JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES
32
Editors Lester L. Grabbe James H. Charles worth
Edi...
109 downloads
1034 Views
6MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES
32
Editors Lester L. Grabbe James H. Charles worth
Editorial Board Randall D. Chesnutt, Philip R. Davies, Jan Willem van Henten, Judith M. Lieu, Steven Mason, James R. Mueller, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, James C. VanderKam
Sheffield Academic Press
Understanding Josephus Seven Perspectives
edited by Steve Mason
J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of t h e P s e u d e p i g r a p h a Supplement Series 32
Copyright © 1998 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 1 9AS England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd Guildford, Surrey
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 1-85075-878-6
CONTENTS
List of Contributors Abbreviations Introduction
7 8 11
Parti GENERAL ISSUES JOSEPH SIEVERS
Josephus and the Afterlife PER
20
BLLDE
Josephus and Jewish Apocalypticism
35
Part II ANTIQUITIES/LIFE STEVE M A S O N
Should A n y W i s h to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): T h e A i m and Audience of J o s e p h u s ' s Judean Antiquities/Life
64
G R E G O R Y E. S T E R L I N G
T h e Invisible Presence: J o s e p h u s ' s Retelling of Ruth
104
P A U L SPILSBURY
G o d and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship
172
Part III AGAINST APION JOHN M.G.
BARCLAY
Josephus v. Apion: Analysis of an A r g u m e n t
194
TESSA RAJAK
T h e Against Apion and the Continuities in J o s e p h u s ' s Political Thought
222
6
Understanding
Index of Biblical references Index of Authors
Josephus 247 258
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
J o h n M . G . Barclay, D e p a r t m e n t of T h e o l o g y a n d R e l i g i o u s Studies, University of Glasgow, G l a s g o w , U K Per Bilde, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, D e n m a r k Steve M a s o n , Division of H u m a n i t i e s , Y o r k University, N o r t h York, Ontario, C a n a d a Tessa Rajak, University of Reading, Reading, U K Joseph Sievers, Pontifical Biblical Institute, R o m e Paul Spilsbury, Canadian Bible College, Regina, Saskatchewan, C a n a d a Gregory E. Sterling, University of Notre D a m e , N o t r e D a m e , Indiana, USA
ABBREVIATIONS
AGJU AJP AnBib ANRW
ASTI BFCT BibB BJS BWANT BZ BZNW CBQ CIG CIQ CQ CR CRBS CSCT HSCP HTR JBL JJS JQR JRS JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JTS LCL NovT
Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology Analecta biblica Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1972-) Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie Biblische Beitrage Brown Judaic Studies Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZNW Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Classical Quarterly Church Quarterly Critical Review of Books in Religion Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Novum Testamentum
Abbreviations NovTSup PW
REJ SBLSP SCI SPB TAPA TANZ TSAJ ZNW
Novum Testamentum, Supplements August Friedrich von Pauly and Georg Wissowa (eds.), RealEncyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1894-) Revue des etudes juives SBL Seminar Papers Scripta classica israelica Studia postbiblica Transactions of the American Philological Association Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestament-lichen Zeitalter Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
9
Introduction JOSEPHUS AS AUTHOR A N D THINKER
Not long before his death a quarter of a century ago, W . C . van U n n i k m a d e this trenchant observation on the study of Josephus: Josephus is, and will always be, used and cited... And yet the question remains whether the oft-cited historian is also truly known. Is he not much more a transmitter of data than a responsible author? Has one truly read, exegeted, and in the proper way fully excavated [ausgeschopft] his writings? 1
T o a n y o n e w o r k i n g in the fields of ancient J u d a i s m and Christian ori gins, van U n n i k ' s observation will ring true. Josephus provides the bulk of the material for such m a n u a l s as the new Schurer, L e s t e r G r a b b e ' s Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (1992) or E . P . S a n d e r s ' s Judaism, Practice and Belief 63 BCE to 66 CE (1992). Yet n o n e of these massive studies pays m u c h attention to Josephus as an author. Typical of the genre is the revised Schurer, w h i c h devotes its opening consideration of J o s e p h u s as a source (1.43-63) to a few 'facts' about his life and a survey of his w o r k s , w h i c h , h o w e v e r , focuses upon his sources a n d his reliability. W h e n it c o m e s to considering J o s e p h u s as an author, in the section entitled 'Jewish literature c o m p o s e d in G r e e k ' , the n e w Schurer gives the thirty v o l u m e s of J o s e p h u s a full t w o para graphs (3/1.545-46)—less than Tobit, Judith, or even the Q u m r a n Com mentary on Habakkukl Philo, w h o s e extant writings fill r o u g h l y the s a m e a m o u n t of space as J o s e p h u s ' s , gets an entire 80-page section to himself, and this is symptomatic of the attention Philo receives in dedi cated journals as well as conferences. If I n o w insist that it is time to pay attention to Josephus as an author, h o w e v e r , it is not simply for reasons of fairness. It is b e c a u s e d o i n g history with J o s e p h u s requires, unavoidably, that o n e r e c k o n first and 1. Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978), p. 18. The lectures printed herein were delivered in 1972.
12
Understanding
Josephus
last with the nature of the evidence. Since the past n o longer exists, and historians m u s t reconstruct it from the literary and physical traces that survive, m a k i n g an effort to understand the e v i d e n c e is obviously cru cial. All r e s p o n s i b l e history, therefore, m u s t i n v o l v e at least t h r e e s t a g e s — w h e t h e r it m a k e s t h e m explicit or not: understanding the evi d e n c e in s o m e plausible and c o m p r e h e n s i v e w a y (while admitting dis a g r e e m e n t a m o n g interpreters); hypothesizing about the underlying reality in w h i c h the historian is interested; and then returning to explain h o w the extant evidence c a m e into being if hypothesis X is valid. In the case of J o s e p h u s , o n e n e e d s to show h o w any h y p o t h e s i s c o n c e r n i n g Herod, the T e m p l e , the rebel leaders' motives, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, or whatever, explains what w e have in J o s e p h u s . This d o e s not m e a n that h y p o t h e s e s n e e d to agree with J o s e p h u s : o n e e x p e c t s that they will not in m o s t cases. But the historian m u s t p r o v i d e a plausible a c c o u n t of the w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s c a m e to his v i e w s , for s u c h e x p l a n a t i o n s are the only controls on historical reconstruction in the absence of empirical evidence. Such explanations are mainly lacking in c o n t e m p o r a r y scholarship, however; w h e n they are given, they tend to be arbitrary and sometimes they are demonstrably false. Let us take a controversial example. J o s e p h u s is the only c o n t e m p o rary native of J u d e a w h o writes unambiguously about the ' E s s e n e s ' . H e describes t h e m in his Jewish War ( 2 . 1 1 9 - 6 1 ) a n d then again in the Antiquities (e.g. 1 3 . 1 7 1 - 7 3 ; 18.18-21), for a variety of r e a s o n s . T h i s Pythagorean-like g r o u p of bachelors (mainly), w h o s e m e m b e r s m a y be found in all the t o w n s of J u d e a and regularly travel (because they lack any o n e place), w h o revere the sun a n d hold to a sublime view of im mortality like that of the G r e e k s , exemplify the true spirit of J u d e a n philosophy in sharp contrast to the school of J u d a s the Galilean (2.11819). T h e Essenes lead peaceful lives under extreme self-discipline, illus trate J o s e p h u s ' s b e d r o c k J u d a e a n values of piety toward the Deity and j u s t i c e t o w a r d s fellow h u m a n s (2.139), p l e d g e to k e e p faith w i t h all rulers, a c k n o w l e d g i n g G o d ' s sovereignty over such matters in the s a m e way that Josephus does, avoid the banditry (Xr\GXEia) that J o s e p h u s de nounces throughout the War, and are preoccupied with cures developed through stones and roots. T h e y are thus m o d e l s of the ' J u d e a n as g o o d citizen of the w o r l d ' that the War labours so hard to establish. T h e r e fore, J o s e p h u s has n o q u a l m s about linking himself w i t h the E s s e n e s ( W a r 2.158).
Introduction
13
This portrayal, b y the only extant author w h o certainly k n o w s E s senes at first hand, happens to fit well the pictures provided b y Philo of Alexandria (Every Good Man is Free 7 5 - 8 8 ; Hypothetica 11.1-18) and Pliny the Elder (Natural History 5.73). T h e s e accounts of the Essenes must b e fully explained by any hypothesis about the group. W h a t are w e to say, then, w h e n scholars routinely begin their analy sis of the ' E s s e n e s ' with a source collection that does not self-evidently m e n t i o n t h e m by n a m e — t h e D S S — a n d then tell us that the E s s e n e s w e r e really a g r o u p of militantly apocalyptic m o n k s b a s e d at Q u m r a n (though married associates lived in the towns)? T h e s e Q u m r a n e r s evi dently h a d their c o m m u n a l origins in sectarian conflict, a n d their litera ture is suffused with a sharp c o s m i c and anthropological dualism; they await the i m m i n e n t v e n g e a n c e of G o d against the Kittim. T h e i r writ ings evince on every p a g e the non-Josephan visions of exclusive c o v e nant, r e m n a n t theology, special end-time interpretation of scripture and awful i m p e n d i n g j u d g m e n t of the wicked. T h e y eagerly anticipate not o n e , but t w o or e v e n three, of the royal and prophetic m e s s i a h s that Josephus repudiates throughout his works. It is certainly not w r o n g that scholars should m a k e conjectures about identifying groups that seem so completely different in a i m s and spirit, and it m a y b e that they are right after all. T h e p r o b l e m is not so m u c h with conclusions as with method. N a m e l y , scholars c o m m o n l y a s s u m e the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e connection while failing either to ask h o w Josephus envisions the Essenes or to show h o w the hypothesis w o u l d plausibly explain w h a t ends u p in his text. If o n e wished to suggest, for e x a m ple, that J o s e p h u s deliberately suppressed all reference to apocalyptic t h e m e s in his E s s e n e material, one w o u l d then need to s h o w that the alternative vision h e develops so compellingly and in such detail, with its priestly-aristocratic foundation and its disdain for popular apocalyp tic leaders, is a fa9ade. A difficult j o b ! O n e would need also to ask w h y the E s s e n e s suggested t h e m s e l v e s to J o s e p h u s as a useful e x a m p l e of the good-citizen Judean in the first place, if he needed to manipulate the evidence so violently to m a k e this case. A g a i n , t h o s e w h o w o u l d c l a i m that J o s e p h u s m i n d l e s s l y i n c o r p o rated, undigested, s o m e source on the Essenes that did not really fit his aims w o u l d h a v e to m a k e such a case in the face of his consistent lan guage, his thought concerning the soul and afterlife, his self-reference in the E s s e n e p a s s a g e and his w a y of using sources e l s e w h e r e . Until scholarship on the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e hypothesis u n d e r t a k e s this step of
14
Understanding
Josephus
explaining the evidence, w h i c h is unavoidable for any credible Wissenschaft, the Q u m r a n - E s s e n e hypothesis will remain u n s t a b l e — e v e n if it should turn out to b e right. So w h e n w e call for attention to J o s e p h u s ' s a i m s as an author and thinker, w e are not venturing into s o m e abstruse literary theory; w e are simply a s k i n g for r e s p o n s i b l e historical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . O n e c a n n o t 'read b e t w e e n the lines', as historical investigation requires, if one does not first establish w h e r e the lines are or trouble to explain h o w they c a m e to b e there. T o b e sure, s i n c e van U n n i k m a d e his o b s e r v a t i o n s , things h a v e begun to c h a n g e noticeably. 'Josephan studies' is beginning to open up as a field, not least b e c a u s e of R e n g s t o r f ' s Concordance and, n o w , electronic searching tools based on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. It is m u c h easier than ever before to e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e and consistent (also inconsistent!) themes. T w o harbingers of this n e w di rection w e r e H e l g o L i n d n e r ' s Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972) and Harold W . A t t r i d g e ' s The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates ludaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976). Since these b o o k s appeared, there has been a growing interest in J o s e p h u s as an author and thinker. T h i s interest has g e n e r a t e d t w o recent inter national colloquia o n J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s and t w o major t e a m projects: (a) the Miinster text, translation and c o m m e n t a r y project for J o s e p h u s ' s later w o r k s and (b) Brill's English translation and c o m m e n t a r y project for all of J o s e p h u s . Articles, dissertations and m o n o g r a p h s on the rich field of J o s e p h u s ' s historiographical and literary methods are proliferat ing. W h e n Professor Philip Davies invited m e to c o m m i s s i o n a v o l u m e on J o s e p h u s , it s e e m e d appropriate to shape the collection in this n e w direction of considering J o s e p h u s as an author and as ? \ ' Need less to say, I w a s d e l i g h t e d that so m a n y e m i n e n t c o l l e a g u e s from around the world w e r e willing to contribute. Originally w e had envis aged a special issue of the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. But as the c o m p l e t e d e s s a y s c a m e in, w e realized that w e h a d far e x c e e d e d the p a g e limit for a j o u r n a l issue. R a t h e r than asking us to c o n d e n s e all of this material t h r o u g h protracted and risky surgery, Professor Davies offered us the alternative of a h a r d - b o u n d v o l u m e in the Supplement Series—an offer w e were happy to accept. ,_
Introduction
15
A l t h o u g h each of the following articles reflects a c o n c e r n with un derstanding Josephus as author and thinker, each o n e also demonstrates a distinct a p p r o a c h . In n o w a y d o they represent a single school of thought. Often e n o u g h for e x a m p l e , I find that the authors h a p p e n to disagree with some position that I have taken. This is all to the good, as w e forge a h e a d with the relatively n e w c h a l l e n g e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g J o s e p h u s ' s works as compositions. T h e logic of arrangement in this v o l u m e is as follows: from general issues in J o s e p h u s ' s outlook to specific texts in sequence. A l t h o u g h n o o n e c h o s e to devote an essay specifically to the Jewish War or Life— perhaps in part because these h a v e already received the greatest atten tion as w h o l e c o m p o s i t i o n s — m o s t of the studies nevertheless include significant discussion of these texts. W e begin with Joseph S i e v e r s ' s examination of afterlife in Josephus. H e r e is a clear case of an issue that has been central to the study of ancient J u d a i s m and Christian origins, but c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h the p r o lific J o s e p h u s has hardly been consulted. Sievers ( R o m e ) first broadens the textual b a s e for this kind of study, then analyzes in context a few ignored but important passages (e.g. outside of the major speeches and o b v i o u s c o m m e n t s ) , to suggest a m o r e a d e q u a t e direction for future study. H e c o n c l u d e s b y offering a principle for d i s t i n g u i s h i n g J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s on the afterlife from those that m i g h t c o m e u n d i gested from a source. Per B i l d e ( A a r h u s ) takes u p an equally large topic in J o s e p h u s ' s approach to apocalyptic. O n c e again, although m o s t students of apoca lyptic h a v e d i s c o u n t e d J o s e p h u s as a significant w i t n e s s to the p h e n o m e n o n , Bilde finds in the deeper structures of his writing a viewpoint that is closely related to apocalyptic. H e first defines apocalypticism in a w a y that emphasizes the sense of divine disclosure to a prophetic fig ure. In a g r e e m e n t with R o b e r t Hall and R e b e c c a Gray, especially, h e finds in Josephus a self-conscious prophet w h o k n o w s secrets about the future. T o the d e g r e e that J o s e p h u s ' s histories c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d as ' r e v e a l e d ' , w e are entitled to understand h i m not, admittedly, as a truly apocalyptic writer, but at least as s o m e o n e w h o is connected with apoc alyptic in m a n y w a y s . M y essay then m o v e s to a particular text, with a new effort to under stand the aims of J o s e p h u s ' s m a g n u m opus, the Jewish Antiquities/Life, in a plausible social context. E v e n asking the question, ' W h o w o u l d h a v e read this h u g e work, and w h y ? ' is fairly rare, and m y efforts to
16
Understanding
Josephus
answer it should b e seen as tentative. I attempt to m o v e b a c k and forth b e t w e e n w h a t can b e k n o w n of late first-century R o m a n J u d a i s m and the actual content of the book. I argue that the t w o overriding t h e m e s of the entire w o r k , w h i c h are introduced in the p r o l o g u e — a n alternative constitution and an alternative p h i l o s o p h y — w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e resonated deeply with certain Gentile sympathizers. For them, Josephus writes a n e e d e d p r i m e r in Judean history, law and culture, along with an appendix on his character as representative of this ancient tradition. G r e g o r y Sterling (Notre D a m e ) then gives us a richly e l a b o r a t e d study of J o s e p h u s ' s Ruth story (Ant. 5.318-37). W i t h full attention to other c o n t e m p o r a r y versions of this biblical narrative ( M T , L X X , DSS, T a r g u m ) , he s h o w s b e y o n d question that our author exhibits a m a r k e d redactional p r o g r a m m e of omissions, alterations and e x p a n s i o n s . N o t only that, but J o s e p h u s appears to b e a reflective author: h e has appar ently p o n d e r e d the significance of the Ruth story and c o m e to his o w n interpretation of it. W h e r e a s other retellers p r e d i c t a b l y increase the divine presence in obvious ways, Josephus is m o r e subtle: having found an invisible presence of G o d in the story, he artfully recaptures this in his o w n account for Hellenistic readers. Sterling asks a fortiori: If Jose phus involved himself so deeply in a story that occupies so little space in his oeuvre as a w h o l e , w h a t does that imply about his activity as an author in general? Paul S p i l s b u r y ( R e g i n a ) has a general q u e s t i o n a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s world of discourse, but focuses it u p o n the biblical paraphrase in Ant. 1 - 1 1 . H e begins with the tension b e t w e e n E.P. S a n d e r s ' s famous argu m e n t that virtually all a n c i e n t J u d a i s m p r e s u p p o s e d a ' c o v e n a n t a l n o m i s m ' , on the o n e hand, and the m u c h - d i s c u s s e d fact that J o s e p h u s omits or alters covenantal language, on the other. W a s Sanders w r o n g about J u d a i s m for this major J e w i s h author ( w h o m S a n d e r s did not include in his analysis)? Spilsbury uses Ant. 1-11 as a test case because it is here that Josephus must most obviously deal with the biblical cove nant. H e first s h o w s that in place of covenantal language J o s e p h u s has introduced everywhere the language of the 'patron-client' model, w h i c h u n d e r g i r d e d b o t h politics a n d social relations in the G r e c o - R o m a n world. Spilsbury concludes that Sanders w a s right about the root con ceptions underlying even J o s e p h u s ' s thought; it is only that J o s e p h u s uses other, m o r e intelligible language in ' a R o m a n society'. With the contribution from John Barclay (Glasgow), w e m o v e to Jose p h u s ' s final surviving work. Barclay tackles the fundamental i s s u e —
Introduction
17
though again, one that is only n o w beginning to b e d i s c u s s e d — o f the rhetorical type, and therefore aim, of this famous treatise. Challenging other recent suggestions, Barclay argues that the w o r k is primarily epideictic or d e m o n s t r a t i v e rhetoric, c o n c e r n e d with praising w h a t other p e o p l e b l a m e : the J e w i s h p e o p l e and their constitution. T h e Against Apion w a s a i m e d at 'influential R o m a n figures' with 'lingering preju dices against the J e w s ' . But identifying the genre is only a preliminary step for Barclay: h e does so in order to understand better the tools that J o s e p h u s d r a w s from epideictic in order to m a k e his case. So Barclay surveys J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of Apion in general, and then performs an autopsy on one particular argument set, J o s e p h u s ' s response to A p i o n ' s connection of ' s a b b a t h ' with 'groin infection'. In addition to his clas sification of genre, Barclay confirms with new detail w h a t others h a v e suggested: that J o s e p h u s ' s blazing rhetoric w o u l d not stand u p to rig orous argumentative analysis. T e s s a Rajak (Reading) provides a fitting conclusion to the v o l u m e . Her study of J o s e p h u s ' s political thought begins with the Against Apion b e c a u s e it represents his clearest declaration of a political perspective. In the midst of ongoing debate about J o s e p h u s ' s possible shifts in reli gious-sectarian viewpoint, Rajak asks whether w e can find a continuity of perspective in this less controverted area. She concludes that, indeed, J o s e p h u s d i s p l a y s a d e v e l o p i n g interest in the J e w i s h c o n s t i t u t i o n (politeia) throughout his w o r k s . Each w o r k ' s literary a i m s constrained h i m s o m e w h a t , to b e sure. F o r e x a m p l e , it w o u l d not h a v e w o r k e d for h i m to speak of the ideal Judean 'theocracy' in the War—that might have lent too m u c h credibility to the rebels—or even in the Antiquities, where he charts the nation's vicissitudes. Nevertheless, the final Utopian picture in the Against Apion has d e e p roots in these earlier w o r k s . Throughout, Josephus a s s u m e s the omnipotence of G o d and the impor tance of unity, as h e abhors civil strife (stasis). In spite of the different approaches represented in these essays, they independently concur on the importance of several issues. F o r e x a m p l e , they force in a n e w w a y the question of J o s e p h u s ' s audience in R o m e . Barclay sees J o s e p h u s writing the Against Apion to p e r s u a d e influen tial R o m a n s w h o k n o w c o m m o n slanders about the J e w s . T e s s a Rajak argues both that there must h a v e been a certain continuity of audience and that this audience m u s t h a v e b e e n largely J e w i s h , b e c a u s e it h a d to b e f u n d a m e n t a l l y s y m p a t h e t i c to J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m s . I a r g u e that Josephus's audience was both sympathetic and Gentile. Readers'
18
Understanding
Josephus
expectations, or the extra-textual resources shared b y author and audi ence, include the standard rhetorical forms of the day (Barclay). Several studies highlight from different angles the importance of constitutional (Spilsbury, Rajak, M a s o n ) and philosophical (Sievers, M a s o n ) t h e m e s throughout J o s e p h u s ' s works. This v o l u m e is not the first collection of essays on J o s e p h u s ' s thought and it will certainly not b e the last. But it is still rare, and w e h o p e that it will help to focus s o m e basic issues in understanding this singularly important first-century Jewish author.
Part I GENERAL ISSUES
JOSEPHUS A N D THE AFTERLIFE
Joseph Sievers
T h e w o r k s of F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s have usually b e e n considered a gold mine of information about the Second T e m p l e period, albeit a g o l d m i n e with a large percentage of dross. His w o r k s h a v e been u s e d as a p r i m e source of information for the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , and a b o v e all the Essenes and their teachings and practices. J o s e p h u s ' s biases and apolo getic tendencies h a v e been submitted to rigorous analysis and m u c h has been found to m a k e one cautious before accepting his word. Yet, in the process, Josephus the writer has most of the time been given little atten tion and even less credit. T h e topic of this study is a case in point. In the past 30 years there have been several m o n o g r a p h s dealing with individual eschatology in the late S e c o n d T e m p l e period (Stemberger 1972; N i c k e l s b u r g 1972; Cavallin 1979; Marcheselli-Casale 1988). W h i l e they treat a good n u m ber of pseudepigrapha in great detail, of Josephus they m a k e hardly any mention, except for what h e has to say about Essenes and Pharisees in this context. A m o n g studies on belief in an afterlife Nikolainen (1944: 173-78) a n d F i s c h e r ( 1 9 7 8 : 144-56) d e v o t e a section to J o s e p h u s . A m o n g studies treating Josephus specifically, Schlatter (1932: 259-63) and in particular M a s o n ( 1 9 9 1 : 158-70) pay attention to his v i e w s of the afterlife. Cavallin has m a d e an attempt to study systematically J o s e p h u s ' s con cept of the afterlife (1974: 141-47, 197). Yet, in addition to texts about the Essenes he includes only eight passages in his survey (five from the War, t w o from the Antiquities and one from Against Apion). O n e p r o b l e m in a p p r o a c h i n g this subject is the fact that J o s e p h u s does not h a v e a very set terminology. For e x a m p l e , he only once uses the term T c a ^ i Y Y ^ ( ' r e b i r t h ' ) and then in a non-technical sense. In this o n e i n s t a n c e it h a s the m e a n i n g of rebirth or restoration of the h o m e l a n d (Ant. 11.66). By contrast, Philo uses the term regularly e v e a
a
SIEVERS Josephus
and the
Afterlife
21
to describe his idea of immortality (Burnett 1984). In o n e other case (Apion 2 . 2 1 8 ) Josephus u s e s t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g verbal e x p r e s s i o n (yeveoOcu xe nakw) p e r h a p s u n d e r P y t h a g o r e a n influence (Fischer 1978: 155) o r m o r e p r o b a b l y following P l a t o ' s u s a g e (Meno 8 1 b ; Phaedo 7 0 c ; M a s o n 1 9 9 1 : 163-64). J o s e p h u s avoids resurrection lan g u a g e e v e n w h e r e h e refers to a bodily existence post mortem (War 2.163; 3.374). T h e term eyepoxq appears only twice, in a repeated q u o tation from M e n a n d e r of E p h e s u s and probably refers to t h e (annual) ' a w a k e n i n g ' of Heracles (Ant. 8.146; Apion 1.119; see Stern 1 9 7 4 - 8 4 : 1.121). J o s e p h u s never e m p l o y s the verb eyeipco as m e a n i n g ' t o raise (from t h e d e a d ) ' . H e does u s e the verb dvaPioco ( ' c o m e t o life a g a i n ' ) three times, once with reference to the revival of the cult (Ant. 11.9), once in t h e story of E l i j a h ' s bringing a b o y b a c k to life (Ant. 8.327), and last b u t n o t least in h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of P h a r i s a i c beliefs in an afterlife (Ant. 18.14). M a s o n ( 1 9 9 1 : 165-69) offers a very illuminating discussion of this term but mistakenly claims that dvaPioco occurs only once in J o s e p h u s , at Ant. 18.14 ( 1 9 9 1 : 2 9 9 ) . Josephus n e v e r speaks of 'eternal life' (£cof| aicovioq), a term found already in P h i l o (Fug. 7 8 ) and in Psalms of Solomon 3.12 (Schlatter 1932: 2 6 3 n. 1). H e does gen erally e m p l o y dGdvaioq and its cognates to speak of the immortality of the soul. A l s o the term v|/v%f| often, but b y n o m e a n s in t h e majority of cases, does refer to the soul as the immaterial and imperishable essence of an individual. T h u s even with the help of a concordance it is not very easy to identify t h o s e p a s s a g e s that i n c l u d e affirmations a b o u t t h e afterlife. A very fruitful approach to J o s e p h u s ' s thought h a s b e e n through an analysis of the major speeches. This h a s been programmatically stated b y L i n d n e r : ' C o n c e r n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l starting point for t h e description of J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t . . . a b o v e all the major speeches of t h e War r e c o m m e n d themselves, especially since here the delimitation of the material is unequivocal' (Lindner 1972: 18). F e l d m a n b r o a d e n s this idea b y applying it to speeches in the Anti quities in particular a n d in ancient historians in general ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 : 2 3 8 n. 7 0 ) . Villalba i V a r n e d a h a s attempted a systematic analysis of the s p e e c h e s in J o s e p h u s , b u t h i s w o r k h a s not b e e n entirely successful (Villalba i V a r n e d a 1986: 89-117; F e l d m a n 1987: 256-58). In this regard it is significant that in t h e War, except for t h e descrip tion of E s s e n e and Pharisaic beliefs in 2 . 1 5 1 - 6 3 , apparently all refer ences to an afterlife occur in the context of major or minor speeches. In
22
Understanding
Josephus
the past, particular attention has been devoted to E l e a z a r ' s speech invit ing the defenders of M a s a d a to m a s s suicide. A central section of it deals with the question of the immortality of the soul. T h e speech cer tainly is n o t m e a n t to p r e s e n t J o s e p h u s ' s p o i n t of v i e w r e g a r d i n g suicide. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n of this section, h o w e v e r (War 7.340-57), is prob lematic: T h e classification of this section is the most difficult p r o b l e m of E l e a z a r ' s speeches, from the points of view of literary criticism, exe gesis, and history of religions' (Bauernfeind a n d Michel 1967: 2 6 8 ) . M o r e l h a s tried to s h o w that J o s e p h u s d e p e n d e d for this section directly on various passages in Plato and on Poseidonius (Morel 1926: 108-110). This interpretation h a s been substantially accepted b y other scholars (Bauernfeind and Michel 1967: 2 7 0 ; Lindner 1972: 38). Michel in a later w o r k , w h i l e n o t d e n y i n g c o n n e c t i o n s with G r e e k i d e a s , stresses the similarities with Jewish traditions (1984: 964-65). A different proposal b y Briine (1913: 143-45) apparently h a s largely escaped notice. H e argues that J o s e p h u s here u s e s v e r b a t i m parts of C y r u s ' s deathbed speech as reported b y X e n o p h o n (Cyropedia 8.7.1921). T h e parallels a d d u c e d are indeed quite striking, although p e r h a p s not sufficient to prove direct dependence. T h e fact that Cicero produced a Latin version of the speech (De senectute 22) s h o w s that it h a d s o m e notoriety. Briine's proposal ought to b e taken seriously b e c a u s e besides verbal parallels, the speeches of Cyrus and Eleazar share elements of a c o m m o n outline, with a reference to the relation b e t w e e n sleep a n d death following m o r e general considerations about immortality. In any event, as this instance shows, even in J o s e p h u s ' s speeches w e have to deal with the question of his sources a n d often cannot b e sure to what extent the speeches are his o w n composition. T h e speeches, then, are a g o o d but not unproblematic starting point for an inquiry into Jose p h u s ' s views. M a s o n h a s criticized earlier studies (about J o s e p h u s a n d the Phar isees) b e c a u s e they ' d i d not attempt to g r o u n d t h e m s e l v e s in the bed rock of o u r a u t h o r ' s t h o u g h t ' ( 1 9 9 1 : 3 7 2 ) . T h u s h e p r o p o s e s to try to ascertain J o s e p h u s ' s view about the afterlife only from texts in w h i c h he clearly expresses his o w n opinions. M a s o n finds four such passages: (1) the moralistic interpretation of the E s s e n e beliefs xcepi \|/\)xf|(;; 1
1. Even in this case it is not entirely certain that Josephus's own views are expressed. Bergmeier thinks of one of Josephus's assistants as the author of this passage (Bergmeier 1993: 62-63).
SIEVERS Josephus
and the
(2) his J o t a p a t a s p e e c h a g a i n s t suicide (War
Afterlife
23
3 . 3 7 2 - 7 5 ) ; (3) the inter
pretation of G l a p h y r a ' s d r e a m of her d e c e a s e d h u s b a n d as confirming the immortality of the soul (Ant.
17.354); and (4) the c l a i m that afterlife
a n d final j u d g m e n t are t a u g h t in the M o s a i c l a w (Apion
2.218). This
a p p r o a c h is basically s o u n d b u t leads to s o m e w h a t m i n i m a l i s t and e v e n t h e n not entirely c e r t a i n results. P e r h a p s it m i g h t b e p o s s i b l e to g o a step further b y l o o k i n g at a b r o a d e r r a n g e of p a s s a g e s d e a l i n g w i t h the afterlife, w h i l e trying to d e t e r m i n e in e a c h c a s e h o w c l o s e l y it m i g h t reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n position. B e l o w is a list that s u g g e s t s the r a n g e of J o s e p h u s ' s treatments of this t o p i c . War 1.58 1.84 1.650-53 2.151 2.153-58 2.163 3.356 3.362-78 6.47 6.105 7.340-57 Ant. 1.85 1.230-31 3.96-97 4.315 4.323-26 6.3 6.329-36 8.146 8.326 9.28 12.282 12. 304 13.317 17.354 18.14-18 19.325
2.
2
*Hyrcanus's mother: death with just retribution better than immortality *Aristobulus I: shameless body (II Ant. 13.317) T e a c h e r s and their *disciples Essenes: honorable death better than immortality Essenes Pharisees * Josephus's companions at Jotapata * Josephus against suicide *Titus's speech: souls released from the flesh * Josephus on Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) *Eleazar on immortality and collective suicide Biblical account of Enoch slightly expanded * Abraham's speech: expansion of Akedah account missing Moses *Moses' farewell speech: going to join the ancestors Moses' mysterious death biblical account of Philistines expanded: soul released from body Saul and the medium of Endor Menander on Heracles (II Apion 1.119) *Elijah: prays God to send breath/soul back into child Disappearance of Elijah *Mattathias: Mortal bodies, immortal memory * Judas: to die in battle = eternal glory *Aristobulus I (WWar 1.84) Comment on Glaphyra's dream Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes *Silas: soul severed from body
An asterisk (*) indicates occurrences within direct or indirect speech.
24 Apion 1.119 2.203 2.218
Understanding
Josephus
Menander on Heracles (II Ant 8.146) Soul suffers when implanted in bodies and again when severed from them by death New life
Of course I d o not propose that all these passages represent J o s e p h u s ' s point of view but I think that they ought to be taken into consideration for a study of this kind. S o m e of these passages appear in the War or in Against Apion and also in the Antiquities. A m o r e t h o r o u g h search would certainly turn up m o r e . Here J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of passages from k n o w n sources, especially his biblical paraphrase, seems to offer a fruitful line of inquiry. H e certainly h a d w r i t t e n a n d oral s o u r c e s beyond a biblical text at his disposal, but m y working hypothesis is that he selected and a d a p t e d this material a c c o r d i n g to his o w n criteria. Therefore, while k e e p i n g in m i n d the often derivative nature of his extra-biblical material, w e m a y still, at least tentatively, include it in an assessment of his o w n views. I will not g o through the entire list but would like to present e x a m p l e s in three different areas that h a v e not been widely used in this context. 3
Life without Death: Enoch, Elijah—and
Moses?
J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of the disappearances of E n o c h , Elijah and M o s e s has been amply discussed (Tabor 1989; B e g g 1990; F e l d m a n 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 : 324-25; 1993: 2 5 8 - 6 0 ) . H e r e I wish only to point out h o w J o s e p h u s ' s very brief a c c o u n t of E n o c h closely follows the biblical text, yet shows awareness of extrabiblical traditions. T h e MT reads: "p]n " ^ n m inrrfrR m a npb'^D u r w ••'rfrKn"™. This m a y b e rendered: ' E n o c h walked with G o d ; then he w a s no m o r e , b e c a u s e G o d took h i m ' (Gen 5.24 N R S V ) . T h e LXX adds some interpretive elements: K a i e i n p e a m,G£v Evco% xco Oeco Kai o\)% r|\)picK£xo oxi |iexE6r|Kev aiixov 6 Geoq ( ' A n d E n o c h w a s pleasing to G o d and he w a s not found because G o d had transposed h i m ' ) . According to J o s e p h u s , instead, h e 'returned to the divinity' (Ant. 1.85: dve%c6pr|C£ npoq xov Oeiov). T h i s is probably technical l a n g u a g e for translation to the divine sphere (Tabor 1989: 227; B e g g 1990: 691). T h e s a m e expression is twice u s e d with regard to M o s e s , only to affirm that in the end he did die instead. 3. I have not included those passages where death is simply called a departure or a rest. Schlatter affirms for these: 'Die Weise, wie vom Sterben gesprochen wird, hat den Unsterblichkeitsglauben in sich' (1932: 262).
SIEVERS Josephus
and the
Afterlife
25
J o s e p h u s is the first author k n o w n to m e w h o points out the analogy between the disappearances of E n o c h and Elijah: both of t h e m ' b e c a m e invisible and n o one k n o w s of their death' (Ant. 9.28). T h e t w o are fre quently paired in Christian apocryphal texts and in patristic and m e d i aeval exegesis. Before J o s e p h u s , 1 En. 89.52 briefly reports that E n o c h sees Elijah c o m i n g u p to h e a v e n to j o i n h i m . P o i n t i n g out their analogous destiny m a d e it unnecessary for Josephus to b e m o r e explicit about E l i j a h ' s extraordinary m o d e of travel via a h e a v e n l y chariot. E v e n without these details, it remains clear in J o s e p h u s that Elijah too w a s translated to heaven (Begg 1990: 692). A l t h o u g h Josephus affirms that in Deut. 34.5 M o s e s w r o t e about his o w n death, h e heightens the mystery b y saying that he disappeared in a c l o u d (Ant. 4 . 3 2 6 ) . A l s o , w h e n M o s e s d e l a y e d his r e t u r n from the mountain, J o s e p h u s suggests that sober-minded people thought that h e had been translated to heaven (Ant. 3.96-97), again using the same lan g u a g e as applied to E n o c h . In M o s e s ' final speech, J o s e p h u s has h i m a n n o u n c e to the p e o p l e that h e is leaving to j o i n 'our a n c e s t o r s ' (Ant. 4.315). T h u s J o s e p h u s treads a fine line in giving M o s e s s u p e r h u m a n stature, but carefully pointing out that h e was less than divine (Feldman 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 : 324-26; 1993: 259-60, 543-44 nn. 86, 89). 4
For E n o c h and Elijah, it is clear in Josephus that they c o n t i n u e their existence b e y o n d their earthly life, e v e n though h e avoids describing Elijah's ascent to heaven. For M o s e s , instead, J o s e p h u s highlights the m y s t e r y s u r r o u n d i n g his death and refers to his c o n t i n u e d existence 'with our a n c e s t o r s ' . T h u s in all three cases J o s e p h u s operates subtle changes that emphasize in different w a y s a belief in an afterlife.
Isaac
Unbound
A n o t h e r famous reference to an afterlife m a y b e found in J o s e p h u s ' s p a r a p h r a s e of G e n e s i s 2 2 . Instead of b i n d i n g Isaac as in G e n . 2 2 . 9 , A b r a h a m gives h i m a solemn speech. It is not m y task here to analyze that speech, w h i c h b e l o n g s to the genre of ethopoeia, h e r e used as a p r o g y m n a s m a t i c exercise as F e l d m a n ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 : 239) has pointed out. It is p o s s i b l e but not very likely that J o s e p h u s found such a speech 5
4. For a list of texts, with the possible exception of the Apocalypse ofZephaniah all later than Josephus, see Bauckham 1976: 447-49; Tabor 1989: 225 n. 1. 5. On Ethopoiea see Naschert 1994.
26
Understanding
Josephus
6
ready in a non-biblical s o u r c e . In it (Ant 1.228-31) A b r a h a m suggests that he is sending his son out of this life to G o d w h o — h e b e l i e v e s — i s going to receive I s a a c ' s soul amid prayers and the offering of sacrifices and is going to k e e p it close to himself. T h u s Isaac will b e a protector for A b r a h a m , b y giving h i m G o d instead of himself. H e r e the belief in the immortality of the soul is clearly implied as a reason for A b r a h a m ' s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. A n a n a l o g o u s belief in resurrection is attributed to A b r a h a m in H e b . 11.17-19: ' B y faith A b r a h a m , w h e n put to the test, offered u p Isaac. H e c o n s i d e r e d the fact that G o d is able e v e n to raise s o m e o n e from the d e a d ' ( N R S V ) (cf. R o m 4.17). A c c o r d i n g to m a n y interpreters the belief in resurrection is expressed here according to a pre-existing formula similar to the e n d i n g of the s e c o n d of the E i g h t e e n B e n e dictions ' B l e s s e d are you, O Lord, w h o revives the d e a d ' . Later r a b binic tradition attributes to Isaac belief in the resurrection and has h i m recite this prayer (e.g. Pirqe R. El 3 1 . 3 ; cf. Spiegel 1967: 28-37). Such a connection with a belief in resurrection or immortality of the soul a p p e a r s to b e u n k n o w n to Philo (cf. Abr. 167-207) but since it seems to h a v e b e e n k n o w n to Paul and to the author of the Epistle to the H e b r e w s as well as to rabbinic tradition, J o s e p h u s m a y well h a v e b e e n a w a r e of its e x i s t e n c e . H e r e as e l s e w h e r e , b u t n o t a l w a y s , h e seems to reinterpret resurrection language in terms of the s o u l ' s i m m o r tality. O n e should note, h o w e v e r , that 4 Maccabees, to b e dated in the first or p e r h a p s second century C E , uses Isaac as a m o d e l for its m a r tyrs, with the corresponding idea of eternal life (Segal 1987: 117-19). This idea is expressed not in terms of bodily resurrection but of i m m o r tality of the soul (4 Mace. 18.23). This tradition is nearly c o n t e m p o r a neous with J o s e p h u s and clearly independent of him. T h u s , ideas about A b r a h a m ' s belief in resurrection and/or immortality of the soul p r o b ably circulated in J o s e p h u s ' s time. Josephus chose to use the latter con cept, in addition to the affirmation of divine providence (rcpovoia, Ant. 1.225), to explain A b r a h a m ' s readiness to sacrifice his son. It is also to b e noted that J o s e p h u s depicts A b r a h a m ' s expectation that I s a a c ' s soul will b e close to G o d , and will b e able to influence G o d on behalf of A b r a h a m (Ant. 1.231).
6. The LAB skips Gen. 22 entirely. Jub. 18 in this instance follows the biblical text fairly closely. 4Q252 and 4Q225 briefly allude to Gen. 22, but do not expand Abraham's role.
SIEVERS Josephus
Liberation
and the
27
Afterlife
from the Body
Quite frequently, death is described b y Josephus as the s o u l ' s liberation from the b o d y . O n e case that h a s hardly been noticed is that of the Phil istines after they c o n q u e r the ark of t h e covenant. T h e y w e r e afflicted by a painful fatal disease, h a e m o r r h o i d s or t u m o r s in 1 S a m . 5.6 (MT), 8 \ ) a e v x e p i a in Ant. 6 . 3 . LXX is very different from both M T and J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h it shares with J o s e p h u s the a p p e a r a n c e of s w a r m s of mice. Unfortunately n o Q u m r a n manuscript includes this verse. J o s e p h u s adds that this disease afflicted them 'before their souls w e r e released from the b o d y b y a h a p p y (or ' e a s y ' ) d e a t h ' (rcpiv f\ xr\v \\fv%r\v avxolq
e\)9avdxcovr28: 195-222.
Momigliano, A. 1982 'Ci6 che Giuseppe non vide', Rivista Storica Italiana, 91 (1979): 564-74; repr. in La storiografia greca (Torino: Einaudi, 1982): 322-35. Muller, K. 1982 '"Die Propheten sind schlafen gegangen" (Syr Bar 85.3)', BZ 26: 179207. Murphy, F.J. 1994 'Apocalypses and Apocalypticism: The State of the Question', CRBS 2: 147-79. Parente, F., and J. Sievers (eds.) 1994 Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Philonenko, M. 1983 'L'apocalyptique quomranienne', in Hellholm (ed.): 171-210. Poznanski, A., 1887 Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Halle). Rajak, T. 1983 Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983). 1994 'Cio che Giuseppe vide: Josephus and the Essenes'; in Parente and Sievers (eds.): 141-60. Rowland, C. 1985 The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982; repr.).
60 Russel, D.S. 1971 Schalit, A. 1975 Schmidt, J.M. 1969
Understanding
Josephus
The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press [1964]).
200 BC-AD 100
'Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud and Midrasch: Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie', ANRW, II.2: 208-327. Die jiidische Apokalyptik: Die Geschichte ihrer Erforschung von den Anfangen his zu den Textfunden von Qumran (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag).
Schmithals, W. 1973 Die Apokalyptik: Einfiihrung und Deutung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schreckenberg, H. 1968 Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E.J. Brill). 1979 Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementsband mit Gesamtregister (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Schreiner, J. 1969 Alttestamentlich-jiidische Apokalyptik: Eine Einfiihrung (Munich: KoselVerlag). Smith, M. 1983 'On the History of APOKALYPTO and APOKALYPSIS\ in Hellholm (ed.): 9-20. Smith, M. 1987 'The Occult in Josephus', in Feldman and Hata (eds.): 236-56. Sterling, G.E. 1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Stone, M.E. 1982 Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Tabor, J.D. 1989 '"Returning to Divinity": Josephus' Portrayal of Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses', JBL 108: 225-38. Thackeray, H.St.J., et al (eds.) 1969 Josephus in Nine Volumes (LCL; London and Cambridge, MA: W. Heinemann and Harvard University Press, [1926]). Unnik, W.C. van 1978 Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider). VanderKam, J.C. 1984 Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America). Vermes, G. 1991 'Josephus's Treatment of the Book of Daniel', JJS 42 : 149-66. Vermes, G., and M. Goodman (eds.) 1989 The Essenes According to the Classical Sources (Sheffield: JSOT Press).
B E L D E Josephus Volz, P. 1966
and Jewish
Apocalypticism
61
Die Eschatologie der judischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der rabhinischen, apokalyptischen und apocryphen Literatur (Tubingen: Mohr and Siebeck, 1934; repr.; Hildesheim: Olms).
Part II ANTIQUITIES/LIFE
' S H O U L D A N Y W I S H T O E N Q U I R E F U R T H E R ' (ANT. T H E A I M A N D A U D I E N C E O F J O S E P H U S ' S JUDEAN
1.25):
ANTIQUITIES/LIFE
Steve M a s o n
T h e following essay is part of an ongoing effort to r e o p e n basic ques tions about J o s e p h u s ' s social situation, audience and literary a i m s . That such questions are s e l d o m p o s e d m a y s e e m astonishing, but it is per haps only s y m p t o m a t i c of a scholarly tradition that h a s t e n d e d to do everything with J o s e p h u s except read his w o r k s coherently. This tradi tion is, of c o u r s e , gradually changing under a w i d e variety of stimuli: witness the present v o l u m e . E v e n still, I find myself not so m u c h chal lenging entrenched opinion as trying to a n s w e r e l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n s for the first time: For w h o m , exactly, did Josephus write, and w h a t did he m e a n to tell t h e m ? H o w can o n e match w h a t is in his w o r k s to the particular social situations in w h i c h he wrote? H o w did his first hearers and readers in R o m e understand his lengthy treatises? B e c a u s e such pointed questions are quite n e w with respect to Jose phus, m y essays in this vein are exploratory and, I h o p e , suggestive. I d o think that the proposals offered here explain the content and context of the w o r k s better than other theories. But I d o not intend these efforts as the definitive w o r d b y any m e a n s , reserving the right to c h a n g e m y m i n d as I learn from future analysis. In this project of re-evaluating the aims and audiences of J o s e p h u s ' s works I have m a d e a rough beginning with the Jewish War and a fuller study of the Against Apion. This essay will e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s m a g 1
2
1. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (SPB, 39; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991), pp. 57-81; Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992), pp. 58-64. 2. Steve Invitation to phus ' Contra to the Portion
Mason, 'The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Judean Philosophy' in L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison, (eds.), Jose Apionem: Studies in Character & Context with a Latin Concordance Missinz in Greek (AGJU, 34; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 187-228.
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
65
n u m o p u s , the Antiquities and Life. A l t h o u g h the Antiquities a n d Life m u s t be read together for reasons that will b e c o m e clear, I h a v e e x a m ined the Life m o r e fully in a parallel s t u d y . 1 begin with an attempt to s h a r p e n t h e formulation of the p r o b l e m and with s o m e a n t e c e d e n t reflections on J o s e p h u s ' s situation in R o m e after his arrival in 7 1 . 3
1. The Problem:
Why Did Josephus
Write, and Why Did People
Listen?
T h e sheer size and detail of t h e Antiquities/Life forces u p o n us the question of audience: W h o w o u l d h a v e b e e n willing to h e a r J o s e p h u s t h r o u g h t h e s e t w e n t y - o n e v o l u m e s , filled as they are w i t h S e m i t i c n a m e s and J u d e a n arcana? V e r y few scholars today h a v e read the w o r k t h r o u g h e v e n in translation, as a c o n t i n u o u s n a r r a t i v e , t h o u g h o u r translations hide most of the stylistic variations and difficulties of the Greek. W h o in antiquity w o u l d h a v e sat and listened through this? T h e p r o b l e m of a i m s m a y b e f o r m u l a t e d t h u s : W h a t q u e s t i o n d o e s the Antiquities, taken as a whole, answer? T o b e sure, for m o s t m e m b e r s of the g e n e r a t i o n of s c h o l a r s w h o established the critical study of J o s e p h u s , these questions w e r e irrele vant and u n a n s w e r a b l e . F r o m the 1870s through about 1920, J o s e p h u s w a s v i e w e d m o r e or less as a cipher for his various source collections. H e w a s a 'stupid copyist' (stumpfer Abschreiber), in the w o r d s of the m a n w h o did the m o s t to bring this period of scholarship to an e n d . T h e a u t h o r m o r e or less d i s a p p e a r e d before the m a s s i v e a n o n y m o u s source collections that he w a s thought to h a v e b o r r o w e d w h o l e s a l e and sewn together with the flimsiest of threads.
4
Since R i c h a r d L a q u e u r and, in English, H e n r y St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y b r o u g h t the m o r e e x t r e m e source-critical c a m p a i g n to a grinding halt,
3.
A draft of that paper, T h e Aim and Audience of the Vita' was presented to
the Josephus Kolloquium at the Institutum Iudaicum Delitzschianum,
Munster-
Westfalische Universitat, June 20-22, 1997. It will appear shortly, in Folker Siegert (ed.), Munsteraner judaistische 4.
Studien, II (1988).
Richard Laqueur, Der judische
Historiker
Flavius Josephus
(Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 [1920]), p. viii. The most convenient example of the older source criticism is Gustav Holscher's article 'Josephus' for PW 18 (1916), pp. 1934-200, which is almost entirely devoted to Josephus's alleged source collections.
66
Understanding
Josephus
scholars have indeed b e g u n to think about Antiquities' aims a n d audi ence, but they (we) h a v e usually contented themselves with v a g u e , un realistic proposals. H a v i n g decided that the War w a s a c o m m i s s i o n e d p i e c e of R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y a g r e e d that Josephus had lost his putative imperial patrons by the t i m e h e c a m e to write Antiquities. His major w o r k represents a n e w p h a s e in his life, with a suitably n e w patron (Epaphroditus): ' h e s e e m s finally to sever his connexion with R o m a n political propaganda, and henceforth figures solely as Jewish historian and a p o l o g i s t . ' This rather b r o a d description, 'apologetic history', has set the tone for twentieth-century scholarship. 5
But what is m e a n t b y ' a p o l o g e t i c ' and w h o m did J o s e p h u s expect to endure these twenty-one v o l u m e s of it? In keeping with Victor Tcherik o v e r ' s principle that J e w i s h apologetic w a s typically read first and foremost by J e w s — b e c a u s e the nature of ancient publication required a willing audience to hear the t e x t — a few scholars from L a q u e u r o n w a r d have suggested that J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e written primarily for fellowJews (if also secondarily for Gentiles). T h e m o s t c o m m o n m o t i v e sug gested is repentance: in later life h e felt so badly a b o u t the traitorous War that h e n e e d e d to d e m o n s t r a t e , p e r h a p s to the b u d d i n g rabbinic m o v e m e n t at Y a v n e h b u t certainly to other J u d e a n s , his l o y a l t y to Jewish history, law and culture. S o the Antiquities is a powerful nation alistic-religious text written in part to rehabilitate h i m s e l f w i t h his fellow J e w s . 6
7
B u t all such attempts to find a primarily J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p for the Antiquities fail to e n g a g e either J o s e p h u s ' s social situation or the con tents of the b o o k . First, it is not only J o s e p h u s ' s clear and consistent programmatic s t a t e m e n t s , w h i c h admittedly m i g h t b e m e r e l y formal, 8
5. Henry St. John Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav, 1967 [1929]), p. 52. 6. 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos 48 (1956), pp. 169-73. 7. Laqueur, Der judische Historiker, pp. 258-61; Hans Rasp, 'Flavius Jose phus und die judischen Religionsparteien ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 27-47, esp. 46. The most important developments of this theory are: Shaye J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (CSCT, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), p. 145 (the Pharisees' heirs 'were now established and influential at Yavneh and Josephus wanted their friendship') and Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (CSCT, 18; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), pp. 199-201. Schwartz has Josephus go much further than repen tance: he intends to intervene directly in Judean politics by backing the Pharisaic coalition. 8. E.g. Ant. 1.5, 9; 20.262. ,
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
67
but his countless incidental r e m a r k s explaining basic J u d e a n language, customs a n d l a w s that a s s u m e a Gentile audience. H e d o e s not expect his first hearers to k n o w anything about the laws or J u d e a n origins. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s that o n e of his o w n compatriots m i g h t by c h a n c e peruse his w o r k , b u t significantly h e worries that such a hypothetical reader w o u l d seek to correct his a r r a n g e m e n t of the l a w s (4.197). T h a t fits with his claim elsewhere that all Judeans are well educated in this m a terial (Apion 1.42-43, 6 0 ) ; it is the Gentiles w h o n e e d e l e m e n t a r y ex planations of Judean w a y s . 9
Second, supposition of a Diaspora or Y a v n e a n audience w o r k s better with a m o d e r n pattern of b o o k publication: one often writes in a social v a c u u m , then hands the manuscript to a publisher w h o disseminates it to target audiences. In the absence of such a b o o k culture in J o s e p h u s ' s day, w h e n b o o k s w e r e normally ' p u b l i s h e d ' by recitation before m o r e or less sympathetic h e a r e r s , h o w are w e to get his b o o k s t o the p r o posed D i a s p o r a and even Y a v n e a n audience? A n d w h y w o u l d the Y a v neans prefer to read G r e e k ? 10
Third, insofar as these theories i n v o k e Y a v n e h and c o n n e c t J o s e p h u s ' s P h a r i s e e s in s o m e w a y with the rabbis, they r u n u p against current scholarship on Yavneh, w h i c h suggests that it did not represent the triumph of Pharisaism as m u c h as a beginning coalition of perhaps five or m o r e surviving J u d e a n groups after the war, and that the Y a v n e a n coalition had little i m m e d i a t e i m p a c t even u p o n J u d e a proper, let alone the D i a s p o r a . A n d those studies that have Josephus converted to 11
9. E.g., 1.128-129; 3.317; 14.1-3, 186-187; 16.175; 17.200, 213; 20.106, 216, 262; Life 1, 12. 10. E.g., R.M. Ogilvie, Roman Literature and Society (Harmondsworth: Pen guin Books, 1980), pp. 12-16. Such a book trade as there was by Josephus's time relied heavily on deposits in the growing number of libraries, whence readers could borrow the 'volumes'. Of course, it was simply impractical to copy and distribute widely multiple-roll books such as the Antiquities/Life. 11. E.g., Jacob Neusner, 'The Formation of Rabbinic Judaism: Yavneh (Jamnia) from A.D. 7 0 to 100', ANRW 2 (1979), 19.2.3-42; S.J.D. Cohen, 'The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism', HUCA 55 (1984), pp. 27-53; Lee LA. Levine, 'Judaism from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt: 7 0 - 1 3 5 C.E.', in Hershel Shanks (ed.), Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of their Origins and Early Development (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992), pp. 125-49, esp. 136; Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), II, 592-95.
Understanding
68
Josephus
adulation of the Pharisees in Antiquities/Life are vulnerable to funda mental c r i t i c i s m . Finally, Josephus seems to expect roughly the same sort of readership for all of his w o r k s : h e h a d considered including the ancient history in War (Ant. 1.6); h e constantly refers the reader of Antiquities b a c k to War for m o r e precise or detailed discussions (Ant. 1.1-4, 2 0 3 ; 13.298; 18.11; 2 0 . 2 5 8 ; Life 10, 2 7 , 412); and he reflects on both w o r k s together as part of a single project (Apion 1.47-56). Contrary to w h a t w e should e x p e c t from the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y thesis, J o s e p h u s evinces not the slightest e m b a r r a s s m e n t over the War in his later w o r k s . All of these works are aimed at Gentiles. 12
W e face the problem, then, of explaining what sort of Gentiles would b e inclined to sit patiently through J o s e p h u s ' s 6 0 , 0 0 0 lines in 2 0 vol u m e s on Judean history and culture (20.267). W h a t w e r e these Gentiles expected to m a k e of J o s e p h u s ' s ubiquitous (if self-conscious) introduc tions of S e m i t i c n a m e s a n d p h r a s e s , his e x t e n d e d n a r r a t i v e s a b o u t J u d e a n kings, the temple, and priesthood, the J u d e a n s ' b l o o d y victory u n d e r E s t h e r a n d M o r d e c a i ( 1 1 . 2 1 ) , or his l e n g t h y e x p l o r a t i o n s of H e r o d the Great and his family, the brothers Anilaeus and A s i n a e u s in Parthia and the conversion of the royal h o u s e of A d i a b e n e ? W e are in search of c o m p e l l i n g a n d plausible m o t i v e s : for J o s e p h u s to d e v o t e about 14 years of his life to writing this e x h a u s t i n g a c c o u n t (1.7) of Judean history from creation to the eve of the revolt; for s o m e Gentiles to h a v e the patience to read it. It is r e m a r k a b l e that so m a n y detailed studies of the Antiquities rest content with the rubric 'apologetic for Gentiles', ignoring specific ques tions of aim and audience. Louis F e l d m a n ' s massive bibliography does not e v e n contain a section on the purpose of the Antiquities, t h o u g h it records debates concerning J o s e p h u s ' s other w o r k s . B u t s o m e schol ars h a v e seen the problem and have attempted to solve it. 13
T h e m o s t c o m m o n route has b e e n to understand the Antiquities as a response to w i d e s p r e a d slander and misinformation a b o u t J u d e a n ori gins. It is undeniable that such misinformation circulated fairly widely in J o s e p h u s ' s day, and o n e can often draw direct parallels b e t w e e n the claims explicitly refuted by J o s e p h u s in Against Apion and the narra tive of Antiquities, w h i c h does not often refute, h o w e v e r , but typically 12. See Mason, Pharisees. 13. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship W. de Gruyter, 1984).
(1937-1980) (Berlin:
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further*
69
precludes the slander in its presentation. Thackeray already noticed this p h e n o m e n o n , and F e l d m a n ' s n u m e r o u s articles on J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e h a v e b o r n e it out in d e t a i l . Harold Attridge d e v e l o p s the parallel with Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u s ' s Roman Antiquities, to s h o w that both D i o n y s i u s and J o s e p h u s w r o t e to dispel i g n o r a n c e about the origins of a great p e o p l e . Attridge notes J o s e p h u s ' s 'implicit rebuttal' of stock slanders at certain p o i n t s . 14
15
16
A l t h o u g h o n e c a n n o t d e n y that J o s e p h u s ' s narrative implicitly p r e cludes the c o m m o n slanders a b o u t J u d e a n origins, this k i n d of apolo getic d o e s n o t e x p l a i n either his or his r e a d e r s ' m o t i v e s . First, the ancient history only comprises about half the b o o k (Ant. 1-11), and so leaves o n e grasping to explain w h y J o s e p h u s b o t h e r e d w i t h the other half. Thackeray had to suggest that Josephus added a good deal of filler to bring his b o o k u p to the 20 v o l u m e s of D i o n y s i u s , but that sugges tion d o e s n o t m a t c h the seriousness or consistency of l a n g u a g e , tone and p u r p o s e in the latter h a l f . Second, an implicit defence is ineffi cient: W h y not b e explicit? A 2 0 - v o l u m e narrative reaching to the period revolt is an implausibly a w k w a r d m e a n s of countering slander a b o u t Judean antiquity. Third, then, w e remain stuck with the p r o b l e m : Which Gentiles, especially of the hostile or disdainful literati, w o u l d have tol erated this m e a n d e r i n g and u n c o n g e n i a l history? Finally, the parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s ' G r e c o - R o m a n p u b l i c ' and D i o n y s i u s ' s a u d i e n c e d o not help us m u c h to envision J o s e p h u s ' s audience. Dionysius w a s an e s t e e m e d teacher of G r e e k rhetoric, w h o wrote his history partly in o r d e r to illustrate his rhetorical principles. A n d w e c a n r e c o n s t r u c t 17
18
14. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian, p. 59; Gohei Hata, T h e Story of Moses Interpreted Within the Context of Anti-Semitism', in L.H. Feldman and G. Hata, (eds.) Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Uni versity Press, 1987), pp. 180-97; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in Antiquity: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton Uni versity Press, 1993), pp. 84-186 and the articles listed on pp. 594-96. 15. Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HTR, 7; Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univer sity Press, 1976), p. 53. 16. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, pp. 60-61. 17. Thackeray, Josephus, p. 69. 18. E.g., Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung alsApologetik bei Flavius Josephus (TANZ, 9; Tubingen: A. Francke, 1994).
Understanding
70
Josephus 1 9
s o m e t h i n g of t h e ' G r e e k professorial circle at R o m e ' to w h i c h he b e l o n g e d . J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s not a rhetor b y any m e a n s , l a c k e d a similar audience. A G r e e k writing for Greeks about the glories of the city they had all chosen for their h o m e is m u c h m o r e intelligible than a Judean writing for Greek-speakers in R o m e about his native traditions. S o m e scholars h a v e grounded the apologetic m o t i v e in a realistic his torical situation b y e v o k i n g the deteriorating situation of D i a s p o r a J u d e a n s at the e n d the century: the recent w a r and p e r h a p s especially the accession of D o m i t i a n called forth J o s e p h u s ' s effort to r e m o v e the causes of Gentile hostility. Support for such a proposal c o m e s particu larly in the acta pro Iudaeis, w h i c h J o s e p h u s c l a i m s to cite in order to r e m o v e c a u s e s of h a t r e d . P e r h a p s the m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e effort to locate the audience of Antiquities c o m e s from Gregory Sterling, w h o attempts to s h o w that the w o r k stands within a tradition of 'apologetic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ' e s t a b l i s h e d by B e r o s u s of B a b y l o n a n d M a n e t h o of E g y p t . In this g e n r e , priests typically write in G r e e k , for outsiders, about their native history and culture. Sterling sees the Antiquities as a c o m p l e x w o r k , a d d r e s s e d first to the G r e e k cities of the D i a s p o r a , w h e r e J u d e a n s had b e c o m e m o r e vulnerable to Gentile hostilities after the accession of D o m i t i a n . Secondarily, it w a s an a p p e a l to R o m a n authorities for support, w h i c h is w h y it included the decrees in favour of J u d e a n rights and repeatedly s h o w e d that rulers w h o h a r a s s e d the J u d e a n s suffered p u n i s h m e n t , w h i l e j u s t rulers p r o s p e r e d . Finally, Sterling suggests that a Judean audience w a s also in v i e w . 20
21
22
23
24
25
T h e p r o p o s e d m o t i v e of r e m o v i n g post-war animosity n o d o u b t con nects us with R o m a n realities in the late first century. But as an expla nation of the Antiquities it defies the first principle of rhetoric: o n e ' s a r g u m e n t m u s t suit o n e ' s a u d i e n c e . W h y w o u l d t h o s e w h o h a t e d the 19. G.P. Goold, 'A Greek Professorial Circle at R o m e \ TAP A 9 2 (1961), pp. 168-92. 20. W. Rhys Roberts, T h e Literary Circle of Dionysius of Halicarnassus', CR 14(1900), pp. 439-42. 21. E.g., Tessa Rajak, Josephus: the Man and his Society (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1983), pp. 226-27; Mason, Pharisees, pp. 182-83. 22. See 14.186-87 and 16.174-75. 23. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, LukeActs and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), pp. 298-302. 24. Sterling, Historiography, pp. 302-306. 25. Sterling, Historiography, pp. 306-308.
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
71
Judeans after the revolt or because of D o m i t i a n ' s policies b e inclined to listen to J o s e p h u s ' s intricate, m o r a l i z i n g a c c o u n t s of A b r a h a m a n d M o s e s ? Further, the acta lie buried in the later v o l u m e s of Antiquities; Josephus has said nothing earlier about post-war hatred. W h e n he does mention it there, h e speaks of r e m o v i n g causes of hatred on both sides (16.175). A n d what R o m a n e m p e r o r w o u l d b e m o v e d to reconsider his actions b y the fates of King A s a of Judah, O m r i of Israel or their ene m i e s ? Finally, the p r o p o s e d a p o l o g e t i c m o t i v e d o e s n o t e x p l a i n the o v e r w h e l m i n g l y positive t o n e of the Antiquities (below). T h e Jewish War a n s w e r s m u c h better to the n e e d for r e m o v i n g the g r o u n d s for p o s t - w a r hostility: refutation of slander is part of its explicit a g e n d a (War 1.1-3, 6-9), and its content matches the purpose. E v e n there, h o w ever, o n e m u s t imagine a m a l l e a b l e — n o t b i g o t e d — a u d i e n c e in the first instance. Least persuasive is the often e c h o e d proposal of M o r t o n S m i t h that J o s e p h u s either wrote the Antiquities for the purpose of bringing to the attention of 'the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ' the emerging rabbinic coalition at Y a v n e h — a s a potential local a u t h o r i t y — o r that h e h o p e d such leaders would notice his advocacy for Y a v n e h while they w e r e already engaged with the b o o k for other unidentified reasons (to b e d i s a b u s e d of antiJewish s l a n d e r ? ) . This remarkably durable hypothesis is e x c l u d e d by: the inefficiency of rambling narrative as propaganda; the v a g u e n e s s and unlikelihood of the phrase ' R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ' for this period ( D o m i tian or his c o w e d senators?); the necessity of crediting ignorant R o m a n readers with something approaching allegorical insight into the narrative such that, for e x a m p l e , observance of the L a w or m e n t i o n of the Pharisees under the H a s m o n e a n s a n d H e r o d are u n d e r s t o o d to b e appeals for Y a v n e a n r a b b i n i s m ; and t h e e v i d e n c e for w h a t actually h a p p e n e d at Y a v n e h (above). 26
If the various proposals for clarifying the 'apologetic for G e n t i l e s ' that Antiquities is alleged to provide c o m e to grief as soon as they are p r e s s e d — a n d I i n c l u d e m y o w n w o r k in this c r i t i c i s m — t h e related h y p o t h e s i s that J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d patrons and a u d i e n c e s b e t w e e n the
26. Morton Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', in Moshe Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York: JTSA, 1956), pp. 67-81, esp. 72. Important adoptions include Jacob Neusner, 'Josephus's Pharisees', Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), I, 224-53; Cohen, Galilee and Rome, pp. 237-38; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, p. 209.
Understanding
72
Josephus
War and his later w o r k s m u s t also b e doubted. This w i d e s p r e a d view a s s u m e s that, w h e r e a s the n a m e of Epaphroditus appears for the Antiq uities/Life and Against Apion, the Flavians w e r e J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n or sole patrons for the War (conceived of as c o m m i s s i o n e d propaganda). B u t there is n o c o m p e l l i n g reason w h y E p a p h r o d i t u s and his circle m i g h t not already h a v e b e e n patrons of the War. T h a t J o s e p h u s does not mention t h e m is immaterial, because the taut style of War excludes virtually all references to supporting figures, w h e t h e r sources, such as N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s , writing assistants or patrons. O n l y in his later w o r k s d o e s h e b e g i n to m e n t i o n sources and then h e also fleetingly a c k n o w l e d g e s literary assistance with War (Apion 1.50). A s w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s appears to a s s u m e his r e a d e r s ' k n o w l e d g e of War. Rather than suggesting a fall from imperial favour in later life, in the Antiquities/Life Josephus insists that Domitian, and in particular D o m i t i a n ' s wife, a d d e d to his beneficia (Life 4 2 9 ) . T h i s c o n t i n u i t y from Vespasian a n d Titus to D o m i t i a n s e e m s to fit with D o m i t i a n ' s general policy: in spite of D i o ' s claim that h e 'visited disgrace and ruin u p o n the friends of his father and of his brother' (Dio 67.2.1), the advisors and senior personnel of Vespasian and Titus continued in their capaci ties with Domitian, m a n y even with Nerva; only the intimate domestic staff w e r e t u r n e d o v e r . A l t h o u g h it is c o n c e i v a b l e that J o s e p h u s changed his circles of friends and supporters b e t w e e n War and Antiqui ties, there is simply nothing in Josephus or elsewhere to suggest that h e did. 27
W e need, then, a n e w e x p l a n a t i o n of b o t h J o s e p h u s ' s m o t i v e s in c o m p o s i n g the Antiquities and those of his first audience in listening to it.
2. Josephus's Purpose
Audiences
in Rome:
General
of the War
W e need to begin our reassessment of Josephus with a consideration of his c i r c u m s t a n c e s in R o m e w h e n h e wrote the Jewish War. T h e c u s tomary view of the War is that Josephus wrote it as a p a w n — ' l a c k e y ' is the c o m m o n w o r d — o f the new Flavian dynasty. According to the most e x t r e m e (but still d o m i n a n t ) theory, the r e c e n t arrival in R o m e w a s 27. So Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 59-71. Even Dio concedes, somewhat inconsistently, that Domitian continued favours bestowed by his predecessors (67.2.1).
MASON 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
73
actually commissioned b y the Flavians to write official p r o p a g a n d a , in order to quell any further h o p e s of rebellion after 7 0 C E . A s a reward for these v a l u e d services, J o s e p h u s p r o s p e r e d in the i m p e r i a l court. Scholars h a v e qualified this view in various w a y s , but the War is still typically seen as a gift to the Flavians from their favourite J u d e a n . 2 8
29
Both literary and external considerations militate against this theory. Internally, the evidence of the War demonstrates that it is not so m u c h p r o p a g a n d i s t i c as defensive. J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that h e w r i t e s to chal lenge the p r o - R o m a n a n d anti-Jewish histories of the revolt that h a v e already a p p e a r e d (War 1.1-3, 6-16). Of course, it is p o s s i b l e that his real and ulterior m o t i v e s vary widely, b u t that m u s t b e a r g u e d against the evidence for a consistent rhetorical position. Although those anti-Jewish histories are lost, w e can reconstruct s o m e of their m a i n lines both from w h a t other R o m a n writers say about the revolt a n d from w h a t J o s e p h u s says in response, in the War. Tacitus, Celsus, Philostratus and others assert that the J u d e a n w a r exemplified the rebellious and misanthropic nature of the J u d e a n national character, and that the R o m a n victory w a s the predictable triumph of the R o m a n g o d s and F o r t u n e . In response, J o s e p h u s dedicates his w o r k to show ing that, although the Judeans could rise to fight off an evil r e g i m e such as that of the Seleucids, they normally cooperate with the various world p o w e r s . T h e y d o so b e c a u s e they k n o w that their G o d is in c o m p l e t e control of world history, and gives p o w e r even n o w to the R o m a n s . T h e revolt w a s neither a characteristic expression of the J u d e a n character nor a defeat of the J u d e a n G o d . It arose, sadly, b e c a u s e a handful of w o u l d - b e tyrants took advantage of the (admitted) egregious misrule of s o m e R o m a n g o v e r n o r s to incite sedition. In spite of its p r e d i c t a b l e flattery of Titus, then, the War is aimed at defending the surviving J e w s against widespread post-war animosity, perhaps e v e n r e p r i s a l s . 30
31
This assessment of the War as a thoroughly Jewish w o r k s e e m s to be confirmed by J o s e p h u s ' s external circumstances w h i l e writing. If War w e r e the k i n d of propaganda that is often claimed, then w e should h a v e
28. Laqueur, Der judische Historiker, pp. 126-27; Thackeray, Josephus, pp. 2728. 29. E.g., Cohen, Galilee and Rome, p. 86; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, p. 10. 30. Tacitus, Hist. 5.1-13; Philostratus, Apollonius 5.33; Celsus, cited in Origen, Against Celsus 5.41; Minucius Felix, Octavius 10, 33. 31. See the works cited in n. 1.
74
Understanding
Josephus
e x p e c t e d h i m to enjoy a position of s o m e p r o m i n e n c e in the Flavian court. B u t w h e n w e e x a m i n e his social status m o r e closely, w e must conclude that he remained at best a marginal figure in R o m a n society. Josephus's Standing in Rome It is important to hold in s o m e perspective both what Josephus received and w h a t h e did not receive from the Flavians. Peter W h i t e offers a helpful s u m m a r y of s e v e n benefits that p a t r o n s , or better potentes amici, typically b e s t o w e d u p o n their poorer friends, n a m e l y : m o n e y assigned through inheritances or bequests; one-time-only gifts in cash or capital, such as those r e q u i r e d to bring a m a n ' s c e n s u s u p to the 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces required of a R o m a n equestrian; loans at m i n i m a l or n o interest; gifts in the form of land or a h o u s e ; l o d g i n g s w i t h the wealthier friend; positions of influence and i n c o m e in the a r m y or bu reaucracy, preferably those with few d e m a n d i n g responsibilities; and arranged m a r r i a g e s . In addition, writers such as Martial, Statius and Pliny c o u l d c o u n t on their amici to p r o v i d e a p r o m i s i n g v e n u e for recitations of their w o r k , to p r o m o t e and h e l p circulate their b o o k s a m o n g wider circles of interested friends (for the b o o k trade itself did not yet d o such things) and, most of all, to protect t h e m from the seem ingly constant accusations of jealous r i v a l s . 32
33
G i v e n the rhetorical context of the last paragraphs of the Life, w h e r e T i t u s ' s m e r e silence in the face of a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t J o s e p h u s is interpreted as k i n d n e s s (Life 4 2 8 ) , w e m a y b e fairly certain that our author lists m o r e or less everything h e received from the Flavians. His principal benefits were: one or t w o arranged marriages, at Caesarea and Alexandria; s o m e manuscripts of Judean holy b o o k s ; a tract of presum ably fertile land in the J u d e a n plain (not in the prized hinterlands of R o m e ) ; a c c o m m o d a t i o n in V e s p a s i a n ' s former private h o u s e — p r e s u m ably t h e h o m e on the Q u i r i n a l hill, on P o m e g r a n a t e Street, w h i c h Domitian w o u l d later convert to a Flavian shrine (Suetonius, Domitian 1.1); R o m a n citizenship; a stipend of s o m e sort (ovvxa^iq %pr||ndTcov), t h o u g h w e d o not k n o w h o w regular this w a s ; a n d p r o t e c t i o n from J o s e p h u s ' s m a n y J u d e a n a c c u s e r s — t h o u g h the c o n v e n t i o n a l c l a i m to
32. Peter White, 'Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome', JRS 68 (1978), pp. 74-92, esp. 90-92. 33. White, 'Amicitia\ pp. 83-89. Cf. R.P. Sailer, 'Martial on Patronage and Literature', CIQ 33 (1983), pp. 246-57.
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
75
h a v e m a n y j e a l o u s e n e m i e s m i g h t b e e x a g g e r a t e d in o r d e r to draw attention to o n e ' s status (Life 414-29). So far, J o s e p h u s appears privileged. B y the accident of his peculiar circumstances, he s e e m s to h a v e enjoyed a link with the princeps that the well-connected Spaniard Martial could only d r e a m of. A n d whereas Martial c o m p l a i n s of failing to receive any significant financial h e l p from the e m p e r o r (Epigrams 6.10), J o s e p h u s not only h a d a stipend of s o m e k i n d but c l a i m s that D o m i t i a n a d d e d tax relief to his other benefits. Yet in comparison to what might have been, the benefits J o s e p h u s re ceived are not all that impressive. Beginning with V e s p a s i a n , as Brian J o n e s h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d , the F l a v i a n e m p e r o r s a d o p t e d a p o l i c y of actively p r o m o t i n g Eastern n o b l e m e n within their administration. T o repay d e b t s a c c u m u l a t e d in his J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , V e s p a s i a n , in his capacity as censor, adlected to the senate a n u m b e r of p r o m i n e n t east erners in 7 3 / 7 4 . Y o u n g e r Easterners he prepared for the q u a e s t o r s h i p and senatorial careers by appointing t h e m vigintiviri. Titus a d v a n c e d this process even further, and Domitian promoted it energetically. Jones calculates that non-Italians constituted s o m e 38 p e r cent of the 6 0 0 m e m b e r senate in D o m i t i a n ' s reign o v e r against 3 3 per c e n t in V e s p a s i a n ' s , a n d that Easterners h a d c o m e to represent 26 p e r cent of the non-Italian c o n t i n g e n t . 34
35
A l t h o u g h adlection to the senate with its qualification of 1,000,000 sesterces w a s admittedly an extraordinary honour, perhaps reserved for important client kings and c o m m a n d e r s , appointment to the equestrian order, w i t h its m u c h m o r e m o d e s t property r e q u i r e m e n t of 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces and its absence of such an aura, w a s still a m a n a g e a b l e reward for significant Eastern friends. Indeed, Suetonius claims that Vespasian g a v e 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 sesterces to a w o m a n after a one-night sexual e n c o u n t e r (Vespasian 22). J o s e p h u s himself allows that there w e r e a n u m b e r of Jewish equestrians in Judea before the outbreak of the w a r (War 2.308). But neither Josephus nor his sons would b e granted even equestrian sta tus. T h e only rank h e could claim, in spite of the w i d e s p r e a d m o d e r n perception that he sold out to the R o m a n s , w a s R o m a n c i t i z e n s h i p — s o m e t h i n g that w a s apparently enjoyed by m o s t R o m a n J e w s of his day. His assertion that the freedom from taxation granted h i m b y D o m i tian r e p r e s e n t e d the 'highest possible h o n o u r ' (Life 4 2 9 ) reflects the 34. Jones, Domitian, pp. 170-72. 35. Jones, Domitian, pp. 172-73.
Understanding
76
Josephus
low level of the former p r i s o n e r ' s ambition. V e s p a s i a n h a d granted such relief to all teachers of g r a m m a r and rhetoric; it w a s not all that special. If w e want to see w h a t life might look like for Ioudaioi w h o h a d truly found favour with the Flavians, w e need only consider the influential n e t w o r k formed b y the descendants of H e r o d on the o n e h a n d and the family of A l e x a n d e r the alabarch of A l e x a n d r i a (brother of Philo) on the other. T h e s e t w o families had b e g u n to share a connection with the Flavians already in C l a u d i u s ' s court ( 4 1 - 5 4 C E ) , t h r o u g h their friend ship with C l a u d i u s ' s m o t h e r Antonia (Ant. 19.216-211), the daughter of M a r c Antony. S h e and her powerful friends e n c o u r a g e d the rising Fla vian family: Titus F l a v i u s S a b i n u s and his t w o s o n s , S a b i n u s II and Vespasian. H e r secretary A n t o n i a Caenis (d. m i d - 7 0 s ) w o u l d b e c o m e V e s p a s i a n ' s mistress, thus easing access both b e t w e e n V e s p a s i a n and the imperial court and, once he had assumed the principate, b e t w e e n her mistress's friends and V e s p a s i a n . 36
37
In the latter half of the first century, the chief representatives of this J u d e a n circle w e r e the famous equestrian Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r — n e p h e w of Philo and s o m e t i m e governor of J u d e a and Egypt, as well as special advisor to T i t u s d u r i n g the J u d e a n w a r — a n d M a r c u s Julius A g r i p p a (Agrippa II), the client king w h o also rendered invaluable as sistance to the R o m a n s during the J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , a n d w h o s e sister Berenice b e c a m e T i t u s ' s lover off and on for m o r e than a d e c a d e ( 6 7 7 9 C E ) before Titus r o s e to the principate ( T a c i t u s , Histories 2.2; Suetonius, Titus 7.1). Prior to that long affair, Berenice had b e e n mar ried to the w e a l t h y b u s i n e s s m a n son of the alabarch, M a r c u s Julius Alexander (Ant. 19.276), further connecting the t w o prominent families. T h e o u t c o m e of the c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e H e r o d i a n a n d Alexandrian Ioudaioi with the Flavians is impressive: A l e x a n d e r ' s heirs apparently w e n t on to senatorial careers in R o m e , and A g r i p p a II w a s himself granted the senatorial rank of praetor (Cassius D i o 65.15.4). T h e influence of these players has left its m a r k in the e n v y of a Juvenal, w h o dismisses A g r i p p a in hindsight as a barbarus w h i l e accusing the royal pair of incest (Satires 6.158), and in the histories of Cassius Dio, 3 8
36. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization: Selected Read ings (2 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, 3rd edn, 1990), II, p. 207. 37. Cassius Dio 65.14.1-5; cf. Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Titus (New York: St. Martin's, 1984), pp. 34-35, 60; idem, Domitian, pp. 3-4. 38. Jones, Domitian, p. 7.
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
77
w h i c h s h o w the importance of the A g r i p p a and Berenice at court (e.g. 65.15.3-5). J o s e p h u s , b y contrast, did not rise high e n o u g h to b e c o m e an object of such envy. Suetonius and D i o mention h i m in passing as a curiosity, only as a prisoner in J u d e a and only b e c a u s e of his r e m a r k a b l e predic tion about V e s p a s i a n ' s rise to p o w e r . H e did not even r e a c h the l o w est rung of the cursus honorum in R o m e ; m u c h less w a s h e an amicus or t r u s t e d a d v i s o r of a n y F l a v i a n e m p e r o r . T o b e s u r e , E u s e b i u s (Eccles. Hist. 3.9.2) claims that a statue w a s erected in J o s e p h u s ' s hon our in R o m e , b u t w e h a v e only his w o r d for it, a n d w e d o not k n o w w h e n the statue might h a v e b e e n b u i l t — b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s and E u s e b i u s ' s t i m e s . All of the other evidence u n a n i m o u s l y points to a career on the fringes of any real power. This is perhaps only to b e expected of a captured e n e m y soldier, b u t it needs e m p h a s i s b e c a u s e of the long scholarly tradition of v i e w i n g J o s e p h u s as a favourite of t h e F l a v i a n court. 39
G i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s lack of p r o m i n e n c e in the court of V e s p a s i a n and Titus, w e o u g h t to b e w a r y of a s s u m i n g that the imperial family w e r e his p r i m a r y literary p a t r o n s . O f c o u r s e , o n e c o u l d h a v e n u m e r o u s p a t r o n s at any given t i m e . Martial m e n t i o n s at least 6 0 p e o p l e w h o might b e patrons, and Statius, 1 8 . Peter W h i t e has s h o w n that Flavian R o m e w a s m a r k e d b y a multiplicity of possible s p o n s o r s . U n l i k e the period of A u g u s t u s (31 BCE to 14 CE), in w h i c h a tightly d r a w n literary circle w a s led by the f a m o u s p a t r o n M a e c e n a s , the e n d of the first Christian century s a w potential literary 'friends' e v e r y w h e r e . Martial, Statius a n d Pliny, a l t h o u g h they h a d c o m m o n friends a n d a c q u a i n tances, s h o w a r e m a r k a b l e lack of c o r r e s p o n d e n c e in citing n a m e s of p a t r o n s . N o doubt this fragmentation w a s due in large m e a s u r e to the F l a v i a n s ' , and especially D o m i t i a n ' s , upsetting of the old order through the rapid p r o m o t i o n of freedmen, equestrians a n d foreigners. But this state of affairs m e a n s that j u s t b e c a u s e Vespasian arranged a c c o m m o dation in the city for Josephus—neither in the palatium, note, nor in the gardens of Sallust (horti sallustiani) w h e r e Vespasian himself preferred to l i v e — w e c a n n o t a s s u m e that h e and Titus h a d sufficient personal interest in his w o r k to provide h i m with a place to read it to audiences, 4 0
41
39. Suetonius, Vespasian 5.6.4; Dio 65.1.4. 40. Peter White, T h e Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage', HSCP 79 (1975), pp. 265-300, esp. 265. 41. White, 'Friends', pp. 291-98.
Understanding
78
Josephus
furnish assistants to h e l p with the Greek language and m a k e his w o r k k n o w n to others. Josephus's amici in Rome Since Josephus is eager to play u p his access to the imperial family, w e cannot take his remarks at face value. For e x a m p l e , his t w o accounts of the first recipients of his War are c o n t r a d i c t o r y . It s e e m s antecedently likely, in v i e w of his a p p a r e n t social standing, that h e w o u l d h a v e required influential intermediaries e v e n to bring his w o r k to t h e sus tained attention of the Flavian rulers. A hint that this is so c o m e s in his claim that A g r i p p a II wrote h i m s o m e 62 letters, encouraging h i m in his project (Life 365-66). O n e of the t w o letters that h e reproduces appears to indicate that Josephus had s h o w n Agrippa a draft of an early v o l u m e , before the completion of the War, for the king asks also to see the 're maining v o l u m e s ' — p r e s u m a b l y , as they b e c o m e available. A l t h o u g h w e m a y o t h e r w i s e prefer to d o u b t that the k i n g actually w r o t e 6 2 letters, the n u m b e r is not unreasonable if they w e r e typically as short as those cited b y J o s e p h u s , and if A g r i p p a w a s involved with the w o r k as it progressed. Peter W h i t e ' s s u m m a r y remarks are g e r m a n e : 42
The book aborning generated a considerable society of its own, c o m posed of the associates who had received early drafts, auditors who had heard the recitations, and friends and patrons who received the final 43
copy.
For reasons w e h a v e already seen, A g r i p p a II, his sister B e r e n i c e and their family a n d friends in R o m e are excellent c a n d i d a t e s for being a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s most important friends during the composition of the War: those w h o provided the necessary services for J o s e p h u s , bringing his w o r k to the serious attention of V e s p a s i a n and T i t u s as well as a larger g r o u p of interested R o m a n s . T h e s e influential b r o k e r s , w h o a p p e a r very favourably in the War, w o u l d p r o v i d e brilliant p e r s o n a l illustration of J o s e p h u s ' s repeated claims that J u d e a n s are p r o u d and faithful citizens of the world, w h o recognize G o d ' s h a n d behind R o m a n rule for the present. Since the king and his sister w e r e 'fully conversant with Greek paideid (Life 359), they w o u l d h a v e b e e n in a position to
42. Life 362-64 puts King Agrippa among the first recipients and justifies this by mentioning 62 letters written by the king to Josephus; Apion 1.50-51 puts the king last, apparently as one who bought the book. 43. White, 'Friends', p. 299.
M A S O N 'Should Any Wish to Enquire
Further'
79
b r o k e r the w o r k so that it reached its target audiences, i m m e d i a t e l y in R o m e and eventually in provincial circles. J o s e p h u s ' s j o y at the endorse m e n t of his finished b o o k by Vespasian a n d Titus (Life 3 6 1 - 6 3 ) w o u l d m a k e little sense if V e s p a s i a n h a d c o m m i s s i o n e d the w o r k in the first place. 44
W e d o not k n o w w h a t other friends a n d patrons J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e attracted w h i l e h e w a s p r o d u c i n g the War. T h e p r o u d J e r u s a l e m i t e priest evidently expected s o m e G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s w h o w e r e not in volved in the conflict to b e sufficiently interested to listen to his claims at length (War 1.3, 6), as he told t h e m about the J u d e a n G o d w h o con trolled h i s t o r y . W h o m i g h t t h e s e i n t e n d e d h e a r e r s h a v e b e e n ? T h a t question brings us to the Antiquities/Life.
3. The J e w i s h Antiquities: A Handbook
for Gentiles
Interested
in
Judaism? The Proem to Antiquities/Life T h e m o s t striking feature of J o s e p h u s ' s extended p r o e m to Antiquities/ Life is its confidence. J o s e p h u s claims to write, not in o r d e r to refute falsehood, w h i c h w a s his m o t i v e in the War (Ant. 1.4) b u t b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n p u r s u e d b y s o m e p e o p l e , i n c l u d i n g E p a p h r o d i t u s , w h o are c u r i o u s a b o u t J u d e a n history (1.8). T h e y see his w o r k as useful a n d beautiful (1.9), and h e regards it as the noblest (K&Xkicxa) enterprise (1.9). J o s e p h u s takes as his m o d e l the h i g h priest E l e a z a r of b y g o n e d a y s , w h o l i k e w i s e a c c e d e d t o t h e r e q u e s t of a p r o m i n e n t G e n t i l e (Ptolemy II) eager to h a v e copy of the J u d e a n laws in Greek. N o t e that the l a n g u a g e here is all positive: Eleazar did not j e a l o u s l y h o a r d (o\)K 8(|>06vr|ae; 1.11) a great benefit (c6(|>eA,£ia) b e c a u s e J u d e a n tradition required that its g o o d things (KOX6) not b e kept secret. T h u s , J o s e p h u s will imitate the m a g n a n i m i t y (\izya\oyyvy\a) of Eleazar in sharing this tradition with those w h o are eager to learn (iA,0|ia6£i ARRRA WITI 1
1
1
1
amok ntf?pnanib biro rrnrr orf? rra P aai tnaa psn btafcri 'maa INPNINTRAOTON
MT
rrao crmst* jrtoi pbra raa Tti
'DM ITOK OKTI •f?D » ttfw ncch 1.2 INTI RRM AWO NTO I«AI RRNRR ORF? ,L
DSS OTTTSK IRTOI ]BM RN ^ OTFI 'DIN I N * NM [-FICRB* 0Jw DCTI 1 2 •tf LACRI A«IQ RNTO I«AI RRFIRV UNB N-AFC
LXX 1.2 Kai ovouxx xcp dvSpi 'APeiuetex, Kai ovo^a xoiq 8\)aiv vioiq a\>xo\) MaaA.cbv Kai KeXaicov, 'Ec()pa0aioi EK BaiG^ee^i xf|q Io\)8a' Kai TftGoaav eig dypov Mcodp Kai fjaav eKei.
134
Understanding
Josephus
Josephus avxcp yeyevrpevoix; XeX^icova Kai MaXacbva ercayonevog eiq xnv Mcoapixiv u.exoiKi£exai. 319
Kai rcpoxcopo-uvxcov avxco Kaxd v o w xcov rcpayumcov dyexat xoig violq
yvvaiKaq McoapixiSaq XeMacdvi p,ev 'Opdv 'Po\>9riv 8e MaX,acbvi. 8ieA,06vxcov 8e 5eKa excov Targum
NRB rra p pan jrtoi jftrra ra p n ontfTODrrm» aitfi i^crt* traa cran 12 f*TOn pn Tim aroo bpn IDTOTrrnrr MT :rra Ttfi OTI ran eft* - ^ D ^ K RM 1 3 DSS 1
rra ^tfi VM TW*D -nm izrkrfay * non 1 3
LXX 1.3 Kai drceGavev ' A p e i u i t e x
0
6vf|p xfjq Ncoe^ieiv, Kai Kaxeteic^Ori a\)xrj Kai
oi Svo m o i a\)xfj tnn AW AIRA n n p p n a i ] pzft cnrfr "tai " I M R A rrra ^ rojn 1 4 pti I t o ]DTD ]Qn T3TTI UNTO"! Kite FTQ mi
MT :rrcrKQi rr-fr Ttib neton -iw*n jrtoi p^no orrcti m m o i 1 5 DSS
neftwn RRFR Tizfa RRCFAN TW*TI jrtoi PBNADNW M
VCN
15
LXX 1.5 Kai drceGavov Kai ye duxt>6xepoi, MaaXcbv Kai XeXaioov Kai KaxeXei0T| TJ ywf| drco toi) dvSpoq avxnq Kai and xcbv 8\)0 \)icbv awfjq. Josephus Kai nex' avxdv oi rcaiSeq 8i' 6Aiyo\) xetewcbai, 3 2 0 Kai fi Nadu-iq TUKpcog eni xoiq GDnPePTiKoai epo\)oa Kai xnv 6\|/iv xcov (|>iA,xdxcov eprpiav oi)K vrconevovaa, 8i' rjv Kai xf\qrcaxpiSoqe^eXxfavQex, Targum *)R irrai cnrrar iMpr* p r o u poDin XMM KID^D rrra BV r a m bin 1 5 KFRMRO ra p r o « t e r e anna MARATO KTOKOD W T K p t o i ] t r a cnrrnn
MT n» mrr i p a o naiQ mfcn rax> o awo nfon artn rrrtoi opm 1.6 :DrfrDrfrnrf?TD» DSS mrr i p s ^ awo rnftfo raatf o amo rnto atom rrrfoi \VN opm] 1.6 [orfrorfrnrf? lorna]
LXX 1.6 Kai dveaxn a\)tfi Kai ai 8TJO v\>uoa aijxfiq Kai d7teaxpe\|/av e£ dypov Mcodp, o n TiKovaav ev dypcp Mcodp 6xi 'ErceoKercxai Kvpioq xov A,adv auxov, 8owai avcoiq dpxotx;. Josephus 7idA.iv eiq avxfjv dTrnXXdxxexo* Kai yap Ti8t| KaXcoq xd Kax' avxrjv eTcvvGdvexo %copeiv.
Understanding
136
Josephus
Targum
toato dtd to ^prn nionriK dttr skid ^prararnannton WN nopi 1.6 t o i mrfacn «T33]2om tot n warf? PT* BVRBR rra maR rr " 101 o r * KTon uracil" Dip s
s
MT zntf? -pro motoi mai> rrnto ntfi noti nrm IM UPON p HOT 1.7 :rmr? p a DSS
[yra moton] no:; rrrnto Tfen nati nrra IM UPON p HOT] 1.7 [rrnrr pK^rrrcfr] LXX 1.7 Kai e£nA,6ev EK XOV XOKOV OV fjv eKei, Kai ai Svo \v\ityai aim\q \iex aiyxf\qKai ercopevovio ev xr\ 65cp xov emaxpe\j/ai eiq xnv yr\v Io\)5a. Josephus 3 2 1 ov% £KapT8po\)v 8e 8ia^e\)YV\)|ievai aim\q ai vuu.ai, Targum
m*6 mnafr wrmo totoDi no» armto frnrn pn mrr n tonn p npsxn 1.7 rrnrr MT ion ddqp mm ntar NON RRAF?TONratfrtob rrnto rrcfr law MAWN 1.8
DSS
•Dos? mm rrtar [noa MH
rati
1
mo ? [rrrnto RAH lain Tawn] 1.8 main ortian op onto itfto] ion
LXX 1.8 Kai eircev Ncoe^eiv xdiq vu^aiq awfjq UopeveoQe 8r|, d7coarpaou.ev eiq xov A,a6v GOV. Josephus dM,' eyKei(ievcov Targum 1
1
trrantf? "ptf? aim -pa ]nto* dttr ronton^ kto ? aim a ? rf? poro 1.10
MT 4
inwxb aa ? rm
1
m a b man TO mato na ? Tin rrnotod- o v n 1.11
DSS 1
h i m ra-run TO raato] na ? mma [mara tod naam] 1.11 [mtiafcDafrrm]
LXX 1.11 Kai eircev Ncoeueiv 'Erciaxpdclmxe 8f|, Gvyaxepeq jiov Kai 'iva xi 7copei>ea0e iiex' c a w , u/n exi uxn vioi ev xf\ KoiAia \iov, Kai eaovxai VUAV eiq dvSpag;
Understanding
138
Josephus
Josephus ei)£au.evr| yduov euxuxeaxepov avxalc, ov 8uinapxr|Keaav rcaioi xoiq avxfjq yaur|0eiaai Kai xcbv dAAxov dyaGcbv Kxfjaiv, oxe xd npoc, avxi\v ovxcoq eaxi, 322 uiveiv avxoQx rcapeKdtei Targum ism a-fri b ma ] » ™ TO fm ]ina p nrf? TTO a n nTO]m o w 1.11
MT rfrto TTH m m p n B T TTTOR O cftfc nrno Topr o pb TO nnti 1.12 :mn rrfrnn&vb DSS ["nip] o [pfr ™ nnti] 1.12 mn Trfr [cm] (4QRuth ) b
LXX 1.12 emaxpdir im iv nrofon ]rrbn 1.13 :mrr T "a nrcr o DDD iaa ^ DSS [TO ^a
nvn T\b±> ntm?n into htor ntia iu nrafon into] 1.13 nrr T -n nrcr o [mo l a a I D O]
LXX 1.13 avxovq rcpoo8e£ea0e eox; ov dv8p\)v0coaiv; TI avxoiq Kaxaoxe0T|oeo0e xov \ir\ yevea0ai dv8pi; uri 8f| 0\yyaxepeq uov, 6x1 £7ciKpdv0r| uxn vnep v\iac„ 6x1 e£f]A,0ev ev ejioi %eip Kvpiou Josephus 7cpay|idxcov dSrjXcov xfjv rcdxpiov yfjv KaxaXuto'uaag.
STERLING
The Invisible
Presence
139
Targum •MH rnori? BBP jmon ab TO
anas p m N IV j w c ]Tna ]rfr arfrr 1.13 p o r a nnob ato * m p o ^ prr pna prfr-nn
NAB VNSN
raft
" D-rp p ana *a nps] a n a p n T I T T - I Q a n « TOD
MT : m npin mm nmarf? nsro> pram TO nronm f?ip nafoni 1.14 DSS [rn n p m m]m nnnarf? HSTO [pram TO rroam i^ip n:iranji 1.14
LXX 1.14 Kai ETrnpav xfjv ^covfjv avxdw Kai eKAxxvaav e x r Kai KaxeiA,T|G£v 'Op(|)d xnv 7cev6epdv avxr\q Kai erceaxpeyev eiq xov Xaov a\)xfiq, Toi>9 8 e fiKoXovGrjoev a\>xfi. Josephus ri jiev o\iv 'Opd jievet, xfjv 8e 'Po\>9riv u.f| TteiaSeiaav drcriYaYS KOIVCOVOV Ttavxoq xov rcpoaxvxovxoq yevr|ao|ievr|v. Targum mm VRWB rf?mi nmorf? nsro> npitfn anna a m TO laom p*?p ]to3i 1.14 ranpma
MT i r a a ' n n a ^mra rrtfa* *?ai noi? *?a -fnon*' nnrarann&am 1.15 DSS [RRRBJFB) [NTI\YB -jrrar [nnra ran noam] 1.15
LXX 1.15 Kai eircev Ncoejieiv rcpoq To\>9 'I8ov dveoxpexj/ev a-uvvv^oq GOV rcpog Xaov a\)xf|g KaircpoqTOVC, Qeovq ai>rn e d v evpco xdpiv ev 6c|>0aAjioio\), 6vydxr|p. Josephus e^fiei KaA.a^Tiao^evn Kaxd a\)yxc6pT|aiv xnq 7tev0epdiKveixai %copiov. Targum W±> mm VBPN ROOM TOTTR jmro VRMSN "inn Kfrpro ntoi ntoi rf?TW 2 3
" f a ^ a i m pn MT 1
:mrr -PRO? T> r o n UXD mrr UMSPB "ran on ? rrao t o TOT mm 2 4 DSS No text extant LXX 2.4 Kai i8ov Booq f|A,0ev eK Bai0Aee|i Kai elrcev xoiq 0epi£ovaiv Kvpioq ue0' vficov Kai eucov avxcp EuAoyrjaai a e Kvpioq. Josephus rcapayevouevog
8e Boa^oq |iex' oAiyov Kai 0eaaduevo Ytsk
rato?
p t o intf? idt m*?
MT p n n Y® ntocan onto p ntoro ntoTOtorantf? TOT rb nara 2.14 :inrnOT&mtownbp rb enan nn^pn tsa acrn
STERLING The Invisible
149
Presence
DSS [onto] p [ntoro Dto TO to«n n±> TOT rb -nam] 2.14 hnfrnOT[tornto]rcnbp rb e o n nmspn ratim p r a -pa ntooi]
LXX 2 . 1 4 Kai elrcev avxfi Booq "H5r| cbpa xov ayeiv, rcpoaeMte a>5e Kai dyeom xcbv dpxcov, Kai pdyeiq xov ycoudv aov ev xcp 6£et. Kai eKd0iaev Tov0 EK rcAayicov xcbv 0epi£6vxcov Kai epovviaev avxfj Booq dX^ixov, Kai eayev Kai eve7cA,T|a0Ti ^ai KaxeAarcev, Josephus rcpooxd^aq xcp dypoKouxp \LT\$EV avxnv 5iaKcoMeiv A,au$dveiv, dpiaxov xe rcape%eiv avxfj Kaircoxov,orcoxe aixi^oi xovq 0epi£ovxa rr OT T p s i ptoitf -aaaf? napi 2 . 1 5
naiDDm
MT ,
:rn raan tfa nopbi oraun • ro^n p tf? ito'n to Dai 2.16
Understanding
150
Josephus
DSS 4
[nn riOT] »f?h njop ?! drawn [crrasn p tf? i]ton [to mi] 2.16
LXX 2.16 Kai Paaxd£ovxe ^ -IDK ana rcrnra nn mow 221 ^ n traitor?
MT -p wasr tfn vnraa DJJTOPo nn DID nnto nn TOE noam 222 nna nnto DSS
[wasr] «f7i T O T [NV
VAN
o -nn mD nrf?fc> nn
*OSN MM\]
[IM mfen -p
2.22
STERLING The Invisible
153
Presence
LXX 2.22 Kai eutev Ncoejieiv npoq To\)0 xfjv vv\ityr\v ai)xfjOT| Kai dtei\|m Kaircepi0r|aeixfj f| rcevGepd avxng. Josephus rcapayivexai Targum nrnon nrrrpB n to rrnyi VRNEB nnnai 3.6
MT 4
ton coto t o n manun n*pa aactf? a n la ? aeon ntin u n to*n 3.7 :aa&rn rnfano DSS 4
ton o t o torn [norwr nspa aattf? «ah ha ? 3km ran u n [torn] 3.7
aamvntoiQ LXX 3.7 Kai ec|>ayev Booq Kai T)ya0\)v6T| i\ Kap8ia avxoi), Kai rjA,0ev Koi|ir|0fivai ev |iepi8i xfjq oxoipfiq* f| 8e fjA,0ev Kpi)(|>fj Kai drceKdA/u\|/ev xdrcpdqrco8cbvavtou Josephus Kai xcapavxiKa uev XavBdvei xov Boac^ov PaGecoq KaOvitvcoKoxa, rcepieyep9ei mem w * o jq-u rram mrm n r « n 1
,
MT -o
1
- T O ?toinr o "j? nto» ram TO to 'ton TO nnin 3.11 :n« tor TO
DSS
No text extant LXX 3.11 Kai vvv, Gvyaxep, §o$ox>' rcdvxa oaa edv eiTcrjqrcoifiacoaoi* oi8ev yap rcdaa vX,f|taxov|iov oxi yvvfj Swd^ieax; ei av. Josephus No text Targum snn -or? to Dip +n um yb T n » b p ^ n n to f^mn «f? Trn jidi 3.11 *h mnps T3 mmcfr «frn 7 3 n w n» mp'-K wina otir ten p i r o
MT r r o n*np *ao cr oai odk ^
-o a m *o nrun 3.12
DSS
No text extant LXX 3.12 Kai oxi dtoiGcoq dyxiaxeix; eyco eiur Kai ye eaxiv dyxiaxevq eyyicov vrcep e(ie. Josephus No text
STERLING The Invisible
159
Presence
Targum
mm pisxb nb m
p n s ma *]wranpna DTTK twnpa OVTR p m 3.12
MT 1
1
Trfacn -fao ? p r r vb oro -TOT mo "fw OK npnn rrm rfrtn T ? 3.13 npnnTO-oatf mm n *o» DSS
Pawr DICD •FIW hpnn
DK
TO
"ipnn rrmrfrbnT ?] 3.13 (2QRuth ) 1
b
mm n -oa* jr-fabi "f^fr parr «f? aw]
LXX 3.13 a\)A,ia8r|xi XTJV vuKxa, Kai eaxai xorcpcoiedv dyxiaxevan. ae, dya06v, dy%iaxeuexco- edv 8e UT) $ovXr\xai dy%iaxe\)aai ae, dyxiaxevaco a e eyco, £fj Kvpioq, ai) el Kvpioq* KOIUT|6T|XI ecoq rcpcoi. Josephus No text Targum
aa n n KTPTIK p - p - o ^ m mto iDpnED** m a n n n xbbi m 3.13 p rfrton KQD " nip rwazb maR tat Tp-sro "p-erf? ^ «f? arc "rf? pnsn anas pjnirsiDT-raw*
MT
mr
1
- o n in^n n» # R TO* a n m apm npnn is rbrm rotim 3.14 .ppnetonnta-o
DSS
[run n» art* TIT onen apm np]nn ny rrbkiD [natim] 3.14 pan nta o jrrr P» Tan] LXX 3.14 Kai eKoiuT|9r| npoqrcoScdvavxov ecoqrcpcoi*ft 8e dveaxri npb xov emyvcdvai dv8pa xov rc^riaiov avroir Kai eircev Booq Mfj yvcoa0f|xco oxi fjA,0ev yvvfi eiq xfjv dAxova.
Understanding
160
Josephus
Josephus opGpioq 5ercpivft xovq oiKexag dp^aaGai KiveiaGai npoq xo epyov rcepieyeipaq a\)xf|v KeXevei xcov KpiGcbv A.apo'Gaav 6 xi Kai 8\>vaixorcope'ueaGainpoq xfjv eKvpdv rcpiv 69fjvai xiaiv ai)x69i KeKOi|irrvevr|V, (jmAmxeaGai acopov xnv em XOIOWOK; 8iapoA,frv Kai \xaXiGx em \n\ yeyovoai. 331 rcepi uevxoi xov navxoq ovxco, (Imaiv, eaxai, [epcoxdv] xov eyyiaxd \iov xcp yevei xi)y%dvovxa, ei GOV xpeia ya^exfiq eaxiv avxcp, Kai Xeyovxi nev dKoXovGf|aeiyaxep* Kai eiTcev avxfj rcdvxa oaa ercoinaev avxr\ 6 dvfjp.
STERLING The Invisible
Presence
161
Josephus 3 3 2 Tavxa xfj eKvpcjt 8TiAcoadan. p n YM p - i r o n « n nOTrfrp ?o TOTI 4.1 m KCDOI rrnrma j r a n nn: ton YR\ w TOW rnrf? TOT
MT .•nzft n sratiiDtn TOT ^pra mftR m t o npn 4.2 DSS No text extant LXX 4.2 Kai etaxftev Booq 8eKa dv8papf|5r|q y a p Kaxd 8idteKxov xfjv 'Eppaicov drcooruiiaivei 8ovtevcov. 'Qpf|8ov 8e yivexai nalq Ieoaaioq, xovxov AapiSrjq 6 P a o i t e v a a q Kai rcaiai xoig avxov KaxaXirccbv xf|v riyeux)viav e n i uiav Kai eiKoai yevedq dv8pcbv. Targum
Kin -HW mora m pnp rim WZH
T^ITK
1
irrf? UW anrnrrra rr ? jtnpi 4.17 TITT "Wttrr TOR
MT
:]Tcsn n» T^rn p i s p s mibintfan4.18 DSS No text extant LXX 4.18 Kai a v x a i a i yeveaeiq Odpeq* Odpeq eyevvnaev xov 'Eopcov, Josephus No text Targum
prsn m -rtnK p © p s nn^n
4.18
Understanding
170
Josephus
MT rmray n» Ttor cm on na T^in pnsm 4.19 DSS No text extant LXX 4.19 'Eapcbv 5 e eyevvnaev xov 'Appdv, Kai 'Appdv eyevvnaev xov 'Ajieiva8d(3, Josephus No text Targum ,,
mroD rr Tto* rrn cn rr to< pnsm 4.19
MT :nato n« T^in ptimi pitfra n» T^n mrain 420 DSS N o text LXX 4.20 K a i 'Au£iva8dp eyevvrjaev xov Naaaacov, Kai Naaaacov eyevvriaev xov laAjidv, Josephus No text Targum 1
Kpns a o t o rr Tto* ptfrro rrnrrTO ?t o *TOnn pom rr Tto* m r o m 420 pim TTTIR to ta^n warr n w i pwrna itoorrr ram orf?TOOKQto ron HBTED ] w pm n« nm»
MT n n w na T^in urn rra na -rtnn potoi 4.21 DSS No text extant LXX 4.21a Kai ZaAjidv eyevvriaev xov Booq, Kai Booq eyevvrjaev xov 'Q|3f|5,
STERLING
The Invisible
171
Presence
Josephus No text extant Targum
*n n r n * rrnoTtonapns u n an KTH p a » urn u n rr Tto* pton 421 rr Tto* Tim *»nfcm Kintw awa mi? rrrnto pai p - a a n ^toa p BURTCR crto aato Koto nrf? ntoi
raw
MT
n n na T^n
'eh
v n« T V Hram422
DSS No text extant
LXX 421b Kai 'Qpf|8 eyevvnaev t o v 'Ieaaai, Kai 'Ieaaai eyevvriaev xov AaveiS. Josephus 337 xd jiev o\iv Kaxd 'PotiBrjv dvayKaiax; SirrynaduJiv erciSei^ai PovXouevoq xf|v xov Qeov 8\)vauiv, oxi xovxcp rcapdyeiv e(|>iKx6v eaxiv eiq d^ico^ia Xapjipov Kai xoix; emxDxovxaq, eiq oiov dvfiyaye Kai AafHSnv eK xoiovxcov yevouevov. Targum tnoontV? wrntfi VBW rra narro a t o *maramn p r m ^ rr T t o * ™ 1
WD"!? IT " np -D"»n "TO pTOD p r tflTI i T » mftfl IT aotf?
422
t O R t o l TTn
TID? ao p p a n T T S p t o m wfr» n*> p to^fr RM r r o mrf? anrn arm ron « p n x ^ a^ara VTRS annai j n » n m to w r o la^nna m a n n toi btoton t o t o n n rr T t o n ,
G O D A N D ISRAEL IN JOSEPHUS: A P A T R O N - C L I E N T RELATIONSHIP
b y Paul Spilsbury*
H o w did J o s e p h u s v i e w his n a t i o n ' s r e l a t e d n e s s to G o d ? T h i s is a question that is raised, at least in part, by the absence from J o s e p h u s ' s writings of any explicit reference to the notion of an eternal covenant b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. This fact is noteworthy, not only b e c a u s e of the i m p o r t a n c e of the covenant in the H e b r e w Bible for describing the relationship between G o d and Israel, but also because of the importance of the concept of c o v e n a n t in m a n y forms of Hellenistic J u d a i s m . E.P. Sanders has argued, for instance, that covenant w a s the d o m i n a n t par a d i g m under which J e w s of the S e c o n d T e m p l e period understood their relationship with G o d . Significantly, though, Sanders has to a c k n o w l e d g e that the t e r m ' c o v e n a n t ' d o e s not appear frequently in the litera ture h e surveys. This is particularly true, h e points out, in the case of 4 Ezra and the Rabbinic literature. Sanders responds to this difficulty by 1
2
3
*
The author would like to thank Dr John M.G. Barclay, Dr Steve Mason and
Dr Robert L. Webb for their very helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. All quotations from Josephus are taken from H.St.J. Thackeray, et ai
(eds.) Josephus
Heinemann, 1.
(10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MS and London: Harvard and
1926-1965).
Cf., e.g. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation
uitates Judaicae of Flavius
Josephus
of Biblical
History
in the Antiq
(HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1976), pp. 79-91; B. Halpern Amaru, 'Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish uities',
JQRm
71 (1980-81), pp. 201-29; A. Paul, 'Flavius Josephus'
Antiq
Antiquities
of the Jews: an Anti-Christian Manifesto', NTS 31 (1985), pp. 473-80. 2. Religion 3. Jewish
E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian
Judaism:
A Comparison
of Patterns
of
(London: SCM Press, 1977), pp. 426-28. See further, W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity Territorial
Doctrine
and
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), pp.
107-108 and n. 80 with the literature cited there.
SPILSBURY God and Israel
in
Josephus
173
a r g u i n g that m e r e w o r d study is d e c e p t i v e in this c a s e . T h e ' f u n d a m e n tal n a t u r e ' of the n o t i o n of c o v e n a n t a c c o u n t s for t h e relative scarcity of the t e r m itself. In his w o r d s : The covenant was presupposed, and the Rabbinic discussions were largely directed toward the question of how to fulfil the covenantal obligations. The very arguments and the way in which the questions are worded show the conviction that the covenant was in force—that God was being true to his covenantal promises.
4
' S i m i l a r o b s e r v a t i o n s , ' h e c o n t i n u e s , ' c o u l d b e m a d e a b o u t m o s t of t h e rest of t h e l i t e r a t u r e . '
5
T h e i s s u e s t o u c h e d o n h e r e h e l p t o set u p the p r o b l e m u n d e r d i s c u s sion in this study of J o s e p h u s . For, as I h a v e n o t e d already, this a u t h o r ' s w r i t i n g s a r e a m o n g t h o s e in w h i c h t h e t e r m ' c o v e n a n t ' is c o n s p i c u o u s b y its a b s e n c e .
6
M o r e t h a n t h i s , J o s e p h u s ' s r e w r i t i n g of t h e b i b l i c a l
n a r r a t i v e s e e m s t o e v i n c e a d e l i b e r a t e a n d s y s t e m a t i c a v o i d a n c e of r e f e r e n c e s t o a c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s . T h e c o n c e r n of this e s s a y , therefore, is t o s u g g e s t a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for this p h e n o m e n o n . I will a r g u e that J o s e p h u s h a s r e t a i n e d t h e b a s i c m e a n i n g of t h e c o v e n a n t (i.e. a special c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d 7
Israel), but has replaced covenant language with terminology drawn
4.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian
5.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian
Judaism, p. 421. Judaism,
p. 4 2 1 . Sanders makes a similar
point elsewhere in regard to the writings of Philo; see his T h e Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism', in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Chris tians: Religious
Cultures
in Late Antiquity.
Essays
in Honour of William
David
Davies (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), pp. 11-44. Here Sanders contends, against Heinemann (Philons griechische
und judische
Bildung [Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1 9 2 9 -
32]), that for Philo too the covenant was a foundational concept even though it is not explicitly expressed. While Heinemann based his negative conclusion on a search for the term 8ia6r|Kr|, Sanders argues that, 'Had he observed the importance for Philo of being a member of the right "commonwealth" (politeia,
see Wirt. 219)
or the significance of being initiated into the "mystery" of Moses (Virt.
178), he
would have come to a different conclusion' (pp. 31-32). 6.
Sanders does not discuss Josephus at all in Paul and Palestinian
7.
Cf. Sanders's 'covenantal nomism' which he defines as, 'the view that one's
Judaism.
place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments...' (Paul and Palestinian
Judaism, p. 75).
174
Understanding
Josephus
from the p a t r o n - c l i e n t m o d e l of social relations in the ancient Mediter r a n e a n world. It is not m y intention to suggest that this m o d e l is the only influence on J o s e p h u s ' s description of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. T h e biblical narrative itself, as well as other aspects of J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e x p e r i e n c e ( s u c h as his priestly status), h a v e also p l a y e d a substantial formative role in this regard. N e v e r t h e l e s s , I will try to demonstrate that the system of p a t r o n - c l i e n t relations provides us w i t h a v e r y useful k e y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e n a t u r e of J o s e p h u s ' s transformation of the biblical l a n g u a g e of c o v e n a n t into l a n g u a g e that w a s m o r e readily understandable to his audience. M y focus in this article will b e on J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e in Antiquities
of the Jews (Ant),
b o o k s 1 - 1 1 . W h i l e it m i g h t b e p o i n t e d
out that this is not the entire corpus of J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k , this material has the particular advantage of affording the possibility of direct c o m parison b e t w e e n the classic covenant passages of the H e b r e w Bible and J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of those passages. It will not b e necessary for m e to carry out a systematic description of J o s e p h u s ' s t r e a t m e n t of these passages, though, since this task has already b e e n performed adequately in the studies cited a b o v e (n. 1). A few general c o m m e n t s on this schol arship, however, are in order at the outset.
Previous
Scholarship
N u m e r o u s attempts h a v e been m a d e to explain J o s e p h u s ' s avoidance of the l a n g u a g e of covenant. T. F r a n x m a n does little m o r e than assert the v i e w that ' t h e n o t i o n of e t e r n a l c o v e n a n t h a s little m e a n i n g
for
J o s [ e p h u s ] ' ; and, ' G o d ' s c o v e n a n t with A b r a h a m and with his descen dants to b e their G o d is not part of J o s [ e p h u s ] ' r e l i g i o u s p u r v i e w ' .
8
T h e s e c o m m e n t s , h o w e v e r , d o not m o v e us closer to an understanding of J o s e p h u s ' s m o t i v e s for treating the biblical c o v e n a n t p a s s a g e s as he does. A . P a u l a t t e m p t s to e x p l a i n the a b s e n c e of c o v e n a n t t e r m i n o l o g y (especially 8ia9f|KT|) b y m e a n s of w h a t h e calls 'the anti-Christianity of 9
J o s e p h u s in his A n t i q u i t i e s ' . 8iaGr|KTi is one k e y t e r m a m o n g several w h i c h J o s e p h u s has allegedly avoided b e c a u s e of its i m p o r t a n c e to the early Christian m o v e m e n t . In r e s p o n s e to this s u g g e s t i o n it m i g h t b e 8. T.W. Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' (BO, 35; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), pp. 140-41. 9. Paul, 'Anti-Christian Manifesto', p. 473.
of Flavius
Josephus
SPILSBURY God and Israel in
Josephus
175
argued that while it is certainly true that the t e r m 8 i a 0 f | K r | w a s i m p o r tant in certain early Christian texts, it is difficult to see w h a t relevance this w o u l d h a v e h a d for J o s e p h u s w h o n o w h e r e d i s p l a y s significant k n o w l e d g e of Christianity or its writings. T h e suggestion that J o s e p h u s h a d a discernible anti-Christian bias is thus not susceptible to proof. Betsy H a l p e r n A m a r u has contributed m o r e significantly to this sub ject. A l t h o u g h her c o n c e r n is primarily to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' s atti tude to t h e land of Israel, she m a k e s n u m e r o u s c o m m e n t s relevant to the t h e m e of c o v e n a n t as well. In particular, she d e m o n s t r a t e s that the biblical c o n c e p t of a land-covenant, that is, ' a gift uniting G o d with a particular p e o p l e t h r o u g h a particular l a n d ' , is lacking in J o s e p h u s . S h e argues that the ' l a n d ' aspect of classical c o v e n a n t t h e o l o g y is re 10
p u g n a n t to J o s e p h u s . Closely connected to this, she c o n t i n u e s , is J o s e p h u s ' s opposition to the kind of m e s s i a n i s m that apparently fuelled the religious fanaticism of the Zealots, a g r o u p for w h o m J o s e p h u s betrays little sympathy. T h u s , she concludes: [Josephus] deleted the theology of covenanted land because he did not want the land to be a focal point, as it was for Davidic messianism, with all its revolutionary implications in Josephus's day.
' J o s e p h u s feared a n d despised the m e s s i a n i s m of the Z e a l o t s , ' she con tinues, ' a n d h e structured his account of the J e w i s h origins a n d beliefs in such a w a y as to r e m o v e the theological basis for that m e s s i a n i s m ' . H a l p e r n A m a r u ' s insights are very helpful in that they m a k e g o o d sense of the c o m p l e x evidence of Ant. A m o n g other things they h e l p us 11
to understand J o s e p h u s ' s difficulty with the classical notion of covenant as it w a s found in t h e H e b r e w B i b l e . O f further significance is h e r a r g u m e n t that, for J o s e p h u s , the land is not at the heart of J e w i s h n e s s per se. 'Instead, J u d a i s m for J o s e p h u s is a religion of law, or virtue, of obedience to G o d ' s s t a t u t e s . ' H e r point here, w h i c h is firmly rooted in 12
t h e e v i d e n c e J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s , is t h a t ' J o s e p h u s . . . c o n s t r u c t s , or r e c o n s t r u c t s from t h e Biblical text, a c o n t e x t for d i a s p o r a l i v i n g ' . 13
J o s e p h u s l e g i t i m a t e s , e v e n celebrates, the e x p e r i e n c e of J e w s living outside the land of Israel. His c o m m i t m e n t , Halpern A m a r u asserts, 'is to a diaspora coexisting with a h o m e l a n d ' . 14
10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru, Halpern Amaru,
'Land Theology', p. 205. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 229. 'Land Theology', p. 211.
Understanding
176
Josephus
H . W . Attridge has also m a d e a significant contribution to our under standing of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d I s r a e l . H e points out that J o s e p h u s often h a s recourse, in explaining G o d ' s relationship to Israel, to the language of benefaction and alliance. H e argues, however, that this l a n g u a g e is not simply a translation of the biblical notion of covenant, but is rather a replacement of i t . 15
16
T h e significance of this replacement is two-fold. First, benefactor ter m i n o l o g y has potential universal application, as o p p o s e d to the exclu sivity implied b y c o v e n a n t (cf. Ant. 8.116-17; also 2 . 3 3 2 ) . S e c o n d l y , alliance terminology does not imply any necessary, formal, long-term or automatic commitment on the part of God to act on behalf of the Israelites. Terms such as c\)[i[icxxoq refer primarily to God's role in times of need, and not to a fundamental agreement which determines the relationship between God and Israel} 1
A t t r i d g e ' s m a i n point here is that G o d ' s relationship w i t h Israel is o n e e x a m p l e of G o d ' s perfect justice. 'His special concern for Israel is ulti mately due to the special virtue of the people or its l e a d e r s . ' Later he asserts again, ' T h e belief of a special p r o v i d e n c e for Israel is s u b ordinated t o . . . [the] general principle [of proper retribution for g o o d and evil] a n d is seen to b e a particular instance of i t . ' W h a t is not entirely clear a b o u t A t t r i d g e ' s a r g u m e n t is h o w this final p o i n t con stitutes a r e p l a c e m e n t of the n o t i o n of c o v e n a n t in t h e B i b l e , since G o d ' s retribution is already an important part of the t h e o l o g y of the D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c historian, w h o is t h o r o u g h l y c o v e n a n t a l . Indeed, Attridge himself points out, 'It is o b v i o u s . . . t h a t in the Antiquities the t h e o l o g y of t h e D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c history has b e e n a d o p t e d a n d often reinforced.' 18
1 9
20
21
Nevertheless, A t t r i d g e ' s identification of the language of benefaction and alliance in J o s e p h u s ' s treatment of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel contributes significantly to our a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s has
15. Attridge, Interpretation, pp. 79-91. 16. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 79. 17. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 82. Emphasis Attridge's. 18. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 83. 19. Attridge, Interpretation, pp. 86-87. 20. Cf., e.g. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, J. Barton et air, JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 89-99. 21. Attridge, Interpretation, p. 88.
SPILSBURY God and Israel
in
177
Josephus
recast t h e biblical c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p in t e r m s of p a t r o n - c l i e n t rela tions. Benefaction a n d alliance are, of c o u r s e , k e y aspects of p a t r o n a g e in R o m a n society. It is that subject that I n o w consider.
Patron-Client
Relations
in Roman
Society
E . B a d i a n h a s stated, ' T h e r e l a t i o n of p a t r o n a n d client is o n e of the m o s t characteristic features of R o m a n life lasting, in s o m e form, from t h e o r i g i n s to t h e d o w n f a l l of t h e city a n d b e y o n d ' .
2 2
I n definition of
this relationship, h e states, The client may be described as an inferior entrusted, by custom or by himself, to the protection of a stranger more powerful than he, and ren dering certain services and observances in return for this protection. 23
R . P . Sailer defines p a t r o n a g e a s , ' a n e x c h a n g e relationship b e t w e e n m e n of u n e q u a l social s t a t u s ' .
24
T h i s definition implies t w o sets of i m p o r t a n t
t e r m i n o l o g y : t h e first set p e r t a i n s to t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d in the rela tionship, a n d t h e s e c o n d pertains to the g o o d s a n d services that p a s s e d
22. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 BC) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p. 1. On the importance of patronage in Roman society, see further G.E.M. de Ste Croix, 'Suffragium: from Vote to Patronage', The British Journal of Sociol ogy 5 (1954), pp. 33-48. This study includes a discussion of the evils of patronage such as the perversion of justice. See also R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939), pp. 369-86; A . N . Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage in Ancient Society (New York: Routledge, 1989); J.H. Elliot, 'Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading Guide', Forum 3-4 (1987), pp. 39-48; S.C. Mott, 'The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence', in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honour of Merril C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 60-72; and B.W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Chris tians as Benefactors and Citizens (First Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1994). On the subject of patronage generally throughout history and in different cultures, see the impor tant collection of essays in E. Gellner and J. Waterbury (eds.), Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1977), and S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 23. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 1. 24. R.P. Sailer, Personal Patronage Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 4.
under the Early Empire
(Cambridge-
Understanding
178 between them. a n d amicus', meritum
2 5
Josephus 26
In t h e first set are t e r m s s u c h as: patronus
a n d in t h e s e c o n d set are the t e r m s : officium,
a n d gratia.
21
cliens
beneficium,
S a i l e r a l s o p o i n t s out that, ' S i n c e p a t r o n - c l i e n t
relations w e r e essentially i n s t r u m e n t a l — t h a t is, b a s e d o n the e x c h a n g e of g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s — t h e w o r d s w h i c h d e s c r i b e d t h e e x c h a n g e are p e r h a p s the b e s t pointers to p a t r o n a g e . '
28
T h e l a n g u a g e of e x c h a n g e u s e d to characterize p e r s o n a l relations w a s also u s e d to describe the relationship b e t w e e n nations. B a d i a n describes c l i e n t states as t h o s e ' d e p e n d e n t states t h a t . . . s t o o d t o R o m e in t h e r e l a t i o n of a client t o a p a t r o n , o w i n g t h e R o m a n P e o p l e ojficia, return for beneficia
received'.
29
in
Further, this k i n d of t e r m i n o l o g y w a s
also c o m m o n in s p e a k i n g of h u m a n - g o d relations. T h e c o n t r a c t u a l na ture of R o m a n religion is reflected in the u s e of w o r d s such as beneficium
30
a n d gratia.
referred to as beneficia
ojficium,
F o r e x a m p l e , p r o s p e r i t y a n d g o o d l u c k are of the g o d s (cf. Pliny, Hist. Nat.
1 2 . 1 ; Quintilian,
25. Sailer, Personal Patronage, p. 4 26. Several types of patroni existed in Roman society, including Roman generals who assumed patronage over whole peoples conquered by them. The patronage of Pompey, for example, extended widely over the empire. A. Momig liano, 'Patronus', in N.G.L. Hammond and H.H. Scullard (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1970), p. 791. 27. 'The ordinary client might receive daily food...or assistance in courts. In return he helped his patron in his political and private life, and showed him respect, especially by greeting him in the morning. Client and Patron could not bear witness against one another... \ Momigliano, 'Cliens,'in Hammond and Scullard (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 252. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.9-10. 28. Sailer, Personal Patronage, p. 15. J. Scott ('Patronage or Exploitation?', in Gellner and Waterbury [eds.], Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, pp. 21-39) outlines the 'elements of exchange' in agrarian patronal situations. Patron to client: basic means of subsistence, subsistence crisis insurance ('a friend in need'), protection (from bandits, personal enemies, soldiers, outside officials, courts, tax collection), brokerage and influence (patron uses his/her power for the benefit of the client/s). Client to patron: basic labour service, supplementary labour and goods (e.g. supplying water and firewood, personal domestic services, food offerings— often symbolic as expressions of deference), promoting the patron's interests (sig nifies the client's membership in his patron's faction, protects patron's reputation, advances patron's interests in business and politics). 29. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 154. See also idem, 'Client Kings', in Hammond and Scullard (eds.) The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 253. 30. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, p. 23.
SPILSBURY God and Israel in
Josephus
179
DecL 2 6 8 ; Seneca, Ep. ad Luc. 8.3), a n d the g o d s d e s e r v e d gratia in return (cf. Seneca, Ep. ad Luc. 119.16; Tacitus, Ann. 11.15). G.E.M. de Ste Croix points out that the concept of 'intercession' in religious lan g u a g e is closely c o n n e c t e d to the b r o a d e r n o t i o n of p a t r o n a g e . T h e 'patron saint', for e x a m p l e , intercedes with G o d (the ultimate patron) for his c l i e n t . 31
Josephus
and
Patronage
It has often b e e n p o i n t e d out that in rewriting a n d e x p o u n d i n g the biblical story of his people, J o s e p h u s introduced m a n y e l e m e n t s from the G r a e c o - R o m a n world, especially in his description of the various biblical characters. I a m arguing here that this practice also applies to his portrayal of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d a n d Israel. T h u s , J o s e phus presents this relationship in terms of the d o m i n a n t form of social relations in the R o m a n w o r l d in w h i c h h e w a s living at the t i m e of writing: the p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationship. G o d is I s r a e l ' s patron. Israel is G o d ' s favoured client. Before I try to demonstrate the influence of this p a r a d i g m of relations on Antiquities, it w o u l d b e well to point out the basic fact that Josephus had significant personal experience of p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationships. T h e following items from his autobiography are relevant h e r e . In Life 16, J o s e p h u s appealed to N e r o ' s consort P o p p a e a for aid; h e reports the receipt of the benefaction (e-uepyeoia) h e sought and large gifts besides. This episode reveals J o s e p h u s ' s understanding, already at a y o u n g age, of the operation of R o m a n p a t r o n a g e a n d its potential for obtaining services in R o m e . O n his return to Palestine, J o s e p h u s b e c a m e the c o m m a n d e r of the rebel forces in Galilee (Life 29). During this time he attempted to operate as a patron of local l a n d o w n e r s a n d the city elite to secure their loyalty and support. T h i s point is m a d e v e r y well b y S. S c h w a r t z w h o argues, against M . G o o d m a n , that G a l i l e e during 32
33
31. De Ste Croix notes, further, that Theologians who have discussed the origin of the practice of asking for the prayers of the dead have not sufficiently taken into account consideration of the influence of everyday experience of Roman judicial corruption and patronage' ('Suffragium', p. 46). 32. See also the parallel discussion in J.H. Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model of Personality', JSJ 25 (1994), pp. 196-97. 33. S. Schwartz, 'Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown', in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman
180
Understanding
Josephus
this e r a w a s o r g a n i z e d a l o n g the n o r m a l lines associated w i t h p a t r o n a g e in ancient M e d i t e r r a n e a n s o c i e t i e s .
34
J.H. N e y r e y also a r g u e s that 'Pa
tron-client relations a r e a k e y lens t h r o u g h w h i c h t o v i e w J o s e p h u s ' s relationship to the cities of G a l i l e e ' .
35
J o s e p h u s relates that in a n u m b e r
of t o w n s in G a l i l e e h e w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d as ' b e n e f a c t o r a n d s a v i o u r ' (Life 2 4 4 , 2 5 9 ) in r e c o g n i t i o n of his services on their behalf. L a t e r , in the aftermath of the destruction of J e r u s a l e m a n d t h e t e m p l e J o s e p h u s a g a i n p o r t r a y e d h i m s e l f as a k i n d of b e n e f a c t o r as h e w e n t a b o u t the ruins dispensing liberty to various family m e m b e r s , f r i e n d s
3 6
and
a c q u a i n t a n c e s (Life 4 1 9 - 2 1 ) . After this h e b e c a m e a f a v o u r e d client of the Flavian h o u s e . H e describes t h e p a t r o n a g e h e received thus: When Titus had quelled the disturbances in Judaea...he gave me another parcel of ground in the plain. On his departure for Rome, he took me with him on board, treating me with every mark of respect. On our arrival in Rome I met with great consideration from Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the house which he had occupied before he became Emperor; he honoured me with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and he assigned me a pension. He continued to honour me up to the time of his departure from this life, without abatement in his kindness towards m e . . . Vespasian also presented me with a considerable tract of land in Period: Essays in Honour of Morton Smith, (SPB, 4 1 ; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 292-93. 34. Goodman's argument is concerned mainly with Judaea which, he argues, was an exception to the general rule of patronal societies. 'In towns in Italy... spending by the state was matched by massive public spending by rich aristocrats, competing to win the favour of the populace. This "evergitism" did not appeal to the Jerusalem rich...' (The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987], p. 65). Goodman attributes this to the Torah's emphasis on the egalitarian ideals embodied in the Jubilee, and the prohibition against the priesthood owning land: 'In recognition of the unimportance of wealth as a status criterion, evergitism in the form common to both Greek and Roman society was never practised by the Judaean ruling class' (p. 126). Goodman does allow the possibility that some inhabitants of Judaea adopted Graeco-Roman values on this matter (p. 128). He suggests that Josephus's description of certain individuals (cf. War 4.414, 416) implies that he himself may have been one such individual (p. 129). Goodman then goes on to argue, 'But the kind of Jews likely to pick up such Greek ideas were of course precisely, like Josephus, the ruling class whose status was in question (p. 129). 35. Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium', p. 195. 36. On the importance of the term 'friend' here as it relates to patron-client relations, see Neyrey, 'Josephus' Vita and the Encomium', pp. 196-97.
SPILSBURY God and Israel in
Josephus
181
Judaea... The treatment I received from the Emperors continued unal tered. On Vespasian's decease Titus, who succeeded to the empire, showed the same esteem for me as did his father, and never credited the accusations to which I was constantly subjected. Domitian succeeded Titus and added to my honours. He punished my Jewish accusers... He also exempted my property in Judaea from taxation—a mark of the high est honour to the privileged individual. Moreover, Domitia, Caesar's wife, never ceased conferring favours upon me (e'uepYeto'uod (ie) (Life 422-29).
B y the time of writing Antiquities, Life and Apion J o s e p h u s w a s appar ently d e p e n d e n t u p o n a patron outside the Flavian h o u s e . This w a s a certain E p a p h r o d i t u s to w h o m J o s e p h u s refers in o n e place as, ' a m a n d e v o t e d t o e v e r y form of l e a r n i n g , b u t especially i n t e r e s t e d in the experiences of history' (Ant. 1.8). In Apion 2.296 h e praises h i m as ' a devoted lover of truth'. T h e dedication of J o s e p h u s ' s works dating from the 90s to this individual m a y indicate that his Flavian p a t r o n a g e h a d c o m e to an end. E v e n so, J o s e p h u s clearly continued to benefit from, and no d o u b t appreciate, the R o m a n p a t r o n - c l i e n t structure of society. T h e very w o r k s under review in this essay o w e their existence, in large m e a s u r e , to the R o m a n patronal system. Finally, M . G o o d m a n ' s sug gestion m a y b e noted that during the latter part of J o s e p h u s ' s life h e acted as a patron to the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in R o m e . T h i s w a s p r o b ably true, despite the e v i d e n c e in t h e Life of hostility from certain Jewish quarters during this time (Life 4 2 4 , 428). 3 7
God and Israel in the Josephus's
Biblical
Paraphrase
I c o m e n o w to a consideration of h o w this m o d e l of relationships has affected J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal of the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel in the biblical paraphrase part of Antiquities. I will start b y isolating instances in which a relationship b e t w e e n G o d and Israel is asserted by Josephus in o n e w a y or another. Then I will itemize the benefits of this relationship for Israel. Finally, I will attempt to establish the basis and terms of the relationship that is in view.
37. M. Goodman, 'Josephus as a Roman Citizen' in Parente and Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Graeco-Roman Period: Essays in Honour of Morton Smith, pp. 332-33.
Understanding
182 The Relationship
between
Josephus
God and Israel and its
T h e r e are n u m e r o u s p a s s a g e s in the Antiquities
Benefits that m a k e it clear that
J o s e p h u s did believe there to be a special relationship b e t w e e n G o d and the H e b r e w s . F o r e x a m p l e , in Ant. 4.114 in w h i c h J o s e p h u s relates and embellishes the oracles of B a l a a m , it is asserted by the p a g a n seer that G o d h a s ' r e g a r d for n o n e a m o n g m e n b u t y o u ' (Qeoq iiovovq dv6pco7co\)(; eop%apiaxT|odxco) to G o d for h a v i n g delivered their race from the hubris
of the E g y p t i a n s
and for h a v i n g given t h e m a g o o d a n d spacious l a n d to enjoy. T h e n , after affirming that he has paid his tithes, the Israelite is to ask G o d ever to be favourable and gracious (aixnadoGco xov 6e6v evuevn * a i 'iXecov avxcp 5id rcavxoQ e i v a i ) to himself and to continue such favour towards all the Hebrews in common, preserving to them the good things (dycxGd) that He had given (5e8coKev) them and adding thereto all else that He could bestow (xapi£ea0ai) (4.243).
In Ant. 4.266, on usury, M o s e s urges the H e b r e w s not to seek to gain from the m i s f o r t u n e of other H e b r e w s , c o u n t i n g as sufficient p a y m e n t 'the gratitude ( e \ ) % a p i a x i a ) of such persons a n d the r e c o m p e n s e ( d | i o i p f | ) w h i c h G o d h a s in store for an act of g e n e r o s i t y ' . B o t h in the h u m a n relations and the d i v i n e - h u m a n relations represented h e r e , there is a compatibility with G r a e c o - R o m a n ideas connected with the p a t r o n client relationship: gratitude w a s an essential aspect of the r e c i p i e n t ' s r e s p o n s e to benefactions received, a n d the desire for r e c o m p e n s e for services rendered w a s entirely appropriate. A n o t h e r aspect of G o d ' s goodwill (ei)]XEvr\q) t o w a r d the H e b r e w s is the fact that he will k e e p their constitution from b e i n g m a r r e d b y civil strife (4.292). In time of i m m i n e n t war, they are to seek to resolve the conflict by diplomatic m e a n s first, even t h o u g h they are p o s s e s s o r s of ' a large a r m y , horses a n d m u n i t i o n s , and a b o v e all blest w i t h G o d ' s g r a c i o u s favour and support (e%ovT£|ii£vii xov 0 e 6 v K a i
at>n-
|ia%ov)' (4.296). In the c a s e of u n a v o i d a b l e war, G o d himself is their supreme c o m m a n d e r (oxpaxryyoc; a w o K p d x c o p ) (4.297). In M o s e s ' climactic c o n c l u s i o n to this speech h e r e n d e r s t h a n k s to G o d for all that he has bestowed. This passage is rich with terminology d e n o t i n g a p a t r o n - c l i e n t relationship b e t w e e n h i m s e l f (with the H e brews) and G o d : Seeing...that I am going to our forefathers and that this is the day that God hath appointed for my departure to them, while yet alive and among you I render thanks to Him, alike for the care (rcpovoicx) which He has bestowed on you, not only in delivering you from your distress, but in presenting you with the best of boons (Scoped xcbv Kpeixxovcov), and then for that, while I was toiling and with utmost endeavour taking thought for the amelioration of your lot, He aided (avvriYcoviacxxo) me in those
SPILSBURY God and Israel in
Josephus
185
struggles and showed Himself ever gracious (e\)nevf|