m p u l s e o f passion. H e is p o r t r a y e d as g e n e r o u s t o w a r d A b r a m , not, as in the B i b l e , before the d i s c o v e r y that S a r a i is his wife ( G e n . 12:16), w h e n h e o b v i o u s l y w o u l d h a v e ulterior m o t i v e s , b u t as a g o o d G r e e k o r R o m a n h o s t w h o sends his g u e s t a w a y w i t h a b u n d a n t gifts after h e l e a r n s that h e c a n n o t k e e p S a r a i (Ant. 1.165). J o s e p h u s ' s a n s w e r to the c h a r g e o f m i s a n t h r o p y is to s h o w t h a t it is the E g y p ­ tians, t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n for the g r e a t e s t w i s d o m in a n t i q u i t y n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , w h o , b e i n g a d d i c t e d to a v a r i e t y o f different c u s t o m s (eOeoi), d i s p a r a g e

(eK^avXt^ovrcov

"belittle," " d e p r e c i a t e " ) o n e a n o t h e r ' s p r a c t i c e s (vo/xt/xa, " u s a g e s , " " c u s t o m s " ) a n d are c o n s t a n d y hostile (Svafjuevcos) t o o n e a n o t h e r (Ant. 1.166). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it is A b r a h a m w h o , as a k i n d o f m e d i a t o r , p a t i e n d y confers (ov/jupaXtov) w i t h e a c h g r o u p a n d p o i n t s o u t their errors. O n e is r e m i n d e d o f the p a s s a g e in H e r o d o t u s in w h i c h the G r e e k s a n d the I n d i a n s a p p e a r before the P e r s i a n k i n g D a r i u s a n d c o m ­ p a r e their r e s p e c t i v e c u s t o m s w i t h r e s p e c t to d i s p o s i n g o f the d e a d , w h e r e u p o n H e r o d o t u s c o n c l u d e s , in the w o r d s o f Pindar, t h a t c u s t o m (vo/xo?) is k i n g o f all 46

(3-3°>)- T h e J e w s w e r e a c c u s e d (see, e.g., T a c i t u s , Histories 5.4.1) o f h a v i n g insti­ t u t e d n e w rites, o p p o s e d to those o f all the rest o f m a n k i n d , r e g a r d i n g as p r o f a n e all t h a t w a s s a c r e d a m o n g o t h e r p e o p l e s a n d p e r m i t t i n g t h a t w h i c h w a s p r o h i b i t e d b y others. It is the E g y p t i a n s , J o s e p h u s is, in effect, s a y i n g in this p a s s a g e , w h o h a v e p e c u l i a r c u s t o m s , as H e r o d o t u s also n o t e s , since t h e y " s e e m t o h a v e r e v e r s e d the o r d i n a r y p r a c t i c e s o f m a n k i n d " (2.35). O f A b r a h a m w e also l e a r n t h a t h e w a s m o v e d , u p o n h e a r i n g o f the S o d o m i t e s ' disaster, n o t o n l y w i t h fear for his k i n s m a n L o t , w h o h a d b e e n c a p t u r e d , b u t also w i t h p i t y for his friends (<j>iXa)v) a n d n e i g h b o r s (yenvioovrtov),

the S o d o m i t e s (Ant.

1.176). O n the o t h e r h a n d , in the B i b l e , it is c l e a r that A b r a h a m u n d e r t a k e s his e x ­ p e d i t i o n a g a i n s t the A s s y r i a n s solely in o r d e r to rescue his n e p h e w L o t ( G e n . 14:14), w h i l e in the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 22, line 5), A b r a h a m w e e p s for his n e p h e w . A b r a ­ h a m ' s c o n c e r n for the S o d o m i t e s is p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e w o r t h y in v i e w o f their o w n r e p u t a t i o n for misanthropy, as w e find attested in the B o o k o f W i s d o m

1

(igw^-i^).^

46. This passage, cited by Plato, Gorgias 484, comes from an otherwise unknown p o e m of Pindar. 47. S o also in rabbinic literature (Sanhedrin i o g a - b Tosefta Sotah 3:12; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). In­ deed, it is only in the Z o h a r (1.112b), which was codified in the thirteenth century, that we read, as we do in Josephus, of Abraham's friendship with the Sodomites.

ABRAHAM

243

T h e b i b l i c a l text d e c l a r e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s will b e s t r a n g e r s in a l a n d t h a t is n o t theirs ( G e n . 15:13). I n a n a d d i t i o n to this text, J o s e p h u s w o u l d s e e m to b e s a y i n g t h a t it is n o t t h e J e w s w h o a r e b a d n e i g h b o r s b u t t h e o t h e r p e o p l e s in w h o s e m i d s t t h e y d w e l l (Ant. 1.185). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , G - d a n n o u n c e s t h a t A b r a h a m ' s p o s t e r i t y will for f o u r h u n d r e d y e a r s find evil n e i g h b o r s (Trovrjpovs . . . yeirovas)

in E g y p t .

I n t h e B i b l e , t h e r e w o u l d s e e m to b e a g r a t u i t o u s insult t o n o n - J e w s in A b r a ­ h a m ' s r e m a r k , j u s t i f y i n g his l y i n g to A b i m e l e c h a b o u t his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o S a r a h , t h a t h e t h o u g h t t h a t surely t h e fear o f G - d w a s l a c k i n g in t h a t p l a c e ( G e n . 20:11). J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the S e p t u a g i n t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e b i b ­ lical c o m m a n d ( E x o d . 22:27) f o r b i d d i n g d e r i s i o n o r b l a s p h e m i n g t h e g o d s r e c o g ­ n i z e d b y o t h e r s , a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t o t h e r n a t i o n s a r e G - d - f e a r i n g , since t h e r e a ­ s o n t h a t h e gives for this i n j u n c t i o n is t h a t t h e J e w s r e s p e c t t h e v e r y w o r d " G - d " (Ag. Ap. 2.237). J o s e p h u s ' s a p o l o g y for A b r a h a m in his p a r a l l e l to G e n . 20:11 is in m u c h m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m s : w i t h o u t s u c h dissimulation, h e tells A b i m e l e c h t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e felt it unsafe to s o j o u r n in the c o u n t r y — t h a t is, his A b r a h a m says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e fear o f G - d b e i n g a b s e n t in that p l a c e (Ant. 1.211). S i n c e I s h m a e l is the a n c e s t o r o f t h e A r a b s a n d J o s e p h u s seeks to a v o i d attacks o n n o n - J e w s w h e r e v e r possible, it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t in t h e a n g e l ' s p r e d i c t i o n t o H a g a r a b o u t h e r u n b o r n son, J o s e p h u s o m i t s the b i b l i c a l details ( G e n . 16:12) t h a t h e will b e a w i l d ass o f a m a n a n d t h a t h e will c o n s t a n d y b e i n v o l v e d in

fighting

(Ant. 1.190). Similarly, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t ( G e n . 21:20) t h a t Ish­ m a e l d w e l t in t h e w i l d e r n e s s a n d b e c a m e a n a r c h e r (Ant. 1.220).

48

I n a s m u c h as S a r a h w a s so closely identified w i t h A b r a h a m , a n d since A b r a h a m so l o y a l l y listened to S a r a h , o n e m i g h t w e l l criticize A b r a h a m , as w e l l as S a r a h , for t h e latter's s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n to I s h m a e l . I n t h e B i b l e , S a r a h ' s r e a s o n for a s k i n g A b r a h a m t o b a n i s h H a g a r a n d t h e latter's s o n I s h m a e l is t h a t she h a s s e e n I s h m a e l m a k i n g s p o r t (me^ahek) ( G e n . 21:9), w h i c h t h e r a b b i s i n t e r p r e t to m e a n t h a t h e w a s e n g a g i n g in o n e o r a n o t h e r o f t h e t h r e e u n p a r d o n a b l e sins o f idolatry, incest, o r in­ t e n d e d m u r d e r (of I s a a c ) .

49

S i n c e this m i g h t b e c o n s t r u e d as a n o t - s o - v e i l e d a t t a c k

u p o n n o n - J e w s generally, J o s e p h u s gives a totally different a n d v e r y p l a u s i b l e r e a ­ s o n for S a r a h ' s o p p o s i t i o n to I s h m a e l — n a m e l y , t h a t h e m i g h t d o injury t o h e r s o n I s a a c after A b r a h a m ' s d e a t h (Ant. 1.215). I n defense o f S a r a h , w e a r e t o l d t h a t at first, w h e n I s h m a e l w a s b o r n , she c h e r i s h e d h i m w i t h a n affection n o less t h a n i f h e h a d b e e n h e r o w n s o n , s e e i n g t h a t h e w a s b e i n g t r a i n e d (irpecfyero) as h e i r (8ia8oxfj) t o t h e c h i e f t a i n c y

(rjyepiovias).

48. T h e rabbis interpret this statement to signify that Ishmael robbed travelers (see Rashi's c o m ­ mentary ad l o c ) . 49. See Tosefta Sotah 6:6 and Rashi's c o m m e n t a r y ad loc. T h e rabbis tell o f actual attempts by Ishmael to kill Isaac and o f Ishmael's idolatry (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:246, n. 211; R a p p a p o r t 1930, 107, n. 103; S a n d m e l 1956, 71, n. 313). T h e picture o f Ishmael m a k i n g sport o f Isaac is found also in J e r o m e (see R a h m e r 1861, 31).

244

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

T h e i n c i d e n t o f A b r a h a m ' s e x p u l s i o n o f H a g a r , w h i c h m i g h t a p p e a r to s h o w h o w pitiless S a r a h a n d A b r a h a m w e r e , is r e t o l d b y J o s e p h u s w i t h t o u c h e s t h a t definitely h e l p t o m a k e this a c t s e e m m o r e defensible. T h e B i b l e says t h a t " w h e n H a g a r s a w t h a t she h a d c o n c e i v e d , h e r mistress w a s d e s p i s e d in h e r e y e s " ( G e n . 16:4). J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s H a g a r in d a r k e r c o l o r s as g u i l t y ofvppts b o l d n e s s (iroXpLrjoe) t o b r e a k o u t into i n s o l e n c e (igvftpl^eiv) air o f a q u e e n (fiaoiXi^ovoa),

a n d as h a v i n g the

at S a r a h , a s s u m i n g the

as t h o u g h h e r u n b o r n s o n w o u l d i n h e r i t A b r a h a m ' s

d o m i n i o n (Ant. 1.188). S e e k i n g to k e e p A b r a h a m f r o m b e i n g c a u g h t b e t w e e n the S c y l l a o f d i s r e g a r d i n g S a r a h ' s feelings a n d the C h a r y b d i s o f d i s r e g a r d i n g H a g a r ' s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a r a h ' s a t t a c k o n A b r a h a m for l i s t e n i n g t o H a g a r ' s insults in si­ l e n c e , as w e l l as h e r a p p e a l to h i m for r e v e n g e o n h e r h a n d m a i d e n , w h i l e o n t h e o t h e r h a n d j u s t i f y i n g A b r a h a m ' s u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n b y h a v i n g the a n g e l , in a c o n ­ s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n t o S c r i p t u r e ( G e n . 16:9), b e r a t e H a g a r b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t h e r p r e s e n t p l i g h t w a s b e c a u s e she h a d b e e n i n c o n s i d e r a t e (dyvwpiova,

"contuma­

c i o u s , " "senseless") a n d p r e s u m p t u o u s (avddSrj, " w i l l f u l , " " a r r o g a n t " ) t o w a r d h e r mistress (Ant. 1.189-90). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e a n g e l w a r n s h e r t h a t i f she c o n t i n u e s to d i s o b e y G - d , she will p e r i s h , w h e r e a s she c a n attain a h a p p i e r life t h r o u g h self-con­ trol

(oaxfrpovovoav).

S a r a h is h e r s e l f d e p i c t e d as n o t so c o n t e m p t u o u s o f H a g a r ' s servile status a n d as n o t so h a r s h in t h e p e n a l t y t h a t she r e c o m m e n d s for H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l (Ant. 1.216). I n the B i b l e , she tells A b r a h a m "to cast o u t the b o n d w o m a n a n d h e r s o n " ( G e n . 21:10). I n J o s e p h u s , she d o e s n o t s p e a k o f H a g a r as a b o n d w o m a n . A n d , i n d e e d , w h e n she d e c i d e s t h a t I s h m a e l m u s t b e sent away, she seeks m e r e l y to h a v e h i m f o u n d a colony, a solution familiar f r o m G r e e k history (els aTroiKiav) (Ant. 1.216). W h e n , after t h e b i r t h o f I s a a c , S a r a h u r g e s h e r h u s b a n d to cast o u t H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l b e c a u s e o f I s h m a e P s b e h a v i o r ( G e n . 21:10), t h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h a t this re­ q u e s t w a s v e r y g r i e v o u s in A b r a h a m ' s eyes ( G e n . 21:11). J o s e p h u s stresses A b r a ­ h a m ' s c o m p a s s i o n m u c h m o r e , stating t h a t at first h e a c t u a l l y refused to c o n s e n t to S a r a h ' s p r o p o s a l ( a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e this itself m o r e r e a s o n a b l e ) , think­ i n g t h a t n o t h i n g c o u l d b e m o r e b r u t a l (wpborarov,

"most savage," "fierce," "cruel,"

" h a r s h " ) t h a n to s e n d o f f a n infant (v-qiriov)—actually,

I s h m a e l is at least a n a d o ­

l e s c e n t at this p o i n t — w i t h a w o m a n destitute o f the necessities o f life (Ant. 1 . 2 1 6 ) .

50

T h e fact t h a t A b r a h a m refers h e r e to I s h m a e l as a n infant (v^mov) a n d t h a t h e a d d s t h a t I s h m a e l is n o t y e t a b l e t o g o a l o n e (Ant. 1.217), w h e n a c t u a l l y h e is at least seventeen,

51

u n d e r s c o r e s his c o n c e r n for I s h m a e l . T h e B i b l e says t h a t after A b r a -

50. T h e rabbis likewise note the difficulty o f this decision, remarking that it was the most severe trial of A b r a h a m u p to that point (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30). 51. A b r a h a m was 86 w h e n Ishmael was born to him (Gen. 16:16), and he was 100 w h e n Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). Sarah's request to banish Ishmael occurred after Isaac was weaned, which, according to tradition, would take place after the child h a d lived 24 months (Gittin 75b). T h e incident o f Sarah's attempt to banish H a g a r and Ishmael is recounted (Gen. 21:9) immediately after the mention of the weaning of Isaac (Gen. 21:8). A c c o r d i n g to Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 30, Ishmael was 24; according to Gene­ sis Rabbah 53, he was 27.

ABRAHAM

245

h a m sent a w a y H a g a r a n d I s h m a e l , t h e y s t r a y e d in t h e w i l d e r n e s s o f B e e r s h e b a , p r e s u m a b l y b e i n g lost ( G e n . 21:14). J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g t o soften t h e c h a r g e o f c r u ­ elty t h a t m i g h t h a v e b e e n m a d e a g a i n s t A b r a h a m , says n o t h i n g o f their l o s i n g their 52

w a y (Ant. 1 . 2 1 8 ) . T h e p a t h e t i c s c e n e in w h i c h H a g a r lifts u p h e r v o i c e a n d w e e p s ( G e n . 21:16) is c o m p l e t e l y o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.218), since it w o u l d a p p a r ­ e n d y reflect u n f a v o r a b l y o n A b r a h a m as pitiless. T h e p i c t u r e o f the c h i l d I s h m a e l b e i n g cast u n d e r o n e o f t h e s h r u b s ( G e n . 21:15) is s o m e w h a t r e d u c e d in h a r s h n e s s b y h a v i n g h i m l a i d u n d e r a fir tree, w i t h the m o t h e r g o i n g further a w a y (Ant. 1.218), in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f E u r i p i d e s (Hercules Furens, 3 2 3 - 2 4 ) , so as n o t t o b e p r e ­ sent w h e n h e g i v e s u p his spirit (i/jvxoppayovv)

(noted b y T h a c k e r a y 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 ,

4:108). T h e h a r s h n e s s is l e s s e n e d b y t h e o m i s s i o n o f I s h m a e l ' s w e e p i n g o r p r a y e r ( G e n . 21:17 v s . Ant. 1.291). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to S c r i p t u r e , J o s e p h u s

presents

A b r a h a m a n d S a r a h in a m o r e f a v o r a b l e light b y n o t i n g t h a t t h e y forgive H a g a r after she r e t u r n s to t h e m (Ant. 1.190). O n e c a n r e a d d y see, f r o m s u c h a p o l o g e t i c w o r k s as t h e Letter of Aristeas

and

J o s e p h u s ' s o w n Against Apion, t h a t J e w s like J o s e p h u s w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o u d o f the fact that non-Jews

s u c h as A r i s t o t l e , T h e o p h r a s t u s ,

Megasthenes,

and

P t o l e m y P h d a d e l p h u s a c k n o w l e d g e d the w i s d o m o f G - d , the T o r a h , a n d the J e w s . J o s e p h u s e x e m p l i f i e s this t r e n d in t h e Antiquities

also. In the Bible, A b i ­

m e l e c h c o m p l a i n s t o G - d t h a t h e is i n n o c e n t , a n d G - d a n s w e r s b y a c k n o w l ­ e d g i n g his i n n o c e n c e a n d b y i n s t r u c t i n g h i m w h a t t o d o ( G e n . 2 0 : 4 - 7 ) . J o s e p h u s , o n the other h a n d , has A b i m e l e c h , a non-Jewish king, a c k n o w l e d g e the p o w e r o f G - d b y h a v i n g h i m tell his friends, w h o are, o f c o u r s e , n o n - J e w s , t h a t it w a s G - d w h o h a d b r o u g h t t h e d i s e a s e u p o n h i m t o v i n d i c a t e t h e r i g h t s o f his g u e s t (Ant. 1.208). I n his e a g e r n e s s t o a v o i d offense t o n o n - J e w s , J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e a p ­ p a r e n t s a r c a s m i n A b i m e l e c h ' s r e m a r k to S a r a h t h a t h e h a s g i v e n h e r b r o t h e r a t h o u s a n d p i e c e s o f silver ( G e n . 20:16 v s . Ant.

1.212). H e l i k e w i s e o m i t s w h a t

m i g h t b e r e g a r d e d as a c r u d e c o m p e n s a t i o n b y A b i m e l e c h for t h e i n j u r y t o S a r a h c i t e d in t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 20:16 v s . Ant. 1.212), w h e r e t h e sense s e e m s t o b e t h a t S a r a h ' s h o n o r h a s n o w b e e n c o m p l e t e l y r e h a b i l i t a t e d (so S k i n n e r 1930, J

3 9)It is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s states t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n is to p r e v e n t t h e Israelites f r o m m i x i n g (ovpucfrvpopLevov,

"confuse," "confound") with others

(Ant.

53

1 . 1 9 2 ) . J o s e p h u s w a s e v i d e n d y w e l l a w a r e t h a t this m i g h t l e a d to a c h a r g e o f m i s ­ anthropy, h o w e v e r , a n d so h e i m m e d i a t e l y a d d s t h a t h e w i l l e l s e w h e r e e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n — t h a t is, p r e s u m a b l y , t h e r a t i o n a l o r s y m b o l i c m e a n i n g o f this p r a c t i c e . T h e a n n o u n c e d w o r k h a s n o t c o m e d o w n to us, b u t in it J o s e p h u s m i g h t w e l l h a v e

52. T a r g u m Jonathan depicts this scene with even more vividness, as S a n d m e l (1956,71, n. 317) has remarked, than does the biblical text. 53. Schalit 1944-63, ad l o c , cites Jubilees 15:26-32 as giving a similar reason, but there is nothing c o m p a r a b l e there, since Jubilees mentions merely that G - d did not ordain this practice a m o n g the nonIsraelites.

246

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

p o i n t e d to the s e p a r a t i s m o f t h e r e p u t e d l y w i s e E g y p t i a n s , w h o , h e says, t h e m ­ selves p r a c t i c e c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 6 4 - 7 0 a n d 2 . 1 4 1 - 4 2 ) . I n a n y c a s e , it is signi­ ficant

t h a t w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e l s e w h e r e d r a w s u p o n the Book of Jubilees, h e o m i t s

the s t r o n g s t a t e m e n t in Jubilees (15:26), p r e s u m a b l y d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the H e l l e n i z e r s o f the p e r i o d , t h a t those w h o a r e n o t c i r c u m c i s e d a r e d e s t i n e d " t o b e d e s t r o y e d a n d slain f r o m t h e e a r t h , a n d to b e r o o t e d o u t o f the e a r t h " ( S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 42). B y a t t a c k i n g t h e S o d o m i t e s as h a t i n g f o r e i g n e r s (puao&voi)

a n d as d e c l i n i n g

all i n t e r c o u r s e (opuXlas) w i t h o t h e r s (Ant. 1.194), J o s e p h u s s h o w s t h a t s u c h a n at­ titude is u t t e r l y u n a c c e p t a b l e . T o b e sure, this p i c t u r e o f t h e S o d o m i t e s ' m i s a n ­ t h r o p y is a l s o f o u n d in t h e Book of Wisdom ( i Q , : i 3 - i 4 ) ;

54

but the fact that J o s e p h u s

uses t h e v e r y w o r d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m t h a t J e w - b a i t e r s h a d d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e J e w s t h e m s e l v e s e m p h a s i z e s J u d a i s m ' s o p p o s i t i o n to m i s a n t h r o p y

T h e Sodo­

m i t e s a r e d e p i c t e d in e v e n w o r s e c o l o r s in J o s e p h u s t h a n t h e y a r e in t h e B i b l e . T h i s glorifies still m o r e t h e figure o f A b r a h a m for s h o w i n g p i t y t o w a r d t h e m a n d for p r a y i n g to G - d in t h e i r b e h a l f (Ant. 1.199). I n d e e d , w e r e a d , in a series o f d e ­ tails a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , t h a t t h e S o d o m i t e s w e r e b e n t o n v i o l e n c e ifiiav) a n d in­ s o l e n c e (vfipw) t o w a r d t h e v i s i t i n g a n g e l s , w h o w e r e o f r e m a r k a b l y fair a p p e a r ­ a n c e (Ant. 1.200). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t in s t a t i n g t h a t A b r a h a m ' s n e p h e w L o t h a d l e a r n e d f r o m A b r a h a m to b e v e r y k i n d (i\dvdp<x>TTos) t o s t r a n g e r s (Ant. 1.200), u s i n g a w o r d , 4 4 8 , 5 9> 5- 4> 6.171, 8.102, 8.106, 8.349, 8.351, 9.20, 9.26, 9.28, 9.213, 10.21, 10.259, 10.260,10.272, n.237, 11.240, and 12.359.

ABRAHAM

251

visiting A b r a h a m d r a w a line o n the w a l l a n d d e c l a r e t h a t I s a a c will b e b o r n w h e n the s u n r e t u r n s to this line (see S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 67, n. 290). B u t in J o s e p h u s , it is t h e a n g e l s w h o m a k e this d e c l a r a t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n G - d , a n d t h e y l e a v e the t i m e o f their r e t u r n indefinite (Ant. 1.197; so also T a r g u m J o n a t h a n o n G e n . 18:10), stating m e r e l y t h a t o n e o f t h e m will r e t u r n s o m e d a y in the future (els TO fxeXXov) t o find t h a t S a r a h h a d g i v e n b i r t h to a s o n . W h e n the b i r t h o c c u r s , J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t it o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g y e a r (Ant. 1.214). W h e r e a s the p i c t u r e o f A b r a h a m t h a t J o s e p h u s presents is o f a m a n , o f faith t o b e sure, h e significantly o m i t s G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t o A b i m e l e c h in the B i b l e t h a t A b r a h a m is a p r o p h e t w h o will b r i n g a b o u t the k i n g ' s c u r e t h r o u g h his p r a y e r ( G e n . 20:7). T h e m i r a c l e w h e r e b y G - d o p e n s H a g a r ' s eyes, so t h a t she sees a w e l l w h e n she a n d I s h m a e l are w i t h o u t w a t e r ( G e n . 21:19) is l e s s e n e d a n d t o a g r e a t d e g r e e r a t i o ­ n a l i z e d in J o s e p h u s , in t h a t it is n o t G - d H i m s e l f w h o o p e n s h e r eyes b u t a n a n g e l , w h o tells h e r o f a s p r i n g close by, j u s t as s h e p h e r d s are i n t r o d u c e d w h o t h r o u g h their c a r e h e l p h e r e s c a p e h e r miseries (Ant. 1.219). J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e l y o m i t s the m e n t i o n o f the a n g e l w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o A b r a ­ h a m ' s instructions t o his s e r v a n t Eliezer, w o u l d b e sent b y G - d t o g u i d e E l i e z e r o n his w a y ( G e n . 24:7 vs. Ant. 1.242 a n d 1.253). T h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t L o t ' s wife b e c a m e a pillar o f salt w h e n she l o o k e d b a c k as S o d o m w a s b e i n g d e s t r o y e d ( G e n . 19:26) w o u l d c e r t a i n l y h a v e s e e m e d in­ c r e d i b l e t o a rationalistic reader. O f c o u r s e , J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e o m i t t e d h e r t u r n i n g into a pillar o f salt altogether, b u t in this case, h e c h o s e t o a n s w e r the d o u b t s o f r e a d e r s b y asserting t h a t h e h i m s e l f h a d seen this pillar, " w h i c h r e m a i n s 62

to this d a y " (Ant. 1.203). F u r t h e r m o r e , in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , there is a q u e s t i o n o f G - d ' s j u s t i c e in t h r e a t e n i n g A b i m e l e c h w i t h d e a t h b e c a u s e o f his a d v a n c e s t o S a r a h ( G e n . 20:3), w h e n a c t u a l l y h e h a d b e e n m i s l e d b y A b r a h a m , w h o h a d d e ­ c l a r e d S a r a h t o b e his sister ( G e n . 20:2). I n the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , A b i m e l e c h s e e m s v e r y c o n v i n c i n g in c o m p l a i n i n g t o G - d , " W i l t T h o u slay e v e n a r i g h t e o u s n a ­ t i o n ? " H e t h e n a d d s t h a t S a r a h h e r s e l f h a d said t h a t A b r a h a m w a s h e r brother, a n d h e closes w i t h the p o i g n a n t s t a t e m e n t , " I n the simplic/ty o f m y h e a r t a n d in the i n n o c e n c e o f m y h a n d s h a v e I d o n e this" ( G e n . 20:4-5). I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , A b i m e l e c h d o e s n o t c o m p l a i n t o G - d ; rather, h e a c t u a l l y tells his friends t h a t G - d is justified in b r i n g i n g his m a l a d y u p o n h i m in o r d e r to v i n d i c a t e the rights o f his g u e s t a n d t o p r e s e r v e A b r a h a m ' s wife f r o m v i o l e n c e (Ant. 1.208). J o s e p h u s , e v e r c o n c e r n e d w i t h a p o l o g e t i c s , thus g i v e s g r e a t c r e d i t to the n o n - J e w A b i m e l e c h , w h o t h e n n o t e s t h a t G - d h a d p r o m i s e d t o s h o w h i m s e l f g r a c i o u s thereafter, o n c e A b r a ­ h a m h a s b e e n r e a s s u r e d c o n c e r n i n g his wife. It is significant t h a t w h e r e a s it is a n a n g e l w h o forbids A b r a h a m to h a r m I s a a c

62. S o also Wisdom ofSolomon 10:7 and the rabbis (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25) note that the pillar o f salt still stands. See R a p p a p o r t 1930, 105-6, n. 99, for further parallels.

252

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

in the B i b l e ( G e n . 22:12), in J o s e p h u s , as in P h i l o (De Abrahamo 32.176), it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o addresses h i m , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e the subject w a s t o o i m p o r t a n t to b e left t o e v e n the m o s t e x a l t e d o f G - d ' s d e p u t i e s (Ant. 1.233). A s t o w h y G - d felt justified in testing A b r a h a m thus, the B i b l e tells us n o t h i n g . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , i n i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n to his m e n t i o n o f G - d ' s d e c i s i o n t o test A b r a h a m , e n u m e r a t e s all the benefits t h a t H e h a d c o n f e r r e d u p o n h i m , n o ­ tably, his m i l i t a r y v i c t o r y o v e r his e n e m i e s , his felicity, a n d the b i r t h o f his s o n I s a a c (Ant. 1.223-24). H e p o i n t s o u t t h a t it is to G - d ' s z e a l (a-jTovhrjs) in his b e h a l f t h a t h e o w e s his p r e s e n t h a p p i n e s s (evhcujxovlav).

T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h u s c l e a r that, h a v ­

i n g g i v e n these benefits t o A b r a h a m , G - d is justified in w i t h d r a w i n g t h e m . I n J o s e p h u s , it is G - d H i m s e l f r a t h e r t h a n , as is i m p l i e d in the B i b l e ( t h r o u g h the i m m e d i a t e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f the a n g e l ' s s p e e c h a n d the s u d d e n a p p e a r a n c e o f the ram) (Gen. 22:13),

63

a n a n g e l w h o p r o d u c e s a r a m t o take the p l a c e o f the sacrificial

h u m a n v i c t i m . M o r e o v e r , the s c e n e o f the r a m c a u g h t in a thicket b y its h o r n s w o u l d h a v e s e e m e d g r o t e s q u e a n d t o o m u c h o f a m i r a c l e to a r a t i o n a l i z i n g G r e e k intellec­ tual. H e n c e J o s e p h u s o m i t s this feature a n d states m e r e l y t h a t G - d b r o u g h t the r a m f r o m o b s c u r i t y (IK rafavovs)

into view, w i t h the c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the r a m h a d

a l w a y s b e e n t h e r e b u t m e r e l y h i d d e n f r o m sight. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e x p l i c i d y tell us, as d o e s the Bible, t h a t A b r a h a m offered the r a m in p l a c e o f his s o n ( G e n . 22:13), p e r ­ h a p s a g a i n b e c a u s e h e s o u g h t to a v o i d the t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t the r a m w a s a surrogate for the sins o f m a n . E a g e r t h o u g h h e m i g h t h a v e b e e n e l s e w h e r e to d o w n g r a d e the i m p o r t a n c e o f theology, J o s e p h u s e v i d e n d y felt t h a t h e r e h e h a d to a n s w e r those w h o m i g h t h a v e difficulty in u n d e r s t a n d i n g s u c h a d i v i n e c o m m a n d in the first p l a c e , e s p e c i a l l y since the p r a c t i c e o f h u m a n sacrifice w a s r a r e in classical, let a l o n e Hellenistic, times (Pearson 1 9 1 3 , 8 4 7 - 4 9 ) . Still, J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e p r o t e s t i n g t o o m u c h a n d , i n d e e d , a p p e a r s h i m s e l f to h a v e f o u n d the m a n n e r o f G - d ' s testing o f A b r a h a m to b e a bit e m b a r r a s s i n g ( F r a n x m a n 1979, 161). I n a n y case, i n a s m u c h as G - d expressly forbids A b r a h a m to slay his s o n a n d says t h a t H e h a s n o c r a v i n g for h u m a n b l o o d , J o s e p h u s m a y b e i m p l i c i d y c o u n t e r i n g the possi­ ble c l a i m t h a t I s a a c a c t u a l l y w a s slain o r at least w o u n d e d .

6 4

63. In the third-century D u r a synagogue painting and in the sixth-century Beth A l p h a synagogue, the r a m is not caught in the thicket by its horns but stands quiedy next to, or is tethered to, a tree, as if it h a d always been there, perhaps reflecting the rabbinic tradition (^0*5:6) that it had been created at twilight on the eve o f the Sabbath o f Creation for its future use. Cf. B r e g m a n 1982, 308 and G u t m a n n 1983, 92-93. A s to Josephus's source for the fact that G - d Himself would provide (yir'eh) the l a m b for the burnt offering (Gen. 22:8), and that A b r a h a m called the n a m e o f the place " T h e L - r d will provide" iyireh)

(Gen. 22:14), Pseudo-Philo also has G - d Himself addressing A b r a h a m (Bib. Ant. 32.4). In the six­ teenth-century Yiddish epic Aqedat Tizhaq, presumably following the eleventh or twelfth century Midrash Vayosha, the angel R a p h a e l twice calls u p o n A b r a h a m not to g o through with the sacrifice o f his son, but A b r a h a m refuses, saying that G - d Himself must give him this c o m m a n d . B u t w h e n the angel insists that he, an angel, c a n d o nothing without G - d ' s c o m m a n d , A b r a h a m obeys him. Cf. M a t e n k o and Sloan 1968. 64. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31, Midrash Hagadol on G e n . 22:19, and other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:251, n. 243. See also Spiegel 1967, 2-8 and passim; and V e r m e s 1973, 204-8.

ABRAHAM

253

APOLOGETICS A f t e r L o t a n d A b r a h a m p a r t , G - d tells A b r a h a m to lift u p his eyes in all d i r e c t i o n s a n d t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p r o m i s e all this l a n d to h i m a n d t o his d e s c e n d a n t s f o r e v e r ( G e n . 1 3 : 1 4 - 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s , a w a r e t h a t t h e p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this p r o m i s e in his o w n d a y w e r e a n i m p l i c i t justification o f a J e w i s h state i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e R o ­ m a n s , j u d i c i o u s l y o m i t s this p a s s a g e c o m p l e t e l y

6 5

W h e n A b r a h a m l a m e n t s t h a t h e is childless ( G e n . 15:2), G - d , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , reassures h i m t h a t H e h a s b r o u g h t h i m f r o m U r in o r d e r to g i v e h i m t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n t o i n h e r i t ( G e n . 15:7). W h e n A b r a h a m t h e n asks for p r o o f t h a t h e w i l l , i n d e e d , i n h e r i t t h e l a n d , G - d tells h i m t o sacrifice a heifer, s h e - g o a t , r a m , turtiedove,

a n d p i g e o n ( G e n . 15:9), w h e r e u p o n G - d m a k e s a c o v e n a n t w i t h A b r a h a m

a s s u r i n g h i m t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e l a n d f r o m the N i l e t o t h e E u p h r a t e s t o his d e ­ s c e n d a n t s ( G e n . 15:18). S i g n i f i c a n d y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f this e p i s o d e , G - d as­ sures A b r a h a m t h a t a s o n w i l l b e b o r n to h i m w h o s e p o s t e r i t y w i l l b e as n u m e r o u s as the stars (Ant. 1.183); a n d after A b r a h a m sacrifices t h e a n i m a l s a n d birds, a d i ­ v i n e v o i c e a n n o u n c e s t h a t his p o s t e r i t y w i l l o v e r c o m e their e n e m i e s , v a n q u i s h t h e C a n a a n i t e s in b a t d e , a n d t a k e possession o f their l a n d a n d cities (Ant. 1.185). T h u s , t h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l a n d is a gift f r o m G - d , b u t r a t h e r t h a t it w i l l b e w o n — a n d p r e s u m a b l y l o s t — o n t h e field o f b a t d e . T h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n as t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e l a n d , w h i c h , i f the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t is t a k e n literally, w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e J e w s n o t o n l y h a v e a c l a i m t o a n i n d e p e n d e n t state b u t also r e g a r d it as a m a t t e r o f d i v i n e p r o m i s e t h a t their state s h o u l d e x t e n d far b e y o n d t h e b o r d e r s o f Judaea. T h u s , t h e r e is less e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f Palestine to A b r a h a m , in line w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w t h a t a n i n d e p e n d e n t state w a s h a r d l y a sine q u a n o n for J e w s , a n d c e r t a i n l y n o t w h e n it r e q u i r e d a r e v o l u t i o n a r y w a r a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e B i b l e tells h o w G - d a p p e a r e d to A b r a h a m , r e a s s u r e d h i m t h a t h e w a s to b e c o m e t h e father o f a m u l t i t u d e o f n a t i o n s , a n d c h a n g e d his n a m e f r o m A b r a m to A b r a h a m to signify this ( G e n . 1 7 : 1 - 1 6 ) . T h e r e G - d assures h i m t h a t h e w i l l g i v e h i m all t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n for a n e v e r l a s t i n g possession, a n d t h a t t h e seal o f this c o v e n a n t is to b e t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n t h a t h e is n o w c o m m a n d e d to p e r f o r m u p o n h i m s e l f a n d u p o n e v e r y m a l e b o r n in his f a m i l y ( G e n . 17:8). V e r y signifi­ c a n d y , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e c h a n g e o f n a m e a n d its i m ­ p l i c a t i o n s , a n d C a n a a n is d e s c r i b e d n o t as a d i v i n e gift b u t r a t h e r as a l a n d t o b e w o n b y h u m a n effort in w a r (Ant. 1 . 1 9 1 - 9 3 ) — s o m e t h i n g t h a t his r a t i o n a l i z i n g r e a d ­ ers c o u l d w e l l u n d e r s t a n d . T h e limits c i t e d o f the l a n d a r e m o r e m o d e s t , e x t e n d ­ i n g o n l y f r o m S i d o n to E g y p t (Ant. 1.191), r a t h e r t h a n f r o m t h e E u p h r a t e s t o E g y p t (so G e n . 15:18), p e r h a p s b e c a u s e J e w i s h t e r r i t o r y n e v e r a c t u a l l y r e a c h e d t h e E u ­ p h r a t e s ; a n d J o s e p h u s d i d n o t w i s h to h a v e his d i v i n e p r e d i c t i o n c o n t r a d i c t e d b y

65. In contrast, the Genesis Apocryphon, which has no such apologetic motives, not only includes G-d's promise but gready elaborates it.

254

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t h e h i s t o r i c a l facts (so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 6 , n. 278). A s for t h e c i r c u m c i s i o n t h a t is c o m m a n d e d , it is n o t as a seal o f a c o v e n a n t , w i t h its p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s , b u t rather a means of preventing assimilation.

66

J o s e p h u s ' s fullest s t a t e m e n t o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f t h e s u p r e m a c y t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l e x e r c i s e is f o u n d i n G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t t o A b r a h a m b e f o r e t h e a p ­ c

p e a r a n c e o f t h e r a m at t h e c l i m a x o f t h e A q e d a h (Ant. 1.235-36). T h e c o n t e x t is p u r e l y religious r a t h e r t h a n p o l i t i c a l , at a t i m e w h e n A b r a h a m h a d

shown

s u p r e m e faith a n d h a d p r o v e n h i m s e l f w o r t h y o f G - d ' s blessings; h e r e , t o o , w e find t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t A b r a h a m ' s d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l s u b d u e C a n a a n b y force o f a r m s a n d t h u s b e e n v i e d o f all m e n (Ant. 1.235). W h e r e a s a n a n g e l reassures H a g a r w h e n she h a s b e e n b a n i s h e d b y A b r a h a m in t h e B i b l e , telling h e r t h a t G - d w i l l m a k e h e r c h i l d into a g r e a t n a t i o n ( G e n . 21:18), J o s e p h u s v e r y carefully h a s t h e a n g e l tell h e r m e r e l y a n d v e r y v a g u e l y t h a t g r e a t blessings a w a i t h e r t h r o u g h t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f h e r c h i l d (Ant. 1.219). J o s e p h u s w a s a w a r e o f t h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t I s h m a e l w a s t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e A r a b s (Ant. 1.221), n o t ­ ing, as h e d o e s , t h a t t h e sons o f I s h m a e l o c c u p i e d t h e h u g e e x p a n s e o f t e r r i t o r y k n o w n as N a b a t a e a b e t w e e n t h e E u p h r a t e s a n d t h e R e d S e a . H e n c e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e b i b l i c a l p r o m i s e to H a g a r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e A r a b s w o u l d b e c o m e a g r e a t — a n d obviously independent—nation, something that could h a p p e n only if t h e p r o v i n c e o f A r a b i a r e v o l t e d a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , a situation t h a t J o s e ­ p h u s , as a l o y a l R o m a n c i t i z e n , c o u l d h a r d l y c o u n t e n a n c e . L i k e w i s e , a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s d i c t a t e d t h e o m i s s i o n in J o s e p h u s o f G - d ' s p r e ­ d i c t i o n to A b r a h a m t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d l e a v e E g y p t w i t h g r e a t s u b s t a n c e ( G e n . 15:14 vs. Ant. 1.185), since this w o u l d i m p l y t h a t the Israelites w e r e g u i l t y o f theft. I n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e p a s s a g e stating h o w t h e Israelites d e s p o i l e d the E g y p t i a n s b e f o r e their d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e l a n d ( E x o d . 1 2 : 3 5 - 3 6 ) , J o s e p h u s c o n ­ tinues this a p o l o g e t i c strain b y e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e E g y p t i a n s " e v e n h o n o r e d t h e H e b r e w s w i t h gifts, s o m e to s p e e d their d e p a r t u r e , [yeiTviaKrjv]

others from

neighborly

feelings o f i n t i m a c y t o w a r d t h e m " (Ant. 2.314)

T h e s c e n e in w h i c h L o t ' s d a u g h t e r s h a v e i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h their o w n father ( G e n . 19:30-38) is, i n d e e d , a n e m b a r r a s s m e n t , i n a s m u c h as L o t , after all, is t h e n e p h e w o f A b r a h a m , the f o u n d e r o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , a n d i n a s m u c h as o n e o f the sons b o r n o f this u n i o n , M o a b , is t h e a n c e s t o r o f R u t h , t h e ancestress o f n o n e o t h e r t h a n K i n g D a v i d himself. T h e o n l y e x c u s e offered in t h e B i b l e for t h e a c t i o n o f the d a u g h t e r s is t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e a r e n o o t h e r m e n left in t h e w o r l d ( G e n . 19:31). J o s e p h u s presents a b e t t e r c a s e for L o t h i m s e l f (Ant. 1.205), a d d i n g (Ant. 1.204) t h a t after t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h , h e w a s isolated f r o m mankind

(dvOpwTrajv

iprjfjLias), a n d

that he

endured

a miserable

existence

66. In this respect, as in several others, Pseudo-Philo is closer to the biblical narrative and to the rabbis than is Josephus's account, for even though he has vasdy abbreviated the w h o l e narrative o f A b r a h a m , he twice mentions and gives the terms o f the covenant between G - d and A b r a h a m (Bib. Ant. 7.4 and 8.3). H e likewise, unlike Josephus, mentions A b r a h a m and Sarah's change o f names.

ABRAHAM

255

(TaAanrwpcDs), sufFering f r o m l a c k o f f o o d . S u c h details c a n r e a d i l y b e d e r i v e d f r o m the B i b l e ( G e n . 19:30) (so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 9 , n. 302); b u t the fact is t h a t t h e y a r e n o t c i t e d there, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s takes p a i n s to d o so. L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s m a k e s a b e t t e r c a s e for the d a u g h t e r s , stating n o t m e r e l y their b e l i e f t h a t the w h o l e o f h u ­ m a n i t y h a d p e r i s h e d b u t also r e m a r k i n g e x p l i c i d y in their defense, t h a t t h e y a c t e d to p r e v e n t t h e e x t i n c t i o n o f the r a c e . T h e B i b l e is less e x p l i c i t a n d r e p o r t s m e r e l y the r e m a r k o f t h e firstborn d a u g h t e r t o the y o u n g e r : " O u r father is o l d , a n d t h e r e is n o t a m a n in t h e e a r t h t o c o m e in u n t o us after t h e m a n n e r o f all t h e e a r t h " (Gen. i g ^ i ) .

6 7

S i g n i f i c a n d y J o s e p h u s h e r e d e p a r t s f r o m the b o o k of Jubilees, w h i c h

e l s e w h e r e is a s o u r c e for h i m , a n d w h i c h bitterly attacks L o t a n d his d a u g h t e r s (Ju­ bilees 16:8) for c o m m i t t i n g a sin " s u c h as h a d n o t b e e n o n the e a r t h since t h e d a y s o f A d a m till his t i m e . " H e o m i t s the u n s a v o r y details o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e w h e r e b y the d a u g h t e r s g e t their father d r u n k o n successive nights, as w e l l as t h e conversation between them. A p p a r e n d y to j u d g e from Philo's c o m m e n t , there were "quarrelsome critics" w h o d i d n o t c o n s i d e r A b r a h a m ' s a c t i o n in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the sacrifice o f I s a a c (Ant. 1.222-36) t o b e g r e a t o r w o n d e r f u l (DeAbrahamo 33.178). J o s e p h u s is therefore p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d t o stress A b r a h a m ' s faith d u r i n g the e p i s o d e . H e a d d s t h a t A b r a h a m t o l d n o o n e in his h o u s e h o l d , n o t e v e n his wife S a r a h , a b o u t his r e s o l v e to sacrifice I s a a c , lest t h e y s h o u l d a t t e m p t to h i n d e r h i m f r o m a t t e n d i n g t o G - d ' s 68

service (Ant. 1.225). T o b e sure, P h i l o also a d d s that A b r a h a m t o l d n o o n e o f the d i v i n e c o m m a n d (DeAbrahamo

32.170); b u t J o s e p h u s is u n i q u e i n g i v i n g the r e a s o n

for this silence a n d thus stressing A b r a h a m ' s v i r t u e .

69

Josephus, however, had a

difficult e n o u g h t i m e in t r y i n g to justify the d e c e i t p r a c t i c e d b y A b r a h a m o n P h a r a o h a n d o n A b i m e l e c h in h i d i n g f r o m b o t h o f t h e m the fact t h a t S a r a h w a s his wife; h e , thus, as w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d , seeks to a v o i d h a v i n g A b r a h a m d e c e i v e S a r a h as w e l l . A l t h o u g h w e are d e a l i n g h e r e w i t h a n argumentum ex silentio, w h o s e

67. T h e notion that Lot's daughter thought that the whole world had b e e n destroyed is e c h o e d also in rabbinic passages, as well as in O r i g e n , Jerome, A m b r o s e , and E p h r a e m , cited in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 106, n. 101, R a h m e r 1861, 30, and G i n z b e r g 1899, 110-11, and 1909-38, 5: 243, n. 188. B u t other rab­ binic passages and Jubilees 16:8 regard the act as one o f deliberate lewdness (Rappaport 1930, 107, n. 101). A p t o w i t z e r 1927a, cited by R a p p a p o r t 1930,106-7, presents the rather far-fetched conjecture that the debate a m o n g the rabbis on the guilt o f Lot's daughters reflects one between the anti-Hasmoneans, w h o were partisans o f D a v i d , descended from Lot's son M o a b through Ruth, and their H a s m o n e a n o p ­ ponents. Christian writers, according to this view, w h o were likewise interested in Jesus' unblemished descent from D a v i d , attempted to elevate the stature o f L o t and his daughters (2 Peter 2:7; C l e m e n t , Epistles 1 e t c . ) . W e would, however, have to explain w h y Josephus, w h o was himself descended from the H a s m o n e a n s (Life 2), should have sought to diminish the guilt o f Lot's daughters. 68. Here, too, w e m a y note a parallel between Josephus and Euripides' Phoenissae, where the father refuses to carry out his duty o f sacrificing his child. In this case, however, it is the victim, M e n o e c e u s , w h o conceals from his father the knowledge that he is about to sacrifice himself for his country. 69. T h e rabbis, on the other hand, declare either that A b r a h a m told Sarah nothing or that he told her that he w a s taking Isaac to study with S h e m and Eber. See R a p p a p o r t 1930, 108, n. 105; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 1:278, and 5:233; and S a n d m e l 1956, 73, n. 330.

256

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t e n u o u s n a t u r e s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d , J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l h a v e s o u g h t to a v o i d the i n e v i t a b l e e q u a t i o n i n this r e s p e c t o f A b r a h a m w i t h A g a m e m n o n , w h o , a c c o r d i n g to E u r i p i d e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 98), a t t e m p t e d to d e c e i v e his w i f e C l y t e m n e s t r a b y w r i t i n g a letter to h e r a s k i n g h e r to s e n d their d a u g h t e r I p h i g e n i a to b e m a r r i e d to A c h i l l e s , w h e r e a s his real i n t e n t i o n w a s to sacrifice h e r .

70

Similarly, J o s e p h u s

a v o i d s the e m b a r r a s s m e n t o f the i n c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n A b r a h a m ' s s t a t e m e n t in the B i b l e ( G e n . 22:5) t h a t h e a n d I s a a c w i l l r e t u r n to the y o u n g m e n w h o h a d a c ­ c o m p a n i e d t h e m a n d the later n o t i c e o f G e n . 22:19, w h i c h d e c l a r e s o n l y t h a t A b r a h a m returned, omitting Isaac.

71

c

T h e e n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the A q e d a h is a " l i v e d h a p p i l y e v e r after" finale, so t y p i c a l o f H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s (so S c h a l i t 1 9 4 4 - 6 3 , 2:40, n . 2 6 5 ) .

72

Josephus

d e v e l o p s further t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e the d i v i n e p r e d i c t i o n o f the blessings t h a t w i l l b e s h o w e r e d u p o n A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s ; p r e s u m a b l y , h e s o u g h t t h e r e b y to b u i l d u p A b r a h a m still m o r e . T o b e sure, J o s e p h u s d o e s h a v e G - d A b r a h a m t h a t his d e s c e n d a n t s w i l l " s u b d u e C a n a a n b y their a r m s " (Ant

promise 1.191).

Y e t , J o s e p h u s h a s d e l e t e d the b i b l i c a l t h e o l o g y o f c o v e n a n t e d l a n d , a p p a r e n t l y b e ­ c a u s e it w o u l d b e offensive to his R o m a n p a t r o n s , w h o h a d j u s t r e c o n q u e r e d t h a t l a n d ( A m a r u 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 , 208 a n d 229). H e d o e s n o t w a n t the l a n d to b e the f o c a l p o i n t , g i v e n its significance for the r e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o l o g y o f the F o u r t h P h i l o s o ­ phy, w h i c h insisted t h a t the L a n d o f Israel m u s t b e free f r o m f o r e i g n rule.

CONTEMPORARY T h r o u g h o u t the Jewish

APPLICATIONS

War a n d t h e last b o o k s o f the Antiquities,

the r e a d e r c a n

sense the s t r o n g feelings t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s a b o u t the civil strife t h a t h a d t o r n the J e w i s h p e o p l e a p a r t in his o w n day. H e n c e , w h e n J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d ­ dition, states t h a t G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s c r i m i n a l p a s s i o n for S a r a h b y inflicting p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e (ardaet) u p o n h i m , J o s e p h u s is e m p h a s i z i n g the g r a v i t y o f his offense (Ant 1.164).

70. In contrast to A b r a h a m , w h o avoids telling direct lies, w h o at worst is guilty merely o f with­ holding information from his wife as to w h a t he intends to d o to Isaac, and whose silence is excused b y Josephus on the ground that he did not wish to be hindered from carrying out G - d ' s c o m m a n d (Ant. 1.225), A g a m e m n o n resorts to outright lying, as w e see from his description o f h o w he acted w h e n he heard Calchas's oracle (Iphigenia at Aulis 94-98), as against Menelaus's account (359-60) o f A g a m e m ­ non's reaction. T h e idea o f having Clytemnestra brought to Aulis as the dutiful mother and wife, de­ termined to give her daughter a proper wedding, is certainly Euripidean; and Josephus m a y well be re­ acting to this motif, although, o f course, in the case o f this contrast between S a r a h and Clytmenestra w e are dealing with an argumentum ex silentio. W h e n , however, this possibility is coupled with other par­ allels between Josephus and Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis, it assumes more weight. 71. T h e M i d r a s h (cf. G i n z b e r g 1909-38,1:279,

a n

: 2

d 5 ^ o , n. 239) explains A b r a h a m ' s statement as

unconscious p r o p h e c y on his part. 72. Schalit 1944-63, 2:40, n. 265, cites similar h a p p y endings in X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus, Ephesiaca 5.15, and Apollonius o f Tyre, Erotica 43. W e m a y perhaps add the ending o f the B o o k o f Job.

ABRAHAM

257

A n o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y p r o b l e m s e e m s to b e a l l u d e d to in J o s e p h u s ' s e x p l a n a ­ t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n for the c o m m a n d m e n t o f c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.192). I n t h e B i b l e , t h e p r a c t i c e is d e s c r i b e d as t h e sign o f the c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G - d a n d A b r a h a m a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s , w h e r e b y t h e y are to b e g u a r a n t e e d t h e l a n d o f C a n a a n ( G e n . 17:10). A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s states t h a t h e w i l l e l s e w h e r e , p r e s u m a b l y in a p r o j e c t e d w o r k o n " C u s t o m s a n d C a u s e s " t h a t h e refers to o n s e v e r a l o t h e r o c c a s i o n s (Ant. 1.25, 4 . 1 9 8 , 20.268), e x p o u n d the r e a s o n for the p r a c t i c e o f c i r c u m c i s i o n (Ant. 1.192), it is significant t h a t h e r e h e d o e s g i v e a r e a s o n for it, s a y i n g , as n o t e d , t h a t it is to p r e v e n t the J e w s f r o m m i x i n g w i t h o t h e r s , a n e x p l a n a t i o n utterly different f r o m t h e o n e g i v e n in t h e B i b l e .

7 3

c

Josephus's elaboration o f the A q e d a h w a s perhaps influenced b y c o n t e m p o ­ r a r y e v e n t s s u c h as t h e m a s s suicides at J o t a p a t a a n d at M a s a d a , a n d b y t h e m a r ­ t y r d o m s i n t h e d a y s o f t h e M a c c a b e e s . B e c a u s e h e h i m s e l f h a d refused to a l l o w his life to b e t a k e n at J o t a p a t a (War 3.391), J o s e p h u s h a d to b e careful t o e x p l a i n h o w G - d c o u l d h a v e c o m m a n d e d t h e t a k i n g o f I s a a c ' s life (Ant. 1.224). c

T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d t h e a c c o u n t o f the A q e d a h n o t s i m p l y t o b e t h e s t o r y o f A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness to G - d , a n d I s a a c ' s o b e d i e n c e t o G - d a n d to his father, b u t also to h a v e c o n t e m p o r a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s is c l e a r f r o m t h e fact t h a t h e specifies t h a t G - d t o l d A b r a h a m to t a k e his c h i l d u p to M o u n t M o r i a h (Ant. 1.224), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e is v a g u e i n h a v i n g G - d tell A b r a h a m to offer his sacrifice " u p o n o n e o f t h e m o u n t a i n s o f w h i c h I shall tell y o u " ( G e n . 22:2) T h e S e p t u a g i n t , w h i c h is t h e text t h a t J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o b e f o l l o w i n g i n this p e r i c o p e for t h e m o s t p a r t , h a s " t o t h e lofty l a n d " (els TTJV yrjv rrjv vi/irjArjv), w i t h n o m e n t i o n o f M o r i a h ; p e r h a p s this o m i s s i o n is b e c a u s e fxcopla in G r e e k m e a n s "folly," a n d J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e b e e n w e l l a w a r e , g i v e n t h e similarity o f the w o r d s MwpLov a n d / x o j / n a ,

74

o f the possible

s n e e r t h a t A b r a h a m ' s t a k i n g his s o n to a " m o u n t a i n o f folly" m i g h t e v o k e f r o m G r e e k r e a d e r s . T h a t J o s e p h u s n e v e r t h e l e s s g o e s o u t o f his w a y to m e n t i o n M o u n t M o r i a h , a n d t o state t h a t it w a s t h e r e t h a t K i n g D a v i d later built the T e m p l e , s e e m s t h u s to b e d e l i b e r a t e (Ant. 1.226). A s a priest w h o h a d u n d o u b t e d l y m i n i s ­ t e r e d i n t h e T e m p l e , J o s e p h u s q u i t e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y c h o s e to e m p h a s i z e t h a t it w a s u p o n t h e site o f A b r a h a m ' s s u p r e m e a c t o f faith t h a t t h e T e m p l e w a s built, the site o f w h i c h w a s t o r e m a i n as t h e c e n t r a l focus o f the J e w i s h r e l i g i o n until the T e m ­ p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n in t h e y e a r 70. J o s e p h u s stresses t h e c o n n e c t i o n o f M o r i a h w i t h t h e T e m p l e at a later p o i n t in his h i s t o r y w h e r e h e states t h a t D a v i d p u r c h a s e d a

73. T h i s motive, as S a n d m e l 1956, 66, n. 279, correcdy remarks, is lacking in the rabbinic writings. T o be sure, the rabbis do portray A b r a h a m as fearing that circumcision will deter candidates for c o n ­ version to Judaism (Genesis Rabbah 46); but this, o f course, is totally different from the reason given b y Josephus, w h o is c o n c e r n e d not with w i n n i n g converts—a m o v e m e n t that h a d aroused great bitterness in R o m a n circles, as w e see from the banishment o f Jews from R o m e on two and possibly three o c c a ­ sions (see Feldman 1993a, 300-304)—but rather with keeping b o r n Jews from assimilating. 74. For an example o f this type o f anti-Jewish attack, see A p i o n ' s attempt (Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.21-27) to connect the w o r d " S a b b a t h " with the disease o f the groin called oafifid) in E g y p t .

2j8

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

site for t h e T e m p l e in t h e v e r y p l a c e w h e r e A b r a h a m h a d b r o u g h t his s o n I s a a c to sacrifice h i m as a b u r n t offering, a n d w h e r e h e refers the r e a d e r t o his e a r l i e r a c ­ c o u n t (Ant. 7.333). Q u i t e clearly, J o s e p h u s i n t e n d s t o h a v e t h e r e a d e r associate t h e r e a d i n e s s o f A b r a h a m t o sacrifice his s o n w i t h t h e sacrifices t h a t w e r e , in effect, s u r r o g a t e offerings at t h e site o f t h e T e m p l e itself, a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s , in his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l issues as m u c h as possible, o m i t s a d i r e c t s t a t e m e n t c a u s a l l y c o n ­ c

75

n e c t i n g t h e A q e d a h w i t h these s a c r i f i c e s . I n d e e d , in his s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e T e m ­ c

p l e w a s built o n t h e site o f t h e A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to m a i n t a i n his p o s t u r e as a h i s t o r i a n r a t h e r t h a n as a t h e o l o g i a n , n o t o n l y a v o i d s stating t h a t D a v i d (ac­ t u a l l y S o l o m o n ) built the T e m p l e o n M o u n t M o r i a h b e c a u s e A b r a h a m b o u n d his s o n there, b u t also g o e s o u t o f his w a y to say t h a t "it

had

happened"

c

(owefir}) t h a t t h e T e m p l e w a s built o n t h e v e r y p l a c e w h e r e the A q e d a h h a d o c ­ c u r r e d (Ant. 7.333). T h e r a b b i s , o f c o u r s e , stress the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e t w o events.

76

EROTIC E L E M E N T S A n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e , o f A b r a h a m to w h i c h t h e r e a r e m a n y p a r a l l e l s e l s e w h e r e in his w o r k is t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e r o t i c e l e m e n t s r e m i ­ n i s c e n t o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c n o v e l s . T o c r e a t e m o r e o f the r o m a n t i c interest t h a t his H e l l e n i s t i c r e a d e r s c r a v e d , J o s e p h u s , i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h A b r a h a m ' s s o j o u r n in E g y p t , s p e a k s in t e r m s o f t h e fulfillment o f his suspicions (KCLOWS virevorjoe),

whereas

t h e B i b l e m e r e l y says: " A n d it c a m e to p a s s " ( G e n . 12:14). T h e B i b l e r e p o r t s t h a t t h e p r i n c e s o f P h a r a o h s a w S a r a i a n d p r a i s e d h e r to P h a r a o h ( G e n . 12:15); J o s e ­ p h u s m a g n i f i e s the e x t e n t o f S a r a i ' s b e a u t y a n d a r o u s e s the r e a d e r ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s b y t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t u p o n h e r a r r i v a l in E g y p t , S a r a i ' s b e a u t y w a s n o i s e d a b r o a d (igeftorjOrj, " c a l l a l o u d , " " c r y a l o u d " ) (Ant. 1.163). T h e p i c t u r e is o f a t o w n c r i e r p r o ­ claiming that a famed beauty has arrived.

77

W h e r e a s the B i b l e states m e r e l y t h a t

" t h e w o m a n w a s t a k e n i n t o P h a r a o h ' s h o u s e , " J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s t h e erotic e l e ­ m e n t b y n o t i n g P h a r a o h ' s e a g e r n e s s (oirovdoas,

w h e r e the force o f the aorist tense

p e r h a p s justifies T h a c k e r a y ' s translation, " w a s fired w i t h a desire") to see her.

75. D a l y (1977, 58) finds it strange that Josephus makes no association with the T e m p l e sacrifices, not even the Passover; but Josephus's purpose here is to present a historical narrative. T o connect the sacrifice o f Isaac with Passover, as d o the rabbis [Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod. 12:13) and the Book of Jubilees (17:15-16, 18:3, 49:1), w o u l d have involved a theological discussion, w h i c h Josephus generally avoids. 76. See Genesis Rabbah 55.9, and other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:253, nn. 249, 253. 77. T h e r e are m a n y rabbinic parallels to Josephus's magnifying o f Sarah's beauty. See the citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:220, n. 68, and 221, n. 69). A fuller description o f Sarah's beauty, including an erotic description o f her body, is n o w to be found in the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, lines 2 - 8 .

ABRAHAM

259

H e n c e J o s e p h u s shifts t h e e m p h a s i s f r o m the p r i n c e s o f P h a r a o h w h o s a w S a r a i t o 78

P h a r a o h himself, w h o is s m i t t e n w i t h e a g e r n e s s to see h e r .

T h e B i b l e says n o t h i n g o f w h a t P h a r a o h d i d o r a t t e m p t e d to d o w i t h S a r a i , a n d w e a r e left t o d r a w o u r i n f e r e n c e s f r o m the s t a t e m e n t that " t h e L - r d p l a g u e d P h a r a o h a n d his h o u s e w i t h g r e a t p l a g u e s b e c a u s e o f S a r a i " ( G e n . 12:17). J o s e ­ p h u s , as m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d , is m o r e d i r e c t in s u p p l y i n g erotic details for his r e a d ­ e r s ' titillation: h e a r o u s e s suspense b y s a y i n g that P h a r a o h w a s o n the p o i n t o f lay­ i n g h a n d s o n h e r (olos T' rjv an/jaodcu, w h e r e dmopLai

m e a n s to t o u c h o r attack,

a n d finally, as h e r e , to h a v e i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a w o m a n ) .

7 9

B e c a u s e J o s e p h u s feels

t h e n e e d to d e f e n d A b r a m ' s d e c e i t in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h this e p i s o d e , h e criticizes P h a r a o h m o r e sharply, a n d h e n c e w e r e a d o f the E g y p t i a n s ' f r e n z y (em/xaves) for women

8 0

a n d o f A b r a m ' s fear t h a t P h a r a o h will kill h i m so t h a t h e m a y possess h e r

b e c a u s e o f h e r b e a u t y (evpuopcfriav) (Ant. 1.162).

81

I n particular, h e calls a t t e n t i o n t o

P h a r a o h ' s unjust p a s s i o n (OLSLKOV imOvpiCav), w h i c h G - d t h w a r t s

8 2

by an outbreak

o f disease a n d o f p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e (Ant. 1.164). T h e f o r m e r e v e n t is r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e terrible p u n i s h m e n t inflicted u p o n O e d i p u s ' s c i t y o f T h e b e s b e c a u s e o f his m u r d e r o f his father a n d incest w i t h his m o t h e r , w h i l e t h e latter h a p p e n i n g r e p r e ­ sents t h e g r e a t e s t fear o f t h e p h a r a o h s , as it d i d o f rulers g e n e r a l l y T h e erotic m o t i f is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n in that w h e r e a s , in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n P h a r a o h e x p e r i e n c e s t h e p l a g u e , h e calls A b r a m t o h i m a n d asks for a n e x p l a n a t i o n ( G e n . 12:18), J o s e p h u s presents a m u c h m o r e e x c i t i n g scene, in w h i c h P h a r a o h is d e s c r i b e d as terrified a n d calls S a r a i d i r e c d y a n d asks h e r to state h e r true identity a n d to r e v e a l w h o t h e m a n is w h o b r o u g h t h e r t o E g y p t (Art. 1.165). A n e v e n m o r e n e g a t i v e p i c t u r e o f P h a r a o h is p a i n t e d b y J o s e p h u s in the

Jewish

War (5.379), w h e r e it is n o t A b r a m w h o d e s c e n d s to E g y p t b u t P h a r a o h w h o in­ v a d e s Palestine w i t h a h u g e a r m y a n d carries o f f the p r i n c e s s S a r a i . J o s e p h u s w r i t e s t h a t " t h e q u e e n , after o n e night's a b s e n c e , [was] sent b a c k i m m a c u l a t e [axpovTos]

to h e r l o r d " ; a n d P h a r a o h , b e s e t b y n i g h t m a r e s , flees b a c k to E g y p t

after b e s t o w i n g silver a n d g o l d u p o n t h e H e b r e w s (War 5.381). Later, the i n c i d e n t

78. T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20, lines 8-9) likewise shifts the emphasis to the reaction o f P h a r a o h w h e n he hears the report o f the princes; it also reports his eagerness to have her brought to h i m in haste and adds that w h e n he saw her, he was a m a z e d at her b e a u t y 79. Cf. Ant. 4.257 a n d passages cited b y LSJ, 231, s.v. OLITTCO. 80. Cf. Pausanias 1.6.8: T O e m ^ a v e s els ras y w a i / c a ? . T h e sensuality of the Egyptians, as G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:221, n. 68, remarks, is a frequent theme in rabbinic literature. Cf. Sifra Qedoshim (end), Jerusalem T a l m u d Sotah 1, Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 23.7 and 25.7. Here, however, in their c o m m e n t s on this passage, the rabbis d o not speak o f the sensuality o f the Egyptians. 81. T h e rabbinic tradition also stresses Sarah's beauty. Cf. Baba Batra 16a, T a r g u m Yerushalmi on G e n . 12:11, Tanhuma Lek Leka 5, a n d Tashar Lek Leka 31a, cited in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:220, n. 67. 82. A similar phrase (e^Trohi^ovra

TOLLS imOvfiiais)

is used with reference to the threat o f the B e n -

jaminites to kill the Levite o f E p h r a i m if he thwarts their lusts (Ant. 5.144).

260

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

is r e c a l l e d in a s p e e c h b y J o s e p h u s , w h o , i n u r g i n g the J e w s to s u r r e n d e r t o the R o ­ mans, reminds t h e m that even u n d e r the most extreme provocation, A b r a m did n o t seek to a v e n g e h i m s e l f w i t h w e a p o n s o n P h a r a o h w i t h o u t t h e h e l p o f G - d , d e ­ spite t h e fact t h a t P h a r a o h h a d r a v i s h e d S a r a i (vfipiorriv, c e n t i o u s , a n d i n s o l e n t m a n ) (War 5 . 3 8 0 ) .

83

r e f e r r i n g t o a v i o l e n t , li­

Josephus's supplementary remark that

G - d t h w a r t e d P h a r a o h ' s p a s s i o n n o t o n l y w i t h a n o u t b r e a k o f disease ( p l a g u e in G e n . 12:17) b u t also, in t y p i c a l G r e e k f a s h i o n , w i t h p o l i t i c a l d i s t u r b a n c e , r e m i n d s o n e o f t h e o p e n i n g o f S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King. A l s o in t y p i c a l G r e e k fashion, a g a i n r e m i n i s c e n t o f S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King P h a r a o h , so as t o d i s c o v e r a r e m ­ e d y (diraXXayris) for t h e p l a g u e , consults t h e priests (Upeis), w h o r e p l y t h a t t h e c a l a m i t y (TO heivov) is G - d ' s w r a t h (jj>r)viv) b e c a u s e P h a r a o h h a d s o u g h t to o u t r a g e (vfipioai) t h e stranger's wife (Ant. 1 . 1 6 4 ) .

84

T h e erotic interest is further a r o u s e d b y

a f a c e - t o - f a c e m e e t i n g o f P h a r a o h w i t h S a r a i , at w h i c h , in terror, h e asks h e r w h o she is a n d w h o this m a n is w h o m she h a s b r o u g h t w i t h h e r (Ant. 1165). T h e Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20), b y c o n t r a s t , in n a r r a t i n g t h e tale o f t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f S a r a i to A b r a m , p u t s the e m p h a s i s , n o t o n P h a r a o h in his terror, b u t o n A b r a m in his g r i e f for S a r a i , w h o " p r a y e d a n d s u p p l i c a t e d a n d e n t r e a t e d G - d , " c o m p l a i n i n g to G - d w i t h f l o w i n g tears. J o s e p h u s offers the d r a m a t i c i m p a c t o f a d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n o f P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i , w h e r e a s the Genesis Apocryphon (col. 20) h a s L o t f u n c t i o n as t h e intermediary between A b r a m and Pharaoh's prince Hyrcanus, informing him w h y A b r a m c a n n o t p r a y to h a v e t h e p l a g u e a l l e v i a t e d . T h e r e is n o m e e t i n g b e ­ t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i in t h e B i b l e itself either; t h e r e P h a r a o h

summons

A b r a m a n d c o m p l a i n s a b o u t his d e c e i t ( G e n . 12:18). I n t h e B i b l e , in t h e c o n ­ frontation b e t w e e n P h a r a o h a n d A b r a m , P h a r a o h u p b r a i d s A b r a m for d e c e i v i n g h i m , " s o t h a t I t o o k h e r to b e m y w i f e " ( G e n . 12:19). J o s e p h u s p h r a s e s P h a r a o h ' s c h a r g e a n d his e x c u s e in m o r e r o m a n t i c t e r m s : it w a s in the b e l i e f t h a t S a r a i w a s A b r a m ' s sister t h a t h e h a d set his affections (oTrovSaoai, " m a k e h a s t e , " " b e e a g e r , " " b e s e r i o u s , " " b e earnest") o n her, a n d t h a t h e h a d a i m e d t o c o n t r a c t a m a r r i a g e a l l i a n c e (ovyyeveiav)

w i t h h e r r a t h e r t h a n to o u t r a g e (iijvfipioai,

"to break out into

83. T h e prevention o f Pharaoh's intercourse with Sarah is paralleled in midrashic literature; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:221, n. 75, cites parallels in Genesis Rabbah 40.2 and 52.13; Tanhuma B . 1.66—67; Tanhuma Lek Leka 5; and Z o h a r 1.82a. S o also Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.6-7, and the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, line 17. But as R a p p a p o r t 1930, 107, n. 102, remarks, Josephus's version is consciously apologetic, while the rabbis idealize S a r a h for her o w n sake. 84. Sirnilarly, in Pseudo-Eupolemus, ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.17.7 (cf. Freudenthal 1874-75,1:224, and R a p p a p o r t 1930,102, n. 84), P h a r a o h summons the diviners (p,avreis). S o also in the Genesis Apocryphon, col. 20, lines 18-21, P h a r a o h summons all the wise m e n and the enchanters o f Egypt, together with the physicians, to determine whether they can heal him and his household. Similar statements (cf. G i n z b e r g 1899, 100; 1909-38, 5:221-22, n. 77) are found in Jerome and T h e o d o r e t . W e should note, however, that even in this instance, Josephus, in his eagerness to show respect for those in authority, comes to Pharaoh's defense, carefully remarking that once he discovered the truth about Sarai's iden­ tity, he apologized to A b r a m , stressing that he h a d wished to contract a legitimate marriage alliance with her and not to outrage her in a transport o f passion (Ant. 1.165).

ABRAHAM i n s o l e n c e " ) h e r in a t r a n s p o r t o f p a s s i o n (KOLT* eiridvpiiav

261

(LppLTjpLevos, i.e., h a v i n g

r u s h e d h e a d l o n g into passion) (Ant. 1.165). A b i m e l e c h , k i n g o f G e r a r , is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s less f a v o r a b l y t h a n P h a r a o h , t h o u g h w i t h similar r o m a n t i c a d d i t i o n s . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t A b i m e l e c h sent a n d t o o k S a r a h ( G e n . 20:2), J o s e p h u s speaks o f h i m as b e i n g in l o v e (ipaaOets,

Ant. 1.207) w i t h h e r a n d p r e p a r e d to s e d u c e ((frOeipto, "destroy,"

" c o r r u p t , " "lure") her. I n c o n t r a s t to P h a r a o h , w h o i n t e n d s a n h o n o r a b l e m a r ­ r i a g e r a t h e r t h a n r a p e , A b i m e l e c h is m o v e d b y lust (inidvpitas).

A s in the c a s e o f

P h a r a o h , G - d sends a g r i e v o u s disease as p u n i s h m e n t , b u t this disease is inflicted d i r e c d y o n A b i m e l e c h , thus f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n o n h i m vis-a-vis S a r a h (Ant. 1.208), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , it is sent u p o n his wife a n d m a i d s e r v a n t s ( G e n . 20:17). T h e r e is g r e a t e r r o m a n t i c interest in t h e e p i s o d e as J o s e p h u s tells it, since A b i m e l e c h c l a i m s i n self-defense t h a t h e w a s u n a w a r e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f S a r a h a n d s p e a k s to t h e h u s b a n d , A b r a h a m , o f t h e a b d u c t e d w o m a n , r a t h e r t h a n to G - d ( G e n . 20:4 vs. Ant.

1.209). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a r o m a n t i c a s p e c t i n t o

the

c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n A b i m e l e c h a n d A b r a h a m b y h a v i n g it e n t e r e d i n t o after the e p i s o d e o f A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h (Ant. 1.212) r a t h e r t h a n , as in t h e B i b l e , after a dis­ p u t e c o n c e r n i n g a w e l l ( G e n . 2 1 : 2 2 - 3 4 ) , w h i c h h e o m i t s altogether. A similarly i n c r e a s e d r o m a n t i c flavor is g i v e n b y J o s e p h u s to t h e e p i s o d e o f E l i e z e r ' s s e a r c h for a w i f e for A b r a h a m ' s s o n I s a a c . T h u s , in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in S c r i p t u r e , t h e difficulty o f E l i e z e r ' s j o u r n e y is stressed; h e g o e s t h r o u g h a l a n d t h a t is m u d d y in w i n t e r a n d d r o u g h t - s t r i c k e n in s u m m e r , a c o u n t r y infested b y b a n d s o f r o b b e r s (Ant. 1.244; cf. G e n . 24:10).

HELLENIZATIONS T h e G r e e k o r R o m a n r e a d e r w o u l d e x p e c t a h e r o , i f childless, to a d o p t a s o n in o r d e r to e n s u r e t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f his n a m e a n d estate (one thinks, for e x a m p l e , o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f O e d i p u s b y K i n g P o l y b u s o f C o r i n t h ) . T h i s w a s t h e p o l i c y also o f t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r s , e v e n at times, as in the c a s e o f C l a u d i u s ' s a d o p t i o n (elaeTToirjaaro) o f N e r o , w h e n there w a s a l e g i t i m a t e (yvrjGiov) s o n ( J o s e p h u s , War 2.249; Ant. 20.150). A n d this is p r e c i s e l y w h a t J o s e p h u s , in his c o n c e r n to a p p e a l to his a u d i e n c e , says t h a t A b r a h a m d i d . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e ( G e n . 12:5) a n d the r a b b i s (see R a p p a p o r t 1930, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , n. 78) say n o t h i n g t o i m p l y t h a t A b r a h a m a d o p t e d L o t , J o s e p h u s , p e r h a p s i n s p i r e d b y a n institution k n o w n t o h i m f r o m R o m a n law, says t h a t A b r a h a m , h a v i n g n o l e g i t i m a t e (yvrjGiov) (elaeTroirjaaro)

L o t , his n e p h e w (Ant. 1 . 1 5 4 ) .

son,

adopted

85

It is significant t h a t t h e p r o o f for the e x i s t e n c e o f G - d t h a t J o s e p h u s attributes

85. Rappaport 1930, 100-101, n. 78, argues from various biblical tales, such as those o f Jacob, Manasseh, and Ephraim, that there were Jewish adoption laws, just as one finds in the code o f H a m ­ murabi. Cf. Aptowitzer 1927a, 215-16. A s has been often noted, adoption o f a child is frequendy fol­ lowed by the birth of a natural child to the adoptive parents. Cf. K a r d i m o n 1958, 123-26.

262

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

to A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.156) reflects the f o r m t h a t w a s p r o m u l g a t e d b y the G r e e k p h i l o ­ s o p h i c s c h o o l s , n o t a b l y the Stoics, b u t t h a t a c t u a l l y g o e s b a c k to A n a x a g o r a s , w h o first p r e s e n t e d the t e l e o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t that the o r d e r l y state o f the u n i v e r s e m a n ­ ifests a d e s i g n p e r f e c t e d b y the r a t i o n a l p o w e r o f a n infinite m i n d . J o s e p h u s ' s A b r a h a m , u s i n g a favorite w o r d o f Plato's a n d P h i l o ' s ,

87

8 6

G - d , says

is the c r e a t o r

(Srjfjuovpyov) o f the u n i v e r s e (rtov oXcov) a n d is o n e ; i f a n y o t h e r b e i n g c o n t r i b u t e s (ovvreXei)

t o m a n ' s w e l l - b e i n g (evSoupLovlav), h e d o e s so b y H i s c o m m a n d r a t h e r

t h a n b y his o w n i n h e r e n t p o w e r . W h a t is further distinctive a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s state­ m e n t is t h a t A b r a h a m inferred (ei'/) b e c o m e slaves instead of free m e n (Rom. Ant. 8.35.3). Schalit 1944-63, 2:39, n. 250, declares that the expression was certainly d u e to Josephus's G r e e k assis­ tants; but, as I have noted in m y review o f T h a c k e r a y ' s Josephus: The Man and the Historian (Feldman 1970a, 545-46), Josephus's statement that he h a d fellow workers for the sake o f the G r e e k style occurs in his discussion o f the composition o f the Jewish War rather than o f the Antiquities (Ag. Ap.). T h e very fact that the phrase is found also in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, w h o lived at the e n d of the first century B.C.E., w o u l d indicate that this h a d b e c o m e characteristic o f G r e e k works b y this time rather than that it w a s the work o f a special assistant. 105. Inasmuch as Josephus prides himself on his acquisition of knowledge o f G r e e k a n d thus must have possessed a considerable linguistic aptitude (Ant. 20.263-64), a n d inasmuch as the Antiquities w a s issued by Josephus after he h a d lived in R o m e for over two decades, one w o u l d expect that he might have acquired a knowledge of Latin as well. S o m e of his sources for the period closest to his time were most probably written in Latin, especially the l o n g account at the beginning of b o o k 19 o f the Antiqui­ ties describing the assassination o f Caligula a n d the accession o f Claudius (see Feldman 1962, 320-33). T h a c k e r a y 1929, 7 1 - 7 2 a n d 1 1 8 - 1 9 , has remarked that occasionally the underlying Latin shines through, a n d he cites examples, notably parallels between Josephus's negative portrait of J o h n o f Gischala a n d Sallust's description o f Catiline (De Catilinae Coniuratione 5). N a d e l 1966, 256-72, postulates that in his invectives against the Zealots a n d the Sicarii, Josephus drew u p o n the orations of C i c e r o a n d the works of Sallust. D a u b e 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 1 - 9 4 , has also noted a Latinism in Josephus's Life (414) in the use o f KcXevaavros in the sense o f iubeo, "to authorize."

270

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

g r e a t A b r a h a m ' s faith is in his w i l l i n g n e s s to sacrifice s u c h a s o n . P h i l o also d e ­ scribes I s a a c in t e r m s intelligible to his G r e e k r e a d e r s , n o t i n g t h a t h e s h o w e d a p e r f e c t i o n o f v i r t u e s (dperds)

b e y o n d his y e a r s , b u t h e a d d s t h a t I s a a c possessed

also g r e a t b o d i l y b e a u t y a n d t h a t A b r a h a m c h e r i s h e d a s t r o n g t e n d e r n e s s for h i m (tXooTopyla, " t e n d e r l o v e , " " f a m i l y affection") (DeAbrahamo

3 2 . 1 6 8 ; see S a n d m e l

1956, 72, n. 322). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , presents a p i c t u r e t h a t o m i t s P h i l o ' s stress o n t e n d e r n e s s . I n s t e a d , h e a p p e a l s p a r t i c u l a r l y to his H e l l e n i z e d r e a d e r s , for h e states, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h a t A b r a h a m , b e c a u s e o f I s a a c ' s virtues, rested all his o w n h a p p i n e s s (evSaLpuovlav) in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d l e a v e his s o n u n s c a t h e d (diraOr)) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) d i e d (Ant 1 . 2 2 3 ) . piness w o u l d r e m i n d

the

reader

106

T h i s emphasis on A b r a h a m ' s hap­

o f Aristotle's statement

(Nicomachean

Ethics

1 . 4 . 1 0 9 5 A 1 6 - 2 0 ) t h a t b o t h the g e n e r a l r u n o f p e o p l e a n d those o f s u p e r i o r refine­ m e n t a g r e e t h a t h a p p i n e s s is the h i g h e s t o f all g o o d s a c h i e v a b l e b y a c t i o n , a n d t h a t p e o p l e differ o n l y as to w h a t h a p p i n e s s is. P h i l o , t o o , a g r e e s in r e g a r d i n g h a p p i n e s s as the u l t i m a t e g o a l o f h u m a n e n d e a v o r (De Cherubim 31.106). T h e r e is p a r t i c u l a r i r o n y in the fact t h a t A b r a h a m seeks to l e a v e his s o n u n ­ s c a t h e d (drradrj, " n o t suffering," " u n a f f e c t e d , " " w i t h o u t feeling"); for the w o r d t h a t J o s e p h u s uses h e r e (Ant 1.223) h a s t w o v e r y different m e a n i n g s , b o t h o f w h i c h are a c t u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to I s a a c . O n e is " u n s c a t h e d " o r " n o t suffering"; a n d , i n d e e d , w h i l e I s a a c e n d s u p u n h a r m e d , A b r a h a m a c t u a l l y d o e s set o u t to sacrifice h i m . O n the o t h e r h a n d , I s a a c a p p e a r s " e m o t i o n l e s s " o n l y in the sense that, in his utter faith, h e d o e s n o t o b j e c t to his i m m o l a t i o n (actually, h e w e l c o m e s it enthusiasti­ cally). T h e p a t h e t i c i r o n y o f the fact t h a t A b r a h a m seeks h a p p i n e s s o n l y t h r o u g h his son, w h i l e t h a t s o n is a b o u t to b e sacrificed, recalls a similar i r o n y in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis, w i t h its c o m p a r a b l e situation o f a father p o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r t o sacrifice his child. T h e r e , E u r i p i d e s , in a n a t t e m p t at irony, h a s the C h o r u s , u p o n c a t c h i n g sight o f Q u e e n C l y t e m n e s t r a a n d h e r d a u g h t e r as t h e y a p p r o a c h in a c h a r i o t , start their o d e ,

la), pueydXat pueydXcov evSatpLovlai ( O h , o h ! g r e a t h a p ­

piness o f the great!) (590-91). T h a t J o s e p h u s h a d E u r i p i d e s in m i n d in this p a r t o f his w o r k s e e m s i n d i c a t e d c

b y the fact t h a t j u s t b e f o r e h e c o m e s t o the A q e d a h , h e d e s c r i b e s h o w the f l e e i n g H a g a r p l a c e d h e r c h i l d I s h m a e l , w h o w a s at his last g a s p , u n d e r a tree a n d t h e n w a n d e r e d a w a y so t h a t h e w o u l d n o t die in h e r p r e s e n c e (deioa TO rratdlov payovv,

(bs /XT) irapovo-qs

i/ivxop-

rr)v i^vx^v dfj, Trporjei) (Ant 1.218). H e r e J o s e p h u s i m i ­

tates E u r i p i d e s ' Hercules Furens (323-24), a p l a y that s e e m s to h a v e b e e n a favorite o f J o s e p h u s ' s ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 1 1 7 - 1 8 ; 1 9 2 6 - 3 4 , 4:108), or, i f w e a c c e p t T h a c k ­ e r a y ' s t h e o r y o f J o s e p h u s ' s assistant's. T h e r e A m p h i t r y o n asks t h a t h e a n d his wife

106. T h e rabbis also, to be sure, note Isaac's virtues, particularly his piety and obedience; see R a p ­ paport 1930, 19-20, no. 84, and Ginzberg 1909-38, 5:249, n. 230. Marmorstein 1920, 75-76, 149, re­ marks, however, that the merits of Isaac are very seldom alluded to in the aggada.

ABRAHAM

271

b e slain so t h a t at their last g a s p t h e y m a y n o t see their c h i l d r e n c a l l i n g u p o n t h e i r m o t h e r (d)s pir) T€KV'

elaibojpiev

i/jvxoppayovvra

Kal KaXovvra purjTepa).

T h a t J o s e p h u s is p e r h a p s m o d e l i n g his I s a a c o n I p h i g e n i a is to b e s e e n in t h e fact t h a t b o t h figures a p p r o a c h their sacrifice w i t h e n t h u s i a s m , w h e r e a s , for e x a m ­ ple, in t h e c a s e o f t h e m a r t y r E l e a z a r in 4 M a c e . 7:14, it is his r e a s o n (XoyiopLcp), a trait n o t t o b e c r e d i t e d to I s a a c b y J o s e p h u s , t h a t p r e v a i l s o v e r his torture. T o b e sure, 4 M a c c a b e e s d o e s , i n d e e d , i m p u t e r e a s o n to I s a a c (7:14), b u t this is m o s t p r o b a b l y t h e result o f the S t o i c i n f l u e n c e t h a t p e r v a d e s t h a t b o o k . T h e s a m e m a y b e said o f t h e p o r t r a i t o f I s a a c as t h e e x e m p l i f i c a t i o n o f religious r e a s o n in P h i l o ( G o o d e n o u g h 1935, 153 ff.). W h e n A b r a h a m in J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s his h o p e t h a t h e will l e a v e his s o n I s a a c u n s c a t h e d (drraOr]s) w h e n h e ( A b r a h a m ) dies (Ant. 1.223),

w

e

should note that the

t e r m drradrjs a n d the c o r r e s p o n d i n g n o u n drrddeia (freedom f r o m e m o t i o n a l dis­ t u r b a n c e ) a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y c o m m o n S t o i c t e r m s for f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n .

1 0 7

In­

d e e d , for t h e S t o i c s to m a k e love (epws) s u b s e r v i e n t t o friendship (<j>i\orrodas\ cf. D i o g e n e s L a e r t i u s 7.130 a n d C i c e r o * Tusculan Disputations 4.33.70-34.73) w a s p a r t o f c

the p u r s u i t o f drrddeia (Ferguson 1958, 68); a n d , in t r u t h , the w h o l e A q e d a h , w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n f r e e d o m f r o m e m o t i o n , is a p r i m e e x a m p l e o f h o w J o s e p h u s m a k e s J e w i s h v a l u e s c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e S t o i c s . I n fact, J o s e p h u s himself, in a p a s ­ s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in t h e B i b l e , represents t h e s a m e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f h a p p i ­ ness a n d b e i n g u n s c a t h e d in G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t to A d a m a n d E v e t h a t H e h a d d e ­ c r e e d for t h e m a life o f h a p p i n e s s (euScu/xova), u n m o l e s t e d (drradr)) b y all ill (Ant. 1.46). I n this p r i m e v a l U t o p i a , all t h i n g s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o e n j o y m e n t a n d p l e a s u r e s p r i n g u p s p o n t a n e o u s l y t h r o u g h G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (npovoiav,

a standard Stoic

t e r m ) , m e n h a v e l o n g lives, a n d o l d a g e d o e s n o t s o o n o v e r t a k e t h e m ( F e l d m a n 1968,

341). Similarly, I s a a c himself, in J o s e p h u s , u s i n g t h e s a m e t w o w o r d s

" h a p p y " a n d " b e i n g u n m o l e s t e d , " p r a y s to G - d to p r o t e c t his s o n J a c o b , t o p r e ­ serve h i m f r o m e v e r y t o u c h o f ill (drradrj (evSatpiova)

KaKov), a n d to g r a n t h i m a blissful

life (Ant. 1.276). J o s e p h u s thus presents A b r a h a m as s e e k i n g for I s a a c

the S t o i c g o a l o f h a p p i n e s s as identified w i t h drrddeLa. T h e i d e a t h a t l e a v i n g o n e ' s s o n u n s c a t h e d is a sine q u a n o n in the a c h i e v e m e n t o f h a p p i n e s s r e m i n d s o n e o f the p a s s a g e in H e r o d o t u s (1.30), w h e r e S o l o n tells C r o e s u s t h a t T e l l u s o f A t h e n s w a s the h a p p i e s t o f all m e n , as i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t his c i t y w a s p r o s p e r o u s , h e h a d fine sons, h e l i v e d to see c h i l d r e n b o r n t o e a c h o f t h e m , a n d all o f his c h i l d r e n s u r v i v e d h i m . J o s e p h u s ' s i m p l i c i t c o m p a r i s o n o f A b r a h a m w i t h P r i a m , n o t e d a b o v e , is thus c a r r i e d further: t h e p a t h e t i c P r i a m sees all o f his sons d i e d u r i n g his o w n lifetime, a n d A b r a h a m ' s h o p e to see I s a a c as t h e stay o f his o l d a g e is a b o u t to b e frustrated b y G - d ' s c o m m a n d t h a t h e sacrifice his

107. Cf., e.g., Dionysius of Heraclea the Stoic (third century B.C.E.) 3.34; Epictetus, ap. Arrian, Dissertationes 4.6.34; Antipater of Tarsus the Stoic 3.109; and Philodemus, Concerning the Stoics (Herculanensia Volumina 339.7). D a l y 1977, 58, is hardly correct in his comment that "worthy of note [in Josephus's ac­ count] is the absence of the Stoic flavor so prominent in Philo and especially 4 Maccabees."

272

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

s o n (Ant

PORTRAITS

1.230). W h i l e it is true t h a t ostensibly the h o p e t h a t A b r a h a m h e r e e x ­

presses is, n o t t h a t his s o n will b e d e v o i d o f passions a n d e m o t i o n s t h a t interfere w i t h a life in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h n a t u r e , b u t s i m p l y t h a t his s o n will g r o w t o m a t u r i t y u n h a r m e d , w e m a y w e l l ask why, if this is all t h a t h e s o u g h t to convey, J o s e p h u s d i d n o t use t h e w o r d djSAajSrfc, " u n h a r m e d , " w h i c h h e uses o n six o c c a s i o n s e l s e w h e r e in the first h a l f o f the

Antiquities.

J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the w o r d Oepairela (Ant

in e m p h a s i z i n g I s a a c ' s filial o b e d i e n c e

1.222) m a y w e l l h a v e b r o u g h t to t h e m i n d s o f those o f his r e a d e r s w h o a d ­

m i r e d P l a t o a p a s s a g e in the Laws ( 1 0 . 8 8 6 C 6 - 9 ) w h e r e P l a t o is critical o f the tra­ d i t i o n a l t h e o g o n y o f the G r e e k s o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t it d e p i c t s the g o d s as n o t s h o w i n g p r o p e r a t t e n d a n c e (Oepairelas)

o n a n d r e s p e c t (n/xds) for p a r e n t s . T h e

Stoics, t o o , e m p h a s i z e d this quality, as w e see in E p i c t e t u s ' s r e m a r k

(Encheiridion

30): "Is a c e r t a i n m a n y o u r father? I n this are i m p l i e d t a k i n g c a r e o f h i m , s u b m i t ­ t i n g to h i m in all things, r e c e i v i n g his r e p r o a c h e s . " R o m a n r e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e b e e n r e m i n d e d o f the a d m o n i t i o n a d d r e s s e d to S c i p i o b y his father to c h e r i s h pietas, w h i c h is a g r e a t o b l i g a t i o n t o w a r d p a r e n t s a n d k i n ( C i c e r o , Somnium Scipio­ nis 3 . 8 ) .

108

It is true t h a t the r a b b i s also a s s i g n e d to I s a a c a m o r e a c t i v e role in the story t h a n d o e s the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . I n the oldest t a r g u m i c a c c o u n t ,

1 0 9

I s a a c gives his

c o n s e n t a n d i n d e e d asks t o b e b o u n d so t h a t the sacrifice m a y b e perfect; b u t this n e w stress is m o r e stated t h a n d e v e l o p e d (Blidstein 1975, 194, n. 9 ) .

1 1 0

W i t h Jose­

p h u s , as in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis, it is the c h i l d w h o b e c o m e s the p r o t a g o n i s t . W h a t follows is, in effect, a d r a m a , in f o r m s o m e w h a t like the B o o k o f J o b o r E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus,

c o m m e n c i n g w i t h a p r o l o g u e , in w h i c h G - d a p p e a r s to

A b r a h a m . T h e n c o m e s the p l a y proper, so to speak, c o n t a i n i n g a d i a l o g u e b e ­ t w e e n A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c , a n d a n e p i l o g u e , in w h i c h G - d c o m m e n d s A b r a h a m a n d p r e d i c t s the g l o r i o u s future o f his d e s c e n d a n t s . A t the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the test, w h e r e the B i b l e h a s G - d m e r e l y g i v i n g a c o m m a n d to A b r a h a m ( G e n . 22:2), J o s e p h u s , w e l l a w a r e t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d w o n d e r at the s e e m i n g arbitrariness o f s u c h a c o m m a n d , h a s G - d e l a b o r a t e o n the c o m m a n d b y first e n u m e r a t i n g t h r e e m a j o r benefits t h a t H e h a d b e s t o w e d u p o n A b r a h a m : v i c t o r y o v e r his e n e m i e s in w a r ; h a p p i n e s s ( p r e s u m a b l y in m a t e -

108. W h i l e the rabbis also stress the importance o f filial obedience, Josephus's terminology w o u l d be recognized b y his G r e e k readers as more closely reminiscent o f Plato and o f the Stoics, since 0e/oa77€ia in this sense o f service for parents seems to be found only in Plato a n d in the sophist Gorgias (fr. 6 D). 109. Cf. V e r m e s 1973, 194, citing the fragmentary targum and the T a r g u m Neofiti on G e n . 22:10. Cf. also M o o r e 1927,1:539, citing Sifre Deuteronomy 32, w h i c h goes so far as to state that Isaac b o u n d him­ self. n o . Cf. M a r t i n - A c h a r d 1982, 5 - 1 0 , noting the shift in Jewish literature from the biblical era to the G r a e c o - R o m a n period in the status o f Isaac from an evoker o f smiles to martyr and from obscure son to the great witness o f Israel's suffering.

ABRAHAM

273

rial things); a n d the b i r t h o f a s o n , the last o f w h i c h will c e r t a i n l y serve to h e i g h t e n the i r o n y o f w h a t follows (Ant. 1.224). T h u s the sacrifice m a y b e v i e w e d , as in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities threefold b e n e v o l e n c e .

1 1 1

(32.2), as a l o g i c a l r e p a y m e n t to G - d for H i s

R a b b i n i c literature, o n the o t h e r h a n d , s a w n o n e e d to

h a v e G - d a p o l o g i z e for his c o m m a n d , a n d so t h e r e it is A b r a h a m w h o justifies the sacrifice in his o w n m i n d as a r e p a y m e n t for G - d ' s g r e a t gifts to h i m s e l f (Tanhuma, Lek Leka 13). J o s e p h u s ' s o w n p r e s e n t a t i o n o f sacrifice w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e a d i l y in­ telligible t o a p a g a n G r e e k a u d i e n c e , as w e m a y see f r o m the c o m m e n t o f the o l d m a n C e p h a l u s , r e p r e s e n t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l m o r a l i t y a n d r e l i g i o n , in Plato's Republic ( 1 . 3 3 1 A - B ) , t h a t the g r e a t v a l u e o f w e a l t h is t h a t it k e e p s o n e f r o m h a v i n g t o l e a v e life in the fear o f o w i n g d e b t s to m e n o r sacrifices to the g o d s . I n s e e k i n g t o p r e s e n t a n a p o l o g y for A b r a h a m ' s e x t r a o r d i n a r y a c t i o n , J o s e p h u s resorts a g a i n to t e r m i n o l o g y r e m i n i s c e n t o f the Stoics, since t o h a v e p r e s e n t e d A b r a h a m as a c t i n g o n m e r e b l i n d faith w o u l d h a v e b e e n unsatisfactory to J o s e ­ p h u s ' s c u l t u r e d G e n t i l e G r e e k r e a d e r s . H e n c e h e says that, in o b e y i n g the d i v i n e c o m m a n d , A b r a h a m , in the guise o f a k i n d o f S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r , r e a s o n e d t h a t " a l l t h a t befell H i s f a v o r e d o n e s [ots \irpovolas\"

av evpievrjs

77] w a s o r d a i n e d b y p r o v i d e n c e

(Ant. 1.225). W h e r e a s the r a b b i s p r e s e n t a story o f S a t a n c h a l l e n g i n g

G - d t o p r o v e A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness, w h i c h involves g r a v e p r o b l e m s o f t h e o d ­ icy

1 1 2

J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l e n t a n g l e m e n t s , p r o c e e d s i m m e d i a t e l y

t o A b r a h a m ' s o b e d i e n c e to G - d ' s c o m m a n d . I n his stress o n npovoia

1 1 3

h e r e , J o s e p h u s m a y w e l l b e a n s w e r i n g the E p i c u r e ­

1 1 4

I n d e e d , in the c o n c l u s i o n o f his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B o o k o f D a n i e l , h e signi­

ficantly

states t h a t the fulfillment o f D a n i e l ' s p r o p h e c y p r o v e s " h o w m i s t a k e n a r e

ans.

the E p i c u r e a n s , w h o e x c l u d e p r o v i d e n c e \yrp6votav] f r o m h u m a n life a n d refuse to b e l i e v e t h a t G - d g o v e r n s its affairs o r t h a t the u n i v e r s e is d i r e c t e d b y a b l e s s e d a n d

i n . F r a n x m a n 1979, 158, remarks that G - d ' s enumeration o f the benefits that H e had bestowed u p o n A b r a h a m "does not e x a c d y compliment A b r a h a m ' s faith"; but Josephus's purpose here is most likely apologetic, namely, to avoid casting G - d in a b a d light for having m a d e such a d e m a n d u p o n A b r a h a m as to sacrifice his son. I must stress that this does not contradict the thesis stated above, that Josephus in this pericope has toned d o w n the theologizing, since he h a d to w e i g h that intention against the need to defend his people against those detractors o f Judaism w h o had charged that the G - d o f the Jews w a s cruel a n d capricious. It is to answer these critics, rather than to engage in theological specu­ lation, that Josephus has G - d defend Himself here. 112. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 1:272-73, and 5:248-49, nn. 227-28. A l t h o u g h w e m a y argue that submis­ sion to G - d ' s will is hardly an idea restricted to the Stoics, since it is found also in the M i s h n a h (Avot 2:4), the language Josephus uses in giving the reason for such submission—namely, that all that befell His favored ones w a s ordained by divine providence—has n o rabbinic parallel as such. 113. W h e n Josephus does show an interest in what w e w o u l d call theology, he does so from a Stoic perspective, in order to impress the Stoic-trained intelligentsia thereby. See Lewinsky 1887, 3 6 - 4 6 , a n d M o o r e 1929, 371-89. 114. T h e rabbis, too, found the Epicureans abhorrent, as w e see from the saying " K n o w w h a t to answer the E p i c u r e a n " (Avot 2:14).

274

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

i m m o r t a l B e i n g , to the e n d t h a t the w h o l e o f it m a y e n d u r e , b u t say t h a t the w o r l d r u n s b y its o w n m o v e m e n t w i t h o u t k n o w i n g a g u i d e o r a n o t h e r ' s c a r e "

(Ant

10.278). T h i s w h o l e p a s s a g e s o u n d s like a q u o t a t i o n f r o m a S t o i c h a n d b o o k . B y his e m p h a s i s o n G - d ' s p r o v i d e n c e (Ant

1.225)

m

s

h^ ' A q e d a h p e r i c o p e , J o s e p h u s

w o u l d s e e m to b e c o n t r a s t i n g the J e w s w i t h t h o s e — n a m e l y , the G r e e k s — w h o 115

w e r e u n d e r the spell o f fate (eipLappLevrj).

A significant c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the style o f the B i b l e a n d t h a t o f J o s e p h u s m a y b e s e e n in the d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c as t h e y p r o c e e d to the sacrifice. O n the o n e h a n d , in the B i b l e , w e a r e k e p t in the d a r k as to w h i c h p l a c e it w a s t h a t A b r a h a m s a w ( G e n . 22:4), y e t a r e g i v e n the g r u e s o m e e x t e r n a l details t h a t " A b r a ­ h a m t o o k the w o o d o f the b u r n t offering a n d laid it o n I s a a c , his son; a n d h e t o o k in his h a n d the fire a n d k n i f e " ( G e n . 22:6). W e are told n o t h i n g o f the

inner

t h o u g h t s o f the pair, o t h e r t h a n I s a a c ' s q u e s t i o n as to w h e r e the l a m b for the offer­ i n g m i g h t b e , a n d A b r a h a m ' s d e c e p t i v e a n s w e r t h a t G - d will p r o v i d e it. J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , c l e a r l y identifies the p l a c e as t h e m o u n t a i n t h a t h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y m e n ­ t i o n e d (Ant 1.226); b u t h e o m i t s t h e e x t e r n a l details (Ant 1.227),

a

s

w

e

u

a

s

m

e

words

" a n d t h e y w a l k e d t o g e t h e r , " a p h r a s e t h a t c o n t r i b u t e s to the suspense felt b y the r e a d e r o f the a c c o u n t in G e n e s i s . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h e creates a d r a m a t i c d i a ­ l o g u e b e t w e e n father a n d son. c

J o s e p h u s is n o t interested in p r e s e n t i n g t h e details o f the A q e d a h as a p r o t o sacrifice, since these a r e t h e o l o g i c a l m a t t e r s ; h e is c o n c e r n e d , rather, w i t h the t w o personalities i n v o l v e d . I n particular, a l t h o u g h g e n e r a l l y averse to e m p h a s i z i n g the­ ology, J o s e p h u s d o e s p r e s e n t a defense o f G - d ' s role to r e a d e r s w h o w o u l d u n ­ d o u b t e d l y raise q u e s t i o n s a b o u t i t — t h a t G - d h a d " p o w e r alike to g i v e m e n a b u n ­ d a n c e o f w h a t t h e y h a d n o t a n d to t a k e b a c k for H i m s e l f [d^eAeaflcu; n o t e the effect o f the m i d d l e v o i c e ] w h a t t h e y h a d f r o m those w h o felt a s s u r e d " b e c o n f i d e n t , " " b e a r r o g a n t " ] o f their p o s s e s s i o n s " (Ant

1.227).

[dappovvrwv^

116

A t t r i d g e has

n o t e d the n e a d y b a l a n c e d g n o m i c f o r m o f this e x p r e s s i o n , w h i c h s o u n d s as i f it c a m e f r o m a r h e t o r i c a l o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l h a n d b o o k (Attridge 1976, 93). T h e last p h r a s e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f the story in H e r o d o t u s (3.40-43), o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s fa­ v o r i t e a u t h o r s , c o n c e r n i n g the t y r a n t P o l y c r a t e s o f S a m o s (ca. 5 3 5 - 5 1 5 B.C.E.), w h o felt t o o sure o f his possessions a n d w a s c o n s e q u e n d y w a r n e d b y his friend K i n g A m a s i s o f E g y p t to t h r o w his d e a r e s t possession into the sea. P o l y c r a t e s t h e r e u p o n t h r e w into the sea a p r e c i o u s ring, o n l y to r e c o v e r it in a fish t h a t a

fisherman

later

p r e s e n t e d t o h i m , l e a d i n g A m a s i s to c o n c l u d e t h a t P o l y c r a t e s w o u l d a s s u r e d l y suffer disaster, since it is i m p o s s i b l e for a n y o n e to p r o s p e r in e v e r y t h i n g ; a n d so in­ d e e d it t u r n e d out. T h e r e are several o t h e r parallels to J o s e p h u s ' s g n o m i c p r o -

115. For the distinction, see M a r t i n 1981, 127-37, esp. 134 and 137, n. 25. 116. Philo similarly states on this passage, " T o G - d all things are possible, including those that are impossible or insuperable to m e n " (DeAbrahamo 32.175).

ABRAHAM

n o u n c e m e n t in E u r i p i d e s , in Phoenissae 5 5 5 - 5 7 , 711-15,

1 1 9

a n d Heracleidae 6 1 3 - 1 4 ,

1 2 0

1 1 7

Trojan Women 6 1 2 - 1 3 ,

1 1 8

as w e l l as i n a f r a g m e n t o f a lost p l a y .

275

Helen 1 2 1

We

m a y also note the parallel b e t w e e n Josephus's statement that Isaac c o u l d not e v e n c o n s i d e r r e j e c t i n g G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232) a n d I p h i g e n i a ' s c o n v i c t i o n (Iphigenia at Aulis 396) t h a t she, a m o r t a l w o m a n , c o u l d n o t s t a n d in t h e w a y (eyarohajv) o f t h e g o d d e s s . I n J o s e p h u s , it is G - d H i m s e l f w h o s t a n d s in t h e w a y (ifjLTroSwv), s o t h a t t h e h u m a n sacrifice is n o t c o n s u m m a t e d (Ant. 1.233). O n e m a j o r a d d i t i o n t o t h e B i b l e is J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t I s a a c w a s t w e n t y c

five at t h e t i m e o f t h e A q e d a h (Ant. 2 . 2 2 7 ) .

122

In Jubilees (17:15), h e is s a i d t o b e

117. "Mortals d o not, indeed, o w n their o w n possessions, but holding the things belonging to the gods, w e take care o f them, a n d w h e n e v e r they wish, they take them a w a y again." T h i s sentiment also attracted the notice o f Philo, w h o amplifies it thus: "And if w e recognize that w e have but the use [of our possessions] w e shall tend them with care as G - d ' s possessions, r e m e m b e r i n g from the first that it is the Master's custom, w h e n H e will, to take back His o w n " (De Cherubim 33.118). 118. "I see the things o f the gods, h o w they, o n the o n e hand, raise aloft those things that are noth­ ing, a n d , o n the other hand, have destroyed those things that have reputations." 119. " M y daughter, the w a y o f G - d is complex; he is hard for us to predict. H e moves the pieces and they c o m e s o m e h o w into a kind o f order. S o m e have b a d luck while others, scatheless, meet their evil a n d g o d o w n in turn. N o n e c a n hold fortune still a n d make it last" (trans. R . Lattimore). 120. " O n the o n e hand, raising o n e aloft, it [fate] brings h i m low, and, o n the other hand, it ren­ ders h a p p y the o n e w h o is unpunished." Cf. Horace, Odes 1.34.12-14: " G - d has p o w e r to change the lowest thing to the highest and, bringing to light the obscure, depresses the exalted." 121. " O f t e n G - d brings low a n d humbles again the greatest things" (Euripides, fr. 716, lines 3 - 4 [Papyrus O x y r h y n c h u s 2460, fr. 3 2 = C o l i n Austin, ed., Nova Fragmenta Euripidis (Berlin, 1968), fr. 124, p . 72]). Philo, De Somniis 1.24.154, quotes a similar passage from one o f Euripides' lost plays, Ino: " O n e day brings o n e m a n d o w n from o n high a n d lifts another up, a n d nothing relating to m a n is o f a nature to remain as it is," a n d paraphrases it again in De Vita Mosis 1.6.31. O n this motif and its appearance in later literature, see Beers 1914, 5 5 - 5 8 . O f course, the same general sentiment is to b e found also in 1 S a m . 2:7-8, " T h e L - r d maketh p o o r a n d maketh rich; h e bringeth low a n d lifteth up." For similar sen­ timents see Ps. 147:6, J o b 5:11, Eccles. 10:14, a n d Luke 1:52-53, as well as Homer, Odyssey 16.211-12; Hesiod, Works and Days 6; Archilochus 58; Pindar, Pythian Odes 2.51-52, 2.89; A e s o p (ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius 1.3); Democritus, fr. 30; Aristophanes, Lysistrata 772-73; a n d Tacitus, Histories 4.47. 122. Davies a n d Chilton 1978, 521-22, suggests that the age o f 25 is to b e interpreted as the mini­ m u m for active military service, as is implied in the D e a d S e a W a r Scroll (1 Q M 7.1-3), a n d that Jose­ phus is thus depicting Isaac as a voluntary martyr facing death with j o y like an adult warrior. A s Davies 1977, 4 1 - 4 2 , notes, in the Bible (Num. 8:24), 25 is the lower age limit for a Levite's service in the T e n t o f Meeting. Furthermore, the lower age limit for officers at Q u m r a n (see the ^adokite Document, 10.6) was also 25. B u t the implication that Josephus admired voluntary m a r t y r d o m w o u l d not accord with his o w n strong opposition to this v i e w at Jotapata, although it w o u l d seem that Josephus does represent the R o m a n s as admiring such voluntary m a r t y r d o m at M a s a d a (War 7.405; see, however, the contrary v i e w o f L a d o u c e u r 1987, 9 5 - 1 1 3 , esp. 104-6). Davies a n d Chilton suggest that Isaac is the prototype o f those w h o were active in the w a r against the R o m a n s . T h e y theorize that martyrs' deaths during this revolt against the R o m a n s in 66-70, w h e n the m i n i m u m age for military service was probably 25, influ­ enced Josephus's presentation o f Isaac. B u t H a y w a r d 1981,132, n. 30, correcdy objects that there is n o evidence that 25 w a s then the m i n i m u m age for service. Moreover, as I have noted, Josephus's opposi­ tion to the w a r w a s so fundamental that such an association is hard to accept in view o f Josephus's o b -

276

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

twenty-three.

123

PORTRAITS

T h e significant p o i n t is t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s c h o s e n to m e n t i o n his

a g e , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e c o n s i d e r e d it i m p o r t a n t to m a k e c l e a r t h a t I s a a c w a s n o t a m e r e l a d b u t a g r o w n y o u n g m a n , a n d h e n c e w a s a b l e to m a k e a d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e as t o w h e t h e r h e w o u l d c o n s e n t t o b e i n g sacrificed. T h i s i t e m is p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s in v i e w o f the fact t h a t I p h i g e n i a , w i t h w h o m Isaac w o u l d c e r t a i n l y b e c o m p a r e d b y his G r e e k r e a d e r s , d o e s h e r o i c a l l y c o n s e n t to b e sacri­ ficed in E u r i p i d e s ' play. J o s e p h u s thus d e p a r t s f r o m the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , w h i c h c

refers to I s a a c as a l a d (na ar, G e n . 2 2 : 5 ) .

124

H i s d o i n g so further h e i g h t e n s the c o n ­

trast b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d I p h i g e n i a , w h o is d e p i c t e d as a y o u n g girl s c a r c e l y o f m a r ­ riageable age, considerably younger, a p p a r e n d y than twenty-five, perhaps

no

m o r e t h a n b e t w e e n t w e l v e a n d f o u r t e e n . I n Iphigenia at Aulis, E u r i p i d e s s e e m s to b e c a l l i n g a t t e n t i o n t o the c o m p r o m i s i n g self-centeredness c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h u m a n nature, a n d a p p e a r s to b e e x t o l l i n g the child's v i e w r e p r e s e n t e d b y I p h i g e n i a (Fer­ g u s o n 1 9 6 8 , 1 5 7 - 6 3 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s stresses that Isaac's a c t i o n in s u b m i t t i n g enthusiastically to sacrifice is the d e c i s i o n o f a m a t u r e m a n . I n a d d i t i o n , as F e r g u ­ s o n also notes, it is c h a n c e t h a t c o n t r o l s the a c t i o n o f E u r i p i d e s ' p l a y in M e n e l a u s ' s i n t e r c e p t i o n o f the o l d m a n , in the a r r i v a l o f the m e s s e n g e r j u s t b e f o r e M e n e l a u s , after A g a m e m n o n h a s a n n o u n c e d his d e c i s i o n n o t to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r a n d is a b o u t to c a r r y o u t his bitter t h r e a t to t u r n to o t h e r m e a n s a n d to o t h e r friends, a n d in the a c c i d e n t a l e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n A c h i l l e s a n d C l y t e m n e s t r a . O n the c o n t r a r y in J o s e p h u s , n o t h i n g is left t o c h a n c e , a n d e v e r y t h i n g h a p p e n s as o r d a i n e d b y p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoLa, Ant. 1.225). T h e fact t h a t I s a a c is a g r o w n m a n w h o d e l i b e r ­ a t e l y acts as h e d o e s d i m i n i s h e s the h o r r o r t h a t s u c h a story w o u l d h a v e a r o u s e d in J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s , to j u d g e f r o m L u c r e t i u s ' s c o m m e n t s

1 2 5

in his retelling o f the

vious admiration for Isaac. W h e n , however, Davies and Chilton conclude that Josephus cannot be used as evidence for any pre-Christian Jewish doctrine, since his work is contemporary with or sometimes even later than the N e w Testament, I m a y remark that there are so m a n y places where Josephus agrees with aggadic traditions that ultimately, in at least some cases, predate the N e w Testament, that their claim seems unconvincing. M o r e likely, the age o f 25 is to be seen as the m i n i m u m age, according to the ^ado/cite Document (10.6), forjudges in the community. M y student L a r r y Moscovitz, in an unpublished paper, has ingeniously suggested another solution to the mystery o f Josephus's source for Isaac's age. H e notes that according to the A d l e r manuscript o f Genesis Rabbah 56.8, as well as Elijah G a o n o f Vilna's emendation in Seder Olam 1, Isaac w a s 26 at the time o f the ' A q e d a h . T h i s tradition is based u p o n the fact that A b r a h a m spent 26 years a m o n g the Philistines and that Isaac w a s b o r n after his first c

year there. Inasmuch, however, as G e n . 22:1 says that the A q e d a h occurred "after these things," a n d supposing that "these things" refers to the time immediately after A b r a h a m ' s leaving the Philistines, Isaac w o u l d have b e e n 25 at that time. c

123. Isaac's age at the A q e d a h is variously given in rabbinic literature (37,36, 27, 26). Cf. Seder Olam 1; Genesis Rabbah 55.5. T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 22:1 declares that Isaac w a s 37 at the time o f c

the A q e d a h . 124. Philo refers to Isaac as a child (-naihos), using a w o r d related to the diminutive form -naibapiov in the Septuagint (Gen. 22:12), but that often refers to a child in relation to descent, and hence can ac­ tually denote an adult (DeAbrahamo 32.176). 125. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 1.101: "tantum religio potuit suadere m a l o r u m . "

ABRAHAM

277

p a r a l l e l story o f I p h i g e n i a . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , in his o w n p a r a l l e l a c c o u n t o f J e p h t h a h ' s sacrifice o f his d a u g h t e r (Ant. 5 . 2 6 4 - 6 6 ) , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t g i v e h e r a g e , b e ­ c a u s e h e is n o t s e e k i n g to d i m i n i s h t h e h o r r o r o f t h e act, b u t i n s t e a d castigates J e p h t h a h for his rashness in m a k i n g t h e v o w to sacrifice the first c r e a t u r e to g r e e t h i m after his v i c t o r y in w a r . I n this sense, A g a m e m n o n is c o m p a r a b l e to J e p h t h a h , in t h a t h e , t o o , w a s n o t c o m m a n d e d to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r , a n d h e , t o o , w a s m i l ­ itarily a m b i t i o u s , w h e r e a s n e i t h e r o f these factors h o l d s t r u e for A b r a h a m . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t w o r d in the entire b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , i f w e m a y j u d g e , at c

least, f r o m t h e w a y t h a t t h e r a b b i s later refer to t h e i n c i d e n t , is aqad

("bound,"

G e n . 22:9), a h a p a x l e g o m e n o n in t h e B i b l e . F r a n x m a n r e m a r k s t h a t w e shall d o u b d e s s n e v e r k n o w w h a t g a v e rise to t h e tradition, w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a s e i t h e r in­ v e n t e d o r f o l l o w e d , t h a t h a s A b r a h a m d e l i v e r a h o m i l y to I s a a c r a t h e r t h a n to tie h i m u p ( F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 161). W e m a y suggest t h a t a h o m i l y ties o n e u p m o r e effectively t h a n r o p e , since it i n t e r n a l i z e s t h e b i n d i n g a n d k e e p s o n e f r o m t r y i n g to e s c a p e , as a p h y s i c a l l y b o u n d p e r s o n m i g h t d o . T h e p h y s i c a l b i n d i n g o f I s a a c , h o w e v e r , w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e s e e m e d t o o m u c h for a G r e e k a u d i e n c e a n d w o u l d have incriminated A b r a h a m . Philo omits any mention o f actual binding, although h e at least d o e s d e s c r i b e A b r a h a m p l a c i n g I s a a c o n t h e altar, w h e r e a s this detail also is o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s ( S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 7 3 , n. 3 3 7 ) .

1 2 6

Furthermore, Josephus

d e l i b e r a t e l y h e i g h t e n s the h e r o i s m o f Isaac in r u s h i n g (ajpfjarjaev, Ant. 1.232) o n t o the altar.

127

U n l i k e t h e r a b b i s , w h o t h u s i n d i c a t e t h a t e v e n the p a t r i a r c h s w e r e

h u m a n e n o u g h to b e t e m p t e d t o disobey, J o s e p h u s , h e r e as e l s e w h e r e ,

1 2 8

p a i n t s his

h e r o e s l a r g e r t h a n life, a n d in this c a s e a b o v e t e m p t a t i o n . M o r e o v e r , as w e h a v e a l ­ c

r e a d y n o t e d , in his e a g e r n e s s to a v o i d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t specifically d e p i c t it as a sacrifice t h a t p r e s a g e d t h e sacrifices in the T e m p l e . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , A b r a h a m b e g i n s to p e r f o r m t h e sacrifice in m y s t e r i o u s a n d suspenseful silence ( G e n . 2 2 : 1 - 3 ) , J o s e p h u s , i m i t a t i n g H o m e r ' s style, r e m o v e s this v e i l o f s e c r e c y ; in fact, his d e s c r i p t i o n o f A b r a h a m ' s p i e t y r e a c h e s its c l i m a x in A b r a h a m ' s s p e e c h to I s a a c , w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a s i n v e n t e d , a n d w h i c h , far f r o m

126. A n o t h e r parallel between the accounts o f Josephus (Ant. 1.227)

a n

d o f Philo (De Abrahamo

32.172-76) has been noted by Brock 1 9 8 1 , 1 - 3 0 , namely, that Isaac's question about what sacrifice A b r a ­ h a m w a s about to offer is posed at the site o f the ' A q e d a h itself rather than on the w a y up to it. 127. Josephus avoids the implication that Isaac h a d to be tied, perhaps because, as the rabbis say, he might have shuddered at the sight o f the knife and recoiled from the sacrifice, thus dishonoring his father and disobeying G - d (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 31), or because he might have struggled and thus ren­ dered the sacrifice ritually unsuitable (Genesis Rabbah 56.8). 128. W h e r e a s the rabbis indicate that G - d also tested Isaac (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 22:1), Josephus avoids such a statement, presumably because it might lead to theological speculation about the results o f this test, notably the rationale o f martyrdom. W e m a y note, as does H a y w a r d 1981, 127-50, that the basic substratum o f the targumic account dates from not later than the first century, al­ though some elements are admittedly later. T h e definition o f the ' A q e d a h , given by Davies and C h i l t o n 1978, 5 2 1 - 2 2 , is not that o f the targumim.

278

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

b e i n g a n emotional or irrational outburst, explains A b r a h a m ' s action r a t i o n a l l y

129

a n d l o g i c a l l y (Ant. i . 2 2 8 - 3 1 ) , in a f a s h i o n w i t h o u t r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l . J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t is t h a t since I s a a c w a s b o r n o u t o f the c o u r s e o f n a t u r e ,

130

it is fitting t h a t h e

die, n o t b y sickness, o r war, o r a n y o f the u s u a l c a l a m i t i e s b y w h i c h m e n p e r i s h , b u t in this m o s t u n u s u a l fashion o f a sacrifice (Ant. 1.230-31). A s a result, G - d Himself, r a t h e r t h a n his son, I s a a c , will b e A b r a h a m ' s p r o t e c t o r ,

131

since it is t o H i m that h e

is offering this sacrifice. T h i s trait o f b e i n g b o r n in a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y w a y a n d o f l e a v i n g life in a similarly e x t r a o r d i n a r y w a y is c o m m o n in b i o g r a p h i e s o f G r e e k a n d R o m a n h e r o e s , notably, H e r a c l e s , O e d i p u s , T h e s e u s , a n d R o m u l u s . M o r e ­ over, A b r a h a m asks his son to b e a r this c o n s e c r a t i o n (Kadiipcoaiv) n o b l e b i r t h (yewalws)

as befits o n e o f

(Ant. 1.229). T h i s e m i n e n c e o f b i r t h is e m p h a s i z e d in the r e p ­

etition o f this s a m e w o r d (yewalov) (Ant. 1.232), w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses t o d e s c r i b e the n o b i l i t y o f spirit w i t h w h i c h I s a a c r e c e i v e s his father's w o r d s . T h e fact that J o s e ­ p h u s stresses A b r a h a m ' s a d d r e s s to I s a a c a n d d o e s n o t h a v e h i m m a k i n g a n y a p ­ p e a l to G - d contrasts w i t h the r a b b i n i c e m p h a s i s o n A b r a h a m ' s a d d r e s s t o G - d , in w h i c h h e n o t e s t h a t a l t h o u g h h e c o u l d h a v e a r g u e d a g a i n s t the d i v i n e d e c r e e , h e d i d n o t d o so, a n d therefore p l e a d s , a c c o r d i n g to the rabbis, t h a t G - d d e f e n d the d e s c e n d a n t s w h o m I s a a c is d e s t i n e d to h a v e w h e n t h e y g e t into t r o u b l e .

132

T h e fact

t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t h a v e s u c h a n a p p e a l , fraught as it is w i t h the p r o b l e m o f theodicy, is a g a i n in line w i t h his effort to a v o i d t h e o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s , w h i c h h e a p ­ p a r e n d y i n t e n d e d to d e a l w i t h in a>separate w o r k (Ant. 1.25, 4 . 1 9 8 , 20.268). A b r a ­ h a m ' s c a l m a n d r e a s o n e d a p p r o a c h also contrasts w i t h A g a m e m n o n ' s pitiful a p o l ­ o g y in E u r i p i d e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 1 2 5 5 - 7 5 ) , in w h i c h h e b e w a i l s his d i l e m m a a n d c l a i m s t h a t i f h e d o e s n o t d o the w i l l o f the g o d d e s s A r t e m i s a n d sacrifice his

129. Cf. L o r d 1968,166. A s Bomstad 1979, 2, has noted, the set speech—such as A b r a h a m here de­ livers in Josephus—in antiquity "is a literary device used to further the aims o f the historian, to present to the reader the author's interpretation o f events, and to attempt to persuade him o f the truth o f that interpretation." N . G . C o h e n 1963-64, 311-32, remarks that in his inclusion o f long set speeches, Jose­ phus follows the precedent o f contemporary G r e e k historians. In the case o f the A q e d a h , his chief m o ­ tive for the speech seems to have been apologetic, namely, to respond to the revulsion against h u m a n sacrifice that non-Jewish readers might have felt in reading the account. L u c i a n declares in his Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit—an

essay whose ideals for the writing o f history Josephus closely follows, as

Avenarius 1956 has shown—that speeches afford the historian "the counsel's right o f showing your elo­ quence." H e n c e the speeches in an ancient history are the natural starting point for any attempt to per­ ceive the author's o w n views. O n the liberties taken by Josephus in the speeches in books 1 a n d 2 o f the Antiquities, see Dibelius 1956, 138-91. 130. T h e phrase "out o f the course o f nature" is not in the Greek, w h i c h seems to have a lacuna here, but it is evident from the conclusion o f the sentence that Isaac is n o w to leave his life in an un­ usual fashion. 131. F r a n x m a n 1 9 7 9 , 1 5 9 - 6 0 , says that A b r a h a m breaks the news o f the impending sacrifice so del­ icately to Isaac that "considering the rather unusual and unexpected character o f w h a t w a s intended, it is surprising that Isaac got the point o f w h a t his father w a s saying." But w e m a y object that A b r a h a m does clearly state that Isaac is n o w to die by w a y o f the rite o f sacrifice. 132. Cf. Jerusalem T a l m u d , Ta'anit 6$d; Genesis Rabbah 56.15; a n d other passages cited by M a r morstein 1920, 76.

ABRAHAM

daughter,

his

angry

army

will slaughter

him

and

his f a m i l y

279

Agamemnon's

s p e e c h — t o j u d g e f r o m t h e E l d e r S e n e c a (Suasoriae, 3), w h e r e w e h a v e a s a m p l e o f s u c h a n a d d r e s s — a n d A b r a h a m ' s s p e e c h in J o s e p h u s a r e a p p a r e n d y e x a m p l e s o f 33

the p r o g y m n a s m a t i c (preparatory) exercise called The

ethopoeia}

f a c t t h a t A b r a h a m m a k e s n o a p p e a l t o I s a a c t o sacrifice h i m s e l f altruisti­

c a l l y for t h e s a k e o f his d e s c e n d a n t s o r for t h e s a n c t i f i c a t i o n o f G - d ' s n a m e , s u c h as w e find in r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e , r e m o v e s t h e t h e o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n a n d c o n c e n ­ trates attention o n the c h a r a c t e r o f Isaac h i m s e l f .

1 3 4

O n this p o i n t t h e r e is a b a s i c

d i f f e r e n c e a l s o b e t w e e n P s e u d o - P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s ( F e l d m a n 1 9 8 9 b , 64). I n J o s e ­ p h u s , t h e sacrifice is t h e fulfillment o f a h u m a n , t h a t is, n a t u r a l , m i s s i o n a n d n o t

133.

S e e Spengel 1854-94, vol. 2. O f the four rhetoricians w h o m Spengel c i t e s — T h e o n , Pseudo-

H e r m o g e n e s , Aphthonius, a n d N i c o l a u s — T h e o n , the oldest, is probably Aelius T h e o n , w h o w o u l d have been a y o u n g e r contemporary of Josephus's. T h e o n (ibid., 60-130) describes fifteen exercises de­ signed to prepare a student not only for declamations but also specifically for writing history a n d p o ­ etry. O n e o f the progymnasmatic exercises of A p h t h o n i u s (ibid., 2 1 - 5 6 , no. 11) presents the words that N i o b e might have uttered after h e r children h a d been slain. In such a situation, w e are told, a parent's remarks should b e c o n c e r n e d with the present, past, a n d future (as, indeed, those o f A b r a h a m are in Ant. 1.228-31). O n e o f the earliest progymnasmatic exercises taught b y the grammarians involved the reading o f a single episode from myth, poetry, or history with particular attention to the Isocratean virtues o f the narrative art—clarity, brevity, a n d plausibility—and the six elements o f agent, action, time, place, manner, a n d cause—qualities particularly discussed in Lucian's Quomodo Historia Con­ c

scribenda Sit a n d especially aimed at by Josephus in his retelling of the A q e d a h episode. A l t h o u g h nar­ ratives based o n mythological excerpts were, to be sure, more c o m m o n , w e d o have exercises on papyri that are based o n actual historical episodes. O n progymnasmatic exercises, see M a r r o u 1956, 194-205; N o r t h 1956, 234-42; a n d C l a r k 1957,177-212. W h i l e it is true that the address of a father to a son is not a distinctive type in classical rhetoric, the portrayals o f the character o f a father a n d o f a son are fea­ tures of ethopoeia; a n d progymnasmatic exercises occasionally created situations in w h i c h a father might address a child, as, for example, in the Elder Seneca. D . L . Balch (1974; 1 9 7 5 , 1 8 7 - 9 2 ; 1982,102-22) has noted that Josephus, in his defense o f the Jewish constitution (Ag. Ap. 2.145-295), follows the standard rhetorical pattern for such e n c o m i a as described most fully in the later h a n d b o o k b y the third-century M e n a n d e r o f L a o d i c e a (77epi ImheiKTLKcbv,

in Spengel 1854-94, 3:331-446). T h e o n , in his preface,

notes the utility of rhetorical exercises for the writing of history; a n d w e m a y recall Cicero's famous re­ mark (De Legibus 1.5) noted above, that history is a n "opus . . . u n u m . . . oratorium m a x i m e . " O n this phrase, see Feldman 1951, 1 4 9 - 6 9 . (I a m indebted to G e o r g e A . K e n n e d y o f the University o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a for several suggestions in connection with Josephus's possible indebtedness to rhetorical the­ ory.) 134.

A n expiatory view o f Isaac's sacrifice was widely held by the rabbis of Josephus's time. S e e

L e v i 1912, 161-84; Schoeps 1940, 385-92; Spiegel 1967; V e r m e s 1973, 193-227; a n d W o o d 1967-68, 583-89. D a n i e l o u 1947, 363 ff., contests this view o n the ground that the texts that speak o f an expia­ tory sacrifice are all post-Christian a n d are therefore more likely to have been influenced b y Christian theology than vice versa. But these texts clearly reflect motifs that were current long before they were written d o w n . In particular, w e m a y stress the importance o f Spiegel's contribution in showing that in rabbinic teaching, the story o f the ' A q e d a h w a s interpreted in the light of the Suffering Servant o f Isa. 53; thus Paul's doctrine o f atonement is derived from the connection already m a d e in Jewish teaching between Isaac a n d the Servant. Spiegel 1967, 1 1 6 - 1 8 , also suggests the possibility o f a c o m m o n p a g a n source for both the Jewish a n d Christian theme o f the expiatory or redemptive act; but such a view is hardly likely in view o f the general repugnance that the rabbis felt for p a g a n ideas.

280

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

only a divine mission, whereas Pseudo-Philo emphasizes the theological conse­ q u e n c e s o f I s a a c ' s sacrifice, w h i c h , h e says, will b r i n g blessedness t o all m e n a n d i n ­ struction t o all later g e n e r a t i o n s t h r o u g h this e x a m p l e (Bib. Ant. 32.3). T h u s P s e u d o - P h i l o w o u l d a p p e a r t o a n t i c i p a t e t h e classical C h r i s t i a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the m o t i f o f J e s u s ' c r u c i f i x i o n . T o b e sure, A b r a h a m , i n his a d d r e s s t o I s a a c , d o e s state that G - d will r e c e i v e I s a a c ' s soul a n d k e e p it b y H i s side (Ant. 1.231); b u t this allusion t o t h e i m m o r t a l i t y o f t h e soul is i n line w i t h t h e d o c t r i n e e x p o u n d e d b y 135

S o c r a t e s in his last d a y s , as s e e n i n P l a t o ' s Apology (41C) a n d Phaedo.

Josephus

m a y h a v e b e e n e a g e r h e r e t o a p p e a l t o his p a g a n r e a d e r s , w h o w o u l d h a v e r e c o g ­ n i z e d this as a P y t h a g o r e a n o r P l a t o n i c belief. W e may, in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f E l e a z a r b e n J a i r ' s s p e e c h a t M a s a d a (War 7.344), n o t e t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a similar P l a t o n i c b e l i e f t h a t d e a t h gives l i b e r t y t o t h e soul. The

d e g r e e o f A b r a h a m ' s faithfulness t o G - d is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e o f his

readiness t o g i v e u p t h e s o n w h o w a s t o h a v e b e e n t h e p r o t e c t o r (KrjSepiova) a n d stay o f his o l d a g e

(yrjpoKOfjLov)

(Ant. 1 . 2 3 1 ) .

136

O n e is r e m i n d e d o f P r i a m ' s s p e e c h

b e g g i n g his s o n H e c t o r n o t t o l e a v e h i m bereft o f t h e c a r e o f his c h i l d r e n b u t t o p r o t e c t h i m i n o l d a g e , so t h a t r a v e n i n g d o g s will n o t t e a r his c o r p s e after his d e a t h (Iliad 2 2 . 3 8 - 7 6 ) . S i m i l a r l y H e s i o d s p e a k s o f the c u r s e o f n o t h a v i n g a n y o n e t o t e n d (yrfpoKOfjuoLo) o n e i n o n e ' s baleful o l d a g e (oXoov . . . yrjpas) (Theogony 605). A g a i n , M e d e a says t o h e r sons t h a t she h a d h o p e s t h a t t h e y will l o o k after h e r i n h e r o l d age

(Euripides, Medea 1032). A s J o s e p h u s states e l s e w h e r e , i n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i ­

t i o n , t h e w h o l e p u r p o s e o f h a v i n g c h i l d r e n is t o p r o d u c e those w h o will t e n d t h e old a g e (yrjpoKopLrfoovoiv) o f their p a r e n t s , a n d w h o , in t u r n , will r e c e i v e f r o m t h e m e v e r y t h i n g t h a t t h e y n e e d (Ant. 4 . 2 6 1 ) .

137

T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s in this b r i e f p e r i ­

c o p e (Ant. 1.222-36) uses a f o r m o f t h e w o r d for h a p p i n e s s o n five o c c a s i o n s

1 3 8

stresses h o w m u c h h a p p i n e s s m e a n t t o A b r a h a m , w h i l e his r e a d i n e s s t o f o r e g o this h a p p i n e s s s h o w s h o w g r e a t w a s his faithfulness t o G - d . T h e r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t s (Sefer ha-Tashar, Vayera 4 3 b ; Sanhedrin 89b), as w e l l as Jubilees (18:6), a r e likewise full o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t s at this p o i n t ; b u t t h e i r stress is o n t h e role o f S a t a n , w h e r e a s J o s e -

135.

Rivkin 1971, 6 2 - 6 3 , says that Josephus here unwittingly bears witness to the Pharisaic revolu­

tion in introducing the c o n c e p t of an immortal soul, a n d that Josephus's source must have b e e n a n oral teaching that took precedence over the literal m e a n i n g of the text; but a Platonic source seems at least as likely. 136.

A l t h o u g h Pseudo-Philo, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1971, lviii-lxi), often parallels

Josephus in his divergence from the biblical text, Isaac, in Pseudo-Philo, quite logically asks h o w his fa­ ther could tell him that he was to inherit a secure life for a duration of time that could n o t b e measured, and yet simultaneously expect h i m to b e sacrificed (Bib. Ant. 32.3) 137.

Cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.336, where the son b o r n to B o a z a n d Ruth is nursed b y N a o m i , " w h o o n

the counsel o f the w o m e n called h i m O b e d , because he was brought u p to b e the stay o f her old a g e [e77-i yrjpoKOfila]."

Cf. also Ant. 7.183, where a w o m a n , o n e o f whose sons has killed the other, asks

D a v i d to spare the life of her remaining son, so as not to deprive her of her last h o p e o f support in old (yrjpoKOfxlas).

age

138.

EvSaipLOVtav (Ant. 1.223), evSaivofiiav

1.234), evSai/AOvcDs (Ant. 1.236).

(Ant. 1.224), evSaivfwvrjoeiv

(Ant. 1.228), evSaifxovcus (Ant.

ABRAHAM

281

p h u s d o e s n o t h a v e this s u p e r n a t u r a l f e a t u r e a n d f o c u s e s a t t e n t i o n o n A b r a h a m himself a n d on Isaac. I n J o s e p h u s , I s a a c , w h o i n t h e B i b l e is s u c h a p a s s i v e , s e c o n d a r y , a n d e v e n s h a d ­ o w y f i g u r e , c o m e s t o t h e fore like I p h i g e n i a w i t h a m a g n i f i c e n d y b r a v e r e s p o n s e . J u s t as I p h i g e n i a p r o c l a i m s , " S h a l l I, w h o a m a m o r t a l , s t a n d in t h e w a y o f t h e g o d d e s s ? " ( E u r i p i d e s , Iphigenia at Aulis 1 3 9 6 ) ,

1 3 9

so I s a a c e x c l a i m s t h a t h e w o u l d d e ­

s e r v e n e v e r t o h a v e b e e n b o r n at all w e r e h e t o r e j e c t G - d ' s d e c i s i o n (Ant. 1.232). P s e u d o - P h i l o u s e s p a r a l l e l l a n g u a g e i n h a v i n g I s a a c ask, " W h a t i f I h a d

not

b e e n b o r n i n t h e w o r l d t o b e o f f e r e d a sacrifice u n t o H i m t h a t m a d e m e ? " (Bib. Ant. 32.3) ( F e l d m a n 1 9 7 1 , c x v i i ) . T h u s b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o l o o k u p o n t h e sacrifice as p a y m e n t d u e t o G - d ; b u t t h e r e is a l s o a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h a t P s e u d o - P h i l o has n o equivalent to the J o s e p h a n Isaac's statement that not to allow h i m s e l f to b e s a c r i f i c e d w o u l d b e t o d i s o b e y his father. F o r P s e u d o - P h i l o , t h e sacrifice is t h e ful­ f i l l m e n t o f a d i v i n e m i s s i o n a l o n e ; for J o s e p h u s , it is, i n t h e first i n s t a n c e , r a t h e r , t h e

139.

O n e of the questions that has most exercised critics o f Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis is w h y Iphi­

genia changes from opposition to the sacrifice to acceptance o f it (assuming that the latter passage is not a n interpolation). A t o n e point in the play (1211-53), Iphigenia protests that she h a d nothing to d o with the abduction of Helen, a n d contends, like Achilles in b o o k 11 of the Odyssey, that it is better to live ignobly than to die gloriously, a n d that anyone w h o seeks to die is insane. A mere 116 lines (and a p ­ proximately ten minutes o f acting time) later, however, Iphigenia asserts that she will achieve glory through death. Funk 1964, 284-99, concludes that Aristode, Poetics 15.1454A28-31, is justified in criti­ cizing Iphigenia's conduct as here inconsistent. Bhattacharji 1977, 63, holds that while all the major characters o f the p l a y — A g a m e m n o n , M e n e l a u s , Clytemnestra, Achilles, a n d I p h i g e n i a — d o flit from one attitude to another, from determination a n d clear-sightedness to bewilderment a n d helplessness, Iphigenia's sudden exaltation a n d willingness for death are not psychologically motivated. K n o x 1966, 213-32, however, concludes that Iphigenia's change of attitude has b e e n well prepared for in Euripides' play, a n d that it is n o m o r e violent than those that w e have seen earlier in the tragedy, although it is ad­ mittedly the climax o f a series o f swift a n d sudden changes o f decision unparalleled in ancient d r a m a . H e regards Iphigenia's act as truly heroic, springing not from stubborn resolution but from a genuine change of mind. Siegel 1978 a n d 1980, 300-302, argues, however, that, pace Aristode, Iphigenia's char­ acter c a n b e v i e w e d as consistent, inasmuch as the pure, life-loving, politically unaware early Iphigenia forms the psychological starting point for the self-deluded, overly emotional, virtually insane later Iphi­ genia. I f so, Iphigenia has undergone not a change of mind in the usual sense but rather a bizarre un­ conscious change, w h i c h leaves h e r character consistent. Josephus, o n the other hand, makes it clear that there is n o change, whether in a usual or bizarre sense, in Isaac's character (Ant. 1.232). Neitzel 1980,

61-70, also argues that Iphigenia does not change in the play, a n d that she is the same sponta­

neous, loving, naive, unreflective, trusting person that she w a s previously, o n e ready to die for h e r credulity. W h e t h e r this represents a shift in, or a continuation of, h e r previous m o o d , such a stance w o u l d b e close to that o f Isaac as delineated by Josephus, although Iphigenia's speech is intended to give a patriotic 7TpoTp€7TTiKos,

whereas Isaac's is intended primarily to emphasize his filial a n d religious

piety. Cf. Schmitt 1921, 22-28, 3 9 - 4 1 . Alternatively, Iphigenia's acceptance o f her death might b e viewed as an a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f its inevitability should she continue to resist the will o f the army, as Schreiber 1 9 6 3 , 5 4 - 5 7 , suggests. In this view, Iphigenia is anything but a heroine, since she is really un­ willing a n d submits only to political a n d military pressure. H e r reasons for submitting w o u l d then a p ­ p e a r to b e "false, illogical, unjust, and. . .meant to b e taken ironically," as Siegel 1980, 3 1 1 - 1 4 , remarks. Euripides w o u l d thus appear to b e questioning the nature of her heroism, whereas Josephus is deliber­ ately enlarging u p o n Isaac's.

282

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

fulfillment o f a h u m a n , t h a t is, p a t e r n a l , m i s s i o n , a n d n o t o n l y a d i v i n e o n e . I n short, P s e u d o - P h i l o , like the r a b b i s (Leviticus Rabbah 2.11), e m p h a s i z e s the t h e o l o g ­ i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f I s a a c ' s sacrifice, w h i c h , h e says, will b r i n g blessedness t o all m e n , j u s t as all later g e n e r a t i o n s w i l l b e i n s t r u c t e d b y his e x a m p l e (Bib. 32.3).

140

Ant.

C a h n a t t e m p t s to find m e s s i a n i c i m p l i c a t i o n s in t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l affirma­

t i o n b y I s a a c o f his w i l l i n g n e s s t o die at G - d ' s c o m m a n d , j u s t as h e sees a m e s ­ sianic allusion in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f M o s e s to P h a r a o h , w h o p l a c e s his c r o w n u p o n the infant M o s e s ' h e a d o n l y to h a v e M o s e s cast it to the g r o u n d , w h e r e u p o n P h a r a o h ' s a d v i s e r s r e c o g n i z e M o s e s as the future savior o f the J e w s (Ant. 2.233) ( C a h n 1 9 6 6 , 2 9 5 - 3 1 0 ) . H o w e v e r , it is u n l i k e l y t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e a d d e d s u c h m e s s i a n i c allusions to his n a r r a t i v e , i n a s m u c h as these w o u l d i m p l y a h o p e o f p o l i t i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e , t h e sine q u a n o n for J e w i s h a d h e r e n t s o f a m e s s i a n i c m o v e m e n t , a n d i n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s s u c h allusions e v e n w h e n t h e y are t o b e f o u n d in the b i b l i c a l text, n o t a b l y in the B o o k o f D a n i e l . Finally, w h i l e it is t r u e that, as n o t e d e l s e w h e r e , Isaac's v o l u n t e e r i n g h a s r a b b i n i c parallels, t h e r e is n o c l e a r e v i d e n c e t h a t these parallels a n t e d a t e J o s e p h u s or, i f t h e y did, t h a t J o s e p h u s d r e w u p o n t h e m . I n v i e w o f the p a r a l l e l s w i t h E u r i p i d e s e l s e w h e r e in this p e r i c o p e , it is at least as likely t h a t J o s e p h u s d r e w u p o n h i m as a source. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , w e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t J o s e p h u s is s e e k i n g to e m p h a s i z e the c o n ­ trast b e t w e e n I s a a c , w h o k n o w i n g l y a n d enthusiastically offers himself, a n d I p h i ­ g e n i a , w h o a p p e a r s as a n i n n o c e n t v i c t i m o f p o l i t i c a l e x p e d i e n c y a n d necessity (so S i e g e l 1980, 3 0 0 - 3 2 1 , esp. 316). J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h e n b e c o n t r a s t i n g the s h e e r i d e ­ a l i s m o f b o t h A b r a h a m a n d I s a a c w i t h the selfishness o f C l y t e m n e s t r a , w h o is r e a d y to a l l o w a n o t h e r c h i l d to b e sacrificed in p l a c e o f h e r d a u g h t e r ; the a m b i t i o n a n d p a r a n o i a o f A g a m e m n o n , w h o lies a n d seeks pretexts; the p r i d e o f A c h i l l e s , w h o w o u l d h a v e p e r m i t t e d the G r e e k s t o sacrifice I p h i g e n i a i f t h e y r e s t o r e d his p r o p e r t y ; a n d t h e a p a t h y a n d r e s i g n a t i o n o f I p h i g e n i a , w h o a c c e p t s h e r fate o n l y b e c a u s e she realizes t h a t it c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d . E u r i p i d e s ' p l a y w o u l d t h e n b e a subtle, t r e n c h a n t , a n d ironic thrust at w a r , its irrational p r o p o n e n t s , a n d its sense­ less c a u s e s (Siegel 1980, 3 0 0 - 3 2 1 ) . I s a a c ' s s t a t e m e n t in J o s e p h u s t h a t e v e n i f the c o m m a n d to b e sacrificed h a d b e e n the b r a i n c h i l d o f his father a l o n e , it w o u l d h a v e b e e n i m p i o u s to d i s o b e y it (Ant. 1.232), h a s n o r a b b i n i c p a r a l l e l a n d i n d e e d v i o l a t e s the r a b b i n i c rule t h a t w h e r e a p a r e n t c o m m a n d s a c h i l d to d o s o m e t h i n g in v i o l a t i o n o f the T o r a h (as w o u l d h a v e b e e n the c a s e h e r e i f it h a d n o t h a d G - d ' s d i r e c t sanction), the c h i l d should not o b e y

1 4 1

H e r e , t o o , as in o t h e r details, J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e h a d in m i n d

140. O n Pseudo-Philo's v i e w o f the ' A q e d a h , see further V e r m e s 1973, 199-202; D a l y 1977, 59 ff.; a n d Davies and C h i l t o n 1978, 522 ff. 141. See Yevamot 5b; Sifira Qedoshim 1.10.87a; a n d Blidstein 1975, 80-94. Pseudo-Philo also does not have the concept that for Isaac not to allow himself to be sacrificed w o u l d have b e e n to disobey his fa­ ther.

ABRAHAM

t h e b a s i c p a t t e r n o f p a g a n sacrifice, as s e e n , for e x a m p l e , in E u r i p i d e s '

283

m

Bacchae,

w h i c h r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e sacrificial a n i m a l s h o u l d n o t b e d r a g g e d a l o n g b u t s h o u l d press f o r w a r d as if voluntarily, as a sign t h a t it w a s w i l l i n g l y l e d b y t h e g o d . A g a i n , w h e n the a n i m a l w a s p l a c e d o n the altar, it w a s e x p e c t e d to i n d i c a t e its a c q u i e s ­ c e n c e t o b e i n g sacrificed b y n o d d i n g its h e a d . T h e r e w o u l d t h u s s e e m to b e a d e ­ l i b e r a t e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n I s a a c ' s m o t i v e in s u b m i t t i n g t o his s a c r i f i c e — n a m e l y , o b e d i e n c e t o G - d a n d to his father (Ant. 1.232)—and I p h i g e n i a ' s m o t i v e s (Iphigenia at Aulis 1 3 7 4 - 1 4 0 1 . ) , w h i c h a r e p a t r i o t i c at best a n d s m a c k o f m a r t y r - c o m p l e x v a n ­ ity at w o r s t . I s a a c , w e a r e told, w i l l b e b l e s s e d for his p i e t y (Ant. 1.234), w h e r e a s I p h i g e n i a will b e b l e s s e d as the l i b e r a t o r o f H e l l a s . P a r a d o x i c a l l y , a significant p a r t o f I s a a c ' s r e w a r d is the g r e a t n e s s o f his d e s c e n d a n t s as t h e c h i l d r e n o f Israel; a n d so I s a a c gets f r o m G - d w h a t I p h i g e n i a set o u t to a c h i e v e for h e r p e o p l e . T h e p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n I s a a c a n d I p h i g e n i a are all t h e m o r e striking a n d all the m o r e likely t o b e d e l i b e r a t e in v i e w o f the fact t h a t shortly b e f o r e his a c c o u n t o f t h e c

A q e d a h , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 1.218), as w e h a v e n o t e d , parallels a n o t h e r p l a y o f E u r i p i ­

des, Hercules Furens (323-24). T h a t E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis c o n t i n u e d t o b e a k e y i n f l u e n c e o n J o s e p h u s m a y b e i n f e r r e d f r o m the fact t h a t in J o s e p h u s , S a u l s w e a r s t o slay his son, " r e s p e c t i n g his o a t h m o r e t h a n the t e n d e r ties [lXTpa)v, " l o v e , " " a f f e c t i o n " ] o f f a t h e r h o o d [yeveaecos] a n d o f n a t u r e [va€a)sY (Ant. 6.126). P h i l o , for his p a r t , reacts a g a i n s t the fact t h a t I p h i g e n i a w a s sacrificed to save the G r e e k a r m e d forces b y c o n t r a s t i n g this w i t h the a b h o r r e n c e o f c h i l d sacrifice t h a t the c

T o r a h expresses, e x c e p t in the c a s e o f the A q e d a h (DeAbrahamo

33.180-81). T h e

p o p u l a r i t y o f E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t P h i l o else­ w h e r e c l o s e l y p a r a p h r a s e s a line (122) f r o m t h a t p l a y (De Vita Mosis 1.24.135). I n a d ­ d i t i o n t o the p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t c

o f the A q e d a h , t h e r e are also p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n the Iphigenia a n d 4 M a c c a b e e s . I n g e n e r a l , E u r i p i d e s s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in the f o r m a t i o n o f later J e w i s h / C h r i s t i a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f sacrifice a n d m a r t y r d o m . O n e w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d t h a t the c l i m a x o f the n a r r a t i v e , w h e r e A b r a h a m is a c t u a l l y a b o u t to s l a u g h t e r his s o n , w o u l d b e d r a m a t i z e d b y J o s e p h u s e v e n b e y o n d the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t . W e l l a w a r e o f the fact t h a t the s c e n e r a i s e d a m a j o r p r o b l e m o f theodicy, J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , presents it, rather, in matter-of-fact fashion: " T h e d e e d w o u l d h a v e b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d h a d n o t G - d s t o o d in the w a y "

(ifiirodajv,

Ant. 1.233). D a l y h a s n o t e d J o s e p h u s ' s a v o i d a n c e o f the i d e a t h a t I s a a c w a s a c t u a l l y sacrificed, as w e l l as the v i e w o f P h i l o t h a t the sacrifice w a s c o n s i d e r e d as i f it h a d b e e n a c t u a l l y c a r r i e d o u t (DeAbrahamo

33.177) ( D a l y 1977, 5 8 ) ;

1 4 3

but he does not

142. See Burkert 1 9 6 6 , 1 0 6 - 7 , citing the m a n y legends that tell h o w animal victims pressed forward voluntarily to the sacrifice. See also Seidensticker 1979, 183-84, noting that Pentheus in the Bacchae is led willingly and, indeed, b y the g o d himself. c

143. D a l y concludes that the theology o f the A q e d a h had, on the basis o f the treatments o f Philo, Pseudo-Philo, a n d Josephus, b e c o m e accessible to Christian writers by the beginning o f the second century. However, it is not until the third century that extant writings o f C h u r c h Fathers refer to the

284

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

e x p l a i n t h e r e a s o n for t h i s — n a m e l y , t h a t J o s e p h u s is a n a p o l o g i s t w h o seeks i m ­ c

p l i c i t l y t o c o n t r a s t t h e A q e d a h w i t h t h e sacrifice o f I p h i g e n i a , w h i c h is a c t u a l l y c o n s u m m a t e d in m o s t a c c o u n t s (although not, o f course, in E u r i p i d e s '

Iphigenia

among the Taurians). N e x t c o m e s a r e m a r k a b l e addition in w h i c h G - d H i m s e l f presents the a p o l o g y t h a t it w a s " f r o m n o c r a v i n g for h u m a n b l o o d " (iTnOvpLrjoas aipuaros t h a t H e h a d g i v e n t h e o r d e r t o A b r a h a m (Ant. 1 . 2 3 3 ) .

144

I*

1 m

avdptoirlvov)

i s , G - d would seem

t o b e in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o A r t e m i s , w h o , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c h o r u s ( w h e t h e r as t h e v o i c e o f t h e p o e t h i m s e l f o r t h e a v e r a g e s p e c t a t o r ) in E u r i p i d e s ' Iphigenia at Aulis ( 1 5 2 4 - 2 5 ) , " r e j o i c e s i n h u m a n s a c r i f i c e s " (dvpuaaiv

pporrjolois

a

€

x P ^aa).

145

Criti­

c i s m s o f a n c i e n t n o t i o n s a b o u t t h e g o d s d e l i g h t i n g in sacrifice w e r e w i d e s p r e a d i n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d ; t o j u d g e f r o m s u c h w r i t e r s as L u c r e t i u s (1.101), t h e r e w e r e p a g a n s w h o c o u l d not a c c e p t the i d e a that the g o d s delighted in b l o o d .

1 4 6

O n e is r e m i n d e d o f P l u t a r c h ' s c o m m e n t (Pelopidas 21.4) o n t h e v i s i o n t h a t c a m e t o P e l o p i d a s i n s t r u c t i n g h i m t o sacrifice a v i r g i n w i t h a u b u r n hair. C o n s e q u e n t l y s o m e s a i d t h a t to b e l i e v e i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d i v i n e b e i n g s w h o t a k e (xalpovras)

delight

in t h e s l a u g h t e r a n d b l o o d ( a t / x a n /cat (fyovcp) o f m e n w a s p e r h a p s

a

folly, a n d t h a t e v e n i f s u c h s u p e r n a t u r a l b e i n g s e x i s t e d , t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e o b e y e d , since they h a d n o power, "for o n l y w e a k n e s s a n d depravity o f soul c o u l d p r o d u c e or harbor such unnatural and cruel desire"

(emdvpLias).

J o s e p h u s is h e r e stressing t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e p u r p o s e o f s a c r i f i c i n g c h i l ­ d r e n i n p a g a n m y t h o l o g y a n d A b r a h a m ' s m o t i v e in t h e c a s e o f I s a a c . I n e v e r y e x -

c

A q e d a h passage in Josephus; they never allude to the passage in Pseudo-Philo's handling o f the

episode, a n d most likely derive their theology of the A q e d a h from a direct reading o f the biblical pas­ sage itself. 144. cal

Similarly, in connection with Jephthah's sacrifice o f his daughter, Josephus, in an extrabibli­

addition, remarks that such a sacrifice w a s neither sanctioned b y l a w (vofxifiov)

n o r pleasing

(K€xaptoiJL€vr)v) to G - d (Ant. 5.166). 145.

Cf. Sansone 1978, 3 5 - 3 6 , calling attention to Euripides' Iphigenia among the Taurians, 221-28, "I

bloody the altars with the fate o f strangers, w h o cry o u t piteously a n d shed piteous tears," a n d 258-59, "The

altar of the goddess has not yet b e e n reddened by streams of G r e e k b l o o d . " Sansone stresses Iphi­

genia's ambivalence, in that, o n the one hand, she cannot believe that Artemis requires h u m a n sacri­ fice and denounces the goddess w h o demands such a thing (385-91), while, o n the other hand, she is prepared to sacrifice a Greek, although she thinks Greeks less suitable to b e sacrificed than non-Greeks. 146.

Cf. Attridge 1978, 4 5 - 7 8 , w h o (70-71) notes that the most distinctive aspect o f the stance o f

Apollonius o f T y a n a , as reported in Philostratus's biography o f h i m (1.1), is a corollary o f his Pythagorean principles, w h i c h prohibited even secular consumption o f flesh, let alone religious offer­ ing o f blood. Attridge also cites Apollonius's statement that if a person is to serve a g o d properly, he must first of all recognize the god's unity a n d transcendence a n d not offer him any sacrifice or external cult at all, but must instead concentrate o n interior spiritual worship (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 4.12-13). In­ deed, this type o f criticism w a s b y n o means unique in Apollonius but m a y likewise b e found in the Epistles o f Heraclitus, dating from the first century. Bernays 1869 thought that the Epistles emanated in part from a Jewish author because of their passionate criticisms of paganism; but Attridge 1976b argues more convincingly that the work comes, rather, from a p a g a n C y n i c milieu.

ABRAHAM

tant instance o f the f o r m e r ,

1 4 7

285

t h e sacrifice w a s for the sake o f the country, w h e t h e r

t o alleviate a f a m i n e , as in t h e c a s e o f L e o s ' s sacrifice o f his three d a u g h t e r s (Pausanias 1.5.2); o r a p l a g u e , as in A r i s t o d e m u s ' s sacrifice o f his d a u g h t e r (Pausanias 4 . 9 . 4 - 5 ) ; o r a d r o u g h t , as in t h e sacrifice o f P h r i x u s , in w h o s e p l a c e , as w i t h I s a a c , t h e g o d sent a r a m ( w h e n c e t h e f a m o u s g o l d e n fleece o f the J a s o n story) ( A p o l ­ l o d o r u s 1 . 9 . 1 - 2 ; H e r o d o t u s 7.197) (cf. S p i e g e l 1967, 9 - 1 2 ) . Similarly, in H e l i o d o r u s (Aethiopica 10.16), K i n g H y d a s p e s resolves to sacrifice his d a u g h t e r C h a r i c l e a for t h e sake o f his c o u n t r y I n t h e h i s t o r y o f R o m e , w e h e a r o f the self-sacrifice o f M a r ­ cus C u r t i u s ( L i v y 7.6.4) a n d o f D e c i u s M u s ( L i v y 8.9) a n d his s o n ( L i v y 10.28), all three b r i n g i n g v i c t o r y to t h e n a t i o n b y p l u n g i n g into t h e m i d s t o f the e n e m y . A n ­ o t h e r p o i n t o f difference is t h a t in t h e c a s e o f P h r i x u s , for e x a m p l e ( A p o l l o d o r u s 1.9.1), h e is f o r c i b l y b r o u g h t to t h e altar b y his father, K i n g A t h a m a s o f B o e o t i a , w h o h a d b e e n p r e s s u r e d b y t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f the l a n d to d o this in o r d e r to relieve the d r o u g h t , u n d e r the t h r e a t t h a t t h e y w o u l d sacrifice A t h a m a s h i m s e l f i f h e re­ fused t o sacrifice P h r i x u s ( H e r o d o t u s 7.187); I s a a c , o n the c o n t r a r y p r o c e e d s w i l l ­ i n g l y a n d A b r a h a m is u n d e r n o duress f r o m f a m i l y o r kin to sacrifice h i m . P h i l o (DeAbrahamo

35.197) a n d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , J o s e p h u s c o m p a r e A b r a h a m w i t h o t h e r

fathers, h i g h l i g h t i n g t w o m a j o r p o i n t s o f difference: first, the latter g a v e their c h i l ­ d r e n t o b e sacrificed for t h e safety o f their c o u n t r y o r a r m i e s ; a n d secondly, t h e y c o u l d n o t b e a r the sight a n d left to o t h e r s t h e grisly task o f t h e killing itself.

REMOVAL OF

DIFFICULTIES

W h i l e it is true t h a t t h e B i b l e ' s d e p i c t i o n o f A b r a h a m as r e a d y to l e a v e his f a m i l y a n d his b i r t h p l a c e s i m p l y b e c a u s e G - d tells h i m to d o so presents h i m as a k n i g h t o f faith ( G e n . 1 2 : 1 - 4 ) , t h e r e a d e r m i g h t w e l l w o n d e r w h y so intelligent a p e r s o n , as J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s h i m , w o u l d h a v e b e e n w i l l i n g to d o so w i t h o u t b e i n g g i v e n a m o r e specific r e a s o n for setting forth. J o s e p h u s , w h i l e stating, in a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e B i b l e , t h a t h e left at the b e h e s t o f G - d (Ant. 1.154), a d d s a further, a n d e x ­ t r e m e l y p l a u s i b l e , r e a s o n (Ant. 1.157), n a m e l y t h a t the C h a l d a e a n s a n d t h e o t h e r

147. Euripides, in particular, seems to have been preoccupied with the concept of h u m a n sacrifice, treating it in n o fewer than seven plays of which we know: in Iphigenia at Aulis, retrospectively in Iphige­ nia among the Taurians, in the sacrifice o f Polyxena in the first half o f Hecuba and in the first half of The Trojan Women, in the sacrifice of Macaria in the first half of the Heracleidae, in the sacrifice of Menoeceus in the Phoenissae, and in the sacrifice of Otionia in the fragmentary Erechtheus. T h e sacrifice of Iphigenia is also alluded to b y Clytemnestra in Euripides' Electa (1024-25), while the slaying o f Aegisthus is viewed as a sacrifice, as we see from the fact that he is slain with the sacrificial knife at a sacrifice (Elec­ ta 785 ff., 816, 838). A similar sacrificial theme appears likewise in the Alcestis, where after K i n g A d metus's parents refuse to die in his stead, his wife Alcestis heroically does so. So also, from one point of view, the slaying of K i n g Pentheus b y his mother Agave and the other Maenads may be regarded as a sacrifice to the god Dionysus. Cf. Schmitt 1921.

286

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

p e o p l e o f M e s o p o t a m i a , a n d e v e n his o w n k i n s f o l k ,

148

h a d risen u p a g a i n s t h i m b e ­

c a u s e o f his b e l i e f in m o n o t h e i s m (Ant. 1.281). S u c h a n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n for his d e ­ p a r t u r e a c t u a l l y a d d s t o A b r a h a m ' s stature, since it s h o w s t h a t h e is r e a d y t o suffer for his faith. T h e r e is a n a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n in t h e b i b l i c a l text i n t h a t w e are i n f o r m e d t h a t the k i n g s o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h fled a n d fell ( G e n . 14:10); a n d y e t , a f e w verses later, w e hear, w i t h o u t further e x p l a n a t i o n , t h a t the k i n g o f S o d o m , a p p a r ­ e n d y r e s u r r e c t e d , w e n t o u t to m e e t A b r a h a m ( G e n . 14:17). O f c o u r s e , the B i b l e c o u l d h a v e e x p l a i n e d , b u t d o e s n o t d o so, t h a t it w a s the s u c c e s s o r o f the d e a d k i n g w h o w e n t o u t to m e e t A b r a h a m . J o s e p h u s n e a d y a v o i d s this p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g m e n t i o n o f the s t a t e m e n t t h a t the k i n g s o f S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h fled a n d fell. T h e r e is a serious p r o b l e m in the b i b l i c a l text in t h a t it starts o u t b y stating t h a t G - d a p p e a r e d t o A b r a h a m at M a m r e b u t t h e n g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t w h e n h e lifted u p his eyes, h e s a w t h r e e m e n s t a n d i n g n e a r h i m , w h o m h e t h e n p r o c e e d s to a d ­ dress as " M y L - r d , " u s i n g the f o r m o f the s i n g u l a r e v e n t h o u g h the m e n are t h r e e in n u m b e r ( G e n . 1 8 : 1 - 3 ) . A n o t h e r p r o b l e m is t h a t w h e n A b r a h a m , w i t h t r u e h o s ­ pitality, sets f o o d b e f o r e t h e m , t h e y eat ( G e n . 18:8), e v e n t h o u g h o n e d o e s n o t e x ­ pect G - d or angels to d o t h i s .

149

J o s e p h u s resolves these p r o b l e m s b y totally o m i t ­

t i n g G - d ' s visit t o A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.196). S e c o n d l y , h e d o e s n o t s p e a k o f the t h r e e visitors as m e n o r G - d b u t r a t h e r as a n g e l s , w h o m A b r a h a m takes for strangers (Ant. 1.196). H e clarifies the matter, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , b y h a v i n g the a n ­ gels finally r e v e a l t h e m s e l v e s as m e s s e n g e r s o f G - d (Ant. 1.198). Finally, h e says t h a t the a n g e l s g a v e A b r a h a m to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e y ate, w h e r e a s a p p a r e n d y t h e y d i d n o t do s o .

1 5 0

T h e r e w o u l d a p p e a r t o b e a n e m b a r r a s s i n g c o n t r a d i c t i o n in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a ­ tive, w h e r e w e are initially t o l d t h a t L o t m a g n a n i m o u s l y offered the S o d o m i t e s his o w n d a u g h t e r s , " w h o h a v e n o t k n o w n m a n " ( G e n . 19:8) so t h a t t h e y m i g h t n o t m o l e s t the strangers w h o h a d c o m e to visit h i m a n d w i t h w h o m t h e y w e r e s e e k i n g

148. T h e theme o f the persecution o f A b r a h a m is further developed by Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities (6.3—18), where he is cast into a fiery furnace because o f his refusal to participate in the build­ ing o f the T o w e r o f Babel. 149. O n e w a y in w h i c h the rabbis resolve this contradiction is by asserting that there were two dis­ tinct visits to A b r a h a m : G - d appeared to h i m first, an appearance that w a s interrupted by the c o m i n g of three angels (Genesis Rabbah 48). T h e other rabbinic v i e w identifies the visit o f G - d with the visit o f the three angels. 150. S o also Philo, DeAbrahamo 23.118, as well as the rabbinic tradition (Genesis Rabbah 48.14; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3.14; Baba Mezia 86b; T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan on G e n . 18:8) a n d the C h u r c h Fathers (Justin and Theodoret). See R a p p a p o r t 1930,104, n. 95, citing another rabbinic v i e w (Seder Eliyahu Rab­ bah 13), i.e., G - d opened their mouths a n d they did eat because o f all the effort that A b r a h a m exerted in giving them hospitality. A n o t h e r problem is that A b r a h a m , w h o , according to rabbinic tradition (Mishnah, Qiddushin 4:14 a n d Toma 28b), observed the c o m m a n d m e n t s o f the T o r a h even before the rev­ elation at Sinai, served the three angels meat and milk (Gen. 18:7—8), w h i c h is in violation o f the dietary laws as interpreted by the rabbis (Hullin 115b). O n c e again, if this w a s a p r o b l e m to Josephus, he very neady resolves it by omitting mention o f the milk (Ant. 1.197).

ABRAHAM

287

t o h a v e h o m o s e x u a l relations ( G e n . 19:5). A f e w verses later, h o w e v e r , w e a r e t o l d t h a t L o t s p o k e t o his sons-in-law, " w h o h a v e m a r r i e d his d a u g h t e r s , "

1 5 1

urging

t h e m t o l e a v e , since G - d is a b o u t t o d e s t r o y t h e city ( G e n . 19:14). J o s e p h u s solves t h e p r o b l e m b y s p e a k i n g , n o t o f L o t ' s sons-in-law, b u t r a t h e r o f his d a u g h t e r s ' suit­ o r s (fivrjOTrjpes) (Ant. I . 2 0 2 ) .

1 5 2

T h e r e a d e r m a y also w o n d e r at t h e s e e m i n g d u p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i n c i d e n t i n v o l v ­ i n g P h a r a o h a n d S a r a i ( G e n . 12:10-20) b y t h a t i n v o l v i n g A b i m e l e c h a n d S a r a h ( G e n . 2 0 : 1 - 1 3 ) , i n b o t h o f w h i c h a k i n g b e c o m e s e n a m o r e d o f S a r a i / S a r a h , w h o is said t o b e A b r a h a m ' s sister. J o s e p h u s a n t i c i p a t e s this o b j e c t i o n b y stating q u i t e openly, i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s e c o n d e p i s o d e , t h a t A b r a h a m h e r e p r a c t i c e d t h e s a m e d i s s i m u l a t i o n as b e f o r e , a n d f r o m t h e s a m e m o t i v e , n a m e l y , fear (Ant. 1.207). A s o u r c e o f e m b a r r a s s m e n t i n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f A b r a h a m is t h a t S a r a h , w h o m h e m a r r i e d , w a s a c t u a l l y his o w n half-sister ( G e n . 2 0 : 1 2 ) .

153

T h i s relation­

ship is necessary, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e i n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n A b r a h a m tells A b i m ­ e l e c h t h a t S a r a h is his sister ( G e n . 20:5); a n d A b r a h a m , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d b y A b i m ­ e l e c h w i t h his a p p a r e n t d e c e i t , insists t h a t s h e is i n d e e d his sister. J o s e p h u s a v o i d s t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t b y stating t h a t S a r a h w a s A b r a h a m ' s n i e c e (Ant. 1 . 1 5 1 ) ,

154

so

t h a t c o n s e q u e n d y their m a r r i a g e is a p e r f e c d y l e g i t i m a t e o n e b y later S i n a i t i c stan­ d a r d s . A s t o t h e d e c e i t p r a c t i c e d o n A b i m e l e c h , t o w h o m A b r a h a m asserted t h a t S a r a h w a s h i s sister, J o s e p h u s n e a d y justifies this b y stating t h a t A b r a h a m d i d s o o u t o f fear (Ant. 1.207). O n e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e J e w s , e v e n b y P l u t a r c h , w h o w a s relatively s y m ­ pathetic to them, w a s that they w e r e superstitious.

155

T h u s , to the Greeks, the ad­

d i t i o n o f a n alpha t o t h e n a m e o f A b r a m ( G e n . 17:5) w o u l d s e e m difficult t o c o m ­ p r e h e n d , as P h i l o ' s efforts t o e x p l a i n t h e m a t t e r m a k e c l e a r (De Mutatione

Nominum

9 . 6 6 - 1 0 . 7 6 ) ( so S a n d m e l 1 9 5 6 , 6 6 , n . 277). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s s i m p l y o m i t s it c o m ­ p l e t e l y F o r similar r e a s o n s , it w o u l d s e e m , as a p p e a r s f r o m P h i l o ' s s t r a i n e d efforts

151. T h e Septuagint has the corresponding yatifipovs,

"sons-in-law," a n d clearly states that they

h a d married Lot's daughters (rovs elXrj^oras ras dvyarepas

avrov).

152. O n e rabbinic solution is to understand that L o t actually h a d four daughters, two o f t h e m mar­ ried a n d two o f them betrothed (Genesis Rabbah 50.9; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 25). Jerome, in his Vulgate o n G e n . 19:14, reads qui accepturi erant, " w h o were about to marry," thus adopting the rabbinic solution; E p h r a e m Syrus, 1.135, follows Josephus's solution. 153. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, such a marriage w a s apparendy permitted for a son o f N o a h , as Rashi (ad loc.) notes in his commentary. T h e reader, especially one w h o held A b r a h a m to the stan­ dards o f the l a w revealed at Sinai, a n d certainly one w h o w o u l d b e acquainted with the tradition, al­ though to b e sure recorded later, that A b r a h a m observed the T o r a h even before the revelation at Sinai, w o u l d have found such a marital relationship hard to justify. 154. S o also in the rabbinic tradition, as cited b y R a p p a p o r t 1930, 100, n. 77: Sanhedrin 6 9 b ; Megillah 14a; Seder Olam Rabbah 2.21; T a r g u m Pseudo-Jonathan o n G e n . 11:29

a n €povar)s nept /xifeco?) (Ant. 2.42) is almost identical with that o f Philo (De Josepho 9.40: nepl /xifeco? Aoyovs

npooefepev).

67. H a d a s (1959, 155) exaggerates w h e n he claims that Josephus has e x p a n d e d five verses into five pages. M o r e precisely, he has e x p a n d e d fourteen verses into four and a half pages.

370

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

style a n d p s y c h o l o g y o f a G r e e k n o v e l , s t r i p p i n g it o f all specifically J e w i s h features ( B r a u n 1938, 9 2 ) .

68

W e c a n see the h e i g h t e n e d erotic interest in the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s e p h d i d n o t listen to h e r d a i l y solicitations ( G e n . 39:10) a n d J o s e ­ p h u s ' s v e r s i o n t h a t the w o m a n ' s l o v e w a s o n l y the further m a g n i f i e d b y his u n e x ­ p e c t e d o p p o s i t i o n (Ant. 2.44). T h e r o m a n t i c e l e m e n t is i n c r e a s e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d ­ dition t h a t at a t i m e w h e n it w a s c u s t o m a r y for w o m e n to j o i n the

general

a s s e m b l y d u r i n g the c e l e b r a t i o n o f a festival, P o t i p h a r ' s wife w a s so m u c h in l o v e w i t h J o s e p h t h a t she d i s d a i n e d j o i n i n g in the c e l e b r a t i o n , m a k i n g illness a n e x c u s e , a n d i n s t e a d s o u g h t a n o p p o r t u n i t y , w h e n all the o t h e r s w e r e g o n e , to solicit J o s e p h 69

(Ant. 2 . 4 5 ) . W h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l t e x t states s i m p l y t h a t she c a u g h t h i m b y his g a r ­ m e n t , s a y i n g , " L i e w i t h m e " ( G e n . 39:12), J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s h e r a d d r e s s i n g J o s e p h e v e n m o r e i m p o r t u n a t e l y a n d e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n b e f o r e (Ant. 2 . 4 5 - 4 9 ) . I n particular, she p r o c e e d s to a r g u e t h a t h e s h o u l d h a v e a c c e d e d to h e r first r e q u e s t for t w o r e a ­ sons, b e c a u s e o f his r e s p e c t for h e r as his mistress a n d b e c a u s e o f the e x c e s s o f p a s ­ sion t h a t h a d f o r c e d h e r to a b a s e h e r s e l f to h i m , w h i c h w a s b e n e a t h h e r dignity. H e r s e c o n d invitation, she insists, is b e i n g m a d e w i t h e v e n g r e a t e r a r d o r t h a n the first, as e v i d e n c e d b y the fact t h a t she (like P h a e d r a in E u r i p i d e s ' [271-310.])

70

Hippolytus

h a s f e i g n e d illness a n d w o u l d r a t h e r b e w i t h h i m t h a n a t t e n d the fes­

tival t h e n g o i n g o n . T h e fact t h a t she h a s persisted in h e r solicitation s h o u l d , she says, dispel a n y mistrust t h a t J o s e p h m i g h t h a v e h a d w h e n she first a p p r o a c h e d h i m . O n the o n e h a n d , she p r o m i s e s h i m g r e a t e r p r i v i l e g e s i f h e a c c e d e s to h e r so­ licitation, a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , she t h r e a t e n s t h a t she will w r e a k v e n g e a n c e u p o n h i m i f h e refuses, since h e r h u s b a n d will b e l i e v e h e r s h o u l d she a c c u s e h i m o f h a v i n g a t t e m p t e d to r a p e her. S u c h a m e d l e y o f p a s s i o n a n d r e a s o n , p r o m i s e s a n d threats is p r e c i s e l y the k i n d o f s p e e c h t h a t w e find b e i n g d e l i v e r e d b y P h a e d r a a n d h e r n u r s e in E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus ( 1 7 6 - 5 2 4 ) .

71

A further r o m a n t i c e x t r a b i b l i c a l

t o u c h o c c u r s in the w e e p i n g o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife after she s p e a k s t o J o s e p h , n o t w i t h -

68. B y contrast, as Braun 1938 notes, the Testament of Joseph does preserve the Jewish character o f the narrative, despite all the alien subject matter that it has introduced. 69. A c c o r d i n g to the opening o f Musaeus's Hero and Leander, a festival is also the occasion for a b o y to fall in love with a girl. S o also the rabbinic tradition cites the details o f the festival and the pretended illness o f Potiphar's wife (Sotah 30b). T h e occurrence o f the festival is likewise noted in Genesis Rabbah I . I . I and the Tanhuma Vayeshev 9. It is interesting to observe that Josephus also elsewhere adds to the bib­ lical account the detail o f a festival in order to increase the erotic element, notably in connection with the seduction o f D i n a h (Ant. 1.337) and the riddle o f Samson (Ant. 5.289). 70. S o also Testament of Joseph 7.2, as well as Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.2. See Braun 1938, 73. 71. T h e motif o f a threat o f death, on the one hand, and a promise o f greater authority, on the other hand, is found also in the story o f G y g e s (Herodotus 1.11). A s B r a u n 1938, 48, notes, similar promises and threats occur in the variants o f the Phaedra legend, namely, in the novels o f X e n o p h o n o f Ephesus (1.16.4, 2.52.2), Heliodorus (1.10,7.20, 25), and Achilles Tatius (5.11.6,5.14.2). A similar c o m ­ bination o f promises and threats is found in the Testament of Joseph (3.1-2). Likewise, in O v i d ' s Heroides (4.163-64), Phaedra promises that her whole court will be slaves to Hippolytus. W e find an echo o f such feminine psychology in the depiction o f D i d o in Virgil's Aeneid, bk. 4.

JOSEPH

3 7

i

s t a n d i n g w h i c h , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , J o s e p h s u c c u m b e d n e i t h e r t o p i t y n o r t o fear (Ant. 2.50). I n p r e s e n t i n g J o s e p h as n o t o n l y t h e o p p o n e n t o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife b u t also, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , as o n e w h o a d m o n i s h e s h e r (Ant. 2 . 5 1 - 5 2 ) , J o s e p h u s is, in effect, t r a n s f e r r i n g t o h i m t h e role o f t h e n u r s e in E u r i p i d e s ' play, w h o is P h a e d r a ' s c o n f i d a n t e ( B r a u n 1938, 77). W h e n J o s e p h t u r n s d o w n P o t i p h a r ' s wife a s e c o n d t i m e , t h e s c e n e in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.53) is m u c h m o r e p a s s i o n a t e t h a n it is in t h e B i b l e . W h e r e a s i n t h e latter, w e d o not read o f her immediate reaction to Joseph's rejection o f her proposal ( G e n . 39:12), J o s e p h u s states t h a t she d i s p l a y e d a m o r e v i o l e n t a r d o r a n d , a r m s a b o u t h i m , w o u l d even have resorted to f o r c e .

7 2

flinging

her

A t t e m p t i n g a n analysis o f

f e m i n i n e p s y c h o l o g y , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t this m e t h o d o f a v e n g i n g h e r s e l f for so g r i e v o u s a slight a n d o f a c c u s i n g J o s e p h in a d v a n c e s e e m e d t o P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e t o b e alike w i s e a n d w o m a n l y

(yvvaiKelov).

T h e r e is i n c r e a s e d r o m a n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e s c e n e in w h i c h P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e i n f o r m s h e r h u s b a n d o f J o s e p h ' s a t t e m p t t o s e d u c e her. I n t h e b i b ­ lical v e r s i o n , she first calls t h e m e n o f h e r h o u s e t o tell t h e m o f t h e a t t e m p t e d se­ d u c t i o n a n d o n l y thereafter i n f o r m s h e r h u s b a n d ( G e n . 3 9 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) . J o s e p h u s o m i t s h e r i n f o r m i n g the m e n o f her house, thus e n h a n c i n g the d r a m a b y h a v i n g a n i m ­ m e d i a t e a n d d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n h u s b a n d a n d wife. W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e a r e n o t t o l d o f t h e state o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife w h e n h e r h u s b a n d a r r i v e s o n t h e s c e n e ( G e n . 39:17), J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s h e r d e s p o n d e n c y , n o t i n g t h a t she sat w i t h d o w n c a s t e y e s (Karrjris,

"dejected," " a s h a m e d " ) , angry, a n d

confused

(avyKexvfJLevrj, " f a l l e n i n t o d i s o r d e r , " " f a l l e n i n t o c o n s t e r n a t i o n , " " p u t o u t o f c o u n ­ t e n a n c e , " " o v e r t h r o w n , " " d e s t r o y e d " ) (Ant. 2.55). T h e B i b l e tells us n o t h i n g o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s r e a c t i o n t o h e r c o n d i t i o n , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a d d s t o t h e p a t h o s b y re­ marking

t h a t his c o n f u s i o n

(rapaxdevTL,

"disturbed,"

matched

hers,

"confounded,"

inasmuch

"bewildered,"

as h e

was

"dismayed,"

distressed "fright­

e n e d , " " s h o c k e d , " " p u t t o c o n f u s i o n , " " p u t i n t o unrest") at h e r a p p e a r a n c e (Ant. 2.55). W h e r e a s , in h e r s t a t e m e n t t o t h e m e n o f h e r h o u s e , P o t i p h a r ' s w i f e m a k e s a s n i d e r e m a r k a b o u t J o s e p h ' s J e w i s h n e s s ("he h a s b r o u g h t in u n t o us a H e b r e w m a n t o h a v e his s p o r t w i t h us") ( G e n . 39:14), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this p r e j u d i c i a l c o m ­ m e n t a n d instead concentrates o n the romantic aspect. In the H e b r e w version, P o t i p h a r ' s wife s i m p l y p r e s e n t s , w i t h o u t a n y p r e f a c e , h e r v e r s i o n o f w h a t J o s e p h has attempted to d o to her; Josephus, o n the other h a n d , has h e r b e g i n v e r y dra­ m a t i c a l l y w i t h a n i m p r e c a t i o n t o h e r h u s b a n d , " M a y e s t t h o u die, m y h u s b a n d , o r

72. Philo likewise has a more passionate scene, noting, like Josephus, that Potiphar's wife was ready to employ violence (De Josepho 9.41). T h e Testament of Joseph (8:2) states that she forcibly drew Joseph to have relations with her. Support for the view that Josephus h a d the Testament of Joseph before him w h e n he rewrote the biblical account o f Joseph m a y be found in the fact that Josephus (Ant. 2.61), like the Tes­ tament (2:3), uses heaixo(j>vXa^ for "keeper o f the prison," whereas the Septuagint (Gen. 39:21, 40:3) has dpx^eafjio^vXa^, as does Philo (Quod D-us Immutabilis Sit 24.111, 25.116, etc.).

372

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

else chastise this w i c k e d slave w h o w o u l d fain h a v e defiled t h y b e d " (Ant 2.55). F i ­ n a l l y J o s e p h u s h a s c o n s i d e r a b l y e l a b o r a t e d the b r i e f t w o lines o f t h e H e b r e w t e x t o f t h e s p e e c h o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife to h e r h u s b a n d ( G e n . 3 9 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , h a v i n g h e r e m ­ p h a s i z e , i n particular, J o s e p h ' s i n g r a t i t u d e a n d hypocrisy, in h e r c l a i m t h a t h e h a d a t t e m p t e d to s e d u c e h e r e v e n o n a festival, n o less (Ant. 2 . 5 5 - 5 7 ) . W h e r e a s the B i b l e fails to e x p l a i n w h y P o t i p h a r m a k e s s u c h a h a s t y d e c i s i o n to p u n i s h J o s e p h , w i t h ­ o u t e v e n g i v i n g h i m a n o p p o r t u n i t y to a n s w e r ( G e n . 39:19), J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t after she h a d c e a s e d t o s p e a k , she s h o w e d P o t i p h a r t h e c l o a k t h a t J o s e p h h a d left b e h i n d (Ant. 2.58). H e a d d s the e x t r a b i b l i c a l r o m a n t i c t o u c h t h a t P o t i p h a r w a s m o v e d b y his wife's tears, as w e l l as b y h e r story a n d b y w h a t h e h i m s e l f saw. R e ­ a l i z i n g t h a t the r e a d e r m i g h t still w o n d e r at P o t i p h a r ' s unfairness, h e e x p l a i n s t h a t P o t i p h a r w a s u n d u l y i n f l u e n c e d b y his l o v e for her, a n d h e n c e w a s n o t careful to investigate t h e t r u t h .

SUMMARY J o s e p h u s s h o w s e x t r a o r d i n a r y interest i n the c h a r a c t e r o f J o s e p h , p a r d y b e c a u s e h e b o r e his o w n n a m e , b u t also, m o r e particularly, b e c a u s e b o t h w e r e c h i l d p r o d i ­ gies, b o t h s h o w e d e x t r a o r d i n a r y skill in i n t e r p r e t i n g d r e a m s , b o t h w e r e d e e p l y in­ v o l v e d in politics at a h i g h level o f responsibility, b o t h w e r e cast o u t b y fellow J e w s , a n d b o t h w e r e e x i l e d to a f o r e i g n l a n d . I n the c a s e o f J o s e p h , this interest is s h o w n p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e t r e m e n d o u s e x p a n s i o n o f t h r e e p e r i c o p e s — J o s e p h ' s

dreams

a n d s u b s e q u e n t e n s l a v e m e n t , the e p i s o d e o f P o t i p h a r ' s wife, a n d the final test o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s . J o s e p h u s ' s c o n s i s t e n t l y p o s i t i v e a p p r o a c h t o J o s e p h is in d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o P h i l o ' s a m b i v a l e n t attitude. H i s p o r t r a y a l is, in l a r g e p a r t , i n t e n d e d to a n s w e r the e n e m i e s o f t h e J e w s , w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h b e i n g u n p a t r i o t i c a n d w i t h n o t p r o d u c i n g l e a d e r s d i s t i n g u i s h e d for w i s d o m . T h i s r e b u t t a l w a s e s p e c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y a n d effective b e c a u s e J o s e p h h a d b e e n a c t i v e in E g y p t , a c o u n t r y t h a t w a s a h o t b e d o f anti-Jewish p r o p a g a n d a . I n particular, J o s e p h u s ' s stress t h a t J o s e p h o p e n e d his g r a n a r i e s to all b e c a u s e h e h e l d all m e n to c o n s t i t u t e a single f a m i l y w a s i n t e n d e d t o refute the c a n a r d t h a t J e w s h a t e d n o n J e w s , as w e l l as t h e c l a i m t h a t J e w s w e r e a g g r e s s i v e m i s s i o n a r i e s . J o s e p h u s also, t h r o u g h r a t i o n a l i z a ­ tions a n d o m i s s i o n s , s o u g h t to r e s o l v e a n u m b e r o f difficulties in the b i b l i c a l t e x t t h a t J e w s t h e m s e l v e s h a d raised. T o J o s e p h u s , his n a m e s a k e h a d t h e qualities o f the i d e a l l e a d e r ; a n d his p o r ­ t r a y a l o f h i m is, in m a n y respects, p a r a l l e l to t h a t o f o t h e r m a j o r b i b l i c a l figures. H e e m e r g e s as a m o d e l s t a t e s m a n , e x e m p l i f y i n g Plato's p o r t r a y a l o f the p h i l o s o p h e r k i n g a n d T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a y a l o f his favorite leader, Pericles. W h e r e t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e suggests s h o r t c o m i n g s o n J o s e p h ' s p a r t , as, for e x a m p l e , his i m m a t u r i t y in his y o u t h , J o s e p h u s carefully a n d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o m i t s s u c h details. I n particular, J o s e p h u s , in his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s , e m p h a s i z e s J o s e p h ' s g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e n e s s , qualities so i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d n o n - J e w i s h i n t e l l e c t u a l a u d i e n c e . H e stresses, g o i n g b e y o n d t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s e p h ' s p o s s e s -

JOSEPH

373

sion o f t h e f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m (including, especially, t h e ability to in­ t e r p r e t d r e a m s ) , c o u r a g e (specifically, e n d u r a n c e in distress), t e m p e r a n c e (includ­ ing, particularly, m o d e s t y a n d t h e ability to resist s e x u a l t e m p t a t i o n s ) , a n d j u s t i c e ( a b o v e all, t h e qualities o f h u m a n i t y a n d g e n e r o s i t y ) — t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e v i r t u e o f piety, w h i c h is c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these. I n the c a s e o f this last v i r t u e , J o s e p h u s treads a fine line b e t w e e n , o n t h e o n e h a n d , e m p h a s i z i n g t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f G - d in all e v e n t s c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h a n d , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e e m p h a s i z i n g t h e role o f G - d in J o s e p h ' s a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s , in line w i t h t h e p a t h s w o r k e d o u t b y p r e v i o u s historians in antiquity, uses t h e J o s e p h e p i s o d e to t e a c h c e r t a i n lessons, n o t a b l y h o w a n o b l e spirit c a n s u r m o u n t t h e trials o f life, despite t h e t e m p t a t i o n to a c c o m m o d a t e itself t o p a s s i n g p r o s p e r i t y — a t h e m e t h a t m u s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e fallen o n r e c e p t i v e e a r s a m o n g t h e S t o i c s so p r o m i n e n t in i n t e l l e c t u a l circles in J o s e p h u s ' s day. Finally, as h e d o e s in a n u m b e r o f his o t h e r p a r a p h r a s e s o f b i b l i c a l e p i s o d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e o f S a m s o n a n d Esther, J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s b e t t e r m o t i v a t i o n for a n d a d d e d d r a m a to events. T h e r e is, for e x a m p l e , a c o n s i d e r a b l e b u i l d u p o f sus­ p e n s e , p a t h o s , a n d i r o n y in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e visit o f J o s e p h ' s b r o t h e r s t o E g y p t . T h e r o m a n t i c m o t i f is m u c h e l a b o r a t e d , a n d t h e r e is h e i g h t e n e d erotic in­ terest, e s p e c i a l l y in t h e e p i s o d e w i t h P o t i p h a r ' s wife, w h i c h is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f E u r i p i d e s ' Hippolytus. T h e a c c o u n t ' s m i s o g y n i s t i c i n n u e n d o e s , in particular, w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d t o a n a u d i e n c e a c c u s t o m e d to similar r e m a r k s in H o m e r , P l a t o , a n d Aristode.

C H A P T E R

T E N

Moses

T h e o n e figure i n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w h o w a s w e l l k n o w n to the p a g a n w o r l d w a s M o s e s (see G a g e r 1972). H i s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h E g y p t u n d o u b t e d l y g a v e h i m a c e r ­ tain notoriety, e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g the H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d . P h i l o , w r i t i n g w i t h i n the A l e x a n d r i a n m i l i e u , asserts t h a t a l t h o u g h the f a m e o f M o s e s ' l a w s h a d

spread

t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d , n o t m a n y k n e w h i m as h e really w a s , since G r e e k a u t h o r s h a d n o t w a n t e d t o a c c o r d h i m h o n o r , in p a r t o u t o f e n v y a n d in p a r t b e c a u s e the o r d i n a n c e s o f l o c a l l a w g i v e r s w e r e often o p p o s e d to his (De Vita Mosis 1 . 1 . 1 - 2 ) . J o s e ­ phus declares that A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n , L y s i m a c h u s , a n d others, partly from igno­ r a n c e a n d p a r d y f r o m ill will, h a d cast a s p e r s i o n s u p o n M o s e s a n d his c o d e , m a ­ l i g n i n g h i m as a c h a r l a t a n (yorjra) a n d as a n i m p o s t o r (airareojva)

(Ag. Ap. 2.145).

T h e o p p o n e n t s o f t h e J e w s , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , h a d a p p a r e n d y also r e v i l e d M o s e s as utterly u n i m p o r t a n t (avXoTaTos) (Ag. Ap. 2.290). B r a u n (1938, 68) h a s p o i n t e d o u t the significance o f t h e o m i s s i o n o f M o s e s ' n a m e f r o m t h e list o f O r i ­ e n t a l n a t i o n a l h e r o e s c i t e d b y P l u t a r c h (Isis and Osiris 24.360B), o t h e r w i s e a rela­ tively i m p a r t i a l authority. W e m a y see a s a m p l e o f this a t t e m p t t o d e n i g r a t e M o s e s in t h e r e m a r k a b l e c o m m e n t o f A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r (ap. S u i d a s , s.u AXegavSpos

6

MiX-qaios) t h a t the l a w s o f the H e b r e w s h a d b e e n c o m p o s e d b y a H e b r e w w o m a n , 1

M o s o . In an age a n d place w h e r e g r a m m a r i a n s and H o m e r i c scholars w e r e lead­ ers o f the i n t e l l e c t u a l c o m m u n i t y , o n e o f the i m p o r t a n t figures o f the intellectual s c e n e in A l e x a n d r i a in the first h a l f o f the first c e n t u r y C.E., A p i o n , k n o w n for his glosses o n H o m e r ,

2

a n d P h i l o ' s c o u n t e r p a r t as a l e a d e r o f the A l e x a n d r i a n anti-

1. Heinemann 1935, 360, describes the tradition as malevolent and cites as parallels the transfor­ mation of the name Cleomenes to Cleomene in Aristophanes (Clouds 680) and Chrysippus to Chrysippa in Cicero (De Natura Deorum 1.34.93). 2. Some of Apion's glosses on Homer have been found in a papyrus fragment (P. Rylands 1.26) dat­ ing from the first century C.E.; moreover, a few first-century scholia on Homer's Odyssey (P. Lit. London 374

MOSES

375

J e w i s h d e l e g a t i o n to the e m p e r o r G a i u s C a l i g u l a , w a s a m a j o r a d v o c a t e o f s u c h re­ visionist v i e w s o f M o s e s . And

y e t , i f w e m a y p u t a n y stock in the a d m i t t e d l y q u e s t i o n a b l e r e f e r e n c e to

M o s e s in Pseudo-Justin (Cohortatio ad Gentiles 9), the p a g a n historians H e l l a n i c u s in the fifth c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d P h i l o c h o r u s in the third c e n t u r y B.C.E. m e n t i o n e d M o s e s as a v e r y a n c i e n t l e a d e r o f the J e w s . H e c a t a e u s (ca. 300 B.C.E.) (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) i n t r o d u c e s M o s e s as o u t s t a n d i n g for his p r a c t i c a l w i s d o m (povr)o is, a distinctively political virtue) a n d for his c o u r a g e (dvSpela), t w o o f the four c a r d i n a l virtues. H i s d o i n g so h e l p s to g i v e M o s e s a r a n k a m o n g s t the greatest l a w g i v e r s , since similar p h r a s e o l o g y is u s e d b y D i o d o r u s (1.94.1-5) to d e s c r i b e three E g y p t i a n legislators. T h e v e r y E g y p t i a n s w h o m a l i g n e d M o s e s a p p a r e n d y r e g a r d e d h i m as r e m a r k a b l e (davpiaoTov)

a n d e v e n d i v i n e (Oeiov) a n d as o n e o f their v e r y o w n priests (Ag. Ap.

1.279), w h o , to b e sure, h a d b e e n e x p e l l e d b e c a u s e o f his a l l e g e d leprosy. T h e fact t h a t in the earliest e x t e n d e d m e n t i o n o f M o s e s , that b y H e c a t a e u s , h e is r e p r e s e n t e d as r e s p o n s i b l e for all the m a j o r institutions o f the J e w s , i n c l u d i n g e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e t h a t set t h e m a p a r t f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e , indicates that a tradition h a d d e v e l o p e d , a p ­ p a r e n d y in A l e x a n d r i a , o f u p h o l d i n g the r e p u t a t i o n o f M o s e s ' greatness. A p p a r e n d y M o s e s w a s so w e l l k n o w n t h a t p s e u d o - L o n g i n u s (On the Sublime 9.9), in t h e first h a l f o f the first c e n t u r y C.E., refers to h i m as the l a w g i v e r (OeapboSeTrjs) o f the J e w s , n o c h a n c e p e r s o n (ovx 6 rvxoov dvrjp)—a p h r a s e also u s e d o f h i m in S t r a b o ( 1 6 . 2 . 3 6 . 7 6 1 ) — , s i n c e h e u n d e r s t o o d a n d g a v e e x p r e s s i o n t o the p o w e r o f the d i v i n i t y as it d e s e r v e d . It w o u l d s e e m t h a t " L o n g i n u s " felt t h a t M o s e s w a s suffic i e n d y w e l l k n o w n for h i m n o t e v e n to h a v e to refer to h i m b y n a m e h e r e . A t the e n d o f the century, J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e m p o r a r y Q u i n t i l i a n (3.7.21), like " L o n g i n u s , " d e e m e d it u n n e c e s s a r y to n a m e M o s e s b u t r a t h e r refers to h i m m e r e l y as " t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e J e w i s h s u p e r s t i t i o n . " L i k e w i s e , the Historia Augusta,

Vita

Claudii

2 5 . 2 . 4 - 5 , m e n t i o n s M o s e s b y n a m e as h a v i n g l i v e d 125 y e a r s , w i t h o u t b o t h e r i n g t o i n t r o d u c e h i m further to the reader, as i f h e w e r e w e l l k n o w n . A n d y e t , in his o w n p o r t r a y a l o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s w a s f a c e d w i t h a n u m b e r o f p r o b l e m s . O n the o n e h a n d , the B i b l e itself indicates t h a t since his t i m e , t h e r e h a d 3

n o t arisen a p r o p h e t e q u a l to h i m ( D e u t . 34:10). N e v e r t h e l e s s , J o s e p h u s , like the

30; British M u s e u m inv. 271) mention his n a m e a m o n g other commentators. It is not surprising, there­ fore, that A p i o n w a s apparendy Philo's counterpart as a leader o f the A l e x a n d r i a n non-Jews, since he was a m e m b e r o f the three-man delegation sent by the Alexandrians to the emperor G a i u s C a l i g u l a (Josephus, Ant. 18.257). See further Feldman 1987-88, 238-39. 3. In the twelfth century, in his classic formulation o f the thirteen principles of Jewish faith (Com­ mentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin, introduction to ch. 10), M a i m o n i d e s includes the belief that M o s e s w a s the greatest o f the prophets as one o f those fundamentals. Nevertheless, the rabbis themselves debated whether the patriarchs A b r a h a m , Isaac, and J a c o b , the founders o f the Jewish people, m a y not have surpassed him in meekness (Sifie Numbers 101 vs. Hullin 89a), the greatest of M o s e s ' qualities (Num. 12:3). Moreover, they found it possible to relate the entire story o f the exodus in the lengthy narrative c o m ­ piled for the Passover seder while mentioning the name o f M o s e s only once, and that only because his n a m e is included in a biblical verse they quote there.

376

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

r a b b i s , w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d t h a t the figure o f M o s e s s h o u l d n o t b e a g g r a n ­ d i z e d to the p o i n t o f deification. J o s e p h u s w a s , w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y c a r e ­ ful to d o so b e c a u s e the S a m a r i t a n s , the bitter e n e m i e s o f the J e w s in his t i m e , h a d built u p the figure o f M o s e s to the p o i n t w h e r e their r e l i g i o n w a s a l m o s t a M o s a i s m ( M a c D o n a l d i 9 6 0 , 1 4 9 - 6 2 ) . W e m a y also g u e s s t h a t h e w a s r e a c t i n g a g a i n s t P h i l o ' s n e a r deification o f M o s e s as a " m a n o f G - d " a n d as the m o s t p e r f e c t o f m e n (De Vita Mosis I . I . I ) .

4

O n the o t h e r h a n d , b e c a u s e M o s e s w a s so f i r m l y identified as t h e f o u n d e r a n d l a w g i v e r o f the J e w i s h n a t i o n , J o s e p h u s felt it n e c e s s a r y to d e f e n d his c h a r a c t e r a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h e r e w e r e a n u m b e r o f e v e n t s in M o s e s ' life a n d aspects o f his c h a r a c t e r t h a t c h a l l e n g e a n y a p o l o g i s t : his m u r d e r o f a n E g y p t i a n o v e r s e e r ( E x o d . 2:12), his m a r r i a g e t o a n o n - J e w i s h w o m a n , Z i p p o r a h ( E x o d . 2:21), his l o w l y o c c u ­ p a t i o n as a s h e p h e r d ( E x o d . 3:1), his s p e e c h defect ( E x o d . 4:10), his failure to cir­ c u m c i s e his sons a n d G - d ' s s u b s e q u e n t a t t e m p t to kill h i m ( E x o d . 4:24), his a b a n ­ d o n m e n t o f Z i p p o r a h ( E x o d . 18:2), his n e e d to t u r n to his father-in-law J e t h r o for a d v i c e o n h o w to g o v e r n his p e o p l e ( E x o d . 18:13-27), his a n g e r in s m a s h i n g t h e first set o f tablets t h a t h e b r o u g h t d o w n f r o m M o u n t S i n a i ( E x o d . 3 2 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) , his m a r r i a g e t o a n E t h i o p i a n w o m a n ( N u m . 12:1), his d i s o b e d i e n c e o f G - d in striking r a t h e r t h a n s p e a k i n g to the r o c k ( N u m . 20:11), a n d his inability to a n s w e r the c o m ­ p l a i n t b y the d a u g h t e r s o f Z e l o p h e h a d ( N u m . 2 7 : 1 - 1 1 ) . I n a s m u c h as the c a r e e r o f M o s e s is so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h the c o n s t i t u t i o n h e g a v e to the J e w i s h n a t i o n , J o s e p h u s n a t u r a l l y takes a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t y afforded b y his retelling o f M o s e s ' life to d e f e n d his p e o p l e a g a i n s t the c a n a r d s that h a d s p r e a d a b o u t their laws a n d customs. A l t h o u g h the p e r s o n a l i t y o f M o s e s is c l e a r l y d o m i n a n t in t h r e e b o o k s o f the An­ tiquities (2-4), n o t h o r o u g h a n d s y s t e m a t i c a t t e m p t h a s b e e n m a d e to a n a l y z e J o s e ­ phus's a c c o u n t there.

5

A c c o r d i n g l y , a n a t t e m p t is m a d e h e r e t o e x a m i n e J o s e ­

p h u s ' s v e r s i o n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y to see h o w h e v i e w e d the v a r i o u s c l a i m s t h a t h a d

4. Similarly one current o f rabbinic tradition spoke o f M o s e s as "very m u c h above all the m e n that were u p o n the face o f the earth" (Sifre Numbers Behaaloteka on N u m . 12:3). Cf. Midrash Tannaim 186 (ed. D. Hoffmann) on D e u t . 32:3: " M o s e s , than w h o m there has not been one greater in the world." See also the citations given b y G i n z b e r g (1909—38, 5:398, n. 47), w h o remarks that rabbinic tradition de­ clared that the angels h a d conversed with G - d about the fate o f Moses. 5. T h e following books a n d articles deal with individual aspects o f Josephus's portrait o f M o s e s : Attridge 1976a; Bieler 1935; B r a u n 1938, esp. 2 6 - 3 1 , 97-102; Brock 1982, 237-55; C h u r g i n 1949; J. C o h e n 1993, 4 6 - 5 9 ; D a n i e l 1981; D o w n i n g 1980, 8:46-65; 9:29-48; Edersheim 1882; Flusser 1971a, 48-79; Fornaro 1979, 4 3 1 - 4 6 ; Gaster 1927, 6 1 - 8 0 , 178-82; G r a f 1976; Grufydd 1928, 260-70; H a a c k e r and Schafer 1974, 147-74; H a l e v y 1927, 82-83, 103-17; Harrington 1973, 5 9 - 7 0 ; H a t a 1987, 180-97; H e i n e m a n n 1935, 372-75; H e i n e m a n n 1939-40, 180-203; Holladay 1977; L e D e a u t 1964b, 198-219; L e v y 1907, 201-11; L o e w e n s t a m m i960; 1965; M a l i n a 1968; M e e k s 1967; Mirsky 1948, 282-87; Perrot 1967, 4 8 1 - 5 1 8 ; Petit 1976, 137-42; Rajak 1974; 1978, 111-22; v o n R a n k e 1883, 12-33; Runnalls 1983, 135-56; Shinan 1978, 6 6 - 7 8 ; Silver 1 9 7 3 - 7 4 , 1 2 3 - 5 3 ; 1982; Smolar and A b e r b a c h 1968, 91—116; Talbert 1975, 4 1 9 - 3 6 ; 1980, 129-41; T i e d e 1972; v a n U n n i k 1974, 241-61; V e r m e s 1955, 86-92; 1975; and Y a m a u c h i 1980, 4 2 - 6 3 .

MOSES

377

b e e n m a d e for M o s e s — h i s status as l a w g i v e r , p r o p h e t , priest, k i n g , a n d e v e n G-d—,

t o a s c e r t a i n w h a t factors g o v e r n e d J o s e p h u s ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l

n a r r a t i v e , a n d t o see w h e t h e r t h e resultant p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s is consistent w i t h t h o s e o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l c h a r a c t e r s in J o s e p h u s .

MOSES' PERSONAL

QUALITIES

I n g e n e r a l , t h e H e l l e n i s t i c h e r o h a d to b e a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in t h e P l a t o n i c style, a h i g h priest, a p r o p h e t , a n d a v e r i t a b l e Pericles as d e s c r i b e d b y T h u c y d i d e s . I n t h e c a s e o f a n o u t s t a n d i n g h e r o s u c h as M o s e s , his v e r y b i r t h h a d to b e a t t e n d e d b y e x t r a o r d i n a r y signs. M o r e o v e r , since J o s e p h u s w a s a d d r e s s i n g a p r e d o m i n a n d y n o n - J e w i s h a u d i e n c e , his M o s e s h a d to h a v e a life like t h a t a s c r i b e d b y T a c i t u s to his r e v e r e d father-in-law, A g r i c o l a (Tacitus, Agricola 4 4 - 4 5 ) : o n e r i c h in glory, at­ t a i n m e n t o f t h e t r u e blessings o f v i r t u e , c o n s u l a r a n d t r i u m p h a l h o n o r s , w e a l t h sufficient for his desires, i n t e g r i t y o f p o s i t i o n a n d r e p u t a t i o n , u n s e v e r e d links o f r e ­ l a t i o n s h i p a n d friendship, a n d t h a t e n d e d in its p r i m e , b o t h b e f o r e t h e d e a t h s o f his wife a n d c h i l d a n d in t i m e to a v o i d e n s u i n g slaughter. J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t o f M o s e s is a v e r i t a b l e a r e t a l o g y s u c h as w o u l d h a v e b e e n appreciated especially b y a R o m a n society that a d m i r e d the Stoic portrait o f the i d e a l s a g e . I n fact, h e uses t h e w o r d dperrj o n n o f e w e r t h a n t w e n t y - o n e o c c a s i o n s 6

w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o M o s e s . W h a t is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective is t h a t at t h e v e r y b e g i n ­ 7

n i n g o f his l o n g a c c o u n t o f M o s e s , it is o n e o f the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d s c r i b e s , a n o n J e w , w h o , J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s , p o s s e s s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e skill in a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t i n g t h e future, foretells t h e b i r t h o f a c h i l d w h o w i l l surpass all m e n in v i r t u e

(apcrfj)

a n d w h o w i l l w i n e v e r l a s t i n g r e n o w n (Ant. 2.205). J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t his s u b ­ j e c t , the h i s t o r y o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , w i l l afford h i m f r e q u e n t a n d a m p l e o c c a s i o n t o d i s c o u r s e u p o n t h e m e r i t s (aper^v) o f the l a w g i v e r M o s e s (Ant. 3.187). I n a n in­ troductory editorial statement a b o u t M o s e s ' sojourn in M i d i a n , Josephus declares t h a t t h e r e M o s e s w a s d e s t i n e d t o p l a y a p a r t t h a t e x h i b i t e d his m e r i t s (dperrjv)

(Ant.

2.257). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , t h e v o i c e f r o m the b u r n i n g b u s h p r e d i c t s t h e g l o r y (86£av) a n d h o n o r (rt/x^v) t h a t M o s e s w i l l w i n f r o m m e n u n d e r G - d ' s a u s ­ p i c e s (Ant. 2.268). It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective t h a t w h e n the Israelites a r r i v e at M o u n t S i n a i , R a g u e l (Jethro), M o s e s ' father-in-law, a n o t h e r non-Jew, praises M o s e s , since h e ( R a g u e l )

6. Ant. 2.205, 238, 243, 257, 262; 3.12, 65, 67, 69, 74, 9 7 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 2 , 317, 322; 4.196, 320, 321, 326, 1

33 7. It is significant that Josephus here refers to the Egyptian prophet as a "sacred scribe" (UpoypaiAfiarevs) rather than as a soothsayer (p,dvTis) (Ant. 2.205). Josephus, as I have noted elsewhere (Feldman 1990, 386-422), like the Septuagint, uses the word /xavris and its cognates when referring to heathen soothsayers. The fidvns, as Rose 1914 remarks, is not an inspired prophet but rather a crafts­ man (Srjfxiovpyos), coupled with physicians and carpenters by Homer (Odyssey 17.384). Thus Josephus uses the term ndvris with reference to Balaam (Ant. 4.104 [bis], 112, 157) and to Egyptian seers in gen­ eral (Ant. 2.241; Ag. Ap. 1.236, 256, 257, 258 [bis], 267, 306).

378

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

k n o w s t h a t the Israelites' w h o l e s a l v a t i o n h a d b e e n d u e to M o s e s ' dperrj (Ant. 3.65). S o o u t s t a n d i n g w a s M o s e s i n his v i r t u e , w e are told, t h a t w h e n h e d i d n o t r e t u r n f r o m his a s c e n t o f M o u n t S i n a i , e v e n t h e s o b e r - m i n d e d o f t h e Israelites c o n s i d e r e d the possibility t h a t h e h a d r e t u r n e d t o G - d b e c a u s e o f his i n h e r e n t v i r t u e (Ant. 3 . 9 6 - 9 7 ) . It is t h r o u g h the a g e n c y o f M o s e s a n d o f his m e r i t (dpeTrjs) t h a t t h e c o n ­ stitution o f the Israelites is e s t a b l i s h e d b y G - d (Ant. 3.322). Finally, w e m a y n o t e t h a t in d e s c r i b i n g the i m p a c t o f M o s e s ' d e a t h , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the e x t r a b i b l i ­ c a l c o m m e n t t h a t his p a s s i n g w a s l a m e n t e d n o t o n l y b y t h o s e w h o h a d k n o w n h i m d i r e c d y b u t also b y later r e a d e r s o f his l a w s w h o d e d u c e d f r o m these the superla­ tive q u a l i t y o f his v i r t u e (dperrj) (Ant. 4.331). Genealogy W h e n J o s e p h u s first i n t r o d u c e s us t o M o s e s ' father, A m r a m , his initial r e m a r k is t h a t h e w a s a H e b r e w " o f n o b l e b i r t h " (ed yeyovorwv)

8

(Ant. 2.210). L i k e D e m e t r i u s

(ap. E u s e b i u s , Pr. Ev. 9.29.2), P h i l o (De Vita Mosis 1.2.7),

a

n

d

m

e

r a b b i s (Genesis Rab­

bah 19.7, Song of Songs Rabbah 5 . 1 , Pesiqta de-Rao Kahana 2.343-44), J o s e p h u s presents 9

the e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n t h a t M o s e s w a s the s e v e n t h g e n e r a t i o n after A b r a h a m (Ant. 2 . 2 2 9 ) .

10

I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t the fire at the b u r n i n g b u s h a d m o n i s h e d M o s e s t o w i t h d r a w f r o m the flame as far as p o s s i b l e ; to b e c o n t e n t w i t h w h a t h e , as a m a n o f v i r t u e , s p r u n g f r o m illustrious a n c e s t o r s , h a d s e e n a n d to p r y n o further. W h e n J o s e p h u s attacks L y s i m a c h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the e x o d u s , h e m a k e s a p o i n t o f stressing t h a t L y s i m a c h u s s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n t e n t w i t h m e n t i o n i n g M o s e s b y n a m e b u t s h o u l d h a v e i n d i c a t e d his d e s c e n t a n d his p a r e n t ­ a g e as w e l l (Ag Ap. 1.316). W h e n K o r a h protests a g a i n s t the a u t h o r i t y o f M o s e s , his r e b e l l i o n a s s u m e s g r e a t e r seriousness in t h a t J o s e p h u s at t h r e e p o i n t s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e a r e f e r e n c e to K o r a h ' s o w n lofty g e n e a l o g y (Ant. 4 . 1 4 , 4 . 1 9 , 4 . 2 6 ) . The Birth of the Hero I n o r d e r to h e i g h t e n r e a d e r s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d to M o s e s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e ( E x o d . 1:22) m e r e l y n o t e s P h a r a o h ' s d e c r e e o r d e r i n g t h a t e v e r y n e w b o r n Israelite s o n b e cast into the N i l e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t A m r a m w a s afraid t h a t the w h o l e r a c e o f the Israelites w o u l d b e e x t i n g u i s h e d b e c a u s e o f the l a c k o f a s u c c e e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n a n d w a s in g r i e v o u s p e r p l e x i t y b e c a u s e his wife w a s p r e g n a n t

(Ant.

8. S o also in rabbinic tradition (Si/re Numbers 67; Exodus Rabbah 1.8). 9. T h a c k e r a y (1926-34, 4:264, n. a) remarks that the sentence stating that M o s e s w a s the seventh generation after A b r a h a m and enumerating these seven generations has b e e n rejected b y some editors as an interruption o f the narrative and suggests that it m a y be a postscript o f the author's; but in v i e w o f Josephus's emphasis elsewhere on genealogy, the greater likelihood is that it is authentic. 10. M . Gaster (1927, 74) notes that the fact o f M o s e s ' b e i n g in the seventh generation from A b r a ­ h a m is a distinct feature o f Samaritan chronology.

MOSES

379

2.2IO—16). J o s e p h u s t h e n r e c o u n t s A m r a m ' s p r a y e r t o G - d b e s e e c h i n g H i m t o g r a n t d e l i v e r a n c e t o t h e Israelites f r o m t h e i r t r i b u l a t i o n s , a n d G - d ' s r e s p o n s e t o h i m i n a d r e a m t h a t h e s h o u l d n o t despair, a n d t h a t j u s t a s H e h a d a i d e d h i s f o r e ­ f a t h e r s A b r a h a m a n d J a c o b , s o H e w o u l d e n a b l e this c h i l d t o d e l i v e r t h e Israelites f r o m b o n d a g e i n E g y p t . G - d f u r t h e r p r e d i c t s t h a t this c h i l d w i l l b e r e m e m b e r e d so l o n g a s t h e u n i v e r s e s h a l l e n d u r e (rd avfjuravra b r e w s b u t a l s o b y a l i e n n a t i o n s (Ant. 2 . 2 1 6 ) .

11

rev^erai),

not only by H e ­

12

I n J o s e p h u s , it is a n E g y p t i a n s a c r e d s c r i b e , s u r e l y a m o s t i m p r e s s i v e figure t o his a u d i e n c e , w h o p r e d i c t s M o s e s ' future g r e a t n e s s (Ant. 2.205); a n d it is t o A m r a m in a d r e a m — a n e l e m e n t u n i q u e to J o s e p h u s — t h a t G - d a p p e a r s w i t h the promise t h a t t h e c h i l d t o b e b o r n w i l l d e l i v e r t h e H e b r e w s f r o m b o n d a g e (Ant. 2 . 2 1 2 - 1 6 ) . I n P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s Biblical Antiquities (9.10), w h i c h so often p a r a l l e l s J o s e p h u s , t h e b i r t h o f M o s e s is p r e d i c t e d i n M i r i a m ' s d r e a m . reasons,

1 4

1 3

A p p a r e n d y J o s e p h u s , for m i s o g y n i s t i c

preferred to build u p the character o f M o s e s ' father rather than that o f

his sister. It is A m r a m ,

1 5

r a t h e r t h a n his w i f e J o c h e b e d ( E x o d . 2:2), a c c o r d i n g t o

J o s e p h u s , w h o hides the infant M o s e s , thus taking u p o n h i m s e l f the

tremendous

risk o f i n c u r r i n g t h e w r a t h o f P h a r a o h w h i l e a l s o w i n n i n g for h i m s e l f t h e r e p u t a ­ t i o n for c o u r a g e t h a t t h e B i b l e itself a t t r i b u t e s t o J o c h e b e d (Ant. 2.219). I n a n e x ­ trabiblical detail, Josephus explains w h y A m r a m (again, rather than J o c h e b e d ) chose to p u t the b a b y in a basket u p o n the river—namely, to c o m m i t the salvation o f the child to G - d a n d thus not b r i n g to n o u g h t the promise that G - d h a d given h i m i n a d r e a m (Ant. 2.219). T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, i n a s m u c h as g e n e r a l l y , a s w e have noted, J o s e p h u s d e e m p h a s i z e s the role o f G - d , p r e s u m a b l y in order to w i n t h e f a v o r o f his r a t i o n a l i s t i c r e a d e r s .

1 6

11. Cf. Virgil, Aeneid 1.607-9, where A e n e a s expresses his gratitude to Q u e e n D i d o o f C a r t h a g e for her hospitality: " S o l o n g as rivers r u n into seas, so long as shadows traverse the slopes o f mountains, so l o n g as the sky feeds the stars, always will your honor a n d n a m e a n d praises remain." 12. It is significant that although Josephus, as h e does in so m a n y other respects, closely parallels the rabbinic tradition with regard to the predictions o f M o s e s ' birth, he does not have a parallel to the astrological prediction m a d e b y K i n g N i m r o d that the c o m i n g child, A b r a h a m , w o u l d overthrow the thrones o f powerful princes a n d take possession o f their lands (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 26; Sefer ha-Yashar, Seder Eliyahu %uta 25). N o r does he offer a parallel to the rabbinic story that A b r a h a m ' s father, T e r a h , hid him until the third or the tenth year o f his life w h e n N i m r o d sought to kill him. See O b b i n k 1966, p

252-53; e r r o t 1967, 497-504. 13. See Feldman 1971, lviii-lxvi. In rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.22; cf. Megillah 14a, Sotah 12b, and Mekilta Beshalah 10), it is likewise M o s e s ' sister M i r i a m w h o has the prophetic d r e a m pre­ dicting that M o s e s will b e cast into the waters, a n d that through him the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds, as well as other miracles, will be accomplished. 14. S e e Feldman 1986b, 115-20. Pace Rajak 1974, 267, w h o avers that Josephus w o u l d probably have h a d nothing to gain b y altering the story. 15. A s J. C o h e n 1993, 49, a p d y puts it, the nameless m a n o f the house o f Levi (Exod. 2:1) b e c o m e s A m r a m , a major figure, whereas his wife, Jochebed, becomes a marginal character. Similarly, as C o h e n also notes, the figure o f the father b e c o m e s m o r e dominant in the rabbinic midrash. 16. A l t h o u g h , as noted, he often closely parallels the rabbinic midrashic tradition, Josephus does not have the tradition (Sotah i 2 a - b ; Tanhuma B 2.122; Tanhuma Vayaqhel 4; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.18)

j8o

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

A m o n g t h e w o n d r o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e b i r t h o f t h e g r e a t h e r o is the painlessness o f the p r e g n a n c y that p r e c e d e s i t .

17

Josephus declares that J o c h e b e d

g a v e b i r t h " w i t h g e n t l e n e s s " (emeiKeiav) a n d w i t h o u t a n y v i o l e n t t h r o e s (Ant. 2 . 2 1 8 ) .

18

O n c e t h e b a b y is b o r n , J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t his r e a d e r s w o u l d b e a w a r e o f t h e m a n y c a s e s i n m y t h o l o g y a n d h i s t o r y w h e r e t h e fates c o u l d n o t b e

thwarted,

g o e s o n t o e d i t o r i a l i z e : " T h e n o n c e a g a i n [i.e., p r e s u m a b l y i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c a s e s o f Perseus, O e d i p u s , R o m u l u s , C y r u s , a n d other such instances] did G - d plainly s h o w t h a t h u m a n i n t e l l i g e n c e is n o t h i n g w o r t h , b u t t h a t all t h a t H e w i l l s t o a c ­ c o m p l i s h r e a c h e s its p e r f e c t e n d , a n d t h a t t h e y w h o , t o s a v e t h e m s e l v e s , c o n d e m n

that the astrologers told P h a r a o h the exact d a y w h e n the redeemer o f Israel w o u l d b e b o r n , even though they could not say whether he w o u l d b e a n E g y p t i a n or a Hebrew. T h e Samaritan tradition (see M a c D o n a l d 1964,151), w h i c h often parallels that o f Josephus a n d o f the rabbis in midrashic details, has a passage in the Book ofAsatir that, in almost the very words o f Josephus (Ant. 2.207), cites an Egyptian scribe w h o foretells that from the loins o f Levi "will c o m e one w h o will b e mighty in faith a n d in knowl­ edge, that the heaven a n d the earth will hearken to his word, a n d that b y his hands will c o m e the d e ­ struction o f E g y p t . " T h e Samaritans also have a tradition, which, although preserved only in a four­ teenth-century p o e m , is most likely based o n a m u c h earlier source, according to M . Gaster 1927, 73, and M a c D o n a l d 1964, 160, that w h e n G - d h a d decided that M o s e s w a s to b e b o r n , H e sent a n angel to A m r a m a n d that during A m r a m ' s intercourse with his wife, the L - r d (that is, the angel) w a s with him. In a c c o r d with the divine will, A m r a m ' s wife gave birth to a son called " T h e M a n " (i.e., " S o n o f M a n " ) . W h e n h e w a s born, m e n joyfully gathered together proclaiming that the " L - r d o f the world," "the faithful one o f the G - d h e a d , " "the M a n o f G - d " h a d come, of w h o m G - d says, " T h i s is the o n e w h o m I have chosen." Josephus, o n theological grounds, clearly could not hold such a v i e w o f Moses, which is almost Christological in its language. Moreover, Josephus, as always, has apologetic aims; the key phrase in his divine prediction about M o s e s , w h i c h is conspicuously absent from the m u c h embell­ ished Samaritan account, is that M o s e s will b e r e m e m b e r e d even by foreign peoples; and, indeed, in his essay Against Apion, M o s e s is the great e x a m p l e o f the cultured J e w w h o h a d profound influence u p o n the statesmen a n d philosophers o f other nations. 17. T h e talmudic tradition (Sotah 12a; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.20) goes so far as to say that Jochebed, M o s e s ' mother, gave birth without a n y p a i n — a proof, according to the second-century R a b b i J u d a h b a r Ilai, that righteous w o m e n are not included in the decree p r o n o u n c e d u p o n E v e (Gen. 3:16). V o n R a n k e 1883, 30 ff., theorizes that it was from Josephus that the rabbis derived their tradition that J o c h e b e d gave birth without labor pains; but, aside from the fact, noted above, that Jose­ phus avoids exaggeration a n d rationalizes for his non-Jewish audience, the rabbis never mention Jose­ phus, a n d there is n o indication that they k n e w his works. 18. Moreover, there is a rabbinic tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.19; Baba Batra 120a) that J o c h e b e d was 130 years old w h e n she gave birth to Moses, "that the marks o f youth c a m e b a c k to her, her flesh was again smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, a n d h e r beauty returned." T h e r e are also traditions (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 11.20; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10) that w h e n h e c a m e out o f his mother's w o m b , M o s e s was already circumcised; that w h e n h e was only three days old he not only walked but even talked with his parents; a n d that h e actually refused to drink milk from his mother's breasts until she h a d received h e r p a y m e n t from Pharaoh's daughter. Likewise, presumably because his readers w o u l d find such a miracle hard to believe, Josephus has n o equivalent to the tradition (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.20) that at the m o m e n t o f the child's appearance, the w h o l e house was flooded with light, i.e., the light that G - d h a d created at the beginning o f Creation but h a d kept hidden, anticipat­ ing the wickedness o f the generation o f the D e l u g e a n d o f the T o w e r o f B a b e l , w h o were unworthy o f it.

MOSES

381

o t h e r s t o d e s t r u c t i o n u t t e r l y fail, w h a t e v e r d i l i g e n c e t h e y m a y e m p l o y , w h i l e t h o s e are saved b y a m i r a c l e a n d attain success almost from the v e r y j a w s o f disaster w h o h a z a r d all b y d i v i n e d e c r e e " (Ant 2.222). N o r m a l l y , J o s e p h u s h a s h i g h r e g a r d for i n t e l l i g e n c e ( a i W a i s " u n d e r s t a n d i n g " ) , as w e c a n see, for e x a m p l e , i n his e u l o g y o f M o s e s as h a v i n g s u r p a s s e d i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g (ovveois) (Ant

all m e n w h o h a v e e v e r l i v e d

4.328); b u t t h a t n o t e v e n s u c h u n d e r s t a n d i n g c a n s t a n d i n t h e w a y o f fate

seems to b e Josephus's m e s s a g e h e r e . The

1 9

Bible declares that Pharaoh's daughter immediately recognized that the

b a b y w a s a H e b r e w a n d t o o k p i t y o n it ( E x o d . 2:7), b u t s a y s n o t h i n g o f a n y a t t e m p t t o g e t h i m t o n u r s e f r o m a n E g y p t i a n w o m a n . It t h e n d e c l a r e s t h a t M i r i a m a s k e d h e r w h e t h e r she m i g h t g o a n d s u m m o n o n e o f the H e b r e w w o m e n to nurse h i m . J o s e p h u s a v o i d s e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d states t h a t P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r , w h o m J o s e p h u s identifies as T h e r m u t h i s , o r d e r e d a w o m a n t o b e b r o u g h t t o s u c k l e t h e i n f a n t a n d t h a t w h e n it s p u r n e d t h e w o m a n ' s b r e a s t , s h e r e p e a t e d t h e a t t e m p t w i t h m a n y w o m e n , w h e r e u p o n M i r i a m offered to s u m m o n o n e o f the H e b r e w w o m e n to n u r s e t h e c h i l d (Ant 2 . 2 2 5 - 2 6 ) .

2 0

The Upbringing of the Hero I n M o s e s ' t h i r d y e a r , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , p r e s u m a b l y after h e h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e s t a n d a r d n u r s i n g p e r i o d o f t w o y e a r s (cf. M i s h n a h , Nedarim 2:1 a n d Ketubot 60a), G-d

g a v e w o n d r o u s i n c r e a s e t o his s t a t u r e (Ant

2.230).

21

J o s e p h u s states t h a t his

19. T h e rabbis have a tradition (Sotah 12b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.24) that w h e n M o s e s w a s e x ­ posed in the basket o n the river, the angels appeared before G - d a n d asked h o w H e could allow M o s e s to die in the sea w h e n he w a s destined to sing a song o f praise to G - d because o f the miracle o f the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds. 20. Philo adds merely that Pharaoh's daughter, after opening the basket, realized that it w o u l d not be safe to take the infant to the palace a n d w o n d e r e d w h a t to do, w h e r e u p o n M i r i a m guessed her diffi­ culty a n d offered to find a H e b r e w nurse (De Vita Mosis 1.4.15-16). T h e rabbinic tradition, o n the other hand, seems to strain credibility w h e n it declares that although Pharaoh's daughter, T her m ut hi s, h a n d e d the infant M o s e s to all the Egyptian w o m e n , he w o u l d not take their breasts (Sotah 12b; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.25). T h e rabbinic tradition here has the infant M o s e s exclaim: "Shall a m o u t h that will speak with the Shechinah suck w h a t is unclean?" (The text reads " H e said," a n d some commentators identify the speaker as G - d ; but the nearest noun in the previous sentence is Moses; and, indeed, G - d is not mentioned at all.) A similar remarkable utterance is found in the Samaritan Book ofAsatir (9.13), w h i c h declares that M o s e s w o u l d drink only o f undefiled milk, the implication being that he h a d re­ fused the milk o f Egyptian nurses. In Josephus, it is M i r i a m w h o tells Thermuthis, "It is lost labor to s u m m o n to feed the child these w o m e n w h o have n o ties o f kinship with it" (Ant. 2.226). 21. S u c h a wondrous increase, far from m a k i n g the whole story o f M o s e s less credible, might well have b e e n viewed b y Josephus's audience as a fulfillment o f the advice given b y Aristode (Rhetoric 3.14.7.1415A-B), that o n e should (presumably, u p to a point) include the marvelous in one's discourse, inasmuch as this will d r a w attention to one's subject. O n the other hand, the rabbinic tradition indulges in exaggeration that stretches the bounds o f credibility: thus, w e are told that since the biblical text says not that the infant but that the l a d was crying (Exod. 2:6), the child, although an infant, h a d a lad's voice (Tanhuma Exodus 8.9). Furthermore, w e hear that w h e n he was only three months old, h e proph­ esied a n d declared that he w a s destined to receive the law amid flames o f fire (Midrash Deuteronomy Rab-

382

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

g r o w t h i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g far o u t r a n t h e m e a s u r e o f his y e a r s , a n d its m a t u r e r e x ­ c e l l e n c e w a s d i s p l a y e d i n his v e r y g a m e s ; " a n d his a c t i o n s t h e n g a v e p r o m i s e o f t h e g r e a t e r d e e d s t o b e w r o u g h t b y h i m o n r e a c h i n g m a n h o o d " (Ant. 2 . 2 3 0 ) .

22

T h e de­

tail t h a t t h e c h i l d s h o w e d his e x c e l l e n c e i n his g a m e s is p a r a l l e l e d b y t h e a n e c d o t e o f C y r u s , the k i n g o f Persia, w h o as a m e r e child p l a y e d at b e i n g k i n g a n d w h o or­ d e r e d o n e o f t h e v i l l a g e b o y s t o b e b e a t e n b e c a u s e h e h a d d i s o b e y e d his c o m m a n d ( H e r o d o t u s 1.114). J o s e p h u s recounts the tale, w h i c h h a s a clear parallel in the r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i c tradition,

2 3

o f t h e i n f a n t M o s e s b e i n g b r o u g h t t o P h a r a o h a n d t r a m p l i n g u p o n his

c r o w n (Ant. 2 . 2 3 2 - 3 6 ) .

2 4

B u t the differences b e t w e e n the J o s e p h a n a n d

rabbinic

v e r s i o n s h e r e a r e i n s t r u c t i v e . I n t h e m i d r a s h , it is M o s e s w h o t a k e s t h e c r o w n f r o m P h a r a o h ' s h e a d a n d p l a c e s it u p o n his o w n a s a c l e a r i n t i m a t i o n t h a t h e w o u l d s o m e d a y displace P h a r a o h . J o s e p h u s has P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r take the initiative o f b r i n g i n g t h e i n f a n t M o s e s t o h i m b e c a u s e s h e is m i n d f u l o f t h e s u c c e s s i o n a n d b e ­ c a u s e , i n a s m u c h as s h e h a s n o c h i l d o f h e r o w n , s h e s e e k s t o a d o p t M o s e s as h e i r a p p a r e n t (Ant. 2.232). F a r f r o m h a v i n g M o s e s s e i z e t h e c r o w n a n d p l a c e it u p o n his o w n h e a d , as i n t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , it is P h a r a o h h i m s e l f w h o t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p l a c e t h e c r o w n u p o n M o s e s ' h e a d . It is o n l y a t this p o i n t t h a t w e h a v e J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a l l e l t o M o s e s ' a c t o f flinging t h e c r o w n t o t h e g r o u n d a n d t r a m p l i n g u p o n i t .

2 5

H a d Josephus r e p r o d u c e d the tradition o f M o s e s ' seizing Pharaoh's c r o w n , the p a r a l l e l t r a d i t i o n o f Z a g r e u s — t h a t is, D i o n y s u s — w h o , s o o n after his b i r t h , a s -

bah 11.10). A g a i n , w e are informed that w h e n M o s e s w a s five, h e looked eleven {Tanhuma Vaera 171; cf. Talqut 1.166). 22. Philo discourses at even greater length than does Josephus o n the physical a n d mental p r e c o ciousness o f the child M o s e s (De Vita Mosis 1.5.18-24). Philo is more eager to present M o s e s as the pro­ totype o f the philosopher-king, a n d hence stresses that even as a n infant, h e did not e n g a g e in fun, frolic, a n d sport but rather applied himself to learning a n d seeing w h a t was sure to profit the soul. T h e rabbis have a tradition o f M o s e s ' remarkable growth, indeed to a height o f ten cubits, that is, fifteen feet (Bekorot 44a). 23. Tanhuma Exodus 8; Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.26; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 11.10; Tashar Exodus 131D-132D. 24. Flusser 1971a, 4 8 - 7 9 , notes a similar narrative in a Byzantine work dating from not before the ninth century (in Vassiliev 1893, 227-28). T h e r e it is M o s e s w h o takes Pharaoh's c r o w n (as in the rab­ binic tradition) a n d tramples u p o n it. T h e r e u p o n o n e o f the noblemen w h o advise P h a r a o h suggests that gold a n d a burning torch (rather than a n o n y x stone a n d a burning coal, as in the rabbinic tradi­ tion) b e p l a c e d before Moses, w h e r e u p o n M o s e s chooses the torch a n d puts it into his m o u t h (there is n o mention o f the role o f the angel G a b r i e l in saving M o s e s , as in the rabbinic tradition). 25. In Tashar Exodus I3ib-i32b, M o s e s is p u t to the test to see w h e t h e r h e is truly a threat to the Egyptian throne b y having a burning coal a n d a n o n y x stone placed before h i m to see w h i c h h e will choose. If Josephus h a d included such a n incident, it w o u l d have reinforced the v i e w that the Jews are aggressive, since, according to the M i d r a s h , while M o s e s actually stretched forth his litde h a n d toward the o n y x stone, it was redirected by the angel G a b r i e l toward the live coal. T h e r e u p o n M o s e s burnt his hand, lifted it to his m o u t h , a n d burnt part o f his lips a n d tongue, thereby incurring the speech imped­ iment that the Bible ascribes to h i m (Exod. 4:10).

MOSES

383

c e n d e d t h e t h r o n e o f his father Z e u s a n d m i m i c k e d h i m b y b r a n d i s h i n g l i g h t n i n g i n his little h a n d , m i g h t w e l l h a v e s u g g e s t e d itself to his p a g a n a u d i e n c e ( N o n n u s , Dionysiaea 6.269, 27.228). J o s e p h u s , w e m a y guess, w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive t o t h e c h a r g e o f Jewish aggressiveness that such a presentation w o u l d suggest: the J e w s h a d b e e n t w i c e e x p e l l e d f r o m R o m e b e c a u s e o f their b o l d m i s s i o n a r y tactics, first in 139 B.C.E. ( V a l e r i u s M a x i m u s 1.3.3)

a

n

d n e x t in 19 C.E. (Ant. 1 8 . 8 1 - 8 4 ; T a c i t u s ,

Annals 2.85.4; S u e t o n i u s , Tiberius 3 6 . 1 ; D i o C a s s i u s 57.18.5a). H e n c e , e v e n w h e n M o s e s r e m o v e s f r o m his h e a d t h e c r o w n t h a t P h a r a o h h a s p l a c e d u p o n it, J o s e ­ p h u s is careful t o a d d t h a t h e d o e s so o u t o f m e r e childishness (vqTnorrjTa).

When

t h e s a c r e d scribe w h o h a d f o r e t o l d t h a t t h e child's b i r t h w o u l d l e a d t o t h e a b a s e ­ m e n t o f t h e E g y p t i a n e m p i r e r u s h e s f o r w a r d to kill M o s e s after h e t r a m p l e s u p o n t h e c r o w n , t h e k i n g , w e a r e i n f o r m e d , p u t s off s l a y i n g h i m , i n d u c e d b y G - d , w h o s e p r o v i d e n c e (irpovoia)—a

k e y S t o i c t e r m t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a p p r e c i a t e d b y his

a u d i e n c e — w a t c h e d o v e r M o s e s ' life (Ant. 2.236). The

B i b l e is e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y b r i e f a b o u t M o s e s ' e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g his y o u t h ,

c o n t e n t i n g itself w i t h stating m e r e l y t h a t "the c h i l d g r e w u p " ( E x o d . 2:10). B y c o n ­ trast, P h i l o , c l e a r l y c o n c e r n e d to p o r t r a y t h e legislator o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e as a k i n d o f p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g in t h e P l a t o n i c tradition, d e c l a r e s t h a t to e d u c a t e M o s e s , t e a c h e r s , s o m e u n b i d d e n , a r r i v e d f r o m v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s a n d f r o m the p r o v i n c e s of E g y p t , while others were s u m m o n e d from G r e e c e o n promise o f high reward (De Vita Mosis 1.5.21). M o s e s s o o n a d v a n c e d b e y o n d t h e i r c a p a c i t y to t e a c h h i m , w e a r e told, a n d J o s e p h u s a d d s that, in t r u e P l a t o n i c fashion, h e e x e m p l i f i e d t h e p r i n ­ ciple o f

avdfjLvrjGLs,

as d e s c r i b e d i n P l a t o ' s Meno, i n a s m u c h as his s e e m e d a c a s e

r a t h e r o f r e c o l l e c t i o n (dvafjuvrjoiv)

than of learning; and, indeed, he himself devised

a n d p r o p o u n d e d p r o b l e m s t h a t his t e a c h e r s c o u l d n o t easily solve. P h i l o t h e n p r o ­ c e e d s to e n u m e r a t e t h e s u b j e c t s — a r i t h m e t i c , g e o m e t r y , a n d m u s i c , as w e l l as h i ­ e r o g l y p h i c s a n d r e l i g i o n ( n o t a b l y their r e v e r e n c e for a n i m a l s , t o w h i c h t h e y p a i d divine honors)—that the E g y p t i a n teachers taught M o s e s , a n d informs the reader t h a t t h e G r e e k s t a u g h t h i m t h e rest o f t h e l i b e r a l arts, w h i l e still o t h e r s i n s t r u c t e d h i m in A s s y r i a n letters ( p r e s u m a b l y A r a m a i c ) a n d t h e C h a l d a e a n s c i e n c e o f as­ t r o n o m y (De Vita Mosis 1.5.23). A l t h o u g h h e s p e a k s o f P h i l o as " n o n o v i c e in p h i l o s o p h y " a n d as the h e a d o f t h e J e w i s h d e l e g a t i o n to the e m p e r o r G a i u s C a l i g u l a (Ant. 1 8 . 2 5 9 - 6 0 ) , a n d a l t h o u g h t h e r e is r e a s o n to think, as w e h a v e s u g g e s t e d , t h a t h e k n e w P h i l o ' s w o r k s , J o s e ­ p h u s is, n e v e r t h e l e s s , c o n t e n t w i t h the briefest o f c o m m e n t s a b o u t M o s e s ' u p ­ b r i n g i n g (he d o e s n o t s p e a k o f his e d u c a t i o n ) ,

26

namely, that he w a s raised

26. To be sure, Nodet 1990, 1.91, on Ant. 2.230, reads -n-aiSciais with several manuscripts in place of 7raiSiafs, the reading of a single manuscript, which has been adopted by all other editors, including Niese, Naber, and Thackeray. If so, the meaning would be that Moses showed his maturer excellence in his educational activities rather than in his childish games. But the sixth-century Latin version as­ cribed to Cassidorus, reading infantia, clearly favors the reading adopted by the other editors, as does the context, which speaks of Moses' extraordinary precociousness in his early years.

384

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

(irp€(f)€ro) w i t h t h e u t m o s t c a r e (cm/LicAcias), so t h a t the H e b r e w s v e s t e d their h i g h ­ est h o p e s for the future in h i m , w h i l e t h e E g y p t i a n s v i e w e d his u p b r i n g i n g w i t h m i s g i v i n g (Ant. 2.236). O n e m i g h t w e l l a s s u m e t h a t J o s e p h u s w o u l d h a v e r e c o r d e d w i t h p r i d e the l i b e r a l e d u c a t i o n t h a t M o s e s r e c e i v e d ; b u t w e m a y c o n j e c t u r e t h a t h e f o u n d it e m b a r r a s s i n g to state, as d o e s P h i l o , that M o s e s , w h o insisted o n a m o n o t h e i s m w i t h n o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the D i v i n e , h a d b e e n t a u g h t h i e r o g l y p h i c s a n d the details o f the E g y p t i a n w o r s h i p o f a n i m a l s .

27

Handsomeness J u s t as h e d o e s in the c a s e o f a n u m b e r o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e r o e s , so also in the in­ stance o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his beauty. A l m o s t at t h e v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f 5

his portrait, M o s e s b e a u t y p l a y s a k e y role. W h e r e a s P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r saves the b a b y in the f l o a t i n g a r k b e c a u s e it is c r y i n g in the B i b l e ( E x o d . 2:6), in J o s e p h u s , h e r m o t i v e is t h a t she is e n c h a n t e d b y his size (jieyedovs)

and beauty

(KOLXXOVS)

(Ant.

2.224). W h e n she b r i n g s the c h i l d M o s e s t o h e r father w i t h the i n t e n t i o n o f a d o p t ­ i n g h i m a n d o f m a k i n g h i m h e i r to t h e k i n g d o m , she d e s c r i b e s h i m as b e i n g o f di­ v i n e b e a u t y (p>op(f>f} . . . Oeiov) (Ant. 2.232). T h i s is all the m o r e effective c o m i n g as it d o e s f r o m a non-Jew, i n a s m u c h as in t h e B i b l e , it is M o s e s ' m o t h e r , J o c h e b e d , w h o is said t o h a v e s e e n t h a t h e r c h i l d w a s g o o d l y (tov)—a w o r d t h a t the S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s as darelov

( " t o w n b r e d , " " p o l i t e , " , " g o o d , " "pretty," " g r a c e f u l , " " c h a r m ­

ing") ( E x o d . 2:2). A p p a r e n d y , this t r a d i t i o n o f M o s e s ' b e a u t y h a d e v e n r e a c h e d the n o n - J e w i s h w o r l d , i n a s m u c h w e find P o m p e i u s T r o g u s (ap. Justin, Historiae

Philippi-

cae 36, Epitome 2.11), w h o l i v e d at the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. a n d at the b e ­ g i n n i n g o f t h e first c e n t u r y C.E., stating t h a t M o s e s ' b e a u t y o f a p p e a r a n c e (formae pulchritudo) r e c o m m e n d e d h i m . W e a r e t o l d t h a t n o n e w a s so indifferent to b e a u t y

(KOLXXOS)

as n o t , o n s e e i n g

h i m , to b e a m a z e d at M o s e s ' c o m e l i n e s s (evpLopfaas) (Ant. 2.231). J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t it often h a p p e n e d t h a t p e r s o n s m e e t i n g h i m as h e w a s b o r n e a l o n g the h i g h ­ w a y n e g l e c t e d their serious affairs to g a z e at h i m ; " i n d e e d , c h i l d i s h c h a r m so p e r ­ fect a n d p u r e as his h e l d the b e h o l d e r s s p e l l b o u n d . "

28

J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e

n o u n s (p,op<j)r) a n d (frpovrjpua) in t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the infant M o s e s b y P h a r a o h ' s

27. W e m a y presume that this might have prompted Josephus's silence about such Hellenistic Jew­ ish historians as Artapanus (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.4), w h o proudly boasts o f the fact that Moses in­ vented hieroglyphic writing and taught religion to the Egyptians, assigning as their gods cats, dogs, and ibises. 28. Similarly, the Midrash states that because Moses was so beautiful everyone wished to look upon him, and whoever saw him could not turn away from h i m (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 1.26 on 2.10, Tanhuma Exodus 8.9; cf. Ecclus. 44:22-45:1). Philo stresses his beauty in several contexts (De Vita Mosis 1.2.9, - 4 5 J 1.4.18). Rabbinic tradition has a similar remark in connection with Joseph, to the effect that when Joseph traveled through Egypt as viceroy, maidens threw gifts at him to make h i m turn his eyes in their direction so as to give them an opportunity to gaze upon his beauty (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 38). Josephus, however, in his appeal to his rationalistic readers, avoids the exaggeration of the rabbis, w h o compare Moses' beauty to that of an angel (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 48.21). i

i

MOSES

385

d a u g h t e r (Ant. 2.232) t h a t a r e u s e d b y D i o n y s i u s in d e s c r i b i n g R o m u l u s a n d R e m u s (Ant. Rom. 1.79.10). F i n a l l y M o s e s ' stature a n d b e a u t y a p p e a r all t h e g r e a t e r b e ­ c a u s e J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s these s a m e qualities in his g r e a t o p p o n e n t O g (Ant. 4-98). A leader, t o b e effective, m u s t also i m p r e s s his p e o p l e w i t h his a p p e a r a n c e . T h i s q u a l i t y is illustrated in J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n M o s e s d e s c e n d e d f r o m M o u n t S i n a i , his r a d i a n t (yavpos

"exulting," "splendid") a n d high-hearted ap­

p e a r a n c e s e r v e d t o dispel t h e Israelites' d i s m a y e d a n d dispirited m o o d (Ant. 3.83). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s w e n t d o w n u n t o t h e p e o p l e a n d s p o k e t o t h e m ( E x o d . 19:25), J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e , d e c l a r i n g , as h e d o e s , t h a t t h e m e r e sight o f M o s e s rid t h e m o f their terrors a n d instilled in t h e m b r i g h t e r h o p e s for t h e future (Ant. 3.83). T h e v e r y air, h e says, b e c a m e s e r e n e a n d p u r g e d o f its r e c e n t d i s t u r b a n c e o n c e M o s e s a r r i v e d . J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y e a g e r t o a n s w e r t h e c a n a r d , c i r c u l a t e d b y M a n e t h o (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.279), a m o n g o t h e r s ,

29

that M o s e s ' appearance w a s m a r r e d by leprosy a n d

t h a t h e w a s , in fact, e x p e l l e d f r o m E g y p t b e c a u s e o f t h e disease. J o s e p h u s , i n his e l a b o r a t i o n , m a y h a v e s o u g h t to c o u n t e r M a n e t h o ' s s t a t e m e n t (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.279) t h a t M o s e s w a s a leper, as w e l l as L y s i m a c h u s ' s c l a i m (ap. Ag. Ap. 1.305-11) t h a t t h e ancestors o f the J e w s w e r e lepers a n d diseased people w h o h a d b e e n banished f r o m E g y p t for t h a t r e a s o n (see H a t a 1 9 8 7 , 1 8 3 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s w a s sensitive to this c h a r g e is c l e a r f r o m his t r e a t m e n t o f t h e p a s s a g e in w h i c h G - d tells M o s e s , as a sign to h e l p c o n v i n c e t h e Israelites t h a t H e h a d i n d e e d a p p e a r e d to h i m , to p u t his h a n d i n t o his b o s o m ( E x o d . 4:6). T h e r e u p o n his h a n d b e c o m e s l e p r o u s , b u t w h e n h e p u t s it b a c k i n t o his b o s o m a n d takes it o u t a g a i n , it is r e s t o r e d a n d like t h e rest o f his flesh. I n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f l e p r o s y ; i n s t e a d , w e a r e t o l d t h a t w h e n M o s e s d r e w forth his h a n d , it w a s " w h i t e , o f a c o l o r r e s e m b l i n g 30

c h a l k " (Ant. 2 . 2 7 3 ) . J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t the i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f t h e anti-Jewish E g y p t i a n w r i t e r s in, o n t h e o n e h a n d , p r e s e n t i n g M o s e s as a n E g y p t i a n priest a n d asserting t h a t h e w a s r e m a r k a b l e (davpuaarov) a n d e v e n d i v i n e (deiov), a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , c l a i m i n g t h a t h e w a s e x p e l l e d b e c a u s e o f l e p r o s y (Ag. Ap. 1.279). J o s e p h u s , r e c a l l i n g this c h a r g e o f l e p r o s y (Ant. 3.265), refutes it b y re­ m a r k i n g t h a t h a d it b e e n true, M o s e s w o u l d n o t , to his o w n h u m i l i a t i o n , h a v e is­ s u e d statutes b a n i s h i n g l e p e r s , e s p e c i a l l y since there a r e n a t i o n s t h a t h o n o r l e p e r s

29. This canard is repeated by Nicarchus, ap. Photius, Lexicon, s.v. a\a, in the first century C.E.; by Ptolemy Ghennos, ap. Photius, Lexicon 190, in the early second century C.E.; and by Helladius, ap. Photius, Lexicon 190, in the early fourth century C.E. There we learn that Moses the legislator was called a\a by the Jews because he had much dull white leprosy (a\ovs) on his body. Inasmuch as Moses is nowhere else called a\<j>a in the extant literature, Heinemann 1935, 361, has suggested that the source of this tradition is the Alexandrian anti-Jewish version of the exodus. 30. Similarly, the Septuagint avoids the mention of leprosy and declares that his hand became as snow. Philo abstains from mentioning that Moses' hand became leprous, and instead asserts that the hand appeared whiter than snow (De Vita Mosis 1.14.79).

386

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

(Ant. 3 . 2 6 6 - 6 8 ) . I n fact, in a significant c h a n g e , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , M o s e s b a n ­ i s h e d l e p e r s , n o t m e r e l y f r o m t h e c a m p , as t h e B i b l e h a s it (Lev. 13:46, 14:3), b u t also f r o m t h e c i t y (Ant. 3.261, Ag. Ap. 1.281), the i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o l e p e r s in J e r u s a l e m in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d a y (see H a t a 1987, 190). F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s d e l i b e r a t e l y o m i t s t h e l e n g t h y discussion o f the s y m p t o m s o f l e p r o s y f o u n d in the B i b l e , i n a s m u c h as this w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y i n d i c a t e t o t h e r e a d e r t h a t the m a l a d y w a s c o m m o n a m o n g Jews. Ultimately, Josephus graciously but con­ fidently

leaves the d e c i s i o n t o t h e r e a d e r (Ant. 3.268). H o w e v e r , j u s t as P l a t o h a d

d e c l a r e d t h a t a p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s h o u l d , i f at all possible, b e h a n d s o m e

(Republic

7 . 5 3 5 A 1 1 - 1 2 ) , so J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s legislated t h a t e v e n t h e slightest m u ­ tilation w a s r e a s o n e n o u g h for disqualification f r o m the p r i e s t h o o d , a n d t h a t a priest w h o d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f his s e r v i c e m e t w i t h s u c h a n a c c i d e n t w a s to b e d e ­ p r i v e d o f his p o s i t i o n (Ag. Ap. 1.284). J o s e p h u s t h e n asks w h e t h e r it is likely t h a t M o s e s w o u l d h a v e e n a c t e d s u c h a stringent l a w if h e h i m s e l f h a d b e e n a l e p e r (Ag Ap. 1.285). Qualities of Leadership J o s e p h u s is e a g e r at e v e r y p o i n t t o u n d e r l i n e M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e as a leader, e s p e ­ cially since the r a c e o f m a n k i n d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , is b y n a t u r e m o r o s e (Svaapearov,

" d i s c o n t e n t , " " g r u m b l i n g , " "irritable") a n d c e n s o r i o u s (i\aiTiov,

" f o n d o f h a v i n g r e p r o a c h e s at h a n d " ) (Ant. 3.23).

31

H e stresses this i m p o r t a n c e o f

M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p b y n o t i n g t h a t the Israelites h a d e n d u r e d h a r d s h i p s in E g y p t for f o u r h u n d r e d y e a r s , a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s a c o n t e s t o n b e t w e e n t h e E g y p t i a n s , striv­ i n g to kill o f f the Israelites w i t h d r u d g e r y a n d the Israelites, e v e r e a g e r to s h o w t h e m s e l v e s s u p e r i o r t o their tasks (Ant. 2.204). T h e details t h a t J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f the h a r d l a b o r i m p o s e d b y the E g y p t i a n s u p o n the Israelites ( E x o d . 1:11) likewise serve to e m p h a s i z e the c r u c i a l role p l a y e d b y M o s e s in l e a d i n g his p e o p l e o u t o f s l a v e r y (Ant. 2.203). I n particular, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d t o l d A a r o n to m e e t M o s e s o n his w a y b a c k f r o m M i d i a n t o E g y p t , a n d w h e r e a s M o s e s a n d A a r o n t h e n g a t h e r t o g e t h e r all o f the elders o f the c h i l d r e n o f Israel ( E x o d . 4:27), J o s e p h u s , in his z e a l to e m p h a s i z e M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e , a r r a n g e s to h a v e h i m m e t b y a d e l e g a t i o n o f the m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d o f the Israelites (Ant. 2.279).

31. W e m a y note that even Tacitus, despite his bitter attack upon the Jews, stresses, more than any o f his predecessors, the role o f M o s e s in inspiring the Israelites in the desert (Histories 5.3.1). H e adds that M o s e s urged t h e m to rely on themselves rather than on m e n and gods, perhaps an allusion to the biblical statement o f G - d to M o s e s w h e n the Israelites complain while b e i n g pursued b y the Egyptian troops: " W h y d o y o u cry to me? Tell the people o f Israel to go forward" (Exod. 14:15). A g a i n , in T a c i ­ tus, M o s e s is the leader w h o frees the Israelites from their misery by finding water for them (Histories 5.3.2). R a g l a n 1934, 212-31, in listing twenty-two characteristic features o f the hero in folklore, remarks that the Moses o f the Bible evidences more o f these (twenty-one) than any other hero. W e m a y note that in Josephus, these twenty-one features are emphasized even further.

MOSES

387

I n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s d o w n g r a d e s t h e role o f A a r o n as M o s e s ' s p o k e s m a n .

3 2

T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states t h a t A a r o n p e r ­

f o r m e d t h e m i r a c l e s in t h e p r e s e n c e o f the p e o p l e in o r d e r to c o n v i n c e t h e m ( E x o d . 4:30), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o , after at first failing t o c o n v i n c e t h e m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d o f t h e Israelites b y a m e r e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the m i r a c l e s , t h e n p r o c e e d s t o p e r f o r m t h e m b e f o r e their eyes (Ant. 2.280). L i k e w i s e , w h e n , at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f his m i s s i o n , M o s e s first c o n s o l i d a t e s his b a c k i n g a m o n g his o w n p e o p l e (Ant. 2.281), t h e B i b l e states t h a t h e a n d A a r o n t h e n w e n t to see P h a r a o h (Ant. 2.281); in J o s e ­ p h u s (Ant. 2.281), M o s e s b e t a k e s h i m s e l f a l o n e after h e is a s s u r e d o f t h e a l l e g i a n c e o f t h e Israelites, o f their a g r e e m e n t t o f o l l o w his o r d e r s , a n d o f their l o v e o f liberty. It is M o s e s , r a t h e r t h a n A a r o n , w h o p e r f o r m s m i r a c l e s w i t h his r o d in t h e p r e s e n c e o f P h a r a o h ( E x o d . 7:10 v s . Ant. 2.284, 287); a n d M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t is all t h e m o r e i m p r e s s i v e b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n , the k i n g h a d r i d i c u l e d h i m . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t it w a s A a r o n w h o w i t h his staff p r o d u c e d t h e p l a g u e o f b l o o d ( E x o d . 7:19), J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e g e n e r a l l y a v o i d s i m p u t i n g m i r a c l e s t o G - d , says t h a t t h e p l a g u e w a s p r o d u c e d at G - d ' s c o m m a n d a n d l e a v e s t h e h u m a n a g e n t u n i d e n t i f i e d (Ant. 2.294). L i k e w i s e , in E x o d u s (8:2, 8:13), it is A a r o n w h o b r i n g s o n t h e p l a g u e s o f frogs a n d lice, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , it is G - d w h o p r o ­ d u c e s t h e m (Ant. 2.296, 300). Similarly, w h e r e a s the B i b l e s e e m s t o g i v e n o r e a s o n for the c h o i c e b y G - d o f A a r o n as h i g h priest ( E x o d . 28:1; L e v . 8:1), in J o s e p h u s , t h e s e l e c t i o n , far f r o m b e i n g arbitrary, is o w i n g n o t o n l y t o A a r o n ' s v i r t u e s b u t also to t h e e x c e l l e n c e (dperrjv) o f M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 3.192). Finally, w h e n G - d instructs M o s e s to inscribe e a c h man's n a m e u p o n a rod a n d to write the n a m e o f A a r o n u p o n t h e r o d o f L e v i in o r d e r t o d e m o n s t r a t e w h o s e r o d , b y d i v i n e i n d i c a t i o n , w i l l s p r o u t ( N u m . 1 7 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s , a p p a r e n d y r e a l i z i n g t h a t this p r e s e n t a t i o n g i v e s m o r e p r o m i n e n c e to A a r o n t h a n to M o s e s , w h o l i k e w i s e c a m e f r o m t h e tribe o f L e v i , states t h a t t h e w o r d " L e v i t e " w a s i n s c r i b e d u p o n A a r o n ' s staff (Ant. 4.64). T h e c h o i c e o f A a r o n t o b e h i g h priest e x p o s e d M o s e s to t h e c h a r g e o f n e p o ­ tism, as w e see in t h e i m p l i e d o b j e c t i o n o f K o r a h (Ant. 4 . 1 8 - 1 9 ) . T h e B i b l e g i v e s n o r e a s o n for G - d ' s c h o i c e o f A a r o n ( E x o d . 28:1). J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , e x p l a i n s t h a t G - d i n s t r u c t e d M o s e s t o c o n f e r t h e h i g h p r i e s t h o o d u p o n A a r o n as t h e

man

w h o s e v i r t u e s r e n d e r e d h i m m o r e d e s e r v i n g o f t h a t office t h a n a n y o n e else (Ant. 3.188-90).

33

32. J. C o h e n 1993,54, asserts that Josephus takes pains to m a k e A a r o n a y o u n g e r brother o f Moses, one b o r n later; but the passage to w h i c h he refers, namely, G - d ' s promise to A m r a m , predicts that M o s e s will have a brother w h o will hold the priesthood, that is, the prediction is that A a r o n will some day b e c o m e high priest, not that A a r o n will be b o r n later (Ant. 2.216). T h a t Josephus is aware that A a r o n was, in fact, older than M o s e s is clear from his statement that A a r o n was three years older than M o s e s (Ant. 2.319). 33. Philo, like Josephus, stresses that M o s e s chose A a r o n to be high priest on his merits rather than because he w a s his brother (De Vita Mosis 2.28.142). H e then adds, in order to emphasize that M o s e s w a s not guilty o f nepotism, that M o s e s did not a d v a n c e his o w n sons to positions o f p o w e r (cf. also De Vita Mosis 1.27.150). It is interesting that Josephus does not make this point (Ant. 2.277-78), perhaps because

388

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

E v e n w h e n it c o m e s to t h e f o o d sent b y G - d , w h e r e a s , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , M o s e s tells t h e Israelites t h a t this is the b r e a d t h a t G - d h a s sent t h e m to e a t ( E x o d . 16:15), J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t p e o p l e w o u l d b e r e l u c t a n t to e a t a f o o d t h a t t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y n e v e r s e e n , h a s M o s e s t a k e t h e role o f l e a d e r in t a s t i n g it first (Ant. 3.26). A g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a p s y c h o l o g i s t ; a n d M o s e s , in J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t , e x c e l s in this r e s p e c t . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states m e r e l y t h a t t h e Israelites d e ­ f e a t e d the A m o r i t e s ( N u m . 21:24), J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s finds a g o o d r e a s o n , b e s i d e s the hostile attitude o f t h e A m o r i t e s , for i n c i t i n g t h e Israelites to a t t a c k — n a m e l y , to d e l i v e r t h e m f r o m t h e i n a c t i v i t y (aTrpa^ias) a n d c o n s e q u e n t i n d i g e n c e

(diropias)

t h a t h a d p r o d u c e d their p r e v i o u s m u t i n y a n d their p r e s e n t d i s c o n t e n t (Ant. 4.87). A n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f M o s e s ' i m p o r t a n c e to t h e Israelites as a l e a d e r m a y b e s e e n in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k , u n p a r a l l e l e d in t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( E x o d . 32:1), t h a t w h i l e M o s e s w a s a b s e n t for forty d a y s o n M o u n t S i n a i , t h e p e o p l e , in t h e i r d e e p distress, i m a g i n e d t h e m s e l v e s bereft o f a p a t r o n (irpooTaTov,

" o n e w h o stands o u t in front

as a c h a m p i o n , " " l e a d e r , " " c h i e f , " "ruler," " g u a r d i a n " ) a n d p r o t e c t o r (KrjSepiovos, " g u a r d i a n " ) , t h e like o f w h o m t h e y w o u l d n e v e r m e e t a g a i n (Ant. 3.98). J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s t h a t a d m i r a t i o n for M o s e s ' m a r v e l o u s p o w e r o f i n s p i r i n g faith in all his u t t e r a n c e s w a s n o t c o n f i n e d t o his lifetime (Ant. 3 . 3 1 7 - 1 8 ) . E v e n in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n day, h e r e m a r k s , " T h e r e is n o t a H e b r e w w h o d o e s n o t , j u s t as if h e w e r e still t h e r e a n d r e a d y to p u n i s h h i m for a n y b r e a c h o f discipline, o b e y the l a w s l a i d d o w n b y M o s e s , e v e n t h o u g h in v i o l a t i n g t h e m h e w o u l d e s c a p e d e t e c t i o n . " H e n o t e s t h a t o n l y r e c e n d y w h e n c e r t a i n n o n - J e w s f r o m M e s o p o t a m i a , after a j o u r n e y o f several months, c a m e to venerate the T e m p l e in Jerusalem, they c o u l d n o t p a r t a k e o f t h e sacrifices t h a t t h e y h a d offered b e c a u s e M o s e s h a d f o r b i d d e n this to t h o s e n o t g o v e r n e d b y the l a w s o f t h e T o r a h . E v e n m o r e t h a n Pericles, h o w e v e r , M o s e s , d u r i n g the s o j o u r n in the desert, stands u n d e r c o n s t a n t c r i t i c i s m a n d t h e t h r e a t o f r e b e l l i o n . T h u s , after t h e spies c o m e b a c k w i t h t h e i r pessimistic r e p o r t a b o u t t h e possibility o f c o n q u e r i n g C a n a a n , the p e o p l e b l a m e M o s e s a n d l o a d h i m a n d A a r o n with abuse, p o u r i n g vi­ t u p e r a t i o n s (pXaar]piLOJv) u p o n t h e m a n d p l o t t i n g t o stone t h e m a n d t o r e t u r n to E g y p t (Ant. 3.307). T h e B i b l e , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t all the c o n ­ g r e g a t i o n e x p r e s s e d the desire t o s t o n e t h e m ( N u m . 14:10). D e s p i t e this u g l y m o o d , M o s e s a n d A a r o n , w e a r e told, i n s t e a d o f p a n i c k i n g , s h o w their c o m p a s s i o n for the p e o p l e , t h e i r a b i l i t y to a n a l y z e t h e c a u s e o f this d e p r e s s i o n , a n d t h e i r o w n true l e a d e r s h i p b y s u p p l i c a t i n g G - d to r i d t h e m o f their i g n o r a n c e a n d t o c a l m t h e i r spirits (Ant. 3.310). H e r e a g a i n t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s p r a y e d t h a t G - d s h o u l d p a r d o n t h e m for c o m p l a i n i n g a g a i n s t H i m ( N u m . 14:19). W h e n M o s e s tells t h e m n o t to fight the C a n a a n i t e s , the Israelites p r o c e e d to a c -

it could have b e e n regarded as a criticism o f the R o m a n e m p e r o r Vespasian for choosing his son Titus as his successor.

MOSES

389

c u s e a n d s u s p e c t h i m o f s c h e m i n g t o k e e p t h e m w i t h o u t r e s o u r c e s in o r d e r t h a t t h e y m a y a l w a y s s t a n d in n e e d o f his a i d (Ant. 4.1). T h e y refer t o M o s e s as a t y r a n t (rvpavvov) a n d d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y a r e s t r o n g e n o u g h b y t h e m s e l v e s to defeat t h e C a n a a n i t e s e v e n if M o s e s s h o u l d desire to alienate G - d f r o m t h e m (Ant. 4.3). T h e y insist t h a t n o t o n l y M o s e s b u t all o f t h e m 21s w e l l a r e o f t h e s t o c k o f A b r a h a m a n d s c o r n w h a t t h e y t e r m t h e a r r o g a n c e (d\a£ov€ias)

o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.4). T h e y a s s e m ­

b l e in d i s o r d e r l y f a s h i o n (d/cd ap,a)s) a n d w i t h t u m u l t a n d u p r o a r ; a n d , i n a g r e a t e l a b o r a t i o n o n the b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e ( N u m . 16:3),

t

n

e

v

s h o u t , " A w a y w i t h the t y r a n t ,

a n d let t h e p e o p l e b e rid o f t h e i r b o n d a g e ! " (Ant. 4 . 2 2 - 2 3 ) . T h e fickle m o b , in a s c e n e h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n in T h u c y d i d e s o f t h e attitude o f t h e A t h e n i a n s t o w a r d Pericles after t h e p l a g u e , in a t u m u l t u o u s (dopvpw&rj) assembly, e x h i b i t t h e i r " i n n a t e d e l i g h t in d e c r y i n g t h o s e in a u t h o r i t y " a n d , in their s h a l l o w ­ ness, s w a y e d b y w h a t a n y o n e said, are in f e r m e n t (Ant. 4.36). O n e is r e m i n d e d o f t h e w a y in w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to T h u c y d i d e s (3.36, 6.19), t h e A t h e n i a n m a s s e s w e r e s w a y e d b y d e m a g o g u e s s u c h as C l e o n a n d A l c i b i a d e s , as w e l l as o f t h e t e c h n i q u e b y w h i c h t h e gullible c a p t a i n o f t h e ship, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m a s s e s , i n P l a t o ' s p a r a b l e (Republic 6 . 4 8 8 A 7 - 8 9 A 2 ) , i n s t e a d o f listening t o t h e t r u e n a v i g a t o r , is w o n o v e r b y t h e f a w n i n g sailors. E v e n after M o s e s is a p p a r e n d y v i n ­ d i c a t e d in his d i s p u t e w i t h K o r a h b y t h e s w a l l o w i n g u p o f t h e rebels b y t h e e a r t h , t h e s k e p t i c a l m o b c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e severity o f the p u n i s h m e n t inflicted u p o n t h e r e b e l s is d u e n o t so m u c h t o t h e i n i q u i t y o f those w h o p e r i s h e d as t o t h e m a c h i n a ­ tions o f M o s e s (Ant. 4 . 6 0 - 6 2 ) . T h e r e a f t e r Z a m b r i a s (Zimri), t h e Israelite w h o h a s relations w i t h a M i d i a n i t e w o m a n , a c c u s e s M o s e s o f t y r a n n y b e c a u s e h e a t t e m p t s to interfere w i t h his free c h o i c e (Ant. 4.149). A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s is careful to p o i n t o u t t h a t M o s e s d i d n o t , like s u c h G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s as P y t h a g o r a s , A n a x a g o r a s , a n d P l a t o , s h o w d i s d a i n for t h e m a s s e s , b u t r a t h e r a d d r e s s e d his t e a c h i n g s t o t h e m a n y , a n d i n d e e d so firmly i m p l a n t e d his t h e o l o g y in their d e s c e n d a n t s t h a t it c a n ­ n o t b e m o v e d (Ag. Ap. 2.169). I n his first e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t a b o u t M o s e s , J o s e p h u s , after d e s c r i b i n g the res­ c u e o f M o s e s b y P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r , r e m a r k s t h a t there is g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e r e w e r e t w o respects in w h i c h M o s e s e x c e l l e d a l l — n a m e l y , in g r a n d e u r o f in­ tellect a n d in c o n t e m p t o f toils (rrdvcov Kara, " m i n d " ) (Ant. 1.19). T i m e , says J o s e p h u s , w h i c h is the m o s t truthful j u d g e o f w o r t h , h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d the v i r t u e o f M o s e s ' p h i l o s o ­ p h y — t h a t is, his a c c o u n t o f G - d (Ag Ap. 2.279). A g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e t o c h o o s e a n d train a s u c c e s s o r w h o will c a r r y o n his w o r k . I n the B i b l e , it is G - d w h o takes the initiative in telling M o s e s to c h o o s e J o s h u a as his s u c c e s s o r ( N u m . 27:18). I n J o s e p h u s , w e are t o l d t h a t b e f o r e c h o o s i n g J o s h u a , M o s e s h a d a l r e a d y i n d o c t r i n a t e d h i m w i t h a t h o r o u g h t r a i n i n g in the l a w s a n d in d i v i n e l o r e (Ant. 4.165). A n d y e t , g r e a t as M o s e s w a s as a leader, J o s e p h u s takes g r e a t p a i n s to m a k e sure

41. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbis, shepherds were disqualified as j u d g e s or witnesses in Palestine, pre­

sumably because they sometimes appropriated the sheep o f others ( Sanhedrin 25b).

MOSES

395

t h a t h e w i l l n o t b e w o r s h i p p e d as a g o d . T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y n e c e s s a r y i n v i e w o f the

frequent

apotheosis

o f h e r o e s , s u c h as D i o n y s u s , H e r a c l e s (cf.

4.38.3-5, 39.1-2), a n d Asclepius, a m o n g the G r e e k s .

4 2

Diodorus

J o s e p h u s m a y also b e react­

i n g t o S o p h o c l e s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e m y s t e r i o u s d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f O e d i p u s i n Oedipus at Colonus, w h i c h b e a r s a s t r i k i n g r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h a t o f M o s e s in his p r e s e n t a ­ tion.

4 3

E v e n after d e a t h , t h e h e r o w a s t h o u g h t t o h a v e p o w e r t o b r i n g g o o d for­

t u n e . F o u n d e r s o f cities w e r e o b j e c t s o f r e l i g i o u s d e v o t i o n , as w e see in P a u s a n i a s (10.4.10) (see W e l l e s 1 9 5 5 , 157; T a l b e r t 1 9 7 5 , 4 2 8 ) .

4 4

M o r e o v e r , stories w e r e t o l d o f

A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t ' s a t t e m p t t o t h r o w h i m s e l f i n t o t h e E u p h r a t e s R i v e r s o t h a t it w o u l d b e t h o u g h t that he h a d passed d i r e c d y to the gods. T o b e sure, in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f M o s e s ' a s c e n t o f M o u n t S i n a i , h e h i n t s t h a t M o s e s a t e h e a v e n l y f o o d (Ant. 3.99), i n a s m u c h as, w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e states t h a t M o s e s n e i t h e r a t e b r e a d n o r d r a n k w a t e r d u r i n g t h e forty d a y s t h a t h e w a s o n t h e m o u n t a i n ( E x o d . 34:28), J o s e p h u s says t h a t h e t a s t e d n o f o o d o f t h e k i n d s d e s i g n a t e d for m e n (Ant. 3.99). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t M o s e s p a r t o o k o f h e a v e n l y f o o d — t h a t is, d r a n k n e c t a r a n d a t e a m b r o s i a (see M e e k s 1 9 6 7 , 141). J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f n o t e s t h a t M o s e s w a s h e l d i n s u c h g r e a t a d m i r a t i o n for his v i r t u e s a n d h i s c h a r i s m a t i c a b i l i t y t o i n s p i r e faith i n all his u t t e r a n c e s t h a t his w o r d s a r e a l i v e t o this d a y (Ant. 3.317). H e r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' l e g i s l a t i o n , b e i n g b e l i e v e d t o c o m e f r o m G - d , h a s c a u s e d h i m t o b e r a n k e d h i g h e r t h a n his o w n h u m a n n a t u r e (Ant. 3.320). E v e n a p a g a n s u c h as C e l s u s (ap. O r i g e n , Contra Celsum

42. See L u c i a n , Cynic 13, where Heracles is called a divine m a n (Oeiov dvSpa). Cf. Pfister 1909-12; Farnell 1921. 43. T h i s is particularly significant, inasmuch as Josephus is definitely indebted to Sophocles else­ where. It is also just possible that Josephus is reacting against the Christian tradition o f the apotheosis o f Jesus (Luke 24; A c t s 1). S e e Fornaro 1979, 431-60; Paul 1975, 473-80. In the play by Ezekiel the T r a g e d i a n (verses 68-89), M o s e s says that he dreamt about a great throne o n top o f M o u n t Sinai o n w h i c h a noble m a n (i.e., G - d ) was seated with a crown a n d a scepter, w h i c h he gave to Moses. J a c o b son 1983, 89-97, interprets this scene as a polemic against the notion o f the apotheosis o f Moses, inas­ m u c h as Ezekiel chose to portray his ascension as an imaginary event. However, inasmuch as even the Epicureans gave credence to dreams, the import o f such a dream w o u l d intimate the divinization o f Moses. If this were really a polemic against the apotheosis o f Moses, Ezekiel should have h a d the noble m a n explicidy declare that while M o s e s is destined to b e recognized as a king, he should realize that h e is mortal. 44. Likewise, it w a s told o f the philosopher Empedocles that after a n evening party, h e disappeared and w a s nowhere to b e found, a n d that one o f those present at the party claimed to have heard a voice from heaven declaring that h e w a s n o w a g o d (Heraclides o f Pontus, ap. D i o g e n e s Laertius [8.68]). Apollonius o f T y a n a is depicted as a godlike m a n

(deios

dvrjp), whose divinity is manifest in his w i s d o m

and virtue (ap. Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.2, 2.17, 2.40,5.24,7.21,7.38, 8.5, 8.7). A g a i n , w h e n speaking o f the death o f Apollonius, Philostratus adds (8.29), "if he did actually die," a n d then declares that n o o n e ventured to dispute that he w a s immortal. Furthermore, a certain senator n a m e d N u merius Atticus swore that h e h a d seen Augustus after his death ascend to heaven like Romulus a n d Proculus (ap. Suetonius, Augustus 94.4). Indeed, the motif o f the apotheosis o f rulers a n d philosophers b e c a m e so widespread that it b e c a m e the subject o f satire in Seneca's Apocolocyntosis a n d in Lucian's De­ orum Concilium a n d De Morte Peregrini.

396

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

1.21) says t h a t M o s e s a c q u i r e d a r e p u t a t i o n for d i v i n e p o w e r , p r e s u m a b l y t h r o u g h his abilities as a m a g i c i a n . B u t in the v e r y p a s s a g e s w h e r e J o s e p h u s refers t o M o s e s as so i n s p i r i n g a n d as r a n k i n g h i g h e r t h a n his o w n n a t u r e , h e is careful to refer to h i m as a m a n (avrjp) (Ant. 3.317, 320). H e o m i t s G - d ' s s t a t e m e n t s t h a t M o s e s w a s to b e t o A a r o n as G - d ( E x o d . 4:16) a n d t h a t G - d w a s m a k i n g h i m as G - d to P h a r a o h ( E x o d . 7:1). H e is careful to dispel the v i e w h e l d b y s o m e t h a t w h e n M o s e s t a r r i e d o n M o u n t S i n a i for forty d a y s , it w a s b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n t a k e n b a c k to the D i v i n i t y (Ant. 3 . 9 5 - 9 6 ) . I f h e refers to M o s e s , as h e d o e s , as a " m a n o f G - d " (Oeiov dvhpa) (Ant. 3.180), it is n o t t o assert M o s e s ' d i v i n i t y b u t r a t h e r to refute those e n e m i e s o f the J e w s w h o h a d c h a r g e d t h e m w i t h slighting the d i v i n i t y w h o m t h e y t h e m s e l v e s professed t o v e n e r a t e (Ant. 3.179). T h a t J o s e p h u s h a s n o i n t e n t i o n o f as­ serting h e r e t h a t M o s e s w a s a c t u a l l y d i v i n e is c l e a r f r o m the p r o o f t h a t h e g i v e s o f M o s e s b e i n g a " m a n o f G - d " — n a m e l y , t h a t the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the t a b e r n a c l e a n d the a p p e a r a n c e o f the v e s t m e n t s a n d vessels o f the priests s h o w his c o n c e r n for piety. J o s e p h u s is e x p l i c i t in stressing t h a t M o s e s d i e d a n d in refuting the n o t i o n t h a t h e w a s s o m e h o w e l e v a t e d to d i v i n e status (Ant. 4.326). T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s d i e d in the l a n d o f M o a b ( D e u t . 34:5), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s w h y S c r i p t u r e m e n t i o n s this, stressing t h a t M o s e s " h a s w r i t t e n o f h i m s e l f in the s a c r e d b o o k s t h a t h e d i e d , for fear lest t h e y s h o u l d v e n t u r e to say t h a t b y r e a s o n o f his sur­ p a s s i n g v i r t u e h e h a d g o n e b a c k to the D - i t y " (Ant. 4 . 3 2 6 ) .

45

It is h i g h l y significant

t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t i n c l u d e the b i b l i c a l statements t h a t G - d H i m s e l f b u r i e d M o s e s a n d t h a t n o o n e k n o w s to this d a y w h e r e h e is b u r i e d ( D e u t . 34:6), p r e s u m ­ a b l y b e c a u s e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t his s k e p t i c a l r e a d e r s m i g h t h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e diffi­ c u l t y a c c e p t i n g t h e m (see T a b o r 1 9 8 9 , 237). H e also a t t e m p t s , m o r e o r less n a t u ralistically to g i v e further details o f M o s e s ' d i s a p p e a r a n c e , n o t i n g t h a t w h i l e M o s e s w a s b i d d i n g f a r e w e l l to E l e a z a r the h i g h priest a n d J o s h u a his successor, a c l o u d s u d d e n l y d e s c e n d e d u p o n h i m a n d h e d i s a p p e a r e d into a r a v i n e . S u c h a n a c c o u n t m i g h t w e l l h a v e r e m i n d e d G e n t i l e r e a d e r s o f the t r a d i t i o n a l v e r s i o n o f the d e a t h s o f the t w o f o u n d e r s o f the R o m a n s , A e n e a s a n d R o m u l u s , as d e s c r i b e d b y D i o n y ­ sius o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , for e x a m p l e ( T h a c k e r a y 1929, 57). I n the c a s e o f A e n e a s , D i o n y s i u s says t h a t his b o d y c o u l d n o w h e r e b e f o u n d , a n d s o m e c o n j e c t u r e d t h a t h e h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d to the g o d s (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4). A s t h a t "the m o r e m y t h i c a l w r i t e r s

46

t

o

Romulus, he remarks

say t h a t as h e w a s h o l d i n g a n a s s e m b l y in the

c a m p , d a r k n e s s d e s c e n d e d u p o n h i m f r o m a c l e a r sky a n d h e d i s a p p e a r e d ,

and

t h e y b e l i e v e t h a t h e w a s c a u g h t u p b y his father A r e s " (Ant. Rom. 2.56.2). J o s e p h u s w o u l d t h u s s e e m t o b e u n d e r s c o r i n g the difference, to s o m e d e g r e e , b e t w e e n M o s e s a n d these R o m a n forefathers in the w a y their lives e n d e d .

45. Similarly, Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities (19.16), and the Assumption of Moses (1.15) affirm that M o s e s ' death took place in public and that G - d buried him. 46. O n e o f these is O v i d , w h o describes a scene in which Jupiter fulfills his promise to lift u p R o m ­

ulus to heaven (Metamorphoses 14.805-85). Cf. O v i d , Fasti 2.481-509, and L i v y 1.16.

MOSES

397

B y c o n t r a s t , t h e e l e v a t i o n o f M o s e s t o d i v i n e status s e e m s t o b e i m p l i e d i n P h i l o , w h o r e m a r k s t h a t M o s e s ' a s s o c i a t e s , s t r u c k b y his t o t a l a s c e t i c i s m a n d b y t h e f a c t that h e w a s so utterly unlike o t h e r m e n , p o n d e r e d w h e t h e r h e w a s h u m a n o r di­ v i n e o r a m i x t u r e o f b o t h (De Vita Mosis 1.6.27;

2

I

2

1

- 5 - 9 ) - Q u i t e clearly, J o s e p h u s

w i s h e d t o h a v e it b o t h w a y s (see T a b o r 1 9 8 9 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 ) : o n t h e o n e h a n d , h e s t r o n g l y r e s i s t e d c o n t e m p o r a r y t e n d e n c i e s t o deify M o s e s o r J e s u s o r A e n e a s o r R o m u l u s ; but, o n the other h a n d , the actual scene that h e describes—the tears a n d

the

w e e p i n g , t h e w i t h d r a w a l , t h e c l o u d d e s c e n d i n g u p o n M o s e s a n d his d i s a p p e a r ­ a n c e , w i t h n o t h i n g s a i d o f t h e b u r i a l itself—is s t r i k i n g l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e p a r a l ­ lels c i t e d a b o v e r e g a r d i n g t h e s e f i g u r e s ' d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e e a r t h .

4 7

THE V I R T U E S O F M O S E S Wisdom I n his final e n c o m i u m o f M o s e s , J o s e p h u s states t h a t h e s u r p a s s e d i n u n d e r s t a n d ­ i n g (avveaei)

all m e n w h o h a d e v e r l i v e d a n d t h a t h e h a d p u t t o n o b l e s t u s e t h e fruit

47. A c c o r d i n g to the rabbinic tradition, M o s e s did not die but rather continued to guide the p e o ­ ple from above (Sotah 13b; Sifie Deuteronomy 357; Midrash Tannaim 224). See G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:163-64, 2

_

n. 452. T h e Palaea Historica (Vassiliev 1893, 5 7 5 ^ ; see Flusser 1971a, 72) recounts a tradition that w h e n M o s e s died alone o n the mountain, S a m a e l the devil tried to bring his b o d y d o w n to the people so that they might worship h i m as a god. G - d then c o m m a n d e d the archangel M i c h a e l to take M o s e s ' b o d y away. S a m a e l objected a n d they quarreled, w h e r e u p o n M i c h a e l w a s vexed a n d rebuked the devil. T h e Samaritans looked u p o n M o s e s as the most perfect o f m e n , without any blemish at all, whether physical or moral, a priest a m o n g angels, one for whose sake the very world h a d b e e n created. See M . Gaster 1927, 75. Far from b e i n g the amanuensis that he seems to b e in the rabbinic tradition, M o s e s is termed b y the Samaritans the light o f knowledge a n d understanding, whose ascent to M o u n t Sinai is said to have taken him to the very heart o f heaven (see M a c D o n a l d i960, 153-54). In addition to the laws intended for ordinary mankind, h e received esoteric knowledge to b e transmitted solely to m e n o f d e e p spiritual insight. It is M o s e s w h o , o n G - d ' s behalf or acting as spokesman for G - d , pro­ n o u n c e d the creative words " L e t there b e light." H e , unlike all other creatures, is said to have b e e n in existence prior to the initial creation process; and, indeed, like the Jesus o f the Fourth G o s p e l , h e w a s created in order to function as G - d ' s creative agent. H e is the great intercessor, a n d only through h i m c a n prayer b e accepted. Moreover, for the Samaritans, M o s e s is the T a h e b ("Restorer"), the expected messiah-like eschatological figure w h o will bring about a golden age and will pray for the guilty a n d save them. T h e S a m a r ­ itans alone give prominence to the tide " m a n o f G - d " for Moses; and, indeed, their depiction o f M o s e s is highly reminiscent o f the N e w Testament's description o f Jesus as the first begotten being, whose preexistent bodiless state subsequendy takes o n matter. Moses is a second G - d , G - d ' s vice-regent u p o n earth (Memar Marqah 1.2), whose very n a m e includes the tide " E l o k i m " ( G - d ) (Memar Marqah 5.4), so that h e w h o believes in h i m believes in his L - r d (Memar Marqah 4.7). S e e H o l l a d a y 1977, 101, n. 344, w h i c h cites the Samaritan Memar Marqah 6.6. S o prominent is M o s e s for the Samaritans that w e hear that a n u n n a m e d m a n was able to gather a large following by promising that he w o u l d show them the sacred implements buried o n M o u n t G e r i z i m by Moses (Ant. 18.85). W h a t is particularly striking in this connection is that M o s e s could not possibly have buried the vessels there, inasmuch as h e never entered the L a n d o f Israel, as M e e k s 1967, 248, remarks. Indeed, this exaltation o f Moses, as M a c D o n a l d i960, 149-62, has remarked, is a unique Samaritan doctrine, without parallel in Jewish, Christian, or M o s l e m belief.

398

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

of his reflections (vorjdeioiv)

PORTRAITS

(Ant. 4.328). M o s e s e x h i b i t s i n g e n u i t y p a r t i c u l a r l y in

his m i l i t a r y c a m p a i g n s , as w e c a n d i s c e r n f r o m t h e a d m i r a t i o n t h a t t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s s h o w s at the s a g a c i t y (imvolas

"conception," "thought," "in­

sight," " i n v e n t i v e n e s s , " "craftiness," "artifice") o f his m a n e u v e r s (Ant.

2.252).

W h e n t h e Israelites c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t M o s e s b e c a u s e o f t h e i r l a c k o f w a t e r a n d s t a n d r e a d y t o stone h i m , J o s e p h u s , in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t , singles o u t M o s e s ' v i r t u e (dpeTrjs) a n d s a g a c i t y (ovveoews) c o m p l e t e l y f o r g o t t e n (Ant. 3 . 1 2 ) . The

as the t w o qualities o f his t h a t t h e y h a d

48

g r e a t e s t c o m p l i m e n t t h a t c o u l d b e g i v e n to a p e r s o n so far as w i s d o m w a s

c o n c e r n e d w a s to call h i m a p h i l o s o p h e r , as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in A r i s t o d e ' s a c ­ c o u n t o f t h e J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r a n d w h o l e d h i m to g e n e r a l i z e t h a t the J e w s w e r e d e s c e n d e d f r o m I n d i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s (Ag. Ap. 1.179). T h a t J o s e p h u s l o o k e d u p o n M o s e s as a p r o f o u n d p h i l o s o p h e r is to b e i n f e r r e d f r o m his s t a t e m e n t t h a t a n y o n e w h o e x a m i n e d t h e r e a s o n s for e v e r y article in t h e c r e e d t r a n s m i t t e d by M o s e s w o u l d find the i n q u i r y p r o f o u n d a n d h i g h l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l (iX6ao

n. 143; a n d Schalit 1944-63, i:lxxi. T h e fact that a parallel for M o s e s ' marriage with the Ethiopian princess is not found in Artapanus but appears only in midrashim w o u l d argue for this explanation. A s to w h y it is not found in the older midrashim and, indeed, does not appear in rabbinic literature until the eleventh century (Targum Yerushalmi Numbers 12:1; Sefer ha-Tashar; Shalshelet Haqqabala; Dime Hayamim shelMoshe; Chronicles ofJerahmeel 45-56), R a p p a p o r t 1930,117, n. 143, suggests that perhaps the portrayal o f Moses, the Levite, as a w a r hero was e x p u n g e d b y the opponents o f the Levite Hasmoneans. H o w -

MOSES

403

J o s e p h u s h a s r e s o r t e d to this e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x p a n s i o n for s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e e p i s o d e supplies a c a s e h i s t o r y b o t h o f t h e c a u s e s o f J e w - h a t r e d a n d o f t h e benefits t h a t t h e J e w s h a v e g i v e n to society. O n the o n e h a n d , it a d m i r a b l y illustrates J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e t w o b a s i c feelings o f those p r e j u d i c e d a g a i n s t J e w s a r e h a t r e d (JJLLOOS) a n d e n v y (66vos), as i n d i c a t e d b y t h e fact t h a t t h e

ever, the H a s m o n e a n s looked u p o n themselves as K o h a n i m (priests), from w h o m the Levites sprang, rather than as Levites; and, in any case, M o s e s was such a national hero that such censorship seems un­ likely. A n o t h e r possible view is that the tradition w a s e x p u n g e d at a time w h e n there w a s opposition to a J e w leading a w a r in foreign service, but w e k n o w o f no such opposition. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m with this theory is that these rabbinic sources depict M o s e s as fighting on the side o f the Ethiopians, whereas Josephus presents h i m as attacking them; still other problems are that in these sources, M o s e s marries the w i d o w o f the Ethiopian king, that he refrains from having relations with her, and that he reigns as king o f Ethiopia for forty years and then separates from her, whereas in Josephus, he marries the daughter o f the king, and there is n o mention o f these other details. O n the other hand, Frankel 1851, 119, n. k), far from suggesting that Josephus borrowed it from midrashim, conjectures that the Ethiopian episode in the late midrashim was b o r r o w e d from Josephus through Josippon; but Josippon, in the ex­ tant version, does not have any such episode. (2) Josephus h a d an A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish source, w h i c h was, as B r a u n 1938, 26-27, postulates, a pro-Jewish reply to an anti-Jewish Egyptian account, such as is found in (Pseudo-)Manetho. T h i s source is usually identified as A r t a p a n u s (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.1-37); so Bloch 1879, 60-62; Freudenthal 1874-75,

I :

^ 9 - 7 0 ; G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 5:409-10, n. 80;

and H e i n e m a n n 1935, 372. (We m a y note, incidentally, that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus are silent about M o s e s ' slaying o f the Egyptian overseer.) But Artapanus omits the crucial story o f M o s e s ' mar­ riage with the Ethiopian princess. H a l e v y 1927,115, endeavors to explain this omission b y asserting that he did so for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as he did not w a n t to m a k e M o s e s figure in a love story; but, in v i e w o f the fact that A r t a p a n u s does attribute to M o s e s such un-Jewish conceptions as the introduc­ tion o f the worship o f cats, dogs, and ibises (ap. Eusebius, Pr. En 9.27.4), w e m a y assume that he w a s seeking to impress his p a g a n audience, w h o certainly w o u l d have appreciated such a love story as that o f M o s e s and T h a r b i s . Moreover, he attributes to M o s e s the foundation o f M e r o e , so n a m e d from M e r ris, M o s e s ' adoptive mother, whereas Josephus (Ant. 2.249)

s a v s

m

a

t

M e r o e drew its n a m e from the sis­

ter o f C a m b y s e s . Josephus never mentions Artapanus, although he surely h a d ample opportunity to d o so, particularly in his apologetic treatise Against Apion. L e v y 1907, 201, postulates that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus b o r r o w e d from Pseudo-Hecataeus, w h o tells o f the c a m p a i g n o f Sesostris against the Ethiopians (ap. D i o d o r u s 1.54). Braun 1938, 99-100, agrees that Josephus's story o f T h a r b i s derives from a p r e - A r t a p a n e a n version, and that the omissions in Artapanus himself can be explained in light o f Artapanus's habit o f selectivity in citing only religious and cultural data rather than warlike and erotic events o f his sources. Willrich adopted this view (1895, 168-69), but later retracted it (1900, in—14). Holscher 1916, 1959, postulates a lost A l e x a n d r i a n midrash as Josephus's source both for this addition and for m a n y other changes in his paraphrase o f the Bible. Schalit 1944-63 introduction, i:xlviii-xlix, concludes that both A r t a p a n u s and Josephus derive from a c o m m o n source (he suggests A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor), but that Josephus's version represents a later stage o f its development. W a ­ cholder 1962, 58, suggests that the source w a s Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , since the interweaving o f ro­ m a n c e a n d warfare and an anti-Egyptian bias are salient characteristics o f Nicolaus's presentation. T h e v i e w that Josephus h a d an A l e x a n d r i a n Jewish source is plausible, inasmuch as a story a b o u t a w a r between E g y p t and Ethiopia w o u l d be o f particular relevance to the Egyptians, for w h o m the Ethiopi­ ans were a perpetual, seldom c o n q u e r e d foe. Still, w e m a y wonder, although admittedly the argumentum ex sitentio is hardly conclusive, w h y Philo, w h o writes at such length apologetically about M o s e s in his De Vita Mosis and is particularly c o n c e r n e d to answer the charges of Jew-baiters, does not repeat this story, w h i c h w o u l d have served to answer so m a n y o f their contentions. T h e romantic motif m a y have c o m e

4

o

4

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

E g y p t i a n s , b y a p p o i n t i n g h i m as t h e i r g e n e r a l in the e x t r e m e l y d a n g e r o u s c a m ­ p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s , h o p e d , like P r o e t u s w i t h B e l l e r o p h o n a n d like D a v i d w i t h U r i a h , to r i d t h e m s e l v e s o f M o s e s b y g u i l e (Ag. Ap. 1.224). O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , the e p i s o d e s h o w s h o w m u c h the E g y p t i a n s a c t u a l l y o w e d t o the Israelite l e a d e r M o s e s , i n a s m u c h as, t h r o u g h his successful c a m p a i g n , h e w a s a b l e to save the E g y p t i a n s f r o m the t h r e a t p o s e d b y their m o s t d a n g e r o u s foe (Ant. 2 . 2 8 1 - 8 2 ) . O n c e the E g y p t i a n s a r e t h u s s a v e d b y M o s e s , h o w e v e r , P h a r a o h , m o t i v a t e d b y e n v y o f M o s e s ' g e n e r a l s h i p a n d b y fear o f s e e i n g h i m s e l f a b a s e d , d e c i d e s to m u r d e r M o s e s (Ant. 2.255). B y t h u s shifting the r e a s o n for P h a r a o h ' s w r a t h f r o m his u m b r a g e at M o s e s ' m u r d e r o f the E g y p t i a n t o e n v y o f his m i l i t a r y ability, J o s e p h u s h e r e m a y w e l l b e a n s w e r i n g s u c h anti-Jewish w r i t e r s as M a n e t h o b y s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the E g y p t i a n s , r a t h e r t h a n c a l u m n i a t i n g the J e w s , s h o u l d b e grateful t o t h e m for the a i d r e n d e r e d to t h e m b y the J e w s t h r o u g h M o s e s , a n d t h a t J e w s a c t u a l l y are p a ­ triotic, as s e e n in the i n s t a n c e o f M o s e s , w h o risked his life to save the E g y p t i a n s f r o m the E t h i o p i a n t h r e a t . I n the s e c o n d p l a c e , the e p i s o d e disproves the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the J e w s are c o w ­ a r d s w h o a r e militarily i n e p t . O n the contrary, M o s e s t u r n s o u t to b e a brilliant strategist a n d is fearless in b a t d e a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s ; a n d the J e w i s h p e o p l e c a n thus l o o k b a c k w i t h p r i d e u p o n h a v i n g s u c h a f o u n d i n g father. T h i s p o i n t is e s p e ­ cially effective, since e v e n so g r e a t a m i l i t a r y l e a d e r as the P e r s i a n k i n g C a m b y s e s ( H e r o d o t u s 3 . 1 7 - 2 6 ) h a d b e e n unsuccessful in his a t t e m p t t o c o n q u e r E t h i o p i a , h a d h a d to m a k e a n i g n o m i n i o u s r e t r e a t to E g y p t ( H e r o d o t u s 3.25), a n d h a d suc­ c e e d e d in c o n q u e r i n g o n l y the a r e a i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t to E g y p t ( H e r o d o t u s

from the Ninus R o m a n c e , w h i c h , according to R a t t e n b e r g 1933, 211-57, and B r a u n 1938, 9, dates from the first century B.C.E. (3) Josephus m o d e l e d the story, or at least the T h a r b i s episode, on one or more popular stories drawn from m y t h o l o g y or legend: Salia, the Etruscan princess w h o was abducted b y Cathetus, w h o was m a d l y in love with her (Alexander Polyhistor, ap. Plutarch, Paralkla Graeca et Romana 40B [315EF]); the A m a z o n Antiope, w h o fell in love with Theseus and surrendered the city to him (Pausanias 1.2.1); the R o m a n Tarpeia, w h o opened the gate o f the R o m a n fortress to the Sabine Titus Tatius, w h o m she loved (Livy 1.11; O v i d , Fasti 1.261 ff.; Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.38; Propertius 4.4); Scylla, w h o pulled out the purple hair that g r e w on her father's head, and on w h i c h his life depended, so that M i n o s , w h o m she loved, might capture her city o f M e g a r a (Apollodorus 3.15.8); Polycrita, w h o (in a direct reversal o f the story o f M o s e s and Tharbis) saved her country by taking ad­ vantage o f the love for her o f the general w h o was besieging her city (Parthenius 9.18; Plutarch, Mulierum Vvrtutes 17; Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 3.15; Polyaenus 8.36); Peisidice, w h o betrayed her city because o f her love for Achilles, w h o was besieging it (Parthenius 21); L e u c o p h r y e , w h o betrayed her fa­ ther to her lover (Parthenius 5); Nanis, the daughter o f Croesus, w h o betrayed her father to her lover C y r u s , king o f the Persians (Parthenius 22); D e m o n i c e , w h o betrayed her city because o f her love for Brennus, king o f the Galatians, w h o w a s besieging it (Plutarch, Parallela Minora 15); C o m a i t h o (Apol­ lodorus 2.4.7). A n d , finally, (4) Josephus invented it himself. T h i s is the v i e w o f H e i n e m a n n 1935, 374, w h o avers that the w a y that Josephus embellishes the story o f Joseph and Potiphar's wife shows h o w m u c h such r o m a n c e w o u l d reflect Josephus's taste; but as B r a u n 1934 and Sprodowsky 1937 assert, Josephus's portrait o f Joseph itself depends largely on older legendary materials.

MOSES

405

3.97). I n d e e d , t h e E t h i o p i a n s h a d a r e p u t a t i o n for b e i n g i n v i n c i b l e ( S t r a b o 16.4.4); a n d e v e n A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t h a d failed t o o v e r c o m e t h e m .

6 1

T h i r d l y , J o s e p h u s seeks b y m e a n s o f this e p i s o d e t o h u m a n i z e his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s . G i v e n the biblical text alone, w e m a y well w o n d e r w h a t qualifications a s h e p h e r d s u c h as M o s e s h a d to l e a d h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f Israelites in a trek t h r o u g h a n u n k n o w n d e s e r t a n d in m i l i t a r y struggles a g a i n s t n u m e r o u s n a t i o n s . T h e E t h i o p i a n e p i s o d e , in effect, t u r n s o u t to b e a t r a i n i n g a n d p r o v i n g g r o u n d for M o s e s , i n a s m u c h as h e a l r e a d y h e r e s h o w s m i l i t a r y s a g a c i t y in l e a d i n g a n a r m y t h r o u g h a d e s e r t a g a i n s t a foe r e n o w n e d for b r a v e r y a n d m i l i t a r y e x c e l l e n c e (Ant. 2.244). W e m a y s u g g e s t t h a t t o s o m e d e g r e e , J o s e p h u s m a y h a v e m o d e l e d M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s u p o n t h e b i b l i c a l d a t a o f M o s e s ' c a m p a i g n across t h e S i n a i desert. F o u r t h l y w h e r e a s t h e ibis w a s c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e E g y p t i a n s t o b e d i v i n e , J o s e ­ p h u s , c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e E g y p t i a n c l a i m t h a t their r e l i g i o n w a s o f e x t r e m e a n t i q ­ uity, p o r t r a y s t h e ibis as b e i n g m e r e l y a v e r y useful p a r t o f M o s e s ' s t r a t e g y t o o v e r ­ c o m e t h e snakes infesting t h e desert. F i f t h l y t h e e p i s o d e , i n c l u d i n g , as it d o e s , the l o v e affair o f M o s e s a n d

the

E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s , n o t m e n t i o n e d b y A r t a p a n u s , p r o v i d e s r o m a n t i c interest for J o s e p h u s ' s r e a d e r s . I n d e e d , E t h i o p i a a l w a y s h a d r o m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n s for t h e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s , i n a c c e s s i b l e as it w a s a n d h e n c e , as s e e n , for e x a m p l e i n t h e l a t e r n o v e l b y H e l i o d o r u s , l i n k e d w i t h all sorts o f m a r v e l s in t h e G r e e k a n d R o m a n m i n d (see S n o w d e n 1970). H e r e , t o o , t h e r e is a n a p o l o g e t i c strain, in t h a t M o s e s a b i d e s b y his a g r e e m e n t a n d m a r r i e s t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s , w h e r e a s in t h e p a r a l ­ lel stories o f t h e G r a e c o - R o m a n l e g e n d a r y a n d h i s t o r i c a l traditions, t h e

hero

s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y b e t r a y s t h e traitoress. A m a j o r q u a l i t y o f a m i l i t a r y leader, as w e see, for e x a m p l e , in t h e p o r t r a i t o f A e n e a s in V i r g i l , is s h e e r e n d u r a n c e in t h e f a c e o f adversity. M o s e s e x h i b i t s this q u a l i t y w h e n , for a s e c o n d t i m e , h e m u s t traverse a desert, this t i m e w h e n f l e e i n g f r o m P h a r a o h , w h o , in envy, is t r y i n g to kill h i m after his successful c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s . W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e states s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s fled f r o m P h a r a o h a n d c a m e to t h e l a n d o f M i d i a n ( E x o d . 2:15), J o s e p h u s a d d s a n u m b e r o f details: t h a t h e w a s a b l e t o e s c a p e despite t h e fact t h a t t h e r o a d s w e r e g u a r d e d ; t h a t h e o n c e a g a i n a d o p t e d t h e s t r a t a g e m o f g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e desert, since h e felt t h a t his foes w o u l d b e less likely to c a t c h h i m t h e r e ; t h a t h e left w i t h o u t p r o v i s i o n s ; a n d t h a t h e w a s n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n f i d e n t (Kara^povcov

"indifferent,"

"fearless,"

" t r u s t i n g firmly," " h a v i n g e x t r e m e c o n f i d e n c e " ) o f his p o w e r s o f

endurance

(Kaprepia

" p e r s e v e r a n c e , " "steadfastness") (Ant. 2.256).

It is his q u a l i t y o f c o u r a g e (Odpoos, " h a r d i h o o d " ) t h a t l e a d s M o s e s to a p p r o a c h

n

61. Consequently, as Holladay 1983,1:235, - 5^? points out, victories over the Ethiopians became a frequent motif for enhancing the standing of heroes, e.g., Osiris (Diodorus 1.17.1, 18.3-4), Sesostris (Diodorus 1.55.1, 1.94.4; Herodotus 2.110; Strabo 16.4.4), and Semiramis (Diodorus 2.14.4).

406

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

the b u r n i n g b u s h , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s ' s e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , n o m a n , b y r e a s o n o f its d i v i n i t y h a d p e n e t r a t e d p r e v i o u s l y (Ant. 2.267).

Furthermore,

w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , t h e v o i c e tells M o s e s t h a t h e will b e sent t o P h a r a o h to b r i n g forth t h e Israelites f r o m E g y p t ( E x o d . 3:10), in J o s e p h u s , t h e role e n v i s a g e d for M o s e s is a m i l i t a r y o n e , since t h e v o i c e b i d s h i m c o u r a g e o u s l y (Oappovvra) to E g y p t t o a c t as c o m m a n d e r a n d l e a d e r (arpanqyov

return

Kal rjyepLova) (Ant. 2.268).

T h e i m a g e o f M o s e s t h a t e m e r g e s f r o m t h e B i b l e is s o m e t i m e s o n e o f t i m i d i t y T h u s , at t h e b u r n i n g b u s h , w h e n G - d tells M o s e s t o cast his staff o n the g r o u n d , h e flees f r o m it w h e n it b e c o m e s a s e r p e n t ( E x o d . 4:3). I n J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f M o s e s fleeing; i n d e e d , w e a r e n o t t o l d o f M o s e s ' r e a c t i o n at all (Ant. 2.272). M o s e s ' b r a v e r y is h i g h l i g h t e d b y v i r t u e o f t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s G - d tells h i m to r e t u r n t o E g y p t , "for all t h e m e n a r e d e a d w h o s o u g h t t h y life" ( E x o d . 4:19), t h e r e is n o s u c h a s s u r a n c e to b e f o u n d i n J o s e p h u s , w h e r e G - d s i m p l y tells M o s e s to h a s t e n to E g y p t w i t h o u t further delay, p r e s s i n g f o r w a r d b y n i g h t a n d d a y (Ant. 2.274). W h e n M o s e s a p p e a r s b e f o r e t h e n e w P h a r a o h , h e presents h i m s e l f as a m i l i t a r y m a n . I n fact, his first r e m a r k t o P h a r a o h is to r e m i n d h i m o f t h e services t h a t h e r e n d e r e d t o the E g y p t i a n s in t h e c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e E t h i o p i a n s a n d o f his c o m ­ m a n d i n g a n d l a b o r i n g a n d i m p e r i l i n g h i m s e l f for his t r o o p s — a n d all this w i t h o u t d u e r e w a r d f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s (Ant. 2.282). I n the B i b l e , t h e Israelites c o m p l a i n t o M o s e s b e c a u s e t h e E g y p t i a n s h a v e n o w i n c r e a s e d their o p p r e s s i o n o f t h e Israelites b y r e q u i r i n g t h e m to g a t h e r their o w n s t r a w for t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f b r i c k s , a n d M o s e s , in t u r n , c o m p l a i n s t o G - d ( E x o d . 5:20-23). J o s e p h u s ' s M o s e s refuses to w a v e r b e f o r e either t h e k i n g ' s threats o r t h e r e c r i m i n a t i o n s o f t h e Israelites, h o w e v e r , a n d i n s t e a d steels his s o u l i n his d e v o t i o n to s e e k i n g his p e o p l e ' s l i b e r t y (Ant. 2.290). J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s ' c o u r a g e b y m a k i n g P h a r a o h ' s t h r e a t after t h e p l a g u e o f d a r k n e s s m o r e v i v i d (Ant. 2.290). I n t h e B i b l e , P h a r a o h is q u o t e d as s a y i n g to M o s e s m e r e l y t h a t h e s h o u l d b e g o n e , a n d t h a t the m o m e n t t h a t h e l o o k s u p o n his f a c e a g a i n , M o s e s w i l l die ( E x o d . 10:29). J o s e p h u s , for his p a r t , says t h a t P h a r a o h w a s infuriated (opyioQeis)

by M o s e s ' speech and that he actually

t h r e a t e n e d to b e h e a d h i m i f h e s h o u l d e v e r c o m e a g a i n a n d p e s t e r

(ivox^tov,

" a n n o y , " " t r o u b l e , " " b e a n u i s a n c e " ) h i m o n this m a t t e r (Ant. 2.310). O f c o u r s e , M o s e s ' g r e a t e s t m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t , as J o s e p h u s stresses, is his l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e Israelites d u r i n g t h e E x o d u s (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 5 7 - 5 8 ) . I n particular, t h e p i c t u r e t h a t J o s e p h u s p a i n t s is t h a t o f a g e n e r a l w h o , like X e n o p h o n in t h e Anaba­ sis, takes c o m m a n d o f m o t l e y t r o o p s — i n d e e d , the Israelites a r e r e f e r r e d to as a n a r m y (Ant. 3 . 4 ) — a n d b r i n g s t h e m safely to their d e s t i n a t i o n t h r o u g h a h o s t o f for­ m i d a b l e difficulties, o v e r c o m i n g b o t h their l a c k o f w a t e r a n d hostile tribes. It is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, in a n s w e r t o the c h a r g e o f the anti-Jewish b i g o t s t h a t t h e J e w s are c o w a r d s , t h a t M o s e s is a d m i r e d for his c o u r a g e (avSpayaOia, " m a n l y v i r t u e " ) b y a non-Jew, his f a t h e r - i n - l a w

"bravery,"

R a g u e l (Jethro) (Ant.

3.65).

" T h r o u g h o u t all this," says J o s e p h u s , " h e p r o v e d the best o f g e n e r a l s , t h e sagest

MOSES

[avverwraros,

407

" m o s t intelligent," " s a g a c i o u s , " " w i s e " ] o f c o u n s e l o r s , a n d the m o s t

c o n s c i e n t i o u s o f g u a r d i a n s " (Ag. Ap. 2.158). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s stresses h e r e t h a t a successful g e n e r a l m u s t b e intelligent, e v e n as h e later notes, in a c o m ­ m e n t n o t f o u n d in the B i b l e , t h a t the A m o r i t e s , in their b a t d e w i t h t h e Israelites, s h o w e d n e i t h e r skill in c o u n s e l (povr]oai heivovs) n o r v a l o r in a c t i o n (Ant. 4.94; cf. N u m . 21:25). T h e h i g h p o i n t o f M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p d u r i n g the E x o d u s o c c u r s at the S e a o f R e e d s . J o s e p h u s increases the m a g n i t u d e o f this a c h i e v e m e n t o f M o s e s ' b y h e i g h t ­ e n i n g t h e d r a m a o f the E g y p t i a n c h a s e o f the Israelites a n d the v i g o r o f their p u r ­ suit (Ant. 2.321). I n particular, M o s e s ' a c h i e v e m e n t at the S e a o f R e e d s is all the greater, i n a s m u c h a s — a p o i n t m a d e t w i c e b y J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2.321, 3 2 6 ) — t h e Is­ raelites w e r e u n a r m e d , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , at least a c c o r d i n g to the H e b r e w v e r ­ sion, t h e y w e r e a r m e d ( E x o d . 13:18). M o r e o v e r , in c o n t r a s t to the B i b l e , w h i c h states t h a t the E g y p t i a n s h a d 600 c h a r i o t s b u t d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e the n u m b e r o f h o r s e m e n a n d infantry ( E x o d . 14:7), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s the E g y p t i a n t h r e a t b y giving a round number—50,000—for

their h o r s e m e n a n d h e a v y infantry

(Ant.

2.324). J o s e p h u s a d d s to the d a n g e r c o n f r o n t i n g the Israelites b y n o t i n g t h a t the E g y p t i a n s , b y c o n f i n i n g t h e m b e t w e e n inaccessible cliffs a n d the sea, h a d b a r r e d all routes b y w h i c h t h e y m i g h t a t t e m p t to e s c a p e (Ant. 2.324-25). I n a s c e n e r e m i ­ n i s c e n t o f X e n o p h o n ' s p o r t r a y a l o f the A t h e n i a n s ' r e a c t i o n to their terrible defeat in the n a v a l b a t d e o f A e g o s p o t a m i (Hellenica 2.2.3), J o s e p h u s h e i g h t e n s the p a t h o s o f the situation b y i n v o k i n g the w a i l i n g s a n d l a m e n t a t i o n s o f the w o m e n a n d c h i l ­ d r e n " w i t h d e a t h b e f o r e their eyes, h e m m e d in b y m o u n t a i n s , sea, a n d e n e m y " (Ant. 2.328). A t this p o i n t , G - d in the B i b l e b e r a t e s M o s e s for c r y i n g o u t to H i m i n s t e a d o f telling the p e o p l e to g o f o r w a r d , a n d t h e n instructs h i m to smite the sea ( E x o d . 14:15). I n J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o r e b u k i n g o f M o s e s (Ant. 2.329-33); o n the contrary, M o s e s , w e are told, firmly trusts in G - d (Ant. 2.329); h e takes the initia­ tive, in a n e x t e n d e d s p e e c h , in e x h o r t i n g the p e o p l e ; a n d , w i t h o u t a n y instructions f r o m G - d , h e smites the sea (Ant. 2.338). It is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s p a i n t s the e n c o u n t e r at the S e a o f R e e d s as a b a t ­ d e (Ant. 2.334). A s J o s e p h u s presents matters, it w a s o n l y b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e e x ­ h a u s t e d f r o m the p u r s u i t t h a t the E g y p t i a n s d e f e r r e d the b a t d e . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , the m i r a c l e c o m e s at G - d ' s initiative ( E x o d . 14:16), in J o s e p h u s , it is M o s e s w h o suggests the m i r a c l e to G - d , r e m i n d i n g H i m t h a t the sea is G - d ' s a n d t h a t 62

c o n s e q u e n d y H e c a n m a k e the d e e p b e c o m e d r y l a n d (Ant. 2 . 3 3 7 ) . It is significant

62. E v e n though generally Josephus downgrades or rationalizes miracles, here, whereas the Bible declares that it took all that night for G - d to drive back the sea (Exod. 14:21), in Josephus, w e are told that the miracle was instantaneous, and that the sea recoiled at M o s e s ' very stroke (Ant. 2.338). A d d i ­ tionally a n d very uncharacteristically, Josephus adds to the miracle b y remarking that rain fell in tor­ rents from heaven, and that crashing thunder a c c o m p a n i e d the flash of lightning (Ant. 2.343). Further­ more, he heightens the miracle by stating that the Egyptians were punished in such wise as n o other people h a d ever b e e n before within h u m a n m e m o r y (Ant. 2.346). See M o e h r i n g 1973, 376-83.

408

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t h a t in a d d u c i n g a p a r a l l e l for the s u p e r n a t u r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n at the S e a o f R e e d s , J o s e p h u s cites the c r o s s i n g o f the P a m p h y l i a n S e a , w h i c h w i t h d r e w b e f o r e the a r m y o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t (Ant. 2.348). H e thus i m p l i c i t l y c o m p a r e s M o s e s to t h a t g r e a t e s t o f c o n q u e r o r s , w h i l e also m a k i n g the m i r a c l e itself m o r e c r e d i b l e b y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it w a s n o t w i t h o u t p r e c e d e n t . B u t p e r h a p s m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f all, J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a totally n e w e l e m e n t w i t h his s t a t e m e n t t h a t it w a s M o s e s w h o b r a v e l y l e d the w a y in e n t e r i n g the sea (Ant. 2.339). W i t h s u c h a leader, w e are n o t s u r p r i s e d t o find J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l r e m a r k t h a t the Israelites s p e d into the sea w i t h zest, a s s u r e d o f G - d ' s a t t e n d a n t p r e s e n c e , so t h a t the w a t c h i n g E g y p t i a n s d e e m e d t h e m m a d (Ant. 2.340). O n e o f the g n a w i n g q u e s t i o n s t h a t a n y r e a d e r o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f the e x ­ o d u s will ask is why, if M o s e s w a s s u c h a g r e a t leader, h e c h o s e to l e a d t h e Israelites b y s u c h a r o u n d a b o u t r o u t e t o the P r o m i s e d L a n d . T h e B i b l e ' s a n s w e r is t h a t G - d c h o s e this r o u t e lest the p e o p l e h a v e a c h a n g e o f h e a r t w h e n the Philistines m a d e w a r o n t h e m a n d so a t t e m p t t o r e t u r n t o E g y p t ( E x o d . 13:17). J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to h e i g h t e n the role o f M o s e s , asserts t h a t it w a s M o s e s h i m s e l f w h o c h o s e this r o u t e (Ant. 2.322). J o s e p h u s w a s c l e a r l y dissatisfied w i t h the B i b l e ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e r e a l i z e d t h a t the r o u n d a b o u t r o u t e itself p r e s e n t e d e n o r ­ m o u s m i l i t a r y o b s t a c l e s a n d , in a d d i t i o n , w o u l d h a v e c o n f r o n t e d the p e o p l e w i t h the t r e m e n d o u s p r o b l e m o f thirst in a trackless desert. H e n c e , a c o m p e t e n t l e a d e r w o u l d surely, it m i g h t s e e m , h a v e c h o s e n the m o r e d i r e c t r o u t e a l o n g the s e a c o a s t . K e e n l y a w a r e o f this p r o b l e m , J o s e p h u s offers t w o further e x p l a n a t i o n s in a d d i ­ tion t o the b i b l i c a l a n s w e r : t h a t i f the E g y p t i a n s h a d c h a n g e d their m i n d s a n d s o u g h t to p u r s u e the Israelites, G o d w o u l d h a v e h a d r e a s o n to p u n i s h t h e m for this m a l i c i o u s b r e a c h o f their p a c t , a n d t h a t the Israelites m i g h t t h e r e b y h a v e c o m e to Mount

Sinai, where

2-322-23).

G-d

had

commanded

them

to

offer

sacrifices

(Ant.

63

B y a m p l i f y i n g the sufferings o f the Israelites in the desert, J o s e p h u s increases the stature o f their l e a d e r M o s e s as w e l l (Ant. 3.1). I n the first p l a c e , it is t o M o s e s ' c r e d i t as a l e a d e r t h a t h e o r d e r s t h e m to t a k e w a t e r w i t h t h e m (Ant. 3.2); a n d w h e n this is e x h a u s t e d a n d the a v a i l a b l e w a t e r is so bitter that, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i ­ tion, n o t e v e n the beasts o f b u r d e n find it tolerable, a n d the Israelite r a b b l e (6'xAos) are i n c a p a b l e o f m e e t i n g the stress o f necessity w i t h m a n l y fortitude (TO

avSpeiov),

it is to M o s e s t h a t t h e y t u r n for s a l v a t i o n (Ant. 3.4). B y e x a g g e r a t i n g the Israelites' m i s e r y b e c a u s e o f their l a c k o f w a t e r (Ant. 3 . 9 - 1 1 ) , in c o n t r a s t to the b r i e f s t a t e m e n t in the B i b l e ( E x o d . 15:27), a n d b y l i k e w i s e e x p a n d i n g o n the Israelites' i n d i g n a t i o n at M o s e s a n d their r e a d i n e s s to stone h i m , their g e n e r a l (orparriyov),

as h e signifi­

c a n t l y t e r m s h i m , J o s e p h u s further h e i g h t e n s M o s e s ' l e a d e r s h i p role (Ant. 3 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . F a c e d w i t h i m m i n e n t s t o n i n g b y the Israelite m o b , M o s e s fearlessly stands u p to

63. Philo gives, in addition to the biblical reason, a factor unmentioned by Josephus, namely, that M o s e s sought, by leading the Israelites through a l o n g stretch o f desert, to test the extent o f their loy­ alty w h e n supplies b e c a m e scarce (De Vita Mosis 1.29.164).

MOSES

409

his critics a n d tells t h e m t h a t h e h a s n o fear for his o w n safety, i n a s m u c h as, h e re­ m a r k s , it w o u l d b e n o m i s f o r t u n e for h i m to b e unjustly d o n e to d e a t h (Ant. 3.21). I n t h e c r u c i a l e n c o u n t e r w i t h A m a l e k , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , as w e h a v e n o t e d , M o s e s entrusts t h e l e a d e r s h i p in b a t d e t o J o s h u a ( E x o d . 17:9), in J o s e p h u s , it is r a t h e r M o s e s h i m s e l f w h o takes the l e a d in c a l l i n g u p the h e a d s o f t h e tribes a n d t h e o t h e r officers a n d e x h o r t s these s u b o r d i n a t e s to o b e y h i m , their g e n e r a l (Ant. 3 . 4 7 - 4 8 ) . M o s e s t h u s e x h i b i t s o n e o f t h e c r u c i a l qualities o f a g r e a t g e n e r a l , t h e ability to select s u b o r d i n a t e s . I n this case, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t M o s e s t o l d J o s h u a t o select m e n for the b a t d e ( E x o d . 17:9), J o s e p h u s tells us t h a t M o s e s s e l e c t e d J o s h u a a n d e n u m e r a t e s t h e qualities t h a t t h e latter possessed: e x t r e m e c o u r a g e a n d v a l o r in e n d u r a n c e o f toil (Ant. 3.49). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , all t h a t M o s e s d o e s d u r i n g Israel's conflict w i t h A m a l e k is to h o l d u p his h a n d s ( E x o d . 17:11), in J o s e p h u s , h e p l a y s a m u c h m o r e a c t i v e role, p o s t i n g a s m a l l force o f a r m e d m e n a r o u n d t h e w a t e r as a p r o t e c t i o n for t h e w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n a n d for t h e c a m p in g e n e r a l (Ant. 3.50). M o s e s h i m s e l f stays u p all n i g h t i n s t r u c t i n g J o s h u a h o w t o m a r s h a l his forces. F u r t h e r m o r e , at the first streak o f d a w n , h e , in A e n e a s ­ like f a s h i o n , e x h o r t s b o t h J o s h u a a n d his m e n o n e b y o n e a n d finally a d d r e s s e s stirring w o r d s t o t h e w h o l e a r m y (Ant. 3.51). J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e H e b r e w v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t all t h e A m a l e k i t e s w o u l d h a v e p e r i s h e d h a d n o t n i g h t i n t e r v e n e d to stop the c a r n a g e (Ant. 3.54). H e a d d s further details, t h u s e m b e l l i s h i n g his p o r t r a i t o f M o s e s as a c o n q u e r i n g g e n e r a l (Ant. 3.55): t h e Israelites, w i t h their m o s t n o b l e (KaXXiarrjv) a n d m o s t t i m e l y (Kaupiwrdrriv)

v i c t o r y terrified t h e n e i g h b o r i n g n a t i o n s a n d , in t h e

p r o c e s s , a c q u i r e d a v a s t b o o t y , w h i c h J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s at l e n g t h (Ant. 3 . 5 6 - 5 7 ) . T h e y e n s l a v e d n o t o n l y t h e p e r s o n s b u t also t h e spirit (povrjpLara) o f t h e A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 3.56). S o i n s p i r i n g w a s M o s e s to his m e n t h a t after d e f e a t i n g A m a l e k , t h e y b e g a n to p l u m e t h e m s e l v e s o n their v a l o r a n d to h a v e h i g h a s p i r a ­ tions for h e r o i s m (Ant. 3.58). W h i l e the B i b l e g i v e s n o c a s u a l t y figures ( E x o d . 17:13), J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t n o t a single o n e o f the Israelites w a s slain, w h e r e a s t h e e n e m y ' s d e a d w e r e p a s t n u m b e r i n g (Ant. 3.59). Finally, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e h e re­ a l i z e d t h a t a g o o d g e n e r a l k n o w s h o w to c h e e r u p his t r o o p s w i t h festivities, his M o s e s , after t h e victory, r e g a l e s his forces w i t h festivity (ev(x)x^s)

(Ant. 3.60), j u s t

as h e d o e s after t h e v i c t o r y o v e r O g (Ant. 4.101). I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n t o t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t ( E x o d . 16:6), J o s e p h u s states t h a t M o s e s t h e n r e s t e d t h e Israelites for a f e w d a y s , a p p a r e n d y so t h a t t h e y m i g h t refresh t h e m s e l v e s (Ant. 3 . 6 1 - 6 2 ) . T h a t t h e c r e d i t for t h e v i c t o r y b e l o n g s to M o s e s is c l e a r f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t after t h e b a t d e , A a r o n a n d J e t h r o ( R a g u e l ) s i n g t h e praises o f M o s e s , " t o w h o s e m e r i t [dperriv] it w a s d u e t h a t all h a d b e f a l l e n to their h e a r t s ' c o n t e n t " (Ant. 3.65). E v e n w h e n p r e s e n t i n g M o s e s as a j u d g e , J o s e p h u s refers t o h i m in m i l i t a r y l a n ­ g u a g e as a g e n e r a l (arpayrjyov)

(Ant. 3.67). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e r e c o u n t s M o s e s '

c h o i c e o f s u b o r d i n a t e j u d g e s ( E x o d . 18:25), the a d v i c e g i v e n to M o s e s b y his fatheri n - l a w R a g u e l (Jethro) is t h a t h e r e v i e w his army d i l i g e n d y a n d d i v i d e it i n t o g r o u p s a n d m a r s h a l (hiaKoapaqaovai

" d i v i d e , " "muster," a m i l i t a r y t e r m ) t h e m , n o t , as in

4io

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t h e B i b l e , in sections o f t h o u s a n d s , h u n d r e d s , fifties, a n d tens, b u t r a t h e r in g r o u p s o f t h o u s a n d s , five h u n d r e d s , h u n d r e d s , fifties, thirties, t w e n t i e s , a n d tens (Ant. 3.70-71).

64

S u c h a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , says R a g u e l , a g a i n a d o p t i n g m i l i t a r y t e r m i n o l ­

ogy, w i l l r e n d e r G - d m o r e p r o p i t i o u s to t h e a r m y (oTparcp). E v e n w h e n M o s e s as­ c e n d s M o u n t S i n a i to r e c e i v e t h e L a w , h e is d e p i c t e d b y J o s e p h u s as a m i l i t a r y l e a d e r (oTparrjyov)

(Ant. 3.78). A n d w h e n M o s e s r e t u r n s w i t h t h e L a w a n d lists t h e

r e w a r d s t h a t t h e p e o p l e w i l l r e c e i v e i f t h e y f o l l o w the C o m m a n d m e n t s , h e u r g e s t h e m to e n g a g e in b a t d e (irepipiax^TOTepoi) for these m o r e j e a l o u s l y t h a n for c h i l ­ d r e n a n d w i v e s , j u s t as h e p o i n t s o u t t h a t i f this w e r e a b a t d e , t h e y w o u l d b e re­ d o u b t a b l e (<j>o$€poi) to their foes (Ant. 3 . 8 8 ) .

65

A k e y q u a l i t y in a g e n e r a l , as a l r e a d y n o t e d , is the ability to inspire his troops. I n t h e B i b l e , w h e n M o s e s arrives at t h e b o r d e r s o f C a n a a n , h e d o e s n o t s p e a k to t h e Israelites g e n e r a l l y b u t m e r e l y g i v e s d i r e c t instructions to t h e scouts w h o are to spy o u t the l a n d ( N u m . 13:17-20). T h e J o s e p h a n M o s e s , in a n i n s p i r i n g s p e e c h to t h e entire p e o p l e , r e m i n d s t h e m o f t h e b l e s s i n g o f liberty, w h i c h G - d h a s a l r e a d y g r a n t e d t h e m , a n d o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e P r o m i s e d L a n d , w h i c h is s o o n to b e theirs (Ant. 3.300-301). H e t h e n tells his p e o p l e to p r e p a r e for t h e task o f c o n q u e r ­ i n g t h e l a n d ; in a n A e n e a s - l i k e p o s e , h e r e m i n d s t h e m t h a t the task w i l l n o t b e easy. W h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , it is G - d ' s i d e a t o s e n d scouts ( N u m . 13:2), J o s e p h u s ,

66

ever

s e e k i n g to b u i l d u p t h e stature o f M o s e s as a m i l i t a r y planner, attributes t h e p l a n t o M o s e s (Ant. 3.302). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t w i t h o u t M o s e s ' m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p , the Israelites a r e d o o m e d to defeat. T h u s w h e n , after t h e r e p o r t o f the spies, t h e Israelites seek to as­ c e n d the hill c o u n t r y w i t h o u t M o s e s ' g u i d a n c e ( N u m . 1 4 : 4 0 - 4 5 , D e u t . 1:42), t h e y suffer a m a s s i v e defeat, t h e details o f w h i c h a r e e x p a n d e d c o n s i d e r a b l y b y J o s e ­ p h u s (Ant. 4 . 7 - 8 ) , w h o t h e r e b y u n d e r l i n e s t h e i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y o f M o s e s ' g e n e r a l ­ ship. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , at this p o i n t , G - d takes t h e initiative in telling M o s e s

64. See Baskin 1983, 66, w h o remarks that this reorganization o f M o s e s ' forces is strikingly close to R o m a n troop formations, where each officer took his tide from the n u m b e r o f m e n w h o m he c o m ­ m a n d e d . Similarly, w e m a y add, w h e n Josephus describes the Israelite c a m p , he follows the pattern o f the R o m a n c a m p , with the tabernacle, as T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:459, n. a, remarks, replacing the praetorium (Ant. 3.289). 65. O n e o f the embarrassing questions that readers might well have asked is w h y the Levites— Moses a m o n g t h e m — w e r e exempt from military service. T h e Bible gives no reason (Num. 1:47);

D u t

Josephus offers a very plausible explanation, namely, that the Levites were a holy tribe (Ant. 3.287). A s to w h y certain classes o f people are e x e m p t from military service, namely, those w h o have recendy built houses, those w h o have not yet partaken o f the fruits o f their plantings, and those w h o have recendy been betrothed and married, the Bible gives as the reason "lest he die in batde a n d another m a n enjoy what he has started" (Deut. 20:5-8). Josephus formulates the reason, rather, in terms o f the likelihood o f their being less brave and shirking danger because o f nostalgia for what they h a d left behind (Ant. 4.298). 66. S o also Philo (De Vita Mosis 1.40.221). O n this point Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 15.1) agrees with the biblical text.

MOSES

411

to d i v e r t his r o u t e into the w i l d e r n e s s ( N u m . 14:25), it is M o s e s , in J o s e p h u s ' s e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h o takes the initiative in s h o w i n g the i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a d i n g a g o o d retreat (Ant. 4 . 9 - 1 0 ) . O n e o f t h e c r u c i a l q u a l i t i e s o f a g e n e r a l is t h e a b i l i t y t o inspire his t r o o p s w i t h e a g e r n e s s for b a t d e . M o s e s ' p o s s e s s i o n o f this q u a l i t y is s e e n in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e t a i l ( N u m . 2 1 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) in w h i c h J o s e p h u s states t h a t b e f o r e t h e b a t t l e w i t h t h e A m o r i t e s , M o s e s r o u s e d t h e a r d o r o f his soldiers, u r g i n g t h e m t o g r a t i f y t h e i r lust for b a t t l e (Ant. 4 . 8 8 - 8 9 ) . S o effective is M o s e s t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e y p r o c e e d i n t o a c t i o n . It is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t , f a c e d w i t h s u c h spirit, t h e A m o r i t e s a c t u a l l y b e c o m e fearful. T h e r o u t t h a t f o l l o w s is r e c o u n t e d v e r y s i m ­ p l y in t h e B i b l e : " I s r a e l p u t t h e m [the A m o r i t e s ] t o t h e s w o r d " ( N u m . 21:24). T h i s b e c o m e s , in Josephus's version, a n elaborate description o f a p a n i c 4.90-92), w h i c h draws heavily on T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t

6 7

(Ant.

o f the A t h e n i a n d e b a ­

cle at S y r a c u s e . L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s o n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t ( N u m . 21:24) o f t h e spoil o f t h e A m o r i t e s t a k e n b y t h e H e b r e w s (Ant. 4 . 9 3 - 9 4 ) . Israel's v i c t o r y o v e r O g is all t h e g r e a t e r a n d t h e c r e d i t t o b e g i v e n t o M o s e s t h e g e n e r a l all t h e m o r e e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t so c o n f i d e n t w a s O g o f s u c c e s s t h a t h e w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o m a k e trial o f t h e I s r a e l i t e s ' v a l o r d e ­ spite t h e fact t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d t h a t his friend S i h o n h a d a l r e a d y p e r i s h e d (Ant. 4

. 6).

6 8

9

T h e b a t d e w i t h O g is a further test o f M o s e s ' mettle. T h a t O g w a s a g i a n t is c l e a r f r o m the B i b l e , w h i c h states t h a t his b e d s t e a d w a s n i n e cubits (13 feet) in l e n g t h , a n d four c u b i t s (6 feet) in w i d t h ( D e u t . 3:11). J o s e p h u s , r e a l i z i n g t h a t t o cite s u c h d i m e n s i o n s w o u l d i m p u g n his credibility, o m i t s t h e m , w h i l e stressing O g ' s h u g e size in m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m s b y stating t h a t h e h a d a stature a n d b e a u t y s u c h as f e w c o u l d b o a s t (Ant. 4.98). H o w e v e r , w h e r e a s the B i b l e says s i m p l y t h a t t h e Is­ raelites c o n q u e r e d all o f O g ' s cities a n d t h a t these w e r e fortified ( D e u t . 3:4-5), J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s m a t t e r s b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f the r e a l m o f O g s u r p a s s e d in r i c h e s all the o c c u p a n t s o f t h a t a r e a , t h a n k s t o the e x c e l l e n c e o f their soil a n d a n a b u n d a n c e o f c o m m o d i t i e s (Ant. 4.97). I n his last t e s t a m e n t to the Israelites, M o s e s , in a p a s s a g e t h a t h a s n o p a r a l l e l in the B i b l e (cf. D e u t . 2 0 : 1 0 - 1 4 ) , g i v e s m i l i t a r y a d v i c e t o the p e o p l e — n a m e l y , t h a t w h e n g o i n g to w a r t h e y s h o u l d select as their c o m m a n d e r a n d as G - d ' s l i e u t e n a n t t h e o n e m a n w h o is p r e e m i n e n t for v a l o r (dperfj) a n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d a v o i d di­ v i d e d l e a d e r s h i p (Ant. 4 . 2 9 7 ) .

69

67. See the comments o f T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:521, nn. b and c, w h o cites, in particular, the paral­ lel with T h u c y d i d e s ' account (7. 83-84) o f the retreat o f the Athenians from Syracuse. 68. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, however, O g dwelt only one day's distance from S i h o n (Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 4.8; Midrash Tannaim 4). 69. Here, too, as T h a c k e r a y 1926-34, 4:619, nn. a and b, remarks, Josephus is indebted for his lan­ guage to T h u c y d i d e s (6.72).

412

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Temperance It is in his p o s s e s s i o n o f the v i r t u e o f t e m p e r a n c e that M o s e s m o s t c l e a r l y e m e r g e s as the S t o i c - l i k e sage. W e m a y call a t t e n t i o n to J o s e p h u s ' s final e u l o g y for M o s e s , w h e r e h e is d e s c r i b e d as h a v i n g f o u n d f a v o r in e v e r y w a y , b u t chiefly t h r o u g h his c o m m a n d o f his p a s s i o n s (riAav6pa)Triav) e x t e n d e v e n to a n i m a l s , w h o s e use is a u t h o r i z e d o n l y in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the L a w . W h e n J o s e p h u s d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e M o s a i c L a w r e q u i r e s the J e w to p o i n t o u t t h e r o a d to o t h e r s (Ag. Ap. 2.211), it is a l ­ m o s t as if h e is r e p l y i n g to J u v e n a l ' s c h a r g e (14.103) t h a t M o s e s ' secret b o o k forbids p o i n t i n g o u t t h e w a y to a n y n o t w o r s h i p p i n g a c c o r d i n g to the s a m e rites as t h e J e w s . M o r e o v e r , says J o s e p h u s , in a n a d d i t i o n t o the B i b l e (Lev. 19:14), o n e is n o t p e r m i t t e d , for the p l e a s u r e o f o n e ' s s e l f - a m u s e m e n t , to i m p e d e a n o t h e r b y m i s ­ l e a d i n g h i m (Ant. 4.276). T h e M o s a i c L a w , h e says, t e a c h e s m e n n o t to h a t e t h e i r fellows b u t to s h a r e t h e i r possessions (Ag Ap. 2.291). I n t h e Antiquities, M o s e s , far f r o m h a t i n g m a n k i n d , is d e p i c t e d as b e a r i n g n o m a l i c e e v e n t o w a r d K o r a h a n d his f o l l o w e r s , w h o h a d r e b e l l e d a g a i n s t his a u t h o r i t y a n d w h o w e r e o n t h e v e r g e o f s t o n i n g h i m to d e a t h (Ant. 4 . 1 1 - 1 2 ) . L i k e w i s e , B a l a k , in his c o n c e r n w i t h t h e g r o w i n g p o w e r o f t h e Israelites, h a s n o t l e a r n e d , w e a r e told, t h a t t h e H e b r e w s are n o t w o n t to interfere (iToXvTTpaypLoveiv) w i t h o t h e r c o u n t r i e s a n d are, in fact, f o r b i d d e n b y G - d to d o so (Ant. 4.102). J o s e ­ p h u s also omits a n y reference to the passage w h e r e M i r i a m a n d A a r o n speak against M o s e s o n account o f the Ethiopian w o m a n w h o m he h a d married ( N u m . 12:1); s u c h m u r m u r i n g o n t h e p a r t o f s u c h h i g h l y p l a c e d p e o p l e w o u l d s u r e l y h a v e b e e n t a k e n as i n d i c a t i v e o f p r e j u d i c e a g a i n s t t h e h i g h l y r e s p e c t e d E t h i o p i a n s . I n c o n t r a s t t o s u c h p e o p l e s as t h e S p a r t a n s , w h o m a d e a p r a c t i c e o f e x p e l l i n g for­ e i g n e r s (Ag Ap. 2.259), a n d e v e n t h e A t h e n i a n s , w h o p e r s e c u t e d t h o s e w h o h e l d v i e w s at v a r i a n c e w i t h t h o s e o f t h e state (Ag Ap. 2 . 2 6 2 - 6 8 ) , M o s e s is s a i d t o h a v e m o s t liberally, m o s t g r a c i o u s l y , a n d u n g r u d g i n g l y w e l c o m e d into t h e J e w i s h fold

78. T h e latter remark w o u l d appear to be contradicted by the fact that the Israelites, before leav­ ing Egypt, despoiled the Egyptians (Exod. 12:36), and by the further fact that, after their victory over the Amalekites, M o s e s ordered the corpses o f the enemies to be stripped (Ant. 3.59). S o also Ant. 4.93, after the victory over the Amorites, a n d Ant. 4.162, after the defeat o f the Midianites. Likewise, Philo emphasizes the h u m a n i t y (dv dnovcos oidyovras)

(Ant. 4.167).

E v e n in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the M o s a i c c o d e , J o s e p h u s is m o r e d r a m a t i c . T h u s , D e u t . 20:19 p r e s e n t s the l a w t h a t w h e n e n g a g e d in a l o n g siege, the Israelites a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o d e s t r o y t h e trees in t h e a r e a . J o s e p h u s d r a m a t i c a l l y q u o t e s w h a t t h e trees w o u l d s a y i f t h e y w e r e e n d o w e d w i t h v o i c e s , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e y w o u l d p l e a d t h a t t h e y w e r e in n o w a y r e s p o n s i b l e for the w a r , t h a t t h e y w e r e b e i n g m a l ­ t r e a t e d u n j u s d y a n d t h a t i f t h e y h a d the p o w e r , t h e y w o u l d h a v e m i g r a t e d t o a n ­ o t h e r c o u n t r y (Ant. 4.299). T h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f the w a i l i n g at M o s e s ' a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h b e c o m e s m u c h m o r e g r a p h i c in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the B i b l e , it is o n l y after M o s e s ' d e a t h t h a t t h e Israelites b e w a i l h i m for thirty d a y s , b u t t h e r e is n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e w a i l i n g itself ( D e u t . 34:8). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , w e h a v e a m u c h m o r e d r a m a t i c s c e n e . I n t h e first p l a c e , t h e w a i l i n g is m o r e m o v i n g b e c a u s e it takes p l a c e after M o s e s h a s t o l d t h e Israelites a b o u t his a p p r o a c h i n g d e a t h a n d h a s g i v e n his blessings to t h e p e o p l e , b u t w h i l e h e is still alive. S e c o n d l y , w e are t o l d t h a t t h e m u l t i t u d e bursts

440

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

i n t o tears, w i t h t h e w o m e n b e a t i n g t h e i r breasts. M o s t m o v i n g o f all is t h a t t h e c h i l ­ d r e n w a i l e v e n m o r e , i n a s m u c h as t h e y a r e t o o feeble to s u p p r e s s t h e i r grief. M o s e s ' g r e a t n e s s is a g g r a n d i z e d b y t h e fact t h a t the c h i l d r e n , w e a r e told, in t h e i r l a m e n t , u n d e r s t a n d his v i r t u e s a n d g r a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s to a n e x t e n t b e y o n d t h e i r y e a r s (Ant. 4.320). P e r h a p s m o s t p o i g n a n t o f all is t h e fact t h a t e v e n M o s e s himself, a w a r e , t h o u g h h e o b v i o u s l y w a s , as J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s us, t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t d e ­ s p o n d as the e n d a p p r o a c h e s , b e c a u s e d e a t h befalls o n e in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e w i l l o f G - d a n d b y a l a w o f n a t u r e , is y e t r e d u c e d to tears w h e n h e sees the l a m e n t s o f t h e p e o p l e (Ant. 4.322). O n e o f t h e m a j o r d e v i c e s in G r e e k t r a g e d y is t h e use o f i r o n y as w e see n o t a b l y in S o p h o c l e s ' Oedipus the King (see A r i s t o d e , Poetics 1 1 . 1 4 5 2 A 2 2 - B 8 ) . J o s e p h u s i n t r o ­ d u c e s this m o t i f m o s t effectively at s e v e r a l p o i n t s in his n a r r a t i v e . T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e s i m p l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r sent h e r m a i d to fetch t h e b a b y M o s e s ( E x o d . 2:5), J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t t h e i r o n y in the situation, in t h a t t h e v e r y p e r s o n s w h o b y r e a s o n o f M o s e s ' b i r t h h a d d e c r e e d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f all c h i l d r e n o f H e b r e w p a r e n t a g e w e r e m a d e to c o n d e s c e n d t o n o u r i s h a n d t e n d h i m (Ant. 2.225). J o s e p h u s also a t t e m p t s t o m a k e his n a r r a t i v e m o r e a p p e a l i n g t o his G r e e k r e a d ­ ers b y i n t r o d u c i n g r o m a n t i c motifs. T h u s , t h e s c e n e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s P h a r a o h ' s d a u g h t e r p l a y i n g b y t h e r i v e r b a n k (Ant. 2 . 2 2 4 )

18

r e m i n i s c e n t o f the s i m -

d a r s c e n e d e s c r i b i n g N a u s i c a a o n t h e s h o r e o f P h a e a c i a in H o m e r ' s

Odyssey

(6.100 f f ) . O f c o u r s e , t h e m o s t striking i n s t a n c e o f s u c h a n i n t r o d u c t i o n o f r o m a n ­ tic motifs is t h e s c e n e in w h i c h t h e E t h i o p i a n p r i n c e s s T h a r b i s falls m a d l y i n l o v e (els epcora Seivov coXiaOev) w i t h t h e b r a v e e n e m y g e n e r a l , M o s e s , w h o is b e s i e g i n g t h e E t h i o p i a n s ' c a p i t a l (Ant. 2.252). S u s p e n s e is t h e h a l l m a r k o f t h e G r e e k r o m a n c e s a n d is p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t as w e l l in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f the B i b l e . A g o o d e x a m p l e o f this d e v i c e in c o n n e c ­ t i o n w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e M o s e s n a r r a t i v e m a y b e s e e n in the a c c o u n t o f t h e e x t r e m e a g o n y o f thirst suffered b y t h e Israelites at R e p h i d i m . A c c o r d i n g to t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , G - d tells M o s e s t h a t H e will s t a n d b e f o r e h i m , t h a t h e s h o u l d strike the r o c k , a n d t h a t w a t e r w i l l c o m e o u t o f it, w h e r e u p o n M o s e s d o e s so in the sight o f t h e e l d e r s o f Israel ( E x o d . 17:6). I n J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e e l a b o r a t e a c c o u n t , t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e s u s p e n s e : M o s e s , w e a r e told, a p p r o a c h e s t h e p e o p l e , w h o a r e e x p e c t a n t a n d h a v e t h e i r eyes fixed u p o n h i m , h a v i n g a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d h i m h a s t e n i n g f r o m t h e hill (Ant. 3.36). J o s e p h u s a d d s a further stage to t h e story, i n w h i c h M o s e s first tells t h e p e o p l e t h a t G - d w i l l d e l i v e r t h e m f r o m t h e i r distress in a n u n e x p e c t e d m a n n e r , n a m e l y , t h a t a r i v e r is to f l o w for t h e m o u t o f t h e r o c k . T h e s u s p e n s e is i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e t h e Israelites t h i n k t h a t t h e y a r e b e i n g c o m ­ p e l l e d , e x h a u s t e d as t h e y are, t o c l e a v e t h e r o c k . O n e c a n i m a g i n e t h e i n c r e d u l i t y o f t h e p e o p l e at this p r e d i c t i o n a n d t h e t r e m e n d o u s s u s p e n s e as M o s e s strikes t h e r o c k to see w h e t h e r t h e w o r d s w i l l c o m e true. T h e s u s p e n s e e n d s w h e n M o s e s strikes t h e r o c k w i t h his staff, a n d a c o p i o u s s t r e a m o f w h a t w e a r e t o l d is m o s t p e l -

MOSES

441

l u c i d w a t e r g u s h e s forth. T h e m e r e sight o f it, w e are t o l d in a n e x t r a d r a m a t i c t o u c h , a l r e a d y slakes t h e p e o p l e ' s t r e m e n d o u s thirst (Ant. 3.38).

SUMMARY B e c a u s e M o s e s w a s t h e o n e figure i n t h e J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n w h o w a s w e l l k n o w n t o t h e p a g a n w o r l d a n d a l s o b e c a u s e h e h a d b e e n r e v i l e d b y s e v e r a l anti-Jewish w r i t e r s , J o s e p h u s m a y b e a s s u m e d t o h a v e felt a s p e c i a l n e e d t o p a i n t a f a v o r a b l e p i c t u r e o f h i m . S e v e r a l e v e n t s in M o s e s ' life p r e s e n t e d a p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m for J o s e p h u s , n o t a b l y his m u r d e r o f a n E g y p t i a n overseer, his m a r r i a g e t o a n o n J e w i s h w o m a n , Z i p p o r a h , his l o w l y o c c u p a t i o n o f s h e p h e r d , his t i m i d i t y w h e n h e is s e l e c t e d b y G - d at t h e b u r n i n g b u s h t o b e t h e l e a d e r o f t h e Israelites, t h e l e p r o u s n e s s o f his h a n d at o n e p o i n t , his failure t o c i r c u m c i s e his sons, his s p e e c h d e ­ fect a n d his n e e d t o h a v e his b r o t h e r A a r o n as his s p o k e s m a n , his p e r m i s s i o n t o t h e Israelites t o " b o r r o w " j e w e l r y a n d c l o t h i n g f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s , his n e e d t o t u r n t o his f a t h e r - i n - l a w J e t h r o for a d v i c e , his a n g e r i n s m a s h i n g t h e first set o f tablets o f t h e law, his a b a n d o n m e n t o f his w i f e Z i p p o r a h , his m a r r i a g e t o a n E t h i o p i a n w o m a n , his s k e p t i c i s m w h e n G - d p r o m i s e s t h a t H e w i l l s u p p l y t h e Is­ raelites w i t h m e a t , his d i s o b e d i e n c e t o w a r d G - d i n s t r i k i n g r a t h e r t h a n s p e a k i n g t o t h e r o c k , a n d his i n a b i l i t y t o a n s w e r t h e c o m p l a i n t s o f Z e l o p h e h a d ' s d a u g h ­ ters. D e s p i t e t h e fact t h a t h e p r o m i s e s in his p r o e m n e i t h e r t o a d d n o r to s u b t r a c t a n y t h i n g f r o m t h e b i b l i c a l text, in t h e a b o v e cases J o s e p h u s s i m p l y o m i t s t h e e p i s o d e o r d i m i n i s h e s t h e e m b a r r a s s m e n t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s is c a r e f u l t o a v o i d t h e u n d u e a g g r a n d i z e m e n t a n d n e a r deification o f M o s e s f o u n d i n t h e S a m a r i t a n t r a d i t i o n a n d , to a lesser d e g r e e , in t h e r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n . L i k e w i s e , b e ­ c a u s e his s o p h i s t i c a t e d a u d i e n c e w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y h a v e f o u n d t h e b i b l i c a l m i r a ­ cles h a r d l y c r e d i b l e , h e t e n d s to d o w n g r a d e o r r a t i o n a l i z e t h e m ; or, as in t h e c a s e o f the miraculous crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds, he m a k e s a point o f noting the par­ allel o f t h e c r o s s i n g o f the P a m p h y l i a n S e a b y A l e x a n d e r t h e G r e a t . B e c a u s e t h e Antiquities

is a n a p o l o g e t i c w o r k d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y to n o n - J e w s ,

J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s M o s e s as e m b o d y i n g t h e qualities o f t h e g r e a t h e r o e s o f t h e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s , n o t a b l y t h e e x t e r n a l qualities o f g o o d b i r t h a n d h a n d s o m e stature, p r e c o c i o u s n e s s in his y o u t h , a n d the f o u r c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s o f w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y w h a t w a s , in effect, a fifth c a r ­ d i n a l v i r t u e , piety. M o s e s ' a p p e a l to this a u d i e n c e is p a r t i c u l a r l y effective, g i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f M o s e s as t h e i d e a l leader, e s p e c i a l l y in his m e e t i n g t h e test o f s e d i t i o n a n d in c o p i n g w i t h t h e u n r u l y m o b . J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s e n t a t i o n o n this p o i n t is h i g h l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f T h u c y d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Pericles, o f P l a t o ' s d e s c r i p ­ tion o f the philosopher-king, o f Virgil's portrayal o f A e n e a s , a n d o f the traditional S t o i c s a g e ; w h i l e c o n c u r r e n d y t h e role o f A a r o n as his s p o k e s m a n is c o n s i d e r a b l y d o w n g r a d e d . It is p a r t i c u l a r l y as e d u c a t o r , legislator, a n d p o e t , a n d , a b o v e all, as

442

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

g e n e r a l a n d p r o p h e t t h a t M o s e s e x c e l s . I n stressing these a c h i e v e m e n t s , J o s e p h u s shifts the focus f r o m G - d to M o s e s . J o s e p h u s ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f M o s e s a r e o c c a s i o n e d b y his a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n to d e f e n d the J e w s a g a i n s t their o p p o n e n t s ' c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u ­ larly c o w a r d i c e , p r o v i n c i a l i s m , a n d i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d b y his p o s i t i v e desire to p o r ­ t r a y a p e r s o n a l i t y w h o w o u l d b e fully c o m p a r a b l e to s u c h g r e a t l e a d e r s , w h e t h e r historical o r l e g e n d a r y , as H e r a c l e s , L y c u r g u s , A e n e a s , a n d Pericles. Finally, J o s e ­ p h u s h a s u t i l i z e d s e v e r a l m o t i f s — n o t a b l y i r o n y a n d s u s p e n s e — f r o m the G r e e k t r a g e d i a n s in o r d e r to r e n d e r his n a r r a t i v e m o r e d r a m a t i c .

C H A P T E R

ELEVEN

Joshua

THE IDEALIZATION OF THE

LEADER

S i n c e t h e ability to d i s c e r n the qualities o f p e o p l e a n d , a b o v e all, to select a w o r ­ t h y successor, is a m o n g t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t qualities o f a g r e a t leader, the fact t h a t M o s e s , t h e g r e a t e s t l e a d e r t h a t the Israelites e v e r h a d , c h o s e J o s h u a as his s u c c e s ­ sor l e d J o s e p h u s to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t J o s h u a m u s t h i m s e l f h a v e p o s s e s s e d t h e qualities o f a n i d e a l s t a t e s m a n .

1

A s J o s e p h u s p u t s it in a n e d i t o r i a l c o m m e n t t h a t

h a s n o b i b l i c a l basis, J o s h u a p o s s e s s e d five c r u c i a l qualities: h e w a s e x t r e m e l y c o u r a g e o u s , v a l i a n t in e n d u r a n c e o f toil, h i g h l y gifted in intellect, h i g h l y gifted in s p e e c h , a n d d i s t i n g u i s h e d for p i e t y in w o r s h i p p i n g G - d (Ant. 3.49). W h e n s u m ­ m a r i z i n g J o s h u a ' s qualities u p o n his d e a t h , J o s e p h u s singles o u t five s u c h q u a l i ­ t i e s — h i s o u t s t a n d i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e , his s u p r e m e skill in s p e a k i n g l u c i d l y (oacf>a)s) to t h e m u l t i t u d e , his s t o u t - h e a r t e d n e s s a n d g r e a t d a r i n g , a n d his u t m o s t d e x t e r i t y in d i r e c t i n g affairs (irpvTavevaaif

in p e a c e t i m e a n d a d a p t a b i l i t y to e v e r y o c c a s i o n

(Ant. 5.118). I f w e c o m b i n e these t w o p a s s a g e s , w e see t h a t J o s e p h u s

stressed

J o s h u a ' s qualities o f w i s d o m , e l o q u e n c e , c o u r a g e , e n d u r a n c e , flexibility, a n d piety. The

e m p h a s i s o n J o s h u a ' s w i s d o m a n d e l o q u e n c e is r e m i n i s c e n t o f T h u c y ­

d i d e s ' d i s c u s s i o n (2.60.5-6) o f the qualities o f the i d e a l s t a t e s m a n in P e r i c l e s ' last s p e e c h to the A t h e n i a n s . I n particular, w e m a y n o t e that, like T h u c y d i d e s , w h o e m p h a s i z e s t h e p r a g m a t i s m o f Pericles, e s p e c i a l l y in t h e latter's a p p r a i s a l o f t h e A t h e n i a n e m p i r e (2.62-64), J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t J o s h u a h a d r e c e i v e d profitable

1. An examination of the bibliographies of Josephus by Heinz Schreckenberg and myself indicates that there has been no study of Josephus's portrait of Joshua approaching comprehensiveness. Typical is the tantalizing brief remark of Villalba i Varneda 1986, 32, that the figure of Joshua is filled out in comparison with the biblical text; but we are given almost no details. 2. The word rrpvTavevoi is borrowed from Athenian politics and refers to holding the presidency of a tribe and presiding over the boule (senate) and the ekklesia (assembly). 443

444

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

i n s t r u c t i o n for his role f r o m M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 5.117). Just as T h u c y d i d e s stresses t h a t after Pericles, there w a s a p r e c i p i t o u s d e c l i n e in the q u a l i t y o f A t h e n i a n l e a d ­ e r s h i p b e c a u s e his s u c c e s s o r s w e r e m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h their p e r s o n a l w e l l - b e i n g t h a n w i t h t h e c o m m o n w e a l , so J o s e p h u s , in a s u p p l e m e n t to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e (Josh.

23.1 ff.), r e m a r k s t h a t J o s h u a ' s

successors s h o w e d t h e m s e l v e s careless

g u a r d i a n s o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l (Ant. 5.90). J o s e p h u s ' s h i g h h g h t i n g o f J o s h u a as a l e a d e r m a y b e seen in his v a r i o u s additions to a n d m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f the b i b l i c a l text. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t offi­ cers w e n t t h r o u g h the c a m p a n d c o m m a n d e d the p e o p l e to follow as t h e y crossed the J o r d a n R i v e r (Josh. 3:2-3), in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , it is J o s h u a h i m s e l f w h o p r o ­ c e e d s t o t r a n s p o r t the a r m y w i t h the w h o l e m u l t i t u d e (Ant. 5.17). W h e r e a s the bibli­ cal n a r r a t i v e states t h a t the p e o p l e e n c a m p e d in G i l g a l w i t h o u t i n d i c a t i n g w h o h a d d i r e c t e d t h e m to d o so (Josh. 4:19), J o s e p h u s says explicitly t h a t it w a s J o s h u a w h o d i r e c t e d t h e m to l a y siege to the city o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.22). I n the B i b l e , w e a r e told t h a t the w h o l e c o n g r e g a t i o n o f Israel a s s e m b l e d at S h i l o h a n d set u p the tent o f m e e t i n g , w i t h o u t b e i n g i n f o r m e d as to w h o h a d d i r e c t e d t h e m to d o so (Josh. 18:1); J o s e p h u s specifies t h a t J o s h u a c a l l e d the p e o p l e t o g e t h e r to S h i l o h a n d s u m m o n e d the a s s e m b l y (Ant. 5.72). H i s q u a l i t y as a l e a d e r is e m p h a s i z e d b y t h e fact t h a t o n c e J o s h u a g a v e his order, the p e o p l e r a n t o g e t h e r w i t h alacrity (Ant. 5.73). J o s e p h u s is careful to d o w n g r a d e the role o f C a l e b , w h o , it will b e r e c a l l e d , a p p e a r s o n a p a r w i t h J o s h u a in the B o o k o f N u m b e r s in p r e s e n t i n g their c o u r a g e o u s m i n o r i t y r e p o r t after their r e c o n n o i t e r i n g m i s s i o n ( N u m . 14:6). H e n c e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e recalls M o s e s ' p r o m i s e to give C a l e b t h e city o f H e b r o n , w h i c h h e h a d

reconnoitered

(Josh. 1 4 : 6 - 9 ) , a n d r e c o r d s C a l e b ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e w a s still as s t r o n g as h e w a s o n the d a y w h e n M o s e s sent h i m to spy o u t t h e l a n d (Josh. 14:11), J o s e p h u s , in his e a ­ g e r n e s s to r e d u c e the role o f C a l e b , o m i t s his r e q u e s t for H e b r o n (Ant. 5.71).

JOSEPHUS'S AIMS: APOLOGETICS J o s e p h u s , as w e h a v e s e e n , m a k e s s p e c i a l efforts t o stress t h a t t h e J e w i s h h e r o e s p o s s e s s e d the c a r d i n a l virtues to a n e m i n e n t d e g r e e . T h e r e are also s o m e a d d i ­ t i o n a l t o u c h e s , n o t a b l e h e r e , h o w e v e r , e s p e c i a l l y in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h J o s h u a . F o r e x a m p l e , it is e x t r e m e l y e m b a r r a s s i n g t h a t R a h a b , w h o is s u c h a h e r o i n e in the story o f J o s h u a ' s c o n q u e s t o f t h e l a n d , is d e s c r i b e d in the b i b l i c a l t e x t as a h a r l o t 3

(Josh. 2:1). J o s e p h u s , like t h e t a r g u m , h o w e v e r , translates the n o u n d e s c r i b i n g h e r status as " i n n k e e p e r " (Ant. 5-8).

4

3. A c c o r d i n g to rabbinic tradition, R a h a b became a convert to Judaism a n d the wife of Joshua himself, as well as the ancestress of eight prophets a n d of the prophetess Huldah (Sifre Numbers 78; Sifre Zuta 75; Midrash Numbers Rabbah 8 (end); Megillah 14b; Seder Eliyahu %uta 22.37). T h e Midrash Ruth Rabbah 2.1 (126a) mentions R a h a b as the ancestress o f the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. T h e Gospel o f Matthew (1:5) mentions R a h a b as an ancestress of Jesus. 4. T h e A r a m a i c word pundekita has a double meaning, signifying both "prostitute" and "innkeeper."

JOSHUA

445

A striking c h a n g e i n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t is his o m i s s i o n o f the fact t h a t J o s h u a at G i l g a l p e r f o r m e d the rite o f c i r c u m c i s i o n o n those Israelites w h o h a d b e e n b o r n in the desert ( J o s h . 5:2) e v e n t h o u g h , a c c o r d i n g to the T o r a h ( E x o d . 12:44), the Is­ raelites w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n a b l e t o k e e p the Passover, as i n d e e d t h e y s u b s e q u e n d y d i d after their c i r c u m c i s i o n , if t h e y h a d n o t b e e n c i r c u m c i s e d ( J o s h . 5.20).

5

6

W e m a y g u e s s t h a t the r e a s o n for this o m i s s i o n is t h a t the b i b l i c a l t e x t s e e m s t o i m p l y t h a t all w e r e c i r c u m c i s e d r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e y c o n s e n t e d o r n o t ; a n d J o s e p h u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to the c h a r g e that the J e w s are a g g r e s s i v e in c o n ­ v e r t i n g n o n - J e w s to J u d a i s m , a c h a r g e t h a t h a d a p p a r e n d y l e d o n at least t w o o c ­ c a s i o n s (139 B.C.E., 19 C.E., a n d p e r h a p s also d u r i n g the r e i g n o f the e m p e r o r C l a u d i u s ) to e x p u l s i o n s o f J e w s f r o m R o m e (see F e l d m a n 1993a, 300-304) a n d a c h a r g e t h a t J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h a d e a g e r l y s o u g h t to c o u n t e r b y o p p o s i n g forcible c o n v e r s i o n o f c a p t u r e d R o m a n s d u r i n g the w a r t h a t b e g a n in 6 6 (Life 112 a n d War 2.454). F o r the s a m e r e a s o n , a p p a r e n d y J o s e p h u s o m i t s the c i r c u m c i s i o n o f the S h e c h e m i t e s b y S i m e o n a n d L e v i (Ant. 1.340). One

o f the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the J e w s , as w e h a v e n o t e d , is t h a t o f e x h i b i t i n g the

u t m o s t c r u e l t y t o w a r d strangers. It is a p p a r e n d y to c o u n t e r s u c h c h a r g e s o f J e w i s h atrocities t h a t J o s e p h u s t o n e s d o w n c o n s i d e r a b l y the Israelite c r u e l t y t o

the

C a n a a n i t e s d e s c r i b e d in J o s h u a . T h u s , w h e r e a s the H e b r e w text s e v e n t i m e s r e c o r d s t h a t J o s h u a s m o t e the v a r i o u s C a n a a n i t e t o w n s w i t h the e d g e o f the s w o r d , utterly d e s t r o y i n g all the i n h a b i t a n t s (Josh. 10:28-36), J o s e p h u s states v e r y s i m p l y t h a t J o s h u a b o t h c a p t u r e d the k i n g s a n d p u n i s h e d all their h o s t a n d m a d e g r e a t c a r n a g e o f the i n h a b i t a n t s a n d also c a p t u r e d b o o t y (Ant. 5 . 6 1 - 6 2 ) . W h e r e a s the H e b r e w t e x t d e s c r i b e s in v i v i d t e r m s the a p p a r e n t ruthlessness w i t h w h i c h J o s h u a c a p t u r e d H a z o r (Josh. 1 1 : 1 0 - 1 5 ) a n d " p u t to the s w o r d all w h o w e r e in it, utterly d e s t r o y i n g t h e m , " so t h a t " t h e r e w a s n o n e left t h a t b r e a t h e d " (Josh. 11:11), J o s e p h u s o m i t s this n o t i c e c o m p l e t e l y (Ant. 5.67). W h e r e a s in the H e b r e w text, in his f a r e w e l l address, J o s h u a d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d will thrust o u t all the n a t i o n s f r o m the l a n d o f C a n a a n (Josh. 2 3 : 1 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a a t t e m p t s to justify s u c h w h o l e s a l e s l a u g h t e r b y d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e (Joshua) g a v e s u c h o r d e r s b e c a u s e h e w a s c o n v i n c e d t h a t the p e o p l e ' s s e c u r i t y a n d the m a i n t e n a n c e o f their a n c e s t r a l insti­ tutions d e m a n d e d s u c h a c t i o n (Ant. 5.90). I n a n o t h e r instance, w h e r e the B i b l e d e ­ clares t h a t J o s h u a d i d n o t d r a w b a c k his h a n d at A i until h e h a d utterly d e s t r o y e d all the i n h a b i t a n t s (Josh. 8:27), J o s e p h u s a p p a r e n d y restricts the s l a u g h t e r t o the

5. T h e importance o f the omission o f the rite o f circumcision m a y be seen from the statement o f the Midrash Aggada o n G e n . 17:8, that the Israelites w o u l d never have b e e n able to enter the L a n d if J o s h u a h a d not circumcised them, inasmuch as the L a n d h a d b e e n promised to the patriarchs on c o n ­ dition that their descendants observed the rite o f circumcision. 6. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:172, n. 16, suggests that Josephus's statement that Gilgal means "liberty" (Ant. 5.34) presupposes the v i e w that by performing the rite o f circumcision there, the Israelites definitely w o n their liberty; but there is n o hint anywhere else in Josephus o f such a connotation of the w o r d "liberty."

446

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

m e n , i n a s m u c h as w e a r e specifically t o l d t h a t a c r o w d o f w o m e n , c h i l d r e n , a n d slaves w e r e t a k e n o n this o c c a s i o n (Ant. 5.48). J o s e p h u s w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a d i l e m m a , i n a s m u c h as the B i b l e itself d e c i s i v e l y forbids i n t e r m a r r i a g e ( D e u t . 7:3); a n d y e t h e w a s a w a r e t h a t t o o s t r e n u o u s a n o b ­ j e c t i o n to i n t e r m a r r i a g e w o u l d p l a y i n t o t h e h a n d s o f the J e w - b a i t e r s w h o c h a r g e d t h e J e w s w i t h m i s a n t h r o p y I n the H e b r e w B i b l e , J o s h u a s t e r n l y w a r n s the Is­ raelites t h a t i f t h e y m i x w i t h the C a n a a n i t e s , " t h e y shall b e a s n a r e a n d a t r a p for y o u , a s c o u r g e o n y o u r sides, a n d t h o r n s in y o u r eyes, till y o u a r e d r i v e n o f f this g o o d land that the L - r d y o u r G - d has given y o u " (Josh. 23:12-23). In Josephus, the t h r e a t is m u c h r e d u c e d in l e n g t h a n d in intensity, J o s h u a stating m e r e l y t h a t i f t h e Israelites t u r n aside to i m i t a t e o t h e r n a t i o n s , G - d w i l l t u r n a w a y f r o m t h e m (Ant. 5.98).

THE Q U A L I T I E S O F A LEADER Wisdom A s w e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d , J o s e p h u s , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , w h e n i n t r o d u c ­ i n g J o s h u a for t h e first t i m e as M o s e s ' h a n d - p i c k e d adjutant, singles o u t , a m o n g his qualities, the fact t h a t h e w a s h i g h l y gifted in intellect (vorjoai " t o p e r c e i v e , " " u n d e r s t a n d " ) (Ant. 3.49). I n his final a p p r a i s a l o f J o s h u a , h e r e m a r k s t h a t h e w a s n o t w a n t i n g in i n t e l l i g e n c e (ovveois,

"insight," "understanding,"

"perception,"

" s a g a c i t y , " " p r u d e n c e , " " d i s c e r n m e n t " ) (Ant. 5.118). I n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e is t h e ability to p e r s u a d e . S o also J o s h u a is said to possess s u p r e m e skill in e x p o u n d i n g his i d e a s to the m u l t i t u d e c l e a r l y (Ant. 5.118), a q u a l i t y n o w h e r e m e n t i o n e d i n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e b u t r e m i n i s c e n t o f Pericles ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.60.5), t h e i m p l i c a t i o n b e i n g , in the cases o f b o t h

figures,

t h a t t h e m a s s e s a r e u n r e l i a b l e unless l e d a n d i n s p i r e d b y a c o m p e t e n t l e a d e r a n d speaker. T h e J o s e p h a n J o s h u a s h o w s his effectiveness as a s p e a k e r w h e n , in a n e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e , h e displays e x c e l l e n t p s y c h o l o g y in c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e Is­ raelites o n t h e success o f their e x p l o i t s a n d in p r a i s i n g t h e m as w o r t h y o f t h e G - d W h o h a s v o u c h s a f e d t h e m their s u c c e s s a n d o f the e x c e l l e n c e o f t h e l a w s t h a t t h e y w e r e f o l l o w i n g (Ant. 5.73). A s T h u c y d i d e s h a d n o t e d in his p o r t r a i t o f Pericles (2.65.8), a g r e a t l e a d e r m u s t b e a b l e to restrain t h e m u l t i t u d e (Kareixe

T O irXrjdos). S o also J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s

t h a t after the Israelites, u p o n r e c e i v i n g t h e u n f a v o r a b l e r e p o r t o f t h o s e w h o h a d b e e n sent to r e c o n n o i t e r C a n a a n , h a d d e c i d e d to stone M o s e s a n d A a r o n a n d to r e t u r n to E g y p t , J o s h u a a n d C a l e b s o u g h t to restrain the c r o w d ( T O TrXrjdos Kareixov) a n d to a l l a y their p a s s i o n , e n t r e a t i n g t h e m to b e c o u r a g e o u s a n d t o trust those w h o e x h o r t e d t h e m to p r o c e e d to p r o s p e r i t y (Ant. 3.308). T h e p i c t u r e h e r e is s i n g u l a r l y r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e f a m o u s p a s s a g e in V i r g i l (Aeneid 1.124-56) w h e r e N e p ­ t u n e allays t h e t u r b u l e n c e a r o u s e d i n t h e seas b y A e o l u s , t h e g o d o f t h e w i n d s , a n d w h e r e , q u i t e clearly, V i r g i l h a s in m i n d t h e role p l a y e d b y A u g u s t u s in q u i e t i n g t h e

JOSHUA

44j

m o b , after the c e n t u r y o f i n t e r n e c i n e w a r in R o m e , w i t h his simile o f t h e l e a d e r w h o calms the c r o w d that has b e e n passionately aroused: And just as in a great people when sedition [seditio, the Roman equivalent of OTOLOLS] has often been aroused, and the ignoble mob rages with passion, and now firebrands and rocks fly (madness supplies arms), then if, by chance, they behold a man, serious in piety and merits, they are silent and stand with pricked-up ears; he controls their passions with words and soothes their breasts. [Aeneid 1.148-53] I n o r d e r to e n h a n c e J o s h u a ' s qualities as a leader, J o s e p h u s s i g n i f i c a n d y o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t the p e o p l e m u r m u r e d a g a i n s t t h e i r l e a d e r s , i n c l u d i n g J o s h u a , w h e n t h e y w e r e f o r b i d d e n to p u n i s h t h e t r e a c h e r o u s G i b e o n i t e s , w i t h w h o m t h e y h a d m a d e a t r e a t y ( J o s h . 9:18 v s . Ant. 5.56). B u t t h e r e is m o r e to J o s h u a ' s w i s d o m t h a n i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d o r a t o r i c a l a b i l i t y O n t w o o c c a s i o n s , J o s e p h u s a d d s to the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t b y t e r m i n g J o s h u a a p r o p h e t (Ant. 4 . 1 6 5 , 4. 311). I n the first s u c h c a s e , J o s e p h u s is p a r a p h r a s i n g t h e b i b ­ lical p a s s a g e in w h i c h G - d tells M o s e s to l a y his h a n d s u p o n (i.e., select as his suc­ cessor) J o s h u a , " a m a n in w h o m t h e r e is a spirit" (ruah) ( N u m . 27:18). I n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e , M o s e s a p p o i n t s J o s h u a to s u c c e e d h i m b o t h in his p r o p h e t i c a l f u n c ­ 7

t i o n s a n d as c o m m a n d e r in c h i e f (Ant. 4.165), thus q u i t e c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h e , as J o s e p h u s ' s m o u t h p i e c e , r e g a r d s these t w o qualities as p r i m a r y in t h e l e a d e r w h o is to s u c c e e d M o s e s . I n t h e s e c o n d p a s s a g e , after i n d i c a t i n g (in a n a d d i t i o n to t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e o f N u m . 28:1-30:1) t h a t M o s e s t a u g h t the Israelites h o w t h e y s h o u l d c o n s u l t t h e o r a c u l a r stones w h e n t a k i n g t h e field, J o s e p h u s a p p e n d s t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k t h a t J o s h u a also p r o p h e s i e d in t h e p r e s e n c e o f M o s e s (Ant. 4.311). J u s t as M o s e s (Ant. 4.320), at the c l o s e o f his life, " p r o p h e s i e s " to e a c h o f t h e tribes t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e p a s t (yevofjueva), so t h e B o o k o f J o s h u a is a p r o p h e t i c b o o k , as it is r e c k o n e d also b y the r a b b i s (Baba Batra 14b); a n d J o s h u a h i m s e l f is a m e m b e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n p r o f e s s i o n — t h a t is, a h i s t o r i a n — a n d thus, as n o t e d , a k i n to a p r o p h e t i n J o s e ­ p h u s ' s view. N o n e t h e l e s s , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s differs f r o m his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m ­ p o r a r y , P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o in his Biblical Antiquities

20.2 r e m a r k s t h a t after t h e

d e a t h o f M o s e s , G - d t o l d J o s h u a literally to t a k e t h e g a r m e n t s o f M o s e s ' w i s d o m a n d , b y p u t t i n g these o n , to " b e c o m e a n o t h e r m a n . " F o r J o s e p h u s , t h e r e is n o s u c h t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in J o s h u a : his i n t e l l i g e n c e is a p p a r e n d y i n n a t e , n o t d u e to his d o n ­ n i n g M o s e s ' g a r m e n t s : i n d e e d , it is p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e o f J o s h u a ' s i n n a t e w i s d o m t h a t M o s e s selects h i m to s u c c e e d h i m . J o s e p h u s h a s n o e q u i v a l e n t to t h e r a b b i n i c p i c t u r e o f J o s h u a as s t u d e n t o f t h e T o r a h (Genesis Rabbah 6.9). T h e r e w e a r e t o l d t h a t G - d a p p e a r e d to J o s h u a i n o r d e r to g i v e h i m m i l i t a r y instructions a n d f o u n d h i m r e a d i n g t h e B o o k o f

7. This is particularly interesting, inasmuch as prophecy is constandy, well into the Christian pe­ riod, regarded by Christians as the essential element of the biblical literature.

448

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

D e u t e r o n o m y , w h e r e u p o n G - d d e c l a r e d t h a t " t h e b o o k o f the l a w shall n o t d e p a r t o u t o f thy m o u t h " (see J o s h . 1:8). It is significant t h a t this p a s s a g e in the B o o k o f J o s h u a itself is o m i t t e d b y J o s e p h u s ; n o r is t h e r e a n y c o u n t e r p a r t to the r a b b i n i c p i c t u r e o f J o s h u a as the i d e a l t y p e o f the " d i s c i p l e o f the w i s e " o r o f the t a l m u d i c p h r a s e reflecting the stature o f J o s h u a as a scholar, n a m e l y , " e v e n if J o s h u a the s o n o f N u n h a d t o l d m e " (cf. Hullin 124a; Yevamot 4 5 a ; Berakot 24b) o r o f the s t a t e m e n t t h a t J o s h u a w a s a b l e b y m e a n s o f d e e p r e a s o n i n g to establish the r a t i o n a l e for the l a w s r e v e a l e d to M o s e s o n S i n a i ( J e r u s a l e m T a l m u d , Peak 1.15a). J o s e p h u s ' s a i m is c l e a r l y to h i g h l i g h t J o s h u a as a p r a g m a t i c leader, n o t e d e s p e c i a l l y for his c o u r a g e in w a r . Courage 8

It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e t h a t o n t e n o c c a s i o n s J o s e p h u s a d d s to t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t b y r e f e r r i n g to J o s h u a as a g e n e r a l . H e d o e s this at times outside the m a i n n a r r a t i v e o f J o s h u a , w h e r e J o s e p h u s felt the n e e d t o identify J o s h u a a n d c h o s e to d o so w i t h the e p i t h e t " g e n e r a l " (arpanqyos).

J o s h u a ' s ability as a g e n e r a l is p a r t i c u l a r l y e n ­

h a n c e d b y the fact t h a t h e h a d as his t e a c h e r the g r e a t g e n e r a l M o s e s h i m s e l f (Ant. 3.50-51); i n d e e d , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t M o s e s , b e f o r e the battle w i t h A m a l e k , said to J o s h u a : " C h o o s e for us m e n , a n d g o out, fight w i t h A m a l e k " ( E x o d . 17:9), J o s e p h u s p o r t r a y s M o s e s as p a s s i n g a w a k e f u l n i g h t

instructing

J o s h u a o n h o w to m a r s h a l his forces a n d as e x h o r t i n g his p r o t e g e at the first streak o f d a w n to p r o v e h i m s e l f in a c t i o n n o t inferior to the h o p e s t h a t h e h a s o f h i m (Ant. 1

3-50-5 )J o s h u a ' s e x c e l l e n c e as a g e n e r a l is s e e n e s p e c i a l l y in the e n c o u n t e r w i t h the A m a l e k i t e s , w h e r e , b e c a u s e o f his s u p e r i o r tactics, n o t a single o n e o f his m e n p e r ­ ishes, w h e r e a s the e n e m y ' s d e a d are p a s t n u m b e r i n g . W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , J o s h u a c o m m a n d s the p e o p l e t h r o u g h his officers (Josh. 1:10), in J o s e p h u s , h e d i r e c d y a n d w i t h o u t i n t e r m e d i a r i e s enjoins t h e m to p r e p a r e for the c a m p a i g n (Ant. 5.1). I n a d ­ dition, J o s h u a ' s skill as a g e n e r a l m a y b e s e e n in his m a s t e r y o f tactics in c a p t u r i n g a city b y stealth. T h u s , w h e r e a s the B i b l e h a s J o s h u a instruct his soldiers to lie in w a i t n e a r the city o f A i (Josh. 8:4), J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a g e n e r a l in G a l i l e e , a n d m o d e l i n g his p r e s e n t a t i o n o n T h u c y d i d e s (2.81), e l a b o r a t e s b y h a v i n g h i m p o s t a m b u s c a d e s d u r i n g the n i g h t a n d all a b o u t the t o w n (Ant. 5.45). J o s h u a the g e n e r a l is d e p i c t e d as steadfast in refusing to y i e l d t o p i t y T h u s w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l t e x t says m e r e l y t h a t J o s h u a ' s m e n utterly d e s t r o y e d all in the city o f J e r i c h o (Josh. 6:21), J o s e p h u s specifically d e c l a r e s t h a t it w a s J o s h u a w h o c h a r g e d t h e m to slay all w h o m t h e y c a p t u r e d " a n d n e i t h e r t h r o u g h w e a r i n e s s , n o r y i e l d i n g to pity, to desist f r o m the s l a u g h t e r o f their e n e m i e s " (Ant. 5.25). Finally, J o s h u a ' s g r e a t n e s s as a g e n e r a l b e c o m e s e v i d e n t p a r t i c u l a r l y t h r o u g h t h e v o i d c r e ­ a t e d b y his d e a t h . T h u s w e a r e t o l d in the B i b l e t h a t A d o n i - b e z e k l e d t h e C a n a a n -

8. War 4 4 5 9 ; Ant. 3.59, 4.165, 4.324, 6.84, 7.68, 7.294, 9.207, 9.280,11.112.

JOSHUA

449

ites i n battle a g a i n s t the Israelites (Judg. 1:5); J o s e p h u s p e r c e p t i v e l y a d d s , i n trib­ ute t o J o s h u a , t h a t " t h e y w e r e h o p i n g to d e f e a t the Israelites, since J o s h u a w a s d e a d " (Ant. 5.121). B u t J o s h u a is m o r e t h a n o n e w h o gives o r d e r s . H e also, as n o t e d , is a role m o d e l o f e x t r e m e c o u r a g e (Ant. 5 . 1 1 8 , " s t o u t - h e a r t e d " ) a n d g r e a t d a r i n g ; a n d this is o n e o f t h e m a j o r r e a s o n s w h y h e is s e l e c t e d b y M o s e s to l e a d the Israelites in battle. J o s h u a ' s e x p l o i t s i n the b a t d e w i t h t h e A m a l e k i t e s a r e attested b y t h e w h o l e a r m y (Ant. 3.59), a n d h e is c o n s e q u e n d y p r a i s e d b y M o s e s himself. T h e p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a as r e s c u e r f r o m d e s p a i r is m a g n i f i e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Is­ raelite r e a c t i o n after t h e d e f e a t at N a i a (Ai). I n t h e B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e h e a r t s o f t h e p e o p l e m e l t e d a n d b e c a m e as water, a n d t h a t J o s h u a h i m s e l f r e n t his c l o t h e s a n d fell t o t h e e a r t h b e f o r e t h e ark until t h e e v e n i n g ( J o s h . 7 : 5 - 6 ) ; h e t h e n in d e s p a i r q u e s t i o n s G - d as to w h y H e h a s b r o u g h t t h e Israelites o v e r t h e J o r d a n o n l y to d e l i v e r t h e m into t h e h a n d s o f the A m o r i t e s , e x p r e s s e s the w i s h t h a t t h e Is­ raelites h a d n e v e r c r o s s e d t h e J o r d a n , a n d asks G - d w h a t h e s h o u l d n o w s a y to t h e Israelites ( J o s h . 7 : 7 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s p r e s e n t s a m o r e c o n f i d e n t J o s h u a . N o t h i n g is said a b o u t his r e n d i n g his c l o t h e s , a n d w e a r e t o l d t h a t it is the p e o p l e w h o h a v e u n d u l y m a g n i f i e d their distress, in u t t e r d e s p o n d e n c y b e c a u s e , h a v i n g t h o u g h t t h e m s e l v e s m a s t e r s o f t h e c o u n t r y t h e y n o w b e h e l d their e n e m i e s u n e x p e c t e d l y e m b o l d e n e d (Ant. 5.37). J o s h u a a d d r e s s e s G - d w i t h frankness (Trapprjatav, " f r e e d o m o f s p e e c h , " " c a n d o r , " " s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , " "self-assertion," " a u d a c i t y " ) . F a r f r o m d e s p a i r i n g , t r u e l e a d e r t h a t h e is, h e recalls t h a t a n u m b e r o f things h a v e t u r n e d o u t as p r o m i s e d b y G - d a n d p r o c e e d s t o a p p e a l to G - d to dispel t h e d e s p o n d e n c y o f t h e people.

9

J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r s h i p is further a c c e n t u a t e d t h r o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s e m p h a s i z i n g t h e p o w e r o f t h e Israelites' o p p o n e n t s . T h u s w e r e a d s i m p l y t h a t J o s h u a c a m e a n d fell u p o n t h e C a n a a n i t e s ( J o s h . 1 1 : 7 - 8 ) ; b u t in J o s e p h u s t h e c o m b a t is d e s c r i b e d as fierce, a n d t h e c a r n a g e , w e a r e told, w a s s u c h t h a t the tale o f it w o u l d b e b e y o n d b e l i e f (Ant. 5 . 6 6 ) .

10

W e h e a r o f t h e cities o f the C a n a a n i t e s to w h i c h t h e Israelites

h a v e c o m e ( J o s h . 9:17); b u t t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f a n a l l i a n c e a m o n g t h e m , let a l o n e o f t h e r e a s o n for s u c h . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , d e c l a r e s t h a t the G i b e o n i t e s in­ v i t e d t h e n e i g h b o r i n g tribes to f o r m a n a l l i a n c e w i t h t h e m , w a r n i n g t h e m o f w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n to t h e m i f t h e y d i d n o t (Ant. 5.50); a n d h e n c e J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r s h i p is all t h e g r e a t e r b e c a u s e h e w a s a b l e to m e e t the t h r e a t b y this l e a g u e . I n their ruse, w h e n t h e y s e n d a d e l e g a t i o n to J o s h u a s e e k i n g to f o r m a n a l l i a n c e w i t h h i m , t h e

9. Far different is the picture o f the episode presented in rabbinic literature: there Joshua loosens the shoes from off his feet in mourning, not for the defeat at A i , but for the neglect o f the study o f T o r a h by the people (Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 18.101-2); and an angel reproaches Joshua for having allowed the preparations for w a r to interfere with the study o f T o r a h (Erubin 63b). 10. T o maintain authenticity, however, Josephus avoids exaggeration. T h u s , whereas the Bible de­ clares that none o f the Canaanites were left after Joshua e n g a g e d them in batde (Josh. 11:8), Josephus, m o r e credibly, says that Joshua destroyed the w h o l e o f the enemy's army, save for a few (Ant. 5.66).

450

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

G i b e o n i t e s p a y tribute to h i m b y specifically n o t i n g that it w a s his v a l o r t h a t h a d b r o u g h t t h e m to h i m (Ant. 5.52). J o s h u a ' s a c h i e v e m e n t is all the g r e a t e r b e c a u s e o f the strength o f the fortifications, d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s at s o m e l e n g t h , o f the C a n a a n i t e cities (Ant. 5 . 7 1 - 7 2 ) , a p o i n t n o t m e n t i o n e d in the b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t (Josh. 13:1). If, ultimately, J o s h u a fails to c o m p l e t e the c o n q u e s t , J o s e p h u s is careful to as­ c r i b e this, n o t to a n y d e f i c i e n c y o n his p a r t , b u t r a t h e r to the fact t h a t a g e i m p e d e d h i m , as w e l l as the fact t h a t those w h o s u c c e e d e d h i m w e r e careless g u a r d i a n s o f the c o m m o n w e a l (Ant. 5.90), w h i c h is p r o m i n e n t , as w e see f r o m T h u c y d i d e s ' d e ­ scription (2.60.5-6), a m o n g the qualities o f a leader. A g r e a t g e n e r a l m u s t b e able to inspire his troops. In the B i b l e , J o s h u a u p b r a i d s the p e o p l e a n d asks h o w l o n g t h e y will b e slack a b o u t g o i n g in to take possession o f the l a n d that G - d h a s g i v e n t h e m (Josh. 18:3). J o s e p h u s , in a d d i t i o n to a v o i d i n g the l a n d t h e o l o g y o f this p a s s a g e , h a s J o s h u a s p e a k at l e n g t h a n d use e x c e l l e n t p s y c h o l ­ o g y in first c o m m e n d i n g t h e m for their successes a l r e a d y a c h i e v e d , n o t a b l y their utter defeat o f thirty-one kings, a n d c o m p l i m e n t i n g t h e m as w o r t h y o f G - d a n d o f the e x c e l l e n c e o f their laws. H e thanks those from b e y o n d the J o r d a n w h o j o i n e d h i m in s h a r i n g his d a n g e r s . F a r from b l a m i n g t h e m for n o t c o m p l e t i n g the c o n ­ quest, h e g r a c i o u s l y a d m i t s that m o r e t i m e w a s n e e d e d for the c a p t u r e o f the C a n a a n i t e cities, o w i n g to the strength o f their r a m p a r t s . W h e n d i s c h a r g i n g the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes, instead o f m e r e l y telling t h e m to r e t u r n to their tents (Josh. 22:3-4), J o s e p h u s h a s J o s h u a g r a c i o u s l y e x p l a i n that since n o further a r d u o u s task w a s t h e n a w a i t i n g t h e m , it w a s b u t j u s t that t h e y s h o u l d rest, so as to b e alert to m e e t future e m e r g e n c i e s (Ant. 5 . 9 4 ) .

11

A n d yet, as e l s e w h e r e , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e n g a g e in u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n c o n ­ c e r n i n g the figure o f J o s h u a , H e s p e a k s m e r e l y o f four k i n g s w h o j o i n e d the G i b e o n i t e s in their a l l i a n c e w i t h J o s h u a a n d a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r o f k i n g s w h o j o i n e d the k i n g o f J e r u s a l e m in o p p o s i n g h i m (Ant. 5.58). A s t o J o s h u a himself, w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text states m e r e l y t h a t h e w e n t u p f r o m G i l g a l to u n d e r t a k e the c o n q u e s t o f the s o u t h e r n p a r t o f C a n a a n (Josh. 10:7), J o s e p h u s ' s

Joshua

" s p e d " (oTrevoas) to the assistance o f the G i b e o n i t e s , m a r c h i n g all d a y a n d all n i g h t (Ant. 5.60). T h e f a m e o f the Israelites' v a l o r is w i d e s p r e a d in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5.63), w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , w e r e a d m e r e l y t h a t J a b i n , k i n g o f H a z o r , h a d h e a r d o f it (Josh. 11:1). Finally, it a c c r u e s to J o s h u a ' s r e p u t a t i o n as a l e a d e r t h a t his m e n are c a l l e d " v a l i a n t " (dyadwv) a n d " w o r t h y o f r e g a r d " (oTrovSfjs d^iov) (Ant. 5 . 3 6 ) .

12

11. T h e r e is no indication in Josephus, as there is in the Samaritan tradition (Chronicon Samaritanum, ed. Juynboll, 26-32, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:179, n. 45) that Joshua was a giant w h o stood five ells tall (about seven and a half feet). Furthermore, rabbinic tradition states that thirty-one kings, as well as the satraps o f many foreign kings, opposed Joshua (Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi it 7.36c; Leviticus Rabbah 17.6; Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 5.14). 12. Josephus avoids undue exaggeration o f the type that we find in the rabbinic comment that the death of one of Joshua's soldiers, Jair, was as weighty a matter as if the majority of the Sanhedrin had been destroyed (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 11.7; Baba Batra 121b; Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 7.5).

JOSHUA

451

Temperance T h e t h i r d o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t e m p e r a n c e , is a r e c u r r i n g m o t i f in J o s e p h u s . W e find that, j u s t as o n e o f the qualities in Pericles so a d m i r e d b y T h u c y d i d e s (2.65.8) w a s his ability to restrain t h e m a s s e s a n d to d i r e c t t h e m o n t o a p a t h o f m o d e r a t i o n , so t h e J o s e p h a n J o s h u a e v i d e n c e s a similar ability, as illustrated, notably, in his success, n o t p a r a l l e l e d in the B i b l e (Josh. 22:13), in r e s t r a i n i n g t h e p e o p l e ' s a n g e r at t h e tribes o f R e u b e n a n d G a d a n d the h a l f tribe o f M a n a s s e h , w h o h a d e r e c t e d a n altar o n t h e b a n k s o f t h e J o r d a n (Ant. 5.103). I n the B i b l e , it is P h i n e h a s t h e priest a n d t h e r e s p e c t i v e l e a d e r s o f t e n o f the tribes w h o f o r m a d e l e g a t i o n to the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes (Josh. 2 2 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) , w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a , w h o , t o ­ g e t h e r w i t h t h e h i g h priest E l e a z a r a n d the elders, restrains t h e p e o p l e a n d c o u n ­ sels t h e m to seek a p a r l e y (Ant. 5.103). Justice W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t single o u t the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e as s u c h in his p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , h e d o e s e m p h a s i z e J o s h u a ' s h o n e s t y a n d fairness, w h i c h are, o f c o u r s e , intrinsic to j u s t i c e . I n d e e d , a p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , as w e see f r o m t h e a g e d G e p h a l u s , w h o represents tradition in Plato's Republic (1331G), is s p e a k i n g t h e truth. I n t h e c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his c o n c e r n t h a t his o a t h n o t b e v i ­ o l a t e d , e v e n w h e n t h e b e n e f i c i a r i e s a r e the deceitful G i b e o n i t e s (Ant. 5.57). W h e n h e d i s c o v e r s their s t r a t e g e m , h e c o n v o k e s the h i g h priest E l e a z a r a n d t h e c o u n c i l a n d m a k e s the G i b e o n i t e s p u b l i c slaves so as to a v o i d v i o l a t i o n o f the o a t h t h a t h e h a s g i v e n t h e m (Josh. 9 : 2 7 ) .

13

W e a r e i n f o r m e d t h a t J o s h u a tells the Israelites to a p p o i n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m e a c h o f t h e tribes w h o a r e o f a p p r o v e d v i r t u e to m e a s u r e o u t the l a n d faithfully a n d w i t h o u t f r a u d u l e n c e a n d to r e p o r t h o n e s t l y to t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n at l a r g e re­ g a r d i n g its d i m e n s i o n s (Ant. 5.75). T h e b i b l i c a l text s i m p l y says t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s are to b e a p p o i n t e d to a p p o r t i o n t h e l a n d (Josh. 18:4); the fact t h a t J o s e p h u s uses t h e a b o v e t h r e e e x p r e s s i o n s in r e f e r e n c e to t h e m a n d a d d s t h a t the s u r v e y o r s w e r e e x p e r t s , " f r o m w h o m b y r e a s o n o f their skill the truth w o u l d n o t b e h i d d e n , " e m ­ p h a s i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e h e a t t a c h e d to h o n e s t y a n d t r u t h (Ant. 5.76). S o m e w h a t later, J o s e p h u s a g a i n e x p a n d s o n J o s h u a ' s c o n c e r n for fairness in this a p p o r t i o n ­ m e n t b y e x p l a i n i n g w h y the a l l o t m e n t s h a d to b e fixed b y v a l u a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n b y m e a s u r e m e n t , since in s o m e cases, a single a c r e o f o n e t y p e o f l a n d w a s w o r t h as m u c h as a t h o u s a n d o f a n o t h e r t y p e (Ant. 5.78). Still later, J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t it is J o s h u a w h o m a d e sure t h a t t h e m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e m a g n i t u d e o f e a c h tribe (Ant. 5.80). S o c o n c e r n e d is J o s e p h u s w i t h his h e r o ' s fairness t h a t 13. A similar regard for the inviolability o f an oath given by Joshua to the Gibeonites is shown in rabbinic literature (Gittin 46a), where w e are told that Joshua kept his promise to the Gibeonites in order to sanctify the n a m e o f G - d by showing h o w sacred an oath w a s to the Israelites.

452

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

w h e r e a s the B i b l e cites in d e t a i l the b o u n d a r i e s o f the l a n d g i v e n to the B e n j a m i n i t e s w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g w h y its t e r r i t o r y w a s so n a r r o w , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s t h a t the r e a s o n for this w a s t h a t their soil w a s p e c u l i a r l y e x c e l l e n t ( J o s h . 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 0 ) . I n c o n t r a s t t o J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t , the r a b b i s e m p h a s i z e the m i r a c u l o u s e l e m e n t in the a p p o r t i o n m e n t , w h e r e b y the h o l y spirit i n s p i r e d the h i g h priest in m a k i n g e a c h specific a s s i g n m e n t (Baba Batra 122a). J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f J o s h u a ' s g e n e r o s i t y a n d g r a t i t u d e — q u a l i t i e s t h a t are c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h j u s t i c e u n d e r the r u b r i c o f h u m a n i t y (<j>iXavdpo)Tr[a). J o s h u a s h o w s his q u a l i t y o f g e n e r o s i t y w h e n h e distributes all the b o o t y c a p t u r e d at A i a m o n g his soldiers (Ant 5 4 8 ) , w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h a distribution a m o n g t h e m ( J o s h . 8:27). J o s e p h u s a d d s t o the b i b l i c a l text ( J o s h . 6:25)

D V

h a v i n g J o s h u a specifically a c ­

k n o w l e d g e his g r a t i t u d e to R a h a b for h a v i n g p r o t e c t e d his spies (Ant 5.30). H e as­ sures h e r t h a t in r e c o m p e n s i n g her, h e w i l l n o t b e f o u n d t o fall short o f s u c h a b e n e f a c t i o n . I n c o n c r e t e t e r m s , the J o s e p h a n J o s h u a ' s s h o w o f g r a t i t u d e g o e s b e ­ y o n d t h a t o f his b i b l i c a l c o u n t e r p a r t , in t h a t h e presents h e r w i t h l a n d s f o r t h w i t h and shows her every consideration. B o t h in a n earlier a d d r e s s at S h i l o h (Ant 5.74) a n d in his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s t o the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes w h o h a d their s e t t l e m e n t b e y o n d the J o r d a n (Ant 5.95), J o s h u a r e n d e r s t h a n k s t o t h e m for h a v i n g s h a r e d his perils. H e v e r y g r a c i o u s l y re­ calls h o w t h e y h a d d e f e r r e d the e n j o y m e n t o f t h e i r possessions a n d r e s o l v e d to p a r ­ t a k e o f t h e m o n l y after h e l p i n g the o t h e r tribes, a n d a d d s t h a t the Israelites will b e grateful t o t h e m " n o t o n l y t o d a y b u t forever." I n the B i b l e , t h e r e is a n a c k n o w l ­ e d g m e n t t h a t the tribes h a d n o t d e s e r t e d their b r e t h r e n , b u t t h e r e is n o c o r r e ­ s p o n d i n g e x p r e s s i o n o f t h a n k s ( J o s h . 22:3). T h e r e a f t e r , J o s h u a v e r y g r a c i o u s l y gives t h a n k s to his soldiers, a d d i n g to the b i b l i c a l text (Josh. 22:8) t h a t t h e y will t a k e w i t h t h e m " o u r g o o d w i l l a n d r e a d i n e s s t o serve a n d r e q u i t e y o u in w h a t s o e v e r y o u m a y d e s i r e " (Ant 5.96). H e t h e n c o m p l i m e n t s t h e m for h a v i n g n e i t h e r i n a n y ­ w i s e shirked t h e b e h e s t s o f M o s e s n o r d i s d a i n e d his a u t h o r i t y after his d e a t h , " n o r is there a u g h t for w h i c h w e d o n o t a c c o r d y o u g r a t i t u d e . "

Piety A s n o t e d , in d e s c r i b i n g the qualities o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s cites the s i n g u l a r p i e t y t h a t h e h a d l e a r n e d f r o m his m e n t o r , M o s e s (Ant 3.49). T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f p i e t y for J o s h u a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n is s e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y in his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to the Israelites. I n the b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , h e e x h o r t s t h e p e o p l e to fear the L - r d a n d to serve H i m in sincerity a n d faithfulness ( J o s h . 24:14). J o s e p h u s ' s J o s h u a n o t o n l y e x h o r t s the Israelites b u t specifically e x p l a i n s that it is o n l y t h r o u g h

piety

(evoefielq) t h a t t h e y c a n r e t a i n t h e friendship o f G - d (Ant 5.116). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i ­ c a l a d d i t i o n , w e are further t o l d t h a t i n a s s i g n i n g the cities o f refuge, h e t o o k strict c a r e to n e g l e c t n o t h i n g o f w h a t M o s e s h a d c o m m a n d e d (Ant 5 . 9 1 ; cf. J o s h . 2 0 : 1 - 2 ) . J o s h u a in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n s h o w s his p i e t y b y b e i n g c o n s t a n d y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

JOSHUA

453

t h e h i g h priest a n d w i t h the c o u n c i l o f elders (Ant. 4 . 1 8 6 , 4.324, 5 . 1 5 , 5.22, 5.43, 5.55, 5.57, 5.80), w h e r e a s the b i b l i c a l text m a k e s n o s u c h a s s o c i a t i o n . I n particular, w e m a y n o t e t h a t w h e n M o s e s is a b o u t to die, h e is e s c o r t e d , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e ­ p h u s , b y t h e elders, E l e a z a r the h i g h priest, a n d J o s h u a t h e g e n e r a l (Ant. 4.324), w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e s i m p l y states t h a t M o s e s d i e d ( D e u t . 34:5). M o r e o v e r , J o s h u a p i ­ o u s l y r e p o r t s t o E l e a z a r a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders w h a t the spies h a d s w o r n to R a h a b (Ant. 5.15); a n d since t h e k e e p i n g o f o n e ' s o a t h is a s a c r e d duty, t h e y d u l y ratify i t — a d e t a i l t h a t is n o t f o u n d i n S c r i p t u r e (Josh. 2:23). A g a i n , in d r a w i n g lots t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e sinner, J o s e p h u s h a s J o s h u a s u m m o n E l e a z a r a n d t h e m a g i s t r a t e s (Ant. 5.43), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e t h e r e is n o m e n t i o n o f s u c h a c o n ­ sultation ( J o s h . 7:16). F u r t h e r m o r e , the o a t h c o n f i r m i n g t h e c o n v e n a n t w i t h t h e G i b e o n i t e s is p r o n o u n c e d n o t m e r e l y b y J o s h u a , as in S c r i p t u r e ( J o s h . 9:15), b u t also b y t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders (Ant. 5.55). I n d e e d , in u p h o l d i n g t h e i n v i o l a b i l i t y o f t h e o a t h g i v e n to t h e G i b e o n i t e s , J o s h u a , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , c o n s u l t s t h e h i g h priest a n d t h e c o u n c i l (Ant. 5.57), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e h e acts a l o n e ( J o s h . 9:26). A g a i n , i n a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e l a n d , J o s e p h u s ' s J o s h u a c o n s u l t s E l e a z a r a n d the c o u n c i l o f e l d e r s (Ant. 5.80), w h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s h u a acts o n his o w n ( J o s h . 18:10). O n e m a y g u e s s t h a t in this e m p h a s i s o n J o s h u a ' s piety, J o s e p h u s w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e fact t h a t h e h i m s e l f w a s a priest a n d h e n c e d e e m e d it c r u c i a l t h a t t h e priest­ h o o d b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e p e o p l e , j u s t as in his v i e w o f p r o p h e c y , h e l o o k s u p o n P h i n e h a s t h e h i g h priest as G - d ' s i n t e r p r e t e r (7Tpo(/)rjT€vaavTos) (Ant. 5.120,159), w h e r e a s the biblical passage has n o m e n t i o n o f Phinehas's p r o p h e s y i n g (Judg. 20:27-28).

D E T H E O L O G I Z I N G AND AVOIDANCE OF T H E O L O G I C A L DIFFICULTIES I n t h e c a s e o f J o s h u a , J o s e p h u s s o u g h t to e m p h a s i z e his piety, o n t h e o n e h a n d , b u t , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , w a s careful n o t t o stress u n d u l y t h e role o f G - d in his a c ­ t u a l e x p l o i t s , lest h e d i m i n i s h t h e c r e d i t d u e t o J o s h u a himself. J o s e p h u s o m i t s G - d ' s c h a r g e to J o s h u a r e a s s u r i n g h i m a n d telling h i m to b e s t r o n g a n d o f g o o d c o u r a g e ( J o s h . 1 : 1 - 9 v s . Ant. 5.1). W h e r e a s in t h e b i b l i c a l text, J o s h u a e x h o r t s t h e tribes o f R e u b e n a n d G a d a n d t h e h a l f tribe o f M a n a s s e h , r e m i n d i n g t h e m o f G - d ' s p r o m i s e o f t h e l a n d to t h e m ( J o s h . 1:12-13), in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a r e m i n d s t h e m r a t h e r o f their p r o m i s e s t o M o s e s a n d e x h o r t s t h e m , o u t o f r e s p e c t for M o s e s ' f o r e t h o u g h t o n their behalf, t o r e s p o n d t o his o r d e r s w i t h a l a c r i t y (Ant. 5.4). I n t h e i r b i b l i c a l r e s p o n s e , t h e t w o a n d a h a l f tribes p r a y t h a t G - d w i l l b e w i t h J o s h u a as H e w a s w i t h M o s e s ( J o s h . 1:17); b u t i n J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n (Ant. 5.4), w e r e a d o n l y that they followed Joshua. T h e s a m e d e e m p h a s i s o n G - d m a y b e s e e n in the fact t h a t i n t h e B i b l e , w h e n R a h a b a d d r e s s e s t h e spies, she m e n t i o n s G - d five t i m e s in r e c a l l i n g t h e m i r a c l e s t h a t H e h a s p e r f o r m e d for t h e Israelites ( J o s h . 2 : 9 - 1 2 ) , b u t she says n o t h i n g a b o u t

454

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

G - d ' s m i r a c l e s in J o s e p h u s a n d m e n t i o n s G - d ' s n a m e o n l y o n c e as t h e s o u r c e o f t h e signs b y w h i c h she k n e w t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d c a p t u r e t h e c i t y o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.12). W h e n t h e spies r e p o r t t o J o s h u a , t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n h a s t h e m s a y t h a t " t h e L - r d h a s g i v e n all the l a n d i n t o o u r h a n d s " (Josh. 2:24); b u t in J o s e p h u s t h e role o f G - d is o m i t t e d , a n d w e r e a d o n l y t h a t t h e y r e c o u n t e d their a d v e n t u r e s (Ant. A g a i n , w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , o n t w o o c c a s i o n s , it is G - d w h o tells J o s h u a to c o m m a n d t h e priests to c o m e u p o u t o f t h e J o r d a n (Josh. 3:7, 4 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , in J o s e ­ p h u s , J o s h u a p r o c e e d s o n his o w n t o t r a n s p o r t the a r m y a n d e v e n establishes t h e o r d e r in w h i c h t h e v a r i o u s classes o f t h e p e o p l e are to cross (Ant. 5.17). L i k e w i s e , J o s e p h u s o m i t s the r e m a r k , f o u n d in t h e B i b l e (Josh. 5:1), t h a t w h e n t h e A m o r i t e a n d C a n a a n i t e kings h e a r d that the L - r d h a d dried u p the waters o f the J o r d a n for t h e Israelites, their h e a r t s m e l t e d in fear (Ant. 5.20). A t t h e siege o f J e r i c h o , w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e , G - d tells J o s h u a t h a t H e h a s g i v e n t h e c i t y i n t o his h a n d s (Josh. 6:2), in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o , in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e priests a n d t h e c o u n c i l o f elders, resolves to b e s i e g e t h e c i t y (Ant. 5.22). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e e t y m o l o g y o f t h e n a m e G i l g a l e x p l a i n s t h e fact t h a t G - d h a d " r o l l e d a w a y " t h e r e p r o a c h o f E g y p t f r o m the Israelites (Josh. 5:9), in J o s e p h u s , the n a m e G i l g a l is said t o signify " f r e e d o m " f r o m t h e E g y p t i a n s a n d f r o m t h e miseries o f t h e desert (Ant. 5.34); a n d there is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e role o f G - d in t h e o r i g i n o f t h e n a m e . E v e n w h e n , as in J o s h u a ' s p r a y e r t o G - d after t h e defeat at A i , h e d o e s a p p e a l to G - d to dispel t h e affliction o f t h e Israelites, h e d o e s n o t ask, as d o e s the b i b l i ­ c a l text (Josh. 7:9), w h a t G - d w o u l d d o for H i s g r e a t n a m e i f t h e C a n a a n i t e s s h o u l d defeat the Israelites (Ant. 5.41). M o s t s i g n i f i c a n d y in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o purifies his a r m y a n d takes the initiative to t h i n k o f a n a m b u s h a g a i n s t A i (Ant. 5.45), w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , it is G - d w h o tells J o s h u a to l a y a n a m b u s h a g a i n s t t h e c i t y (Josh. 8:1-2). L i k e w i s e , w h e n A c h a n is p u n i s h e d for his transgres­ sion, J o s e p h u s o m i t s t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t G - d ' s a n g e r w a s a s s u a g e d ( J o s h . 7:26 v s . Ant. 5.44). W h e r e a s the Bible declares that the L - r d gave L i b n a h a n d L a c h i s h into the h a n d s o f Israel (Josh. 10:30 a n d 32), in J o s e p h u s , J o s h u a s i m p l y c a p t u r e s t h e k i n g s a n d p u n i s h e s all the h o s t (Ant. 5.61). A g a i n , o n e o f the m o s t difficult p r o b l e m s in b i b l i c a l t h e o d i c y is to justify t h e h a r d e n i n g o f P h a r a o h ' s h e a r t at t h e e x o d u s a n d o f the h e a r t s o f the C a n a a n i t e e n e m i e s o f t h e Israelites w h e n t h e y cross t h e J o r d a n (Josh. 11:20). J o s e p h u s , e a g e r to a v o i d s u c h p r o b l e m s , o m i t s t h e r e f e r e n c e c o m ­ p l e t e l y in his n a r r a t i v e o f J o s h u a (Ant. 5.67), as h e d o e s in his a c c o u n t o f t h e p l a g u e s in E g y p t (Ant. 2.293 ff.). I n a d d i t i o n , in J o s h u a ' s first f a r e w e l l e x h o r t a t i o n , t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t it is G - d W h o will thrust t h e C a n a a n i t e s o u t f r o m b e f o r e the Israelites, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h H i s p r o m i s e (Josh. 23:5). I n J o s e p h u s , there is n o m e n t i o n o f G - d at this p o i n t (Ant. 5.90): it is t h e Israelites t h e m s e l v e s w h o are c h a r g e d b y J o s h u a to l e a v e n o r e m n a n t o f the C a n a a n i t e s .

JOSHUA

4

5

5

W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , G - d takes the initiative to tell J o s h u a to d i r e c t the Is­ raelites to a p p o i n t cities o f refuge ( J o s h . 20:1), in J o s e p h u s , it is J o s h u a w h o assigns these cities (Ant. 5.91). Finally, w e m a y n o t e t h a t in J o s h u a ' s f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s t o t h e p e o p l e in the B i b l e , the w o r d L - r d a p p e a r s s i x t e e n t i m e s a n d the w o r d G - d thir­ t e e n t i m e s ( J o s h . 2 3 : 1 - 1 6 ) ; in J o s e p h u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , the w o r d L - r d a p p e a r s o n l y o n c e , a n d the w o r d G - d four t i m e s (Ant. 5 . 9 3 - 9 8 ) ; a n d w e m a y further n o t e t h a t in this s p e e c h , J o s e p h u s r a d i c a l l y a b b r e v i a t e s the r e c o l l e c t i o n o f all the b e n e ­ factions that, a c c o r d i n g t o the b i b l i c a l text, G - d h a s b e s t o w e d o n the Israelites R e a l i z i n g t h a t the c r o s s i n g o f the J o r d a n ( w h i c h is d e s c r i b e d at l e n g t h in m i r a c ­ u l o u s t e r m s in the H e b r e w B i b l e [Josh. 3 : 1 - 1 7 ] ) , w i t h its s t r o n g c u r r e n t a n d l a c k o f b r i d g e s a n d f e r r y b o a t s , w o u l d s e e m i n c r e d i b l e t o his r e a d e r s , J o s e p h u s is careful to a d m i t p r e c i s e l y these difficulties a n d to e x p l a i n r a t h e r t h a t e v e n if the Israelites h a d w i s h e d to s p a n the river w i t h b r i d g e s , the e n e m y w o u l d n o t h a v e a f f o r d e d t h e m t o leisure t o d o so (Ant. 5.16). O n l y t h e n d o e s h e r e m a r k , in r a t i o n a l i z i n g f a s h i o n , t h a t G - d p r o m i s e d to r e n d e r the s t r e a m p a s s a b l e for t h e m b y d i m i n i s h i n g its v o l u m e . E v e n so, h e a d d s , for fear o f b e i n g s w e p t a w a y b y the force o f the c u r r e n t ,

the

w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n o c c u p i e d a p o s i t i o n in the c e n t e r as t h e y w e r e c r o s s i n g the river. T h e c r o s s i n g itself is e x p l a i n e d in m o r e n a t u r a l t e r m s , i n a s m u c h as w e are t o l d t h a t the m i r a c l e ( J o s h . 3:13, 16) w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d b y h a v i n g the w a t e r s di­ m i n i s h i n v o l u m e so as to m a k e the river m o r e f o r d a b l e (Ant. 5.16). I n a n y case, the e m p h a s i s is o n the l e a d e r s h i p o f J o s h u a , w h o o r g a n i z e s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f t h e a r m y (Ant. 5.17), w h e r e a s i n the B i b l e , the stress is o n G - d ' s w o n d e r s ( J o s h . 3:5). I n g e n e r a l , J o s e p h u s shifts a t t e n t i o n f r o m the m i r a c l e o f the c r o s s i n g o f the J o r d a n b y stating m e r e l y t h a t the Israelites e r e c t e d a n altar t h a t w a s to serve as a m e m o r i a l o f the s t o p p a g e o f the s t r e a m (Ant. 5.20) a n d b y n o t citing, as d o e s the B i b l e , the o b ­ v i o u s m i r a c u l o u s p a r a l l e l o f the c r o s s i n g o f the S e a o f R e e d s (Josh. 4 : 2 1 ) .

15

14. It is especially w h e n w e c o m p a r e Josephus's portrait o f Joshua with that o f the oral tradition as eventually codified by the rabbis that w e see the degree to w h i c h Josephus has apparendy deliberately sought to distance himself from the miracles that the rabbis ascribe to him. For example, the rabbis re­ mark that w h e n Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan, as soon as the priests h a d set foot in the Jor­ dan, all the peoples o f the earth witnessed the miracle o f the waters piling u p to a height o f 700 miles. W h e n Joshua assembles the people around the ark, a divine miracle is said to have caused the narrow space between its staves to contain the w h o l e multitude (Tosefta Sotah 8:1-4; Babylonian Sotah 33b~34a; Jerusalem Sotah 7.5). Josephus (Ant. 5.58) avoids exaggeration, such as w e find in the rabbinic a c c o u n t o f Joshua's w a r with a certain S h o b a c h , king o f the A r m e n i a n s , w h o had allied with him the forty-five kings (each with 60,000 warriors) o f Persia and M e d i a , as well as the hero Japheth (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 4:13 a n d references in 6:179, n. 45). 15. T h e biblical text not only explicidy mentions the parallel with the crossing o f the S e a o f R e e d s (Josh. 4:6) but also closely parallels the passage: " W h e n thy son should ask thee in time to c o m e , say­ ing: W h a t m e a n the testimonies?" (referring to the miracles connected with Passover) (Deut. 6:20—21); similarly, Josh. 4:6 reads: " W h e n your children ask in time to come, saying: W h a t m e a n ye b y these stones?" T h i s same question is repeated somewhat later (Josh. 4:21); a n d there the answer that is to be given to the children specifically invokes the parallel o f the crossing o f the S e a o f Reeds: "For the L - r d

456

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s sensitivity w i t h r e g a r d t o m i r a c l e s is t o b e s e e n in his o m i s s i o n o f t h e s t r a n g e i n c i d e n t o f the a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e a p p a r i t i o n o f t h e c a p t a i n o f t h e L - r d ' s host, w h o tells J o s h u a , in w o r d s r e m i n i s c e n t o f G - d ' s state­ m e n t to M o s e s ( E x o d . 3:5), t o t a k e o f f his shoes, since t h e p l a c e w h e r e h e is stand­ i n g is h o l y (Josh. 5 : 1 3 - 1 5 v s . Ant. 5.22). E v e n w h e n J o s e p h u s d o e s m e n t i o n t h e m i r a c u l o u s e v e n t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c a p t u r e o f J e r i c h o (Ant. 5.23, 5.24, 5.27), h e is careful to a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t h e is a w a r e o f their m i r a c u l o u s n a t u r e , a d m i t t i n g , in o b v i o u s a m a z e m e n t , t h a t e x c e p t for t h e blasts o f t h e priests' t r u m p e t s (Ant. 5.23), the Israelites d i d n o t h i n g , a n d t h a t the w a l l s c o l l a p s e d s p o n t a n e o u s l y a n d w i t h o u t effort o n their p a r t , w i t h o u t e n g i n e o r force o f a n y o t h e r k i n d h a v i n g b e e n a p p l i e d b y t h e m . It is o b v i o u s t h a t J o s e p h u s is as d u m b f o u n d e d as w e r e t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f J e r i c h o ; a n d p r e s u m a b l y h e a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t t h a t his r e a d e r s w i l l b e similarly struck b y t h e m i r a c u l o u s o v e r t h r o w o f t h e r a m p a r t s o f J e r i c h o (Josh. 6 : 6 - 1 6 v s . Ant. 5.28). If, o c c a s i o n a l l y , J o s e p h u s d o e s e x a g g e r a t e G - d ' s a i d to J o s h u a , it is t o i n c r e a s e the d r a m a : thus, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t G - d cast d o w n g r e a t stones u p o n the e n e m y at B e t h - h o r o n ( J o s h . 10:11), J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f t h u n d e r b o l t s , t h u n d e r c l a p s , a n d t h e d e s c e n t o f h a i l o f m o r e t h a n o r d i n a r y m a g n i t u d e (Ant. 5.60); a n d y e t , significantly, in o r d e r t o d i m i n i s h t h e m i r a c l e itself a n d n o t t o d e t r a c t f r o m t h e m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e Israelites, J o s e p h u s h e r e o m i t s t h e b i b l i c a l state­ m e n t t h a t m o r e o f t h e e n e m y w e r e killed b y the hailstones t h a n b y t h e Israelites (Josh. 10: n ) .

1 6

J o s e p h u s w a s w e l l a w a r e t h a t t h e m i r a c l e o f t h e l e n g t h e n i n g o f the

d a y in the b a t d e at G i b e o n w o u l d stretch the c r e d u l i t y o f his r e a d e r s

(Josh.

1 0 : 1 2 - 1 4 ) . A s t h e b i b l i c a l text w o u l d h a v e it, t h e sun s t a y e d in t h e m i d s t o f h e a v e n a n d d i d n o t h a s t e n to g o d o w n for a b o u t a w h o l e d a y (Josh. 10:13), so that, as t h e B i b l e a d d s , t h e r e h a s b e e n n o d a y like it e i t h e r b e f o r e o r since ( J o s h . 10:14). J o s e ­ p h u s s i m p l y states t h a t t h e d a y w a s p r o l o n g e d a n d " s u r p a s s e d t h e c u s t o m a r y m e a ­ sure," w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p r o l o n g a t i o n lasted a w h o l e day, let a l o n e t h a t it w a s a n d w i l l b e u n p a r a l l e l e d (Ant. 5.61). T o further reassure t h e r e a d e r t h a t h e is a w a r e o f t h e c r e d u l i t y p r o b l e m h e r e , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t this e v e n t is attested b y S c r i p t u r e s t h a t a r e l a i d u p in t h e T e m p l e .

1 7

your G - d dried up the waters o f Jordan from before y o u , until ye were passed over, as the L - r d y o u r G - d did to the S e a o f R e e d s . " 16. Josephus, Ant. 5.60, has n o parallel to the rabbinic statement, w h i c h a p p a r e n d y w o u l d have stretched the credulity o f his readers, that G - d granted Joshua the peculiar favor o f having the hail­ stones, which, at M o s e s ' intercession, h a d remained suspended in midair w h e n they were about to fall u p o n the Egyptians, fall u p o n the C a n a a n i t e s (Berakot 54b; see G i n z b e r g 1909-39, 4:10). 17. H e r e again, in the description o f the lengthening o f the day at the batde o f G i b e o n , w e see the tremendous gulf in such matters between Josephus and the rabbinic tradition, w h i c h highlights this event as the sixth o f the great wonders since the creation o f the world, adds that the e n e m y used sor­ cery in order to m a k e the heavenly hosts intervene against the Israelites, a n d indicates h o w Joshua achieved the miracle, namely, by p r o n o u n c i n g the ineffable n a m e o f G - d (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 52). N o r is there a parallel in Josephus to the tradition o f the sun's initial refusal to o b e y Joshua's behest on the grounds that it w a s older than m a n by two days a n d Joshua's sophistic reply that there was n o reason

JOSHUA

457

J o s e p h u s is careful, as w e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d , to a v o i d w h a t w o u l d s e e m to b e u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n in the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e . T h u s t h e B i b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e C a n a a n i t e a r m y w a s as n u m e r o u s as t h e s a n d u p o n t h e s e a s h o r e a n d h a d v e r y m a n y h o r s e s a n d c h a r i o t s ( J o s h . 11:4). J o s e p h u s strives for g r e a t e r c r e d i b i l i t y b y g i v i n g l a r g e b u t p r e c i s e n u m b e r s : 300,000 m e n - a t - a r m s , 10,000 h o r s e m e n , a n d 20,000 c h a r i o t s (Ant. 5.64). T h e r e a r e a n u m b e r o f p a s s a g e s in the B i b l e t h a t raise serious q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f v a r i o u s b i b l i c a l b o o k s . I b n E z r a , in his c o m m e n t a r y o n D e u t e r o n o m y (1:1), n o t e s six o f these in t h e P e n t a t e u c h , all o f w h i c h , significandy are omitted b y Josephus. In the B o o k o f J o s h u a w h e r e a s w e r e a d t h a t J o s h u a b u r n e d t h e c i t y o f A i a n d m a d e it f o r e v e r a h e a p o f ruins, " a s it is t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 8:28), s e e m i n g to i n d i c a t e a later a u t h o r s h i p , J o s e p h u s s i m p l y states t h a t A i w a s in f l a m e s , w i t h o u t g i v i n g a n y i n d i c a t i o n as to w h e n t h e p a s s a g e w a s w r i t t e n (Ant. 5.47). Similarly, w h e r e t h e H e b r e w t e x t states t h a t J o s h u a m a d e t h e G i b e o n i t e s h e w e r s o f w o o d a n d d r a w e r s o f w a t e r " u n t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 9:27), a g a i n s e e m i n g l y i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e p a s s a g e w a s w r i t t e n at a m u c h later d a t e , J o s e ­ p h u s o m i t s this p h r a s e (Ant. 5.57). A similar p r o b l e m arises w h e n t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states t h a t J o s h u a c o m m a n d e d t h a t t h e c o r p s e s o f the five C a n a a n i t e k i n g s b e cast into the cave w h e r e they h a d h i d d e n themselves a n d that the m o u t h o f the cave b e c l o s e d w i t h g r e a t stones, w h i c h h a v e r e m a i n e d " u n t o this v e r y d a y " ( J o s h . 10:27). J o s e p h u s resolves m a t t e r s b y o m i t t i n g t h e t r o u b l e s o m e w o r d s (Ant. 5.61). T h e s a m e p h r a s e is f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t the Israelites d i d n o t d r i v e o u t t h e G e s h u r i t e s a n d M a a c a t h i t e s , w h o d w e l t in the m i d s t o f Israel " u n t o this d a y " ( J o s h . 13:13); a n d a g a i n J o s e p h u s skillfully a v o i d s t h e p r o b l e m b y o m i t t i n g t h e p h r a s e (Ant. 5.71).

POLITICAL

OVERTONES

I n his f a r e w e l l a d d r e s s to t h e R e u b e n i t e s , G a d i t e s , a n d M a n a s s e h i t e s , J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e t h e m e o f the k i n s h i p t h a t unites all Israelites, b a s e d u p o n t h e i r d e s c e n t f r o m o n e forefather, A b r a h a m , a n d t h e i r w o r s h i p p i n g t h e s a m e G - d (Ant. 5.97 v s . J o s h . 23). T h i s e m p h a s i s o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e Israelites' u n i t y is l i k e w i s e to b e seen in the contrast b e t w e e n the biblical version o f the defense b y the t w o a n d a h a l f tribes o f t h e b u i l d i n g o f t h e i r a l t a r ( J o s h . 2 2 : 2 1 - 2 9 ) , w h i c h m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f Israelite unity, a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , i n w h i c h t h e T r a n s j o r d a n i a n s specifically u n d e r s c o r e t h a t t h e y a r e n o t r e n o u n c i n g t h e i r k i n s h i p t o t h e i r b r e t h r e n , t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e r e v o l u t i o n a r y intent, a n d t h a t t h e y r e c o g n i z e t h e s a m e o n e G - d w o r s h i p p e d b y all t h e Israelites (Ant. 5 . 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) . I n t h e B i b l e , t h e t w o

why a free-born youth, that is, man, should refrain from enjoining silence upon an old slave, that is, the sun, whom he owned, inasmuch as G-d had given heaven and earth to Abraham (Tanhuma 3.68; Tanhuma Ahare 9; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 6.28, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:178, n. 4I).

458

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

a n d a h a l f tribes d e c l a r e t h a t t h e y h a d set u p t h e altar for fear lest in t i m e t o c o m e t h e o t h e r Israelites m i g h t s a y t h a t t h e y h a d n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e G - d o f Israel (Josh. 22:24), w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s t h e y e x p l a i n t h a t the altar is a s y m b o l for eter­ nity o f their k i n s h i p w i t h t h e o t h e r Israelites a n d a n o b l i g a t i o n to a b i d e b y the l a w s o f their c o m m o n forefathers (Ant. 5.112). I n particular, t h e y d i s t a n c e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h o s e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s w h o e m b a r k o n " n e w f a n g l e d " (vecvrepois) w a y s t h a t a r e p e r v e r s i o n s o f their a n c e s t r a l traditions. J o s e p h u s h i g h l i g h t s t h e role o f J o s h u a in p r e v e n t i n g civil w a r in his t r e a t m e n t o f the p a s s a g e w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , it is P h i n e h a s t h e priest a n d t h e p r i n c e s w h o n e g o t i a t e successfully w i t h t h e t w o a n d a h a l f tribes, w h i c h h a v e s e e m i n g l y r e b e l l e d ( J o s h . 2 2 : 3 2 - 3 3 v s . Ant. 5.114). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , w h i l e P h i n e h a s d o e s r e p o r t t h e a n s w e r o f t h e tribes, it is J o s h u a w h o , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l c o m m e n t , is d e s c r i b e d as r e j o i c i n g t h a t there is n o n e e d to l e v y t r o o p s o r t o l e a d t h e m to b l o o d ­ s h e d a n d battle a g a i n s t k i n s m e n a n d w h o offers sacrifices o f t h a n k s g i v i n g to G - d for the successful o u t c o m e o f t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s . F i n a l l y J o s e p h u s s h o w s h o w i m ­ p o r t a n t the l e a d e r s h i p o f J o s h u a w a s in p r e v e n t i n g ardaig

b y n o t i n g , a g a i n in a n

e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , t h a t after J o s h u a ' s d e a t h , the p e o p l e fell i n t o a state o f a n a r ­ c h y t h a t c o n t i n u e d for a full e i g h t e e n y e a r s (Ant. 6.84). I n o r d e r to a v o i d a n t a g o n i z i n g t h e R o m a n s , w h o h a d s h o w e r e d s u c h gifts a n d p r i v i l e g e s u p o n h i m a n d w h o w e r e e x t r e m e l y sensitive t o J e w i s h aspirations for a n i n d e p e n d e n t state, J o s e p h u s o m i t s J o s h u a ' s o r d e r to t h e officers o f t h e p e o p l e to take possession o f the l a n d t h a t G - d h a s g i v e n the Israelites t o possess (Josh. 1:10-11 v s . Ant. 5.1). D R A M A T I C AND R O M A N T I C

MOTIFS

J o s e p h u s h a s i n t r o d u c e d s e v e r a l t o u c h e s to m a k e the J o s h u a n a r r a t i v e m o r e d r a ­ m a t i c . T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t states t h a t the k i n g o f J e r i c h o g a v e instruc­ tions to his emissaries to tell R a h a b to b r i n g forth the spies t h a t h a d e n t e r e d h e r h o u s e (Josh. 2:3), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e k i n g s t r a i g h t w a y sent m e n to d i s c o v e r b y t o r t u r e w h a t t h e spies' i n t e n t w a s (Ant. 5.8). T h e e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n t h e k i n g ' s m e s ­ s e n g e r s a n d R a h a b is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as t h e B i b l e s i m p l y re­ p o r t s R a h a b ' s s t a t e m e n t to the emissaries (Josh. 2:4-6), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a d d s the details t h a t t h e y w e r e c a j o l e d b y t h e w o m a n a n d , s u s p e c t i n g n o guile, d e p a r t e d w i t h o u t e v e n s e a r c h i n g h e r i n n (Ant. 5.10). J o s e p h u s builds u p t h e d r a m a o f the sit­ u a t i o n t h r o u g h his e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , e m p h a s i z i n g the g r e a t risk t h a t R a h a b t o o k in c o n c e a l i n g the s p i e s — t h a t is, t h a t she a n d all h e r h o u s e w o u l d h a v e p e r ­ i s h e d m i s e r a b l y at the h a n d s o f t h e k i n g ' s m e n i f she h a d b e e n c a u g h t (Ant. 5.11). T h e d r a m a is further i n c r e a s e d b y t h e r e m a r k t h a t R a h a b k n e w t h a t t h e Israelites w o u l d c a p t u r e J e r i c h o t h r o u g h c e r t a i n signs t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m G - d (Ant. T h e r e is a d d e d d r a m a also, a l t h o u g h n o t to the p o i n t o f u n b e l i e v a b i l i t y in J o s e ­ p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n a l details o f b a t d e s c e n e s . T h u s , J o s e p h u s e m b e l l i s h e s t h e a c c o u n t

JOSHUA

459

o f t h e m a s s a c r e at J e r i c h o ( J o s h . 6:21 v s . Ant. 5.28-29). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e d e c l a r e s m e r e l y t h a t the Israelites "utterly d e s t r o y e d all t h a t w a s in t h e c i t y b o t h m e n a n d w o m e n , b o t h y o u n g a n d o l d , a n d o x , a n d s h e e p , a n d ass, w i t h t h e e d g e o f t h e s w o r d , " J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f J e r i c h o w e r e d u m b f o u n d e d at t h e m i r a c u l o u s o v e r t h r o w o f t h e r a m p a r t s , t h a t t h e y w e r e s l a u g h t e r e d in t h e streets o r s u r p r i s e d in t h e h o u s e s , t h a t t h e r e w a s n o possibility o f e s c a p e for t h e m , t h a t t h e c i t y w a s c h o k e d w i t h c o r p s e s , a n d t h a t the i n v a d e r s b u r n t the entire c i t y a n d t h e s u r r o u n d i n g r e g i o n . T h e r e is s i m i l a r d r a m a t i c e l a b o r a t i o n o f the battle s c e n e at A i . A l l w e a r e t o l d in t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n is t h a t n o t a m a n w a s left in A i o r B e t h e l ( J o s h . 8:17), b u t J o s e p h u s a d d s s u c h v i v i d details as t h a t t h e Israelites f l u n g t h e m ­ selves i n t o t h e t o w n w h i l e t h e i n h a b i t a n t s w e r e a r o u n d t h e r a m p a r t s w h o l l y e n ­ g r o s s e d in w a t c h i n g t h e i r friends o u t s i d e (Ant. 5.46). L i k e w i s e , t h e r e is m u c h m o r e drama

in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e a c t i o n o f A d o n i z e d e k , t h e k i n g o f

J e r u s a l e m , to t h e n e w s t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s o f G i b e o n h a d m a d e p e a c e w i t h the Is­ raelites (Ant. 5.58). I n t h e B i b l e , h e fears g r e a d y (Josh. 10:1), b u t in J o s e p h u s , h e is indignant.

SUMMARY J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a c o r r e s p o n d s c l o s e l y to t h o s e o f his o t h e r b i b l i c a l h e ­ roes. I n the first p l a c e , in o r d e r to e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f J o s h u a ' s l e a d e r ­ ship for t h e p r o p e r f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l , his stature is h i g h l i g h t e d t h r o u g h his b e i n g i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in v a r i o u s c o n t e x t s w h e r e h e is n o t m e n ­ t i o n e d in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s . I n the s e c o n d p l a c e , J o s e p h u s ' s e x ­ t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n s e m p h a s i z e , p r e s u m a b l y for a p o l o g e t i c a n d

propagandistic

r e a s o n s , J o s h u a ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f the four c a r d i n a l v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m ­ p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s , in particular, honesty, fairness, generosity, a n d g r a t i t u d e , a n d w h e r e the c o n c e r n is to a n s w e r J e w - b a i t e r s ) — a s w e l l as t h e fifth c a r d i n a l v i r t u e , c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h these, n a m e l y , p i e t y I n a d d i t i o n , J o s e ­ p h u s a d d s t o t h e b i b l i c a l p o r t r a i t b y t e r m i n g J o s h u a a p r o p h e t ; a n d i n a s m u c h as, for J o s e p h u s , t h e p r o p h e t is c h a r g e d n o t o n l y w i t h p r e d i c t i n g the future b u t also w i t h r e c o r d i n g t h e past, J o s h u a is thus a s s o c i a t e d w i t h J o s e p h u s ' s o w n profession, t h a t o f h i s t o r i a n . J o s e p h u s is e s p e c i a l l y careful to justify M o s e s ' c h o i c e o f J o s h u a as his successor. I n v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s g r e a t a d m i r a t i o n o f a n d i n d e b t e d n e s s

to

T h u c y d i d e s , it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t J o s h u a e m e r g e s as a J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f T h u c y ­ d i d e s ' p o r t r a i t o f Pericles, w i t h e m p h a s i s o n his i n t e l l i g e n c e , his ability to p e r s u a d e a n d c h e c k c r o w d s , a n d his p r a g m a t i s m . J o s e p h u s uses his a c c o u n t o f J o s h u a to a n s w e r the c h a r g e s o f J e w - b a i t e r s . T h u s , in r e p l y to t h e c h a r g e t h a t t h e J e w s a r e a g g r e s s i v e a n d e v e n ruthless m i s s i o n a r i e s , J o s e p h u s c a r e f u l l y o m i t s t h e fact t h a t J o s h u a p e r f o r m e d the rite o f c i r c u m c i s i o n o n t h o s e Israelites w h o h a d b e e n b o r n d u r i n g the f o r t y - y e a r s o j o u r n in t h e desert. I n a n s w e r to t h e c h a r g e t h a t J e w s w e r e h a r s h o r e v e n b l o o d t h i r s t y in t h e i r c o n q u e s t

460

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

o f C a n a a n , J o s e p h u s a b b r e v i a t e s a n d t o n e s d o w n or, in s o m e cases, o m i t s b i b l i c a l descriptions o f Joshua's treatment o f the native C a n a a n i t e s . T o a p p r e c i a t e t h e distinctive c h a r a c t e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f J o s h u a , w e s h o u l d further

c o m p a r e it w i t h t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e r a b b i s d e p i c t J o s h u a .

W h e r e a s t h e r a b b i s p o r t r a y h i m as a s t u d e n t o f T o r a h , t h e e m p h a s i s in J o s e p h u s is o n his p r a g m a t i c l e a d e r s h i p , p a r t i c u l a r l y in war. J o s e p h u s a v o i d s u n d u e e x a g ­ g e r a t i o n in p o r t r a y i n g J o s h u a ' s m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t s . I n particular, J o s e p h u s is careful to t o n e d o w n o r r a t i o n a l i z e m i r a c l e s . If, o c c a s i o n a l l y , J o s e p h u s d o e s e x a g ­ g e r a t e , h e is careful t o d o so in s u c h a w a y as to a d d d r a m a to t h e situation b u t w i t h o u t s t r e t c h i n g the c r e d u l i t y o f his r e a d e r s . M o r e o v e r , h e takes p a i n s n o t to stress u n d u l y G - d ' s role in J o s h u a ' s e x p l o i t s in o r d e r n o t to d e t r a c t f r o m J o s h u a ' s o w n a c h i e v e m e n t s . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s , like I b n E z r a , o m i t s t h o s e p a s s a g e s t h a t raise serious q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e a u t h o r s h i p a n d d a t e o f c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e b o o k , w h i c h r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n attributes t o J o s h u a . F u r t h e r m o r e , in distinct allusion to his o w n times, w h e n civil strife h a d t o r n the J e w i s h p e o p l e a p a r t d u r i n g t h e w a r a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s is careful to e m p h a s i z e J o s h u a ' s ability in a v o i d i n g civil w a r a n d anarchy. Finally, in o r d e r n o t to a n t a g o n i z e his R o m a n hosts, J o s e p h u s o m i t s references to t h e d i v i n e o r d e r t o take possession o f t h e l a n d o f I s r a e l .

18

18. I a m grateful to A . D . Wasserstein for several helpful suggestions in connection with this study.

C H A P T E R

T W E L V E

Samson

I n e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f S a m s o n , w e see t h a t h e h a s p l a c e d his p e r ­ s o n a l h e l l e n i z e d i m p r i n t o n t h e b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e , a n d t h a t his p o r t r a i t is s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d b y his c o n c e r n to d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f their o p p o ­ nents. T h e v e r y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s ' s S a m s o n differs f r o m t h e r a b ­ b i n i c p o r t r a y a l o f h i m — h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t h e i n c r e a s e d erotic, h e r o i c , a n d d r a m a t i c interests, a n d t h e d e c r e a s e d m a g i c a n d d i v i n e e l e m e n t — a r e t y p i c a l l y J o s e p h a n r a t h e r t h a n a stage in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the m i d r a s h i c tradi­ 1

t i o n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e r a b b i n i c m i d r a s h i m interest t h e m s e l v e s i n w o r d p l a y , in t h e d i v i n e a n d m i r a c u l o u s , a n d in t h e deflation o f t h e h e r o i c stature o f S a m s o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h s . P s e u d o - P h i l o , in his Biblical

Antiq­

uities, o c c u p i e s a n i n t e r m e d i a t e p o s i t i o n , b e i n g c o n c e r n e d chiefly w i t h e x a g g e r a t ­ i n g S a m s o n ' s exploits, w h i l e c o m p a r i n g h i m m o r a l l y w i t h J o s e p h , w h o m h e v i e w s m o r e favorably. O n e i n d i c a t i o n , as w e h a v e s e e n , o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a g i v e n b i b l i c a l p e r s o n ­ ality for J o s e p h u s is t h e relative a m o u n t o f s p a c e t h a t h e gives to h i m . T h e story o f S a m s o n c o m p r i s e s 159 lines i n t h e H e b r e w text (Judg. 1 3 : 2 - 1 6 : 3 1 ) a n d 276 lines i n t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d 271 lines in t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n B ) , as c o m ­ p a r e d w i t h 242 lines in J o s e p h u s (Ant. 5 . 2 7 6 - 3 1 7 ) . T h i s gives a ratio o f 1.52 o f J o s e ­ p h u s to t h e H e b r e w t e x t a n d .88 t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t ( V e r s i o n A ) a n d .89 ( V e r s i o n B ) . S a m s o n thus e m e r g e s , f r o m this p o i n t o f view, as o n e o f t h e m o r e p r o m i n e n t b i b ­ lical figures for J o s e p h u s .

1. "The more picturesque details with which Josephus embellishes his story [of Samson] are sup­ plied by his imagination," says G. F. Moore (1898, 315-16), who however, makes no systematic attempt to support this statement by classifying Josephus's changes and by comparing them with those of Pseudo-Philo and the Midrash, as is attempted here. 461

462

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

SAMSON'S VIRTUES Good Birth S i n c e a g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n , w e a r e n o t s u r p r i s e d to find t h a t J o s e p h u s a d d s t h e e x t r a b i b l i c a l detail t h a t S a m s o n ' s father, M a n a o h , w a s o n e o f t h e fore­ m o s t (ev oXlyois

apioTos) a m o n g t h e D a n i t e s a n d b y g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t the o u t ­

s t a n d i n g figure o f his n a t i v e r e g i o n (Ant. 5.276). P s e u d o - P h i l o , in a similar f a s h i o n , a n d w i t h t y p i c a l l y m i d r a s h i c c o n c e r n for s u p p l y i n g n a m e s , stresses S a m s o n ' s n o b l e o r i g i n a n d e n u m e r a t e s his a n c e s t o r s b y n a m e b a c k to D a n , t h e s o n o f J a c o b (Bib. Ant. 42.1), so t h a t S a m s o n t u r n s o u t to b e t e n g e n e r a t i o n s r e m o v e d f r o m J a c o b , j u s t as D a v i d , in t h e g e n e a l o g y e n u m e r a t e d at t h e e n d o f the b o o k o f R u t h (4:18-22), c o m e s t e n g e n e r a t i o n s r e m o v e d after P e r e z . T h e r a b b i s , h o w e v e r , in line w i t h their g e n e r a l d i s a p p r o v a l o f S a m s o n , o m i t all r e f e r e n c e s to his ancestry, a n d a r e c o n t e n t to m e n t i o n m e r e l y t h e n a m e o f his father, M a n o a h .

2

O n t h e basis o f w o r d o r d e r (the n a m e s o f p i o u s p e o p l e in t h e

B i b l e c o m e after t h e w o r d shemo ("his n a m e " ) , M a n o a h is r e g a r d e d b y t h e r a b b i s as p i o u s (Numbers Rabbah 10.5); b u t in a c r i t i c i s m — o n e o f the m o s t d a m n i n g in the w h o l e r a b b i n i c a r s e n a l — o f t e n r e p e a t e d b y t h e m , t h e y c o n d e m n h i m as a n "am haarei—an

i g n o r a n t b o o r — o n t h e g r o u n d s that, a c c o r d i n g to S c r i p t u r e

13:11), h e w a l k e d b e h i n d his wife (Numbers Rabbah 1.337; Berakot 6 1 a ; 'Eruvin

10.5; Midrash

1 8 b ; Talqut 2.68). T h e g r e a t m e d i e v a l

Hagadol

(Judg. Genesis

commentator

R a s h i , in his r e m a r k s o n Berakot 61 a, e x p l a i n s t h a t since M a n o a h h a d n o t s t u d i e d w i t h l e a r n e d s c h o l a r s , h e d i d n o t k n o w the l a w t h a t a m a n o u g h t n o t t o w a l k b e ­ h i n d a w o m a n , e v e n his o w n wife ('Eruvin 18b). W h e r e a s M a n o a h in t h e B i b l e , u p o n s e e i n g t h e a n g e l d i s a p p e a r in t h e flame o f the altar, r e m a r k s , in g r e a t terror, " W e shall surely die, b e c a u s e w e h a v e s e e n G - d " (Judg. 13:22), in J o s e p h u s , his c o n s t e r n a t i o n is c o n s i d e r a b l y d i m i n i s h e d , a n d M a n o a h , m u c h m o r e bravely, is said m e r e l y to fear t h a t s o m e m i s c h i e f (a^aXepov)

m i g h t befall t h e m f r o m this v i ­

sion (Ant. 5.284). T h e r a b b i n i c M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , far f r o m s e e k i n g to di­ m i n i s h M a n o a h ' s fearfulness, uses this o c c a s i o n to c o n t r a s t h i m u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h earlier g e n e r a t i o n s ; for H a g a r , it notes, s a w five a n g e l s , o n e after another, a n d still w a s n o t afraid o f t h e m (Genesis Rabbah 4 5 ; Talqut 1.79; Midrash Leqah Tov o n G e n . 16:11). I n a d d i t i o n , in c o n t r a s t to the M i d r a s h (Numbers Rabbah 10.5), w h i c h stresses M a n o a h ' s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e fact t h a t it w a s a n a n g e l (Judg. 13:16), n o t i n g t h a t it w a s b e c a u s e o f this i g n o r a n c e t h a t h e i n v i t e d t h e a n g e l to eat, J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e states t h a t M a n o a h w a s i g n o r a n t o f this fact, a l t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t g o as far as P s e u d o P h i l o , w h o h a s M a n o a h state merely, " I f I w e r e able, I w o u l d p e r s u a d e y o u to e n t e r m y h o u s e a n d eat b r e a d w i t h m e ! " (Bib. Ant. 42.8).

2. In typical fashion, the rabbis prefer a play on the n a m e o f Samson's father, M a n o a h , m e a n i n g "rest," declaring that he was so called because he was e n d o w e d with the prophetic p o w e r to speak with

an angel; and p r o p h e c y is called menuhah, "rest" (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5).

SAMSON

463

I n s t e a d o f l i s t i n g S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t o r s , as d o e s P s e u d o - P h i l o , o r m a k i n g a state­ m e n t , as d o e s J o s e p h u s , a b o u t t h e p r o m i n e n c e o f S a m s o n ' s ancestry, t h e r a b b i s , i n t h e i r c o n c e r n w i t h c o n n e c t i n g l a t e r b i b l i c a l figures w i t h t h e p a t r i a r c h s , p o i n t o u t t h a t J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g o f D a n refers t o S a m s o n , w h o is i d e n t i f i e d (Sotah 9b) as t h e s e r p e n t i n t e r m s o f w h i c h J a c o b ( G e n . 49:17) d e s c r i b e s D a n (Numbers Rabbah

14.9).

3

W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s t h e n o b i l i t y o f S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t r y o n his father's side (Ant. 5.276), t h e r a b b i s s p e a k r a t h e r o f t h e stature o f S a m s o n ' s m o t h e r , w h o , t h e y say, c a m e f r o m t h e tribe o f J u d a h (Genesis Rabbah 98.13 a n d Numbers Rabbah 10.5).

4

Physical Attractiveness N o t o n l y m u s t the h e r o b e o f h i g h birth, h e must also b e physically h a n d s o m e . In t h e c a s e o f S a m s o n , it is n o t his o w n h a n d s o m e n e s s b u t t h a t o f his m o t h e r t h a t is stressed b y J o s e p h u s , w h o in a s t a t e m e n t t y p i c a l o f his r e m a r k s a b o u t w o m e n in his n a r r a t i v e , f o c u s e s o n h e r b e a u t y r a t h e r t h a n o n h e r piety. S h e is d e s c r i b e d as r e ­ markable

(rrepipXeiTTov,

literally,

" l o o k e d at

from

all sides") for

(ev[jLopla, l i t e r a l l y " g o o d f o r m " ) a n d p r e e m i n e n t (Sia^epov)

her

beauty

a m o n g w o m e n o f her

3. T h e tradition that the c o m i n g o f S a m s o n was prophesied by J a c o b is likewise found in O r i g e n (Commentaria [6.18] in Evangelium Joannis 1.23, ed. Cecile Blanc, 2 [Paris: Cerf, 1970]: 218). T h i s w o u l d appear to raise the status o f Samson; but the rabbis are careful to note that J a c o b , w h e n shown the fu­ ture figure o f S a m s o n (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 23.5; Mekilta [ed. Friedmann] 55b; Tanhuma o n N u m . 34), thought that h e was to b e the messiah, until he saw him dead, w h e r e u p o n he realized that he w a s not (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.14; Midrash Hagadol o n Genesis 184a). 4. T h e rabbis give her n a m e as Hazzelelponi (Zelelponit) (1 C h r o n . 4:3), so as to refute the heretics w h o questioned biblical genealogies where no names were given (Baba Batra 91a; Midrash Numbers Rab­ bah 10.5; Midrash Hagadol o n Gen. 88a; Midrash Proverbs o n 31.24; Talqut 2.491). Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 42.1) has a different name, Eluma, the daughter o f R e m a c , a n d does not connect her with the tribe o f J u d a h . T h e ancestry o f Samson's mother from J u d a h gives the rabbis a n opportunity to praise the royal tribe o f J u d a h , for they declare that if D a n h a d not been coupled with the most distinguished o f the tribes (i.e., Judah), he w o u l d not have brought forth even this one j u d g e (i.e., Samson) that he did pro­ duce (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13). E v e n the p r o p h e c y in Jacob's blessing, that " D a n shall j u d g e his people as one o f the tribes o f Israel" (Gen. 49:16), is taken to refer to Judah, the unique tribe from w h i c h the Jewish kings came. T h a t Josephus w a s perhaps aware o f this tradition that Samson's mother w a s o f the tribe o f J u d a h (even though he does not cite it as such) is perhaps to be seen 'mAnt. 5.299, where the sense o f irony a n d m e l o d r a m a is increased by Josephus's statement that Samson, in submitting to the m e n o f J u d a h , p u t himself at the m e r c y o f his fellow tribesmen (^vXercbv). T h e n a m e o f Samson's mother, Hazzelelponi, is explained as b e i n g derived from the fact that G - d through an angel turned to her rather than to h e r husband (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5). T h e Midrash (ibid.) deduces, therefore, that she was a righteous w o m a n , presumably m o r e so than her husband, since, inasmuch as L o t was m o r e righteous than his wife, the angels c a m e under the shadow o f his, a n d not her, r o o f (Gen. 19:8). T h e M i d r a s h notes the w i s d o m o f M a n o a h ' s wife in not indicating to M a n o a h , for she did not wish to reveal h e r imperfection, that the angel h a d told her that it was she w h o was barren (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 10.5). O n the other hand, Pseudo-Philo, like Josephus, is interested in building u p the reputa­ tion o f M a n o a h ' s wife for self-effacing honesty, a n d so does have her reveal to h e r husband the angel's assertion that it is she w h o is barren (Bib. Ant. 42.4).

464

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t i m e (Ant. 5.276). I n a n o t h e r c o m p a r a b l e a d d i t i o n , t h e a n g e l t h a t a p p e a r s

to

M a n o a h ' s wife is d e s c r i b e d as a h a n d s o m e (/caAd?) a n d tall y o u t h (Ant. 5.277).

Wisdom O n e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e pueyaXoi/joxos—Aristode's

"great-souled m a n "

(Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 C 3 4 - 2 5 A 1 7 ) — i s t h a t h e is w i s e ; n o v i r t u o u s m a n , h e says, is foolish (rjAcdios, "silly") o r u n i n t e l l i g e n t (dvorjros,

"senseless"). A l s o o n this p o i n t t h e r e is a

contrast b e t w e e n the rabbinic v i e w o f Samson's character a n d that o f Josephus. M a n y commentators have remarked that S a m s o n could not reasonably have ex­ p e c t e d a n y m a n t o solve his riddle, since it w a s b a s e d o n a n i n c i d e n t a b o u t w h i c h t h e y h a d n o i n f o r m a t i o n (Judg. 14:12); a n d S a m s o n c o n s e q u e n d y a p p e a r s r a t h e r foolish in p o s i n g it. I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , t h e riddle h a s b e c o m e a story (Aoyov),

5

w h i c h is e x a c d y w h a t it is (Ant. 5.290); a n d thus S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m is n o t d a m a g e d . B y i n t r o d u c i n g t h e n o n b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e Philistines at t h e w e d d i n g feast at T i m n a h w e r e a m b i t i o u s ((friXoripLOvpLevojv) t o w i n r e n o w n (86£av) for s a g a c i t y (ovvercov) (Ant. 5.290), J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s o w n sagacity, since h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b l e to o u t w i t t h e m h a d it n o t b e e n for t h e w o m a n ' s t r e a c h ­ e r y T o t h e r e a d e r o f t h e a c c o u n t in J u d g e s (14:17), S a m s o n h a r d l y s e e m s w i s e in re­ v e a l i n g t h e a n s w e r to the riddle t o his wife; J o s e p h u s , s e e k i n g to p r o t e c t S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for w i s d o m (or p e r h a p s his g o o d nature), i n f o r m s us t h a t h e s u s p e c t e d (v(f)opd)pL€vos) n o f r a u d (SoXepov) o n h e r p a r t (Ant. 5.293). A n o t h e r i n s t a n c e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s u n d e r s c o r e s S a m s o n ' s w i s d o m is in t h e tale o f his e s c a p e f r o m the Philistine a m b u s c a d e s at G a z a . T h e B i b l e r e m a r k s s i m p l y t h a t S a m s o n l a y t h e r e till m i d n i g h t a n d t h e n arose (Judg. 16:3). J o s e p h u s is careful to a d d t h a t S a m s o n w a s " n o t u n a w a r e " (ov ydp

Xavddvovoiv

avrov) o f these

s c h e m e s w h e n h e arose at m i d n i g h t (Ant. 5.305). A similar e m p h a s i s is f o u n d in o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s to t h e D e l i l a h e p i s o d e . W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , S a m s o n a p ­ p e a r s r a t h e r w e a k - w i t t e d , J o s e p h u s r e p o r t s t h a t " S a m s o n , w h o s e wits w e r e y e t r o ­ bust [c/)pov€Lv Zoxvpos,

" s t r o n g - t h i n k i n g " ] , c o u n t e r e d D a l a l a ' s [ D e l i l a h ' s ] ruse b y

another

(Ant. 5.308). J o s e p h u s ' s p e c u l i a r e t y m o l o g y , d e r i v i n g the

[dvrrjTTdra]"

n a m e o f S a m s o n f r o m loxvpos,

" s t r o n g " (Ant. 5.285), is s u g g e s t i v e , therefore, n o t

o n l y o f his p h y s i c a l strength b u t also o f his intellectual strength. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n S a m s o n ' s i g n o r a n c e , after his h a i r h a s b e e n c u t b y D e l i l a h , o f t h e fact t h a t h e is n o w p o w e r l e s s (Judg. 16:20) a n d t h a t G - d h a s n o w d e p a r t e d f r o m h i m (Ant. 5.313). A s u r v e y o f the a d d i t i o n s t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s m a d e to the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e as a w h o l e r e v e a l s t h a t h e often a d d s details a b o u t t h e w i s ­ d o m o f its h e r o e s ; c o n s e q u e n d y it is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t h e felt c o n s t r a i n e d t o d e ­ fend S a m s o n against the charge o f ignorance a n d simplemindedness.

5. Similariy, the Septuagint has ^pojSA^/xa vfiiv TrpopdXXopai. npo^dXXo^ai

problem in geometry, say, rather than to a riddle.

generally refers to a

SAMSON

465

Courage I n a s t a t e m e n t that h a s n o b i b l i c a l parallel, J o s e p h u s singles o u t four qualities in S a m s o n ' s c h a r a c t e r that h e r e g a r d s as a d m i r a b l e — v a l o r (dperrj), strength

(loxvs),

h i g h spirit (pueyaXo^pcov, a s y n o n y m for pLeyaXoi/jvxos, r e m i n d i n g o n e o f the f a m o u s " g r e a t - s o u l e d " m a n o f A r i s t o d e [Ethics 4 . 3 . 1 1 2 3 C 3 4 - 1 1 2 5 A 1 7 ] ) , a n d w r a t h (dpyrj) (Ant. 5.317). A l l o f these are qualities associated w i t h b r a v e r y the last b e i n g e s p e c i a l l y 6

r e m i n i s c e n t o f A c h i l l e s , w h o s e w r a t h is the t h e m e o f the Iliad (1.1). J o s e p h u s stresses S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e b y e m p h a s i z i n g the contrast b e t w e e n h i m a n d the tribe o f J u d a h , f r o m w h i c h h e w a s d e s c e n d e d , a c c o r d i n g to r a b b i n i c tradition, o n his m o t h e r ' s side. I n the B i b l e , the J u d a h i t e s ask the Philistines w h y t h e y h a v e c o m e u p a g a i n s t t h e m (Judg. 15:10). I n J o s e p h u s , the f o r m e r ' s s u b s e r v i e n c e to the latter is u n d e r s c o r e d b y their a p o l o g e t i c a n d c o w a r d l y s t a t e m e n t to the Philistines that it is unjust to p u n i s h t h e m , w h o h a v e p a i d tribute, for S a m s o n ' s m i s d e e d s (Ant. 5.297). W h e r e a s the B i b l e says m e r e l y that S a m s o n slew a t h o u s a n d m e n w i t h the j a w b o n e o f a n ass (Judg. 15:16), J o s e p h u s seeks t o e m p h a s i z e his b r a v e r y b y n o t i n g that the spot w a s c a l l e d J a w b o n e b y r e a s o n o f the e x p l o i t (dvSpayaOla,

" b r a v e r y " " m a n l y virtue") that S a m ­

s o n p e r f o r m e d t h e r e (Ant. 5.300). T h i s is the v e r y w o r d u s e d b y H e r o d o t u s (1.136) o f the Persians, w h o s h o w their e x c e l l e n c e b y fighting a n d b e g e t t i n g l a r g e families o f sons; it is also u s e d b y Pericles in his F u n e r a l O r a t i o n in reference to the v a l o r s h o w n b y the A t h e n i a n soldiers w h o h a d b e e n the first to fall in the P e l o p o n n e s i a n W a r (ap. T h u c y d i d e s 2.42.3). J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s S a m s o n ' s g r e a t e x p l o i t at L e h i b y ironi­ cally l e a d i n g u p to it w i t h the e x u l t a n t cries o f the Philistines, f o l l o w e d b y a q u i c k re­ versal

(7T€pL7T€T€La).

T h e b i b l i c a l v e r s e says that w h e n S a m s o n c a m e to L e h i , the

Philistines s h o u t e d as t h e y m e t h i m (Judg. 15:14); in J o s e p h u s , the Philistines m e e t h i m w i t h j o y (xapds,

"delight") a n d s h o u t i n g (fiorjs, " l o u d cry," often o f a b a t d e c r y

in H o m e r ) , t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e y h a v e a c h i e v e d their g o a l (Ant. 5.300).

7

C o n n e c t e d w i t h S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e is his sheer strength, w h i c h is stressed e v e n m o r e b y J o s e p h u s t h a n b y the B i b l e . I n a detail f o u n d e x p l i c i t l y in n e i t h e r the first n o r the s e c o n d b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t o f the a n g e l ' s visit to M a n o a h ' s wife, the a n g e l p r o m i s e s h e r a g o o d l y (KaXov) son, w h o will b e illustrious for strength (pcjpbrjv

im-

avovs) (Ant. 5.277). W h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e gives n o e t y m o l o g y for S a m s o n ' s n a m e , 8

a n d w h i l e P s e u d o - P h i l o e x p l a i n s the n a m e as m e a n i n g " h o l y " (Bib. Ant. 4 2 . 3 ) , the

6. Samson's quality o f high spirit (TrpopXrjfia,

Ant. 5.317) is paralleled in extrabiblical details that

Josephus inserts about M o s e s (Ant. 3.83), K e n i a z (Ant. 5.182), Saul (Ant. 6.45), A r a u n a (Ant. 7.332), S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.175), and U z z i a h (Ant. 9.216). 7. T h e Septuagint has a different embellishment: the Philistines shouted and ran to meet him. 8. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:205, n. 161, finds Pseudo-Philo's e t y m o l o g y rather obscure, "since there is n o H e b r e w w o r d m e a n i n g " h o l y " w h i c h can in any w a y be connected with the w o r d S a m s o n . " B u t Pseudo-Philo m a y have h a d in mind a derivation from shimesh, "to minister" or "to serve," given S a m ­ son's Nazirite status. G i n z b e r g himself suggests that the phrase "holy unto the L - r d " m a y be an inac­ curate rendering o f "anointed to the L - r d , " itself linked to shemen, "oil." Jacobson 1996, 984-85, sug­ gests that Pseudo-Philo's w o r d for holy, sanctificatus, is a translation o f nazir and thus w o u l d allude to

466

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

r a b b i s c i t e t h e n a m e ' s o b v i o u s d e r i v a t i o n f r o m t h e w o r d shemesh, m e a n i n g " s u n , " and comment

1 0

9

t h a t j u s t as G - d (Ps. 84:12) is s p o k e n o f as a s u n a n d a s h i e l d , so

S a m s o n s h i e l d e d I s r a e l i n his g e n e r a t i o n .

1 1

J o s e p h u s , significandy, e m p h a s i z e s

S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h b y p o s t u l a t i n g t h a t his v e r y n a m e m e a n s " s t r o n g "

1 2

(Ant. 5.285),

t h e r e b y a l s o , it w o u l d s e e m , c o n s c i o u s l y s e e k i n g t o a v o i d c o n n e c t i n g his n a m e w i t h the sun. Josephus p r o c e e d s to e x a g g e r a t e Samson's fear-inspiring strength b y supplying a reason w h y the thirty T i m n i t e c o m p a n i o n s w e r e g i v e n to h i m (Judg. n a m e l y , f e a r o f t h e y o u n g S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h (laxvos)

14:11),

(Ant. 5.289). Specifically, t h e y

w e r e g i v e n " o s t e n s i b l y as c o m p a n i o n s , i n r e a l i t y as g u a r d i a n s , lest h e s h o u l d b e m i n d e d to create a n y d i s t u r b a n c e . " T h e fact that the c o m p a n i o n s are the c h i e f

Samson's Nazirite status. H e concludes that there is n o etymology here; rather the m e a n i n g is " Y o u shall call his n a m e Samson, a n d he shall be a Nazirite to G - d . " 9. Perhaps this is a n allusion to the fact that his h o m e w a s near Beth-Shemesh (literally "the house o f the sun"). 10. Sotah 10a, Talqut 2.69, a n d Talqut ha-Makiri o n Ps. 2.31. 11. T h i s derivation from "sun," w e m a y add, is likewise found in Jerome, Commentarii in Epistolam ad Philemonen 752 (=PL 26.645) a n d Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos (on Ps. 80:14= Corpus Christmnorum 39 [1956], ed. D . E . Dekkers a n d I. Fraipont, 1129, line 70). D u r i n g the nineteenth century a n d the early part o f the twentieth, a n attempt was m a d e to equate the story o f S a m s o n with a solar myth (and to equate h i m with Heracles, pardy o n the basis o f this derivation o f Samson's n a m e from the H e b r e w w o r d for sun). See Steinthal 1877, 392-440; Jeremias 1906, 2:478-82; C a m s 1907 (a discursive a n d p o p ­ ular work); Palmer 1913; a n d m a n y others (for a listing, with brief summaries o f their respective modi­ fications of the theory, see Stahn 1908, 3-11 [especially critical o f C a m s ] ) . T h i s parallel o f S a m s o n with Heracles, without, o f course, the further equation o f the Samson story with the sun myth, is suggested as early as the e n d o f the third century b y Eusebius, Chronica (ed. Schone, 2.54.;—Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller 47 [1956], ed. R u d o l f H e l m , 62a, lines 16-19), w h o notes that the life o f S a m s o n h a d been c o m p a r e d b y some writers with the life o f Heracles; the comparison is also found in Philastrius, De Haeresibus 8 (=PG 92.237). It is, however, righdy called into question by M o o r e 1898, 364, as well as b y Frazer 1918, 2:481, the latter remarking that the association o f various episodes in Samson's life with particular places argues for a genuine local tradition. 12. Nesde 1910,152, asks, in puzzlement, h o w Josephus arrived at the etymology. R a p p a p o r t 1930, xxxiii, followed by Schalit 1944-63, 2: a d l o c , n. 235, suggests that Josephus was perhaps thinking o f Judg. 5:31, w h i c h speaks o f the sun (shemesh) in his might. A possible source for Josephus's e t y m o l o g y is suggested by the Talmud's derivation (Sotah 10a; so also Talqut 2.69 a n d Talqut ha-Makiri on Ps. 2:31, cited by R e n z e r 1902, 25, o f Samson's n a m e from shemesh, since the T a l m u d there quotes Ps. 84:12: "For the L - r d G - d is a sun [shemesh] a n d a shield." T h i s juxtaposition o f sun a n d shield m a y have led Josephus to stress Samson's strength as the explanation of his name. In his c o m m e n t a r y o n the talmudic passage, R a s h i cites Isa. 54:12, "And I will m a k e thy pinnacles [shimeshotaik] as rubies," a n d similarly explains shemesh here as a wall. T h i s etymology, too, w o u l d emphasize the aspect o f Samson's strength. C u r i ­ ously enough, Jerome, Liber Interpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum 50 (=PL 23.855) (ed. P. de Lagarde, 33; Corpus Christianorum 72 [1959] 101, lines 23-24, ed. P. Antin) seems to c o m b i n e the rabbinic interpreta­ tion with that o f Josephus, for he speaks o f Samson, sol eorum, vel solis fortitudo, where the juxtaposition o f "sun" (sol) a n d "strength" [fortitudo) is striking. M o o r e 1898, 326, attempts to explain Josephus's ety­ m o l o g y as c o m i n g from shamen, "fat," then "robust," "vigorous."

SAMSON stalwarts (aK^aiordrovs^

467

" v i g o r o u s , " " a t their p r i m e , " " i n fullest b l o o m " ) serves to

e m p h a s i z e S a m s o n ' s o w n s t r e n g t h still m o r e .

1 3

J o s e p h u s m a n a g e s to u n d e r s c o r e S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e a n d s t r e n g t h b y c o n t r a s t i n g his p o s s e s s i o n o f these, as n o t e d a b o v e , w i t h the w e a k n e s s a n d c o w a r d i c e o f t h e tribe o f J u d a h , w h o w i s h to h a n d h i m o v e r to the Philistines (Ant. 5.298). T h u s t h e m e n o f J u d a h , in a series o f e x t r a b i b l i c a l details c a l c u l a t e d to a r o u s e s c o r n for t h e m a n d , b y c o n t r a s t , a d m i r a t i o n for S a m s o n , are d e p i c t e d as w i s h i n g t o b e a b o v e r e p r o a c h (ave^t/cA^roi), a n d as r o u n d l y r e b u k i n g (Karafieyajja^voi)

Samson

for his o u t r a g e o u s ( T C T O A / X ^ / X C V C U V ) t r e a t m e n t o f t h e Philistines. T h e fact t h a t J o s e ­ p h u s o m i t s S a m s o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n to t h e m e n o f J u d a h t h a t h e h a s a c t e d a g a i n s t t h e Philistines b e c a u s e o f w h a t t h e y h a v e d o n e to h i m h i g h l i g h t s his o w n i n d e p e n ­ d e n c e a n d his d e f i a n c e o f t h e m (Judg. 15:11). W h e r e a s in S c r i p t u r e , t h e m e n o f J u d a h a n n o u n c e t o S a m s o n t h a t t h e y h a v e c o m e to b i n d h i m so as t o d e l i v e r h i m to t h e Philistines (Judg. 15:12), J o s e p h u s h a s t h e m b e s e e c h i n g h i m to s u b m i t to this t r e a t m e n t o f his o w n free w i l l (Ant. 5.298). T h a t h e d o e s so s u b m i t p o i n t s u p S a m ­ son's c o n f i d e n c e in himself. S a m s o n ' s fearlessness is u n d e r l i n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s n o t d r a m a t i z i n g his s t a t e m e n t o f fear (Ant. 5.299), as d o e s t h e B i b l e , t h r o u g h use o f d i ­ r e c t d i s c o u r s e , t h a t t h e J u d a h i t e s w i l l slay h i m (Judg. 15:12). I n a d d i t i o n , w h e r e a s w e r e a d in t h e B i b l e m e r e l y t h a t the J u d a h i t e s b o u n d S a m s o n w i t h t w o n e w r o p e s (Judg. 15:13), J o s e p h u s , to a c c e n t S a m s o n ' s fearlessness, h a s h i m a c t u a l l y d e s c e n d f r o m t h e r o c k a n d p u t h i m s e l f at t h e m e r c y o f his fellow t r i b e s m e n (Ant. 5.299). I n c o n t r a s t t o this J o s e p h a n e m p h a s i s o n S a m s o n ' s strength, t h e r a b b i s p l a y o n t h e w o r d shefjfon, " a d d e r , " a d e s i g n a t i o n for S a m s o n ' s a n c e s t o r D a n (Judg. 13:2; see G e n . 49:17), w h i c h is also c o n n e c t e d w i t h the r o o t shuf, " t o b r u i s e , " " c r u s h , " o r " d i s l o c a t e . " T h e y c o n c l u d e t h a t S a m s o n w a s l a m e in b o t h legs, like t h o s e h o r n e d s n a k e s t h a t o r i g i n a l l y p o s s e s s e d feet b u t later, h a v i n g lost t h e m , c r a w l e d o n t h e i r 14

b e l l i e s . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , a v o i d s a n y g r o t e s q u e p o r t r a y a l o f S a m s o n ' s strength. M o r e o v e r , t h e r a b b i s a d d t o t h e i r striking p o r t r a y a l o f S a m s o n b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e w i d t h b e t w e e n S a m s o n ' s s h o u l d e r s w a s sixty c u b i t s (ninety feet), this o n t h e basis o f t h e B i b l e ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t S a m s o n p l a c e d the g a t e s o f G a z a , w h i c h , a c ­ c o r d i n g to r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n (Sotah 10a), w e r e sixty cubits w i d e , u p o n his s h o u l d e r s (Judg. 16:3).

15

13. Judg. 14:11 reads: "And it came to pass, w h e n they saw him [kire'otam], that they [the Philistines] brought thirty companions to be with him." Nesde 1910, 152, suggests that Josephus m a y have read kin atom ("when they feared him," or perhaps "because they feared him"), in accordance with one re­ cension of the Septuagint, which has ev TO> op€todai avrovs avrov for or' eiSov avrov, a reading that Field 1875 ( * l ° - ) thinks Josephus followed. 14. Sotah 10a. Cf. Sanhedrin m a ; Midrash Hagadol Numbers 95b; Talqut 1.161, 1.765, 2.69; MidrashNumbers Rabbah 14.9; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a; Midrash Aggada Genesis 112 and Numbers 138, cited by Renzer 1902, 25; andNispahim Leseder Eliyahu %uta (ed. Friedmann) 44, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:207m 15. 15. Sotah 10a; Talqut 2.70; Tanna de-vei Eliyahu 5.24. ac

c

468

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

S a m s o n ' s strength a n d v i o l e n c e are e l a b o r a t e d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f his e x ­ ploit w i t h the l i o n , w h e r e h e a d d s the a d d i t i o n a l detail that S a m s o n f l u n g (piVrei) the b e a s t into the w o o d s (Ant. 5.287). S a m s o n ' s h e r o i c stature is e n h a n c e d b y J o s e ­ p h u s ' s r e d u c i n g the role o f his p a r e n t s in the narrative. T h u s , in J u d g . 14:6, w e are told t h a t S a m s o n d i d n o t i n f o r m his p a r e n t s o f his e x p l o i t w i t h t h e l i o n , p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e t h e y m i g h t h a v e b e e n u p s e t b y the d a n g e r t o w h i c h h e h a d e x p o s e d h i m ­ self (so S l o t k i 1950, a d loc.) a n d also b e c a u s e t h e y m i g h t h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t the i n c i d e n t w a s a n o m e n w a r n i n g S a m s o n n o t t o m a r r y the T i m n i t e w o m a n (since t h e y d i d n o t k n o w that his i m p u l s e t o d o so c a m e f r o m G - d ) . T h e B i b l e relates that S a m s o n d i d n o t tell his p a r e n t s t h a t h e h a d s c r a p e d the h o n e y o u t o f the b o d y o f the l i o n (Judg. 14:9). T h e r e a s o n for this silence w a s p e r h a p s t h a t h e f e a r e d that t h e y w o u l d r e b u k e h i m for defiling h i m s e l f t h r o u g h c o n t a c t w i t h a c a r c a s s (Slotki 1950, a d l o c ) . T h e p i c t u r e s u g g e s t e d b y the B i b l e is o f a p r e c o c i o u s o n l y c h i l d w h o s e p a r e n t s a r e w o r r i e d a b o u t h i m . B y o m i t t i n g the role o f the p a r e n t s (they are n o t m e n t i o n e d after Ant. 5.286), J o s e p h u s presents S a m s o n as a g r o w n - u p h e r o c a ­ p a b l e o f s t a n d i n g o n his o w n feet. L i k e w i s e , it is significant t h a t J o s e p h u s o m i t s S a m s o n ' s frustrated a t t e m p t to visit his f o r m e r wife (Judg. 15:1). J o s e p h u s e v i d e n d y felt t h a t the m i g h t y , i m p e t u o u s S a m s o n o u g h t n o t t o b e d e p i c t e d as a m e e k w e a k ­ l i n g w h o c o u l d b e s t o p p e d b y his father f r o m visiting her. W h i l e h i g h l i g h t i n g strength as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature o f S a m s o n , the r a b b i s r e m a r k , as J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , t h a t it w a s divine in o r i g i n (Sotah 10a); a n d , a b o v e all, t h e y stress that h e w a s p u n i s h e d , a p p r o p r i a t e l y e n o u g h , m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e , in his strength. T o b e sure, t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t S a m s o n w a s c o m p a r a b l e to the Philis­ tine G o l i a t h in strength (Leviticus Rabbah 5.3 a n d Numbers Rabbah 1 0 . 3 ) ,

16

but w h e n

t h e y c o u p l e S a m s o n w i t h G o l i a t h , it is to c o n t r a s t t h e m w i t h J u d a h a n d D a v i d , in t h a t w h i l e the latter p a i r ' s i n c r e a s e in h e r o i c strength s e r v e d t o their a d v a n t a g e , t h a t o f the f o r m e r p a i r t u r n e d o u t to b e a d i s a d v a n t a g e (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 1.18.1; Midrash Samuel 6.3), a n d b o t h w e r e killed (Numbers Rabbah 22.7). T h e r a b b i s , to b e sure, d o p r a i s e S a m s o n for his strength, as w h e n t h e y say, e x p o u n d i n g the p h r a s e "as o n e " in " D a n shall j u d g e his p e o p l e as o n e o f the tribes o f I s r a e l " ( G e n . 49:16), t h a t S a m s o n w a s like the U n i q u e O n e o f the w o r l d , a n d t h a t j u s t as G - d r e q u i r e s n o assistance, so S a m s o n n e e d e d n o h e l p in his e x p l o i t w i t h the j a w b o n e (Judg. 15:15) (Genesis Rabbah 9 8 . 1 3 , 99.11). I n e x p o u n d i n g " F o r T h o u hast s m i t t e n all m i n e e n e m i e s u p o n the j a w b o n e " (Ps. 3:8), the r a b b i s e x t o l S a m s o n ' s strength b y s a y i n g t h a t G - d h a s s m i t t e n all o f Israel's e n e m i e s , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y w e r e as m i g h t y as S a m s o n h i m s e l f (Midrash Psalms 3.7). Y e t , the v e r y e x p l o i t w i t h the j a w b o n e is the o c c a s i o n for the t y p i c a l r a b b i n i c m o r a l that o n e is p a i d m e a s u r e for m e a s u r e ; for t h e y r e m a r k t h a t b e c a u s e S a m s o n h a d lusted after that w h i c h w a s u n c l e a n (the for-

16. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:250, n. 29, remarks that, according to Tosefta-Targum 1 S a m . 17.4, S a m ­ son was Goliath's father or ancestor.

SAMSON

469

e i g n T i m n i t e w o m a n ) , t h e r e f o r e his life w a s m a d e t o d e p e n d u p o n a n u n c l e a n a n ­ i m a l (the ass) (Sotah g b ; Numbers Rabbah 9 . 2 4 ) .

17

I n t h e o n e i n c i d e n t ( J u d g . 15:18) w h e r e S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h s e e m s o p e n t o q u e s ­ t i o n , n a m e l y , w h e n h e is a t t h e p o i n t o f d y i n g o f thirst after t h e e x p l o i t w i t h t h e j a w b o n e , t h e M i d r a s h s h a r p l y c a s t i g a t e s h i m , c o n c l u d i n g , in a s a r c a s t i c c o m m e n t o n S a m s o n ' s b o a s t i n g , t h a t h e w h o talks t o o m u c h b e c o m e s t h i r s t y (Genesis Rabbah 98.13). T h e l a n g u a g e o f J o s e p h u s is c o n s i d e r a b l y m i l d e r a n d m u c h m o r e s y m p a ­ t h e t i c t o S a m s o n , w h o in his p r e s e n t a t i o n r e c o g n i z e s his error, a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t h u m a n v a l o r (dperrj) is o f n a u g h t , a n d i m p l o r i n g G - d for h e l p (Ant. 5 . 3 0 2 ) .

18

In illustrating S a m s o n ' s strength, the M i d r a s h likens h i m to a s e r p e n t — a c o m ­ p a r i s o n t h a t t e n d s , o f c o u r s e , t o d e f l a t e S a m s o n ' s stature. I n t h e i r g r e a t c o n c e r n t o c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h his t r i b a l a n c e s t o r D a n in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g ( G e n . 4 9 : 1 7 ) , t h e r a b b i s c o m m e n t t h a t j u s t as all t h e s e r p e n t ' s s t r e n g t h lies i n its h e a d , so t h a t a h e a v y b l o w t o t h e h e a d b u t n o t t o t h e tail kills it, so a l s o S a m s o n ' s s t r e n g t h r e s i d e d i n h i s h e a d ( J u d g . 16:17) (Genesis Rabbah 98.14). I n d e e d , t h e M i d r a s h , i n its c o n s t a n t effort t o a s s o c i a t e S a m s o n w i t h D a n in J a c o b ' s b l e s s i n g , c o m p a r e s S a m s o n w i t h t h e s e r p e n t " t h a t b i t e t h t h e h o r s e ' s h e e l s , " t o w h i c h D a n is l i k e n e d ( G e n . 49:17) (Genesis Rabbah 98.14); " t h a t b i t e t h t h e h o r s e ' s h e e l s " h e r e is p r e s u m a b l y a n a l l u s i o n

17. O r i g e n , Adnotationes in Judices 73 (PG 17.37), has a similar tradition, in noting that water sent to relieve Samson's thirst c a m e forth from the j a w b o n e . M o o r e 1898, 347, attempts, b y noting that, ac­ cording to the Bible, the spring w a s to b e seen at L e h i to this day, to refute the view that after having thrown a w a y the j a w b o n e , S a m s o n picked it u p again a n d drank from it. 18. Samson's exhaustion is exaggerated b y the rabbis in their remark that even if there h a d b e e n a goblet before him, " S a m s o n w o u l d not have h a d the strength to stretch out his hand to take it" (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13). Samson's prayer in the M i d r a s h is more desperate: in it h e appeals to the ultimate covenant o f G - d a n d the Jew, that o f circumcision, pleading that even if the only difference between h i m a n d Philistines is circumcision, that is sufficient reason that he should not fall into their hands (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 184a). T h e Septuagint (Judg. 15:18) likewise uses stronger language than Josephus, with its reading iKXavoev, implying that S a m s o n cried unto G - d . Midrash Hagadol Deuteronomy 13a; Talqut 1.814; Talqut ha-Makiri on Isaiah i n ; Talqut ha-Mak iri on Psalms 2.103; 'Awt de-Rabbi Natan 121 [Schechter]; Midrash Psalms 18.4; Sifre Deuteronomy 27; Midrash Tannaim 16, cited b y R e n z e r 1902, 42, n. 85, a n d G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:147, n. 880), while c o m m e n t i n g o n Samson's use o f the phrase " T h y servant" in his prayer (Judg. 15:18), denigrate him b y noting that there are two groups o f biblical personalities, those (namely, A b r a h a m , J a c o b , M o s e s , D a v i d , a n d Isaiah) that call c

c

themselves eved a n d are also referred to as eved, a n d those (namely, S a m s o n a n d Solomon) w h o call themselves 'evedbut are not d e e m e d worthy o f this n a m e b y G - d . Moreover, instead o f having G - d re­ lieve Samson's thirst solely because o f his sincere repentance a n d humility, the rabbis (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13) remark that it was for the sake o f the blessing o f M o s e s (Deut. 33:22): "It will flow min habashan," i.e., miben shinav, "from his teeth," that G - d let a fountain bubble forth from Samson's teeth. T h e r e is n o such mention o f the zekut wot, the merits o f the fathers, in Josephus; for him, as in the Bible, it is because H e is m o v e d b y Samson's supplication that G - d causes a spring o f water to c o m e forth n

n

from a rock. G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:207, - 9 > asserts that Josephus's rationalistic explanation o f the miracle, according to w h i c h S a m s o n noticed water flowing from a rock, was k n o w n also to the rabbis and cites Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.13; but there the rabbis speak o f water coming, not rationalistically from a rock, but miraculously from between Samson's teeth.

470

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

to S a m s o n ' s final a c t o f r e v e n g e a g a i n s t the Philistines for s e e k i n g t o m a k e sport o f him.

1 9

T h e M i d r a s h likewise n o t e s t h a t j u s t as the snake is f o u n d a m o n g w o m e n

(for h e c o u l d e n t i c e E v e b u t n o t A d a m ) , so S a m s o n w a s to b e m e t w i t h a m o n g women.

2 0

M o r e o v e r , the M i d r a s h c o m p a r e s S a m s o n to a s e r p e n t in t h a t j u s t as a

serpent's eyelid q u i v e r s after d e a t h , so S a m s o n s l e w m o r e o f the e n e m y at his d e a t h t h a n h e s l e w in his lifetime (Judg. 16:30) {Genesis Rabbah 98.14). S u c h a c o m p a r i s o n d o e s h e i g h t e n S a m s o n ' s r e p u t a t i o n for strength; J o s e p h u s h a s n o s u c h c o m p a r ­ isons. W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s t e n d s to a v o i d the i n c r e d i b l e e v e n w h i l e stressing S a m s o n ' s strength a n d his exploits, his p r e s u m e d c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o , g o e s m u c h further in e x a g g e r a t i n g these exploits. T h u s in d e s c r i b i n g S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t w i t h the gates at G a z a , the B i b l e is b r i e f a n d relatively matter-of-fact (Judg. 16:3). J

o s e

"

p h u s a d d s m e n t i o n o f S a m s o n ' s fury o n this o c c a s i o n (Ant. 5.305), b u t in P s e u d o P h i l o , S a m s o n b e c o m e s a l m o s t a k i n d o f " s u p e r m a n . " A c c o r d i n g to h i m S a m s o n p l a c e d his left h a n d u n d e r the b a r o f the g a t e , s h o o k it, a n d p r o c e e d e d to t h r o w d o w n the g a t e o f the w a l l . T h e n h e t o o k o n e o f the g a t e s in his r i g h t h a n d as a shield a n d u s e d the o t h e r as a s w o r d , killing n o t 1,000 m e n , as in the B i b l e a n d in J o s e p h u s , b u t n o f e w e r t h a n 25,000 (Bib. Ant. 4 3 . 3 ) .

21

A similar e x a g g e r a t i o n is f o u n d in P s e u d o - P h i l o ' s a c c o u n t o f h o w S a m s o n b r o u g h t d o w n the t e m p l e u p o n the Philistines at the e n d o f his life (Bib. Ant. 43.7). W h e r e a s the B i b l e a n d J o s e p h u s s a y that t h e r e w e r e 3,000 m e n a n d w o m e n u p o n the roof, w i t h a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r e l s e w h e r e in the b u i l d i n g (Ant. 5.316), a n d the S e p t u a g i n t , in the interest o f verisimilitude, r e d u c e s the n u m b e r t o 700, P s e u d o P h i l o i n c r e a s e s it to 4 0 , 0 0 0 .

22

S a m s o n ' s strength is e x a g g e r a t e d , a l t h o u g h w i t h o u t g r o t e s q u e n e s s o r i n c r e d i b l e inflation, b y J o s e p h u s ' s s t a t e m e n t that the m e n (Judg. 16:9) w h o m D e l i l a h p o s t e d t o seize S a m s o n w e r e soldiers (Ant. 5.309). A similar effect is a c h i e v e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t w h e n D e l i l a h b o u n d S a m s o n , she d i d so as f i r m l y as possible (Judg. 16:8). Finally, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s the force w i t h w h i c h S a m s o n b r i n g s d o w n the h a l l u p o n the b a n q u e t e r s (Ant. 5.316); the B i b l e says t h a t h e b e n t (va-yet; S e p t u a g i n t , ipdoragev,

" r a i s e d , " " c a r r i e d " ) w i t h all his m i g h t

19. Perhaps Josephus, if he was aware o f the comparison o f Samson with a serpent, found the ser­ pent, k n o w n as a creature o f subdety and deceit, an objectionable creature to w h i c h to c o m p a r e his hero. See K n o x 1950, 379-400. 20. Midrash Genesis Rabbah 98.14; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 183b-!84a; Tanhuma Vayehi 12; Midrash Leqah Tov on G e n . 49:17; Midrash Sekel Tov on Genesis 316. 21. Pseudo-Philo, however, has only a brief mention o f Samson's heroic exploits with the lion, the foxes that he caught, the j a w b o n e o f the ass, and his escape from the bonds with w h i c h the Judahites b o u n d him, referring the reader to the B o o k o f Judges where these things are described at greater length (Bib. Ant. 43.4). Instead, Pseudo-Philo concentrates on those exploits w h e r e S a m s o n showed his strength to the highest degree a n d slew the largest n u m b e r o f Philistines. 22. M o o r e 1898, 362, notes that T h e o d o r e t , Quaestiones et Responsiones, 22, exaggerates the n u m b e r to three thousand m e n and m a n y times more w o m e n .

SAMSON (Judg. 16:30), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s h a s h i m f l i n g i n g all his w e i g h t (ivaeiadels,

471 i.e.,

" s h a k i n g t h o r o u g h l y , " " d a s h i n g to the g r o u n d " ) u p o n the c o l u m n s , o v e r t u r n i n g them.

2 3

B u t J o s e p h u s a v o i d s u n d u e e x a g g e r a t i o n a n d e v e n , as n o t e d a b o v e , re­

d u c e s the n u m b e r slain b y S a m s o n o n this o c c a s i o n f r o m 3,000 o n the r o o f plus a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r e l s e w h e r e to a total o f m e r e l y 3,000 (Ant. 5.316); the M i d r a s h , o n the o t h e r h a n d , e x p l i c i d y r e m a r k s t h a t there w e r e 3,000 m e n a n d w o m e n o n the e d g e o f the roof, " b u t n o o n e k n o w s h o w m a n y w e r e b e h i n d t h e m " (Genesis Rabbah 98.14). I n c o n t r a s t to J o s e p h u s , w h o stresses the h u m a n c h a r a c t e r o f S a m s o n the m a n a n d the h e r o , the r a b b i s c o n s t a n d y e m p h a s i z e the d i v i n e h e l p t h a t h e r e c e i v e d a n d d e c l a r e t h a t t h o u g h S a m s o n ' s strength w a s G - d - l i k e in nature, it w a s p r e c i s e l y t h r o u g h this t h a t h e c a m e to g r i e f .

24

T h u s , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the e x p l o i t m o s t g l o ­

riously illustrating S a m s o n ' s strength, n a m e l y , that in w h i c h h e b r o u g h t the t w o pillars d o w n u p o n the Philistines at the e n d o f his life, the r a b b i s , i n s t e a d o f c o m ­ m e n t i n g o n the strength d i s p l a y e d b y S a m s o n , t y p i c a l l y prefer to use this h a p p e n ­ i n g to c o n n e c t S a m s o n w i t h his a n c e s t o r s , f i n d i n g in the t w o pillars a r e f e r e n c e to the t w o o x e n b r o u g h t as a sacrifice o f p e a c e offerings b y the p r i n c e o f D a n , S a m ­ son's a n c e s t o r ( N u m . 7:71) (Numbers Rabbah 14.9). A s s o c i a t e d w i t h S a m s o n ' s c o u r a g e a n d strength is his t e m p e s t u o u s n a t u r e , a t h e m e r e m i n i s c e n t , as w e h a v e n o t e d , o f the w r a t h (jprijvw) o f A c h i l l e s in H o m e r ' s Iliad (1.1). J o s e p h u s , d e p i c t i n g S a m s o n as a n Israelite A c h i l l e s o r H e r a c l e s , h i g h ­ lights opyr] ("anger," " f u r y " ) ,

25

as w e h a v e n o t e d , as o n e o f his four c h i e f c h a r a c ­

teristics. J u s t as this w r a t h is the u n d o i n g o f A c h i l l e s ' s t r e n g t h a n d c o u r a g e , so is it c o n t r i b u t o r y to the e n d o f S a m s o n , for, as J o s e p h u s says in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l s p e e c h a s s i g n e d to J u d a h , it is small (paKpol) m e n w h o substitute w r a t h (dpyrjs) for strength (laxvos),

h a v i n g r e c o u r s e t o the f o r m e r n o t o n l y in g r e a t m a t t e r s o n l y b u t in trivial

o n e s as w e l l (Ant. 2.141). S a m s o n ' s fury is to b e seen, for e x a m p l e , in J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f J u d g . 15:15, w h i c h r e a d s , r a t h e r m i l d l y : " A n d h e f o u n d a n e w j a w b o n e o f a n ass, a n d p u t forth his h a n d , a n d t o o k it, a n d s m o t e a t h o u s a n d m e n t h e r e ­ with."

In

contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s

Samson

is full

o f fury:

" S a m s o n . . . seizing

[dprraadpLevos] the j a w b o n e o f a n ass t h a t l a y at his feet, r u s h e d [coaaro] u p o n his e n e m i e s " (Ant. 5.300). T o b e sure, the B i b l e , j u s t b e f o r e this p a s s a g e , d e c l a r e s t h a t the spirit o f the L - r d c a m e m i g h t i l y u p o n h i m , c l e a r l y i m p l y i n g t h a t his a c h i e v e ­ m e n t w a s possible o n l y b e c a u s e o f the h e l p o f G - d (Judg. 15:14); b u t J o s e p h u s

23. Aquila, too, accentuates the picture o f Samson's fearlessness by translating " N o razor [morah] shall come upon his head" (Judg. 13:5) as /ecu 6pos ["fear"] OVK k-m^atrai, presumably because he read mora ("fear"). 24. Sotah 10a; Talqut ha-Makiri on Pss. 1.86 and 2.68; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 23b; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 53; Bate Midrashot 3.32, ch. 52, cited b y Renzer 1902, 39. 25. If we ask why, in view of the implied comparison between Samson and Achilles, Josephus does not use Homer's words ^VLS and x°^°s for the wrath o f Samson, the answer would seem to be that Josephus reserves those words (i.e., five instances of fxijvLs and four of x°^°s)> throughout his retelling of the biblical narrative, solely for the wrath of G - d .

472

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

o m i t s the role o f G - d c o m p l e t e l y a n d a s c r i b e s e v e r y t h i n g to S a m s o n ' s w r a t h a n d p o w e r . A g a i n , w h e r e a s the B i b l e states t h a t S a m s o n s m o t e a t h o u s a n d m e n w i t h the j a w b o n e , " h e a p s u p o n h e a p s " (Judg. 1 5 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , J o s e p h u s e l a b o r a t e s S a m s o n ' s e x p l o i t b y d e p i c t i n g h i m as a o n e - m a n a r m y r o u t i n g the e n e m y : " [ S a m s o n ] , smit­ ing t h e m w i t h this w e a p o n , s l e w a t h o u s a n d o f t h e m , r o u t i n g [rperrerai] dire d i s m a y [rapaxOevras,

the rest in

i.e., t h r o w n into d i s o r d e r ] " (Ant. 5.300). It is this s a m e

v i o l e n t a s p e c t o f S a m s o n ' s a c t i v i t y t h a t is stressed in J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g o f J u d g . 16:3, w h i c h m e n t i o n s m e r e l y t h a t S a m s o n l a i d h o l d o f the d o o r s o f the g a t e s o f G a z a a n d c a r r i e d t h e m t o the m o u n t a i n b e f o r e H e b r o n . A s J o s e p h u s rewrites the text, S a m s o n f l u n g h i m s e l f [ivpdoaei,

i.e., "thrust a g a i n s t , " " d a s h a g a i n s t , " a dna^

Xeyopuevov in all e x t a n t G r e e k literature) a g a i n s t the gates (Ant. 5.305). A g a i n , it is the w r a t h (dpyrjs) d i s p l a y e d b y S a m s o n at the b e t r a y a l o f the a n s w e r to his riddle b y the T i m n i t e w o m a n t h a t l e a d s h e r to s c o r n h i m (Ant. 5.294); J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , o b v i o u s l y felt t h a t this m o o d o n the p a r t o f S a m s o n w a s justified a n d a d m i r e s h i m for it. L i k e w i s e , w h e r e a s the B i b l e d o e s n o t e x p l i c i d y m e n t i o n S a m s o n ' s m o o d after h e h a s b e e n frustrated in his a t t e m p t to revisit his T i m n i t e wife (Judg. 15:3), J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y d e s c r i b e s h i m as furious (rrapo^vvOeis, " u n l e a s h e d , " " p r o v o k e d , " " e x a s p e r a t e d , " " i n d i g n a n t " ) at the affront (vfipiv) (Ant. 5 . 2 9 5 ) .

26

Temperance The

third o f the c a r d i n a l virtues, t e m p e r a n c e , is seen in S a m s o n ' s m o d e r a t i o n

(oaxfypoovvrj) in his diet (Siatrav) a n d in his l o o s e l y f l o w i n g l o c k s (Ant. 5.285). M o d ­ e r a t i o n in diet, it s h o u l d b e n o t e d , is o n e o f the four virtues for w h i c h the J e w s w e r e p r a i s e d in a n t i q u i t y (see F e l d m a n 1 9 5 8 - 5 9 , 28-30); a n d J o s e p h u s ' s a s c r i p t i o n o f this q u a l i t y to S a m s o n fits in w i t h the a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e o f the Antiquities. W e m a y n o t e t h a t w h e n A r i s t o d e , a c c o r d i n g t o C l e a r c h u s o f Soli, praises t h e J e w w h o m h e m e t in A s i a M i n o r , h e specifically refers t o the m o d e r a t i o n (ococfrpoovvriv) o f his w a y o f life (SiaLrrj), p r e c i s e l y the t w o t e r m s t h a t J o s e p h u s uses w i t h r e g a r d t o S a m s o n (ap. J o s e p h u s , Against Apion 1.182). T h e r a b b i s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , criticize S a m s o n for his l a c k o f m o d e r a t i o n in his i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h the Philistine w o m e n , to w h i c h t h e y a s c r i b e the loss o f his eyes (Judg. 1 6 : 3 1 ) .

27

T h e s a m e criticism, a l t h o u g h s o m e w h a t less explicit, also a p ­

p e a r s in P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. 43.5).

26. Josephus (Ant. 5.305), however, avoids the extreme contempt for the enemy found in PseudoPhilo's account (Bib. Ant. 43.2-3) o f Samson's escape from the Philistine ambuscades at G a z a , which Pseudo-Philo puts into Samson's mouth—a speech un-Josephan in its utter contempt for the enemy. 27. Midrash Numbers Rabbah 9.24; Sotah 9 b - i o a ; Tosefta Sotah 3.15; Jerusalem Sotah 1.17b; Ketubot 5.30b; Midrash Hagadol Genesis 1.752 Mekilta Shira 2.362; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 52.12; Tanhuma Beshalah 12; Midrash Hagadol Numbers 15b, cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:208, n. 121, a n d Renzer 1902, 38. T h e rabbis (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 20; Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 9.2; Midrash Hagadol Leviticus 145a; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 27; Tanhuma A a n d B Ahare 1 and Ve-ethanan 1; Talqut 2.70 and 979, cited by Renzer 1902, 32) compare him, in obvious disparagement, with Zedekiah: both are involved with oaths (Zedekiah takes an oath in 2 C h r o n . 36:13, and Samson asks the Judahites to swear in Judg. 15:12), and both have

SAMSON

473

Justice W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a s c r i b e the v i r t u e o f j u s t i c e as s u c h to S a m ­ s o n , h e d o e s seek to p r o t e c t S a m s o n a g a i n s t a possible c h a r g e o f injustice in the n a r r o w e r sense w h e n h e d e n i e s t h a t S a m s o n p l u n d e r e d i n n o c e n t b y s t a n d e r s a n d carefully a d d s t h a t t h e m e n o f A s h k e l o n w h o m h e d i d d e s p o i l in o r d e r to g e t t h e g a r m e n t s w i t h w h i c h t o r e w a r d t h e Philistine y o u n g m e n for successfully a n s w e r ­ i n g his r i d d l e w e r e t h e m s e l v e s Philistines (Ant. 5.294). Similarly, in d e s c r i b i n g t h e d a m a g e inflicted b y the foxes let l o o s e b y S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y t h a t t h e Philistines' c r o p w a s r u i n e d (Ant. 5.296). W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y gives m o r e p r e ­ cise details t h a n d o e s t h e B i b l e , in this c a s e b o t h the H e b r e w text (Judg. 15:5) a n d t h e S e p t u a g i n t v e r s i o n p r o v i d e further details, n o t i n g t h a t the s h o c k s , s t a n d i n g c o r n , a n d o l i v e y a r d s w e r e all b u r n t u p . T h e S e p t u a g i n t a d d s also t h a t t h e v i n e s w e r e r u i n e d ; h e r e J o s e p h u s m i g h t c o n c e i v a b l y also h a v e c i t e d a m i d r a s h o r m o r a l like t h a t w h i c h t h e r a b b i s m e n t i o n in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e m i x e d v i n e s o f T i m n a h , b u t to d o so w o u l d h a v e i n v o l v e d a criticism o f S a m s o n for l u s t i n g after f o r e i g n w o m e n , a n d so J o s e p h u s refrains. T o h e l p justify S a m s o n ' s b r u t a l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e Philistines, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s their cruelty. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to the B i b l e , t h e Philistines b u r n t t h e T i m n i t e w o m a n a n d h e r father b e c a u s e their a c t i o n s h a d l e d S a m s o n t o d e s t r o y t h e Philistines' c r o p s (Judg. 15:6). J o s e p h u s follows the S e p t u ­ a g i n t a n d Peshitta ( w h i c h r e a d " t h e h o u s e o f h e r father") a n d d e c l a r e s t h a t t h e Philistines b u r n t alive n o t m e r e l y t h e w o m a n a n d h e r father b u t h e r kinsfolk as w e l l (Ant. 5.296). A p o p u l a r definition o f j u s t i c e , a r t i c u l a t e d b y t h e a g e d C e p h a l u s in P l a t o ' s Re­ public (1.331c), is s p e a k i n g t h e t r u t h . I n his a p o l o g e t i c for S a m s o n , J o s e p h u s o m i t s D e l i l a h ' s r e p r o a c h e s to S a m s o n t h a t h e h a s t o l d h e r lies (Judg. 16:10, 13), for t h e A c h i l l e s - l i k e h e r o a n d the A r i s t o t e l i a n fieyaXoi/jvxos

is a m a n o f truth. W i t h v a r i ­

o u s a d d e d t o u c h e s , J o s e p h u s presents D e l i l a h h e r s e l f as t h e villain; it w a s she w h o craftily s o u g h t (irexvlreve)

to d i s c o v e r t h e secret o f S a m s o n ' s strength b y g e t t i n g

h i m d r u n k a n d b y flattering h i m (Ant. 5.307). I n J u d g . 16:15, D e l i l a h d o e s n o t , to b e sure, e x p l i c i d y a c c u s e S a m s o n o f l y i n g , b u t t h e c h a r g e is i m p l i c i t in h e r w o r d s . J o s e p h u s a v o i d s a n y d i r e c t a c c u s a t i o n b y a l l u d i n g to t h e m a t t e r

impersonally,

" w h e n e v e n b y this e x p e r i m e n t t h e t r u t h is n o t d i s c o v e r e d " (Ant. 5 . 3 1 2 ) .

28

In any

case, J o s e p h u s is m u c h briefer in r e p o r t i n g D e l i l a h ' s a c c u s a t i o n (Judg. 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 v s .

their eyes struck out (Zedekiah in 2 Kings 25:7; Samson in Judg. 15:21). The same comparison occurs in Jerome, Commentaria in Ezechiekm 23.22 ff. (=PL 25.220; Corpus Christianorum 75 [1964] 313, lines 1054-55), who makes it the occasion for an attack on Samson, his punishment being, measure for mea­ sure, in accordance with the familiar midrashic theme, due retribution for his having gone astray after his eyes (Judg. 14:3). 28. To be sure, the Latin version reads verax; and on the basis of this, Niese, in his edition of Jose­ phus, has suggested the emendation dXrjdrjs, in which case the meaning would be that it was discovered that Samson, as in the biblical account, was not truthful. But Niese declined to incorporate his own emendation into his editio maior.

474

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

Ant. 5.312), a n d t h e result is t o t o n e d o w n h e r c h a r g e o f untruthfulness

against

S a m s o n . H e n c e , t h e r e is less n e e d for J o s e p h u s to stress D e l i l a h ' s r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t S a m s o n h a d finally t o l d h e r t h e t r u t h (Judg. 16:18) (Ant. 5.313), since h e h a s p l a y e d d o w n S a m s o n ' s p r e v i o u s l y l y i n g to h e r ; it is e n o u g h for h i m to s a y t h a t she h a d l e a r n e d w h a t she w i s h e d to k n o w (ravra

fjuadovoa) (Ant. 5.313). T h e M i d r a s h , o n

t h e c o n t r a r y b a s i n g itself o n t h e b i b l i c a l a c c o u n t , w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s S a m s o n ' s p r e ­ v i o u s untruthfulness, s p e c u l a t e s o n h o w D e l i l a h k n e w t h a t h e w a s n o w s p e a k i n g the truth; its answer, w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l a s p e c t , is t h a t his state­ m e n t t h a t h e h a d b e e n a N a z i r i t e u n t o G - d c o n v i n c e d her, since she k n e w t h a t h e w o u l d n o t u t t e r t h e n a m e o f G - d in v a i n (Numbers Rabbah 9.24, Sotah 9 b , Talqut 2.70). Avoidance of Vice Not

o n l y m u s t t h e h e r o c u l t i v a t e t h e c a r d i n a l virtues, b u t h e m u s t also, as A r i s t o d e

says, a v o i d a n y o c c u p a t i o n o r a c t i v i t y t h a t m a k e s the body, m i n d , o r soul less fit for the p r a c t i c e o f v i r t u e (Politics 8 . 2 . 1 3 3 7 B 9 - 1 4 ) . A r i s t o d e (ibid.) further d e c l a r e s t h a t "we

call t h o s e arts v u l g a r t h a t t e n d to d e f o r m the body, a n d l i k e w i s e all p a i d e m ­

p l o y m e n t s , for t h e y a b s o r b a n d d e g r a d e t h e m i n d . " I n v i e w o f A r i s t o d e ' s g e n e r a l c o n t e m p t for m e n i a l l a b o r (Politics 8.2.1337B21), J o s e p h u s is careful to o m i t this feature in S a m s o n ' s career. T h u s , J u d g . 16:21 r e p o r t s t h a t t h e Philistines b o u n d h i m w i t h fetters o f brass, " a n d h e d i d g r i n d i n t h e p r i s o n - h o u s e . " T h e m e n i a l l a b o r o f w o r k i n g at the m i l l w a s a c o m m o n a n d m u c h - d r e a d e d p u n i s h m e n t a m o n g the G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s o f slaves a n d e v e n f r e e d m e n for t h e slightest offenses, to w h i c h the c o m i c p o e t s often refer (see M o o r e 1898, 357). T o h a v e h a d S a m s o n s u b m i t to s u c h a p u n i s h m e n t w o u l d h a v e b e e n to d e g r a d e h i m , a n d J o s e p h u s o m i t s all r e f e r e n c e to it. J o s e p h u s l i k e w i s e felt t h a t it w o u l d b e d e g r a d i n g to h i m to m e n t i o n t h a t S a m ­ s o n h a d t o m a k e s p o r t o f h i m s e l f b e f o r e t h e Philistines (Judg. 16:25),

a

n

d conse­

q u e n d y o m i t s this r e m a r k (Ant. 5.314); i n s t e a d S a m s o n is l e d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l d e ­ tail, to a G r e e k - l i k e b a n q u e t (GV/JLTTOGLOV), w h e r e h e stands b y p a s s i v e l y w h i l e t h e Philistines take t h e initiative in m o c k i n g h i m . Similarly, S a m s o n ' s stature w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i m i n i s h e d i f J o s e p h u s h a d i n c l u d e d the a d d i t i o n , f o u n d o n l y in t h e S e p t u a g i n t (Judg. 16:25), t h a t t h e Philistines c u d g e l e d S a m s o n ; a n d so h e o m i t s this also.

HELLENIZATIONS The Hero as Tragic Protagonist J o s e p h u s h a s h e l l e n i z e d his n a r r a t i v e as a w h o l e , thus m a k i n g it m o r e a p p e a l i n g to his G r e e k r e a d e r s . O n e f r e q u e n t H e l l e n i s t i c motif, as w e h a v e n o t e d , is t h a t o f fate, e m p h a s i s o n w h i c h w o u l d t e n d to a b s o l v e t h e h e r o f r o m b l a m e . T h u s w e a r e t o l d t h a t it w a s n e c e s s a r y (e'Sei) for S a m s o n to fall (TrepiTreGeiv) a v i c t i m to c a l a m i t y

SAMSON

475

(avfji(f)opd) (Ant. 5.312). H e n c e , S a m s o n ' s reversal o f fortune (7rept77€T€ta, a k e y t e r m in t r a g e d y d e r i v e d f r o m t h e v e r b TrepLTreoeiv, u s e d h e r e b y J o s e p h u s ) is d u e to fate r a t h e r t h a n to his o w n failings. T o J o s e p h u s , t h e r e v e n g e g a i n e d in d e a t h b y S a m s o n is a fitting d e n o u e m e n t t o a tale t h a t is v e r y r e m i n i s c e n t o f a G r e e k t r a g e d y I f t h e r e is a n y vfipis c a s t i g a t e d b y J o s e p h u s h e r e , it is n o t S a m s o n ' s b u t t h a t d i s p l a y e d b y t h e Philistines, w h o , i n details a d d e d b y J o s e p h u s , s h o w vfipts (ivvfipioojoiv, S a m s o n o v e r t h e i r c u p s (ovp,Tr6oiov,

Ant.

"insult," " m o c k " ) t o w a r d

5.314); w h i l e h e , his p r i d e

insulted

(vftpL^opuevos) b y s u c h m o c k e r y d e t e r m i n e s t o g a i n r e v e n g e . S u c h a t t a c k s o n i n s o ­ l e n c e a r e a r e c u r r i n g t h e m e in J o s e p h u s ' s a d d i t i o n s t o t h e B i b l e , j u s t as t h e y a r e in G r e e k t r a g e d y Romantic

Motifs

F o l l o w i n g in the p a t h o f H e r o d o t u s , J o s e p h u s f r e q u e n d y inserts digressive p u r p l e passages, a n d especially r o m a n t i c narratives, this b e i n g particularly e v i d e n t in his r e w r i t i n g o f the S a m s o n episode. T h u s w e are told, in details n o t f o u n d in J u d g . 13:2, that M a n o a h w a s m a d l y in love (piaviwSrjs vrr* epwros) w i t h his wife a n d h e n c e inor­ d i n a t e l y (oiKparcos, i.e., " w i t h o u t c o m m a n d o v e r o n e s e l f o r o n e ' s passions," " i n c o n t i ­ n e n t , " " i m m o d e r a t e , " " i n t e m p e r a t e " ) j e a l o u s (^XOTVITOS)

o f h e r (Ant. 5.277). T h i s

p i c t u r e o f M a n o a h as b e i n g m a d l y in love w o u l d p e r h a p s b e reinforced for G r e e k readers b y the similarity b e t w e e n the n a m e M a n o a h a n d the G r e e k w o r d for m a d , pLavicLSrjs. I n fact, t w o m a n u s c r i p t s r e a d pLavcoxrjs (the G r e e k spelling for M a n o a h ) for pLavLcLSrjs here. M a n o a h ' s j e a l o u s y is further h i g h l i g h t e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s additions to the biblical narrative o f the angel's a p p e a r a n c e to M a n o a h ' s wife, namely, t h a t she w a s a l o n e w h e n a specter (povTioos) a n d t o r m e n t (fiaodvov) the r e q u e s t c a u s e d h i m , so that h e h a d n o t h o u g h t for f o o d o r s l e e p w h i l e t u r n i n g o v e r the m a t t e r in his m i n d t h r o u g h o u t the n i g h t (Ant. 6.37). H e also e m p h a s i z e s the n e e d for a s t r o n g r u l e r to a v e n g e the attacks m a d e u p o n the Israelites b y the Philistines (Ant. 6.36). A n d y e t his S a m u e l d o e s w a r n the p e o ­ p l e o f the d a n g e r s i n h e r e n t in k i n g s h i p , since p o w e r c o r r u p t s (Ant. 6 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) .

19

M o r e o v e r , h e e m b e l l i s h e s the B i b l e ' s o w n n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t s a b o u t the i m p o s i ­ tions t h a t k i n g s will p l a c e u p o n the Israelite w o m e n (1 S a m . 8:13) b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t t h e y will s u b j e c t t h e m to e v e r y m e n i a l task that h a n d m a i d s m u s t p e r f o r c e p e r ­ f o r m f r o m fear o f w h i p p i n g a n d t o r t u r e (Ant. 6.41). W h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, S a m u e l o b j e c t s to the p e o p l e ' s d e m a n d for a k i n g o n the g r o u n d t h a t t h e y s h o u l d

19. Attridge 1976a, 173, n. 1, cites a parallel in Dionysius o f Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 5.71) on the

dangers inherent in the appointment o f a dictator, and on the likelihood, as in the case o f Lars Porsena (Ant. Rom. 5.21.2), that power, once attained, w o u l d corrupt as m u c h as wealth.

504

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

h a v e r e g a r d e d G - d H i m s e l f as their k i n g (i S a m . 12:12), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l is m u c h m o r e v e h e m e n t a n d o u t s p o k e n . H e says t h a t h e will tell t h e m w i t h all b o l d ­ ness (rrapprjaias,

" c a n d o r " ) h o w g r e a t a n i m p i e t y t h e y h a v e s h o w n t o w a r d G - d in

r e q u e s t i n g a k i n g (Ant. 6.88). I n a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k , h e stresses t h a t G - d d e ­ l i v e r e d t h e m f r o m their distress in E g y p t w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e t o a k i n g (Ant. 6.89). W h e r e a s t h e B i b l e n o t e s t h a t G - d sent v a r i o u s j u d g e s t o d e l i v e r the Israelites f r o m their e n e m i e s (1 S a m . 12:11), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l spells o u t m a t t e r s , p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t it w a s n o t u n d e r t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f k i n g s b u t o f j u d g e s as g e n e r a l s t h a t t h e y h a d s u c c e e d e d in r o u t i n g their e n e m i e s (Ant. 6.90). W h a t m a d n e s s (avota), h e v e r y l o g ­ ically asks in c o n c l u s i o n , h a s n o w p o s s e s s e d t h e Israelites t h a t t h e y w a n t t o flee the G - d w h o h a s s a v e d t h e m a n d seek t o h a v e a k i n g ? (Ant. 6.90). I n v i e w o f t h e v e h e m e n t o b j e c t i o n o f G - d a n d o f S a m u e l to the Israelites' re­ q u e s t for a k i n g , o n e m a y w e l l ask w h y J o s e p h u s w o u l d w a n t to p r e s e n t t h e Is­ raelites in s u c h a b a d light. T h e a n s w e r m a y b e f o u n d in t h e fact t h a t w h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , t h e Israelites confess to S a m u e l t h a t t h e y h a v e s i n n e d in a s k i n g for a k i n g (1 S a m . 12:19), J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s t h e m as n o t m e r e l y c o n f e s s i n g their sin b u t as say­ i n g t h a t t h e y s i n n e d t h r o u g h i g n o r a n c e (KCLT* dyvotav), a n d h e n c e p r e s u m a b l y a r e m o r e d e s e r v i n g o f forgiveness (Ant. 6.92). T h e Israelites, S a m u e l insists, o u g h t n o t t o b e c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o y e a r n for lib­ erty, b u t s h o u l d d o t h e d e e d s n e c e s s a r y to attain it (Ant. 6.20). J o s e p h u s , in a n a d ­ d i t i o n to the b i b l i c a l t e x t (1 S a m . 10:19), e m p h a s i z e s t h e l i b e r t y (iXevdepiav) G-d

granted

them

in d e l i v e r i n g t h e m

from

E g y p t (Ant.

6.60). W h e n

that the

Philistines, a c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , m u s t e r a h u g e a r m y a g a i n s t t h e Israelites a n d r e d u c e t h e m to t r e m b l i n g (1 S a m . 1 3 : 5 - 7 ) , S a u l , in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n , sends h e r ­ alds t h r o u g h o u t

t h e c o u n t r y to c a l l u p the p e o p l e in t h e n a m e

o f liberty

(eXevSepiav) t o w a r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (Ant. 6.98). O n l y after m a k i n g this r o u s ­ i n g a p p e a l , d o e s S a m u e l s p e a k — a n d in t h e m o s t g e n e r a l t e r m s — o f the n e e d o f t h e Israelites t o t u r n their h e a r t s to G - d a n d to live righteously.

APOLOGETICS W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , S a m u e l is r e p r e s e n t e d as telling t h e Israelites t h a t if t h e y p u t a w a y their f o r e i g n g o d s a n d t h e A s h t a r o t a n d d i r e c t their h e a r t s to G - d , t h e y w i l l b e d e l i v e r e d f r o m t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:3), J o s e p h u s ' s S a m u e l says n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e w o r s h i p o f t h e f o r e i g n g o d s (Ant. 6.19). P r e s u m a b l y , J o s e p h u s w a s c o n ­ c e r n e d t h a t t h e n o n j e w s w h o m a d e u p m o s t o f his a u d i e n c e m i g h t b e o f f e n d e d b y s u c h a r e f e r e n c e , a n d his S a m u e l i n s t e a d speaks to t h e Israelites o f l i b e r t y (eXevdepia) a n d o f the blessings t h a t it b r i n g s . A c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , w h e n t h e Israelites ask S a m u e l for a k i n g , t h e y specifi­ c a l l y r e q u e s t t h a t h e c h o o s e a k i n g for t h e m to j u d g e t h e m "like all n a t i o n s " (1 S a m . 8:5). A s w e see f r o m S a m u e l ' s s t r o n g l y n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e , h e o b j e c t e d v e h e m e n d y to the i d e a o f a k i n g , b u t also, m o r e particularly, to t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t

SAMUEL

505

t h e y w i s h e d to b e like o t h e r n a t i o n s i n s t e a d o f m a i n t a i n i n g their u n i q u e i d e n t i t y .

20

Josephus, a p p a r e n d y realizing that such a request a n d such a reaction o n the part o f S a m u e l w o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d as a n a t t a c k u p o n t h e w a y o t h e r n a t i o n s , p r e s u m ­ a b l y i n c l u d i n g t h e R o m a n s , w e r e g o v e r n e d , s i m p l y o m i t s t h e c l a u s e " n o w m a k e us a k i n g t o j u d g e us like all t h e n a t i o n s . " I n s t e a d , t h e Israelites' r e q u e s t cites t h e n e ­ cessity o f w r e a k i n g v e n g e a n c e u p o n their g r e a t e n e m y , t h e Philistines. T h e b i b l i c a l S a m u e l s e e m s to s h o w a c o m p l e t e l a c k o f h u m a n i t y , h o w e v e r , in h e w i n g t h e A m a l e k i t e k i n g A g a g t o p i e c e s b e f o r e the L - r d in G i l g a l (1 S a m . 15:33). A s i d e f r o m w h a t w o u l d a p p e a r to b e t h e s h e e r c r u e l t y o f d o i n g so, a n o t h e r p r o b ­ l e m is t h a t S a m u e l w a s a p p a r e n d y a N a z i r i t e a n d h e n c e f o r b i d d e n t o c o m e i n t o contact with a corpse.

21

J o s e p h u s dissociates S a m u e l f r o m this g r u e s o m e a c t b y

h a v i n g h i m rather order A g a g to b e put to d e a t h ,

2 2

j u s t as in J o s e p h u s , it is n o t E l i ­ c

j a h himself, as in t h e B i b l e (1 K i n g s 18:40), w h o kills t h e p r o p h e t s o f B a a l b u t r a t h e r t h e Israelites w h o w i t n e s s t h e c o n t e s t (Ant. 8.343).

" I M P R O V E M E N T S " T O THE STORY: C L A R I F I C A T I O N S A N D I N C R E A S E D S U S P E N S E AND

DRAMA

O n e b a s i c r e a s o n w h y J o s e p h u s w r o t e his p a r a p h r a s e o f S c r i p t u r e w a s t o c l e a r u p o b s c u r i t i e s in t h e b i b l i c a l text. O n e s u c h difficulty is S a m u e l ' s telling S a u l , after a n o i n t i n g h i m as k i n g , t h a t h e s h o u l d g o d o w n to G i l g a l , a n d t h a t S a m u e l will c o m e t o h i m (1 S a m . 10:8). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n h e r e s e e m s to b e t h a t S a u l s h o u l d g o at o n c e t o G i l g a l , w h e r e a s in p o i n t o f fact m u c h t i m e elapses b e f o r e t h e m e e t i n g b e t w e e n S a u l a n d S a m u e l a c t u a l l y takes p l a c e there. J o s e p h u s , q u i t e c l e a r l y a w a r e o f t h e difficulty, resolves it b y h a v i n g S a m u e l tell S a u l to g o t o G i l g a l " w h e n s u m ­ m o n e d b y m e " (Ant. 6.57). A n o t h e r o b s c u r i t y in t h e b i b l i c a l t e x t is t h e p a s s a g e in w h i c h t h e w i t c h o f E n d o r , after c a l l i n g forth S a m u e l f r o m t h e d e a d , says t o S a u l , " W h y hast t h o u d e c e i v e d m e ? for t h o u art S a u l " (1 S a m . 28:12). T h e r e a d e r will, o f c o u r s e , w o n d e r h o w she w a s t h u s a b l e to r e c o g n i z e S a u l . J o s e p h u s m a k e s c l e a r the s o u r c e o f h e r k n o w l ­ e d g e : S a m u e l reveals S a u l ' s i d e n t i t y t o h e r (Ant. 6 . 3 3 2 ) .

23

J o s e p h u s also tries t o i n c r e a s e t h e d r a m a t i c interest o f the b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e .

20. R a b b i Eliezer in the T a l m u d states that in requesting a king, the elders were acting properly, whereas the masses acted unworthily in seeking a king w h o w o u l d m a k e them like all other nations (Sanhedrin 20b). 21. Josephus makes clear Samuel's Nazirite status by noting that H a n n a h promised that her first­ b o r n should be consecrated to the service o f G - d and that his m a n n e r o f life (Sicurav) should b e unlike that o f ordinary m e n (Ant. 5.344). 22. Pseudo-Philo, although he often agrees with Josephus, nevertheless follows the biblical text here in asserting that S a m u e l himself killed A g a g (Bib. Ant. 58.4). 23. R a b b i n i c tradition also recognizes this problem, and resolves it, similarly to Josephus, by hav­ ing S a m u e l , through his deferential posture, intimate to the witch o f E n d o r that a king is present (Midrash Samuel 24.4; Tanhuma Emor [ed. Buber] 4).

jo6

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

T h u s , in the c a s e o f S a m u e l , t h e r e is g r e a t e r d r a m a in the a c c o u n t o f his birth. A c ­ c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , E l k a n a h ' s o t h e r wife, P e n i n a h , v e x e d H a n n a h , so t h a t she w e p t (i S a m . 1:7). J o s e p h u s i n c r e a s e s the d r a m a b y o m i t t i n g t h e v e x a t i o n o f H a n ­ nah by Peninah

2 4

a n d i n s t e a d p a i n t s a p i c t u r e o f H a n n a h b u r s t i n g i n t o tears a n d

b e w a i l i n g h e r b a r r e n n e s s a n d l o n e s o m e lot as she b e h o l d s t h e c h i l d r e n o f h e r h u s ­ b a n d ' s o t h e r w i f e s e a t e d a r o u n d their m o t h e r (Ant. 5.343). I n his a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s role in t h w a r t i n g the a t t a c k o f t h e Philistines, J o s e ­ p h u s a d d s d r a m a t i c details. T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t t h e Israelites w e r e afraid o f t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:7), J o s e p h u s p a i n t s their fear i n m u c h d a r k e r c o l o r s : the Israelites a r e d i s m a y e d a n d a r e p l u n g e d i n t o c o n f u s i o n a n d a l a r m (Ant. 6.24). T h e y confess to S a m u e l t h a t their c o u r a g e h a s flagged t h r o u g h fear a n d t h e m e m o r y o f their f o r m e r defeat. T h e r e is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the m i r a c l e s w r o u g h t b y G - d in d i s c o m f i t i n g the Philistines. W h e r e a s the B i b l e d e c l a r e s t h a t G - d sent a g r e a t t h u n d e r a g a i n s t t h e Philistines (1 S a m . 7:10), J o s e p h u s h a s e m b e l l i s h e d the t e r r o r b y d e s c r i b i n g the fiery l i g h t n i n g t h a t H e flashed

a r o u n d t h e m , " a s it w e r e to b u r n o u t their e y e s , " a n d b y r e m a r k i n g t h a t H e

struck t h e w e a p o n s f r o m their h a n d s a n d so t u r n e d t h e m w e a p o n l e s s to

flight.

J o s e p h u s h a s a d d e d a n e a r t h q u a k e , w h i c h h e d e s c r i b e s v e r y g r a p h i c a l l y as " r o c k ­ i n g a n d m a k i n g t r e m u l o u s a n d t r e a c h e r o u s the g r o u n d b e n e a t h t h e m , so t h a t f r o m its reeling, their footsteps s t a g g e r e d , a n d at its p a r t i n g , t h e y w e r e e n g u l f e d in s u n d r y o f its c h a s m s " (Ant. 6.27). T h e r e is l i k e w i s e i n c r e a s e d d r a m a in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f S a m u e l ' s a p p o i n t ­ m e n t o f S a u l as king. I n t h e B i b l e , it is d u r i n g t h e d a y t h a t G - d a p p e a r s to S a m u e l to r e v e a l S a u l ' s f o r t h c o m i n g visit (1 S a m . 9:15). I n J o s e p h u s , as i n P s e u d o - P h i l o (Bib. Ant. (56.3), the s c e n e is m o r e d r a m a t i c , i n t h a t it is d u r i n g t h e n i g h t t h a t G - d a p p e a r s to S a m u e l (Ant. 6.37-40). W h e r e a s in t h e B i b l e , w e a r e t o l d t h a t t h e p e o ­ p l e c o u l d n o t e a t until S a m u e l arrives a n d blesses the sacrifice (1 S a m . 9:12), in J o s e p h u s , the e v e n t is m u c h m o r e g l a m o r o u s , i n a s m u c h as S a m u e l is d e p i c t e d as b e i n g the a c t u a l h o s t o f a feast at w h i c h h e is e n t e r t a i n i n g m a n y (Ant. 6.48). T h e feast itself is m o r e d r a m a t i c in J o s e p h u s , i n a s m u c h as, w h e r e a s i n t h e B i b l e there a r e o n l y a b o u t thirty p e r s o n s p r e s e n t (1 S a m . 9:20), in J o s e p h u s , n o t o n l y is t h e n u m b e r i n c r e a s e d , b u t , s i g n i f i c a n d y w h e r e a s t h e S e p t u a g i n t states t h a t there w e r e a b o u t s e v e n t y m e n , J o s e p h u s specifies p r e c i s e l y s e v e n t y (Ant. 6.52), in a c l e a r r e m ­ i n i s c e n c e o f t h e s e v e n t y elders w h o assisted M o s e s ( N u m . 11:24)

a n
pevas efe'Aero) (Iliad 6.234-36). A g a i n , A u t o m e d o n ' s foolishness i n s e r v i n g b o t h as a c h a r i o t e e r a n d as a s p e a r m a n is said to b e the w o r k ofa

g o d , w h o h a s p u t this p l a n in his b r e a s t a n d thus d e p r i v e d h i m o f his e x c e l l e n t

u n d e r s t a n d i n g (igeXeTo (jypivas iodXds) (Iliad 1 7 . 4 6 9 - 7 0 ) . P e r h a p s the m o s t t r o u b l e s o m e e p i s o d e in S a u l ' s life, c e r t a i n l y f r o m a t h e o l o g i ­ cal v a n t a g e p o i n t , in v i e w o f his piety, i n v o l v e d t h e A m a l e k i t e s . J o s e p h u s

under­

scores S a u l ' s a l a c r i t y i n p e r f o r m i n g t h e c o m m a n d m e n t to w i p e o u t t h a t n a t i o n b y h a v i n g h i m reflect t h a t o b e d i e n c e to G - d in this m a t t e r l a y n o t m e r e l y in u n d e r ­ t a k i n g this c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e A m a l e k i t e s b u t e v e n m o r e in t h e e a g e r n e s s a n d haste t h a t k n e w n o d e l a y (Ant. 6.134). J o s e p h u s builds u p the s c e n e a n d S a u l ' s m i l ­ itary ability b y a d d i n g details a b o u t S a u l ' s s t r a t e g y (Ant. 6.135). W h e r e a s the B i b l e says merely, " A n d S a u l s m o t e t h e A m a l e k i t e s " (1 S a m . 15:7), J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t Saul posted n u m e r o u s pickets a n d a m b u s c a d e s a r o u n d the ravine w h e r e the A m a l e k i t e s w e r e s t a t i o n e d in o r d e r b o t h t o m o l e s t t h e m in o p e n w a r f a r e a n d to fall u p o n t h e m u n e x p e c t e d l y o n t h e r o a d s (Ant. 6.135). H e e l a b o r a t e s also o n S a u l ' s siege o f the A m a l e k i t e s , p r e s u m a b l y d r a w i n g u p o n his o w n m i l i t a r y e x p e r i e n c e

SAUL

529

a n d his k n o w l e d g e o f R o m a n siege w a r f a r e , n o t i n g t h a t h e m a n a g e d t o c a p t u r e the A m a l e k i t e cities b y e n g i n e s o f w a r a n d b y m i n i n g o p e r a t i o n s a n d e x t e r i o r o p p o s ­ i n g walls, as w e l l as b y s t a r v i n g t h e m into s u b m i s s i o n . J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s to d e f e n d w h a t m o s t h u m a n e r e a d e r s w o u l d h a v e f o u n d w e l l n i g h i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , n a m e l y , the s l a u g h t e r b y S a u l o f t h e A m a l e k i t e w o m e n a n d infants, n o t i n g t w o r e a s o n s w h y S a u l d i d n o t d e e m this s a v a g e (wpuov) o r t o o c r u e l (aKXrjporepov)

for h u m a n n a t u r e (avBpamivrjs . . . vo€0)s), first t h a t

t h e y w e r e e n e m i e s , a n d , s e c o n d l y t h a t it w a s G - d w h o b a d e h i m to d e s t r o y t h e m (Ant. 6.136). If, i n d e e d , this w a s a d i v i n e c o m m a n d , the r e a d e r m a y w e l l ask w h y S a u l d i s o b e y e d it. T h e r a b b i s cite S a u l ' s f e e l i n g o f m e r c y as the r e a s o n , h a v i n g S a u l a r g u e t h a t e v e n i f the adults h a d s i n n e d , surely the c h i l d r e n a n d the c a t d e w e r e guildess (Toma 2 2 b ) .

26

P s e u d o - P h i l o , in a p a s s a g e c l e a r l y d e r o g a t o r y to S a u l ,

d e c l a r e s t h a t S a u l s p a r e d A g a g , the A m a l e k i t e k i n g , b e c a u s e the latter

had

27

p r o m i s e d t o s h o w h i m h i d d e n treasures (Bib. Ant. 5 8 . 2 ) . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s c o m ­ p a s s i o n (oiKTto) as the m o t i v e for S a u l ' s s p a r i n g o f A g a g (Ant. 6.137); b u t in a n a d ­ d i t i o n m a n i f e s t i y c a l c u l a t e d t o a p p e a l to his G r a e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e , h e also a d d s a n aesthetic m o t i v e , n a m e l y , t h a t S a u l s p a r e d h i m o u t o f a d m i r a t i o n for his beauty

(KOLXXOS)

a n d his stature (pueyedos), the v e r y s a m e qualities that, as n o t e d

a b o v e , J o s e p h u s h a d stressed in S a u l ' s c h o i c e o f his o w n b o d y g u a r d s (Ant. 6.130). J o s e p h u s , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d , says t h a t it w a s the k i n g , n o t the c h i l d r e n , w h o m S a u l s a v e d , a n d this despite the fact t h a t it w a s the f o r m e r w h o h a d d o n e s u c h injuries t o the H e b r e w s (Ant. 6.138). J o s e p h u s t h e n p r o c e e d s to h e i g h t e n the d r a m a t i c in­ terest o f t h e p a s s a g e b y c o n t r a s t i n g , in a n u n b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , S a u l ' s e x u l t a t i o n at his success w i t h G - d ' s displeasure a t his c o n d u c t (Ant. 6 . 1 4 1 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s stresses t h e g r a v i t y o f S a u l ' s sin, for h e n o t e s G - d ' s o u t r a g e in t h a t after H e h a d d e f e a t e d the e n e m y , t h e y s h o u t e d their d i s d a i n for H i m s u c h as t h e y w o u l d h a v e s h o w n t o n o h u m a n k i n g (Ant. 6.142). Y e t S a u l ' s r e p u t a t i o n is u p h e l d b y several a d d i t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' s v e r s i o n . I n the first p l a c e , as n o t e d , S a u l s h o w s his g r a t i t u d e to G - d for g i v i n g h i m the v i c t o r y o v e r t h e A m a l e k i t e s (Ant. 6.145), w h e r e a s the B i b l e is silent a b o u t this p o i n t (1 S a m . 15:13). S e c o n d l y J o s e p h u s n o t e s t h a t the Israelite p e o p l e w e r e S a u l ' s p a r t n e r s in this a c t o f s i n n i n g a g a i n s t G - d (Ant. 6.139). I n o r d e r to save the r e p u t a t i o n o f S a u l , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l h a s n o t h i n g to s a y t o S a m u e l in e x p l a n a t i o n o f his b e ­ h a v i o r in s p a r i n g A g a g (1 S a m . 15:20), J o s e p h u s ' s S a u l c l a i m s t h a t h e h a s b r o u g h t A g a g to S a m u e l so t h a t t h e y m a y d e c i d e his fate t o g e t h e r (Ant. 6.146). N o s u c h m o ­ tive, w e m a y n o t e , is m e n t i o n e d w h e n , earlier, S a u l a c t u a l l y saves A g a g ' s life, for

26. T h e rabbis seek to diminish Saul's guilt by noting that it was D o e g w h o persuaded him to spare A g a g , on the ground that since the Torah prohibits slaying the animal and its young on the same day, surely it is less permissible to slay m e n and children simultaneously (Midrash Samuel 18.99-100). 27. Since, in Pseudo-Philo, Saul is only a rod whereby G - d punishes the Israelites, and inasmuch as he was never appointed king in good faith, G - d denounces him for his sin but does not renounce him, as Spiro 1953, 128, remarks.

530

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t h e n h e d o e s so n o t c o n d i t i o n a l l y b u t a b s o l u t e l y i m p e l l e d , as w e h a v e r e m a r k e d , b y a d m i r a t i o n for A g a g ' s b e a u t y a n d stature (Ant. 6.137). Finally, w h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e h a s S a u l b e g S a m u e l to p a r d o n his sin (1 S a m . 15:25), J o s e p h u s a d d s S a u l ' s p r o m i s e to b e w a r e o f r e p e a t i n g s u c h a n offense in the future (Ant. 6.151). A s to the p r o b l e m o f t h e o d i c y r a i s e d b y this i n c i d e n t , J o s e p h u s , w h o g e n e r a l l y d o e s n o t t h e o l o g i z e , e x p l a i n s , in a n u n s c r i p t u r a l p a s s a g e , t h a t G - d refused to p a r ­ don

Saul

on

(xprjaroTrjTos)

the

grounds

that

to

show

mercy

(in ie IKE las)

and

kindness

to t h e o p p r e s s o r is to b e g e t c r i m e u n w i t t i n g l y a n d to e n c o u r a g e t h e

i n c r e a s e o f o p p r e s s i o n (Ant. 6 . 1 4 4 ) .

28

T h e n , in a v e r y c o n s i d e r a b l e e l a b o r a t i o n o f

t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:22-23), J o s e p h u s stresses h o w m u c h G - d rejoices in those w h o are r e a d y to die r a t h e r t h a n to transgress H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s (Ant. 6 . 1 4 7 - 5 1 ) . I n a n o t h e r a d d i t i o n to the B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:22), S a m u e l asks S a u l h o w G - d w o u l d l o o k u p o n a sacrifice t a k e n f r o m t h e A m a l e k i t e s ' a n i m a l s , w h i c h H e h a d d o o m e d to d e s t r u c t i o n , unless it b e , h e a d d s sarcastically, t h a t S a u l r e g a r d s t h e sacrifice o f t h e m to G - d as e q u i v a l e n t t o d e s t r o y i n g t h e m (Ant. 6 . 1 5 0 ) .

29

I n o r d e r to d e n i g r a t e S a u l , at least t e m p o r a r i l y , n o t o n l y d o e s J o s e p h u s h a v e S a u l d i s o b e y G - d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t in s p a r i n g A g a g , b u t h e e v e n c a u s e s h i m to c o m p o u n d this sin b y r e t u r n i n g h o m e e x u l t a n t at his success, as t h o u g h h e h a d c o m m i t t e d n o sin at all b u t h a d s t r i c d y d o n e G - d ' s b e h e s t (Ant. 6.141). W h e n S a u l g r e e t s S a m u e l after his v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k , in the B i b l e , h e says t h a t h e h a s p e r ­ f o r m e d t h e c o m m a n d m e n t o f G - d (1 S a m . 15:13), b u t in J o s e p h u s , h e stresses, in a s h o w o f d e c e i t a n d self-satisfaction (Ant. 6.145), t h a t all o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d s h a v e b e e n p e r f o r m e d b y h i m . S a u l ' s d i s o b e d i e n c e to G - d is h e r e all t h e m o r e ironic, since h e starts b y r e n d e r i n g t h a n k s to G - d for t h e v i c t o r y o v e r A m a l e k , a g r a t i t u d e n o t e x p r e s s e d b y h i m in t h e B i b l e (1 S a m . 15:13). I n d e e d , S a u l ' s failure to o b e y t h e b e h e s t o f G - d to e x t e r m i n a t e the A m a l e k i t e s c o m p l e t e l y m a r k s a t u r n i n g p o i n t in his career, as w e l l as in J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f h i m . U p until this i n c i d e n t , as w e h a v e s e e n , it h a s b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s p r a c t i c e to e x a g g e r a t e S a u l ' s n o b l e qualities a n d to a p o l o g i z e for his failings, b u t w i t h this transgression, h e b e c o m e s i n c r e a s i n g l y critical o f S a u l . A s e c o n d i n c i d e n t t h a t p r e s e n t e d a m a j o r c h a l l e n g e for J o s e p h u s ' s p o r t r a i t o f the p i o u s S a u l w a s his responsibility for t h e m u r d e r o f A b i m e l e c h the h i g h priest a n d the priests o f N o b . I n this instance, J o s e p h u s e x a g g e r a t e s t h e sinfulness o f S a u l b y s a y i n g t h a t S a u l w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e d e a t h s o f t h r e e h u n d r e d priests a n d p r o p h e t s (Ant. 6.268), w h e r e a s the B i b l e gives the n u m b e r o f priests killed as e i g h t y -

28. Similarly, in the rabbinic tradition, a voice from heaven tells Saul, in connection with the mercy that he shows A g a g , " B e not overjust" (Midrash Samuel 18.100). 29. N . G. C o h e n 1963-64, 325-27, after quoting Ant. 6.150-52, and c o m p a r i n g it with 1 S a m . 15:22-27, remarks on the similarity in order and in content between the two passages and notes that even the prose paraphrase o f the poetical p r o p h e c y in 1 S a m . 15:22-23 (=Ant. 6.150) closely conforms to the content o f the original. But, w e m a y c o m m e n t , the proper point o f comparison is, rather, Ant. 6.147-50 and 1 S a m . 15:22-23, from w h i c h w e see h o w m u c h Josephus elaborates on Scripture.

SAUL

331

30

five, p l u s a n u n s p e c i f i e d n u m b e r o f o t h e r s in N o b (1 S a m . 2 2 : 1 8 ) . J o s e p h u s s p e c i ­ fies t h a t S a u l s l e w n o t o n l y priests b u t p r o p h e t s as w e l l , w h e r e a s the B i b l e m a k e s no mention o f prophets. I n a d d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s h a s a l o n g , u n s c r i p t u r a l d i g r e s s i o n , a l m o s t T a c i t e a n in its b a l a n c e d structure a n d in its b i t i n g t o n e , in w h i c h his m a i n p o i n t is t h a t S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r suffered b e c a u s e o f his a c c e s s i o n to p o w e r , since it is in the n a t u r e o f m e n , w h e n t h e y a r e in p r i v a t e a n d h u m b l e stations, to b e k i n d l y (imeiKeis),

mod­

e r a t e (fjL€Tpioi\ j u s t , a n d p i o u s , b u t t h a t o n c e t h e y attain to p o w e r , t h e y cast off their stage m a s k s (TTpooiDTreia) a n d s h o w a u d a c i t y (roXp^av), recklessness (dwrovoiav), a n d c o n t e m p t (Kara<j>p6vrjaLv) for t h i n g s h u m a n a n d d i v i n e (Ant. 6 . 2 6 2 - 6 8 ) . T h i s m o r ­ a l i z i n g a n d p s y c h o l o g i z i n g t o n e , as w e l l as this p a r t i c u l a r motif, is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e Antiquities as a w h o l e (see A t t r i d g e 1 9 7 6 , 85). I n J o s e p h u s , D a v i d realizes t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h S a u l is a slave o f his suspicions, for, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , after h e h a s a l l o w e d S a u l to e s c a p e w h e n h e w a s w i t h i n his p o w e r in t h e c a v e , D a v i d says t h a t S a u l o u g h t n o t t o listen t o w i c k e d m e n w h o m a k e u p lies, w h i l e h o l d i n g his best friends in s u s p i c i o n (Ant. 6.285). C a l u m n y (SiajSoA^) d e c e i v e s ; d e e d s s h o w o n e ' s t r u e i n t e n t i o n . T h e fact t h a t h e is e a g e r to d e s t r o y a m a n , D a v i d , w h o h a d a l l o w e d h i m to slip a w a y w h e n h e w a s in his p o w e r , s h o w s , says D a v i d , t h a t S a u l is i m p i o u s t o w a r d G - d (Ant. 6.288). J o s e ­ p h u s stresses S a u l ' s w i c k e d n e s s in persisting in his a i m o f t r y i n g to slay D a v i d ; a n d yet, D a v i d , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l r e m a r k w i t h w h i c h J o s e p h u s c l e a r l y a g r e e s , p e r h a p s w i t h t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y p o l i t i c a l situation in t h e R o m e o f D o m i t i a n ' s d a y in view, says t h a t e v e n t h o u g h S a u l is a w i c k e d (-rToviqpos) m a n , it is m o n s t r o u s to slay h i m b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n c h o s e n b y G - d (Ant. 6.312). I n his final s u m m a r y o f S a u l ' s r e i g n , J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t S a u l c a m e to a m i s e r a b l e e n d , a n d it is c l e a r t h a t J o s e ­ p h u s feels t h a t his e n d w a s justified, b e c a u s e o f t w o sins, first, his d i s o b e d i e n c e o f G - d ' s c o m m a n d to w i p e o u t the A m a l e k i t e s , a n d s e c o n d , his d e s t r u c t i o n o f A b i m ­ e l e c h the h i g h priest a n d his f a m i l y (Ant. 6.378). B u t , in this c o n n e c t i o n , t h e r e is a r e d e e m i n g feature to S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r — h i s sense o f r e m o r s e . W e see this in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h w h e n D a v i d spares S a u l at E n g e d i , S a u l n o t o n l y w e e p s (1 S a m . 24:16) b u t m o a n s a n d wails aloud, declaring that D a v i d h a d brought h i m only g o o d whereas he h a d b r o u g h t D a v i d affliction, m a r v e l i n g in a m a z e m e n t ( a n o t h e r addition) at D a v i d ' s f o r b e a r a n c e (Ant. 6.290). S a u l t h e n s h o w s true m a g n a n i m i t y i n a s c r i b i n g to D a v i d , in y e t a n o t h e r n o n s c r i p t u r a l a d d i t i o n , the r i g h t e o u s n e s s o f the a n c i e n t s , as s h o w n in their s p a r i n g their e n e m i e s (Ant. 6.290). M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l s i m p l y states t h a t h e h a s s i n n e d , w i t h o u t e x p a n d i n g o n it (1 S a m . 26:21), in J o s e ­ p h u s , S a u l p a t i e n t i y e n u m e r a t e s his sins w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e p o i g n a n c y (Ant. 6. 317); h e h a s p u r s u e d a m a n w h o h a s g i v e n m a n y p r o o f s o f his loyalty, h e h a s f o r c e d h i m

30. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint (boc e ) give the number of priests slain as 350; the other manuscripts give 305. 2

2

532

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

t o l i v e in e x i l e for so l o n g , h e h a s p l a c e d h i m i n t e r r o r o f his life, a n d h e h a s d e ­ p r i v e d h i m o f friends a n d k i n .

3 1

In another supplementary

r e m a r k (cf. i S a m .

26:21), J o s e p h u s s h o w s h o w g r a t e f u l S a u l is b y h a v i n g h i m t h a n k D a v i d for s p a r i n g his life (Ant. 6.316). H e t h e n p r o c e e d s t o e x a l t S a u l ' s m a g n a n i m i t y b e y o n d t h e b i b ­ l i c a l a c c o u n t (1 S a m . 26:21) b y m a k i n g S a u l d e c l a r e t h a t h e d i d n o t l o v e his o w n s e l f as m u c h as h e w a s l o v e d b y D a v i d a n d b y h a v i n g h i m e l a b o r a t e o n all t h e h a r d ­ ships t h a t h e h a d c a u s e d D a v i d (Ant. 6.317). Finally, S a u l ' s p i e t y s e e m s t o b e u l t i m a t e l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t h e c o m ­ mitted suicide. In v i e w o f Josephus's o w n strong h a r a n g u e to his m e n o n t h e o l o g ­ i c a l g r o u n d s a g a i n s t s u i c i d e w h e n t h e y w e r e i n d e s p e r a t e straits at J o t a p a t a

(War

3 . 3 6 1 - 8 3 ) , it is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t h e s a y s n o w o r d in c r i t i c i s m o f S a u l ' s s u i c i d e , w h e t h e r d o n e d i r e c d y (1 S a m . 31:4) o r a t his r e q u e s t b y t h e A m a l e k i t e (2 S a m . 1:9-10). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t S a u l h a d r e c e i v e d n u m e r o u s w o u n d s after

fighting

m a g n i f i c e n d y so t h a t h e w a s n o l o n g e r a b l e t o h o l d o u t o r t o e n d u r e u n d e r t h e e n e m y b l o w s (Ant. 6.370). J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t e v e n raise t h e q u e s t i o n as t o w h e t h e r S a u l ' s a c t w a s a s u i c i d e , l e t a l o n e a n unjustified s u i c i d e . I n fact, i n his e n c o m i u m o n S a u l , h e m a k e s it c l e a r t h a t S a u l fell fighting for his s u b j e c t s (Ant. 6.345). T h e a l ­ t e r n a t i v e , as h e e x p o u n d s it t h e r e , w o u l d h a v e b e e n for h i m t o c l i n g t o life, t o b e ­ t r a y his p e o p l e t o t h e e n e m y , a n d t o d i s h o n o r t h e d i g n i t y o f k i n g s h i p (Ant. 6 . 3 4 4 ) .

32

I n t r u t h , t h e f a c t t h a t J o s e p h u s , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h S a u l ' s e n d , d o e s n o t e v e n r a i s e t h e issue o f s u i c i d e — a t h e m e t h a t is so i m p o r t a n t in t h e Jewish

War i n c o n n e c t i o n

w i t h J o t a p a t a a n d M a s a d a — m a y b e d u e t o his o w n p a n g s o f c o n s c i e n c e a t his o w n

31. Similarly, the rabbis stress Saul's feeling o f remorse for having executed the priests of N o b , a n d they note that this remorse secured p a r d o n for him (cf. Tanhuma B 3.45 a n d other citations in G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:238, n n . 7 8 , 79). 32. In v i e w o f the strong opposition to suicide, especially in rabbinic literature (Baba Qamma 91b), it is not surprising that the midrashic tradition is exercised over Saul's suicide a n d justifies it o n the ground that h e did so to avoid falling into the hands of his adversaries, w h o , he feared, w o u l d abuse a n d torture h i m before finally executing h i m (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 34.19). A n o t h e r rabbinic tradition even asserts that Samuel advised Saul to c o m m i t suicide as a n atonement for his sins (Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 33)In the M i d d l e A g e s the v i e w was expressed that a person w h o fears that he will b e subjected to un­ bearable pain m a y take his o w n life (Tosafot o n Gittin 57b). O n e Spanish rabbi, the R i t b a (Rabbi Y o m T o v b e n A b r a h a m Ishbili) in the thirteenth century, justified Saul's suicide o n the grounds that Saul feared that the e n e m y w o u l d force h i m to betray his faith; a n d in the sixteenth century, the M a h a r s h a l (Rabbi S o l o m o n Luria) in Poland concluded that Saul was permitted to kill himself because h e h a d the status o f G - d ' s anointed one, a n d that therefore it w o u l d have b e e n a profanation o f G - d ' s n a m e to have allowed himself to undergo torture. T h e latter v i e w is close to Josephus's statement (Ant. 6.344) that for Saul to have clung to life w o u l d have dishonored the dignity o f kingship (rrjs jSaaiAcia? aJJLajfxa).

T h e key point in the rabbinic defense o f Saul's suicide is that it was the certainty o f his death

that justified it. T h e same question, as to the justifiability o f suicide, has, o f course, been asked about the Sicarii at M a s a d a . See G o r e n 1964, 7 - 1 2 ; Spero 1970, 3 1 - 4 3 ; Frimer 1971, 27-43; R a b i n o w i t z 1971, 31-37; Kolitz 1 9 7 1 , 5 - 2 6 ; H o e n i g 1972,100-15; Trimble 1 9 7 7 , 4 5 - 5 5 ; Feldman 1984b, 779-89; a n d G o l d ­ stein 1989, 100, n. 7.

SAUL cowardice,

3 3

533

a n e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t m a y also a c c o u n t for his p r a i s e o f t h e d e f e n d e r s

o f M a s a d a (War 7 4 0 5 ) , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y w e r e m e m b e r s o f t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y g r o u p o f t h e S i c a r i i , w h o m h e so d e s p i s e d . M o r e likely, h o w e v e r , since J o s e p h u s a g a i n a n d a g a i n justifies his o w n a c t i o n s in t h e w a r a g a i n s t R o m e , h e w a s n o t so c o n s c i e n c e - s t r i c k e n . R a t h e r , his glorification o f S a u l , w i t h its c l e a r a f f i r m a t i o n t h a t h e g a v e his life for his p e o p l e , is p a r t o f J o s e p h u s ' s s t u d i e d a t t e m p t to p r e s e n t his J e w i s h h e r o e s in a m o l d t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l to n o n - J e w i s h r e a d e r s . T h e q u a l i t y o f pietas, h o w e v e r , is to b e s e e n n o t o n l y in r e v e r e n c e for G - d b u t also in d e v o t i o n to o n e ' s father a n d family. T h u s , in the B i b l e , after S a m u e l a n o i n t s S a u l a n d sends h i m forth, h e cites a n u m b e r o f signs t h a t will c o m e to p a s s a n d says, q u i t e v a g u e l y , t h a t w h e n t h e y o c c u r , S a u l is to d o w h a t e v e r his h a n d "finds to d o " (1 S a m . 10:7). J o s e p h u s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , uses this s c e n e as a n o c c a s i o n t o a c c e n t u a t e S a u l ' s pietas, since h e h a s S a m u e l specifically s e n d S a u l to salute (aCT7racrai) his father a n d his kinsfolk after the p r e d i c t e d signs h a v e c o m e a b o u t (Ant. 6.57)S a u l s h o w s d e v o t i o n n o t o n l y to m e m b e r s o f his i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y b u t also to his k i n s m e n generally. T h u s , w h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l saves t h e K e n i t e s f r o m t h e destruction that he perpetrates o n the Amalekites because they h a d s h o w n kind­ ness t o t h e Israelites w h e n t h e y h a d left E g y p t (1 S a m . 15:6), J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s a n e w f a c t o r for his s p a r i n g t h e m , n a m e l y , t h a t t h e y w e r e k i n s m e n o f R a g u e l (Jethro), the father-in-law o f M o s e s (Ant. 6 . 1 4 0 ) .

SAUL'S NEGATIVE

34

QUALITIES

N o t all o f S a u l ' s qualities w e r e positive, h o w e v e r , a n d J o s e p h u s h a d to c o p e w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f h o w to d e a l w i t h his m a d n e s s a n d j e a l o u s y . A s to the former, J o s e ­ p h u s , in a n a p o l o g e t i c stance, e x p l a i n s it as a m e d i c a l disorder. T h u s , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says t h a t it is d u e to a n evil spirit f r o m G - d (1 S a m . 1 6 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) , J o s e p h u s ra­ tionalizes, o m i t t i n g , as d o e s T h u c y d i d e s i n his d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p l a g u e (2.47-54), t h e role o f G - d in c a u s i n g t h e illness, a n d presents i n s t e a d a c l i n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f S a u l ' s m a l a d y , n a m e l y , t h a t h e w a s b e s e t b y s t r a n g e disorders, as w e l l as b y evil spirits, w h i c h c a u s e d h i m suffocation a n d s t r a n g l i n g (Ant. 6.166). A g a i n , t h e B i b l e says t h a t it w a s t h e servants o f S a u l w h o s o u g h t a m u s i c i a n t o r e m o v e t h e evil spirit

33. So Spiro, 135. Spiro further argues that it was natural, in the climate of the patriotic feeling against Rome, to praise the king who gave his life for his people. But Josephus was far from endorsing the patriots' rebellion. 34. The rabbis, too, cite the relationship of the Kenites to Moses, but they stress, rather, the hospi­ tality shown by Jethro to Moses, noting that although this hospitality was prompted by selfish motives on the part of Jethro, who wanted Moses to marry one of his daughters, still one ought to be grateful for a good deed regardless of the intent (Berakot 63b; see also the other parallels cited by Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:232, n. 60). Josephus, however, on the contrary, in his presentation stresses kinship, not hos­ pitality; and there is thus no implied criticism of the Kenites' motives.

534

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

(i S a m . 1 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s , l o o k i n g u p o n S a u l ' s state as a m e d i c a l disor­ der, says t h a t p h y s i c i a n s tried t o c u r e h i m (Ant. 6.166). S a u l ' s j e a l o u s y o f D a v i d is a n o t h e r d e f e c t in S a u l ' s c h a r a c t e r . T h i s j e a l o u s y is stressed b y s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n s f o u n d in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t . T h u s the B i b l e r e c o r d s t h a t after D a v i d r e t u r n e d f r o m the s l a u g h t e r o f the Philistines a n d w a s p r a i s e d b y the w o m e n , S a u l b e c a m e fearful o f D a v i d ' s r i v a l r y a n d r e m o v e d h i m f r o m his p o s t as his p e r s o n a l a t t e n d a n t , m a k i n g h i m , rather, a c a p t a i n o v e r a t h o u s a n d m e n (1 S a m . 18:13). T h e B i b l e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n S a u l ' s m o t i v e for these acts, b u t J o s e p h u s avers t h a t S a u l r e m o v e d D a v i d as a r m o r b e a r e r b e c a u s e h e t h o u g h t t h a t this p l a c e d h i m t o o c l o s e t o his p e r s o n (1 S a m . 18:13). J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t s in m a k i n g S a u l e x p l a i n t h a t h e g a v e D a v i d a b e t t e r post, " b u t o n e , as h e t h o u g h t , safer [da^aXearepav]

for h i m s e l f " (or, w i t h o t h e r m a n u s c r i p t s , " m o r e t r e a c h e r o u s for

h i m " [i.e., D a v i d ] ) (Ant. 6.195). T h e n , in a p a s s a g e r e m i n i s c e n t o f the J o s e p h a n a c ­ c o u n t o f the E g y p t i a n s a s k i n g M o s e s t o l e a d a c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t the E t h i o p i a n s in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d b e slain (Ant. 2.243),

a

s

w

e

^

a s

> ° f c o u r s e , o f the b i b l i c a l a c ­

c o u n t o f D a v i d a n d U r i a h the Hittite (2 S a m . 11:2-27), J o s e p h u s a d d s t h a t S a u l p r o p o s e d to s e n d D a v i d into b a t d e a g a i n s t the e n e m y in the h o p e t h a t h e w o u l d thus m e e t his d e a t h (Ant. 6.195). H e r e , t o o , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s takes steps t o di­ m i n i s h S a u l ' s sin. T h u s , J o s e p h u s , in this a l i g n i n g h i m s e l f w i t h m a n y m a n u s c r i p t s o f the S e p t u a g i n t , o m i t s a l t o g e t h e r the a c c o u n t o f S a u l ' s a t t e m p t o n D a v i d ' s life w h i l e the latter w a s p l a y i n g his h a r p (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) . T h e fact t h a t this i n c i d e n t is to b e f o u n d in the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n , w h i c h J o s e p h u s u s u a l l y follows in S a m u e l , indicates, in all probability, a d e l i b e r a t e o m i s s i o n o f it b y h i m . H e also o m i t s the fact (1 S a m . 1 8 : 1 7 - 1 9 ) , likewise c i t e d b y the L u c i a n i c v e r s i o n , t h a t S a u l r e n e g e d o n his p r o m i s e to g i v e his d a u g h t e r M e r a b in m a r r i a g e to D a v i d (Ant. 6.196). Y e t , J o s e p h u s amplifies, in a w a y r e m i n i s c e n t o f this p a s s a g e , the m o t i v e s b e h i n d S a u l ' s offer o f his d a u g h t e r in m a r r i a g e to D a v i d i f h e b r i n g s h i m the h e a d s o f six h u n ­ d r e d Philistines (Ant. 6.197). " S o will m y d e s i g n s a g a i n s t h i m s u c c e e d a d m i r a b l y , " h e says, "for I shall b e rid o f h i m , y e t c a u s e his d e a t h at the h a n d s o f o t h e r s a n d n o t m y o w n " (Ant. 6.198). W h e n , i n J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t , D a v i d n e x t hesitates b e c a u s e o f his h u m b l e r a n k (Ant. 6.200), S a u l flatters h i m into u n d e r t a k i n g the p e r i l o u s feat a n d d e c l a r e s , w i t h o b v i o u s insincerity, as the r e a d e r realizes, t h a t b o t h h e a n d his d a u g h t e r p r e f e r a gift o f six h u n d r e d Philistine h e a d s to w h a t o t h e r s m i g h t r e g a r d as m o r e d e s i r a b l e o r m o r e m a g n i f i c e n t presents (Ant. 6.202). C o n v e r s e l y , h e e l a b o ­ rates o n S a u l ' s fulfillment o f his p r o m i s e to D a v i d to give h i m his d a u g h t e r M i c h a l as his wife (Ant. 6.204); for, w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e n o t e s m e r e l y t h a t S a u l d i d g i v e M i c h a l to D a v i d (1 S a m . 18:27), J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s his m o t i v e s , n o t i n g t h a t h e d i d so b e c a u s e h e s a w t h a t it w o u l d b e d i s g r a c e f u l either to h a v e a p p e a r e d to h a v e l i e d o r t o h a v e h e l d o u t t h e p r o s p e c t o f m a r r i a g e m e r e l y in o r d e r t o b r i n g a b o u t D a v i d ' s d e a t h in a n i m p o s s i b l e e n t e r p r i s e (Ant. 6.204). J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that S a u l w a s g r e a d y afraid (/careSetae), a n d that it w a s b e ­ c a u s e h e w a s u n a b l e to c o n c e a l his fears t h a t D a v i d w o u l d take b o t h his k i n g d o m a n d his life that h e r e s o l v e d to slay h i m (Ant. 6.205). For a time, J o n a t h a n ' s a r g u -

SAUL

5

3

5

merits p e r s u a d e S a u l t o desist f r o m t r y i n g t o p u t D a v i d t o d e a t h , for, as J o s e p h u s says, i n a n u n s c r i p t u r a l c o m m e n t , a j u s t c a u s e prevails o v e r a n g e r (opyrjs) a n d fear (6^ov) (Ant. 6.212). B u t S a u l ' s suspicions a r e n o t a b a t e d , a n d h e c o n t i n u e s t o seek to slay D a v i d . I n t h e B i b l e , S a u l sends m e s s e n g e r s t o D a v i d ' s h o u s e t o w a t c h h i m a n d t o slay h i m t h e f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g (1 S a m . 19:11). I n J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , officers a r e sent t o b r i n g h i m b e f o r e a c o u r t s o that h e m a y b e tried (Ant. 6.215). A c c o r d i n g to t h e B i b l e , S a u l sends three g r o u p s o f m e s s e n g e r s t o t a k e D a v i d , a n d w h e n t h e y all fail, b e c a u s e t h e y b e g i n t o prophesy, h e h i m s e l f sets o u t t o seize D a v i d (1 S a m . 19:20-22). J o s e p h u s stresses t h a t t h e m e s s e n g e r s a r e a r m e d a n d also a d d s , as d o e s the S e p t u a g i n t , t h a t w h e n S a u l sets o u t , h e d o e s so i n a r a g e (opyiodeis)

(Ant.

6.221-22). Y e t , J o s e p h u s p l a y s d o w n S a u l ' s r a g e b y h a v i n g his d a u g h t e r M i c h a l a p ­ p e a l t o h i m after she saves h e r h u s b a n d D a v i d ' s life, s a y i n g t h a t h e r h u s b a n d h a d s e c u r e d h e r a i d b y t h r e a t e n i n g t o kill h e r i f she d i d n o t a i d h i m , a n d t h a t s h e c a n ­ n o t i m a g i n e t h a t S a u l is as desirous o f his e n e m y ' s d e a t h as o f s a v i n g h e r life (Ant. 6.219). I n r e s p o n d i n g t o this p l e a , S a u l e m e r g e s as s u p e r i o r t o A c h i l l e s , w h o s e w r a t h , w h i c h is t h e t h e m e o f t h e Iliad, so a b s o r b s h i m that h e w i t h d r a w s f r o m t h e fighting a n d refuses t o listen e v e n t o t h e a d m o n i t i o n o f t h e t u t o r o f his y o u t h , P h o e n i x (Iliad 9.432-605). A g a i n , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e h a s S a u l bitterly d e c l a r e t o his servants t h a t n o n e o f t h e m h a s disclosed t o h i m t h a t his o w n s o n J o n a t h a n h a s stirred u p D a v i d a g a i n s t h i m (1 S a m . 22:7-8), J o s e p h u s a t t e m p t s t o a c c o u n t for S a u l ' s invective b y d e c l a r i n g that h e h a d b e e n t h r o w n into n o o r d i n a r y (OVK els TVXOVTO)

c o n f u s i o n (Sopvfiov) a n d d i s m a y (rapaxrjv) (Ant. 6.250). T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is,

c o n s e q u e n t l y , t h a t h e w a s n o t really a w a r e o f w h a t h e w a s doing. I n a n o t h e r e x p l a ­ n a t i o n o f S a u l ' s irrational b e h a v i o r , J o s e p h u s , after n o t i n g t h e h i g h priest A b i m ­ elech's r e q u e s t t o S a u l n o t t o r e g a r d w i t h suspicion (vTTOTnevarjs) his a c t o f h u m a n ­ ity (<j)i\avdp(x)TTiav) in g i v i n g f o o d a n d a r m s t o D a v i d a n d i n p r o p h e s y i n g c o n c e r n i n g his future, presents a p s y c h o l o g i c a l analysis, in t h e f o r m o f a n a p o t h e g m , n o t f o u n d in t h e b i b l i c a l narrative (1 S a m . 22:17), as t o w h y S a u l r e m a i n s u n m o v e d , n a m e l y , that fear is s t r o n g e n o u g h t o discredit e v e n a truthful p l e a (Ant. 6.258). N o t w i s h i n g t o p r e s e n t S a u l as a c o l d - b l o o d e d m u r d e r e r ,

35

in contrast t o t h e

Bible, w h i c h states that S a u l sent m e s s e n g e r s t o D a v i d ' s h o u s e t o w a t c h h i m a n d t h e n to slay h i m (1 S a m . 19:11), J o s e p h u s asserts that S a u l sent officers t o p r e v e n t D a v i d ' s e s c a p e so that h e c o u l d b r i n g h i m before a c o u r t t o b e s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h (Ant. 6.215).

SUMMARY T h e fact t h a t J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s m o r e s p a c e , as c o m p a r e d w i t h his b i b l i c a l s o u r c e , t o his a c c o u n t o f S a u l t h a n t o a l m o s t a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y a n d , a b o v e a l l , t h e fact t h a t his e n c o m i u m o f S a u l is l o n g e r t h a n t h a t o f a n y o t h e r b i b l i c a l figure, M o s e s i n c l u d e d , s h o u l d alert u s t o S a u l ' s i m p o r t a n c e a n d f a s c i n a t i o n for J o s e p h u s .

35. Cf. Josephus's unscriptural notice that King Solomon removed Joab from the altar, where he had sought refuge, so as to bring him to the judgment hall to make his defense (Ant. 8.14).

536

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

I n his p o r t r a y a l o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s o c c u p i e s a m e a n p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h a t o f the t a l m u d i c r a b b i s , w h o e x a g g e r a t e his virtues, a n d P s e u d o - P h i l o in his Biblical

Antiq­

uities, w h o d e n i g r a t e s h i m . H e builds u p the c h a r a c t e r o f S a u l b y inserting a n u m ­ b e r o f t o u c h e s t h a t c u l m i n a t e in his a p p o i n t m e n t as king. W h e r e a s in the B i b l e , S a u l e m e r g e s as a m e r e p u p p e t o f the p r o p h e t S a m u e l , in J o s e p h u s , h e is p o r ­ t r a y e d as b e i n g o n a p a r w i t h S a m u e l , in w h o s e sacrifices h e j o i n s . I n d e p i c t i n g the qualities o f S a u l , J o s e p h u s e m p h a s i z e s his g o o d birth, w h i l e t a k i n g c a r e to i n d i c a t e t h a t h e n e v e r t h e l e s s d i d n o t s h o w d i s d a i n for those o f lesser birth. H e stresses S a u l ' s p h y s i c a l b e a u t y since this w o u l d h a v e a p p e a l e d t o his n o n J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p . H e p o r t r a y s h i m as a sagelike figure p r e s i d i n g o v e r a S a n h e d r i n like g r o u p o f s e v e n t y A b o v e all, h e a g g r a n d i z e s the c o u r a g e o f S a u l in his m i l i t a r y l e a d e r s h i p a n d exploits, stressing the m i l i t a r y difficulties t h a t h e h a d to o v e r c o m e , e x a g g e r a t i n g the ferocity o f the e n e m y , a n d h i g h l i g h t i n g the skill t h a t h e d i s p l a y e d as a strategist, in c o n t r a s t b o t h to the r a b b i n i c portrait, w h i c h e m p h a s i z e s the su­ p e r n a t u r a l a s p e c t o f his m i l i t a r y a c h i e v e m e n t s , a n d to P s e u d o - P h i l o , w h o d e p i c t s h i m as a c o w a r d . I n particular, J o s e p h u s m a g n i f i e s S a u l ' s g e n e r a l s h i p a n d his a b i l ­ ity a n d m a g n e t i s m as a p s y c h o l o g i s t in a r o u s i n g his t r o o p s a g a i n s t his g r e a t e s t m i l ­ itary c h a l l e n g e , the Philistines. M o r e o v e r , in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l t o u c h , S a u l s h o w s s y m p a t h y for his p e o p l e in their suffering. A b o v e all, J o s e p h u s a g g r a n d i z e s the h e r o i s m o f S a u l in g o i n g into his final b a t d e , k n o w i n g full w e l l , f r o m the p r o p h e c y o f S a m u e l , t h a t h e is d e s t i n e d t o p e r i s h in it. J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s , e v e n b e y o n d the B i b l e , S a u l ' s q u a l i t y o f m o d e r a t i o n , w h i c h h e identifies w i t h modesty, a l t h o u g h h e is careful to a v o i d a s c r i b i n g to h i m e x t r e m e modesty, since h e r e a l i z e d t h a t s u c h a q u a l i t y w o u l d b e r e g a r d e d n e g a t i v e l y b y his p a g a n readers. W e see S a u l ' s c o n c e r n for j u s t i c e in t h a t h e first s e a r c h e s the t e r r i t o r y o f his o w n tribe b e f o r e g o i n g t h r o u g h t h a t o f the o t h e r tribes w h e n s e e k i n g his father's asses. J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s a w a y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in the B i b l e ' s p i c t u r e o f S a u l ' s piety. I n particular, h e takes c a r e to p r e s e n t a defense o f S a u l ' s s l a u g h t e r o f the A m a l e k i t e w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n , w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e offering a n aesthetic m o t i v e for his s p a r i n g the A m a l e k i t e k i n g , A g a g , a l t h o u g h h e is careful n o t t o w h i t e w a s h S a u l ' s a c t i o n c o m p l e t e l y . I n the case o f the m u r d e r o f A b i m e l e c h a n d the priests o f N o b , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s , h i m s e l f a priest, e x a g g e r a t e s S a u l ' s responsibility. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b y stressing S a u l ' s f e e l i n g o f r e m o r s e , J o s e p h u s increases the r e a d e r ' s s y m p a t h y for h i m . H e p r o t e c t s S a u l ' s r e p u t a t i o n b y s a y i n g n o t a w o r d a b o u t the sinfulness o f his suicide; i n d e e d , h e d o e s n o t e v e n raise the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r his d e a t h w a s a sui­ cide. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s stresses S a u l ' s pietas t o w a r d m e m b e r s o f his f a m i l y a n d t o w a r d his k i n s m e n generally. A s t o S a u l ' s m a d n e s s , J o s e p h u s r a t i o n a l i z e s , e x p l a i n i n g this c l i n i c a l l y as a m e d ­ ical disorder. In the c a s e o f S a u l ' s j e a l o u s y o f D a v i d , J o s e p h u s takes m e a s u r e s to di­ m i n i s h this, n o t a b l y b y o m i t t i n g the s c e n e in w h i c h S a u l seeks to kill D a v i d w h i l e the latter is p l a y i n g his h a r p . J o s e p h u s likewise e m p h a s i z e s t h a t S a u l , in his p u r s u i t o f D a v i d , w a s not really aware o f w h a t he w a s doing.

C H A P T E R

F I F T E E N

David

I n J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n t h e r e is a l m o s t n o figure, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f M o s e s himself, w h o is o f g r e a t e r i m p o r t a n c e t h a n D a v i d , n o t o n l y b e c a u s e his b i b l i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y is s o c h a r m i n g b u t a l s o b e c a u s e h e is r e g a r d e d as t h e a u t h o r o f t h e B o o k o f P s a l m s (Baba Batra 14b) (see S a r n a 1 9 7 1 , 1 3 : 1 3 1 3 - 1 4 ) , w h i c h h a s p r o v e n so p o p u l a r ,

and,

a b o v e a l l , b e c a u s e h e is s a i d t o b e t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h (see F l u s s e r 1 9 7 1 b ) . A n d y e t , J o s e p h u s , i n his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e B i b l e i n t h e Jewish Antiquities, w a s c o n ­ fronted w i t h a d i l e m m a w h e n h e c a m e to the personality o f D a v i d .

1

O n the o n e

h a n d , D a v i d e x e m p l i f i e d so m a n y o f t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t w o u l d a p p e a l t o his p a g a n a u d i e n c e i n his a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d t h e J e w s a g a i n s t t h e c h a r g e s o f t h e i r c a l u m n i a ­ tors. B u t , o n the other h a n d , J o s e p h u s

himself w a s descended from the

Has-

m o n e a n kings r a t h e r t h a n from the line o f D a v i d ; a n d , moreover, a n y reference to D a v i d as t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h m i g h t w e l l h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e R o ­ 2

m a n s as e n c o u r a g i n g r e v o l t , s i n c e t h e m e s s i a h w a s g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as a p o l i t i -

1. T h e r e has been nothing even approaching a full-length study o f Josephus's portrait o f D a v i d . T h e only treatments thus far have been v e r y brief summaries in R a p p a p o r t 1930, 4 9 - 5 5 (which simply lists, in a far from exhaustive fashion, but citing rabbinic parallels in several instances, a n u m b e r o f places w h e r e Josephus departs from the Bible); H o l l a d a y 1977, 75-77; Wojcik 1980, 22-25; a n d D a n i e l 1981, 79-80. M o s t recendy, Villalba i V a r n e d a 1986, 268-71, simply lists the passages w h e r e Josephus adds to, omits from, or otherwise modifies the biblical account, without explaining w h y he does so in each instance. N o n e o f these accounts even notes, let alone tries to explain, the relatively diminished importance o f D a v i d in Josephus. T h e typical point o f view seems to b e that Josephus's account o f D a v i d contains litde that is noteworthy, as B e n t w i c h 1914, 157, asserts. 2. N e u s n e r 1984 argues that the messiah concept is insignificant in most early rabbinic works; yet this m a y b e d u e to the general eagerness o f the rabbis not to provoke the R o m a n s into abrogating the special privileges enjoyed b y the Jews. I f so, Josephus w o u l d b e in accord with this rabbinic trend; a n d this w o u l d b e explained b y his desire not to offend his R o m a n benefactors, since a messiah, ipso facto, implied revolt against R o m e with a v i e w to establishing an independent state. A s to whether these mes­ sianic expectations were avoided or, m o r e likely, suppressed in the composition o f the M i s h n a h , it 537

538

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

3

c a l l e a d e r w h o w o u l d reestablish a n i n d e p e n d e n t J e w i s h state. H e n c e , w e c a n u n ­ d e r s t a n d t h e d e l i b e r a t e a m b i g u i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o m m e n t t h a t " D a n i e l also w r o t e a b o u t t h e e m p i r e o f the R o m a n s a n d t h a t it [ a m b i g u o u s ] w o u l d b e d e s o l a t e d b y t h e m [ a m b i g u o u s ] " (Ant. 10.276). I n o r d e r n o t to offend the R o m a n s , h e c r y p t i c a l l y says t h a t h e d o e s n o t t h i n k it p r o p e r to e x p l a i n the m e a n i n g o f the stone in D a n . 2 : 3 4 - 3 5 , 4 5 , " s i n c e I a m e x p e c t e d to w r i t e o f w h a t is p a s t a n d d o n e a n d n o t o f w h a t is to b e " (Ant. 10. 210). T h e stone, as M a r c u s 1 9 3 4 - 3 7 , 6:175, n. c, h a s c o m m e n t e d , w a s r e g a r d e d in a n c i e n t J e w i s h e x e g e s i s as a s y m b o l o f the m e s s i a h , w h o w o u l d p u t a n e n d t o the R o m a n E m p i r e (Ant. 10.210).

4

I n fact, J o s e p h u s n e v e r m e n t i o n s D a v i d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the m e s s i a h . H e is c o n t e n t to s a y m e r e l y t h a t D a v i d ' s h o u s e will b e g l o r i o u s a n d r e n o w n e d (Ant. 7.94). W h e r e a s in the b i b l i c a l text, the p r o p h e t N a t h a n assures D a v i d t h a t G - d will es­ tablish the t h r o n e o f his k i n g d o m f o r e v e r (2 S a m . 7:31; 1 C h r o n . 17:12), J o s e p h u s says m e r e l y that D a v i d r e j o i c e d g r e a d y to k n o w t h a t the r o y a l p o w e r w o u l d r e m a i n w i t h his d e s c e n d a n t s , w i t h n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t this w o u l d b e f o r e v e r (Ant. 7.94). I n contrast, J o s e p h u s ' s p r e s u m e d

c o n t e m p o r a r y P s e u d o - P h i l o r e m a r k s that

the

p r o p h e t S a m u e l , m i s t a k e n l y t h i n k i n g t h a t E l i a b , the oldest s o n o f Jesse, w a s the o n e to b e a n o i n t e d k i n g , d e c l a r e s , " B e h o l d , the h o l y o n e , t h e a n o i n t e d o f the L - r d " (sanctus christus=meshiah

ha-qadosh),

c l e a r l y referring t o h i m as m e s s i a h , 5

" a n o i n t e d " (Bib. Ant. 59.2), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s a v o i d s the w o r d

xpioros.

E v e n in t e r m s o f s h e e r l e n g t h o f his a c c o u n t , w e c a n see t h a t J o s e p h u s h a s s o m e w h a t d e e m p h a s i z e d D a v i d , as c o m p a r e d w i t h S a u l , in t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f the 6

n a r r a t i v e d e a l i n g o n l y w i t h D a v i d . M o s t significant, w e m a y n o t e t h a t J o s e p h u s ' s

should be recalled that the M i s h n a h is primarily a codification o f law, and hence such discussion w o u l d really be a digression in it. 3. For a s u m m a r y o f rabbinic views on messianic expectations, see Blidstein 1971, 11:1410-12. 4. Josephus could not agree with the rabbinic picture o f an eschatological D a v i d w h o , in the days to come, w o u l d be the viceroy o f the messiah, likewise n a m e d D a v i d (Sanhedrin 98b), let alone o f a D a v i d w h o w o u l d live forever (Midrash Psalms 5.52, 57.298, 75.340; 2 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 45.125). 5. T h e r e can be n o doubt that the n a m e o f D a v i d was b y Josephus's time intimately connected with the messianic age. A l r e a d y the prophet H o s e a declares that "afterward shall the children o f Israel return a n d seek the L - r d their G - d a n d D a v i d their king" (3:5). T h e very fact that M a t t h e w (1:1-17) a n d L u k e (3:23-38), contemporaries o f Josephus's, trace the ancestry o f Jesus qua messiah back to D a v i d is a strong indication that such a g e n e a l o g y was expected for a messiah as a matter o f course by this time. Indeed, the messianic concept is almost never mentioned without adding a reference to the k i n g d o m o f the house o f D a v i d , so that the appellative "son o f D a v i d , " or even " D a v i d " itself, b e c o m e s almost the personal n a m e o f the messiah. W e m a y call attention, in particular, to the words o f R a b b i J u d a h the Prince at the end o f the second century, presumably reflecting an older and popular tradi­ tion: " D a v i d , king o f Israel, is alive a n d vigorous" (Rosh Hashanah 25a). 6. T h u s , he has 1,153 lines o f G r e e k in the L o e b text in his version o f the story o f Saul alone (Ant. 6.45-156, 250-70, 327-50, 368-78) as c o m p a r e d with 427 lines in the H e b r e w a n d 673 lines in the Rahlfs edition o f the Septuagint (1935), giving a ratio o f 2.70:1 for Josephus as opposed to the H e b r e w and 1:71:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is 2

J

1.58:1). O n the other hand, for D a v i d alone (Ant. 6.157-92, 224-34, 239-49, 7 5 292-309, 3 2 1 - 2 6 , 351-67,7.394), Josephus has 3,330 lines, as opposed to 1,570 in the H e b r e w a n d 2,478 in the Septuagint,

DAVID

539

e n c o m i u m for S a u l (Ant. 6.343-50) o f 55 lines is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 V t i m e s as l o n g 2

as t h a t o f D a v i d (Ant. 7 . 3 9 0 - 9 1 ) , w h i c h c o m p r i s e s 15 7 lines. 2

D e s p i t e t h e o b v i o u s s i g n i f i c a n c e o f D a v i d , as a n c e s t o r o f the m e s s i a h , for t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s t h a t s p e a r h e a d e d the J e w i s h r e v o l t a g a i n s t the R o m a n s , J o s e p h u s , o b v i o u s l y sensitive t o a c h a r g e o f disloyalty if h e w e r e to m e n t i o n t h e in­ f l u e n c e o f t h e m e s s i a n i c i d e a , totally suppresses t h e m e s s i a n i c a s p e c t o f t h e revolt a n d refers t o D a v i d o n l y i n f r e q u e n d y in the Jewish

War, n o t i n g m e r e l y D a v i d ' s

w e a l t h (War 1.61); t h e fact t h a t h e w a s the father o f S o l o m o n , the first b u i l d e r o f t h e T e m p l e (War 5.137) ( i m p l y i n g t h a t S o l o m o n is m o r e f a m o u s ) ; t h e fact t h a t h e a n d S o l o m o n built t h e first w a l l o f J e r u s a l e m (War 5.143); a n d t h e i n c i d e n t in w h i c h D a v i d e x p e l l e d t h e C a n a a n i t e p o p u l a t i o n o f J e r u s a l e m a n d e s t a b l i s h e d his o w n p e o p l e t h e r e (War 6.439).

DAVID IN PHILO, RABBINIC L I T E R A T U R E , AND PAGAN L I T E R A T U R E In contrast to Josephus's d o w n g r a d i n g o f David's importance, w e m a y note that P h i l o , w h o g e n e r a l l y h a s v e r y little to s a y a b o u t the b o o k s o f t h e B i b l e o t h e r t h a n t h e P e n t a t e u c h , elevates h i m , r e f e r r i n g to h i m n o t m e r e l y as o n e o f t h e disciples (yvwpLfjLOL) o f M o s e s (De Confusione Linguarum 11.39) (iraipoi,

a

n

d as o n e o f his c o m p a n i o n s

De Somniis 2 . 3 7 . 2 4 5 ) — w o r d s that, as G o o d e n o u g h ( 1 9 5 3 - 6 8 , 9:94) h a s

n o t e d , P h i l o c o m m o n l y uses in a n a l l e g o r i c a l s e n s e — b u t as a m e m b e r o f t h e i n n e r circle o f M o s e s , a diaodjrrjs g u i l d (dlaoos),

(De Plantatione 9.39) a n d h e n c e a m e m b e r o f t h e m y s t i c

a t e r m also u s e d , in particular, o f d e v o t e e s o f D i o n y s u s in their r e v ­

els. F o r P h i l o (ibid.), D a v i d in his P s a l m s w a s m o v e d to a n e c s t a s y o f h e a v e n l y a n d d i v i n e l o v e (ovpdviov

Kal Beiov epcora), w h i l e his w h o l e m i n d w a s s n a t c h e d u p in

h o l y f r e n z y (otorpos,

"insane passion," "madness," a t e r m used o f the B a c c h i c

M a e n a d s ) (Euripides, Bacchae 665) b y a d i v i n e possession (dela Karoxrj), w h e r e i n h e f o u n d his g l a d n e s s in G - d a l o n e . I n d e e d , P h i l o refers to D a v i d as term that means "more than h u m a n " deaireaios

fleoWaio?,

a

(De Plantatione 7.29) (see L S J , 7 9 5 , s.v.

II).

I n e v e n g r e a t e r c o n t r a s t to J o s e p h u s , the r a b b i s e l e v a t e D a v i d to t h e p o i n t w h e r e R a b b i A k i v a , a y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus's, declares that o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , D a v i d will sit o n a t h r o n e a d j a c e n t to t h a t o f G - d

(Sanhedrin

38b). E v e n his p u p i l Y o s e b e n H a l a f t a protests, s a y i n g , " A k i v a , h o w l o n g w i l l y o u p r o f a n e t h e S h e c h i n a h ? " (i.e., b y p l a c i n g a h u m a n b e i n g side b y side w i t h G - d ) . A

thus giving a ratio of 2.12:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Hebrew, a n d 1.34:1 for Josephus as opposed to the Septuagint (the ratio o f the Septuagint to the Hebrew is again 1.58:1). For the passages that in­ volve both Saul and David (Ant. 6.192-223, 235-38, 272-91, 310-20, 7.1-6), there are 508 lines in Jose­ phus, 260 lines in the Hebrew, a n d 402 in the Septuagint, thus giving ratios o f 1.95:1 for Josephus as against the H e b r e w and 1.26:1 for Josephus as against the Septuagint (the ratio of the Septuagint to the H e b r e w is almost exacdy the same as in the Saul pericope: 1.55:1).

540

JOSEPHUS'S

BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

late a g g a d a , p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d u p o n a n o l d e r tradition, h a s a s c e n a r i o w h e r e i n o n the D a y o f J u d g m e n t , at a g r e a t b a n q u e t p r e p a r e d b y G - d for the r i g h t e o u s , G - d offers the w i n e c u p for the r e c i t a t i o n o f g r a c e successively to A b r a h a m , I s a a c , J a c o b , M o s e s , a n d J o s h u a , e a c h o f w h o m d e c l a r e s h i m s e l f u n w o r t h y o f the h o n o r b e c a u s e o f sins h e h a s c o m m i t t e d . Finally, G - d t u r n s to D a v i d , w h o a c c e p t s the h o n o r (Beth Hamidrash

[ed. Jellinek] 5 . 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 6.25-26]). H e n c e , w e see t h a t e s c h a -

t o l o g i c a l l y at least a c c o r d i n g to this tradition, D a v i d , despite his c r u e l t y t o w a r d the M o a b i t e s a n d the A m m o n i t e s , w h o m h e m a d e to pass t h r o u g h b r i c k kilns a n d u n d e r saws a n d a x e s o f i r o n (2 S a m . 12:31), a n d t o w a r d the sons o f R i z p a h , w h o m h e d e l i v e r e d to the G i b e o n i t e s to b e h a n g e d (2 S a m . 21:9), a n d despite, o f c o u r s e , the affair w i t h B a t h s h e b a (2 S a m . 1 1 : 2 - 2 7 ) , a p p e a r s to o c c u p y a p o s i t i o n s u p e r i o r e v e n to t h a t o f M o s e s himself. I n the T a l m u d , R a b b i H u n a (third c e n t u r y ) p o i n t s o u t t h a t S a u l s i n n e d o n l y o n c e , w h e r e a s D a v i d s i n n e d t w i c e (in b e i n g r e s p o n s i b l e for the d e a t h o f U r i a h a n d in t a k i n g a census), a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o the t h i r d - c e n t u r y R a v , e v e n a t h i r d t i m e (in listening to the evil reports o f Z i b a a g a i n s t M e p h i b o s h e t h ) (Yoma 22b); a n d y e t these sins d i d n o t c a u s e his d o w n f a l l . P a g a n writers, o n the o t h e r h a n d , like J o s e p h u s , w e r e r e l u c t a n t to e n h a n c e the i m p o r t a n c e o f D a v i d . I n d e e d , w e find o n l y t h r e e e x t a n t references t o K i n g D a v i d in p a g a n w r i t e r s b e f o r e the s p r e a d o f Christianity, n a m e l y , in A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r in the first c e n t u r y B.C.E. (ap. C l e m e n t , Stromata, 1.21.130.3), w h o m e n t i o n s a T y r i a n a r c h i t e c t n a m e d H y p e r o n , w h o w a s b o r n o f a J u d a e a n m o t h e r o f the tribe o f D a v i d ; in N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s (ap. J o s e p h u s , Ant. 7.101), w h o r e m a r k s t h a t A d a d o s ( B e n - h a d a d ) , the r u l e r o f D a m a s c u s , w a g e d w a r a g a i n s t D a v i d ; a n d a g a i n in N i c o l a u s (ap. Ant. 1 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 3 ) , w h o n o t e s t h a t H e r o d o p e n e d D a v i d ' s t o m b in o r d e r to take the w e a l t h that w a s b u r i e d there. E v e n in these t h r e e references, it will b e n o t e d , t h e r e is n o t h i n g said in p r a i s e o r defense o f D a v i d , despite the fact t h a t b o t h A l e x a n d e r P o l y h i s t o r a n d N i c o l a u s h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w l e d g e o f the J e w s a n d o f 7

J e w i s h h i s t o r y a n d g e n e r a l l y l o o k e d u p o n t h e m w i t h favor. I n t h e c a s e o f N i c o l a u s , s u c h n e g l e c t m a y b e b e c a u s e N i c o l a u s w a s s e c r e t a r y to K i n g H e r o d the G r e a t , w h o s e n o n - D a v i d i c d e s c e n t surely r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t his l e g i t i m a c y as a J e w ­ ish ruler. It is significant, in this c o n n e c t i o n , that w h e n H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.3) refers to the f o u n d i n g o f J e r u s a l e m , h e m e n t i o n s , n o t D a v i d , w h o w a s the figure responsible, a c c o r d i n g t o the B i b l e , for the c o n q u e s t o f J e r u s a l e m , but Moses.

DAVID'S QUALITIES A s in his portraits o f o t h e r b i b l i c a l figures, J o s e p h u s builds u p D a v i d b y n o t i n g his g e n e a l o g y , his a p p e a r a n c e , his w e a l t h , a n d his possession o f the four c a r d i n a l

7. A l e x a n d e r

Polyhistor wrote a Tlepi

'IovSaicav: for the fragments a n d discussion, see Stern

1974-84, 1:157-64. O n Nicolaus's knowledge o f the Jews, see W a c h o l d e r 1962 and Stern 1974-84, 1:227-60.

DAVID

541

v i r t u e s — w i s d o m , c o u r a g e , t e m p e r a n c e , a n d j u s t i c e — , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e fifth v i r t u e , piety, as w e l l as hospitality, generosity, a n d gratefulness. T o r o u n d o u t his p o r t r a i t , J o s e p h u s d e p i c t s D a v i d as a p o e t . It is significant t h a t i n t h e b i b l i c a l v e r s i o n , w h e n S a m u e l is t o l d t o select a k i n g f r o m a m o n g t h e sons o f Jesse t o t a k e t h e p l a c e o f S a u l , G - d d e c l a r e s t h a t h e h a s r e j e c t e d Jesse's eldest s o n , a l t h o u g h S a m u e l ' s first i n c l i n a t i o n w a s t o select h i m , b e ­ c a u s e w h e r e a s m e n l o o k a t t h e o u t e r a p p e a r a n c e , G - d sees t h e h e a r t (1 S a m . 16:7). I n J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e o f this p a s s a g e , G - d states t h a t h e is s e e k i n g o n e w h o is d i s t i n g u i s h e d i n p i e t y (evoefteia), j u s t i c e (oiKaioavvrj),

fortitude (dvSpela), a n d o b e ­

d i e n c e (7T£i0c6), o f w h i c h qualities b e a u t y o f soul ( T O rrjs iftvxrjs . . .

KOLXXOS)

consists

(Ant. 6.160).

Genealogy T h e g r e a t h e r o m u s t b e w e l l - b o r n . T h e r a b b i s , w e m a y n o t e , g i v e D a v i d a v e r y dis­ t i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:82), t r a c i n g his l i n e a g e b a c k t o M i r i a m (Sifre Numbers 78); t o O t h n i e l , t h e first j u d g e i n Israel (ibid.); a n d t o B o a z , w h o is identified w i t h I b z a n , t h e j u d g e o f B e t h l e h e m (Baba Batra 91a). H i s g r a n d ­ father O b e d d e v o t e d his life totally t o t h e s e r v i c e o f G - d , h e n c e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ­ ness o f his n a m e , " s e r v a n t . " B u t J o s e p h u s is careful t o soft-pedal D a v i d ' s g e n e a l ­ ogy, so t h a t w h e n h e tells t h e story o f R u t h , w h e r e a s t h e B i b l e says m e r e l y t h a t O b e d b e g a t Jesse a n d t h a t Jesse b e g a t D a v i d ( R u t h 4:22), J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s t h e p a s s a g e j u s t e n o u g h t o g i v e D a v i d a d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n c e s t r y b u t w i t h o u t stressing it unduly. H e n c e , his s t a t e m e n t is: " O f O b e d w a s b o r n Jesse, a n d o f h i m D a v i d , w h o b e c a m e k i n g a n d b e q u e a t h e d his d o m i n i o n t o his p o s t e r i t y for t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r ­ a t i o n s " (Ant. 5.336), p r e s u m a b l y i n o r d e r t o i n d i c a t e t h a t D a v i d ' s line w o u l d e n d after t w e n t y - o n e g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t e x p e c t a r e n e w a l o f the line thereafter. A s t o D a v i d ' s father, Jesse, h e is d e p i c t e d in r a b b i n i c literature, i n a v i e w a s c r i b e d a l t e r n a t e l y t o t h e s e c o n d - c e n t u r y Palestinian O s h a i a h o r t h e fourthc e n t u r y B a b y l o n i a n R a v a a n d Z e v i d , as o n e o f the greatest s c h o l a r s o f his t i m e a n d as o n e o f t h e four w h o d i e d free o f all sin (Berakot 58a; Shabbat 55b). J o s e p h u s m i g h t , like t h e G o s p e l o f L u k e (3:23-38), h a v e t r a c e d D a v i d ' s l i n e a g e b a c k t o A d a m o r , like t h e G o s p e l o f M a t t h e w ( 1 : 1 - 1 7 ) , t o A b r a h a m , o r at least t o J u d a h ; b u t J o s e p h u s carefully a v o i d s d o i n g s o , p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e it w o u l d h a v e i m p l i e d t h a t D a v i d w a s t h e a n c e s t o r o f t h e m e s s i a h . I n fact, J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o e m p h a s i z e , rather, t h e m o d e s t o r i g i n s o f D a v i d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t his w h o l e p u r p o s e i n i n c l u d i n g t h e story o f R u t h i n a h i s t o r i c a l w o r k , t o w h i c h t h e story w o u l d s e e m t o h a v e little r e l e v a n c e , is to s h o w h o w e a s y it is for G - d t o p r o m o t e e v e n o r d i n a r y (eTrirvxdvras)

folk, s p r u n g

f r o m s u c h m o d e s t ancestry, t o a r a n k as illustrious as t h a t t o w h i c h H e r a i s e d David. J o s e p h u s ' s d o w n g r a d i n g o f D a v i d m a y b e s e e n in t h e e p i t h e t nak,

"child,"

" l a d , " w h i c h h e uses o f h i m a t t h e t i m e o f his a n o i n t i n g b y S a m u e l (Ant. 6.164). T h i s is in c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e r a b b i n i c v i e w t h a t D a v i d w a s t w e n t y - e i g h t at t h a t t i m e

542

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL

PORTRAITS

(Seder Olam 12) (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 6:248, n. 18). T h e w o r d irais c o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t D a v i d w a s a slave, a m e a n i n g it h a s in t h e War (1.82 [bis] a n d 1.340) a n d t e n t i m e s in t h e Antiquities,

i n c l u d i n g 7.330 (in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h D a v i d ' s servants), as

w e l l as o n c e in the Life (223), a l t h o u g h it s h o u l d b e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w o r d a p ­ p e a r s 98 t i m e s in t h e War, 762 t i m e s in the Antiquities, a n d 20 t i m e s in the Life in the 8

sense o f c h i l d . W h e n S a u l seeks s o m e o n e t o c u r e his disorder, the H e b r e w speaks o f D a v i d as a m a n o f v a l o r a n d a m a n o f w a r (1 S a m . 16:18), w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s d e ­ scribes h i m as a m e r e b o y (eri irais) in y e a r s (Ant. 6.167), a l t h o u g h a short t i m e later, in a n e x t r a b i b l i c a l a d d i t i o n , h e is d e s c r i b e d as a y o u t h (veavloKos) (Ant. 6.194). Appearance J o s e p h u s c o n s t a n d y stresses, in several e x t r a b i b l i c a l p a s s a g e s , t h e h a n d s o m e n e s s o f his h e r o e s . I n i n t r o d u c i n g D a v i d , the H e b r e w says t h a t h e w a s r u d d y

('ademoni),

c

w i t h beautiful eyes (yefeh einayim), a n d g o o d l y (tov) t o l o o k u p o n (1 S a m . 16:12). T h e S e p t u a g i n t r e n d e r s the w o r d " r u d d y " b y irvppaKrjs,

"fiery r e d " ; J o s e p h u s , in his

p a r a p h r a s e , s p e a k s o f D a v i d as a c h i l d as b e i n g r u d d y (gavdos,

actually "yellow,"

w i t h a t i n g e o f r e d ; "fair," " g o l d e n " ) in skin (xpodv), w i t h eyes t h a t w e r e p i e r c i n g (yopyos,

" g r i m , " " f i e r c e , " " t e r r i b l e , " a t e r m u s e d b y A e s c h y l u s , Seven against Thebes

537, a n d E u r i p i d e s , Phoenissae 146, w i t h r e f e r e n c e to P a r t h e n o p a e u s , the s o n o f M e l e a g e r a n d A t a l a n t a , w h o w a s o n e o f the h e r o e s w h o m a r c h e d a g a i n s t T h e b e s ) 9

(Ant. 6 . 1 6 4 ) . J o s e p h u s p e r h a p s uses £ a v 0 o V ° h e r e t o r e m i n d r e a d e r s o f E s a u ' s n i c k ­ n a m e E d o m ("red"), w h i c h , in fact, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s in t e r m s o f the " t a w n y " (£av96s) p o t t a g e t h a t J a c o b g a v e h i m in e x c h a n g e for his rights as

firstborn

son

(Ant. 2.2 a n d 3). H e n c e , far f r o m a s s o c i a t i n g D a v i d w i t h the m e s s i a h w h o will o v e r ­ t h r o w the R o m a n E m p i r e , J o s e p h u s m a y r a t h e r b e c o n n e c t i n g D a v i d w i t h R o m e , w h i c h w a s itself said to b e identified w i t h E s a u o r E d o m .

1 1

T h e use o f the a d j e c -

8. T h e first occurrence o f nais in extant literature, according to LSJ, s.v. I l l , with the m e a n i n g o f "slave" or "servant" is in the fifth century B.C.E. in Aeschylus (Choephoroe 653) and in Aristophanes (Acharnians 395); and it appears with this m e a n i n g frequendy thereafter. Finley 1980, 96, remarks on the d e h u m a n i z i n g connotation o f the term, w h i c h h a d its counterpart in the term " b o y " in the South o f the United States. Aristophanes (Wasps 1297-98, 1307), as he notes, invents an e t y m o l o g y for this term from the w o r d iraUiv, "to beat," a j o k e that points to a harsh reality. See G i b b s and Feldman 1985-86, 295-96. A c c o r d i n g to an u n k n o w n midrash, quoted b y Talqut ha-Makiri, Ps. 118.28 (p. 214, ed. Buber), cited by G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:246, n. 11, w h e n Jesse sought to have relations with one o f his slaves, his o w n wife disguised herself as the slave; and the child thus born, namely, D a v i d , was given out to be the son o f the freed slave. 9. T h e w o r d yopyos is found, in a doubtful reading, in Euripides (Supplicants, 322), where it refers to the fierce look o f the G o r g o n s , w h o turn people to stone with their gaze. 10. W e m a y here note that £avQ6s is used by Josephus only for Esau, D a v i d , and (Ant. 4.79) the red heifer. H e n c e , the association with Esau is veritably unique. 11. T h e identification o f E d o m and R o m e in extant literature goes b a c k at least to the second cen­ tury (Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 7.11, ed. M a n d e l b a u m , p. 134). T h e identification o f Esau with R o m e like­ wise goes back, at least so far as extant literature is concerned, to the middle o f the second century (Jerusalem T a l m u d , 7 a W V 4 . 8 . 6 8 d ; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 65.21, 67.7).

DAVID

543

tive ^avdos m a y also, in the m i n d of the literate reader, serve to associate David with the heroes o f Homer's two great epics, inasmuch as Achilles h a d tawny h a i r (Iliad 1.197, 23.141), as did Odysseus (Odyssey 13.399, 4 3 1 ) .

12

Wealth In addition to handsome appearance, another requisite quality of a hero, such as a M i d a s o r an Oedipus, was the possession of wealth. O n e of the stock anti-Jewish charges was that the J e w s w e r e a nation of beggars. Josephus is therefore espe­ cially concerned to answer this charge. Thus, whereas the Bible declares simply that David smote the Philistines a n d says nothing about his plundering them (2 Sam. 5:25), Josephus specifies that w h e n David plundered the Philistines' camp, he found in it great wealth (Ant. 7.77). In his final s u m m a r y of David's virtues, J o s e ­ phus declares that he left behind such wealth as no other king, w h e t h e r of the He­ brews o r of other nations, ever did (Ant. 7.391). Moreover, in one of the few refer­ ences to David in the Jewish

War (1.61), he declares that K i n g J o h n Hyrcanus

opened the t o m b of David, "wealthiest of kings," a n d extracted therefrom 3,000 talents. A similar statement is found in Josephus's version of the same story in the Antiquities (13.249), w h e r e it is said that David "surpassed all other kings in wealth." Wisdom O n e of the charges against the J e w s was that they h a d contributed no useful in­ ventions for mankind (Apollonius M o l o n , ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148). In reply, Josephus underscores David's possession of the first of the cardinal virtues, wisdom (Ant. 7.158), in an addition to the biblical text that cites David's strange behavior in fasting while his child was sick, but bathing a n d eating after the child h a d died (2 Sam.

12:23). After quoting David's explanation that n o w that the child was dead,

there was no w a y that he could bring him back to life again, Josephus adds: "At these words they [the people] praised the king's wisdom [oocfrla] a n d understand­ ing" (SidvoLa, "thinking faculty," "intelligence," "sagacity," which Plato [Republic 6.51 i D ] identifies with the geometrical o r mathematical state o f mind, the second highest degree of knowledge). T h e latter t e r m is the same w o r d that Josephus uses with respect to Saul (Ant. 6.45), just as it is the quality that David prays that his son a n d successor S o l o m o n m a y have (Ant. 7.381). Hence, w e see that the same w o r d , Sidvoia, is used by Josephus with regard to all three great kings—Saul, David, a n d Solomon. O n e of the marks o f a great statesman, as w e see, for example, in Thucydides'

12. Perhaps Josephus's substitution of ^avdos for the Septuagint's TTvppdKiqs was because he wanted to avoid associating D a v i d with the shedding o f blood, since, according to rabbinic tradition (see G i n z b e r g 1909-38, 6:247, - 3)J David's ruddy complexion indicated that he was destined to shed blood. Consequendy, the prophet Samuel was terrified when he beheld the "red" David, w h o m he sur­ mised to b e a second Esau. n

j

544

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

portrait of Pericles (2.65.5), is his ability to foresee (irpovovs) the future. David, too, is described as being most apt in perceiving (vorjoai) a n d understanding (ovviSeiv) the course o f future events (Ant. 7.391). David's quality of irpovoia ("watchful care" o r "foresight") has particular significance, because Josephus usually employs the t e r m with reference to G - d ' s providence; a n d hence one has h e r e a case of imitatio D-i

on the p a r t o f D a v i d (see C h a r l e s w o r t h 1 9 3 6 , 1 0 7 - 3 2 ) . T h u s , whereas the

Bible states that David's m e n w e r e v e r y good to Nabal's m e n (1 S a m . 25:15), J o s e ­ phus not only amplifies David's instructions to his m e n by adding that he told t h e m not to h a r m his flocks, in the belief that he was obliging a good m a n a n d one w o r t h y of such forethought (irpovoia) (Ant. 6.296); but he also adds a second time that D a v i d showed complete foresight (irpovoia) t o w a r d Nabal's shepherds (Ant. 6.300). J o s e p h u s adds to the Bible (2 S a m . 3 . 3 6 - 3 9 ) that David's c o n c e r n to show respect to A b n e r after the latter h a d been treacherously slain gave each of the peo­ ple grounds to think that he, too, w o u l d receive the same forethought (irpovoia) that the corpse o f A b n e r h a d received (Ant. 7.43). Moreover, J o s e p h u s adds that after Absalom's ill-fated rebellion, the rebels b l a m e d themselves because they h a d not appealed to D a v i d to abate his anger a n d to show the same foresight (irpovoia) in their b e h a l f that h e h a d previously displayed (Ant. 7.259). Finally, w h e n David, j u s t before his death, gives his charge to his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n , Josephus, in his p a r a p h r a s e of 1 K i n g s 2:7, states that D a v i d instructed S o l o m o n to hold the sons o f Barzilai in all h o n o r a n d care (irpovoia) (Ant. 7.387). A n d yet, as noted, D a v i d is not praised unduly by Josephus. T h u s , in an extra­ biblical addition, w h e n G - d tells the p r o p h e t S a m u e l w h a t qualities to look for in the king, David, w h o is about to be anointed, He lists piety (evoefteia), (SiKaioovvrj),

justice

fortitude (dv8p€ia), a n d obedience (ireiOa)), "qualities w h e r e o f beauty

o f soul consists" (Ant. 6.160). A g a i n , in the Bible, w h e n S a u l seeks out someone to cure his disorder, one of his y o u n g m e n mentions that he h a d seen a son o f Jesse, that is, David, a n d proceeds to describe h i m as "skillful in playing, a n d a mighty m a n of valor, a n d a m a n of w a r a n d p r u d e n t in affairs [lit., skillful in speech], a n d a comely person" (1 S a m . 16:18). J o s e p h u s , in his paraphrase, substitutes for "pru­ dent in affairs" "in other w a y s w o r t h y of regard" (Ant. 6.167). In the next sentence, w h e r e the Bible states that S a u l sent to Jesse to have him send David, his son, to h i m (1 S a m . 16:19), J o s e p h u s elaborates by having Saul state that he wishes to see David, having h e a r d o f his comeliness a n d valor, but again omitting mention of his wisdom (Ant. 6.167).

Courage T h e quality of courage is always one of the m a j o r virtues that are sine q u a n o n for the leader, while an emphasis o n military details is w h a t one w o u l d expect from one w h o h a d served as a general, such as Josephus. A s for David's courage, in a n extrabiblical addition, informing the p r o p h e t S a m u e l o f the qualities to be sought in a king, G - d , as w e have seen, lists, in w h a t

DAVID

5 4 5

is virtually a revised canon of the cardinal virtues, piety, justice, b r a v e r y (dvSpeia), a n d obedience (Ant. 6.160). J o s e p h u s magnifies David's victory over the giant G o ­ liath by accentuating the terror inspired by Goliath, for whereas the Bible states m e r e l y that Goliath's spear b e a r e r w e n t before him (1 S a m . 17:7), J o s e p h u s de­ clares that m a n y followed him, c a r r y i n g his a r m o r (Ant. 6.171). W h e r e a s the Bible offers n o explanation as to w h y D a v i d was not in the c a m p with Saul at the time w h e n Goliath hurled his challenge (1 S a m . 1 7 : 1 2 - 1 8 ) , J o s e p h u s carefully explains that the reason was that Saul h a d sent him a w a y to his father u p o n the outbreak of the war, being content with the latter's three sons, w h o m Jesse h a d dispatched to share the dangers of the campaign (Ant. 6.175). W h e r e a s in the Bible, David, ac­ cepting the challenge to fight Goliath, says simply, "Let n o man's h e a r t fail within him; thy servant will go and fight with the Philistine" (1 S a m . 17:32), Josephus's D a v i d has a n elaborate speech w o r t h y of a Homeric hero, in which he declares that he will bring d o w n the presumption (aXa^ovela) mighty

(vifjrjXov) giant before him,

(KaTayeXaoTos)

(Ant. 6 . 1 7 9 - 8 0 ) .

13

of the foe by throwing the

so that he will b e c o m e a

laughingstock

Like the true hero, D a v i d enters u p o n his c o m b a t

with n o expectation of r e w a r d , w h e t h e r m o n e t a r y o r personal (the g r a n t of the king's daughter in marriage), as is cited by Saul's m e n in the biblical version (1 Sam.

17:25).

J o s e p h u s , in an extrabiblical detail, indicates that David's goal in rushing (op/jLTjois) to fulfill Saul's m a n d a t e to bring a h u n d r e d foreskins (1 S a m . 18:25) h u n d r e d heads (Ant. 6.197) of the Philistines was to win r e n o w n (KXCOS) ardous a n d incredible (irapafioXos

o

r

s

^

for a h a z ­

Kal aTnoros) exploit (Ant. 6.198), the v e r y same

type of goal about which Achilles was singing w h e n the embassy came to t r y to persuade h i m to reenter the fighting against the Trojans (Iliadg.iSgiKXea

avopcov).

Indeed, in the case of David's rescue of the inhabitants of K e i l a h , Scripture says simply that D a v i d saved them (1 S a m . 23:5); but J o s e p h u s enlarges u p o n this by stating that the exploit a n d its success did not remain confined to those w h o h a d witnessed them, but that the fame (rjpLrj) of it was noised a b r o a d (Ant. 6.272). J o s e ­ phus, in a n extrabiblical addition, states that Saul knew the mettle (p6vr}pia, "mentality," "bravery," "courage," "high spirit") a n d h a r d i h o o d (evroXpula, "hero­ ism," "determination," "bravery") of D a v i d (Ant. 6.250). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d inquires of G - d twice w h e t h e r to go to battle against the Philistines, inas­ much as his m e n are afraid (1 S a m . 23:3), in Josephus, as soon as G - d signifies on

13. For the literate Graeco-Roman reader, the very word "laughingstock" would have called to mind its use in Aristophanic comedy (Clouds 849, with reference to Phidippides; Frogs 480, with refer­ ence to Dionysus; Thesmophoriazusae 226, with reference to Mnesilochus). Such readers would also have recalled the use of the same word in Herodotus 8.100, where he refers to the Persians as ridiculous in the eyes of the Greeks. Likewise, the reader would have recalled another of Josephus's favorite authors, Plato, who has Socrates declare that the jury ought to feel far more disgraced to condemn a man who makes the city ridiculous than the one who holds his peace (Apology 35B). Indeed, Aristophanes, in Plato's Symposium 189B, draws a contrast between others laughing with him and becoming ridiculous in their eyes.

546

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

the first inquiry that He will grant them v i c t o r y he throws himself (i^coppurjaev) with his companions upon the Philistines (Ant. 6 . 2 7 1 - 7 2 ) . Josephus's picture of David as one whose achievements will d e m a n d great toil (TTOVOL) (Ant. 6.275) * obviously an addition to the biblical statement in which s

J o n a t h a n tells David m e r e l y that he will be king, a n d that J o n a t h a n will be next to him (1 S a m . 23:17). T h e scene is reminiscent of several passages in H o m e r w h e r e the w o r d irovog in itself signifies "batde," a n d w h e r e the phrase TTOVOV e'xeiv is equivalent to pudx^odaL, "to fight" (e.g., Iliad 6.7j; Odyssey 12.117). T h e scene also r e ­ calls Virgil's statement that it was of such great difficulty to found the R o m a n peo­ ple (Aeneid 1.33), just as it evokes Aeneas's instructions to his son Ascanius before the former's final batde with Turnus, in which he declares that his son should l e a r n manliness (virtutem) a n d true toil (verum laborem) from himself, but luck from others (Aeneid 1 2 . 4 3 5 - 3 6 ) . Josephus's David is bolder than his biblical counterpart (1 S a m . 2 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) , in that whereas the latter does not give A b n e r his name, let alone mention that he is a fugitive, after his bold exploit in entering Saul's camp, Josephus's David boldly identifies himself: "I, son of Jesse, the fugitive from you" (Ant. 6.315). O n e is r e ­ minded of Odysseus's reply to Polyphemus the Cyclops w h e n asked to identify himself after his daring exploit in putting out the eye of the Cyclops (Odyssey 9 . 3 6 4 - 6 7 ) , although Josephus's David is clearly m o r e explicit in identifying him­ self. David's b r a v e r y is correspondingly increased as that of his enemies is exagger­ ated. Thus, w e r e a d in the Bible that Abner, the general of Saul's son Ish-bosheth, "showed himself strong" (mitehazeq) (2 S a m . 3:6). In Josephus's paraphrase, A b n e r is not only strong but also clever (ovveros,

"intelligent," "bright," "sharp," "saga­

cious," "sly," "resourceful," "ingenious") a n d well-disposed (cvvovs,

"benevolent,"

"enjoying great favor") t o w a r d the populace (Ant. 7.22). W h e n David makes his pact with A b n e r (2 S a m . 3:13), in Josephus's version, he not only asks A b n e r to bring back his wife, Michal, Saul's daughter, to him, but he recalls h o w he h a d w o n her, namely, through an act of b r a v e r y in obtaining the heads of six h u n d r e d Philistines (Ant. 7.25). T h e r e is further dramatization of David's b r a v e r y in Josephus's version (Ant. 7.61)

of the biblical passage in which the Jebusites in J e r u s a l e m sarcastically p r o ­

claim that the blind and the l a m e will repel his forces (2 S a m . 5:6). In Josephus's version, the Jebusites' statement is taken literally, and they, in their sublime con­ fidence in the strength of their walls, are said to have actually placed on the wall of J e r u s a l e m those w h o h a d lost an eye o r a leg o r w e r e crippled in order to mock K i n g David (Ant. 7.61). J o s e p h u s thereupon embellishes the simple biblical state­ m e n t (2 S a m . 5:7) that David took the stronghold of Zion by stating that he dis­ played great zeal (onovbrj) a n d a r d o r (TrpoOvfila) and thus struck terror into any others w h o might conceivably t r y to treat him as the Jebusites h a d done (Ant. 7.62). David's v a l o r is increased in Josephus's account of the combat with the Philistines, inasmuch as, whereas Scripture declares v e r y simply that David smote

DAVID

547

the Philistines in Baal-Perazim (2 S a m . 5:20), J o s e p h u s has a long excursus in which he explicitly attempts to refute the view, a p p a r e n t l y widespread, that it w a s a small a r m y o f Philistines that opposed the Hebrews, a n d that, to j u d g e f r o m their failure to p e r f o r m any courageous o r n o t e w o r t h y act on this occasion, the latter showed themselves slow a n d c o w a r d l y (Ant. 7.74). In fact, says J o s e p h u s , the Philistines attacked D a v i d w i t h a n a r m y three times as large as the previous one (Ant. 7.75). A p p a r e n d y to j u d g e from David's periodic inactivity in the Bible, he w a s thought to be lazy a n d careless; a n d so Josephus, in an extrabiblical addition, forcefully declares that D a v i d decided to m a r c h against the Philistines so as to counteract the charge that he w a s idle (apyos,

"not working") o r slack (pqQvpios,

"careless," "carefree," "sluggish," "indifferent," "frivolous," "light-hearted") in his conduct of affairs (Ant. 7.96). W h e r e a s the Bible remarks simply that it c a m e to pass that D a v i d smote the Philistines (2 S a m . 8:1), J o s e p h u s has D a v i d show mili­ t a r y a c u m e n by ordering his m e n to stay in seclusion a n d equip themselves for w a r (Ant. 7.97). He decides to advance against the Philistines only w h e n he sees that they are adequately p r e p a r e d . David's success as a fighter is heightened b y the fact that J o s e p h u s goes out o f his w a y to cite Nicolaus o f Damascus's words about David's great opponent, A d a dos (Ben-hadad), the king of Syria, w h o w a g e d m a n y battles against David, the last of which w a s fought on the Euphrates, far from David's h o m e territory, w h e r e A d a d o s was defeated (Ant. 7.101). T h e fact that A d a d o s is t e r m e d b y Nicolaus the most vigorous (apioros

. . . pcbpLrj, "best in strength") a n d courageous (dvhpeia)

of

kings serves, o f course, to increase the stature o f his victorious o p p o n e n t as well. D a v i d also shows m o r e outrage in Josephus's version of the incident w h e r e his envoys to the A m m o n i t e s r e t u r n after the latter have shaven off half their beards a n d cut their garments in the middle (2 S a m . 10:5). W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d tells the m e n simply to stay in J e r u s a l e m until their beards g r o w back, Josephus's D a v i d is indignant (rfyavaKTrjae) a n d makes it plain that he will not overlook the insult (vfipis) a n d outrage (77/007777 Aa/a 07x0V, a w o r d with connotations of being be­ spattered with mud) (Ant. 7.120). J o s e p h u s also increases the b r a v e r y o f D a v i d by noting that the S y r i a n forces that opposed him consisted of 80,000 infantry a n d 10,000 cavalry (Ant. 7.127), w h e r e a s the Bible does not specify the size of the S y r i a n force (2 S a m . 10:16). Here J o s e p h u s follows his practice of giving precise n u m b e r s for the Bible's imprecise ones. O n e of the problems posed by the biblical account of D a v i d is that it is J o a b , David's general, w h o seems to m a k e the m a j o r military decisions, with a resultant loss of credit for David. For example, in the Bible, it is J o a b w h o masterminds the strategy b e h i n d the attack on the A m m o n i t e s (2 S a m . 11:20). In Josephus, however, D a v i d presents a long military critique o f Joab's plan o f attack a n d argues persua­ sively that the a r m y ought to have tried to take the enemy's city with m o u n d s a n d engines (Ant. 7 . 1 4 2 - 4 5 ) . A s things stand in the Bible, David's courage w o u l d seem to be flawed w h e n , on

548

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

the news o f the rebellion o f his son A b s a l o m , he tells his followers to flee (2 S a m . 15:14). In J o s e p h u s , David's reputation for courage is preserved b y having h i m call together his friends (who thus p r e s u m a b l y share in his decision to withdraw) a n d by entrusting the entire m a t t e r to G - d as a j u d g e (Ant. 7.199). In addition, w h e r e a s in the Bible, Hushai, David's friend, refers to D a v i d a n d his m e n as mighty (giborim) a n d to D a v i d as a m a n of w a r ('ish milhamah) (2 S a m . 17:8), an epithet used of G - d Himself in Moses' song at the S e a of Reeds (Exod. 15:3), Josephus's Hushai accentuates the military prowess of D a v i d b y referring to his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d b y acknowledging that he is a v e r y able

(iKavtoTaros)

general w h o — t h e m a r k of a true g e n e r a l — c a n foresee (TTpoihelv) the enemy's ruses (Ant. 7.217). In an extensive addition to the biblical text, Hushai then predicts that David's m e n will take h e a r t at the thought that the king is beside them, a n d that then, while the batde rages, David's sudden a p p e a r a n c e will be sufficient to inspire his m e n to face d a n g e r v a l i a n d y (Ant. 7.218). Josephus, realizing that it might well be asked w h y D a v i d himself did not p a r ­ ticipate in the batde against A b s a l o m , considerably amplifies the scriptural state­ m e n t that this w a s because the people refused to allow him to do so, on the g r o u n d that his presence w a s w o r t h ten thousand soldiers (2 S a m . 18:3). J o s e p h u s editori­ alizes b y remarking that the people's decision was v e r y wise (aocfxxjTaros) a n d b y rationalizing that if they w e r e defeated while D a v i d was present, they w o u l d lose all their hope, whereas if one p a r t o f their forces w e r e defeated a n d w e r e to fall back u p o n David, he w o u l d reinvigorate them, with the result that the e n e m y w o u l d surmise that there w a s still a n o t h e r a r m y with h i m (Ant. 7.23). A similar p r o b l e m arises concerning David's agreeing, following his n a r r o w es­ cape from the Philistine giant Ishbi-benob, to go out no longer to batde (2 S a m . 21:7). T h e Bible's reason as to w h y his m e n swear that they will not allow D a v i d to j o i n t h e m in batde henceforth is that they cannot abide the thought o f "the l a m p of Israel," that is, David, being quenched. In Josephus, it is not David's soldiers w h o thus swear but D a v i d himself w h o is forced by his c o m m a n d e r s to swear that he will never again go forth to batde; moreover, J o s e p h u s amplifies the reason w h y they do so, namely, their fear that his b r a v e r y (dvhpeia) a n d zeal (rrpodvpLia, "en­ thusiasm," "confidence," "good cheer," "eagerness to fight") will cause him to suffer some injury a n d thus deprive the people of benefits past a n d future (Ant. 7.300). In his v e r y brief s u m m a r y of David's virtues, while J o s e p h u s does declare that D a v i d possessed e v e r y virtue (apery) that should be found in a king, the one virtue o f his that he singles out for special recognition is b r a v e r y (dvhpeios) (Ant. 7.390); a n d he adds that in war, D a v i d was the first to rush into danger, encouraging his m e n not by orders but b y example. M a n y years later, the two virtues of D a v i d that his great-grandson A s a is said b y J o s e p h u s to have singled out for emulation are courage (dvhpeia) a n d piety (evoefieia) (Ant. 8.315). A n d yet, in o r d e r n o t to emphasize David's courage unduly, Josephus's S a u l makes n o m e n t i o n o f David's d a r i n g (roXpnqpos) a n d c o u r a g e (eviftvxia)

(Ant.

DAVID

549

6.181). T h e J o s e p h a n David, to be sure, is a m o r e dashing h e r o than he is in the Bible, as w e can see in Josephus's statement that w h e n the lion rose against D a v i d , the latter lifted him by the tail (rather than b y the b e a r d , as in 1 S a m . 17:35), a n d killed h i m by smashing (irpoap^as)

him u p o n the g r o u n d (Ant. 6.182),

r a t h e r than, as the H e b r e w text has it, by m e r e l y "smiting him" (ve-hikitiv). O n the o t h e r h a n d , Saul, in an addition to the Bible (1 S a m . 17:37), p r a y s that David's zeal (irpoQvpiia, "enthusiasm," "confidence," "eagerness," "courage") a n d hardiness (roXpua, "courage," "daring," "boldness," "audacity") m a y be r e ­ w a r d e d by G - d (Ant. 6.184); but again this element is s o m e w h a t diminished by the fact that S a u l refers to D a v i d as a child (-rrais), a w o r d not in the H e b r e w o r in the Septuagint, a n d not implied by the Bible. A g a i n , J o s e p h u s increases the magnitude of David's v i c t o r y over G o l i a t h by adding to the biblical n a r r a t i v e (1 S a m . 17:48) the fact that Goliath, in his contempt for his opponent, c a m e at him at a slow pace, confident o f slaying, w i t h o u t a n y trouble, one w h o was u n a r m e d (Ant. 6.188); but h e r e again he calls attention to David's youthfulness by calling h i m "child" (noiis). Even w h e n David's status as a h e r o is elevated by Josephus, it is not so much for his o w n sake as to increase the d r a m a of the situation. Thus, whereas in the Bible, there is n o indication of Saul's motive in making David captain over a thousand (1 Sam. 18:13), Josephus explains that he did so because he hoped, by sending him into batde, that he w o u l d meet his death (Ant. 6.195). Here one notes a close p a r ­ allel to the motive that Josephus ascribes to Pharaoh's appointing Moses to lead a campaign against the Ethiopians—namely, that the sacred scribes of the Egyp­ tians h o p e d both to defeat their enemies and, at the same time, to do a w a y with Moses by guile (Ant. 2.243). T h e literate r e a d e r would, at this point, p r o b a b l y have been r e m i n d e d of Perseus, w h o , w h e n he stood in the w a y of his mother's m a r r i a g e with Polydectes, was sent by the latter to fetch the head of one of the G o r g o n s — a mission that Polydectes assumed w o u l d bring about his d e a t h .

14

Even w h e n J o s e p h u s recounts David's daring exploit in entering Saul's c a m p while the latter lay sleeping (1 S a m . 26:12), Josephus ascribes David's success, not only to his daring (roA/xa), but also to the favorable opportunity (Kaupos), that is, his taking advantage of the exact time a n d m o m e n t w h e n he could enter u n o b t r u ­ sively (Ant. 6 . 3 1 3 ) .

15

Notwithstanding the statement in the preface of his Antiquities (1.14) that the main lesson to be l e a r n e d from a study of his history is that those w h o obey the will of G - d prosper, while those w h o do not suffer irretrievable disasters, J o s e p h u s

14. Josephus does not, however, exaggerate David's prowess, as do the rabbis, who, for example, declare that David as a young man killed four lions and three bears in one day (Midrash Samuel 20.5) and that he could kill eight hundred men with a single thrust of his javelin (Mo ed Qatan 16b). Nor does he have the marvelous detail that the five stones that David selected for the encounter with Goliath came to him of their own accord (Midrash Samuel 21.1). 15. Cf. Pindar, Pythian Odes 4.286: i.e., in effect, "time and tide wait for no man." c

550

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

elsewhere tends to d o w n g r a d e the divine element in the achievements o f his bibli­ cal heroes. In the case o f David, however, h e stresses his dependence u p o n G - d , saying that it w a s because D a v i d w a s e v e r y w h e r e attended by G - d that he achieved success (Ant. 8.196). This, as has been suggested, J o s e p h u s did so as not to aggrandize the f o r e r u n n e r of the messiah, w h o was destined to o v e r t h r o w Roman hegemony

Temperance David's t e m p e r a n c e is praised in Josephus's eulogy of him, in which he refers to him as self-controlled (aoxj>p(x)v, "sensible," "prudent," "reasonable," "temperate," "modest") a n d mild (emei/orfc "moderate," "considerate," "understanding," "gen­ erous," "magnanimous," "kind," "genial," "friendly," "gende," "peaceable") (Ant. 7.391). Holladay suggests that J o s e p h u s has substituted euae'jSeia, "piety," a n d Treida), "obedience," for aco^poavvrj a n d cfrpovrjois (Holladay 1977, 7 6 - 7 7 ) ; but, as w e have seen, wisdom is one o f the virtues J o s e p h u s ascribes to David, j u s t as is moderation. W e see David's modesty displayed in Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e o f David's state­ m e n t w h e n S a u l offers him his armor. In the Bible, D a v i d v e r y simply says, "I can­ not go with these, for I have not tried them" (1 S a m . 17:39). But Josephus's D a v i d exhibits particular courtesy a n d modesty in declaring, "Let this fine apparel be for thee, O king, for thou a r t able to w e a r it, but suffer me, as thy servant, to fight j u s t as I will" (Ant. 6.185). Moreover, after D a v i d refrains from taking Saul's life, even though he has him in his power, S a u l expresses a m a z e m e n t at David's forbearance (pLeTpLorrjs, "restraint," "moderation," "modesty") (Ant. 6.290). Conversely, Nabal is presented as a kind of anti-David; the quality o f churlishness (nevalah), associated with his v e r y n a m e (1 S a m . 25:25), is r e n d e r e d in J o s e p h u s b y the negative o f aoj(f)poGvvr], namely, dc/ypoavvrj (Ant. 6.302) (as w e see in Plato, Protagoras, 332E). W e perceive the importance o f m o d e r a t i o n in the appeal, absent in the scrip­ tural original (1 S a m . 25:27), that Abigail, the wife of Nabal, makes to D a v i d in Josephus's version, w h e r e she states that it becomes D a v i d to show himself mild (rfpuepos, "gende," "tender") a n d h u m a n e ((^iXdvOpwrros, a virtue that, as I have r e ­ marked, is closely associated with justice) (Ant. 6.304). Moreover, Abigail herself, in a n addition by J o s e p h u s to the biblical text (1 S a m . 25:3), is said to have attained the h o n o r of becoming David's wife because o f h e r modest (aojpojv) a n d upright (hiKaios) character, a n d also, p r e s u m a b l y secondarily, because of h e r b e a u t y (Ant. 6.308), whereas the Bible calls attention to h e r good understanding a n d to h e r beauty alone (1 S a m . 25:3). A n a n t o n y m of m o d e r a t i o n is excessive ambition (irXeove&a); a n d it is this qual­ ity that, in an addition to the Bible (2 S a m . 3:27), J o s e p h u s decries w h e n he edito­ rializes about J o a b ' s treacherous slaying of Abner, declaring that from this act one m a y perceive to w h a t lengths o f recklessness m e n will go for the sake o f ambition (rrXeove^ta) a n d p o w e r (dpxrj) (Ant. 7 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) .

DAVID

55/

Josephus's emphasis on modesty a n d decorum is evident from his treatment of the episode in which David is despised by his wife Michal for acting like a fool in taking off most of his clothes a n d for dancing with a b a n d o n before the ark in the presence of the servant girls (2 S a m . 6:14-23). In the Bible, David replies that he w o u l d dance thus again, w h e r e u p o n the narrator, in obvious approval of David, declares that from that m o m e n t on Michal was d o o m e d to childlessness. In J o s e ­ phus, Michal's criticism of David is balanced by h e r invoking blessings u p o n him (Ant. 7 . 8 7 - 8 9 ) . We see the same quality of mildness in David's exhortation to H a n u n after the death of the latter's father, Nahash, king of A m m o n . W h e r e a s the Bible declares merely that D a v i d sent to comfort H a n u n (2 S a m . 10:2), Josephus adds that David exhorted him to b e a r his father's death with resignation (rrpqcos, "softly," "mildly," "indulgendy" "patiendy" "calmly") (Ant. 7.117). David's moderation m a y likewise be seen in Josephus's addition in which he has him exhort his officers a n d men, w h e n sending them out to war, to show themselves mindful of the fact that he h a d treated them mildly (pueTplcos, "having the right measure," "suitably," "moderately," "modesdy") (Ant. 7.235; cf. 2 S a m . 18:4). David's moderation is stressed also in Josephus's version of the statement of Saul's grandson Mephibosheth to David (2 S a m . 19:29 vs. Ant. 7.270). In the scrip­ tural version, Mephibosheth acknowledges that even though all his father's house w e r e deserving of death at David's hands, yet David h a d shown magnanimity in placing Mephibosheth at his o w n table. Josephus goes further in stressing David's forbearing (puerpLos, "moderate," "restrained," "reasonable") a n d kind ( x p ^ T O ? , "good," "noble," "friendly") nature in forgetting his maltreatment at the hands of Saul a n d in treating Mephibosheth no less well than the most h o n o r e d of his rela­ tions. T h e virtue of temperance is closely connected with obedience a n d respect for authority (Attridge 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 2 ) . Indeed, as w e have seen, w h e n Josephus enumerates his canon of the cardinal virtues (Ant. 6.160), he lists obedience (rreiOo}) as one of them. T h e opposite is the w a n t of j u d g m e n t (d<j>poavvin) displayed by Nabal in r e ­ fusing to present gifts to David (Ant. 6.302).

Justice W h e n G - d lists the qualities that Samuel is to seek w h e n he is about to select D a v i d as king (Ant. 6.160), justice, as w e have seen, is one of these. W h e n the p r o p h e t Samuel anoints David, he exhorts him, in an extrabiblical addition, to be just (oiKaiov) a n d obedient (KCLTTIKOOV) to G - d ' s commandments, for thereby he will become splendid (XapiTrpov) a n d r e n o w n e d (TT€pi^6r)Tov) a n d will attain glori­ ous fame (KX4OS

aoloip.ov) (Ant. 6.165); the w o r d dotSi/xov, meaning "sung of" a n d

"famous in song o r s t o r y " a n d recalling Achilles' singing of the glorious deeds of m e n (/cAea avoptov) (Homer, Iliad 9.189), refers to one w h o is w o r t h y of having an

552

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

epic sung about h i m .

1 6

Likewise, w h e n he is about to die, in his charge to his suc­

cessor, S o l o m o n , David, in an extrabiblical addition (i K i n g s 2:3), urges that he ad­ here to the laws, that is, to justice, by being impartial a n d by yielding neither to favor (xapt>s) n o r to flattery (Qameia) (Ant. 7.384). C o u p l e d with justice, as noted, is the virtue of h u m a n i t y (<j>i\avSpamia). It is sig­ nificant, therefore, that in his final eulogy of David's character, Josephus stresses that, a m o n g other qualities, he was just (biKaios) a n d h u m a n e (<j>i\avdpa)7Tos), qual­ ities that, he says, are especially appropriate for kings (Ant. 7.391). It is significant that whereas Josephus's source at one point, 1 C h r o n . 22:12, has David exhort S o l o m o n to piety a n d courage, Josephus's David adds justice (Ant. 7.328). W h e n David prays on behalf of his son a n d successor, S o l o m o n (1 C h r o n . 29:19), whereas in Scripture he asks that his son m a y be pious in keeping the commandments, in Josephus, he singles out justice in praying that S o l o m o n m a y have a sound (vyirjs) a n d just (SLKCLLOS) mind, strengthened by all virtuous qualities (Ant. 7.381). Justice, says Josephus, in an editorial comment, which is an addition to the biblical text, prevails over anger a n d fear (Ant. 6.212), a n d does so inevitably, as D a v i d points out to Abigail apropos of h e r churlish husband, Nabal (Ant. 6.305) (see Schlatter 1932, 40; a n d Pfeifer 1967, 6 1 - 6 2 ) . In emphasizing, through his addition to the biblical narrative, the m e r c y that David showed to Saul, Josephus is also stressing the former's justice; and, indeed, Saul

explicidy

compliments

David

for

having

shown

the

righteousness

(oiKcuoovvrj) of the ancients, w h o b a d e those w h o captured their enemies in a lonely place to spare their lives (Ant. 6.290). This emphasis on David's mercy m a y be seen in the fact that whereas w h e n David, finding Saul in his power, surrepti­ tiously cuts off a piece of his clothing, a n d it is not clear w h e t h e r he does so at his o w n initiative o r at that of his m e n (1 S a m . 24:5), Josephus makes clear that he did so on the counsel of his men. Indeed, Josephus adds that they counseled him even to cut off Saul's head, but that David, with his strong sense of mercy, refused to do so. W h e r e a s in the Bible, David afterwards (hharei-keri) feels remorse (1 S a m . 24:6), in Josephus, he repents forthwith (evOvs) a n d remarks, in an addition to the Bible, "Even though he treats m e ill, yet I must not do the like to him" (Ant. 6.284). In ad­ dition, whereas in the Bible, David, quite unmagnanimously quotes the ancient proverb "Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness," implying that Saul's wicked deeds have begotten his o w n d o o m (1 S a m . 24:14), Josephus's merciful David omits these words (Ant. 6.289). W h e r e a s the Bible's David simply declares that his m e n h a d done no h a r m to Nabal's shepherds (1 S a m . 25:7), Josephus's David charges his m e n to see to it that Nabal's flocks remain safe (Ant. 6.295). He stresses that his m e n should, presum­ ably in the n a m e o f justice, hold it m o r e important than all else to w r o n g no m a n .

16. The word doidopq Aoi/xi/o)]" (Ant. 8.115). T h e anal­ ogy with the opening scene of Sophocles' Oedipus the King is striking, w h e r e w e are told of the plague from which Thebes is wasting a w a y (<j>Qivovaa) (25-29). T h e plague has afflicted the blossom of the land and its herds, a n d it is manifest in the b a r r e n pangs of w o m e n (TOKOLGL

re dyovois

yvvaiKtov).

T h e w o r d "sickness" (vooos), with which G - d threatens S o l o m o n if he should disobey Him (Ant. 7.93), is a leitmotif throughout Sophocles' play. A p o l l o is a p ­ pealed to as a deliverer from the sickness that has afflicted the city (Oedipus the King 150).

T h e w o r d likewise occurs in lines 217 a n d 303 with reference to the plague.

Its central place in the play is shown by the fact that w h e n the messenger comes to Oedipus with the news of the death of K i n g Polybus, his first reaction is to ask w h e t h e r he died through treachery o r disease (vooos) (960). T w o lines later, he r e ­ peats: "Ah, he died, it seems, of diseases" (voaois) (962). A m a j o r theme of the play, as K n o x 1957, 32, remarks, is Oedipus's Trepnrereia from fame a n d h o n o r to utter uncleanliness, becoming finally a pollution that must be covered up (1426). A n d at the end of the play, the thought of disease (by implication, the plague) recurs, w h e n Oedipus, blind a n d miserable though he is, asserts that he is sure of at least this much, namely, that neither disease n o r anything else can destroy him ( 1 4 5 5 ) .

20

In the biblical version of the crucial scene in which G - d appears to S o l o m o n a n d bids him ask for w h a t e v e r he wishes, S o l o m o n twice mentions his father, David, and the great kindness that G - d h a d shown him because he h a d walked in faithfulness a n d righteousness before Him (1 Kings 3:5-9); thus the focus is to a considerable degree upon David. Josephus's S o l o m o n omits all mention of David a n d focuses instead completely u p o n S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.23). Moreover, in contrast to the brief biblical statement, in which S o l o m o n asks for "an understanding m i n d to govern thy people, that I m a y discern between good and evil" (1 K i n g s 3:9), in Josephus's version, there is much m o r e of a buildup to a climax in Solomon's an­ swer (Ant. 8.23). T h e r e w e are told that S o l o m o n asked for "the most excellent a n d greatest gifts, most pleasant to G - d to confer a n d most beneficial for m a n to r e ­ ceive. . ., a sound mind and good understanding wherewith I m a y j u d g e the peo­ ple,

having truth a n d justice in me." T h e key incident illustrating Solomon's wisdom is the case of the two harlots

w h o gave birth to children, one of w h o m died, while both claimed the living child as her own (1 K i n g s 3 : 1 6 - 2 8 ) . In the first place, Josephus, in an extrabiblical r e ­ mark, calls attention to the sheer difficulty of the case, a n d adds that it was trou­ blesome to find a solution (Ant. 8.26). Indeed, to emphasize the case's difficulty Josephus uses no fewer than three different words (Svaxepfjs ["laborious"], SVOKOXOV

["hard"], eiriirovov

["troublesome"]). He then further, in a direct address to

20. One is reminded likewise of the picture drawn by Hesiod (Works and Days 212 ff.), whom Jose­

phus elsewhere (Ant. 1.108, Ag. responding to man's sins.

Ap. 1.16)

mentions by name, and who likewise paints a picture of nature

SOLOMON

581

his readers in the first person (which he rarely uses), a n d with a n additional refer­ ence to the difficulty of the case, asserts that he has thought it necessary to explain the subject o f the suit so that c o n c e r n e d readers might have some idea of h o w diffi­ cult (OVGKOXOV,

"troublesome," "harassing") the case was. He then, true historian

that he is, like Thucydides, w h o looks upon history as a guide to future decision­ making (1.22), mentions a further p u r p o s e in recounting this event at length, namely, so that w h e n people in the future encounter such an incident, they m a y l e a r n from Solomon's wisdom (dyxtvotas, "sagacity" "ready wit," "shrewdness"). To emphasize Solomon's impartial a n d wise handling of the case, w h e r e a s the Bible gives n o indication as to h o w S o l o m o n interrogated the w o m e n (1 K i n g s 3:22), in J o s e p h u s , after the first w o m a n speaks, S o l o m o n takes the initiative to ask the o t h e r w o m a n to present h e r rebuttal (Ant. 8.30). T h e Bible simply describes the actual p r o c e d u r e by which S o l o m o n asks for a sword a n d orders that the living child be cut in two (1 K i n g s 3 : 2 3 - 2 7 ) .

21

A s the case is there described, w e h e a r only

the king's decision, with no indication as to h o w he h a d arrived at it (1 K i n g s 3:27). J o s e p h u s explains that the king recognized the w o r d s spoken b y each of the m o t h ­ ers as h e r true sentiments a n d consequendy a w a r d e d the child to the m o t h e r w h o h a d cried out to p r e v e n t its division (Ant. 8.33). T h e r e is n o indication in the bibli­ cal narrative as to w h a t punishment, if any, S o l o m o n inflicted u p o n the guilty mother, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s w e are told that he c o n d e m n e d h e r for h e r wicked­ ness both in having killed h e r o w n son a n d in being eager to see h e r friend's child destroyed (Ant. 8.33). T h e r e is significant difference between the biblical version a n d Josephus's n a r ­ rative regarding the reaction o f the people to this j u d g m e n t . In the former, their response is to fear S o l o m o n because they see that the wisdom o f G - d is in h i m to do justice (1 K i n g s 3:28). In J o s e p h u s , the reaction is not fear but conviction, since they consider his j u d g m e n t a great sign (Sefy/xa) a n d p r o o f (reKpuripiov) o f the king's p r u d e n c e ((frpovrjaews) a n d wisdom (ooias). C o n s e q u e n d y they respond by listen­ ing to h i m as to one possessed of a godlike (Oeiav) understanding (oidvoiav)

(Ant.

8.34). A key addition in Josephus's version o f this incident is his statement that w h e n n o one could see w h a t j u d g m e n t to give, but all w e r e mentally blinded, as by a rid­ dle, S o l o m o n alone found a solution (Ant. 8.30). T h e r e are, it appears, four key el­ ements in this statement that do not a p p e a r in 1 K i n g s 3 : 2 3 - 2 7 (whether in the He­ brew, the Septuagint, o r the Lucianic version): (1) J o s e p h u s indicates that others h a d attempted a n d failed to d e t e r m i n e w h o the real m o t h e r was; (2) these others are spoken o f as mentally blinded (rfj hiavola TeTu^Acu/xcWv); (3) to solve the ques­ tion required the use o f intelligence (Sidvoia); 4) the case is c o m p a r e d to a riddle (alviypLdTi).

21. Montgomery 1951,109, cites a close parallel from Indian lore, and notes that Hugo Gressmann has assembled twenty-two such parallels. Cf. Scott 1955, 262-379, esp. 270-71.

582

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS W h a t is particularly striking is that all four elements are found in Sophocles'

Oedipus the King. T h e r e w e find that others h a d a p p a r e n d y attempted but failed to solve the Sphinx's question (391-94); second, Oedipus solves the riddle of the S p h i n x by the use of his intelligence (yvcofjurj), a n d the intellectual rivalry between Oedipus a n d Teiresias culminates in Oedipus's taunting Teiresias with failure of his intelligence (vovs) (371); third, w e find a reference to Teiresias's blindness in Oedipus's accusation: "You are blind in ears a n d mind a n d eyes" (371); a n d fourth, the Sphinx's question is t e r m e d a riddle (393). Indeed, Oedipus sarcastically asks the blind p r o p h e t Teiresias w h y he did not solve the riddle (cuviy/xa) of the S p h i n x a n d thus save the city of Thebes (391-92). O n the other hand, a n d most signifi­ c a n d y it is Oedipus alone w h o solves the Sphinx's riddles (aiVy/xara) (1524-25) a n d w h o , ironically, is to go through a reversal (TTepnrereia) from sight to blindness (454) w h e n he discovers his true identity. This irony of Oedipus, the mentally blind m a n w h o has physical sight at the beginning of the play, is particularly stressed by the contrast with Teiresias, the physically blind m a n w h o has mental sight (454). T h e riddle of the S p h i n x is the supreme test of Oedipus's intelligence, as the case of the two harlots is of Solomon's. In both cases, it is their self-confident wis­ d o m that is their undoing. A s for Oedipus, w h e n , as the parts of the puzzle fall into place revealing his real identity, he begins to lose control of himself, J o c a s t a com­ ments that Oedipus does not, "like a m a n in control of his m i n d [evvovs], j u d g e the present on the basis of the past" ( 9 1 5 - 1 6 ) .

22

A s K n o x 1957, 1 8 3 - 8 4 , following a sug­

gestion by J e b b , remarks in an insightful note, the first p a r t of the v e r y n a m e of Oedipus is close in sound a n d thus reminiscent of otSa, "to know," a w o r d that is constandy on Oedipus's lips; indeed, it is his knowledge that makes Oedipus the decisive a n d confident ruler (rvpavvos) Van

he is.

der M e u l e n 1978, 7 5 - 7 7 , on the other hand, stresses Oedipus's impotence

a n d diminished knowledge, as opposed to divine omnipotence a n d foresight, not­ ing that in the end, it becomes clear that Oedipus is convinced that he must p a y for w h a t he has done a n d affirms the divine w o r l d order. In particular, v a n der M e u l e n notes that in Seneca the Younger's tragedy Oedipus, which, he says, tells us h o w the personality of Oedipus was regarded in Josephus's o w n day, inasmuch as Seneca (4 B . c . E - 6 5 C.E.) was his older contemporary, Oedipus acknowledges r e ­ sponsibility for the suffering that he has caused to the land (1058). V a n d e r M e u l e n remarks that the acceptance of his fate, so crucial in the portrait of Oedipus, is missing in Josephus's portrait of S o l o m o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , the story that S o l o m o n allowed himself to be misled by w o m e n at the end of his life has n o parallel in the story of Oedipus. Finally, v a n der M e u l e n notes a distinct difference between Oedipus a n d S o l o m o n , in that the latter died ingloriously (Ant. 8.196) a n d that mis­ fortunes befell the Hebrews because of his acts (Ant. 8.211). Moreover, inasmuch as

22. It is this quality of being rational (evvovs) that Prometheus, according to Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound 444), bestowed upon mankind after its previous state of savagery.

SOLOMON

383

J o s e p h u s attacks the Greeks for their untrustworthiness, throughout his essay Against Apion, he could hardly have used a G r e e k literary figure as his model. T h e G r e e k sages, J o s e p h u s contends in Against Apion, are hardly models of h u m a n wis­ dom. If, v a n der M e u l e n concludes, Josephus h a d written about G r e e k mytholog­ ical figures, he w o u l d have p o r t r a y e d Achilles as a G r e e k Saul a n d Oedipus as a G r e e k S o l o m o n rather than the reverse. V a n der M e u l e n thus objects to the thesis that J o s e p h u s has modeled Solomon's character on Oedipus (Feldman 1 9 7 6 , 82-86). In reply, it m a y be noted that the comparison of biblical figures with G r e e k mythological figures is hardly unique to Josephus. A r t a p a n u s , w h o is generally thought to have been a J e w (see Holladay 1983, 1:189

a n

d 195, n. 8a), says in obvi­

ous pride, for example, that Moses was called Musaeus by the Greeks, a n d that he b e c a m e the teacher of the famous musician O r p h e u s (ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.27.3). W i t h similar pride, A r t a p a n u s notes that Moses was called by the n a m e of the G r e e k god H e r m e s because of his ability to interpret the sacred writings (ap. Euse­ bius, Pr. En 9.27.6). T h e i m p o r t a n t point is that Josephus is selective in his parallels. It is not that S o l o m o n is in all respects similar tc Oedipus, any m o r e than A b r a h a m is com­ pletely equivalent to a Stoic philosopher simply because he gives a p r o o f for the existence of G - d (Ant. 1.156) that is similar to that of the Stoic Cleanthes, o r that he is being equated with Heracles simply because Josephus cites, in obvious pride, Cleodemus-Malchus's statement that Heracles was j o i n e d in his African cam­ paign by t w o of A b r a h a m ' s sons by K e t u r a h , and that he m a r r i e d the daughter of one of them (Ant. 1.241). Rather, S o l o m o n is portrayed as having Oedipus's wis­ d o m a n d as going beyond it; that is, S o l o m o n is, with respect to his wisdom, a greater Oedipus. Moreover, a n d above all, v a n der M e u l e n has not taken into ac­ count the four parallels noted above that p o r t r a y S o l o m o n , like Oedipus, as a solver o f a riddle. F u r t h e r m o r e , as I have noted, there is little indication that J o s e ­ phus k n e w Latin, let alone the works of Seneca, as v a n der M e u l e n claims. O n the other h a n d , there is v e r y good reason for thinking that Josephus knew the works of Sophocles. It is instructive to c o m p a r e Josephus's treatment of this incident with that of the rabbis. In the first place, the rabbis add a supernatural dimension to the story by presenting the tradition that the two w o m e n w h o claimed the child w e r e really not h u m a n at all but rather w e r e spirits w h o w e r e sent by G - d to manifest Solomon's wisdom (Makkot 23b). T h e y add still another supernatural dimension by asserting that w h e n S o l o m o n presented his decision, a voice from heaven confirmed that this was indeed the m o t h e r of the child. In Josephus, on the other hand, the focus is on S o l o m o n a n d his h u m a n wisdom; the w o m e n are m o r e h u m a n than ever, a n d the d r a m a is consequendy heightened. To illustrate the greatness of Solomon's wisdom, Josephus goes beyond even the biblical statement that Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of the children

584

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

of the E a s t

23

a n d all the wisdom of Egypt (1 K i n g s 5:10 vs. Ant. 8.42). Josephus's

version adds to Solomon's wisdom by explaining that the Egyptians are said to excel all m e n in u n d e r s t a n d i n g

24

a n d then goes even further by remarking that

these same Egyptians w e r e not only a little inferior to but actually fell far short of S o l o m o n in sagacity (Ant. 8.42). Moreover, whereas, according to the Bible, S o l o m o n composed 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 K i n g s 5:12), Josephus has expanded this to 3,000 books of proverbs a n d similitudes (irapafioXibv K a l et/covcov) and 1,005 books of odes a n d songs (Ant. 8 . 4 4 ) .

25

It is not merely in the quantity of his wisdom that Josephus's S o l o m o n is pre­ eminent. M o r e important, whereas, according to the Bible, Solomon's wisdom consisted in speaking in proverbs a n d parables about beasts, birds, fish, a n d trees (1 K i n g s 5:13), Josephus, realizing that educated Greeks and R o m a n s looked u p o n philosophy as the highest f o r m of wisdom (cf. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5 . 3 . 8 - 9 ) , proudly boasts that there was n o f o r m of nature with which S o l o m o n was not ac­ quainted o r that he passed over without examining (Ant. 8.44). T h e r e a d e r will note that the w o r d that J o s e p h u s uses for "without examining" (dve^eraarov)

is

precisely the one that Socrates employs in his famous phrase at his trial in which, in effect, he summarizes his mission as a philosopher, 6 dve^eraaros

filos

ov

fiiajTos dvOpconq), "the unexamined life is not w o r t h living for a m a n " (Plato, Apol­ ogy 38A). Josephus then goes on, in a further extrabiblical remark, to state that S o l o m o n studied the forms of nature philosophically (e^iXooo^rjoe),

that is, pre­

sumably, critically, a n d that he manifested the most complete knowledge of their several properties. This knowledge of the w o r l d of nature is stressed by the earlier author of the Book of W i s d o m , w h o puts into Solomon's m o u t h the statement that G - d has given him "an unerring knowledge of the things that be, to k n o w the or­ dering of the w o r l d a n d the working of the elements" (GTOLX^IWV,

presumably the

four elements basic to G r e e k natural philosophy) (7:17). Because, as noted, exorcising demons was regarded as the sign of special p o w e r in a wise m a n , J o s e p h u s develops a w h o l e description, without basis in the biblical text, of S o l o m o n as possessor of G - d - g i v e n skill in the a r t of exorcising demons

23. Josephus (Ant. 8.42) here follows the Septuagint in translating the Hebrew benei qedem as "the ancients." 24. Cf. Herodotus 2.121, who declares that the Egyptians surpassed all other people in wisdom. Elsewhere also, when the Egyptian priests duplicate Moses' feat of turning a staff into a python (Ant. 2.286), Moses admits to Pharaoh, "Indeed, O King, I too do not disdain the wisdom [oofta] of the Egyptians." Schorr 1940, in a note on Ant. 8.42, compares Talqut Reuveni: "Ten types of wisdom de­ scended to the world. The Egyptians took nine, and the rest of the world one." 25. For 1,005 Septuagint reads 5,000. Josephus thus follows the Hebrew text so far as the num­ ber is concerned, but diverges from it by speaking of booh of odes. Rengstorf 1973-83, 2:25, s.v. CLKCOV, suggests that the term may refer to allegories. Here, too, Josephus, in the interest of credibility, avoids the exaggeration, such as is found in the rabbinic tradition (Eruvin 21b), that Solomon had 3,000 simil­ itudes for every statement of the Torah and 1,005 arguments for every statement of the Scribes. Cf. Ecclus. 47:15: "Thou didst gather parables like the sea." m

e

SOLOMON (Ant. 8 . 4 5 - 4 9 ) .

26

585

" G - d , " he says, in an addition to the Bible (i K i n g s 5:10),

"granted h i m knowledge of the a r t used against demons for the benefit and heal­ ing of m e n " (Ant. 8.45). S o l o m o n is further said to have composed i n c a n t a t i o n s

27

by which illnesses w e r e relieved, a n d to have left behind forms of exorcism that successfully enabled those possessed by demons to drive them out. T h e n , in an e x t r a o r d i n a r y digression, Josephus relates that he himself h a d seen h o w a certain c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w n a m e d Eleazar, in the presence of Vespasian, h a d freed m e n w h o w e r e possessed by demons by putting to their nose a r i n g

2 8

that

h a d u n d e r its seal one of the roots prescribed by S o l o m o n , d r a w i n g the demons out through their nostrils and finally adjuring the demons never to c o m e back into them, invoking Solomon's n a m e and reciting the incantations that S o l o m o n h a d composed (Ant. 8 . 4 6 - 4 9 ) . To prove that it was through S o l o m o n that the d e m o n h a d been expelled, Eleazar ordered the d e m o n to o v e r t u r n a cup full of w a t e r that he h a d placed nearby. W h e n the cup was overturned, Josephus Solomon's understanding (ovvecns)

and wisdom (oo^ia)

comments,

w e r e clearly revealed,

since it w a s a p p a r e n d y through S o l o m o n that this miracle h a d occurred. Well a w a r e that all this digression is without scriptural basis, J o s e p h u s concludes that he has recounted this incident so that all m e n m a y see from this revelation of Solomon's understanding and wisdom (avveais

Kal ao(f>ia) the greatness of his na­

ture a n d the extent to which G - d favored him, a n d so that n o one u n d e r the sun m a y be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of every kind (Ant. 8.49). A s in o t h e r portions of the S o l o m o n pericope, J o s e p h u s avoids details that w o u l d seem incredible to the sophisticated r e a d e r here. Hence, w e do not find such data (recorded in the rabbinic tradition) as that S o l o m o n h a d spirits a n d demons as his personal attendants, w h o m he could send w h e r e v e r he wished at short notice; that he grew tropical plants in Palestine with the help of ministering spirits, w h o secured w a t e r for h i m from India; that animals also w e r e subservient to him; that eagles transported h i m w h e r e v e r he wished; that spirits aided h i m in the construction of the Temple; that he delivered the land of A r a b i a from an evil spirit (see G i n z b e r g 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4 : 1 4 9 - 5 3 , a n d 6 : 2 9 1 - 9 3 , nn. 4 8 - 5 6 ) ; that he pos­ sessed c h a r m s against demons and illnesses;

29

and that he h a d a piece of tapestry,

26. For an analysis of this passage, see Duling 1985, 1-25. For rabbinic parallels, see Rappaport n. 241. 27. Such a book is the Testament of Solomon. See the translation and commentary by Duling 1987, 935-87; and see also Duling 1988, 8 7 - 1 1 2 . Conybeare 1898-99, 1 1 - 1 2 , conjectures that the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, in its original form, may have been the very collection of incantations that, accord­ ing to Josephus, was composed and bequeathed by Solomon. Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:291, n. 48, remarks that the recognized authorities of rabbinical Judaism condemned the use of the conjuring books as­ cribed to Solomon. 28. This magic ring is also referred to in the Testament of Solomon 5. 29. See Rappaport 1930, 56, no. 273, and 131, n. 241. The fourth-century Medicina Plinii 3.15.7 like­ wise notes the efficacy of the name of Solomon on amulets as a cure for tertian fever. On the use of the name of Solomon in magical papyri and amulets, see Bonner 1950, 208 ff., and Duling 1975, 235-52. 1930, 131,

j86

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

no smaller than sixty miles square, on which he flew through the air so swiftly that he could eat breakfast in Damascus a n d supper in M e d i a (see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:162). Evidence of Solomon's wisdom is to be seen in the fact that, according to J o s e ­ phus, the m a i n b o n d of friendship between H i r a m a n d S o l o m o n was their passion (em^u/xia) for learning

(aortas, "wisdom")

(Ag. Ap. I . I I I ) . G r e a t importance should

be attached to Josephus's addition that H i r a m , the king of Tyre, sent S o l o m o n tricky problems (oo<j)iopuara, "subtie questions," "sly tricks") a n d enigmatic sayings (\6yovs

alviy/jLaTajSeis, "riddles"), requesting that he clear them up for him a n d

solve his difficulties (aiTopias)

(Ant. 8.143). Here, as in Josephus's version of

Solomon's adjudication of the case of the two mothers, he is presented as a kind of Oedipus solving riddles. Josephus proceeds to praise Solomon's wisdom in the highest terms. Inasmuch as S o l o m o n was clever (Seivov) a n d keen-witted

(avverov),

none of the riddles proved too difficult for him, and he successfully solved them all by force of reason (XoyiopLto), as did Oedipus (see the discussion by K n o x 1 9 5 7 , 1 8 ) , whose bitterest w o r d of condemnation, which he hurls at Teiresias (Sophocles, Oedipus the King 433) and at C r e o n (ibid., 540), is pucopos ( "stupid") a n d whose r e p ­ utation for wisdom is based p r i m a r i l y on his ability to solve the riddle of the S p h i n x — ( a solution he arrived at through sheer intelligence, rather than, as he r e ­ marks, by the birds that a seer such as Teiresias might have used ( 3 9 6 - 9 8 ) . K n o x has rightly r e m a r k e d that the swift action o f Oedipus is founded on reflection, which, in turn, indicates a great intelligence ( K n o x 1957, 18). T h e most romantic context through which S o l o m o n demonstrates his wisdom is the visit of the Q u e e n of Sheba. Ullendorff speaks of Josephus's version of this episode as a slightiy expanded a n d somewhat "smartened u p " version of the bib­ lical narrative, doubtless reflecting the state of c o n t e m p o r a r y interpretation, yet essentially faithful to the biblical narrative a n d completely innocent of the accre­ tions that w e find in the talmudic tradition (see Ullendorff 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 , 4 9 1 - 9 2 ) . In the latter, for example, the Q u e e n of S h e b a is aggrandized to the point w h e r e she is said to have a r e a l m so rich that dust is m o r e valuable than gold there; a n d its trees, dating from the beginning of time, suck u p w a t e r that flows from the G a r d e n of Eden (Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4:143). Josephus likewise avoids emphasizing the magi­ cal element, such as the tale in the Midrash's account of the h o o p o e that reported to K i n g S o l o m o n (who understood the languages of birds a n d beasts) that there existed a land ruled by the Q u e e n of Sheba, which was not yet subject to him (see Ginzberg 1 9 0 9 - 3 8 , 4 . 1 4 2 - 4 4 , a n d 6.289, n. 39). Nevertheless, there are a n u m b e r of touches in this pericope that lend greater glory to the figure of S o l o m o n . In particular, Josephus's statement that the Q u e e n of S h e b a was thoroughly trained (8La7T€7rovrjpL€vrjv) in wisdom (oofta)

and, r e ­

markable in other ways, ruled over Egypt a n d Ethiopia vastiy magnifies the wis­ d o m of S o l o m o n , inasmuch as Egypt h a d the reputation of being an extremely an­ cient land a n d one that possessed m e n of the greatest wisdom (see Herodotus, bk. 2, passim). A s for Ethiopia, its inhabitants w e r e r e n o w n e d for their wisdom, piety,

SOLOMON

587

a n d bravery, a n d are t e r m e d blameless by H o m e r [Iliad 1.423) (Feldman 1 9 9 1 a , 348-49)Solomon's wisdom is emphasized by Josephus's extrabiblical remark that the Q u e e n of Sheba's strong desire to see S o l o m o n arose from the reports that she h e a r d e v e r y d a y about his country (Ant. 8.165). In the belief that hearsay is likely to lead to false opinion, she decided to visit S o l o m o n to see for herself (Ant. 8.166). A s to the queen's m e t h o d of ascertaining Solomon's wisdom, the Bible says that she c a m e to test him with riddles (behidot) (1 K i n g s 10:1). Riddles, as understood in the Bible, cannot be solved without previous knowledge, presumably through di­ vine inspiration, as w e see, for example, in the case of Samson's riddle, which could not have been solved except through previous knowledge of Samson's ex­ ploit of slaying the lion (Judg. 1 4 : 1 2 - 1 7 ) . Hence, the implication of the Bible's state­ m e n t is that the queen wished to find out w h e t h e r the source of Solomon's wisdom was divine inspiration. O n the other hand, in Josephus's formulation, the queen comes not with riddles of this sort but with challenging questions a n d asks S o l o m o n to solve their difficult (dnopov, "impossible") meaning (Ant. 8.166). Thus, v e r y significandy everything appears to depend u p o n Solomon's h u m a n wisdom rather than u p o n divine inspiration. J o s e p h u s further dramatizes Solomon's wisdom in his portrayal of the w a y in which S o l o m o n solves the queen's problems (Ant. 8.167). T h e Bible simply says that he answered all h e r questions (1 K i n g s 10:3), whereas Josephus asserts that Solomon

"was studious

[(^LXOTLPLOS,

"eager," "anxious," "zealous," "lavish,"

"prodigal," "generous"] to please h e r in all ways, in particular by mentally [ovveoei]

grasping

[oo^lopLara]

[KaTaXapL^avopuevos] with

ease

the

ingenious

problems

she set him a n d solving [eTreXvero] them m o r e quickly than anyone

could have expected" (Ant. 8.167). T h e emphasis here is on Solomon's speed in an­ swering the queen's questions, as w e see not merely from Josephus's statement that he solved them m o r e quickly than anyone expected but also from Josephus's use o f the w o r d ovveois to describe Solomon's mental process, since this w o r d refers to the faculty o f quick comprehension a n d m o t h e r wit (see L S J , 1712, s.v. ovveois II). T h e reference to the queen's questions as oo^lofjuara ("ingenious contrivances") w o u l d recall to the r e a d e r the use of this w o r d in connection with the tricky p r o b ­ lems that K i n g H i r a m of Tyre sent S o l o m o n , which the latter solved by the force of reason (Ant. 8.143). In this respect, S o l o m o n would r e m i n d one of Prometheus, w h o is said to have discovered numbering, preeminent a m o n g ingenious devices (oo(j)iopidTcov) (Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound 459). T h e w o r d oo^Lopua

might also well

r e m i n d the r e a d e r of the use of this w o r d in Sophocles' Philoctetes (14) with reference to the wily Odysseus's plan w h e r e b y he hoped to obtain Philoctetes' bow, which, according to an oracle, was the only w e a p o n with which Troy could be captured. T h e scene would likewise r e m i n d the reader, as does Josephus's version o f Solomon's decision in the case of the two w o m e n claiming the same baby, o f Sophocles' Oedipus, whose characteristic action is the fait accompli a n d whose characteristic epithet is raxvs

("swift") ( K n o x 1957, 1 5 - 1 7 , 188). O n e of the lessons

588

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

stressed by Sophocles in his Oedipus the King, as seen in the remarks of the chorus, "Swift [raxets] thinkers are not safe" (617), is the danger of making decisions too quickly Oedipus defensively replies, twice using the w o r d "swift" in the following two lines: " W h e n a swift plotter moves secredy against me, I must be swift with m y counterplot." T h e words "swift" (raxvs, (rdxos,

7 6 5 , 9 4 5 , 1131,

142, 430, 1234, 1429) a n d "swiftness"

1154) recur as a leitmotif throughout the play, being used

three times by Oedipus a n d once each by the Second Messenger, C r e o n , the C h o ­ rus,

Jocasta, a n d the Herdsman. T h a t speed remains the characteristic trait of

Oedipus m a y be seen from the fact that, after his identity has become known, Oedipus uses the phrase "as quickly as possible" on three occasions: "Take m e a w a y from this place as quickly as possible" (on rdx^ora quickly as possible" (oircos rdxtora, quickly as possible" (ooov rdxiod\

1340), "Hide m e a w a y as

1410), a n d " T h r o w m e out of this land as

1436). O n e of the themes of the play is the dan­

ger of speed; for, like Oedipus, those w h o are quick to think things out are not in­ fallible (617). A n o t h e r indication that Josephus h a d Oedipus in m i n d in his portrayal of S o l o m o n m a y be seen in his extrabiblical r e m a r k that w h e n he was informed by a prophet that his kingdom, except for one tribe, would be t o r n from his son, he was sorely troubled that almost all the good things for which he w a s envied

(^TJXCJTOS)

w e r e changing for the worse. This r e m a r k is reminiscent of the closing words of the C h o r u s in Sophocles' Oedipus the King especially since the latter alludes to Oedipus as a solver of riddles, a trait that w e have likewise noted in Josephus's portrait of S o l o m o n , a n d since it refers to the envy directed at Oedipus: "See here is that Oedipus w h o knew the famous riddles a n d was most mighty, on whose fortunes w h a t citizen did not look u p o n with envy [£^Ao/]?" (1524-26).

Courage and Skill in Battle In the famous d r e a m in which G - d offers S o l o m o n w h a t e v e r he wishes a n d in which S o l o m o n chooses wisdom, G - d , in turn, pleased with Solomon's choice, promises, in the biblical version, to give him riches a n d h o n o r (1 Rings 3 : 5 - 9 ) . In Josephus's paraphrase, however, G - d significandy adds that he will bestow upon S o l o m o n victory over his enemies (Ant. 8.24). It is interesting to note, however, that, aside from a brief mention (Ant. 8.160), in accordance with the Bible (1 K i n g s 9:20; 2 C h r o n . 8:7), of Solomon's conquest of those Canaanites w h o w e r e still un­ submissive, Josephus has nothing to say of S o l o m o n the conqueror in the Antiqui­ ties. To be sure, to the biblical statement that S o l o m o n built G e z e r (1 K i n g s 9:17), he does add the remark, which w o u l d underscore Solomon's effectiveness as a mil­ itary strategist, that he did so because it was naturally strong a n d could be useful in times of war

o r revolution (Ant. 8.152).

Nevertheless, Josephus h a d to face the fact that one of the most telling proofs offered by that arch-Jew-baiter A p i o n to demonstrate that the laws of the J e w s w e r e unjust a n d their religious ceremonies faulty was that they w e r e not masters of

SOLOMON

589

a n empire but h a d been slaves of various nations (ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.125), j u s t as the fact that calamities h a d constandy befallen them w o u l d seem to confirm that the gods did not favor them. In reply, J o s e p h u s recalls that D a v i d

and

S o l o m o n h a d subjugated m a n y nations (Ag. Ap. 2.132). W h e r e a s the Bible states that all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to Egypt served S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 5:1) but does not connect this fact with w h a t follows, that is, his tremendous quantity of provisions for a single d a y (1 K i n g s 5:2), Josephus does link the t w o items, as­ serting that all these provisions w e r e brought daily by the f o r e i g n e r s ,

30

thereby ac­

centuating Solomon's great p o w e r (Ant. 8.40). Temperance and Modesty Even before S o l o m o n actually succeeds D a v i d as king, J o s e p h u s gives us an in­ stance of Solomon's m o d e r a t i o n (Ant. 7.361). A c c o r d i n g to the biblical account, w h e n A d o n i j a h , Solomon's brother, w a s t h w a r t e d in his attempt to seize the royal p o w e r during David's lifetime a n d sought asylum, asking that S o l o m o n swear not to slay him, S o l o m o n gives a n equivocal answer, namely, that if A d o n i j a h proves worthy, he will not be h a r m e d , but if not he will be put to death (1 K i n g s 1:51-52). Josephus's version describes Solomon's response in terms that are significandy dif­ ferent (Ant. 7.362). H e r e w e are told that with great mildness (ripuepcos) a n d m o d e r ­ ation (oaxfrpovtos) he let off A d o n i j a h a n d o r d e r e d him to go back to his o w n house without a n y fear (pLrjSev vcfropcopievov, "viewing with n o suspicion"), although, on the other h a n d , asserting his strength as a ruler, he firmly a n d resolutely w a r n e d h i m that if he w e r e ever again caught in an attempt at revolution, he w o u l d have only himself to blame for his punishment. To be sure, J o s e p h u s still h a d to cope with the fact that S o l o m o n was responsi­ ble for the later a p p a r e n d y ruthless killing of A d o n i j a h . H e thus goes out of his way, in an extrabiblical addition, to r e m i n d the r e a d e r that even in the lifetime of Solomon's father, David, A d o n i j a h h a d attempted to seize the royal p o w e r (Ant. 8.3). In the biblical account, A d o n i j a h notes m e r e l y that the kingdom h a d b e e n taken from him a n d given to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 2:15). J o s e p h u s goes on to r e p o r t w h a t A d o n i j a h claims to be his response to this state of affairs, namely, that he w a s "willing a n d h a p p y to serve u n d e r him a n d was satisfied with the present state of affairs" (Ant. 8.4). H e n c e the r e a d e r has less sympathy for Adonijah's subsequent request to Bathsheba that she aid h i m in changing the status quo by p r o m o t i n g his m a r r i a g e to David's w i d o w Abishag (Ant. 8.5). For him to m a r r y h e r w o u l d be tan­ t a m o u n t to claiming the kingship for himself, even though he maintains that his fa­ ther, by reason of his age, h a d actually not h a d intercourse with her, a n d that she

30. Significandy, inasmuch as Josephus apparendy realized that his sophisticated readers would find gross exaggerations hard to believe and would, in fact, tend to discredit the entire account, he does not have a statement such as that Solomon's real needs of food were far greater, since each of Solomon's wives needed a similar quantity of provisions each day for the banquets that they arranged (Baba Mezia 86b).

590

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

was still a virgin. In justification of Solomon's action in putting A d o n i j a h to death, w e might well say, then, that A d o n i j a h , while asserting that he was renouncing his o w n claim to the throne a n d granting Solomon's legitimacy, was really guilty of concealing his true intention. In his reply to his mother's intercession on behalf of Adonijah, S o l o m o n , in an addition not found in i K i n g s 2:22, sees right through the request a n d realizes that A d o n i j a h is really reaching for greater things, namely, the kingdom itself, on the grounds that he is the elder b r o t h e r and, in particular, has the support of powerful friends, J o a b the c o m m a n d e r a n d A b i a t h a r the priest (Ant. 8.9). S o l o m o n thus righdy realized that a p o w e r struggle was afoot, a n d that, especially since this was the v e r y beginning of his reign, he could not afford to show weakness. Even so, the severity of Solomon's action is reduced, since in J o s e ­ phus's version, S o l o m o n does not actually take an oath of vengeance (Ant. 8.9 vs. 1 K i n g s 2:23-24). Indeed, whereas in the Bible, w h e n S o l o m o n pronounces A b i ­ athar deserving of death, he is not told precisely w h y (1 K i n g s 2:26), in Josephus, S o l o m o n carefully tells him that it is because he j o i n e d Adonijah's rebellion (Ant. 8.10). Josephus, as w e can see in his account of Saul (Ant. 6.63), identifies moderation with modesty. But the virtue of modesty always presents a problem, namely, that excessive modesty especially in a ruler, is n o virtue at all. Josephus's S o l o m o n r e ­ solves this problem by following the middle path. In particular, whereas in the Bible, w h e n G - d appears to S o l o m o n in a d r e a m a n d offers to give him w h a t e v e r he wishes, S o l o m o n responds by stating that he is but a little child w h o does not know h o w to go out o r come in (1 K i n g s 3:7), Josephus, regarding this as excessive modesty omits this passage altogether. Because he h a d already established Solomon's reputation for wisdom so solidly, Josephus felt secure in citing extrabiblical evidence from M e n a n d e r to the effect that S o l o m o n was modest enough to admit that he h a d actually been outwitted by a young Tyrian lad, A b d e m o n , w h o always successfully solved the problems sub­ mitted to him by S o l o m o n (Ant. 8.146). He then further cites a writer n a m e d Dios, w h o composed a history of Phoenicia which asserted that S o l o m o n a n d H i r a m ex­ changed riddles on the understanding that the one w h o was unable to solve them w o u l d p a y a forfeit (Ant. 8.149; Ag. Ap. 1 . 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) . A t first, H i r a m paid heavily, being unable to solve Solomon's riddles, but afterwards they w e r e solved for him by A b ­ demon, w h o , in turn, p r o p o u n d e d others that S o l o m o n was unable to solve, a n d so in the end S o l o m o n paid H i r a m m o r e back than H i r a m h a d originally paid him. T h u s Josephus graphically demonstrates h o w honest, honorable, a n d mag­ nanimous S o l o m o n was t o w a r d his non-Jewish friends.

Justice In his initial instructions to S o l o m o n , as w e have noted, David urges him to try to be w o r t h y of G - d ' s providence by being pious, j u s t (SLKCUOS),

a n d brave, and, sig­

nificandy in view of the R o m a n s ' great respect for law, to keep the C o m m a n d -

SOLOMON

591

merits a n d the laws that He h a d given the Israelites through Moses, a n d not to p e r ­ mit others to transgress them (Ant. 7.338). W h e n D a v i d orders that S o l o m o n be anointed king, he instructs him to rule with piety a n d justice (hiKaiws) (Ant. 7.356). H e reiterates these instructions in the presence of the national leaders, assuring him of prosperity if he will show himself pious, j u s t (SIKOLIOV),

a n d observant of the

country's laws (Ant. 7.374). In a further p r a y e r by David, whereas the biblical text focuses on the request that S o l o m o n be pious and keep all the c o m m a n d m e n t s of the Pentateuch (1 C h r o n . 19:29), Josephus's David puts the emphasis on justice, praying that S o l o m o n might have a sound (vyirj) and just (SIKCUOV)

mind, strength­

ened by all virtuous (apeTrjs) qualities (Ant. 7.381). W e see the same difference of emphasis in David's dying charge to S o l o m o n . W h e r e a s in the Bible, D a v i d urges S o l o m o n to live piously, walking in G - d ' s ways a n d keeping His c o m m a n d m e n t s (1 K i n g s 2:2-3), Josephus's D a v i d exhorts S o l o m o n not m e r e l y to be pious t o w a r d G - d but also to be just (hiKaico) to his subjects, not yielding to favor o r flattery (Ant. 7.384). W h e r e a s the Bible states only that S o l o m o n walked in the statutes of D a v i d (1 K i n g s 3:3), J o s e p h u s stresses that S o l o m o n was not hindered by his youth from dealing jusdy, observing the laws, o r r e m e m b e r i n g the injunctions of his dying fa­ ther; rather, he p e r f o r m e d all his tasks as scrupulously as do those of a d v a n c e d age a n d m a t u r e wisdom (Ant. 8.21). T h e r e a d e r of the Bible might well ask w h e t h e r S o l o m o n was justified in his seemingly harsh action in punishing Shimei. However, he is m o r e clearly justified in doing so in Josephus's version, for whereas the Bible says m e r e l y that Shimei cursed D a v i d (1 K i n g s 2:8), J o s e p h u s reports that he did so repeatedly (Ant. 7.388). Moreover, whereas in the Bible, S o l o m o n asks simply w h y Shimei h a d not kept "the oath of the L - r d and the c o m m a n d m e n t that I have charged thee with" (1 K i n g s 2:43), J o s e p h u s builds u p the apology for Solomon's action by stressing that Shimei "had m a d e light of his c o m m a n d s a n d — w h a t was w o r s e — h a d shown n o regard for the oaths sworn to G - d " (Ant. 8.19). Josephus's handling of this case ac­ tually enhances Solomon's reputation for justice. T h e biblical account indicates merely that Shimei was being punished for the wickedness that he h a d done to D a v i d (1 K i n g s 2:44). A r e a d e r might well ask why, if D a v i d h a d seen fit not to p u n ­ ish Shimei at the time, S o l o m o n should have been so vindictive as to punish him so long afterwards. T h e Bible is silent on this matter (1 K i n g s 2:44), but J o s e p h u s was already well a w a r e of this objection, for he has S o l o m o n actually teach Shimei (and Josephus's readers) a lesson in the philosophy of punishment: evildoers gain nothing by not being punished at the time of their crimes. Rather, during the time in which they think themselves secure because they have suffered nothing, their punishment increases a n d becomes m o r e serious than that which they w o u l d have suffered at the time of their wrongdoing (Ant. 8.20). Significantly, in the crucial scene in which G - d in a d r e a m offers S o l o m o n w h a t e v e r gift he wishes, in the Bible, S o l o m o n asks for an understanding m i n d to govern the people (1 K i n g s 3:9). For Josephus, such wisdom is surely important;

592

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

a n d S o l o m o n does, indeed, ask for a sound mind a n d good understanding (Ant 8.23), but the key point is that he regarded these gifts as necessary so that he might j u d g e the people in truth a n d justice. W e m a y discern a n o t h e r indication of the importance of justice for J o s e p h u s in an addition that he makes to the biblical description of Solomon's palace. W h e r e a s the Bible is content m e r e l y to give the dimensions of the various parts of the palace (1 K i n g s 7 : 2 - 5 ) a n d states that it contained a porch of j u d g m e n t (1 K i n g s 7:7), J o s e ­ phus adds further details on the use of the palace for the administration of justice (Ant 8.133). In particular, he describes a great and beautiful hall, supported by m a n y pillars, built to a c c o m m o d a t e a large audience for j u d g m e n t s a n d state cases a n d to provide a place w h e r e litigants might gather. W h e r e a s the Bible is content merely to mention the porch of j u d g m e n t (1 K i n g s 7:7), J o s e p h u s describes it as magnificent (8ia7Tp€7Trjs) (Ant 8.134). Connected

with the

quality of justice

are the virtues of

magnanimity

(ohp<jos ovvexvOrj) at the thought that almost all the good things for which he was envied w e r e changing for the worse (Ant. 8.199).

HELLENIZATIONS In the S o l o m o n pericope, there are indications that J o s e p h u s was indebted to Homer, Thucydides, and the Stoics a m o n g others, in addition to Sophocles, as al­ ready noted. A s to Homer, w e m a y note that w h e n the entire multitude at the beginning of Solomon's reign p r a y that he m a y end his rule in a rich (Xnrapov) and happy old age (yfjpas) (Ant. 8.2), Josephus's audience, reared, as any literate G r a e c o - R o m a n audi­ ence of that day was, on Homer, would surely have thought of the phrase in the Odyssey (11.136) in which Teiresias, in the L o w e r World, prophesies to Odysseus that he will end his life in a rich old age (yrjpai . . . Xnrapco). T h e same words are found w h e n Odysseus repeats Tiresias's prediction to Penelope: "And death shall come to m e myself from the sea, a death so gentle that shall lay m e low, w h e n I a m overcome with rich old age [yr)p'. . . Ai7rapc£>]" (Odyssey 23.283). W e find the same phrase in the prayer of the multitude for Odysseus, which, according to Odysseus's old nurse, Eurycleia, is the same as that which h e r master addressed to Zeus: "For never yet did any mortal b u r n to Zeus . . . so m a n y fat thigh-pieces . . . with prayers that you might reach a rich old age" (yrjpas . . . Xnrapov) (Odyssey 1 9 . 3 6 5 - 6 8 ) . Likewise, the greatest gifts granted to Nestor by Zeus himself, according to Menelaus in his speech to Nestor's son Pisistratus, are that he should reach a rich old age (Xnrapcos yrjpdaKeiv) in his halls (Odyssey 4 . 2 0 9 - 1 0 ) . T h e phrase Xnrapo}. . . yrjpat is likewise

62. Cf. Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:280, n. 12, who remarks that the rabbis, far from blaming Solomon for erecting these images, gave them an important place in their tradition. Cf., however, War 1.650, where Josephus states that as Herod lay dying, two highly respected Jewish scholars hinted that this was the proper time to pull down the golden eagle that Herod had erected over the great gate of the Temple in defiance, as they claimed, of the ancestral law prohibiting representations of any living crea­ ture.

SOLOMON

6ig

found in Pindar (Nemean Odes 7.99). T h e w o r d Xnrapos significandy is found in con­ nection with old age only in these passages of Homer, Pindar, a n d J o s e p h u s .

63

W h e n J o s e p h u s summarizes Solomon's character, he singles out his good for­ tune (eu8cu/xovta, "prosperity," "full happiness"), wealth, a n d wisdom (povr)o€i) as those respects in which he surpassed all other kings (Ant. 8.211). In an extrabiblical addition, David, before the start of Solomon's reign, prays that the good fortune (evhaipioviav)

that G—d has declared He will send during Solomon's reign be dif­

fused throughout the l a n d for all time (Ant. 7.373). W h e n S o l o m o n is anointed king, H i r a m of T y r e not only sends his greetings, as in the biblical narrative (1 K i n g s 5:15), but also congratulates h i m on his present good fortune (im ayadois)

TOLS

irapovoiv

(Ant. 8.50). This motif of good a n d b a d fortune is a m a j o r theme in

Sophocles' plays. Thus, w h e n Oedipus is one step a w a y from knowing the terrible truth about his identity, he reaches the highest point of hope a n d confidence a n d proclaims, most ironically from the point o f v i e w of the audience, "I hold myself the son o f Fortune [Tvxrjs],

which gives good" (Oedipus the King 1 0 8 0 - 8 1 ) . A g a i n ,

after Oedipus discovers his identity, the C h o r u s exclaims, " W h e r e , w h e r e is the m o r t a l w h o wins m o r e o f happiness [evSaipiovias]

than j u s t the seeming?" (Oedipus

the King 1 1 8 9 - 9 1 ) . A n d at the end of the Antigone (1347), the C h o r u s concludes that wisdom is the supreme p a r t of happiness (evoaipLovias). A n o t h e r favorite a u t h o r of Josephus's, as noted, was Thucydides. Adonijah's request that S o l o m o n swear that he will not slay him (1 K i n g s 1:51) is accordingly hellenized b y J o s e p h u s to r e a d that S o l o m o n is asked to pledge to b e a r him n o malice (/XT) pLvrjoiKaKrjocu) (Ant. 7..361). This phrase, meaning "not to r e m e m b e r past injuries"—that is, to pass an act o f amnesty—is used b y Thucydides in his de­ scription of the M e g a r i a n s , w h o recall their exiles, first binding them by the most solemn oaths to b e a r n o malice (pLrjSiv pLvrjGiKaKrjGeiv) (4.74). A s to Stoic motifs in Josephus's account of S o l o m o n , w e m a y note that the in­ cense that, according to Josephus's addition to the biblical narrative, was b u r n e d at the dedication of the Temple (Ant. 8 . 1 0 1 - 2 ) was a sign of G - d ' s presence in His 64

n e w l y consecrated h o m e (Ant. 8 . 1 0 2 ) . W h e r e a s in the Bible, S o l o m o n , at the con­ secration o f the Temple, declares that G - d has set the sun in the heavens but that He has said that He will dwell in thick darkness (1 K i n g s 8:12), Josephus's S o l o m o n declares that G - d has an eternal dwelling in those things that He c r e a t e d — i n the heaven a n d air a n d earth a n d sea, through all of which He moves, a n d yet b y

63. Another indication of possible Homeric influence may be seen in Solomon's description of the human voice as something that we have from the air, just as we know to ascend again through this el­ ement (Ant. 8.112). This statement is reminiscent of Ajax's batde cry: <j>a)vr) he 01 aldep' LKavev ( "And his voice reached the air") (Iliad 15.686). 64. This is in contrast to the view, noted by Schorr 1940, ad loc, 201, n. 7, of some of the Zealots, who cried out to Titus that the world was a better temple for G-d than the structure in Jerusalem (War 5.458). Cf. also Ant. 6.230, where, in an addition to the Bible, Josephus speaks of G-d as "everywhere extended," literally "poured out" (-rravraxov Kexvfjcevov).

620

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS 65

which H e is n o t contained (Ant. 8 . 1 0 7 ) . W e find a v e r y similar statement ascribed to the Stoic Chrysippus (ap. Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.15.39), namely, that w e per­ ceive divinity in all things that shift a n d suffer metamorphosis, in water, in earth, a n d in air. S t r a b o (16.2.35.761), in a passage that appears to go back to the Stoic Posidonius,

66

says that Moses believed that G - d is the only being that encom­

passes us all, as well as land a n d sea—"the thing that w e call heaven o r universe o r the nature of all that exists." O n e is further reminded of the statement, ascribed b y Cicero (De Natura Deorum 1.14.37) to the Stoic Cleanthes, that the cosmos itself is G - d , as well as the dictum, ascribed b y Diogenes Laertes (7.139) to Chrysippus a n d Poseidonius, that the heaven is the ruling p o w e r o f the universe. T h e Bible declares v e r y simply that since heaven cannot contain G - d , h o w much less the Temple that S o l o m o n h a d built for H i m (1 K i n g s 8:27). Josephus, influenced b y the Stoics, goes beyond this in Solomon's assertion, at the dedication of the Temple, that h e has built the Temple so that w h e n the J e w s sacrifice, they might be persuaded that G - d w a s present a n d n o t far removed (puaKpdv OVK d(/>€OTrjKas), since He sees all things a n d hears all t h i n g s

67

a n d does not cease being

v e r y n e a r to all m e n , but is present with everyone w h o asks for guidance both b y night a n d d a y (Ant. 8 . 1 0 8 ) . inaKoveis,

68

T h e r e is a similar phrase, Ss

iravr*

iopds

Kal

iravr'

in A g a m e m n o n ' s p r a y e r to Zeus (Homer, Iliad 3.277), as quoted by the

first century C.E. Stoic philosopher Heraclitus in his Quaestiones Homericae (23) (so Norden 1923, 1 9 , n. 2 ) .

69

A n o t h e r example o f Stoic influence o n Josephus's formulation o f G - d ' s attrib­ utes is his statement, in Solomon's p r a y e r at the dedication o f the Temple, that it is not possible b y deeds for m e n to return thanks to G - d for the benefits they have received, inasmuch as G - d stands in need of nothing (airpooheris) a n d is above any

65. We see a similar motif in Rubel's (Reuben's) statement that wherever man is found, there too must G-d be regarded as present (Ant. 2.24). 66. See Reinhardt 1928, 1 0 - 1 1 . Stern 1974—84, 1:306, however, asserts that it is still subject to dis­ pute whether this was the philosophy of Poseidonius. 67. Cf. Josephus's similar statement, during the course of his long appeal urging.his fellow Jews to surrender, that G-d sees every secret thing and hears what is buried in silence (War 5.413). 68. Significandy, in obvious imitation of Solomon, Jeroboam uses similar Stoic terminology in dedicating his rival sanctuary at Bethel: "Fellowcountrymen, I think you know that every place has G-d in it and that there is no one spot set apart for His presence, but everywhere He hears and watches over His worshippers" (Ant. 8.227). 69. For G-d the all-seeing and all-hearing, see Josephus, War 5.413: os TOL re Kpvnra -navra i(/>opd Kal TO)V aiyajfievcov aKovei. Cf. also Against Apion 2.294, where everything in the universe is said to be under the eye and direction of G-d. We may note that Xenophanes' (Diels-Kranz B 24) remarks about G—d being all-seeing, all-perceiving, and all-hearing are likewise reminiscent of Homer: ovXos opa ovXos Se voet, ovXos 8i T' OLKOV€L. Cf. also Epicharmus's remark (Diels-Kranz B 12) that "mind sees and mind hears": vovs oprjt Kal vovs aKovet. Begg 1993a, 35, n. 180, however, notes that thefirstcentury C.E. Heraclitus's own Stoicism has been questioned by Buffiere 1962, xxxvii-xxxix). Moreover, Begg as­ serts that while Heraclitus does cite the Homeric passage in question, his comments deal not with the verse cited but rather with its context. For further discussion of the Stoic coloring in Josephus's narra­ tive, see Schlatter 1910.

SOLOMON

621

such recompense (apLoifir)s) (Ant. 8.111). Similarly, the Stoics, w h o w e r e so fond o f calling their wise m e n those in need o f naught (avpoaoer)) 70

(avTapKrj),

and

self-sufficient

predicated these qualities also for G - d (so N o r d e n 1 9 2 3 , 1 4 ) .

71

A n o t h e r indication o f Stoic influence m a y be seen in Solomon's statement that it is o n l y through the gift o f speech (a>vrj), b y reason o f which m e n a r e superior to other creatures, that they are capable o f rendering thanks to G - d , for w e have o u r voices f r o m the air (i£ depos) a n d k n o w to ascend (dvoiovaav)

again through this

element (Ant. 8 . 1 1 1 - 1 2 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s is h e r e reflecting Stoic terminology m a y be deduced f r o m the Stoics Zeno's a n d Chrysippus's (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 1.21, 2.40) definition o f sound (a)vrj) as smitten air (dr)p 7re7r\r)ypL€vos,

12

irXr^yr) aepos).

Josephus, like the Bible, was confronted with the difficult question as to w h e t h e r G - d dwelt in the Temple that S o l o m o n h a d built. In the Bible, S o l o m o n , in his address at the consecration o f the Temple, asks how, inasmuch as the highest heaven c a n n o t contain G - d , this m e r e house can contain H i m (1 K i n g s 8:27). He then beseeches G - d in heaven to listen to the Israelites w h e n they a r e in distress. Perhaps bearing in m i n d that his p r i m a r i l y p a g a n audience, a n d especially Stoics in it, w o u l d indeed assume the presence o f G - d in a Temple, J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to a d o p t a compromise between affirming G - d ' s presence there a n d asserting that G - d could not be contained in a particular place. Specifically, in Josephus's v e r ­ sion, S o l o m o n entreats G - d to send some small portion o f His spirit to dwell in the Temple that He m a y seem to be o n earth as well (Ant. 8.114). He beseeches G - d that should the Israelites suffer a n d entreat G - d to be saved, He listen to t h e m as though He w e r e within (Ant. 8.115). F u r t h e r m o r e , at the conclusion o f the consecration o f the Temple, w h e n fire comes d o w n from above a n d consumes the sacrifices, the Bible's conclusion is that the glory of the L - r d was u p o n the Temple (2 C h r o n . 7:3); in Josephus's version all the people suppose that this divine manifestation 73

(emaveta?) is a sign that G - d will henceforth actually dwell in the Temple; a n d consequendy they fall to the g r o u n d with j o y a n d p r a y (Ant. 8.119). In addition, J o s e p h u s , in addressing his primarily p a g a n audience, sometimes resorts to p a g a n terms in describing J e w i s h religious practices. In contrast, the Septuagint, addressed, as it appears to be, to a primarily J e w i s h audience, gener­ ally avoids, in its treatment o f the J e w i s h religion, G r e e k terms that w e r e used in p a g a n worship (see B i c k e r m a n 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) . T h e Septuagint, for example, speaks

70. In his summary of Jewish theology in Against Apion 2.190, Josephus uses this Stoic term in de­ scribing G-d as self-sufficient (avrapKins). 71. Cf. Chrysippus, ap. Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 39.1052D; Plutarch, Comparatio Aristidis et Catonis 4. Cf. Marcus 1931-32, 55, s.v. dnpooSerjs. 72. Cf. Homer, Iliad 15.686, where we read that the sound (<j>a)vrj) of Ajax's batde cry reached the air (aWep'). Cf. also Philo (De Decalogo 9.33, and De Agricultura 12.53), U Plotinus (6.4.12): atoncp (fxjovrjs ova-qs Kara, TOV depa TTOXXOLKLS Kal Xoyov iv rfj covfj ("just as often a sound in the air and a word in the sound"). 73. Cf. Schalit 1944-63, 3: ad loc, n. 175, who cites Schlatter 1932, 53 ff., for instances where Jose­ phus uses the phrase €Tn<j>dv€ta Oeov. a s w e

a s

622

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

o f fico/jLos ( altar), orjKos ( sacred enclosure), a n d dSvrov

(innermost sanctuary),

which are p a g a n terms, only with reference to heathen worship; o n the c o n t r a r y w h e n referring to the altar o f G - d , it uses the t e r m Ovoiaorripiov,

which has n o

precedent in p a g a n literature. T h e Septuagint never uses the terms ayaXpua a n d €IKOV w h e n referring to p a g a n images, employing rather the w o r d eiSoXov to con­ vey the idea that such images w e r e completely worthless. Likewise, inasmuch as the w o r d s puovos a n d irpwros a r e c o m m o n in G r e e k prayers, w h e r e they stress the superiority of the god w h o is being invoked over other deities, the Septuagint gen­ erally avoids these w o r d s a n d instead prefers the w o r d els ("one") in reference to the L - r d . T h e Septuagint changes the meaning o f certain G r e e k religious terms; thus dvddrjpLa, which for the pagans referred to a votive offering, is used by the Septuagint in the sense o f a vow, w h e r e a s it employs the w o r d Swpov for a votive offering. W h e r e a s evXoyLa for the G r e e k s means "praise," in the Septuagint it is the w o r d for "blessing." T h e Septuagint has a separate w o r d (although not coined by its authors), that is, puavris, for a heathen soothsayer, as against a true prophet, for w h o m it uses the w o r d irpo^-qri^s. Finally, in o r d e r to indicate the special nature of the Israelites as chosen, the translators generally use the w o r d Xaos for the J e w ­ ish people, whereas they employ the w o r d edvos to refer to p a g a n peoples (see Bickerman 1 9 8 8 , 114). In contrast, Josephus, in his extended account of the consecration of the Tem­ ple, has S o l o m o n say that he has built the Temple so as to be able to send prayers into the air to G - d while sacrificing a n d seeking good omens (KaXXiepovvres)

(Ant.

8.108). T h e w o r d KaXXiepovvres h e r e has distincdy p a g a n connotations, being used in connection with the favorable omens that are sought while sacrificing, as w e see in a n u m b e r of passages in Herodotus (6.76, 7.134, 9 . 1 9 , 9.38), for example. It is sig­ nificant that elsewhere also J o s e p h u s uses this w o r d , as in connection with K i n g Hezekiah's celebration of the Passover sacrifice (Ant. 9.268, 271), w h e r e the Septu­ agint has the n o r m a l w o r d dvetv, without its p a g a n connotations, for "to sacrifice" (2 C h r o n . 29:22). J o s e p h u s likewise uses the w o r d KaXXiepovvres

in connection

with the sacrifices o r d e r e d by the good king J o s i a h (Ant. 10.64), w h e r e the Septu­ agint employs the v e r b Oveiv (2 C h r o n . 35:1). T h a t the w o r d KaXXiepea) has p a g a n connotations w o u l d seem to be indicated b y the fact that it is used by Antiochus III, w h o , as a pagan, w o u l d be expected to use p a g a n terminology, in his decree declaring that only those animals necessary for sacrificing with good omens should be p e r m i t t e d to be used in the Temple (Ant. 12.146). Finally, there is an obvious hellenization a n d anachronism in Josephus's state­ m e n t that Solomon's palace w a s roofed in C o r i n t h i a n style (KopivOiws) 8-I33)-

(Ant.

74

74. Cf. Ant. 3.137, where Josephus likewise employs comparisons with Greek architecture in de­ scribing the table of shewbread in the Tabernacle erected by Moses. He says that the table was like those at Delphi and had exquisitelyfinishedlegs like those the Dorians affix to their couches.

SOLOMON

623

" I M P R O V E M E N T S " IN THE STORY: C L A R I F I C A T I O N S , I N C R E A S E D SUSPENSE A N D D R A M A O n e basic reason for Josephus's writing his p a r a p h r a s e of the Scripture was to clear u p obscurities and contradictions in the text. Thus, according to the Bible, the Temple was completed in the eighth m o n t h (i.e., Marcheshvan) (1 K i n g s 6:38), a n d yet it was not dedicated until the following seventh m o n t h , eleven months later. W e m a y well w o n d e r at this delay of almost a year, but the Bible makes n o at­ tempt to explain it, simply noting the m o n t h of the dedication (1 K i n g s 8:2). In Josephus, however, the problem disappears. In the first place, he does not mention the m o n t h w h e n the Temple was completed; and secondly presumably to explain to those w h o might be acquainted with the biblical text, he says that although Solomon's summons to the dedication'was sent to everyone, it was with difficulty that they all c a m e together (Ant. 8.100). A n o t h e r difficulty, this time of connection, appears in the text concerning v a r ­ ious revolts against S o l o m o n . T h e Bible mentions a certain Hadad, an Edomite, w h o was in exile in Egypt a n d w h o sought permission from his host, P h a r a o h , to r e d e e m his native land from its captivity to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 1 1 : 1 4 - 2 2 ) . In the He­ b r e w version, P h a r a o h asks him w h y he wants to leave, in view of the hospitality that he has received. H a d a d insists, and the H e b r e w version ends with this insis­ tence; in the Septuagint version, he actually does return a n d regains the rule of his country. T h e text then goes on, with no connecting link, to mention another ad­ versary of Solomon's, n a m e d Rezon (1 Kings 11:23). Josephus, for his part, effects a smooth transition by stating that H a d a d fell in with Rezon and j o i n e d forces with him a n d with a b a n d of robbers u n d e r him (Ant. 8.204). Still a n o t h e r p r o b l e m arises because, on the one hand, S o l o m o n describes him­ c

self as a small child (na ar qaton) (1 K i n g s 3:7) at the time of his accession, a point that J o s e p h u s confirms by asserting that he was not hindered by his youth (veorrjTos) from dealing out justice (Ant. 8.21). O n the other hand, w e h e a r of Solomon's old age w h e n his wives t u r n e d his heart a w a y after other gods (1 Kings 11:4). Moreover, according to the biblical text, R e h o b o a m was forty-one years old w h e n he succeeded his father S o l o m o n as king. Hence, there is a real p r o b l e m in the Bible's statement that S o l o m o n reigned for forty years (1 K i n g s 11:42), since, according to some manuscripts of the Septuagint (1 Kings 2:12), he was only twelve years old at the time of his accession. Josephus resolves the problem by asserting that S o l o m o n lived to a good old age, a n d likewise adds to Solomon's g r a n d e u r by remarking that he lived for ninety-four years and reigned for eighty years (Ant. 8.211). Josephus effects another "improvement" in the text by increasing the dramatic suspense in the scene in which Solomon's adversary, H a d a d the Edomite, w h o h a d earlier taken refuge with P h a r a o h in Egypt w h e n his country was subdued by J o a b , David's commander, asked P h a r a o h , w h o h a d given his o w n wife's sister in m a r r i a g e to him, for permission to return to his native country w h e n he h e a r d of

624

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

the death of David and J o a b (Ant. 8.202-3). ^

n D

O

t

n

t

n

e

biblical (1 K i n g s 11:22) and

J o s e p h a n versions, P h a r a o h asks H a d a d w h a t he lacks that he should w a n t to leave, but H a d a d nevertheless insists on leaving. W i t h that, the role of H a d a d in the Hebrew text seems to end, although the Septuagint adds that he r e t u r n e d to his country; a n d in the next verse in the Hebrew, w e r e a d of another adversary of S o l o m o n , n a m e d Rezon. Josephus, however, presents a m o r e elaborate and suspenseful account. In the first place, w e are told that H a d a d frequently pressed P h a r a o h a n d pleaded with him (Ant. 8.202). Josephus then adds that, although at first he did not obtain Pharaoh's permission, P h a r a o h finally did p e r m i t him to leave at the time w h e n things w e r e beginning to go badly for S o l o m o n , a n d w h e n G - d was a n g r y with him because of his unlawful acts. He adds that because H a d a d failed to get his h o m e l a n d of I d u m a e a to revolt against S o l o m o n , since it was occupied by m a n y garrisons, he w e n t to Syria. Josephus also tries to increase the dramatic a n d romantic interest of the biblical narrative. Thus, Josephus paints a m o r e vivid picture of the anointing of Solomon. He adds to the biblical description (1 K i n g s 1:40) by remarking on the feasting and merrymaking, with dancing, that marked the occasion (Ant. 7.358). W h e r e a s in the Bible, J o a b , David's c o m m a n d e r in chief, upon hearing the sound of the h o r n an­ nouncing the anointing of S o l o m o n , asks the reason for the u p r o a r (1 Kings 1:41), the effect is heightened by Josephus's description of the reaction of J o a b to this scene, for the latter says that he is not pleased (dpiaKeodai)

with the shouting a n d

trumpet blast (Ant. 7.359). A n d the effect on A d o n i j a h and all his guests is m o r e dramatically described in Josephus, for, whereas the Bible reports that they p r o ­ ceeded to finish their meal after they h a d heard the news (1 K i n g s 1:41), Josephus says that they all became so preoccupied with their thoughts that they did not taste the dinner before them (Ant. 7.359). In the case of the two prostitutes, whereas in the Bible, the second child is b o r n three days after the first (1 K i n g s 3:18), there is greater dramatic interest in J o s e ­ phus, w h o describes the two w o m e n as living not only in the same house but even in the same r o o m , a n d as giving birth not only on the same d a y but even at the same h o u r (Ant. 8.27).

75

Josephus stresses the fact that they w e r e alone, and that

consequendy the guilty w o m a n had no witness to fear w h o could convict her and hence stubbornly persisted in her denial (Ant. 8.29). He describes the actual p r o ­ cedure by which S o l o m o n asked for a sword a n d ordered that the living child be cut in two. Josephus's account is much m o r e dramatic, a n d Solomon's decision much enhanced, inasmuch as w e r e a d that no one could see w h a t j u d g m e n t to give (Ant. 8.30), clearly implying that others h a d tried their h a n d at determining w h o the m o t h e r of the living child was, a n d that only S o l o m o n was able to determine

75. Rappaport 1930, 56, no. 231, suggests that Josephus derived his view that the children were born on the same day from the statement that one of the women was delivered "with her in the house," that is, simultaneously (1 Kings 3:17). But the very next verse explicidy states that the other woman's baby was delivered on the third day thereafter.

SOLOMON

625

a solution. It is likewise m o r e dramatic a n d m o r e symmetrical that S o l o m o n o r ­ ders not m e r e l y the living child, as in the Bible (1 K i n g s 3:25), but also the dead child to be cut in two (Ant. 8 . 3 1 ) .

76

T h e r e is additional d r a m a in the detail that

w h e n S o l o m o n gives these orders, everyone secretly makes fun of

(ix^eva^ev,

"jest," "scoff at") the king as of a boy (/xetpa/aov, "lad," "stripling u n d e r twentyone") (Ant. 8.32). M o r e dramatic is the fact that the w o m a n w h o is the true m o t h e r says not merely, as in the biblical text (1 K i n g s 3:26), that the child should be given to the other w o m a n because h e r compassion was aroused for h e r son, but even that she w o u l d be content to have him alive merely to look at him. Even m o r e d r a ­ matic is the detail that the guilty m o t h e r asks that she herself be put to torture in order to substantiate h e r case (Ant. 8.32).

77

J o s e p h u s has likewise added to the romantic interest of the meeting between the Q u e e n of S h e b a a n d S o l o m o n . T h e i r r o m a n c e is all the greater because, as w e have seen, she is presented as the queen, not of an unknown country called S h e b a , but of Egypt a n d Ethiopia (Ant. 8.165), two countries most r e n o w n e d in antiquity for their wisdom a n d piety. H e r interest in S o l o m o n is aroused, not m e r e l y by w h a t she has h e a r d about him (1 K i n g s 10:6), but especially by the fact that she has h e a r d such reports every d a y (Ant. 8.165). S h e comes to test him, not with riddles (1 K i n g s 10:1), but with m o r e serious a n d m o r e difficult questions (Ant. 8.166). Fur­ t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s (Ant. 8 . 1 6 9 - 7 0 ) expands considerably on the admiration a n d a m a z e m e n t that she shows w h e n she sees Solomon's palace a n d thus builds up the romantic anticipation still more. W h e r e a s the Bible simply mentions the gift that she gives to S o l o m o n (1 K i n g s 10:10), Josephus (Ant. 8.174) is much m o r e romantic in stating, in extrabiblical additions, that she was unable to contain h e r amaze­ m e n t at Solomon's wisdom a n d at the splendor of his palace, that she was thor­ oughly overcome by h e r feelings (oidvoiav) w h e n she spoke to him (Ant. 8.170), a n d that she manifested h e r feelings (oidvoiav) w h e n she presented him with h e r most lavish gift (Ant. 8.174), opobalsam. Josephus himself enthusiastically observes that the c o u n t r y still has the root of the extremely valuable opobalsam in consequence (Ant. 8.174). Finally,

Josephus

stresses

the

excess

(dxpaoiav)

of

Solomon's

passion

(d<j>pooiGL(jov) in that he became m a d l y e n a m o r e d (e/c/xavei?) of w o m e n (Ant. 8.191); the Bible, on the other h a n d , states merely that S o l o m o n cleaved to his foreign wives a n d concubines in love (1 K i n g s 1 1 : 2 ) .

78

It is significant that the same w o r d ,

76. In having Solomon order that both the living and the dead child be divided in two, Josephus is following the Lucianic Greek text rather than the Hebrew or the Septuagint text. 77. Marcus 1934, 5:588, in his comment on this passage in the Loeb edition, states that the text may, however, mean that she wished her opponent to be tortured; but this would certainly diminish the drama of Josephus's version. 78. One is reminded ofJosephus's extrabiblical remark (Ant. 5.277) that Manoah, who was destined to become the father of Samson, was madly in love (ixavKoSrjs VTT' eptoros) with his wife and hence in­ ordinately (aKpartbs, "without command over oneself or one's passions," "incontinendy," "immoder­ ately," "intemperately") jealous (^Xorvnos).

626

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

€KfjLav€is, which Josephus uses to describe Solomon's m a d love for w o m e n occurs in only one other passage in Josephus, namely, in reference to Herod's passionate frenzy in putting to death his wife M a r i a m n e , w h o m he so deeply loved, because of his suspicion that she h a d allowed herself to be seduced (War 1.443).

SUMMARY K i n g S o l o m o n is a m a j o r figure in Josephus's attempt, in his rewriting of the Bible in his Jewish Antiquities, to answer the anti-Jewish charge that the J e w s h a d failed to produce m e n of eminence. W h e t h e r because he himself w a s descended from the Hasmoneans o r because, as a protege of the Romans, he opposed the concept of the restoration of a m o n a r c h y through a messianic descendant of David, w h o would overthrow the R o m a n rule, he focuses m o r e on S o l o m o n than on David himself O n e indication of the importance of S o l o m o n for Josephus m a y be seen from the fact that he cites m o r e external evidence to support his account of S o l o m o n than he does for a n y other biblical personality In terms of the sheer a m o u n t of space that he devotes to him, there are few m a j o r biblical personalities to w h o m Josephus gives m o r e attention. Josephus, as in his portrayal of other biblical personalities, stresses Solomon's precociousness a n d wealth a n d qualities of leadership, notably his concern for his people. S o l o m o n , like Josephus's other biblical heroes, emerges as possessing the four cardinal virtues—wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice, as well as the spiritual virtue of piety. A b o v e all, Josephus stresses Solomon's wisdom. Unlike his portrayal in rabbinic literature, w h e r e he emerges as the prototype of the talmudic sage, a n d w h e r e m a n y miraculous a n d supernatural elements are attributed to him, Josephus stresses Solomon's wisdom as a rational king a n d judge. T h e r e are several indications that in his portrait of S o l o m o n adjudicating the case of the two mothers, Josephus has in mind the portrayal of Oedipus, the solver of the riddle of the Sphinx, by Sophocles, of whose works there is considerable ev­ idence that he was fond. W e see this parallel notably in Josephus's additions to the biblical t e x t — t h a t others h a d attempted and failed to determine w h o the real m o t h e r was, that these others are spoken of as mentally blinded, that to solve the question required the use of intelligence, a n d that the case is c o m p a r e d to a riddle. S o l o m o n is likewise presented as a kind of Oedipus in the cleverness and speed that he shows in solving the riddles a n d problems, whose difficulty is stressed, that are presented to him by K i n g H i r a m of Tyre a n d by the Q u e e n of S h e b a . J o s e ­ phus, like Sophocles, emphasizes that it was the force of the hero's h u m a n reason, rather than divine inspiration, that enabled him to solve these problems. S o l o m o n is presented by Josephus as one w h o studied the forms of nature philosophically. In addition, because of the popularity of magic in his day, J o s e ­ phus develops a picture of S o l o m o n as possessing skill in the art of exorcising demons. In answer to the charge that the J e w s w e r e not masters o f an empire, J o s e -

SOLOMON phus stresses that S o l o m o n subdued m a n y nations. J o s e p h u s emphasizes

627 his

achievement in building u p the defenses of his kingdom a n d in administering his state most skillfully in perfect peace, free from civil dissension, which J o s e p h u s so decried in his o w n day. He also adds to the portrayal o f Solomon's

economic

power. Josephus's S o l o m o n shows exemplary moderation, albeit coupled with firm­ ness, in his treatment of his b r o t h e r Adonijah, w h o h a d attempted to seize the royal p o w e r during David's lifetime. Associated with this moderation is the quality of modesty which S o l o m o n exemplifies, in an extraordinary extrabiblical addi­ tion, in his admission that he h a d actually been outwitted by the young Tyrian A b ­ demon, w h o always succeeded in solving the problems submitted to him by S o l o m o n a n d w h o , in turn, submitted others that S o l o m o n was unable to solve. T h e chief use of Solomon's palace, in Josephus's eyes, was for the administra­ tion of justice. Solomon's handling of the case of Shimei enhances his reputation for fairness. S o l o m o n likewise exhibits the qualities of magnanimity, gratefulness, a n d generosity, which are closely connected with this virtue. A n indication of the emphasis that Josephus places on Solomon's piety m a y be seen in the fact that 23 percent of the occurrences of the words for "piety" and "pious" in his Jewish Antiquities are found in his S o l o m o n pericope, which com­ prises only 7 percent of his rewriting of the Bible. In his account of S o l o m o n , J o s e ­ phus links his justice and piety, just as Sophocles does so often in connection with Oedipus. S o l o m o n , in Josephus's portrait, shows exemplary piety toward his fa­ ther a n d his m o t h e r — a quality that would have been especially appreciated by Josephus's R o m a n audience, for w h o m one of Aeneas's m a j o r virtues was his pietas t o w a r d his parents. Moreover, Josephus adds a great n u m b e r of details in his de­ scription of the beauty and wealth of the Temple, which S o l o m o n built, in his greatest act of piety. In particular, he stresses that S o l o m o n applied much m o r e en­ ergy to the building of the Temple than to that of his own palace. Josephus is careful not to engage in extravagant statements with regard to G - d ' s deeds. He presents a rationalized version of the miracle that occurred at the dedication of the Temple. W h e r e a s G - d in the Bible appears direcdy to S o l o m o n , in Josephus, w e are told that S o l o m o n learned in a d r e a m that G - d h a d h e a r d his prayer. T h a t the friendship between S o l o m o n and H i r a m was important to Josephus in refuting the charge that J e w s hated non-Jews m a y be seen from the fact that Josephus devotes a goodly portion of his apologetic treatise Against Apion (1.100-27) to reproducing evidence from the Phoenician archives and from the works of Dios a n d M e n a n d e r of Ephesus to illustrate the excellent relations between S o l o m o n a n d Hiram. A b o v e all, in depicting S o l o m o n as praying that G - d grant all the r e ­ quests of non-Jews w h e n they come to the Temple, Josephus shows that J e w s are not guilty of hating non-Jews. Realizing that opposition to intermarriage might be regarded as evidence that in principle J e w s hated non-Jews, Josephus is careful to base his opposition to

628

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Solomon's intermarriages on the wrongfulness of Solomon's yielding to passion— a point of v i e w that Stoics in his audience w o u l d surely have a p p r e c i a t e d — a n d on the g r o u n d that i n t e r m a r r i a g e violated the law of his c o u n t r y In the S o l o m o n pericope, there are indications that J o s e p h u s was indebted to Homer, Sophocles, a n d Thucydides a m o n g others. Reminiscences of such popu­ lar writers w o u l d surely have e n d e a r e d J o s e p h u s to his non-Jewish audience. Moreover, there are a n u m b e r of indications of Stoic influences in Josephus's pre­ sentation of G - d ' s attributes. Finally, J o s e p h u s has avoided difficulties a n d implausibilities in the text, while increasing its suspense a n d the dramatic a n d romantic interest, particularly in his version of the meeting of the Q u e e n of S h e b a and S o l o m o n .

CHAPTER

SEVENTEEN

Daniel

In his portraits of biblical personalities, Josephus has introduced details a n d lessons that reflect events in his o w n life (Daube 1980, 1 8 - 3 6 ) . This is seen partic­ ularly in his adaptations of the narratives of J o s e p h , Daniel, Esther, a n d M o r d e c a i . Reflecting Josephus's o w n experience, the chief c o m m o n denominators in these portraits of biblical personalities are their dealings with rulers; the sufferings they endure because of j e a l o u s y a n d false accusations; a n d their ultimate rise to posi­ tions of e n o r m o u s prominence, particularly, in the instances of J o s e p h a n d Daniel, through their interpretation of d r e a m s .

1

Actually, J o s e p h u s was faced with a dilemma in the Daniel pericope, wishing, on the one h a n d , to appeal to his R o m a n audience by stressing Daniel's (and, by implication, the J e w i s h people's) quality of loyalty to a sovereign a n d to be v e r y careful not to offend his R o m a n imperial hosts, while, on the other h a n d , also de­ 2

siring to m a k e use of Daniel's prophecies of the ultimate t r i u m p h of Israel. T h e

1. There has been no complete systematic analysis of Josephus's portrait of Daniel, although Ver­ mes 1991, 149-66, does have some fine insights. Bruce 1965, 148-62, is concerned primarily with demonstrating the relationship between Daniel's visions as reported by Josephus and their interpreta­ tion by the revolutionaries at the time of the war against the Romans in 66 rather than with his portrait of Daniel as such. Satran 1980, 33-48, in tracing various interpretations of thefigureof Daniel from the biblical text until the late reworking in Pseudo-Epiphanius's Vitae Prophetarum, has a brief discussion (pp. 36-39) of Josephus's treatment but actually focuses upon a single passage in Josephus's narrative, namely, the one in which Daniel insists upon a vegetarian diet (Ant. 10.190). Mason 1994,161—91, is con­ cerned primarily, not with Josephus's portrayal of Daniel in the Antiquities, but rather with the way in which the Book of Daniel influenced his account of the war of the Jews against the Romans. 2. Significandy, as Stern 1987, 71-80, has shown, despite the fact that Josephus seems to have been so prejudiced in favor of the Romans, there is only a single allusion in the Jewish War (7.100-11) to the Jews' benefiting from Roman rule. We may guess that Josephus there, as here in the Daniel pericope in the Antiquities, realized that such a statement of appreciation for the Romans would have alienated him 629

630

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

Daniel episode gave Josephus an excellent opportunity to address the chief histor­ ical question that faced Josephus in his o w n day, namely, h o w to conduct oneself as an authentic representative of a defeated Jewish nation (so A n d r e Paul 1 9 7 5 , 367-84). A s w e have seen, one measure of the a m o u n t of interest that a given personal­ ity has for Josephus m a y be seen in the sheer a m o u n t of space that he devotes to him. Inasmuch as J o s e p h is the biblical figure w h o , in terms of the motifs charac­ terizing his persona, is perhaps closest to Daniel, it is significant that whereas the ratio of Josephus to the H e b r e w text for J o s e p h is 1.63 (1.20 with respect to the Septuagint; 5.45 [3.75 with reference to the Septuagint] for the episode of J o s e p h a n d Potiphar's wife; 3.26 [2.38 with reference to the Septuagint] for the narrative dealing with Joseph's dreams a n d subsequent enslavement; 4.09 [2.97 with refer­ ence to the Septuagint] for the pericope comprising the final test of Joseph's broth­ ers), the ratio for Daniel (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 6 - 2 1 8 , 2 3 2 - 8 1 : 537 lines in the Loeb Classical L i b r a r y text; 407 lines in the H e b r e w - A r a m a i c text of Daniel, chapters 1 - 6 a n d 8; 3

790 lines in the Septuagint text of Rahlfs) is 1.32 with respect to the H e b r e w and .68 with respect to the G r e e k .

4

T h e relative importance of the Daniel episode for Josephus m a y be seen as well in the fact that, in a detail found in n o other source (so M o m i g l i a n o 1979, 4 4 2 - 4 8 ) , Josephus reports that the Book of Daniel, with its prediction that a G r e e k would destroy Persian Empire (Dan. 8:21; Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 3 ) ,

w a s

shown to A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t

(Ant. 11.337). T h e importance of the Daniel episode to Josephus likewise appears from the fact that he goes out of his w a y to remark on the desecration of the Tem-

even further from the Jewish masses, whom he was trying to reach in the latter work, and would have lent credibility to the accusation that he had been bought off by the Romans. 3. Thackeray 1929, 89, concludes that for Daniel, Josephus used a Greek text, one combining the peculiarities of the two known versions, i.e., the Septuagint and that later ascribed to Theodotion. Ver­ mes 1991, 151-52, notes that in thus mixing the text of the Septuagint with that attributed to Theodotion, Josephus has a counterpart in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 31, with its quotation of Dan. 7:9-14. Bruce 1965, 148-62, concludes that Josephus's version of Daniel is based almost entirely on the canonical Hebrew-Aramaic text, and that he did not know the Septuagint additions at all. Evi­ dence for his use of the Hebrew-Aramaic original may be seen in Ant. 10.271, where Josephus speaks of a smaller (fiiKporepov) horn, clearly reflecting the Hebrew, as opposed to the Septuagint (Dan. 8:9), which reads laxvpov ("strong"). J. A.Goldstein 1976, 5 5 8 - 6 8 , concludes that for his account of Daniel, Josephus had basically the same text as that found in our Hebrew Bible, but that he presented the ma­ terial in the form of a synthesized oracle in order better to impress his Greek and Roman audience. The reason for the relatively large number of lines in Rahlfs's Greek text is that many of these are printed as poetry. 4. After comparing the accounts of Daniel in Josephus, Josippon, and the Apocrypha, Neuman 1952-53, 1-26, concludes that both Josephus and the Septuagint drew upon an earlier, more extensive Daniel literature that is no longer extant. In particular, he notes that Josephus (Ant. 10.267) speaks of books (in the plural) that Daniel wrote; but this is perhaps a reference to the two stories of Bel and the Dragon in the Apocrypha.

DANIEL

631

pie by Antiochus Epiphanes that it h a d been defiled in accordance with the p r o p h e c y of Daniel 408 years earlier (Ant. 12.322). Since the J o s e p h a n d the Daniel episodes both emphasize the wisdom of the protagonist, particularly in his interpretation of dreams, as well as the authority of the state, a n d since both r o u n d l y c o n d e m n disobedience to the king's law, w e might have expected approximately equal attention to both. In actuality, however, Josephus's text on J o s e p h is 23 percent longer, as c o m p a r e d with the Hebrew, than is that on Daniel. In v i e w of the similarities between the tremendous vicissitudes in Daniel's life a n d those of J o s e p h and, in fact, of the J e w i s h people, one might also expect m o r e attention to be given to Daniel than he gets in Josephus. T h e expla­ nation of his decreased importance w o u l d seem to be that J o s e p h u s h a d to con­ tend with the fact that the biblical Daniel disobeyed the king's law, prophesied the o v e r t h r o w of the R o m a n Empire, a n d was rescued by miracles—motifs that w o u l d have caused considerable e m b a r r a s s m e n t to Josephus, the protege of the Flavians, the R o m a n imperial family, h a d he unduly emphasized them.

DANIEL'S Q U A L I T I E S O F C H A R A C T E R W h e n the biblical account first introduces Daniel, it mentions m e r e l y that he a n d his three colleagues, H a n a n i a h , Mishael, a n d A z a r i a h , w e r e o f the tribe o f J u d a h (Dan. 1:6). To be sure, the text has earlier declared that Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, h a d c o m m a n d e d his chief eunuch to educate some of the people of Is­ rael, both of the royal family a n d of the nobility a m o n g w h o m w e r e these four youths (Dan. 1:3). J o s e p h u s places even greater stress on their genealogy, however, noting that they w e r e not m e r e l y of the nobility but of the noblest birth (evyeveardrovs)

(Ant. 10.186). He spells out that they not only belonged to the royal

family but w e r e relatives of K i n g Sacchias (that is, Zedekiah) himself. He e m p h a ­ sizes this royal relationship by repeating, shordy thereafter, that the four youths c a m e f r o m the family of Sacchias (Ant. 10.188). This w o u l d m e a n that they w e r e 5

also great-grandsons of the good king Hezekiah. T h e r e is further aggrandizement of Daniel a n d his colleagues, in that their names are changed not, as in the Bible (Dan. 1:7), by the chief eunuch but r a t h e r by Nebuchadnezzar himself (Ant. 10.188). In addition, the h e r o must be handsome. A s to Daniel a n d his companions, w h e r e a s the biblical text refers to them as youths without blemish a n d h a n d s o m e (Dan. 1:4), J o s e p h u s speaks of them as remarkable (irepi^XeTrroi, "looked f r o m all sides," "admired by all observers") for both the vigor (aKpuats, "strength," "prime of life") o f their bodies a n d the comeliness (evpLopfoaLs, "handsomeness," "beauty

5. In contrast, the third-century Rabbi Samuel ben Nahmani cites the tradition (Sanhedrin 93b; cf. Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 53; and Jerome on Isa. 39:7) that whereas Daniel was of the tribe of Judah, Hana­ niah, Mishael, and Azariah came from other tribes. See Ginzberg 1909-38, 6:414, n. 76.

632

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

of form") of their features (oi/jewv "appearance," "shape") (Ant. 10.186). In this con­ nection, J o s e p h u s w a s confronted with a delicate problem, namely, that whereas 6

the biblical text declares that the youths w e r e without blemish, o n e rabbinic tra­ 7

8

dition portrays them as eunuchs (Sanhedrin 9 3 b ) , presumably because, according to the biblical text, the king c o m m a n d e d his chief eunuch to educate these youths (Dan. 1:3). J o s e p h u s resolves the p r o b l e m v e r y typically b y omitting the trouble­ some phrase, "without blemish" a n d b y n o t stating explicidy that Daniel a n d his 9

companions w e r e a m o n g those w h o w e r e m a d e eunuchs (Ant. 1 0 . 1 8 6 ) . T h e in­ struction of the youths is entrusted, according to Josephus, n o t to the chief eunuch, but to Greek-like pedagogues, a n d thus their status is elevated (Ant. 10.186). T h a t Daniel's key attribute for J o s e p h u s is his wisdom m a y b e seen in the fact that o f the thirteen occurrences of the w o r d oo<j)6s, "wise," in the first eleven books of the Antiquities, w h e r e J o s e p h u s paraphrases the Bible, five, that is, 38 percent, are found in this single passage ( 1 0 . 1 8 6 - 2 8 1 ) concerning Daniel, which comprises only 3 percent o f the 3,777 p a r a g r a p h s constituting Josephus's p a r a p h r a s e o f the Bible. O f the thirty-five occurrences o f the w o r d oo

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

expected to discuss the past a n d not to predict the future, although Josephus cer­ tainly saw a kinship between the p r o p h e t a n d the historian, particularly since he must have been a w a r e of the dictum of Thucydides (1.22.4), one of his favorite au­ thors, that "whoever wishes to have a clear view of the events that have happened a n d of those that will some day, in all h u m a n probability, h a p p e n again in the same or a similar w a y " w o u l d find his history useful (Feldman 1990, 3 9 7 - 4 0 0 ) .

40

This is

the only place in his writings w h e r e J o s e p h u s makes such a statement; and, in fact, n o other extant ancient historian makes any such r e m a r k either. T h e v e r y fact that Josephus refers to the historian Cleodemus-Malchus as "the prophet" is a further indication of the kinship that he saw between historian a n d p r o p h e t (Ant. 1.240). W e m a y add that one basic reason for Josephus's great interest in the p r o p h e t s — a n d he regarded Daniel as a p r o p h e t (Ant. 10.246, 2 4 9 , 268)—was that he viewed them as his predecessors as historians of the past. Moreover, Josephus remarks that the reason w h y the historical works from the time of Artaxerxes in the mid fifth century B.C.E. to his o w n time are less reliable is because they did not have the prophets as their authors (Against Apion. 1.41). O f course, inasmuch as Josephus, especially in his references to the prophets, is highly selective, he m a y simply have omitted to p a r a p h r a s e the above passage, as he did the p r o p h e c y of a messianic kingdom that would destroy all previous king­ doms a n d that itself would last forever (Dan. 2:44), as well as the passage in Daniel (7:18), in which it is m a d e clear that the fifth, worldwide, a n d everlasting empire would be ruled by the people of "saints of the Most High," that is, the J e w s — a passage that would, to the obvious embarrassment of Josephus as spokesman for the R o m a n s , imply the overthrow of R o m e .

41

T h e fact that he nevertheless does

not omit the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m is an indication of the de­ liberate ambiguity of his attempt to reach both of his audiences, the non-Jews a n d the J e w s , for the latter of w h o m the reference would a p p a r e n d y be taken as an­ nouncing a messianic kingdom that w o u l d make an end of the R o m a n Empire. Perhaps he felt that to omit it altogether w o u l d have been regarded by his J e w i s h readers as a clear indication that he h a d sold out to the R o m a n s . In fact, J o s e p h K l a u s n e r goes so far as to argue that Josephus's trip to R o m e in 64, despite his statements in the War that Rome's ascendancy was p a r t of a divine plan, m a y have actually increased his enthusiasm for the cause of the revolutionaries, inasmuch as he must have been struck by Rome's decadence a n d hence have seen that it was only a matter of time before R o m e w o u l d fall (Klausner 1 9 4 9 , 5 : 1 6 7 - 6 8 ) ; in this

40. Conversely, a prophet is concerned with recording the past, as may be seen from the fact that Moses, at the close of his life, "prophesies" to each of the tribes the things that are past (Ant. 4.320). 41. Flusser 1972, 148-75, concludes that Josephus (Ant. 10.276-77) could not speak of the common interpretation of the four empires in Daniel because of its anti-Roman character, but that in Ant. 15.385-87, where no such danger would arise, he gives the common Jewish interpretation of the se­ quence of the four empires—Babylonia, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. However, that there is no in­ dication in the latter passage that the Roman Empire is destined to be overthrown.

DANIEL

65/

view, the passage in Antiquities 10.210 would be a clue to his real feelings t o w a r d the Romans. W h e n Josephus goes on to direct anyone w h o is eager for exact information about these hidden things of the future to read the Book of Daniel for himself, he surely realized that non-Jews were unlikely to follow through on this suggestion, whereas this w o u l d seem to be a hidden hint to J e w s to read the Book of Daniel it­ self and to perceive the reference to the future downfall of R o m e . T h a t Josephus's evasiveness here is deliberate seems apparent from the fact that elsewhere J o s e ­ phus p r o u d l y contrasts the great G r e e k philosophers Pythagoras, A n a x a g o r a s , Plato, a n d the Stoics, w h o did not venture to disclose their true beliefs to the masses, with the openness of Moses (Ag. Ap. 2 . 1 6 8 - 6 9 ) . If Josephus really took seriously his statement that it is not the function of the historian to deal, through prediction, with future events, he h a d no need to m e n ­ tion the above prophecy at all, since it does not concern historic events that h a d al­ r e a d y occurred. If he does so, nevertheless, it is, it would seem, for the benefit of J e w i s h readers, w h o would certainly find great comfort in that p r o p h e c y .

42

In this

respect, it w o u l d seem likely that Josephus shared one of the m a j o r and distinctive tenets of the Pharisees, namely, their apocalyptic hopes. W h i l e it is true that there is no mention in the works of Josephus of a messiah (other than the references in Ant. 18.63 and 20.200, the f o r m e r of which is probably interpolated), inasmuch as the belief in a messiah was a cardinal tenet of the Pharisees,

43

with w h o m Josephus

allied himself (Life 12), it seems most likely that Josephus did share this v i e w .

44

Moreover, although Josephus makes a point of contrasting Daniel with other prophets as a b e a r e r of good tidings, whereas they foretold disasters (Ant. 10.268),

42. Cf. Braverman 1978, in, who perceptively remarks that Josephus must have been confident that his Roman readers would not check his source by snooping in the Book of Daniel itself, and hence that this reference is evidence that he was addressing two different audiences, telling each one what it wanted to hear. 43. That the rabbis understood the stone to refer to the messiah (Dan. 2:44-45) is clear from Tanhuma B 2.91-92 and Tanhuma Terumah 7. De Jonge 1974, 2 1 1 - 1 2 , argues that Josephus's speech in which he states that G-d, having made the round of the nations, had now caused the rod of empire to rest over Italy (War 5.367), is making the point that it is only for "now" (vvv) that Rome is supreme and that this is actually an indication that its supremacy is not to last forever. Hence, according to de Jonge, Josephus here, as in Ant. 4.114-17, 10.210, and 10.267, evidences a clear eschatological messianic faith. It may be doubted, however, that the passage in War 5.367 expresses a messianic anticipation, since it seems very unlikely that Josephus, having been commissioned by the Romans to urge the Jews to sur­ render, would have ventured to suggest such an anticipation in clear defiance of his Roman hosts. 44. See Davies 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 - 2 8 , and Nikiprowetzky 1989, 216-36. If Josephus thus suppresses the mes­ sianic ideals of those who led the revolution against Rome in 6 6 - 7 4 , apparendy did so to avoid the wrath of the Romans, who would have seen the messiah as a political rebel against Rome. The fact is that in the last book of the Antiquities, Josephus lists at least ten leaders who were probably regarded as messiahs by their adherents, although Josephus himself avoids calling them such. The meaning of the term "messiah" was apparendy flexible enough to accommodate the careers of all these figures. n e

6ji?

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

those good tidings are not recorded in Josephus's subsequent presentation (At­ tridge 1 9 7 6 , 105). He is perhaps here too, however, cryptically addressing his J e w ­ ish readers, w h o , in accordance with Josephus's recommendation (Ant. 10.210), would r e a d the Book of Daniel (notably 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , which Josephus

significandy

omits), with its prophecies of future J e w i s h greatness, which Josephus, given his delicate position as a protege of the Flavians, did not feel free to cite. T h a t Josephus was really walking a tightrope in his handling of Daniel's (pur­ ported) predictions about the R o m a n s m a y be seen in his c o m m e n t that Daniel wrote about the empire of the R o m a n s a n d that J e r u s a l e m would be taken by them a n d the Temple laid waste (Ant. 1 0 . 2 7 6 ) .

45

A s his formulation here shows,

Josephus was a p p a r e n d y reluctant to tell the r e a d e r w h a t it w a s that Daniel wrote about the R o m a n s (at least as interpreted by tradition), namely, that the R o m a n Empire would itself be overthrown a n d that the J e w s would ultimately t r i u m p h .

46

Indeed, although he devotes m o r e attention to Daniel than to any other prophet, he omits a n y reference to the celebrated seventy-weeks p r o p h e c y of D a n . 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 , which foretells the coming o f a messianic redeemer, presumably from R o m a n rule. T h a t Josephus was highly sensitive to the charge of dual loyalty m a y be seen in his p a r a p h r a s e of the biblical passage in which certain C h a l d a e a n s accuse the J e w ­ ish youths S h a d r a c h , Mesach, a n d A b e d n e g o , w h o m Nebuchadnezzar h a d ap­ pointed to high administrative posts, of paying no heed to the king, as witnessed by the fact that they did not serve his gods o r worship his image (Dan. 3 : 8 - 1 2 ) — o b -

45. The text is in doubt here; and Eisler 1931, 631, suspects an interpolation. The restoration is based upon an excerpt in John Chrysostom. See Marcus 1934-37, 6:310-11, n. c, who concludes that there is no reason why a mere reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans would have been avoided by Josephus as likely to offend his Roman readers. Such a reference would indeed not have offended his Roman readers but, on the contrary, would have given them cause for pride in over­ coming such a mighty revolt; rather, it was the reference to what Daniel wrote about the Roman Em­ pire, namely, the prediction of its ultimate overthrow (Dan. 9:26), that would surely not have set well with them. For a discussion of the ambiguity in the Josephan passage (Ant. 10.276), see Braverman 1978, 109-10. 46. Nikiprowetzky 1 9 7 1 , 4 6 1 - 9 0 , argues that there are esoteric references in the War to messianism, suggestive of Josephus's belief that the Roman power was destined to be overthrown by a messianic kingdom; but the passage (War 6.310-15) that he cites in support of his thesis refers to a prediction that someone from Judaea would become the ruler of the world. There is no indication that this "someone" would necessarily be a Jew, and indeed, at least according to Josephus (War 6.313), the reference was, rather, to Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while he was leading his army in Judaea. In fact, it would have been foolhardy and outright dangerous for Josephus to have implied that the reference was to a Jewish messiah; consequendy, Josephus suppresses the messianic ideals of the revolutionaries in the war against Rome, so much did he apparendy fear Roman wrath. Bilde 1988, 188, on the basis of the cryptic passage in which Josephus mentions the stone without revealing its meaning (Ant. 10.210), concludes that Josephus did have an eschatology, but that it was different from that of the militant na­ tionalists, being, in fact, similar to that which wefindin the contemporary apocalyptic circles repre­ sented by the Book of Daniel, the Essenes, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. We may, however, com­ ment that if so, Josephus certainly was careful to conceal his eschatological beliefs or to wrap them in ambiguity.

DANIEL

633

viously important symbols in maintaining the unity a n d allegiance of the m a n y ethnic groups in his kingdom. Josephus, in his paraphrase, is careful to shift the emphasis from the failure of the J e w s to serve Nebuchadnezzar's gods a n d to w o r ­ ship his i m a g e — a political d e m a n d — t o the religious motive of the youths, namely, their unwillingness to transgress their fathers' laws (Ant. 10.214). T h e R o m a n s , w h o placed such a great emphasis upon law a n d upon respect for ancestral tradition, as w e can see from the attention given these factors in their great national p o e m , V i r ­ gil's Aeneid, w o u l d surely have appreciated such a stance. Elsewhere, Josephus goes even further in shifting the focus from the conflict be­ tween J e w i s h religious l a w a n d the law of the state. Thus, in the Bible, Daniel's en­ vious rivals state, in their exasperation, that they are unable to find any complaint against Daniel unless they discover it to be "in the matter of the law of his G - d " (Dan. 6:5). Realizing that the w o r d "law" in and of itself was such an important concept to the R o m a n s a n d that the biblical allusion to a possible conflict between the law o f the state a n d the law of the J e w s implied an irreconcilable conflict be­ tween two systems, Josephus in his p a r a p h r a s e of this passage omits the w o r d "law" altogether and instead couches the issue solely in religious terms, with his r e ­ m a r k that w h e n his rivals saw Daniel praying to G - d three times a day, they real­ ized that they h a d found a pretext for destroying him (Ant. 10.252). W h e n J o s e p h u s does subsequendy mention the laws of the J e w s , he makes clear by the immediate following mention of the Temple a n d its sacrifices that his reference is to their r e ­ ligious laws (Ant. 10.275). Daniel's envious rivals, on the other hand, according to Josephus's addition to the biblical text (Dan. 6:13), sought to p o r t r a y Daniel as at­ tempting, by his disregard of the king's edict, to u n d e r m i n e the state, which they claimed other inhabitants w e r e seeking to preserve (Ant. 1 0 . 2 5 6 ) .

47

Moreover, Josephus was well a w a r e of the charge that the J e w s exercised u n d u e influence in the highest echelons of government, as evidenced in the visit to A l e x a n d r i a in 38 C.E. of K i n g A g r i p p a I, with its ostentatious display of his body­ guard of spearmen decked in a r m o r overlaid with gold a n d silver, which led to a p o p u l a r riot against the J e w s (Philo, In Flaccum 5.30). Hence, w h e n Belshazzar offers a gift to Daniel (Dan. 5:16), Josephus is careful to stress that the initiative was Belshazzar's own, rather than in response to any claim on Daniel's p a r t (Ant. 10.240), j u s t as he adds that the reason w h y Belshazzar took this step was so that Daniel might b e c o m e illustrious in the eyes of all w h o saw him a n d w h o would ask w h y he h a d obtained these symbols of power. W e m a y see from Josephus's treatment of the role played by Daniel in Darius's kingdom that he is careful to avoid any suggestion that J e w s exercise undue power. Thus, whereas the Bible says that the king planned to set Daniel over the whole kingdom (Dan. 6:3), Josephus says nothing about such a plan (Ant. 10.250), which

47. There is a lacuna here in the text, but the import appears to be that those who observed the edict not to pray did so not because of impiety but because they realized how important it was to main­ tain respect for law and order.

654

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

would have implied control by a J e w over the largest empire known up to that date. Instead, w e are told v e r y simply that Daniel was held in great honor. T h a t Daniel was regarded by Darius as particularly trustworthy m a y be de­ duced from the fact that in an addition by Josephus to D a n . 6:28, Darius shows him extraordinarily high h o n o r by designating him as the first of his Friends (Ant. 10.263). T h e office of royal bodyguard was held only by "friends of the king" (see L a m m e r t 1927, 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) .

4 8

Similarly, we m a y note Josephus's reference to Z e r u b -

babel, w h o h a d an "old friendship" with the king, and w h o was on that account "judged w o r t h y of a place in the king's bodyguard" (Ant. 11.32). It is particularly important that w h e n Ezra is first introduced to his readers by Josephus, he is termed, in an extrabiblical addition, not to be found in 1 Esdras 8:4, "a friend" (<j>i\os) to K i n g X e r x e s (Ant.

11.121).

C L A R I F I C A T I O N S O F THE BIBLE A m o n g the most c o m m o n charges against the J e w i s h Scriptures was the con­ tention that they contained contradictions and discrepancies in chronology. In the case of the Book of Daniel, Josephus was confronted with an obvious problem of chronology, inasmuch as w e h e a r of Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m in the second y e a r of his reign (Dan. 2:1), whereas the second y e a r o f Nebuchadnezzar's reign long preceded the events described in the Book of Daniel (Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and A z a r i a h did not enter Nebuchadnezzar's presence until after three years, as w e see in D a n . 1:5 a n d 1:18). Josephus resolves the problem by stating that the d r e a m occurred two years after Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Egypt (Ant. 1 0 . 1 9 5 ) .

49

To increase the credibility of his account, Josephus gives precise information w h e r e the Bible lacks such; for example, he gives the precise date of the capture of Babylon by C y r u s . T h e Bible does not give a date for this event (Dan. 5:30); but Josephus, eager to present himself as a reliable historian, and drawing upon sources that are no longer extant, reports that it was in the seventeenth y e a r of the

48. Cf. Ant. 13.45, where Alexander Balas, the king of Syria, writes to Jonathan the Hasmonean that he is designating him high priest of the Jews with the tide of "friend" (<j>i\os). Cf. also Ant. 14.250, where Josephus quotes a decree of the Roman Senate exempting King Ptolemy of Egypt from taxation as "our ally and friend." 49. The rabbis date the dream two years after the destruction of the Temple (Seder Olam Rabbah 28.124). Jerome, in his commentary on Dan. 2:1, cites "the Hebrews" as dating it in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over all the barbarian nations. Inasmuch as Jerome cites Josephus as specifi­ cally corroborating "the Hebrews," which is his usual way of referring to rabbinic tradition, we may conclude that the midrashim available to Jerome, but which are now lost, cited a view similar to that expressed by Josephus. The eleventh-century Karaite commentator Jepheth ibn Ali, in his commen­ tary on Dan. 2:1, explains the passage as referring to the second year after Nebuchadnezzar had be­ come king of the whole world. See Braverman 1978, 7 2 - 7 6 .

DANIEL

655

50

reign of Belshazzar (Ant. 1 0 . 2 4 7 ) . Likewise, because he wishes to be recognized as a careful historian, whereas the Bible is silent about the identity of Darius the M e d e (Dan. 6:1), Josephus explains that he was a son of Astyages but was called by another n a m e a m o n g the Greeks (Ant. 10.248).

D R A M A T I C M O T I F S AND L A N G U A G E T h e r e is added d r a m a in Josephus's version of Daniel's request that the execution of the wise m e n be delayed. In the Bible, Daniel asks the king to give him "time" (Dan. 2:16). In Josephus's version, the d r a m a is increased in that he asks m e r e l y for one night a n d also in that Nebuchadnezzar, w e are told, actually orders the exe­ cution to be postponed until he learns w h a t Daniel has promised to disclose (Ant. 10.198). O n e is reminded of Medea's request to C r e o n to allow h e r to remain in C o r i n t h for just one d a y so that she m a y consider w h e r e to live out h e r exile a n d w h e r e to seek support for h e r children (Euripides, Medea 3 4 0 - 4 1 ) . A n o t h e r case w h e r e Josephus builds up suspense is the scene w h e r e Belshazzar seeks to find an interpretation of the handwriting on the wall. In the biblical ver­ sion, the king calls upon his wise m e n , but they fail to understand the writing (Dan. 4:7, 9). In Josephus, as noted, there are two stages to the process, the first w h e n the M a g i are called in a n d the second w h e n the king offers a third of his realm to the successful interpreter (Ant. 10.236). In the second stage, as Josephus reports it, the M a g i come in ever greater numbers a n d make ever greater efforts, all without suc­ cess. T h e suspense is all the greater in that all this takes place, according to J o s e ­ phus's unscriptural addition, while Belshazzar is being besieged by C y r u s , king of Persia, a n d Darius, king of M e d i a (Ant. 10.232; cf. D a n . 5 : 1 - 9 ) . T h e r e is further suspense w h e n Belshazzar's queen (she is Belshazzar's grand­ mother, according to Josephus [Ant. 10.237]) begs him to send for Daniel a n d so c o n d e m n the ignorance of those w h o could not read the writing on the wall. J o s e ­ phus helps build u p the suspense of dire foreboding with an unscriptural detail, namely, that the queen asked her husband to call for Daniel even though a dark (oKvdpamov,

"somber," "distressing," "depressing," "calamitous," "catastrophic")

oudook might be indicated by G - d (Ant. 10.238). Josephus also adds to the d r a m a of the climactic incident in which Daniel is cast into the lions' den. According to the biblical narrative, w h e n K i n g Darius hears from the satraps that Daniel has violated his edict, he is v e r y upset, sets his h e a r t on delivering Daniel, a n d tries until sundown to w o r k out a plan to save him (Dan. 6:14). J o s e p h u s adds to the sense of apprehension in the scene, since he depicts the plotters as anticipating that Darius might treat Daniel with greater favor than they

n

50. As Marcus (1934-37, 6:294-95, - ) remarks, Josephus's dadng is supported by Babylonian records, whereas it contradicts extant rabbinic tradition, which declares that Belshazzar reigned for only two years. c

6j6

JOSEPHUS'S BIBLICAL PORTRAITS

h a d expected a n d that he might be r e a d y to p a r d o n him despite his contempt for the royal decree (Ant. 10.257). J o s e p h u s even adds at this point that they are envi­ ous of Daniel because of the regard in which he is held by Darius a n d hence refuse to adopt a milder course. Moreover, there is heightened irony in Josephus's version. Thus, w h e n Daniel emerges unscathed from the lions' den, the biblical narrative states that Darius o r ­ dered that Daniel's accusers be cast into the lions' den, together with their wives a n d children, w h e r e u p o n the lions broke all their bones to pieces (Dan. 6:24). T h e r e is much greater d r a m a in Josephus's version. In the first place, as has been noted, J o s e p h u s adds that Daniel's enemies tell the king their t h e o r y that the rea­ son w h y Daniel was not h a r m e d was that the lions w e r e sated, w h e r e u p o n the king takes t h e m at their w o r d and feeds the lions a large quantity of meat before throw­ ing the plotters into the lions' den, where, fittingly enough, they are devoured (Ant. 10.260). This is the same kind of irony that w e find in Josephus's c o m m e n t on the appropriateness of the fact that H a m a n should have been hanged on the gallows that he h a d p r e p a r e d for his e n e m y M o r d e c a i a n d on G - d ' s wisdom and justice in bringing this about (Ant. 11.268).

SUMMARY To understand Josephus's interpretation of the character of Daniel, w e must real­ ize that he was addressing an audience of both J e w s a n d non-Jews. For the latter, going beyond his biblical source, he emphasizes Daniel's genealogy, handsome ap­ pearance, a n d possession of the cardinal virtues of wisdom (seen especially in his interpretation of dreams), courage, temperance (which he identifies with modesty), a n d justice (which is coupled with h u m a n i t y a n d unselfishness), plus the fifth virtue of piety. In addition, his Daniel shows the qualities of leadership prized by T h u c y ­ dides and Plato, w h o m J o s e p h u s a n d his audience so admired. Daniel is also r e ­ ferred to, as he is not in the Bible, as a prophet, a role that J o s e p h u s also ascribed to himself. Because J e w s h a d reached positions of the highest importance during the Hel­ lenistic a n d R o m a n periods and thereby aroused jealousy as well as charges of double loyalty, Josephus uses this pericope to show the broadmindedness of J e w s t o w a r d non-Jews. In particular, he seeks to cast the kings—Nebuchadnezzar, Bels­ hazzar, a n d D a r i u s — w i t h w h o m Daniel was closely associated in a m o r e favorable light. A n d yet, Josephus felt that he h a d to cater to a J e w i s h readership also. A l ­ though he might easily have omitted, as strictiy speaking not relevant to his history, the reference in Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m to the stone that destroyed the kingdom of iron, he nevertheless mentions it, albeit with the evasive r e m a r k that anyone w h o wishes to obtain m o r e information about the matter should r e a d the Book of Daniel. S u r e l y Josephus realized that only J e w s w e r e likely to follow this sugges-

DANIEL

657

tion, just as it was they w h o would probably be aware of the interpretation of this passage as referring to the messiah's triumph over the R o m a n Empire. By emphasizing the honors accorded Daniel, Josephus also uses this pericope to answer the charge that the J e w s w e r e the most untalented of all barbarians. Moreover, in explaining that Daniel abstained from the king's food and wine for reasons of health, Josephus answers the charge that the J e w s h a d a w a y of life that was hostile to foreigners. T h e r e is a relative deemphasizing of G - d and greater importance attached to the h u m a n role in history in Josephus's Daniel pericope. In dealing with the mir­ acles of the Book of Daniel, Josephus either rationalizes o r says that Daniel was saved by divine providence, employing a t e r m that was a favorite of the Stoics. R e ­ alizing the problem presented by angels both for J e w s and non-Jews, he avoids mentioning them as effecting the miraculous rescue of Daniel from the lions' den. T h e fact that he closes his account of Daniel, and, indeed, the first half of the An­ tiquities, with an excursus on h o w mistaken the Epicureans are in asserting that the world runs by its own movement is once again an appeal to the numerous Stoics in his audience. In addition, in his paraphrase, Josephus clarifies several apparent contradic­ tions o r difficulties in the biblical text, especially in its chronology. Likewise he gives precise information w h e r e the Bible is lacking such. J o s e p h u s also adds d r a m a to the narrative and, in particular, builds u p sus­ pense. Moreover, he heightens the irony, particularly in the scene in which Daniel's enemies, w h o h a d argued that the reason w h y Daniel was not h a r m e d by the lions was because they w e r e sated, are themselves fed to lions that are indeed sated but eat them nevertheless.

CONCLUSION

To appreciate Josephus's rewriting of the Bible, it m a y be useful to c o m p a r e his work with other efforts in antiquity to rewrite sacred material. W h e t h e r it is G r e e k playwrights rewriting plots from H o m e r and other sources of G r e e k mythology or Dionysius of Halicarnassus's retelling of R o m a n legends o r midrashic o r quasimidrashic works, such as the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical An­ tiquities, o r rabbinic targumim o r midrashic reworking of the Jewish Scriptures, w e note that their authors feel no hesitation in taking liberties—and often v e r y con­ siderable liberties—with their sacred texts. Hence, w h e n Josephus assures his readers that he has not added to o r subtracted from the sacred text, his readers w o u l d presumably have understood this to m e a n that he h a d followed in the foot­ steps of his m a n y predecessors and contemporaries. W i t h i n each of the works listed above that represents rewriting the Bible, one notes tremendous variation in highlighting certain episodes, sharply abbreviating or omitting others, and adding totally n e w episodes. Thus, for example, PseudoPhilo, on the basis of the Bible's m e r e mention of the n a m e of K e n a z , as the father o f the j u d g e Othniel (Judg. 3:9, 11), inserts a lengthy pericope (Bib. Ant. 2 5 - 2 8 ) about his achievements; Josephus, on the other hand, has a much briefer account (Ant. 5 . 1 8 2 - 8 4 ) , and the extant rabbinic literature has nothing at all about this figure. Josephus, on the basis of passing biblical mention of the fact that Moses m a r r i e d an Ethiopian w o m a n , presents a lengthy episode of Moses' achievements as a general in a campaign against the Ethiopians and his m a r r i a g e with the Ethiopian princess. T h e historian A r t a p a n u s , w h o apparently lived in the second century B.C.E. and w h o m most regard as a Jew, has a briefer account, which omits the romantic episode; Philo, despite the length of his life of Moses, has nothing to say about this matter, and it is not until the Middle Ages that w e find references to it in rabbinic literature.

659

66o

CONCLUSION Certain episodes are vastly expanded by Josephus, notably portions of the

J o s e p h story (his dreams and subsequent enslavement, the episode of Potiphar's wife, and the final test of Joseph's brothers), the rebellion of K o r a h , the episode of the Israelite m e n and the Midianite w o m e n , and the reign of Zedekiah. Certain personalities, notably J e t h r o , Balaam, Ehud, Saul, David, J o a b , S o l o m o n , and J e r o b o a m , are given much m o r e attention than others. Extraordinarily little at­ tention is given to others, notably A a r o n , D e b o r a h , J o n a h , a n d Nehemiah.

The

case of Zedekiah is striking, in that in the Bible, he is said to have done w h a t was evil in the sight of the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:19), whereas Josephus, while admitting that Zedekiah was contemptuous of justice, places the blame for this upon his im­ pious advisers a n d upon the masses (Ant. 10.103). Similarly, Josephus presents a m o r e balanced portrait of A h a b , shifting m o r e of the blame for his misdeeds to his role model J e r o b o a m and to his wife Jezebel. Most remarkable of all is Josephus's treatment of the kings J e h o a s h a n d J e ­ hoiachin: in the f o r m e r case, the Bible uses its familiar formula that "he did w h a t was evil in the sight of the L - r d " (2 K i n g s 13:11), whereas Josephus says that he was a good m a n (Ant. 9.178). In the latter case, whereas the Bible states that Jehoiachin did evil in the sight of the L - r d (2 K i n g s 24:9; 2 C h r o n . 36:9), Josephus describes him as kind a n d just, two epithets that he elsewhere applies to such worthies as Samuel, Hezekiah, J e h o i a d a , Zedekiah, a n d Ezra. It is striking that some of these radical departures from the biblical text are paralleled in rabbinic literature. Likewise, v e r y notable is the extraordinary variation in the length of the eulo­ gies that Josephus appends to his pericopes on the various biblical figures: most extraordinary in this connection is his encomium for Saul, which is, amazingly enough, three times the length of the one for Moses, m o r e than three times the length of David's, a n d seventeen times the length of Solomon's. These are impor­ tant clues to Josephus's priorities in his rewriting of the Bible. T h e main factor explaining Josephus's modifications of the Bible is apologet­ ics—that is, answering anti-Jewish charges. In this respect, the Antiquities is, in effect, a preliminary version of his Against Apion. In particular, Josephus takes great pains to defend the J e w s against the c a n a r d that they hate non-Jews by, for exam­ ple, diminishing, mostly through omissions, the conflict between J a c o b a n d Esau, the supposed respective ancestors of the J e w s and the Romans, a n d by maximiz­ ing the scene in which J a c o b a n d Esau are reconciled, as also by highlighting Joseph's h u m a n i t y in opening the Egyptian granaries to everyone (a particularly effective response, since Egypt was the hotbed of anti-Jewish p r o p a g a n d a during Josephus's time) a n d Solomon's in asking that G - d accept everyone's prayers a n d not merely those of J e w s . He underscores Solomon's friendship with K i n g H i r a m of Tyre, going so far as to cite evidence from the Phoenician archives a n d from non-Jewish writers to illustrate their excellent relations. Particularly significant is the fact that Josephus in a n u m b e r of instances avoids mentioning incidents in which Israelites, such as Gideon, Asa, J e h o s h a p h a t , and Josiah, desecrate altars, statues, and temples pertaining to non-Jewish cults. Especially noteworthy in this

CONCLUSION

661

connection is Josephus's omission of the biblical statement that K i n g Jehu's m e n broke d o w n the pillars of Ba'al and m a d e it a latrine "to this day" (2 K i n g s 10:27). A g a i n , instead of mentioning the introduction of pagan idolatry by Manasseh, as does the Bible, he focuses upon the sins of the J e w s themselves. A n effective method employed by Josephus to defend J e w s against the accusa­ tion of misanthropy is to have non-Jews, such as J e t h r o a n d Balaam, praise J e w s . Josephus's elevation of B a l a a m and especially of J e t h r o is in direct contrast to the treatment of Philo, w h o h a d denigrated these figures. A n o t h e r m e t h o d of response employed by J o s e p h u s is to present non-Jewish personalities, such as Balaam, Bels­ hazzar, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Ahasuerus, a n d even the p h a r a o h s of A b r a ­ ham's, Joseph's, and Moses' day, in a m o r e h u m a n and m o r e sympathetic light. In the case of Balaam, the contrast between Josephus's relatively unbiased portrait, stressing historical, military, and political concerns, a n d the negative portrayals by Philo, the New Testament, a n d the rabbis is particularly striking, a n d w o u l d rein­ force the view that Josephus f o r m e d his own judgments of biblical personalities. In his portrayal of Balaam, as elsewhere, Josephus emphasizes that the Israelites do not interfere in the affairs of other countries. T h e fact that he does not blame Eglon for subjugating the Israelites but rather castigates the Israelites themselves for their anarchy shows h o w eager Josephus was to avoid unnecessarily attacking non-Jewish leaders. O n the other hand, the biblical statement that Noah, a non-Jew, was perfect, which w o u l d seem to imply that he was superior even to A b r a h a m a n d Moses, must have troubled Josephus, a n d so he discreetly omits it. O n e of the most serious charges against the J e w s was that of dual loyalty. J o s e ­ phus therefore systematically avoids divine statements promising A b r a h a m a n d his descendants that they will inherit a great nation, since this would clearly imply the overthrow of R o m a n rule. Instead, the emphasis is shifted from the covenanted land of Israel, with the implication of an independent state, to the biblical person­ alities themselves. Thus, v e r y significantly, the purpose of circumcision, in J o s e ­ phus's view, is not to seal G - d ' s promise of the land to A b r a h a m but rather, nonpolitically to prevent assimilation. Again, inasmuch as Josephus had received such favorable treatment from Vespasian a n d Titus, it is not surprising that Esau, the p u r p o r t e d progenitor of the Romans, is p o r t r a y e d m o r e positively by him. Indeed, J o s e p h u s makes every effort to dwell on the fidelity of J e w s to their rulers, as seen particularly in the case of J o s e p h . J o s e p h u s is especially w a r y of messiah-like figures or ancestors of the messiah. Hence, he avoids mentioning David as ancestor of the messiah (and this m a y help to explain w h y he focuses m o r e on S o l o m o n than on David, despite the latter's greater popularity with the masses). Even though Elijah was apparently m o r e p o p ­ ular a m o n g the people than Elisha, Josephus favors Elisha, since Elijah was r e ­ garded as a zealot a n d as the forerunner of the messiah. Similarly, the reference in Daniel to the overthrow of the R o m a n Empire becomes ambiguous in Josephus. Josephus is careful to praise those w h o are properly submissive to the ruling

662

CONCLUSION

powers; hence, his v e r y positive portrayal of Jehoiachin, Gedaliah, Daniel, a n d Ezra. O v e r a n d over again, he reiterates that not to accept the authoritative gov­ e r n a n c e of the ruler of the state is to t h w a r t the divine plan itself. Nationhood is not, he stresses, a sine qua n o n for Judaism; rather, subservience to the superpower w o u l d bring peace a n d prosperity O n e of the most troublesome problems confronting J o s e p h u s was h o w to deal with the issue of intermarriage a n d assimilation in the Bible. He realized that if he opposed these practices too strongly, he might be accused of being illiberal. O n the other hand, if he did not oppose them at all, he w o u l d be charged by J e w s a m o n g his r e a d e r s — a n d there is evidence, especially in his sharp denunciation of the Is­ raelites w h o h a d sinned with the Midianite w o m e n a n d of S a m s o n a n d S o l o m o n for their liaisons with non-Jewish w o m e n , that Josephus was also trying to reach a J e w i s h audience, especially in the D i a s p o r a — w i t h being a traitor to J e w i s h values. In the specific case of Aaron's a n d Miriam's criticism of Moses for m a r r y i n g an Ethiopian w o m a n , which w o u l d surely have subjected them to the charge of prej­ udice, especially since the Ethiopians w e r e so highly respected in antiquity, J o s e ­ phus resolves the p r o b l e m by omitting the criticism altogether. Josephus's solution, notably in his version of Ezra's initiative against mixed marriages, is to c o n d e m n these not so m u c h in themselves but rather because of the yielding to passion in­ volved, a point of v i e w that w o u l d surely have impressed Stoics in his reading au­ dience. Josephus's opposition to i n t e r m a r r i a g e is based on the need for a state to maintain its homogeneous c h a r a c t e r — a g a i n a point of v i e w that those acquainted with the attitude of the A t h e n i a n s u n d e r Pericles w o u l d have appreciated. A n o t h e r solution to the dilemma of h o w to deal with the issue of intermarriage m a y be seen in Josephus's treatment of Nehemiah's severe handling of the issue, n a m e l y that he simply disregards Nehemiah's effort at verifying genealogies. A n o t h e r v e r y delicate issue was that of proselytism by J e w s , which was a v e r y successful m o v e m e n t before, during, a n d after the time of Josephus. T h e R o m a n s looked upon this m o v e m e n t as u n d e r m i n i n g their state, since proselytes gave m o n e y a n d owed their loyalty to a J e w i s h state. Hence, J o s e p h u s is careful to omit the passage in which J e t h r o acknowledges G - d a n d thus w o u l d seem to be con­ verting to J u d a i s m . A l t h o u g h the rabbinic tradition makes much of R u t h as the ideal proselyte, J o s e p h u s avoids all mention of this theme in his R u t h pericope. W h e r e a s in the biblical book of J o n a h , w e find the non-Jewish sailors shifting from the worship of their o w n p a g a n gods to worship of the H e b r e w G - d , in Josephus, there is n o indication as to w h e t h e r the sailors w e r e or w e r e not J e w s or which the divinities to w h o m they p r a y e d were. A n o t h e r serious charge that J o s e p h u s addresses was that the J e w s h a d failed to produce outstanding men. In response, J o s e p h u s presents h e r o after hero as pos­ sessing the attributes of outstanding genealogy, precociousness, physical attractive­ ness, wealth, the gift of leadership, and, in particular, the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, a n d justice, together with the fifth virtue of piety. Like Plato's philosopher-king, his biblical leaders—notably, Moses, J o s i a h , Ezra,

CONCLUSION

663

a n d N e h e m i a h — a r e depicted as able to teach and persuade. He lays special stress on the wisdom of m a n y of the biblical

figures—notably

Abraham, Jacob, Joseph,

Moses, and S o l o m o n , making them, in effect, syntheses of Pericles as depicted by Thucydides, the philosopher-king described by Plato, and the Stoic sage. Inasmuch as the ancients stood in awe of mathematicians and astronomers, his A b r a h a m be­ comes a great mathematician and astronomer. Since the greatest compliment that could be extended to someone in antiquity was to call him a philosopher, A b r a h a m likewise appears as a philosopher, particularly adept in argument, w h o presents a unique p r o o f for the existence of G - d from the irregularities of celestial p h e n o m ­ ena. Because the J e w s w e r e accused of being illiberal in refusing to consider other points of view, Josephus stresses A b r a h a m ' s willingness to adopt the point of view of the Egyptian priests if he finds their doctrines superior to his own. Inasmuch as the ability to interpret dreams was so highly regarded in antiquity, Josephus stresses this ability even beyond the biblical text in his portrayal of J o s e p h a n d Daniel. Since the ability to be persuasive in speech was so highly regarded, even Moses, w h o in the Bible is p o r t r a y e d as having a speech defect, turns out to an effective speaker. W h e r e a s music was so prized by the ancients, Moses is m a d e the inventor of a musical instrument, the trumpet, and the composer of a song in Homeric-like hexameter verse. Likewise, Moses and S o l o m o n are said to ave stud­ ied the forms of nature philosophically. Since the ancients w e r e so impressed with magic, Moses a n d S o l o m o n are depicted as excelling in that art. Josephus ag­ grandizes S o l o m o n , w h o was regarded as the wisest of all J e w s , and, significantly, cites m o r e external evidence to support his account of this king than he does for any other biblical personality. Inasmuch as the J e w s h a d been accused of cowardice, Josephus stresses the courage of m a n y biblical figures, notably A b r a h a m , Moses, J o s h u a , Saul, a n d David. He points with obvious pride, quoting Cleodemus Malchus, to the fact that A b r a h a m ' s sons by K e t u r a h j o i n e d the most famous G r e e k hero of them all, Her­ acles, in his campaign in Africa, a n d even mentions, again with pride a n d despite the fact that this involved intermarriage, that Heracles m a r r i e d the daughter of one of them. A s for temperance, so important for the Greeks, as w e see from the motto fjurjSiv dyav inscribed in Delphi, Josephus stresses the possession of this quality by m a n y of his biblical heroes, notably, Moses, David, a n d Solomon. He highlights the moderation in diet of S a m s o n and of Daniel. Inasmuch as modesty was regarded as closely allied with temperance, Josephus stresses this virtue in Moses, as seen from his willingness to l e a r n from his father-in-law J e t h r o , in Gideon, in J o a b , a n d in S o l o m o n , the last of w h o m graciously admits that he h a d been outwitted by a young Tyrian, A b d e m o n , w h o posed riddles that he h a d been unable to solve. A s to justice, the centerpiece of Plato's Republic, this is the quality p a r excellence in a ruler and is consequendy stressed in Josephus's portrayal of A b r a h a m , Moses, David, S o l o m o n , a n d others. He highlights the quality of incorruptibility, so gready stressed by Thucydides in his portrayal of Pericles, as a key virtue in Moses

664

CONCLUSION

a n d Samuel. He underscores the devotion to t r u t h — w h i c h is so closely connected with justice—exemplified by such figures as Isaac, Moses, a n d David, a n d goes to great lengths to explain a w a y the a p p a r e n t prevarication of A b r a h a m . He accen­ tuates the gratefulness, generosity, humanity, kindness, and compassion of A b r a ­ h a m , J o s e p h , Moses, J o s h u a , Samuel, Saul, David, A h a b , J e h o s h a p h a t , J e h o r a m , Elisha, Manasseh, Gedaliah, a n d M o r d e c a i , a n d lays great stress on the hospital­ ity displayed by A b r a h a m , Moses, a n d David. A s to piety, so d e a r to the R o m a n s , as w e see in Virgil's ascription of this qual­ ity to Aeneas, this is stressed in m a n y additions in Josephus's depictions of A b r a ­ h a m , Isaac, J a c o b , Moses, J o s h u a , Saul, David, S o l o m o n , a n d Hezekiah. He un­ derscores the importance of filial piety in his portrayal of Esau a n d condemns its opposite in his delineation of A b s a l o m . Josephus was confronted with a real dilemma as to h o w to deal with the fact that A a r o n h a d participated in the cre­ ation a n d worship of the G o l d e n Calf. This surely raised questions for Josephus, himself a priest, as to Aaron's piety a n d worthiness to be high priest. Josephus's so­ lution, here as so often, was simply to omit the incident altogether. In dealing with Moses, the one J e w i s h figure w h o was, if w e m a y j u d g e from the passage in Pseudo-Longinus's On the Sublime (9.9), well k n o w n to non-Jews, J o s e ­ phus was confronted with several v e r y serious problems, namely, his m u r d e r o f an Egyptian overseer; his m a r r i a g e to a non-Jewish w o m a n , Zipporah; his lowly oc­ cupation as a shepherd; his timidity w h e n selected by G - d to lead the Israelites; the leprousness of his hand; his failure to circumcise his sons; his speech defect; his permission to the Israelites to "borrow" j e w e l r y from the Egyptians; his need to t u r n to his father-in-law J e t h r o for advice; his uncontrolled anger in smashing the first set of tablets of the law; his a b a n d o n m e n t of his wife Zipporah; his skepticism w h e n G - d promised that He would supply the Israelites with meat; his disobedi­ ence t o w a r d G - d in striking the rock rather than speaking to it; a n d his initial in­ ability to answer the complaint of Zelophehad's daughters. Despite the length of Josephus's account of Moses, he resolves these problems in almost all cases by sim­ ply omitting the above episodes. A n d yet, Josephus is careful to avoid the undue aggrandizement a n d n e a r deification of Moses found in the S a m a r i t a n and, to a lesser degree, rabbinic traditions. W h i l e it is true that Josephus emphasizes, in the preface to the Antiquities (1.14), that the main lesson to be l e a r n e d from his w o r k is that G - d rewards those w h o obey him a n d punishes those w h o do not, in point of fact, J o s e p h u s thereafter gen­ erally downgrades the role of G - d in o r d e r to emphasize the virtues a n d achieve­ ments of his biblical heroes. T h e most striking examples of this are to be seen in Josephus's accounts of S a m s o n a n d J o n a h . In the case of the Ruth pericope, whereas there are twenty-two mentions of G - d in the biblical account, there is only one such reference in Josephus's version, at the v e r y end. T h e case of Moses is, in this regard, exceptional, in that it was expected in antiquity that the leader of a nation should be divinely directed. T h e case of D e b o r a h is likewise exceptional, because Josephus sought, in his misogyny, to d o w n g r a d e Deborah's role, which he

CONCLUSION

665

did by exalting G - d ' s . David's case, too, is exceptional, perhaps because Josephus, as a Hasmonean, was eager not to praise excessively the achievements of the great rivals of the Hasmonean monarchs and hence preferred to credit these to divine assistance. Hezekiah also is a special case, since Josephus desired, perhaps because of Hezekiah's failure to be subservient to the superpower of his day, not to build h i m up as a person a n d hence preferred to highlight his dependence on G - d . A g a i n , whereas the n a m e of G - d is not mentioned at all in the H e b r e w Book of Esther, Josephus, following the additions to the Book of Esther in the Septuagint, includes a limited n u m b e r of references to G - d for dramatic reasons, n a m e l y in noting G - d ' s ironic laughter at Haman's prosperity a n d w h e n moralizing about his downfall. J o s e p h u s shows his true colors in his treatment o f miracles. A l t h o u g h these w e r e less of a p r o b l e m because the Stoics, the p r e d o m i n a n t philosophical m o v e ­ m e n t in Josephus's time, did allow for divine intervention in the w o r l d , J o s e p h u s on a n u m b e r of occasions suggests that it is u p to the r e a d e r to decide w h a t to m a k e o f the biblical miracles that he relates. In any case, he frequendy rational­ izes miracles, such as those p e r f o r m e d by o r in connection with Moses, S a m s o n , Elijah, Elisha, J o n a h , a n d Daniel. Alternatively, as in the crossing of the S e a of Reeds, he points to a historical parallel, namely, Alexander's similar crossing of the Pamphylian Sea, or, as in the case o f Daniel, asserts that he was saved by di­ vine providence, employing a favorite Stoic t e r m . T h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y circum­ stances of the deaths of Moses a n d Elijah are rationalized in a m a n n e r highly reminiscent o f the disappearance of Oedipus in Sophocles' Oedipus at Colonus. If J o s e p h u s does include the miracle of Balaam's speaking ass, it is p e r h a p s because readers w o u l d have recalled the parallel of Achilles' speaking horse; a n d in any case he takes various steps to m a k e it m o r e plausible a n d finally ends by saying that the r e a d e r is free to think as he pleases about it. Likewise, because angels presented a p r o b l e m , since they seemed h a r d l y different from the p a g a n demi­ gods, h e either avoids mentioning them, rationalizes their a p p e a r a n c e (in con­ nection with J a c o b , G i d e o n , S a m s o n , Elijah, a n d Daniel), or has G - d take their place. A n o t h e r charge leveled at the J e w s , as w e see from Against Apion, was that their Scriptures lacked historical reliability. To answer this claim, Josephus cites an a r r a y of non-Jewish writers, notably, Berossus, Hieronymus the Egyptian, Mnaseas of Patera, M e n a n d e r of Ephesus, a n d Nicholaus of Damascus, to support the his­ toricity of the Flood a n d of episodes in the lives of A b r a h a m , S o l o m o n , a n d Elijah. It is particularly effective that Josephus avoids the Septuagint's w o r d for Noah's ark but rather uses the same w o r d found in Apollodorus, Lucian, a n d Plutarch with r e g a r d to the ark of Deucalion, thus equating the Flood with the flood asso­ ciated with that pagan figure. A s to difficult a n d embarrassing biblical issues, such as the longevity of the p a ­ triarchs a n d David's sin with Bathsheba, Josephus either rationalizes them o r tries to explain them otherwise. O n the other hand, of the six passages later cited by Ibn

666

CONCLUSION

Ezra in his c o m m e n t a r y o n Deut. 1:1, which raise serious questions about the au­ thorship a n d date o f composition of various books of the Bible, J o s e p h u s v e r y sig­ nificandy omits all o f them. Nevertheless, a p p a r e n d y a w a r e that some o f his read­ ers w o u l d be J e w s , w h o might well be acquainted with his biblical source, he does not totally omit but rather leaves ambiguous such passages as Balaam's a n d Daniel's a p p a r e n t predictions o f the o v e r t h r o w of the R o m a n Empire. He resolves chronological difficulties a n d generally omits anthropomorphisms. In his version of the S a m s o n episode, he avoids u n d u e exaggeration a n d the grotesque, such as frequendy occur in the rabbinic tradition. He seeks to provide better motivation for events in o r d e r to increase their plausibility, as in his account o f the Esther n a r ­ rative. In order to appeal to his G r e e k readers, J o s e p h u s draws o n Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristode, a n d other G r e e k authors, for both content a n d style. T h e influence o f Homer, notably in Josephus's implicit equating of A b r a h a m a n d Priam, is particularly obvious in his account o f the binding o f Isaac, while that o f Hesiod m a y be seen in Josephus's version o f the original bliss o f mankind. His acquaintance with Sophocles is m a n ­ ifest in his paralleling o f the passing o f Moses a n d o f Oedipus a n d in his implicit association o f Oedipus a n d S o l o m o n in the latter's j u d g m e n t in the case o f the two mothers. T h e r e are striking parallels between the binding of Isaac a n d Euripides' account o f the sacrifice o f Iphigenia. Josephus's development o f the concept of vfipis a n d o f its consequences is clearly influenced by the G r e e k tragedians. Like the tragedians, J o s e p h u s , particularly in his accounts of S a m s o n , A h a b , a n d J o s i a h , dwells on the degree to which the reversal o f one's fortunes is due to fate rather t h a n to one's o w n failings. T h e increase in suspense, as in his accounts o f J o s e p h , Samuel's choice o f S a u l as king, a n d Esther, a n d the heightening

of

c

irony—notably, in his versions o f the A q e d a h , Absalom's death, A h a b a n d the Naboth episode, Daniel, a n d E s t h e r — a r e likewise influenced by his reading o f the tragedians. T h e influence of the Stoic philosophers shows itself in Josephus's de­ piction o f dirdOeia (freedom from concerns) in his characterization of the original bliss of m a n k i n d a n d in the constant stress on providence (Trpovoia), & concept so central in Stoic thought. In the tradition o f the G r e e k novels, J o s e p h u s introduces or stresses erotic elements, notably in the episodes of P h a r a o h a n d A b i m e l e c h with S a r a h , the meeting o f J a c o b a n d R a c h e l , Potiphar's wife a n d J o s e p h , S a m s o n a n d his wives, a n d A h a s u e r u s a n d Esther. O n e might say that although J o s e p h u s is ostensibly m e r e l y p a r a p h r a s i n g the Bible, he is actually like Thucydides, the historian w h o m he a d m i r e d a n d imitated so much, stressing the degree to which the present repeats the past a n d the degree to which, therefore, one can a n d should l e a r n from past history. O n e might say, too, that although he is ostensibly writing a b o u t events that o c c u r r e d hundreds o f years earlier, he is, in fact, writing a second edition of his w o r k a b o u t the J e w i s h W a r against the R o m a n s . In particular, in his biblical portraits, one sees parallels between the J e w s ' struggles against the Assyrians and Babylonians, leading to the

CONCLUSION

667

destruction o f the First Temple, a n d their resistance to the R o m a n s , ending in the destruction o f the S e c o n d Temple. Thus, v e r y significandy in the Jewish

War,

w h e r e J o s e p h u s refers to the p e r i o d preceding the destruction of the First Temple, h e cites the example o f J e h o i a c h i n as a laudable precedent in putting c o u n t r y a n d Temple a h e a d o f oneself. M u c h o f Josephus's rewriting is a thinly veiled denunciation o f the civil strife that h a d cost the J e w s so dearly in the recent w a r against the R o m a n s . This will explain his highlighting o f the rebellions o f K o r a h a n d A b s a l o m a n d his v e h e m e n t attack on J e r o b o a m , w h o , because he broke the unity o f the J e w i s h people, is p o r ­ trayed as an even greater rogue t h a n A h a b a n d Manasseh. Particularly striking is the similarity in language used b y J o s e p h u s for J e r o b o a m ' s sedition a n d that o f Josephus's great rival, J o h n of Gischala. O n the other h a n d , J o s e p h u s accentuates Joshua's a n d Gideon's ability to avoid civil w a r a n d a n a r c h y T h e r e are c o n t e m p o ­ r a r y overtones in his fierce attack on the ignorant a n d fickle m o b in the Moses pericope a n d on demagogues in the A b s a l o m a n d J e r o b o a m episodes. S u c h fea­ tures w o u l d surely have struck a responsive chord in the R o m a n s , w h o h a d suf­ fered through a c e n t u r y o f civil strife from the time of the G r a c c h i (133 B.C.E.) to the final t r i u m p h of O c t a v i a n (31 B.C.E.), a n d w h o w e r e so p r o u d of their respect for the legal tradition. To a considerable degree, the history is also a supplement to Josephus's auto­ b i o g r a p h y Thus, his e x t r a o r d i n a r y interest in J o s e p h w a s undoubtedly motivated by w h a t he saw as striking parallels with his o w n life, since both w e r e child prodi­ gies, both w e r e envied, both showed e x t r a o r d i n a r y skill in interpreting dreams, b o t h w e r e cast out by fellow J e w s , a n d both w e r e exded to a foreign land. J o s e ­ phus's v e r y positive attitude t o w a r d J o s e p h is in direct contrast to Philo's a m b i v a ­ lent attitude to him. His c o n c e r n with Daniel was likewise intensified by the parallels with his o w n life: both h a d prophetic powers, both w e r e skilled in inter­ preting dreams, both achieved v e r y high positions in the state, a n d both w e r e the targets o f great jealousy. Josephus's tremendous c o n c e r n with K o r a h was doubdess influenced by the fact that K o r a h w a s a Levite w h o h a d attempted to usurp the privileges o f the priests, a n issue that was v e r y m u c h alive in Josephus's o w n d a y a n d was, of course, o f special c o n c e r n to J o s e p h u s the priest. His m a r k e d interest in a n d v e r y positive p o r t r a y a l o f Saul, in contrast to the treatment by Pseudo-Philo, w h o depicts h i m as a c o w a r d , a n d the rabbis, w h o stress the supernatural aspect o f his military achievements, m a y well be owing largely to Josephus's identification with Israel's first king, particularly his courage a n d piety. Josephus's accentuation of military affairs is not m e r e l y a rebuttal o f the charge that J e w s a r e cowards but also reflects his o w n experience as a general in the w a r against the R o m a n s . Hence, although the r e a d e r of the Bible w o u l d scarcely think o f A b r a h a m a n d Moses as generals, J o s e p h u s stresses precisely that aspect o f their careers. If he dwells on prophets such as S a m u e l a n d Daniel a n d underlines the kinship o f the p r o p h e t a n d the historian, it is because he looked u p o n himself as

668

CONCLUSION

exercising both of these functions. Josephus's emphasis on the theme of the c o r r o ­ sive effect of envy, as seen in his stress on the envy displayed by K i n g Abimelech, Joseph's brothers, the p h a r a o h at the time of Moses, K o r a h , a n d Daniel's rivals, is couched in terms v e r y similar to his description of the envy that his great rival, J o h n of Gischala, h a r b o r e d t o w a r d him. In particular, in his portrait of Joab's a m ­ bition a n d envy, Josephus clearly h a d J o h n of Gischala in mind. IfJosephus is careful not to praise David excessively this m a y be in p a r t because Josephus, as a descendant of the Hasmoneans, m a y have looked u p o n the Davidic m o n a r c h y as a rival institution. Likewise, Josephus's tremendous pride in his be­ longing to the first of the twenty-four courses of priests (Life 2) helps explain his omission of Aaron's role in the building of the G o l d e n Calf, as well as his fierce at­ tack on J e r o b o a m for setting up an alternative to the J e r u s a l e m Temple a n d for naming his o w n priests instead of recognizing those w h o w e r e priests by birth. W e m a y surmise as well that a m a j o r reason w h y Josephus gives so little attention to N e h e m i a h is that he wishes rather to build u p Ezra, w h o was a priest, whereas Ne­ hemiah was a m e r e layman. W e have found that Josephus h a d access to the Bible in three versions—He­ brew, Greek, a n d an A r a m a i c p a r a p h r a s e — , a n d that his use of these versions v a r ­ ied from book to book of the Antiquities. W h a t complicates matters here is that w e cannot be sure h o w his Hebrew, Greek, a n d A r a m a i c texts relate to those that have come d o w n to us. If w e m a y j u d g e from the fragments of the Bible found a m o n g the D e a d S e a caves, the texts before him likely did differ from ours, although ad­ mittedly only to a limited extent. W e m a y ask h o w consistent Josephus is as a historian. Even without examining the context of his Antiquities in detail, w e might have guessed that he would be care­ ful and consistent in his approach. In the first place, he h a d no other duties during the approximately twelve years ( 7 9 / 8 1 - 9 3 / 9 4 ) w h e n he was engaged in writing his Antiquities, as far as w e can tell, and he w r o t e only ten lines o r so of G r e e k a day. Moreover, he w r o t e the Antiquities after his masterful Jewish War (written with the help of assistants, to be sure, so far as the G r e e k was concerned) (Ag. Ap. 1.50), a n d he h a d access to the great library of his l e a r n e d patron Epaphroditus, which con­ tained some 30,000 books. F u r t h e r m o r e , as w e h e a r from Josephus himself (Ant. 1.1—3), writing history was a competitive business in R o m e in those days, a n d J o s e ­ phus, w h o is so critical of his fellow historians, h a d to be particularly careful lest he be attacked for falling short in precisely those areas w h e r e he h a d faulted his rivals. Since the m a i n audience he envisaged for his w o r k was the whole Greek-speaking world (Ant. 1.5), he was inviting comparison with his great predecessors, Herodotus a n d Thucydides, as well as his earlier c o n t e m p o r a r y and theoretician of historiog­ raphy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Because Josephus himself was u n d e r a cloud on account of his a p p a r e n d y ignominious surrender to the Romans, m a n y of his fel­ low J e w s would have sought every opportunity to discredit him. A b o v e all, he was inviting comparison with the Septuagint, the G r e e k style of which is clearly infe-

CONCLUSION

66g

rior to his own. Indeed, this inferiority of the former's style m a y have been a m a j o r factor in motivating him to produce his own rewritten Bible. O f course, w e m a y postulate that his consistency and the high level of his w o r k are owing to his indebtedness to a single Hellenistic midrash, as Gustav Holscher (1916) posited; but then w e would have expected A r t a p a n u s o r Eupolemus or Pseudo-Eupolemus or, above all, Philo also, to have utilized that midrash; a n d there is no evidence that they did. Moreover, aside from the fact that not a single line of such a midrash has come d o w n to us, I have noted the marked degree to which the changes introduced by Josephus seem to reflect his own experiences a n d attitude in the w a r against the Romans. O u r examination has led us to stress Josephus's own creative contribution (so also Bilde 1988, 1 4 1 - 5 0 ) . He has carefully chosen from his m a n y sources, moti­ vated largely by apologetic a n d literary concerns. Consistent patterns emerge that explain his additions, deletions, a n d modifications. T h e r e is likewise consistency in language a n d style. In this respect, the present study confirms the findings of A n d r e Pelletier, T. W. F r a n x m a n , a n d C . T. Begg. T h e w o r k of Pelletier comparing Josephus a n d the Letter of Aristeas is of particular interest in this connection, inas­ much as whereas for the biblical portion of Josephus's narrative, w e are never sure which text, w h e t h e r Hebrew, Greek, or A r a m a i c targum, he was using, a n d w h e t h e r or not he h a d access to other sources, namely, previous Graeco-Jewish historians, Philo, and non-Jewish historians such as Polybius and Nicolaus of Damascus, w e can be certain that for his account of the translation of the Penta­ teuch into Greek, Josephus's sole source was the Letter of Aristeas. A n d yet, as Pel­ letier has shown, Josephus goes out of his w a y to v a r y the Letter's contents a n d the language to such a degree that there are only a few phrases that he reproduces ver­ batim. Josephus thus emerges as a historian in the grand manner, deserving of the trib­ =

ute paid to him by J e r o m e (Epistula ad Eustochium 22.35 [ PL

22.421]), w h o calls

him a second Livy, combining the best of the two great schools of historiography the Isocratean, with its stress on moralizing, psychologizing, and dramatizing, a n d the Aristotelian, with its emphasis on scientific, empirical investigation.

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6 vols. ABR Australian Biblical Review Josephus, Against Apion Ag.Ap. American Journal of Philobgy AJP AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages Association for Jewish Studies Review AJSR Abr-Nahrain AN Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt ANRW Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Ant Ant Rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ASTI AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research Bib. Ant Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities Bulletin of the John Rylands Library BJRL BK Bibel und Kirche Biblische Notizen BN BR Biblical Research Beth Talmud BT Biblische Zeitschrift BZ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQ Classical Journal Q Conservative Judaism CoJ Classical Philology CP Classical Quarterly ca Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. The Jewish People in the First CRINT Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, vol. 2, ed. S. Safrai and M . Stern (Assen, Netherlands: V a n G o r c u m , 1976), sec. 2 671

6>

ABBREVIATIONS

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EB

Estudios

E-I

Eretz-Israel

EJ ETL

Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971), 16 vols.

FGH

Die Fragmente dergriechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-;

Biblicos

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Leiden: Brill, 1954-), 3 vols, in 16 parts

FH

Fides et Historia

FV

Foiet Vie

GRBS

Greek, Roman and Byzantine

HJ HT

Heythrop

Studies

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College

HZ IEJ IOS

Historische

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBH

Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne

JBL

Journal of Biblical

JCP

JahrbucherJur

JE JHI

Journal of the History of Ideas

JJC

Josephus, Judaism,

Journal

History and Theory Annual

Zeitschrifi

Israel Exploration

Journal

Israel Oriental Series

State University Press, 1989) Literature

classische Philologie

Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-9), 12 vols. and Christianity, d. L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit:

Wayne State University Press, 1987) JJS

Journal of Jewish

JQR JRS

Jewish Quarterly Review

Studies

J-s

Josephus-Studien:

Journal of Roman

Studies Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen

Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. O. Betz, K. Haacker, and M. Hengel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). JSJ JSNT

Journalfor

the Study of Judaism

JSOT

Journalfor

the Study of the Old Testament

JSP

Journalfor

the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSQ JSS

Jewish Studies Quarterly

JTS

Journal of Theological

LCL

Loeb Classical

LQR

Law Quarterly Review

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Journal of Semitic Studies Studies

Library

LS

Louvain

LSJ

A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, new edition by

Studies

H. S. Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) LXX

Septuagint

MGWJ

Monatsschriftfur

NT

Novum

NTS

New Testament

Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

Testamentum Studies

ABBREVIATIONS OLZ OTE

Orientalistische

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish

PAPS

Proceedings of the American Philosophical

PG

Patrologia Graeca

PL

Patrologia

Pr.Eu

Eusebius, Praeparatio

PW

PhilologJLSche Wochenschrift

673

Literatur-Zdtung

Old Testament

Essays Research

Society

Latina Evangelica

QJS

Quarterly Journal of Speech

RB

Revue

RE

Realencyclopddie der klassischen Altertumswissenschqft,

Biblique ed. A . Pauly, G. Wissowa, W.

Kroll, and K . Mittelhaus (Stuttgart: Metzler, Druckenmuller, 1893-1978), 1st ser., 47 vols.; 2d ser., 18 vols.; 15 suppl. vols. REJ

Revue des Etudes juives

REx

Review and

RiB

Rivista

RM

Rheinisches

Rd RSC

Revue de Qumran

RSLR

Revista di Storia et Letteratura

RSR

Recherches de science religieuse

SBLSCS

Society of Biblical Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

Expositor

Biblica Museum

Rivista di Studi

Classici Religiosa

SC

Syllecta

SCI

Scripta Classica

Classica

SH

Scripta

SJOT

Scandinavian Journal of the Old

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SMSR

Studi e Materiali

di Storia delle Religioni

SPA

Studia Philonica

Annual

SPCK

Society for the Promotion of Christian

SR

Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses

TAPA

Transactions of the American Philological

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans.

Israelica

Hierosolymitana Testament

Knowledge Association

G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, M i c h . : Eerdmans, 1964-76), 10 vols. THB

Tyndale House

TV

Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen

Bulletin

TWNT

Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933-73), 9 vols.

VC

Vigiliae

VT

Vetus Testamentum

War

Christianae

Josephus, Jewish

War

WJA

Wurzburger Jahrbiicherfur

res

Tale Classical

ZAW

Zeitschriftfur

ZKG ZRG

Zeitschriftfur

die

Altertumswissenschqft.

Studies die alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft

Kanstgeschichte

Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

Literatur

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, E. L., 1968. "Were the Jews Banished from Rome in 19 A . D . ? " REJ 127:383-86. Aberbach, M . , and Grossfeld, B . , eds. and trans., 1982. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. Denver: Center for Judaic Studies. Adler, W , 1989. Time Immemorial: Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus. Washington, D C : Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Albrektson, B., 1968. "Josefus, Rabbi Akiba och Qumran. Tre argument i discussionen om tidpunkten for den gemmaltestamendiga konsonanttextens standardisering." (=Josephus, Rabbi Akiva, and Qumran: Three Arguments in the Discussion of the Standardization of the Consonantal Text of the O l d Testament). Teologinen Aikakauskirja (Helsinki) 73:201-15. Alexander, P. S. 1992. "Targum, Targumim." In ABD, 6:320-31. Altshuler, D., 1976. "Descriptions in Josephus' Antiquities of the Mosaic Constitution." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. , 1982-83. " O n the Classification of Judaic Laws in the Antiquities of Josephus and the Temple Scroll of Q u m r a n . " AJSR 7-8:1-14. A m a r u , B . H., 1980-81. "Land T h e o l o g y in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities." JQR 71:201-29. , 1988. "Portraits of Biblical W o m e n in Josephus' Antiquities." JJS 39:14.3-70. Aminoff, I., 1981. " T h e Figures of Esau and the K i n g d o m of E d o m in Palestinian Midrashic-Talmudic Literature in the Tannaic and Amoraic Periods." Ph.D. diss., M e l ­ bourne University. Amir, Y , 1971. "Sibyl and Sibylline Oracles." EJ 14:1489-91. , 1985-88. "QeoKparia as a C o n c e p t of Political Philosophy: Josephus' Presentation of Moses' Politekr S C / 8 - 9 : 8 3 - 1 0 5 . , 1994. 'Josephus on the Mosaic 'Constitution'." In Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, ed. H . G. Reventiow, 13-27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Amstutz, J., 1968. AirXoriqs, Eine begriffsgeschichdiche Studie zum judisch-christiichen Griechisch. Bonn: Hanstein. Aptowitzer, V , 1927a. Parteipolitik der Hasmonaerzeit im rabbinischen und pseudoepigraphischen Schrifttum. Vienna: Alexander K o h u t Memorial Foundation. 675

6y6

BIBLIOGRAPHY , 1927b. "Spuren des Matriarchats im jiidischen Schrifttum." HUCA

4:207-40.

Ararat, N., 1971. "Ezra and His Deeds in the Sources." Ph.D. diss., Yeshiva University, N e w York. A r n i m , H . F. A . von, ed., 1903-5. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Vol. 4, ed. M . Adler, 1924. Asmis, E., 1984. Epicurus Scientific Method. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. Attridge, H . W., 1976a . " T h e Interpretation o f Biblical History in the Antiquitates Ju3

daicae' of Flavius Josephus." HTR, Harvard Dissertations in Religion, vol. 7. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1976b. First-Century

Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars

Press. , 1978. " T h e Philosophical Critique o f Religion under the Early Empire." 2.16.1:45-78. , 1984a. "Historiography." In Jewish

AJVRW

Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E.

Stone, 157-84. CRINT 2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. , 1984b. 'Josephus and His Works." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E. Stone, 185-232. CRINT2.2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Auerbach, E., 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated from the G e r m a n by W. R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Aune, D. E., 1982. " T h e Use o f Trpo^rjriqs in Josephus." JBL 101:419-21. Austin, M . M . , 1981. The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Avenarius, G., 1956. Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. M e i s e n h e i m / G l a n : Hain. Avi-Yonah, M . , 1961. Oriental Art in Roman Palestine. R o m e : Centro di studi semitici, Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, Universita di R o m a . Bacher, W , 1903. DieAggada der Tannaiten. Vol. 1. 2d ed. Strassburg: Triibner. Bailey, J. L., 1987. 'Josephus' Portrayal of the Matriarchs." In JJC, 154-79. Balch, D. L., 1974. " ' L e t Wives Be Submissive. . .': T h e Origin, Form, and Apologetic Function of the Household D u t y C o d e (Haustqfel) in 1 Peter." Ph.D. diss., Yale University. , 1975. 'Josephus, Against Apion II. 145-296: A Preliminary Report." In SBLSP1975, ed. G. M a c R a e , 187-92. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1982. " T w o Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on R o m e and Josephus on the Jews." JSJ 13:102-22. Baron, S. W , 1952. A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2d ed. Vol. 1. N e w York: C o l u m ­ bia University and Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Barthelemy, D , 1963. "Les Devanciers d'Aquila: Premiere publication integrate du texte des fragments du Dodecapropheton trouves dans le desert de Juda, precedee d'une etude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible realisees au premier siecle de notre ere sous l'influence du rabbinat Palestinien." FT^suppl. 10. Leiden: Brill. Baskin, J. R., 1983. Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic tion. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Basser, H . W , 1987. "Josephus as Exegete." JAOS

Tradi­

107:21-30.

Bassler, J. M . , 1985. "Philo on Joseph: the Basic Coherence of De Josepho and De Somniis II." J S J 16:240-55. Baumgarten, A . I., 1991. "Rivkin and Neusner on the Pharisees." In Law in Religious Com­ munities in the Roman Period, ed. P Richardson, 109-26. Studies in Christianity and Ju­ daism, 4. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

6ft

Baumgarten, J. M . , 1972. " T h e Unwritten L a w in the Pre-Rabbinic Period." JSJ 3:7-29. , 1980. " T h e Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Q u m r a n Texts."JJS i:i 7-7o. , 1991. "Recent Q u m r a n Discoveries and Halakhah in the Hellenistic-Roman Pe­ riod." In Jewish Civilisation in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, 147-58. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a ­ demic Press. Beckwith, R. T , 1988. " T h e Vegetarianism o f the Therapeutae and the Motives for Vege­ tarianism in Early Jewish and Christian Circles." RQ13 (Memorial Jean Carmignac): 407-10. Beer, B . , 1859. Leben Abraham's nachAuffassungderjiidischen Sage. Leipzig: Leiner. Beers, E. E., 1914. Euripides and Later Greek Thought. Menasha, Wis.: Banta. Begg, C . T , 1988a. " T h e 'Classical Prophets' in Josephus' Antiquities." LS 13:341-57. , 1988b. " T h e Death of Josiah: Josephus and the Bible." ETL 64:157-63. , 1989a. " T h e Death o f K i n g A h a b according to Josephus." Antonianum 64:225-45. , 1989b. "Josephus' Zedekiah." ETL 65:96-104. , 1990. "Josephus's Portrayal o f the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses: Some Observations." JBL 109:691-93. , 1993a . Josephus Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8, 212-420): Rewriting the Bible. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press / Peeters. , 1993b. "Filling in the Blanks: Josephus' Version of the C a m p a i g n o f the T h r e e Kings, 2 Kings 3." HUCA 64:89-109. , 1993c. "Josephus's Version o f Jehu's Putsch (2 K g s 8, 25-10, 36)." Antonianum 68:450-84. , 1993-94. "Joram of Judah according to Josephus (Ant. 9.45,95-104)." J S C l 3 3 3 9 , 1994a. " T h e Gedaliah Episode and Its Sequels in Josephus." J S P 12:21-46. , 1994b. "Josephus' Version of David's Census." Henoch 16:199-226. , 1994c. "Joash and Elisha in Josephus, ANT. 9.177-185." AN32:28-46. , 1995a. "Ahaziah's Fall (2 Kings 1): T h e Version of Josephus." 55:25-40. , 1995b. "Amaziah of Judah according to Josephus (ANT. 9.186-204)." Antonianum 70:3-30. , 1995c. "Hezekiah's Illness and Visit according to Josephus." EB 53:365-85. , i995d. 'Jehoahaz, K i n g of Israel, according to Josephus," Sefarad 55:227-37. , 1995c "Jehoshaphat at Mid-Career according to AJ 9, 1-17." RB 102:379-402. 3

5

3

i :

, , binic , , , ,

2

-

i995f. "Josephus and N a h u m Revisited." RE J 154:5-22. i995g. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoshaphat: C o m p a r e d with the Biblical and R a b ­ Portrayals." ^ 7 8 : 3 9 - 4 8 . 1995b. " U z z i a h (Azariah) of Judah according to Josephus." £ # 5 3 : 5 - 2 4 . 1996a. " T h e Abigail Story (1 Samuel 25) according to Josephus." £ # 5 4 : 5 - 3 4 . 1996b. "Abimelech, K i n g of Shechem according to Josephus." ETL 72:146-64. 1996c. "Jotham and Anion: T w o Minor Kings of Judah according to Josephus."

BBR 6:1-13. Belkin, S., 1940. Philo and the Oral Lam Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ben-Sasson, H . H., 1971. "Messianic Movements." EJ 11:1420-21. Bentwich, N., 1914. Josephus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Ben Zeev, M . P., 1993. " T h e Reliability of Josephus Flavius: T h e Case of Hecataeus' and Manetho's Accounts o f Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years o f Contemporary Research (1974-1990)." JSJ 24:215-34.

678

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ben Z v i , E., 1988. " T h e Authority of 1-2 Chronicles in the Late Second Temple Period." Jtf>3i: 9-88. 5

Berchman, R . M . , 1988. "Arcana Mundi: Prophecy and Divination in the Vita Mosis of Philo of Alexandria." SBLSP1988,

ed. D.J. Lull. Adanta, G a . : Scholars Press. 385-423.

Bernays, J., 1869. Die heraklitischen Briefe. Berlin: Hertz. Bernstein, M . J., 1994a . "4Q252: From Re-Written Bible to Biblical Commentary." JJS 45-J-27, 1994b. "4Q252.L2: Lo yadon ruhi va'adam 1/okim: Biblical Text or Biblical Interpre­ tation." PCI16.3 (63):42i-27Best, E., 1959. " T h e Use and N o n - U s e of Pneuma by Josephus." j V T 3 : 2 i 8 - 2 5 Betz, O., 1974. "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich z u m Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium." J-S: 23-44. Bhattacharji, A . , 1977. "Euripides and the Disintegration of the Tragic Form: A Study of the Iphigenia in Aulis"

In Four Essays on Tragedy, 45-70. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.

Bickerman, E. J., 1951. "Notes on the Greek Book of Esther." PAAJR 20:101-33. , 1952. "Origines Gentium."

CP47:65-81.

, 1975. " T h e Jewish Historian Demetrios." In Christianity, Judaism

and Other Greco-

Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. J a c o b Neusner, vol. 3: Judaism

before yo,

72-84. Leiden: Brill. , 1988. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bieler, L., 1935. Oeios

oLvr/p, das Bild des "gotdichen M e n s c h e n " in Spatantike und

Fruhchristentum. 2 vols. Vienna: Hofels. Bilde, P , 1988. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Impor­ tance. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press. ara

Blaufuss, H., 1910. Gotter, Bilder und Symbole nach den Traktaten iiberjremden Dienst (Aboda Z ) Mishna,

n

i>

Tosefta, Jerusalemer und babylonischen Talmud. Nuremberg: Stich.

Blenkinsopp, J., 1963. "Structure and Style in Judges 1 3 - 1 6 . " JBL 82:65-76. , 1974. "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus." JJS

25:239-62.

Blidstein, G. J., 1971. "Messiah in Rabbinic T h o u g h t . " EJ 11:1410-12. , 1975. Honor Thy Father and Mother: Filial Responsibility

in Jewish Law and Ethics. N e w

York: Ktav. Bloch, H., 1879. Die Quellen des Josephus in seiner Archaologie. Leipzig: Teubner. Bloch, R., 1955. "Note methodologique pour l'etude de la litterature rabbinique."

RSR

43:194-227. , 1957. "Midrash." In Dictionnaire de la Bible, suppl. 5, 1263-81. English trans, in Ap­ proaches to Ancient Judaism:

Theory and Practice, ed. W. S. Green, 1: 29-50. Missoula, Mont.:

Scholars Press, 1978. Bogaert, P.-M., 1976. " L a Datation." In Pseudo-Philon,

Les Antiquites bibliques, ed. C . Perrot

and P.-M. Bogaert, 2: 66-74. Sources chretiennes, nos. 229-30. Paris: Cerf. Bomstad, R . G., 1979. "Governing Ideas of the Jewish

War of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss.,

Yale University, N e w Haven. Bonner, C , 1950. Studies in Magical Amulets. A n n Arbor: University o f Michigan. Bowley, J. E., 1994. "Josephus's Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History." In Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben J?ion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. J. C . Reeves and J. K a m p e n , 202-15. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press. Braun, M . , 1934. Griechischer Roman und helkmistische Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike, 6. Frankfurt a / M : Klostermann.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

6yg

, 1938. History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature. Oxford: Blackwell. Braverman, J., 1978. Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. T h e Catholic Biblical Quarterly M o n o g r a p h Series, 7. Washington, D . C . : Catholic Biblical Association of America. Bregman, M . , 1982. " T h e Depiction o f the R a m in the Aqedah Mosaic at Bet A l p h a " [In Hebrew]. Tarbiz3i:jo6-g. Brelich, A . , 1966. " T h e Place of Dreams in the Religious World C o n c e p t of the Greeks." In The Dream and Human Societies, ed. G. E. von G r u n e b a u m and R. Caillois, 293-301. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Brock, S. P., 1966. " T h e Recensions of the Septuagint Version of 1 Samuel." Ph.D. diss., Oxford University. , 1981. "Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition." In Melanges Dominique Barthelemy: etudes bibliques qffertes a Voccasion de son 6o anniversaire, ed. P. Casetti, O . Keel, and A . Schrenker, 1-30. Fribourg, Switzerland: editions universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. e

, 1982. " S o m e Syrian Legends concerning Moses." J ^ S 33:237-55. Brooke, G. J., 1994. " T h e Genre of 4Q252: From Poetry to Pesher." DSD 1:160-79. Brown, C . A . , 1992. No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women: Studies in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities' and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities.' Louisville, K y : West­ minster / J o h n K n o x Press. Bruce, F. E , 1965. 'Josephus and Daniel." ASTI4:148-62. Briine, B . , 1913. Flavius Josephus und seine Schrifien in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentume, zurgriechischrbmischen Welt und zum Christentume mit griechischer Wortkonkordanz zumNeuen Testamente und I. Ckmensbriefe nebst Sach- undNamen- Verzeichnis. Anhang: Inhalt nebst Sachegister zu "Josephus der Geschichtsschreiber." Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. Buffiere, E, ed., 1962. Heraclite, Allegories d'Homere. Paris: Societe d'edition 'Les Belle Lettres.' Burkert, W , 1966. "Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual." GRBS 27:86-121. Burnet, J., 1945. Early Greek Philosophy. 4th ed. London: Black. Burnett, A . P., 1971. Catastrophe Survived: Euripides' Plays of Mixed Reversal. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Butterweck, A . , 1981. Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok: Gen 32, 4ff in derjudischen Tradition bis zum Fruhmittelalter. Frankfurt a / M : Lang. Butts, J. R., 1986. " T h e Progymnasmata of T h e o n : A N e w Text with Translation and C o m ­ mentary." Ph.D. diss., Claremont M c K e n n a College. C a h n , W , 1966. "An Illustrated Josephus from the Meuse Region in Merton College, O x ­ ford." Z^G 29:295-310. Carras, G. P., 1993. "Dependence or C o m m o n Tradition in Philo Hypothetka and Josephus Contra Apionem 2.190-219." SPA 5:24-47.

V I I I 6.10-7.20

C a m s , P., 1907. The Story of Samson and Its Place in the Religious Development of Mankind. C h i c a g o : O p e n Court. Case, S. J., 1925. 'Josephus' Anticipation of a Domitianic Persecution." JBL 44:10-20. Charles, R . H., 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Charlesworth, J. H., ed., 1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. , 1992. "Baruch, Book o f 2 (Syriac)." In ABD, 1:620-21. Charlesworth, M . P., 1936. "Providentia and Aeternitas." HTR 29: 107-32.

68o

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chilton, B . D., 1983. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum . Sheffield: J S O T Press. Christ, W. von, 1905. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur bis auf die £eit Justinians,

4th ed. M u ­

nich: Beck. Churgin, P., 1949. Studies in the Times of the Second Temple [In H e b r e w ] . N e w York: Horeb Foundation. Clark, D. L., 1957. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press. Coggins, R. J., 1987. " T h e Samaritans in Josephus." In JJC, 257-73. C o h e n , G. D., 1967. "Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval T h o u g h t . " In Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. A . Altmann, 19-48. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. C o h e n , J., 1993. The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story. Leiden: Brill. C o h e n , N . G., 1963-64. "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment o f the Scriptural Narrative Similar throughout the Antiquities I - X I ? " JQR 54:311-32. , 1969. "Jewish Names and T h e i r Significance in the Hellenistic and R o m a n Peri­ ods in Asia M i n o r " [In H e b r e w ] . Ph.D. diss., H e b r e w University, Jerusalem. C o h e n , S.J. D., 1979. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian.

Lei­

den: Brill. , 1982. 'Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius." HT

21:^66^-81.

, 1983. 'Jacob Neusner, Mishnah, and Counter-Rabbinics: A Review Essay." CoJ 37.1:48-63. C o h n , L., 1898. "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo o f Alexandria." JQR,

o.s.,

10:277-332. Collins, A . Y , 1992. "Revelation, B o o k of." In ABD, 5:694-708. Collins, J. J., 1987. "Messianism in the M a c c a b e a n Period." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. J. Neusner et a l , 97-109. Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e U n i ­ versity Press. Colson, F. H., and Whitaker, G. H., eds. and trans., 1929-62. Philo. 10 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann. Connor, W. R., 1967. "History without Heroes: T h e o p o m p u s ' Treatment o f Philip o f M a c e d o n . " GRBS 8:133-54. , 1985. "Historical Writing in the Fourth Century B . C and in the Hellenistic Period." In The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. 1: Greek Literature, ed. P. E. Easterling and B. M . W K n o x , 458-71. Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press. Conybeare, F. C , 1898-99. " T h e Testament o f Solomon." JQR, o.s., 11:1-45. Cross, F. M . , 1964. " T h e History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert." HTR 57:281-99. , 1966. " T h e Contribution o f the Q u m r a n Discoveries to the Study o f the Biblical Text." IEJ 16:81-95. , 1972. " T h e Evolution of a T h e o r y o f Local Texts." In igj2 Proceedings of the Interna­ tional Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Pseudepigrapha.,

ed. R. A . Kraft, 108-26.

Missoula, Mont.: Society o f Biblical Literature. Crouch, J. E., 1972. The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustqfel. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Daly, R. J., 1977. " T h e Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac." 05(^39:45-75. Daniel, J. T , 1981. "Apologetics in Josephus."

Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, N e w

Brunswick, N.J. Danielou, J , 1947. " L a Typologie d'Isaac dans le christianisme primitif." Biblica 28:363-93.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

681

Daube, D , 1977. "Three Legal Notes on Josephus after His Surrender." LQR 93:191-94. , 1980. "Typology in Josephus." J7^3 8~36. , 1990. "Heine's Beltsatzar." J7^4 54 55Dautzenberg, G., 1971. " Z u m religionsgeschichdichen Hintergrund der Sta/c/otat? I:I

I:2

TTvevparayv

_

(1 K o r 12, 10)." 5 £ 15:93-104.

Davies, G. I., 1978. "Apocalyptic and Historiography." JSOT5:15-28. Davies, P. R., 1977. / QM the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. R o m e : Biblical Institute. Davies, P. R., and Chilton, B. D., 1978. " T h e'Aqedah:A Revised Tradition History." CBQ 40:514-46. Dawson, D., 1992. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Delling, G., 1957-58. "Josephus und die Wunderbare." JVT 2:291-309. , 1974. "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus." In J-S: 109-21. Destinon, J. von., 1882. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer. DeWitt, N . W., 1954. Epicurus and His Philosophy. Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press. Diamond, J. A . , 1984. " T h e Deception of Jacob: A N e w Perspective on an Ancient Solu­ tion to the Problem." 1 ^ 3 4 : 2 1 1 - 1 3 . Dibelius, M . , 1956. " T h e Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography." In Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Translated from the G e r m a n by M . Land. N e w York: Scribner. 138-91. Dietrich, E. L., 1931. "Review oiAgada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus" by Salomo Rappaport.iW51:465-70. Dietzfelbinger, C , 1964. "Pseudo-Philo." Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Theol. diss., Gottingen. Diez M a c h o , A . , 1959. " T h e Recendy Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums." F7^suppl., 7:222-45. Dimant, D., 1992. "Pesharim, Q u m r a n . " In ABD, 5:244-51. , 1994. "An A p o c y p h o n of Jeremiah from C a v e 4 (4Q385 =4Q385 16)." In New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organizationfor Qum­ ran Studies, Paris igg2, ed. G.J. Brooke, n - 3 0 . Leiden: Brill. Dimant, D., and Strugnell, J., 1990. " T h e Merkabah Vision in Second Ezekiel (4Q385 4)." RQ 14:331-48. Dodds, E. R., 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of C a l ­ ifornia Press. Donner, H . , 1961. " D e r Freund des Konigs." ^ 4 ^ 7 3 : 2 6 9 - 7 7 . Doran, R., 1979. "2 Maccabees and Tragic History." HUCA 50:107-14. Downing, E G., 1980. "Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels." JSNT8:46-65; 9:29-48. , 1981. "Ethical Pagan Theism and the Speeches in Acts." NTS 27:544-63. , 1982. " C o m m o n Ground with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus." NTS 28:546-59. Drazin, N , 1940. History of Jewish Educationfrom5/5 . . . to 220 ... (during the Periods of the Sec­ ond Commonwealth and the Tannaim). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Drexler, W., 1886. "Isis." In Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der Griechischer und Rbmischer Mythologie, ed. W. H . Roscher, 2.1:433. Leipzig: Teubner. Driver, S. R., 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2d ed. O x ­ ford: Clarendon Press. }

B

682

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Droge, A . J., 1989. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Tubin­ gen: Mohr. Druner, H., 1896. "Untersuchungen iiber Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Duckworth, G. E., 1952. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Prince­ ton: Princeton University Press. Duling, D . C , 1975. "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David." HTR 68:235-52. , 1985. " T h e Eleazar Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49." HTR 78:1-25. , trans, and ed., 1987. " T h e Testament o f Solomon." In Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H . Charlesworth, 1:935-87. Garden City, N . Y : Doubleday. , 1988. " T h e Testament o f Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect." JSP 2:87-112. Edersheim, A . , 1882. "Josephus." In A Dictionary of Christian Biography, ed. W. Smith and H . Wace, 3:441-60. London: Murray. Eisler, R., 1929-30. IHZOYZ BA2IAEYZ OY BAZIAEYEAE, 2 wis. Heidelberg: Winter. , 1931. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Redis­ covered Capture of Jerusalem' and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by A . Krappe. N e w York: M a c V e a g h , Dial. Ek, S., 1945-46. "Herodotismen in der judischen Archaologie des Josephos und ihre textkritische Bedeutung." Acta Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 2:27-62, 213. Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund. Lund: Gleerup. EUiott, J. H., 1992. "Peter, First Episde of." In ABD, 5:268-78. Elman, Y , 1982. " T h e Judaism of the Mishna: W h a t Evidence?" Judaica Book News 12:17-25. Epstein, A . , 1885. " T h e Beasts of the Four K i n g d o m s " [In Hebrew]. BT 4.1173-77. , 1892. "Les Chamites de la table ethnographique selon le Pseudo-Jonathan com­ pare avec Josephe et le livre des Jubiles." REJ 24:82-98. Ernesti, J. A . , 1776. "ExerciMionum Flavianarum, prima de Fontibiis Archaeologiae, sect. 19." In his Opuscula Philologica Critica, 2d ed., 363-419. Leiden: Luchtmans. Faerber, R., 1901. Konig Salomon in der Tradition. Vienna: Schlessinger. Farnell, L. R., 1921. Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Feldman, L. H., 1950. "Jewish 'Sympathizers' in Classical Literature and Inscriptions." TAPA 81:200-8. , 1951. "Cicero's Conception of Historiography." Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. , 1952-53. " T h e Character of Ascanius in Virgil's Aeneid^ 6748:303-13. , 1958-59. "Philo-Semitism among Ancient Intellectuals." Tradition 1:27-39. , 1962. " T h e Sources of Josephus' Antiquities, Book 19." Latomus 21:320-33. , ed. and trans., 1965. Josephus. Vol. 9. L C L . London: Heinemann. (

, 1968. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Account of Man's Decline." In Religions in An­ tiquity: Essays in Memory

of Erwin

Ramsdell

Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: Brill.

336-53, 1970a. "Review of Josephus: The Man and the Historian, by H . St. J. Thackeray" (1967 reprint). JAOS 90:545-46. , 1970b. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther." TAPA 101:143-70. , 1971. "Prolegomenon." In reprint o f M . R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, vii-clxix. London, S P C K , 1917. N e w York: Ktav. , 1974. "Epilegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)." JJS 24:305-12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

683

, 1976. "Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait o f Solomon." In Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. Schiissler Fiorenza, 69-98, Notre D a m e , Ind.: University of Notre D a m e . , 1982. " T h e Testimonium Flavianum: T h e State of the Question." In Christological Per­ spectives, ed. R . F. Berkey and S. A . Edwards, 179-99, 288-93. N e w York: Pilgrim. , 1984a. "Flavius Josephus Revisted: T h e M a n , His Writings, and His Significance." ^JVRI4^2.2i.2:763-862. , 1984b. Josephus and Modern Scholarship (igjy-ig8o). Berlin: D e Gruyter. , 1986a. " T h e Omnipresence o f the G-d-Fearers." BAR 12.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1986): 58-69, 1986b. "Josephus' Portrait of Deborah." In Hellenica etjudaica: Hommages a Valentin Mkiprowetzky, ed. A . Caquot, M . Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud, 115-28. Leuven and Paris: Peeters. , 1987-88. "ProJewish Intimations in AntiJewish Remarks Cited in Josephus' Against Apion." J QR 78:187-251. , 1988a. "Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World." In History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism, ed. D. Berger, 15-42. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. , 1988b. " T h e Portrait of N o a h in Josephus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim." PAAJR 55:31-57. , 1989a. "Proselytes and 'Sympathizers' in the Light o f the N e w Inscriptions from Aphrodisias." RE J 148:265-305. , 1989b. 'Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities " InJBH, 59-8o. , 1990. "Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus." JTS 41:386-422. , 1991a. Pro-Jewish Intimations in Tacitus' Account o f Jewish Origins." RE J , 1991b. 'Josephus' Portrait of Manasseh." J£!P 9:3-20. , 1991c. "Reflections on John R . Levison's Josephus's Version o f R u t h . ' " JSP 8:45-52. , 1992a. "Josephus' Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence." In Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties, ed. M . Mor, 23-45. O m a h a : Creighton University. , 1992b. "Josephus' Portrait of A h a b . " ETL 68:368-84. , 1992c. 'Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah." J ^ S 43:187-202. , i992d. 'Josephus' Interpretation of Jonah." 7 -29, 1992c 'Josephus' Portrait of Hezekiah." JBL 111:597-610. , 1993a. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactionsfrom Alexander to Jus­ tinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press. , 1993b. "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra." FT43:190-214. , 1993c. 'Josephus' Portrait of Gedaliah." Shofar 1211-10. , 1993d. 'Josephus' Portrait of Joab." £ # 5 1 : 3 2 3 - 5 1 . , 1993c "II ritratto di Assalonne in Giuseppe Flavio." 41:3-30. , i993f. 'Josephus' Portrait of Jeroboam." AUSS 31:29-51. , i993g. "Josephus' Portrait of Balaam." SPA 5:48-83. , 1993I1. 'Josephus' Portraits of the Pharaohs." 4:49-63. , 1993L "Josephus' Portrait of K o r a h . " OTE" 6:399-426. I

: l

684

BIBLIOGRAPHY , , , , , ,

1993J. "Josephus' Portrait o f Gideon." REJ 152:5-28. 1993k. "Josephus' Portrait of Josiah." LS 18:110-30. 1993I. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoshaphat." SCI 12:159-75. 1994a. "Josephus' Portrait of Elijah." S J O T 8 : 6 i - 8 6 . 1994b. "Josephus' Portrait o f Elisha." j V T 3 6 : i - 2 8 . 1994c. "Josephus' Portrait of Ahasuerus." ABR 42:17-39. , I 9 9 4 d . "Josephus's Portrait of Ehud." In Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor ofBen %ion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. J. G. Reeves and J. K a m p e n , 177-201. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. , 1994c "Josephus' Portrait of Asa." 2S#/2 4:41-60. , i994f. "Josephus's Portrait of Jehoram, K i n g of Israel." BJRL 76:3-20. , 1995. "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoiachin." PAPS 139.1:11-31. , 1996. "Josephus' Portrait of Jephthah." In The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stem, ed. I. M . Gafni, A . Oppenheimer, D . R. Schwartz, 67*-84*. Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center for Jewish History. Ferguson, J., 1958. Moral Values in the Ancient World. London: Methuen. , 1968. "Iphigeneia at Aulis." TAPA 99:157-63. Ferrari d'Occhieppo, K . , 1977. Der Stern der Weisen: Geschichte oder Legende? 2d ed. Vienna: Herold. Fiedler, M . J., 1970. "AiKaioovvq in der diaspora-judischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur." JSJ 1:129-34. Field, E , 1875. Origenis Hexaplorum quae super sunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Finley, M . I., 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. N e w York: Viking. Flesher, P. V M . , 1995. " T h e Targumim." In Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 1: The Literary andAr­ chaeological Sources, ed. J. Neusner, 40-63. Leiden: Brill. Flusser, D., 1963. " T h e Pharisees and the Pious M e n of the Stoa according to Josephus" [In Hebrew]. lyyun 14:318-29. , 1971a . "Palaea Historica: A n U n k n o w n Source of Biblical Legends." SH 22:48-79. , 1971b. "Messiah, Second Temple Period." EJ 11:1408-10. , 1972. " T h e Four Empires in the Fourth Sybil and in the Book o f Daniel." IOS 2:148-75. , 1977. "Josephus on the Sadducees and Menander." Immanuel 7:61-67. Foakes Jackson, F. J., 1930. Josephus and the Jews: The Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus. N e w York: Smith. Fornaro, P., 1979. "II cristianesimo oggetto di polemica indiretta in Flavio Giuseppe (Ant. Jud. I V 326)." A S C 27:431-46. Fox, M . , 1993. "History and Rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus." ^ 6 8 3 : 3 1 - 4 7 . Frankel, Z . , 1851. Uber den Einfluss der paldstinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik. Leipzig: Barth. Franxman, T. W., 1979. Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. R o m e : Biblical In­ stitute. Fraser, P. M . , 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frazer, J. G., 1918. Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend and Law Vol. 2. London: Macmillan. Freud, S., 1939. Moses and Monotheism. London: Hogarth Press. Freudenthal, J., 1874-75. Hellenistische Studien: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Vols. 1-2. Breslau: Grass, Barth. 3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

685

Frimer, D . I., 1971. "Masada—in the Light of Halakah." Tradition 12:27-43. Fritz, K . von., 1958a. Aristotle's Contribution to the Practice and Theory of Historiography. University of California Publications in Philosophy, 28.3. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. , 1958b. "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fur die Geschichtsschreibung." Histoire ethistoriens dans Vantiquite (Entretiens Hardt) 4:85-145. , 1963. "Pythagoras." RE 47:180-86. Funk, H . , 1964. "Aristoteles z u m Euripides' Iphigeneia in Aulis." Hermes 92:284-99. Gafni, I., 1980. " O n the Use of I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius" [In Hebrew]. £ion 45:81-95. Gager, J. G., 1972. Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon. Gan, M . , 1961-62. " T h e Book of Esther in the Light of the Story of Joseph in E g y p t " [In Hebrew]. Tarbiz 31:144-49. Gaster, M . , 1927. TheAsatir: The Samaritan Book of the 'Secrets of Moses' together with the Pitron or Samaritan Commentary and the Samaritan Story of the Death of Moses. Oriental Translation Fund, n.s., 26. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1927. Gaster, T , 1969. Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's Folklore in the O l d Testament. N e w York: Harper & Row. Geiger, A . , 1857. Urschrift und ubersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer. Gerber, C , 1994. " D i e Heiligen Schriften des Judentums nach Flavius Josephus." In Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, ed. M . Hengel and H . Lohr, 91-113. Tubingen: Mohr. Gibbs, J. G., and Feldman, L. H., 1985-86. "Josephus' Vocabulary for Slavery." JQR 76:281-310. Ginzberg, L., 1899. Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern. Erster Theil: Die Haggada in den pseudohieronymianischen Quaestiones. Amsterdam: Levisson. , 1902. "Baruch, Apocalypse of." JE 2:555-New York: Funk & Wagnalls. , 1909-38. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Gnuse, R., 1989. " D r e a m Reports in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." RB 96:358-90. Goethals, T R., 1959. " T h e Aethiopica of Heliodorus: A Critical Study." Ph.D. diss., C o l u m ­ bia University, N e w York. Goldberg, A . N , 1966. "Joseph in der Sicht des Judentums der Antike." 2 ^ 2 1 : 1 1 - 1 5 . Goldenberg, D., 1978. " T h e Halakhah in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A C o m ­ parative Study." Ph.D. diss., Dropsie University, Philadelphia. Goldstein, J. A . , ed., 1 9 7 6 . 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Vol. 41 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Goldstein, S., 1989. Suicide in Rabbinic Literature. Hoboken: Ktav. Goodenough, E. R., 1928. " T h e Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship." TCS 1:55-104. , 1933. "Philo's Exposition of the L a w and his De Vita Mosis." HTR 26:109-25. , 1935. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism. N e w Haven: Yale U n i ­ versity Press. , 1938. The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory N e w Haven: Yale University Press. , 1953-68. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. Princeton: Princeton Uni­ versity Press. Goold, G. P., 1961. "A Greek Professorial Circle at R o m e . " TAPA 92:168-92. Goren, S., 1964. " T h e Valor of Masada in the Light of Halakhah" [In Hebrew]. Mahanayim 87:7-12.

686

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goshen-Gottstein, M . H., 1975. " T h e 'Third T a r g u m ' on Esther and M S Neofiti 1." Biblica 56:301-29. Graetz, H., 1884. Die jiidischen Proselyten in Rbmerreiche unter den Kaisern Domitian, Nerva, Trajan und Hadrian. Breslau: Schotdander. Graf, M . R., 1976. " T h e Hellenization of Moses." Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. Grant, M . , 1973. The Jews in the Roman World. N e w York: Scribner. Grant, R . M . , 1952. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought. A m s ­ terdam: North-Holland Publishing. Greene, W. C , 1944. Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Greeven, H., 1959. "77/00OKVV4OD." T W V T 6 7 6 3 . Gressmann, H., 1913. Mose und seine £eit: ein Kbmmentar zu den Mose-sagen. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Groibart, Y L., 1935 . " E d o m and R o m e " [In Hebrew]. In Giheath Shaul: Essays Contributed in Honor of Rabbi Saul Silber, ed. C . D. Regensburg, 75-81. Chicago: Salz-Gellman. Grufydd, W. J., 1928. "Moses in the Light o f Comparative Folklore." ^ 4 ^ 4 6 : 2 6 0 - 7 0 . Griinbaum, M . , 1901. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Sprache- und Sagenkunde. Berlin: Calvary. Guillaumont, A . , 1971. " A propos du celibat des Esseniens." In Hommages a Andre DupontSommer, ed. A . C a q u o t and M . Philonenko, 395-404. Paris: Andrien-Maisonneuve. Gutbrod, W , 1942. "vonoderiqs" TDNT4:1089. Gutman, Y , 1958-63. The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature" [In Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. Gutmann, Joseph., 1983. " T h e Illustrated Midrash in the Dura Synagogue Paintings: A N e w Dimension for the Study of Judaism." PAAJR 50:91-104. Gutmann, Joshua., 1971. "Antoninus Pius." £ 7 3 : 1 6 5 - 6 6 . Guttmann, H., 1928. Die Darstellung derjiidischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus. Breslau: Marcus. Haacker, K . , and Schafer, P., 1974. "Nachbiblische Traditionen v o m T o d des Mose." In J-S: 147-74. Hadas, M . , 1948. "Aeneas and the Tradition of the National Hero." 47^69:408-14. , 1958. "Plato in Hellenistic Fusion." JHI 19:3-13. , 1959. Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion. N e w York: Columbia University Press. Hadas-Lebel, M . , 1995. "Flavius Josephe apologete a propos des recites de la Genese et de l'Exode dans \es Antiquites, livres I a III." In KATA TOYU O : 'Selon les septante': H o m mage a Marguerite Harl, ed. G. Dorival and O . Munnich, 409-22. Paris: Cerf. 3

Halevi, E. E., 1972. TheAggadah in the Light of Greek Sources [In Hebrew]. Tel-Aviv: Dvir. Halevy, M . A . , 1927. Moise dans I'histoire et dans la legende. Paris: Rieder. D.J. Harrington, 1971, ' T h e Biblical Text o f Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum/ CZ?Q, :i-i7. 33

, 1973. "Interpreting Israel's History: T h e Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31-34." In Studies on the Testament of Moses: Seminar Papers for the Society of Biblical Lit­ erature Pseudepigrapha Group (Septuagint and Cognate Studies), ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 59-70. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , ed., 1976. Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquites bibliquesNoX. 1. Paris: Cerf. , 1986. "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies." In Early Ju­ daism and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. R. A . Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 239-58. A t ­ lanta, G a . : Scholars Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

687

Harris, J. R., 1886. Fragments ofPhilo Judaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hartman, L. F., and di Leila, A . A . , eds., 1978. " T h e Book of Daniel." Vol. 23 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N . Y : Doubleday. Hartmann, L. , 1975. " T h e Function of Some So-Called Apocalyptic Timetables." NTS 22:1-14. Hata, G., 1987. " T h e Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism." In JJC 180-97. Hayward, R., 1981. " T h e Present State of Research into the Targumic Account of the Sac­ rifice of Isaac." JJ-S" 32:127-50. , 1993-94. "Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Genesis 27:31." JQR 84:177-88. Heinemann, I., 1935. "Moses." RE 31:359-75. , 1939-40. "Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities" [In He­ brew]. %ion 5:180-203. Heller, B., 1928. "Review of Moise dans Vhistoire et dans la legende, by M . A . Halevy." MGWJ 72:631-2. , 1936. "Grundziige der A g g a d a des Flavius Josephus." M G W J 80:237-46, 363. Henderson, I., 1957. "Ancient Greek Music." In The New Oxford History of Music, ed. J. A . Westrup et al., 1:336-403. London: Oxford University Press. Hengel, M . , 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Translated from the G e r m a n by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Herr, M . D , 1970. " T h e R o m a n Rule in the Literature of the Tannaim" [In Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. , 1977. " T h e Employment of History among the Rabbis" [In Hebrew]. In Proceed­ ings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 3:129-42. Jerusalem: World Union of Jew­ ish Studies. Hilgert, E., 1985. " T h e Dual Image of Joseph in Hebrew and Early Jewish Literature." BR 30:5-21. , 1986. "A Survey of Previous Scholarship on Philo's De Josepho." SBLSP 25: 262-70. Hoenig, S. B . , 1972. "Historic Masada and the Halakhah." Tradition 13.2 (Fall): 100-15. Hoffmann, K . , 1920. "Die Ethik des jiidischen Geschichtsschreibers Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Erlangen. Holladay, C . R., 1977. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1983. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1: Historians. Chico, C a l i f : Schol­ ars Press. , 1989. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 2: Poets. Adanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Hollander, H . W , 1981. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Lei­ den: Brill. Hollander, H . W , and Jonge, M . de., 1985. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commen­ tary. Leiden: Brill. Holscher, G., 1904. "Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiidischen Kriege ." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Leipzig: Teubner. , 1916. "Josephus." RE 18:1934-2000. Homeyer, H., 1962. " Z u den Anfangen der griechischen B i o g r a p h i c " Philologus 106:75-85.

688

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Horsley, R. A . , 1992. "Messianic Movements in Judaism." In ABD, 4:791-97. Horst, J., 1932. "Proskynein. Z u r Anbetung im Urchristentum nach ihrer religionsgeschichdichen Eigenart." Diss., Miinster, 1920. Gutersloh: Bertelsmann. Howard, G. E., 1973. " K a i g e Readings in Josephus." Textus 8:45-54. Hiibner, H., 1992. " N e w Testament, O T Quotations in the." In ABD, 4:1096-1104. Hug, A . , 1956. "77afSes." RE, suppl. vol. 8:374-400. Humphreys, W. L., 1980. " T h e Rise and Fall of K i n g Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narra­ tive Stratum in I Samuel." JSOT 18:74-90. Ilan, T , 1986. "A Pattern of Historical Errors in the Writings of Josephus" [In Hebrew]. ^51:357-60. Ilan, T , and Price, J. J., 1993-94. "Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum." JQR 84:189-208. Jacobson, H., 1983. The Exagoge ojEzekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1993. "Josephus on the Death of Moses." In Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, ed. H . D. Jocelyn and H . Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers, no. 3. Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly. , 1996.^4 Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Jaeger, W , 1938. Diokles von Karystos: Die Griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles. Berlin: De Gruyter. , 1947. Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jellicoe, S., 1965-66. " T h e Occasion and Purpose of the Letter of Aristeas: A Re-examina­ tion." NTS 12:144-50. , 1968. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jeremias, A . , 1906. DasAlte Testament in Lkhte derAlten Orients. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Jobling, D., 1978. The Sense of Biblwal Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 13-31, Numbers 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 Kings 17-18). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Johnson, G. L., 1983. "Josephus: Heir Apparent to the Prophetic Tradition?" SBLSP, ed. K. H . Richards. 22:337-46. de Jonge, M . , 1966. " T h e Use of the Word Anointed' in the T i m e of Jesus." NT 8: 132-48. , 1974. "Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes." In J-S: 205-19. Kahle, P. E., 1947. The Cairo Geniza. London: Oxford University Press. Kamesar, A . , 1994. " T h e Narrative A g g a d a as Seen from the Graeco-Latin Perspective." J J S 45-52-70. Kardimon, S., 1958. "Adoption as a Remedy for Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs." JSS 3:123-26. K a t z , P., 1950. Philo's Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, H . A . A . , 1895. Sources of New Testament Greek; or, the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vo­ cabulary of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Kindler, A . , 1971. "Coins and Currency." EJ 5:695-721. Kingdon, H . P., 1972-73. " T h e Origins of the Zealots." NTS 19:74-81. Klausner, J., 1951. History of the Second Temple [In Hebrew]. Vol. 5. Jerusalem: Ahiasaf. K n o x , B . M . W , 1950. " T h e Serpent and the Flame: T h e Imagery of the Second Book of the Aeneid." AJP 71:379-400. , 1957. Oedipus at Thebes. N e w Haven: Yale University Press. , 1966. "Second Thoughts on Greek Tragedy." GRBS 7:213-32. Kolitz, Z . , 1971. "Masada: Suicide or Murder?" Tradition 12.1: 5-26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

689

Kopidakis, M . Z . , 1986. "'Iaxjrjnos 6fir)pi£o)v" Helkmica 37:3-25. Kottek, S. S., 1994. Medicine and Hygiene in the Works of Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill. Krauss, S., 1898-99. Griechische und Lateinische Lehnworter im Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, 2 vols. Berlin: Calvary. Ladouceur, D. J., 1977. "Studies in the Language and Historiography of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Brown University. , 1983. " T h e Language of Josephus." J S J 14:18-38. , 1987. "Josephus and Masada." In JJC, 95-113. Lamberton, R., 1986. Homer the Theologian: Moplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Lammert, E , 1927. "Ucofxaro^vXaKes" RE, 2d ser., 5:991-92. Laqueur, R., 1920. Der jildische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auj neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Larson, E., 1994. "4Q470 and the Angelic Rehabilitation o f K i n g Zedekiah." 1:210-26.

DSD

Lassner, J , 1993. Demonizing the Queen of Sheba: Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Ju­ daism and Medieval Islam. C h i c a g o : University o f C h i c a g o Press. Le Deaut, R., 1963. La Nuit Pascale: Essai sur la signification de la Pdquejuive apartir du Targum dExode XII42. Analecta Biblica, no. 22. Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical. , 1964a . "<j>i\avdpa)TTia dans la litterature grecque jusqu'au Nouveau Testament (Tite III, 4)." In Melanges Eugene Tisserant, 1:233-94. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. , 1964b. " M i r y a m , soeur de Moise, et Marie, mere du Messie." Biblica 45:198-219. Leisegang, H . , ed., 1926. Philo. Vol. 7. Berlin: D e Gruyter. Leon, H.J., i960. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Levi, I., 1912. " L e Sacrifice d'Isaac e la M o r t de Jesus." RE J 64:161-84. Levison, J. R., 1994. " T h e Debut o f the Divine Spirit in Josephus's Antiquities." HTR 87:123-38. Levy, I., 1907. "Moise en Ethiopie." REJ 53:201-11. , 1927. La Legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine. Bibliotheque de l'ecole des hautes etudes, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 250. Paris: C h a m p i o n . , 1965. Recherches esseniennes etpythagoriciennes. Paris: Minard. Lewinsky, A . , 1887. Beitrdge zur Kenntnis der religJLonsphiksophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Jose­ phus. Breslau: Preuss & Junger. Liddell, H . G., and Scott, R., 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. N e w ed. by H . S. Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cited as LSJ. Lieberman, S., 1942. Greek in Jewish Palestine. N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary. , 1950. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary. , 1963. " H o w M u c h Greek in Jewish Palestine?" In Studies and Texts (Philip W. L o w n Institute of A d v a n c e d Jewish Studies, Brandeis University), vol. 1: Biblical and Other Stud­ ies, ed. A . Altmann, 123-41. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Loewenstamm, S. E., i960. " T h e Exodus from Egypt: A Literary Study Based on C o m ­ parison between the Report o f the Book o f Exodus and the Parallel Reports of the Extra-Pentateuchal Sources" [In Hebrew]. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. , 1965. The Tradition of the Exodus in Its Development [In Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes. Lord, J. R., 1968. "Abraham: A Study in Ancient Jewish and Christian Interpretation." Ph.D. diss., Duke University, D u r h a m , N . C .

6go

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lowy, S., 1977. The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Leiden: Brill. M a c D o n a l d , J., i960. " T h e Samaritan Doctrine of Moses." SJT13:149-62. , 1964. The Theology of the Samaritans. London: S C M . M a c M u l l e n , R., 1966. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. M a c R a e , G. W., 1965. "Miracle in T h e Antiquities of Josephus." In Miracles: Cambridge Stud­ ies in Their Philosophy and History, ed. C . F. D . Moule, 127-47. London: Mowbray. Macurdy, G. H., 1937. Vassal-Queens and Some Contemporary Women in the Roman Empire. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology, 22. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Maier, J., 1994. "Amalek in the Writings of Josephus." In Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers, 109-26. Lei­ den: Brill. Malbim, M . L., ed., N.d. Sefer Torat Elokim and Miqeraei Qodesh [In Hebrew]. N e w York: Friedman. Malina, B.J., 1968. The Palestinian Manna Tradition: The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and Its Relationship to the New Testament Writings. Leiden: Brill. Mantel, H . D., 1977. " T h e Sadducees and Pharisees." In Society and Religion in the Second Tem­ ple Period. T h e World History of the Jewish People, 1.8, ed. M . Avi-Yonah and Z . Baras, 99-123, 346-51, 395-97- Jerusalem: Massada. Marcus, R., 1931-32. "Divine Names and Attributes in Hellenistic Jewish Literature." £447^3:43-120. , ed. and trans., 1934-37. Josephus. Vols. 5 (joindy with H . St. J. Thackeray) and 6 LCL. London: Heinemann. Margalith, O., 1986. " T h e Political Role of Ezra as Persian Governor." £AW Q8:I 10-12. Marmorstein, A . , 1920. The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature. London: Oxford Uni­ versity Press. Marrou, H . I., 1956. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated from the French by G. L a m b . N e w York: Sheed & Ward. Martin, L. H., 1981. 'Josephus' Use of heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 1 7 1 - 3 . " Numen 28:127-37. Martin-Achard, M . , 1982. " L a figure d'Isaac dans PAncient Testament et dans la tradition juive ancienne." Bulletin des Facultes Catholiques de Lyon 106 (66):5-io. Mason , S., 1988. "Josephus on the Pharisees Reconsidered: A Critique of Smith/Neusner." S

R

:

6

!7 455- 9-

, 1991. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Leiden: Brill. , 1994. "Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House." In Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers, 161-91. Leiden: Brill. Mastin, B . A . , 1973. "Daniel 2:46 and the Hellenistic World." ^ 4 ^ 8 5 : 8 0 - 9 3 . Matenko, P., and Sloan, S., 1968. Two Studies in Yiddish Culture, 1: The Aqedath Jishaq: A Six­ teenth-Century Yiddish Epic, with Introduction and Notes by Percy Matenko and Samuel Sloan; II. Job and Faust: A Study and Translation of Ch. JThitlowsky's Essay by Percy Matenko. Leiden: Brill. Meeks, W , 1967. The Prophet-Tang: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill. Melamed, E. Z., 1951. 'Josephus and Maccabees I: A Comparison" [In Hebrew]. E-I1:122-30. Mendels, D., 1992. "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the 'Fourth Philosophy' and the Polit­ ical Messianism of the First Century C.E.." In The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. H . Charlesworth, 261-75. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

6gi

Meulen, H . E. E van der, 1978. "Das Salomo-Bild im HeUenistisch-Judischen Schrifttum." Ph.D. diss., K a m p e n . Meyer, R., 1938. "Levitische Emanzipationsbestrebungen in nachexilischer Zeit." OLZ 41:721-28. M e z , A . , 1895. Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht jilr Buch V-VII der Archaologie. Basel: Jaeger & Kober. Migliario, E., 1981. "Per l'interpretation dell'autobiografia di Flavio Giuseppe." Atheneum 59:92-137. Mikalson, J. O., 1991. Honor Thy Gods: Popular Religion in Greek Tragedy. Chapel Hill: Univer­ sity of North Carolina Press. Millar, E , 1987. "Empire, Community and Culture in the R o m a n Near East: Greeks, Syri­ ans, Jews and Arabs." JJS 38:143-64. Milokenski, E., 1964. Der Mid in der griechischen Philosophie. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Mirsky A . , 1948. "Biblical Explanations in the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus" [In Hebrew]. Sinai22:282-87'. Moehring, H . R., 1957. "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., University o f Chicago. Microfilm. , 1973. "Rationalization o f Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus." 777 112:376-83. Momigliano, A . D , 1966. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian." In id., Studies in Historiog­ raphy, 1-39. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 1971a. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1971b. Second Thoughts on Greek Biography. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. , 1978. "Greek Historiography." HT17:1-28. , 1979. "Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem." Athenaeum 57:442-48. M o m m s e n , T., 1870. "Cornelius Tacitus and Cluvius Rufus." Hermes 4:320-22. , 1885. Rb'mische Geschichte. Vol. 5. Berlin: Weidmann. Montgomery, J. A . , ed., 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry Snyder G e h m a n . N e w York: Scribner; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Moore, G. E , 1898. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. 2d ed. N e w York: Scribner. , 1912-13. " T h e Antiochian Recension of the Septuagint." AJSL 29:37-62. , 1927-30 . Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1929. "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus." HTR 22:371-89. Moscovitz, L., 1979. "Josephus's Treatment of the Biblical Balaam Espisode." Yeshiva Uni­ versity, N e w York. M o t z o , B . R., 1928. "II testo di Ester in Giuseppe." SMSR 4:84-105. Muraoka, T , 1981. " T h e Greek Text of 2 Samuel 11 in the Lucianic Manuscripts." AN 2o:37-59Murphy, F. J., 1993. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. N e w York: Oxford University Press. Murray, O., 1972. "Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture." 0(^22:200-13. Nadel, B . , 1966. "Jozef Flawiusz a terminologia rzymskiej inwektywy politycznej." (=Josephus Flavius and the Terminology o f R o m a n Political Invective). Eos 56:256-72. Neitzel, H., 1980. "Iphigeniens Opfertod: Betrachtungen zur 'Iphigenie in Aulis' von Eu­ ripides." WJA 6a:61-70. Nesde, E., 1910. "Miscellen: Die Bibel des Josephus." ^ ^ 3 0 : 1 5 2 .

6g2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

N e u m a n , A . A . , 1952-53. "Josippon and the A p o c r y p h a . " JQR 43:1-26. Reprinted in id., landmarks and Goals: Historical Studies and Addresses, 35-37. Philadelphia: Jewish Publica­ tion Society, 1953. Neusner, J., 1971. The Rabbinic Tradition about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. , 1972a. "Josephus' Pharisees." In Ex orbe religionum: Studia Geo Widengren, XXIVmense apr. MCMLXXIIquo die lustra tredecimfeliciter explevit oblata ab collegis, discipulis, amicis, collegae magistro amico congratulantibus, 224-44. Leiden: Brill. , 1972b. " T h e Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 A.D.: T h e Problem of O r a l Tradition." Kairos 14:57-70. , 1973. "Josephus' Pharisees: T h e Real Administrators of the State." In From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism, 45-66. Englewood Clifls, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. , 1978. The Glory of G-d Is Intelligence: Pour Lectures on the Role of Intellect in Judaism. Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University. , 1984. Messiah in Context: Israel's History and Destiny in Formative Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. , 1987a. Scriptures of the Oral Torah: Sanctification and Salvation in the Sacred Books of Judaism . San Francisco: Harper & Row. , 1987b. "Mishnah and Messiah." In Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Chris­ tian Era, ed. J. Neusner et al., 265-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs., 1987. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neyrey, J. H . , 1994. "Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native M o d e l of Personality." J S J 25:177-206. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 1980. " G o o d and B a d Leaders." In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J.J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 49-65. Society of Bibli­ cal Literature: Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. , 1984. " T h e Bible Rewritten and Expanded." In Jewish Writings in the Second Temple Period, ed. M . E. Stone, 89-156. CRINT2.2. Assen: V a n Gorcum. Niehoff, M . , 1992. The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Leiden: Brill. Niese, B . , ed., 1885-95. Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann. , 1896. " D e r judische Historiker Josephus." HZ40:193-237. Nikiprowetsky, V , 1971. " L a M o r t d'Eleazar fils de Jaire et les courants apologetiques dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josephe." In Hommages a Andre Dupont-Sommer, ed. A . C a q u o t and M . Philonenko, 461-90. Paris: Maisonneuve. , 1989. "Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties." InJBH, 216-36. Nock, A . D., 1933. Conversion: The Old and the New in ReligionfromAlexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 1972. "Conversion and Adolescence." In Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Z . Stewart, 1:469-80. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nodet, E, ed., 1990. Flavius Josephe: Les Antiquites Juives. Limes Id III, vol. 1: Introduction et texte; vol. 2: Traduction et notes. Paris: Cerf. , 1993. "Flavius Josephe: Creation et Histoire." RB 100:5-40. Norden, E., 1913. "Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetic" Neue Jahrbiicher fur das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche literatur 16:637-66. Reprinted in Z Josephus-Forschung ed. A . Schalit. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ur

BIBLIOGRAPHY

693

, 1923. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religidser Rede. Leipzig: Teubner. , 1924. Die Geburt des Kindes: Geschichte einer religidsen Idee. Leipzig: Teubner. North, H . E , 1956. "Rhetoric and Historiography." QJS 42:234-42. , 1966. Sophrosyne, Self-Knowledge and Sejf-Restraint in Greek literature. Ithaca, N Y : C o r ­ nell University. Obbink, H . W , 1966. " O n the Legends of Moses in the H a g g a d a h . " In Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro. Christiano Vriezen . . . dedicata, ed. W. C . van Unnik and A . S. van der Woude, 252-64. Wageningen: Veenman. Oepke, A . , 1954. ""Ovap." 7 ^ ^ 5 : 2 3 2 - 3 3 . Olmstead, A . T., 1913. "Source Study and the Biblical Text." AJSL 30:1-35. Ostwald, M . , 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law: Law, Society, and Politics in Fifth-Century Athens. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Palmer, A . S., 1913. The Samson-saga and Its Place in Comparative Religion. London: Putnam. Paul, A . , 1975. "Le C o n c e p t de prophetie biblique: Flavius Josephe et Paul." RSR 63:367-84. , 1981. " L e Recit de la Chute par Flavius Josephe." FV80 (Dec.):4i~47. , 1985. "Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews': A n Anti-Christian Manifesto." NTS 31:473-80. Pearce, S.J. K . , 1995. "Flavius Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: T h e Council o f Seven and the Levitical Servants in Jewish Antiquities 4.214." HJ 36:477-92. Pearson, A . O , 1914. " H u m a n Sacrifice (Greek)." In Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 6:847-49. N e w York: Scribner. Pease, A . S., 1941. "Caeli Enarrant." HTR 34:163-200. , ed., 1958. " M . " Tulli Ciceronis De Natura Deorum Libri Tres. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pelletier, A . , 1962a. Flavius Josephe, Adaptateur de la Lettre dAristee: Une Reaction atticisante contre la koine. Paris: Klincksieck. , 1962b. Lettre dAristee a Phihcrate. Paris: Cerf. Perrot, C , 1967. "Les Recits d'enfance dans la H a g g a d a anterieure au II siecle de notre ere." #£#55:481-518. Perrot, C , and Bogaert, P.-M. eds., 1976. Pseudo-Phibn: Les Antiquite Bibliques. Vol. 2. Paris: Cerf. Perry, B . E., 1967. The Ancient Romances. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Peter, H., 1897. Die geschichtliche Literatur uber die rbmische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Teubner. Petersen, H., 1958. "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus." 4 7 ^ 7 9 5 9 - 7 4 Petit, M . , 1976. "A propos d'une traversee exemplaire du desert du Sinai selon Philon (Hypothetica VI.2.3.8): Texte biblique et apologetique concernant Moise chez quelques ecrivains juifs." Semitica 26:137-42. Pfeifer, G., 1967. "Ursprung und Wesen des Hypostasenvorstellung im Judentum." Ph.D. diss., Jena. Stuttgart: Calwer. Pfister, E , 1909-12. Der Requienkult imAltertum. 2 vols. Giessen: TopeJmann. Philip, J. A . , 1966. Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pines, S., 1977. "A Platonistic M o d e l for T w o of Josephus' Accounts o f the Doctrine of the Pharisees concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action." Immanuel 7:38—43. Trans, from Hebrew, lyyun 24 (i973):227~32 e

:2

694

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pisano, S., 1984. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag; Got­ tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pohlmann, K . - E , 1968-69. "Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem urspriinglichen Schluss des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes." Ph.D. diss., Marburg. Reprinted in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alien und Neuen Testaments, 104, ch. 3, Das £eugnis des Josephus, 74-126. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Porton, G. G., 1979. "Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the GrecoR o m a n Period." ANRW2.19.2:103-38. Poznanski, A . , 1887. " U b e r die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Jose­ phus." Ph.D. diss., Halle. Priebatsch, H . , 1937. Die Josephsgeschichte in der Weltliteratur: Fine legendengeschichtliche Studie. Breslau: Marcus. Prijs, L., 1948. Judische Tradition in der Septuaginta. Leiden: Brill. Qimron, E., and Strugnell, J., 1994. Qumran Cave 4: V. MiqsatMa ase Ha-Torah Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rabinowitz, L. I., 1971. " T h e Masada Martyrs according to the Halakhah." Tradition 12: c

31-37. Radin, M . , 1915. The Jews among the Greeks and Romans. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication So­ ciety. Raglan, Lord Fitz R. R . S., 1934. " T h e Hero of Tradition." iM/ore 45:212-31. Rahlfs, A . , 1911. Septuaginta-Studien, 3: Lucians Rezension der Konigsbiicher. Gottingen: Vanden­ hoeck & Ruprecht. , 1935. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt. Rahmer, M . , 1861. Die hebraischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus: Quaestiones in Genesin. Breslau: Schletterschen Buchhandlung. Rajak, T , 1974. "Flavius Josephus: Jewish History and the Greek World." Ph.D. diss., O x ­ ford University. , 1978. "Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature." JJS2g: 111-22. , 1982. "Josephus and the Archaeology' of the Jews." 33:465-77. , 1984. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Rank, O., 1909. Der My thus von der Geburt des Helden: Versuch einer psychologischen Mythendeutung. Leipzig: Deuticke. Translated by F. Robbins and S. E. Jeliffe as The Myth of the Birth of the Hero: A Psychological Interpretation of Mythology. N e w York: Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing, 1914. Ranke, L. von, 1883. Weltgeschichte. 3:2, 12-33. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Rappaport, Salomo., 1930. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. Vienna: Alexander K o h u t Memorial Foundation. , 1932. "Review of Josephus: The Man and the Historian, by H . St. J. Thackeray." REJ 92:107-12. Rattenberg, R. M . , 1933. "Romance: Traces o f Lost Greek Novels." In New Chapters in the History of Greek Literature, 3d ser., ed. J. U. Powell, 211-57. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reinach, T , ed., 1895. Textes d'auteursgrecs et romains relatifs aujudaisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reinhardt, K . , 1928. Poseidonios uber Ursprung und Entartung: Interpretation zweier kulturgeschichtlicher Fragmente. Heidelberg: Winter. Rengstorf, K . H . , ed., 1973-83. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

693

Renzer, J. S., 1902. "Die Hauptpersonen des Richterbuchen in Talmud und Midrasch." Ph.D. diss., Bern. Berlin: Itzkowski. Ricciotti, G., 1938. "II testo della Bibbia in Flavio Giuseppe." In Catalogo della mostra di manoscritti e documenti orientali tenuta dalla Biblioteca apostolica vaticana e dalVArchivio segreto nelV occasione del XIX Congresso intemazionale degli orientalisti, Roma, 23-29 settembre 1933, 464-70. Vat­ ican City. Richards, G. C , 1939. " T h e Composition of Josephus' Antiquities.'" 00,33:36-40. Rivkin, E., 1971. The Shaping ofJewish History: A RadicalNew Interpretation. N e w York: Scribner. , 1978. A Hidden Revolution. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon. Robbins, V K . , 1981. "Laudation Stories in the Gospel of Luke and Plutarch's Alexander." In SBLSP, ed. K . H . Richards, 293-308. C h i c o , Calif.: Scholars Press. Robertson, S. D., 1992. " T h e Account of the Ancient Israelite Tabernacle and First Priest­ hood in the Jewish Antiquities o f Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Annenberg Research Institute, Philadelphia. Rofe, A . , 1994. " T h e Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosh ." In New Qum­ ran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992, ed. G.J. Brooke, 73-90. Leiden: Brill. a

Rokeah, D., 1968. "A N e w Onomasticon Fragment from Oxyrhynchus and Philo's Ety­ mologies." JTS 19:70-82. Rose, H . J., 1914. "Divination (Greek)." In Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 4:796-99. N e w York: Scribner. Rosenthal, L. A . , 1895. "Die Josephsgeschichte, mit den Buchern Ester und Daniel verglichen." %AW 15:278-90. , 1897. "Nochmals der Vergleich Ester, Joseph-Daniel." 17:125-28. D e i Rossi, A . 1573-75. Me or Einayim. Mantua: n.p. Rudolph, W., 1952-58. Esra undNehemia: samt3. Esra, vol. 10 cAHandbuch zumAlten Testament, 2d ed. Tubingen: Mohr. Runnalls, D , 1983. "Moses' Ethiopian C a m p a i g n . " JSJ 14:135-56. Sachs, M . J., 1854. Beitrdge zur Sprach- und Altertumsforschungausjiidischen Quellen. 2 vols. Berlin: Veit. Sacks, K . S., 1981. Polybius on the Writing of History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Sanders, E. P., 1990. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: S C M . Sandmel, S., 1956. Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College. Sansone, D., 1978. "A Problem in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris." RM 121:35-36. Sarna, N . M . , 1971. "Psalms, Book of, Ascription to David." EJ 13:1313-14. Sarowy, W , 1900. Quellenkritische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Kb'nig Salomos. Konigsberg: Leopold. Satran, D., 1980. "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy M a n . " In Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. J.J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 33-48. SBLSCS 12. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. Schalit, A . , trans, and ed., 1944-63. Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae [In Hebrew]. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik. , 1968. Namenwdrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Jose­ phus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf, suppl. 1. Leiden: Brill.

6g6

BIBLIOGRAPHY J

ur

5 973- Z Josephus-Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Schaiiblin, C , 1982. "Josephus und die Griechen." Hermes 110:316-41. Scherb, H., 1930. Das Motif vom starken Knaben in der Marchen der Weltliteratur: Seine religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung und Entwicklung Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Schian, R., 1973. "Untersuchungen iiber das argumentum e consensu omnium." Ph.D. diss., Tubingen, 1971. Spudasmata: Studien zur klassischen Philologie und ihren Grenzgebieten, 28. Hildesheim: Olms. Schinrnan, Lawrence H . , 1987. " T h e C o n c e p t of the Messiah in Second Temple and R a b ­ binic Literature." REx 84:235-46. Schlatter, A . von, 1910. Wie Sprach Josephs von G-tt? Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. Reprinted in his Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf, 65-142. Darmstadt: Wis­ senschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. , 1932. Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. , 1955. The Church in the New Testament Period. Translated by P. P. Levertoff. London: SPCK. Schmeling, G. L., 1980. Xenophon ofEphesus. Boston: Twayne. Schmidt, G., 1894. " D e Flavii Josephi Elocutione Observationes Criticae." JCP, suppl. 20, 341-550. Leipzig: Teubner. Schmitt, J., 1921. Freiwilliger Opfertod bei Euripides: Ein Beitrag zu seiner dramatischen Technik. Giessen: Topelmann. Schoeps, H.-J., 1940. " T h e Sacrifice of Isaac in Paul's Theology." JBL 65:385—92. Scholem, G., 1971. "Samael." EJ 14.719-22. Schorr, A . , trans., 1940. Antiquitates Judaicae [In Hebrew]. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Mass. Schreiber, H . M . , 1963. "Iphigenies Opfertod: Ein Beitrag z u m Verstandnis des Tragikers Euripides." Ph.D. diss., Frankfurt a / M : Giessen. Schiirer, E., 1901. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im ZeitalterJesu Christi. Vol. 1. 4th ed. Leipzig: Hinrichs. , 1973-86. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), ed. G. Vermes and F. Millar. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Clark. Schwartz, D. R., 1981-82. "Kara TOVTOV TOV Kaipov. Josephus' Source on Agrippa II." JQR 72:241-68. , 1983-84. "Josephus on Jewish Constitutions and Community." SCI7:30-52. , 1990. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tubingen: Mohr. Schwartz, S., 1990. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden: Brill. Scott, R. B. Y , 1955. "Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel." VT, suppl. 3: 262-379. Sedgwick, W. B., 1948. "Sappho in 'Longinus' ( X , 2, line 13)." 4 7 ^ 6 8 : 1 9 8 - 9 9 . Seidensticker, B . , 1979. "Sacrificial Ritual in the Bacchae." In Arktouros, ed. G. W. Bowersock, W. Burkert, and M . C . J . Putnam, 181-90. Berlin: D e Gruyter. Seyberlich, R . - M . , 1964. "Esther in der Septuaginta und bei Flavius Josephus." In Neue Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Alten Welt, vol. 1: Alter Orient und Griechenland, ed. C . Weiskopf, 363-66. 2d Internationale T a g u n g der Fachgruppe Alte Geschichte der Deutschen Historiker-Gesellschaft, Stralsund, 4.-8. Sept. 1962. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Shinan, A . , 1978. "Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in T h e Chronicles of Moses." 6*7/27:66-78. , 1978-79. " T h e Sins of N a d a b and A b i h u in Rabbinic Literature" [In Hebrew], Tarbiz 48:201-14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

697

Shochat, A . , 1953. " T h e Views of Josephus on the Future o f Israel and Its L a n d " [In H e ­ brew]. In Terusalayim. ed. M . Ish-Shalom et al., 43-50. Jerusalem: M o s a d H a - R a v K u k . Shutt, R. J. H., 1961. Studies in Josephus. London: S P C K . , 1971. "Biblical Names and T h e i r Meanings in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books I and II. 1-200." J £ J 2:167-82. , 1981. " T h e C o n c e p t of G - d in the Works of Flavius Josephus." JJS 31:171-89. Siegel, H., 1978. "Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis—Analysis and Critique." Ph.D. diss., N e w York University. , 1980. "Self-Delusion and the Volte-Face of Iphigenia in Euripides' Iphigenia at Aulis." Hermes 108:300-21. Sifakis, G. M . , 1967. Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama. London: Athlone Press. Silver, D. J., 1973-74. "Moses and the Hungry Birds." JQR 64:123-53. , 1982. Images of Moses. N e w York: Basic Books. Skinner, J., ed., 1930. Genesis. N e w York: Scribner. Slotki, J. J., ed., 1950. Joshua and Judges. Hebrew text and English translation with an intro­ duction and commentary, edited by A . C o h e n . London: Soncino Press. Smallwood, E. M . , 1956. "Domitian's Attitude toward Jews and Judaism." C P 51:1-13. , 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Domitian. Leiden: Brill. Smith, E. W , Jr., 1975. 'Joseph Material in Joseph and Asenath and Josephus Relating to the Testament of Joseph." In Studies on the Testament of Joseph, ed. G. W. Nickelsburg, 133-37. Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 3. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Smith, M . . , 1956. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century." In Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M . Davis, 67-81. N e w York: Harper. Reprinted in Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature, ed. H . A . Fischel, 183-97. N e w York: Ktav, 1977. , 1971. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press. , 1987. " T h e Occult in Josephus." In JJC, 236-56 Smolar, L., and Aberbach, M . , 1968. " T h e Golden C a l f Episode in Postbiblical Literature." HUCA 39:91-116. Snowden, F. M . , 1970. Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press. Solmsen, E , 1949. Hesiod and Aeschylus. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. Sowers, S. G., 1967. " O n the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism." In Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie: Oscar Cullmann zum 63. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. F. Christ, 18-25. Hamburg: Reich. Speiser, E. A . , ed., 1964. Genesis. Vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N Y : Doubleday. Spengel, L., 1854-94. Rhetores Graeci. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner. Spero, S., 1970. "In Defense of the Defenders of Masada." Tradition 11.1: 31-43. Speyer, W , 1971. Die literarische Fdlschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum: Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung. Munich: Beck. Spicq, C , 1958. " L a Philanthropic hellenistique, virtu divine et royale." ST 12:169-91. , 1978. Notes de lexicographic neo-testamentaire. 2 vols. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Spiegel, S., 1967. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: The Akedah. Translated by J. Goldin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Spiro, A . , 1953. "Pseudo-Philo's Saul and the Rabbis' Messiah ben Ephraim." 22:119-37.

PAAJR

6g8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Spottorno, V , 1987. "Some Remarks on Josephus' Biblical Text for 1-2 K g s . " In VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem, ig86, ed. C . E. C o x , 277-85. Adanta, G a . : Scholars Press. Sprodowsky, H., 1937. " D i e Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Joseph in Agypten bei Flav­ ius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Greifswald. (=Greifswalder Beitrdge zur Literatur- und Stilforschung .8). Stagg, E., and Stagg, E , 1978. Woman in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Stahn, H., 1908. Die Simsonsage: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung uber Richter 13-16. G o t ­ tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stein, E., 1937. " D e Woordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius Josephus." Ph.D. diss., Leiden. Amsterdam: H.J. Paris. Steinberg, E., 1971. "Weights and Measures." EJ 16:376-88. Steinthal, H., 1877. " T h e Legend of Samson." In Mythology among the Hebrews and Its Histori­ cal Development, ed. I. Goldziher, 392-440. Translated by R. Martineau. London: L o n g ­ mans, Green. Stemberger, G., 1983. Die Rbmische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden. Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft. Sterling, G. E., 1992. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke—Acts and Apologetic Histori­ ography. Leiden: Brill. Stern, M . , 1974-84. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences and Humanities. , 1987. "Josephus and the R o m a n Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War." In JJC, 71-80. Stone, M . E., 1992. "Esdras, Second Book of." In ABD, 2:611-14. Strugnell, J., and Dimant, D. 1988. " 4 Q , S e c o n d Ezekeil." # £ 1 3 : 4 5 - 5 8 . Stuart, D. R., 1928. Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer­ sity of California Press. Tabor, J. D., 1989. " 'Returning to the Divinity': Josephus' Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses." JBL 108:225-38. Tachauer, G., 1871. "Das Verhaltniss von Flavius Josephus zur Bibel und Tradition." Ph.D. diss., Erlangen. Talbert, C . H . , 1975. " T h e C o n c e p t of the Immortals in Mediterranean Antiquity." JBL 94:419-36. , 1980. "Prophecies o f Future Greatness: T h e Contribution of G r e c o - R o m a n Bi­ ographies to an Understanding of Luke 1:5-4:15." In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on G-d's Control of Human Events Presented to Lou H Silberman, ed. J. L. Crenshaw and S. Sand­ mel, 129-41. N e w York: Ktav. Tarn, W. W , and Griffith, G. T , 1952. Hellenistic Civilisation. 3d ed. London: Arnold. Tcherikover, V A., 1957. "Prolegomena." In id., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. V A . Tcherikover, A . Fuks, and M . Stern, 1:1-111. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1959. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Terian, A . , 1985. " S o m e Stock Arguments for the Magnanimity of the L a w in Hellenistic Jewish Apologetics." In Jewish Law Association Studies, 1: The Touro Conference Volume, ed. B. S. Jackson, 141-49. Proceedings of the second International Congress of the Jewish L a w Association, organized by the Touro College School of L a w and held in N e w York in D e c . 1982. Chico, C a l i f : Scholars Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

6gg

Thackeray, H . St. J., 1904. 'Josephus." In A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents, Including the Biblical Theology, edited by J. Hastings with the assis­ tance of J. A . Selbie, A . B . Davidson, S. R . Driver, and H . B . Swete, extra vol., 461-73. N e w York: Scribner; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. , ed. and trans., 1926-34.. Josephus. vols. 1-4; 5 (joindy with R . Marcus). LCL. L o n ­ don: Heinemann. , 1927. "Note on the Evidence of Josephus." In The Old Testament in Greek, ed. A . E. Brooke, N. M c L e a n , and H . St. J. Thackeray, ix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1929. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. N e w York: Jewish Institute o f Religion Press. Reprint, with preface by G. F. M o o r e and introduction by S. Sandmel, N e w York: Ktav, 1967. Thackeray, H . St. J., and R . Marcus., 1930-55. A Lexicon to Josephus. 4 fasc. Paris: Geuthner. Theiler, W., 1965. Z Geschichte der teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles. 2d ed. Berlin: D e Gruyter. ur

T h o m p s o n , S., 1957. Motif Index of Folk-Literature. 6 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Thornton, T , 1996. "Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus' Retelling o f Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges." JTS 47:125-30. Tiede, D . L., 1972. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Tobin, T. H . , 1986. "Tradition and Interpretation in Philo's Portrait o f the Patriarch Joseph." StfZSP 25:271-77. Torrey, C . C , 1944. " T h e Older Book of Esther." HTR 37:1-40. Tov, E., 1979. " T h e Textual Affiliations of 4 Q S a m . " J S O T 14:37-53. , 1984. " T h e Rabbinic Traditions concerning the 'Alterations' Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the L X X . " JSJ 15:65-89. a

Trimble, P. L., 1977. "Masada, Suicide, and Halakhah." £0731:45-55. Trisoglio, E , 1984. "L'intervento divino nelle vicende umane della storiografia classica greca a Flavio Giuseppe e ad Eusebio di Cesarea." ANRW2.21.2:977-1104. Tuland, C . G., 1966. "Josephus, Antiquities, Book X I : Correction or Confirmation o f Bibli­ cal Post-Exilic Records?" AUSS 4:176-92. Ullendorff, E., 1962-63. " T h e Q u e e n o f Sheba." #7#L 45:486-504. Ullman, B . L., 1942. "History and Tragedy." TAPA 73:25-53. Ulrich, E. C , 1978. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. , 1989. "Josephus' Biblical Text for the Books of Samuel." In JBH, 81-96. , 1994. "4QJoshua and Joshua's First Altar in the Promised Land." In New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organizationfor Qumran Stud­ ies, Paris, igg2, ed. G.J. Brooke, 89-104. Leiden: Brill. a

Unnik, W. C . van., 1949. " D e la regie Mr/re canon." ^ 3 : 1 - 3 6 .

irpoadelvaL

(jLrjre

afeXetv

dans l'histoire du

, 1963. "A Formula Describing Prophecy." JV7S 9:86-94. , 1973. "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus." In Romanitas et Christianitas, Studia Iano Henrico Waszink .. VI Kal. Nov. a. MCML XXIIIXIIILustra Complenti Oblata, ed. W. den Boer et al., 341-55. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. , 1974. "Josephus' A c c o u n t o f the Story o f Israel's Sin with Alien W o m e n in the Country o f Midian (Num. 25.1 ff.)." In Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Pre­ sented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of His 63th Birthday, ed. M . S. H . G. H e e r m a von

700

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Voss, Ph. H.J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A . van Uchelen, 241-61. Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 16. Assen: Van G o r c u m . , 1978. Flavins Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Schneider. Usener, H . K . , 1912. Kleine Schriften. Leipzig: Teubner. V a n d e r K a m , J. C , 1992. "Jubilees, Book of." ABD 3:1030-32. Vassiliev, A . , 1893. Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina. Moscow: Universitas Caesarea. Vawter, B., 1977. On Genesis: A New Reading. London: C h a p m a n . Vermes, G., 1955. " L a Figure de Moise au tournant des deux testaments." In Moise: U Homme de I'alliance, 86-92. Paris: Tournai. , 1973. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill. , 1975. Post-Biblical Studies. Leiden: Brill. , 1982. "A Summary of the L a w by Flavius Josephus." NT24:289-303. , 1991. 'Josephus' Treatment of the Book of Daniel." JJS 42:140,-66. Villalba i Varneda, Pere, 1986. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill. Vogelstein, H . , 1889. Der Kampf zwischen Priestern und Leviten seit den Tagen Ezechiels: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung. Stettin [Szczecin, Poland]: Nagel. Wacholder, B . Z . , 1962. Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali­ fornia Press. , 1963. "Pseudo-Eupolemus' T w o Greek Fragments on the Life of A b r a h a m . " HUCA 34:83-113, 1974. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union C o l ­ lege. Walbank, F. W , i960. "History and Tragedy." Historia 9:216-234. , 1972. Polybius. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press. Walzer, R. R., 1949. Galen on Jews and Christians. London: Oxford University Press. Wardman, A . E., i960. " M y t h in Greek Historiography." Historia 9:403-13. Weber, W , 1921. Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem Jiidischen Krieg des Flavius Jose­ phus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. W e g n e r J . R., 1982. " T h e Image o f W o m a n in Philo." SBLSP,ed. K . H . Richards, 21:551-63. Weinfeld, M . , 1982. " T h e K i n g as Servant of the People: T h e Source of the Idea." JJS 33^89-94. Welles, C . B., 1955. " T h e Hellenistic Orient." In The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, ed. R. C . Dentan, 133-67. N e w Haven: Yale University Press. White, R. T. 1992. Genesis A p o c r y p h o n . " In ABD, 2:932-33. Wiedemann, A . , 1900. " Z u den Felsgraffiti in der G e g e n d des ersten Katarakts." 0L£ Wieneke, J., 1931. "Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Q u a e Inscribitur Exagoge Fragmenta." Ph.D. diss., Munster. Williams, D. S., 1993-94. "Morton Smith on the Pharisees in Josephus." JQR 84:29-42. Williams, M . H., 1989. " T h e Expulsion o f the Jews from R o m e in A.D. 19." Latomus 48:765-84. Williams, S. K . , 1975. Jesus' Death as Saving Event. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press. Williamson, G. A . , 1964. The World of Josephus. Boston: Litde, Brown. Willrich, H., 1895. Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaischen Erhebung. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. , 1900. Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jiidischen Geschichte und Literatur. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

70/

Winter, P., 1953. "Movoyevrjs rrapa IJarpos" %RG 5:335-65. Wirszubski, O , 1950. Libertas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiseman, D. J., 1964. " R a h a b of Jericho." THE 14 (June):8-n. Wojcik, J., 1980. "Discriminations against David's Tragedy in Ancient Jewish and Christ­ ian Literature." In The David Myth in Western Literature, ed. R.-J. Frontain and J. Wojcik, 22-25. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press. Wolff, O , 1976. Jeremia im Fruhjudentum und Urchristentum. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Wolfson, H . A . , 1941. "Halevi and Maimonides on Design, Chance, and Necessity." PAAJR 11:119-30. , 1947. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. , 1966. "Patristic Arguments against the Eternity o f the World." HTR 59:351-67. Wood, J. E., 1967-68. "Isaac Typology in the N e w Testament." NTS 14:583-89. Yadin, Y , 1977-83. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yamauchi, E. M . , 1980. "Josephus and the Scriptures." FH13 (Fall): 42-63. Zeron, A . 1980. "Erwagungen zu Pseudo-Philos Quellen und Zeit." JSJ 11:38-52. Z u n z , L., 1845. £ur Geschichte und Literatur. Berlin: Veit. , 1865. Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie des Mittelalters. Berlin: Gerschel.

PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T W R I T E R S

JEWISH 1 Chronicles 4:3 13-3

SCRIPTURES

463114 557

16:7

4om57,562

i7:u

571,575

17:12

i52,53

8

7:10

600 (bis), 602

7:12

604

8:7

588

. 8:11

615

8:18

606

9:1-12

75

560

9:9

19:29

59i

9:30

18:12

6

o

9

576

21:1

559

10-18

21:13

5541117

11:2

22:1

561

11:5

22:2-23:1

575

15:6

157

22:9

563, 571, 610

15:8

119

22:12

552

15:9

160

22:14

571

17:6

119

22:14-19

570

17:7-8

62

25:1

562

17:10

120

28:1

576

18:2

142

28:1-29:30

575

19:11

62

28:4

563

20:5-12

154

28:11

576

21:7

152

29:3-4

57i

21:14

208

29:19

552,579

29:22

622

2 Chronicles

23, 34, 216 49in3 ff.

34^33

32:17

120

32:21

213 38

2:8

596

32:25

2:10

593 {bis)

33:10

57n72

3:3-4:22

596

34:3-7

120

3:14

57 nio

35:1

622

4:11

598

36:9

39, 71, 660

5:2

599

36:13

472n27

: i

5 2-i3 7:1 7:3 7:5 7:8

5

599 600,604

Daniel

621 6

0

1

1

630

1:3

72, 631, 632, 632n6, 632n8, 645

600 703

704

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Daniel (continued)

1 6

5: 5:21

6

34> 653 647

1:4

71, 631, 632 (bis), 641,

1:5 1:6

6

645 54 631

5:29

1:7

631

6

1:8

641,642

6:1

655

1:12

642,642n3o

6:3

201, 638, 641, 653 201,644

5:26-31 5:30

637 6

3 6 (bis), 648

6

54

630

1:14

642n30

6:4

1:17

643

6:5

636,653

1:18

654

6:7

136,648 136,648

1:20

632, 633, 644

6:9

2:1

654, 654n49 (bis)

6:10

633,634

2:1-49

102

2:5 2:16

645 156, 648, 655

633 653 183,655 648

2:17-18

645

6:11 6:13 6:14 6:16

2:19

637

6:20

637

2:19-23

635

6:23

213,639

2:20-23

635,637

6:24

184, 648, 656

2:27-28

634

6:28

635,654

2:27-45

646

7:9-14

63on3

2:28

36on54

7: 8

2:30

634

8

630

2:33

649n38

8:1-27

636

2:34-35 2:42

538 649n38

8:9

63on3

8:16

639

2:44

650

8:21

630

2:44-45

3 9 , 1 5 3 , i54n2i, 649

8:27

633

2:45 2:46

538 646

9:21-27

639

9:24-27

154, 652 (bis)

2:48

641

9:26

6521145

157,652

10:7

636ni7

3:8-12 : I

j

6

153, 5°

3 9

213,638

3:25

640

3:28

640

3:29

i3 > 4 6

1:11

390

4:4-18

646

1:12

392

6

Deuteronomy 1:1 6

4:5

647

1:42

47

655

169, i69n9, 328, 457

410

4:9

655

3:4-5 3:11

4:16

646

4:2

42,43

4:25

646

6:20-21

455 5

4:30

646

7:3

i37, 300, 446

4:31-34

647

7:5

4:32

646

10:1-5

4:33

646

10:3

426

5^-9

655

12:2-3

416

5:4

647

12:32

42

57-8

633

16.20

114

633

17.9

60

: i

5 4

4 H 92,169^,411 n i

"8 426

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 17:14-20

434

3 3

17:16-17

617

4:5

18:10-11

6011138

4:14

209

19:14

141,3901135,436

6:6

184 184

:I

l 6

6

9

32n8

20:5-8

4101165

6:11

20:10

415

7:9

i7°>

20:10-14

411

97-9

164

1 8 2

20:13-14

416

20:19

439

21:6

68

1:8-10

21:18-21

413

1:9-10

in

22:1

31

1:11

386

22:9

4871^63

22:22

413

1:22 2:1

378,43 87,3791115

Exodus 135

8

23-28

34

23:4

138

2:2 2:5

379,384 440

23:20

418

2:6

3811121,384

25:3 25:17-19 25:19 27

4i9 121 4 5,4 72

2:7

381

2:10

383,3841128

2:11-12

414

2:11-15

436

27:17 32

390*35 420

32:43 33:1

15 422

2:17

419

2:18

221110

33:5

434

2:20

123,419

33:22

4691118

2:21

376,418

34:1-6

174

34:1-12

169119

3:1 3:2

376,394 210,427

34:5

396,453

3:5

456

34:6

396

3:8

436

34:7-12

401

3:10

406

34:8

439

3:i3

393

34:io

375,572

3^7

436

3:21-22

420

J

l 6

Ecclesiastes 7:28 10:14

573 27511121

2:12

37,376

2:15

200,405

4:3

406

4:6

385

4:10

177, 376, 3821125,

4:16

396

400

Esther 1:10

164

4:19

406

1:11

331

1:14

164

4:20 4:24

393,4 291112, 376, 424

l 8

1:16

632118

4:27

386

2:2

187

2:6

39, 168

4:30 4:30-31

387 428

2:7

168

2:17

330

5 5:1 5:20-23

423 400 406

2:19

38

2:22

170

3:12

169

5:40 6:1

15 291112

70^

yo6

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Exodus (continued)

17:14

416

436

17:14-15

415

6:8

437

17:14-16

121

6:12

104,177, 400

17^5

438

6:20

21

18:2

376

7 7:1 7:10 7:12

423 396 387 428

18:8-12

159

7^9 7:22

387 429

19:25

3 5

8:2 8:13

387 387

20:4

616

22:17

5201113

8:17

67

22:27

115

8:21-23

416 (bis)

22:27 (28)

53

10:29

4°6

6:4

11

291112

11-12

437

11:2-3

4

12:13

2 0

2581175

12:35-36

254

12:36

1181147, 4171178

12:44

445

13:17

408,425

18:12

122

18:13

414

18:13-27

376

18:25

409 8

(LXX), 119, 647

l 6

n

24:4 25:2

9 9 426

25:5 28:1 28:15 28:17-20 28.19 28:30 31:3

3i 387 (to) 433 (LXX) 31 25 433 426 37

13:18

365,407

13:19

342ni4

32

13:21

432

32:1

388

14:7

407

32:1-20

72

14:13

422

32:15-20

412

14:13-14

429

32:19

412

14:15

3861131,407

32:19-20

376

14:16

407

32:21-25

72,557

14:21

4071162

34:28

395

15:1-21

400

34:29

426

15:3 15:21

548 4001156,438

35:5

426

15:25

43

1

37:1-9

426

40:34-35

433

15:27

408

16:1-13

426

Ezekiel

16:4

426

1:10

601

16:6

400,409

16:1

72

16:13

426, 431 (bis)

40:17

596

16:15

388

17:4

39i

17:5

39i

2:2-61

164

17:6

440

7:i-5

177 17:8-13

43i 432

10:18-44

87 164

Ezra

Genesis

17:8-16

133

17:9

391, 409 (bis), 448

1

72

17:11

409

1:1

3oni8, 165

17:13

409

1:2

28, 169

243,

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 1:3

40

14:17

286

1:5

166

14:19

240

1:6

165

14:20

167,239

1:9-10

40

15:1

224

1:26

165

15:2

2:7

169

i5 5

2:17

166

:

253 232

:

i5 7

253 247

2:24

479 42

15:8

3:16

3801117

i5 9

4:7

170

i5 3

243

4:13

28

15:13-14

4201182 299

n

:

: i

253

6:5

166,180

15:13-16

6:6

166,169

15:14

250,254

6:9

166 (bis)

15:17

250

6:11-13

180

15:

69, 133

16:4

6:14

(LXX)

1 8

154. 205, 253 180,244

8:11

311121

16:6

8:21

169

16:9

244

180,244051

9:9

1541122 (LXX)

16:11

462

9:13

166

16:12

243

9:20-25

163

17:1-16

253

9:25

68

17:1-21

9:27

167

17:5 :

299 2471155,287

i7 8

253,445115

17:10

257

294,305

17:10-11

205

11:29

28,2870154

17:17

248

12-15

15

17:19-21

154,205 246

11:2

28

11:9

140

11:26-25:11

(LXX)

12:1

229,247

17:22

12:1-4

285

18:1

288

12:4

247

18:1-3

286

12:5

261

18:1-22:24

33 27

12:6

169119

18:2

240

12:7

154,205

18:3

249

12:8

247

18:4

288

12:10

103,230

18:7-8

28611150

12:10-20

215,287

18:8

249059,286,

12:11

2591181

12:14

258

18:10

210, 250, 251

12:15 12:16

135,258 242

18:12

238, 239, 248

18:13

239

12:17

259

18:15

238,288

12:18

259

18:16

225

12:19

186

18:16-33

249

13:3-4

250

18:17

249

13^4-17

154. 205, 253

18:18

249

13:18

227,250

18:20

249

n

2860150

14:10

286

18:21

249

14:11

225

18:23-32

249

14:14

182, 235, 236, 242

19:2

240044

14:14-15

564

19:5

287

14:15

182,235

19:8

240, 286, 46304

707

yo8

PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS 22:1-3

Genesis (continued)

277

19:10

212

22:1-19

75,294

19:14

287,2870152

22:2

257, 267 (to), 272, 301

19:15-22

250

19:16

225

22:4

274

19:17

250

22:5

239, 256, 276, 298

19:18

250

22:6

274

19.24

265

22:8

252063

19:26

248,251

22:9

182, 277, 301

19:27-28

248

22:10

2720109

19:29

240

22:11

118, 212, 241

19:30 19:31

255 254,255

22:12

248, 252, 2760124

*9W-&

72

22:13

210 (to), 252 (to)

(LXX)

!9 32-33

225

22:14

16909,252063

20:1-13

287

22:18

299

20:2

251,261

22:19

256

20:2-3

238

23:6

235

20:3

250,251

24:1-67

294

20:4

225,261

24:7

251

20:4-5

251

24:10

228,261

20:4-7

245

24:22

241

20:5

287

24:33

21

20:7

246,251

20:9

116, 238, 298

24:34 25:1-6

227 265

20:11

243 (to)

20:12

287,2870154

25:5-6 25:6

i 9 3 9 > 239 265

20:14-15

246

25:8

224

20:16

225, 245 (to)

20:17

261

21:1

29102

25^9-34 25:21 25:22

305 295, 295012, 4 7 7 3 299,316 316

:

m

n

21:5

244051

25:23

21:6

248

25:25

3i7

21:8

244051

25:26

295012, 30604, 311

21:9

243,244051

25:27

314

21:10

244 (to)

25:28

1291156, 297, 319

21:11

244

25:29

3

21:12-13

250

25:29-34

3"

21:14

245

25:30

318, 318027

21:15

245

l 8

(LXX),

322 25:31

318, 318028, 319

25:33

319 (LXX)

251

25:34

136, 3

243

26:1

240 294

21:16

242,245

21:17

245

21:18

254

21:19 21:20

(LXX) l 8

21:22-34

261

26:1-33

21:23

486060

26:2

292,295

22:1

267,267099,

26:3-5 26:6 26:6-15 26:7

154,325 298 300 295,298

2680102 (to), 2760122, 2760123, 295

(to)

8

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 26:18

291, 295, 301

26:20

296

26:20-21

297

26:21

296 (bis), 301

26:22

301

29:17 29:18 29:19 29:20 29:24

33i (to), 345 331 (to) 313 (to) 331 221110

26:27

297

29:27

33

26:30-31

298

29:28

331

26:34-35 26:35

32i 137, 300, 320

29:31

312 (LXX)

29:32

32

27 27:1-28:5

37 294

30:1-2

206

30:2

309

27:1-37:3 27:3-4

305 297

27:4 27:5

1

J

30:8

308

30:16

332

3i9 129056, 3111113, 319

30:25

325

30:27

328

27:8

311

30:32-43

32

27:9

2971-116,311

30:37-38

37

27:12

311,312

31:1-2

313

27:15

312,316

31:20

313

27:16

311

27:17

312

3 25-3° 31:26

27:19

311

27:20

311,3121114

27:21

311

27:22

i :

i :

J

329 313 J

3151120,324

3 3i 3 3 -32 3i:5i-53 32:2

27:23

301

32:4

309

27:24

301

32:4-5

32i

27:27

297

32:7

321

27:27-29

325

32:8-9

309

27:28

485

32:10-13

327

27:29

300,320

32:25

328

27:33

320

32:28

325

27:38 27:40

32 320

J

32:29

327> 328

32:30

3°9

27:41

21, 316, 321

32:31

328 (to)

27:43

3

33:1-16

321

28:2

296

334

322

28:3

325

33:8-11

322

28:4

325

34:6

138,320

28:9

321

34:13-29

3201132 313

o 6 n

4 > 321

i :

J

3 3> 332 325 332 328

28:12

212,327

3430

28:13

224

35:2

327

28:14

325

35:5

327

28:15

308

35:6

221110

28:17

306114,308

35:9-^

327

28:22

308116

35:16

221110

29:1-14

328

35:20

328

29:2

330

35:22

72,557

29:11

330

35:23

221110,206

29:11-12

330

35:28

3021123

29:12

3°7>33°(to)

35:3i

328

709

yw

PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS

Genesis (continued)

39^7

342,37i

300

39:17-18

372

36:8

322

39: 9

336n3 , 372

36:31

167

37

336

39:21 40:3 40:6 40:11

359, 360, 3 7 371 (LXX) 364 350

40:15 40:17 40:18

353 350 357

41:1 41:1-7 41:8 41:11 41:12 41:14

359 364 336n3 336n3 342 363

36:2

37:i : i

J

307

37 -36

75, 3 ° 5 , 336

37:2

339, 34i (bis), 364

37:2-n

355

:

J

37 3

3 3 (to), 345, 347

374

353

377

149,343

37:8

354

37:9

336n3, 359, 3^6

37:io

3 3 , 338, 354*45,

37:11

181,366

4^5

33 n3,342

37:12

368

41:16

360

37:12-13

366

41:21

366

37:12-17

368

41:22

366 (to)

J

359

1

6

37 3 37:14

3°9 8,329 366

41:24

351

41:25

360

37:i5 37:26-27

367 368

41:28

360

41:32

101

37:27 37:28 37:30 37:32-35 37:35 37:36

364 337 34i 305 328 336n3 (LXX)

4i:33

35

4i:34

343,365

41:38

337, 343, 361

4^39

i35, 3 5 ° , 361

: i

n

(LXX)

1

41:40

150,343

37,72

4i:43 41:44

150, 343, 3 5 , 353 337

39-48

336

41:45

336n3 (to), 3421115

39:1

311119

3

8

(LXX), 336n3 (LXX), 346

39:1-48:22

305

39:3

3 o

394

337

39:6

345,352

39:6-7

348

6

1

(LXX), 345, 346 J

4!:5 -52

361

41:54

366

41:56 42:1-2

365 305

42:2 42:6

354 353

397

352,369

397-20

75, 336, 369

427 42:8

358 365

39:8

352

42:9

353,367

39:8-9

348,352

42:17

358

39:9

206, 360, 363

42:19 42:21

358 351

39:io j

370 6

1

39: 2

3 3 , 370, 3 7

42:24

358, 367 (to)

39:i3

336*3

42:30

358

39:i4

37i

42:38

330

39:i4-i5

37i

43:26

150, 344, 353

336n3

43:29

359

336n3

43:30

367

39:i5 39

: i 6

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 43:32 44^-34 44:2 44:4-5 44:5 44:6

355 75,337 365 360 368 367 (bis)

447 44:11-12 44:13 44:i5 44^7 44:18

367 182,367 368 35 358 150,344

44:^-34 44:3! 45:1

356 329 368

397 63:16

45:3-i3 45^3 45^5 45:22 45:25-28 45:26

35 354 357,368 356 3°5 150, 310, 344

6

Jeremiah

45:27 46:1-4 46:1-26 46:2

365 327 305 336113

46:5 46:20 46:27 46:28 46:33-34 46:34 477-12 47:i3 47:21

365 338 336113 336113 361 1 3 5 , 1 5 , 361 305 365 336113

47:23 47:28-31

357 305

47:28-50:26

75,337

I-I-9

48:1

357

1:8 1:10 1:10-11 1:12-13 1:17 2:1 2:3 2:4-6 2:23 2:24

453 448 448 458 453 453 444,4811145 458 458 453 454

3:i-i7 3:2-3

455 444

3:5

455

37

454

327 327 (bis) 336 305 363 353 3 4 59 6

n

Hosea

8

48:1-2

305 353

48:12-20

338

48:14-19

312

48:15

327

48.16

213,328

49:1-50:14

305

49:16

463114,468

49:17

463,467,469^), 4701120, 485, 4881164 327 357

3:5

538n5

Isaiah

15:1 : n

33 40:7

6

m

3 5,632118 292114

492,492116 J

25 156

Job 5:11

27511121

37:10-42:11

17

Jonah

1

48:12

49^9 49:22-26

49:24 49:25 50 50:1-26 50:2 50:18 50:26

1:4

208

1:6

208

1:16

160

1:17

212

2:10

212

3:5

l 6

3:10

208

4:1

38

4:6-11

208

o

Joshua

711

712

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Joshua (continued) 3^3

455

1 6

3: 4:6 4:15-16 4:19

455 4 5 5 5 (to) 454 444

4:21 5:

n i

5:2 5:9 l

444

18:1

444

18:3

450

18:4

451 453

455,455 5

18:11-20

452

454

20:1

455

445

20:1-2

452

22:3

452

454

l

444

14:11

18:10

n l

1

14:6-9

22:3-4

450

445

22:8

452

108,454

22:13

45

451 457

5' 3~ 5

45

5:20 6:2

6

1

456

22:13-14

6:21

448,459

22:21-29

7:5-6

449

22:24

458

449

22:32-33

458

454

23

453

23:1

6:6-16

77-9 :

79 7:

1 6

7:26

454

457 ff.

444

23:1-16

445,455

23:5 23:12-13 23:12-23 24:1 24:14 24:26

454 138 446 38 452 38

8:1-2

1081135,454

8:4 8:17 8:27 8:28

448 459 445,452 169,457

9^5 9:17 9:18 9:26

453 449 447 453

9:27

4 5 i , 457

1:5 2:1

449 213

10:1

459

3:9

6

10:7

450

3 9-! 1

Judges

:

1 1

59

75,290 6

10:11

456

3:

10:12-14

456

3:16

10:13

456

3:17

136

10:14

456

3:19

167

10:27

457

3:19-20

167

10:28-36

445

3:24

136, 167

10:30

1081135,454

3:25

168

10:32

1081135,454

4:3

181

11:1

450

4:6

207

11:4

457

5

38,4001156

11:7-8

449

5:1-31

493 °

11:8

4491110

5:31

4661112

11:10-15

445

6:11

213,4751129

11:11

445

6:13

210

11:20

454

6:17-18

210

12

38

6:25-32

37, 119

13-17

38

6:34

207

13:1

450

6:36-40

210

457

7:4

207

: i

i3 3

59

167

n l

JEWISH SCRIPTURES

713

8:i8-2i 11:34

119 26711101

15:15-16

472

15:16

465

13:2 13:2-16:31 13:3 13:5

467,475 461 213,4751132 4711123 (Aquila), 4781140

15:18

469,469018,469018

15:18-20

484

(LXX) 15:19

484

15:21

473 27 187, 481, 481046

n

475,476

16:1

13:8

170, 476, 477

16:3

464, 467, 470, 472

13:10

477

16:4

481,481046

13:11

462

16:6-15

479 4

13:11-12

477

16:7

486

13:13-14 13:16

477 462

16:8

470

16:8-30

485

13:17

478

16:9

170011,210,470,

13:22

462

13:24 13:25

483 (to) 207,483

16:10

473

16:12

211,486

14:1 14:1

478,487 478

16:13

473

16:15 16:15-16

473,481 473

16:17 16:18

469 474,481

13:6

ff.

14:1-16:31

49

14:3

138, 4731127,478, 487063 (to), 488

n

I

486

138,487063, 488

16:19

482

14:5 14:6

479 207, 468, 484

16:20

208, 464, 484

16:20-21

482

14:9

468,479

16:21

109, 482, 487063

14:10

488

16:25

474 (to)

14:11

466,4671113

16:28

208,485 (to)

14:12

4 6 4 , 4 6 4 (LXX)

16:30

470,471

14:12-17 14:14

587 4791141

16:31

472

14:15

479,480

17-18 17:2

37 482048

14:16

479

19-20

72

14:17

464,480

20:27-28

60079,453

14:19

207, 4 8 0 , 4 8 4

14:4

1 Kings

14:20

480

14:22

99

1:11-11:43

15:1

468

1:40

624

15:2

480

1:41

624 (to)

15:3 15:4

472 485060

i:45-47 1:51

57 619

15:5 15:6 15:10 15:11 15:12

473 473 465 467 467 (to), 472027, 488064

575

1

1:51-52

589

2:2-3

591

2:3

552

2:5

595 (to)

2:7

544

2:8

591

15:13 15:14

467 208,465,471,484

2:10

594

2:12

577,623

15:15

468, 471, 486060

2:15

589

714

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

7:1

i Kings (continued)

602

2:20

594

7:2-5

592,607

2:22

590

7:2-12

607

2:23-24

590

77

592 (bis)

2:26

590

7:8

615

2:28

595

7:12

607

2:29

595

7:25

601

2:32

595

7:29

2:43 2:44

59i 591 (bis)

7:36 7:38

605

740

598

575

7:47

596

3:1 1

3: «

601,6oin39 597 6o2n40

33

577. 5 9 , 595

749

596

34

595

3:5

595

7:50 7:51 8

5 7 596 (bis), 598 6o2n40

8:1 8:2

599 623

:

1

3^-9

580,588

8

3:6

579

3:6-7

57i

37

5 9 ° , 623

3:9

579, 580, 591

8:5 8:10-11

599 603

3^4

578

8:12

619

3^5

595

8:12-61

576

3:16-28

174,580

8:15

5 > 599, 0 3

3:17

624075

3:18

624

8:15-21 8:23-26

3:22

581

8:27

3:23-27 3:25 3:26 3:28

174, 581 (bis) 6

25 625 581

47-19 4:20

33 606

5:1

589,613

6 l

6

1

57 ,599 577 620,621

8:27-30

592

8:41-43

614

8:54 8:58 8:63

599 599 601

8:65

600,602

8:66

578, 579, 600 (ter), 602 597

5:2

589

8:68

5:2-3

578

9:2

604

5:6

578

9:6

576

5:10

23oni4, 584, 585

9:10

602

5:12

584

9:"

592

: i

584

: i

6 l

9:!2-i3 9:15

592 605 (bis)

5 3 5 5 5 5:25 5:26

3 , 619 592 613 613

9:18

606

5:27-28

609

9:20

588

5:31 6:2-36 6:5 67 6:9 6:21 6:38

596 596 596 597 597 597 602, 604, 623

9:23

610

: i 8

9:17 9:17-19

588,605 605

9:26

606

9:28

606

10:1

587, 604, 625

10:1-10

75

10:3 10:4-5

175,587 608

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:10 10:11-12 10:13 10:14 10:20 10:21 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:26 10:28 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:6 11:7 11:11 11:14 11:14-22 11:22 11:23 11:28 11:42 12-22 12:28 16:34 17:2-4 18:26 18:38 18:40 18:41 18:43 19:8

002, bob 608,625 608 (bis) 609,625 598 593 571 601 598 577 604 609 609, 610 (bis) 609 138,616 625 617 571,576,617,623 571 617 605 605,618 623 575mo (LXX), 624 623 610 57M23 23, 34, 216 127 69 211 69 211 505 211 211 211

19:9 i9 4 20:13 21:13 22:38

37 37 68 (LXX) 68 58

:i

3:9 4:1-23 4:1-37 4:11 5:1

142 33n27 33n27 72 5i2n4

5:27 8:15 10:26 10:27

38 109 512114 38,120, 661

*3 13:10-25 13:11 15:20 18:18 19:4 19:28 ^35 20:18 21:9 22:14 23:7-19 23:24 23:29 24:9 24:19 257

35 35,164 71,660 512114 109 6on79 120 213 632n8 57n72 87 120 120 5 39, 71, 660 71,660 473*12

Leviticus 8:1 10:1 10:9 13:46 14:3 16:12-15 16:18-21 18:3 18:22 19:14 19:27 21:5 21:7 26 27:5

1

387 167 i67n5 386 386 17 17 487*163 567 417 363 6

33 413 72 337

2 Kings 1 1:11-12 1:2-17 1:15 2:8 2:19-23 2:23-24

35 211-12 164 208 211 212 37

Malachi 1:2-3

314

Nehemiah 2:17 2:19-20 4:9

224 38 209

715

716

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Nehemiah (continued)

21:24

388,411

4:20

209

21:25

407

5:6-7 5:12

38 38

22-25:9

167

22:17

478

6:5 8:14 8:17 13:4-11

38 38 38 38

22:20

167

22:22

4281194

24:4

251115

24:16

251115

24:17-18

Numbers 1:47

1

4101165

6:24-27

72,557

7:67

4871163

771 8:24 10:1-2 11:2 11:11-23 11:21-22 11:24 11:30-31 12 12:1

47i 27511122 401 390 37 424 5°6 438 37 376,402

12:3 13:2

353, 3 7 5 3 , 4*3 410

n

J

39

25: 25:1-5

56 1871129

25^-9 25:3 25:4

49, *37 56 427

25:5 25:6-13 25:16-18 27:1-11

392 1871129 412 376,393

27:5 27:18

393 95,394,402,447

28:1-30:1

447

31:14-17

416

31:27-30

62

32:6

439

Ovadiah

13:17

423

13:17-20

410

13:22

227

14:6

444

Proverbs

14:10

388

30:19

14:12

426

1:18

324

4871163

14:19

388

Psalms

14:25

411

3:8

468

14:40-45

410

8:7

484056

16:3 16:10

389 62

8:8

484056

64:1

639022

77:16-20

438

16:15

393,394,439

16:22

415

84:12

466,466012

16:29

426-27

99:6

492

16:30

412

106:1

125

16:31-34

439

147:6

2750121

17:6

392

17:16-20

427

17:17-18

387

2:1

20:2-12

424090

4:18-22

462

20:10-12

37

4:22

541

20:11

376

20:14-21

415

21:4-9 21:8-9 21:23-24

37 433 411

Ruth 51204

1 Samuel 1:1-28 1:1-4:1 1:7

i n

49 3 490 506

JEWISH SCRIPTURES

i:i4 1:17 1:24-28 2 2:1-10 2:12 2:17 2:20 2:21 2:26

493 493 490 38 493mo 502 502 495 4 491113 491113

9:15-16 9:16

507 183,511

9^9 9:20

493 506,524

10:7

1291157,533

2:34 3:10 3:16-18

495 501 500

10:8

498,5°5>5

10:14

491113

n I

9:21

524

9:22

49

9:25 10:1 10:1-8

49 3>5 49 3> 5 4 497

I n 2

in

n

ln

J

10:16

525

49 3 491

10:18

501

10:19

148,504

4:12

514

10:21

525 (to)

7:3 7:3-10:27

49 3> 496,504 49°

74 7:7

497 497 {bis), 506

10:25

496

7:8

497 (bis)

10:26

515

7-9 7:10 7:11

497 5 >5°7 498

10:27

5 5

n:i 11:2

55 5 5(to)

l n

In

o 6

10:21-22

494

10:22 10:24-25

4 9 3 > 525 491113

J

l

J

7:12

498

11:3

515

498

7^5 7:16

49 3 496

n:4 n:6 11:7

515 559 491113,516

8:3

i43> 4 9 3 > 498, 503

11:8

516

8:5

49 3> 5°2, 5°4

11:11

516 (to)

8:6

145,502

11:12

s

11:12-12:25

490

11:14

491113

12:1

491113

in

In

I n

0 0

^

8:7

49 3

8:7-9 8:12

495 49in2

8:13 8:19 8:21

503 503 494

12:3-4

500

12:3-5

492

12:4

500

509 512,512114

12:7-8

501

12:11

504

509

12:12

504

9:2

92, 513 (bis)

12:17

506

9-3 9:4

5 3 526

12:18-19

491113

9:5 9:6 97 9:7-8

5241119 4 9 3 > 495 4 9 3 , 526 500

13:

9-3 9:1

1

9:1-2 Sam. 1:27

: I I

J

12:19

In

I n

I

J

9 ~ 3 9:12

5 3 506,510

9^4 9:15

5°7 5 183,506,511

1 1

n

m

7^3

I n

J

> 4 9 3 > 5 4> 524

m

3 9 3:20

: i

1

13:5

1 6

^^

504 517 5i8

13:5-7

J

13:5-15

509

48,5°4

13:6

518

13:8

491113 (to)

13:8-14

128,528

13:8-15

490

5

717

( H , 527

yi8

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 16:15-16

i Samuel (continued)

i3:n 13:12

495 528

13^5 13:15-18 13:17-18

5*8 518 518

13:19 13:22

5i9 519

14:1-15 147 14.15-16 14:18 14:20 14:21 14:24 14:31 14:36 14:36-44 14:37

523 523 524 601179 5 9> 524 519 527,5271123 5 9 519 509 526

14:39 14:43 14:44 14:46

542,544

16:19

544

17:3 17:4

J

J

534

16:18

519,5191111 4681116,4821150

J

77 17:8-18

545 545

17:25 17:26

545 183,563

17:32

545

^35

549

17:36

556

17:37

549

17:39

550

17:46

556

17:48

549,560

17:52

5i9

^53

520

17:54

556

526,527 526 527 518

18:1

566 (to)

14:52 15:1

92,513 502

18:10-11

509,534

18:13

534 (to), 549

i5:!-3 15:2

490 121

18:17-19

534,564

18:20

345,564

15:6 157 15:10-11

533 49^3,528 49in3(ta)

18:20-29

509

18:25

5 i 9 , 545, 564

15:10-16:13

490

18:3

566

18:4

566

18:7

564

18:27

3321145, 534, 565 565

15:11

496,500,51103

194-5

566

15:13 15:16

529, 530 [bis] 511113

!9:«

535 (to), 565

15:20

529

15:22 15:22-23

49 3, 5 530

19:18-21

490

15:24-25

491113

19:19

49«*3

!5:25 15:26

530 491113

19:20-22

535

19:23

495

19:24

528

l

0

l

i n

19:11-24 J

0 1

, 530

9:i7 19:18

509 565 491113 (to), 560

b-3 ~3 15:31

501 491113 {bis)

20:4

566

^33

505

20:6

37

15:35

49"i3

20:12

560

16:2

500

20:17

566

16:7

54i

20:20-34

509

16:8-10

559

20:24

527

16:10

491113

20:34

566

16:12

317, 494,542

20:41

566

16:13

495,561

214-7

37,557

16:14-15

533

21:13-14

567

JEWISH SCRIPTURES 2 Samuel

22:2

562

22:7

491112

1:1

564

22:7-8

535

1:4

522 (bis), 564

22:9-23

601179

1:9-10

532

22:10

601179

1:26

566

22:16-23

601179

3:6

546

22:17 22:18

535 531

3^3

546

3^6

553

23:5 23:17 23:18 23:25

545 546 566 560

3*7 3:20

49"i3 555

3:27

550

3:28

555

24:5 24:6

552 552

24:14 24:16

552 531

3:36-39 5:2 5:3

544 49^3 123,555

24:21

560

5:6

546 546 613 (to)

25:1

490,491113

57 5:11

25^-7

553

5:19

601179

5:20 5:23

547 601179

5:25 6:8 6:14-23

543 33 551 33 560

25:3

J

9 7 , 550

(bis)

25:5-8

553

257

552

25^0

553

25:15 25:21-22

544 553

25:25

550

6:19 7:1

25:27

550

74-17

557

25:38

559

7:12

571

26:8

553

7:13

152

26:12

549

7'H

579,603

26:15-16

546

7:31

538

26:19

37,557

8:1

547

26:21

531, 532 (bis), 553

8:14

27:9

554

28:1-2

555

9: 10:2

554 551

10:5 10:9 10:16

547 556 547 72,55 341133, 534, 540 341132

28:5

520

28:6

601179

28:7

32

28:7-25

6

1

560

8

28:11-19

490

11:2-17 11:2-27

28:12

168,505

11:8

28:16-20

510

11:13

34

28:18-19

491113

n:i7

73n93,558

28:20

520

11:20

547

28:24

520

12:1

558

29:2

522

12:9

73

29:6

555

12:10

558

30:7

601179

12:13

73, 558 (to), 560

30:16-17

563

12:15-23

558

31:1-3

522

12:23

543

3i:4

5i3,522,532

12:27

6031142

719

720

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

2 Samuel (continued) 12:31 13:

1

20:6 540 72,558

20:16 20:28

557 189032 557

13:2-22

72

21:7

548

14:12-17

553

21:9

540

1433

183

22:1

15:14

548

22:1-23:7

562

401057

17:8

548

18:1

491112

559 164 556 178

18:3

548

18:4

551

24:1 24:1-25 24:10 24:10-17

18:5 19:28

555 556

24:13 24:14

34,554 554

19:29 19:38 19:44 20:1

55 554 560 141 (LXX), 563024

29:24

554, 555, 5 ^

1

Zechariah ^ 5

72

APOCRYPHA, AND

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA,

D E A D SEA

SCROLLS

Apocrypha

3:2

6m82

2 Baruch

3:28

6in82

6-8

611182

3:31

6m82

11:1

6m82

10:8

323

67:7

6m82

Esther, Additions to Ben Sira. See Ecclesiasticus

5-36

Addition A Addition C Addition D Addition D 8 Addition D13 Addition E Addition F

Ecclesiasticus 31:1-7

100

44:22-45:1

384028

46:15

492

47^5

584

1 (3) Esdras 2:16

35 169

3:1-4:32 5:4-38

35 164

5:7-8

229m 2

8:26

268ni02

6

155, 54

8:36

156

8:68

156

8:68-70

138

8:70

139, 5

r

8:72

138

8:92-95

138

8:96

139

9:8-9

*39

9:16-17

139

9:18-35

164

9:20

139

6

J

1 Maccabees

6

12:10

237n36

12:20

237n36

14:20

237n36

2 Maccabees 2:1-6

69

2:3!

45

5:9

237n36

4 Maccabees 97n23, 283, 348n30

39

2 (4) Esdras (4 Ezra) 3:1

51,120-21

36, 51 209 209, 213 51 121

Judith

8:4

9:3

121

6m82

721

2:2-3

352n39

7:14

271

13:12

268

722

PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS

4 Maccabees (continued) 16:20

226115

Prayer of the Three Youths 213, 638

Wisdom of Solomon 7^7 10:7 19.13-14

584 25in62 242,246

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 7

19:13-14

314

19:14

314

19:15

306

19:31

306

24

298ni9

3o:3

313

35:9-12

314

37-38

322

38:14

322

42:25

358 i n 6

47:5

5

48:18

42on82

o

49:1

258n75

229ml Letter of Aristeas

2 Apocalypse of Baruch

164 69

Assumption of Moses 1.15

396n45

9-11

21

3°

25,42

213-16

100

306

41

308-11

14

/ Enoch 89:12

323

106:11

9oni5

5

3i6n20

Joseph and Asenath 1.5-6

397n47 4021159 Parakipomena Ieremiou

3 Enoch 14:2

Palaea Historica

69 Sibylline Oracles

34inio

5:143

6in82

336n3

5:158-61

6in82

1.12

336n3

2:48

352*139

2:50

3521139

2:69

3521139

4:9

3521139

Testament of Abraham 4

224n2

Testament of Solomon n

585 27 Jubilees

8

5

n

5 5 28

241 Testament of The Twelve Patriarchs

11-12

901115

12:17

229ml

13:9

247

Asher

1.1

422^3

13:12

5in6o

Benjamin

12.2

422n83

13:25-27

167,239

Gad

7:4

322

15:26

246

Joseph

15:26-32

245n53

34imo,

16:8

255,255n67

347*129,

17:15

275

35 3 >

17:15-16

258n75

18:3

258n75

2:3

37 72

18:6

280

2:7

35IH37

585*127

337n5,340,

0 n

6

37on68 m

APOCRYPHA, PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, AND DEAD SEA SCROLLS

3:1-2

0n

l

37 7

4:1-2

352n39

6:7

3521139

7:2

3701170

7:5

3481131

8:2

3711172

9:2

35 39

2 n

m

10:1-2

35 37

10:2-3

352n39

10:6

35 37

14:3

3441120

l n

m

17:1-2

35 37

17-5

357H50

18:3

35IH37

18:4

345 2i

n

Genesis Apocryphon 2391140, 253n65 col. 19, lines 14-21

238n37

col. 19, line 24

23in20

col. 19, lines 26-27 col. 20

231-32 186, 231

col. 20, lines 2 - 8

258n77

col. 20, lines 8 - 9

259n78

col. 21

250, 25on6o

col. 22

235n30

col. 22 Dead

Sea

Scrolls

line 5

Damascus Covenant 9:17

68

9:22

68

10:6

27511122,27611122

Zaddokite

line 17

iQM

167, 239

Miqse Mdase Ha- Torah 68

Fragments, lines 17

242

col. 22,

ff.

428n94

Second Ezekiel 66

7.1-3 275m 22 Targum of Job

4QJ0SH"

37:10-42:11

17

32 Targum of Leviticus 4QSAMA

34

4QI74

636ni7

4Q252

66,68

16:12-15

17

16:18-21

17

Temple Scroll 207

4Q385B

69

4Q470

71

63:5

68

Zadohte Document. See Damascus Covenant

723

N E W

T E S T A M E N T 9:2-13

568026

395H43

10:47-52

568n26

10:2

160

13:35-51

10:22

160

Acts i

10:35

1

6

Matthew

0

13:16

160

13:26

160

13:43

160

13:50

160

16:14

160

17:4

160

17:17

160

18:2

1581128

18:7

160

567

8 n

1:2-16 1:5 16:13-20 22:41-45 24:15

1

5 3 5 > 54 * 5^8 85 444n3 568n26 567 636ni7

1 Peter 2:3

125

5:13

6 m 8 2 , 323n35, 324

Hebrews 12:15-17

2 Peter

315

2:7

255n67

John 7:41-42

Revelation

568

14:8 16:19

Luke

17:2

1:52-53

2750121

2:40 2.52 3:23-38

9° 5> 4 9 4 90115,494 2 85, 53805, 541, 568

6:35 20:41-44

125 567

24

n i

n i 2

n i

6in82,324 6m82,324 324

17:5

6m82,324

18:2

6in82,324

18:10

6in82,324

18:21

6in82,324

Romans

395n43

1:3

568

Mark 6:15 8:23-26

2 Timothy

211

3:8

568n26

725

428n94

JOSEPHUS Against Apion

i-73

1 8 , 1 9 (to)

84

1.100-27

613

1.2

84

1.105

20

1.2-3

84

1.106-8

613

1.3

20, 84, 215

1.106-27

575

1.4

84

1.109-10

613

1.6-56

18

1.no

613, 614

1.7

178

1.in

586, 614

1.7-8

83

i-ii3-i5

575

1.12

171 (bis), 268, 521

1.114-15

590

1.14

84

1.116-20

134

I-I5-I7

133

1.116-25

614

1.15-18

19

1.117-20

575

1.16

1 8 , 1 9 , 172, 580

1.128

19

1.18

18,177

1.129-53

19

1-23-27

59

I-I34-44

i7mi3

1-25 1.28

44 18 (bis)

1.144

19

1.162-65

84, 98

1.31-32

86

1.164-70

246

1.37

111117,20,57,430,

1.166-67

84

432 (bis)

1.166-68

84 45

1-37-43 1.38

57 70

1.167 1.168-71

84

1.40

57,6361115

1.172-74

84

1.41

57,650

1.176-82

84, 231

1.42

25, 37, 42 (bis), 6 m 8 i

i-43 1.50

42 26, 4 6 , 1 7 3 , 1781123, 2121161, 668

1 179 1.182 1.183-205 1.205-12

398 472 19, 84 84

151 1.53

435 nni7(to)

1-213 1.214

19, 9 9 19

1.54

111117,45, 65, 67n88

1.216

21, 84, 616

1.58

18

1.218

20 (to), 51, 52

1.60

114

1.222

199

1.69-160

84

1.224

200,404

1.72

199

1.229

20

727

J

J28

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 2.165

145117, 3431116, 424, 434

195,377117

2.167

438

1.238

401

2.168

115,398

1239

342

2.168-69

179,651

1.247 1.254-87

!95 20

2.169

389

2.170

96,424

1.256

377117

2.171

95

1.257 1.258 1.261

377n7 377117 (bis) 401

2.I7I-74

394

2.173

J

2.174

435

1.266

195

2.175

25,531163, 95, 394

1.267

377117

2.178

25, 95, 394

1.279 1.281

375,385 386

2.179

421

2.180

192,1921140, 263091,

1.284

386

1.285

386

2.181

127,421

1.287

20

2.186

204

1299

342

2.188-92

263091

1-305

93

2.190

621070

1.306

377117

2.192

166,179

1.316

378

2.197

263091

2.11

600

2.199

53

2.12

600

2.200

22708

2.13

612-13

2.202

531163

Against Apion (continued) 1.236

4 8 435 5

640025

2.14

171

2.207

53 63

2.17-18

614

2.209

121,200

2-43 2.46

*9 21

2.209-10

418

2.210

49,111037

2.49

1 0 6 , 1 4 9 , 341, 648

2.211

417 121

n

2.80-88

393

2.211-12

2.101 2.123 2.132

398-99 49,1111137,199 589

2.211-13

118,417

2.213

53063 (bis)

2.223

179

2.135 2.141-42

xv, 574 246

2.224

I

2.225

179

2.145 2.145-295 2.146

" I . 374, 399 7,82 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 , 4 1 7 , 421

2.237

53,119,243,647

2.147

199,399

2.148

XV

2.152

83

2.154

85,399

2.154-89

115

2.155

I7i, 172

2.156

2.I57-5

8

4^> 179

2.244

i"

2.255

170

2.256

171,179

2.257

98,115,158,179,398

2.258

121

2.259

119,4 7

J

2.261

158

2.262-68

417

401

2.272

204

406

2.279

85, 95, 394

2.282

49,111037

0 1

2-157-63

4

2.158

204, 389,401, 407, 428

2.284

111037,438

2.159

390, 399, 401

2.285

199 (bis)

2.160

423 (bis)

2.290

374

2.163

424

2.291

127, 417, 421

JOSEPHUS

2.292

204

2.293

114,127,421

2.294

194,6201169

Antiquities 1.1-3

668

1.1-4

215

L53-59 1.54 1.58

129 170 28

i-59 1.60-62 1.70 1.73 1.74 1.75

197 193 193 166,169,180 166 (to), 197 166

1-77 1.88

i33 50

1.1-21

53

1.1-26

173

1.2

9

1-4

9

1.5

8 , 1 0 , 25, 37, 40, 42, 44, 4 7 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 , 647, 668

1.89

134

1.92

3IH2I, 169

15-6 1.6

9 7, 9 5 , 1 0 6 , 1 2 8 , 394,

1.93

!9,

1.6-7

!32

1.8

20, 4 7 , 1 7 2

1-93-94 1-94-95 1.95 1.96 1.96-103

133 2341128 134 (to) 170 197

1.99

166

421

2

729

m

1.8-9

*3

1.9

47 (bis)

1.10 1.10-12 1.12

4 >4 >47 xiv, 14, 26 47

1.100

180

1.103

167

1.105-7

233

1-13

43,401

1.106

103,168,1731118

1.14

1.107

19,168

1.108

7 n i o , 19, 168 (to), 172,

1.15

4 9 , 1 7 3 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 6 , 205, 247, 520, 5 4 9 , 5 5 9 39,44,421

1.17

9,11,14,37,39,40,42,

I

6

209, 2341128, 430098, 580 1.110

28, 180 (to)

1.18

39

1.in

180

119 1.20

95,394 207

1.113

70,180

1.114

147

1.21

128, 421

1.115

265

1.24

170,209

1.117

140

125

98, 205, 257, 278, 398

1.118

134

1.27

28, 301118,165,169

1.120

265

1.27-2.200

216

1.121

18

1.28

166

1.129

48

1.29

46

1.130-39

164

1.30

165

1.140-42

164

1.32

179

1.142

167

1.33

28

1.148

86, 227

i-34

39n43,169

1.148-256

294, 305

i-35

*92

1.151

28,287

1.36

43

1.154

97 (quater), 174, 228

611181,163, 647

i-37

39

(to), 229 (to), 232,

1.40

166

247, 261, 285

1.41

200

I I

1.46

1 7 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 , 271

1.155

*74,230

1.49

190

1.156

1.52

45,54,166

9 7 , 1 9 4 , 229, 264092, 437,583

54~55

228

730

PASSAGES FROM A N C I E N T WRITERS

Antiquities (continued) 1.157

1.200

92, 125, 225, 238 (to),

1.201

225,238

154, 205, 2291112, 247, 263, 285 2

1-158

19, " 5 , i34> 3 2 232022

5

240, 241, 246 (to) 1.202

212,287

1.203

248, 251, 265

1.158-60

223

1.204

225, 240, 248, 250, 254

I-I59

!9> ^ 4 , 234, 2341128

1.205

254

1.159-60

134, 2341128

1.207

116,237,238,261,287

1.160

134,234

1.161

103, 230 (to), 237

1.208

186, 240, 245, 250, 251,

1.161-65

215

1.162

116, 186, 237 (to), 238,

1.209

116, 225, 261, 298

1.210

246 (to)

1.162-68

49

1.211

242,243,246

1-163

258

1.212

225, 245 (to), 261

1.164

140,180 (to), 256, 259

1.213

248 (to)

1.165

135, 186 (to), 231, 237,

1.214

210, 248, 251

1.215

226,243

1.166

231, 242

1.217

250

1.167

103, 104, 228, 232, 233

1.218

175, 242, 245 (ter), 270,

1-219

251,254

259

242, 259, 261

(to), 298 261

283

1.168

103, 232

1.170

5 m 6 o , 154, 205, 226,

1.220

243

1.171

264

1.221

226, 254

1.172

107,235

1.222

172, 183, 267, 26711101,

1.175

225, 235, 240

268, 269, 272, 296

1.176

121,197, 242

(to), 298, 301

250

1.176-77

164

1.222-36

75, 128, 184, 255, 266,

1-177

5 4 , 1 0 7 , 1 8 2 , 235, 516118, 524, 564

1.223

1761121, 184, 193, 267,

280, 294, 302

1.181

167, 236

1-183

224, 247, 253

1.184

205

1.223-24

252

1-185

243, 250 (to), 253, 254,

1.224

257 (to), 273, 28011138,

1.225

!94, 249, 255, 2561170, 273, 274 257, 274, 557

270 (to), 271, 28011138, 302

302

299 1.186

227

1.187

225

1.189

180, 238

1-226

1-190

54, 238, 243, 245

1.227

1.19

1

I-I9J-93

1-192

8 2 , 274 (to), 275, 298, 301

253

205 (to), 245, 257

J

27711126, 2961114,

225, 253, 256, 299 1.228

182, 28011138, 301, 302

5 4 , 205, 246, 248 93, 246, 249, 264

1.228-31

205, 278

1-229

278, 295, 437

1.194-95

249

1.230

272,301

i-i95

249, 265 (to)

1.230-31

278

1.196

227116, 240 (to), 286

1.231

280 (to), 302

1.232

176, 226, 275, 277, 278,

i-i93 1.194

J

(to), 288, 310 1.197

210, 249, 251, 28611150

281, 28111139, 282,

1.198

239, 248, 286

295, 296 (to), 297,

1.199

241, 246, 249

298,526

JOSEPHUS •233

97,

I I 8

, 176,212,252,

1.271

301, 311 (to)

275, 282, 283, 284

1.272

297, 325, 327

.233-36

118,241

1.272-73

320

.234

226, 28011138, 283, 299,

1.273

30°, 3 °

302 (bis) •235

248, 254, 299 (bis)

•235-36

254,299

.236

28011138, 302 (bis)

•237

225

.238

97,

I Q

237, 265, 266

.240

58, 134, 650

.240-41

107,237

.241

227117 (bis), 583

.242

251

.242-55

173,294

•243

93, 228, 401

.244

186,261

.245

186

.246

186

.247

86, 125, 186, 226, 240, 266

.248

241

8

1.274

297,320

1.275

72, 298, 312, 320, 324

1.276

271, 321 (to)

1-277

1 2 9 1 5 6 , 1 9 7 , 3*9,

1.278

296,325

1.279

212,327

321 (to)

8 , 122, 229, 265

•239

1.280

326

1.281

229, 286

1.282

308,325 8

1.284

3°

1.285

33°

1.285-302

173

1.286

328 (to), 330

1.287

3 3 ° (to)

1.288

186, 1 8 7 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 1 , 3 4 5

1.288-90

86,307

1.291

245

1.291-92

330,331

1.294-96

307

•249

241

.250

228, 241 (bis)

.251

241

1.295

3!2

227,241

1.297

l 6

.252 •253

227,251

•255

228

•256

224, 249, 305

1.298 1-299 1.300 1-301

•257

295

J

5,3 3

186,331 3i3 331 3 i 3 , 33i, 332, 3321144

•257-58

305

1.302

331 (to)

.258

297, 311, 317 (bis)

1.303

312

.259

240, 295 (bis), 298

1.303-4

327

.259-60 •259-64 .260

200,300 294 295,296

1.304

312

.261

97, 296 (bis)

.262

1.305

197,206,308,309

1.308

206,332

301

1.309 1.314-15

3!2, 325, 328 329 (to)

.263

297

i.3i7

325

.264

125,298

i-3

•265

319

i-3*9

l 8

3!3,332 332

.265-66

300,320

1.323

332

•266

137, 297, 300

1.325

213, 309, 328

•267

297

1.325-36

321

•267-75 .267-346

294 305

1.326 1-327

321 (to) !97, 321, 327

.268

319

1.328

309

.269

1291156, 165, 2971116,

1.329

3

311 (bis), 319 [.270

311 (to), 312

731

1 0

, 327

1

32i

1-331-34

325

I-33

732

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Antiquities (continued) 1.332

309 (^afer), 325, 327, 328

1-333 1-334 1-335 -335-36 1

1.337

325 328 308,322 322 l 8 6

2.37

97,348

2.38 2-39

328 3 9 , 336, 337, 346, 360

2.39-59 240 2-4 2.41-42 241-59 242

173 347, 352, 363 92, 348, 369 54,369 7 5 , 1 8 6 , 336, 369 352 (to), 359, 363, 3691166

1

, 370169, 479

1.338

138,186, 313, 320

1.338-40

3201132

1.340

165, 313, 445

I m

i-34i

3i3,327

2 43

348, 3 5 , 352

1.342

327

2-44

37o

1-343

328

2-45

37o, 479

1-345

299

245-49

370

1.346

82, 302, 3021123, 305,

2.46

347,352

509

2-47

348

2-4 2.1-3 2.1-8

376 311,322 305

248

347129

2-49

33613

2.2 2.3 2.6

3!7 25, 3 3 7 25, 3 167,328

2.7

93, 9 7 , 1 0 7 , 265, 307,

J

n

l 8

n

l 8

( H 542 (to), 542

1

2.50

363,37

2.50-54

197

2.51

363

2.51-52

206, 348, 360, 371

2.52

363

2-53 2-54 2-55

9 , !37, 3 4 , 353, 37* ! 9 , 33613 37i (to), 372

(to), 335, 344, 345

2.55-57

372

(bis), 347 (bis)

2.56

342, 353, 359

2.58

372

308, 309 2.8

327 (ter)

2.9

86, 9 2 , 1 6 5 , 203, 313

2.9-38

75,336

2.9-167

305, 335, 336

2.10

203, 341, 353, 362

8

8

J

2.59

347129,368

2.60

351,359 346, 360, 3711172

2.11

i49,34i,343,353,364

2.61

2.12

181, 354, 355, 366 (to)

2.62-63

364

2.13

203, 353, 359, 366

2.63

350

2.14

336113, 338, 354,

2.63-65

102

2.63-73

98

354145 2.15

1

8

9 ,

1 0 1

J

, 3°7, 3 3 , 353,

359

2.63-90

203,335

2.64

350

2.16

350

2.65

350

2.17

3o ,355

2.66

350,3521142

2.18

197,368

2.68-69

150, 353, 362

2.19

3 ° 9 , 329, 366

2.69 2.71 272

347129 350 46, 348, 350, 357

8

2.20

366

2.22

143

2.23

98,348

2.24

6201165

2.27

209

2-33

337,368

2.34

364

2.36-37

329

2-74

359

2-75

3 3 6 1 3 , 3 5 , 364

2.77

336113

2.78

344

2-79 2.80

363 9 8 , 1 0 2 , 336113, 342, 35

1

JOSEPHUS

6

2.82

366

2.83

35 , 3

2.84

360

2.147

356

2.84-86

360

2.149

1161143, 5, 3

2.84-87

348

2.150

329

2.85

343 (bis)

2.151

97, 348, 356

2.86

101, 349, 361

2.152

123,129

2.87

102, 347, 350, 351

2.88

343,365

1

6 6

2.89

135,150, 337, 343, 361

2.90

150 (bis), 343, 344,

2.91

98, 336113 (bis), 3421115,

2.92

361

351,

353, 362 345, 347 2.93

366

2-94

" 8 3 3 7 , 3 5 5 , 362

2.95

365

2.96 2-97 2.98 2.100

337,353 353, 354, 358, 365 92,307 367

2.101

1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 355

5

2.105

358

2.106

358

2.107

351

2.109

3 5 4 2 , 354, 3 7 (bis)

2.110

2 n

6

358

2.145

356,3 °

2.146

356 12

2.153

356

2.156

356

2.157

125,356

2.159

368

2.160

352, 354, 368

2.161

356 (to), 360

2.162

356,360

2.163

113,356

2.165

354

2.166

357,368

2.167

356

2.168

150,344

2.168-88

305

2.169

310,365

2.170-71

197, 327

2.171

97,98,5011117

2.172

336113

2.173

311

2.174

150, 344, 365

2.175 2.176 2.180

326 336n3 338

2.184

336113,354

2.185

135

2.118-19

329

2.119

197

2.120

353

2.121

150,358

2.122 2.123 2.124-59

359 352, 354, 355, 367 75,337

2.125

358,365

2.189

366

2.126-28

367

2.189-93

305, 335, 336

2.128

368

2.190

128,336113

2.129

360 (to), 367 (to)

2.191

144,146

2.130

367

2.133

182 (to), 197, 367

2.191-93

*5i, 357, 362

2.134

368

2.135

369

2.136 2.138 2.140

358 35 125,150, 344

2.140-41

356

2.141

471

2.142

356

8

733

2.185-86

151,361

2.186

3611155

2.188

3421115

1 0

2.192

349

2.194

9 , 308, 326 (ter), 357

2.194-97 2.194-98

305 75,337

2.195

8

125,213,310,312,326, 327, 328, 338, 354, 357

2.196

82,310,364,509

2.143

348

2.197

353,357

2.144

356

2.198

82, 98, 305, 343, 348, 509 305, 335, 336

2.198-200

734

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Antiquities (continued) 2.201

i n , 135, 144, 200, 300, 326

2.256

43611107

2.257

377,377

n 6

2.258

418

386

2.260-61

419

2.204

386

2.262

2.205

87, 135,137, 377, 377116, 2.263

2.206

377"7> 379 197

123 (bis), 133, 377116, 419 133, 394, 418

2.265

210

2.206-3.207

31

2.266-68

386

2.207

380m 6

2.267

406

2.208

438

2.268

377, 401 (bis), 406

2.209

425

2.269

436

2.210

8 6 , 1 9 7 , 378

2.270-71

423

2.210-16

378-79

2.272

108, 206, 406

2.212

422

2.273

385

2.212-16

102, 379

2.274

4°6

2.213

265

2.275

393

2.214

93, 236, 307

2.277

393

2.216

379,3871132

2.277-78

3871133

2.218

380

2.279

386,424

2.219

197, 379 (bis), 425

2.280

206, 387, 428 387 (ter), 400, 435

2.203

2.222

381

2.281

2.222-23

206,4251191

2.281-82

404

2.224

7 ° , 92, 3011122, 384,

2.282

401,406

2.225

440

434, 440

2.283

1731118

2.284

387 428

2.225-26

381

2.284-87

2.226

3811120

2.286

428,429

2.227

438

2.287

387,429

2.229

194, 378, 389

2.290

148, 406 (bis), 435

2.230

90, 92, 381, 382,

2.292

437

3831126, 483

2.293

1731118, 206, 422, 429

2.231

91, 92, 384

2.294

387 429

2.232

92, 382, 384, 385, 438

2.295

2.232-36

382

2.296

no, 387

2.233

9 1 , 282,434

2.299

no, 197

2.234

434

2.300

1731118, 174, 387

2.236

346, 383, 384

2.301-2

in

2.238

377116

2.302

110,429

2.238-51

107

2.303

172

2.238-53

28, 37, 402

2.304

416

2.241

377117,401

2.243

377 6> 40!> 5 3 4 , 5 4 9

2.305 2.307

in no, 113

2.309

429

2.244 2.247

n

405 J

76

2.249

4031160

2.252

398, 435, 440

2.252-53

186

2.254

in, i73ni8,174, 43611107

2.255

*97, 200, 401, 404

2.310

406

2.312

437

2.313

28

2.314

254,421

2.315

418

2.315-49

173

2.319

3871132

JOSEPHUS

2.320

429

3.22

400

2.321

52, 407 (to)

3.22-23

1731118

2.322

197,408,425

3.22-32

206

2.322-23

1731118,408

2.323

432

3.23 3.23-24

9 4 , 1 4 6 , 1 7 7 , 386 426

2.324

407

3.25

2501161,431

3.26

388,431

3.28

401

3-29

43i

331

43i

2.324-25

407

2.326

52,407

2.327

3 9 i , 422, 497

2.328

407

2.329 2.330-33

207,407 423

2.331 2.331-33

207 423

2.332

206,5601119

3.33-38

206,431

3-34

39i

3.36

440

3.39-40

415

340

133

2.334

52,407

342

309117

735

2.334-36

429

343

4i6

2.335

207

3-44

435

2-337

1731118, 2501161, 407,

3.44-46

391

345

I73ni8

347

107, 309117, 3 9 , 4 0 1 ,

3.47-48

497 409

427 2.338

52, 407, 4071162

1

2.339

408

2.340

5 2 , 4 0 8 , 429

2.342

429-30

2.343 2-344

430,438 52

2.346

105, 400, 401, 407, 430, 437

2.347

4 2 7 , 4 3 0 (to), 432, 640

3-51

409

2.347-48

210,430

3-53

J82, 4 3 2 , 4 3 8

2.348

408

3-54

409

2.349

7mo> 4301197

3.1

408

3.2

401,408

3.4

406,408

3-5

1 4 6 , 1 9 1 , 39i

3.5-9

206,431

3-6

39i

3-7 3-8 3.9-11

43i 43i 408

3.11

401

3.11-12

408

3.12 3.13

104,400 107

3.13-32

431

99, i ° 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 2 8 , 390, 398048, 4 4 3 , 4 4 6 ,

3-5° 3.50-51

309 7,409 448 (to)

452 n

3-55

409

3-56 3.56-57

409 409

3-58

390,409

3.59

1181147,409,417078,

3.60

409, 416 (to), 438

420,44808,449 3.61-62

409

3.63

1 2 2 , 1 5 9 , 4 1 8 , 419

3-64

122, 419, 435

3.65

107, 37706, 3 7 8 , 4 0 1 ,

3.66

115

406, 409

377116,398,401

3-13-21

349

3.66-67

414

3.67

115,204,37706,401, 409,418

3.14-15

400

3.15

i73 8,174

3.i9

148, 435, 437

3.21

409

n l

3-69

377n6

3.70-71

410

3.73-74

420

3.74

112,37706,413

736'

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

Antiquities (continued)

3.217

433

3.78

107, 401, 410

3.218

6on8o

3.80

1731118

3.223

98, 144, 398 (bis)

3.81

71110, 209, 4301198, 432

3.252

28

3.83

107-108, 385 (bis),

3.261

386

3.264

i 7 3 8 , 174

46506

n l

3.84

436

3-265

385

3.86

498

3.268

200, 209, 386

3.88

410

3.269

8nio

3-90

38

3.274-75

138

3-94

205

3.287

4101165

3-95-96

396

3.289

4101164

3-95-98

412

3-291

105

3.96-97

1731118,378

3-297

390

3-97

377^6

3.298 3-299 3.300 3.300-301 3.302 3.307 3.308 3.310 3.314

424 438 148,435 410,497 410,423 388 446 388 in

3.98

302,388

3-99

i 7 3 n i 8 1 7 4 , 395 (bis), 3

412 3.102

31,401,412,426

3.102-257

337

3.105

401

3.134-38

426

3.136

62

3.137

6011139,6221174

3-i4i

i73ni8,174

3.143

48,205

3-J47 3.165 3.168 3-I78 3-!79 3- 79-87 3-180 3-i8i 3.181-83 3.181-87 3.182

54 1731118,174 25,31 54 396 398,425 396,437 53 171 194,438 53 (bis)

3-^3 3.184

r

99, 377n6, 395, 396 388

3-3 9 3-320

r

i73 8 395, 396, 399

3.322

8 n i o , 209, 377116, 378

3-3 7 3.317-18

n l

4.1

389

4.2

148,435

4-3 4.4 4.7-8 4.9 4.9-10 4.11 4.11-12

389,433 389 410 107,309117 411 401 417

53 531164

4.11-66

1 4 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 , 390

4.12

141,391

3.184-87

53

4.13

390

3-i87 3.188

377, 377n6, 398, 425 377116,414

4.14

87, 93, 378, 4001155

4.14-15

391

3.188-90

387

4.14-16

200

3.190

198,414

4.15

1731118,174

3.192

102, 377116, 387

4.15-16

434

3-203

433

3.209

167

387 378 141 (bis), 182, 434

r

3.211

424

4-18-19 4.19 4.22

3.212

413,424

4.22-23

177,389

3.214

423

4.26

87, 1741118, 177, 378

3-2I5-17

433

4.27

414

JOSEPHUS 4.126-51

1861129

4-29 4-32 4-35

392 i 4 i , 392

4.36 4.36-37 4.40

i 4 i , 3^9 146, i 7 4 m 8 1741118,183,439

4.129

442 4.42-43

389,435 390

4.140

141,418

4.141-44

427

446 4.47

94, " 5 , 3 9 3 , 3 9 4 128

4.141-55

141,178, 390

4.142

392

4.47-48

427

4.143

137,412

4.48

174018,2501161

4.144

392,413

4.127

5°

4.127-28

133

r

m i

7

186

4-i3 -55

49,137,486,615

4.137

617

449

42

4.145-49

4.50 4-5i 4-5I-52 4-54-56 4-59 4.60-62 4.63 4.63-64 4.64 4.79 4.82

4i5,439 182,439 439 182 392 389 197 427 387 5421110 401

4.146

148,433

4.148-49

433

4.85 4.87 4.87-88 4.88-89 4.89-95 4.90-92

424190,433 388 427 411 178 411

4.93

1181147, 417078

4-93-94 4.94

4" 407

J

4.96

411

4.97

411

498

92,385,411

4.100-55

167

4.101

108,409

4.102

155,417

4.102-30

173

4.104

377117 {bis)

4-!05 4.106

135 135

4.107

167 n

491158,137,418

4.149

389

4.150-51

49, 392

4152 4- 52-55 4.153

49 187029 108

4-157 4.157-58 4.158

"2,37707,413 420 209, 214,430098

r

4.159

8010

4.162 4.164

118047,417078 62

4.165

95, 394,401, 447 (bi

J

4- 67

n

i43 5,439

4-174-75

393

4.177

402

4.178

390

4.179

390,392,414,420

4-i8o

423,437

4.184

413

4185

437 r

4.186

i85,4 3,453

4.187

436

4.188-89

415

4.189

no (to), 413

4.191

416

4.191-92

119

4.193

421

4.194

399,401,402,437

4.194-95 4-195

402 39i

4-"2

i35,377 7

4.113-14

179

4.196

43, 377^6, 398, 437

4.114-17

6511143

4.197

5 0 , 1 6 3 (to)

4.118

133

4.198

205, 257, 278

4.119

179

4.200

4.121

5011117

4.202

417

4-!25

25,39,50,153,649

4.203

1731118

60,424

737

738

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Antiquities (continued)

4.322

440

4.207

115, 119 (to), 647

4.323-26

174

4.215

115

4.324

44808, 453 (bis)

4.217

114

4.326

7, 37706, 396 (to)

4.218

60

4.328

98, 104, 177, 381, 400

4.219

87, 191

4.328-29

110,412

4.222

68

4.328-31

82, 305, 509

4.223

113,145,14507,435

4.329

103,108, 401 (to), 422,

4.224

62,399

4-225

141, 39 35> 4 3

n

6

4-33

1

423 377n6,378

419

5-1

448,453,458

5921131

54

453 (to)

4-235-38

122

5-8

444,458

4.236-37

419

5:10

458

4.238

5921131

5:11

458 (to)

4-238-39 4.244

4i9 413

5-i2

454

5^5

453 (to), 454

4.244-45 4-257 4.258-63 4.261

!3 2591179 419 280

5.16

455 (to)

5.16-20

32

5-17

444,454,455

5.19

250061

4.264

413

5-20

454,455

4.265

i73 8,174

5.22

1 0 8 , 4 4 4 , 4 5 3 , 454, 456

4.266

418

5.23

456 (to)

4-274 4.276 4.285-86 4.289 4.292 4.292-95 4293 4.294 4.294-95

3i 118,417 53 413 392 119 5 H , 436 392

5.24

456

5.28

456

528-29

459

530

123,452

5-37

449

4.296

415

54i

454

4.234 4.235-3

6

8

n l

l 8

1

5-25

448

5-27

456

5-34

445n6,454

5.36

450

4.297

141,411

543

453 (bis)

4.298

410065

5-44

454

4-299 4.300

183,439 416

545

108035, 448, 454

546

459

399,437

457 147011,446,452 449

4.302 4.303-4

60

547 5.48 5.50

4.304

62 (to)

5.52

450

4.307 4.311 4.315-16 4.316

423 447 (to) 420 123

5-55

453 (to)

4.317

413,423

4.320

5 , 3 7 7 , 422,440,

4.303

105,116,401,420,437

8

n 6

447, 650040

5-56

447

5-57

4 5 , 453 (to), 457

5.58

450,455 4,459

5.60

4 5 0 , 4 5 6 , 456016

1

n i

5.61

108035, 4 5 4 , 4 5 6

5.61-62

445

6

4.320-22

183

5- 3

450

4.321

37706

5-64

457

JOSEPHUS

.bb

n i

449,449 o

5.202

207

5- 7

445,454

5-71

444,457

5-7I-72

450

5.203 5-213 5.214

207 87, 213, 4751129 210,250061

572

444

5.215

198, 207, 210

573

444,446

5.231

141

5

6

574

123,452, 4811145

5.234

129,148

575 576 578 5.80

45 451 45 4 5 1 , 4 5 3 (bis)

1

5-257 5.264

87 2670101

1

5.264-66

277

5.266

110,527024

5-90 5.9i 5-93-98

4 4 4 , 4 4 5 , 4 5 ° , 454 452,455 455

5.276

8 7 , 1 8 7 , 4 6 2 , 464

5.276-317

461

5-277

90, 92, 203054, 213,

5-94 5-95 5-96

450 123,452 452

5.277-78

90

5-97 5.98

457 138,446

5.279

203054,476 (to)

5.280

170, 476 (to)

5.103

451 (bis)

5.281

478

5.112

458

5.284

462

5.114

458

5.285

108, 464, 466, 472,

5.115-16 5.116

38,455 452

5.286

138, 468, 478, 479,

5-H7 5.118

444 8 2 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , 398048,

5.286-317

49,615

5.287

187, 468, 479 (to)

5.120 5-i2i 5-I32 5-I32-35 5-133 5.136-37 5.144 5- 59 5.166 5-167 5-170 5-i7i 5.172-73

601179,453 449 137 143 213 186-87 2591182 601179,453 284 5921131 479 187 187

5.288

479,479041

5-179 5.180 5.182 5.182-84

137 144 108,46506 659

5-185 5.188 5.191 5-193 5.194 5.200

136 108 (to), 509 168 102 167 124,181

5.201

207

443, 446 (bis), 449

J

739

4 6 4 , 4 6 5 , 4 7 5 (to), 476034,483, 625

483 (ter), 486 488 (ter)

5.289

3701169,466

5.290

99 (to), 464 (to)

5.292

187, 479, 479H4I,

5-293

464

5-294

185, 191, 207, 472, 473,

5.295

472,484056

5.296

473 (to)

480 (bis)

480 (quater)

5-297

465

5.298

467 (to)

5.299

46304, 467 (to)

5.300 5.302

208, 465 (to), 471, 472, 484 112,469

5-303 5.304

484 481

5.305

464, 470, 472, 472026

5.306

49, 137, 187, 480,

5-307

473,481

481 (to), 486 (to) 5.308

99,464,486

5.309

470,486, 487,487061

740

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Antiquities (continued)

6.37-38 6.37-40

503 183,506,511

6.38

49IH3, 4 9 5 , 5 ° i

6.40

491112

5.310

170, 1 7 0 m l , 210,

5.311

211,486

5.312

195, 208, 473, 474

6.41

5°3

5.313

208, 464, 474 (bis), 481,

6.43

503 (to)

4761137, 481 (ter), 486

482 (ter), 484 J

5-3 4 5-3i4~i5

474,475

6.44 6-45

494 8

7 , 92, 99, 465116, 512,

1 8 1

5 i 3 , 5 i 4 (to), 543

5.316

470 (bis), 471

645-156

53

5.317

8 2 , 1 3 8 , 465, 465116,

6.45-7.6

5°9

5.318-36

208,559

488,509, 522m 6 5.318-37

187030

5.326

123

5-330

123

5.336

208, 28011137, 541

5337

208,559

8 n 6

6.46

513,526

6.47

491113, 495, 500

6.48

491113, 499, 500, 506,

6-49

183, 507 (to), 511 (ter)

5 1 1 , 5 1 3 , 526

5.339

1 4 8 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 7 , 502

5-340

491113

5.341

491113

5.341-51

49

6.51

524

6.52

491112, 491113 (to), 506,

6-54

49IH3, 497, 5 i 4

6-57 6.58 6-59 6.60

i 2 9 H 5 7 , 5 0 5 , 5 n (to), 528, 533 491113 197,525 148,501

5i4

5-343

506

5-344

505*121

5-345

493 (to), 4 9 3 m o

5-347

491113,4951114

6.61

502

5.348

494

6.63

112, 1 1 3 , 4 1 3 , 5 2 4 ,

5-349

501

5-350

495

6.64

491113, 494, 525

5-35i

49 3,500

525 (quater), 590, 634 6.65

525

i 5

6.66

491113 (to), 496

5-3 4

137

6.67

514, 515 (to)

6.19

491113,497

6.68

515

535

8

8

m

8

6.19-67

490

6.68-69

493118

6.20

148

6.69

515 (to)

6.70 6.71 6.72 6-73 6.74

515 5i5 5 5 5i5 516

6.22

497

6.23

497

6.24

497 (quater), 506

6.26

507

J

6.27

506

6.28

498 (to)

6.76

516

6.30

498,502

6.31

49IH3,496, 499

6.77 6-79

491113,5i6 5 (ter)

6.80

516 (to)

6.32

498,499

6-33

143,185,503

6.34

143115,491113, 498 (to), 499, 503

6.35

491113

6.36

115, 1 4 5 , 1 4 5 n 7 ( t o ) , 502, 503 (to)

6-37

503

l 6

6.81

146,517

6.82

517 (to)

6.83

491113

6.83-85

502

6.83-94

490

6.84

448118,458

6.84-85

145117 (to)

JOSEPHUS

741

m

204, 49 3 , 5 ° °

6.147

6.87

500

6.147-50

53

6.89

501

6.147-51

530

6.90

501

6.150

530,5301129

6.92

125, 491113 (bis), 495,

6.150-52

53

499,507

6.151

491113 (to), 500,530

6.98

148, 518 (bis)

6.153

4 9 3 , 496

6.100

491113, 498

6.154

501

6.100-5

490

6.156

45,491113

6.101

49in3(to)

6.157

500

6.102

495,501

6.157-92

53

6.103

128, 528 (bis)

6.105

519

6.158

559

6.106

518

6.160

1 0 9 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 8 , 4121171,

6.107

518, 523 (bis)

6.108

523

6.108-9

524

6.113

524

6.86

6.113-14

m

601179

6.116

144, 1 8 5 , 5 1 9 , 5 2 7 2501161 5 9

!

6.120

519

6.122

519

6.123

526

6.124

128,526

6.125

527

9

o n 2

9

m

8 n 6

496, 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 , 5 2 6 , 1

5 4 4 , 5 4 5 , 5 5 (to), m

6.162

49 3,559

6.164

93, 317, 4 9 4 , 5 4 , 5 4 2

1

6.165

6.115

6.119

o n 2

563, 577,599n37

524 (to)

6.117

4 9 3 , 501

6.126

283,527

6.127

128,526

6.129

518, 519,5201112

6.130

92,513,529

6.131 6.131-33

502 490

6.133

121

495,55

1

6.166

124,165, 533, 534, 561

6.167

542, 544 (to)

6.170 6.171 6.175 6.177 6.179-80 6.181 6.182 6.183 6.184 6.185 6.187

519 545 545 i 3,563 545 549,557 549 556 549 550 556,563

6.188

549

8

6.189

560

6.191-92

520

6.134

527,528

6.192

S^

6.135

528 (to)

6.192-223

539116

6.136

165,491113,529

6.193

187, 200, 564, 566 (to)

6.137

92, 529, 5 3 °

6.194

6.138

529

6.195

6.139 6.140 6.141 6.141-42 6.141-66

529 533 4 9 3 , 530 529 490

6.i95-3 9

!92

6.196 6.196-204

187, 345, 5 3 4 , 5 5 7 , 564 (to) 109

6.197

5*9, 534,545

6.142 6.143 6.143-45

529 49 3> 5 500

6.198

534,545

6.199-200

564

6.200

534,564

6.144

4 9 3 , 496, 5 3 °

6.201-2

519,564

6.145

123,49103,529,530

6.202

534

6.146

529

6.203

187, 3321145, 557, 565

I 2

0 0

m

,520,556

4,542

534 (to), 549 0

m

m

1 0

742

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 6.271-72

546

534 (bis), 565 (bis)

6.272

545

6.205

165,197, 534

6.272-91

539116

6.206

566

6.275

546

6.208

125

6.276

566

6.209

566

6.280

557,560

6.210

566

6.281

518

6.212

115, 1 2 5 , 1 8 5 , 5 2 6 , 5 3 5 ,

6.284

552

6.285

5 3 i , 556

6.213

552 197

6.286

556

6.215

187, 535 (bis), 564, 565

6.288

531

6.216

565

6.289

552

6.217

565

6.290

1 1 6 , 1 2 2 , 531 (bis), 550,

6.219

535,565

6.220

491113

6.291

552 560 491113

Antiquities (continued) 6.204

6.221

4 9 3 {bis)

6.292

6.221-22

535

6.292-94

82, 490, 491, 509

6.221-23

490

6.292-309

538116

6.223

495, 5271122, 528

6.294

n

6.224-34

538116

6.295

552

6.226

566

6.296

197, 544, 553

6.227

557

6.297

553

6.228

566

6.297-98

553

6.230

4 5 , 5 6 0 , 619

6.298

553

6.232

566

6.299

553

6.235 6.235-38

527 539116

6.300

544

6.301

553

6.236

557,566

6.302

111,550,55!

6.239

566

6.304

550

. 6.239-49

I n

5 , !24> 4 9 9 , 5 ° °

538n6

6.305

"3,552

6.241

566

6.307

59

6.243-44

557

6.245

567

6.247

562

6.250

535,545

6.250-70

538116

6.254

601179

6.257

601179

6.258

535 g

6.308

1161143,550

6.310-20

539 6

n

6312

531,553

6.313

549

6.315

546

6.316 6.317 6.321-26 6.323

123, 532, 557 165, 5 3 i , 5 3 2 , 5 5 3 538116 554

6.259

i 5,197

6.260

5!7 9

6.325

32

6.262

601179,185

6.326

554,555

6.262-67

509

6.327-50

538n6

6.262-68

531

6.328

601179,520

6.263

194

6.330

32

6.264

181

6.332

168,505

6.265

201,5991137

6.332-36

49°

6.266-67

198

6.267

185,201

6.335

196048,520

6.268

601179, 145117 (bis), 530

6.336

49 3

6.271

538116

n

m

6-337

520

6-339

520

JOSEPHUS 6-339-42

123

7.69

123

6.340-42

520,5201113

6.341

185

7-71-77 7.72-73

557 601179

7-74 7-75 7.76

547 547 601179

7-77 7-79 7-82 7.84 7-86

543 557 33 185 33

7.87-89

55i

6-343 6-343-5°

521,522 8

2 , 3°5, 3 i ° , 509,52i

5

539 m

6.344

4 9 3 , 522, 532,5321132

6-344-45

52i

6-345

532

6.346

521

6-347 6.348 6.349 6.351

I 0

9 , 523

523 I2

g

743

5 > i 5> 5 2 i , 522, 523 522

7-90

557,560

7.92

557

6.351-67

538n6

7-93

57i, 575, 579,580, 603

6-355

555

7.94

152 (bis), 538

6.359

601179

144115,547 547 547 2341128 560

6.368-69

522

7-96 7-97 7.101 7.101-3 7.105

6.368-78

538116

7.109

560

6.370

522, 523, 532

7.110

116 (to), 555

6.362-63

563

6.363

2351131

6.368

522

6-377

523

7-i 11

123,554

6.378

53i

7-H7

55i

7.1

564

7.120

547

7.1-6

539116

7-122 7-127 7.130

7.2

522,564

(bis)

556,557 547 731193,114,165,187,

7-5

566

7.18

129

7.22

546

7-I30-53

7-23

548

7-i3i

34

7-25

519,546

7.132

341131

7-26

553

7.138-40

5221116

7-27

491113

7.139-40

731193,558

7-29

185

7.142-45

547

7-30

555

7-147

99,

7-3i

99, i97, 204

7-153

73H93, 558 (ter), 560

7-34

185

7-158

99, 543, 6031142

7-36

197

7.160

123

7-37

198

7.162

187,558

7-37-38

550

7.164

187

556, 558 34H33,187

I Q

2 , 1 8 5 , 558

7-40

555

7.168

143

7-43

125, 544, 555

7.169

137

7-53

49m3

7.183

28011137

7-54

*23,555

7-i84

125,553

7.61

546 (bis)

7-i89

93

7.62 7-65

108,546 557

7-193

183

7.195

499

7.67

171

7.68

448118

7.196 7-I98

147 i4i,559

744

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Antiquities (continued)

6 1

7-3

8

5 9 , 619

7.199 7.205-6

54-8 556

7.362 7.370-88

589, 611 (to) 575

7.217

548

7.372

611 563,611

7.218

548

7-372-73

7.220

109

7-373

185,611,619

7.235 7.256

" 4 , 551, 555 123

7-374

556, 5 9 i , 593

7-378

571

7-259 7.262 7.265 7.269

544 142 5 3 4 116,556

7.380

7-3 3

7.270

125,551

7-3 4

7.272

5 5 4 592

6

g l

7-3

302 9 9 , 1 2 4 , 543, 552, 579,

n 2

59i 8

8

8

!95 552,556,59^594

7.272-74

123

7-3 5 7.386

7.274 7.277

554 560

7-3

7.278

141,563024

7-390

109,54

7.287

147,185

7.390-91

82, 509, 539

7-39

7.289

189032

7-29i

553

7.294

44808

8

7-3 7

109,548

7-305

4om57,5 6

5

1

544 59i 8

93, 99 (to), i n , 116, 119, 121 (to), 180,

7.300 7.305-

8 8

557 204, 595 (to), 612

6 2

6 2

7-392

543, 544, 550, 552 129, 575, 594

7-394 7.404

538n6 189033

7.310

108

8.2

91, 577, 618

7.312

185

8.2-211

575

7.3i8

559

8.4

589

7.318-34

164

8.5

5 9

7-321

34

8.8

129,594

7-322

555

8.9

590 (to)

8

7.322-23

554

8.10

590

7.324-26

178

8.13

197, 5 7 5 ™ o , 595

7-328

552

7-330

542

7.332

126 (bis), 46506, 554,

8.14 8.15 8.17

535^35,595 595 575 o

8.19

59

554018

n i

1

7-333

258 (bis)

8.20

7-334

561

8.21

7-335-42

575

7-337

H 2 , 563, 603

8.22

595

7.338

128,557,571,577,591,

8.23

5 7 i , 577, 579, 580 (to), 592

7-340 7-34i

593 571 499,563,611

8.24

578,588

8.25

595

7-342 7.348-62

576 575

8.26

580

8.27

624

6

185,591 95,96,116,575010,577, 591, 605, 606, 623

7-35 7.358

I 2

6

7-359 7.360

624 (bis) 571

1

8 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 593 624

8.29

624

8.30

174, 581, 602, 624

8.31

625

8.32

577, 625 (to)

JOSEPHUS 8.33

581 (bis)

8.109

8

6 l

1

8-34 8.35-38 8.38

99,5 i 33 148, 606, 612 (bis)

8.110

57 ,599

8.111

621

8.111-12

592,621

8.40

578,589

8.112

592, 619063

6

8.41

578

8.113

577

8.42

84, 584 (bis), 5841123,

8.114

621

8.115

174, 580, 621

58^24 8.44

584 (bis)

8.116-17

119,614

8-45

585

8.117

615

8.45-49

I o 6

> 585

8.118

599,600,604

8.46-49

585

8.49

585

8.120

128

8.50 8-53 8.54 8.55

613,619 577 575 614

8.121

599 (to)

8-55~5

8.119

nl

6

621

8.122-23

601

8.123

5751110, 600, 602

8.124

578,579,5991137,

574

600 (ter)

8.56

574, 614 (bis)

8.57

575 °,

8.58 8.59 8.61

609,613 575 ° 575nio

n I

6 l

3

8.125

600, 602, 604

8.127

576

8.129

578

n l

8.63

596 (to)

8.64

5 7 5 ° (to), 596 (to)

n I

8.130

599,603

8.131

602

8.132

607 592, 607, 622

8.65-66

596

8.133

8.68

597

8.134

592, 607, 615

8.69

597 (to)

8.135

607

8.70

597

8.136

8.72

6

5 >57 >599> °3

575mo

8.137 8.138

8.73

601

8-77

5751110 n l

8.81

575 °

8.82

601,6011139

8.83

597

8.84

597, 601, 6011139

8.88

597

8.89

596

8.90

597

8.91-94

597

8.95

596,598

8-97

596,597

8.99

596, 598, 599

8.100

48,623

8.101-2

599,619

8.102

2501161, 600, 619

8.104-5

596

8.105

598

607 6

°7

608 n I

8.140

575 o

8.141

593

8.142

45,593

8.143

97,99,586,587

8.144-46

575,614

8.144-49

134, 574 (to)

8.145

616

8.146

104,590

8.146-49

113

8.147-49

134,575

8.148-49

104

8.149

59°

8.150

605

8.151

605

8.152

588,605

8.153

606

8.153-54

6

575

o6

8.106

2501161,603

8.155-59

8.107

620

8.159

5

8.108

620,622

8.160

588

8.162

610,615

1

745

746

PASSAGES F R O M A N C I E N T WRITERS

Antiquities (continued) 8.163

606

8.245

I 2

8.246

341133

7

8.164

606

8.251

144,185,198

8.165

587, 604, 625 (bis)

8.252

185

8.165-75

75

8.253

1 8

8.166

5781117, 587 (bis), 613,

8.260-62 8.262

8 n i o , 209

8.167

99, 175 (bis), 587 (bis)

8.265

127

8.168

608

8.296-97

157

8.169

602,608

8.297

8.169-70

625

625

8

(to), 19

18 (to)

"9

-307

195

8.170

608,625

8

-3i4

599n37

8.171

608 (bis)

8

-3!5

54 ,556

8.172

608

8.319

8.174

609, 625 (ter)

8.324

135 (quater)

8.175

126, 46506, 593

8.325-27

212 211

8

211

8.176-77

598,606

8.342

8.178

598

8-343

211,505

8.180

598

8.344

211

8.182

577,604

8.349

211 (to), 2501161

8.183

609,610

8.351

2501161

8.184

6

8.352

1471112

8.185

93,609

8.356

142

°9

8.186

609

8.358

68

8.187

609

8.370

142

8.188

610

8.389

7°

8.190

574,617

8-394

"9,578ni7

8.191

137, 138, 625

8-395

6

8.193

137,617

8.396

120

8.194

97, 99, 57i, 617

8.398

142 (to)

8.195

601, 617, 618

8.408

58

8.196

550, 556, 582, 604, 618

8.197 8.199 8.202 8.202-3 8.204 8.205 8.206 8.209 8.211

6

°5 °5, 5 7 5 m o , 624 624 623 610 610 i n , 140 82, 91, 5 0 9 , 5 7 6 (to), 5 7 7 , 5 8 2 , 619, 623 6

6 1 8

2

8.409

142, 176, 195

8.412

196

8.413

185

8.415

142

8.417

58

8.418

5 8 , 1 0 5 , 185

8.418-20

176

8.419 9.2

i 5, i9 ,197 124

9.6 9-

8

8

g

6

62 197

8.212

146

9- -9

8.212-420

216

9-9

154,197

8.213

126

9-i6

128,5991137

8.213-14

121

9.19-27

164

8.214

119,126

9.20

2501161

8.215

147

9.26

208,2501161

8.227

6201168

9.28

211, 212, 2501161

8.227-28

127

8.229

i o

9-3i 9.43

142 1181146,120

J

5 , 43

154

JOSEPHUS 947

72 (bis)

IO.53

!20

9.64

120

10-59

87, I97

9.92

108

10.64

622

9-94

!9

10.65

120

9.95-96

50

9-96

152

10.73 10.76

93 185

9.99

208

9.117

108

10.79 10.89

61 i9

9-!33

!24> 185

10.99

197

9.138

6

120

10.100

39,71,124

9.i77- 5

35,164

10.103

71,1471112, 660

9.178

71,660

10.120

71. 124

9.182

152,49!

10.138

124

8

I

9 9

I

9.196

5°n59 181

9.199

181

9.207

448118

9.208

58

9.209

160, 208 (to)

9.213

250061

9.216

46506

9.222

144

9.222-25

50

9.223

185,198

9.225

72

9.226

181

9.226-27

198 128 1 0 9 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 (to),

9.268 9.271 9.280 9.282

577ni4 622 622 448118 142 (to) 579ni9 337116

10.5

109

10.12

601179

10.16

120

10.20

19

10.21

213,2501161

10.25-27

70 I 2

10.29

156

10.31

120

10.34

!9

10.35

58

10.39

57n72

10.44

x

10.45

J

10.50

4

10.155

87,116,156,180

10.160

156 126,180 72, 631, 632 (to), 633

10.186-218

630

10.186-281

632

10.187

112, 633, 634, 645 (to)

10.188

631 (to)

10.189

633, 641 (to), 6411129

10.190

112, 634, 642 (ter),

10.190-94

643

10.191

"2,634

10.192

112,634

10.194

633, 6381120, 643 (to),

10.195

646,654

644

4

10.30

1 7 2 , 1 9 6 (to)

6421130, 643, 644

9.260

9-289

124

10.142

10.186

9.236

9.291

10.139

10.164

747

10.195-210

102

10.198

157, 648, 655

10.199

645

10.200

637

10.201

635

10.202

635 (to)

10.203

3

10.204

1181146, 646 (ter)

10.206

6491138

6 o n

5 4 , 634 (to)

10.209

6491138

10.210

39,50,153,494, 538 (to), 571, 649 (to), 651, 6511143

10.211

641, 646

10.212

201, 641, 644

10.214

157, 213, 638 (to), 653

10.215

214, 638, 646

2

42

10.216

647

10.217

136, 647 (to)

n

91,116, i97,599 37

748

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 10.277-81

Antiquities (continued)

192 (to), 640

10.218

4 1 - 4 2 , 45, 647

10.278

192, 274, 301020, 640

10.219

19

10.279

635, 635013

10.280

637,640

9, 47

10.281

8010, 209, 430098, 638

10.232

655

11.21

169

10.232-81

630

11.32

156,654

4 7 (to)

11.49-54

191

10.235-36

633

n.56

93

10.236

655

11.68

164

10.237

99,655

11.87

119,615056

10.238

655

11.109

48

10.239

638020

11.111

14507 (to) 44808

10.219-28 10.227

10.233

1711113,647 J

6

6

10.240

653

11.112

10.241

185, 634, 638020

11.114

201,202

10.242

112,634,638020,

11.120

128

647 (to), 648

11.121

116,155,654

10.243-44

637019

11.131

126

10.246

1 1 6 , 1 9 6 , 634, 636, 648,

11.138

156

10.247

650

11.139

116,124,156

647,655

11.140

139,156

10.248

655

11.141

138,156

10.249

636, 5 0

11.142

139

10.250

201, 638, 638020, 641,

11.145

138

11.146

139

10.251

644, 653 201,636

n.149

10.252

653

".15

10.254

136, 648

10.255

633,634

11.152 11.153 11.165 11.169

10.256 10.257 10.258 10.259 10.260

6

201, 633, 644, 653 l8

3>

2 0 I

> 656

1

139 139 139 (to), 164 139 104 224,310

11.177

209

3 , 250061, 638, 639

11.183

116

184, 250061, 638020,

11.185

87

11.19° 11.191-92 11.192 11.192-94

164,187,33! 136 164 181

11195 11.196

136 187

638020 2 J

656 10.260-61

639

10.262

638020, 639, 648

10.263

156, 635, 654

10.264

104,636

10.265

185

10.266

637,641

11.198

169

10.267

636017, 637, 651043

11.199

187

10.268

637, 650, 651

11.200

187

10.269

636

11.201

187

10.272

250061, 578017, 639

11.202

136, 187, 330042

10.273

6

30

11.207

170

10.275

633,653

11.209

354

10.276

154, 538, 649039, 652,

11.210

354

11.212

117

652045 10.276-77

650041

11-215

136, 169

10.277-78

427

11.216

136

JOSEPHUS 11.227

209

11.229-33

51

11.234-42 11.236

I

3-7o

345

13.74

1241151

51

13.76

1241151

136

13.195

1001124

11.237

209,2501161

13.114

1241151

11.240

209, 213, 2501161

13.152

185

11.252

136,184

13.225

203

11.256

184

11.257

183

!3-249 13285 13.288

543 345 203

II.261

170,182

11.266

270

11.267-68

185

13.297

11.268

184,656

13.299-300

11.270

185

J

I

3-294

3-3oi-i7

"3 66,69 6on8o 2141164

11.273-83

36,51

13.310

199,202

11.275-76

136

13.316

143,3141164

11.277

181,354

i3-3 -!9

11.289

164

13.348

661185

11.294

124

13.349

34i> 648

"•329-39

6461136

13.382-83

6on8o

11.337

630

13.402

203

13.430

190

11.341

337116

l 8

2141164

12.11-118

26,42,164

13.431

190

12.14

46

13.432

190 (bis)

12.15

46

14.13

126

12.20

45 (bis)

14.40

345

12.39

46

14.68

10

12.48

45

14.174-75

59178

12.49

46

14.186

107

12.56 12.103-9 12.104

599^37 6m8i 6in8i

14.250

1551126,6541148

14.255

2371136

14.265

198, 199

12.106

6in8i

H-283

599"37

12.107

46

14.324

188

12.108

46,6m8i

14.451

102

12.109

37

15-16

1781123

12.112

102

15.6

203

12.114

26

15.50

2021152

12.146

622

15.69

i90 3

12.190

2011151

15.79

204

12.195

26711101

15.82

2021152

12.226

2371136

15.89

203,204

12.249

203

15.90

204

12.322

631

15.96-103

188

n

6

15.130

203

2501161

15.164

2021152

12.388

345

15.168

1901136

12.417

190

I5-I79

172

13-15

1781123

15.202-36

188

13.45

6541148

15.219

i9° 3

13-65

345

I5-37I

192,6441133

I 2

8

.35 -59

12.359

1 8

n

6

749

750

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS 19.346

196

15-375 I5-398 15.416 16.25

599n37 579,605 172 6

20.17-96

158

20.25

134

16.93

*43

20.29

2031154

16.167-73

126

20.90

126

16.174

47,48

20.100

341

16.176

114

20.106

48

16.177

114

20.150

261

16.183-87

18

20.20a

1521119,651

16.247-48

2021152

20.204

2141164

16.396-404

196

20.216

48

17-19

1781123

20.216-18

62

i7-4

59 78

n

20.218

62

17-43

59 78

n

20.229

Antiquities (continued)

I 2

20.20

26711101

20.21

2031154

J

n

4 5 7 (bis)

17.121

191138

20.234

145117 (bis)

17.125

172

20.236

345

17.200

48

20.260

9,37

17.213

48

20.261

37

I7-345-48

102

20.262

21117,47

17-345-53

102

20.262-63

18

17.354

209,4301198

20.263

1 4 , 1 8 , 25, 26, 65

18.15

104

20.263-64

26911105 45

18.17

6011138

20.264

18.21

190

20.267

611182,143,1581129

18.63

1521119,651

20.268

205 (bis), 257, 263,

18.63-64

568 (bis)

18.65-80

188

18.66

87,87117

18.81-84

158,383

1

61

18.85

397147

1-6

86

2631191, 278 Life

18.117

3971137

1-8

86

18.240

2021152

2

127, 188, 2551167,

18.241

2021152

18,255

i9 38,2021152

7-8

25

18.257

375 2

8

25, 203, 335

18.259-60

1 6 , 5 1 , 383

8-9

65

18.340

50,137

9

90,1721115

18.342-52

188,615

10

591178 102,231

m

n

6031143, 668

19-53

552116

IO-II

19.54

148

11

642

19.92

172

12

19.108

209

19.208

105 (bis)

19.236-45

341,648

13 14

5 9 1 7 8 , 6 6 n 8 6 , 1 8 9 , 192. 427, 637, 651 148 6441134

19.290

117

16

149

19.321

172

19328-31

6

17 29 36 65

149 215 140 601

19.330

126

19.340-42

155

JOSEPHUS 8o

96,200

1.77

202

82

357

1.82

542 {bis)

84-85

200

85

15

6

1.111-12

189

1.172

146118

102

156

1.208

202

112

445

"3

J

1233 1.243

195 188 195

58

122

200,362

1275

134

140

1.328

102

146

96

1.340

542

148

96

1.360

203

189-203

362

1.431-44

188

751

194

96

1.440

2021152,4761134

204

200

1.443

2021152, 4761134, 626

208-10

101

1.463

2021152

216-335

200

1.632-34

2021152

223

542

1.650

6181162

240-42

96

2.112-13

102

364-67 366

435 215

2.112-16

102

2.119-61

52,591178,102

414

26911105,345

2.121

190

414-15

188

418

25

423 423-25

™5> 53> 200 67

2.159 2.161 2.181 2.249

59 7 53 2021152 261

J

6

n 6

5

n

8

424

3 9

2.259

59

425

200,601

2.261-63

152

426-27

188

2.272-76

2141164

427

86,188

2.279

204

429

67

2.286

112

War 1.1

20

1.1-2

9,

59

2.309

648

2.331

204

2.346

204

2.427

562

1.1-3

21117,215

2.444

152

1.2

58,177

2.454

445

1.3

46, 212, 2131162

2.464

644

1.6

9 {bis)

2478

644

i-7

9

2.569-84

215

i-9

9

1.10

122, 503

!5 140 200 96

6

1.13-16

9

1.17

9, 20, 20117, 132

2.585 2.587 2.620 3.161-288

1.18

20,57

3.347

125,172

1.27

122,140

3-35!-54

101

i-33 1.34

345 in

3-352

101

3.352-53

60

I-6I 1.67 1.68-69 1.72

539,543 199,201 6on8o 2011151

3.358

106

3.361-83

532

3.391 3399-408

257 IOI

752

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

War (continued)

5.388

2131162

3.400-2

59

5-39I-92

59

3.475

146118, 147

5-393

45

3.542

146119

5.412

611

4-n

5.413

6201167,6201169

4.107 4.208 4.225 4.292

45 146 156 105 112

5.441

156

5458

619

5.491

112

5-5H

195

4-297 4.319-22

194 111116

5-572

195

6-49

195

4-357 4.389

199 156

6.63

199

6.103-4

155

4-393 4.462-64

199 212

6.122

112

6.124

i43

4.530

227

6.283

146119

4-533 4.566

227 199

6.310-15

6521146

6.299-300

6on8o

4.616

341

6.312

151

4.622

195

6.312-13

6371117

5.19

172 {bis)

6.313

195, 6371117, 6521146

5-27

113

6-347 6.439 6.442

143 539 578ni7

5-34

"3

5-137

539

5-143

539,605

7.100-11

629

5-i5i 5-182

45 45

7-i9i

147

7.252-406

i59 3o

5-234 5-257

31 209

7.254-74

5-355 5.362-419

196 215

7.344

280

5.367

611, 6511143 (bis)

7-399

82, 189

5-379 5.379-81

259 215

7405

i 5 9 3 0 , 27511122, 533

7-426

345

5.380

216,236

7.451

172

5-38i

259

7-455

45

n

nni6

7.267

143

7.272

172

n

PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES Philo

16.71 16.72 23.114 23.114-15

De Abrahamo 15.68-71

233

15.71

2641193

339 339 1921140, 640 6351113

22.112

430096

23.118

2491159,28611150

26.133

2641194

6.24

26.134

2651195,265096

7.34-38

290

27.140

265096

7.38

291

De Congressu Quaerendae Eruditionis Gratia 3091110

32.167

266

12.61-62

3141118

32.168

226114, 270, 291

13.70

306114

32.170

255

18.99

308116

32.172-76

27711126

23.129-30

3 ! 5 8 (bis)

32.175

27411116, 4301196

32.176

212, 252, 27611124

3LI75 31.175-76

291 309-ionio, 315018

33-^7

283

33.178

255

33.180-81

283

9.33

35^97

285

30.164

40.233

235

40.233-34

54

De Decalogo

13-56

6211172 n6ri44

De Ebrietate

De Agrictdtura 12.53

n i

6211172 339

2.9-10

314

12.48

308116

20.82

306114

31.120

306114

36.143

492114

De Cherubim De Fuga et Inventione

2.8

291

31.106

270

4.24

33.118

27511117

4.24-7.43

314

35.128

339

7.39

3141118

7.40

306114

De Confusione Unguarum "•39

539

753

314

9.52

308116

30.169

306114

754

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

De Josepho 338, 338117, 340

11.77-80

288

12.81

306,30604

339

14.88

290,291

1.4

344120

22.128-29

419080

2-5 2.5-11

355148 339

37-202

54

40.225

116

7.34-36 8.37-21.124

339 339

8.38

346124

8.39

358

1.1-2.12

94°

54, 352138, 352139,

7.26

30018

14.46

430196

24.72

165

I

-

1

De Opijicio Mundi

368, 369066 9.40-10.53

339-40

9.41

3711172

30 53

De Plantatione

9.48

206

10.49

34813

n:57

352139

16.87 18.94 18.95 20.106

7.29

539

352138,352139

9-39 "43

539 (to) 133

357 339 350036

11.44 21.90 26.110-11

30604 306 312015

1

21.120

150,343017

21.121

3461125

36.213

368

11.35

263090

39.232

365164

22.75

30604

41.246

347

49.166

192139

41.246-49

355047 m

41.246-50

35 37

4L247 42.257

359153 30604

43-264

125,357150

44.269

347127,348i33

De Migratione Abrahami

De Posteritate Caini

De Praemiis et Poems 9-53

422084

De Providentia 2.40-41

171012

De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 340

2.4

1.5

30604

4.17-18

309 °

4.17

340

11.48

30806 312014

314018 n I

4.18-5.22

340

17.64

419

339, 352138

24.81

308116,30909

4.21

352138

36.120

30909

6.27

30604

38.130

422085

1374

54

39-175

3!4n8

16.89

J

7

J

De Sobrietate

29158

339

29^59

339

2.8

291

32.179

194,263090

3.!2-i5

339

38.214

30604

!3-65

30919

39.224

3!3 De Somniis

De Mutatione Nominum 2.12

290

9.66-10.76

287

LI478 1.20.120-21 1.20.126

339 (to) 30909 30604

PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES 1.24.154

27511121

1.26.160

291

1.26.163

3101112

1.27.167

290

1.27.168

290

1.35.202

De Vita Contemplativa 9.69 De

642

VitaMosis I.I.I

376,399152

3 2ni5

1.1.1-2

374, 641

1.38.219-23

353143

1.1.4

69

1.38.219-39.225

339

1.2.7

378 3841128

J

1.38.220

338

1.2.9

2.1.5-7 2.2.11 2.2.14-15 2.2.16

339 339 339 339 (bis)

1.4.13

4381109

1.4.15

3841128

1.4.15-16

3811120

1.4.18

3841128

2.4.30-5-33 2.6.42

339 339

1.5.18-24

3821122

1.5.20

911116

2.6.46

339

1.5.20-24

901115

2.6.47

339

1.5.21

383

2.12.78 2.12.79 2.14.93-99

339 339 339

15-23

383

2.14.99 2.15-102 2.15-105

1.5.23-24

97

1.6.25

4121170

339,353144

1.6.25-29

901115

338117

1.6.27

397

339

1.6.28

53

2.15.106

3521138

1.6.29

2.15.106-7

340

1.6.31

27511121

2.16.110-16

339

1.8.43-44

4141174

s

339

1.8.44

4141174

2-37-245

539

1.9.46

434

1.11.62

43411104

2.19.13

De Specialibus Legibus 1

-6-33-35 1.8.41 1.8.45 1-9-53 1.12.67

4121170

1.1479

385130

262 4221185 3°6 119,647 4241188

1.14.82

4301196

1.16.94

430196

1.21.123

430196

1.24.135

283

1.25.141

420

i-35- 72

53

1.27.148-49

43411104

1.61.334

2631190

1.27-150

387133

1.62.337

2631190

1.27.151

390134

2.32.201

4221185

1.27.154

4121170

4-7-30-31

53

1.28.158

43411104

4.10.61

39 49

1.28.162

399150

4.17.102

642

1.29.164

4081163

4.34.176

4221185

1.29.165-66

432

I

8 n

De Vvrtutibus

1.31-174

430196

1.33-185

431199

11.75

4221185

1.38.211

43211101

32.174

4221185

1.40.221

4101166

38.208

315

38.209

3!5 8

38.210

315

143.242 1.43.243 1.44.249 1.60.328 1.60.334

323 4151176 1181147,41711 4i4i73 43411104

n I

39-2i6

235

40.223

308116

755

756

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

De Vita Mosis (continued)

3.84.236

33603

3.84.237-86.242

352138

2.1.2

43411104

2.1.3

398

3.85.238

33603

2.2.8-11

118047, 417078

frag. 8 (Harris)

344™ 9

2.2.9

1161144

2.5.26

27

Quaestiones et Solutiones in Exodum

2.7.37

6m8i

1.7

191

27.38-39

4i

2-5

647

2.7.41

26

2-73

53

2.9.51

43611106

2-75

53

2.13.66

422084,422085

2.85

53 (to)

2.14.68

412070

2.112-14

53

2.14.70

92020

2.117-20

53

2.18.88

53 {bis) Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesin

2.21.101

54

2.23.114

54

4.10

240043

2.24.117

53064

443

264094

2.28.142

387 33

n

4.148

191139

4.157

314018

2.37.203-38.208

647

2.38.205

53

4.160

317

2.43-237 2.45.247-51 2.51-291 2.51.292

393137 43 99 397 4340104

4.161-62

314018

m

Hypothetka 7-9 11.1-18 11.14-17

53i63 52 190037

InFkccum 5.30

653

Legum Allegoriae 2.1.1

422086

4.163

30604

4.165

310011

4.168

310010,315

4.172

318026

4-!94

291,295013

4.197

314018

4.198

29204

4.199

3141118

4.206

312014

4.212

301021

4.214

297017

4.216-17

300

4.218

315118

4.220

314018 315

2.22.89

30604

4.221

3.1.2

30604 (to)

4.227

314018

3.8.26

30604

4.228

3^129

3.12.37

414075

4.229

312014

3.25.81

263090

4.232

314018

3.29.88-89

3 5

4233

298018

3.30.93

306 (to)

4.236

3 5

3.32.97-99 3.44.128

262 412070

x

n l 8

4-23

8

x

n l 8

J

3 5

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres

3.45.129

412070

345.131

412170

20.99

247057

3.46.134

412070

45.221-46.226

53

51.256

339

6

I

3- 3- 79

30

8 n 6

>339(to)

3.63.180

310012

3.68.190

306, 30604 (to)

3.69.192-70.195

318026

Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 2.3

30806

PHILO AND PSEUDO-PHILO, BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES 37 1445 14.46 17.60

339 3 4n8 291 291 !

Quod D-ns Immutabilis Sit 20.92

3121114

24.111

37m72

25.116

37m72

25.119-21

339

42-3 42.4

465,475132 463114

42-5 42-6 42.7 42.8 43.1 43.2-3

476135 477 478 462 478 4721126

43-3 43.4

470 4701121

43.5

472,4811146, 4871161

Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit

757

4861160

2.13

339 9

43.6

I2.75-I3-9I

52

43-7

470,485159

44.2

482

n

Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3-4

69

6.3-18

2291112,28611148

6.17

214,638

7.4

254

8.3

254,2941110

8.4

2941110

8-7

304

49-7 49.8 50.1-2 50.6 50.8 1

57i7i 571171 (bis) 5061124 49319 571171,4931110

5I51.2

57i7i 571171,490m

51.3-6 51.6

493 o 571171,490111 57171, 4 9 0 1 1 , 4 9 3

m

8.9

33613

9-7

425192

517

9-io

379

52.2

49215

10.5

43 99

53.1

4941112

15.1

4101166

53."

5717

17.2-3

3121115

53-12

57171

19.16

396145

54-3-4

5i4

20.2

447

54-5

57i7i

25-28

290,659

56.3

5 0 6 , 5 " (to), 511113

26.10-11

3in22

56-4

57i7i, 5 2, 5 ^ 1 5

26.11

25

56.6

511,512

27.1

518119

571171 (to) 517 529

m

1

J

493HO

57.4 57-5 582

32.2

273

58.4

505122

32.3

280, 28011136, 281,

59

522

282

59-2

538

32.3-4

2941110

59-3

32.4

2521163

59-4

57i7i, 495 3, 5 i

32.5

2941110

61.2

514

32.5-6

3181126

32.6

2941110

40.2

2941110

61.5 63-3 64.2 64.5 64.8

561 5*719 571171 522 522

31.1 32.1-17

207

42.1

462,463114

42.1-4

476

5"i3 n i

6

O T H E R

GRAECO-JEWISH

WRITERS

Artapanus

9.30.3

22

ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.

9.30.8

22

9.18.1

1031131,233-34

9.23.1

347127,364n

9.23.2

342

9.27

43

8 n I 0

9.34.1-20 9.34.18

g l

6131154 616

Ezekiel the Tragedian

9

9.27.1-37

23,4031160

9-27-3 9.27.3-4 9-27-4 9.27.6

583 23 23, 384,4031160 23,583

59-64

9.27.18

414

227

52

9.27.22

206

228-29

52

9-27-35

43i

237

52

175 4021159 n

68-89

395 43

210

52

218

52

Philo the Epic Poet

Demetrius ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.

ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.

9.21.1

221110

9.21.1-19

21, 305

9-24-1

349

9.21.2

22niO

Pseudo-Eupolemus

9.21.3

221110

ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.

9.21.10

221110

9.17.3

9.21.14

221110

9- 7-4

9.21.16

2941110

9-17-5

9.21.19

221110 (bis)

9.17.6

2391139

9.29.1

221110

9.17.8

2341126

9.29.2

2941110,378

9.17.9

22

9.29.3

4021159

227, 229, 232

I

232-33,235032 22

Justus of Tiberias A Chronicle of the Jewish Kings

Eupolemus

ap. Photius, Bibliotheca

ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.26.1

33, p. 6 B 2 3 - 7 A 5

85114, 2341126, 2341126,

(FGH734T2)

399

759

40,41,52

RABBINIC

LITERATURE,

MEDIEVAL JEWISH SAMARITAN

WORKS,

LITERATURE

Mishnah

Jerusalem

'Avot

Berakot

Talmud

2:4

273m 12

1.9.4a

291

2:14

273m 14,6401126

4.7b

493mo

5:6

166114, 2521163

6:8

5781116

Horayot 2.5.46a

Baba Me$ia 2:9 Megillah

5.30b

31

4:4

30 30

4:10

72 (bis)

3.2.74a 1.15a

9ini6,381

2.20

28611150

Sanhedrin 64on26 172015

4:7

68

70

10.2.29a

595-9

12.13d

Berakot

640028 572

3.io.34d

512

7.36c

450011

Sotah 5241119

1

259080

1.6a

487,487n63

5021118

1.8

483,483051,

264094

1.17b

4721127,483n5i

Sanhedrin Sotah 3:11

6

Sheviit

Tosefta

4:5

5651125

10.28b

6 (end)

4:6

192

2.20a

Shabbat

Yadaim

4:1

448

Sanhtdrin

(Hddushin

10:1

1601134

Peak

Nedarim

4:14

4721127

Megillah

4:4-10

2:1

352n4i

Ketubot

4^53

3:12

2421147

5.20c

565

3:15

472027

7.5

45

6:6

2431149 9.24b

4551114 56in20

8:1-4

n i

455 4 761

o n i 2

>

762

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Taanit 65c!

2061157, 27811132

4.8.68c!

3151120,542ml

Yoma 4.4 id Babylonian

6071148 Talmud

Arakin 17a

71

Avodah Zarah 8b

68

10b

324

36a

6341111,644

43^ 43b Baba Batra

349n35 601

4a

632118,6451135

14b

1691110,4131172,

16a

2591181

i6b-i7a

291

17a

5611122

447, 537

61 a

462 (bis)

62b

557

63b 64a 'Eruvin 18b 21b Gittin

89a 115b 124a Ketubot 27b 60a Makkot

37513 28611150 448

23b

541 3801118

121b

4501112

3

122a

452

4a 9 n 6

365163 9im6,381 492,583

Megillah

Baba Me$ia 6

m i

45 3 86 61 86,5321132 598 2441151

120a

3 5

462 (bis) 572,5841125

46a 56a 56b 57b 68a 75b Hullin

91a

39b

533H34 4841154

a

a

27, 636, 6361117 361137 271116, 29, 41115c l 6

3

n

n

5 3 > 393 3


38a

483, 492, 578

65a

71

Qiddushin 32b 49a

n i 6

n

3 ! 3 > 347 28 441153

RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL JEWISH, SAMARITAN LITERATURE

Rosh Hashanah 2 ib 25a Sanhedrin

572 (bis)

gb-ioa

4721127

10a

4661110, 4661112, 467, 4671114,

8 n

53 5

467015, 468, 471024, 482

n

14a

3i5 20

20b

502,5021118,

(bis), 4851157, 485060,

5051120, 574,

487062, 513 (bis)

574n8 6171161

12a

380017

24a

4841154

i2a-b

379m 6

25b

3941141

12b

3 7 9 3 > 3811119,

38b

539

21b

763

ni

381020, 425091

n

39b

3!5 2o

48b-49a

595 34

n

58a

4791H2

68a

6011138

69b

28711154

89b

2471156,267099,

91a

2341127

93a

632117,6361117

280, 292

93b

72, 631115, 632

93b-94a

6361117

94a

636

96a

107,235

98a

152

98b

1521118,538114, 5611122, 6351112

13b 30b 3 b-3 a 48b Sukkah

3971147 3701169 455014 561020

14a 26b Taanit 16a 23a Tamid

477 38 562

29a Tevamot 5b

597H35

3

4

n

292 189

2820141

21a

572 115

104b

573,6021141

22b

107b

6031143

64a

n

477 38

io8a-b

166

88a

3651163

109a

2641194

96b-97a

5621123

Toma

i09a-b

2421147

ma

4671114

22b

512, 517, 524, 529,

14b

572

28b

2860150

30a

731193,558, 6031143

35b

346

30b

5621123

39b

607048

33b

1911138

45a

55b

54i

52a-b

170

73b

60080

77a

633010

Shabbat

6

5 a

540

448

n

73, 73 93> 165112, 558 (bis)

56b

6171161 (bis)

62a

6011138

Minor

89b

292

"Avot de-Rabbi Nathan

Tractates

150a

2341127

39

4021159

156a

2341127

121

469018

Sotah

2 Avot de-Rabbi Nathan

5a

2391141

9b

463, 469, 474, 483,

45 125 Derek Ere$ Rabbah

538n4

4831151, 484,

5

67088

4871163

Perek Ha-shakm

475 31» 4761136

n

764

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

Minor

Tractates

(continued)

Soferim

on Judg. 3:24

136

on Num. 11:7

29

1:7

67

on Num. 12:1

402n6o

1:8

271116,29

on Num. 22:22

428^4

on 1 Sam. 17:4

482^0

Targumim

Targum Sheni

Fragmentary Targum (2 Targum Yerushalmi)

6 n

8

on Gen. 22:10

272ni09

1:2

3 3 6071148

on Num. 23:10

29

1:5-7

6071148

Neofiti 3i8n28 on Gen. 22:10

272ni09

1:16

632n8

8:12

36

Tosefta-Targum

on Gen. 25:27

314

on Judg. 17:2

on Gen. 25:34

29

on 1 Sam. 4:12

514

on 1 Sam. 11:2

517

on 1 Sam. 17:4

468ni6

Onkelos n I

on 1 Chron. 21:13

554 7

on Esther 4:5

632n8

on Gen. 4:13

28

Midrashim

on Gen. 11:2

28

Aggadat Bereshit

on Gen. 25:23

317

on Gen. 25:27

314

64on28

Bate Midrashot 3.32, ch. 52

on Gen. 25:30

3i8n27 l

and other rabbinic works

27.55

3i6n2i

on Gen. 25:25

4821148

n i 6

47in24

Beit Hamidrash (ed.Jellinek) n

on Gen. 37:3

3 3

4.86-87

573

on Gen. 41:45

3471126

4.145-46

573

on 1 Kings 21:27

29

on 2 Kings 3:11

29

4.i4 -47 4.148-50

on 2 Kings 3:13

29

on 2 Kings 3:15

29

on 2 Kings 4:11

72

on 2 Kings 9:20

29

on 2 Kings 13:14

29

, 347 28

6

4-151-52 5.167-68 6.25-26 Deuteronomy Rabbah

Pseudo-Jonathan (Yerushalmi)

573 573 573 540,562n22 540,562n22 n

1.15

3i9 30

5.8-11

502ni8

on Deut. 32:1-43

4231187

5.14

450ml

on Exod. 16:13 ff.

29

11.10

911117, 38oni8,

on Gen. 6:14

69

on Gen. 11:28

9oni4

on Gen. 11:29

28, 287ni54

38i-82n2i, 382n23 Dime Hayamim shelMoshe

on Gen. 12:11

259n8i

on Gen. 18:8

2 4 9 ^ 9 , 286ni50

402n6o

on Gen. 20:12

287ni54

1.7.9

on Gen. 21:14

245^2

i-ii

572 468

Ecctesiastes Rabbah

on Gen. 22:1

268ni02, 276ni23

1.18.1

on Gen. 25:34

29

3.14

on Gen. 26:2

292

7.23, no. 4

on Gen. 27:15

3i6n20

on Gen. 27:31

323 35

n

on Gen. 27:41

3i6n20

on Gen. 35:8

29

9.2

323H34

286ni50 574 472n27

Esther Rabbah 1.1

6061146

Exodus Rabbah

on Gen. 37:13

309n8

1.8

378n8

on Gen. 41:45

3471126

1.18

379iii6

RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL J E W I S H , SAMARITAN LITERATURE i.ig 1.20

3801118 3801117,3801118

1.22 1.24 1.25

379 3 3811119,4251191 3811120

1.26

911117,3821123, 3841128

1.27 1.32

4 59 i59 3 67 3801118

11.3 11.20 l

15- 5 16.4

n I

0 2 n

n

6

63 63.8 63.12-13

3161120

64.6

292

65.5-7

3*5™*°

65.10

292,315020 3 ! 9 3 0 (to)

65.21

72, 315020, 324,

66.3

485

542011 67.5

487063 3!9 3 322033 322-23034

3151120 72

78.12

524 Genesis Rabbah I.I.I

4941111,649038 (bis) 598 37on69

6.9

447

6.28

4571117

12.11 19-7

2351129 378

n

29204,542ml

21.7

6401128

1

3 9 3°

67.7

3i4 35.5

n

65.16

67.12 76.2 78.9

20.20

477H38 3161120

2

9 492,492115

n

0

84.7

341011

84.8 84.12

34 23> 3 4 7 8 3141117

85.2 85.6 87.3 87.7

3621157 487062 341011 352041

89-9 904

363 347 26

6n

n 2

n

34-19

532n32

90.6

3621157,366

36.7 38 38.13

68-69 9° 4 2321121

9!-5 91.7 91.7-8

3621157 3 5 63 358051

39

2291111

92.4

39.13

168118

39.14

2321121

42.3

236 (bis)

97 98.2 98.13

43

n i

765

6

n

35^51 485 636 463,46304,468, 469,469018

2391141

(quater)

44.4-5

236

45

4 2

46

2571173

470, 470020,

48

28611149

48.14

28611150

471, 485, 488064

6

98.14

46303, 469 (to),

50.4

2401144 (bis)

98.20

352041

50.9

28711152

99.11

468,485

52.12

4721127

100.3

3 3 5

53

2441151

55-4

2671199,292

55-5

27611123

55-9

2581176

6

5 -2

239

564

292

56.8

27611122,27711127, 292

56.15

2061157,27811132

100.11

6

6

n

8

n

3 4 59

Hadar 00 Exocl. 6:1

29102

ImreNo'am 00 Exod. 6:1

29102

Jerahmeel 45-56

402060

Leviticus Rabbah 2.11

282

y66

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS on Gen. 23b

Leviticus Rabbah (continued)

471^4

5-3

468

on Gen. 88a

463114

8

484

on Gen. 183b

483, 4 8 3 ^ 1 ,

8.2

483 5 > 4841153

on Gen. i83b-i84a

4701119

on Gen. 184a

467ni4, 469ni8, 472^7

n

4841153

I

n

9

475 3i

9.9

4761136

"•5

2471157

on Lev. 145a

11.7

4501112

on Num. 15b

472^7

12.5

6171161

on Num. 95b

467ni4

17.6

450ml

19.6

71

20

4721127

20.1

4881164

20.8-9

167

4 8 5 ^ 8 , 487n63

on Num. 156

487

p. 625 Schechter

3641162

Midrash Jonah 97

i6on33

Midrash Leqah Tov

21.2

5611121

on Gen. 16:11

462

23.7

2591180

on Gen. 25:21

477 38

23.9

4871163

on Gen. 49:16

4851157

25.6

240042

on Gen. 49:17

47on20

25.7

2591180

6

3 -5

292

107

5611121 379 3

2a

5611120

Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael ib

6

n

4 3 3 258n75

Mekilta Devarim 5-6

502ni8

Mekilta Shira 2.362

472n27

Midrash Aggada

572

20.88

6o6n46

22.29

6021141

31.24 31.27

6361117 b

632n8

Midrash Proverbs I-I

n i

10 Mekilta Bo

55 on Exod. 12:13

Midrash Megillah 176

Mekilta Beshalah (Shirata)

n

463n4 72

Midrash Psalms 1.5 3-7

64on24 468

5-52

538114

7-63

5i4

8.7

4841156

174

5541117

18.4

469m 8

on Exod. 4:24

29in2

18.6

488n64

on Gen. 17:8

445 5

19.160

561021

on Gen. 21:1

29in2

19.244

56m2i

on Gen. 112

467ni4

19-533

5611121

on Num. 138

467ni4

25.212

492115,494 2

1.96 (ed. Buber)

364n62

57298

538114

68.318

291

n

Midrash Hagadol (ed. Schechter)

nl

1.337

72,462

75.340

538n4

1.397

292114

no

236

1.407-8

291

118.11

287ni54

1.409

291

Midrash Samuel

1.752

472n27

1.46

494iii2

2.13

483

2.12

4931110

100a

477 38

34

492

on Deut. 13a

469ni8

3.72

4931110

on Gen. 22:19

252n64

5.60

64on28

n

RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL J E W I S H , SAMARITAN LITERATURE

6.

3

767

478040,483,

468

9-74-75

492n5

n-78-79

5i4

12.4

607048

14.89

5i7

14.1

6021141

i8.99-!oo

5291126

14.2

229ml

18.100

5301128

14.9

4 6 3 , 4 6 7 n i 4 , 471,

20

192

20.5

8

5491114

21.109

5611121 (bis) 5051123 554HI7

316

4701120

323 on Gen. 25:21

485H57 477 38 n

Midrash Tanhuma B 1, pp. 73 (Buber) 1? PP- 7 3 - 7 4 (Buber) ij pp. 7 5 - 7 6 (Buber)

236 235033 236

n

4 7 63

n I

549 4

21.1

24-4 3i-1 Midrash Sekel Tov on Genesis

487

19.3 22.7 23.5 Pdaneah on Exod. 6:1 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 2.343-44 4

23oni4 468 463113 29in2 378 492115,636017

7.11

542ml

11

291

27

472n27

127

56m2i

Pesiqta Rabbati

Midrash Tanhuma Lek Leka

691190

15 236 Midrash Tannaim (ed. Hoffmann)

3-iob

357H49

4.13a

69 6021141

4

4im68

6

16

469ms

6.23

632n8

103-4

502m 8

6.25a

599 36

186

376114

11

554ni7

192-204

4231187

1459

194

264n94

14.61

224

3971147

25.127b

29in3

26

69

Midrash Vayosha 2521163 Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Midrash Agur) 151 Nispahim Leseder Eliyahu %uta 44

492

n

572 636ni7

26.129

71

43.182a

492

47.190

247n 7 5

Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 467ni4

Numbers Rabbah

10.72-73

i6on33

11

606046

17

236

3-8 8 (end)

492115 444113

22

295012

9

485n6o

23

522

9.24

469, 472n27,474,

25

482, 4851157,

251062, 2641194,

485058,487, 487n62, 488n63

2401144,2421147, 2870152 n

2

10.3

468

26 30

379 i 244050

10.5

462 (ter), 462n2,

31

252064,2770127,

475n3i> 476n36

33

5321132

(bis), 477,

38

477H38,477n39> 478 (quater),

48

292

463, 463114 (bis),

3*41117,347H28, 384028 247057

j68

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer (continued) 48.21 52 53 Ruth Rabbah 2.1 (126a)

384028 6 n i

45 7,63208 4 7 2 4 > 631115 m

5.24

467ms

8 (beginning) 13 13-65 16.88

554^7 286ni5o 247n 7 71 5

Seder Eliyahu %uta 444n3 379 2 247n57 n I

Seder Ohm Rabbah 1

276ni22, 276ni23

12

357 Sijre Numbers 67

444113

Seder Eliyahu Rabbah

22.37 25 2.174

313 334.3

542

268 i5oni6,3441118 397*47 378n8

69

3221133,324

78

444113, 54i (bis) n

101 on Num. 12:3 Sijre Zuta

375 3 376114

75 Song of Songs Rabbah

444H3

I - I , no. 5 1.1, no. 9 1.1, no. 10 1.1, nos. i o - n

573 572 (bis) 574, 6061146 572

1.5

6021141

1.26

9ini6

3.6

3i6n20

3.9

6o7n48 56in2i

14

577HI5

4.4

20

56in20,6o5n45,

4.8

4im68

5-i

378 247n57

636m 7 2.21

287ni54

28.124

6541149

Sefer ha-Tashar 379ni2, 402n6o

5.22 7.9

6 3 5 m l , 640028

30.16

247n57

Tanhuma

51.20

3651163

3.68

147

3ogn8

on Num. 34

Exodus I 3 i b - i 3 2 b

3 8 2 ^ 3 , 382n25

Lek Leka 31 a

25gn81

Mikkez 100b

3651163

Vqyera 43b

267n99, 280

Vayeshev 82b

3641160 2341127

Shalshelet Haqqabala 402n6o Sifra Behuqotai

189^4

Sifra Qedoshim 1.10.87a

282ni4i

end

259n8o

Sijre Deuteronomy 17 27 32 43 109b 156 307-33

Tanhuma Ahare 1 9 Tanhuma Beshalah 12

472n27 457 472ni7

Tanhuma Emor

Sefer Tuhasin

1.1 (ed. Weiss nob)

457ni7 463^

4 Tanhuma Exodus 8 8.9 Tanhuma Ki Tissa

n 8

382n23 3 8 i n 2 i , 3841128

5

72

19

4281194

Tanhuma Lek Leka 5

493 469m 8 272ni09 264n94 19^38 502m 8 423 7

5051123

13

259n8i 273

Tanhuma Mikkez 4 Tanhuma Mishpatim

4831151

9 Tanhuma Naso

72

9

607

RABBINIC, MEDIEVAL JEWISH, SAMARITAN LITERATURE

Tanhuma Qedoshim 13

^

2471157

Tanhuma Re eh 14

291113

Tanhuma Shelah (ed. Buber) 27

477n38

1.145

487n62

1.161

467ni4

1.166

382n2i

1.765

467ni4

1.814

46gni8

921119

2.63

4 7

2.68

462,475H3

2.69

466nio, 466ni2,

Tanhuma Terumah 7

462

1.110

248

Tanhuma Shemot 54b

1.79

i54n2i, 6511143

Tanhuma Via era 171

4701120

Tanhuma Vayera 15a

2401144

Tanhuma Vayeshev 9 Tanhuma Vayikra 8 end

37

o n 6

9

3 1

4841153^ 4871162 4671115,472n27,

2.71

485,485^8

474,482 n i

2.165

554 7

2.491

46314

2.979

472n27

on E x o d u s 1.166

92m 9

on 1 K i n g s 18:26

69

Yalqut Exodus i6on33

Tanhuma Ve-ethanan 1

n 6

2.70 379m6

Tanhuma Vayehi 12

8

467ni4,483^1, 3821121

Tanhuma Vayaqhel 4

769

47in27

Tanhuma B

16.8

428n94

171

4281194

Yalqut ha-Makiri on Isaiah 111

46gn 18

Introduction, 157

572

on Ps. 1.86

47in24

1.in

639^1

on Ps. 2.31

466nio, 466m2

2.91-92

i 5 4 2 i , 65in43

on Ps. 2.68

47in24

2.122

379ni6

on Ps. 2.103

469ni8

3-45

532n3i

on Ps. 118.28

542n8

n

3-79

247n 7

4.33

697148

on E x o d . 11

2gin2

5.24

29in3

on G e n . 26:2.36c

237^6

P. 179

345H2I

Yashar. See Sefer ha-Yashar

5

Tanhuma B, Ahare 1

Yelammedenu 472n27

Tanhuma B, Exodus 33 7 Tanhuma B, Genesis 1

191

7i i59 32

on Psalm 78

247^7

ioon25

M e d i e v a l a n d R e n a i s s a n c e biblical c o m ­ m e n t a r i e s a n d other m e d i e v a l J e w i s h works

5211115

A b a r b a n e l , Isaac

472n27

Benjamin o f T u d e l a

on 1 K i n g s 9:11

Tanna de-vei Eliyahu Rabbah. See Seder Eliyahu Rabbah

74-76

n

593 3

2

636ni4

Bibago, A b r a h a m

Tanna de-vei Eliyahu %uta. S e e Seder Eliyahu £uta Yalqut Reuveni

Derek Emunah 46b

584 Yalqut (Shimoni)

402^9

n

Tanhuma B, Ve-ethanan 1

on Yalqut 1.738 on Yalqut 2.819

Tanhuma B Leviticus 82

Yalqut Reubeni

572

Ibn AH, Jepheth on D a n . 2:1

654149

770

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

Medieval and Renaissance biblical commentaries and other medieval Jewish works (continued) Ibn Ezra, Abraham on Dan. 1:3 632n6 on Deut. 1:1 169, 328 Ibn Hasdai, Abraham Ben ha-Melek ve-ha-Nazir 24 572n3 Josippon 403n6o 1.2 Kimhi

3241138

on Judg. 17:2 Maimonides Commentary on the Mishnah Sanhedrin, introduction to ch. 10 Mishneh Torah Teshuvah 3.8 Petahiah 7b Rashi on Berakot 61 a on Gen. 20:12

4821148

375n3 640026 636ni4 462 287ni53

on Gen. 21:9 on Gen. 37:10 on Judg. 17:2 on 1 Sam. 9:7 on Sotah 10a dei Rossi, Azariah Me or Einayim Shu'aib Va-liggash 21a Tosafot on Gittin 57b Zohar 1.112b

243048 354*45 482048 526 466m 2

69 29102 532n32 242047

Samaritan Literature Book of Asatir p. 2 9 - 3 0 7on92, 38oni6 9.13 38in20 Chronicon Samaritanum (ed. Juynboll) 26-32 450ml Memar Marqah i-2 4-7 5-4 6.6

397*47 397*47 397*47 397047

CHRISTIAN C H U R C H

FATHERS Hippolytus

Augustine Enarrationes in Psalmos

ap. Jerome, Epistles 36

On Ps. 80:14

J

(=Migne, PL 22.460)

n i

3 5 9

(=Corpus Irenaeus

Christianorum 39.1129, line 70)

Against Heresies

466ml

n i

4.21.2-3

3!5 9

Aquinas, Thomas Jerome

Contra Gentiles 3.64, Amplius, Eorum

Adversus Jovinianum

264^3

1.25 Chronicon 92.396

632n8

Commentaria in Ezechielem

Paschale

23.22 ff. (=PL 25.220;

636ni4

Corpus Christianorum 75.313, lines 1054-55)

Clement Of Alexandria 11.1

in Epistolam

255n67

ad Philemonem 752

Paedagogus 3.11.68.3

(=PL 26.645)

486n6o

46ml

On Dan. 1:3

Quis Dives Salvetur 10.1

473n27

Commentarii

Epistles

On Isaiah 39.7

I48ni3

632n8 631^

On Isaiah 43:27 1.135

247^7

Epistuk ad Eustochium

Ephraem Syrus

22.35 (=PL 22.421)

2870152

669

Liber Lnterpretationis Hebraicorum Nominum

Eusebius

50 (=PL 23.855; Corpus

Chronica (ed. Schone) 2.54 (=Griechische Christliche

Christianorum 72.101,

Schriftsteller 47.62a,

lines 23-24)

lines 1 6 - 1 9 ) Demonstratio Evangelica 6.18.34-42

{PL 28.1324-25) Vulgate on Gen. 19:14

72

Praeparatio Evangelica 4.12-13

466m 2

Preface to the Book of Chronicles

466ml

28411146

771

44 287ni52

772

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT WRITERS

Pseudo-Cyprian

Justin M a r t y r Dialogue with Trypho

De Montibus

8

1021129

31

630113

SinaetSion

1

ni

35 9

Pseudo-Epiphanius Lactantius

Vitae Prophetarum

629m

Institutiones Divinae 1.2.5

2621189

7.3

2641192,

Pseudo-Justin Cohortatio ad Gentiles

2641193 Origen

375

Sextus Julius Africanus

Adnotationes

ap. Eusebius,

in Judices 73 (PG 17.37) Commentaria

9

Praeparatio 469*17

Evangelica 10.10.23

(6.18)

227

in Evangelium Joannis 1.23

463

H o m i l y o n Ezek. 14:14 (PG 13.703-4)

Oratio ad Graecos ^32n8

37

De Haeresibus

Quaestiones et 466n 11

Responsiones 22

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2-5

616

Theodoret

Philastrius 8 (=PG 92.237)

Tatian

n

59 76

47on22

INSCRIPTIONS Inscriptions Lnscriptiones Graecae 22.2153 Augustus, Monumentum Ancyranum

AND

PAPYRI

10

108

Literary Papyri, London 30 British Museum inv. 271 By lands Papyrus 1.26

Papyri Acts of the Alexandrian Martyrs

458 3601154, 648

773

374-75*2 375*2 374*2 34

CLASSICAL G R E E K Achilles Tatius 1.4.2-5 5.11.6 5.14.2 Aeschines 2.172-76

Aeschylus Agamemnon 176-78 228-30 Choephoroe 613-22 653 Persians 465-70 Prometheus Bound 444 459 485 904 1034 Seven against Thebes 537 Aesop ap. Diogenes Laertius 1.3

A U T H O R S Alexander Polyhistor On the Jews

330041 37o 7! 370071

36, 54on7

n

ap. Clement, Stromata 1-21.130.3 ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev.

9-i9 293 9.20 293n7 ap. Plutarch, Parallela Graeca et Romana 40B (315EF) 404n6o ap. Suidas s.v. AXe^avapos 6

164

181 527

Mi&rjoios

185 542n8

Andocides 3.3-12

518

(Anonymous) Apolhnius of Tyre

5821122

374

164

86n6

587 100

Antipater of Tarsus 3.109

173 180

27imo7

Antiphon ap. Diogenes Laertius 8.3

542

23oni5

Antonius Diogenes ap. Porphyry, Vita Ppthagorae 275ni2i

"

Alexander of Lycopolis

349*34

Aphthonius ap. Spengel, vol. 2

Contra Manichaei Opiniones Disputatio 24

540

21-56

293

775

776

PASSAGES FROM ANCIENT W R I T E R S

Apion

Aristophanes Acharnians

ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.21-27

2571174

2.38

150

2.68

141

2.89-96

117

395 Clouds

542 1121138 374111 5451113 105

2.91-96

241

2.121

117

2.125

589

553-54 680 849 973 Frogs

2.135 2.148

97,346 117

480 Lysistrata

545 3

772-73 Thesmophoriazusae

2750121

226 Wasps

545 3

Apollodorus Bibliotheca 1.7.2

133 nI

n i

n i

1.7.4

9 5

1297-98

34 2,542n8

1.9.1

285

1307

34 2,542n8

1.9.1-2

285

m i

m i

1.9.28

352*140

Aristotle

2.4.1

1771122

De Divinatione per Somnum

2.4.7

4041160

3.12.5

1771122

3.15.8

4041160

ap. Eusebius, Pr. Ev. 9.19.2 9.19.2-3 9.19.3 ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2-79 2.145-50 2.148

ff.

359 52

464A20

ff.

359 52

55.1250B22-23 228,247 86,292-93

1.4.1095A16-20

270

1.7.1098A16-18

291

230 230 106,228,

Apollonius of Tyre Erotica

1.7.1098A19

226

2.7.1107B22

126

4.3.1123A33-1125A35

413,554

4.3.1123C34-25A17

97, 464, 465

4.3.1124A21-22

85 112

Poetics 2561172

Appian Civil War 430

9.1451A-B

6

9.1451B5-11

6

9.1451B10

4

9.1452A1-2

7

11.1452A22-B8

440

13.1453A7-17

179

15.1454A28-31

28111139

Politics

Archilochus 58

126

Mcomachean Ethics

4.4.1125B7-27

2.149

191

305,342ni4

543

43

n

De Generatione Animalium 775A De Vvrtutibus et Vitiis

Apollonius Molon

n

463B15

27511121

Archytas of Tarentum ap. Stobaeus

5.7.1307A1

499, 563, 6121152

8.2.1337B9-14

474

8.2.1337B21

474

Rhetoric

4.1.132

114

4.1.135-38

114

1.1.1355A21-24

104

4.5.61

114

1.9.1366B5-6

113

7118

C L A S S I C A L GREEK A U T H O R S

2.I5.I390BII-30 3.I4.7.I4I5A-B

ap. Diogenes Laertius

85 3811121

7.139

ap. Clearchus of Soli, De Somno, ap. Josephus, Ag.Ap.

620

ap. Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis 39.1052D

1.179

97, 237036

1.182

no, 112, 633-34,

62in7i

ap. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 2.40

621

644 Cleanthes Aristoxenus

ap. Cicero, DeNatura Deorum

fr. 13 (Wehrli)

2301115

1.14.37

620

ap. Stobaeus, Eclogues Arrian

1.112

Anabasis

438nio8

ap. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta

1.1-3

101113

1.26

430

1-527

194

Clearchus ap. Stobaeus, Eclogues

Bacchylides 13 (i2).i82-89

1.171

612051

!5.54-55

193

612^1 Conon

Battle of the Frogs 13

and

Narrationes

Mice 86

44

Berossus ap. Josephus, Ant. 1.158

115, 223-24,

9

o n i

5

Ctesias ap. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2.32.4 41

232 Damocritus Callisthenes

ap. Suidas

Phocian War

s.v. AaixoKpiros

117, 241

9 Democritus fr. 30

Gelsus ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.21

249 395-9

275m 21 611

6

Demosthenes Chaeremon

37-623

439

ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.290

342,347

1.299

342

Chariton 1.16-17

Dio Cassius 44.6.4

no

47.40

439

I

57- 8-5a 330

158,383 n

66.5 67.14

i59 3° J

59

Choerilus Dio Chrysostom

ap. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.172-75

106

Chrysippus ap. Cicero, DeNatura Deorum 1.15.39

620

Orations 1.12-13

434

n i 0

5

1.15-16

434

n i 0

5

1.21

434

n I 0

5

1.38

434

n i 0

5

777

77, 617

204

dAoyov, 476

(XSUTOV, 622 di)/) TT€7rXTjyix€vos, nXrjyf) depos,

dAai, 42, 43 (bis)

aTToSeitjeats, 614

dvaypa<j>als, 42

a7roSou, 319

dvadrffxa,

aTToAuop'TO?, 358

622

dvdfxvriaLv, 383

a7rovoiav, 531

dva^vqais,

d7roya>s, I43n5

383

dvopayadia,

406, 465

dvSpayadiag,

107

dvSpcia, 109, 127, 421, 497, 541, 544, 545, 548 M, dvhpeia,

diropa

p,iv yiverai

diropa

TTopi/AOS, 173

diropias,

388, 586

556,564

diropov,

5 1 6 , 547, 577

aTTOOTjuaivaiv,

587 167

dvSpciav,

109, 412

dirpdyiAOva, 389

dvSpelos,

109, 521, 548

dnpagias,

avSpetorarov, dvopciov,

388

aTTpoaderj, 621

108

d77/>oaSe77?, 620, 6211171

523

dvcKpayov,

r d nopi/Aa, 172

dirreadai

500

jSouAeu/zdraw, 1731118

dv€7riKXr]TOL, 467

aTTTOfxaL, 259

dverXr), 172

aTTTio, 2591179

avi}/», 396

a p y o s , 547

di>77/>7raa€v, 600

dp€OK€odai,

dvdpa)7rivr)s . . . vo€a>s, 529

dperd?, 270

dvOpumivov,

dpe-nj, 112, 127 (Aw), 226 (for), 269, 378 (Aw), 399,

1181146

dviouaav, 621

421, 465, 469, 548, 564

dvorjTOv, 503

T

a/* ??> 377

dvo^TOj, 97, 464

dp€T^v, 1 0 3 , 1 6 8 , 224 (Aw), 226, 231, 296, 347,

dvofxia, 140

356, 377 (to), 3 8 7 , 4 1 4 , 4 2 5 , 5 7 7 , 604

dvTTjTTaTa, 464 dvTLT€xvdoaodai,

dp€TI7?, 138, 224, 331, 378, 3 9 8 , 4 2 4 , 4 8 8 , 5 9 1 308

dpLOTOKpariav,

a£av, 600 d^ias,

dpiGTOv,

602

apiOTOS,

d^t/c€T€uciv, 173m 8

apioros

d|ia>/xa, 226, 608

doi8ifxov, 551

471

dp^aioAoyiav, 37 dp^aioAoyos, 10

a7rd0eia, 193, 271 (fer), 666

dpxouorrjs,

184, 193, 270 (Aw), 271 271

dp^i) fxeyiarrj TWV i v dvdpwnois ra Xiav dyaOd,

aTTavdpwnoi, 119, 615

dirdvdpa)TTOS, 119

a7raTec(iva, 374 diraTrjv, 614 dir€^>aiv€, 231 a7rcxo/xcvoi, 643

265095

dpxih€ap.ofj>vXa^, 3711172

diTavdpumov riva, 117 diravdpoiTTOV Tiva Kal /XLOO^CVOV,

84

<W?> 5 5 °

d7ra0ijs, 193 (Aw), 271 (fay)

drrAaaTO?, 314

291 . . . pwiirj, 547

dpxaioAoyia, io(quinquiens), 111115, 84, 85

doiSifjios, 5 5 2 m 6

dnadrj KaKOV,

144

516

dpnaadp,€vos,

d^tcojLta T17S pLops, 418

jScu/Ltos, 622

doTTaodjxevos,

322

daTaaiaarov,

392

401

yajxfipovs,

doTeiov,

384

yavpos,

doreios,

99, 306114, 3101111

ycyovws,

28711151

385 45 (bis)

davp.<j>vXov, 117

yeycjvorcpov,

439

doa\€OT€pav, 534

yeiTviwvTtov,

242

fl.Tr),

yeXwra,

612

248

drrj, 528

yeXcjTa TiOcoOai,

droirov,

517

yev€L, 87

avddSr),

524

180, 238, 244

y€V€<J€U)S, 283, 527

avdaSiav,

180 (Aw)

yewaiov,

avrdpK-q,

621

ycvyafov . . . T O (fypovrjfjia,

avrapK-qs,

226, 236, 278, 295, 523, 610

avT€£oucriov, 148, I 4 8 n i 3 , 433, 435

yevojxeva,

avTOfiaTiaixw,

yeyos, 228, 325

640

58, 447

avTOjxdrov,

301

ycuaov, 318027

avTOiidrats,

192, 3011120, 423, 427 (Aw), 640

y»7/>'. . . Xnrapto, 618 yrjpai . . . Xinapcp, 618

auTOV, 248 daviaai, 265

yrjpas, 618

dfeXeodai,

yrjpas . . . Xmapov,

274

618

dpo8iaio)v, 625

yy\poKO[LT]Oovoiv,

d<j>p6vTi<JTOV, 192, 640

y-qpoKopLias, 2800137

d<j>poovvq, H i , 113, 550, 551

yripoKOfAOLO, 280

dpoavvr)s, 314

yrjpoKOfiov, 280, 302

dV€OTaTOVS, 228

yr)s" a/capma, 580

dxOdfjLcvos,

yifc

298, 312

tyopiq,

yvrjolov,

dipvxv, 642, 643

yvcofiji,

261

yvwpifioi,

paadvov,

yor/ra, 374

503

yor)T€iav,

244

flaoKaivovTas, (iaoKaivovai,

579

582

jSapeia? ef^o?, ^43

^aoiXi^ovoa,

280

y v ^ a i o v , 261

259

fiaoKavia,

296

yevvai(x)S, 278, 295, 522

6211170

dxpavTos,

539

429

yopyds, 542, 54209

199

y w a i K e i a s , 190

201

yvvaiKtlas

644

fiovXds,

191

jSaa/cavias, 201

ywai/cciov, 190036 (fo?), 191, 371

fiaoKavov,

yvvaiK€LO)v . . . KOv<j>oXoyipov /cat avverov, y w i y , 189032

^Xaaycoi>, 147

8iKaioovvr)s,

orjixiovpyel, 179

8IKCLIOV,

Srjfxiovpyov, 262

Si/caiou?, 611

8^/xioupyd?, 179, 262n87 (Aw), 327, 37707

Si/caia>, 556, 5 5 (to), 591

Sij^iois, 104033

8iKaitos, 500, 556, 591

Siy/noi? d/ziAeiv TndavcoTaros,

400055

145, 224, 310, 502

116, 190, 419, 594 8

8iKrj, 113, 156, 611, 612, 612051

0-qp.oaia, 225

SoAepdv, 464

8r)fJLOTLKO)T€pOV, 4*3

BoXepcbrepov, 191, 480

Sialatvos,

SoAicoTaros, 156

324

8L €vy€veiav iirufxivovs, 87

So£d£cTai, 224

81 VTT€pfioAr)v €vvias, 633

Sd£av, 224, 231, 377, 464, 521 (Aw), 578, 603

Sid r>)v irarpcoav dpeTrjv, 87

86£r)s, 522

Sid

TIVO?

8ovXevaei, 316

Sid

TOUTO,

€xav, 8011 203054

SouAof . . . (frpovrjfxa, 144

Sid fax^s dperrjv, 313

SpaTreVai, 553

Sia^oAri, 531, 556

Swd/xeco?, 262

SiaSo^, 226

Suva/xiv, 236, 429

8ia8oxjj, 243

8vvapLLS, 237035

SiaSpo/zdv, 600

Swards', 51204

8iadr)Kr), 154

8voap€OTOV,

8ia9riKr)v, 154022

8VOKOXOV,

S i W a , n o , 112 (fer), 486, 634 (fer), 644, 644033

8vOpL€VCl>S, 242

Siairav, 137, 472, 486, 505021, 647

Avovopiir), 612

SiaiVas, 498

8vox€prjs, 580

SiaiVfl, 112, 472, 634, 644

8top€ats, 356

BiaKoapcqaas, 4 9 6

8cdpoV,

8iaKoapLrjaovai

146, 386 503, 580, 581

622

409

}

Sia/Liaprias, 321

ifidoTatjev,

Sidvoia, 543 (Aw), 581

efiovXevoaro,

Siavoia, 97

ifipdfevev,

Sidvoiav, 97, 99, 514, 579, 581, 625 (Aw)

'EftpaiKcov . . . ypapLfxaTcov, 25

Siavoia?, 144, 146

iycXaae,

8ia7T€7Tovrjix€vr)v, 586

cy/cpdreiai, 412070

8lOL'TTp€TTTjS 592, 607

iyKpdrciav,

Sia7TTuaaa>v, 231, 231019

eSeSici, 238

t

470 156

499 248 112, 525 (Aw)

8iaaarjaavTas, 46

eSei, 195, 474

Sidra^iv T O U 7roXiT€vixaTOS, 140

cSouAeuev, 612

8ia€pov, 463

cSouAou, 144

GREEK,

edeOl,

LATIN, AND

HEBREW AND

ARAMAIC

ep.<j>vXos GTaois,

edvos,

efxiai/, 252, 262, 270, 2800138 (Aw), 307,

€7TLTr)8evp.aTa, 91 €7TLTp€lpaVTOS, 2C)6

576, 619

607, 619 euSat/u-ovias, 307 (Aw), 326, 619 (Aw)

€7TlTVXOVTaS, 541

euSai/zdvcos, 226, 2800138 (Aw), 302

€7TL(f)dv€ia $€OV, 62HI73

eueiSeaTciTous, 91

€TTl(LV€iaS, 621

evcpyeotas,

€7TlaV€LS, 307

euepycTeiv, 419080

€7n<j>av€OTepav, 231

evepyeT-qdeioai,

tTTKfcavrjs, 4751130

euepycT^aavros:, 553

€7TOL€L, 5I5

evdeia,

€7TOir)0€V, 165

€vdvp,iav,

epa, 478

euflvs, 248, 552, 564

epaodeis,

261, 481

555

478 635

cuAoyia, 622

ipyaoLdLS,

605

ei5^evi7, 437

epL^ovoai,

320

€vp.opia, 463

v

419

€vp,opiais, 631

2?pis, 612

€pp,r)V€ia, 46

cvp.op^iav,

€pp,r)V€iav, 46 (bis)

€vp,opias, 92, 384

€pp,r)V€Las, 46

cvvoia,

ippL-qvevaai,

€uvoiai>, 296, 414, 517, 613

45

€pp,r)V€VTr)S, 46

n

259, 345, 5 9 9 3 7 ,

6 o

9

555, 5 6 6

e w o i a s , 481

epixrjvevco, 45, 46

e w o / z i a , 4 9 9 , 563, 6 1 1 , 612, 612051

epcos, 271, 312, 331

evvofAiav, 499, 611

GREEK, LATIN, A N D HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC W O R D S

Evvop.LT), 612, 6121152 evvofiirj, 612 Evvofxirjv TC AiKt]v re Kal Elprjvrjv, 6 l l evvovs, 546 eimouav, 419 ewrpayiais, 181, 224 €V7rp€7T€tq, 92 €V7Tp€TT€S, 608 evoefiei, 556, 594 eiWfcia, 127, 1271155, 310, 421, 424, 541, 544, 548, 55°> 556 (bis), 593 euae/Seia, 128, 452, 526, 577, 600 euae'/feiav, 128, 421 (bis), 422, 599 euacjSeias, 128, 526, 594 (bis), 595 (bis) evoefiets, 611 evoefsr), 593 evoeffis, 124, 556, 577014, 593 (Aw) evoefHrjs tov Kal Si/caio? /cat dvSpeios, 576 ei5aej3a>s, 556, 593 €VOTOXS, 561 evraKTOv TCOV ovpavicov KLvrjaiv, 262n88 evra^ia, 194, 262 €vroA/Ltta, 545 €VTOVC0T€pC0V, 643 curu^tav, 181 €v<j>r)p.ias, 522 €Vvias, 641 euxapianyaas, 4 6 eui/ru^ia, 548 evi/tvxoi, 309, 523 €VlftVXOS, 108, 109 euojxta, 357 eua>xiais, 409 ec^auAiaaaa, 480 €avXioev, 318 €, 202052, 588 ^ A a > T O S , 588

817

rfyavaKTrjoe, 547 rjycp.ova, 401 ijyc/xdva /cat ovp.fiovXov, 423 r)yep.ovia, 326 r)y€p.oviav, 299 r)y€p,ovias, 226, 243 r)yep.cov, 107, 401 (Aw), 401058 r)yv6rjO€v dyvoiav p,€ydXr)v, 527023 iJSecos, 331 iJSovdj, 616059 17S0V17, 137 dAdyiaros, 137 r)8ovrj TOV /cepSaiveiv, 143 17S0V17V, 137 IJSOVT/S, 143 17S0V6OV, 137 ^0ei 7roAAd>v yvvaiKtov 8ta, 1 0 6 , /xeydAai fxcydXcov evSaipLoviai,

312 570

270

KdTdp6vr)oiv, 531 KdTdpovu>v, 405 KdreSeiae,

534

139

GREEK,

Kareixe

LATIN, A N D HEBREW A N D ARAMAIC

T O TrXrjdos, 4 4 6

KaTevtoxrjoas,

WORDS

819

Aoyi^d/Ltcvos, 527 Aoyiov, 433

555

Aoyia/Ltoi?, 348, 6161159

KarrJKOOV, 551 KaT7)(j>r]s, 371

AoyioTxdv, 9 8 , 137, 348, 3481132, 353

KOLTOIKCIV, 326

AoyioTxds, 97, 971123, 98, n o , 347 (Aw), 3481130

KaTOiKrjaiv, 154

Aoyia/xoiJ, 617

K€Kivrjdai,

Aoyia/Ltai, 9 8 , 271, 296, 348 (Aw), 350, 5271124, 586

642

K€KpaTr)K€VCLl, 297

AoyicoTaVous, 351

/ceAcuaavTO?, 26911105

Xoyoypdoi, 58

Krevous, 231

Adyov, 99, 464

KCVTpOLS, 137

Adyo?, 212

K€XQ-pi>op>€vr)V, 28411144

Adyou 7ravTds . . . p,€i£,ov, 597

K€Xdpiop.4vov,

Adyous aiViy/xaToSSei?, 5 8 6

308 (Aw)

K€xa.piop>€vcos, 350

Adyous Trpoo(f>€povor}S rrepl piitjccos, 3691166

K€XVp.€VOV, 6191164

Adyw, 515

K€XVp.€VOS, 560

Aoi/xoV, 5791119

KrjSepLova, 280, 302 (Aw)

Xvrrrjs, 520

Krj8€p.6vos, 302 (Aw), 388 KlfitoTOS, 133

p.a0rjoecos, 306114

tfAea dVSpojv, 545, 551

p.aKpdv OVK d€OTr)Kas, 620

/cAeos, 545 KXCOS

p.avicbhr)s, 475

doihip.ov,

Kopivdicos,

p.avia>8rjs VTT epcoTOS, 475, 6251178

551

622

p.dvr€LS, I O O

KOOfXLorrjra, 368

p.dvTLS, 377117 (quater), 622

Koop.ov, 392, 421

p,dx€odai, 5 4 6

KOOpLOTToXlTTjS, 194, 437

/xeya povtbv, 107

KOOpiOV, I44

p.eydXrjv r)y€p.oviav, 226

KovoXoyiq yvvaiKeicp,

1911138

pbcyaXoyvcopioovvrj, 418

Kov^OTrjTd, 191

p.€yaXo7Tp€irtos, 596, 602

KpOLTCLV TOV TTO.QoVS, 352

/LteyaAoToA/xoi, 523

Kpdros, 325

pi€yaX6roXp.os,

Kpioiv, 336113

p,€yaXovpyr)p,a, 432

108, 109

Kpva . . . €K8papL€tv, 523

p,eyaX6(f>povos, 5221116

KTTjOLS, 394

pL€yaXopoovvrj, 126

Kvap.os, 642

pL€yaXopoovvrjv, 593

KvfiepvrjTtdv, 635

p.€yaX6<j>ptov, 465

/CWIKOS,

197

p^yaXoifivxia,

127, 421, 554, 5541118, 555 (Aw)

pLeyaXoiffvxicis, 126 XapLTTpfj OTTOVofj, 6 4 I

/ixeyaAd«/»uxos, 85, 97, 413, 464, 465, 473

Xap.Trp6v, 5 1 6 , 551

/xeydAa>, 92, 475

Aa/xTrpo's, 555

/xcydAcov €7ndvp,r)Tr)s irpaypLarcov, 140

Xapnrporepov, 5 6 4

p.eyas, 223

XapLrrpcos, 522, 602

//.eyas Kal KaXos, 607

Aads, 622

/xeye'flei, 92, 606

XdpvaKa, 133

p.€yedos,

XipLCOTTCOV, 318

p.€y4Bovs, 92, 384

Ai7rapdv, 618

/xeSidaai, 248

AiTrapds, 619

piedeppirjvevKa, 45

92, 529, 570, 609

Xirrapcp . . . yrjpai, 6 1 8

p,€0€pp,r)vevoai, 45

Xnrapcos, 503

pLeOeppcqvevo), 44, 45 (fer)

Xnrapcos yrjpdoKeiv, 618

p,€0€oxr)Kcos, 45 (Aw)

820

GREEK, LATIN, AND

p,€i8iaodor)s,

HEBREW AND

ARAMAIC

p,opds, 92, 307

248

p.€ipaKiov, 577, 625

juo/0^17, 384

p.er aKpifieias,

p,opfj . . . deiov,

20

384

p.opfj re deiov, 92

p.€T oXiyov, 211 jLterd oo<j>ias, 308

p.opr)v apioros,

p.€TOL &apacb,

p.oprjs, 91

150, 3441118

/LterajSdAAco, 46

92

pLVCOTTlCopLeVOS, 137 p.copia, 257 (Aw)

p.€raypdai, 45 p.€TaKoop.rjo€iv, p.€rdvoia,

WORDS

Mcopiov,

230

8, 127053

257

pLCjpOS, 586

pL€TapdCeLV, 45 (Aw) vcavia, 342

pLeraifypd^co, 45

veavia, 213

pL€Ta<j>pdoas, 19 p.€Tapaoiv . . . ovyxcoprjreov,

45

veavioKos,

342, 542

p,€Tdpaois, 45

vcos, 341

p.€T€lOl, 477

veorrfros,

p.€TpiOl,

veou T17V i^Ai/aav, 577

53I

623

/xer/nos, 353, 551

V€C0T€piO€l€,

p.€TpiOTrjS,

v€C0T€piarT]s,

550

4360IO7

vecorcpoLS,

p.€TpiCx)S, 551

140

458

JLIT) pLvrjoiKCLKrjoai, 619

vecorepcov . . . eVeflu/xei rrpayp.drcov,

/A17 oraoid^eiv,

viymov, 244 (Aw)

pLTjSev dyav,

563 109

vrjTTLoriqTa, 383

pirjBev dpyov pLTjSe pd.dvp.ov, 144052

vqiriorrfros,

p.r)8ev exovras

viKaia,

dXrjdes, 231

ptrjSev p.vr)oiKaKr)o€iv, 619

330

439

vi/cafov, 438

pLTjSeV VOpcbpL€VOV, 589

vi/caios, 439

pLTJVLV, 47I

iW/07, 439

pLTJVLS, 471025

vorjOeioiv,

pL7jVVa€L€V, 477

vorjoai, 99, 228, 398048, 446, 544

pLrjxavdrai,

vorjoai re /cat eiVefv, 99

puapas,

265

398

vorjoai re Kal ovviSeiv,

143

140

99

vop.ip.a, 66, 242

pLiapots, 143

v6p.ip.ov, 2840144

piiapov, 143 pbiapwraroi,

143 (Aw)

vopioOeoia,

paapcbrepov,

143

vopLodereat, 399051

399051

piLKpoi, 471

vop.o6€Trj, 95, 394

pLLKpoXoyovs, 241

vop.od€Tr)s, 98, 399, 399052, 437

p.lKpOV, 3O9

vop.01, 42

pLLKporepov, 63003

vopuos, 1 7 2 , 1 9 4 (Aw), 242, 4 0 0 , 4 3 7 (Aw)

puKpoifivxla,

vop.ovs, 42

525

p.ioavdpcorrovs, 117

voptatv, 144

puoeiv,

vdaois, 580

200

piioo^evoi,

246

vdaos, 580

p.io6£evov,

117

vdaw, 579

pLtaog, 403, 644

vow uyo), 579

p.vqp.r]v, 248, 521

vovs, 582

p.vr\p.r)v aicbviov, 522

vovs dpTji /cat vou? d/couei, 620069

p.vr)orrjp€S, 287

vvpufrooToXco, 480

piovoyevrj,

vw, 651043

p.6vos,

622

267

^

394

GREEK, LATIN, AND

£av0ds, 317, 3171125 {bis), 542 (bis), 5421110, 543, 5 4 3 m 2, 568

HEBREW

AND

ARAMAIC WORDS

821

O V K €is r u x o v r a , 535 ou/c ^ e A c v , 332

£eviav,

240

oi5/c

gevias,

555

ouAos dpa, ouAos Se voei ouAos Se T ' d/cou€i,

£eVtos, 122

OKVOUVTCOV,

519

620069

jjcvos, 122 (bis), 240

ovpdviov

Kal deiov cpcora, 53

ov^ d Tt>xd>v dV^p, 375 6 dvetjeraoTos

jSios ou jSicurds dvdpcoTrcp, 584

ou^ OVTCOS rjiraTrjoev TOV Tcoar)^) aAArj yvvrj, 486060

oi depfJLorepoi, 112 oi 'IovSaicov rvpavvoi,

o^Aov, 146

122

018a, 582

o^Aov dAAcos, 147

OLKOVpLCVT), 187

d^Aos, 146 (bis), 147 (bis), 147011 (bis), 147012 (bis),

0?KTOS,

191, 408

566

o^Aos . . • dAAa»s, 147

OLKTCp, 529 olp,ai,

dxAou, 147012

209

ofds T * ^ V dijtaodai,

d^Acov, 146, 14608, 147 (bis)

259

of? aV €vp.€vr)s fi, 273

oj/»eis, 212, 237

olorpos,

oif/ecov, 632

539

dAodv . . . yrjpas,

280

dAoai €7ri yiypaos ouSai, 184, 268

irddei,

opuArjoat,

rrdde 1 p.ddos, 181

400

opuACas, 246

137

Tradeiv, 354

opuAos, 146

irddr), 352042

djLtiAowTO?, 481

rrddos, 352, 352042, 353

opiovoiav,

Trddovs, i37> 352, 352n42, 367, 3

421

6p.6vAot, 563 6p.ovAovs, 122, 140 dvoov vfipiOTorcpos, dVajs rdyiara,

6 8

,47

6

7raiSa, 342013 7raiSaycoyois, 72 513

iraihapiov,

588

2760124, 341

TratSeia, 95 Traioeiais,

465, 4 7 l 558 5

383026

dpy*/?, 471, 472, 535

7raioViav . . . iAevdepiov,

opyiadeis,

TraiSevdevres,

406, 535

346

95, 394

7raiSiais, 383026

dp/xTJv, 137, 348 6pp,rjais, 545

7raiSds, 2760124

OppLLOOlV, 9

TraUiv, 341012, 54208

o? 7rdvT iopqs Kal Travr eVa/couets, 620

•n-at^eis, 524

os r d r e KpvTrra -rravra iopq Kal TCOV

Trats, 318, 341 (bis), 341012, 342 (bis), 541, 542, 54208, 549 (bis)

oiycopbcvcov d/couei, 620069 oaicos,

Travr)yvpiv, 479 (bis)

500

daov rdxi>oB\ 588

Travr)yvpis, 479

SoTrpia, 642030

77-avrds altovos,

oVetSov aurdv, 467013

Trap r)p.iv Traiheiav, 14

o n rdxiora,

7rapd

588

TrapdfioAos Kal a-rnoros, 545

20

oi5 7Tpoodr)o€T€ . . . OVK dfeAeire,

481

irapa tcov elSorcov Trvvdavop.€vov, 11017

ov y a p Aavfldvouaiv avrov, 464 oi5 7roAw TT;S dArjdclas,

7TOTOV,

327

42

ouSeV TrporjodrjpLcvcp, 332

Trapdho^ov, 347 TrapaKoAei, 478

ouSeV Trpoodcls ovb* av TrapaAnrcov, 37

irapaKoAovdeco, 11017

Our/Aos, 498016

irapavopLia, 115

O U K daK07ra)s, 308

Trapavop.lav, 142

ov/c dawercos,

irapavopLias, 142, 204

308

822

GREEK,

LATIN, AND

HEBREW AND

ARAMAIC

WORDS

Trapdvofxos, 141, 563024

niBavos,

TrapavopLCorepoL, 559

iriBavcoraros,

TrapavopLcoTcpois, 141

7n6ava>repa,

TTapovnepmLo, 3521140

TTtdavdirepos, 104, 105

7rap€7r€p.7T€, 352

7TLOTLV, 360

napexdpaooev,

228

-rrXeove^ia, 203 (quater), 204 (quater), 550 (to), 644

4 9 , 137, 486

TraprjKoXovOrjKOTa rots yeyovooLV,

111117

7T\€OV€$Lq, 203, 204 (to)

Traprjvei, 349

TrXeove&ais,

7rapr)T€Lro,

irXeoveiiav,

634

napBevoi,

104, 104033, 105 105

204 204

7rA€ove£ia?, 203 (ter), 204, 500

564

TTapo£vv0€is, 472

-rrXrjBeL, 236

7rapopp.cdvra, 391

nXrjBos, 503, 608

napprjaiav,

449

t t A o u t o v , 578

7rappr)(jias,

504

7rAouTa>, 307, 576

7rdaxcL, 28

noBeivorepov,

iraripcov,

2961115

7TOLCCO, 165

7rarpiSos,

325

TrdAeis, 265, 399

irarpos

564

TTo\lT€ia, 399, 437

lXov, 247

77-auAav, 1541122

TToXireiav, 139

TT€iOapxta-v, 527

TToXireias, 144

TTClBot, 4 I 2 n 7 l , 577

7ToAlT€ia? KOOpLOV, 436

7T610CO, IO4, 496, 4 9 6 n i 5 , 54I, 544, 55O, 55I, 563

7ToAAd, 647

7T€LO0€is, 139

7ToAA^, 520

7T€7TLOT€Vpi€VOS, 638

7roAA^v, 499

7T€7TVVp.€VOS', IO3

7roAAi7V . . . evvopiiav,

7T€7TpCOpL€VrjV, I96

7toAAt)v c ^ o v KardpiepafjLV,

7T€TTpCOpL€Vr)S, I96 (to)

7roAAi7?, 299

7T€7TpCOpL€VOV, 195, 196

527

iToXvapxio-, 141

77epi dpxouoTrjTOs lovSaicov, 7T€/n 0eov /cat T T ; ? ovoias

499

84

avrov,

TToXvirpaypLOvelv, 417 263

TToXxmpaypLovovoa, 248

7T€/Dl piltjeCOS X6yOVS 7TpOO€o8pcos ovvexvdrj, 618

irXeov, 606

(JXeSoV, 39

611 ordctLS

(jwiSetv, 99, 544

OTiXflei aroLXctcov,

ocbp.aros, 345

584

arparevaas,

aaiTTJp, 337

498

arpaTrjyeco,

401

arpar-qyta,

401

OTpaTrjyov,

107, 401, 408,

410

ocopov€iv, no, i n , 225, 238, 413 ocopovrjoavTas, 413 ococfrpovrjociv, n o (to), 413

406

ocbpovi Xoyiopicp, 181

448

auyycvcov, 229

oaxfrpovi^opLCVOv, i n ocopovovoav, 238, 244 ocopovcos, 589 OCOpOVCOOLV, l 8 l

OVyK€XVpL€V7], 371

ocopoovvr), no, 113, 347029, 412070, 472, 550

arpar-nyov

KOI -qyep.ova,

arparrvyos,

107 (to), 401,

arpar-qyov, arparco,

409 410

ovp.fSa.Xcbv, 242

(to), 617060

ovpL^e^rjKos, 646

OC0p0OVV7), 412070, 413

ovp.p,ax(.a, 560019

oco<j>poovvy)v, 96, 112, 113, 368, 472, 525 (to), 633 acopoavvr)s, 353, 412 ocb(/)pcov, I I I , 521, 550 (to)

aujLt/xaxos, 127053, 560, 560019

OVpLTTOOlOV, 474, 475 ovp.opq, 475 ovp,<j)0pais, 180

rd

rroai /ca/cd, 173018

r d /x€v ouv aKpcPrj TCOV iv rats dvaypacfrais, 37

OVp.<j)Vp6p.€V0V, 245

rd ovpdvia epLTtcipos, 224, 232

ovp.VTa, 597 ovp.(f)coviav, 96, 421

r d Tiarpia . . . €#77, 50

OVV8L€TTCOV,

r d ovpunavTa

150,

344

r d rrXeiova TOV poveiv, 399 Tev^eraL, 379

OVVCpTJ, 258

r d rd>v lov8aicov rjOrj, 159

ovveftovXcve, 348

TaXamcbpcos, 255

ovvcpyoLS,

rd£cu, 163

173

ovvepyovoL, 262

r d ^ i s , 163 (to)

o W a c i , 98, 101, 347027, 349, 361, 397, 587

Tapaxai, 563024

o W a c a j s , 99, 347, 350, 398, 398048 auvcaiv, 347027

Tapaxais, 612 Tapax^vTi, 371 Tapaxtf, 141

a w c a i v LKavcbraros, 98, 351

ra/>axT7v, 535

ovv€0€co$ cov ivSerjs, 99

GREEK, LATIN, A N DHEBREW A N D ARAMAIC W O R D S

kpmovr\oai

rapaxqv rapaxfjs,

Kal dopvfiov, 523

472

rapaxdevTOs,

558

TOW pLcrd TOVTCOV

T O V evoe^rj fipocov, 5 9 4 TOT6, 5 6 6 dvaypads,

T O U SiKaiov, 115

42

T O V eOvovs 7TpeofivT€pcov, 6 9

TOVTCO, 163 ravra

p,a9ovoa,

Tax€is,

ToApuqpov, 610 ToApLTJpOS, 548

141 (bis), 392

rapa\B4vTas,

T O V KeAeuovros, 194, 262

474

€(

TOO XP *>V,

588

TOUS

ra vs,

Tp€7T€TaL,

587, 588 581

r€Kp,rjpicov

laxvpcov,

t

Tpvav, 14305

306114

. . . rrjs p.€Taf3o\rjs,

TCpaOTLOV, TCptffLV,

rpvav dnovcos

TpV<j}€pOLS,

520

otdyovTas,

439

I I I , 137, I44

Tpi^T}, I37

432

Tpi^T/V, I43O5, I44, 498

614

T€ToXp,7]p,€VC0V,

TpV7JS, 143, 144

467

rrj Siavoia T€TVXcop.€vcov,

581

T))v SiaTGL^lV TOV 7To\lT€Vp.CLTOS,

TvpavvLKcos,

IO

147, 433

Tupavvov, 389

TT)V t a ^ w * a i TT)V jSiav, 108

Tvpavvos, 582

TT)V d0iv oi5/c cvTrpenrj, 331

TVpaWCOV . . . TpOTTCp, 434

rr/s" dpioro K par las, 145, 502

™X1> *99 Tux*/?, 619 TOO SrjpLcp, 104

T17? jSaaiAeias d£ico/xa, 5321132 T7/s OAT;? ovoias, 327 7-779 . . . TCOV iravripcov

depaTTCias, 296

TCO pieyedci

TOV ocbp.aTOS,

Ti/xdj, 272

rat 7rXrjd€i, 104

T I / X T / , 641

TCO XP ^ > 9 5

TIVO?,

avTOV,

TpOT\V 318

614

TcAcidrr/TO?, 290, 306114 TCXOS

dvyarepas

Tpoi;

93

J

377

TCOV

Seivcov

KaTa<j>povTjTai,

523

424

TCOV

Seivcov

KaTapovr)Trjs,

109

TAr/ttcATyaavTC?, 363

TCOV inixcopicov idiopLcov, 50

T\r)p,ov€OTdTr),

TCOV

172

€i5 yeyovoVcov, 87

T O . . . d/cpijSe? TT}? l o T o p i a s , 58

TCOV Upcov ypaptpiaTcov,

T O dvSpeiov, 408

TCOV

T O €7TLp.aves els Ta? yuvaiWas, 2591180

TCOV oXcOV,

TO €V7Tp€7T€S, 413

TCOV SxXcov, 146

43

/caAcov, 522

TO 061OV, I96, 327 (Aw), 638n20

TCOV rradcov

TO 7rA7/0O? KOLTCIXOV, 4 4 6

TCOV

262

avroKparcop,

n o , 412

TToAAcOV, 4I3

T O T C p6vr]p.a Kal TT)V Sidvoiav, 9 9 T O TT/S" *l>VxfjS • • • /cdAAo?, 541

i5/8pi£d/x€vo?, 1 8 1 , 4 7 5

T O povr)p,a

ujSpiv, 181, 238, 246, 472

€ V

T O XP ° >

j

yevvaios,

108

1

77J 961148

uftns, 1 4 4 , 1 8 0 , 2 4 4 , 4 7 5 (Aw), 547, 666

T O x p c ^ v , 1 7 7 , 1 9 5 (oeft^w), 1951145 (Aw), 196 (ter)

vfipis . . . * a i KaTa^povrjOLV, 180

ToiavTTjv o v v o v o i a v , 481

ujSpiaai, 180

T o i a u T T / j , 558

vjipioOeir), 181

TOl? aKpOCOpLCVOLS, 228

i3/SpiaTai, 181, 264

roi? AoyicoTaTOi?, 231

vfiptOTas,

Tofs TTOAAOIS', 104

«V"?> 579, 5 9

180

2

ToA/xa, 5 4 9 (Aw), 558

uy«7?> 5 5 uiois, 325

ToA/xav, 531

U/XVOl, 562

TOKOIOL

825

T€ dyovots

yuvai/ccov, 580

1

28711151

826

GREEK, LATIN, AND

HEBREW

V7T€p€^€l, 316 vncp^ydna,

AND

ARAMAIC

WORDS

iXoooias, 45

267,

iX6ooos, 98, 398

301

virepoTTTas, 180

lX0O00VVT0S, 3481I3I

VTT€ppOVOVVT€S , 264

tXooTopyia, 270

tmeTidero,

lXoT€XVV> 598

348

VTT7)p€Tr), 4 I 3 , 423

iXoTip.iq, 596

{mo

<j>lXoTipiOS, 587

OTpaTTjycp,

413

V7T6 TOV nddovs,

lXoTip.OVp,€VCOV, 464

367

WTO TOV TToXXoV

TTV€Vp.aTOS

£XaVv6pL€VOS, 528

iXopovrjodp.€vos, 123, 555

V7TOpi€V€LV, 351

(f>iXop6vcos, 555

VTTOp.€V€LV, 351

lXT C0V I39, 283, 527

VTTOp.OVX] 3 5 I

iXcov, 242

wrovoiav,

(fyo^epoi, 410

P

t

476

t

V7T07TT€VO7]S, 535

o^€p6v . . . ixQpois, 308

xmooTpajT-qyoi,

fofiepos,

423

n

475 3°

VOpcbpL€VOS, 464

6f3ov, 238

v^Xov,

ofiovpi€VOL TOV deOV, l 6 o

avTaoiav, 603

pov€iv . . . beivov, 97, 174, 228119

(/>dvTaop.a, 213 (to), 475, 4751129

pOV€lV lOXVpOS, 99, 464

^avrdattara, 212, 328

pov€iv p.€it,ov, 174, 228

avXoTaTOS, 374

pOV€LTCO p.€lt,0V, I74, 228niO