The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Harvard Dissertations in Religion)

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW HARVARD DISSERTATIONS IN RELIGION edited

by

Caroline Bynum and George Rupp

THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THE ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS by Harold W. Attridge

Number? THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THE ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS by Harold W. Attridge

SCHOLARS PRESS Missoula, Montana

Published by SCHOLARS PRESS for Harvard Theological Review

Distributed by

SCHOLARS PRESS University of Montana Missoula, Montana 59801

THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THE ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE OF

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations Preface Introduction I. II.

The His~oriography of the Antiquities: Apologetic Edification Excursus: Minor Parallels in Programmatic Remarks The Adaptive and Explanatory Function of Apologetic The Major Interpretative Themes

Society of Fellows

Copyright

©

III.

by The President and Fellows of Harvard College IV. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Attridge, Harold W The interpretation of Biblical history in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. V.

VI. Printed in the United States of America Edwards Brothers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

The Role of God in the Antiquities The Pronoia Motif An Example of Providence at Work Providence as Alliance with Israel and as Retributive Justice The Demonstration of God's Providence The Exhortation to trust in the Providential God Summary

1976

(Harvard dissertations in religion ; no. 7) Originally presented as the author's thesis, Harvard. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae. 2 Judaism-Apologetic works-History. I. Title. II. Series. DSI!6.J743A88 !976 933 76-26597 ISBN 0-89130-081-3

The Character and Programmatic Aims of the Antiquities The Sources of the Antiquities Techniques of Narrative Elaboration The Preface to the Antiquities: General Considerations

by Harold W. Attridge Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Issues in the Study of Josephus

The Moralizing of the Antiquities Character Evaluation The Analysis of Moral Decay Passion and Tyranny: The Abandonment of the Patrioi Nomoi Excursus: "Nature" in the Moralizing of the Antiquities The Positive Ideal: Moses

ix xi I

3

29 29 38 41 43

57 60 67

71 71 76 78

92 104 106

iog ·109 119 126 140 143

Affinities and Implications of the Presentation of Biblical History in the Antiquities A Just Providence Deliverance The Historiographical Use of Pronoia Terminology The Patterns of MoTalizing Excursus: Sectarian Affiliation in the Biblical Paraphrase

176

Conclusions

181

Bibliography

185

145 145 lSI 154 165

~

ABBREVIATIONS ]i

AJPh ASTI CEQ CQ FGB

American Journal of Philology Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classical Quarterly F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker

FRLANT GGR

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments M. Nilsson, Geschiahte der Griechischen Religion

HNT BTR HUCA HVLA JBL JJS Josephus Studien

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund (Bulletin de la Soci€t€ Royale des Lettres de Lund) Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies 0. Betz, et at. Josephus Studien: Festschrift 0. Michel

JQR JR JRS JSJ JSSR JTS MGWJ IVT NTS PAAJR PWRE RAC RB RSR SVF TAPA TDNT ThZ TSK

TU TWNT

Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal of Theological Studies Monatschrift fUr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Pauly-Wissowa, Rea~encyklop1idie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Reallexikon fUr Antike und Christentum Revue Biblique Recherches de science religieuse J. Von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologische Zeitung Theologische Studien und Kritikern Texte und Untersuchungen Theologisches WOrterbuch zum Neuen Testament

WMANT ZAT~l

Ill

iii

,,

:I·

ZNTW ZRGG

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fUr alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fUr neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fUr Religions- und Geistesgeschichte

Monographs frequently cited are referred to by author and short title. The full title may be found in the bibliography.

PREFACE

This small contribution to the study of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world is especially indebted to the criticism and encouragement of John Strugnell, as well as Dieter Georgi, George MacRae and Zeph Stewart, of Harvard University, who reviewed the dissertation and made manY useful suggestions for its improvement. The work was also greatly facilitated by the assistance of the Institutum Delitschianum at· MUnster, under the direction of Prof. K. Rengstorf and 0. Michel, who made available the data from the Concordance to the works of Josephus prior to its publication. Dr. George Nickelsburg of the University of Iowa, who actually transcribed the information from the Concordance, also deserves a special thanks. The Society of Fellows of Harvard University provided me with support and assistance during the final stages of this study and that is particularly appreciated.

INTRODUCTION I' ,I: I

Flavius Josephus is well known as one of the major sources for Jewish history during the later second temple period, since he recorded the events leading to the great revolt against Rome in 62-73 C.E. Our study does not focus on Josephus as historian of his own age. Instead, it seeks to clarify the significance of his account of the earliest history of the Jewish people. Our aim is to shed light on one aspect of Jewish religion and theology in the Greco-Roman period, namely the process of apologetic to the non-Jewish world. At the same time our work should illuminate the personal concerns and attitudes of this rather complex personality, who has been evaluated in the most diverse ways. Josephus paraphrased the historical narratives of Jewish Scripture in the first half of his second and largest work, the Antiquitates Judaieae, and this provides our subject matter. Initially, we shall revieW the major problems which vex the study of the theological elements in the writings of Joseph_us, as well as the contributions which previous scholars have made to this study. In the second chapter we shall have more to say on the general character of the Antiquities and its programmatic aims. In subsequent chapters we shall explore details of the interpretative presentation of biblical history in the Antiquities. Finally, a comparative analysis of the most significant interpretative elements will suggest personal and literary factors important for shaping the theological history of the Antiquities.

l

ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF JOSEPHUS 1111

!IIi· ~I "

il'

Josephus as

Theolog~an

This work is, in large part, a study of a particular Hellenistic-Jewish theology, and our initial problem is simply to clarify the nature of theologizing in Josephus. This problem has not been addressed, although scholars have long been concerned to describe the theological element in our historian. The earliest example of this exercise was the work of C. G. Bretschneider.! The approach which he used is characteristic in many ways of the scholars throughout the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth. He concentrated on particular terms and motifs drawn from all the works of Josephus, and attempted to construct out of them a systematic theology which would illustrate the dogmatics both of Josephus and of contemporary Judaism. Bretschneider explained his procedure in his preface: Itaque multa, ut vel ex hoc libello cognosci potest, in eius scriptis habentur, quae faciunt ad illustrandaJil Judaeorum illius temporis theologiaffi. Quae a nemin~ theologorum collecta, sed a quibusdam ex parte tantum commemorata vidissem, utile mihi visum est, singula, quae hue pertinerent, e Josepha colligere, et ad capita quaedam revocata accuratius exponere. The capita utilized are Scripture and Tradition, God and His 1 capita Theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e Flauii Josephi (Leipzig, 1812). Some brief remarks had been made earlier in the works of W. H. Whiston, "That Josephus the Jew was an Ebionite" Collection of Authentic Records Belonging to the Old and New Testament (London, 1728) II. 959-60, and I. A. Ernesti, Exeraitationum Flavianarum prima de fontibus ArchaeoZogiae (Leipzig, 1756), which reappears in his OpuscuZa philologiaa aritiaa (Leiden, 1776), but the monograph of Bretschneider is the first full-scale study of precisely this topic. s~riptis

3

5

4

II II

!II: 'Ill'' I ill'

"

works, the Holy Spirit, Angels and Demons, and Man. Each topic, of course, has a variety of subdivisions and the result is a carefully developed theological system. Many other scholars followed in Bretschneider's footsteps and produced alternative versions of the Summa of Josephus. Rather clear examples of the same approach are the works of A. Lewinsky, 1 A. Poznanski, 2 M. Dienstfertig, 3 A. Schlatter, 4 and J. A. Montgomery. 5 The type of analysis 1\fhich they typify is also assumed in most of the other works on Josephus which we will have occasion to note in this chapter. These scholars collected numerous pieces of intriguing information. Yet, their basic approach led to certain recurrent weaknesses in understanding our historian. One might note the lack of concern for the specific interests of individual works of Josephus and the failure to isolate problems ,which especially concerned him. Of most significance, however, is the presupposed model of theology as a systematic enterprise. Theology was not done by Josephus in a systematic or dogmatic way,6 but by a tendentious, interpretative retelling of history. That this is true for the Bellum has recently been 1 Beitrage zur Kentniss der religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Breslau: Preuss, 1887}. 2veber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Halle, 1887}. 3 Die Prophetologie in der Religionsphilosophie des ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts (Diss. Erlangen; Breslau, 1892). Most recently c£. G. Delling, "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus," Josephus Studien~ Festschrift 0. Michel (ed. 0. Betz et al., GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974}.

4wie Sprach Josephus von Gott (GUtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1910), reprinted in Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus (ed. K. H. Rengstorf, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970). 5"The Religion of Flavius Josephus," JQR 11 (1920/Zl) 277-305. 6An analysis of the nature of the theological enterprise is necessary in dealing with many types of Jewish literature in the second temple period. Cp. the understanding of theology in Wisdom literature suggested by B. L. Hack ("Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenis-

shown by H. Lindner. I He proceeds by a careful analysis of the three great speeches of the Bellum, one by Agrippa,2 one by Josephus himself before the walls of Jerusalem, 3 and one by the revolutionary leader Eleazar. 4 From these speeches, with their "heilsgeschichtlich- kul tische Argumentation" 5 there emerges a general conception of history, which sees Israel as having b·een judged by God to be unworthy of freedom because of its cultic transgressions. In the Antiquities there is a similar theological presentation of history, which Josephus achieves by reworking scripture, by transformation of key biblical motifs, and by deployment of a specially significant Greek terminology. In all of this Josephus reflects his own experience while he makes a case to the Greco-Roman world for the significance of Jewish tradition. To deal with this literary enterprise seems essential to an understanding of theology in Josephus, but it has not always been the focus of scholarly attention.

tic Synagogue" Studia PhiZ.oniaa 1 [1972] 45): "Theology in the sense that the received formulations of Hebraic and Judaic religious faith (exodus credo, covenant, kingship, etc.) are being reflected and reformed in wisdom language modes. The 'theological reflection' involved differs from rationalistic systems of conceptual abstraction in that the language of reflection is poetic (versification!) and employs mythological metaphor." In Josephus, too, we shall find the tradition reflected and reformed, although with another set of categories, drawn primarily from Greek historiographical literature. 1 Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaieum (Leiden: Brill, 1972). The topic had been discussed previously by Clemens Thoma, "Die Weltanschauung des Flavius Josephus Dargestellt an Hand seiner Schilderung des jlidischen Aufstandes gegen Rom (66-73 n.Chr.)" Kairos 11 (1969) 39-52, but his treatment is not as comprehensive nor as detailed as that.of Lindner.

2

Bell. II. 345-404.

3 Bell. V. 362-419. 4

Bell. VII. 323-388. 5Lindner has been criticized for reliance on categories of German theology by T. Rajak (JJS 25 [1974] 327-28), but his fundamental approach is certainly sound and the case made for a theological dimension to the Bellum is persuasive.

6

The Affiliations of Josephus

Ill'

'I

111!'1' II' I" I

11'1' I 1:! !

l1

For those who have studied Josephus as a representative of Jewish thought, a recurrent problem has been to determine more precisely just what type of Judaism he most accurately represents. The exploration of theology in Josephus has often been conducted in terms of this problem. The starting point for discussion of this issue is the claim by Josephus (Vit. 7-12) that he was a Pharisee, who had joined the group after sampling what all the current sects had to offer. Many scholars have not questioned that claim, but have tried to confirm it by adducing theologoumena which might be identified as Pharisaic. One of the earliest examples of this approach is F. Creuzer, who cited remarks of Josephus on the soul and on Providence as examples of "Pharisaic fatalism. ,l One of the primary grounds for this characterization of Josephus as a fatalist is his frequent use of Greek terminology for fate and providence, which intrigued many scholars and which loom large in our own assessment of the theological element in the Antiquities. The reason for designating Pharisees as fatalists is not so clear and this weakness in Creuzer's position was noted shortly afterward, by H. Paret, 2 who argued that the Pharisees are not fatalists even according to the account of their beliefs in Josephus. 3 Furthermore, Paret argued that the remarks on Providence to which Creuzer had drawn attention are not specific theologoumena of a particular group, but rather expressions of a general belief of the Old Testament. It was certainly correct to dispute the relevance of terminology for Providence to Pharisaism, although the terminology also has characteristics which distinguish it from related Old Testa1 F. Creuzer, "Rlickblick auf Josephus: jlldische, christliche :tc1onumente und Personalien," TSK 26 (1853) 907-28. The designation of Josephus as a fatalist appears on p. 907. The comments on the soul and Providence are found in Ant. XVII. 354 and XVI. 397. For other work of Creuzer, cf. below, p. 18.

2"Ueber den Pharisaismus des Josephus," TSK 29 (1856) 809-44. 3Paret refers to Ant. XIII. 171-73. Cf. also Bell. II. 19 and Ant. XVIII. ll.

7

ment motifs.l Paret also noted other difficulties for the thesis that Josephus was a Pharisee. He assumed that the Pharisees laid special emphasis on the belief in the resurrection of the body, as one might assume from the New Testament. 2 He then found the lack of any explicit reference to this belief to be odd. 3 He also noted differences in the description of the religious parties, since that of the Bellum appears to favor the Essenes more than the Pharisees. 4 Paret finally argued in favor of the Pharisaic affiliation. He held that the occasionally unsympathetic portrait of the group by Josephus does not disprove his association with it. He also found evidence for the connection in the extremely negative evaluation of the Sadducees and in the general attitude of Josephus toward Jewish religion, whereby the importance of the Law is exalted. In his association of Josephus with Pharisaism, Paret displayed a definite anti-Pharisaic bias, not uncommon in the mid-nineteenth century. 5 The criteria for determining the religious tendency of the historian are usually derived from the New Testament's picture of first-century Judaism. Josephus is then made into a New Testament type Pharisee, so that his piety may be condemned. 6 This rather vicious circle, or apologetic reactions to it, characterize a good deal of 1 c£. Chs. 3 and 5, especially pp. 79-80, 150-51. 2Acts 23:8-9. 3Bretschneider (Capita 57) also worried about this issue, especially in connection with the remarks on the fate of the soul post mortem in the speech of Josephus given at Jotapata (BetL III. 374). 4 Paret, "Pharisaismus" 816-23. Subsequent scholars have attempted to explain this divergence in several ways. Cf. below, pp. 11 and 14. 5For a discussion of some earlier scholarship both critical of and apologetic for the Pharisees, cf. J. Neusner, Rabbinic TPadit.ions About the PhaPisees befo:r-e 70 (Leiden: Brill; 1971) III. 320-368. 6Among other things, according to Paret, Josephus lacked a sense of sin ("Pharisaismus" 834), did not understand prophecy (834-36) and was.quite as hypocritical as the Pharisees of the New Testament (838, .842-44).

8

1111 '1:

!II: II II 1!11' 'I

9

earlier scholarship on Josephus.! Most subsequent scholars operated with the assumption that Josephus was a Pharisee, as he claimed. Among many others 2 are found the major modern figures in the study of Josephus, H. St. J. Thackeray and A. Schlatter. Thackeray's sober and balanced, yet popular, work remains the standard introduction to Josephus in English. 3

Although it lacks any

lengthy discussion of the theological dimension of the historian's writings, it noted some of the more obvious points about his belief in God, life after death, 4 prophecy, etc. 1 some other examples of the exceedingly hostile and often ill-informed criticism levelled against Josephus appear in Lewitz (De Flavii Josephi fide atque auetoPitate [Konigsberg: Progrannn, 1857] 18-19). Jos,ephus depended on Rabbinic teaching: "inde igitur derivanda indigna saepe ac reprehendenda de Dei natura opinio, plurimum illa a natura et simplicitate veteris testamenti abhor~ens, inde superstitiosa de daemonibus commenta, inde mirifica ista ac paene turpis a librorum sacrerum auctoritate multarum rerum explicatio." Similarly unfavorable is the opinion of Baumgartner ("Der national-jildische Hintergrund der neutestamentlicher Geschichte nach Josephus," JahPb. fuP deutsahe Theologie 13 [1864] 613-48). His criticism is levelled more on the performance of Josephus as a historian than as a Pharisee, although historical subjectivity is linked to the historian's "venmndertes Gewissen" (p. 616), a characteristic appropriate to the caricature of the Pharisees operative in Paret et al. It is hardly surprising that a more positive assessment of Josephus appears in the great Jewish historian H. Graetz (Geschichte der Juden [Leipzig: Leiner, 1878] III. 513-26 and 592-96), who compares the historian, only somewhat unfavorably, to Jeremiah. 2Lewinsky (BeitPage 60) addresses the issue of the lack of a· doctrine of resurrection, which had troubled Bretschneider and Paret (cf. above p. 6, n. 2). Lewinsky finds behind the remarks about celestial immortality in Bell. II. 163 and Ant. XVIII. 14 a belief in resurrection, disguised by language appropriate to metempsychosis. Similarly, the remark that martyrs will "obtain a better life" in C. Ap. II. 218 is taken to be an allusion to resurrection. Thus Josephus can be a Pharisee. Poznanski (Anschauungen), Montgomery ("Religion"), R. B. Sobel (J·osephus' Conception of HistoPy in Relationship to the Pentateuch as a SouPae of Historical Data [Diss. Hebrew Union College, 1962]), and A. Pelletier (Flavius Josephe~ adapteur de la lettre d'fi.ristee [Etudes et commentaires 45; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962] 271-72) also maintain that Josephus was basically a Pharisee. 3 Josephus~ the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929; reprinted, with an introduction by S. Sandmel, New York: Ktav, 1967). 4on this issue Thackeray (Josephus 97) argues much like Lewinsky. Cf. n. 2 above.

Thackeray also mentioned the various affiliations of Josephus, but believed that Pharisaism predominates. 1 Schlatter's work 2 is a much more detailed investigation of Josephus. One recurring .theme throughout his study is an insistence on the strong "palestinian-Pharisaic" strain in Josephus, which distinguishes him from the more deeply hellenized Judaism of Philo and Alexandrian Jewry in general. This strain appears as an aversion to mysticism, which Schlatter finds in remarks about God's dwelling place being the world, not the individual sou1, 3 in the lack of interest in heavenly journeys and ascensions, 4 and in the lack of emphasis on the importance of contemplation and understanding as the methods and goal of piety. 5 The Pharisaism of Josephus is further indicated by other negative characteristics, the lack of any - aest h et1c 1nterest, 6 the lack of any doctrine of intermediaries,7 the refusal, despite a new conception of nature, to exalt nature to the position of an object of religious contemplation8 and the elimination from the scriptural narrative of incidents, like that of the golden calf, which were offensive to Pharisaic sensibilities.9 1

Jos~ph~s 91. Thackeray (Josephus 96) also cla1ms that Josephus 1s 1n harmony Wlth orthodox rabbinical Judaism although he adopts certain Greek terminology. '

2

Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Beriaht des Josefus

(Glltersloh:

Bertelsmann, 1932) .

3

rbid. 7. Cf. Ant. VIII. 107. 4 Ibid. 11. As early as Bretschneider (Capita 48) it had been noted that Josephus does not link the departure of Moses with any heavenly ascension. Cf. Ant. IV. 326. 5 6

Theologie 27.

Ibid.

4.

7

Ibid. ~. "Intermediaries" are, of course, hypostases such as Soph1a or the Philonic Logos. Some early nineteenth century scholars had tried to find such entities alluded to by Josephus. Cf. below p. 17. 8

rbid. 15.

low, pp. 9

Ibid.

69.

Cf. the excursus on "nature" in Josephus beCf. Ant. III. 91-98 and Exodus 32.

10 Josephus' Pharisaism also appears, according to Schlatter, in some positive characteristics of the historian, the equation of law and morals, 1 the general praise of the law as God's gift and the belief in its eternity, the evaluation of tradition as the basis of the authority of the laws, and his own hypocritical self-exoneration and condemnation of others for the disaster of 70. 2 In the last comment Schlatter displayed the same antiPharisaic bias, based on New Testament stereotypes, which also characterized earlier scholars. This bias also appeared in Schlatter's criticism of Josephus' understanding of "faith" and in his discussion of the limitations of the Pharisaic con3 cepts of law and revelation as used by Josephus. Thus Pharisaism for Schlatter is a rather ill-defined foil to the type of Judaism represented by Philo. While it is fair to note the differences between Philo and Josephus, the designation of the latter's position as Pharisaic is not particularly illuminating. In general, the description of Josephus as a Pharisee has often had little to do with a direct analysis of the theological elements in his work. Furthermore, to argue the case at all is problematic because of the inadequate criteria used to define Pharisaism, such as the tendentious picture of Pharisaism in the New Testament or the description of the sects by Josephus himself, not to mention the subjective biases toward Pharisaism held by modern scholars. 4 libid. 63. Josephus is definitely concerned with the practical moral implicat~on~ ~f Jewish_tradit~o~, and ethics forms a major share of hls ln~erpretatlve actlvlty. Cf. Ch. 4 of this study. 2Ibid. 136, 210. Josephus does polemicize against others involved in the revolt. That polemic is not simply hypocrltlcal self-exoneration. On the polemic in the Bellum, cf. Llndner (Gesehiehtsauffassung 49-68) and see below, pp. 149 51.

3cf. Theologie 104 on "faith" and Ibid. 59 on law and revelation. 4A few more recent scholars have maintained the validity of the Pharisee label, although they recognize that it requires substantial refinement. Cf. the discussion of Schlatter by 0. Michel ('"Ich Kemme' [Jos. Bell. III. ~OO]"_ThZ 24 [1968] 123-24); 0. Bauernfeind and 0. Michel ("Dle belde

11

As we have already noted, there is some incompatibility between the self-professed Pharisaism of Josephus and some of his own attitudes and tendencies. This caught the attention of several scholars and led some to argue for alternative identifications of the historian's sectarian affiliation. The most interesting proposal was that Josephus had in fact been an Essene. Following a few t-entative suggestions 1 E. Gerlach argued the thesis at length, 2 utilizing the observations of Paret about the difficulties in the Pharisaic identification. Gerlach went on to criticize Paret for not recognizing many apparently anti-Pharisaic remarks of Josephus. 3 Moreover, he characterized many of the "Pharisaic" features, which Paret finally adduced, as common features of Judaism a,s a whole, 4 or at least as common to both Pharisees and Essenes. On certain .particular points, notably the doctrine of fate, 5 Gerlach saw Josephus as in agreement with Essene beliefs and not with Pharisaic doctrine. This leads to the conclusion that Josephus was really an Essene. The thesis of Gerlach has little to recommend it, and he found little initial support.6 It reappeared in the evaluation Eleazarreden in Jos. Bell. 7. 323-36 und 7. 341-88" ZNTW 58 [1967] 267-72) and Lindner (Gesahiehtsauffassung 99). 1Bretschneider (Capita 57) took remarks of Josephus on the fate of the soul to be Essene, but he drew no general consequences for the affiliation of the historian. 2 In Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Sahriften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863) 10-11.

3Gerlach uses particularly Bell. I. 571; Ant. XIII. 29398, 372-78; XVII. 41. These references to Pharisees are hardly as derogatory as Gerlach claimed. 4 Gerlach (Weisaagungen 11) draws attention to the basis advanced by Josephus for his own prophecy of Vespasian's elevation (Bell. III. 352). Gerlach is the first to note the importance of Josephus' priestly status as a basis for his prophetic role. 5For Gerlach (Weissagungen 16) the Essene position is that God and fate are identical, evidence for which may be found in the description of the sect in Ant. XIII. 172. In discussing the issue. Gerlach relies on the terminology deployed by Josephus in the Bellum. Cf. below p. 154 for a full discussion of the issue. 6E.g. B. Pick, "A Study on Josephus with special reference to the Old Testament," LuthePan QuaPterly 19 (1889) 325-

13

12

'Ill

1,: 'II'' ill' I

I'

of Josephus by F. J. Foakes-Jackson, 1 who tried to do justice to all the possible categories into which Josephus might fit. Thus, the historian is a Pharisee in his belief in resJrrection and in the humane purpose of the law, yet at the same time he is a Herodian in his antipathy to the extremists. Furthermore, he was a priest, whose probable "ideal was that of Ezekiel: a priestly nation under a- native prince." 2 Ultimately FoakesJackson sees the personal religious attitudes of Josephus expressed in his positive assessment of the Essenes: To him the religion of Moses was truly perfect when practiced by ascetics zealous for the La't'l and for nothing else, men more ready to die for their cause than to fight for it, a remnant of righteous persons, living in the Jewish world but not of it, intent only on attaining personal holiness. 3 It is certainly true that the descriptions and ·evaluations of historical figures play an important part in the theologizing of Josephus and in the fourth chapter of this study this aspect of the Antiquities will come under scrutiny. The observations of Foakes-Jackson, however, are applicable primarily to the favorable description of the Essenes in the Bellum and are not adequate as a general summary of the religious ideals of Josephus. They also fail to take into account important theological problems treated outside the framework of an idealized description of a religious way of life. One way of resolving the problem posed by the apparent discrepancies in the attitudes of Josephus toward the various Je>'lish sects has been to introduce a diachronic dimension and to trace a development from the pro-Essene position of the Bellum to the pro-Pharisee position of the Antiquities and the Vita. This approach was originally inspired by the work of Laqueur who, in his comparative analysis of overlapping parts 46 and 599-616. In general, this is a rather superficial survey of the life and works of Josephus. 1 Josephus and the Jews (New York:

2Ibid.

33.

3rbid. 80.

Smith, 1930).

of the three works, 1 noted a growing pro-Jewish sentiment in the later compositions. Laqueur's work was followed by a study of the reports on the religious factions in Josephus by H. Rasp, 2 who suggested that the varying assessments of the three groups should be read against the background of the personal political situation of the historian. Josephus, then, was fundamentally a "Tagespolitiker mit selbstischen Zielen" and had originally become a Pharisee purely f~r purposes of self-advancement. While his accounts of the differences among the parties are essentially correct, these differences are to be understood as expressions of their political attitudes toward the Roman authorities. The long and favorable account of the Essenes in the Bellum, which had served as the basis for the Essene identification of Josephus by Gerlach and others, is to be seen as an attempt to portray at least one group of Jews as "reliable citizens," a role which Josephus himself wanted to play in Rome. Then the more favorable account of the Pharisees in the Antiquities is an attempt to adjust to the new reality that this group was now solidly in power in Palestine.3 The thesis of a development in the attitudes of Josephus toward the religious groups of his day has been accepted in several recent discussions, by M. Smith, 4 J. Neusner, 5- and

15

14

'Ill ·1: .111 ;111'

'II' :'II' I

,, •1

J. Le Moyne.l In our own investigation some development in the thinking of Josephus will appear, although the relationship of this to sectarian doctrine remains tenuous. At the same time we shall also find important elements of continuity between the Bellum and the Antiquities. The biographical approach to the resolution of the question of Josephus' religious affiliation suggested that the praise of the Essenes or the adoption of the Pharisee label are really irrelevant to a discussion of the theology of the historian. 2 The variation in his attitudes even implied for some scholars that Josephus is not a serious representative 3 of any religious position in first century Judaism. Such minimizing of the importance of Josephus as a serious exemplar of sam~ form of Jewish thought has been common in this century. It appeared prominently in two major and extremely influential reference works on the second temple period. For Bousset-Gressman, Josephus was a "halber Renegat und ... kluges 4 SimilarWeltkind, fUr das die Religion nich t viel bedeutet. " ly, in G. F. Moore's great study of Tannaitic Judaism, it is stated that: It may I think, be fairly inferred that Josephus iike most of the aristocratic priesthood to which he belonged, had little interest in Their position has received some general criticism from L. H. Feldmall, s~hoZ-aPship on Philo and Josephus ( 1937-62) (New York: Yeshiva, 1962) 41. 1 Les Saddueeens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1972) · 2Le Mayne (Saddu~eens 29) differs from his predecessor~ on this point. He specifically criticize~ Rasp's.character~za­ tion of Josephus as an opportunist. In h~s own_v1ew, the desert experience (Vita 11) was of funda~en~al ~mporta~ce for Josephus. This led him to choose a Ph~r~sa~c way of_l1fe, although he remained strongly under the 1nfluence of h1s Sadducean environment. 3we occasionally find a reluctance to classify Josephus in nineteenth century discussions. E.g. J. Lange~ ("Theologischer Standpunkt des Flavius Josephus:." Thec:Z-ogt-~~he QuaPtel-s~hPi_r>t 47 [1865] 7) maintained: "Er lasst. s1ch n1cht ":on einerJbestimmten religiOsen Richtung, von e1nem theolog1schen System reden, das er angenommen hlitte." 4w. Bousset and H. Gressman, Vie Religion des Judentums im spatheZ-Z-enistisehen ZeitalteP (TUbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1926) 39.

religion for its own sake, and that his natural antipathy to all excess of zeal was deepened by the catastrophe which religious fanatics had brought upon his people. 1 This basic position also characterized one of the major monographs on the Antiquities, a study by H. Guttmann, who, like Rasp, suggested that the religious elements of his writin~ should be seen as functions of external factors, namely "von seiner jeweiligen persOnlichen Lage und politischen Einstellung." 2 There are, to be sure, important elements of truth in these various positions. Josephus was certainly influenced by his personal situation and he obviously displays an "antipathy to excess of zeal." Such observations hardly exhaust the analysis of the historian's religious thought. There is a dimension of his writing which cannot simply be reduced to "political" needs or the requirement of personal self defense. Pharisee, Essene, All, at various times, and even N~ne. These·are the basic alternative answers to the q~estion of the religious affiliation of Josephus and his theological view~ point. One other social category is significant for understanding Josephus. In fact, the first thing which Josephus tells about himself in his Vita is that he comes from a venerable priestly house. 3 Many of the scholars reviewed thus far have at least noted this fact. 4 Some have made it the basis 1 G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First CentuPies of the Christian EPa: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927) I. 210.

~. Guttmann, Die DaPsteZ-lung deP jUdisahe Rel-igion bei Fl-avius Josephus (Breslau: Marcus, 1928) 51. A similar evaluation appears in the recent work o£ J. Schwark, "Matthlius der Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der Priester: Ein Vergleich," Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 137-54. Cf. Ch. 2, p. 65, n. -4, for a critique of some of Schwark's analysis. 3

vita l-6. 4creuzer ("Josephus" 48) noted particularly Ant. IV. 223. Montgomery ("Religion" 280) mentioned as well c. Ap. II. 21 and Bell. III. 350-54. Cf. also Thackeray, Josephus 75; B. Niese, "Josephus" ERE 6. 569-79; Foakes-Jackson, Josephus and the Jews 33; and G. Delling, "Josephus und die heidnischen Religionen" Kl-io 43 (1965) 263-69 (reprinted in Studien zum N.T. und zum helZ-enistis~hen Judentum [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970] 34-42).

17

16

'ill

'IIi

"I '

'II' 'I II'

I

'

., .,

"

for their view that Josephus 1vas basically indifferent to theological issues. 1 Others have suggested that a priestly background heavily influenced his religious views. 2 Of particular relevance to this study is the relationship of Josephus to the scriptures which is based on his status as priest. As many scholars have noted, 3 Josephus claimed to be a particularly inspired interpreter of dreams and of ambiguities in scripture at least in part because of his priestly status. 4 Although he does not make any specific claims to this effect in the Antiquities, it seems likely that he continued to rely on his priestly background as a guarantee of the validity of his interpretative paraphrase of scripture. Scholarship, thus, has long been concerned •·dth the question of the precise religious affiliation of Josephus. This concern has frequently governed the consideration of his theology. Interest in this subject is certainly understandable, but it has caused neglect of an analysis of the nature of theological activity and its manifestation in individual works. The results of that analysis may or may not prove to be relevant to classifying Josephus. 5 In any case, to make such an analysis is a separate, and even prior, task.

1 In this category are Moore (Judaism I. 210} and Schwark ("Ma tthaus"). 2s. Rappaport (Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus [Vienna: Kohut, 1930] xxiv and 45-46) and B. Heller ("Grundztige der Aggada des Flavius Josephus" MG~IJ 80 [1?36] 237-46} noted a variety of details in the Antiquities wh~ch seemed to indicate a pro-priestly bias. We shall discuss these inCh. 5, p. 176. We have already noted the attitude of Le Mayne (Sadduceens 29). 3These include Gerlach (Weissagungen 11), D. Georgi (Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief [WMANT ll;_Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964] 125), R. Mayer ("GeschJ.chtserfahrung und Schriftauslegung, zur Hermeneutik des frUhen Judentums," Vie hermeneutische Frage in der Theologie [0. Loretz and W. Strolz editors; Freiburg: Herder, 1968] 322-27), Lindner (Geschi.chtsauffass.ung 70, 99) and J. Blenkinsopp ("Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus" JJS 25 [1974] 239-62). 4rhe connection is most obviously made in Belt. III. 352. For another dream interpretation cf. Vita 208. Swe shall return to this issue in Ch. 5, pp. 176-79.

Josephus as Apologist

The basic thesis of this study is that there is an important theological dimension in the work of Josephus and that this appears in the Antiquities in its interpretative presentation of scriptural narratives. This theology is very much an apologetic one, which reworks Jewish tradition in categories derived from and comprehensible to a Greco-Roman public. Josephus has, of course, been studied as an example of Jewish apologetics, although the theological dimension involved in the adaptive and propagandistic utilization of scripture has not been adequately understood. General studies of Josephus as apologist have focused on the Contra Apionem and on the defensive arguments which Josephus advances against the slanders directed against the Jews in the late Hellenistic and early Greco-Roman periods. 1 Certain details of the Antiquities are especially important for the interpretation of biblical narrative. These include some specific vocabulary items and the structuring of certain important scenes. Some of these features, which distinguish the Antiquities from its scriptural source, aroused interest early in the history of modern scholarship, although their function was often misunderstood. A. GfrOrer and A. Dahne 2 discovered in some details of the_scriptural paraphrase evidence that Josephus was a~other hellenized religious philosopher like Philo. GfrBrer, for instance, found in the accounts of the mysterious visitors to Abraham (I. 196-98) and of Moses at the burning bush (II. 264), the presence of a doctrine of intermediaries, like the Philonic 1 _ Cf. M. Friedlander, Geschichte der jUdischen Apologetik (Zurlch: Schmidt, 1903) and P. KrUger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums (Leipzig: DOrr, 1906). 2 G£ ••

_

rarer, Gesc h.~chte des Urchristentums (Stuttgart:

Schwe~zerbart, 1838) II. 356ff. and Philo und die jUdischalexandrinische T~eosophie (Stuttgart: Schweizerbart, 21835) II. 356-~7~ and Dahne, Geschichttiche Darstetlung der jUdischalexandr~n~sche. The assessment of Josephus as a hellenizer

does not equal that of A. von Dale (Dissertationes de origine ac progressu idototatriae et superstitionum, etc. [Amsterdam, 16?6] 136) that Josephus was "semi-paganus." That epithet is un~que, but many treatments of Josephus verge on it.

19

18 logos. In remarks about God's omnipresence (VIII. 108, 227) and about his inexorable will (X. 142), he was able to see a 1111 'I 1

!ill

r: 11

1 1 '1 '··:·

:'II 'I II· II' I 1;

'

",,

Stoic type of materialistic pantheism. The interpretation of Josephus as a hellenistic philosopher was not widely accepted. Yet in many subsequent treatments of the Antiquities a similar theme appears when it is suggested that Josephus adopted a rather rationalistic attitude toward Hebrew tradition. F. Creuzer, for instance, noted that there was a process of reconciliation of cultural traditions at wor.k in Josephus, although he thought this was focused primarily on the reduction of elements which were miraculous and hence offensive to sophisticated, cosmopolitan sensibilities. ... so muss man nicht vergessen, dass Josephus in seiner Archaologie gerade den Versuch wagte, den Weltblirgerlichen ROmerzeit mit dem hebraischen Particularismus zu versOhnen und mithin das AnstOssige des ~un~erbaren, ~as der 10rient mit sich brachte, mogl~chst zu m~ndern. There is certainly a process of reconciliation at work in Josephus, although it was not studied very closely at this stage. The claim that Josephus tried to minimize the miraculous is based in part on the formula which appears several times in the Antiquities to the effect that the reader should 2 make up his own mind about the truth of the events recorded. These passages certainly are involved in the frequent claim that Josephus was a rationalist,3 or that he represented, in Schlatter's words, a "rationalisierte und verflachte Judentum. ,4 However, as numerous students 5 of Josephus both in the lF. Creuzer, "Josephus und seine griechische:r; un~ he~­ lenistischen FUhrer," TSK 26 (1853) 45-86. The c~tat~on ~s from p. 49. 2E.g. Ant. I. 108; II. 348; III. 81, 322. 3cf. G. Tachauer, Das VerhaZ.tnis von Flavius Josephus zur BibeZ. und zur Tradition (Erlangen: Junge, 1871). 4schlatter, TheoZogie v. 5rhese include Paret ("Pharisaismus" 826) who notes that Josephus was "llr·enn nicht wundersticl_ltig doch_wu;:-derglS.ubig," Gerlach (Weissagungen 30), and Lew~nsky (Be~trage 22-24). The

last century and in this have noted, a belief in the miraculous plays an important part in the Antiquities. It is, therefore, misleading to characterize him as a rationalist~ if that epithet connotes a rejection of or resistance to such a belief. Adaptation to Hellenistic categories did not mean a consistent rationalism, nor the adoption of a philosophical systern. It did involve the use of terminology such as TUxn EL~uEvn and np6vola, which had philosophical overtones. This terminology continually intrigued students of Josephus. Paret, in his discussion of fatalistic Pharisaism, claimed that by using such expressions, Josephus had in fact adopted the viewpoint (Anschauungsweise) of his hellenic models, such as Herodotus, for "j ene Ausdrucke klingen eher heidnisch als ···a·~sch - " 1 J . Langen, who had been critical of earlier atJU tempts to make Josephus a systematic philosopher, 2 also focused on this terminology and suggested that by it a foreign concept had been imported into Judaism. In the use of such "philosophical" terms for providence, Josephus had committed the error of positing an undefined divine power independent of God. 3 same point has been made in this century by G. Delling ("Josep!_J.us und.das Wunderbare," NT 2 [1958] 291-309, reprinted in h~s St~d~~n zum Neuen Testament und zum heZZenistisahen Judentum [Gothngen,:, _VandenJ;oeck und Ruprecht, 1970] 130-45)", by G. W. MacRae_ ( M~racle ~n The Antiquities of Josephus," Miracles: Cambr~dge Studies in their Philosophy and History [ed. C. F. D. Maule; London: Mowbray, 1965] 129-47) by Schalit (Introduct~on ~xxi) ':l-nd most recently by 0. Bet~ (''Das problem des Wu:r;ders be~ Flav~us Josephus im Vergleich ztrm Wunderprob1em pe~ den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium," Josephus Stud1.-en [Festschrift 0. Michel, ed. 0. Betz et al..; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974] 23-44). 1 Paret, "Pharisaismus" 815. 2 Langen, "Standpunkt" 7. Cf. above p. 14, n. 2. Cf. also his Das Judentum in PaZastina zur Zeit Christi (Freiburg irn Bresgau: Herder, 1866). 3 Langen (Judentum 222) accuses Josephus of "bei dem Gebrauche der philosophi:cher Ausd:Ucke fUr 'Vorsehung' den Irrtum begangen, unter ELUUPuEvn s~ch etwas Unbestirnmtes ~eben Gott Waltendes zu denken." We find a similar eval~ation ~~the very negative assessment of the historian by N. Bentw~ch (Josephus [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,

21

20

'ill

' ' 11: '

11!1

"p,, ':·,

"

'

A fundamental problem with these analyses is the assumption that the terminology which has been isolated is used in a way consistent with its philosophical use. This erroneous assumption was criticized by Lewinsky, who realized the apologetic function of the terminology and suggested instead that Josephus was a relatively traditional Jew who uses hellenistic 1 philosophical terms for the "Einkleidung jUdischer G:danken." The criticism is properly made. Yet this position, too, is not entirely satisfactory, since the terminology in Josephus is not simply cosmetic.

It is used in close conformity with

certain usages in contemporary texts which are not particularly philosophical, and it has a particular function within the Antiquities. An important part of our task in this study will 2 be to deal with both of these issues. Another problem with many discussions of the interesting expressions for divine providence has been a rather hasty linking of the three major terms mentioned above. It has simply been assumed that they are interchangeable. This assumption was made not only in the last century, but even in rece11t discussion of the topic. 3 In fact, the terms seem to have different functions in different works. One of the contributions of Lindner's work on the theology of the BeZZum is his analysis 1914} 99), who maintained that Josephus held_ to a "materialistic fatalism" which "lowers the God of the BJ.ble to a Pow~r which materially rewards the ricrhteous and punishes the WJ.cked." The emphasis on div:~.ne re!ribut:~.on is certainly an element in Josephus, although it hardly amounts to "materialistic fatalism." 1 Lewinsky, Beitrage 10. A somewhat similar_att~tude seems to govern the extensive, but diffuse, compJ.lat:~.on o~ comparative material by B. BrUne, FZavius Josephus _und_se~ne

Schriften in ihrem VerhaZtnis zum Judentum~ zur gr~ech~schen­ rOmischen WeZt und zum Christentum (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann,

1913; reprinted Wiesbaden, 1969). Some of Schlatter's remarks tended in the same direction, on God's will (:rheologie 27), providence (Ibid. 209) and conscience (;rbid. 140)- Thackeray ,. ~hus 96) held a similar opinion. The function of the terminology will occupy our attenin Ch. 3; its general affinities inCh. 5. 3G. Stlihlin ("Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus," Josephus Studien 319-43) makes this assumption while engaging in the traditional disparagement of the inferior theology of Josephus. For further discussion of his

of the "Uxn terminology there. This is seen to be derived from hellenistic historiography, but used to give expression to a deterministic dimension to God's judgment on Israel, a determinism which Josephus may have appropriated from an apocalyptic tradition. 1 A similar study of comparable terminology in the Antiquities is necessary. Another aspect of the adaptation effected by Josephus appears in his attention to the ethical implications of history. Poznanski was the first to call attention to this by claiming, on flimsy ground, that Josephus had adopted the Socratic view that virtue is a form of knowledge, and that the worth of virtue had to be supported "auf utilistischen und eudlimonistische Griinde. ,z Schlatter likewise claimed that Josephus introduced a "eudaimonism" which radically transforms the perspective of biblical morality.3 It is certainly true that moralizing plays an important part in the transformation of scripture in the Antiquities, 4 but this moralizing is intimately bound up with the historian's views on God's activity in the world and on man's relation to God. If there is a "utili tar ian" or "eudaimonistic" element in that moralizing, it is subordinated to a specifically religious principle. Thus far we have seen specific issues relating to the general process of adaptation in Josephus. The general phenomenon involved in this process was studied earlier in this .treatme~t.of

terminology for providence, cf. Ch. S, p. 154, n. z. A SJ.mJ.lar assumption about the uniformity of terminology for providence appears in Guttmann (DarstelZung 44). 1 Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung 58-62. The apocalyptic elements of the BeZZum are also discussed in I. Hahn, "Josephus UI_ld die Eschatologie von Qumran," Qumran Probleme (Berlin: AkademJ.e Verlag, 1963), F. F. Bruce, ''Josephus and Daniel," ASTI 4 (1965) 148-62, and 0. B5cher, "Die heilige Stadt im Volkerkrieg," Josephus Studien SS-76. 2 Poznanski, Anschauungen 39. 3schlatter, TheoZogie 5, 28. 4

G~ttmann ~DarsteZZ~ng 35) claims that Josephus developed from ?e:~.ng c~ltJ.cally or1ented in the BeZZum to being ethically or:~.ented J.n the Antiquities. We shall discuss this issue in detail in Ch. 4.

l

22

·111

;Ill :Ill'

·lrr· ,,111

'

1111

'"' ' .I ~

23

century in two monographs. The first is the study of the Antiquities and primarily of its biblical paraphrase by H. Guttmann. He makes explicit the important distinction between a defensive form of apologetic which the Contra Apionem contains and the adaptive apologetic found in the Antiquities. 1 He also approaches his task of analyzing the apologetics of Josephus with a concern for the context in which significant statements are made and with an appreciation for the historian's literary methods. Hence he discusses at length the techniques used by Josephus in his paraphrase, the types of explanation and analysis of motivation which Josephus provides and the dramatizing touches which he adds to many episodes. Despite the promising nature of the basic approach, the final results are disappointing. Guttmann did not apply his basic principle on the nature of apologetic in his treatment of significant elements of the biblical paraphrase. He thus reduces the remarks on God's providence to apologetic in the defensive sense, and he sees the concept of God's will being used simply as a fatalistic excuse for the behavior of the historian himself or for the Romans. 2 He also notes other significant features of the Antiquities without properly analyzing them. Thus he remarks on the apparent ethical orientation of the work, on a residuum of messianic expectation in Bk. X, and on the belief in miracles which Josephus continues to maintain. In general he attempts to construct the Weltanschauung of Josephus and his contemporaries and not the process of interpretation at work in the biblical paraphrase of the Antiquities. A similar critique can be applied to the work of Schlatter, which, nonetheless, suggested new insights into the process of Hellenization in Judaism. He claims, for example, that in Josephus there is presupposed a new, more Hellenic, view of the world, different from that of the Old Testament, wherein nature is deprived of much of the direct dependence on God which characterized the biblical view. 3 In maintaining 1 Guttmann, Darstellung 47.

2Ibid. 44.

3schlatter, Theologie 13-16.

this attitude toward nature, Josephus is seen to manifest his dependence on the rationalistic tradition of Jewish apologetics.1 Similarly Josephus presupposes a new psychology emphasizing the immortality and separability of the sou1. 2 We have already noted the suggestions of Schlatter about new ethical presuppositions in Josephus.3 Schlatter showed that it was possible to draw from the apologetic dimension of Josephus implications important for the Self-understanding and t~eological awareness of firstcentury Jews. He did not, however, focus on the personal adaptive and interpretative work of the historian. Indeed he maintained that the goal of the literary enterprises of the historian "liegt nicht in der Theologie; diese wird zum Mittel, das zur Verteidigung und Verherrlichung des Juden dient."4 In this judgment he resembles closely Guttmann, Moore and the other scholars of the period who minimized or overlooked an important element in the historian. That element lies not so much in his metaphysical and psychological presuppositions, interesting though they may be, but rather in his own literary activity of retelling the sacral history of his people in a meaningful way. 1

. Ibid. 13, 68. "Rati?nalism" here is not necessarily equ2valent to the suppress1on of the miraculous. Earlier apolo~ists had presented Judaism as the source of all wisdom super2or to vain superstition, and this is no doubt what ' Schlatter has in mind. For an example of this in Josephus note the presentation of Abraham. Cf. below, Ch. 3, pp. s7~89. 2 . . . Accord2ng to ~chlatter, Josephus actually utilized two d1ffe:ent psych?log1es. One, deriving from his days with the asce~1c_Banus, 1s reflected in the Bellum. This is a more . dual1st1c conception of the soul, which emphasizes its radical separateness f:om the body. In the other, more usual, psychology. the body 1s taken more seriously as a constituent of the whole human being. 3 cf. p. 10, n. 3 above.

'

·sc~latter (Theologie_240) not only makes that general obs~rvat1o~, but he also d1scusses many of the particular man1festat1ons of apologetic in the narrower sense of a defensive operation. Thus he noted (Theologie 69) a possible apology in such_ details as the_notice that Adam had daughters, that the longev1ty of the patr1archs was possible that Moses prophesied his own death, etc. •

25

24

'ill''i 'I'll I '1'1" 11:1 ]!I

'

,,

'I

11'1

In recent years many scholars have investigated the phenomenon of adaptation and transformation of Jewish traditions in Josephus. These studies have generally been more_ sensitive to the concerns of individual works and the techniques used in them by Josephus. 1 There have been, for example, numerous studies of particular biblical figures in Josephus. These have often been parts of a more general study of a theme or figure in Jewish literature. 2 These investigations have usually added a few more detailed parallels from other Jewish or Greco-Roman literature. With some notable exceptions, they seldom analyze parallels or explore the general thrust of Josephus' biblical interpretation. Several studies appeared which attempted to explore more thoroughly the implications of the literary genre of the Antiquities. A thesis by R. B. Sobel started to pursue a promising line of investigation into the effects of hellenistic histori3 ography on the conception of history in Josephus. He suggested that "For Josephus, history is primarily the determination of divine processes operating behind the external events of man" (p. 25), and that this approach to historiography is 1 This awareness is based to a large extent on sam: of the studies of the techniques of Josephus which we shall dlscuss in the next chapter. 2such, for example, areS. Sandmel, Phi~o's P~ace ~n Judaism: A Study of Conaeptions of Abraham ~n Jew~~h L~t~Pa­ ture (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1956; reprlnted ln

au ented form New York: Ktav, 1971). On Josephus see PP· 59~7. Cf. al~o 1. H. Feldman, "Abraham the. Greek P~ilosopher in Josephus," TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56; D. Har:lngton~ Ab:aham Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and kn the R~wrltten Bible' of the Intertestamental period," 1972 Proceed1--ngs IOSCS and SBL Pseudepigrapha SeminaP 155-64~ W. Me~ks, The ProRhet_ King: Moses TPaditions and the Johan:ne ~hr1--stoZog~ (Lelden. Brill, 1967); D. Tiede, The ~harisma!~c F~gure ~s M~PacZe, Wo:r>ker (SBL Dissertation Serles 1; Mlssoula, MT:. Sch~lar s Press, 1972) 207-240;-and K. Haacker and P. Schafer, _Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tad des Mose" Josephus Stud~en 14774. 3Josephus' conception of BistoPy in ReZ~ti?nshiR to the Pentateuch as a source of Historical Data (ClnClnna!l: He?rew

Union College, 1962, unpub. diss.). The bulk of thls ~he~l~ is taken up with a catalogue of divergences of the Ant~qu~t~es from the biblical text, not as complete as the work of Rappaport, A gada.

essentially that of classical models like Thucydides (1) and Polybius. Hence, Josephus "was a Pharisaic Jew conceiving of history in terms of Greco-Roman historiography" (p. 31). With Sobel this assertion remains more of an hypothesis than an assessment based on analysis of the text, and he seems to lack any acquaintance with Greek historians and historiographical theory apart from the major classical figures. Some other short studies of this topic are equally disappointing. 1 A more sophisticated treatment was that of A. Schalit, although he is more concerned with the external classification of the Antiquities in the categories of hellenistic historiography than with the implications for biblical interpretation of the literary genre of the Antiquities. 2 We shall deal with this topic in the second chapter of this study. There have been numerous studies of particular elements of hellenistic adaption, such as that by D. Georgi on the ideology of Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians, 3 which pursues the analysis of apologetic literature which we already saw in Schlatter. The study focuses on the religious self-understanding of the Jewish writers in the Greco-Jewish tradition. 1 s. Sowers, "On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism," Oikonomia~ HeiZsgeschiahte aZs Thema der Theologie (Festschrift Cullmann, ed. F. Christ; HamburgBergstadt: Evangelischer Verlag, 1967) 18-25, and P. Collomp, "La place de Jos~phe dans la technique de 1 'historiographe hellenistique," Etudes de la Faa. des Lett. de Strasbourg (= Publ. de la Fac. d. Lett. 106; Melanges 1945, III; Etudes historiques, Paris, 1947) 81-92. On this work cf. Ch. 2, p. 57, n. 2. For further superficial discussion of the historiographical principles of Josephus, cf. S. Zeitlin, "A Survey of Jewish Historiography from the Biblical Books to the Sepher ha-Kabbalah, with special emphasis on Josephus," JQR 59 (1969) 171-214. Earlier studies such as S. Dubnow ("Das Historiographie des Flavius Josephus," WeZtgeschichte des jUdisah_en Volkes (Berlin: JUdischer Verlag, 1926) III.lOS-111) are also unenligh tening. 2Introduction to the Hebrew Translation of the Antiquities (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972). Schalit also discusses in a somewhat more general way the religious-theological dimension of the Antiquities (lxxii-lxxxii). He relies heavily~ on Schlatter and tends to emphasize the apologetic concerns of the work, although he sees these as less polemical than those of the C.Ap. (lxxxviii). 3vie Gegner des Paulus im 2 Ko:r>inthe:r>brief

Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1964).

(WMANT 11;

26

·j)l'')l')l):l

I

ill!' !Ill'

11•: 'I

!II' 'I

I

,,ill

27

Georgi notes how certain elements of Josephus are representative of that tradition, which presented itself as an "Aufkliirungsbewegung" (p. 140). Among these elements are the new evaluation of nature over history (p. 142), the importance of prophecy and pneumatic phenomena generally (p. 122), and especially the picture of the religious hero or 3ELo~ av~p, i.e .. the man like Abraham or Moses who serves uals die eigentliche Artikulation des den Kosmos beherrschenden Gotteswillens" (p. 160). Georgi's study is suggestive, although like Schlatter's, its primary purpose is not the analysis of Josephus, but rather the general tradition which some of his writing reflects. Others who have made important contributions to the understanding of particular details of hellenization in Josephus have been L. Feldrnan 1 and W. C. Van Unnik. 2 Several minor studies of particular issues relevant to the major question were also done in this period. 3 Conalusion

This study suggests that in the Antiquities there is a serious theological endeavor, which neither is simply a distillation or representative sampling of some current views, nor is it fashioned in accord with a dogmatic system. It is a 1 Feldman's work on Abraham was cited above, p. 24, n. 2. Cf. also his "Hellenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's Decline," Religions in Antiquity (Festschrift Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner; Lei den: Brill, 1968) 336-53 and "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther (Ant. Jud. 11. 185-295) ,"TAPA 101 (1970) 143-70.

2"An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus," Romanitas et ChPistianitas (Festschrift Waszink, ed. W. den Boer et aZ.; .Amsterdam, 1973) 349-50; "Josephus' account of the story of Israel's sin with alien women," TPa-veZs in the WorZd of the OT (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974) 241-61; and "Eine

merkwUrdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jos. Ant. 8, 111113)" Josephus Studien 362-69. 3 Note the terminological studies by J. B. Fischer, "The term. O~::crn61:"T]!; in Josephus," JQR 49 (1958/59) 132-38; E. Best, "The Use and Non-Use of Pneuma by Josephus," NT 3 (1959) 21825; and J. Reiling, "The Use of t.lno:u6onpowr'iTt1!; in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus," NT 13 (1971) 147-56. Note too the rather superficial study by G. A. Williamson, The World of Josephus (Boston: Little-Brown, 1965).

theology which in many ways is a personal creation of Josephus, reflecting his own experience and responding to the requirements of his particular. situation. It is created by the very choice of a literary form, by the elaboration of the scriptural narrative ~n clearly discernable ways and by the deployment of a vocabulary designed to express clearly what Josephus conceives of as the scriptural message. All of these factors constitute an attempt to proclaim to the Greco-Roman world the significance and the meaning of Judaism.

THE CHARACTER AND PROGRM.1MATIC AIMS

OF THE ANTIQUITIES

In the first chapter we saw that an adequate evaluation of the theology of Josephus must be informed by an understanding of the way in which he operates in each of his writings. We also ~aw that there have been relatively few attempts to analyze the theological dimension of the Antiquities with such an understanding. This is not to say that the technical questions of sources and narrative techniques have not been studied. What we know from such studies has not~ however, been applied in a systematic and comprehensive way to the focus of our investigation. In this chapter we shall examine the literary features of the Antiquities relevant to an assessment of its interpretation of biblical history and hence to the theology of Josephus. In the first two sections we deal with issues which have been discussed at length. What we are attempting to provide is a systematic survey of the relevant material. In the third and fourth sections we shall treat a subject which has not been quite as thoroughly examined as the issues of sources and techniques, namely the literary affiliations of the first part of the Antiquities. At that point we shall become more analytical, focusing our attention on the structure and contents of the Proem to the work, Ant. I. 1-26, and we shall try to show how there has been a conscious choice of a literary form suitable for making a case for the importance of Jewish tradition. I.

The Souraes df the Antiquities

1

The value of the Antiquities as a field for the exploration of the theology of Josephus lies primarily in the fact 1 c£. the reviews of scholarship on the subject in Rappaport (Agada ix-xxxvi) and Schalit (Introduction xxvi-xlix). '

'

29

3.1 30

There is, in fact, evidence for all three sources in the

'iii

'1;;·, '

\1'1.

''""

!II

",,

that it is fairly easy to see the ways in which the biblical narrative has been· transformed, supplemented and hence interpreted. It may well be, however, that such transformations, additions and interpretations are not the work of Josephus, but are rather to be attributed to his sources. Most of the discussions of the sources of the Antiquities have not dealt with this question directly, but rather with the issue of the original language of the scriptural text used. A few earlier scholars maintained that Josephus used only the 2 Hebrew text.l Some claimed that he used the LXX exclusively. some maintained that he used another version entirely, which would account for at least some of the non-scriptural material. 3 Most have maintained that Josephus used a combination of the Hebrew text, the LXX, and perhap_s an Aramaic targum as well, with a different primary source in different sections of the work. 4 1 rhese are not included in the survey by Rappaport: I. A. Ernesti Exeraitationum FZavianarum prima de fontibus Archaeotogiae (Leipzig, 1756) and in his Opusaula ?.hit~Zogica Critiaa (Leiden, 1776). Also F. Tachauer, Das Verhartm. s. 2Earlier studies which advanced this suggestion, not men. tioned by Rappaport, are Spittler, De usu versionis AZexandrinae apud Josephum (GOttingen, 1779) and Sch~rf~nburg, De Josephi et versionis AZexan0rinae con~ensu (Le~pz~~. 1780) · The basic modern wo.rk, deal1ng only w2th the materJ.al from Samuel and Kinas, is A. Mez, Die Bibet des Josephus~ untersucht fUr Buch~V-VII der Arahaologie (Basel: Jaeger & Kober, 1895). He concluded that Josephus used the LXX in a Lucianic form in those books. 3E.g. a Samaritan version of the bi~le: So~- Gaster, . The Asatir (Publications of the Royal AsJ.atJ.c Soc1ety; London. 1927) 6lff. Rappaport (Agada xi) rejects this hypothesis in a long footnote. 4Among those holding this position was the author of t~e first major source-critical study of this work, H: Bloc~, ~~e Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archae~Zog~e (Le1pz1g, 1879). Important earlier scholars to hold th1: v1ew were E. SchUrer, Geschichte des jUdischen Votkes im Ze~talter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901-07) I. 80 and A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-studien (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru~r~cht, 190411; reprinted 1965) III. 80. It was also the pos1~1on of Thackeray. He suggested (Josephus 81) that the ma1n source for pentateuchal material was the H~br~w Bibl~ or a targum, for Samuel-Kings it was a proto-Luc1an1c ve:s:on of the LXX, and for Joshua-Judaes and Ruth it was a SemJ.tJ.c text, probably a targum. On the iast point he diverged from Mez (BibeZ 80-

Antiquities, most of which has been summarized by Schalit.

The clearest data is that which indicates the use of the LXX. Such use is obvious in the paraphrasing of books found only in the Greek version, l Esdras and 1 Maccabees. 1 There is also detailed evidence in abundance for the use of a Greek version in the latter parts of the biblical paraphrase. 2 Josephus tells us in the preface to the Antiquities of the LXX version of the Pentateuch and it seems quite likely that he did use it, with supplementary material from other Greek sources which we shall soon mention. TheTe has been some criticism of the hypothesis of Mez and Thackeray that Josephus used a form of an LXX text in the Samuel-Kings material, and in the process some evidence for the use of a Hebrew text in these books has been adduced. Much of this evidence is rather weak,3 as are also the texts suggesting the use of a targum, collected by Thackeray, Rappaport, and Schalit. Most of it indicates that Josephus spoke 81), who had found some Lucianic readings in Judges. Both Rappaport (Agada xxi-xxiv) and Schalit (Introduction xxxixxxii) followed Thackeray's suggestions about the use of a targum. 1 In Ant. XI and XII. Although 1 Esdras and 1 Maccabees were originally Hebrew or Aramaic, the coincidence with the Greek shows that this was undoubtedly the source. 2cf. Mez (Bibet 53-84), Thackeray (Josephus 81-89) and Schalit (IntPoduction xxxii-xxxv). Most of these passages are noted in the Loeb. For the examples cited by Thackeray and Schalit, cf. vr.. 54, 134, 186, 217, 274, 275, 280 (Here Marcus in the Loeb and Schalit [Introduction xxxiiJ dispute the arguments of Mez and Thackeray for a proto-Lucianic reading.); VIL. 48, 104, 105, 190; VIII. 13, 42, 85, 189 (Here Josephus may be combining the LXX and Hebrew texts, as Weill, Marcus and Schalit note) 206. This list could easily be expanded. 3some of the evidence which Schalit (Introduction xxviixxxi) adduces for the use of a Hebrew text consists simply of the absence of special material from the LXX. Cf. Ant. VIII. 16, 38-41, 181-83 and the corresponding biblical passages. The argumentum e silentio is hardly persuasive. He also maintains that the names of Solomon's commanders are closer to the MT than to the LXX. Cf. VIII. 35-38. However, the spelling of names is chaotic and the correspondences are not very close. Particular readings closer to the MT than to the LXX appear at V. 128, a conflation of data from the two versions about the cities conquered; VI. 352 'ESpaLo~. MT: o~,~~. LXX: 6~ano-

32

1"11'1

Aramaic,l and that is hardly surprising. In only a few passages is there any stronger indication that he may have had a written Aramaic source.2 These matters are still under investigation, and it may ultimately appear that many of these 3 readings can be shmm to be dependent on a Greek version. Even if it is proven that Josephus used a targum or Greek PEu6uEVOl.; VII. 346 qJC/..0!::, MT:

"'Vi, LXX: PnoEL.; VIII. 142 XaSaAwv, MT: li~~. LXX: Op1.ov. In VII. 127 XaAa~v, a place name is taken for a person, a possibility in the MT, but not in the LXX. (This suggestion comes ultimately from Rahlfs [Septuagintastudien III. 88]). In VIII. 50 Hiram sends congratulations as in the MT, not to anoint Solomon king as in the LXX. Also VIII. 204 Uno5e5pax6cL., MT: hi~ iW~, LXX: 6apaUEEa. Finally for X. 69 -rotG 6aoL.AEuou8voL!:, Schalit suggests a Heb. jiO J"n1 for the j/0 jn) of the MT, while Marcus (Loeb, Vol. VI. 195) suggests, probably enough, merely "a careless paraphrase of 2 Kgs 23:11. Many of these correspondences with the MT could well be explained by a Greek text which had been revised in conformity with the MT. To demonstrate direct usacre of the Hebrew it would have to be shown that such corrections were not made in, e.g., the proto-Lucianic version. 1 The evidence for this appears in the proper naffies and their etymologies. These occur frequently in the early books of the Antiquities: I. 39, 304; II. 92, 313; III. 151, 252; VI. 140. I. 54 y&Aa for ~In may be a misreading of the Heb. A similar error occurs in the targumim. Local exegetical tradition may explain the understanding of Heb. nJiT as innkeeper in III. 276 and V. 7. The identification in V. 187 of "the city of the palm trees" as Jericho is already found in the LXX to Deut 34:3. Again no written targum is required. 2These passages were noted by Thackeray (Josephus 81-82), Rappaport (Agada xxi-xxiv), and Schalit (Introduetion xxxixxxii). VIII. 236 WeuOonpown-rnG, Targ: ~i~W ~"~J~ MT: ~"~1; VIII. 362 yuuvoLG TOtG noaC, Targ: ~n"; MT: ~N; VIII. 414 Auavob who is the slayer of Achab only in Targ to 2 Chr 18:33. IX. 117 uEc' eU-ra!;CaG, Targ: n"J~, MT: ]"'9).11:1~. IX. 240 ~EAaLvaL Targ: Mi~P, MT: iiiN~. The last passage is a paraphrase of Nah 2:8-12. It is a very free and condensed rendition. Parallels are possible to either MT or a Targum. The other examples are more interesting. 3The question of the biblical text of Samuel-Kings in the Antiquities is currently being reinvestigated in a Harvard thesis by E. Ullrich. F. M. Cross ("The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts," 19 7 2 Proceedings IOSCS~ SBL Pseudepigrapha. Seminar [Missoula: U. Montana, 1972] 123) remarks about th1s thesis that, "It shows clearly, I believe, that there is no reason to suppose that Josephus made use of a Hebrew text: . Rather he simply used a Greek text of Samuel of proto-Luc1an1c type." Niese ("Josephus," ERE VI. 569-79) already approached this position.

33

version with a certain amount of expansion, there is still room for the editorial activity of the historian. We find in none of these possible sources the same type of extensive interpretative activity which we shall see in the Antiquities. Suggestions about the precise type of scriptural text used by Josephus are in part attempts to account for the readings in verses directly parallel to the scriptural text. In part they begin to account for the abundance of non-scriptural details in the Antiquities. Here other sources must be considered as well. Some of the non-scriptural details are found in other paraphrases of scripture of the same period, which probably have a Palestinian provenance, notably the book of Jubilees 1 and Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum. 2 These works share not only some of the details of s~riptural paraphrase, but also some of the major thematic emphases of the Antiquities. 3 Another possible source of the non-scriptural material is the Greco-Jewish apologetic literature which developed during the third to the first centuries BCE. The fragments of this corpus survive primarily in the Preparatio evangeliea of Eusebius, who ultimately relied on the compilation made by the excerptor of the first century BCE, Alexander Polyhistor. 4 1 For a translation and general discussion, cf. R. H. Charles, Apoerypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913) II. 1-82. Rappaport (Agada xix-xx) lists some of the correspondences. Jubilees probably dates to the second century BCE. 2For a survey of the lite.rature on Ps-Philo, cf. the prolegomena by L. H. Feldman to M. R. James, The Biblieal Antiquities of Philo (New York: Ktav, 1971). Feldman (LVIIILXVI) also lists parallels between Josephus and Pseudo-Philo. The old text of the work (G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum [Notre Dame, 1949]) has been replaced by the critical edition of D. Harrington (Text and Biblical Text in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum [Diss. Harvard, 1969]) which is soon to appear in the Sourees ehretiennes series. Ps-Philo probably is roughly contemporaneous to Josephus. 3 rhese general parallels will be discussed inCh. 5, pp. 147-48. 4The most recent collection of the texts is A. M. Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeea (Pseudepigrapha veteris testamenti graece 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).

35

34

In his classic study of these authors, J. Freudentha1 1 argued that Josephus probably knew them primarily, if not exclusively, through Alexander's compilation of texts on Judaism.2 This opinion has frequently been accepted, 3 although many scholars have noted certain difficulties with it. 4 For Josephus refers explicitly to Alexander only once, and the material quoted there from Cleodemus Malchos might have come not from Alexander's work on the Jews, but ·rather from his Libyka. 5 Furthermore, Josephus refers in the Contra Apionem 1 neZZenistische Studien I-II (Breslau:

Jahresbericht des

jUdisch-theologischen Seminars, 1874-75). For subsequent literature on these authors, cf. G. Delling, Bibliographie zur iUdisah-hellenistisahen und intertestamentarisahen Literatur: l900-l965 (TU 106; Berlin: Akademie, 1969), and A.M. Denis, Introduction aux pseUd~pigraphes greas d'Anaien Testament

(Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Note also the recent discussions of P. Dalbert, Die Theologie der hellenistisah-jUdisahen Missions-Literatur unter Aussehluss von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg: Reich, 1954), Georgi (Die Gegner, passim), and P.M. Fraser (Ptolemaic Alexandria [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 687-716)'.

:

i

!,

2The authors in question and the most relevant sections of the Antiquities are: Demetrius, II. 321; X. 185; Artapanus, I. 161-68; II. 232-53; Cleodemus Malchos, I. 240; the Sibyllines, I. 118-19; as well as some scattered bits of chronological data parallel to Eupolemos. 3Among source critics of the Antiquities, the most notable proponents of the theory are Bloch (Quellen 53-56) and Rappaport (Agada xvii). Schalit (Introduction xlv-xlix) argues at length for dependence of Josephus on Alexander, although he does not discuss the issue of the different books of Alexander which could have served as sources. 4The earliest objections to Freudenthal were raised by A. von Gutschmid in a review (Kleine Sahriften [Leipzig: Teubner, 1880] II. 182). For more recent discussion, cf. N. Walter, Der Toraausleger Aristobulos (TU 86; Berlin: Akademie, 1964) 55, and "Zur Ueberlieferung einiger Reste frillier jUdisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clemens und Eusebius," Studia Patristica 7, 314-320 (TU 92; Berlin: Akademie, 1966), and B.-z. Wacholder, Eupolemus~ A Study of Greeo-Jewish Literature (Cincinnati/New York/Los Angeles/ Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1974) 53-57. 5Ant. I. 239.-241. The topic is .more Jewish than African. It might therefore be more at home in Alexander's compilation on the Jews. The quote from the Sibylline Oracles in Ant. I. 118 also seems definitely to come from Alexander, although he is not cited by name. This quote may have been from his Babylonika, whence Josephus may also have derived some of his

to several major Greco-Jewish authors as if they were pagan. 1 All of this suggests that Josephus did not make extensive use of the compilation of Greco-Jewish literature by Alexander. 2 Other sources, of course, were available to Josephus which might have conveyed information about the earlier Jewish literature in Greek. 3 The precise channels through which material from that literature reached Josephus are difficult to trace. In any case, it is highly probable that Josephus did not make extensive first hand use of his apologetic forebears, although traditions from that literature certainly influenced the Antiquities. 4 inform.ation on Berossus. Gutschmid (Kleine Sehriften IV. 491) and Schalit (Introduction xlv-xlix) both discuss this material (Ant. I. 93, X. 23). 1

c. Ap. I. 218 mentions Demetrius (of Phalerum!), Philo the elder and Eupolemus and admits that they achieved a close approximation to the truth, despite the fact that they could not correctly understand Jewish records. Of course, even if Josephus had used Alexander, he might have considered some of the highly syncretistic authors preserved there to have been pagans. Gutschmid (Kleine Sehriften II. 182) suggests on the basis of the C. Ap. I. 218 that Josephus did have access to Alexander's compilation when he wrote the Contra Apionem, but only used it in a superficial way. 2 The preface to the Antiquities conveys the impression that Josephus is making a rather original contribution,_ having been preceded only by the Septuagint. A failure to mention Alexander more frequently might also be designed to convey the same impression. The hypothesis of the use by Josephus of a single major source, Alexander's On the Jews, is neater than the hypothesis of a use of several works of Alexander, not clearly related to Josephus' main interests. 3G. HOlscher ("Josephus," PWRE IX, 1934-2000) suggested that Josephus relied on a compilation of Alexandrian scholastic exegesis. Wacholder (Nicholas of Damascus [University of California Publications in History 75; Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. of California, 1962] 52) and Thackeray (Loeb IV. 45) suggested that the lists of authors ending with the name of Nicholas (Ant. I. 94, 108) might be an indication of such a dependence. Wacholder later (Eupolemus 56-57) suggested that Josephus might have depended on his rival Justus of Tiberius for knowledge of some of the Jewish Hellenists. 4 Artapanus especially seems to have been the ultimate source of the novelistic material on Moses.

37

36

till I 1111:•

11,1:: 'Ill' 'I'll' Ill' I'll II 'I '

Philo is a rather special case of an earlier hellenistic Jewish author. Scholarly opinion has been equally divided on whether Josephus used him or not. 1 Those who support the connection point to the large number of exegetical details which the two ;hare, 2 or to the common use of allegorical interpretation. 3

Those ;.,rho dispute the connection argue that most of

the details could easily depend on common Hellenistic-Jewish exegesis4 and that the allegorical interpretations in particular are far too common to prove literary dependence. 5 The wide attestation of the material involved here strongly favors a sceptical attitude toward any suggestion of close dependence on Philo. Finally, it seems likely that many details of the scriptural paraphrase derive from oral traditions of biblical

1 Rappaport (Agada xviii) provides a survey of the scholarly opinions to his date. Notable among the supporters of the connection are Freudenthal (Eellenistisahe Studien 218) and Schllrer (Gesahiahte I. 81), Earlier scholars who should be on the list include H. Weyl, Die jUdisahe Strafgesetze bei Flavius Josephus in ihrem Verhaltnis zu Sahrift und Ealaaha (Berlin: 1900), and Lewinsky (Beitrage 10).

2Rappaport (Agada xix) cites several such details as evidence of dependence. In Ant. I. 77 it is said that the ark had four stories, whereas in scripture only three are mentioned. The same number appears in Philo, Vit. Mos. II. 60. He also notes the close verbal parallel between Ant. I. 177 and Abr. 233 and between Ant. II. 61 and Jos. 25. 3Both Thackeray (Josephus 94) and Schalit (Introduction xli) accept the thesis of dependence, largely on the basis of the parallels between the preface of the Antiquities and the Op. Mun. and because of the similar allegorical interpretation of vestments and the tabernacle in Ant. III. 123, 179-87 and Vit. Mos. II. 88, 117. 4Bloch (Quellen 125-33) enumerates ten of these details from the first four books and lists various parallels from Jewish sources, as well as differences between Philo and Josephus on specific points. Among others who dispute the dependence are HOlscher ("Josephus" 1964), S. Belkin (The Alexandrian Ealakha in Apo~ogetic Literature of the First Century C.E.

[Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1936]) and Delling ("Heidnische Religionen" 46). 5on this issue, cf. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965) 94ff. and the revieil' by z. Stewart, JTS NS 17 (1966) 164-65. For a discussion of Jewish allegory in general in this period, cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge: Harvard, 1947) I. 115-138 and J. Pepin, Mythe et altegorie (Paris: Aubier, 1958).

exegesis, either those which Josephus knew from his youth in Palestine, 1 or those which developed in the synagogal homiletics of the diaspora. 2 We noted briefly at the beginning of this section that the possibility of heavy dependence of Josephus on specific written sources in his biblical paraphrase might have important implications for our investigation. Study of scriptural interpretation would have to be a more elaborate exploration of the process of redaction between the biblical text and the Antiquities. The role of Josephus himself would necessarily be a rather limited one, which would be more difficult to delineate with any precision. In fact, as our review of the question of sources indicates, it is generally recognized that Josephus was not dependent on any one specific reworking of scripture. HOlscher's thesis that he was is quite unfounded. 3 Instead, Josephus apparently drew on a variety of traditions and used them all with some flexibility. Furthermore, we shall find in our subsequent investigation substantial evidence of the activity of Josephus himself. 1 Bloch (Quellen 52) and Schalit (Introduction xxxix-xli) stress the probable importance of oral traditions. Schalit even suggests a general criterion for distinguishing between exegetical details derived from written sources and those stemming from oral tradition. Details connected with specific verses are to be seen as oral traditions. Extended blocks of material not connected with a specific verse are probably from written sources. One interesting example of possible Palestinian oral tradition was examined by 0. Steck (Israel und das gewaltsame Gesahiak der Propheten [WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967] 81-109) who traces the motif of the prophet who suffers for proclaiming God's will and suggests !hat it has its Sitz-im-Leben in Palestinian levitical preach~ng. It should be noted that some scholars such as Rappaport (~gada xv) criticized the theory of dependence on oral tradit~on and saw Josephus as relying on written sources exclusively. Although Josephus used such sources extensively, there are no grounds for excluding oral tradition. 2r. Elbogen (Der ;jUdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtliahen EntNiaklung [Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann, 193~] 1?8-80) discusses t~e phenomenon of synagogue homilet~cs ~n general. Georg~ (Die Gegner~ passim) discusses the top~c in connection with Greco-Jewish apologetic. 3"Josephus" 19. According to this view Jos'ephus is simply a mechanical copyist.

39

38

ill I '1"11'1'

·t,·,r

'lit :1

1

'I Ill

This appears in a set of evaluative patterns and vocabulary running throughout the biblical paraphrase, which manifests a sustained reflection on the events of biblical history. These patterns are not traceable to any of the other biblical paraphrases which might have served as a source for Josephus. In some cases there are important elements of continuity between these patterns and important features of the Bellum, as well as with remarks in the obviously editorial and programmat~c sections of the Antiquities. These facts confirm what the survey of sources indicated, namely that the paraphrase by Josephus is not simply a reproduction of sources but a careful reworking of them. II.

In reworking and interweaving the variety of materials at his disposal, Josephus displayed a familiarity with a broad spectrum of Greek literature and With the literary fashion of his day. His rhetorical and stylistic devices as well as his choice of vocabulary have frequently been investigated, and we 1 need only summarize the major results of previous scholarship. On the most basic level of vocabulary and grammar, the careful study by A. Pelletier 2 of the Letter of Aristeas and the corresponding section of the Antiquities has made quite clear that a major concern of Josephus was to produce a literary work acceptable to first-century atticizing tastes. The intimate acquaintance of Josephus with more significant stylistic traits of classical Greek authors has amazed some scholars and has produced one rather well-known theory

'i'

I'

I

1 :

Techniques of Narrative Elaboration

lrn addition to the studies cited below, cf. M. Auerbach, "De hiatu in Flavii Josephi scriptis obvio," Archiwum to'"'?ar2ystwa naukowego we Lwowie (=Archive of the Lemberger Un1on for the furtherance of Polish Scholarship) 1 (1922) 37-58; W. Schmidt De FZavii Josephi eZocutione observationes criticae (Leipzig: Teubner, 18~3); C. Raab, De .FZavii Josep~i eZocutione quaestiones crit1rcae et observat1rones grammat1rcae (Erlangen, 1890); H. Paur, Observationes et adnotationes ad FZaVii Josephi eZocutionem (NUrnberg, 1892); W. Hornbostel, De Flavii JOsephi studiis rhetoricis quaestiones selectae (Halle, 1912) and S. Ek, "Herodotismen in der jUdischen Archaeologie des Josephos," HVLA (1945-46) 27-62.

i~

~ "' o,!, '

l '

'

\

2Flavius Josephe~ adapteur de la lettre d'Ariste.e: Une reaction atticisante contre la Koine (Etudes et commentaires XLV; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962).

about the composition of the Antiquities. Thackeray 1 suggested that Josephus employed assistants, each of whom had a favorite classical author. Where vocabulary or stylistic traits of those authors appeared, the hand of the assistant had been at work. Subsequent studies, however, have shown that traits reminiscent of- the various model authors are found throughout the Antiquities. 2 Hence, it is more plausible to suppose that Josephus himself introduced into his narrative various vocabulary items and turns of phrase which he had gleaned from his reading of the classics. More significant for the interpretative aspect of the Antiquities are the narrative techniques employed. Attention was specially focused on this issue by three studies which appeared almost simultaneously forty years ago. 3 All treated the story of the patriarch Joseph and noted the affinities of features of the tale in Josephus with Common elements in Greco-Roman novels. Several subsequent studies have documented similar uses of motifs from Greco-Roman literature, especially erotic-romantic motifs. '· In addition to the elaboration of the narrative with such erotic, novelistic material as we find in the Joseph story and 1Josephus 100-124, a theory repeated in the introduction to the Loeb, Vol. IV. xiv-xvii. 2 E. Stein, De Woordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaiaum van Flavius Josephus (Amsterdam, 1937); G. C. Richards and R. J. H. Shutt, "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities," CQ 33- (1939) 36-40; H. Petersen, "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus," AJPh 79 (1958) 259-74; R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1961); and B. Justus, "Zur Erzahlkunst des Flavius Josephus," Theokr-atia 2 (1970-72) 10736. 3 H. SprOdowsky, Die Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Joseph in Aegyptem bei Flavius Josephus (Greifswald, 1937) and M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und BeZlenistische Geschiahtsschreibung (Frankfurt am Main, !934) and History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938).

4H. R. Moehring, Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (Diss. Chicago, 1957) and W. C. Van Unnik, "Josephus' account of the story of Israel's sin with alien women," Travels in the World of the OT (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974) 241-61. Van Unnik's is the first study to treat in any detail the story of the Levite of Ephraim which is important for one dimension of the interpretative activity of Josephus. Cf. Ch. 4, pp. 128-32.

41

40

in certain other pericopae, there are some literary devices which are found more generally. 1 Many scenes are made more dramatic than in scripture by an elaboration of elements in them 1-rhich might appeal to the emotions and by speeches which

forcefully present the points of view of the characters involved.2 Another important feature is the psychologizing, i.e. the concentration on the inner experience and motivation of the characters. Thus we often hear of the emotions which individuals feel in particular situations and especially those which prompt them to take action. 3 With equal frequency we read analyses of the conscious, rational motives which lie behind men's actions. 4 Many of these narra.tive devices are particularly characteristic of hellenistic historiography, 5 and we shall see more

I' '

'''I '

1These have been catalogued by E. Stein ("De Flavii Josephi arte narrandi,'' Eos 33 [1930-31] 641-50); B. Heller ("GrundzUge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus," MGWJ 80 [1936] 237-46, 363); I. Heinemann ("Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities" [Hebrew], Zion 5 [1939-40] 180-203) and Schalit (Introduction 1-lviii) commenting on the structure of the Antiquities as a whole and (Introduction lix-lxxii) on the various techniques in diction, character portrayal, etc. 2Particular examples of the dramatizing expansion are the Aqedah (1. 222-36), the Joseph story (II. 39-167), the account of the exodus (II. 320-349), and the revolts (IV. 11-66 and 131-58). \~,Te shall be examining these sections in the subsequent chapters. For examples of relatively minor instances of this dramatizing technique, cf. Ch. 4, p. 134, n. 1. 3Note, for example, the prevalence of references to the fears of the major characters: of Cain (I. 59), of Noah (I. 74, 96-103), of Lot (I. 176), of Rachel (I. 305), of Jacob (I. 2}7, 327; II. 18, 119), of Joseph (II. 133, 170-71), of Pharaoh (II. 206, 255, 299), of Potiphar's wife (II. 50-54), of Amram (II. 210, 219), of Moses (II. 322, IV. 63), of Saul (VI. 59, 205, 213, 259), of Joab (VII. 31, 36; VIII. 13), of Jehosaphat (IX. 8, 9), of Nebuchadnezzar (X. 99), and of Josiah (X. 59).

.

4Note the rationale of Isaac in becoming reconciled with Abimelech (I. 264), of Joseph for selling Egyptian grain to foreigners (II. 94), of Moses when he comes to the aid of the daughters of Raguel (II. 260), and of the Israelite tribes when deliberating on the fate of the Benjaminites (V. 169). The impulse to analysis of motives carries over occasionally into the presentation of the laws (III. 274). 5cf. the literature cited below on p. 45, n. 4 and p. 46, n. 2. Another useful discussion of literary techniques in a work of religious historiograp~y is E. Pllimacher, Lukas ala

on that subject in the next section. In subsequent chapters we shall often see these various technig_ues in operation, .and we shall frequently find that the passages which are most carefully developed from a literary point of view are precisely those where the most important interpretative activity has taken place. III.

The Preface to the Antiquities:

General Conaid.eY.ations

In the preface to the Antiquities certain important themes by which the Jewish past is evaluated and interpreted are first suggested. These themes will supply the general categories in. which our examination of the actual paraphrase will proceed in later chapters. We shall see important continuities between the programmatic statements and the final product, although equally important dimensions of the interpretation will not becorn~ evident until we ~ave examined the narrative. The proem to the Antiquities is important for our inve·stigation, not only because of the explicit assessment of the significance of biblical history which it contains, but also because of what it may show about the mode of this assessment. Here, Josephus makes prominent use of Greek historiographical cliches. This fact has important implications for understanding the aims and methods of the work. The preface to the Antiquities consists of three fairly well-defined sections. The first, 1-9, contains various remarks on historiography: the motives which prompt men to write history and how these are applicable to Josephus (1-4); the contents of the work, defined as an "archaeology" (5-6); the relation of the present to the previous work of the historian (6-7); and a few kind words about the patron of Josephus, Epaphroditus, at whose urging Josephus undertook the task of composing the Antiquities (8-9a). The second section (9b-17) develops further the explanation of the material which Josephus is to present. Here the historian cites a precedent for his work, namely the Septuagint, a~d he recalls details from the legend of its translation, as are found in the Letter of Aristeas (10-12). Next he.~Ze"Yfistiacher (Go~t~ngen:

Schr>iftsteller:

Studien zur A'postelgeschiahte

Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972).

42

Josephus offers another brief general survey of the type of material involved in his work (13) and, for the first time, the lesson of all this history (14). There follows an appeal to the reader to judge whether the Jewish lawgiver has created a work free of all "unseemly mythology" (15-17).

! '

The third and final section picks up the discussion of the lawgiver to whom Josephus had alluded in the previous section, now mentioning him by name. Josephus says that he feels compelled to discuss him briefly lest people wonder why a legal and historical work should begin with "physiology" (18) . The explanation given is that good laws must be based on an understanding of nature (19). Law must be made in conformity with nature, and it will be, if it is recognized that nature mirrors the divine and that the god who is father and lord of all rewards and punishes men according to their deeds. Piety (EUcrESE~a) consists in recognizing this religious philosophy and once men are thus pious they will be ready to obey the laws (20-21). Moses is then contrasted with inferior lawgivers, who attribute to gods various shameful deeds, thus furnishing the wicked with excuses for their behavior (22-23). Then another appeal to the reader is launched, asking him to note whether anything unreasonable or inconsistent with the majesty of God has been included in the work of Moses (24). This is follmved by a brief theory of hermeneutics, where it is noted that the message of the scriptures is given in part enigmatically, in part allegorically, and in part simply, a fact which would provide material for the speculative contemplation (BEwpCa) of the philosophically-minded, which Josephus excuses himself from furnishing at present. 1 Then he announces that he will begin with the account by Moses of the creation of the world.

1 It would be interesting to know what sort of theological reflection Josephus would have offered in his projected work on "Customs and Causes". Perhaps he would have been more speculative and systematic, but we cannot know for certain.

43

IV.

The Historiography of the Antiquities: Edification

Apologetic

In the first of these three sections, dealing with primarily historiographical matters, there are some obvious parallels to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the rhetor and historian of the Augustan age, and these parallels have frequently been recorded. I Both writers remark on the motivations for historical writing in their prefaces and both describe the contents of their works in similar terms. Josephus proclaims that the material of his work is worthy of attention casca onouonb). It includes our entire ancient history (dpxaLoAoyCa) and political constitution (6~UTafLb TeD noALTED~TOb) . . . who the Jews were of old, the fortunes that befell them (TCoL xpnoU~evoL •UxaLG), the lawgiver under whom they were trained in piety and the exercise of the other virtues and all those wars waged by them through long ages before th~s last (Ant. I. 5-6). In the preface to his Antiquitates Romanae, Dionysius also lays claim to a worthy subject (1.1.2) and promises to speak of "those who settled the city, who they were, and the times of their arrival and what fortunes befell them (TLoL •UxaLb XPnoci~E:VOL) before they left their fatherlands (1. 5 .1)." Later he details more of his subject matter: I relate all the foreign wars that the city waged during that period, and all the internal seditions with which she was agitated, showing from what causes they sprang and by what methods and by what arguments they were brought to an end. I give an account also of all the forms of government Rome used, both during the monarchy and after its overthrow . . . . I describe the best customs and the most remarkable laws; and, in short, I show the whole life of the ancient Romans (Ant. Rom. 1.8.2). In addition to this definition of their subject by the two historians, the very titles and the division into twenty books 1

Thackeray (Josephus 56-58), Foakes-Jackson (Josephus and. the Jews 247-48), Schalit (Introduction xx-xxvi), and Shutt (Studies 92-101) all note the connection. Shutt deals primarily with questions of style in the latter half of the Antiquities.

44

45

in each case is indicative of the influence of Dionysius on the Jewish historian. It is probable that this influence extended into details of the narrative, such as certain "rationalistic'' phrases 1 and the structuring of certain scenes, 2 although evidence adduced for this has often been weak. We shall deal with this question in due course. What is of interest here is a slightly more general problem. We may wonder about the significance of these correspondences in programmatic statements. Is there also a shared theoretical conception of history or similar aims in composing historical literature? It is clear that Josephus presents this historical work in a different 'l>.'ay from that 1-fhich he had used in the Bellum, and it is also clear that he used Dionysius as his model for this presentation. In part this change in programmatic statement may be due simply to the change in subject matter, but in part at least, it seems to reflect a different conception of what historical literature could and should do. In order to see this, it is necessary to consider some of the differences b.etween the programmatic statements of the Bellum and the Antiquities, illustrating the differences in content and aims of the two works. The Bellum has for its subject matter primarily contemporary military and political affairs. In the preface Josephus takes pains to argue for the superiority of historical writing which deals with such topics: Yet I, on my side, might justly censure those erudite Greeks who, living in times of such

,. ..

1

1 The formulaic "rationalistic" remarks to the effect that each reader should make his own judgment' about the miraculous (Ant. I. 108, II. 348, III. 81) are also found in Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.48.1; 2.40.3, 70.5; 3.35.5), as is noted by Thackeray (Josephus 57) and Schalit (Introduation xxv). The expression is not confined to Dionysius, as G. Avenarius (Lukians Schrift zur Gesahichtssahreibung [Meisenheim/Glan: Hain, 1956] 163-65) indicates. MacRae ("Mi.racle" 147) also pointed to common terminology for the miraculous. Cf. Ch. 3, p. 95, n. 1, and p. 98, n. 1. This language, too, is more common, as we shall see in Ch. 5. 2Thackeray (Josephus 56-57) suggests a similarity between the passing of Moses (Ant. IV. 326) and the passing of Aeneas and of Romulus in Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4; 2.56.2).

stirring actions as by comparison reduce to insignificance the wars of antiquity yet judge disparagingly! these current e~ents and revile those who make them their soecial study_- authors whose principles they lack, even 1f they have the advantage of them in literary skill . . . . In fact the work of committing to writing events which have not previouslz been re~orded and of commending to poster1ty the hlstory of one's own time is one which meri'ts praise and acknowledgement. The industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and arrangement of another's work, but one who uses fresh materials and m~kes up his own. framework for the history. Subsequently Josephus also indicates that he thinks the narration of the ancient history of the Jews (dpxaloAoyELv . LU 'Iou6aCwv 17) is superfluous because of previous efforts.3 This insistence in the Bellum on contemporary affairs as the proper subject matter for the historian is a legacy of Thucydides (1.21). The rejection of the rewriting of history appears explicitly in those like Polybius who maintained the tradition of critical, contemporary, practical historiography which Thucydides initiated. 4 One passage in Polybius is parcularly close to the program of the Bellum: Since genealogies, myths, the planting of colonies, the foundations of cities and their ties of kinship have been recounted by many writers and in many different styles, 1

. The ~oeb h~re translates "sit in judgment." This is sl1ghtly m~sl~ad~ng. The historian with antiquarian interests ~oes not Slt 1n JUdgment on such events. He ignores them or . JUdges them unworthy of his attention. 2

Bell. I. 13-15. Thackeray's translation here: the framework of history his own" is misleading. 3contrast Ant. I. 9-ll.

.

4

~n

"makes

Polybius and his views on historiography, cf. W.

S1~gfr1ed! Studien zur gesehichtliehen Ansehauung des Polybios (~1SS. He1delberg: 1928); F. W. Walbank, "Polemic in Poly-

hlus," JRS 52 (1962) 5-12; P. Pedech, La methode his"toriqu.e de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964); F. W. Walbank Polybius (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: U. of Calif., 1972) esp. 66-96. on Pragmatike Historia. Shutt (Studies 102-106) gathers ev1dence for the use of Polybius by Josephus.

47

46 an author who undertakes at the present day to deal with these matters must either represent the work of others as being his own a most discrraceful proceeding, or if

he ~efuses to d~ this, must manifestly toil

to no purpose, being constrained to avow that the matters on which he writes and to which he devotes his attention have been adequately narrated and handed down to posterity by previous authors. So omitting these things for the above and various other reasons, I decided on writing a history of contemporary events.l We have already cited, at the beginning of this section, the passages from Dionysius and Josephus in the Antiquities which define their sphere of interests in just the terms rejected by 2 Polybius and by Josephus himself in the Bellum. The rhetorical historiography of the early empire saw antiquarian research as its proper concern and it is with this historiography that Josephus naturally aligns himself in treating his own people's ancient history. 3

' ii!·

'',!

l

lHist. 9.2.1-2. The end of the quote ~s a rather loose translation of 6 0~ npay~U•~ko~ •o6no~ EvexoCan. Also in 4.2.2-3 Polybius explains that he is dealing with recent history: "I have been present at some of the events and have the testimony of eyevri tnesses for others." 2The deliberate rejection of contemporary_political- . military history by Dionysius appears clearly ~~ ~o~e of h~s literary critical treatises. There he often cr1t1c~zes Thucydides for the inferiority of his subjec! matter. He "stretched out a single war. He ran along w1thout a pause adding one battle to another, so that the attention of the readers becomes weary . . . . Even he, hol'rever, had ~ome . idea about what I am saying, namely that change and d~ver~~~y (ue•aSoAD xat noLx~Aov) is a pleasant thing in the compos1t1on of history (Ad Pomp. 3.12)." On this and the other lite:arycritical treatises of Dionysius, cf. S. F. Bonner, The L~ter­ ary Treatises of Dionysius of Haliaarnassus (Cambridge, 1939) and G. M. Grube, The Greek and Roman Critias (London: Methuen, 1965). F. Halbfas (Theorie und Praxis in der .. Gesahiahtssahreibung bei Dionysius von Haliaarnassus [Mu~ster, 1910]~ provides a general discussion of historiograph1cal theory 1n Dionysius. 3Livy is another example of the same type of historiographical orientation. Cf. E. Burck, Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius (Problemata 11; Berlin: Wiedmann, 1934) ~nd P. G. Walsh, Livy~ His Historical Aims and Methods ~Camb:ldge,_l96l). On the distinction between the two types of h1stor1cal llterature made here cf. A. Momigliano, "Problems of Ancient Biog-

Not only in the description of the contents, but also in his expressed aims, Josephus appears to have adopted in the Antiquities the particular emphases of the antiquarian rhetorical historiography. The preface to the Bellum has little to say on the subject of the effects of reading history. It does stress the need for truth and objectivity. This was hardly something which historians rejected; 1 however, certain implications of the requirement of truthful objectivity were consistently drawn only by the more critical historians. Josephus in the Bellum expresses these implications in his rejection of pleasure and of propaganda as legitimate goals of history. The claim of Josephus in the Bellum that he is not writing for ·the gratification of his readers reflects the frequently found judgment that history constitutes an integral literary genre, not to be assimilated to, or confused with poetry or tragedy, the goals and methods of which are quite different. 2 raphy" Quarto Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome: Storia e letteratura, 1969) 77-94, esp. p. 81, and "Ancient History and the Antiquarian" Journal. of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950) 285-315 and Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici (Roma: Storia e letteratura, 1955) 67-106. Some useful remarks may also be found in H. J. Cadbury, "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History" The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; London: MaCMillan, 1922) II. 7-15. 1An exception to this generalization is occasionallY cited from Cicero, Brutus 42. He had been comparing Themistocles and Coriolanus: "si quidem uterque cum civis egregius fuisset, populi ingrati pulsus iniuria se ad hostis contulit conatumque iracundiae suae morte sedavit. Nam etsi aliter apud te est, Attice, de Coriolano 7 concede tamen ut huic generi mortis potius assentiar." To which Atticus replies, "At ille ridens: 'Tuo vera,' inquit, "arbitratu, quoniam quidem concessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut aliquid dicere possint argutius. '" The point here is not that rhetors are allowed the latitude of falsification when composing historical works, but that orators are free to falsify-the historical exempla 'which they use in their speeches to make a more telling point. L. H. Feldman (Cicero's Conception of Historiography [Diss. Harvard 7 1951] 179) comments on this issue in detail. 2This theoretical rejection of the poetic or tragic does not imply that contemporary political historiography was devoid of literary considerations. The work on his own consulship which Cicero requested from Lucceius would have conformed to many of the literary expectations of his day. Cf. Ad Fam. 5.12.2-6 (On this letter cf. the discussion of R. Reitzenstein,

49'

48

The well known remarks of Polybius on the subject occur in the course of his critique of Phylarchus, one of the earlier Hellenistic historians who apparently exemPlified ,,.-ell the methods of "tragic" or "pathetic" history. 1 Polybius writes:

I I~ I I 1

The object of tragedy is not the same as that of history, but quite the opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm (txnAnGaL xal WoxaywynoaL) his audience for the moment by the verisimilitude of the words he puts Hellenistische Wundere:t>ziihlungen (Darmstadt:

,, '

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963; a photo reprint of the 1906 edition). Schalit (Introduction xi-xv) notes some of the ways in which the Bellum fulfills the criteria for a literary monograph in Cicero's letter. The l'rork is conceived as an organic whole, highlighting the activity of a single individual, Titus, climaxing with the dramatic scenes of the temple's destruction. Some of these features are general literary ideals to which even the most rigorous and critical historian could subscribe. E.g. Polybius made the claim that his history was nas it were an organic whole" (otovel. Oe et historiens dans l'antiquite~ Fondation Baz.dt~ Entretiens 4 (1956) 85-145, and N. Zegers, Wesen und Uz.eprung der Tragischen Gesahichtsschz.eibung (Diss. KOln, 1959). For our assessment of the historiographical elements of Josephus it is not necessary to enter into this disputed question. Neither Josephus nor his immediate instructors in historiography consciously adopted a theory of "tragic" history, although they often used and admired the narrative techniques associated with this type of writing. By using the term rhetorical historiography to

in his characters' mouths, but it is the task of the historian to instruct (6L.66.EaL.). 1 Even more explicit in Josephus than the repudiation of poetic elements and-the pleasure which follows them is the repudiation of propaganda, in the form of either invective (xa•nyopCa) or encomium, 2 and Josephus criticizes others who had written accounts of the war for having composed out of a desire to flatter the Romans. Such partisanship is constantly condemned by critical historians as inconsistent with the ideal of truthful objectivity. Some of the more striking remarks of Polybius on the subject occur in his discussion of Theopompus, who is criticized for being foremost among those whose works "are not so much history as panegyric," while Polybius claims that it is proper "neither to revile kings falsely nor to extol (tYKWUL.6.6E:L.V) them_,3 ~escribe the theory and practice of Dionysius, I do not mean to 1mply that !socrates was responsible for all the features of hellenistic historical literature.

l . B1-st. 2.56.11-12. In order to see the continuity of and othe~ dicta of critical contemporary historiography, 1t 1s worthwh1le to compare the remarks of Lucian in the tract Quomodo histo~ia cqnsari~enda est, a satirical piece ridiculing the rash of h1stor1es wh1ch appeared during and after the Paedit (Vratislav, 1915); B. Revel, "Antitraditional laws of Josephus," JQR 14 (1923-24) 293-302; S. Belkin, The Alexandrian Halakah in Apologetic Literature of the First Century C.E. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1936) and Bloch, QueZZen 133-40. These studies show no con-

sistent relation between Josephus and later halachic tradition.

CONCLUSIONS Our investigation of the biblical paraphrase of the Antiquities began as an attempt to clarify the position of Josephus as a representative of Jewish religious thought. The theologically reflective dimension of his writing has often been minimized or entirely neglected because of certain preconceptions about the nature of theology and because of inadequate analysis of the apologetic activity of Josephus. Our study attempts to provide both a different model of theologizing and a more satisfactory analysis of the means by which apologetics is conducted by Josephus. We initially suggested that theology in Josephus is not to be understood as a systematic, quasi-philosophical, enterprise, but rather as a literary one, Which reinterprets traditional religious formulations in a historiographical medium. In the process of paraphrasing the narratives of the ancient history of the Jews, Josephus redefines the significant elements of that history. In this redefinition lies the heart of the apologetic process, which is not a simple defensive response to hostility, but a creative adapt.ation of the tradition, which makes that tradition relevant, comprehensible and attractive in a new environment. Two features of the Antiquities are particularly important for our assessment of the process of interpretative apologetic. These are the choice of a particular literary form and the elaboration of certain themes in the course of the biblical narratives. The proem to the Antiquities, as well as other programmatic statements in the course of the work, indicates that it conforms to a definite historiographical pattern, which allows for, indeed requires, encomiastic and edifying history. Thus Josephus had found Greek historiographical models which gave a warrant for the type of propagandistic history which he wanted to produce. The historiographical cliches say a great deal about the aims of the Antiquities. The domi181

182

nant motifs of the biblical paraphrase say more. The two central themes were suggested by certain remarks in the proem which emphasized the reality of God's retributive providence and the moral relevance of the JeHish past. Their development manifests both an internal consistency and a subtle but clear transformation of important themes of the underlying sacred text, especially those associated with covenant theology. The process of reinterpretation of biblical material is clearly present in the deployment of these themes. As we noted in the last chapter, the reinterpretation is accomplished with materials most at home in a certain type of historical literature, the same type which provided Josephus with his theoretical justification for composing apologetic history. It may yet be asked how adequate an interpretation these Greek terms and motifs provide. This material was not simply, as some have claimed, 'window dressing for a basically "Palestinian-Pharisaic" point of view, nor did it represent a wholesale abandonment of Jewish tradition. It was not, to use a metaphor, simply a tinted glass 1'lhich provided a direct view of traditional belief, nor an opaque shield which prevented any adequate view at all. Instead the Greek terminology and motifs constituted a prism which selected and distorted the tradition in specific ways. They were the carefully chosen medium through which Josephus conceptualized the message of scripture. Some of the care •'lith which the interpretative elements were chosen was noted in the last chapter. In connection with the language for divine providence, we noted the specific association with the miraculous in Greek historiography. We also noted the virtually complete, and surely deliberate, absence of language which could be construed as fatalist. The fact that certain Greek connotations are deliberately assumed while a certain range of associations are excluded indicates that the terminology is nqt simply window dressing designed to add a superficial hellenistic coloration. It cannot be denied that the biblical paraphrase suppresses certain elements in the underlying source~ and it introduces others, such as the concern with ancestral traditions and the dangers which these face. These features of the bib-

183

lical paraphrase are not simply a function of the Greek categories used to conceptualize and present biblical narratives. It was the personal experience of Josephus as much as anything else which was responsible for his particular brand of covenant theology. As we noted in the last chapter there was a continuity and a growing consistency in his basic theological outlook which is in large part responsible for his choice of a Greek terminology for providence which excludes the fatalistic language of the Bellum. Finally the experience of Josephus is also a factor in the moralizing of the Antiquities with its special concern for life in the diaspora and for the maintenance of ancestral tradition despite the temptation to assimilate. The fact that the personal experience of Josephus was a significant force in the selection of the interpretative materials through the Antiquities is important for assessing those materials. If they were not simply window dressing, they were also not a means of suppressing Jewish tradition. Th~y were chosen by Josephus because they gave expression to Jewish tradition as shaped by his preconceptions, attitudes and requirements. The requirements of Josephus were_partly determined by his past experiences in the Jewish revolt, and in the life of the diaspora. In part they were also shaped by his apologetic project. The Greek terminology and motifs do more than simply translate significant elements in the Jewish sacred texts. They' are transformed and acquire new significance by their deployment in the Antiquities. Hellenistic historians could concei-ve of themselves as servants of providence, but they did not elevate to absolute centrality the complex of themes which Josephus uses. They did not write completely theocentric history, nor did they stress, as did Josephus, the importance of the specifically religious response (eUcrt6e~a) to the facts of providence. By laying so much weight on these factors, Josephus transforms the genre of antiquarian, rhetorical historiography and succeeds in producing a Greek version of Jewish sacred history with specifically religious implications. Herein lies the basic achievement of the apologetics of the Antiquities. Gree~ materials have been made the vehicles of a

184

profoundly religious and forthrightly Jewish interpretation of history. As we suggested at first, and as our analysis confirmed,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

the connection· of Josephus with particular segments of Judaism

is largely irrelevant to his literary product in the Antiquities. Whether his particular form of hellenized Judaism is representative of any wider group of Jews is difficult to determine. The fact that personal factors loom so large in the forces operating on the biblical paraphrase may suggest that what we find in the Antiquities is a very individual productio~.

Similarly the heavy literary dependence on particular

Greek historical sources is further evidence for the individuality of the interpretation. Yet it should also be noted that the factors to which Josephus responded were not entirely unique, although he may have felt them in a particularly acute way. Other Jews as well as he had to grapple with the implications of the destruction of the temple and had to reconcile this fact with the hope that the promises of scripture would remain valid. Other Jews had to confront the allurement and challenge of life in the hellenized Roman empire. In each case they, like Josephus, could have responded in a positive and creative way, by emphatically proclaiming, through the categories of their Greco-Roman environment, the enduring values of their tradition and the lessons to be learned from their history.

Note: Classical authors have been cited accordincr to the Loeb edition except where otherwise indicated. The sh~rt title of works frequently cited is listed after the main entry. Africa, T. W. Phylarahus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley/ Los Angeles: U. Calif., 1961). Amand, D. Fatalisme et Liberte dans zrantiquite greaque (Louvain, 1945). Aptowitzer, V.

Kain und Abel in der Agada (Leipzig, 1922).

Auerbach, E. A. "The Personality of Josephus in the Light of his Account of the Burning of the Temple" Bitzaron 7 (1942-43) 290-99. Avenariu~,

G. _Lukians Sch:ift zur Gesahiahtsschreibung Ha~n, 1956) = Avenarius, Lukians

(Me~senhe~m/Glan:

Schrift.

Bacher, W. Zwei jUdisch-persisahe Dichter: (Budapest: Alkalay, 1907-08).

Schahin und Imrani

Baltzer, K. The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); E.T. of Das Bundesformular (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960). Barber, G. L.

The Historian Ephoros

(Cambridge, 1935).

Bauernfeind, 0. and Michel, 0. "Die beide Eleazarreden in Jos. Bell. 7. 323-336, 7. 341-388'' ZNTW 58 (1967) 267-72. Baumbach, G. "Das Saduzaerverst3.ndnis bei Josephus Flavius undimN.T."KairosNF 13 (1971) 17-37. . Baumgarten, M. "Der schriftstellerische Charakter des Josephus" Jahrbuah fUr deutsahe Theologie 13 (1864) 613-48. Behm, J.

"n:povotw, n:p6voLa." TDNT IV. 1009-17"n:povoEw".

=

Behm,

Bergmann, J.

JUdische Apologetik im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berhn, 1908).

Belkin, S.

T~e Alexandrian Halakah in Apologetic Literature of the F1rrst Century C.E. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-

tion Society, 1936).

185

187

186 Bentwich, N.

Josephus Society, 1914).

Bernstein, L.

(Philadelphia:

Jewish Publication

Flavius Josephus and his Critics

(Ne•~- York:

Liveright, 1938). Bertram, G. "Josephus und die abendl::indische Geschichtsidee" Germanentu% Christen tum und Judentum (ed. W. Grundmann; Leipzig, 1942) 41-82. Best, E. "The Use and Non-use of Pneuma by Josephus" NT 3 (1959) 218-25. Betz, 0. "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderprub lem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium" Josephus Studien 23-44 = Betz, "Problem". Betz, 0., Haacker, K., and Hengel, H. Josephus Studien: Festschrift 0. Michel (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und

Ruprecht, 1974) Bewer, J. A.

=

Josephus Studien.

"Josephus' Account of Nehemiah" JBL 43 (1924)

224-26.

Blenkinsopp, J.

Bretschneider, C.

Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmaticae e Flavii Josephi scriptis collecta (Leipzig, 1812) = Bretschneider, Capita.

Brown, T. S. Timaeus of Tau:romenium (U. of Calif. Publ. in history 55; Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1958). · Brown, P. Augustine of Hippo~ a Biography (Berkeley/Los Angeles, U. of California, 1969). Bruce, F. F.

"Josephus and Daniel" ASTI 4 (1965) 148-62.

BrUne, B.

Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ih:rem Ve:rhiiltnis zum Judentum, zur griechischen-rOmischen Welt und zum Christentum (GUtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1913; rpt'd.

Wiesbaden:

S8.ndig, 1969).

Buchanan, G. W. The Consequences of the Covenant (Suppl to NT 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Burck, E. Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin: mann, 1934). Bury, J. B.

Ancient Greek Histo:rians (New York:

Wied-

MacMillan,

1909).

"Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus" JJS 25

(1974) 239-62.

Bloch, H.

Die QueZZen des Flavius Josephus in seine:r A:rahaeologie (Leipzig, 1879) "' Bloch, Quellen.

Cadbury, H. J. "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History" The Beginnings of Christianity (eds. F. J, Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; London: MacMillan, 1922) II. 7-15.

Bloch, R. "Note methodologique pour 1 1 etude de la 1itterature rabbinique" RSR 43 (1955) 206-07.

Capelle, W.

BOcher, 0. "Die heilige Stadt im Vo1kerkrieg" Josephus Studien 55-76.

Charles, R. H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913) = Charles, APOT.

Bonner, S. F.

Cohen, N. G. "Josephus and Scripture. Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative Similar Throuuhout the Antiquities I-XI'' JQR 54 (1963/64) 311-32. ~

aarnassus:

The Literary T:reatises of Dionysius of BaliA Study in the Development of C:ritical Method

(Cambridge, 1939). Judisch-ch:ristlichen Schulbet:rieb in Alexand:ria und Rom (FRLANT 23; GOt.tingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1915).

Bousset, W.

Bousset, W. and Gressmann, H.

Die Religion des Judentums im spiithellenistischen Zeitaz.te:r (HNT 21; Tiibingen: MohrSiebeck, 19263) = Bousset, Religion.

Braun, M.

Griechische:r Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsch:reibung (Frankfurt am :Main: Klostermann, 1935). Histo:ry and Romance in G:raeco-O:riental Literature

(Oxford, 1938). Brehier, 'Les idees philosophiques et :religieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Vrin, 1950),

"Zur antiken Theodicee" Archiv fU:r Geschichte der

Philosophie 20 (1907) 173-195.

J. J. "Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death" CEQ 36 (1974) 21-43.

Collins~

Collomp, P. "La place de JosEiphe dans la technique de l'historiographie helH~nistique" Etudes historiques de la Facultie des Lettres de St:rasbourg (= Pub!. de la Fac. d. Lett. de l'Univ. de Strasbourg 106; Melanges 1945, III: Etudes historiques; Paris, 1947) 81-92. Creuzer, F. "Josephus und seine griechischen und hellenistischen FUhrer" TSK 26 (1853) 45-86. CroSs, F. H.

"The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts" l9?2 IOSCS~ Pseudepigrapha Seminar (Missoula: Montana, 1972) 108-26. Proceedings

Dahne, A. F.

Geschichtliche Darstetlung der jUdisch-alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie (Halle, 1834).

189

188 Dalbert, P. Die Theologie den hel"lenistisc:h-jUdischen Missions-LitePatur unter Aussahluss von Philo und Josephus

(Theologische Forschung 4; Hamburg:

Reich, 1954).

-----.T.C~·

Dale, A. von. Traetatus de origine ae progressu idololatriae (Amsterdam, 1696). Delling, G. "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus" Josephus Studien 109-21 = Delling, "Prophetie". "Josephus und das Wunderbare" Delling, "Wunderbare".

NT

Feldman, L. H. "Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus" TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56 = Feldman, "Abraham".

Cicero's Conception of Historiography (Diss.

Harvard, 1951). "Hellenizations in Josephus 1 Portrayal of Han 1 s Decline" Religions in Antiquity: Festschrift E. R. Goodenough (ed. J. Neusner; Lei den: Brill, 1968) 336-53 = Feldman, "Hellenizations".

2 (1958) 291-309 "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther (Ant. - -----,,.· Jud. 11. 185-295)" TAPA 101 (1970) 143-70.

. "Josephus und die heidnischen Religionen" Klio 43 ------T(1f0965) 263-69 = Studien zum N.T. und zum hellenistischen Judentum: Gesammelte AufsCitze 1950-68 (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970) 34-42 = Delling, "Religionen". t,..,-;- ·,2

York:

Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (193?-1962) Yeshiva Univ., 1962) =Feldman, Scholarship.

(New

"The term 6Ecrn6TT)C: in Josephus" JQR 49 (1958/

Fischer, J. B.

59) 132-38. Fragmenta

Denis, A. M. (Lei den:

pseudepigrapho~um

quae

supe~sunt

g~aeca

Foakes-Jackson, F.

Brill, 1970).

Destinon, J. von.

Die Quel.len des Flavius Josephus (Kiel,

1882). Diels, H. Doxographi G~aeci (Berlin: Reimer, 1879; reprinted Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter, 1929).

Die Prophetologie in de~ ReZigionsphilosophie des ersten nachch~istlichen Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1892) Dienstfertig, Prophetologie.

Dienstfertig, M.

Dihle, A.

"Ethik" RAC 646-796.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Opuscula (ed. H. Usener and L. Rademacher; Leipzig: Teubner, 1899).

Fraser, P. M.

Echtheitsfragen

antik-g~iechischer

Literatur

De Gruyter, 1939).

"Die Historiographie des Flavius Josephus" WeltJildischer Verlag, 1926).

Dubnow, S.

geschichte des jUdischen Volkes (Berlin:

Duschak, M. Flavius Josephus und die Tradition (Vienna: Schlossberg, 1864). Ek, S. "Herodotismen in der jUdischen Archaeologie des Josephus" HVLA (1945-46) 27-62. Engers, M.

"noALTEUlJ.O."

Mnemosyne 54 (1926) 154-61.

Exercitationum Flavianarum prima de fontibus Archaeologiae (Leipzig, 1756) = Ernesti, Opuscula Philologica Critica (Leiden, 1776).

Ernesti, I. A.

Smith,

Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972).

Freudenthal, J.

Hellenistisahe Studien (Breslau, 1874-75).

Friedlander, M. Geschichte der jUdischen ApoZogetik (Zurich: Schmidt, 1903) ; Friedlander, Apologetik. Fritz, K. von. "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fUr die Geschichtsschreibung" Histoire et historiens dans l'antiquite~Entretiens Ha~dt 4 (1958) 85-145. -----cc-"'

A

The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity: Analysis of PoZybius' Political Ideas (New

C~itieal

York: Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965; rpt 1 d New York: Norton, 1970). Dornseiff, F. (Berlin:

Josephus and the Jews (New York:

1930).

Columbia, 1954).

Funk, R. W. Apocalypticism (Journal of Theology and the Church 6; New York, 1969). Gager, John G. Moses in Greco-Boman Pa~anism (JBL Monograph Series 16; Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1972) ; Gager,

Moses.· Georgi, D. Die Gegne~ des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (WM~NT 11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964) = Georgi, Die Gegner.

Die Weissagungen des alten Testaments in den Schri'ften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863) Gerlach, Weissagungen.

Gerlach, E.

GfrOrer, A. F. Geschichte des Urchristenthums (Stuttgart: Schweizerbart, 1838) .

Philo und die jUdisch-alexandrinische Theosophie (Stuttgart:

Schweizerbart, 1835).

191

190

Ginsberg, L. The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909-25) = Ginsberg, Legends. Giovannini, G. "The Connection between Tragedy and History in Ancient Civilization" Philological Quarterly 22 (1943) 308-14. Graetz, H.

Gesahiahte deY' Juden (Leipzig:

Von Brann, 1878 3 ).

Greenspoon, L. and Levenson, D. "Sin-Punishment and Eschatology in Pseudo-Philo, II. Baruch and IV Ezra" HaPvard NT Seminar Papers (Fall 1971).

Grube, G. M. 1965).

The Greek and Roman Critics (London:

GrUnbaum, P.

Hethuen,

Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus Halle, 1887).

Gundel, P.

Guttmann, H.

(Diss.

Die Darstellung der judische Religion bei Flavi(Breslau:

"Josephus" PWRE 9 (1916) 1934-2000.

Hornbostel, W. De Flavii Josephi Studiis rhetoricis quaestiones selectae (Halle, 1912). Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Leiden: Brill, 1958 ff). Jaeger, W. "Greeks and Jews, the first Greek Records of Jewish Religion and Civilization" Journal of Religion 18 (1938) 127·43. Jahn, E.

Observationes criticae in Flavii Josephi Ant. Jud. 1891).

(Erl~ngen,

Jaubert, A. La notion dralliance dans le Judaisme aux abords de Z'ere chretienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1963) = Jaubert, La notion. Jervell, J. "Imagines und Imago Dei. Aus der Genesis Exegese des Josephus" Josephus Studien 197-204.

"Heimarmene" PWRE 14, 2622-45.

us Josephus lung.

HOlscher, G.

Marcus, 1928) = Guttmann, Darstel-

Haacker, K. and Sch1ifer, P. "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tad des Mose" Josephus Studien 147-74 = Haacker and Sch1ifer, "Traditionen".

Ionas, A. De ratione quae inter Josephum et letteras rabbinicas intercedit (Breslau, 1915). de Jonge, M. "Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes" Josephus Studien 205-219. Josephus Studien, see Betz.

Hadas, M. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (Dropsie College Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper, 1953) = Hadas, Maecabees.

Justus, B. "Zur Erz8.hlkunst des Flavius Josephus" Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 107-36.

Hahn, I. "Josephus und die Eschatologie von Qumran" Quml"an Problema (Berlin: Akademie, 1963).

Kamlah, E. "FrOmmigkeit und Tugend. Die Gesetzesapologie des Josephus in C. Ap. 2, 145-295" Josephus Studien 220-232 Kamlah, "FrOmmigkeit".

Halbfas, F. Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtsschreibung bei Dionysius von Halikarnassus (:MUnster, 1910).

Koester~

Hanson, P. D. "Jewish Apocalyptic Against Its Near Eastern Environment" RB 78 (1971) 31-58.

Kidd, I. G. "Posidonius on Emotions" Problems in Stoicism (ed. A. A. Long; London: Athlone, 1971) 200-215.

Harrington, D. Text and Biblical Text in Pseudo-Philors Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Diss. Harvard, 1970).

Knox, W. L. 60.

"Abraham Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and 'Rewritten Bible' of the Intertestamenta·l Period" 19?2 Proceedings IOSCS and SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar 155-161.

---i~n;;-the

Heller, B. "GrundzUge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus" MGWJ 80 (1936) 237-46 = Heller, "GrundzUge". Hengel, M. Judentum und Hellenismus (TUbingen: 1969).

Mohr-Siebeck,

Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblieal Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969).

H.

"cpUcrt.b,

QlUO"LX6G,

QlUO"LXtilG" TI-TNT

IX. 251-277.

"Abraham and the Quest for God" HTR 28 (1935) 55-

KrUger, P. Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums (Leipzig: DOrr, 1906). Langen, J. Das Judentum in PaZastina zur Zeit Christi (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1866) = Langen, Judentum. "Der theologische Standpunkt des Flavius Josephus" Theologische Quartalschrift 47 (1865) 3-59 = Langen, "Standpunkt". Laqueur, R. Der jUdisehe Historiker Flavius Josephus, Ein biographischen Versuch auf neuer quellenkritische Grundlage (Giessen: Munchow, 1920).

192 193

Lebram, J. C. H. 233-53

"Der Idealstaat der Juden" Josephus Studien

Michel, 0.

Lebram, "Idealstaat".

"Zur Arbeit an den Textzeugen des Josephus" ZATW

83 (1971) 101-02.

LeDeaut, R.

La nuit pascale.

la Paque Juive

a

Essai suP la signification de partir du Targum d'Exode XII.42 (Rome:

Inst. Bibl. Pont., 1963). Le Mayne, J.

Lea Saddueeens (Paris:

LeCoffre, 1972)

=

Le

Mayne, Sadduaeens.

Lerch, D.. Isaaks Opferung Christlieh gedeutet (Tllbingen: Mohr, 1950).

Lewinsky, A.

Beitrage zur Kenntnis der religionsphilosophisahen Ansehauungen des Flavius Josephus (Breslau: Preuss, 1887) = Lewinsky, Beitrage.

Lewitz, F.

De Flavii Josephi fide atque auatoritate berg, 1857).

(KOnigs-

Liers, H. Die Theorie der Gesahichtssehreibung des Dionysius von Halikarnassus (Waldenburg, 1886).

Lindner, H.

Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaic:um~ GZ-eichzeitig ein Beitr-ag zur QueUenfrage (Diss. Ttibingen, 1970 and Leiden: Brill, 1972) = Lindner, Gesc:hichtsauffassung.

Long, A. A. "Freedom and Determinism in the Stoic Theory of Human Action" Problems in Stoicism (ed. A. A. Long; London: Athlone, 1971) 173-199. Ltihrmann, D.

"Pistis im Judentum" ZNTW 64 (1973) 19-38.

LUtgert, W.

Das Problem der WiZ-lensfreiheit in der vorchristZ-ichen Synagoge (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1906).

MacRae, G. W,

"Miracle in the Antiquities of Josephus" MiraCambridge Studies in their Philosophy and Histor-y (ed. C. F. D. Maule; London: Mowbray, 1965) 129-47.

cles~

Mack, B. L.

"Imitatio Mosis" Studia Philonic:a 1 (1972) 27-55.

Mayer, R. and MOller, C.

"Josephus - Politiker und Prophet"

Josephus Studien 273-84.

Mayer, R. "Geschichtserfahrung und Schriftauslegung, zur Hermeneutik des frlihen Judentums" Die hermeneutische Frage in der TheoZ-ogie (ed, 0. Loretz et al.; Freiburg, 1968)

290-355.

Heeks, W.

The Prophet-King~ Moses Tr-aditions and the Johanine Christo logy (Leiden: Brill, 1967) .

Menard, J. E. "Les Rapports de Philon avec le Judaisme palestinien et Josephe" DBS 7, 41 (1966) 1299-1304. Die BibeZ- des Josephus untersuaht fUr Buch V-VII des ArchaeoZogie (Basel: Jaeger, 1895) = Mez, Die BibeZ-.

Mez, A.

"Sp1itjtidisches Prophetentum" NeutestamentZ-iche Studien fUr R. BuZ-tmann (Berlin, 1954).

24.

"Ich komme (Jos Bell. III.400)" ThZ 24 (1968) 123-

"Studien zur Josephus, Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6, 290£., 293-95); ihre Umdeutung bei Josephus" Neotestamentica et Semitica (Festschrift Black; Edinburgh: Clark, 1969) 240-44. :Moehring, H. R. Novelistic EZ-ements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (Diss. Chicago, 1957), Momigliano, A.

"Ancient History and the Antiquarian" Journal. of the Warburg and CourtauZd Institutes 13 (1950) 285-315 = Momigliano, Contributo aZZ.a storia degZ-i studi classici (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1955) 67-106.

---,=~·

"The Place of Herodotus in the History of Historiography" History 43 (1958) 1-13 = MO'IIligliano, Secundo Contributo (Rome, 1960) 29-44.

---~o.·

"Problems of Ancient Biography" Quarto Cont:r-ibuto (Rome, 1969) 77-94.

"Time in Ancient Historiography" History and Theory Beiheft 6 (1966) 1-23 = Momigliano, Quarto Contributo (Rome, 1969) 13-41. Montgomery, J. A.

"The Religion of Flavius Josephus" JQR 11

(1920/21) 277-305 =MOntgomery, "Religion".

Moore, G. F.

Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927) Moore, Judaism. Era~

"Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus" HTR 22 (1929) 371-89. Untersuchungen zur TheoZogie de~ Chronistisc:hen Gesahiahtswerkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien 92· Freiburg: Herder, 1973). '

Mosis, R.

Nestle, E.

"Miscellen - 1.

Die Bibel des Josephus" ZATW 30

(1910) 152-53.

Neusner, J. "Josephus' Pharisees" Ex orbe reZ-igionum (Festschrift G. Widengren; Leiden: Brill, 1972) I. 224-244. The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before ?0 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) = Neusner, Traditions.

Niese, B.

"Josephus" ERE 6. 569-79.

195

194

Nilsson, M.

Geschichte der grieahisahen Religion (Munich:

Beck, 1961) = Nilsson, GGR.

Neck, A. D.

11

Raab, C.

De Flavii Josephi elocutione quaestiOnes criticae et observationes grammatiaae (Erlangen, 1890).

Rad, G. von. Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh/London: and Boyd, 1962-65).

Posidonius" JRS 49 (1959) 1-15.

Oliver

Norden, E. "Jahwe und Moses in hellenistischer Theologie" Festgabe A. von Harnack (Ttibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1921) 2 9 2-30 l.

Rahlfs, A. Septuagintastudien (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1904-11) = Rahlfs, Septuagintastudien.

Olitzki, M.

Rajak, T. S.

Flavius Josephus und die Halacha (Berlin, 1885).

Review of Lindner, Gesahichtsauffassung, JJS 25

(1974) 327-28. "Der jtidische Sklave nach Josephus und der Halacha" Magazin fUr die Wissenschaft des Judentums 16 (1889) 7383.

Rappaport, S. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, (Vienna: Kohut, 1930) = Rappaport, Agada.

Palm, J.

Rasp, H. "Flavius Josephus und die jlidischen Religionsparteien" ZNTW 23 (1924) 27-47.

Paret, H. "Ueber den PharisB.ismus des Josephus" TSK 29 (1856) 809-844 = Paret, "Pharisliismus".

Reese, G.

Passerini, A. "La -rpucml nella storiografia ellenistica" Studi Ilatiani di Filologia CZassica (1934) NS 12. 35-56.

Reiling, J. "The use of t.j.u:::u6onporprh:n~: in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus" NT 13 (1971) 147-56.

Paur, H.

Reinach, T.

Rom~ Romertum und Imperium in der griechisehen LitePatul' del' Kaiserzeit (Lund: Gleerup, 1959).

Observationes et adnotationes ad Flavii Josephi elocutionem (Nurnberg, 1892).

Pedech, P. La methode historique de Polybe (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1964).

Les

Pelletier, A. Flavius Josephe~ adapteur de Za Zettre drArist8e (Etudes et commentaires 45; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962).

Pepin, J.

Die Geschichte IsraeZs in der Auffassung des frUhen Judentums (Diss. Heidelberg, 1967).

Textes d'auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au

Judaisme

(Paris:

Leroux, 1895).

Reinhardt, K. Poseidonius Uber Ursprung und Entartung (Heidelberg: Winter, 1928). Reitzenstein, R. Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1906; rpt'd Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963).

My the et aZZ8gorie (Paris:

Aubier, 1958).

Perry, B. E.

The Ancient Romances, A Literary Historical Account of their Origins (Berkeley/Los Angeles: U. of Calif., 19 6 7) .

Petersen, H.

"Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus"

AJPh 79 (1958)

Pfister, F.

259-74.

PWRE Suppl IV (Stuttgart, 1929) 277-323.

Pick, B. "A Study on Josephus with special Reference to the Old Testament" Lutheran Quarterly 19 (1889) 325-46, 599616.

Revel, B. "Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus" JQR 14 (1923-24) 293-302. Richards, G. C. and Shutt, R. J. H. "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities" CQ 33 (1939) 36-40. ---~,·

"Critical- :Notes on Josephus' Antiquities" CQ 31

(1937) 170-77 and 33 (1939) 180-83. B~ Philo und die HaZacha: Eine vergleichende Studie unter steter Berucksichtigung des Josephus (Leipzig, 1879).

Ritter,

Rivkin, E.

"Defining the Pharisees" HUCA 40-41

(1969-~0)

205-

49. Flavius Josephus und die Bibel~ eine kritischexegetische Studie (Berlin, 1867).

Plaut, R.

PlUmacher, E.

Lukas als helZenistischer SchriftstelZer, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und

Ruprecht, 1972). Poznanski, A.

Ueber die Religionsphilosophischen Ansahauungen des Flavius Josephus (Diss. Halle, 1887) =Poznanski, Anschauungen.

"The Internal City" JSSR 5 (1966) 225-40. "Prolegomenon" Judaism and Christianity (New York: Ktav, 1969). Robertson, J. "Liber Antiquitaturn Biblicarum Pseudo-Philonis: The Micah/Gibeah Stories" Unpb. Minutes of the NT Seminar~ Harvard (Fall, 1971).

196

197

Rollins, W. "The New Testament and Apocalyptic" 1VTS 17 (197071) 454-76.

Schwark, J. "Matthlius der Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der Priester, Ein Vergleich" Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 137-54 Schwark, "Matthiius".

ROssie:, D.

Gesetz und Geschiahte. Untersuchungen zur Theoloder jUdisahen Apokalyptik und der pharisaisehen Orthodoxie (WMANT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1962).

g~e

Ryffel, H.

DeP Wandel der StaatsHaupt, 1949).

r-1ETABOAH IIOAITEIQN.

Verfassungen (Bern:

Sandmel, S. "Abraham's knowledge of the Existence of God" HTR 44 (1951) 137-39.

Philo's Place in Judaism (Cincinnati: College, 1956; rpt'd New York: Philo's Plaee.

Hebrew Union Ktav, 1971) = Sandmel,

Schwartz, E. Griechisahe Geschiehtsschreiber (Leipzig: Kohlen und Amelang, 1957). Shutt, R. J. H. "Biblical Names and Their Heanings in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, Books I 1j. II, 1-200" JSJ 2 (1971) 167-82. Studies in Josephus (London:

SPCK, 1961) .

Siegfried, W. Studien zuP geschichtlichen Anschauung des Poly bios (Diss. Heidelberg, 1928). Smith, M. "The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena" HUCA 29 (1958) 273-313.

Schalit, A. Introduction to the Hebrew Translation of the Antiquities (Jerusalem: Hosad Bialik, 1967) = Schalit, IntPoduction.

"Palestinian Judaism in the First Century" Israel: Its Role in Civilization (ed. M. Davis; New York: Harper, 1956).

Schaller, B. "Hekataios von Abdera tiber die Juden" ZNTW 54 (1969) 15-31.

Smyth, H. W.

Schecker., H. "Die Hellenisierung des Hexateuchs in der Archiiologie des Josephus" Verhandlungen der 55 Versammlung deutsaher Philologen (Leipzig, 1926) 54.

Sobel, R. B. Josephus' Conception of History in Relationship to the Pentateuch as a Source of Historical Data (Diss. Hebrew Union College, 1962).

Scheller, P. De helZenistiaa historiae aonscribendae arte (Leipzig: Born, 1911).

Sowers, S. "On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in Hellenistic Judaism" Oikonomia~ Heilsgeschichte als Thema deP Theologie (Festschrift 0. Cullmann, ed. F. Christ; Hamburg-Bergstadt: Evang. Verlag, 1967) 18-25.

Schlatter, A. Die Theologie des Judentums naah dem Beriaht des Josefus (Gtitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932) = Schlatter, Theologie. "Eupolemus als Chronolog und seine Beziehungen zu Josephus und M~netho" TSK (1891) 633-703. Wie Sprach Josephus von Gott (GUtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1910; rpt'd in Kleinere Sahriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K. Rengstorf; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970) = Schlatter, Wie Sprach_.

Schmidt, W. De Flavii Josephi eloautione observationes aritiaae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1893). Schreckenberg, H. Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus Brill, 1968) .

(Leiden:

"Neue Beitriige zur Kritik des Josephus-textes" Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 81-106. "Vermutungen zum Josephustext" Theokratia 1 (196769) 64-75. SchUrer, E. Geschiehte des jUdischen Volkes im zeitalter Jesu Christi (Leipzig: Henrichs, 1901-074).

Greek GrammaP (Cambridge:

Harvard, 1966 4 ).

Spiegel, S. The Last TPial (New York: Schocken, 1967) E. T. of Me'aggadot Ha'aqedah (Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950). Spiro, A. A. "Pseudo-Philo's Saul and the Rabbi's Messiah ben Ephraim" PAAJR 21 (1952) 119-37. Spittler, L. De usu vePsionis AlexandPiensis apud Josephum (GOttingen, 1779). SprOdowsky, H. Die HellenisiePung deP Geschichte von Joseph in Aegyptem bei Flavius Josephus (Diss. Griefswald; Griefswa1der Beitrage zur Literatur und Stilistik 18, 1937). Stiihlin, G. "Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei Josephus" Josephus Studien 319-43 ~ Stiihlin, "Schicksal". Steck, 0. Israel und das~ geUJaltsame Geschick deY' Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). Stein, E. De WooPdenkeuze im het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius Josephus (Amsterdam, 1937).

198

199

Stein, E. "De Flavii Josephi arte narrandi" Eos 33 (1930-31) 641-50.

Stern, M. in

Wacholder, B.-Z. Nicholas of Damascus (U. of Calif. publications in History 75; Berkeley/Los Angeles: u. Calif., 1962).

"Flavius Josephus' Method of Writing History" (hebr)

Historia~

Histori:oni'm ve askoZot (Jerusalem:

Israel

Historical Society, 1962) 22-28. Strathman, H.

"n6ALG 1 x1:A." TDNT VI. 516-35.

Wachter, L. "Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisiier Sadduzaer und Essener zur Helmarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus" ZRGG 21 (1969) 97-114. WalbaiL~,

F. W.

Polybius

(Berkeley/Los Angeles:

U. of Calif.,

Tachauer, G.

1972).

Tcherikover, V. "Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered" Eos 48 (1956) III. 169-93.

"Tragic History: A Reconsideration" Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the UnivePsity of London 2 (1955) 4-14.

Das VerhaZtnis von Flavius zur BibeZ und zur Tradition (Erlangen: Junge, 1871).

Thackeray, H. St. J. Josephus~ The Man and the Historian (New York: JIR, 1929; rpt'd New York: Ktav, 1967) = Thackeray, Josephus. Theiler, W. "Tacitus und die ant ike Schicksalslehre" Phy ZZ.obolia f'Ur Peter von der UUhH (Basel, 1946) 35-90 =

Theiler, "Schicksalslehre". Thoma, C. "Die Weltanschauung des Flavius Josephus dargestellt an Hand seiner Schilderung des jUdischen Aufstandes gegen Rom (66-_73 n. Chr.)" Kairos 11 (1S69) 39-52.

Walsh, P. G. 1961).

Livy~ His HistoPical Aims and Methods (Cambridge,

Walter, N. _"Zl:lr Ueberlieferung einiger Reste frU..lter jlidischhellenlStlschen Literatur bei JosePhus Clemens und Eusebi~s" Studia Patpistica VII/1 314-3zO (TU 92; Berlin: Akademle, 1966). _ --------·-

DeP Topaausleger APistobulos (TU 86; Berlin:

emle, 1964).

Akad-

Tiede, D. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBL Diss. Series 1; Hissoula: U. Mont., 1972).

Wehrli, F. "Die Geschichtsschreibnng im Lichte der antiken Theorie" Eumusia, Festgabe fUr Ernst Howald (Zurich 1947) 54-71. '

Torrey, C. C.

Apocryphal Literature (New Haven:

Weinreich, 0.

Ullman, B. L.

"History and Tragedy" T).PA 73 (1942) 25-53.

Yale, 1945).

1909).

Antike HeilungswundeP (Giessen:

Topelmann,.

Weiss, H. F. Unnik, W. C. van. "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus" Romanitas et Christianitas (Festschrift H. Waszink, ed. ·w. den Boer, et al.; Amsterdam, 1973) 349-

Vntepsuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenistischen und palastinischen Judentums (TU 97· Berlin: Akademie, 1966). ,

Welten, P.

Geschichte und GeschichtsdaPstellung in den ChT'onikbUchern (WM~T 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener

50.

"Eine merkwlirdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jo;. Ant. 8, 111-113)" Josephus Studien 362-369. "Josephus' Account of the story of Israel's Sin '\.\•ith Alien Women" Travels in the World of the OT (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974) 241-261 van Unnik, "Josephus' Account".

Verlag, 1973). Wendla;;d~ P.

Tll.blngen:

Die he llenis tisch-ri5mische Ku ltuP (HNT 2;

Mohr-Siebeck, 19724).

-----~-· _Philos SchPift UbeP die Vorsehung~ Ein BeitPag ZU1' G~sch~chte der nachapistotelischen Philosophie (Berlin:

Gartner, 1892) "' Wendland, Vorsehung. Urbach, E. E. lj.azal~ The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Hagnes, 1971) = Urbach, Jj.azal.

Weyl, _H.

Usher, S. The Historians of GPeece and Rome (London: ton, 1969).

Whistor;, W. H.

Hamil-

Vermes, G. ScPiptuPe and TPadition in Judaism (Studia Post Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961). Wacholder, B.-z. Eupolemus~ A Study of GPeco-Jewish LitePature (Heb. Un. Col.-Jw. Inst. Rel.: Cincinnati, New

Die jgdis~hen Stpafgesetze bei Flavius Josephus in ~hPem Vel'haltn~s 2U Schrift und Halacha (Berlin, 1900).

"That Josephus the Jew was an Ebionite" Collec-

t~on of Authentic Recopds Belonging to the Old and New

Testament (London, 1728).

Willi, J. Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1972).

200

Williams, S. K.

Jesus' Death as Saving Event (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).

Williamson, G. A. The World of Josephus (Boston: Brown, 1965).

INDEX

Little-

Judaiaa~ Fopsahungen zur hell.enistisah-j'Udisahen Gesahichte und Litteratur (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck und

Willrich, H.

Passages from the works of Josephus cited in the text:

Ruprecht, 1900).

.

Juden und Griechen vor der makkabaisahen Erhebung

-----c(cc~ottingen:

Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895).

Wochernnark, J. Die Sehicksalsidee im Judentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933). Wolfson, H. A.

Philo (Cambridge:

Harvard, 1968 4 ).

Zegers, N. Wesen und UPsprung des tragischen Geschichtsschreibung (Diss. KOln, 1959).

Zeitlin, S. "The Account of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena" JQR 49 (1958/9) 292-300.

-

----=c;c·

"A Survey of Je..,·ish Historiography from the Biblical Books to the Sepher ha-kabbalah with special emphasis on Josephus" JQR 59 (1969) 171-214.

Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer GeachiohtZic:hen Entwicklung- (Leipzig: Reisland, 1920- 235) = Zeller, Philosophie.

Bel tum 1.1-2

1.3 1. 7-8 1.11

1.13-15 1.16 1.17

1.169 1. 571 l. 628

1. 662 2.19 2.162 2.163-

65 2.345404 3.35054 3.352 3.374 3. 3 87

3.400 4.297 4.622 5.362-

49 57 49

so

45 57 45 72 11 154 154 6 154,156

156 5 15 11,16

6 153 10 154 154

419

5 5.459 150 5.572 101 6.84 154 6.99-101 150 6.108 154 6. 267 154 101 6.314 154 6.428 7.318-22 154 7.323-32 5,11,154 7.323-36 5,11 7.337-88 5

Contra Apionem 1.3 61 1. 27 57 1. 42-46 57 1. 59 60

Contra Apionem 1. 218 35 2. 21 15 2. 52-56 153 2.146 116 2.192 116 2. 211-14 134 62 2. 255 Vita 1-6 7-10 11 208

15 6 6,14

16

Antiquitatea 1.1-17 29,41,60 1.5 43,62 43,52,154, 1.6 167 45 1.9 45,62 1.10 1.11 45 1.13 1.14

113' 154 52,67,83,

93 1.15 1.17

52,53

1.18-24

29' 42

52,58

1.19

61

1. 20

52,68,83,

116 1. 21 1. 22 1. 23 1. 24

1. 25 1. 39 1. 53 1. 54 1. 59 1. 61 1. 72 1. 74

52,65,116 52,65 53,69 52, 53,61, 140,141,

149 61 32

115,122 32,138

40

Antiquitates 1. 77 36 1. 93 35 35 1. 94 1.98 79 1. 96-103 40 83,115 1.99 1.103 80 1.108 1.112 1.113 1.114

18,35,44

1.154 1.155 1.157 1.161-68 1.165 1.176 1.177 1.183 1.185

110' 111,156

118 117 139 1.118-19 34

1.189 1.192

88 74,88,156 35,87

90 40 36 89 80 111 80

1.194-95 124,172 1.196-98 17 136 1. 200 1. 208 79,91 1. 210 79 1. 222-36 40 1. 222 88,89 1. 223 74,88 1. 225 72,88 1.225-29 79

1. 227 93 1. 228-31 88 76,91 1. 229 1. 231 72 1. 234 89 1. 238 111 1. 239-41 34 1. 254 74 1. 255 99

117

1. 259-60 121 1. 264 17,40

40 '117

l. 272

123,126

201

79,90

203

202 Antiquitates 1. 273 79,83

1.277 1. 288 1. 30 4 l. 305

1. 317 1.327

2.7 2.8 2.10

40 127 32 40 12 7 40,71

2. 26

111 73 121 40 74 120 72

2. 39

71,154

2.18 2.20 2.22

2.39-167 2.40 2.43 2.50-52 2.53-54 2.55 2.60 2.61 2. 72 2.78,80 2.84 2.92 2.94 2.104 2.112 2.119 2.12 2 2.133 2.139 2.149 2.161 2.163 2.170-71 2.172-75 2.172 2.189 2. 196 2. 198 2.201

40 112 127 40,120 40 122 73 36 79 79 79 32 40 72 113 40 79 40 111 115 74, 79 113 40 97,152 79 72 116 112 124,126, 172 124 2. 20 2 2.205-57 94 2. 206 40 40 2. 210 2. 211 89,95 89,91,95, 2. 212 116 2. 213 74,95 79,95 2. 214 2. 216 95 2. 219 40,73 2. 220 95

Antiquitates 2.222-23 95 111,143 2.224 2. 229 111,143,

2.267

2.270 2.276

2.278 2.281 2. 285

2. 286 2. 290 2. 29 2 2. 293 2. 295 2. 299 2. 30 7 2.313 2.320 2.321 2. 322-23 2.325-28 2.329 2.330 2.331 2.332 2. 333 2.334 2. 335 2.336-37 2.339 2.340-44 2.345 2.347 2.348 3.1 3.11 3.12 3.13-21 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.18 3.30 3.33 3. 3 8

3.49 3. 58

llO,ll6,166 118 113,143 71 90

34

3.65 3.68 3.72 3.81

18,44

40' 122

3. 83

100

40 96 96 79 79 127 96 72

3. 86-87 3.91-98

97,152

144,166 2.230 2.232-53 2. 255 2.260

Antiquitates

111,143

100,144,

166 84 84 96 40 113,118 32 40 34,40 40' 7 7 40,77 40,71 40,96 40,72,77, 78 40,78,81, 92,99 40,72,77, 104 40,77,78 40,74,77 40' 77 40,99 40' 77 40,95 40,75,91, 98,153 18,44,77, 98 95 156 122,156 113,143, 156 71,97,110 72,96 84 96 95 73 95

3.98 3.99 3.123 3.151 3.179-87 3.183 3.189 97 3.190

3.191 3.208 3.209 3.212 3. 213 3.214-15 3. 222 3.224-86 3. 224 3.240-43 3. 252 3. 265-68 3. 274 3.276 3. 2 79 3.302 3.311-13 3.311 3.315 3.322 3.348 4.1-6 4. 2 4.10 4.11-66 4.11-12 4.13 4.14-19 4.14 4.15 4.17 4. 20 4.22 4.26-27 4.37 4.40-45 4.42 4. 44-45 4. 47

9 72 72 36,62,141

32 36,62,177

141 52 142 72 74 176 52,144 62 99 52 127 52 177 32 179 40 32 177 79 82 106 84 18 164 118 73,79 73 40 97 82 122,131 97 '111 132 97 97 97,32 96 97 15 2 113,143,144, 166 97 72,98

Antiquitates

Antiquitates

4.49

4.318 4. 32-0

4.48

4.60 4.63 4.114 4.115·16

98 112 73,84

40 73,79,83

4.326 4.329

79,91

100 9,44 110,144

144 169 71 4.117 74,94,113 32 5. 7 4.118 99 5.8 72 4.121 75 5.28 96 4.122 79 134 5.34 4.125 99 5. 60 79 4. 127 75 5.65 79 4.128 74,83,106 5.68-70 134 4.130 130 5.90 135 4.131-33 40,128,130 5.91 71 4.134-55 4-0,128 5. 9 8 79 4.134 129 5.103 137 4.136 130 5.116 134 4.138-40 129,131 5.128 31 4.143 115,120, 5. 132 135. 139 130,166 5.135 135,138, 4.145-50 132,169 139 4.152 113,121 5.136-37 136 4.153 113 5.146 136 4.154 113 5.147 137 4.156- 58 144 5.148 137 4.176-95 90 5.157 148 4.180 79,91 5.160 110 4.181 91 5. 165 89 4.182 79 5.168 86 4.184 71 5.169 40 4.185 72, 74, 79, 5.173 72 91 62,137, 5.179 4.186 72,120,133 139,172 4.187 133 5.180 137 4.18.9 72,112,115, 5.182 111 124,133,172 5.185 138 4.190 72 5.187 32 4.191 133 5.188 113 4.193 62,139,142 5.189 90 137 4.196 51,62,139 5.198 138 4.197 58 5. 206 79 4. 20 7 134,179 5.214 134 4. 218 99 5. 215 118,142 4. 223 15,72,139, 5. 216 79 179 5.234 118,139 4.224-25 179 5.253 86 4.226 142,154 5. 265 114 4.228 141,179 5.266 113 4.229-30 179 5.301 117 4.239 72 5.306 138 4.243 79,90 5.317 111,114 4. 29 2, 121,138, 296 79 143 4.311-14 104 5.327 116 4.312 62,139 5.329 120 4.316 79 5.332 72 4.331 5.4

Antiquitates 5.337 94 5.338-47 134 118,123,138, 5.339

6.20,25 6.34

6.37-38 6.43

6.54 6.59 6.63 6.92 6.102

6.127 6.134 6.140 6.147 6.148 6.160 6.181 6.186 6.189 6.193 6.196 6. 205 6. 213 6. 217 6.259 6.262-68 6.262 6.263 6.264-67 6.265 6.274-75 6.280 6.294 6.295 6.296 6.300 6.302 6.305 6.307 6.308 6.315 6.335-36 6.340-50 6.341 6.342 6.343-50 6.343 6.346 6.347 6.352 6.376

174 79 72 173 113 31 40 112,115

79 75 116 31,120

32 75 79 116 79 31 79 122 113 40 40 31 40 97,140 143 74,84,85, 143 114,116, 125,173 116 31 31,124,172 115 119 72 72 113 79 84 115 72 114 140 143 79,91 115 52 110,111, 114,124 124 31 113

205

204 Antiquitates 7. 23 72

40 40 7.37-38 126 7.43 72 31 7.48 177 7. 71 79 7.87 74 7.90 177 7. 95 7.104-05 31 7.124 113 7.127 32 7.31 7.36

7.130

115' 116

7.138 40 114

7.139 7. 14 7 7.158 7.185 7.19 0 7. 251 7. 259

7. 307

7. 3 21 7. 3 23 7.333 7.338 7.346 7. 35 7 7.380 7.384 7. 38 7 7.390 7.391 8. 13 8. 20 8. 21 8. 35-38 8. 42 8.50 8. 56 8.85 8.106-21 8.107 8.108 8.109 8.110 8.111-13 8.112 8.116-17 8.119 8.120-21 8.124 8. 142 8.190 8. 196 8. 204

113 111,122

79 113 31 173 72 113 79,90 113 79 120 32 79, 90 72 85,115 72 110,113 ll0,111 31,40,116 84 115 31 31 32 51,58 31 60 9 18,61 73,99,100 100 26,177 79,90 81,177 99,100 85,116 71

32 140 116 32

Antiquitates

Antiquitates

85,115 9.236 9.239-41 102 32 9. 240 9. 255 113 79 9.259 9.260 89' 116 9.262 79,90 84,86,113 9.265 86 9. 266 9. 276 10 2' 116 10.7 113 99 10.11 10.12 177 10.14 73 113 10.15 35 10. 23 8. 29 7 71 10.24 79,96,99 102 118 10.35 8. 299 79,90 8.300 85,116 10.42 10.50 116 8.307 101 74,84,86, 10.56 116 8. 314 116 10.59 40' 79 86 84,86,113 10.60 8.315 10.61 102 113 8.318 79 71 8. 335 10.64 177 113 10.65 8.343 32 79 8.344 10.69 10.79-80 10 2 8.357 71 8. 36 2 32 10.88-95 90,115,116 10.99 40 8.394 101 10.103-07 102 8.409 8.412 101 10.104 71 32 10.142 10 2 8.414 10.155-85 102 8. 418-20 101 74 10.157 72 8.419 118 10.177 72 9.1 34 9.8-9 40 10.185 lOS 9.14 79,96 10. 210 95,96 9.16 115,116 10.214 58 9.27 118 10.218 79 10.235 96 9. 55 10 2 9.58 96 10.266 95,96,99 10.277-80 98,155 9.60 10.278 74, 75,103, 9.72,74 102 102 117,163 9. 86 111 10.279-81 103 9.93 9.95-99 118 11.5-6 102 72 9.96 81 11.39 32 11.1859.117 10 2 295 26 9.175 102 74 9.179 11. 237 9.182 96 11.268 79,86 102 12.26 75 9.184 79 72 9.199 12.94 118 13.64,68 102 9. 205 9.208-14 102 13.1726,154,156 9.222-23 118,125,173 73 31 116 113 8. 209 74,100 8. 218 8. 227 18 85 8. 229 32 8. 236 101 8. 240 74,100 8.241 113 8. 243 8.245 118 8.251-53 85 125 8. 251 113 8. 264 86 8. 280 86 8. 284 8.206 8.208

Anti~uitates

13.1 2 13. 29398 13. 299 13.37278 14.1-2 15.376 15.425 16.175 16.395404 16.397 16.398 17. 15

17.41 17.60 17.34554

17.354 18.11

18.13 18.117 18.128

19.347 20.84 20.25868 20.12

11

11 99 11

51 85,115

163 60 52

6,154 155,179 13 11 52 62 6 6 154 116 52 154 72 52 72