Geschichte u. Kultur Roms im Spiegel d. neueren Forschung ;2. Principat. Bd. 21. 2. Halbbd. [Reprint 2014 ed.] 311009522X, 9783110095227

Table of contents :
Vorwort
Inhalt
Religion (Hellenistisches Judentum in Römischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus [Forts.])
Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and His Significance
Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian
Die Rettung Israels und die Rolle Roms nach den Reden im ‘Bellum Iudaicum’ Analysen und Perspektiven
L‘intervento divino nelle vicende umane dalla storiografia classica greca a Flavio Giuseppe e ad Eusebio di Cesarea
Josephus und die christliche Wirkungsgeschichte seines ‘Bellum Judaicum’
Nachtrag zu Band 11.19
Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature
L’observance des fêtes juives dans l’Empire romain
Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and its Relation to Christian Art

Citation preview

AUFSTIEG U N D NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT II.21.2

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT GESCHICHTE UND KULTUR ROMS IM SPIEGEL DER N E U E R E N F O R S C H U N G

II HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

HILDEGARD T E M P O R I N I UND

WOLFGANG HAASE

W DE G

WALTER DE G R U Y T E R • B E R L I N • NEW YORK 1984

PRINCIPAT EINUNDZWANZIGSTER BAND (2. HALBBAND) RELIGION (HELLENISTISCHES JUDENTUM IN RÖMISCHER ZEIT: PHILON UND JOSEPHUS [FORTS.])

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

WOLFGANG HAASE

W G DE

WALTER DE GRUYTER • BERLIN • NEW YORK 1984

Herausgegeben mit Unterstützung der Robert Bosch Stiftung, Stuttgart

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte u. Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung / hrsg. von Hildegard Temporini u. Wolfgang Haase. — Berlin, New York : de Gruyter. N E : Temporini, Hildegard [Hrsg.] 2. Principat. Bd. 21. 2. Halbbd. / Hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase. 1. Aufl. - 1984. ISBN 3-11-009522-X N E : Haase, Wolfgang [Hrsg.]

© 1984 by Walter de Gruyter & C o . , Berlin 30 Alle Rechte, insbesondere das der Ubersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen. Printed in Germany Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon G m b H , Berlin 30 Einbandgestaltung und Schutzumschlag: Rudolf Hübler Buchbinder: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin

Vorwort D e r v o r l i e g e n d e T e i l b a n d 1 1 2 1 , 2 schließt f o r m a l die G r u p p e d e r j u d a istischen B ä n d e (II 1 9 - 1 1 2 1 ) in der R u b r i k 'Religion' des II. Teils v o n A N R W ab. B a n d II 2 0 w i r d i h m im L a u f e des J a h r e s 1 9 8 5 zeitlich f o l g e n , n a c h d e m B d . II 1 9 in z w e i H a l b b ä n d e n s c h o n seit 1 9 7 9 v o r l i e g t . T e i l b a n d II 2 1 , 2 enthält hauptsächlich (vgl. das V o r w o r t z u 1 1 2 1 , 1 [ 1 9 8 3 ] S. V ) die Beiträge ü b e r u n d u m den jüdischen H i s t o r i k e r Flavius J o s e p h u s . D e r u r s p r ü n g l i c h f ü r diesen Rahmen vorgesehene umfassende Forschungsbericht über Josephus v o n L. H . FELDMAN, an dessen Stelle n u n aus R a u m g r ü n d e n eine s y n t h e t i s c h e A b h a n d l u n g des gleichen Verfassers ü b e r J o s e p h u s mit a u s g e w ä h l t e n L i t e r a t u r a n g a b e n tritt (s. u n t e n S. 7 6 3 - 8 6 2 ) , ist i n z w i s c h e n im V e r l a g W a l t e r de G r u y t e r als M o n o graphie erschienen. Z u r I n f o r m a t i o n des Lesers, der w e i t e r in die J o s e p h u s f o r s c h u n g eindringen m ö c h t e , seien hier die bibliographischen D a t e n des selbständigen B a n d e s u n d eine U b e r s i c h t ü b e r seinen Inhalt nach H a u p t k a p i t e l n mitgeteilt: L o u i s H . F E L D M A N , Josephus and Modern Scholarship ( 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 8 0 ) issued under the general editorship of W O L F G A N G H A A S E ( B e r l i n - N e w York 1984) XVI + 1055 Seiten: 1: Introduction: General (S. 1 - 3 ) . - 2: Bibliography (S. 4 - 1 9 ) . - 3: The Text (S. 2 0 - 2 7 ) . — 4: Translations into Modern Languages (S. 28—39). — 5: The Latin and Syriac Versions (S. 4 0 - 4 7 ) . - 6: The Slavonic Version (S. 4 8 - 5 6 ) . - 7: Josippon (S. 5 7 - 7 4 ) . - 8: Josephus' Life (S. 75—98). — 9: General Accounts of Josephus (S. 99—120). — 10: Josephus' Paraphrase of the Bible (S. 121 —191). — 11: Josephus as Historian of the Post-Biblical Period (until 63 B . C . E . ) : General Issues (S. 192—206). — 12: Josephus as Historian of the Post-Biblical Period: Specific Events (S. 207—258). — 13: Josephus as Historian of the Roman Period (from Pompey until Herod) (S. 2 5 9 - 2 7 7 ) . - 14: Herod (S. 2 7 8 - 3 0 3 ) . - 15: The Period after Herod until the Outbreak of the War against the Romans (S. 304—345). — 16: The War against the Romans (S. 346—377). — 17: Special Problems in Connection with Josephus' Works (S. 3 7 8 - 3 9 1 ) . - 18: Josephus' Sources (S. 3 9 2 - 4 1 9 ) . - 19: Josephus' Views on the Jewish Religion (S. 4 2 0 - 4 9 1 ) . - 20: Josephus' Views on Halakhah (Jewish L a w ) (S. 4 9 2 - 5 2 7 ) . — 21: Religious Movements: the Samaritans (S. 528 — 541). — 22: The Pharisees and Divergent Jewish Sects (S. 5 4 2 - 6 7 2 ) . - 23: Christianity (S. 673 - 725). - 24: Proselytes and 'Sympathizers' (S. 726—734). - 25: Josephus and Archaeology (S. 7 3 5 - 8 0 2 ) . - 26: Vocabulary and Style (S. 8 0 3 - 8 3 8 ) . - 27: Josephus' Influence until the Twentieth Century (S. 8 3 9 - 8 7 5 ) . — 28: Josephus' Influence on Modern Contemporary Literature (S. 876—883). — 29: Desiderata (S. 8 8 4 - 8 9 7 ) . - Addenda (S. 8 9 9 - 9 7 5 ) . Indices: I. Index of References (S. 9 7 7 - 1 0 2 2 ) . - II. Index of Words (S. 1022-1030). III. Index of Names of Modern Writers (S. 1030-1055). Tübingen, im Juli 1984

W . H.

Inhalt RELIGION (HELLENISTISCHES J U D E N T U M I N RÖMISCHER ZEIT: PHILON U N D JOSEPHUS) Band II.21.2: (New York, N.Y.) Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and His Significance

763 — 862

H . R. (Providence, R . I . ) Joseph Ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian

864-944

O . (Tübingen) Die Rettung Israels und die Rolle Roms nach den Reden im 'Bellum Iudaicum'. Analysen und Perspektiven

945—976

F. (Torino) L'intervento divino nelle vicende umane dalla storiografia classica greca a Flavio Giuseppe e ad Eusebio di Cesarea . . . .

977—1104

FELDMAN, L . H .

MOEHRING,

MICHEL,

TRISOGLIO,

H . (Münster/Westf.) Josephus und die christliche Wirkungsgeschichte seines 'Bellum Judaicum' 1106-1217

SCHRECKENBERG,

NACHTRAG ZU BAND 11.19 A . Y . (Chicago, 111.) Numerical Symbolism in Jewish and Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature 1221-1287

COLLINS,

A. M. (Jérusalem) L'observance des fêtes juives dans l'Empire romain

RABELLO,

1288 — 1312

VIII

INHALT

(Detroit, Mich.) Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and its Relation to Christian Art 1313-1342

GUTMANN, J .

Band II.21.1: Vorwort (Cincinnati, Ohio) Philo Judaeus: An Introduction to the Man, his Writings, and his Significance

V

SANDMELÌ, S.

3—46

E. (Chicago, 111.) Bibliographia Philoniana 1935-1981

47-97

(Trondheim) Philo of Alexandria. A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since World War II

98-154

HILGERT,

BORGEN, P.

J . (Lyon) Philon d'Alexandrie, exégète

156—226

(Claremont, Calif.) Philo Judaeus and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria

227—271

(Berrien Springs, Mich.) A Critical Introduction to Philo's Dialogues

272 —294

B. A. (Santa Barbara, Calif.) Philo and Gnosticism

295-342

(Urbana, 111.) Philo's Rhetoric: Argumentation and Style

343—371

D. (Berkeley, Calif.) Philo's Ethical Theory

372-416

R. (Brisbane, Queensland [Australia]) Philo's Politics. Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism

417—553

CAZEAUX,

MACK, B . L .

TERIAN, A .

PEARSON,

CONLEY, T H . M .

WINSTON,

BARRACLOUGH,

(Roma) I rapporti tra l'impero romano e il mondo ebraico al tempo di Caligola secondo la 'Legatio ad Gaium' di Filone Alessandrino 554—586

KRAUS REGGIANI, CLARA

INHALT

IX

TRISOGLIO, F . ( T o r i n o )

Filone Alessandrino e l'esegesi cristiana. Contributo alla conoscenza dell'influsso esercitato da Filone sul IV secolo, specificatamente in Gregorio di N a z i a n z o 588—730 SAVON, H . (Paris)

Saint Ambroise et saint J é r ô m e , lecteurs de Philon

731—759

RELIGION ( H E L L E N I S T I S C H E S J U D E N T U M IN R Ö M I S C H E R ZEIT: PHILON UND JOSEPHUS [FORTS.])

Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and His Significance b y L o u i s H . FELDMAN, N e w Y o r k ,

N.Y.

Contents I. Bibliographical Studies

763

II. The State of the Text of Josephus

765

III. Translations of Josephus

768

IV. The Latin Versions

770

V. The Syriac Version

771

VI. The Slavonic Version

771

VII. Josippon

774

VIII. Josephus' Life

779

I X . Justus of Tiberias

787

X . Josephus as Historian: His Treatment of the Biblical Period X I . Josephus' Treatment of the Post-Biblical Period until the Jewish War X I I . Josephus on the Origins of Christianity

804 821

X I I I . Josephus as an Historian: His Treatment of the Jewish War X I V . Josephus as Apologist: 'Against Apion'

838 857

X V . The Language and Style of Josephus

859

X V I . Summary: The Achievements of Josephan Scholarship and Desiderata

I. Bibliographical

788

860

Studies

T h e r e is h a r d l y a c l a s s i c a l a u t h o r f o r w h o m w e h a v e m o r e b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l aids than J o s e p h u s . SCHRECKENBERG1 has a t t e m p t e d to give a c o m p l e t e listing,

1

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG: Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums, 1). Leiden 1968.

764

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

starting with 1470, the year of the editio princeps, through 1965. Though there is value in this arrangement for the student of the history of Josephus scholarship, one who is interested in a particular topic will have to go through the entire bibliography looking for the relevant items. SCHRECKENBERG generally, though far from always (especially for the earlier entries), briefly summarizes the entries or indicates the pages relevant to Josephus, in particular noting the passages of Josephus which are discussed. H e classifies the entries according to twenty-five categories, though this is far too small a number for so large a subject, and some entries have no classification number at all. Only rarely does SCHRECKENBERG list reviews of books. There are hundreds of errors of omission and commission (which the present author has compiled and which await publication), some — by no means all — of which are noted in his supplement. 2 O n the Latin and Hebrew paraphrases of the 'Jewish War', ascribed to Hegesippus and Josippon respectively, he is far from complete. At many points SCHRECKENBERG has inserted question marks as a sign that he has been unable to verify the entries. Some of SCHRECKENBERG'S errors are due to his frequent dependence for the earlier entries o n the w o r k o f SCHWAB. 3

In his supplement, which covers the period through 1977, SCHRECKENBERG has arranged the items alphabetically — a change which makes it easier for the scholar to consult the items, at least so far as books are concerned, in the card catalogue of a library, but which still requires one to go through the entire bibliography to find entries relevant to aparticular subject. In addition, SCHRECKENBERG has grouped separately the editions of the Greek texts, translations (language by language), and poetic paraphrases and novels. For some items the summaries are very extensive, whereas for others they are very brief; and this variation does not always accord with the importance of the item. There are indices of the authors both in chronological and in alphabetical order, but SCHRECKENBERG has omitted the indices of citations of Josephus and of Greek words which he has in his first volume, and this certainly reduces the usefulness of the supplement. My own critical bibliography (to appear in 1984) for the years 1937 through 1980, in addition to correcting and supplementing SCHRECKENBERG on a multitude of points, groups items according to twenty-nine major headings and 427 sub-headings in a logical progression. It also presents critiques of important items, as well as my own views on numerous topics. It is on a tremendously enlarged scale from my earlier work. 4

2

3 4

HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG: Bibliographie zu Flavius J o s e p h u s : S u p p l e m e n t b a n d mit G e s a m t register (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen J u d e n t u m s , 14). Leiden 1979. MOÏSE SCHWAB: Répertoire. Paris 1914—23. L o u i s H . FELDMAN: Scholarship on Philo and J o s e p h u s ( 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 6 2 ) (Yeshiva University, Studies in J u d a i c a , 1). N e w Y o r k 1963. T h e new w o r k is entitled 'Josephus and M o d e r n Scholarship (1937—1980)' and is being published b y Walter de G r u y t e r .

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

765

For selective bibliographies for Hellenistic Judaism generally, we may refer to those b y MARCUS, 5 covering the years 1920 — 1945; RAPPAPORT, 6 covering the period 1946—1980; DELLING, 7 covering 1900 — 1970; the last four volumes of the

Loeb series, by M A R C U S , W I K G R E N , and myself; 8 and S C H Ü R E R - V E R M E S . 9 Of these R A P P A P O R T ' S is the most comprehensive and most systematic, as well as the best classified; but, of course, it covers only the most recent period and lacks summaries and critiques. M A R C U S and I are the only ones of these scholars who indicate (with single and double asterisks) the relative importance of the work which they cite.

II. The State of the Text of Josephus

Almost a century has elapsed since the editions of N I E S E 1 0 (maior and minor) and NABER 11 appeared. The editio maior of the former, generally more conservative than his editio minor, is widely regarded as definitive. N I E S E ' S text, however, suffers from being unduly influenced by the theory held by text critics of that era, namely of undue dependence upon a single manuscript or upon a single group of manuscripts. N A B E R undoubtedly knew more Greek than did Josephus, but the task of an editor is to restore the original rather than to improve upon it. Moreover, unfortunately, his edition, and especially his apparatus criticus, is

5

RALPH MARCUS: Selected Bibliography (1920—1945) of the Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. In: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 16, 1946—47, pp. 9 7 - 1 8 1 .

6

URIEL RAPPAPORT: Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 1946 — 1970. In: B. ODED et al., edd.: Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel (in Hebrew). Vol. 2, Haifa 1972, pp. 2 4 7 - 3 2 1 . IDEM (in collaboration with MENAHEM MOR): Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, 1971 — 1975 (Jerusalem, The Institute for Advanced Studies, The Hebrew University). 1976 (mimeographed, in Hebrew and English). Biblio-

7

GERHARD DELLING: Bibliographie zur Jüdisch-Hellenistischen und Intertestamentarischen Literatur 1900—1970 in Verbindung mit MALWINE MASER (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 106). 2nd ed. Berlin 1975. RALPH MARCUS, ed. and trans.: Josephus. Vol. 6: Jewish Antiquities, Books 9—11. London 1937. IDEM: Vol. 7: Jewish Antiquities, Books 12 — 14. London 1943. IDEM and ALLEN WIKGREN: Vol. 8: Jewish Antiquities, Books 1 5 - 1 7 . London 1963. L o u i s H . FELDMAN: Vol. 9: Jewish Antiquities, Books 1 8 - 2 0 . London 1965. EMIL SCHÜRER: The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.—

g r a p h y . . . 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 0 (Jerusalem 1982).

8

9

A.D. 10

11

135), e d . b y GEZA VERMES a n d FERGUS M I L L A R . V o l . 1, E d i n b u r g h 1 9 7 3 . V o l . 2 ,

Edinburgh 1979. BENEDICT NIESE, ed.: Flavii Josephi opera. 7 vols. Berlin 1885—95; rpt. 1955 ( = editio maior). IDEM, ed.: Flavii Josephi opera. 6 vols. Berlin 1888—95 ( = editio minor). SAMUEL A. NABER, ed.: Flavii Josephi opera omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum. 6 vols. Leipzig 1888-96.

766

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

replete with errors. The Loeb edition of T H A C K E R A Y et al. 1 2 is generally dependent upon N I E S E ' S editio maior but sometimes adopts other emendations. The scholar who has done most to advance the study of Josephus' text is SCHRECKENBERG, 13 who has listed and briefly described all the manuscripts, as well as all ancient and medieval authors who cite or quote him. Valuable as this is, S C H R E C K E N B E R G is hardly complete, since he misses some passages from Church Fathers and later writers, omits a number of manuscripts containing short fragments of Josephus, usually omits those who have used Josephus second- or third-hand, and omits the translations and paraphrases of Josephus, which admittedly must be used with caution and great reserve but which (especially in the case of the Latin version) are often more ancient than any of our Greek manuscripts. S C H R E C K E N B E R G admits that N I E S E ' S stemmata are basically sound and that there are only two manuscripts which N I E S E missed which deserve full collation. H e argues that the text will be improved primarily through emendations and proceeds to suggest many such. In general, the conjectures are closer to the manuscripts than are those which he suggested earlier in his articles in 'Theokratia', 1 4 but most of them are hardly convincing. S C H R E C K E N B E R G argues that the works of Josephus show stylistic and linguistic unity and often bases conjectures on Josephus' usage in his other works; but we may remark that Josephus published his 'Antiquities' almost two decades after the "War', and the stylistic variation even within that work is considerable. Moreover, as time went on, Josephus presumably gained in his knowledge of Greek, on the one hand, and became less dependent upon his assistants, on the other hand. The text of the 'Jewish War' is in much better shape than that of the 'Antiquities', perhaps because it profited from the assistants which Josephus says (Against Apion 1.50) he employed to improve the Greek. For the first half of the 'Antiquities' some corruptions were undoubtedly introduced by the attempt to bring Josephus' Biblical paraphrase into line with the Biblical text. For the second half of the 'Antiquities' certain books, notably Book 18, are in much worse shape than others, while other books, notably Book 20, are in much better condition. Since the text tradition was, it seems, divided into two families as early as the third century, a study of the traditions in the Church Fathers remains a desideratum in order to discern the beginning of this polarization. BURCHARD,15 in his study of Josephus' notice concerning the Essenes in various later writers, has shown how 12

13

14

15

H E N R Y ST. J O H N THACKERAY, R A L P H M A R C U S , A L L E N W I K G R E N , L O U I S H .

FELDMAN,

edd. and trans.: Josephus (Loeb Classical Library). 9 vols. London 1926—65. HEINZ SCHRECKENBERG: Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter. Leiden 1972. H E I N Z SCHRECKENBERG: Einige Vermutungen zum Josephustext. In: Theokratia 1, 1 9 6 7 — 69, pp. 64—75. IDEM: N e u e Beiträge zur Kritik des Josephustextes. In: Theokratia 2, 1 9 7 0 - 7 2 , pp. 8 1 - 1 0 6 . C H R I S T O P H B U R C H A R D : Zur Nebenüberlieferung von Josephus' Bericht über die Essener Bell 2, 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 bei Hippolyt, Porphyrius, Josippus, Niketas Choniates und anderen. In: O T T O B E T Z , KLAUS H A A C K E R , M A R T I N H E N G E L , edd.: Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem N e u e n Testament, O t t o Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Göttingen 1974, pp. 77—96.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

767

valuable for reconstructing the text of Josephus are those writers who quote or paraphrase him. Since Josephus was writing in a language which was his third (Hebrew and Aramaic being his first two), the temptation is great for editors to improve upon him. SCHRECKENBERG16 has, on numerous occasions, succumbed to this temptation. Perhaps if we could remedy the lack of a grammar for Josephus and if we could note more carefully the differences in vocabulary, grammar, and style between the "War' and the 'Antiquities', we could, availing ourselves, furthermore, of RENGSTORF'S17 concordance, which now is near completion, make suggestions for emendations which would more closely reflect Josephus' actual language and style. But, in any case, emendations should be transcriptionally probable, and many of SCHRECKENBERG'S are not. Unfortunately only one papyrus fragment of Josephus, published by OELLACHER18 and SCHRECKENBERG,19 has thus far come to light. It dates from the late third century and is so poorly preserved that only 38 words in it are complete, while 74 are extant only in part. Since it is a passage from the 'War' (2. 576—579), where the text is relatively secure, it comes as a surprise, though one should be careful not to draw conclusions from such a short excerpt, that there are nine places where it differs from all the manuscripts. The fact that the text in the papyrus agrees now with one group of manuscripts and now with another leads SCHRECKENBERG to conclude that it is dangerous to rely on one group alone. Another possible clue to the unreliability of the text that we possess may be found in the fact that Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47, 2.13 end; Commentary on Matthew 10.17), Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.60), and Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 13) declare that Josephus said that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the Just, a statement nowhere to be found in our text of Josephus. Similarly, as PINES20 has noted, there are statements in the tenthcentury Arabic historian Agapius allegedly drawn from Josephus which are not in our texts. These may, of course, be due to interpolations or to loose paraphrasing, or they may refer to a different text. Indeed, we may note that SCHALIT,21 the foremost Josephus scholar of the past generation, has remarked that the text of the 'Antiquities' is more corrupt than any other Greek text. We may add that the corruption in the text of the first half of the 'Antiquities', where Josephus paraphrases the Bible, has been aggravated by the tendency of copyists to assim-

16

17

18 19 20

21

SCHRECKENBERG (above, note 14). IDEM: Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und Textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus. Leiden 1977. KARL HEINRICH RENGSTORF: A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol. 1, Leiden 1973. Vol. 2, Leiden 1975. Vol. 3, Leiden 1979. Vol. 4, Leiden 1983. HANS OELLACHER: Griechische Literarische Papyri II. Baden bei Wien 1939, p. 61. SCHRECKENBERG (above, note 13), pp. 54—55. SHLOMO PINES: An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Section of Humanities). Jerusalem 1971. ABRAHAM SCHALIT, trans, and ed.: Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (in Hebrew). Vol. 3, Jerusalem 1963, p. viii.

51 ANRWII21.2

768

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

ilate his text to that of the Septuagint, particularly in the spelling of proper names. It is tempting to use the Latin version to improve the text, since it is five centuries older than the oldest Greek manuscript. RICHARDS and SHUTT22 have based their emendations primarily on it, but their suggestions are usually unacceptable because they are too far from the manuscripts.

III. Translations of Josephus

By far the most popular translation of Josephus into English has been that of WHISTON,23 which has been reprinted at least 217 times since its original publication. Because there is no problem with the copyright, it continues to be reprinted; but while it has a vigorous style, it is based on an inferior text, that of HAVERCAMP,24 is full of inaccuracies, and, in its notes, conveys some odd ideas, such as that Josephus was an Ebionite Christian and a bishop of Jerusalem. The Loeb Library version of THACKERAY et al. 2 5 is based on an eclectic text, though primarily on NIESE'S. 26 O f the translators THACKERAY shows the best comprehension of the Greek (a measure of his conscientiousness is that he composed his dictionary to Josephus as a private venture to aid him in understanding the text) and the most vigorous use of English. MARCUS and I have a fuller critical apparatus, more extensive notes (both linguistic and historical, particularly on parallels with rabbinic literature) and extensive bibliographies on various subjects raised in the text. Volume 8, which appeared after MARCUS' death, falls short of the standard of volume 7 in accuracy and in fullness of commentary. O f other translations, that of WILLIAMSON27 is praiseworthy for its simple, contemporary, readable language. WHISTON'S c o u n t e r p a r t in F r e n c h is D ' A N D I L L Y . 2 8 REINACH'S 2 9 version is

notable for its rabbinic parallels. PELLETIER30 has started the Budé series for

22

23

24

25 26 27 28

29 30

GEORGE C . RICHARDS and ROBERT J . H . SHUTT: Critical Notes on Josephus' Antiquities. In: Classical Quarterly 31, 1937, pp. 1 7 0 - 1 7 7 ; and 33, 1939, pp. 1 8 0 - 1 8 3 . WILLIAM WHISTON, trans. : The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian. 2 vols. London 1737. SIGEBERT HAVERCAMP: Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, opera omnia graece et latine cum notis et nova versione JOANNIS HUDSONI. 2 vols. Amsterdam 1726. THACKERAY et al. (above, note 12). NIESE (above, note 10), editio maior. GEOFFREY A. WILLIAMSON, trans.: Josephus: The Jewish War. Baltimore 1959. ARNAULD D'ANDILLY, trans.: Flavius Josèphus. Histoire ancienne des Juifs et La guerre des Juifs contre les Romains, 66—70 après J . - C . Autobiographie. Paris 1667. Textes . . . adaptés en français moderne par J. A. C . BUCHON. Préface de VALENTIN NIKIPROWETZKY. Paris 1968. THÉODORE REINACH, éd.: Œuvres complètes de Flavius Josèphe. 7 vols. Paris 1900—32. ANDRÉ PELLETIER, trans.: Flavius Josèphe: Autobiographie (Collection des Universités de

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

769

Josephus, corresponding to the Loeb version, on which, indeed, it is largely dependent, especially for its notes. In German CLEMENTZ31 is considerably below the standard of the Loeb or REINACH in s c h o l a r l i n e s s . F o r t h e ' W a r ' M I C H E L a n d BAUERNFEIND 3 2 h a v e p r o -

duced a work comparable to the Loeb which makes effective use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and which contains a number of valuable excursus on individual points, as well as several valuable indices. In Hebrew SCHALIT'S33 version of the 'Antiquities' surpasses even the Loeb in accuracy; and his notes, of which only those from Books 1 — 10 have appeared, are excellent. A t the time of his death SCHALIT was at w o r k on the notes (in

German) to the remaining books. The present author has seen portions of this work, and he can report that they are of high quality and increasingly extensive. The translations of the ' W a r ' and 'Against A p i o n ' by SIMCHONI34 and of the 'Life' by STEIN 35 are inaccurate. HAGGAI'S 36 version of the ' W a r ' is not m u c h of an

improvement. In Italian RICCIOTTI 37 has translated the ' W a r ' clearly and accurately and has

written a full commentary. An interesting development has been the rise of interest in Josephus in Japan, where SHINMI38 has issued the first of a projected three volumes translating the 'War' and where HATA39 has translated 'Against Apion', the 'Life', and 'Antiquities', Books 12—20.

31

32

33

34

France, publiée sous le patronage de l'Association Guillaume Budé). Paris 1959. IDEM, trans.: Flavius Josèphe: Guerre des Juifs. Livre I (Budé). Paris 1975. Livres II et III, 1980. HEINRICH CLEMENTZ, trans.: Des Flavius Josephus Jüdische Altertümer. 2 vols. Halle 1899; rpt. Köln 1959. IDEM, trans.: Flavius Josephus, Geschichte des Jüdischen Krieges. Halle 1900; rpt. Köln 1959. IDEM, trans.: Des Flavius Josephus kleinere Schriften (Selbstbiographie - Gegen Apion — Uber die Makkabäer). Halle 1900; rpt. Köln 1960. O T T O M I C H E L a n d O T T O BAUERNFEIND, t r a n s . : F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s . D e b e l l o j u d a i c o .

Der

jüdische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch. Vol. 1 (Books 1 — 3), Bad Homburg, Darmstadt 1959; 2nd ed. 1962. Vol. 2.1 (Books 4 - 5 ) , München, Darmstadt 1963. Vol. 2.2 (Books 6—7), Darmstadt 1969. Vol. 3 (with T . HIRSCH) (Ergänzungen und Register), München 1969. ABRAHAM SCHALIT, trans.: Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (in Hebrew). 3 vols. Jerusalem 1944-63. JACOB N . H . SIMCHONI (SIMCHOWITZ), trans.: Bellum Judaicum (in Hebrew). Vols. 1—2, Warsaw 1 9 2 3 - 2 8 . Vol. 3: Contra Apionem (in Hebrew), Berlin 1925.

35

MENAHEM (EDMUND) STEIN, t r a n s . : V i t a . W a r s a w

36

SHMUEL HAGGAI, trans.: Josephus, Bellum Judaicum (in Hebrew). Jerusalem 1964; 2nd ed. 1967." GIUSEPPE RICCIOTTI, trans.: Flavio Giuseppe tradotto e commentato. 4 vols. Turin 1937— 39, 1949, 1963. HIROSHI SHINMI, trans.: The Jewish War (in Japanese). Vol. 1, Tokyo 1975. GOHEI HATA, trans.: Flavius Josephus: Contra Apionem (in Japanese). Tokyo 1977. IDEM: Vita. Tokyo 1978. IDEM: Antiquitates Judaicae, Books 1 2 - 2 0 . 5 vols. Tokyo 1979-81.

37

38 39

51*

1930.

770

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

IV. The Latin

Versions

Of the two translations of Josephus into Latin, the first is a free rendering of the 'War' in the fourth century attributed to Hegesippus. The critical edition by USSANI40 shows that the problem in reconstructing the original is not unlike that in reconstructing the original of the Septuagint or of Josippon, since it circulated in so many varying versions. SORSCHER,41 through a comparison of Hegesippus and Josippon with Book 3 of the 'War5, concludes that whereas Josephus' purpose is political, namely to glorify Rome and to discourage rebellion, Hegesippus' is religious, to prove that the war was a divine punishment inflicted upon the Jews. Since, however, Josephus himself is the central figure in the surrender at Jotapata described in Book 3, the account is undoubtedly prejudiced; and it would have been better if SORSCHER had selected another book. In particular, there are numerous passages in Josephus which argue the thesis that the war was G-d's punishment for the Jews. More recently, the first real attempt to investigate Hegesippus' point of view is by BELL, 42 who contends that Hegesippus, far from merely paraphrasing Josephus, is a historian in his own right who did not succumb to mere Christian apologetics. The completion of a critical edition of the Latin version made under Cassiodorus' direction in the sixth century remains a desideratum. Except for BOYSEN'S43 edition of the work 'Against Apion' and BLATT'S44 edition of Books 1—5 of the 'Antiquities', this version has not been edited since 1524, when FROBENIUS did so (without having the Greek original at hand!). BLATT has described no fewer than 171 manuscripts of it, and SCHRECKENBERG,45 p. 27, n. 8, has noted some missed by him. Unfortunately, however, BLATT'S stemma requires reconsideration, and his text, while it marks a considerable advance on FROBENIUS, is based on only a few manuscripts. BLATT'S edition of Books 6—10 has remained in manuscript. The influence of the Vulgate has led to the corruption of the text in numerous instances in the first half of the 'Antiquities'; and BULHART46 has given us a sample of the kind of transcriptionally probable emendations that are necessary to improve the text. 40

41

42

43

44

45 46

VINCENTIUS USSANI, ed.: Hegesippi qui dicitur historiae libri V (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 66). Vol. 1, Wien, Leipzig 1932. Vol. 2 (with preface by CAROLUS MRAS), Wien 1960. ESTHER SORSCHER: A Comparison of Three Texts: The Wars, the Hegesippus, and the Yosippon. Diss., M . A . , Yeshiva University, New York 1973. ALBERT A. BELL, JR. : An Historiographical Analysis of the De Excidio Hierosolymitano of Pseudo-Hegesippus. Diss., Ph. D . , University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1977. CAROLUS BOYSEN, ed.: Flavii Josephi opera ex versione latina antiqua. Pars VI: De Judaeorum vetustate sive contra Apionem libri II. Prag, Wien, Leipzig 1898. FRANZ BLATT, ed.: The Latin Josephus. I: Introduction and Text, The Antiquities, Books I - V (Acta Jutlandica, 30.1, Hum. Ser. 44). Aarhus, Copenhagen 1958. SCHRECKENBERG: Rezeptionsgeschichtliche . . . Untersuchungen (above, note 16). VINZENZ BULHART: Textkritische Studien zum lateinischen Flavius Josephus. In: Mnemosyne (4th ser.) 6, 1953, pp. 1 4 0 - 1 5 7 .

FLAVIUS

JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

771

The Latin version represents a text half a millennium earlier than our earliest Greek text (which dates from the eleventh century); and R I C H A R D S and S H U T T 4 7 have illustrated how useful it is especially for reconstructing proper names and for filling in lacunae. Moreover, this translation is important for the study of the Latinity of this era and, in particular, for the theory of translation (a study of it illuminating the language of the Vulgate and of Pseudo-Philo's 'Biblical Antiquities' remains a desideratum). L U N D S T R O M 4 8 shows how valuable the Latin version is for reconstructing the original Greek of 'Against Apion' (of which a part exists only in Latin). W I T T Y , 4 9 however, has given an appropriate caveat, noting, on the basis of a case-study of the rendering of terms for writing materials, etc., in the 'Historia Tripartita' and in the Latin version of Josephus' 'Antiquities' and 'Against Apion', that the translators of that era were not consistent in their rendering even of technical terms, except where they had become established in customary usage. The importance of the Latin version is great also because it is useful in restoring the text of the many medieval authors, such as Peter Comestor, who relied on it. During the Crusades, we may note, Josephus was especially popular because he provided so much first-hand information about Palestine. V. The Syriac Version Book 6 of the 'War' exists in a Syriac translation, which has been edited by who argues that our Greek text is a modified version of it. H A Y M A N , 5 1 however, contends that the translation was made from the Greek original but that it was very literal and of poor quality. He cites evidence that the version contained all seven books of the 'War' and suggests as a desideratum a comparison of the texts of the Syriac and Slavonic versions, since the latter is apparently based on a similar manuscript. KOTTEK,50

VI. The Slavonic Version One of the most significant advances in our knowledge of Josephus has come about since the Slavonic version of the 'War' was first translated into a Western 47

RICHARDS a n d SHUTT ( a b o v e , n o t e 22).

48

SVEN LUNDSTRÖM: Übersetzungstechnische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der christlichen Latinität. L u n d 1955. FRANCIS J . WITTY: B o o k Terms in the Vivarium Translations. In: Classical Folia 28, 1974, pp. 6 2 - 8 2 . HEIMANN KOTTEK: Das sechste Buch des Bellum Judaicum nach der von Ceriani photolithographisch edirten Peschitta-Handschrift übersetzt und kritisch bearbeitet. Diss., Leipzig. Published: Berlin 1886. ALLISON P. HAYMAN, ed. and trans.: The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew ( C o r p u s Christianorum Orientalium, 338 [text]; 339 [trans.]). Louvain 1973.

49

50

51

772

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N

European tongue by B E R E N D T S - G R A S S 5 2 and I S T R I N . 5 3 The text itself has been edited critically by M E S C E R S K I J . 5 4 T O be sure, it rarely helps us to reconstruct the original Greek, since it is based on an inferior Greek text; and BERENDTS'55 theory that the translation was based on the original Aramaic version of the 'War' has found few followers. The irrepressible EISLER,56 in his learned exuberance, constructed an elaborate theory that Josephus had at first written a rough draft of his work in Aramaic, which his assistants then translated into Greek, and that a Judaizing sect in Russia in the fifteenth century translated this into Slavonic for propaganda purposes. GUDZII,57 however, has shown that the ideas and language of the Slavonic version, especially its tell-tale similes and rhythmic patterns, match those of Russian chronicles of the eleventh century; and STRUGNELL,58 on the basis of the relationship of the version to a Byzantine text which lacks the additional material, arrives at a similar date in the tenth or eleventh century. An eleventh century date has been confirmed by MESCERSKIJ,59 who, through a thorough linguistic analysis, contends that the additions and omissions must be regarded as the original work of the translator. He, 6 0 like EISLER, connects the translation with the Khazars, who had been converted to Judaism in the eighth century, but he argues — more plausibly, since it contains much Christian phraseology — that it was used in the struggle a g a i n s t the Khazars. A systematic examination of the omissions in the Slavonic version remains a desideratum. There have been numerous studies of the additions pertaining to John and to Jesus, who are termed "the wild man" and "the wonder-worker"

52

53

54

55

56

57

ALEXANDER

BERENDTS a n d

KONRAD

b y SUSAN W . J O N E S . N e w Y o r k 58

59 60

GRASS,

trans.:

Flavius Josephus.

Vom

Jüdischen

Kriege Buch I—IV, nach der slavischen Übersetzung deutsch herausgegeben und mit dem griechischen Text verglichen. 2 vols. Dorpat 1924—27. VIKTOR M. ISTRIN, ed.: La prise de Jérusalem de Josèphe le Juif. Printed under the direction of ANDRÉ VAILLANT, translated into French by PIERRE PASCAL. 2 vols. Paris 1934-38; rpt. Monaco 1964. N . A. MESCERSKIJ: Istorija iudeskoij vojny Josifa Flavija, etc. ( = History of the War of the Jews of Flavius Josephus in Old Russian). Moscow, Leningrad 1958. ALEXANDER BERENDTS: Die Zeugnisse vom Christentum im slavischen 'De Bello Judaico' des Josephus. Leipzig 1906. ROBERT EISLER: I H C O Y C B A C I A E Y C O Y B A C I A E Y C A C . 2 vols. Heidelberg 1 9 2 9 30. Abridged translation into English by ALEXANDER H. KRAPPE: The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Discovered Capture of Jerusalem and Other Jewish and Christian Sources. London 1931. NIKOLAI K. GUDZII: History of Early Russian Literature. Trans, from the 2nd Russian ed. 1949.

JOHN STRUGNELL: Josephus, Flavius. In: New Catholic Encyclopedia 7, N e w York 1967, pp. 1120-1123. MESCERSKIJ (above, note 54). N . A. MESCERSKIJ: Znachenie drevneslavianskikh perevodov dlia vosstanovleniia ikh arkhetipov (in Russian: The Importance of Old Slavic Translations for the Reconstruction of Their Archetypes). In: ANDREI N . ROBINSON, ed.: Issledovaniia po slavianskomu literaturovediia i folkloristike (Sovetskiï komitet slavistov, Akademiia Nauk SSR). Moscow 1960.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

773

respectively. SCHEIDWEILER61 argues that the interpolations ultimately reflect a Jewish history of Josephus' own day; but, we may remark, we have no evidence of a history of that period with such a bias against the Jews. ZEITLIN62 has a strong argument, even though it is ex silentio, when he suggests that if there had been such passages about Jesus in Josephus' original text, Church Fathers, especially, we may add, during the height of anti-Jewish feeling in the fourth and fifth centuries, would have cited them, since they go even further than the N e w Testament in ascribing blame to the Jews for the crucifixion. That the passages are the work of a Christian is clear, as KENNARD63 notes, from the words "They (i. e. the Jews) crucified him according to the law of their fathers." A Jew, besides realizing that crucifixion is a Roman and not a Jewish form of execution, 6 3 a would have written "our fathers." COHN64 finds it impossible to believe that a Jew would have freed the Romans from responsibility for the crucifixion and put the blame on the Jews; but, we may suggest, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Josephus himself, seeking to ingratiate himself with the Romans, at a time when nothing was to be feared from the Christians, since they were so weak, sought to prove that the Jews had attempted to suppress the movement when it started. In any case, there was apparently a tradition, to judge from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43 a) that Jesus was condemned to death, though, of course, not by crucifixion, by a Jewish court. There seems to be general agreement, however, that the passages about John and Jesus do not go back to an original by Josephus, who could hardly have spoken of them with such sympathy, as GUDZII has noted, and, as we may add, with such antipathy toward the Jews, to whom the crucifixion is ascribed. KARS65 suggests that these passages reflect the conflict between the Roman and Byzantine churches in the eleventh century. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has led to renewed interest in the Slavonic Josephus. PHILONENKO66 has argued that the Slavonic version confirms the identification of the Essenes' legislator with the Scrolls' Master of Righteousness, and concludes that this proves the antiquity of the additions of the

FELIX SCHEIDWEILER: Sind die Interpolationen im altrussischen Josephus wertlos? In: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43, 1950—51, pp. 155—178. 6 2 SOLOMON ZEITLIN: A Commentary on the Book of Habakkuk: Important Discovery or Hoax? In: Jewish Quarterly Review 39, 1 9 4 8 - 4 9 , pp. 2 3 5 - 2 4 7 . 6 3 JOSEPH SPENCER KENNARD, JR: Slavonic Josephus: A Retraction. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 39, 1 9 4 8 - 4 9 , pp. 2 8 1 - 2 8 3 . 63A HEINZ-WOLFGANG KUHN: Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums. In: WOLFGANG HAASE, ed.: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (= A N R W ) . Vol. II. 25.1, Berlin, New York 1982, pp. 7 9 4 - 8 9 0 . 6 4 H A I M C O H N : The Trial and Death of Jesus (in H e b r e w ) . Tel-Aviv 1 9 6 8 . Trans, into English: N e w Y o r k 1971. 6 5 H. W . KARS: Der älteste nichtchristliche Jesusbericht. In: Theologische Studien und Kritiken 108, 1937, pp. 4 0 - 6 4 . 6 6 MARC PHILONENKO: La notice du Josephe slave sur les Esseniens. In: Semitica 6, 1956, 61

pp.

69-73.

774

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

Slavonic version. RUBINSTEIN, 67 however, finds no reference to the Qumran sect in the Slavonic version, and remarks that the additions are suspiciously like an embellishment inserted either by a pious Byzantine copyist of the Greek text or by a pious Russian translator. There is a Rumanian version (which goes back to a Polish version) in a fragmentary state, which has been published by EISLER,68 and a Latin translation of which has been issued by DRAGUET.69 It apparently contains no new elements, though we may guess that a study of it will help in determining the text of the Slavonic version.

VII.

Josippon

The Hebrew paraphrase of the 'Jewish War' known as Josippon (or Josephon) has occasioned great interest both because of its popularity in the Jewish world (the works of Josephus himself were unknown to all but a very few Jews until the sixteenth century; and then it was only 'Against Apion' that was translated into Hebrew; the remaining works of Josephus were not translated into Hebrew until 1859—1864) and its importance for the non-Jews (it played a key role in the events that led to Cromwell's resolve to readmit the Jews to England; but this and its role in the Protestant Reformation and other such events remain to be examined at length). WOLF,70 indeed, has noted that the translation of Josippon into English by M O R W Y N E was the first book of Jewish authorship printed in America (1718). The task of restoring the text of Josippon reminds one of the problem in reconstructing the Septuagint. Just as Jerome says that there was a threefold recension of the latter, so also there are three substantially different recensions (those of Mantua, Constantinople, and Venice) of Josippon. The most popular available edition of Josippon, that of HOMINER,71 prints the Venice edition, with supplements from the other two recensions, but this is an infelicitous selection, inasmuch as it is the Constantinople recension which apparently has the least interpolation and is thus the closest to the original Josippon. The fact that the redactor of the Constantinople recension knew the Latin version may, we should like to suggest, help the editor of the latter to restore that text. FLUSSER 72 argues 67

68 69

70

ARIE RUBINSTEIN: Observations on the Old Russian Version of Josephus' Wars. In: Journal of Semitic Studies 2, 1957, pp. 3 2 9 - 3 4 8 . EISLER (above, note 56). RENÉ DRAGUET: Le juif Josèphe, témoin du Christ? A propos du livre de M. R. Eisler. In: Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique 26, 1930, pp. 833 — 879. EDWIN WOLF: The First Book of Jewish Authorship Printed in America. In: American Jewish Historical Quarterly 60, 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 , pp. 2 2 9 - 2 3 4 .

71

H A Y I M HOMINER, e d . : S e f e r Y o s i p p o n ( i n H e b r e w ) . I n t r o d u c t i o n b y A B R A H A M J . W E R T -

72

HEIMER. Jerusalem 1962. DAVID FLUSSER: The Author of the Book of Josippon: His Personality and His Age (in Hebrew). In: Zion 18, 1953, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 2 6 .

775

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

that the divergences between the Mantua and Constantinople versions are deliberate, and that the Constantinople scribe maintained the hypothesis that Josippon was composed in Hebrew by Josephus for the Jews and introduced by him as the author. FLUSSER73 has finally published his definitive edition of the text, on which he had been working for more than thirty years. H e has also 7 4 written a comprehensive survey of the three versions. Of the older treatments of the general subject of Josippon, clearly the finest is by CASSUTO.75 Of the recent, more extended, discussions, the best is by ZIMMELS76; of briefer treatments the most authoritative are by STRUGNELL77 and by FLUSSER.78

As to the date of Josippon, ZEITLIN79 argues that the text shows familiarity with Tannaitic sources but not with Amoraic materials, and that therefore it must have been composed no later than the fifth century or even in the third or early fourth century. ZEITLIN contends that Hegesippus, whom he dates in the fourth century, made use of Josippon, but SORSCHER80 has argued convincingly that the reverse is true. NEUMAN81 and ZEITLIN82 remark that Josippon shows an acquaintance with the second and fourth books of Maccabees, including the story of the Hanukkah miracle as found there. But, we may comment, these references may be explained by the fact that Josippon knew Latin and thus may well have read the Books of Maccabees in the Vulgate. The evidence for a mid-tenth-century date is convincing: 1) it is never quoted or cited until the tenth century; 2) a fragment in the Cairo Geniza has been dated thus by CASSUTO83; 3) one of the best manuscripts, according to FLUSSER84

73 74

DAVID FLUSSER, ed.: The Josippon (Josephus Gorionides) (in Hebrew). Jerusalem 1978. DAVID FLUSSER: Der lateinische Josephus und der hebräische Josippon. In: OTTO BETZ, KLAUS HAACKER, MARTIN HENGEL,

75 76

77 78

79

80 81

82 83

84

edd.: Josephus-Studien:

Untersuchungen

zu

Jose-

phus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Göttingen 1974, pp. 1 2 2 - 1 3 2 . UMBERTO CASSUTO: Josippon. In: Encyclopaedia Judaica 9, Berlin 1932, pp. 420—425. HIRSCH J . ZIMMELS: Aspects of Jewish Culture: Historiography. In: CECIL ROTH, ed.: The World History of the Jewish People, Second Series. Vol. 2: The Dark Ages. N e w Brunswick, N e w Jersey 1966, pp. 277—281. JOHN STRUGNELL: Josippon. In: N e w Catholic Encyclopedia 7, N e w York 1967, p. 1124. FLUSSER (above note 72). IDEM: Josippon. In: Encyclopaedia Judaica 10, Jerusalem 1971, pp. 2 9 6 - 2 9 8 . SOLOMON ZEITLIN: The Slavonic Josephus and Its Relation to Josippon and Hegesippus. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 20, 1929-30, pp. 1 - 5 0 , 281. IDEM: Josippon. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 53, 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 , pp. 2 7 7 - 2 9 7 . SORSCHER (above, note 41). ABRAHAM A. NEUMAN: Josippon: History and Pietism. In: SAUL LIEBERMAN, ed.: Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume. N e w York 1950, pp. 6 3 7 - 6 6 7 . Rpt. in: ABRAHAM A. NEUMAN: Landmarks and Goals: Historical Studies and Addresses. Philadelphia 1953, pp. 1—34. ZEITLIN, 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 (above, note 79). UMBERTO CASSUTO: Una lettera ebraica del secolo X . In: Giornale della Società Asiatica Italiana 29, 1 9 1 8 - 2 0 , pp. 9 7 - 1 1 0 . FLUSSER (above, note 72).

776

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

declares that it was copied 885 years after the destruction of the Temple, i. e. 953, according to the date of the Temple's destruction then in vogue; 4) philological data, including the many Latin and Italian words, the Latinized forms of Italian, and the form in which Italian and Slavonic names are transliterated, as noted by TOAFF85 and FLUSSER,86 and the geographical and ethnographical information, as

noted by MODELSKI 8 7 and NEUBAUER, 8 8 confirm this; 5 ) the conception of kingship, as DUKER89 remarks, reflects a response to the memory of the brutality against Jews in the ninth and tenth centuries in Italy; 6) there are references to Josippon in Saadia, in a letter to Hisdai ibn Shaprut, and in Dunash, dating from the middle of the tenth century. The most striking argument, as BASNAGE 9 0 had already noted in the eighteenth century, for this date is the resemblance between the description of the coronation of Vespasian in Josippon and the coronation of the Emperor Otto in 962. But, we my note, the coronation scene is found only in the Constantinople version and hence may be a later interpolation. Similarly, the battering-rams described by Josippon date from the tenth century; but, as B A E R 9 1 has remarked, this passage also is found only in the Constantinople recension. BAER'S view that Josippon's glorification of martyrdom reflects a tenth-century date is, however, not convincing, since such values were current from the second century B . C . E . on. Linguistics, geography, and ethnography all point to Southern Italy as the place where the work was composed, as FLUSSER 92 has indicated. SORSCHER 93 has shown that Josippon's main source is Hegesippus and that, indeed, in Book 3 of the "War' he never includes anything omitted by Hegesippus. Moreover, he drew upon a Latin version of the Bible and upon sixteen of the twenty books of the 'Antiquities' in a Latin version, as FLUSSER 94 has noted, which, indeed, he has identified. 95 In addition, he had an independent source for his genealogy of the Italian kings, which is very accurate, as COHEN 9 6 85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92 93 94 95 96

ARIEL TOAFF, ed.: Cronaca ebraica del Sepher Yosephon (Istituto Superiore di Studi Ebraici del Collegio Rabbinico Italiano). Roma 1969. GUSTAV (= DAVID) FLUSSER: The Report on the Slavs in a Hebrew Chronicle of the Tenth Century (in Czech). In: Cesky Casopis Historicky 48—49, 1947—49, pp. 2 3 8 - 2 4 1 . THEOPHIL E. MODELSKI: Die Berge Job und Schebtamo des Josippon. In: Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes 26, 1912, pp. 132 — 142. ADOLF NEUBAUER: The Early Settlement of the Jews in Southern Italy. In: Jewish Quarterly Review (Old Series) 4, 1 8 9 1 - 9 2 , pp. 6 0 6 - 6 2 5 . SARA R. DUKER: The Political Attitude of the Yosippon. Diss., M . A . , Columbia University, New York 1969. JACQUES BASNAGE: L'histoire et la religion des Juifs, depuis Jesus-Christ jusqu'à présent. Pour servir de supplément et de continuation à l'histoire de Joseph. 5 vols. Rotterdam 1707. YITZHAK BAER: The Book of Josippon the Jew (in Hebrew). In: Sefer Benzion Dinaburg. Jerusalem 1949, pp. 1 7 8 - 2 0 5 . FLUSSER (above, note 72). SORSCHER (above, note 41). FLUSSER (above, note 72; note 74). FLUSSER (above, note 74). GERSON D. COHEN: Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought. In: ALEXANDER ALTMANN, ed.: Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Philip W . Lown Institute of Ad-

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

777

has noted. TOAFF 97 has cited places where Josippon is translating Latin phrases into Hebrew and also points out parallels between Books 8, 10, and 12 of Virgil's 'Aeneid' and Josippon's version of the war between Aeneas, king of Carthage, and Turnus, king of Benevento. COHEN'S 98 view that Josippon sets forth the essentials of Virgil and Livy from a Jewish point of view seems exaggerated, since he might well have derived his information from the numerous handbooks and encyclopedias current in the tenth century and often containing garbled information. Most scholars agree, as noted by FLUSSER," for example, that Josippon did not know Greek. ZEITLIN, 100 however, contends that he did know Josephus in Greek and that the form of his epistles shows that they were taken from Josephus; but, we may suggest, Josippon might have derived this from the Latin version of Josephus. WACHOLDER,101 pp. 11 — 13, asserts that Josippon knew Nicolaus of Damascus in Greek since he is more favorably disposed toward the Herodian family than is Josephus; but we have no evidence that Nicolaus was extant in southern Italy in the tenth century. BAER 102 asserts that Josippon had an extensive knowledge of the Talmud but that he tried to hide this information. ZEITLIN 103 suggests that Josippon was the Talmud's source for the story of Hannah and her seven sons. HOENIG, 104 remarking that the original Greek of Josephus does not mention the Pharisees by name in the account of their crucifixion by Alexander Jannaeus (War 1.92, 97; Ant. 13.376, 379), whereas Josippon does, concludes that Josippon had additional sources for this period of Jewish history; but, we may contend, the influence of the Pharisees was so great with the masses at this time that it is easy to understand how Josippon identified the leaders of the masses with the Pharisees. As a historian, Josippon is far from careful, as ZIMMELS105 has noted, and has committed such errors as confusing Eleazar ben Jair, the revolutionaries' leader at Masada, with Eleazar ben Anan, his opponent. BAER 106 contends that Josippon chose his material carefully and deliberately. FLUSSER 107 looks upon the author as a serious historian rather than as an ideologist. For the Hasmonean period, however, as SCHAFLER108 has shown, Josippon, far from being a plagiarist,

97

98 99

vanced Judaic Studies, Brandéis University: Studies and Texts, 4). Cambridge, Mass. 1967, pp. 1 9 - 4 8 . ARIEL TOAFF: La storia di Zephó e la guerra tra Angias e Turno nello Josephon. In: Annuario di Studi Ebraici 3, 1963—64, pp. 41—46. COHEN (above, note 96). FLUSSER, Encyclopaedia Judaica (above, note 78).

100

ZEITLIN, 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 ( a b o v e , note

101

BEN ZION WACHOLDER: Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley 1962. BAER (above, note 91).

102

79).

103

ZEITLIN, 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 ( a b o v e , note

104

SIDNEY B. HOENIG: Dorshé Halakot in the Pesher Nahum Scrolls. In: Journal of Biblical Literature 83, 1964, pp. 119-138. ZIMMELS (above, note 76). 1 0 7 FLUSSER (above, note 72). BAER (above, note 91). SAMUEL SCHAFLER: The Hasmoneans in Jewish Historiography. Diss., D . H . L . , Jewish Theological Seminary, N e w York 1973.

105 106 108

79).

778

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

freely adapted his material both from Josephus and from the rabbinic corpus, though he tends to follow the latter when it differs from Josephus. Moreover, we may add, in the Masada episode, Josippon keeps stressing that the Sicarii were fighting for G—d, people, Temple, and Torah. T o appreciate Josippon's peculiar point of view, one should compare him here with Hegesippus, upon whom he is certainly dependent. The latter, being a Christian, could hardly laud those fighting on behalf of the Temple. On the one hand, Josippon rejects open Messianism, but, on the other hand, he is a precursor of the ideology of martyrdom. The fact that in Josippon the Sicarii do not commit suicide indicates that he has transposed the incident anachronistically to the tenth century. REINER, 1 0 9 indeed, does see Josippon as an ideologist, for whom the revolution against the Romans was, indeed, a holy war. SIMONSOHN110 concludes that whereas in the speeches of Eleazar ben Jair Josephus stresses p o l i t i c a l independence and patriotism, in Josippon the stress is on G—d, justice, and redemption. ZEITLIN, 111 remarking that Josippon has " H a s i d i m " where Josephus has " E s s e n e s , " postulates their identity, and DEL MEDICO 112 goes so far as to deny the existence of the Essenes because Josippon never mentions them. But, we may suggest, Josippon chose to render " E s s e n e s " by " H a s i d i m " because of the similarity of the sounds, perhaps also being aware, through his knowledge of the Latin version of I and II Maccabees, of the Hasidim of the Maccabean period and identifying the two groups. Inasmuch as the Arabic version of Josippon was apparently completed in the tenth century, shortly after the composition of Josippon, the text should be of great value in reconstructing the original. Yet, it has still not been scientifically edited, WELLHAUSEN113 having translated only a portion of it into German from an inferior fourteenth-century manuscript. GRAF 114 has enumerated the manuscripts and the editions. The Arabic version, in turn, was translated into Ethiopic at some time between the twelfth and fourteenth century; it has been edited critically b y K A M I L . 1 1 5

109

JACOB REINER: The Jewish War: Variations in the Historical Narratives in the Texts of Josephus and the Yosippon. Diss., Dropsie University, Philadelphia 1972.

110

SHLOMO

111

112

113

114

115

SIMONSOHN:

Afterword.

In: SALO W .

BARON

and

GEORGE W .

WISE,

edd.;

Violence and Defense in the Jewish Experience. Philadelphia 1977, pp. 337—343. SOLOMON ZEITLIN: The Essenes and Messianic Expectations: A Historical Study of the Sects and Ideas During the Second Jewish Commonwealth. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 45, 1954-55, pp. 8 3 - 1 1 9 . HENRY E. DEL MEDICO: Le myth des Esséniens des origines à la fin du moyen âge. Paris 1958. JULIUS WELLHAUSEN: Der arabische Josippus (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Folge 1, N r . 4). Berlin 1897. GEORG GRAF: Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vol. 1 (Studi e testi, 118). Vatican City 1944. MURAD KAMIL, ed. : Des Josef Ben Gorion (Josippon) Geschichte der Juden (Zêna A'ihüd) nach den Handschriften herausgegeben. Diss., Tübingen 1937. Published: Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York 1938.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

VIII. Josephus'

779

Life

N o subject connected with Josephus has aroused more passion than his actions during the Jewish War. In the nineteenth century, as EDERSHEIM116 remarks, scholars were virtually unanimous in condemning him, one of the few exceptions being HAMBURGER, 1 1 7 who argued that Josephus had atoned for his alleged treason to the Jewish people by his own rigorous observance of Jewish law and by his composition of 'Against Apion', defending the Jews against antiSemitic attacks. HERZOG, 118 chief rabbi of Israel, remarks however, that a pious Jew would not have had such close contacts with the philosophers of his time; but we may remark that Josephus never mentions any personal contacts with philosophers (he cites Philo for his political activities), and no contemporary philosopher, in turn, mentions him. The sole primary sources for reconstructing Josephus' life, other than his own works, are in Suetonius (Vespasian 5.6), Appian (frag. 17), and Dio Cassius (66.1), all of whom refer to the prediction by Josephus that the general Vespasian would become emperor, though there are slight discrepancies with Josephus' own account. One intriguing question is why Josephus is never mentioned in the Talmudic writings. ZLOTNIK119 explains that this is because Josephus was regarded by the rabbis as an "outsider." We may remark that the Talmud is similarly silent about Philo and that this is perhaps because it is not a work of history or of philosophy. BRÜLL 120 and LESHEM121 find a hidden reference to Josephus in a minor Talmudic tractate, Derekh Erez Rabbah 5, which speaks of a nameless philosopher who is visited by four rabbis when they come to Rome to protest the Emperor Domitian's decision to kill all the Jews in the Roman Empire. Inasmuch as Josephus was, so far as we know, the one Jew who continued to have influence with Domitian, it seems reasonable to identify him as the philosopher, especially since he was so eager, in view of his unpopularity, to prove his Jewish loyalty. One of the rabbis, Gamaliel, we may note, objected to visiting the philosopher, and this may be understood in light of the fact that Gamaliel's father had tried to remove Josephus from his Galilean command. The only objections to this identification are that Josephus is not a philosopher but a historian (though his pro116

117

118 119

120

121

ALFRED EDERSHEIM: Josephus. In: WILLIAM SMITH and HENRY WACE, edd.: A Dictionary of Christian Biography. Vol. 3, London 1882, pp. 4 4 1 - 4 6 0 . See p. 441. JACOB HAMBURGER: Josephus Flavius. In: JACOB HAMBURGER: Real-Encyklopädie für Bibel und Talmud. Abteilung 2, Strelitz 1883, pp. 5 0 2 - 5 1 0 . ISAAC H . HERZOG: Something on Josephus (in Hebrew). In: Sinai 25, 1949, pp. 8—11. JACOB ZLOTNIK: Josephus Flavius (in Hebrew). In: Sinai 26, 1 9 4 9 - 5 0 , pp. 1 9 - 3 5 , 1 8 5 193. NEHEMIAH BRÜLL: Eine talmudische Nachricht über Josephus. In: Jahrbücher für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 4, 1879, pp. 40—42. HAYIM LESHEM: Flavius on the Antiquity of the Jews Compared With the Greeks (in Hebrew). In: Mahanaim 112, 1967, pp. 9 2 - 9 5 .

780

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

jected work 'On Causes' indicates that he had philosophical interests, and the term 'philosopher' may have been used disparagingly in a general sense of one who speculates) and that the philosopher in the Talmudic narrative is a pagan and not a Jew. HERZOG122 identifies the philosopher as one of the righteous gentiles, and DINUR123 makes the ingenious suggestion that the Hebrew word pbilosopbos is really Flavius Josephus (in Hebrew, we may note, the spellings are rather similar). WIESENBERG124 speculates that the old man mentioned in the Talmud (Baba Kamma 82 b; Sotah 49 b; Menahoth 64 b) who was learned in Greek wisdom and who, during the civil war between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, advised the Romans to send up swine rather than cattle for the sacrifices in the Temple was Josephus. But, we may comment, this incident occurred in 63 B. C. E . , a century before Josephus was born (though the Palestinian Talmud assigns the incident to the time of Titus). The story, we may remark, might have arisen because his opponents, in their bitterness, thought it particularly appropriate for one who had betrayed his country politically to be depicted as betraying his priesthood religiously by making such an abhorrent suggestion. LESHEM125 further suggests that Josephus is the priest called Joseph the pious whom the Mishnah (Mikva'oth 10.1) and the Tosefta (Shabbath 13.13) cite as a well-known scribe; but, we may comment, it is hard to believe that the rabbis would have been so favorably disposed toward one whose name was apparently anathema in the eyes of the Jewish masses. Moreover, the name Joseph was very common at that time among Jews; in the Talmud there are twenty-seven rabbis by that name. As to Josephus' own comments about himself, we may here note the distinction, made by Polybius (10.21) and Cicero (Ad Familiares 5.12), between the liberty with facts permitted in a biographical encomium and the strict adherence to truth required in a history. Josephus, as PAWEL126 has insightfully remarked, is the first modern Jew in the sense that he exposes himself for psychological analysis to his reading public, "often unwittingly, sometimes courageously, never with grace." RAPPAPORT127 actually puts Josephus on the couch, so to speak, describing him as a bundle of contradictions — the courageous coward, the patriotic traitor, and the stumbling Thucydides. ZEITLIN128 speculates that, in view of the fact that Josephus was related on both his parents' sides to the first of the twenty-four courses of priests and on his 122 123

124

125 126

127

128

HERZOG (above, note 118). BEN ZION DINUR: The Historiographical Fragments in Talmudic Literature and Their Investigation (in Hebrew). In: Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (1969). Vol. 2, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 1 3 7 - 1 4 6 . ERNEST WIESENBERG: Related Prohibitions: Swine Breeding and the Study of Greek. In: Hebrew Union College Annual 27, 1956, pp. 2 1 3 - 2 3 3 . LESHEM (above, note 121). ERNEST PAWEL: Rev.: GEOFFREY A. WILLIAMSON, The World of Josephus. In: Judaism 14, 1965, pp. 3 6 7 - 3 7 3 . URIEL RAPPAPORT: Josephus Flavius: Notes on His Personality and His Work (in Hebrew). In: Ha-Ummah 15, 1977, pp. 8 9 - 9 5 . SOLOMON ZEITLIN: A Survey of Jewish Historiography: From the Biblical Books to the

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

781

mother's side to the royal Hasmoneans, Josephus hoped to become not only high priest but also king of Judaea. B u t , we may remark, if Josephus had really harbored such ambitions, it seems likely that he would have alluded to them in his works, and he does not do so. Moreover, his opponents, who were constantly trying to discredit him, would probably have mentioned such excessive ambitions if he had had them. T h e detail in Josephus' autobiography (8) that when he was only fourteen years old the chief priests and leaders of Jerusalem constantly came to him with questions about the laws seems to be a commonplace, paralleled, as RADERMACHER129 and HERRMANN130 have stated, by Luke 2.46—47, who makes a similar remark about the twelve-year-old Jesus. Similarly, Josephus' statement (Life 10—12) that at the age of sixteen he resolved to gain experience in the three sects so as to select the best is a common motif, which is found in the instances of Nicolaus of Damascus, Apollonius of Tyana, Justin, and Galen. There is a problem in the text of Josephus, inasmuch as Josephus says that he became a disciple of a hermit named Bannus for three years. When he completed this period, he was nineteen; and this leaves no time for his experience with the three sects. SHUTT, 131 p. 2, n. 3, resolves this by emending JKXQ' airtcp (with him, i . e . Bannus) to n a o ' axixoig (with them, i . e . with the three sects and Bannus) (Life 12). W e may object, however, that such an emendation is not really necessary, since Josephus had, in all probability, lived as a Pharisee or as a Sadducee before this period; and inasmuch as these two groups knew each other's views well, Josephus would need only a few months to practice them systematically. H e would thus have spent most of the three years with the Essenes, with whom he was probably unacquainted previously and with whom Bannus bore a distinct relationship. The name Bannus, as ADAM 132 has suggested, comes from the Aramaic form of a Greek word PaXaveijg, meaning " b a t h - m a n , " and probably alludes to the fact that he engaged in frequent ablutions. BURCHARD133 objects to the idea that a J e w would have a Greek nickname, but we may respond that the word had apparently already entered the Hebrew vocabulary as balan (Mishnah, Shevi'ith 8.5, etc.) and hence was probably not regarded as a Greek word. HERRMANN134 emends Bannoun to Ioannoun and suggests that the reference is to J o h n the son of J o h n , who was the author of 'Revelation' and 'Hebrews'; but, we

129

130

131 132

133

134

Sefer Ha-Kabbalah with Special Emphasis on Josephus. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 59, 1 9 6 8 - 6 9 , pp. 1 7 1 - 2 1 4 ; 60, 1 9 6 9 - 7 0 , pp. 3 7 - 6 8 , 3 7 5 - 4 0 6 . LUDWIG RADERMACHER: Christus unter den Schriftgelehrten. In: Rheinisches Museum 73, 1 9 2 0 - 2 4 , pp. 2 3 2 - 2 3 9 . LÉON HERRMANN: Bannoun ou Iouannoun. Félix ou Festus? (Flavius Josephe, Vie, 11 et 13). In: Revue des Études Juives 135, 1976, pp. 1 5 1 - 1 5 5 . ROBERTJ. H. SHUTT: Studies in Josephus. London 1961. ALFRED ADAM: Antike Berichte über die Essener (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, 182). Berlin 1961. CHRISTOPH BURCHARD: Rev.: ALFRED ADAM: Antike Berichte über die Essener. In: Revue de Qumran 5, 1 9 6 4 - 6 6 , p. 133. HERRMANN (above, note 130).

782

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

may remark, there is no evidence that would identify John the son of John with the author of these books of the N e w Testament. Why did Josephus prefer to join the Pharisees rather than the Sadducees, with whom someone such as he, being an aristocrat, a conservative, and a priest, should have had more in common? We may conjecture that Josephus, with his ambition, coldly calculated that he could make further progress in the ranks of the Pharisees, since they were so much more influential, as Josephus (Ant. 18.15) remarks, among the masses than were the Sadducees. The next event of which Josephus tells us occurred in 64, when he went to Rome (Life 13) to secure the release of some priestly friends. EDERSHEIM135 has attempted to link this with the liberation of Paul, who had been shipwrecked a few years earlier when he had set sail for trial to Rome; but, we may remark, whereas there are attempts in early Christian literature to link Philo with Peter (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.17.1) and with John (Ps.-Prochorus, Acta Iohannis 110—112 [ed. ZAHN]), there is no attempt to link Josephus with Paul or any other Christian figure, though one might have suspected that their opponents, who were extremely numerous and bitter in both instances, would have tried to couple them. Josephus was successful in his mission, thanks to the help of a Jewish actor at court named Aliturus and of Nero's mistress Poppaea Sabina, a 'sympathizer' with Judaism. In addition, Josephus received some gifts; and we may wonder why the Emperor should have given Josephus gifts when it was Josephus who sought a favor from him. The only answer that makes sense is that Josephus promised to try to defuse the revolution that was starting in Judaea. The mention of the gifts would be self-incriminating, and we may guess that Josephus had to admit receiving them because the matter was so well-known. Josephus has two accounts of his appointment as general in Galilee. In the War 2.562—568, composed probably between 75 and 79, the revolutionaries, after their defeat of the Roman governor Cestius Gallus, brought over, whether by persuasion or by force, those pro-Roman Jews who had still not joined their forces and appointed generals, including a number of priests, to conduct the war. Among these generals was Josephus, who was put in charge of Galilee. In the 'Life' (17), which is more detailed and was composed after 93, he is said to have tried to suppress the revolutionary movement; but, having failed, he pretended to agree with the revolutionaries, while actually hoping that Cestius Gallus would overcome the uprising. We may, in the first place, ask why Josephus, who had no previous military experience, was chosen as commander in Galilee, the most important theater of the war, since the Romans would presumably march through it first in their descent from their headquarters in Syria, the seat of the governor. LAQUEUR 136 answers that he was chosen because of his success in freeing the priests in Rome; but, we may note, there was an interval of two years between these missions. KAMINKA,137 remarking that Suetonius refers to Josephus as a 135 136

137

EDERSHEIM (above, note 116). RICHARD LAQUEUR: Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Gießen 1920. AHARON KAMINKA: Critical Writings (in Hebrew). N e w York 1944.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

783

captive but not as a general, concludes that Josephus was not a general at all; but, we may reply, Suetonius does not specify whether Josephus was or was not a general, and, in view of Justus of Tiberias' sharp attack upon him, we may doubt that he would have misrepresented himself. Moreover, it is hard to believe that there would have been such sharp resentment against Josephus unless he had held a position of great importance. In addition, despite the detail of the 'Life', he nowhere finds it necessary to refute a charge that he had exaggerated his importance in the early stages of the war. ABERBACH 138 points out, moreover, that there is no indication that the other generals appointed by the council in Jerusalem had any more military experience than Josephus and that the chief goal of the council, apparently, was to establish their authority through the appointment of trusted administrators. LOFTUS 139 conjectures that Josephus was chosen because the Galileans had been brought into the Jewish state by the Hasmoneans and, being thus pro-Hasmonean, could be expected to be easily influenced by Josephus, who was of Hasmonean stock. We may, however, reply that Josephus apparently encountered much opposition in Galilee, notably from John of Gischala. As to whether we should put greater credence in the account in the 'War' or in that in the 'Life', GELZER 1 4 0 and ZEITLIN 141 prefer the 'Life', contending that in the 'War' Josephus was giving the official version of the council in Jerusalem, whereas in the 'Life' he was under no pressure and hence felt free to give the facts. KAMINKA 142 likewise prefers the 'Life', arguing that since Josephus was now famous and honored he could afford to tell the truth; but, we may reply, J o s e p h u s , at the end of his life, had felt more enmity than ever before and thus had to be more wary than ever. Moreover, KAMINKA contends that since no one could have done much militarily, Josephus was sent as a priest rather than as a general; but we may reply that at the time that Josephus was appointed, the military prospects, in view of the rout of Cestius Gallus, looked promising indeed. BAER 1 4 3 theorizes that in the 'Life' Josephus used his original memoranda and that in the 'War' he distorted his notes, but there is no evidence in the works themselves to support this view. HALEVY 144 contends that in the ' W a r ' J o s e p h u s is boastful so as to increase his value in the eyes of Vespasian and Titus, whereas

138

MOSES ABERBACH: T h e R o m a n - J e w i s h W a r ( 6 6 - 7 0 A . D . ) : Its O r i g i n and

139

London 1966. FRANCIS LOFTUS: The Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the Galileans. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 68, 1977-78, pp. 7 8 - 9 8 .

Consequences.

140

MATTHIAS G E L Z E R : D i e V i t a d e s J o s e p h o s . I n : H e r m e s 8 0 , 1 9 5 2 , p p . 6 7 — 9 0 , r e p r . in IDEM:

Kleine Schriften. Vol. ILL, Wiesbaden 1964, pp. 2 9 9 - 3 2 5 . ZEITLIN (above, note 128). 1 4 2 KAMINKA (above, note 37), pp. 66—75. 143 YITZHAK BAER: Jerusalem in the Times of the Great Revolt: Based on the Source Criticism of Josephus and Talmudic-Midrashic Legends of the Temple's Destruction (in Hebrew). In: Zion 36, 1971, pp. 127-190. 141

144

Y I T Z H A K ISAAC H A L E V Y ( R A B I N O W I T Z ) : G e n e r a t i o n s o f O l d ( i n H e b r e w ) . V o l . 4 , P a r t 1,

ed. MOSHE AUERBACH: The Last Period of the Second Temple: the Period of the Roman Procurators and the War. Benei Beraq 1965, pp. 9 3 - 9 6 . 52

ANRWII21.2

784

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

when the latter were no longer alive, he no longer felt a need to exaggerate. BRUCE145 similarly explains the discrepancy by his hypothesis that the depiction of Josephus as a zealous general in the 'War' exaggerated the magnanimity of Vespasian and Titus, whereas his strongly pro-Roman position in the 'Life' was intended to counteract Domitian's anti-Semitism. RAJAK146 contends that the inconsistencies have been exaggerated, that the 'War' is a formal, more condensed account, and that the 'Life' represents a supplement intended to refute the arguments of Josephus' opponent Justus of Tiberias. We may suggest that the two versions represent two stages in Josephus' activities, and that when he saw that pacification did not work he adopted a more aggressive policy. How reliable is Josephus as a historian of the events in which he himself was involved? Josephus (Life 361), who apparently was constantly challenged as to his accuracy, says that Vespasian and Titus had borne witness to his precision; but KAMINKA147 says that this would be true only for events which they knew firsthand. Moreover, one may guess that Vespasian and Titus probably did not find the time to read Josephus' lengthy work with any care and wrote an exaggerated recommendation, just as is so often the case today in prefaces written by famous people to the works of lesser individuals. To be sure, Josephus also cites Agrippa as having read his work with approval; but Josephus himself (Life 365) admits that Agrippa wrote him saying that he would supplement his account by informing him "of much that is not generally known," thus clearly implying that Josephus' account had some lacunae. It is, of course, possible that Josephus accomplished great military achievements in Galilee against tremendous odds, but it is also possible that Josephus wrote his account with standard Greek military textbooks before him, since, as BENTWICH 148 and K A M I N K A 1 4 9 have shown, the description of his tactics and of his devices corresponds closely to what we find in these textbooks. There has been a fierce debate with regard to the circumstances of Josephus' surrender to the Romans at Jotapata. Clearly Josephus' army was no match for the Romans. But why did he not undertake guerrilla warfare against the Romans, just as the Maccabees had done so successfully against the Syrian Greeks two centuries earlier, or why did not retreat to Jerusalem, which was certainly much better fortified than Jotapata? Perhaps, we may suggest, his aim was to hold off the Romans as long as possible in order to give the defenders of Jerusalem extra time to prepare their supplies of food and ammunition. And yet, Josephus seems to give himself away when he declares (Life 72) that he refused to give grain to John of Gischala since he intended to keep it either for the Romans or for his own use. Moreover, he violated his pledge (War 3.381), given to his men at Jotapata, 145

146 147

FREDERICK F. BRUCE: New Testament History. London 1969; New York 1971, pp. 360 ff. TESSA RAJAK: Justus of Tiberias. In: Classical Quarterly 23, 1973, pp. 345—368. KAMINKA (above, note 137).

148

N O R M A N BENTWICH: J o s e p h u s , P h i l a d e l p h i a 1 9 1 4 .

149

KAMINKA (above, note 137).

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

785

never to pass over to the ranks of the enemy. Finally, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that Josephus cunningly arranged the lots (as indeed the Slavonic version of War 3.391 specifically declares), so as to be one of the last two of his men who survived the suicide pact. As in the case of a recent American president, it is his own words that are the chief evidence against Josephus. Hence, says BRANDON,150 since Josephus could scarcely have given a more pejorative account of his action, we must believe him. But, in reply, we may state that Josephus could hardly have given a more favorable account, since his enemies would have been quick to detect any doctoring of the facts. ABERBACH151 correctly notes that the Jewish revolutionary coalition government in Jerusalem did not look upon Josephus' action as treason, that this government was merely stalling for time, that if it had been sincere in prosecuting the war it would have sought alliances with other rebellious tribes throughout the Roman Empire, as well as with the Jews of the Diaspora. Hence Josephus was not a traitor to his government. Indeed, we may well ask why this government appointed Josephus, an utterly inexperienced general, as commander in the first place. Moreover, Josephus apparently regarded the provisional extremist government, popular though it may have been, as illegitimate. In addition, Josephus may have had truly patriotic motives in seeking an end of the rebellion, since he may have regarded it as fatal to Jewish missionary activities, which were well on their way to converting the Roman Empire to a Jewish or semi-Jewish state. He may have honestly felt, as did many of the rabbis, such as Johanan ben Zakkai and the latter's famous pupil Joshua ben Hananiah, that the Jews were actually worse off under Jewish than under Roman rule and that the best safeguard for the right of Jews to practice their religion was to have a pax Romana. We may note, however, with STERN152 that despite Josephus' conviction that the Romans were divinely destined to rule the world, Josephus does not identify with the common view, which appears occasionally even in the Talmudic corpus, that the Roman rule was good for the subjects of the Empire. Nor, for that matter, does Josephus identify with the ideals of Roman civilization. Several writers, such as COHON, 153 have contended, in Josephus' behalf, that we should judge him by the standards of his age, rather than by those of our own;

150

151

152

153

52»

SAMUEL G. F . BRANDON: The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A . D . 70 on Christianity. London 1951; 2nd ed. 1957. IDEM: Josephus: Renegade or Patriot? In: History Today 8, 1958, pp. 830—836. Rpt. in his: Religion in Ancient History: Studies in Ideas, Men, and Events. New York 1969, pp. 2 9 8 - 3 0 9 . MOSES ABERBACH: Josephus - Patriot or Traitor? In: Jewish Heritage 10, Fall 1967, pp. 13-19. MENAHEM STERN: Josephus and the Roman Empire. Abstract in: A Symposium: Josephus Flavius — Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Haifa, March 2 5 - 2 6 , 1981. The Center for the Study of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv of Yad Izhak Ben Zvi and University of Haifa, 1981, p. 8. BERYL D. COHON: Josephus: Traitor? Patriot? In his: Men at the Crossroads. South Brunswick, New Jersey 1970, pp. 151 — 172.

786

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

and WASSERSTEIN154 has argued that ancient conceptions of loyalty were different, as seen in the cases of Themistocles and Alcibiades. Yet, we may reply, Themistocles and Alcibiades were clearly regarded as exceptional and were certainly condemned. Some scholars, such as KLAUSNER15S attempt to justify Josephus' action by arguing that he felt the need to survive in order to record the events of the war for posterity; but one may wonder whether this justifies his personal survival at the expense of the Jewish nation. O n e very special problem that has drawn much attention is the coincidence that both Josephus (War 3.400—402) and Johanan ben Zakkai (Talmud, Gittin 56a—b) predicted Vespasian's accession to the throne. BAER 1 5 6 theorizes that the Talmud has merely transferred to Johanan what Josephus had told of himself, combined with material concerning flight from a besieged city taken from books of strategy. He even contends that the Talmud's account of Johanan's escape shows the influence of Sulpicius Severus and of Orosius, who, in turn, depended upon Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. BAER'S thesis is hardly tenable, however, in view of the fact that there are several versions of the incident in the Talmudic writings, and that they all differ significantly from the accounts in Sulpicius, Orosius, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. It seems, moreover, very unlikely that the rabbis would have borrowed from Christian writers such as Sulpicius and Orosius, since they avoided literary contact with Christians. SCHALIT157 however, argues that there is a factual basis in both accounts, though Josephus is more credible. The fact that Josephus' prophecy is found in the 'War', which was presented to Vespasian and Titus for approval, vouches for its historicity, as SCHALIT has stressed. SALDARINI,158 apparently unaware of SCHALIT'S work, comes to a similar conclusion, arguing that the close parallel between the accounts of Josephus and the Talmud indicates that this sort of story circulated after the war. The fact that an account very similar to that of Josephus, though with important variants, is found in Suetonius (Vespasian 5.6) and Dio Cassius (66.1) strengthens the credibility of Josephus' version. SHOCHAT159 postulates a common source for the two accounts; indeed, Josephus (War 6.312), Suetonius (Vespasian 4), and Tacitus (Histories 5.13) all declare that someone from Judaea would become ruler of the world at that time. Presumably this reflects the

154

ABRAHAM WASSERSTEIN, ed.: Flavius Josephus: Selections from His Works. N e w Y o r k 1974.

155

JOSEPH KLAUSNER: History of the Second Temple (in Hebrew). 5 vols. Jerusalem 1949; 5th ed. 1968. BAER (above, note 143). ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Flavius Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch. Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie. In: HILDEGARD TEMPORINI and WOLFGANG HAASE, edd.: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ( = A N R W ) . Vol. II. 2, Berlin, N e w Y o r k 1975, pp. 2 0 7 - 3 2 7 .

156 157

158

159

ANTHONY J. SALDARINI: Johanan ben Zakkai's Escape from Jerusalem: Origin and Development of a Rabbinic Story. In: Journal for the Study of Judaism 6, 1975, pp. 189— 204. AZRIEL SHOCHAT: O n the "Ambiguous O r a c l e " in the Words of Josephus (in Hebrew). In: MICHAEL HÄNDEL, ed.: Sefer Yosef Shiloh. Tel-Aviv 1960, pp. 1 6 3 - 1 6 5 .

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

787

prophecy of Daniel; but instead of applying it to the Jews, Josephus and Johanan applied it to the Roman Vespasian, just as Cyrus in Isaiah 45.1 is called Messiah ("anointed"). As to the comparison between Josephus and Johanan ben Zakkai, both of whom went to Vespasian to proclaim him emperor, we must note that Johanan neither sought nor received any personal reward, whereas Josephus received such rewards as a tract of land outside Jerusalem, some sacred books, the liberation of some friends, Roman citizenship, lodging in the former palace of Vespasian, and a pension. Moreover, Johanan did not aid Vespasian during the siege, whereas Josephus did so, constantly urging the Jews to surrender.

IX. Justus of Tiberias

We know from Josephus (War 1.1—2) that there were a number of historians of the War, but we know of the author of only one of them by name — Justus of Tiberias —, and not a single fragment of his work was deemed worthy of preservation by Christian copyists, presumably because it lacked any reference to Jesus, though, as RAJAK 160 has remarked, if the 'Testimonium' in Josephus' 'Antiquities' was interpolated, a similar passage could have been added in Justus. T o say that there was no appropriate place in Justus' account for such an insertion is to ignore the fact that for a Christian the war and the destruction of the Temple were the direct consequences of the Jewish rejection of Jesus; and, indeed, an interpolation about Jesus is to be found in the Slavonic version of Josephus' 'War'. LAQUEUR161 speculates that Justus had attacked Josephus' style and that Josephus had defended himself by writing the 'Life'. If so, asks COHEN, 162 why did the 'Life' not revise the 'War', just as the account in the last books of the 'Antiquities' had revised the 'War'? We may reply that in the 'War' Josephus had already had assistance in writing Greek, and so it is stylistically superior to the 'Antiquities'; hence a revision would not have improved its style. DREXLER 163 and SCHALIT164 note that the invective exchanged by Josephus and Justus is typological; and consequently most scholars have been skeptical of the charges against

160

RAJAK (above, note 146). N o w cf. also A. BARZANÖ: Giusto di Tiberiade. In: WOLFGANG HAASE, ed.: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt ( = A N R W ) Vol. II. 20, Berlin, New York 1985.

161

LAQUEUR (above, note 136). SHAYE J. D. COHEN: Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Diss., P h . D . , Columbia University, New York 1975. Published: Leiden 1979, pp. 1 6 - 2 3 . HANS DREXLER: Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des jüdischen Aufstandes 6 6 - 7 0 . In: Klio 19, 1925, pp. 2 7 7 - 3 1 2 . ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Josephus und Justus. Studien zur Vita des Josephus. In: Klio 26, 1933, p p . 6 7 - 9 5 .

162

163

164

788

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

Josephus. SCHALIT165 theorizes, though without evidence, that the source of their dispute was that Justus wanted to have his friend Agrippa continue to rule in Tiberias, while Josephus aimed to consolidate his own influence over Galilee. RAJAK166 plausibly explains the rivalry as that between two realists, each of whom was playing a double game. We may well ask w h y Justus (Life 3 5 9 — 3 6 0 ) waited for twenty years before issuing his work. JACOBY167 answers that, since Justus was imperial secretary to Agrippa (Life 356), he lacked time to do so until after Agrippa's death. But, w e may reply, to be secretary at the court of a very minor puppet king could not have been very demanding; and, in any case, Nicolaus of Damascus, who had a similar position at the court of the far more important Herod, found time to write. More likely, as RAJAK168 hypothesizes, Justus felt himself unable to attack Josephus during Agrippa's lifetime, inasmuch as the latter had already given his seal of approval to Josephus' account of the war (Life 365). COHEN169 explains Justus' delay by suggesting that after the war many other cities had become rulers of considerable territories while Tiberias did not; hence Justus came to the defense of his native city. We may, however, reply that though this would indicate the usefulness of Justus' work it still does not explain how Justus could have foreseen this. The most recent study of Justus, that by DAN, 170 stresses the ironic fact that he and Josephus were remarkably similar in their general outlook, including their historiographical ideals.

X. Josephus as Historian: His Treatment of the Biblical

Period

In a famous passage (Ant. 1.17) Josephus pontificates that he will set forth the precise details of what is written in the Scriptures, neither adding nor omitting anything, his work having been translated from the Hebrew records. Anyone who takes the trouble, however, to read even a small portion of Josephus' narrative will immediately see how false Josephus has been to his pledge. H o w could he have made such a promise, knowing full well that among his readers, so many of whom were critical of his career and of his account of the War, some might well choose to check up on him, especially since the Septuagint, which Diaspora and even rabbinic Jews regarded as divinely inspired, was widely avail165

166 167

168 169 170

ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Justus of Tiberias. In: Encyclopaedia Judaica 10, Jerusalem 1971, pp. 479-480. RAJAK (above, note 146). FELIX J A C O B Y : J u s t u s

(9).

I n : A U G U S T PAULY a n d

GEORG WISSOWA,

edd.:

Realency-

clopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 10, Stuttgart 1919, pp. 1341 — 1346. RAJAK (above, note 146). COHEN (above, note 162), pp. 1 3 7 - 1 4 1 . YARON DAN: Josephus Flavius and Justus of Tiberias. Abstract in: A Symposium: Josephus Flavius — Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, Haifa, March 25— 26, 1981. The Center for the Study of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv of Yad Izhak Ben Zvi and University of Haifa, 1981, p. 16.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

789

able? O n e explanation, as given b y AVENARIUS, 171 ATTRIDGE, 1 7 2 and C O H E N , 1 7 3

is to say that the phrase "neither adding nor omitting anything" is simply a standard and meaningless formula, found, for example, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Thucydides 5 and 8) and in Lucian (Quomodo Historia Conscribenda Sit 47). VAN UNNIK 174 argues that when the formula is used by ancient historians it means merely that the information has been recorded truthfully without favor or prejudice; it does not forestall the possibility of the historian's editing or explaining his data. COHEN 175 adds that it was, in fact, common for writers, such as Berossus, Philo Byblus, Ctesias, and Hecataeus of Abdera, whether Hellenized Orientals or Greeks, to assert that their accounts were translations of sacred texts. The formula itself which Josephus uses, we may note, has been taken from Deuteronomy (4.2 and 12.32) and is paralleled in the Talmud (Shabbath 116b, which quotes from a nameless book, presumably a Gospel, containing a passage, akin to Matthew 5.17, that declares that " I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to add to the Law of Moses"), though Josephus was clearly aware of the curse mentioned in the 'Letter of Aristeas' (308 — 311) against anyone who added to, modified, or omitted from the sacred text. Another solution, suggested by HÖLSCHER176 is that Josephus' version is a paraphrase not of the Bible but of a Hellenistic midrash, somewhat similar perhaps to Philo's treatises or to JACOB BEN ISAAC ASHKENAZI'S seventeenthcentury Ze'enah Ure'enah'. Yet we have no evidence that such a Hellenistic midrash existed or that Josephus used it if it did exist. M y own suggestion 1 7 7 is that Josephus included in "Scriptures" ( a v a YQacpaig) not only the written Bible but Jewish tradition generally. Indeed, the word avaYQCXCpfj in Josephus usually means "register," " r e c o r d , " " d e c r e e , " or " r e p o r t , " with no necessary reference to the Holy Scriptures. This implies that some of the Midrashic tradition had been written down by Josephus' time; and while it is true that the earliest rabbinic midrashim were not recorded until after the time of Josephus, we have midrashim embodied in Hellenistic Jewish writers, such as Artapanus, Eupolemus, Ezekiel the tragedian, and Philo, which clearly antedate Josephus; and since 1947 we have found midrashim in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the 'Genesis Apocryphon', dating from between the mid-first

171 172

173 174 175 176

177

GERT AVENARIUS: Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim/Glan 1956. HAROLD W . ATTRIDGE: The Presentation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. Diss., P h . D . , Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1975. Published as: The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Harvard Theological Review, Harvard Dissertations in Religion, 7). Missoula, Montana 1976. COHEN (above, note 162), pp. 2 7 - 2 9 . WILLEM C . VAN UNNIK: Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg 1978. COHEN (above, note 162), p. 27. GUSTAV HÖLSCHER: Josephus. In: AUGUST PAULY and GEORG WISSOWA, edd.: Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9 . 2 , Stuttgart 1916, pp. 1934—2000. LOUIS H . FELDMAN: Hellenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's Decline. In: Studies in the History of Religions, 14 (Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough [ed. JACOB NEUSNER]). Leiden 1968, pp. 3 3 6 - 3 5 3 .

790

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

century B . C . E . and the first century C . E . We should now add Pseudo-Philo's 'Biblical Antiquities', a work contemporary with Josephus' 'Antiquities', whose relation to Josephus I 1 7 8 have discussed. In any case, there is rabbinic precedent (Megillah 25a—b) at least for o m i t t i n g the translation of certain Biblical passages because of the embarrassment involved (though the list there given does not completely coincide with Josephus'). We may even go further, as does BLOCH, 179 in noting that midrashic elements are to be found in the Bible itself. We may here comment that when Deuteronomy prohibits adding or subtracting, it speaks of adding to or subtracting from the mitzvoth, whereas Josephus' changes are in the realm of aggadic material. The rabbis (Megillah 25 a—b) specify that there are certain passages that may be indeed omitted from translation because of the embarrassment involved. The very fact that the rabbis (Megillah 9a—b) approved of a number of changes made by the seventy-two elders in the Septuagint and even regarded these as divinely inspired shows that they interpreted the Biblical verse as not applicable to midrashic-like details. COHEN, 180 in objecting to my interpretation, cites Against Apion 1.42, which declares that no one has for long ages ventured to add to or remove or alter anything in them. We may note, however, that in Against Apion 1.42, he declares that no one dares to utter a single word against the laws (vôfiouç) and the allied documents (xàç |iexà TOVTOÛV àvaygaqpàç), thus indicating a distinction between v6[xoi and avaygacpai, which includes more than the written laws. There have been several attempts to list and discuss Josephus' divergences from the Biblical narrative. GINZBERG181 is not absolutely systematic, though he is useful for noting the comparison with rabbinic materials, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Pseudo-Philo's 'Biblical Antiquities', and Church Fathers. HELLER, 1 8 2 analyzing Josephus' versions of the Biblical tales, notes that Josephus has been influenced by his background as a priest and as a Hellenist, as well as by his aim to be an aggadist and apologist. H e admits, however, that some of the charges may be due to individual pecularities of Josephus himself. RAPPAPORT183 attempts to be exhaustive, but he is far from complete and suffers from the attempt to force parallels with rabbinic midrashim where they are sometimes far-fetched. H e fails to realize that many of Josephus' changes may be due to a conscious appeal to his audience of Greek-speaking Jews and non-Jews. SOBEL 184 seeks to list all of Josephus' changes from the first five books of the 178

179

L o u i s H . FELDMAN: P r o l e g o m e n o n , I n : MONTAGUE R . JAMES, T h e Biblical A n t i q u i t i e s of

Philo. N e w York 1971, pp. xxviii—xxxi. RENÉE BLOCH: Midrash. In: Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément 5, Paris 1957, pp. 1263-1281.

180 181 182

183 184

COHEN (above, note 162), pp. 24—25. L o u i s GINZBERG: Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia 1909—38. BERNHARD HELLER: Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 24, 1933-34, pp. 175-184. SALOMO RAPPAPORT: Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. Wien 1930. RONALD B. SOBEL: Josephus' Conception of History in Relationship to the Pentateuch as a Source of Historical Data. Unpublished M.A. rabbinical thesis, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati 1962 (microfilm).

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

791

REVISITED

Bible, but his reliance upon T H A C K E R A Y ' S translation to the exclusion of the Greek, makes his work less useful; and, in any case, his list is very incomplete, and he makes little attempt at explaining the modifications. A systematic examination of Josephus' exposition of Scripture is valuable not merely because it sheds light on Josephus' technique of historiography, since this is the portion of the work where we can compare him at length with his sources, but also since we find in him a great deal of Biblical exegesis which was written earlier than any rabbinic midrashim. In evaluating Josephus as an aggadist, we should take note of W R I G H T ' S 1 8 5 contention that Josephus' literary form is not midrash but rather that of a history. To be sure, if we define midrash as a work which explains the Biblical text verse by verse, Josephus' work does not qualify; but if, as we may suggest, midrash is defined more broadly, as an attempt to expand on or otherwise modify the Biblical narrative in an attempt to make it relevant to one's readers, Josephus' work most certainly does meet this standard. ATTRIDGE, 186 in his examination of the first half of the 'Antiquities', concludes that Josephus has deliberately followed Greek historiographical models, notably Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in producing an apologetic and propagandistic type of history, but that he has added the themes of the reality of G-d's retributive providence and of the moral relevance of the Jewish past. Thus J o sephus emerges as the pioneer in using Jewish materials to present a consistent and profoundly religious and Jewish interpretation of history. In reply, however, we must stress first, that theology was of no particular concern to the Talmudic rabbis, in whose midst Josephus was raised; and secondly, that Josephus himself (Ant. 1.25) says that he is postponing a profound philosophical work that will explain the reasons for Jewish beliefs, and that that work, therefore, is not the 'Antiquities'. COHEN 187 accounts for the arrangement of the material in Josephus' Biblical paraphrase by noting that he follows the 'thematic' school of Hellenistic historical tradition, according to which, as AVENARIUS188 has remarked, data are brought together on the basis of subject matter, without regard to chronology or source. He similarly follows the Greek historical tradition in changing the language and style of his source very considerably. Did Josephus consult the Bible in Greek or in Hebrew? Apparently, the matter is not simple. There can be no doubt that he used the Greek for the historical books, but the evidence that he used a Greek text for the Hexateuch is slight. SCHALIT'S189 conviction that he did use a Greek Bible is based upon Greek spelling of the proper names, but this is not conclusive, since these spellings may

185

ADDISON G . WRIGHT: The Literary Genre Midrash. In: Catholic Biblical Q u a r t e r l y 28, 1966, pp.

105-138, 417-457.

R p t . as m o n o g r a p h : N e w Y o r k

1967.

186 ATTRIDGE (above, note 172). 1 8 7 COHEN (above, note 162), pp. 40—42. 188 AVENARIUS (above, note 171), pp. 1 1 9 - 1 2 7 . 1 8 9 ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Evidence of an Aramaic Source in J o s e p h u s ' "Antiquities of the J e w s . " In: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4, 1965, pp. 163 — 188.

792

LOUIS H. FELDMAN

reflect Hellenization of Hebrew proper names or systematic corrections made on the basis of the Septuagint. SHUTT190 declares that Josephus used both a Hebrew and a Greek text for Genesis, and that while preferring the Greek, he is sometimes independent of both. He does not, however, take into consideration the fact that Josephus' Septuagint may have differed from all of our over two thousand manuscripts, and that, in any case, the Biblical texts found at Qumran indicate that the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text even in sectarian circles were not as great as we had previously supposed. A desideratum remains a systematic comparison of the spelling of proper names in Josephus with the spelling in the various manuscripts of the Latin translation, with that in PseudoPhilo's 'Biblical Antiquities', and with that in the Targumin. Moreover, the fact that the 'Letter of Aristeas' (30) appears to refer to corrupt Hebrew manuscripts of the Pentateuch may be a clue to the possibility that the Biblical text in Hebrew available to Josephus was different from ours. A number of writers, notably SCHALIT,191 have postulated that Josephus used an Aramaic Targum. A priori this is not unlikely, since Aramaic was Josephus' mother tongue. One specific instance, as noted by COHEN,192 to support such a theory is Josephus' spelling of Reuben as Rubel, which is the form in the Syriac Peshitta (which is very close to Aramaic): such a coincidence cannot be due to the fact that Josephus spoke Aramaic, inasmuch as, if this were so, we would expect many such examples. It may be that Josephus' Septuagint was based on an Aramaic Targum, inasmuch as Philo (De Vita Mosis 2.38) states that the Greek of the Septuagint is a literal version of the Chaldean (which normally refers to Aramaic). Indeed, as long ago as the sixteenth century, the Italian rabbi Azariah DEI ROSSI193 had tried to explain the divergences of the Septuagint from the Masoretic text on the assumption that it had been made from an Aramaic Targum. Josephus, to be sure, in his long narrative describing how the Septuagint translation was made, nowhere hints that it was made from an Aramaic text. What we can, however, safely presume is that Josephus, having heard the customary translation of the Pentateuch each week at Sabbath services, may have incorporated such translations, at least occasionally, into his paraphrase. H o w consistent is Josephus in the degree to which he takes liberties with the Biblical narrative? For Genesis, at any rate, FRANXMAN194 has shown that there is no consistent pattern: in ten segments he noticeably expands the Biblical account, 190

191 192

ROBERT J. H. SHUTT: Biblical Names and Their Meanings in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books I and II, 1 - 2 0 0 . In: Journal for the Study of Judaism 2, 1971, pp. 1 6 7 - 1 8 2 . SCHALIT (above, note 33). Vol. 1, Jerusalem 1944, pp. xxvii—xxxv. NAOMI G. COHEN: Jewish Names and Their Significance in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods in Asia Minor (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Diss., Ph.D., Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1969.

193

AZARIAH DEI R O S S I : M e ' o r ' E i n a y i m . M a n t u a 1 5 7 3 — 7 5 .

194

THOMAS W. FRANXMAN: The Literary and Exegetical Treatment of Genesis in the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus in the Light of Pseudepigrapha, Targumim, and Midrashic Sources. Diss., Oxford 1975. Published as: Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus (Biblica et Orientalia, 35). Rome 1979.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

793

in twelve he compresses or omits Biblical matter, and in twelve he strikes a more or less even balance between his version and the original. For the first three chapters of Genesis, according to DITTMANN,195 Josephus shows himself as an historian rather than as a theologian or a philosopher in his view of G—d and man. An interesting thesis, propounded by FRUCHTEL,196 is that Josephus, in his account of creation, used the method of exegesis practiced by Alexandrian exegetes in their interpretations of Homer and of Plato. Just as the Septuagint's changes from the Hebrew text are often intended to obviate problems inherent in the text, so Josephus in his version often intends to remove such difficulties. For example, we may note that, at the very beginning (Ant. 1.27), Josephus uses the verb EKTLOEV, "founded," rather than the Septuagint's ejroir)oev, " m a d e , " since the former more clearly implies creatio ex nihilo, whereas the latter implies creatio ex aliquo. Again, in translating Genesis 1.2, Josephus (Ant. 1.27) tries to avoid the anthropomorphism inherent in the word merahepeth, which connotes not only hovering but also brooding, with the image that the world-egg, reminiscent of the Orphic theogony, was hatched, as it were, from fluid chaos. Josephus avoids this grotesque image by indicating that the breath sped rapidly over the surface of the earth. Likewise, fearing that his readers would regard as mythical the great sea-monsters (the Leviathan and its mate, according to rabbinic tradition) mentioned in the Hebrew account of creation (Gen. 1.21), a view that would certainly be held by the Epicureans in his audience, Josephus says merely (Ant. 1.32) that G—d created "the creatures that swim." Again, there is a problem inherent in the use of the plural " L e t us make man in our image" (Gen. 1.26); and the classical Christian commentators, indeed, found in tfie use of the plural an allusion to the Trinity. Here (Ant. 1.32) Josephus avoids the problem by stating merely that " o n that day also He formed m a n . " Moreover, the phrase "in our image" has anthropomorphic connotations, and Rashi and other commentators explain it to mean "with discernment and understanding." Josephus wisely avoids the difficulty by omitting the phrase completely and by stating simply that G—d formed man. Another problem confronting Josephus was that of the so-called two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. Josephus solved this by stating (Ant. 1.34) that in the second chapter of Genesis Moses is merely giving the details of G—d's formation of man. Often Josephus seeks to present his narrative in terms familiar to his Greek audience. Thus, in rewording the Biblical account of the creation of the waters (Gen. 1.9), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) asserts that G—d poured (avaxeag) the sea around the earth, thereby approximating the formulation in Ovid (Metamorphoses 1.36—37), who states that "whoever of the gods it was who created the world" bade the waters to "surround the shores of the encircled earth" ( a m b i t a e circumdare litora terrae). O r again, the fact that Josephus uses the word 6r)j J iiou0Y e i when he speaks of G—d's creation of the four-footed creatures, whereas the Bible (Gen. 195

196

WILHELM DITTMANN: Die Auslegung der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1 - 3 ) im Neuen Testament. Gottingen 1953, pp. 38—48 (microfilm). URSULA FRUCHTEL: Die Kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Genesisexegese. Leiden 1965, pp. 9 8 - 1 0 0 .

794

LOUIS H.

FELDMAN

1.24) says, " L e t the earth bring forth the living creatures after their k i n d , " would immediately remind a reader of Plato's familiar picture of the STinioupyog, the artificer who creates the visible world in Plato's 'Timaeus'. Again, Josephus explains (Ant. 1.34) that in chapter 2 of Genesis Moses begins to interpret nature (qjuoioXoyetv), just as he had declared in his proem (Ant. 1.18) that much of his w o r k is devoted to natural philosophy (cp 1 1 0 1 0 X 0 7 1 0 ) . These terms (cpuaioXoyia and qruoio^oYEiv) are familiar from Aristotle ( D e Sensu 442 b 5 and Metaphysics 9 8 8 b 2 7 ) and from Epicurus (Epistulae 1, p. 4 [ed. USENER]; 2 , p. 35 [ed. USENER]). W e may also note that in Josephus it is G - d , and not Adam as in the Bible, who gives names to the animals. This may well be due to his effort to avoid the criticism of the Epicureans (cf. Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus 75—76; and Lucretius 5.1041 ff.), who attacked the hypothesis that names were at first deliberately given to things and who contended that each man, according to his feeling and impression, assigned names to objects, whereas it was only at a later stage that names were by common consent deliberately assigned to things. In his picture of the original bliss of mankind (Ant. 1.46), which is without parallel in the Bible, as I 1 9 7 have noted, Josephus follows a tradition found in Greek authors from Hesiod on. T h e fact that somewhat later Josephus mentions Hesiod's report that the ancients lived for a thousand years may be a clue to the fact that he had Hesiod's passage in mind while describing the primitive age of bliss. Again, the conception of food springing up spontaneously, which is mentioned several times in Josephus' description of the Golden Age (Ant. 1.46, 1.49, 1.54), also appears in H o m e r ' s description of the Cyclopes (Odyssey 9.109). Similarly, Josephus' picture of primitive man as being unmolested ( a j t a S f j ) by any evil reminds one of the Stoic ideal of outdSeia. Finally, Josephus (Ant. 1.60—62) elaborates considerably on Cain's wickedness after the murder of Abel; and his language is highly redolent of Greek and R o m a n descriptions ( e . g . , H o r a c e , Odes 3.6.46—48) of the decline of man from primitive simplicity. J o sephus' extra-Biblical additions of Cain's introduction of boundaries of land and of building and fortifying a city have close classical parallels ( e . g . , Caesar, Gallic W a r 6 . 2 2 , on the Germans; and Virgil, Eclogues, 4.32—33). Josephus may well have had in mind the story of Romulus (in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and elsewhere), who killed his brother Remus because of an argument over the city wall of R o m e . While it is true that some of Josephus' Hellenizations have parallels in rabbinic midrashim, the parallels with classical sources, particularly those w h o m Josephus cites by name elsewhere, are generally closer in idea and in language. Moreover, the portrait of N o a h as a preacher, which is introduced by Josephus (Ant. 1.74), is that of a C y n i c preaching " d i a t r i b e s . " Again, his account of the flood has a number of touches reminiscent of the Greek myth of Deucalion. T h u s , the extra-Biblical statement (Ant. 1.75) of G—d's resolve to replace the existing race of mankind with another race pure of vice has its parallel in Ovid (Metamorphoses 1.250—252), who similarly notes Zeus' promise to replace the wicked race of men with another race of wondrous origin not like the earlier one, 197

FELDMAN (above, note 177).

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

795

REVISITED

as well as in Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound 248—249 [232—233]), who likewise notes that Zeus, before he had been thwarted by Prometheus' philanthropy, had intended to blot out the human race and to create a new one. Again, Josephus (Ant. 1.76) says that Noah alone was saved, G—d having put into his mind (iuro0£fxevou) the idea of making an ark. This is closely paralleled by Apollodorus (1.7.2), who states that Deucalion built the ark on the advice (i>jto0£n£vou) of Prometheus. There is also a curious similarity between Lucian's version of how Deucalion was saved (De Syria Dea 12) and Josephus' account (Ant. 1.76 — 77) of how Noah managed to survive. Lucian says that Deucalion's salvation (oarniQW]) came when he built a chest (XaQvam) into which he put his children and their wives ( j t a i S a g XE icai yuvaiKaq EAIRARU). Josephus says that G—d put into Noah's mind the means of salvation (ocoxrjQiav): he constructed a chest ("kagvaKa) on which he embarked with his children, the mother of his children, and their wives (oi)v xrj |XR]TQL tcbv jtaiSarv Kai xaig TOTJTWV yuvai^iv). The word for " a r k " used by Josephus, XotQva^, as T H A C K E R A Y , 1 9 8 has noted, is the word used by Apollodorus and Lucian of Deucalion's ark, rather than the word KiPcoxog, used in the Septuagint (Gen. 6 . 1 4 f f . ) and in Philo (De Plantatione 43). Again, whereas the Bible says nothing of the descent of Noah's sons from the mountains to the plains, Josephus (Ant. 1.109) says that Noah's sons were the first to descend from the mountains to the plains (Eig xa JiEdia) and that they, in turn, persuaded the others, who were afraid to descend (Kaxapaoiv) from the heights (aito xtbv iityr]Xu>v). Plato has remarkably similar language (Laws 3.677 B 1—3) when he speaks of the fear of the survivors of the flood which prevented their descending ( m x a p a i v e i v ) from the heights (EK . . . xd)V vaj^cbv) into the plains (£15 x a jtESia). As to Josephus' chronology for the antediluvian period, LINTON199 concludes that Josephus is following a tradition totally different from the rabbinic 'Seder Olam Rabbah'. For the period before the Flood Josephus is similar to the Septuagint; for a view of the differences in tabular form see my table. 2 0 0 WACHOLDER201 asserts that Josephus used the Septuagint for the chronology of the antediluvian period and the Hebrew for the postdiluvian period. For the Noahides, Josephus' figures correspond with the Septuagint in four cases, with the Hebrew in one instance, and with both the Septuagint and the Hebrew once. The fact that for the antediluvian period Pseudo-Philo, a contemporary of Josephus in Palestine, agrees with the Hebrew twice, with the Septuagint (and Josephus) three times, with both twice, and with neither three times would

198

HENRY ST. JOHN THACKERAY, ed. and trans.: Josephus, Vol. 4 : Jewish Antiquities, Books

199

OLOF LINTON: Synopsis Historiae Universalis; o m en middelalderig skoletraditions forud-

1 - 4 ( L o e b Classical Library). L o n d o n 1930. A d A n t .

1.77.

saetninger: bibelsk-jodisk, graesk-hellenistik og oldkirkelig tradition (Festskrift udgivet af Kobenhavns Universitet i anledning af Universitetets Arsfeit N o v e m b e r 1957). hagen 1957, pp.

Copen-

1-144.

200

FELDMAN (above, note 178), pp. lxxxiii and lxxxvii.

201

BEN ZION WACHOLDER: Biblical C h r o n o l o g y in the Hellenistic W o r l d Chronicles. H a r v a r d Theological Review 6 1 , 1968, pp. 4 5 1 - 4 8 1 .

In:

796

LOUIS H.

FELDMAN

indicate that there were a number of traditions with regard to chronology, and that Josephus' source remains to be recovered. SANDMEL202 has contended that Josephus' account of Abraham lacks any striking, unified, and coherent conception, and that it is hardly more than a pedestrian recapitulation of the Bible, with a faint Hellenistic color, but without insight and assessment. I 2 0 3 have argued that Josephus' portrait is coherent, that it is that of a typical national hero such as was popular in Hellenistic times, with emphasis on his role as the ideal statesman, possessing skill in persuasion, the power of logical deduction, and scientific knowledge. In contrast with rabbinic and other portrayals of him, he is presented as distinctly original in his sophisticated inversion (Ant. 1.156) of the teleological argument for the existence of G—d (though it is in the form of the proofs promulgated by the Greek philosophical schools and though it is clear from the context that he is combatting the Stoics), in his broad-mindedness, including a willingness to be converted if defeated in argument, and in his unselfishness in sharing his scientific knowledge with Egyptian philosophers and scientists. In counter-attacking against the Apions and other intellectual anti-Semites who had accused the Jews of having produced no inventors or sages (Against Apion 2.135), Josephus proudly contends that it is the Greeks who are relative newcomers to civilization, "dating, so to speak, from yesterday or the day before" (Against Apion 1.7), whereas it is Abraham who is the teacher of the Egyptians and of the Chaldaeans, to whom, in turn, the Greek philosophers and scientists had turned for their inspiration. But this is not all. Inasmuch as the Jews had been reproached with cowardice by such anti-Semites as Apollonius Molon (ap. Against Apion 2.148), Josephus stresses the picture of Abraham as an invader (eroiXug) who had come from Chaldaea with a conquering army. In a series of additions to the Biblical narrative, we are told (Ant. 1.177) that Abraham determined to help the Sodomites without delay, that he set out in haste to fall upon the Assyrians in an attack which caught the enemy by surprise before they had time to arm. Then we are given the vivid details, missing from the Bible, of his slaughter of the enemy: some he slew while they were still asleep, while he put to flight others who were not yet asleep but who were incapacitated by drunkenness. The rabbis, we may note, are utterly divergent from this picture, for they speak (Sanhedrin 96a) of an angel named Night attacking the enemy, and stress the miraculous side of the whole episode, thus detracting from the picture of Abraham the general. Josephus' stress on Abraham the general is also found in a remarkable addition to the Biblical narrative (Ant. 1.239), where we are informed that Abraham's military tradition was continued by his grandson by Keturah, Eophren, who conquered Libya, and that his grandsons who settled there named the land Africa after him. Josephus then (Ant. 1.240—241) cites the non-Jewish writer Alexander Polyhistor, who reports, quoting a certain Cleodemus, that two of Abraham's sons by Keturah joined Heracles in his campaign against Libya and against Antaeus, the giant son of Earth, and that Heracles 202

203

SAMUEL SANDMEL: Philo's Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Cincinnati 1956, pp. 59—76. FELDMAN (above, note 177).

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

797

actually married the daughter of one of them. Such a portrait was undoubtedly useful in the efforts, which were extraordinarily successful during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, in winning converts to Judaism. Similarly, in his version of Abraham's readiness to sacrifice his son Isaac, Josephus emphasizes how deeply Abraham loved his son and thus heightens the pathos of the narrative. The very fact that Josephus (Ant. 1.222), in stating that Isaac was born "on the threshold of old age" (EJTI Y ^ I ? 0 3 ? oiiöö)), uses the same phrase which Homer employs when Priam, "on the threshold of old age" (em Yfjgaog O I J Ö Ü J ) , pleads with his son Hector not to go out to battle against Achilles, increases the pathos for his Greek readers, since there is hardly a character in all Greek literature more to be pitied than Priam. It is interesting that though there is hardly any episode in the Bible with more far-reading theological connotations than this, the Akedah, the 'binding' of Isaac, Josephus assiduously avoids such reflections. Thus, Josephus omits several theological ideas, greatly stressed in rabbinic sources: first, the notion that in this episode G—d tested both Abraham and Isaac; secondly, that it demonstrates the value of martyrdom; and third, that the Akedah served as an atonement both for Isaac's descendants and, indeed, for all mankind. Quite clearly, as D A L Y 2 0 4 has noted, Josephus felt uneasy in recounting the incident to his pagan readers, as can be seen from the fact that he has G—d Himself apologize for having ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son. What Josephus does do is to appeal to his Stoic audience by having Abraham adopt traditional Stoic language in stating that one should submit to G—d's will, "since all that befell His favored ones was ordained by His providence" (jtQÖvoia, a key Stoic term). Moreover, Josephus, in disagreeing with the Targumic idea that Isaac was actually sacrificed and with that of Philo, who regarded it as if he had been sacrificed, is, we may add, apparently seeking to contrast the Akedah with the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which was actually carried out. By having Isaac rush to the sacrifice with joy, Josephus, as D A V I E S and C H I L T O N 2 0 5 remark, avoids the horror that such an event would have evoked for his pagan readers. Josephus' paraphrase of the story of Joseph, notably the incident with Potiphar's wife, which has been studied in detail by B R A U N 2 0 6 and by S P R Ö D O W S K Y , 2 0 7 introduces striking erotic-novelistic motifs which are strongly reminiscent of the similar story of Hippolytus and Phaedra in Euripides and of similar motifs in the later Greek novels. D A U B E 2 0 8 has, moreover, done well in reminding us of the degree to which Josephus has seen himself as a Joseph advising the Roman court. 204

205

206

207

208

R O B E R T J. D A L Y : The Soteriological Significance of the Sacrifice of Isaac. In: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29, 1977, pp. 4 5 - 7 5 . P. R. DAVIES and B. D. CHILTON: The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History. In: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, 1978, pp. 514-546. M A R T I N B R A U N : Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurt 1934. HANS SPRÖDOWSKY: Die Hellenisierung der Geschichte von Joseph in Aegypten bei Flavius Josephus (Greifswalder Beiträge zur Literatur- und Stilforschung, 18). Diss., Greifswald 1937. DAVID DAUBE: Typology in Josephus. In: Journal of Jewish Studies 31, 1980, pp. 18-36.

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N

798

Josephus' account of Moses, notably the introduction of the extra-Biblical episode, so reminiscent of similar accounts in Hellenistic novels, of Moses' campaign in Ethiopia and his marriage to the Ethiopian princess, is the outstanding example in Josephus' version of the Bible of his coloring of the narrative in order to appeal to his Hellenized readers. The erotic motif here, as in Josephus' reworking of the Joseph narrative, is in line with similar motifs found in Homer, in Herodotus' account of Cancaules' wife and Gyges, and in Xenophon's 'Cyropaedia'. Whether Josephus drew his material from a lost Alexandrian Jewish written work, prior to Artapanus, who has several of the details, as RAJAK 209 has postulated, or upon oral sources, since elements of it reappear in Targumim, the significant point is that Josephus chose to incorporate such elements and to give them such prominence. Most likely, moreover, to judge from Josephus' treatment of other Biblical episodes, he introduced a number of original details of his own in order to make the narrative more interesting for his Greek readers. In short, Moses, in Josephus' portrait, emerges, as TIEDE210 has noted, as the model of the virtues of the ideal Hellenistic and Roman sage. Moreover, Josephus in his version, as SILVER211 has remarked, answers anti-Semitic attacks that Moses was a traitor to the Egyptians by emphasizing Moses' patriotism. MOSCOVITZ 2 1 2 has shown how Josephus has sought to present the Midianites in a more favorable light to his non-Jewish readers by presenting the conflict between Midian and Israel in political and military terms rather than as an instance of anti-Semitism. Similarly, Balaam's own actions are motivated not by anti-Semitism but by friendship toward his employer, Balak. Again, Josephus omits the account of Balaam's death in battle together with the Midianite kings, which would have made Balaam appear very anti-Semitic. He thus turns out to be not a conspirator against the Israelites but a professional prophet. The description of Balaam as one who is no longer his own master (OXJK civ EV eauxo)) (Ant. 4 . 1 1 8 ) conveys the Greek idea of ecstasy, as D A U B E 2 1 3 declares, though in this pericope it is the rhetoric which would appeal chiefly to his Greek rulers. Not all the features in Josephus' paraphrase are derived from any particular source. Indeed, VAN UNNIK,214 in his comment on Josephus' version of the story of

209

TESSA RAJAK: Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature. In: Journal of Jewish Studies 29,

210

DAVID L. TIEDE: The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. Diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1970. Published: (Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series, 1), Missoula, Montana 1972, pp. 2 0 7 - 2 4 0 . DANIEL J. SILVER: Moses and the Hungry Birds. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 64, 1973 — 74, pp. 1 2 3 - 1 5 3 . LARKY MOSCOVITZ: Josephus' Treatment of the Biblical Balaam Episode. Diss., M . A . , Yeshiva University, New York 1979. DAVID DAUBE: Ecstasy in a Statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah (in Hebrew). In: Niv ha-Midrashiah 10, 1972, p. 61. WILLEM C. VAN UNNIK: Josephus' Account of the Story of Israel's Sin with Alien Women in the Country of Midian (Num. 2 5 . I f f . ) . In: M. S. H. G. HEERMA VAN Voss, ed.: Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A . Beek (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 16). Assen 1974, pp. 241—261.

1978, pp.

211

212

213

214

111-122.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

799

Israel's sins with the Midianite women, notes a number of features that are apparently original with Josephus. In his paraphrase of Joshua and Judges, as DOWNING215 notes, Josephus has removed descriptions, undue repetition, interruptions, miraculous and magical accounts, inappropriate theology, and the apologetically awkward. Thus he omits the homosexual demand found in Judges 19.22, as well as the discreditable story of Micah and the Danite cult. Toward the same end Josephus seeks to improve the harmony, continuity, and clarity of the narrative, to simplify it, and to appeal to his Stoic readers by stressing the providence (JIQÓVOICX) of G—d (Ant. 5.91, 107, 277, and 312). With an eye toward avoiding the agrarian troubles which confronted the early Romans, Josephus (Ant. 5.76—79) divides the land by valuation, rather than arbitrarily by area. He again intensifies the erotic and tragic element in his treatment of the story of the Levite's mistress (Judges 19—21). In particular, Josephus seems to have placed his personal imprint upon the Samson narrative, as I have noted in an as yet unpublished article. Indeed, the very characteristics which distinguish Josephus' account from the rabbinic exposition — increased erotic, heroic, and dramatic interest, and decreased magical and divine interest — are typically Josephan, rather than a stage in the historical development of the midrashic tradition. Josephus increases the stature of Samson in presenting him as a kind of Jewish Achilles, well-born, possessed of high spirit, with even more emphasis on his strength, violence, and tempestuous nature. The motif of Samson's suffering and death is developed in a way reminiscent of the handling of this theme in connection with Hector and Achilles in Homer. Again, in typical fashion, Josephus develops the motifs of jealousy and suspicion in the story of Manoah and his wife, as well as the erotic aspects, particularly of the Timnah and Delilah episodes, but with omission of elements which he apparently regarded as grotesque and degrading to Samson. It is, moreover, Josephus' tendency, though not to the degree found in Pseudo-Philo's 'Biblical Antiquities', with which his midrashic exposition shares much, to be even more precise than the Bible in giving the names of people and places. In general, the rabbinic midrashim are concerned with wordplay, with the divine and the miraculous, and with deflating the heroic stature of Samson. Josephus' Samson has the qualities traditionally ascribed to prophets, and the picture which emerges is a positive glorification. Josephus' treatment of Ruth would seem, at first sight, to exemplify neither the Hellenization (one would have expected, for example, heightened eroticism in the scene of the meeting of Ruth and Boaz at the threshing-floor) noted above, nor the theologizing emphasized by A T T R I D G E . 2 1 6 B E R N S T E I N , 2 1 7 in an as yet unpublished article, explains this by noting that Josephus has chosen to minimize the digression into the fortunes of one obscure family; we may add that Josephus 215

216 217

53

F . GERALD DOWNING: Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels (I). In: Journal for the Study of the New Testament 8, 1980, pp. 46—65. ATTRIDGE (above, note 172). MOSHE J . BERNSTEIN: Josephus as a Biblical Exegete: The Ruth Narrative. Yeshiva University, New York, unpublished, 1980. ANRW II 21.2

800

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

de-emphasized the tale because he is retelling the Bible primarily as a historian; and the story itself is of little importance for the history of the Israelites. In contrast with the fact that for the Pentateuch Josephus employed a text close to our Hebrew Masoretic text, with little dependence upon the Septuagint, for the historical books of Samuel through I Maccabees, Josephus used a Greek text, though, of course, it is possible that he continued to employ a Hebrew text, namely one that differs greatly from the Masoretic version. The Greek text, as MEZ 218 had already concluded, is close to the so-called Lucianic text. Since Josephus lived more than two centuries before Lucian, we may refer to this as the pro to-Lucianic text, one which is also attested, though with some differences, by Josephus' contemporary, the Pseudo-Philonic author of 'Biblical Antiquities'. BROCK,219 pp. 207—221, has contested this, arguing that of the thirty examples which MEZ has cited in support of his view, only nine are valid. He explains those places where Josephus agrees with Lucian against the Septuagint as due to his attempt to make better sense. BARTHÉLEMY,220 in a revolutionary work, has argued that the manuscripts boc2e2, which had previously been identified as Lucianic, are actually the old Septuagint in a relatively pure form. This would explain the 'divergences' of Josephus, Pseudo-Philo, and the Dead Sea fragments as not divergences but rather as being the Septuagint. CROSS, 221 commenting on a fragmentary text of Samuel dating from the first century B . C . E . and found at Qumran near the Dead Sea, notes a number of proto-Lucianic readings which disagree with both the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. He concludes that no later than the first century B. C. E., the Septuagint of Samuel and Kings was revised so as to bring it into accord with the Hebrew text found at Qumran. U L R I C H 2 2 2 argues that Josephus used only a Greek text for this portion of the Bible, but it seems hard to believe that he would have stopped consulting the Hebrew text so suddenly, especially since he must have heard in the synagogue portions from the historical and prophetical books in the form of haftaroth, the reading of which

218

ADAM MEZ: Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V—VII der Archäologie. Basel

219

SEBASTIAN P. BROCK: The Recensions of the Septuagint Version of I Samuel. Diss., D.Phil., Oxford 1966, pp. 207-221. DOMINIQUE BARTHÉLÉMY: Les Devanciers d'Aquila: première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le Désert de Juda, précédée d'une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l'influence du rabbinat Palestinien (Supplements to Vêtus Testamentum, 10). Leiden 1963. FRANK M. CROSS: The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judean Desert. In: Harvard Theological Review 57, 1964, pp. 281—299. IDEM: The Contribution of the Qumrân Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text. In: Israel Exploration Journal 16, 1966, pp. 81—95. IDEM: The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts. In: ROBERT A. KRAFT, ed.: 1972 Proceedings of the International Organization for Septuagint und Cognate Studies: Pseudepigrapha (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 2: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), Missoula 1972, pp. 108-126. EUGENE C. ULRICH: The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. Diss., Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1975. Published: Missoula 1978.

1895.

220

221

222

FLAVIUS J O S E P H U S REVISITED

801

dates from at least the first century. HOWARD223 argues that Josephus relies upon two types of the Greek Bible — those of the boc2e2 and the kaige recension, which is the basis of Aquila's version. But, we may counter, we may explain Josephus' text by assuming that it was close to the present Masoretic text, while his Greek text was of the boc2e2 type. I 2 2 4 have noted the fact that Josephus, who completed his 'Antiquities' in 93 C . E . (Ant. 20. 267), has a Biblical text differing from our Hebrew text and often agreeing with Pseudo-Philo. This shows that the text of the Bible was still debated at the end of the first century. This is confirmed by the fact that the Talmud, the Targumin, and the Midrashim continue to show latitude in their quotations from the Bible for centuries thereafter. T h e figure of Saul in the Bible is that of a courageous and modest leader, whose virtues are, however, marred by a strong streak of suspicion and madness. In later interpretations of his character, we see extreme trends, notably that of the Talmudic rabbis, who sought to exaggerate his virtues, and that of Pseudo-Philo, who depicts him as a wicked cowardly Ephraimite nobody and vagabond whom G—d had employed as His rod with which to smite the Jews before the advent of David the Messiah. In the case of Saul, Josephus was faced with the problem of trying to reconcile praise of one hero with an even greater praise of his mortal foe, David; and his picture consequently occupies a mean position between that of the Rabbis and that of Pseudo-Philo. Moreover, the Rabbis underscore the supernatural aspect of his heroism, whereas Josephus, in accordance with his usual wont, eliminates this. Like Achilles, who deliberately chooses a short and glorious life in preference to a long life devoid of glory, and like Hector in the 'Iliad' and Turnus in the 'Aeneid', who enter their final battles knowing that they must die, Saul (Ant. 6.345, 349) prefers to obtain praise and an ageless renown and thus to win a reputation as truly just, brave, and self-controlled, three of the four cardinal virtues of the Greeks — this in contrast with the picture in rabbinic literature (Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 23) and Pseudo-Philo (64.8), where Saul's death is depicted as a repentance for his sins in not obeying G—d's injunction to wipe out the Amalekites. Again, in speaking of Saul's madness, Josephus rationalizes, omitting, as does Thucydides in his general approach to history, the role of G—d in causing mental illness and presenting instead a clinical description of Saul's malady. I 2 2 5 have noted that Josephus, in his paraphrase of Solomon, presents certain apologetic motifs such as are found elsewhere in the 'Antiquities' and especially in 'Against Apion'. In particular, the praise of Solomon by the non-Jewish King Hiram of Tyre and the Queen of Sheba is heightened. Josephus is particularly concerned to answer the anti-Semitic charge that the Jews harbor hatred for the human race. Josephus, who elsewhere also seems to have been attracted to the style of Sophocles, even seems to have added a touch of Oedipus to Solomon, 223 224 225

53"

GEORGE HOWARD: Kaige Readings in Josephus. In: Textus 8, 1973, pp. 4 5 - 5 4 . FELDMAN (above, note 178), p. clxiv. Louis H. FELDMAN: Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon. In: ELISABETH S. FIORENZA, ed.: Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity. Notre Dame 1976, pp. 69—98.

802

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

when he states, for example, alluding to Oedipus' success in solving the riddle of the Sphinx, that when all others had failed to give a judgment but were mentally blinded as by a riddle, Solomon alone was able to devise a plan to determine the true mother of the child in the famous case that came before Solomon for adjudication. Again, in describing Solomon's wisdom, which he magnifies, Josephus avoids emphasizing the magical element, which is so prominent in the Midrash. Finally, there are a number of Stoic touches in the narrative, particularly in Solomon's dedicatory prayer for the Temple. Josephus' Solomon, as VAN DER MEULEN 226 has most recently noted, is the typical righteous ruler who in the end changed into a tyrannos under the pernicious influence of his foreign wives. There is an interesting divergence, as noted by THIELE, 2 2 7 pp. 204—227, between the figures given by Josephus for the length of the reigns of the kings of Judah and those found in both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Josephus' figures fit a pattern and are not the result of scribal errors, but they are no improvement over those in the Hebrew text. In his revised edition, THIELE admits that the figures in Josephus may have come from a different Hebrew text which the seventy translators had before them. As to the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B . C . E . , WISEMAN228 has edited an important new chronicle which strikingly confirms, though with some differences, the account of Berossus, as cited by Josephus (Against Apion 1.135 and Ant. 10.219ff.), of the Battle of Carchemish. There is general agreement that for the period of Ezra and Nehemiah, Josephus' version is garbled or, in any case, very different from either our Hebrew texts or the Greek text known as I or III Esdras (he deviates to an especially high degree from Nehemiah 7.5 — 13.31). RUDOLPH 229 cites this fact as evidence supporting HOLSCHER'S 230 theory that Josephus employed neither a Hebrew nor a Greek Biblical text but rather a Hellenistic paraphrase as his source for the Biblical period. HAMPEL 231 conjectures that he employed both an unknown Jewish source, as well as an anti-Samaritan document. ARARAT232 concludes that both the Hebrew and Greek Ezra, as well as Josephus' version, are based on a

226

227

228

229

H A R R Y E . F A B E R VAN DER M E U L E N : D a s S a l o m o - B i l d i m h e l l e n i s t i s c h - j ü d i s c h e n

Schrift-

tum. Diss., Kampen 1978. EDWIN R. THIELE: The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago 1951; rev. ed. Grand Rapids 1966. DONALD J. WISEMAN: Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626—556 B . C . ) in the British Museum. London 1956. WILHELM RUDOLPH: Esra und Nehemia: samt 3. Esra. In: OTTO EISSFELDT, ed.: Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Vol. 20, Tübingen 1949; 2nd ed. 1952-58.

230

HÖLSCHER (above, note 176), p p .

231

IDO HAMPEL: The Historiography of Josephus Flavius for the Period 'Shivat Zion' — The Return of Zion (in Hebrew). Diss., M . A . , Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 1969. NISAN ARARAT: Ezra and His Deeds in the Sources (in Hebrew). Diss., Yeshiva University, N e w York 1971. Published in part as: Ezra and His Deeds in the Biblical and PostBiblical Sources (in Hebrew). In: Beth Mikra 17, 1971-72, pp. 4 5 1 - 4 9 2 ; 18, 1972-73, pp. 8 5 - 1 0 1 , 130-132.

232

1955-1960.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

803

source which he denominates the 'Comprehensive Chronicle'. MOWINCKEL233 conjectures that Josephus employed the account of Ezra before it had been combined with that of Nehemiah and possibly in an embellished version similar to the Greek Ezra. We may suggest, more simply, that the difference between Josephus and the Greek text of Esdras may be accounted for by assuming that Josephus had a different Greek text from that of our present-day III Esdras. TULAND 234 notes that Josephus, following, we may remark, principles which he employs in other portions of his Biblical narrative, has rearranged his material as a continuous historical narrative, whereas both the Hebrew and Greek Ezra are arranged according to subject matter. H e cites several errors in J o s e p h u s ' account deriving from a confusion in the names of the Persian kings. Just as he does in his paraphrase of the T e t t e r of Aristeas', he modifies the language and style. POHLMANN235 notes other changes due to Hellenizations and apologetics. We may note, however, that the Elephantine papyri confirm Josephus' chronology with regard to Artaxerxes IPs general Bagoas. Using form-critical analysis, WILLIAMSON236 has argued that Josephus drew upon an independent source, imposing his own interpretation upon that source. H e concludes that it is likely that the account of Joannes the high priest's murder of his brother Jesus (Ant. 11. 298 — 301) was not fabricated, but that, rather, it was preserved in some priestly or Temple chronicle, and that Josephus' dates are reliable. A s to Josephus' account of Samaritan affairs during this period, Josephus has apparently, as SMITH 237 has indicated, projected the hostility which J e w s of his own day felt against the Samaritans but which apparently did not become crystallized until John Hyrcanus' violent destruction of the Samaritan temple. Moreover, as CROSS 2 3 8 has noted, papyri now confirm that Josephus confused the first and third Sanballats, who were governors of Samaria. T o explain the numerous deviations in Josephus' account of Esther from that of the Hebrew text, TORREY 239 suggests that Josephus used only the Aramaic version in a Greek translation; but there is no evidence to support his thesis. 233

234

235

236

237

238

Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, 1 (Die Nehemia-Denkschrift) (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, N e w Series, 3). Oslo 1964, pp. 2 5 - 2 8 . C. G. TULAND: Josephus, Antiquities, Book X I : Correction or Confirmation of Biblical Post-Exilic Records? In: Andrews University Seminary Studies (Berrien Springs, Michigan) 4, 1966, pp. 176-192. K A R L - F R I E D R I C H P O H L M A N N : Studien zum dritten Esra. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. Diss., Marburg 1968—69. Reprinted in: (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 104). Göttingen 1970, chap. III: Das Zeugnis des Josephus, pp. 74—126. H . G. M. W I L L I A M S O N : The Historical Value of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities XI. 2 9 7 301. In: Journal of Theological Studies 28, 1977, pp. 4 9 - 6 6 . M O R T O N S M I T H : Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York 1971. FRANK M. CROSS: The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri. In: Biblical Archaeologist 26, SIGMUND MOWINCKEL:

1963, pp. 239

110-121.

CHARLES C . TORREY:

1944, pp. 1 - 4 0 .

The Older Book of Esther. In: Harvard Theological Review 37,

804

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

BICKERMAN,240 though with inconclusive evidence, has postulated that Josephus used a now-lost version of the Greek Esther, which was popular among the Jews in Rome, where he wrote the 'Antiquities'. I 2 4 1 have noted a number of extra-Biblical details in Josephus' treatment of Esther which are reminiscent of Hellenistic novels, notably concern with the building up of the stature of the hero and of the heroine, with the beauty of women, with elaboration of descriptions of the palace and of royal banquets, with the building up of suspense and of irony, and with the reversal of fortunes. In particular, Josephus portrays Haman as one who deserved his fate because, like a classical Greek figure, he did not know how to use his prosperity. Many touches in Josephus' narrative may be explained as attempts to combat anti-Semitic propaganda. Thus, since the Jews were accused of hatred of mankind, Josephus significantly, though he generally follows the apocryphal addition C to Esther, omits the abhorrence of foreigners there expressed by Esther, as well as her attack on idol-worship of non-Jews. Again, while the Midrash pictures Ahasuerus as an ineffective king, Josephus, in the interest of promoting better relations with nonJews, depicts him (Ant. 11.248) as a serious, statesmanlike ruler. DAUBE 242 makes the interesting point that Josephus probably saw the scene of Esther before Ahasuerus as a forerunner of his own experience before Vespasian. This is in line with his tendency, also noted by DAUBE, 243 to assume, on the one hand, the traits of his Biblical figures (this is especially true of Joseph, Jeremiah, and Daniel) and, on the other hand, to bestow his own qualities upon them.

XI. Josephus' Treatment of the Post-Biblical Period until the Jewish War

PFISTER244 concludes that the accounts of both Josephus and the Talmud on Alexander and the Jews are based on a common late Hellenistic-Jewish source. MARTIN 245 notes that Josephus' account (Ant. 11.329-339) of the meeting of Alexander with the high priest in Jerusalem is closely paralleled by the account in 240

241

242

243 244

245

ELIAS J . BICKERMAN: Notes on the Greek Book of Esther. In: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 20, 1951, pp. 101 — 133. L o u i s H . FELDMAN: Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther. In: Transactions of the American Philological Association 101, 1970, pp. 143 — 170. DAVID DAUBE: 'I believe' in Jewish Antiquities xi.237. In: Journal of Jewish Studies 27, 1976, pp. 142-146. DAVID DAUBE: Typology in Josephus. In: Journal of Jewish Studies 31, 1980, pp. 18—36. FRIEDRICH PFISTER: Alexander der Große in den Offenbarungen der Griechen, Juden, Mohammedaner und Christen (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft, 3). Berlin 1956. Reprinted in his: Kleine Schriften zum Alexanderroman (Beiträge zur Klass. Philologie, 61). Meisenheim 1976, pp. 301—347. H . R. MARTIN: Alexander and the High Priest. In: Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 23, 1969-70, pp. 102-114.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

805

the Second Chronicle of the Samaritans of the meeting of Alexander with the Samaritan high priest. He concludes that it is unlikely that Alexander visited either; but we may comment that the fact that the stories are so similar is a strong indication that they contain a common kernel of truth. KASHER246 defends the authenticity of the account of Alexander, noting that there is evidence in local traditions that the conquest of Syria and of Palestine was carried out by a wellplanned military scheme. In his extensive summary of the 'Letter of Aristeas' (Ant. 12.12—118), Josephus, as PELLETIER247 has shown, clearly intends to paraphrase, changing, whenever possible, if only by inversion. In only one instance, according to PELLETIER, are there as many as twelve words that are kept as in the original; in another there are ten. Josephus' chief activity was apparently to 'Atticize' the text of Aristeas. Moreover, he shows a strong preference for Stoic terminology in his choice of vocabulary. In general, as HADAS248 has indicated, Josephus' goal is to make the account inoffensive to non-Jews. The purpose of this long excursus by Josephus is, as PELLETIER demonstrates, to provide a precedent for an appeal by the Jews to the Flavians to allow them to resume the practice of their ancestral religion. TCHERIKOVER 249 explains the brevity of Josephus' account for the interval between the end of the Biblical period and the Maccabean revolt by suggesting that Josephus' sources for this period were unusually few. We may, however, note two further possible reasons: 1) The Jews during this period achieved little of significance compared to what they had done previously and what they were to accomplish; and 2) Josephus, bearing in mind his aim of writing a work in twenty books, sought to highlight, for the post-Biblical period, the struggle between his own family, the Hasmoneans, and their rivals, the Herodians. A sharp debate has raged about the authenticity of the decrees cited in Josephus (Ant. 12.138—153) and dating from this period. BIKERMAN,250 through a careful study of the formulae of Josephus, defends the authenticity. Noting that they often contradict Josephus and are not integrated with the rest of the text, he argues that there would have had to be several Jewish forgers making these additions on separate leaves of papyrus. In his account of the Tobiads, the Jewish family that rose to commercial greatness in the third and second centuries B. C . E. and increasingly assimilated to the non-Jewish environment, Josephus appears to have added romantic elements 246

247

248

ARYEH KASHER: Some Suggestions and Comments Concerning Alexander Macedon's Campaign in Palestine (in Hebrew). In: Beth Mikra 20, 1975, pp. 1 8 7 - 2 0 8 . ANDRÉ PELLETIER: Flavius Josèphe, adaptateur de la Lettre d'Aristée. Une réaction atticisante contre la koiné (Études et Commentaires, 45). Paris 1962. MOSES HADAS, ed. and trans.: Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). New York 1951.

249

A V I G D O R TSCHERIKOWER ( V I C T O R TCHERIKOVER): T h e J e w s a n d t h e G r e e k s i n t h e H e l -

250

lenistic Age (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv 1930. Trans, into English by SHIMON APPLEBAUM: Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia 1959. ELIAS BIKERMAN (sic): Une question d'authenticité: Les privilèges juifs. In: Annuaire de l'Institute de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales de l'Université Libre de Bruxelles 13, 1953, pp. 1 1 - 3 4 (=Mélanges Isidore Lévy).

806

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N

reminiscent of his treatment of Biblical characters, though, as ROSTOVTZEFF251 has shown, the economic picture drawn by Josephus (Ant. 12.169) accords with that which emerges from the Zenon papyri. Despite MCCOWN 252 and LAPP, 253 however, Josephus' statement that Hyrcanus, the grandson of Tobiah, built the fortress at 'Araq-el-Emir in Transjordan, cannot be correct, since the Zenon papyri show that it goes back to at least the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Josephus' source, as STERN 254 has shown, was apparently not a Tobiad family chronicle but a pro-Ptolemaic work dating from the second or first century B . C . E . GOLDSTEIN255 has speculated that the author of the work was Onias IV, who established the temple at Leontopolis in the second century B. C . E . ; but, we may remark, it seems unlikely that Josephus, a priest who was so proud of his rank, would have used the work of a renegade priest as a major source, even with corrections. For the Maccabean uprising Josephus' main source is I Maccabees. As in the case of the Bible, as DRUNER 256 and MELAMED257 have perceived, Josephus employed both a Hebrew and a Greek text, particularly the latter, though a more likely explanation would seem to be that he used only the Greek, which he simplified and adapted. In addition to these, GOLDSTEIN258 has postulated that Josephus has carefully analyzed and modified the work of Jason of Cyrene, II Maccabees, the Testament of Moses, and the propagandistic history of Onias IV noted above, though, we may remark, to judge from Josephus' procedure elsewhere, it is hard to believe that he used so many sources at once. DANCY, 259 in desperation, expresses the wish that Josephus had been either more intelligent or more stupid; "if the former, his guesses might have been of value in interpreting the text of I Maccabees; if the latter, his version might have helped to establish it." Actually, Josephus, being a descendant of the Hasmoneans, undoubtedly had oral traditions; and, moreover, as a non-participant and as one who lived two centuries after the events, he was more objective than the author of I Maccabees.

251

252

253

254

MICHAEL ROSTOVTZEFF: Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford 1941, Vol. 1, p. 338. CHESTER C. MC COWN: The 'Araq el-Emir and the Tobiads. In: Biblical Archaeologist 20, 1957, pp. 6 3 - 7 6 . PAUL W. LAPP: The Second and Third Campaigns at 'Araq el-Emir. In: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 171, 1963, pp. 8—39. MENAHEM STERN: Notes on the Story of Joseph the Tobiad (Josephus, Antiquities XII, 154ff.) (in Hebrew). In: Tarbiz 32, 1962-63, pp. 3 5 - 4 7 .

255

JONATHAN A . GOLDSTEIN: T h e Tales of the T o b i a d s . I n : JACOB NEUSNER, e d . : Christian-

256

ity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Part 3: Judaism before 70 (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol. 12, Part 3). Leiden 1975, pp. 8 5 - 1 2 3 . HANS DRUNER: Untersuchungen iiber Josephus. Diss., Marburg 1896, pp. 35—50: Josephus und das I. Makkabaerbuch. EZRA MELAMED: Josephus and Maccabees I: A Comparison (in Hebrew). In: Erez-Israel 1, 1951, pp. 122-130.

257

258

JONATHAN GOLDSTEIN, e d . : I M a c c a b e e s . N e w Y o r k 1976, p p . 5 5 — 6 1 ,

259

JOHN C . DANCY: A Commentary on I Maccabees. Oxford 1954, pp. 29—31.

558—574.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

807

H e has given us additional information, noted by COHEN 2 6 0 and SIEVERS,261 such as geographical locations, topographical data, numbers of casualties, names of participants, and supplementary facts, such as the Samaritan appeal to Antiochus Epiphanes (Ant. 12.257—264). T h u s , for the battle of Bet-Zekharyah, as BARKOCHVA 262 has remarked, Josephus, drawing upon Nicolaus of Damascus and his own experience, has added a number of details which show his acquaintance with the battle area and with the nature of Hellenistic warfare. There is, moreover, tendentious revision in Josephus' increased admiration for Mattathias and for Judah. In addition, GAFNI 263 has noted that whereas in I Maccabees, the victory of the Maccabees is ascribed to G—d, in Josephus it is due to their piety. Josephus has also emphasized the ideal of martyrdom. In so doing, he was presumably differentiating the Maccabean wars from those fought by the revolutionaries of his own day. ABEL 2 6 4 explains the differences between Josephus' version of these events in the 'War' (1.31—69) and in the 'Antiquities' by noting that the latter is directed toward readers to whom the religious point of view was integral to the subject of the work. As to the fact that Josephus failed to use the last three chapters of I Maccabees, the simple explanation is that given by DANCY, 265 namely that they were missing from Josephus' copy. Another explanation is given by WIRGIN, 2 6 6 namely that Josephus did not wish to offend his friend Agrippa I I , since in these chapters the Hasmoneans obtain everlasting leadership of the Jewish nation. WIRGIN 267 adds still another explanation, namely that the praise of Simon the Hasmonean in these chapters would have eclipsed that of Josephus' favorites, Agrippa I and II. T h e most likely explanation, however, we may suggest, is that Josephus viewed Nicolaus of Damascus as a better source from that point on. A special interest attaches to Josephus' passages (Ant. 12.225—227 and 13. 164—170), based on I Maccabees 1 2 . 2 1 - 2 3 , referring to ties of kinship between the Spartans and the Jews. What little we k n o w about Spartan foreign policy during this period confirms, according to SCHÜLLER, 268 the authenticity of the correspondence between the Spartan king Areus and the high priest Onias I I I . T h o s e who question the authenticity of the correspondence argue, as does COHEN (above, note 162), pp. 44—47. JOSEPH SIEVERS: The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters from Mattathias to John H y r canus I. Diss., Ph. D . , Columbia University, New York 1981. 2 6 2 BEZALEL BAR-KOCHVA: The Battle of Bet-Zekharyah (in Hebrew). In: Zion 39, 1974, pp. 1 5 7 - 1 8 2 . 2 6 3 ISAIAH GAFNI: On the Use of I Maccabees by Josephus Flavius (in Hebrew). In: Zion 45, 1980, pp. 8 1 - 9 5 . 2 6 4 FELIX-MARIE ABEL: Les Livres des Maccabees. Paris 1949; 2nd ed. 1949. 3rd ed. by FELIXMARIE ABEL and JEAN STARCKY. Paris 1961. 2 6 5 DANCY (above, note 259). 266 \COLF WIRGIN: O n Charismatic Leadership from Simon Maccabaeus until Simon Bar Kochba (Leeds University Oriental Society Monograph Series, 5). Leeds 1964. 2 6 7 WOLF WIRGIN: Herod Agrippa I: King of the Jews (Leeds University Oriental Society Monograph Series, 10A). Leeds 1968. 2 6 8 S. SCHÜLLER: Some Problems Connected with the Supposed Common Ancestry of Jews and Spartans and Their Relations during the Last Three Centuries B . C . In: Journal of Semitic Studies 1, 1956, pp. 2 5 7 - 2 6 8 . 260 261

808

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

CARDAUNS,269 for example, that the Maccabees had nothing to gain from an alliance with Sparta at this time; but we may remark that the very name of Sparta still conveyed a great deal of prestige. Moreover, the independent fact (II Maccabees 5.9) that the high priest Jason, after being deposed, fled to Sparta supports the authenticity. Josephus' account of the Maccabean revolt, as SIEVERS270 has most recently noted, contains a number of elements of popular legend. As MILLAR271 has noted, Josephus' account is secondary, filled with condensations and confusions, being separated by two and a half centuries from the events themselves. One discerns also a bias on the part of Josephus. Thus, for example, whereas I Maccabees (6.44) glorifies the death of Judas' brother Eleazar, who was crushed by an elephant in the mistaken belief that the king was riding on it, Josephus (War 1.42—45) regards this as an act of folly and ascribes Judas' defeat not only to the superior numbers of the enemy but also to their luck. As SIEVERS272 remarks, Josephus may reflect the viewpoint of his source, but he may also seek thus, by ascribing the victory to fortune, to free Judas from blame. The condemnation of the suicide of Eleazar may reflect Josephus' own desire to exculpate himself for his failure to abide by the suicide pact at Jotapata. For the Hasmonean kings, as STERN273 has suggested, Josephus' main source appears to have been Nicolaus of Damascus, who, as Herod's right-hand man, was presumably anti-Hasmonean. And yet, we may remark, the Hasmoneans, as Josephus describes them, were pro-Roman and, indeed, entered into treaties with the Romans. Consequently, in Josephus' eyes, they were, in this, far-sighted. Therefore, as SCHAFLER274 has noted, we should not be surprised at Josephus' ambivalence toward the Hasmoneans. On the one hand, he was proud of their achievements, but, on the other hand, he depicted them as arrogant and brutal. As to Jonathan the Hasmonean, who succeeded Judah as ruler, Josephus seems to be dependent almost completely upon I Maccabees; and where he is presenting new data, he is often ambiguous. Thus, it is not clear (Ant. 13.148) whether Jonathan actually raised or was merely authorized to raise troops by Antiochus VI. Again, Josephus occasionally contradicts himself. Thus, at one point, he says that the high priest Alcimus died before Judah, and that the latter succeeded him. Later Josephus (Ant. 20.237) states that there was an interregnum after the death of Alcimus.

269

270 271

272 273

274

BURKHART CARDAUNS: Juden und Spartaner. Zur hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur. In: Hermes 95, 1967, pp. 3 1 7 - 3 2 4 . SIEVERS (above, note 261), pp. 4 3 f f . FERGUS MILLAR: The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel's "Judaism and Hellenism." In: Journal of Jewish Studies 29, 1978, pp. 1—21. SIEVERS (above, note 261), p. 87. MENAHEM STERN: Josephus Flavius' Method of Writing History (in Hebrew). In: Seventh Congress of the Israel Historical Society: Historians and Historical Schools. Jerusalem 1962, pp. 2 2 - 2 8 . SAMUEL SCHAFLER: The Hasmoneans in Jewish Historiography. Diss., D.H.L., Jewish Theological Seminary, New York 1973.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

809

Josephus again is contradictory in his accounts of Simon's accession, as SIEVERS275 has noticed. Whereas, according to War 1.53, confirming I Maccabees 13.41—42, Simon was appointed high priest in 143 or 142 B . C . E . , the purported occasion for his accession, a victory over the Syrian general Cendebaeus, did not occur until several years later. In the 'Antiquities' (13.213), in apparent contradiction, Josephus says cryptically that Simon was appointed high priest by the "multitude" and that he freed the people from Macedonian rule in the first year of his high priesthood. Josephus is independent of I Maccabees in his statement that Simon led a successful guerrilla campaign against Cendebaeus, but, as SIEVERS276 has indicated, it is doubtful that Simon, at his age, would have been able to lead such a campaign. Josephus' source, SIEVERS concludes, for such details was a romantic but inaccurate 'Story of the Hasmoneans,' and it was upon this narrative, in large part, that Josephus relied when the account in I Maccabees ceased. Josephus' narrative of Antiochus VII Sidetes' siege of John Hyrcanus in Jerusalem, like that in Diodorus and Pseudo-Plutarch, stresses Antiochus' restraint and the magnanimity of his peace settlement, presumably in order to contrast these qualities with the cruelty of Antiochus Epiphanes. Porphyry (Fragmente der griechischen Historiker 260 F 32.18, [ed. JACOBY]) asserts that he put to death the noblest of the Jews. Josephus' chronology is unreliable, moreover, in connection with Hyrcanus' seizure of money from the tomb of David and his hiring of mercenaries, as SIEVERS277 has remarked. Josephus' dating of the destruction of Shechem by Hyrcanus (129 B . C . E . ) has been put in question by the discovery of a coin dating not earlier than 112 — 111 B . C . E . that has been found there. Josephus' account of Hyrcanus' attitude toward the Pharisees is selfcontradictory, as SIEVERS278 has noted. Josephus emphasizes the importance of the Pharisees, but this is apparently due to his concern, when he wrote the 'Antiquities', with furthering the reconciliation of the Jews and the Romans, since he passes over this scene in silence in the corresponding place in the 'War'. Moreover, GOLDSTEIN279 and GELLER 280 have argued that the Talmud's account (Kiddushin 66a) of the Pharisee, Judah ben Gedidiah, who told the king Alexander Jannaeus to give up the high priesthood and be content with secular rule because his mother had been a captive, is more authoritative and original (the language of Kiddushin 66a is extremely archaic, thus indicating that its source is an ancient account) than the similar account in Josephus (Ant. 13.288—297), who has a Pharisee named Eleazar make a similar suggestion to Hyrcanus. Josephus' chief source for Alexander Jannaeus was apparently Nicolaus of Damascus, who, as a supporter of Herod, was clearly prejudiced against the

275 276 277 278 279 280

SIEVERS (above, note 261), pp. 158ff. Ibid., p. 97. Ibid., pp. 2 1 1 - 2 1 2 . Ibid., pp. 2 2 5 - 2 2 6 . GOLDSTEIN (above, note 258), pp. 67—71. M. J . GELLER: Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift. In: Journal of Jewish Studies 30, 1979, pp. 2 0 2 - 2 1 1 .

810

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

Hasmoneans. H e n c e , says LURIE, 2 8 1 when Josephus refers to him as " t h e w i c k e d , " all he is really saying is " t h e Sadducee." STERN 282 notes that Josephus' sources, notably Nicolaus, completely ignored his victory over the Nabataeans, even though the coins indicate h o w important this was. W e may remark, however, that the fact that Josephus does mention the later reconciliation of Jannaeus and the Pharisees, as well as the beautiful eulogies delivered for him by them, shows that he or his source was not so prejudiced against Jannaeus. BAER 2 8 3 regards as atrocity propaganda the story (Ant. 13.334) that Jannaeus crucified his enemies before his very eyes, but the epiphet © p a K i d a g (Ant. 13.383) by which he was known indicates that he had a reputation for possessing the proverbial cruelty of the Thracians. Moreover, there have been a number of attempts, for example, by DELCOR, 2 8 4 to identify the wicked priest in the Habakkuk C o m mentary or the 'Lion of W r a t h ' in the N a h u m Commentary as Jannaeus, but this would require identifying the Dead Sea sect with the Pharisees, who were Jannaeus' chief enemies. As to the civil war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus I I , Josephus (War 1.121) says that Hyrcanus continued to enjoy all his other honors as king's brother after abdicating, whereas in Antiquities 14.7 he declares that he retired to being a private citizen. SCHALIT 285 notes that the title 'brother of the king' in the Near East implied participation in the government, thus indicating that Hyrcanus had retained the high priesthood. In this case, however, we may reply that Hyrcanus was, after all, the brother of the king. There is, thus, no necessary contradiction between the accounts in the ' W a r ' and in the 'Antiquities', since the 'Antiquities' contrasts his role as private citizen with his prior role as king. O n e of the problems with which several scholars have been concerned is to identify the day of the fast on which, according to Josephus (Ant. 14.487), Pompey captured the Temple. This is usually identified as the D a y of Atonement; but Strabo (16.2.40) and D i o Cassius (49.22) agree that it was on the twelfth of Tishre, whereas the D a y of Atonement is the tenth of Tishre. Moreover, Josephus himself, says DREW, 2 8 6 in the ' W a r ' (1.146) and D i o Cassius (49.22) say that it was captured on the Sabbath. W e may, however, remark that Josephus does not say here that the city was taken on the Sabbath: what he does state is that the Romans took advantage of the fact that the Jews refrained from w o r k on the Sabbath. DAGUT 2 8 7 has noted that the context in Josephus indicates that Jerusalem BEN-ZION LURIE: King Jannaeus (in Hebrew). Jerusalem 1960. MENAHEM STERN: The Political Background of the Wars of Alexander Jannai (in Hebrew). In: Tarbiz 33, 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 , pp. 3 2 5 - 3 3 6 . 283 YITZHAK BAER: Pesher Habakuk and Its Period (in Hebrew). In: Zion 23, 1969, pp. 1—42. 2 8 4 MATTHIAS DELCOR: Les manuscrits de la mer morte. Essai sur le Midrash d'Habacuc. Paris 1951. 2 8 5 ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Was Hyrcanus Appointed 'Brother of the King'? (in Hebrew). In: Yediot (Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society) 6, 1938—39, pp. 1 4 5 - 1 4 8 . 2 8 6 DOUGLAS L. M. DREW: Pompey's Capture of Jerusalem on Tenth Tishri? In: Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts. Cairo, Fouad I University 13, 1951, pp. 83 — 88. 2 8 7 MERTON B. DAGUT: The Habakkuk Scroll and Pompey's Capture of Jerusalem. In: Biblica 32, 1951, pp. 5 4 2 - 5 4 8 . 281

282

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS REVISITED

811

fell in July or August, rather than at the season of the Day of Atonement. Perhaps, we may suggest, the solution to our problem is to note that the ancients (e. g., Strabo 16.2.40), on a number of occasions, confused the Sabbath with a fast day, perhaps because the Day of Atonement in the Bible (Leviticus 16.31) is called a "Sabbath of Sabbaths." The word for fasting, vr|oxeia, actually means "abstent i o n , " in the sense not merely of fasting but also of abstention from work. Strabo significantly declares (16.40) that the day of the Fast on which the city was captured was one when the Jews abstained from all work. Hence, we may conclude, Pompey captured the city on a Sabbath and not necessarily on the Day of Atonement. We may assume that Josephus, as a priest, would have precise information concerning so important an event as the seizure of the Temple. Josephus has a number of decrees in B o o k 14 of the 'Antiquities' pertaining to the status of the Jews in the Roman Empire in the first century B . C . E . , the authenticity of which has been much disputed. SMALLWOOD,288 pp. 558—560, accepts their authenticity, suggesting that Josephus took them from Nicolaus of Damascus. More likely, we may conjecture, Josephus had access to documents in the Imperial archives in Rome, where he lived for many years under the auspices of the Flavians, or perhaps to those assembled by his friend Agrippa II, who, presumably, had access to them because of the close relationship of the latter's father, Agrippa I, with the emperors Caligula and Claudius. MOEHRING 289 expresses skepticism about the authenticity of the documents, noting that Josephus is silent about the fire of 69 in which three thousand documents in the Roman archives were burnt, that historians in antiquity were usually satisfied with second-hand opinions about documents, that Josephus' version often does not correspond with the style known to us from inscriptions, that the invitation to the reader to check the accuracy of statements by consulting the original decrees is merely a literary device, and that since the ancients lacked orderly principles of filing materials it must have been very difficult to locate any given piece of information. It has been said that there is no figure in antiquity about whom we know more than about Herod, for whom by far our most important extant source is Josephus. As a Hasmonean, Josephus, despite the fact that his main source, Nicolaus of Damascus, was sympathetic to Herod, blackens the picture very considerably. The two major studies of Herod, those of OTTO 2 9 0 and SCHALIT, 291 288

289

290

291

E . MARY SMALLWOOD: The Jews under Roman Rule. F r o m Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden 1976, pp. 5 5 8 - 5 6 0 . HORST R . MOEHRING: The Acta Pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: A Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography. In: JACOB NEUSNER, ed.: Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, Part 3: Judaism before 70 (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol. 12, Part 3). Leiden 1975, pp. 1 2 4 - 1 5 8 . WALTER OTTO: Herodes I — Herodias. In: AUGUST PAULY and GEORG Realencyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplement 2, pp. 1 - 2 0 5 . ABRAHAM SCHALIT: King Herod, the Man and His W o r k (in Hebrew). Trans, into German by JEHOSCHUA AMIR: Konig Herodes. Der Mann (Studia Judaica, 4). Berlin 1968.

WISSOWA, edd.: Stuttgart 1913, Jerusalem 1960. und sein Werk

812

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

attempt to view him dispassionately. The latter, in particular, rehabilitates him as one who sincerely believed that the Jews would attain peace, prosperity, and salvation only through co-operation with the Roman Emperor. The Jews, says SCHALIT, were far more prosperous at the end of Herod's reign than at the beginning; and his building program solved the problem of unemployment. As to the terrible murders that he committed, he was, says SCHALIT, if not insane, certainly not fully responsible for his actions; and, in any case, he should be judged by the standards of his time, which we may discern from the similar behavior of kings such as Mithridates of Pontus. SCHALIT contends that the greatest obstacle to Herod was his Jewish subjects' faith in the coming of the Messiah in contrast to his faith in Rome. We may, however, wonder why, if this were so, Josephus was so critical of him, inasmuch as Josephus shared this faith in such abundant measure. URBACH, 292 to be sure, asserts that Josephus' motive in blackening the name of Herod was to make his praise of Agrippa I seem all the greater. LURIE 293 has reacted sharply against SCHALIT'S conclusion that Herod deserved the title "the Great." LAQUEUR 294 argues that Josephus' account of Herod in the 'Antiquities' (14.158 — 17.192) has a degree of hatred not discernible in the account in the 'War' (1.204—673). SHUTT 295 tries to explain this by postulating that Josephus waited until the death of his patron Agrippa II before inserting criticism of Herod in the second edition of the 'Antiquities'; but we may counter by suggesting that Josephus could hardly have felt the need to wait so long, since Herod had put to death both Agrippa II's grandfather and the latter's mother. Moreover, as GRANT 296 has remarked, the account in the 'Antiquities' is not always more critical of Herod than that in the 'War', since, for example, Antiquities 14. 163 — 167 is more favorable to the Idumaean house than is War 1.208—209, perhaps because Josephus had done additional research. STERN 297 conjectures that Josephus' criticism of Herod is original rather than due to an anti-Herodian source; as a descendant of the Hasmoneans, Herod's great opponents, Josephus, we may suggest, may well have been the recipient of oral traditions hostile to Herod. As to Josephus' portrayal of Mariamne, as noted by SCHALIT, 298 it 292

EPHRAIM URBACH: Jewish Doctrines and Practices in the Hellenistic and Talmudic Periods. I n : SALO W .

293

294 295 296 297

B A R O N a n d G E O R G E S . W I S E , e d d . : V i o l e n c e a n d D e f e n s e in t h e J e w i s h

Experience. Philadelphia 1977, pp. 71 — 85. BEN-ZION LURIE: From Jannaeus to Herod: Studies in the History of the Second Temple (in Hebrew). Jerusalem 1974. LAQUEUR (above, note 136). SHUTT (above, note 131). MICHAEL GRANT: Herod the Great. London 1971. MENAHEM STERN: T h e R e i g n o f H e r o d and the H e r o d i a n D y n a s t y .

I n : S H M U E L SAFRAI

a n d M E N A H E M STERN, e d d . , in c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h DAVID FLUSSER a n d W I L L E M C .

298

VAN

UNNIK: The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions (MARINUS DE JONGE and SHMUEL SAFRAI, edd.: Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad N o v u m Testamentum, 1). Assen 1974, pp. 2 1 6 - 3 0 7 . ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Herod and Mariamne: Josephus' Description in the Light of Greek Historiography (in Hebrew). In: Molad 14, 1956, pp. 9 5 - 1 0 2 .

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

813

follows the canons of Greek tragedy and of Hellenistic historiography rather than of historic fact. Josephus' prejudice against Herod may be discerned, as MADER299 has remarked, in the fact that he has omitted reference to Herod's responsibility for the building of shrines in Hebron and Mambre, though, in general, the archaeological finds confirm Josephus, as AVI-YONAH300 has noted. The excavation of Herodian frontier fortifications, in particular, as cited by GIHON,301 confirms Josephus' portrayal of the Idumaean people as a rural frontier militia. There is general agreement that Josephus is untrustworthy in his statements (Ant. 15.97—103) that Cleopatra had tried to seduce Herod and that his friends had only with difficulty dissuaded him from killing her. Such an action, says GRANT,302 would have been unwise, since Herod sought to be on good terms with Antony. It was only later, when Herod sought to enter into the good graces of Octavian, that he would have made up the story that he had resisted Cleopatra's advances and that he had counseled Antony to kill her. NEUSNER303 has suggested that Josephus has suppressed the information that Herod actually aimed for wider rule than merely that of Palestine, and that this will explain the favor which he showed to the Jews of Babylonia, as well as to the Greeks of Antioch, Rhodes, and southern Syria. "We may comment, however, that this would have been foolish on the part of Herod, whose whole career was based on unquestioning loyalty to Rome. Moreover, if Herod were, indeed, guilty of such insubordination, it seems likely that Josephus, who so despised him, would have made capital of it. It seems more probable that Herod's aim — which was appreciated by Augustus — was to build, through marriage of his children with local petty princes, a network of client states loyal to Rome, an act that would and did bring him favor in the eyes of the Emperor. Secondarily, his purpose may have been to bolster his own position against the Hasmoneans, who still had considerable popularity in Palestine. After Herod's death three brigands — Judas, Simon, and Athronges — claimed the throne. Inasmuch as Herod himself, according to Epiphanius (Panarion, Heresy 20.1), apparently was recognized by his followers, the Herodians, as the Messiah, these claimants, we may suggest, may well have presented

299

300

301

ANDREAS EVARISTUS MADER: Mambre. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Ramet el-Halil in Südpalästina 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 2 8 . Vol. 1, Freiburg im Breisgau 1957. MICHAEL AVI-YONAH: The Project of King Herod in the Temple and on the Temple Mount (in Hebrew). In GEDALYAH ELKOSHI et al., edd.: And to Jerusalem: Literature and Meditation in Honor of the Liberation of Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Jerusalem 1968, pp. 3 1 8 - 3 2 4 . M. GIHON: Edom-Idumea and the Herodian Limes (in Hebrew). In: SHALOM PERLMAN and B. SHIMRON, edd.: Doron: Dedicated to the Sixtieth Anniversary of Ben Zion Katz. Tel-Aviv 1967, pp. 205—218. Trans, into English in: Israel Exploration Journal 17, 1967, pp. 2 7 - 4 2 .

302

MICHAEL GRANT: C l e o p a t r a . L o n d o n

303

JACOB NEUSNER: The Jews East of the Euphrates and the Roman Empire. I: 1st—3rd Cen-

1972.

t u r i e s A . D . I n : HILDEGARD TEMPORINI a n d W O L F G A N G H A A S E , e d d . : A u f s t i e g u n d N i e -

dergang der römischen Welt (= A N R W ) . Vol. II.9.1, Berlin, New York 1976, pp. 4 6 - 6 8 .

814

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N

themselves as messianic figures — a claim that Josephus would have suppressed, as he generally did such claims, because of the R o m a n opposition to such revolutionaries. FARMER, 3 0 4 noting that two of the names — Judas and Simon — are familiar Maccahean names, has conjectured that these brigands based their claim on Maccabean descent (about which Josephus is silent); but, we may respond, these names are hardly distinctive, being extremely c o m m o n both in inscriptions and in the Talmud. And yet, we may comment, the fact that Josephus (Ant. 17.278) declares that Athronges was not distinguished for his genealogy may imply that the other pretenders did claim such distinction. Josephus appears not to have given a full account of the dismissal from office of Herod's successor, Archelaus; and REES 3 0 5 has argued, on the basis of references in Strabo and D i o Cassius, that the real charge was not that asserted by the Jewish and Samaritan delegations to Augustus, namely cruel misrule of his subjects, but rather disloyalty to R o m e . T h e fact that he was summarily dismissed without as much as Augustus writing to him directly indicates that REES' theory is likely. It may be in place to say something here about Josephus' treatment of the Pharisees in the ' W a r ' and in the 'Antiquities'. SMITH, 3 0 6 followed by NEUSNER 307 and COHEN, 3 0 8 notes that whereas the Pharisees hardly figure in the ' W a r ' , they become much more important in the 'Antiquities', written twenty years later, being deeply involved in politics. T h e clear message is that Palestine is ungovernable without Pharisaic support. This shift is due, says SMITH, to Josephus' desire to win support from the Romans for the Pharisees against the Sadducees. W e may, however, remark that in the 'War' also Josephus states that the Pharisees hold first place among the Jews (War 2 . 1 6 2 ) and that they cultivate harmony with the community (War 2 . 1 6 6 ) , surely a compelling reason for the Romans to seek their support. Moreover, the Sadducees seem to have lost power precipitously with the destruction of the Temple in 70, and hence there was no need more than twenty years later, when Josephus wrote the 'Antiquities', to inveigh against them. It may also be well to say something here about Josephus as a source for Parthian affairs during this period. DEBEVOISE 309 has remarked how often the coins confirm Josephus' account. W e may add that because Josephus' mother tongue was apparently Aramaic, the language of the Babylonian J e w s , he may well have had access to excellent direct sources. In addition, for the period of WILLIAM R. FARMER: Judas, Simon and Athronges. In: New Testament Studies 4, 1957— 1958, pp. 1 4 7 - 1 5 5 . 3 0 5 W. REES: Archelaus, Son of Herod. In: Scripture 4, 1951, pp. 3 4 8 - 3 5 5 . 306 MORTON SMITH: Palestinian Judaism in the First Century. In: MOSHE DAVIS, ed.: Israel: Its Role in Civilization. New York 1956, pp. 6 7 - 8 1 . 304

307

308 309

JACOB NEUSNER: Josephus' Pharisees. In: E x Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren Oblata. Leiden 1972, pp. 2 2 4 - 2 4 4 . IDEM: From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973, pp. 45—66: Josephus' Pharisees: The Real Administrators of the State. COHEN (above, note 162). NEILSON C . DEBEVOISE: A Political History of Parthia. Chicago 1938.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

815

Herod, his source, Nicolaus of Damascus, presumably had access to first-hand information because of Herod's close relationship to the Jews of Babylonia, from whose number he appointed a high priest and a group of whom he established in Batanaea (Ant. 17.23 — 31) as a military colony, presumably because he trusted them more than Palestinian Jews. That Josephus had extensive information, including, apparently, a written source dealing with Babylonian Jewry available to him, seems clear from the extraordinarily detailed account which he gives of the quasi-independent state established by the Jewish robber-barons Asinaeus and Anilaeus. S C H A L I T 3 1 0 has noted an Aramaic word ketila (behind the word KTiXicov or Kixitov, Ant. 1 8 . 3 4 3 ) in this narrative, and concludes that Josephus was dependent here upon a Greek translation going back to an Aramaic original. We may comment that the fact that there are so many variants for this word in the manuscripts is evidence that copyists found it strange, clearly because it was a foreign word. C O H E N 3 1 1 has ingeniously found additional support for SCHALIT'S theory that Josephus' ultimate source was an Aramaic document by noting that the trade to which Asinaeus and Anilaeus had been apprenticed (Ant. 1 8 . 3 1 4 ) was not weaving but the manufacture of scale armor, the Aramaic homonym having been mistranslated. It seems implausible that the Parthians would have tolerated the existence of such a state, but NEUSNER312 has suggested that the Parthian aim may have been to exploit thereby connections with the Jews of Roman Palestine. A similar motive may explain the Parthian tolerance of the vassal kingdom of Adiabene under its Jewish rulers in the first century. We may conjecture that, as soon as, through their immoral behavior, Asinaeus and Anilaeus had forfeited the allegiance of the Jews, the Parthians took measures to end their independence. As to the tension between Asianeus and Anilaeus' state and Adiabene, on the one hand, and Parthia, on the other hand, which Josephus seems to stress, this may be explained, as LADOUCEUR313 has suggested, by Josephus' conviction that the future of the Jews was bound up with that of Rome rather than with that of Parthia. Josephus' lengthy account of the conversion of the royal family of Adiabene to Judaism (Ant. 2 0 . 1 7 - 9 6 ) is paralleled by the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 4 6 . 1 0 ) . The resemblances, particularly the initial omission of circumcision, are striking. NEUSNER314 has cast doubt on Josephus' view that the conversions were reli310

311

312

313

314

ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Evidence of an Aramaic Source in Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews'. In: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4, 1965, pp. 163 — 188. Trans, into German by JAKOB MITTELMANN in: ABRAHAM SCHALIT: Zur Josephus-Forschung (Wege der Forschung, 84). Darmstadt 1973, pp. 3 6 7 - 4 0 0 . NAOMI G. COHEN: Asinaeus and Anilaeus: Additional Comments to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. In: Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 10, 1 9 7 5 - 7 6 , pp. 30—37. JACOB NEUSNER: Parthian Political Ideology. In: Iranica Antiqua 3, 1963, pp. 4 0 - 5 9 . IDEM: A History of the Jews in Babylonia. Vol. 1: The Parthian Period. Leiden 1965; 2nd ed. 1969. DAVID J . LADOUCEUR: Studies in the Language and Historiography of Flavius Josephus. Diss., P h . D . , Brown University, Providence 1976. JACOB NEUSNER: The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism. In: Journal of Biblical Literature 83, 1964, pp. 6 0 - 6 6 .

54 ANRW II 21.2

816

L O U I S H. F E L D M A N

giously inspired, and suggests that they were also politically motivated, that Izates hoped to form an international alliance of petty Jewish states (several at this time in the early part of the first century were headed by Jews or converts to Judaism) and that he even had hopes of gaining the throne of Judaea if the Jews should successfully revolt against the Romans. It is tempting, we must admit, to look for ulterior motives in the conversion of kings such as Constantine or the king of the Khazars or the king of the Bulgars, but Izates could hardly have hoped to become king of Judaea, inasmuch as the Bible (Deut. 17.15) specifically declares that the king must be "one from your brethren," that is, a born Jew, as the Talmud understands it, and as we can see from the passage in the Mishnah (Sotah 7.8) recounting how Agrippa I burst into tears when he reached this verse, presumably because he was part-Edomite. As to the advice given to Izates by the Jewish merchant Ananias (Ant. 20.42) that G—d would forgive him if he, out of fear of his subjects, refrained from undergoing circumcision, this is not to say that circumcision is optional, nor is this parallel to the view supposedly held by Joshua ben Hananiah (Yevamoth 46 a), in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, that one who is baptized but not circumcised is a convert. Ananias' point is that when circumcision involves danger to life it should be omitted as, for example, it is when a person has hemophilia. Moreover, the dispute between Joshua ben Hananiah and Eliezer is not whether one may become a convert without circumcision but rather whether it is after circumcision or after immersion that a person officially becomes a convert to Judaism. As to Josephus' reliability as a source for Parthian history generally, COLPE315 has noted that Josephus appears to be more objective from the time of Augustus on, perhaps, he suggests, because the Romans had, in the meantime, worked out a modus vivendi with the Parthians. Where Josephus is contradicted by Tacitus (e.g., Ant. 18.48 vs. Tacitus, Annals 2.31 and 6.36.4), there is good reason to prefer Josephus for the reasons noted above, particularly, the likelihood that he had sources available in Aramaic. A clue to the fact that Josephus is not always reliable as a source for the period of the first century prior to the outbreak of the war against the Romans is to be seen in the fact that he omits all reference to the praise bestowed by Augustus upon his grandson Gaius for not praying to the Jewish G—d while he was in Jerusalem. In view of Josephus' numerous references to the closeness that existed between the Roman imperial family and Agrippa I, it seems highly unlikely that such an event would have been unknown to him, especially since the behavior of the Emperor's grandson in Jerusalem must have created a sensation. That Josephus cannot always be relied upon in determining the reasons for Imperial actions may be seen from his account of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 19 (Ant. 18.81 — 84). According to Josephus, the Jews were expelled because of the wickedness of four Jewish scoundrels who pocketed the gifts that a 315

CARSTEN COLPE: Die Arsakiden bei Josephus. In: OTTO BETZ, KLAUS HAACKER, MARTIN HENGEL, edd.: Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Gottingen 1974, pp. 9 7 - 1 0 8 .

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

817

certain Roman lady of high rank named Fulvia, who had become a proselyte, had entrusted to them for transmission to the Temple in Jerusalem. That the Emperor Tiberius would have expelled the entire Jewish community from Rome because of the actions of a few scoundrels seems hard to believe in view of what we know of his scrupulousness in legal matters in general; and we may assume that he would not have banished citizens without a trial. More likely, Dio is to be believed when he states (57.18.5a) that the reason for the expulsion was that the Jews had succeeded in converting so many Romans, including some of high birth, to Judaism. Tacitus likewise seems to imply this when he says that those expelled were "tainted with this superstition" (ea superstitione infecti), presumably a reference to proselytes. Hence the reference to Fulvia as a proselyte, which in Josephus is incidental, appears to be the clue to explaining the whole incident. In view of this, it seems more likely that only the proselytes and active missionaries were banished. Josephus (Ant. 18.169—178), particularly through his narrating the fable of the flies, would have us believe that Tiberius was a highly efficient and fair administrator. ORTH 3 1 6 has questioned the validity of this evaluation by noting that under Tiberius there were revolts in Thrace, Gaul, Frisia, Cappadocia, and Africa, largely due to the exploitation of provincials by rapacious governors. As to Pilate, WINTER 317 prefers the account of Philo (Legatio ad Gaium 299—305) to that of Josephus (Ant. 18.55 — 89), since the former was contemporary and less involved; but, on the other hand, we may contend that Philo is writing an apologetic work about events concerning which he had only heard. WINTER believes that Josephus' account of Pilate is, in general, trustworthy and is supported by the references to him in the New Testament (notably in Luke 13.1—2), inasmuch as he minces no words about Pilate's cruel treatment of the Samaritans, whom Josephus, of course, hated; but we may respond by suggesting that Pilate showed no mercy to any who, in his opinion, disrupted law and order. Pilate was perhaps no worse than most other procurators, but this may be only because many others were utterly intolerable. The key question when one notes the differences between Philo's account of Pilate's introduction of the shields and Josephus' narrative of Pilate's introduction of the standards (War 2 . 1 6 9 - 1 7 2 and Ant. 1 8 . 5 5 - 5 9 ) is whether they refer to the same incident. DOYLE 3 1 8 has cited three major differences between the two accounts: the incident of the shields comes after several years of misrule by Pilate, whereas that of the standards appears at the beginning of Pilate's tenure; the shields do not have images, whereas the standards do; and the people in Philo appeal unsuccessfully to Pilate, apparently in Jerusalem, whereas the people in Josephus appeal successfully in Caesarea. Josephus presumably omitted the in-

316 317

318

5 4 s-

WOLFGANG ORTH: Die Provinzialpolitik des Tiberius. Diss. München 1970. PAUL WINTER: On the Trial of Jesus (Studia Judaica: Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1 [ed. ERNST L. EHRICH]). Berlin 1961, pp. 5 3 - 5 5 , 1 7 5 - 1 7 7 . A. D. DOYLE: Pilate's Career and the date of the Crucifixion. In: Journal of Theological Studies 42, 1941, pp. 1 9 0 - 1 9 3 .

818

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

cident of the aniconic shields, as MAIER319 suggests, because there is no theological basis for the objection to such items. For that matter, however, there is no basis for Josephus' statement (War 2.170) that Jewish law forbade the erection of images in Jerusalem, unless we suppose that this represents an earlier or a more fanatic stage of Halakhah. K R A E L I N G 3 2 0 conjectures that the objection was to the introduction of images into the Antonia (though Josephus does not mention the Antonia here at all), which was connected with the Temple and where the presence of images would have compromised the sanctity of the priestly garments that were kept there. He also says that the Jews may have objected to the standards of the Roman army, which were regarded as sacred numina. V A R D A M A N 3 2 1 deduces from the fact that Pilate built a temple at Caesarea that he ignored the sensibilities of Jews, just as Philo and Josephus indicate. We may, however, respond that Caesarea had a mixed population, and that, indeed, before the time of Herod it had no Jews at all (Ant. 20.173). One technical point concerning Pilate has now been illuminated by the discovery in 1961 of an inscription at Caesarea. Josephus, as MAGIE322 has noted, refers to the procurators by five different terms. The new inscription, as edited by F R O V A , 3 2 3 clearly indicates that Pilate was praefectus. Tacitus (Annals 1 5 . 4 4 . 3 ) refers to him as a procurator, and Philo (Legatio ad Gaium 299) and Josephus (War 2 . 1 6 9 ) call him emtQOjtog, which definitely is the same as procurator. Hence, Philo, Josephus, and Tacitus are guilty of an anachronism (the title, presumably, having been changed later to procurator during the course of his administration in Judaea); and the New Testament and Josephus' 'Antiquities' (18.55), which term him "governor" (riygficbv), are more accurate, or the titles are not so rigid as we would expect them to be in so highly bureaucratic a state. Indeed, we may note that Josephus alternately refers to Fadus, the procurator from 44 to 46 C . E . , as prefect and procurator. As to the general appraisal of Pilate, the prevalent view among scholars that he was an efficient administrator flies in the face of the data, whether in Josephus or in Philo or in the New Testament, as well as the coins, all of which underscore that it was his aim to provoke the Jews and to secure a 'final solution' to the Jewish problem, in accordance with the master plan of Tiberius' right-hand man and evil genius, Sejanus.

319

320

321

322

323

PAUL L. MAIER: The Episode of the Golden Roman Shields at Jerusalem. In: Harvard Theological Review 62, 1969, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 2 1 . CARL H . KRAELING: The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem. In: Harvard Theological Review 35, 1942, pp. 2 6 3 - 2 8 9 . JERRY VARDAMAN: A N e w Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as 'Prefect'. In: Journal of Biblical Literature 81, 1962, pp. 7 0 - 7 1 . DAVID MAGIE: De romanorum iuris publici sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis. Diss., Halle 1904. Published: Leipzig 1905. ANTONIO FROVA: Caesarea Maritima (Israele). Rapporto preliminare dell'I a campagne di scavo della Missione Archeologica Italiana. Milano 1959. IDEM: L'iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Caesarea. In: Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo (Accademia di Scienze e Lettere) 95, 1961, pp. 4 1 9 - 4 3 4 .

FLAVIUS

JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

819

That Josephus had access to a source different from that available to Tacitus and Dio for the reign of Tiberius, at any rate, seems indicated by the fact, noted by BERANGER,324 that Josephus asserts that Tiberius ruled for twenty-two years, six months, and three days (War 2.180) or twenty-two years, five months, and three days (Ant. 18.224) (the discrepancy is most easily explained as a copyist's error, and the editio princeps for Antiquities 18.224 actually agrees with War 2.180), whereas Tacitus has twenty-two years, six months, and twenty-eight days, and Dio has twenty-two years, seven months, and seven days. BILDE, 325 analyzing the incident (War 2.184-203; Ant. 18.261-309; Philo, Legatio ad Gaium 199—338; and Tacitus, Histories 5.9) involving Caligula's decision to introduce a statue of himself into the Temple, Agrippa's intervention, and Petronius' success in getting the order rescinded, concludes that Josephus is actually a better historian than has hitherto been recognized, inasmuch as he resisted the temptation to theologize his account. The fact, however, we may suggest, that in the parallel account in the 'War', Josephus says not a word about the role of Agrippa, and that Tacitus (Hist. 5.9) asserts that the Jews took up arms should make us skeptical about the tendentiousness of Josephus' account. From 41 to 44, when Agrippa I reigned, the procuratorship was temporarily suspended. It should not surprise us that in view of the fact that Josephus was a descendant of the Hasmoneans and in view of his close friendship with Agrippa I's son, Agrippa II, he should praise so highly one who was a grandson of Mariamne the Hasmonean. The fact that Josephus devotes three quarters of the nineteenth book of the 'Antiquities' to the account of the assassination of Caligula and the accession of Claudius is due chiefly to the role played in the latter event by Agrippa. MOMMSEN,326 on the basis of an anecdote (Ant. 19.91-92) reporting a conversation between a certain Cluitus, in which he quotes Homer, and a senator named Bathybius, adopts H U D S O N ' S emendation of K^oiJixog to KXoi)(hog and conjectures that the reference is to Cluvius Rufus, who, he says, is Josephus' source for the whole episode. TOWNEND327 argues that the fact that Homer is quoted is an indication that its source is not Josephus, who was not much interested in the Greek classics; but we may object that Josephus (Ant. 20.263) says that he strove to master Greek prose and poetry, that he mentions Homer several times, and that he even knows (Against Apion 2.155) that Homer nowhere uses the word vo^iog, thus clearly indicating that he knew Homer's works, though, of course, he may have derived such a statement second-hand. Homer was, moreover, the one Greek author whom the rabbis mention by name

324

325

326

327

JEAN BÉRANGER: Recherches sur l'aspect idéologique du principat (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 6). Basel 1953. PER BILDE: The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)'s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. In: Studia Theologica 32, 1978, pp. 67—93. T H E O D O R M O M M S E N : Cornelius Tacitus und Cluvius Rufus. In: Hermes 4, 1870, pp. 295-325. G. B. TOWNEND: Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus. In: American Journal of Philology 85, 1964, pp. 337-377.

820

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

(Mishnah, Yadaim 4.6). I 3 2 8 have, therefore, questioned MOMMSEN'S hypothesis and have suggested that Josephus may have had access to other sources, both written and oral. In particular, we may guess that he derived many details from his friend Agrippa II, Agrippa I's son, who (Life 364) wrote sixty-two letters testifying to Josephus' accuracy in the account of the 'War' and who added (Life 366): "I will myself by word of mouth inform you of much that is not generally known." Josephus' written source is clearly senatorial in its sympathies and thus closely akin to Tacitus in its outlook, as TIMPE329 has remarked. As to his reliability, SCRAMUZZA330 argues that Josephus' account is seen to be untrustworthy when it is compared with Suetonius and Dio Cassius, the other two major sources for the assassination of Caligula and the accession of Claudius; but we may reply that this is based upon the assumption that the other two sources are more reliable. Josephus, moreover, implies a comparison between Agrippa and Alexander Jannaeus in the incident of Agrippa's generous treatment of Simon, who had previously denounced him (Ant. 19.332 — 334). WIRGIN331 has even suggested that Josephus omitted the contents of the last three chapters of I Maccabees, as we have noted above, because the excessive praise there accorded to Simon the Hasmonean would have put the two Agrippas in the shade. Concerning the later procurators, we may note that the "War' contains nothing negative about Tiberius Julius Alexander, whereas the 'Antiquities' states that he was an apostate (Ant. 20.100). TURNER332 explains this difference by suggesting that while he was writing the 'War' he looked upon Alexander as a possible patron, but that by the time he wrote the 'Antiquities' Alexander was dead or politically devoid of influence. We may, however, suggest that there is no indication that Josephus had any special relationship to Alexander at any time, and that the more likely explanation is that while writing the 'Antiquities' he was more 'Jewish-conscious,' perhaps as a defensive measure against those who had accused him of being a traitor to the Jewish people. A key instance where Josephus and Tacitus conflict is with regard to the procurators Cumanus and Felix. Tacitus (Annals 12.54) asserts that Cumanus governed Galilee, while Felix governed Judaea and Samaria; Josephus (Ant. 20.137), on the other hand, declares that Felix succeeded Cumanus. Perhaps, we may suggest, the two accounts may be reconciled by noting that Josephus, who usually speaks of someone being sent (jtejjjtei) to be procurator of Judaea (e.g., Ant. 20.137, where he speaks thus of Felix), declares (War 2.247) that Felix was despatched (eKJtejutei) to be procurator of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and Peraea: 328

329

L o u i s H . FELDMAN: The Sources of Josephus' Antiquities, Book 19. In: Latomus 21, 1962, pp. 3 2 0 - 3 3 3 . D I E T E R T I M P E : Römische Geschichte bei Flavius Josephus. In: Historia 9 , 1 9 6 0 , pp. 4 7 4 — 502.

The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge, Mass. 1940, pp. 11 — 18. Herod Agrippa I, King of the Jews (Leeds University Oriental Society, Monograph Series, 10A). Leeds 1968 (typewritten). ERIC G. TURNER: Tiberius Iulius Alexander. In: Journal of Roman Studies 44, 1954, pp. 54-64.

330 V I N C E N T 331

332

M.

SCRAMUZZA:

WOLF WIRGIN:

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

821

this is not inconsistent with his having governed only one of these districts previously. SMALLWOOD,333 expressing a preference for Josephus' account over those of Tacitus, remarks that elsewhere also Tacitus errs, for example, in postponing the recording of Agrippa I's death until five years after it occurred and in asserting that after his death Judaea was annexed to Syria. In general, we must stress, Josephus is well informed about geographical and topographical matters in the land of Israel, especially in connection with events that occurred during his own lifetime; after all, Josephus was fifteen when Felix became procurator.

XII. Josephus on the Origins of Christianity

Undoubtedly the chief reason why Josephus' works have survived in their entirety is that Christians saw in him major evidence for the achievements of John and especially of Jesus. As to John, three problems have drawn particular attention: the authenticity of the passage mentioning him (Ant. 18.116—119), J o sephus' silence concerning John's relations with Jesus, and the apparent discrepancies between Josephus' version of why he was put to death and the account in the Gospels. The question of the genuineness of the passage has generally, and for good reasons, been answered in the affirmative. In the first place, Origen, who explicitly declares that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, does cite this passage. Secondly, as THACKERAY334 has so carefully noted, the language of the passage is most typical of this part of the 'Antiquities', with love of periphrasis (e.g., "consort with baptism" for " b e baptized") and the use of unusual words for "punish," " k i l l , " and " s i n , " as well as such words and phrases as aKQdaoic,, cpegeiv £Jti xivi, and xooooSe. The very fact, one may add, that Josephus uses different forms of the word "baptism" in the same passage would argue against the presence of an interpolator, who would certainly have been more consistent. Thirdly, if the passage had been interpolated by a Christian, as some have claimed, it is hard to believe that he would have devoted twice as much space to John as to the Jesus passage, that he would have failed to note the association of John with Jesus, and that he would have inserted an account of John's death which apparently contradicts the Gospels. O f course, the passage might have been interpolated by followers of John, who, like the Mandaeans, did not recognize the claims of Jesus. As to why Josephus says nothing about the connection between John and Jesus, this may be due to the fact that it was John who originally was the more important of the two or that Josephus was wary about speaking of Messianic 333

EDITH MARY SMALLWOOD: Some Comments on Tacitus, Annals XII, 54. In: Latomus 18,

334

HENRY ST. JOHN THACKERAY: Josephus the Man and the Historian. New York 1929; rpt. 1 9 6 7 , p. 1 4 0 .

1959, pp.

560-567.

822

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

movements, which were politically disloyal to Rome. Inasmuch as Josephus refers to John as a "good" man (Ant. 18.117), he could hardly have had him presented as a forerunner of a political rebel, since the prevailing view of the Messiah was that of a political figure. As to Josephus' omission of the apocalyptic element in John's message, this may be due to his realization that such information would have aroused little interest among his readers, as MARSH335 has remarked. As to the discrepancy between Josephus and the Gospels, the former (Ant. 18.118) says that Herod Antipas put John to death because he was afraid that his eloquence, which was attracting crowds, would lead to some form of sedition, whereas the Gospels (Matthew 14.3—12, Mark 6.17—29) assert that John was imprisoned because he had questioned Herod's right to marry his sister-in-law, an event which Josephus (Ant. 18.110) significantly mentions but which he does not connect with John. As a solution to this contradiction, however, we may suggest that there is no necessary disagreement: the Christians chose to emphasize that John had incurred the displeasure of Antipas because of the moral rebuke which he had issued against him, whereas Josephus, basically a political historian, stresses that he was put to death because he had aroused the fear in Antipas that he would lead an insurrection. As to the celebrated Testimonium Flavianum' (Ant. 18.63—64), the great majority of modern scholars have regarded it as partly interpolated, and this is my 336 conclusion as well. That the basic kernel is authentic is supported by the fact that it appears in all the manuscripts (to be sure, the earliest of these dates from only the eleventh century) and in all the versions, including the translation into Latin made by the school of Cassiodorus in the sixth century. A strong argument against the authenticity of the passage as we have it is the fact that, despite the value that such a passage would have had to establish the credentials of Jesus in the Church's missionary activities, it is is not cited until Eusebius in the fourth century. This is admittedly the argumentum ex silentio-, but in this case, as I 3 3 7 have stressed, it is a fairly conclusive argument, especially since we know that Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 8) attempted to answer the charge that Jesus had never lived and was a mere figment of Christian imagination. Nothing could have been a stronger argument to disprove such a charge than a citation from Josephus, a Jew, who was born only a few years after Jesus' death. Yet, an examination of the Christian writers, collected by SCHRECKENBERG,338 who mention Josephus, starting with Pseudo-Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Minucius Felix in the second century, 335

336

337

338

HERBERT G. MARSH: The Origin and Significance of the New Testament Baptism (Publications of the University of Manchester, 275, Theological Series, 5). Manchester 1941, pp. 48-51. L o u i s H . FELDMAN, ed. and trans.: Josephus (Loeb Classical Library). Vol. 9: Jewish Antiquities, Books 1 8 - 2 0 . London 1965, p. 49. L o u i s H . FELDMAN: The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question. In: ROBERT F . BERKEY and SARAH A . EDWARDS, edd.: Christological Perspectives: Essays in H o n o r of Harvey K. McArthur. N e w York 1982. SCHRECKENBERG (above, note 13), pp. 70ff.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

REVISITED

823

continuing with Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen in the third century, and concluding with Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the fourth century prior to Eusebius, shows no reference to our passage, even though these authors refer to Josephus numerous times. The most striking evidence is that of Origen, who cites no less than five passages from the eighteenth book of the 'Antiquities', where the 'Testimonium' appears, and who explicitly states (Commentary on Matthew 10.17) that "the wonder is that though he did not admit our Jesus to be Christ, he nevertheless gave witness to so much righteousness in James" and that (Contra Celsum 1.47) " H e (i. e. Josephus) disbelieved in Jesus as Christ." HORVATH 339 has quite perceptively remarked that it makes no sense for Origen to express wonder that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Messiah if he did not even mention him. That Josephus in Origen's text of him did mention Jesus seems probable from the fact that on three occasions he quotes from Antiquities 20.200, the reference being to James, xov a5etapov 'IRIOOIJ xoij XEYONEVOI) XQIOTOX), " t h e brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ." Few have doubted the genuineness of the passage on James, and, indeed, if it had been a Christian interpolation, it would, in all probability, have been more laudatory of James. If the 'Testimonium' had appeared in Origen's text of Josephus in anything like the form in which it appears in our manuscripts, it hardly seems likely that he would have complained, in effect, that James was accorded greater importance than Jesus himself. Moreover, in answering Celsus' very effective charges against Jesus and Christianity, particularly as to the miracles of Jesus, Origen should most naturally have cited Josephus' 'Testimonium', which so explicitly refers to these miracles. EISLER 340 has argued that the text of the 'Testimonium' was originally depreciatory, but if such a text was the one which Origen possessed he would most probably have reacted more strongly against the passage and not merely have expressed wonder that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ. The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form. Even after Eusebius, it is a full century before we have another reference to the 'Testimonium'. Writers such as Basil, Ambrose, Josippos, Panodorus, John Chrysostom, Rufinus, and Sulpicius Severus all cite Josephus but do not refer to the 'Testimonium'. The evidence of John Chrysostom is of particular value, since he cites B o o k 18 of the 'Antiquities', including the passage about John the Baptist, on four occasions, but not the 'Testimonium'. Since there is hardly a Church Father who is more vehement in his attacks on the Jews, if Josephus had had a negative portrayal of Jesus, it seems likely that he would have cited this to strengthen his tirade against the Jews. Conversely, if the 'Testimonium' had been positive, he might well have cited it to show that the Jews were guilty of the crime of deicide. It is almost a century after Eusebius that we once again have a reference to the 'Testimonium', namely in Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 13.14). It is significant 339 ISTVAN K . HORVATH: E g y Origenes-hely problematikajahoz ( O n the Problems of a Passage in Origen). In: Antik Tanulmanyok (Studia Aniiqua) 9, 1962, pp. 92—96. 340

EISLER (above, note 56).

824

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

that despite the value of such a passage for the claims of Christianity and despite the fact that Jerome knows Josephus so well (he cites him no less than ninety times) he refers to the 'Testimonium' only once. An examination of this citation shows that though he is clearly quoting, Jerome says that Jesus credebatur esse Christus. Hence his text said not that Jesus was the Messiah but that he was believed to be the Messiah. This would fit the statement, noted above of Origen, to whom Jerome was generally so indebted, that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Christ, and would explain why Jerome cites the passage only once, namely because it is less than fully enthusiastic in endorsing the claims of Christianity. We may add that the fact that the 'Testimonium' is not mentioned by a number of Jerome's contemporaries — Orosius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Augustine —, all of whom cite other parts of Josephus, supports this conclusion. The argumentum ex silentio may be dangerous, but when it is so highly cumulative as here, it does seem to carry weight. One objection to the authenticity of the passage as it stands is that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, which tells of a series of riots. Section 65 of Book 18 seems to belong directly after 62. Prior to the 'Testimonium', as NORDEN,341 THACKERAY,342 and MOREAU343 have noted, we have a description of two riots; and after the 'Testimonium' we have two others, all of them termed ÖÖQußoi, whereas in sections 63 and 64 the Christian movement is called not a Gögußog but a qröXov. THACKERAY has ingeniously noted, moreover, that the phrase yiverai ôé, which introduces the 'Testimonium', invariably introduces a calamity in Josephus, and that perhaps the phrase that followed was "the beginning of new disturbances." PHARR,344 in a theory recently revived by HORVATH345 and BELL, 346 thus suggests that the original 'Testimonium' contained a derogatory account of the manner of Jesus' birth, inasmuch as in the Paulina-Mundus story (Ant. 18.65 — 80) which follows, there is a similar motif of a woman being tricked into having relations with a man posing as a god. Such a story of how Mary became pregnant by a soldier Panthera is alluded to in Celsus (ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.32) and in the medieval 'Toledoth Yeshu'. BELL adds that the episode (Ant. 18.81—84) of the Jewish teacher who diverted to his own use Fulvia's donation to the Temple may be a satire on Paul, whose converts included large numbers of women, though, we may comment, there is no accusation or even indication anywhere that Paul did anything of this sort. 341

342 343 344

345 346

EDUARD NORDEN: Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophétie. In: Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literatur 16, 1913, pp. 637—666. Reprinted in: IDEM, Kleine Schriften zum Klassischen Altertum. Berlin 1966, pp. 2 4 1 - 2 7 5 , and in: ABRAHAM SCHALIT, ed.: Zur Josephus-Forschung (Wege der Forschung, 84). Darmstadt 1973, pp. 2 7 - 6 9 . THACKERAY (above, note 334), pp. 140—141. JACQUES MOREAU: Les plus anciens témoignages profanes sur Jésus. Brüssel 1944. CLYDE PHARR: The Testimony of Josephus to Christianity. In: American Journal of Philology 48, 1927, pp. 1 3 7 - 1 4 7 . HORVATH (above, note 339). ALBERT A. BELL, JR: Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the Testimonium Flavianum. In: Jewish Quarterly Review 67, 1976, pp. 16—22.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S REVISITED

825

BAMMEL347 notes the parallel with the episode (Ant. 18.85—87) that follows and which speaks of a leader who promised the Samaritans that he would lead them to a place where Moses had deposited some sacred vessels. The Samaritans, we may note, looked upon Moses restored to life, or one of his descendants, as the final Redemer; and the Samaritan B o o k of Asatir, entirely devoted to divulging the so-called 'Secrets of Moses,' ends with a triumphant messianic oracle. Hence, we may suggest, the juxtaposition of such an incident with the 'Testimonium' may indicate that the latter was similarly Messianic in its bent. Indeed, we may note that the Slavonic version of Josephus' 'Jewish War', between 2.174 and 175, similarly associates Moses with the Messiah, since it is said that some remarked about Jesus, " O u r first lawgiver is risen from the dead." O n the other hand, as we have already noted, if the original passage were derogatory, we might have expected some of the numerous early Church Fathers who had read Josephus to comment on it and to object to it. N o t only do they not do so but they praise Josephus, as did Pseudo-Justin in the second century (Cohortatio ad Graecos 9.13; = Patrologia Graeca 6.257, 261, 268), as most wise and worthy. If, indeed, there was a passage about Jesus in the 'Antiquities', this may help to explain the Talmud's silence about Josephus. The Talmud, to be sure, is not a history book. Still, the Talmud does occasionally mention such historical figures as Herod and Titus; and if, indeed, Josephus was of such distinguished ancestry, learning, and achievements as he claims to be, one might have expected that the Talmudic sages would have mentioned him at least casually. Moreover, from a political point of view, Josephus' opposition to the revolutionaries and his aim of seeking an accommodation with the Romans is consonant with the attitude of the great Pharisaic leader Johanan ben Zakkai (cf. Talmud, Gittin 56a—b and parallels). Similarly, Josephus' blackening of Herod in the 'Antiquities' should have found a responsive chord among Talmudic leaders, who were bitter about his slaying of scholars (Baba Bathra 3a—4a; Ta'anith 23a). Some have asked how, if we assume that the 'Testimonium' is totally interpolated, Josephus could have passed over in total silence an event and personality of such significance. We may, however, comment that even if we regard the passage as genuine, it is remarkable that Josephus omitted the incident totally in the 'Jewish War', which is paralleled by the 'Antiquities' closely at this point, and that he devoted a mere two paragraphs and a single cross-reference to it in the 'Antiquities'. In paying so little attention to Jesus and to early Christianity, he was not, however, alone. O n e would have expected a writer such as Velleius Paterculus, for example, who dealt particularly with the reign of his muchbeloved Emperor Tiberius and whose work definitely reached the year 29, the date of Jesus' crucifixion, since he notes the death of the empress in that year (2.130.5), to have mentioned Jesus if he really seemed important. Even Tacitus, 347

ERNST BAMMEL: Zum Testimonium Flavianum (Jos. Ant. 18, 6 3 - 6 4 ) . In: OTTO BETZ, KLAUS HAACKER, MARTIN HENGEL, edd.: Josephus-Studien: Uiitersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Gottingen 1974, pp. 9—22.

826

LOUIS

H.

FELDMAN

who has such an extensive account of Tiberius' reign, mentions nothing about Jesus in connection with that period; his only reference to him comes when he discusses (Annals 15.44) the fire in Rome during the reign of Nero, when the Christians were accused of arson. It is significant, as we have indicated but as has been seldom noted, that none of the passages relevant to early Christianity — about John, Jesus, and James — is to be found in the parallel passages in the 'Jewish War'. We may explain this by noting that the 'Antiquities' covers this period often at considerably greater length, though we may note that the events in Pilate's procuratorship which are narrated in Antiquities 18.55—62 (37 lines in NIESE'S Greek text) are told at almost the same length (35 lines in NIESE'S Greek text) in War 2.169—177. Alternatively, we may conclude that the Christians had become more important during the interval between the time of the composition of the 'War' and that of the 'Antiquities'. Another possibility is that the passages were inserted for a specific purpose, to show the power of the Pharisees in getting Jesus condemned and of the Sanhedrin in convicting James. We may, however, reply that Josephus refrains from specifying that the "men of the highest standing" who accused Jesus (Ant. 18.64) were Pharisees and that he puts the chief blame for the condemnation of James upon Ananus, the high priest, who, he specifically notes, was a Sadducee (Ant. 20.199). As to the condemnation of John, neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees are held responsible, but rather Herod the Tetrarch (Ant. 18.116). As to the language of the 'Testimonium', while EISLER'S 348 attempted restoration of the original text appears arbitrary, his notion that the text as we have it has a substratum of authentic material seems increasingly confirmed by stylistic studies of it. In particular, THACKERAY,349 the prince of Josephan scholars, who, as we have noted, went so far in his study of Josephus' language as to compose a lexicon to Josephus for his own use so as to see precisely how each word is used and whether there is evidence of shifts of style in various parts of his works due to the help of 'assistants' or to other reasons, remarked that the phrase "such people as accept the truth gladly" (r|6ovfj) is characteristic of the scribe in this part of the 'Antiquities', since we find the phrase eight times in Books 17—19 (supposedly the work of the Thucydidean assistant) and nowhere else in Josephus. Christian interpolation at this point is unlikely, since the word f)Sovf| in the N e w Testament and in early Christian writings has a pejorative connotation. RICHARDS, 350 another careful student of Josephus' language, notes several other stylistic peculiarities indicating that the passage is authentic. On the other hand, SCHEIDWEILER351 dates the reworking of the passage to the second half of the third century and to the circle of the followers of the

348

EISLER (above, note 56).

349

H E N R Y ST. J O H N THACKERAY a n d R A L P H MARCUS: A L e x i c o n t o J o s e p h u s . 4 f a s c i c l e s ( t o

350

351

S|icpiXox