In the Court of the Gentiles: Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus 9789004549067, 2023011756, 9789004549050

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 Introduction
1 Background of Antiquities
1.1 Date of Composition
1.2 Sources in Antiquities
2 Audience, Readers, and Publication of Antiquities
3 Aims and Purpose of Antiquities
4 Why “Court-Tales”? On Genre, Categories, and Labels
5 Methods and Challenges
5.1 Method of Study
5.2 Challenges
6 Plan of Study
Chapter 2 Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus
1 Introduction
2 “Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity” Defined
2.1 Key Terms and Contexts
2.2 Model of Exemplarity
2.3 Plutarch, Moralism, and Exemplarity
3 Moralism and Exemplarity in Josephan Scholarship
4 Exemplarity in Josephus’ Antiquities
4.1 Programmatic Statements
4.2 Terminology of Exemplarity (παράδειγμα) in AJ
4.3 Absence of Explicit Terminology
5 Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity in This Study
Chapter 3 A Tale of Two Josephs: Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph
1 Introduction
1.1 Summary of the Tales of the Tobiads
1.2 Previous Scholarship
2 Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Wise Courtiers
2.1 Friends in High Places
2.2 Wise, Witty—and Ambitious
3 Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Sexually (Im)moral
3.1 Joseph the Chaste
3.2 Mrs. Potiphar and a Dancing Girl
4 Conclusion
Chapter 4 “He Loved Him Still More as if He Were His Only Genuine Son”: Hyrcanus the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph
1 Introduction
2 Sibling Rivalry in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story
2.1 Precocious Youths
2.2 Selection, Splicing, and Seams
2.3 Older Brothers’ Mediocrity
2.4 Younger Brothers’ Brilliance
2.5 Rivalry Turns Deadly
2.6 Retribution, Not Reconciliation
2.7 Summary
3 Reward and Punishment in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story
4 Conclusion
Chapter 5 “You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains”: Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph
1 Introduction
1.1 Summary of Josephus’ Account of Agrippa I
1.2 Previous Scholarship
2 Josephan Editorial Comments
2.1 First Editorial Comment (AJ 18.127–29)
2.2 Second Editorial Comment (AJ 18.142)
2.3 Third Editorial Comment (AJ 19.294–96)
3 Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph as Falsely Accused and Unjustly Imprisoned
3.1 False Accusation of Agrippa (AJ 18.168–91)
3.2 Agrippa’s Unjust Imprisonment and Divine Portents (AJ 18.195–204)
4 Conclusion
Chapter 6 Banquets Fit for Kings: Agrippa I and Esther
1 Introduction
2 Anti-Jewish Plots in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther
2.1 The Emperor Gaius and the Persian King Ahasuerus
2.2 Anti-Jewish Figures at Court: Apion, Isidorus, and Haman
3 Banquet Scenes in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther
3.1 Fundamental Parallels
3.2 Parallels Subverted: Agrippa and Esther Contrasted
3.3 Agrippa’s Intervention: Philo vs. Josephus
4 Conclusion
Chapter 7 Setting a Good Example: Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Brill_JSJS209.qxp_SPINE : 19 mm cmyk 15-05-2023 11:19 Pagina 1

jsjs 209

David Edwards explores how Josephus in Antiquities adapts the scriptural stories of Joseph and Esther in unexpected ways as models

Edwards

for accounts of more recent Jewish figures. Terming this practice “subversive adaptation,” Edwards contextualizes it within GrecoRoman literary culture and employs the concept of “discourses of exemplarity” to show how Josephus used narratives about past figures to engage Roman elites in moral reflection and pragmatic decision-making. This book supplies an analysis of frequently overlooked accounts as well as Josephus’ broader literary strategies, and shows how ancient Jews appropriated imperial historiographical conventions and forms of discourse while countering Greco-Roman

articles and book chapters on Josephus, the New Testament, and early Christianity, and is a contributor to the Brill Josephus Project.

brill.com/jsjs

In the Court of the Gentiles

*hIJ0A4|VUZQVq

issn 1384-2161 isbn 978-90-04-54905-0

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism [209]

David R. Edwards, Ph.D. (2021), Florida State University, has published

BRILL

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism [209]

claims of cultural superiority.

In the Court of the Gentiles Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus

David R. Edwards

BRILL

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

In the Court of the Gentiles

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor René Bloch (Institut für Judaistik, Universität Bern) Karina Martin Hogan (Department of Theology, Fordham University) Associate Editors Hindy Najman (Theology & Religion Faculty, University of Oxford) Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven) Benjamin G. Wright, iii (Department of Religion Studies, Lehigh University) Advisory Board A. M. Berlin – K. Berthelot – J. J. Collins – B. Eckhardt – Y. Furstenberg S. Kattan Gribetz – G. Anthony Keddie – L. Lehmhaus – O. Malka A. Manekin – S. Mason – F. Mirguet – J. H. Newman – A. K. Petersen M. Popović – P. Pouchelle – I. Rosen-Zvi – J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten – M. Segal J. Sievers – L. T. Stuckenbruck – L. Teugels – J. C. de Vos – S. Weisser

volume 209

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jsjs

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

In the Court of the Gentiles Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus

By

David R. Edwards

LEIDEN | BOSTON

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023011756

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1384-2161 isbn 978-90-04-54905-0 (hardback) isbn  978-90-04-54906-7 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by David R. Edwards. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

For Adaline and Elianah

∵

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Contents Abbreviations x Acknowledgments xiI 1 Introduction 1 1 Background of Antiquities 4 1.1 Date of Composition 4 1.2 Sources in Antiquities 5 2 Audience, Readers, and Publication of Antiquities 10 3 Aims and Purpose of Antiquities 15 4 Why “Court-Tales”? On Genre, Categories, and Labels 17 5 Methods and Challenges 20 5.1 Method of Study 21 5.2 Challenges 23 6 Plan of Study 25 2 Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus 29 1 Introduction 29 2 “Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity” Defined 33 2.1 Key Terms and Contexts 33 2.2 Model of Exemplarity 35 2.3 Plutarch, Moralism, and Exemplarity 38 3 Moralism and Exemplarity in Josephan Scholarship 43 4 Exemplarity in Josephus’ Antiquities 47 4.1 Programmatic Statements 47 4.2 Terminology of Exemplarity (παράδειγμα) in AJ 49 4.3 Absence of Explicit Terminology 51 5 Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity in This Study 53 3 A Tale of Two Josephs: Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph 57 1 Introduction 57 1.1 Summary of the Tales of the Tobiads 58 1.2 Previous Scholarship 59 2 Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Wise Courtiers 66 2.1 Friends in High Places 67 2.2 Wise, Witty—and Ambitious 71 3 Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Sexually (Im)moral 75 3.1 Joseph the Chaste 75 3.2 Mrs. Potiphar and a Dancing Girl 80 4 Conclusion 82 David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

viii

Contents

4 “He Loved Him Still More as if He Were His Only Genuine Son”: Hyrcanus the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph 87 1 Introduction 87 2 Sibling Rivalry in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story 87 2.1 Precocious Youths 88 2.2 Selection, Splicing, and Seams 91 2.3 Older Brothers’ Mediocrity 92 2.4 Younger Brothers’ Brilliance 94 2.5 Rivalry Turns Deadly 97 2.6 Retribution, Not Reconciliation 98 2.7 Summary 102 3 Reward and Punishment in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story 102 4 Conclusion 105 5 “You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains”: Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph 112 1 Introduction 112 1.1 Summary of Josephus’ Account of Agrippa I 112 1.2 Previous Scholarship 113 2 Josephan Editorial Comments 117 2.1 First Editorial Comment (AJ 18.127–29) 117 2.2 Second Editorial Comment (AJ 18.142) 118 2.3 Third Editorial Comment (AJ 19.294–96) 119 3 Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph as Falsely Accused and Unjustly Imprisoned 121 3.1 False Accusation of Agrippa (AJ 18.168–91) 121 3.2 Agrippa’s Unjust Imprisonment and Divine Portents (AJ 18.195–204) 124 4 Conclusion 130 6 Banquets Fit for Kings: Agrippa I and Esther 136 1 Introduction 136 2 Anti-Jewish Plots in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther 137 2.1 The Emperor Gaius and the Persian King Ahasuerus 137 2.2 Anti-Jewish Figures at Court: Apion, Isidorus, and Haman 142

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

ix

Contents

3

4

Banquet Scenes in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther 149 3.1 Fundamental Parallels 149 3.2 Parallels Subverted: Agrippa and Esther Contrasted 151 3.3 Agrippa’s Intervention: Philo vs. Josephus 154 Conclusion 157

7 Setting a Good Example: Summary and Conclusions 166 Bibliography 179 Index of Modern Authors 199 Index of Ancient Sources 202 Index of Subjects 208

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Abbreviations ABRL Aeg AGJU AJP ANRW ASP BA BibOr CBQ ClQ CP CPJ DSD EJL GR HDR HRE HSCP HTR IEJ JAJ JBL JJS JQR JRS JSIJ JSJ JSJSup JSNTSup JSOTSup JSPSup JTS LCL LSTS MAAR NovTSup

Anchor Bible Reference Library Aegyptus Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt American Studies in Papyrology Biblical Archaeologist Biblica et Orientalia Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classical Quarterly Classical Philology Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum Dead Sea Discoveries Early Judaism and Its Literature Greece and Rome Harvard Dissertations in Religion Historiography of Rome and Its Empire Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Harvard Theological Review Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Ancient Judaism Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Library of Second Temple Studies Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Supplements to Novum Testamentum

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

xi

Abbreviations RB RE RBL REJ SCI SJLA SPhiloA ST STAC TSAJ WUNT ZAW

Revue biblique Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche Review of Biblical Literature Revue des études juives Scripta Classica Israelica Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studia Philonica Annual Studia Theologica Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Acknowledgments The present work is a revision of my 2021 doctoral dissertation completed at Florida State University under the supervision of David Levenson. While the dissertation began with a rapid pace of research and writing in 2019, finishing it was a laboriously slow process as a result of the birth of my twin daughters and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more or less simultaneously. I owe countless thanks to David for the many late nights spent on Zoom calls, without which the dissertation would never have been completed and the current monograph would never have materialized. I am also grateful for the contributions of the other committee members, Matthew Goff, Nicole Kelley, and Trevor Luke. Although for a brief time I was so fatigued with the dissertation that I thought I might never wish to return to it again in the future, some of the committee’s suggestions led me in new and exciting directions that ultimately manifested in the present book. Throughout the revisions of the dissertation and the new research and writing I benefited greatly from conversations with Carson Bay and Eelco Glas. My anonymous JSJSup reviewers also supplied extremely helpful feedback. A condensed version of a combination of Chapters 2 and 5 is being published separately in an edited volume and was read by Jan Willem van Henten, Michael Avioz, and Carson Bay. I am grateful for their feedback as well. Small parts of Chapter 4 were expanded into a new essay for an edited volume, the research and writing of which resulted in further improvements to the present book. I thank Viktor Kókai-Nagy for that invitation and Eelco Glas for the recommendation which elicited it. The editors for the series in which this book appears, Karina Hogan and René Bloch, were also extremely helpful and supportive in guiding this project. I cannot but mention the various conversations with colleagues in the Florida State University Department of Religion over the year or so working on the book, as well as the help of Tommy Woodward in compliling the indices. Finally, I owe thanks to my parents, who always supported my education, which seemed never-ending at times, and my wife and daughters, who are the reasons for which any of what I write matters. David Edwards Tallahassee, Florida January 2023

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 1

Introduction Among the many entertaining tales that have come down from ancient Jewish tradition, one recounts the story of a youth who is the youngest of his many brothers and born from a different mother as well. He is his father’s favorite owing to his sharp intellect, but this only kindles his older brothers’ jealous wrath against him. Their envious machinations propel him from the Jewish homeland to the exotic and distant court of Egypt, where he faces many challenges but also rises so high as to deliver his family and people from imminent danger. Similarly, ancient Jewish tradition tells of a young Jewish man in a faraway and foreign land who, just as he has found success and a measure of prosperity, is ensnared by a treacherous and false accusation. He languishes in prison, seemingly forgotten. In the interim, divine signs are sent which presage the future. Ultimately, he is released, restored to freedom, and rewarded with the foreign ruler’s trust and affection at court. All doubts as to his status are dispelled by his vindication. In yet another story, we hear of a Jewish ruler who is very close to the foreign king that reigns over the global empire of the day. This foreign king, whether out of madness or arrogance or manipulation by a subordinate, inexplicably gives orders which endanger the collective Jewish people. Their peculiar laws and customs put them on a course towards certain death and destruction. At the last hour, the Jewish ruler intervenes at a meticulously planned banquet. The foreign king is flush with wine and inclined towards the granting of petitions. The Jewish ruler seizes the moment and pleads for the deliverance of the Jewish people and an end to the murderous orders. The king relents and the crisis is averted. Any reader with more than a passing familiarity with the Jewish scriptures will likely identify these stories at once, the first two as episodes from the account of Joseph, which occupies Genesis 37–50 at the close of the patriarchal narratives, and the last as the climactic moment of the Book of Esther. All three are among the most iconic and recognizable stories of the entire Hebrew Bible. They and the larger accounts in which they are embedded are full of human drama, dramatic tension, compelling characters, and literary artistry. While large-scale, self-contained stories are not typical of ancient Hebrew prose narrative, these two are markedly different; that they stand apart is indicated by their widespread appeal through the millennia. Abraham might be

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_002

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

2

Chapter 1

the “father of the Jews” but Joseph has inspired both an animated film and a Broadway musical. Esther, meanwhile, pairs one of the only instances of a female principal character in the Hebrew Bible with cryptic silence concerning the divine—facts which have only heightened the book’s mysterious appeal. It is not so surprising, then, that the three brief stories summarized above can be recognized almost instantly. Yet, the reader may be surprised to discover that the identification of the stories with the figures of Joseph and Esther would, in this case, be wrong or at least incomplete. The ancient Jewish tradition in which these stories appear is not the Hebrew Bible—or better, not only the Hebrew Bible—but the Antiquities of the Jews (hereafter AJ), by Flavius Josephus. The first story, as I summarized it, is a blend of the account of the two Tobiad patriarchs, Joseph and Hyrcanus, narrated in AJ 12, while the second and third are derived from the account of the Jewish king Agrippa I, narrated in AJ 18 and 19. These three examples are, however, only a few of the more striking instances where Josephus incorporates elements from the stories of scriptural Joseph and Esther into his own original accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, modeling the non-scriptural stories on biblical archetypes. Although a few scholars have discussed the parallels between scriptural Joseph/Esther and the Tobiads/Agrippa I in passing, no comprehensive or detailed analysis of them has yet been undertaken. Furthermore, it has been almost entirely overlooked that Josephus often goes on to surprise the reader by overturning parallels that he initially established and subverting audience expectations. To give but one example of this, which I will discuss at length in Chapter 6, both Esther and Agrippa avert crises facing the Jewish people by making a petition at a lavish banquet. However, while Esther is characterized as devising the banquet as part of an elaborate and selfless plan to save her people, Agrippa is depicted as throwing the party simply to advance his own standing at court. This study, therefore, will make an important contribution to understanding the facet of Josephus’ literary agenda and compositional practices that I term “subversive adaptation” (see below in this chapter). After undertaking a thorough documentation of these practices by Josephus, I will contextualize my findings within elite Greco-Roman literary culture by demonstrating that they can fruitfully be read in light of discourses of exemplarity (see Chapter 2). This mode of instruction and technology of self-formation, which was particularly prominent in historiography and biography of the late Roman republic and early principate, engaged elite readers in moral reflection, ethical judgement, and pragmatic decision-making through the presentation of past figures, deeds, and events (see Chapter 2). This area of research is now

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

3

an important context within Classical studies for situating Greco-Roman practices of reading and writing as a component of the cultural formation of ruling elites throughout the Roman empire and especially in Rome itself. Although this field and its findings have not been applied to the study of Josephus until very recently, that is beginning to change, and this book makes a significant contribution towards that effort as one of the first monograph-length attempts to bring Josephus into dialogue with Greco-Roman exemplary discourses with attention to his rewriting and reuse of scriptural figures and stories. But before outlining in full the scope, method, and plan of this study, it will be useful to review some of the most pertinent background to Josephus’ longest work. A complete survey of the background to Antiquities is neither necessary nor desirable for the purposes of this study.1 Nevertheless, it will prove worthwhile to rehearse a few of the most salient points which bear upon my analysis, both so that they are fresh in mind and also because my own position on several issues shapes my approach and my conclusions in this book. It should be noted at the outset that when I cite the Greek text of Josephus, I use the Loeb edition in consultation with Niese’s critical edition.2 For the Jewish scriptures, I use the BHS5 and Göttingen editions of the Hebrew and Greek versions respectively.3 All translations of ancient text are my own unless otherwise noted.

1 Michael Tuval surveys some of the more recent scholarly literature in From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew: On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism, WUNT 2/357 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 130–48. For surveys of AJ, see also Daniel R. Schwartz, “Many Sources But a Single Author: Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities,” in A Companion to Josephus, ed. Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016), 36–58; Steve Mason, introduction to Judean Antiquities 1–4, by Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), xxiii–xxxviii; Paul Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible, TSAJ 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 14–34; Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance, JSPSup 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 80–104. 2 H. St. John Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wilkgren, and L. H. Feldman, Josephus, 9 vols., LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965); Benedictus Niese, Flavii Iosephi opera: Edidit et apparatu critic instruxit, 7 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1887–1895). 3 John William Wevers, Genesis, Göttingen Septuagint 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974); Robert Hanhart, Esther, Göttingen Septuagint 8.3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

4 1

Chapter 1

Background of Antiquities

1.1 Date of Composition It is unknown when precisely Josephus began working on Antiquities, only that he had already completed his earlier work, Jewish War (hereafter BJ), because at numerous points he refers the reader to it for more information on some topic or other. In the proem of AJ he claims that the seed of his lengthy twentybook project originated “when I wrote the War” (ὅτε τὸν πόλεμον συνέγραφον), though scope precluded it being a part of that much smaller work.4 Since BJ was substantially completed by 79 CE, and finished completely by 81 CE at the latest, we may surmise that he turned to begin researching and writing AJ in the several years afterwards.5 A long period of time between completing BJ and embarking on the research for and writing of AJ cannot be allowed—no more than perhaps three to five years at most—given the immense amount of time and energy that must have gone into the production of AJ, which was completed in 93/94 CE.6 It is unlikely that a project of AJ’s scope could have been completed in anything less than approximately ten years.7 I assume that 4 AJ 1.6. However, in BJ 1.13–17, Josephus says that writing ancient history is an inferior goal to the writing of contemporary events, and furthermore claims that there is no need to write a history of the Jews since others have done so quite adequately already. This shows that Josephus was, indeed, already aware of the possibility of composing a full-length history of the Jews when he wrote BJ, though his stated motives for writing it only later are rhetorically-motivated and inconsistent. 5 Concerning the date of the completion of BJ, in Vita 361 and Contra Apionem 1.50 (hereafter CA) Josephus claims that he presented BJ to the emperors Vespasian and Titus. As the former died in 79 CE, the larger portion of BJ must have been completed by that point, although there is no reason to assume that he presented a finished text to them, only one sufficiently complete as to receive their approval. However, the last book, BJ 7, features Domitian prominently and lauds him conspicuously, an element entirely lacking in the rest of the work and an indication that this capstone was added after the unexpected death of Titus in 81 CE. See the argument of Seth Schwartz, “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986): 373–86, who adds a further set of additions to BJ in the reign of Nerva or early in the reign of Trajan, the content of which overlaps with the concerns that preoccupy AJ. 6 Whether the date is reckoned to be 93 or 94 CE depends upon how Domitian’s regnal years are counted. The date is derived from the conclusion of the work (AJ 20.267), where Josephus speculates on the possibility that “God willing I will come back around again to the [Jewish] war and those things which have taken place among us [Jews] until the present day, which is the thirteenth year of the reign of Domitian Caesar and the fifty-sixth year of my life.” (κἂν τὸ θεῖον ἐπιτρέπῃ κατὰ περιδρομὴν ὑπομνήσω πάλιν τοῦ τε πολέμου καὶ τῶν συμβεβηκότων ἡμῖν μέχρι τῆς νῦν ἐνεστώσης ἡμέρας, ἥτις ἐστὶν τρισκαιδεκάτου μὲν ἔτους ῆς Δομετιανοῦ Καίσαρος ἀρχῆς, ἐμοὶ δ᾿ ἀπὸ γενέσεως πεντηκοστοῦ τε καὶ ἕκτου.) 7 If one allots a dozen years, then Josephus wrote on average ten lines a day according to Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 55. However, it is probable that his pace was quite uneven over time, as some David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

5

AJ was composed in roughly the order in which we find it organized in its completed form, but this is not provable and Josephus certainly returned to earlier material to make additions or alterations.8 1.2 Sources in Antiquities Concerning Josephus’ sources in AJ, only broad sweeps may be permitted since detailed discussion will be engaged as required for each account that I analyze in Chapters 3–6.9 For AJ 1–11.297, Josephus’ primary source is the Jewish scriptures10 with digressions, expansions, and supplements from Greco-Roman parts of AJ would have required far more research, preparation, or rewriting of sources than others. As such, it is not quite fair to conclude, as Feldman does (55), that “this is clearly a slow rate of composition.” Some days may have seen Josephus only undertaking research and collecting sources, while others may have seen him writing prodigiously. Aside from writing AJ, presumably Josephus also had a productive personal life and corresponding demands on his time. 8 His general compositional method can be inferred in very broad strokes. On the basis of the summaries, which are a sort of table of contents that precede each book but which frequently do not concord with their actual contents or order, Josephus must have started by collecting sources, selecting from their contents, and organizing it all in a general outline. However, he then frequently supplemented or deviated from that initial “draft” during the actual process of composition—hence the summaries and the contents of the books do not always match. See Étienne Nodet, “Josephus and Discrepant Sources,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor, JSJSup 146 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 265–71. For other evidence that Josephus returned at times to revise his work, see examples in Étienne Nodet, The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 6–9. 9 For an overview of Josephus’ sources for AJ, see Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 80–89. A survey of Josephus’ handling of sources in AJ can be found in Schwartz, “Many Sources But a Single Author,” 36–58. Although Josephus’ roles as both compiler and author are acknowledged by Schwartz, the former is alleged to be most operative in the second of half of AJ, where Josephus’ sources are thought to have required less rewriting on account of their generally superior Greek style, while the latter is most operative in the scriptural first half of AJ, where the need for rewriting is perceived to have been greatest. As pointed out by Schwartz, “On Drama and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus,” SCI 10 (1991): 113–29, the fact that Josephus in places records opinions of sources which contradict his own can variously be interpreted as a failure to digest his sources owing to carelessness, a concession to the scope of the project, or the byproduct of a compiler’s approach to composition. I show in Chapter 2 that such discrepancies can also be read as inviting the reader’s active evaluation of the stories and characters by complicating simplistic judgements. Regardless, stylometric analysis has shown that even in places where Josephus is alleged to stay much closer to his source in AJ as opposed to the parallel account in BJ, he nevertheless rewrites his source thoroughly enough to imprint it with his own distinctive stylistic identity. See David S. Williams, “On Josephus’ Use of Nicolaus of Damascus: A Stylometric Analysis of BJ 1.225–273 and AJ 14.280–369,” SCI 12 (1993): 176–87. 10 A brief overview of Josephus’ relationship to the Jewish scriptures may be found in Paul Spilsbury, “Josephus and the Bible,” in Chapman and Rodgers, Companion to Josephus, David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

6

Chapter 1

sources (such as decrees, letters, and excerpts from other historians)11 and from Jewish traditions (oral or written).12 However, as specific examples in the following chapters will show, when Josephus departs from the scriptural accounts it is not always possible to determine whether he is following another source, utilizing a text of the scriptures that differs from what we now possess, or making his own distinctive compositional choice without impetus from any source. For the non-scriptural second half of AJ, Josephus relied much more heavily on the Greco-Roman sources that were used in only a supplemental fashion in the first half. Nicolaus of Damascus, for instance, is credited in places and used without citation more extensively.13 Many of these known sources (including Nicolaus) are no longer extant in whole or in part and so determinations as to the nature and extent of their use is necessarily both imprecise and contested. On the other hand, there are a few known sources which we possess in a form very close to that used by Josephus, notably Letter of Aristeas (AJ 12.11–118) and 1 Maccabees (AJ 12.241–13.214).14 Yet, at many points we do not know precisely

11 12 13

14

123–34. I eschew the term “Bible” because it implies a single and singular text in book-form as well as an established canon, none of which characterized Josephus’ scriptural texts; the term “scripture” in the singular implies similar notions, if to a slightly lesser degree. The term “scriptures” aptly communicates that in Josephus’ day, there existed no agreement as to the number and boundaries of Jewish sacred writings. See further Timothy H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). For instance, on Greco-Roman documentary sources in Josephus, see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). For example, on halakhic traditions in Josephus, see Michael Avioz, Legal Exegesis of Scripture in the Works of Josephus, LSTS 97 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2021). On Josephus’ use of Nicolaus of Damascus, see R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: S.P.C.K., 1961), 79–92; Ben Zion Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 51–64; idem, “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 147–72; Mark Toher, “Nicolaus and Herod in the Antiquitates Judaicae,” HSCP 101 (2003): 427–47; Nadav Sharon, Judea under Roman Domination: The First Generation of Statelessness and Its Legacy, EJL 46 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2017), 23–27 and 35–39; Tyler Smith, “Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities in Competition with Nicolaus of Damascus’s Universal History,” JAJ 13 (2022): 52–76. On Josephus’ use of Letter of Aristeas, see André Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe: Adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée: Une Réaction Atticisante contre la Koinè (Paris: Librairie c. Kincksieck, 1962). On Josephus’ use of 1 Maccabees, see Isaiah M. Gafni, “Josephus and I Maccabees,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History, 116–31.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

7

what sources lie behind his account in the second half of AJ. Where AJ material overlaps with his earlier BJ account, it is logical to presume that he began with that work as his starting point and made alterations and additions from there. Such is the case, for example, in the account of Agrippa I, treated in Chapters 5–6. In any case, as I will discuss at greater length below in regard to my method and approach, I will treat the final composition as the product of Josephus’ authorial and creative control irrespective of the use of sources. A major point of contention among scholars regards the language of his sources. For the non-scriptural second half of AJ his sources were, as far as we know, in Greek.15 This includes, of course, Greco-Roman documents even where they detail provincial events in Judea (e.g., Nicolaus of Damascus), but also Jewish documents, which frequently were either composed in Greek from the start (e.g., Letter of Aristeas) or translated into Greek subsequently (e.g., 1 Maccabees).16 However, the language of the one or more copies of the Jewish scriptures to which Josephus had access, and which he used for the first half of AJ, is highly debatable and largely irresolvable. Because Josephus was from a priestly family and received a commensurate education,17 there is good reason to think that he was proficient in reading Hebrew and Aramaic and possessed deep familiarity with the Jewish scriptures in those languages.18 Josephus 15

16

17

18

Vered Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), however, makes an excellent and detailed case that Josephus and Rabbinic literature at times share Aramaic Second Temple sources no longer extant, which were used in the second half of AJ. See also Tal Ilan and Vered Noam, in collaboration with Meir Ben Shahar, Daphne Baratz, and Yael Fisch, Josephus and the Rabbis [in Hebrew], 2 vols., Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017). While it has sometimes been suggested that Josephus consulted select sources in Latin, such as Roman legal documents, this has not been widely accepted and does not affect this study. For the argument that Josephus’ Greek was influenced by knowledge of Latin and a listing of proposed Latinisms, see J. S. Ward, “Roman Greek: Latinisms in the Greek of Flavius Josephus,” ClQ 57, no. 2 (2007): 632–49. His priestly lineage is detailed in Vita 1–2. For discussion of this facet of his biography, see Oliver Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus, TSAJ 124 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 198–266; James S. McLaren, “Josephus on the Priesthood,” in Chapman and Rodgers, Companion to Josephus, 273–75. Note, however, that Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 22–44, and Michael Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew, 115–28, have argued that Josephus lacked more than passing familiarity with the Jewish scriptures in textual form until he turned to engage in the project of writing AJ. For counterarguments, see Steve Mason, “Did Josephus Know His Bible When He Wrote the Jewish War? Elisha at Jericho in J. W. 4.459–465,” in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint, ed. Andrew B. Perrin,

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

8

Chapter 1

himself frames AJ as a translation project and claims that it was “translated from the Hebrew accounts.”19 While he is not the least shy about touting his own personal skills and abilities,20 he also openly acknowledges that he struggled his entire life to gain competency in high-register literary Greek, conceding that “I also set about in earnest to partake of the Greek writings after taking up experience in [Greek] grammar, though the habitual use of my native tongue hindered precise pronunciation.”21 Particularly clear cases of his dependence

19

20

21

Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, EJL 47 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2017), 603–27. On the other hand, Michael L. Satlow, “Josephus’ Knowledge of Scripture,” JAJ 11 (2020): 385–417, has argued against Josephus’ use of Hebrew texts of the Jewish scriptures and has proposed that Josephus, in fact, had very little familiarity with Hebrew at all. According to Satlow, its use was limited essentially to temple scribes. While Satlow makes some excellent points about the assumptions which often underly the scholarly presumption that Josephus was educated in Hebrew, in my view the diffusion of Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as various epigraphic and documentary sources of Roman Judea weighs against his position. See Michael Owen Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents, aybrl (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015). ἐκ τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν μεθηρμηνευμένην γραμμάτων. (AJ 1.5–6) On a fundamental level, however, it is evident that AJ is no mere translation of the scriptures in any language, but often features significant additions, alterations, abridgements, and excisions. On the topic of AJ as paraphrase vs. translation, see Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 92–98. On Josephus’ own conception of his project, see J. D. H. Norton, Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus, and the Yahad (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 58–62. See further discussion below concerning Josephus’ claim to have translated from Hebrew. AJ 20.262–63: “I say then in good confidence on account of the completed work now laid out, that no one else would have been able to carry out this project as precisely as I, even should they be so inclined—neither a Greek nor a Jew nor any other person.” (λέγω δὴ θαρσήσας ἤδη διὰ τὴν τῶν προτεθέντων συντέλειαν, ὅτι μηδεὶς ἂν ἕτερος ἠδυνήθη θελήσας μήτε Ἰουδαῖος μήτε ἀλλόφυλος τὴν πραγματείαν ταύτην οὕτως ἀκριβῶς εἰς Ἕλληνας ἐξενεγκεῖν.) On authorial claims such as this in the context of ancient historiography, see John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 140–74. αὶ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν δὲ γραμμάτων ἐσπούδασα μετασχεῖν τὴν γραμματικὴν ἐμπειρίαν ἀναλαβών, τὴν δὲ περὶ τὴν προφορὰν ἀκρίβειαν πάτριος ἐκώλυσεν συνήθεια. (AJ 20.263) See similar comments by Plutarch, Dem. 1, on his facility with Latin. Although Josephus, Vita 8, claims to have “made great progress in education” (εἰς μεγάλην παιδείας προύκοπτον ἐπίδοσιν), in context this appears to refer to traditional Jewish learning in Aramaic and/or Hebrew focused on Torah, not the kind of curriculum that Josephus’ elite Greco-Roman readers would have learned. On Greco-Roman education (παιδεία) in general, see Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, ASP 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); idem, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). On the anxieties of Greeks and other provincials over the acquisition and public display of παιδεία within an imperial Roman setting, such as Josephus here exhibits, see Tim Whitmarsh, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 90–130;

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

9

upon the existing Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures are, for instance, his use of 1 Esdras as opposed to Ezra/Nehemiah and his inclusion of the Greek additions to Esther.22 Despite Josephus’ claim, then, very few scholars have been convinced that he actually translated AJ from Hebrew-language source text as a rule,23 though it may be useful to a certain extent to conceive of it as an updated and improved revision of existing Greek translations in the direction the Hebrew Masoretic text.24 Most scholars, including myself, are comfortable to minimally claim that Josephus possessed a mixture of Greek and Hebrew texts of various portions of the Jewish scriptures whose exact contours and contents are unknown, along with possibly some Aramaic traditions.25 As Feldman opines, “it is hard, however, to prove at any given point what text

22

23

24

25

Jeroen Lauwers, “Reading Books, Talking Culture: The Performance of Paideia in Imperial Greek Literature,” in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World: Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, vol. 9, ed. Elizabeth Minchin, Mnemosyne Supplements: Monographs on Greek and Roman Language and Literature 335 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 227–44. Concerning the level of Josephus’ competence in Greek and the hypothesized nature of his education, see Erkki Koskenniemi, Greek Writers and Philosophers in Philo and Josephus: A Study of Their Secular Education and Educational Ideals (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 277–89. See Paul Spilsbury and Chris Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 6a (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 5. Josephus frames AJ in relation to the Septuagint at 1.10–12, claiming that he expands upon that work’s limited scope (i.e., the Pentateuch alone) by making Jewish lore accessible to a foreign audience. Nodet has argued extensively that only one Hebrew-language Ur-text was used with the exception of late stages of revision, when he allows that Greek translations may have been consulted. See Hebrew Bible of Josephus for a recent English presentation of Nodet’s views, which permeate the many volumes of his translation and commentary of AJ. While the arguments are intriguing and the exceptionally detailed textual analysis constitutes a significant contribution, I have not been persuaded by Nodet’s conclusions. Nodet may be correct about a non-extant Hebrew-language source underlying AJ in certain places, and I agree that Josephus may often have had access to Hebrew texts alongside their Greek translations. But in asserting (Hebrew Bible of Josephus, 12) “that Josephus, beyond Jewish traditions and Greek [i.e., non-Jewish] authors, used only a Hebrew text,” his argument is pushed too far to be sustained. For critiques of Nodet’s arguments, see Maria Brutti, “Review of Étienne Nodet The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features,” RBL 08/2019; Lindsey A. Askin, “Review of Étienne Nodet The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features,” The Downside Review 138, no. 2 (2020): 80–81. As suggested by Silvia Castelli, “Between Tradition and Innovation: Josephus’s Description of the Tabernacle (Ant. 3.108–150) as an Improved Alternative to the Greek Bible,” JSIJ 19 (2021): 1–17; idem, “Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Use of Aramaic Transliterations: On Josephus’ Vocabulary of the Priestly Vestments,” Materia Giudaica 26, no. 2 (2021): 69–80. Representative is Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 23–36; idem, “Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Jan Mulder (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 455–66.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

10

Chapter 1

Josephus is relying upon inasmuch as he is usually paraphrasing and elaborating rather than translating.”26 Therefore, I leave open the possibility that he may have consulted both Hebrew and Greek texts of the Jewish scriptures. 2

Audience, Readers, and Publication of Antiquities

In AJ 1.8–9, Josephus identifies at least one patron and reader of his work by name (Epaphroditus) and alludes to a broader reading circle of cultured Greco-Roman elites with interests in Jewish history and customs.27 This suggests that some of his readers already possessed at least some limited knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and that these held sufficient allure to maintain the reader’s interest for AJ’s substantial length. While some scholars have found it inconceivable that any non-Jewish reader could possibly have been drawn to the intricacies of matters of a distinctly Jewish flavor for such an exhausting length,28 there is ample evidence from the Roman historians of a wave of repression of Jews and Jewish sympathizers in the capital under Domitian (during which time AJ was written), which seems to indicate simultaneously both curiosity about and fear of Judaica. There is considerable scholarly debate concerning the particulars of the circumstances described by the Roman historians and indicated by the documentary record,29 in particular 26 27

28 29

Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 25. In contemporary research, the foundational treatment of the position that Josephus’ primary audience constituted Greco-Roman elites is Steve Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’ Judean Antiquities/Life,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steve Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 64–103; idem, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Origins (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), 45–67; idem, “Josephus as Roman Historian,” in Chapman and Rodgers, Companion to Josephus, 91–97. In this study, I refer to Josephus’ readers as “Greco-Roman” so as to include Greeks and other provincials residing in Rome. For a summary of the theories as to the identity of Epaphroditus, see William den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian, AGJU 86 (Leiden, Brill, 2014), 279–85. Regardless of his precise identity, he is likely to have been a freedman and not freeborn, since the name “Epaphroditus” is well-attested for the former but rare for the latter. On dedications such as Josephus’ to Epaphroditus within the context of ancient historiography, see Marincola, Authority and Tradition, 52–57, with discussion of Josephus at 52–53. For instance, Étienne Nodet, “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism from Rome,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. Zuleika Rodgers, JSJSup 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 103–104. Suetonius, Dom. 12.2, refers to the stringent exaction of the fiscus Iudaicus, crucially including those who did not openly identify themselves as Jews (whether these were actually of Jewish ethnicity or were Gentile converts is disputed), even extending to physical

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

11

whether the charges of evading the fiscus Iudaicus were at least partially legitimate or wholly invented, and whether actual Jews and Judaizers were targeted or, rather, mostly Roman elites who spuriously tarred each other as sympathizers to settle scores and eliminate rivals even in the absence of actual Jewish sympathies.30 Whatever the precise historical circumstances, there is little doubt in my mind that there was a resurgence of interest in Jewish customs under the Flavians.31 While it is true that “in an oppressive regime the fact that an accusation has been made does not prove that a crime has been committed,” even false allegations usually possess a veneer of plausibility, for they assume a circumstance in which Jewish sympathizing is a credible charge to fabricate and not utterly preposterous.32 There is, therefore, sufficient evidence that a

30

31

32

examination to ascertain whether an individual was circumcised. Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.1–2, reports capital punishment and deprivation of property for Roman elites charged with adopting Jewish customs. Concerning the documentary evidence of the fiscus, see CPJ 1.80–83; 2.108–37, 204–209. For interpretation of the nature of the fiscus on the basis of Nerva’s coinage abolishing it (or possibly only the abuse of it), see Martin Goodman, “The Meaning of ‘FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA’ on the Coinage of Nerva,” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz, AGJU 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 81–89. Modern scholarly discussion is extensive. See E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations, SJLA 22 (Leiden: Brill 1981), 371–88; John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 309–19; Sylvia Cappelletti, The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century A.D., JSJSup 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 91–139. This environment of simultaneous interest and hostility was possibly spurred at first by the prominence of later Herodians and other Jews at the Flavian court, especially Agrippa II, who had extensive contact with Josephus in Rome after the war (Vita 362–67; CA 1.51), and Agrippa’s sister Berenice, who had a highly public relationship with the future emperor Titus, reported in Dio 65.15.3–5 and Suet., Tit. 7.1–2. There is also Tiberius Julius Alexander, the nephew of Philo of Alexandria and the one-time brother-in-law of Berenice through her first husband. As Egypt’s prefect from 66 CE, he was instrumental in Vespasian’s rise to power through helping him secure Alexandria’s legions and its grain supply, so crucial to Flavian control of Rome itself (BJ 4.616–18). He was later praetorian prefect, whether that title be taken to refer to his military command in Palestine alongside Titus in the final stages of the Jewish War, or more likely as head of the praetorian guard in Rome after the war (CPJ 2.418b). See E. G. Turner, “Tiberivs Ivlivs Alexander,” JRS 44 (1954): 54–64; Silvia Castelli, “Ebrei illustri nel mondo romano. Il caso di Tiberio Giulio Alessandro,” in Roma e Bibbia, ed. Piero Capelli, Libri di Biblia 6 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2011), 93–116. Martin Goodman, “The Fiscus Iudaicus and Gentile Attitudes to Judaism in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 174. Contra Goodman’s dour depiction of Jewish conditions under the Flavians, see Alexander Yakobson, “Rome’s Attitude to Jews after the Great Rebellion—Beyond Raison d’état?,” in Rome, an Empire of Many Nations:

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

12

Chapter 1

limited circle of non-Jewish elites in Rome was the immediate audience of AJ and the anticipated readership for whom he wrote, with Epaphroditus and company serving as proof its existence.33 Jewish readership, however, cannot be ruled out entirely, and there is evidence that Josephus expected at least some Jewish readers to review his work. For example, expecting protests, Josephus petitions the leniency of the imagined Jewish reader for the decision to reorganize the scriptural ordering of Pentateuchal laws so as to present a more comprehensible account (AJ 4.197). Additionally, given the notoriety of Josephus in Rome as a former leader of the failed revolt in Judea, a client to the very same Flavian imperial house which suppressed that revolt, and an author already of a major work disputing previous histories of that war, it is difficult to imagine that other Jews in the capital would be unaware of our author’s profile and would not take an interest in a new work from him which purported to present the whole of Jewish history and an accurate translation of the Jewish scriptures. Therefore, Josephus will have known that Jews in Rome, and perhaps elsewhere, would be among his readers.34 But the extent to which Josephus consistently explains

33

34

New Perspectives on Ethnic Diversity and Cultural Identity, ed. Jonathan J. Price, Margalit Finkelberg, and Yuval Shahar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 186–202. On the impact of the constraints of a potentially hostile portion of his Roman audience upon the content of AJ, see Paul Spilsbury, “Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire,” in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond, ed. Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi, JSJSup 104 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 209–27. For the general circumstances of Jews in Flavian Rome, see further discussion below in this chapter, and also James S. McLaren, “The Jews in Rome during the Flavian Period,” Antichthon 47 (2013): 156–72. That is not to say that Josephus occupied the highest social strata in Rome proximate to either the imperial court or the highest ranks of senatorial and equestrian elites. Neither is it to concede, pace Hannah M. Cotton and Werner Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites,” in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 37–52, that “Josephus was in all likelihood extremely lonely and extremely isolated in Rome.” As den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, 285–86, shows, Josephus likely wrote from the margins of the Roman circles of literati. On other foreign elites such as Josephus in Rome, see G. W. Bowersock, “Foreign Elites at Rome,” in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 53–62. On Josephus’ possible contacts with other Greek writers in Flavian Rome, see Christopher P. Jones, “Josephus and Greek Literature in Flavian Rome,” in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 201–208. On the Jewish community at Rome under the Flavians, see Cappelletti, Jewish Community of Rome, 91–139; den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, 293–304. Supporting the notion of Jewish readership, Victor Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48, no. 3 (1956): 169–93, demonstrates that much Jewish “apologetic” literature which is ostensibly directed towards Gentiles actually performs an internal function with respect to other Jews. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

13

Jewish customs and history as if he expects the reader to be fundamentally unfamiliar with their details confirms the essentially non-Jewish core of his anticipated readership.35 Given the significant length of AJ, we must assume these non-Jewish readers to be fairly dedicated in their interest in Jewish history and customs. We need not speculate further as to the precise nature of that interest—whether, for instance, they be so-called sympathizers, proselytes, converts, God-fearers, or “lovers of learning” (AJ 1.12)—but should note that the nature of AJ assumes both comparatively deep investment as well as unfamiliarity about many particulars; it is not, in any case, a casual or passing interest.36 An important facet of the initial context of publication of AJ is that it likely had a significant oral component. That is, “publication” in Greco-Roman antiquity before the age of the printing press frequently involved the oral recitation (recitatio) of literary works complete or in various states of progress to a small circle of friends, peers, and associates.37 This took place as part of the

35

36

37

This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that such a readership is also implied for the Vita, which was attached to AJ as a sort of appendix. See Pnina Stern, “Life of Josephus: The Autobiography of Flavius Josephus,” JSJ 41 (2010): 63–93. On these “authorial intrusions” directed at explaining some facet of Jewish history or custom to the reader, see Martin Friis, Image and Imitation: Josephus’ Antiquities 1–11 and Greco-Roman Historiography, WUNT 2/472 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 177–85. The fact that Josephus’ claims about Jewish antiquity and nobility in AJ received sufficient criticism as to subsequently necessitate the writing of CA suggests that not all readers were sympathetic. See Gunnar Haaland, “Convenient Fiction or Causal Factor? The Questioning of Jewish Antiquity according to Against Apion 1.2,” in Pastor, Stern, and Mor, Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 163–75. This need not distract us from Josephus’ explicit notices, discussed above, which indicate that his primary audience was anticipated to be fundamentally receptive. We do not know how widely AJ circulated in the years following its completion nor how long afterwards CA was written (see discussion in Chapter 6). Thus, the hostile portion of AJ’s readership may not have been among its initial audience but came into possession of it upon broader circulation. Furthermore, many scholars have doubted Josephus’ claims about the criticisms which AJ received, and allege that he fabricated them so as to justify the straw man arguments and implied reader/critic in CA. See Haaland above. It is clear that such recitations were both extremely common among elites (particularly in Rome but certainly elsewhere too) as well as frequently criticized for their excess, frivolity, and theatrics. For general discussion of recitation and elite reading communities, see William A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); and contributions in William A. Johnson and Holt N. Parker, eds., Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). For the Flavian era in particular, see Antony Augoustakis, “Literary Culture,” in A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome, ed. Andrew Zissos (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2016), 376–91. For Josephus, see below. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

14

Chapter 1

aggregated process of composition, revision, and “publication.” Pliny the Younger, for example comments on his own practice that: Each has their own reasoning for recitation (ratio recitandi). I have often said that if something has escaped me (me fugit), and indeed this has happened, it offers the opportunity for me to be advised of it (admonear). … Thus, I pass over no means of correction (emendandi). First, I revise (pertracto) what I have written by myself alone (mecum ipse). Next, I read it to two or three others (duobus aut tribus lego). Then, I give it to others (aliis) for their annotations and markup (adnotanda notasque); if I doubt their feedback, I consider it with one or two others again (cum uno rursus aut altero pensito). Last, I recite it to a group (pluribus recito) and—if you can believe me—at this point I correct it most severely (acerrime emendo).38 Josephus nowhere states outright that he followed a similar procedure as Pliny or that he presented AJ before a live audience, but there are hints that he did so.39 First, the sheer length of AJ’s twenty books, along with the prevalence of recitatio as a contemporary elite literary practice, make it more likely than not that at least some portion of AJ received such treatment; it should prove surprising indeed if none of AJ was ever presented in this fashion. Second, in CA 1.50 Josephus reflects back on the composition of BJ and refers to having received the aid of “collaborators” (συνεργοῖς) who helped with “with the Greek language” (πρὸς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα φωνὴν).40 The term used here (φωνὴν) is suggestive of the oral pronunciation of spoken language rather than just difficulties with written language, struggles which indeed Josephus transparently

38 39

40

Pliny, Epistles 7.17.1, 7. For discussion of the publication of Josephus’ works and the indications of oral recitation, which follow below, see den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, 290–93; Mason, “Josephus as Roman Historian,” 91–97; Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, 52–62 with focus on BJ. For a contrasting view that responds to Mason by pushing against the primacy of oral recitation and emphasizing the opportunities for readers of Josephus’ works beyond those at an initial recitation, see Luuk Huitink and Jan Willem van Henten, “The Publication of Flavius Josephus’ Works and their Audiences,” Zutot 6, no. 1 (2009): 49–60. Mason rebuts in “Josephus, Publication, and Audiences: A Response,” Zutot 8 (2011): 81–94. Thackeray famously allotted a major compositional role to these “assistants” and even distinguished among them based on their distinct Atticizing tendencies. See H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1929), 100–24.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

15

acknowledges in AJ (discussed above).41 Oral recitation is perhaps, then, one context in which Josephus might have most acutely felt his deficiencies in spoken Greek and made corresponding disclaimers. Lastly, in BJ 1.13–16 Josephus appears to respond to those who criticize his work before it is yet complete, a possibility that seems to require its recitation in progressive chunks. Together these factors warrant the assumption that Josephus published at least some parts of his written works, including AJ, through recitatio. I will comment later in this chapter on the significance of that setting as an opportunity for real-time engagement with his audience and how it functions to strengthen my reading of the accounts treated in this study, especially my appropriation of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as an explanatory model. 3

Aims and Purpose of Antiquities

The aims of Josephus in composing AJ are significantly different from his aims of composition in BJ. Therefore, while there are certain continuities between these two works, even parallel material finds Josephus making substantial alterations and additions to carry out his new objectives. As I mentioned above, even though a substantial portion of AJ is a fairly close rendering of the Jewish scriptures, Josephus’ primary purpose cannot be conceived of as producing a new scriptural translation; if nothing else, the entire second half of the work covers periods for which there were no scriptural accounts. I find Gregory Sterling’s term, “apologetic historiography,” to be extremely helpful in conveying one of Josephus’ primary overarching goals. This genre of writing is defined as “the story of a subgroup of people in an extended prose narrative written by a member of the group who follows the group’s own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity of the group within the setting of the larger world.”42 Accordingly, Josephus is attentive not simply to linguistic translation but to cultural translation for the purposes of explaining Jewish history and customs to a foreign audience. The apologetic side of his project is perhaps nowhere more obvious than in the lengthy and numerous digressions in which Josephus purports to cite documents by Greco-Roman

41 42

See also the use of the verb ἐρεῖν in BJ 1.22. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography, NovTSup 64 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 1992), 17, on Josephus at 226–310.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

16

Chapter 1

rulers dispensing and confirming Jewish privileges down through the ages.43 Additionally, Josephus’ apologetic aim must also be considered in relation to his stylistic proclivities. Josephus was keenly aware of the existing Greek scriptural translations, and he no doubt aimed to surpass their generally crude Greek style as a means of distinguishing Jewish history and customs as being every bit the peers of the Greeks and Romans.44 Thus, even his stylistic alterations are not incidental but are foundational to his apologetic aim. That being said, I agree with Steve Mason that the defensive qualities of AJ should not be pressed too far.45 In my view, the apologetic side of AJ comes out of the minoritized place of Jewish history and customs in the Greco-Roman world, though it is not so much an effort to ward off attacks as to justify an equal seat at the table. Aside from this general apologetic purpose, however, Josephus also sought to utilize the Jewish history recounted in AJ as an opportunity to prove a particular point: that the God of the Jews exercises divine providence over history by directing it, and “that a decent life in line with justice and the proper attitude to the God of the Jews (eusebeia) will be rewarded by this God with

43

44

45

Horst R. Moehring, “Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1957), argues that the apologetic function of these cited documents, along with their many textual corruptions and chronological inaccuracies, indicate that Josephus forged them. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World, on the other hand, concludes more modestly that Josephus manipulated legitimate (though repeatedly copied and corrupt) documents to further his apologetic agenda. On AJ as an update to the Greek translations, see Castelli, “Between Tradition and Innovation,”; idem, “Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Use of Aramaic Transliterations.” On the Greek style of the Septuagint and its function as a mode of cultural resistance and assertion of identity, see Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Of Josephus, Rajak notes that (168) “one of the chief purposes of the rewriting of the Bible in his Antiquities was to produce a version of scripture that read quite differently from the Septuagint, composed in high (or reasonably high) literary Greek.” It is likely, however, that the Septuagint translators’ frequent isomorphisms and other characteristic features, which result in a simple and aesthetically unpleasing Greek style, were motivated for any number of reasons by a desire to produce a formally and quantitatively equivalent translation; what is not in question is that the translators were fully capable of producing classicizing Greek and were in full command of Greek style and syntax, yet deliberately chose to eschew high-register literary Greek for their project. See Dirk Büchner, “The Pentateuch,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint, ed. Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 183–92. Mason, introduction, xxxiv. Despite Mason’s reservations about the term “apologetic,” most of the “unifying themes” he identifies for AJ conform to that rubric quite well (xxii–xxxiv).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

17

Introduction

happiness but that wickedness will be punished.”46 Harold Attridge traces this aim in the scriptural first half of AJ, and indeed its contours can also be found in the second half.47 Sometimes this objective is accomplished by means of rewriting the various scriptural accounts so as to emphasize God’s providential response to human action, while other times Josephus adds his own editorial comments which interpret the narrative for the reader explicitly. I will be attentive to this aim in my own analysis, as Josephus is particularly fond of portraying characters in the stories of Joseph and Esther as models of virtuous or impious behavior, and he uses them as archetypes for modeling the Tobiads and Agrippa I in a similar (if less virtuous) fashion.48 Much more will be said in the following chapter on the topic of Josephus’ interest in the moral formation of the reader through his AJ narratives, as well as how that interest aligns with broader trends in Greco-Roman historiography and biography. But needless to say, Josephus was in good company in his opinion that history should be morally edifying.49 4

Why “Court-Tales”? On Genre, Categories, and Labels

In both the title of this book and in many places in the following chapters I refer to the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, along with the stories of Joseph and Esther, as “court-tales.” This label warrants a brief explanation since there is no consensus about the appropriate genre-designation for the large and diverse body of ancient Jewish novelistic literature that also includes such texts as the Books of Judith, Tobit, and Daniel. Among the genre labels

46

47 48

49

Jan Willem van Henten, “Josephus as Narrator,” in Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt, ed. Eve Marie-Becker and Jörg Rüpke (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 140. As shown by Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew, Josephus’ measure of virtue and piety in AJ is principally Torah as abstracted and universalized for a non-Jewish audience. Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, HDR 7 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976). As pointed out by Mason, introduction, xxxiv, Josephus’ explicit and consistent focus on the character of the figures in his narrative is especially distinctive of Greco-Roman biography, such as Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, but also historians such as Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. See Alan Wardman, Plutarch’s Lives (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 6–7, 105–52; Tomas Hägg, The Art of Biography in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 268–77. I will discuss this further in Chapter 2. See, for example, Lisa Irene Hau, Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

18

Chapter 1

that have been proposed are court legend,50 (historical) novel,51 novella,52 Diasporanovelle,53 (historical) fiction,54 and free narrative.55 To a significant degree the proliferation of genre labels illustrates the fact that such classifications are dependent upon which texts are being grouped together, often a factor of both the level of restrictiveness and of the research question of the commentator. For instance, as has been pointed out, the term “novel” as a genre label for a corpus of ancient writings has become so amorphous and broad as to encompass a diverse range of literature with little scholarly agreement on its defining characteristics other than a text’s popular value as entertainment,56 although arguably in some cases it is precisely that capability to group together 50 51 52

53

54

55

56

Initially adopted by Lawrence M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends, HDR 26 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Later suggested by Lawrence M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). See also Lawrence M. Wills, Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Proposed by Lee. W. Humphreys, “Novella,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, ed. George W. Coates, JSOTSup 35 (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1985), 82–96; idem, “The Story of Esther and Mordecai: An Early Jewish Novella,” in Coates, Saga, 97–113. A term first applied to the Joseph and Esther stories by Arndt Meinhold in his two-part “Die Gattung des Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I,” ZAW 87, no. 3 (1975): 306–24; and idem, “Die Gattung des Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II,” ZAW 88, no. 1 (1976): 72–93. Although Erich S. Gruen assigns a large range of ancient Jewish quasi-historical works to the status of fiction, he is minimally interested in distinguishing, labeling, and defending the classification of genres. See Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), xvi. The term “historical fiction” is applied by Sara Raup Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 1–7. For broader use of this genre designation beyond ancient Jewish texts, see Colleen Manassa, Imagining the Past: Historical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). The most recent category advocated by Wills, presented in relation to the interpretation of Judith and its genre. See Judith: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2019), 86, 92–95. Wills argues for “free narrative” as a broader umbrella term which encompasses texts that, in view of Sara Johnson’s observations (noted above and discussed again below), exhibit characteristics of both historiography and novel. Free narrative includes novellas (e.g., Esther), popular histories (e.g., Tales of the Tobiads), and national hero romances (e.g., Artapanus). Johnson, Historical Fictions, 9–55. On the ancient novel, see Stephen A. Nimis, “The Novel,” in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies, ed. George Boys-Stones, Barbara Graziosi, and Phiroze Vasunia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 617–27; Tomas Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 1–4; B. P. Reardon, “General Introduction,” in Collected Ancient Greek Novels, ed. B. P. Reardon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 1–16.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

19

rather diverse texts which makes it attractive.57 Lawrence Wills has rightly pointed out that “all important categories in culture are large, rambling, undefined around the boundaries, and have problematic names, while unimportant categories in culture are small, pristine, neatly defined around the boundaries, and have clear names.”58 Accordingly, “only in those cases where genres are defined and protected by elite authority structures—epic, lyric, and drama in classical Greece, for instance—can one even pretend that genres are precise.”59 In this study, I will proceed on the basis of labeling the stories of Joseph, Esther, the Tobiads, and Agrippa I as “court-tales.” But my own approach to questions of genres, labels, and categories is pragmatic, with my chosen term being a corollary of gathering together these particular accounts in order to answer the research question which drives this study; I do not present formal arguments for classifying them as types of a specific genre, nor do I seek to develop a genre label for use by others. Additionally, I find it helpful to study these accounts as court-tales because a focus on the setting of much of the narratives at the royal court allows me to raise interesting questions—questions about how Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers might have engaged the stories in dialogue with exemplary ethical and pragmatic discourses that frequently centered on theorizing the proper ways of behaving for elites under an imperial form government, who now had to navigate aristocratic life around the imposing power of a court. For the purposes of this study, then, I understand an ancient Jewish courttale to be a story featuring the following three elements: (1)  a Jewish protagonist predominantly in the setting of the court of a foreign ruler; (2) the narrative of which is driven by said protagonist’s rising and falling fortunes, court intrigues, and conflicts; and (3) involving mediation by the protagonist between the Jewish people and the ruler in times of crisis.60 So, while not all 57 58 59

60

As with Wills, Jewish Novel. The same could be said for Gruen’s term “historical fiction” for the texts collected for study in Heritage and Hellenism. Lawrence M. Wills, “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity,” JSJ 42 (2011): 147. Emphasis original. Wills, Judith, 81. For a recent and succinct discussion of the problems of genre and classification surrounding ancient Jewish novelistic literature, see 78–95. For the related problem of the genre of ancient autobiography, to which Josephus’ Vita is usually assigned, see Davina Grojnowski, Situating Josephus’ Life within Ancient Autobiography (London: Bloomsbury Academic, forthcoming). There are, of course, non-Jewish court-tales from antiquity as well. For the 5th century BCE story of Ahikar/Ahiqar, see Seth A. Bledsoe, The Wisdom of the Aramaic Book of Ahiqar: Unraveling a Discourse of Uncertainty and Distress, JSJSup 199 (Leiden: Brill, 2021). For other examples, see Tawny L. Holm, Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-Collections, EANEC 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 46–183.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

20

Chapter 1

features are shared among all of the texts analyzed in this study and some features unrelated to the court-tale proper can be found as well,61 the features delineated above are sufficiently shared by the stories of Joseph, Esther, the Tobiads, and Agrippa I in AJ that I am confident in applying the term “court-tale” to them for the purposes of this study.62 While novelistic elements abound in AJ,63 and a great many other passages merit consideration as nearly stand-alone novellas,64 the principal element of a setting at the foreign court is invariably lacking. Furthermore, I am not interested exclusively in ancient Jewish court-tales per se but am pursuing the specific research question of the use of scriptural court-tales as models or archetypes for the production of new compositions in AJ. 5

Methods and Challenges

The primary analytical approach which I adopt in this study is literary analysis. Since this is constituted of numerous and diverse subfields and methods, however, I must briefly distinguish what that does and does not mean in this study. In particular, it is necessary to distinguish my approach to literary analysis from narratology, as well to address some of the objections which could be raised against my interpretive method used in the following chapters.

61

62

63 64

For instance, the rivalry between siblings and favoritism of the father is found in the Joseph story and is reused in the Tales of the Tobiads to great effect, but it is not present in Esther and the account of Agrippa I. This literary motif lies outside of the setting of the royal court proper but functions as the plot device which drives the protagonists to that setting where the story thereafter centers; it is, therefore, inseparable from those portions of the stories of Joseph and the Tobiads set at the Egyptian court. My approach most closely resembles the “constellation model” of genre outlined by Lawrence M. Wills, “The Differentiation of History and Novel: Controlling the Past, Playing with the Past,” in Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: The Role of Religion in Shaping Narrative Forms, ed. Ilaria Ramelli and Judith Perkins, WUNT 348 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 13–30, which is also very close to the more famous family resemblance model of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1953). See the wealth of such elements in the scriptural first half alone as documented by Feldman’s many portraits collected in Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible and idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, JSJSup 58 (Leiden: Brill, 1998). For example, the stories of Herod’s court (BJ 1.204–673/AJ 15.156–17.199) as documented by Tamar Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, and the Herod Narratives, AGJU 63 (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

21

5.1 Method of Study Narratology is the formal discipline dedicated to the theoretical description and mapping of narratives.65 It emerged out of structuralism in the late 1960’s as a means of applying modern literary theory to narrative texts for the purposes of creating a grammar and vocabulary to describe their structure and content.66 Although narratology has made significant contributions to understanding ancient Jewish literature, including Josephus (see below), for several reasons my approach to literary analysis does not draw on narratology in any more than an indirect fashion. One major reason why I eschew narratology in this study is its insistence— true to its structuralist origins—on eliding the historical author. By the nature of its program, narratology focuses on describing the text as narrative in the form which is before the reader, not its pre-history, compositional method, social setting, historical circumstances of composition, and other aspects broadly grouped under the heading of “context.” It is concerned with narrator over author and with implied or ideal reader over historically-reconstructed audience. In short, consideration of the actual author and the historical circumstances of the text’s composition and consumption lie outside the scope of narratology proper. For narratology to function, at least in an ideal fashion, it must insist on approaching the text through its innate structure, which is constituted to a large extent of components common to all narrative texts, and which arises from structural features of human language and psychology. These components may be manipulated and assembled in various ways in differing texts, languages, and cultures, but strict narratologists would contend that the process of documenting and describing the narrative structure need not (or should not) consider the world outside the text itself.67 In a strong narratological perspective, it is precisely those confines which permit the structuralist underpinnings of narratology to function effectively.

65

66 67

Thus, some scholars prefer the broader term “narrative theory” to that of narratology. For a useful overviews of narratology, see Irene J. F. de Jong, Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Porter H. Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). For a brief overview of the ways in which structuralism impacted literary theory and the practice of historical inquiry, see Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 42–62. That is not to say that attempts have not been made to blend aspects of narratology with consideration of historical setting, author, and audience. See Landau, Out-Heroding Herod, 30–37; van Henten, “Josephus as Narrator.”

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

22

Chapter 1

In this study, however, I am deeply invested in analyzing the stories of Joseph, Esther, the Tobiads, and Agrippa I in AJ in light of the historical Josephus, his social and historical setting during composition, and his actual audience—to the degree, of course, that these may be (imperfectly) reconstructed, as I have done in the first half of this chapter. In other words, I am interested not only in the text as it is, but in how it came to be and how it might have been read in antiquity. Thus, while plot and characterization are still of great importance to me and receive substantial attention in my analysis, I approach these facets of the stories not by isolating the narrative from its setting and authorship but through analysis that is informed by such data. And while my ideal reader of AJ is determined partly by the signals within the narrative itself, it is also filled out significantly by our knowledge of Greco-Roman antiquity. In another significant departure from narratology, the literary analysis I offer takes some account of Josephus’ compositional habits involving the redaction of sources and the manipulation of scriptural archetypes. Source criticism, in particular, is traditionally irrelevant to narratology but offers important insights for my own approach. As I mentioned above, where narratology takes as its object the text in its “final” form,68 my literary analysis factors in Josephus’ agenda and authorial agency by reconstructing his use of sources. So, although redaction criticism and source criticism are not my primary methodological approaches, I do make limited use of them where Josephus’ sources can be determined, as this allows me to better characterize Josephus’ authorial tendencies and literary agenda.69 68 69

Usually understood in narratology as whatever form is before the reader, irrespective of issues of textual uniformity or plurality. In some recent scholarship, both source criticism and historical reconstruction as applied to Josephus’ works have been criticized. It has been alleged that these methods are both too positivistic in their conclusions and too cavalier with the literary framework that is often viewed as the disposable vessel containing scholars’ actual objectives: pre-Josephan sources as well as insight into the historical periods, events, and figures to which these refer. Most emblematic of this perspective is Steve Mason, who has voiced it in various works including his chapter “Uses and Abuses of Josephus” in idem, Josephus and the New Testament, 2d ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 7–34. Pioneer voices for this perspective were Richard A. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen: Kindt, 1920); Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtschreibung (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1934); idem, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938; repr., New York: Garland, 1987); and Moehring, “Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus.” The most ardent opposition to this trend has been Daniel Schwartz, who has sought to refute the contention that Josephus’ writings should only or primarily be approached as literature and for their contemporary historical setting at the time of writing, but not that of the historical events which are the referents

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

23

Given that my focus in this book is on Josephus’ reuse of scriptural models to compose non-scriptural accounts, my approach to literary analysis in the following chapters involves a two-part procedure. First, there is the search for simple parallels between the non-scriptural account and the scriptural text—that is, imitation and copying. Parallels are usually exhibited at the broader level of plot, setting, and characterization but sometimes extend to specific vocabulary. Then, I search out ways in which the expectations that these straightforward parallels establish for the reader are disturbed in one or more of three overlapping ways: (1)  subversion involves the undermining of the reader’s expectation; (2) inversion entails the unexpected reversal or switching of one figure, action, or sequence with the other; (3) and irony depends on a disparity either between the reader’s knowledge and the character’s knowledge or between intended meaning and actual/resultant meaning. Although I am attentive to all three of these modes of literary disturbance, I broadly term Josephus’ procedure as documented in the following chapters of this study “subversive adaptation.” 5.2 Challenges One objection to my method which I anticipate is that it places too much weight on the intentions of an author—in particular, an author from long ago whose psychology, personality, and biography, though better known than many ancient individuals, is still perilously marked by lacunae and guesswork. While I entertain the likelihood that Josephus composed his accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I in AJ with the features that I will document in the following chapters consciously in mind, and indeed at times he makes his intentions explicitly known, that is not necessary for my thesis given that the most prominent ones are clearly recognizable and indisputably present irrespective of any putative authorial intent. Whether or not Josephus “intended” them is generally immaterial to their documented presence.

and major topics of Josephus’ narratives. The issues and the stakes are succinctly laid out in Daniel R. Schwartz, Reading the First Century, WUNT 300 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1–14, while the entire work is a response to the literary turn. Although it is understandable to focus on the form of the text before the reader, literary analysis can also productively incorporate the findings of source criticism regarding putative earlier stages or sources, as Mason himself acknowledges in many places. Although source criticism cannot explain every aspect of Josephus’ works, it can at many points provide at least a partial explanation for some features of the narrative. Such insights as it can furnish can sometimes be useful for understanding how Josephus accomplished literary ends. In any case, I approach the final text as his own composition.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

24

Chapter 1

It could also be argued, on the other hand, that my procedure expects quite a lot of Josephus’ imagined reader. Noticing subversion, inversion, and irony demands a relatively high level of familiarity with the Jewish scriptures in that it involves, first, a recognition of the parallel between the non-scriptural account and the scriptural archetype, and then at a deeper level, the disruption of the parallel which results in a new and coherent reading of the narrative. But could Josephus’ elite circle of non-Jewish readers in Rome, such as Epaphroditus and his peers (discussed above), who appear to have been Josephus’ most immediate audience, have possessed the requisite knowledge of the stories of Joseph and Esther in order to identify the subversive adaptation of them in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, as I am suggesting? Indeed, I have pointed out in this very chapter that the very breadth and scope of Antiquities implies a lack of deep familiarity on the part of Josephus’ non-Jewish readers with the stories and figures of the Jewish scriptures. Is my ideal reader, then, an implausible, paradoxical, or impossible construction? I think not. There are several ways of overcoming the obstacles to an elite Greco-Roman reader comprehending Josephus’ complex and subtle adaptation of traditional Jewish stories and figures. First, as I discussed above in the context of Josephus’ readership, recitation of literary works by Greco-Roman elites as part of the ongoing process of composition and “publication” presents an opportunity for sustained, face-to-face engagement between author and reader. We may justifiably postulate these recitations as an opportunity for Josephus to close the gap between his readers’ background knowledge and that minimally required to recognize the elements of subversion, inversion, and irony in his narrative. The comments of Pliny that I quoted earlier indicate that recitatio could be a semi-collaborative setting involving ongoing dialogue between author and reader, and we might imagine it functioning in this way for Josephus and his audience as well. Additionally, however, even among the relatively homogenous Greco-Roman elite audience reconstructed as Josephus’ primary readers, we must allow for some degree of variegation and diversity in terms of prior background knowledge as well as commitment to and interest in our author’s project. The particular kind of reader required by my analysis in this study, then, is not so much “implied” or “ideal” as it is the “model reader” of Umberto Eco, who is “supposedly able to deal interpretatively with the expressions in the same way as the author deals generatively with them.”70 In such a case, “a well-organized text on the one hand presupposes a model of competence, so to speak, from 70

Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1979), 7–8.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

25

outside the text, but on the other hand works to build up, by merely textual means, such a competence.”71 But as Eco points out, “this situation is a very abstract and optimal one. In the process of communication, a text is frequently interpreted against the background of codes different from those intended by the author.”72 Therefore, I undertake analysis in this study from what might be termed a maximalist position, since I will point out possible readings in the following chapters without laboring under the expectation that each of Josephus’ readers necessarily recognized every point and connection that I note herein—what Eco calls “aberrant decoding” by an “unsuitable reader.”73 As I have stated already above, I do not entertain authorial intent as a necessity for my readings, and I take for granted that semantic potentiality may exceed either the intentions of an author or the apprehension of a particular reader. In this respect I am, ironically perhaps, more closely aligned with the insights of narratology. The possibilities of semantic overflow are especially pertinent given that I will interpret Josephus’ practice of subversive adaptation within the context of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, which entails ethical and pragmatic instruction through textualized stories. As Simon Goldhill points out, it must be borne in mind that “the narrative form threatens to produce an excess of signification.”74 So, then, as with all ancient texts and their contexts, and as will be clear throughout this study, the degree to which a particular reading of Josephus that I propose in the following chapters was intended by him and/or apprehended his readers is often unclear, disputable, and ultimately unknowable. This need not, in my view, hamper us from suggesting plausible possibilities grounded in evidence. 6

Plan of Study

Here in Chapter 1, then, I have laid out the fundamental background both of Josephus and of AJ which is necessary grounding for the following chapters, as well as presented the limits of this study and the analytical methods which I will utilize. Chapter 2 will introduce the reader to the phenomenon of “Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity” as theorized by scholars in recent research. Exemplarity is the framework which I will adopt for interpreting 71 72 73 74

Eco, Role of the Reader, 8. Eco, Role of the Reader, 8. Eco, Role of the Reader, 8–9. Simon Goldhill, “The Failure of Exemplarity,” in Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature, ed. Irene J. F. de Jong and J. P. Sullivan, Mnemosyne 130 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 70.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

26

Chapter 1

Josephus’ procedure of subversively adapting the stories of Joseph and Esther in his accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, which I document in Chapters 3–6. I will provide an overview of exemplarity as a feature of Greco-Roman literary culture of the early Roman imperial period (and beyond), especially in historiography and biography. Then, I will appropriate Plutarchan scholarship’s development of a concept of “exploratory exemplarity,” which draws attention to the way that the Parallel Lives exhibits considerable ambiguity and complexity in regard to how its narratives fit within in broader ethical and pragmatic discourses. Plutarch’s mode of moral reflection is exemplary in that it is accomplished primarily through narratives about past figures and events to be learned from, imitated, and avoided; but it is exploratory or experimental in that he either does not present straightforward moral evaluations of figures and events or he undercuts those which are presented by virtue of the contradictions and tensions contained in the very stories he tells and summaries he offers. Finally, after reviewing how moralism (broadly speaking) and exemplarity (more narrowly) have been studied within Josephan scholarship, I will present my own appropriation of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as an explanatory framework. Relying especially on Plutarch as a near-contemporary of Josephus, I will read Josephus’ peculiar and subversive juxtaposition of Joseph and Esther with the Tobiads and Agrippa I as an implied comparison, with implications for the ethical reflection, moral formation, and pragmatic decision-making of his readers. Exemplarity is, in this study, not an approach which will appear on every page but, rather, a lens through which I will interpret my findings at the end of each of Chapters 3–6 and which will allow me to draw together my collective arguments so as to reflect on their significance in Chapter 7. The core of this study, then, consists of detailed analysis of Josephus’ accounts in AJ of the Tobiads and Agrippa I in Chapters 3–6, in which I will show that Josephus modeled these two narratives in significant respects on the scriptural stories of Joseph and Esther. Chapters 3–4 will deal with the affinities between the scriptural Joseph story and the Tales of the Tobiads, first through the figure of Joseph the Tobiad (Chapter 3) and then his son, Hyrcanus (Chapter 4). Chapters 5–6 will turn to the account of Agrippa I, with Chapter 5 analyzing affinities with the figure of scriptural Joseph and Chapter 6 with Esther. Where such determinations are possible, attention to Josephus’ practices of selection and arrangement of sources will show that he exercised considerable agency in using both his non-scriptural sources and the scriptural models to compose new narratives with his own creative flourishes. Thus, Josephus’ skillful echoes of the stories of Joseph and Esther serve to establish his Tobiads and Agrippa I as compelling characters within imaginative accounts. But going far beyond a

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Introduction

27

simple imitative relationship, Josephus weaves together much more complex connections to scriptural models by engaging in practices of adaptation characterized by subversion, inversion, and a strong dose of irony. As Jeffrey Wickes observes about Faulkner’s use of scriptural language, “the Bible provides … a way to reimagine historical reality and, at the same time, invests his retelling of that reality with meanings that transcend historical particularity. … The Bible provided … an imaginative texture to shape his literary world.”75 Even more than serving just to enrich and enliven his narratives, however, I will conclude each chapter by contextualizing Josephus’s practice of subversive adaptation of the Joseph and Esther stories in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I within Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, surveyed in Chapter 2. I will read Josephus’ juxtaposition of the Tobiads and Agrippa with scriptural Joseph and Esther as establishing an implied comparison analogous to the subjects paired in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Lastly, I will conclude in Chapter 7 by bringing together my findings across Chapters 3–6 and further integrating them with the insights of Chapter 2. Within the whole of Antiquities and in the context of Josephus’ overarching goals for this work, court-tales serve to prove the successes of Jews in the highest reaches of Gentile power. Given Josephus’ somewhat precarious position as a formerly imprisoned combatant in the Jewish War, now a client of the Flavian imperial house, this function is highly personal. In many respects, then, the stories of Joseph, Esther, the Tobiads, and Agrippa I reflect Josephus’ own life experiences and, therefore, legitimize his own social location. This has been recognized and sufficiently emphasized by previous scholars. My appropriation of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as an interpretive framework, on the other hand, balances the apologetic function of these stories—both in the personal and national dimensions—and shows how they can be read in the context of dialogue among contemporary Greco-Roman elites about the cultivation and exercise of virtue and wisdom. Explorations of the proper exercise of these qualities had become especially pressing in the early imperial period, when the imposing shadow of the emperors loomed large and severely curtailed the practical range of elite activities. Within the context of a Plutarchan model of exploratory exemplarity, Josephus can be understood as adding his voice to an existing conversation. By juxtaposing scriptural 75

Jeffrey Wickes, Bible and Poetry in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Ephrem’s Hymns on Faith (Oakland: University of California Press, 2019), 4. Wickes is referring to the use of biblical echoes and language in Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom! as referenced by Robert Alter. Wickes applies Alter’s insights about Faulkner to the fourth-century CE Syriac father Ephrem of Nisibis, and I find it likewise apropos to apply them to Josephus.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

28

Chapter 1

figures with more recent contemporaries in an implied comparison, his narratives allow the reader to explore pressing questions such as: Has morality fundamentally declined in comparison to the exemplars of the distant past? If tyrants have always appeared throughout history, are an emperor’s whims and wrath really an obstacle to exercising virtue and conducting an honorable life? What is the proper balance of ambition and virtue? Are the moral exemplars of the past no more than ideals that are fundamentally unreachable or models of what is actually obtainable in the present? My reading of the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, therefore, shows how apologetic and moralistic interests intersect at the site of exemplarity. As Josephus shows in AJ, the way in which the question “Whose ancestors and customs are the noblest and most virtuous?” is answered is not deterministic of the actual practice of virtue in the present. In other words, Josephus can present Joseph, Esther, and many others from the “golden age” of Jewish history as wholly virtuous while allowing that Jews in the more recent past frequently failed to fully realize their example and inviting his present readers to evaluate them, to learn from them, and to do better. Josephus sets out the challenge of living up to their model as a complex ethical and pragmatic exploration that, in the context of the limitations and realities experienced by his Greco-Roman readers living in the emperor’s shadow, cannot amount to thoughtless imitation but requires imaginative appropriation in its own right—just as Josephus’ own subversive adaptation of the scriptural stories of Joseph and Esther in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I is itself an imaginative appropriation of an idealized past.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 2

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus 1

Introduction

One of the most distinctive features of Greco-Roman writing about the past is its explicitly didactic or moralistic disposition.1 One need look no further than the prefaces to a multitude of ancient histories to find exemplary aims prominently stated. Livy for example, claims in the preface to his first century BCE history of Roman origins, Ab urbe condita, that: The study of history is beneficial and profitable (salubre ac frugiferum) for the following reasons. You behold the lessons (exempli) of every historical event as clearly as if they were displayed on a stone monument. From these you may choose for yourself and for your own community what to imitate (imitere). From these you may decide what to avoid as shameful in cause or shameful in result. ... No state was ever greater than Rome, none was more pious or richer in fine examples (bonis exemplis).2 Livy’s contemporary and a Greek historian of Rome, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, dwells at length in his Roman Antiquities on his stated goal as the educating of Greeks in the reasons for Rome’s remarkable rise to preeminence. However, he too makes clear that “those who write histories … ought, first of all, to make choice of noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers.”3 He then goes on to express the expectation that his own reader 1 I use the term “Greco-Roman” so as to include both Greek and Latin authors, though I am most interested in Greek writers of the late Roman republic and early imperial eras since they present the closest comparanda to Josephus. 2 Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri; inde tibi tuaeque rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu, foedum exitu, quod vites. … nulla umquam res publica nec maior nec sanctior nec bonis exemplis ditior fuit … (Livy, Praef. 10–11, trans. Shelton) This passage is, naturally, returned to multiple times throughout the study of Jane D. Chaplin, Livy’s Exemplary History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 3 τοὺς ἀναγράφοντας ἱστορίας … οὖσαν, πρῶτον μὲν ὑποθέσεις προαιρεῖσθαι καλὰς καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς καὶ πολλὴν ὠφέλειαν τοῖς ἀναγνωσομένοις φερούσας. (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.1.2, trans. Cary)

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_003

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

30

Chapter 2

shall have learned from my history that Rome from the very beginning, immediately after its founding, produced infinite examples of virtue in men (μυρίας ἤνεγκεν ἀνδρῶν ἀρετὰς) whose superiors, whether for piety or for justice or for life-long self-control or for warlike valour, no city, either Greek or barbarian, has ever produced.4 And Tacitus, the eminent Roman historian of emperors and their deeds, who wrote more than a century after Livy and Dionysius, says in his Histories that although the recent past largely consisted of crises, disasters, and decline, Yet this age was not so barren of virtue that it did not display noble examples (bona exempla). Mothers accompanied their children in flight; wives followed their husbands into exile; relatives displayed courage, sons-in-law firmness, slaves a fidelity which defied even torture. Eminent men met the last necessity with fortitude, rivalling in their end the glorious deaths of antiquity.5 Thus, for Tacitus the examples to be imitated are markedly fewer than those to be avoided—though perhaps rendered more conspicuous precisely by this foil.6 Many other similar cases could be adduced, but the list would be onerously long and it quickly becomes apparent that Greco-Roman writing about 4 μαθοῦσί γε δὴ παρὰ τῆς ἱστορίας, ὅτι μυρίας ἤνεγκεν ἀνδρῶν ἀρετὰς εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς μετὰ τὸν οἰκισμόν, ὧν οὔτ᾿ εὐσεβεστέρους οὔτε δικαιοτέρους οὔτε σωφροσύνῃ πλείονι παρὰ πάντα τὸν βίον χρησαμένους οὐδέ γε τὰ πολέμια κρείττους ἀγωνιστὰς οὐδεμία πόλις ἤνεγκεν οὔτε Ἑλλὰς οὔτε βάρβαρος. (Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.5.3, trans. Cary) See T. Hidber, Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass: Die Praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus, Beiträtrage zur Altertumskunde 70 (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996), 56–75. On similarities between Dionysius and AJ, whose work was likely a model for Josephus, see R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: S.P.C.K., 1961), 92–101; J. Andrew Cowan, “A Tale of Two Antiquities: A Fresh Evaluation of the Relationship between the Ancient Histories of T. Flavius Josephus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” JSJ 49 (2018): 475–97. 5 Non tamen adeo virtutum sterile saeculum ut non et bona exempla prodiderit. Comitatae profugos liberos matres, secutae maritos in exilia coniuges: propinqui audentes, constantes generi, contumax etiam adversus tormenta servorum fides; supremae clarorum virorum necessitates fortiter toleratae et laudatis antiquorum mortibus pares exitus. (Tac., Hist. 1.3, trans. Moore) 6 For Tacitus, historiography was as much a deterrent as a general commemoration or source of positive examples. See T. J. Luce, “Tacitus on ‘History’s Highest Function’: praecipuum munus annalium (Ann. 3.65),” ANRW II.33.4: 2904–27. Hence, Ann. 3.65.1 (trans. Jackson): “It is not my intention to dwell upon any senatorial motions save those either remarkable for their nobility or of memorable turpitude; in which case they fall within my conception of the first duty of history—to ensure that merit shall not lack its record and to hold before the vicious word and deed the terrors of posterity and infamy.”

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

31

the past was inextricably entangled with what recent scholars have termed “discourses of exemplarity.” Ancient writers, then, pervasively assume their past and present to be in sufficient continuity that moral lessons may be easily derived from distant historical actors and events and readily applied to contemporary circumstances. On the other hand, modern scholars (it is sometimes alleged) study the past under the post-Enlightenment assumption that it consists of a set of unique contexts, causes, and effects which differ, often dramatically, from the present—an assumption which renders it difficult, impossible, or merely unwise to extract simple lessons for contemporary readers.7 To a degree, a distinction between ancient and modern historiographical mindsets is fair; it certainly is commonplace: But ethical approaches to history have sometimes been viewed with discomfort by the modern reader. In our hyper-rationalistic age, explanations of historical events based on the morals of the individuals have often been thought as naïve, simplistic, or even a distortion of the “real causes” of events in order to point out a moral lesson. Moral explanations are seen as an obstacle to achieving the desired impartiality.8 Indeed, one does not often find, for instance, modern scholars with historical interests in ancient Israelite figures from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament such as Abraham, Moses, or David utilizing them as moral examples, whether good or bad—at least not outside of explicitly confessional contexts. To use the stories about them to inform contemporary ethics and morality would be regarded as bad historiography (do we even know with confidence that the stories about them are historically reliable?), or at the very least somewhat odd (what other Bronze or Iron Age figures are ever expected to function in this way?). On the other hand, to give but one example of the exemplary use of these figures in antiquity, we may merely point to the subject of this book, Flavius Josephus, who presumes these figures to be basically like himself and 7 On the alleged shift from (principally) the “exemplary” to (principally) the “historicist” modes of historiography during the Enlightenment, see George H. Nadel, “Philosophy of History before Historicism,” History and Theory 3, no. 3 (1964): 291–315; Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans. Keith Tribe (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985; repr., New York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 26–42; and many of the contributions in Alexandra Lianeri, ed., The Western Time of Ancient History: Historiographical Encounters with the Greek and Roman Pasts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 8 Catalina Balmaceda, Virtus Romana: Politics and Morality in the Roman Historians (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017), 7.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

32

Chapter 2

his own contemporaries. As I will discuss later in this chapter, he regularly assumes continuity between the distant past and the time of his own readers such that all manner of moral and practical lessons may be learned from the lives of the Jewish ancestors. Regardless of this, any supposed distinction between ancient and modern approaches to historiography premised on the binary opposition of exemplary and historicist models of the craft is not at all absolute and must not be overemphasized—it may even be misleading.9 One can most certainly find ancient writers looking to the past for explanatory rather than merely exemplary ends. If we return to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, his principal goal in the Roman Antiquities, which I alluded to above, is to explain the historical reasons why if anyone turns his attention to the successive supremacies both of cities and of nations, as accounts of them have been handed down from times past, and then, surveying them severally and comparing them together, wishes to determine which of them obtained the widest dominion and both in peace and war performed the most brilliant achievements, he will find that the supremacy of the Romans has far surpassed all those that are recorded from earlier times, not only in the extent of its dominion and in the splendour of its achievements—which no account has as yet worthily celebrated—but also in the length of time during which it has endured down to our day.10 This quite legitimate question which Dionysius poses and proposes to answer—that is, how a once small and insignificant hill village came quite rapidly to dominate the inhabited world—is one which Polybius (1.1.5) had already asked over a hundred years earlier and which scholars continue to robustly debate today. Conversely, post-Enlightenment scholars always have and still do, in fact, regularly assume there to be moral and practical lessons 9

10

For example, the famous dictum of Leopold von Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1535 (Leipzig: G. Reimer, 1824), v–vi, is still often held to be emblematic of distinctly modern historiographical concerns: “Upon history has been placed the office of judging the past, of instructing contemporaries for the benefit of future years. The present work does not claim such high offices; it wishes only to show how things actually were (wie es eigentlich gewesen).” Nevertheless, as pointed out by one of my anonymous reviewers and by Clark, History, Theory, Text, 9–17, this characterization of Ranke is highly problematic. See further Leonard Krieger, Ranke: The Meaning of History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 10–20. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.2.1 (trans. Cary).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

33

worth learning from their study of the past, even if they are more attentive to the contextual gap entailed in the temporal chasm separating themselves from their subjects and sources.11 Therefore, while I will focus in this chapter and in this study on the exemplary ends of ancient historiography, I do not hold these to be exclusive of other purposes and aims; it is, at most, emblematic of but not unique to the historiography of antiquity. 2

“Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity” Defined

Given the prominent moralistic disposition of Greco-Roman writing about the past, then, it is at this point incumbent upon me to clarify more precisely what is meant in this study by the phrase “Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity.” In so doing, it will be necessary to delineate the different ways of construing this concept (if not always the exact phrase) in scholarship, as well as to gradually refine and narrow down the way in which I am appropriating it in this study for application to Josephus and the AJ passages that I analyze in the following four chapters. The first step will be to define the key terms and contexts which are usually the focal point of study in scholarship on exemplarity. 2.1 Key Terms and Contexts The origins of the scholarly concept of “exemplarity” lie in the Latin term exemplum, which appears in the Roman literary tradition especially from the first century BCE onwards. There, it is used in a variety of social and literary contexts in reference to past figures, deeds, and events that are deployed for the audience’s present moral or pragmatic utility.12 The Greek terms παράδειγμα and ὑπόδειγμα are roughly synonymous and appear in analogous and

11

12

Hayden White, for example, has in many works demonstrated the ways in which modern historians, contrary to the strenuous claims of objectivity by many, write historiography by constructing narratives through their own distinct emphases, values, ideologies, representational modes, aesthetical sensibilities, etc. See Hayden V. White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); idem, The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987); idem, The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957–2007 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010). Although Greco-Roman exemplarity is fundamentally localized within elite culture, Teresa Morgan shows that it embodies a broader, if more diverse, “popular morality.” See Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 122–59.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

34

Chapter 2

contemporary contexts.13 Naturally, scholarly attention has generally focused on instances in which these key Greek and Latin terms explicitly appear. But while the occurrence of key terms is an important indicator, and most research has followed this lead, the vocabulary does not fully circumscribe the phenomenon. I will return to this shortly, as my appropriation of the concept of exemplarity in this study pertains to Josephus’ exemplary use of figures, stories, and events without the accompanying terminology. The social and literary contexts in which exempla appear are varied but may be heuristically put under the broad headings of rhetoric and public speech; ethics and morality; and historiography and biography.14 The use of exempla in a rhetorical context is widespread in Cicero’s speeches, for instance, which although now purely literary in form were first and foremost public acts of rhetoric and oratory delivered before a live audience on specific occasions in first century BCE Rome.15 In that context, exempla served as examples or proofs designed to persuade the audience to adopt the speaker’s perspective or to take a particular action in response. Emblematic of narrow ethical and moral settings, on the other hand, is the compilation of exempla by first century CE Latin author Valerius Maximus, titled Facta et Dicta Memorabilia (Memorable Deeds and Sayings).16 As this compilation indicates, an important feature of Roman ethical reasoning is its tendency to eschew moral abstractions in favor of casuistic particularity. Nevertheless, it is a feature of the collection of individual 13

14

15

16

Although I consider Greek and Latin literature of the very late Roman republican era and the early imperial period from the first century BCE onwards, when the terms and their usage become prominent, they do appear in earlier writing with less frequency (e.g., Polybius 6.54.6). This rubric is drawn from Matthew B. Roller, Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 10–23. Roller refers to these three domains as “cultural contexts” where I prefer to describe them as “social and literary contexts.” Furthermore, Roller does not explicitly refer to biography and would presumably subsume it under the historiographical context. One might also add to this trifold list of contexts a fourth setting constituted of rules and laws. See Rebecca Langlands, “Rules and the Unruly: Roman Exemplary Ethics,” in Rules and Ethics: Perspectives from Anthropology and History, ed. Morgan Clarke and Emily Corran (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021), 103–23. See Franz Bücher, Verargumentierte Geschichte: Exempla Romana im politischen Diskurs der späten römischen Republik (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006); Henriette van der Blom, Cicero’s Role Models: The Political Strategy of a Newcomer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); idem, “Historical exempla as tools of praise and blame in Ciceronian oratory,” in Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric, ed. Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011), 49–67. On Valerius, see Clive Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996). For a similar case of the use of exempla in ethical reasoning, see Seneca’s Letter 24.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

35

“case studies” that they tend to conglomerate as groups that typify one sort of moral action or value in a way that is, effectively speaking, not entirely dissimilar to the abstract and theoretical moral reasoning of earlier classical and Hellenistic thinkers, such as the virtue ethics of Aristotle.17 Lastly, and most importantly for this study, exempla appear prominently in works of ancient historiography and biography, genres which—as I alluded to above—already exhibit a strong didactic orientation at a broader level. In addition to the more generalized gestures towards moral formation and pragmatic decision-making found in programmatic statements to historiographical works, such as I quoted at the outset of this chapter, countless specific instances of exempla recur in late republican and early imperial historians such as Livy and Tacitus as one component of their didactic agendas.18 Biography, such as Tacitus’ Agricola and Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, is effectively a sub-genre or close neighbor of historiography, with substantial overlap but distinctive features as well.19 Since Plutarch merits special consideration as an extremely useful comparandum to Josephus, I will consider biography further below in this chapter in the narrow context of his Parallel Lives. 2.2 Model of Exemplarity Before proceeding to further refinements, it will prove helpful to quote an example of a typical exemplum. Representative is the passage quoted in full below from the first century CE Roman historian Velleius Paterculus: The details of this terrible calamity [of the disastrous defeat of Roman legions by Germanic forces in the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE], the heaviest that had befallen the Romans on foreign soil since the disaster of Crassus in Parthia, I shall endeavour to set forth, as others have done, in 17 18

19

On the useful distinction between exemplary ethics and abstract moral reasoning, see Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 124–126, 337–38; Roller, Models from the Past, 13–16. See respectively Chaplin, Livy’s Exemplary History; Richard Alston, “History and Memory in the Construction of Identity in Early Second-Century Rome,” in Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation, ed. Sinclair Bell and Inge Lyse Hansen, MAAR 7 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008), 147–59. Philip A. Stadter, “Biography and History,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, ed. John Marincola (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 1082–1107; Christina Shuttleworth Kraus, “Historiography and Biography,” in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, ed. Alessandro Barchiesi and Walter Scheidel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 403–19; Guido Schepens, “Zum Verhältnis von Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung in hellenistischer Zeit,” in Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit: Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 26.–29 Juli 2006 in Würzburg, ed. Michael Erler and Stefan Schorn (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 245 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 335–61.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

36

Chapter 2

my larger work. Here I can merely lament the disaster as a whole. An army unexcelled in bravery, the first of Roman armies in discipline, in energy, and in experience in the field, through the negligence of its general, the perfidy of the enemy, and the unkindness of fortune was surrounded, nor was as much opportunity as they had wished given to the soldiers either of fighting or of extricating themselves, except against heavy odds; nay, some were even heavily chastised for using the arms and showing the spirit of Romans. Hemmed in by forests and marshes and ambuscades, it was exterminated almost to a man by the very enemy whom it had always slaughtered like cattle, whose life or death had depended solely upon the wrath or the pity of the Romans. The general [Publius Quinctilius Varus] had more courage (animi) to die than to fight, for, following the example (exempli) of his father and grandfather, he ran himself through with his sword. Of the two prefects of the camp, Lucius Eggius furnished a precedent as noble (clarum exemplum) as that of Ceionius was base (turpe), who, after the greater part of the army had perished, proposed its surrender, preferring to die by torture at the hands of the enemy than in battle. Vala Numonius, lieutenant of Varus, who, in the rest of his life, had been an inoffensive and an honourable man, also set a fearful example (diri auctor exempli) in that he left the infantry unprotected by the cavalry and in flight tried to reach the Rhine with his squadrons of horse. But fortune avenged his act, for he did not survive those whom he had abandoned, but died in the act of deserting them. The body of Varus, partially burned, was mangled by the enemy in their barbarity; his head was cut off and taken to Maroboduus and was sent by him to Caesar; but in spite of the disaster it was honoured by burial in the tomb of his family.20 The term exemplum occurs several times in this passage where the figures and their deeds are highlighted for memorialization. The general, Varus, is held out as a mixed example, praised for ending his own life honorably but censured for not fighting to the very end. The two prefects serve as opposing examples, one nobly fighting until the end while the other shamefully lived to surrender the Roman army. Another figure, Vala Numonius, is held out as the most shameful of all for fleeing the battle and leaving his fellow legionaries exposed. The entire case is fairly brief and entirely self-contained, capable of being deployed in innumerable situations depending upon the audience, setting, and purpose. 20

Vell. Pat. 119 (trans. Shipley). On exemplarity in Velleius Paterculus, see Alain M. Gowing, “The Imperial Republic of Velleius Paterculus,” in Marincola, Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 411–18.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

37

Instances such as this one recounted by Velleius constitute loci classici of exemplarity typically singled out by scholars, and they are most often what lies behind scholarly conceptions of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. On the basis of such explicit and repeated cases that recur throughout Greco-Roman literature of the various genres and contexts that I described in the section above, Matthew Roller has attempted to bring clarity to a diverse phenomenon by defining a model of exemplarity consisting of four operations: (1)  action; (2)  evaluation; (3)  commemoration; and (4)  norm setting.21 Texts are perhaps the most common means by which exempla have come down to us, and thus are a typical means of commemoration, but physical monuments and oral recitation were frequently employed as well even if they are now often inaccessible. Similarly, it is not necessary for the explicit evaluation to be communicated to the reader through the voice of the author/narrator, though that is often the case as in the passage from Velleius quoted above. Sometimes it is put into the mouth of other characters in the story who act as observers and spectators. Models such as Roller’s are very useful, but like most studies of exemplarity it centers upon the presence of explicit terminology and is almost exclusively devoted to the Latin literary tradition. While the terminology and the model are useful in identifying loci classici, exemplarity as a moralistic mode of discourse which draws upon the past is much richer than the fairly limited number of passages and authors circumscribed by these formal delimiters. As Lisa Hau points out, “only a fraction of the moralizing found in Greek historiography is explicit and an even smaller portion is prescriptive.”22 Thus, although still dependent upon the presence of key terms, Rebecca Langlands does theorize a broader system of “exemplary ethics,” showing that there exists in the ancient sources a “sensitivity to the difficulties of interpreting exemplary deeds, awareness of the importance of motivation and especially awareness of situational variability, whereby virtues must be enacted differently depending on the circumstances.”23 Most importantly for my purposes, Langlands further acknowledges that “not every morally edifying tale from ancient Rome is an exemplum, not every memorable 21

22 23

Roller, Models from the Past, 4–8. A similar conception is offered by Sinclair Bell, “Role Models in the Roman World,” in Bell and Hansen, Role Models, 6: “We can define an exemplum as a model for imitation which provides contemporary society with lessons that are informed by the past, inscribed into public memory, and catalyzed through replication.” Hau, Moral History, 9. Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 4. See also idem, “Roman Exemplarity: Mediating between General and Particular,” in Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law, ed. Michèle Lowrie and Susanne Lüdemann (New York: Routledge, 2015), 68–79.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

38

Chapter 2

historical episode is rendered into exemplary form.”24 This insight raises the question of how to characterize and interpret stories which appear to have an exemplary function, even when the terminology is not necessarily employed and the moral lesson not explicitly set out—even more, remains ambiguous and murky. 2.3 Plutarch, Moralism, and Exemplarity The Parallel Lives of the ancient biographer Plutarch is an excellent case in point, and because research on the moralizing dimensions of his work is important for my own appropriation of exemplarity in analyzing Josephus’ adaptation of the Joseph and Esther stories in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, I will linger here to supply depth and detail. Although the Parallel Lives taken as a whole is a unified work in the sense of constituting a holistic authorial project for Plutarch, the Lives is not one single work at all but nearly two dozen pairs of individual biographies; as such, there is no formal preface or introduction to the whole. However, nearly half of the pairs of lives contain prologues in which one can often find the author’s reflections on the utility of their contents for instruction.25 In Alexander-Caesar, for example, Plutarch famously warns the reader that: Given the number of exploits available to me (διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὑποκειμένων πράξεων), the only preamble I shall make is to beg the reader not to complain if I fail to relate all of them or to deal exhaustively with a particular famous one, but keep my account brief. I am not writing history but biography, and the most outstanding exploits do not always have the property of revealing the goodness or badness of the agent (ταῖς ἐπιφανεστάταις πράξεσι πάντως ἔνεστι δήλωσις ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας); often, in fact, a casual action, the odd phrase, or a jest reveals the character (ἔμφασιν ἤθους) better than battles involving the loss of thousands upon thousands of lives, huge troop movements, and whole cities besieged. And so, just as a painter reproduces his subject’s likeness by concentrating on the face and the expression of the eyes, by means of which character is revealed (οἷς ἐμφαίνεται τὸ ἦθος), and pays hardly any attention to the rest of the body, I must be allowed to devote more time to those aspects which

24 25

Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 17. On the prologues, see Philip A. Stadter, “The Proems of Pluarch’s Lives,” Illinois Classical Studies 13, no. 2 (1988): 275–95; Timothy E. Duff, “The Prologues,” in A Companion to Plutarch, ed. Mark Beck (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 333–49; Chrysanthos S. Chrysanthou, “The Proems of Plutarch’s Lives and Historiography,” Histos 11 (2017): 128–53. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

39

indicate a person’s mind and to use these to portray the life of each of my subjects, while leaving their major exploits and battles to others.26 Similar programmatic statements, which make absolutely clear Plutarch’s didactic purpose, can be adduced from the prologues accompanying around half of the pairs of lives.27 The reader of the Lives fully expects, then, to find an abundance of exempla (or, since Plutarch writes in Greek, παραδείγματα and ὑποδείγματα) within the narratives. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Plutarch only rarely offers direct and explicit commentary on the figures and deeds he recounts in the course of the Lives. Instead, with few exceptions each set of lives ends with a synkrisis (σύγκρῐσις) in which the subjects of each pair are compared with each other.28 These formal evaluations contain explicit moral judgements and weigh each subject of the pair in turn, but they do not provide a summation or final verdict and Plutarch takes care to give each of the subjects in the pair equal treatment.29 It is highly significant, then, that the formal evaluations and explicit judgements of the synkriseis are almost entirely absent from the narratives themselves. As Timothy Duff has noted, “most Lives provide very little explicit guidance as to how to understand the moral position of their subjects or of the actions narrated. Plutarch rarely intervenes into the narrative to point out where right and wrong lie.”30 What is more, sometimes the judgements of the synkriseis do not appear to align with the depiction in the narratives 26 27 28

29 30

Plut., Alex. 1.1–3 (trans. Waterfield). For analysis of the programmatic statements, see Timothy E. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 13–51. There are no synkriseis for Pyrrhus-Marius, Phocion-Cato the Younger, ThemistoclesCamillus, and Alexander-Caesar. It is likely, though not certain, that they were composed but later lost/excised in the course of transmission. For analysis of the synkriseis in the Parallel Lives, see Simon C. R. Swain, “Plutarchan Synkrisis,” Eranos 90 (1992): 101–11; Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 252–86; J. Boulogne, “Les ΣΥΝΚΡΙΣΕΙΣ de Plutarque. Une rhétorique de la ΣΥΝΚΡΙΣΙΣ,” in Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch: Acta of the IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society, Leuven, July 3–6, 1996, ed. L. Van der Stockt, Collection d’Études Classiques 11 (Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 33–44; David. H. J. Larmour, “The Synkrisis,” in Beck, Companion to Plutarch, 405–16. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 257–62. Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 55. One reason for this is that, as Christopher Pelling, Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies (London: The Classical Press of Wales, 2002), 237–51, first set out, Plutarch shares the basic value-system of his readers and, so, in many cases the ethical evaluation need not have been spelled out on the grounds of being obvious and assumed. I consider this to be the case for Josephus and his readers as well in many instances, as the chapters which follow will show. Another reason is perhaps the fact that the genres of history and biography are less amenable to second-person address by the author/narrator. See Timothy E. Duff, “Plutarch’s Readers and the Moralism of the Lives,” Ploutarchos 5 (2007/8): 6. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

40

Chapter 2

themselves of the subjects and their deeds,31 a feature which I find highly suggestive and significant for interpreting Josephus’ accounts analyzed in this study. Therefore, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives contains a somewhat confusing combination of: (1)  clear programmatic statements which assume the contents to hold exemplary value; (2)  well-defined overarching moral evaluations that weigh figures and deeds, sometimes in contradiction to the actual narratives; and (3) substantial ambiguity and complexity in granular depiction within the narratives. This admixture has forced some scholars to enlarge their conception of how an ancient author might engage in the moral formation of the reader beyond the most straightforward and explicit modes that I initially surveyed in this chapter (i.e., through isolated exempla cued by the explicit terminology and/or conforming to a formal model). In other words, given that Plutarch’s Lives appear to have been definitely designed to serve an exemplary purpose, yet lack frequent and explicit terminology and commentary to carry that out, how should his method of moral engagement through prose narrative about the past be characterized in relation to that of Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, and others? An important step in recent scholarship is to highlight the ambiguous and incongruous features of Plutarch’s moralism, beginning especially with Christopher Pelling.32 Pelling distinguishes between what he calls “expository” and “exploratory” moralism, pointing out that “works can be ethically reflective and exploratory, without always producing conclusions which can be reduced to a simple expository imperative ‘do that,’ ‘avoid this.’”33 Pelling similarly distinguishes between “descriptive” and “protreptic” types of moralism by explaining that the latter aspires “to guide conduct” but the former is “more concerned to point truths about human behavior and shared human experience. … That [sort of descriptive moralism] may not give Plutarch’s audience any firm guidance on how to behave, but it still points a moral truth of the human condition.”34 Other scholars have also fundamentally confirmed Pelling’s conclusions. Philip Stadter, for instance, arrived at a similar conclusion as Pelling independently, likening Plutarch’s moralism to a mirror which provokes the reader’s self-reflection and self-examination.35 Duff, though 31 32 33 34 35

Examples in Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 263–83. Pelling, Plutarch and History, 237–51. The studies in this monograph were originally published separately and later collected with minor revisions. Pelling, Plutarch and History, 239. Pelling, Plutarch and History, 239. Philip A. Statder, “The Rhetoric of Virtue in Plutarch’s Lives,” in Van der Stockt, Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch, 493–510.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

41

adding his own refinements, approves of Pelling’s description of the “moral texturing” of Plutarch’s Lives and in multiple studies of his own highlights the complexity of its moral fabric.36 Chrysanthos Chrysanthou follows Pelling and Duff in a recognition of the “challenging and interrogatory nature of the moralism of the Lives,”37 approaching Plutarch’s strategies of ethical formation of the reader through the lens of narratology as “experimental” moralism in a fashion similar to the “exploratory” or “descriptive” moralism of Pelling and Duff discussed above. I find all of these distinctions to be extremely helpful for understanding and delineating the multiplicity of ways in which ancient authors could engage the self-formation of their readers by recounting stories about the past. In regard to my own appropriation of this branch of Plutarchan research for application to Josephus in this study, which I will discuss further below, several points are worth noting here. First, Pelling uses the term “moralism,” as do many others studying the ethical and moral dimensions of ancient historiography and biography, though some use it interchangeably with “exemplarity” or at least judge the two to be closely related.38 In this study, I will use the terms “moralism” and “exemplarity” to refer to distinct but related phenomena. “Moralism” is, for me, a broader term that includes abstract and/or non-exemplary modes of pragmatic instruction and ethical discourse, often through non-narrative prose writing such as is frequent in philosophical works (including other texts by Plutarch himself), though also in poetic/metered genres such as tragedy. The term “exemplarity,” on the other hand, I use more narrowly to highlight the fact that the mode of engagement with the reader is through the example set implicitly or explicitly by the narrative’s characters and events, and not through the many other non-exemplary forms which 36

37 38

Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 68–71 on Pelling. See further Duff, “Plutarch’s Readers,” 3–18; idem, “Plutarch’s Lives and the Critical Reader,” in Virtues for the People: Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics, ed. Geert Roksam and Luc Van der Stockt (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011), 59–82. For Duff, the complexity of Plutarch’s moralism renders it as much a kind of philosophical exercise as anything else. Chrysanthos S. Chrysanthou, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Narrative Technique and Moral Judgement, Trends in Classics Supplementary Volumes 57 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 1. Rebecca Langlands, “Plutarch and Roman Exemplary Ethics,” in Literature and Culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235, ed. Alice König, Rebecca Langlands, and James Uden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 75–94, for example, has assessed the moralism of Plutarch as described by Duff, Pelling, and others to be compatible with and related to concepts of exemplarity as she and Roller have documented in Latin literature. Hau, Moral History, 7–13, on the other hand, considers moralism to lie on a spectrum ranging from explicit (i.e., terminology of exempla) to implicit (i.e., description not prescription), preferring the term “moral didacticism” under which to subsume it all.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

42

Chapter 2

moral instruction can take (e.g., reasoned arguments, abstractions, logical proofs, philosophical reasoning, or legal injunctions). Therefore, in this study I understand exemplarity to be a subset of moralism and a particular type of moral reasoning and pragmatic instruction, and I use the term accordingly where others often refer to “moralism.” Correspondingly, I use the phrases “Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity” and “exemplary discourses” to refer to those modes of moral formation especially characteristic of narrative historiography and biography in which past events, figures, and deeds are utilized as examples from which the reader can learn, regardless of whether or not the lesson is explicitly stated, Roller’s formal model may be applied, or the terminology of exemplum, παράδειγμα, or ὑπόδειγμα is present.39 A second point is the observation by Susan G. Jacobs that Plutarch draws on the past to instruct not only in the traditional domain of ethics, virtue and vice, but also to engage the reader in what might be termed “practical ethics” or “practical guidance.”40 In other words, in the Lives Plutarch uses past events, figures, and deeds not only to theorize about how to live virtuously, but how to do so pragmatically within the practical circumstances and constraints faced by elite readers of the Roman empire.41 This is an important point, as Greco-Roman elites did not just dialogue about what constituted virtue and how to exercise it, but also debated the nature of effective leadership. And they did not conceive of these as isolated domains but knew well that the exercise of virtue and the discharging of civic responsibilities intersected, causing 39

40

41

Thus, I use the phrase “Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity” in a way roughly synonymous with “role models in the Roman world” as proposed by Sinclair Bell, “Role Models,” 1–39. However, I eschew the term “role model” as it has connotations of positive emulation where exemplarity allows for both the imitation and avoidance of the behaviors of past figures. In the accounts that I analyze in this study, the negative lesson is often more important and frequent than any positive model. Susan G. Jacobs, Plutarch’s Pragmatic Biographies, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 43 (Leiden: Brill, 2018). Jacobs uses the term “practical biography,” understanding it to be very close to the “practical ethics” outlined by Lieve Van Hoof, Plutarch’s Practical Ethics: The Social Dynamics of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). There is, then, a fundamental continuity between Plutarch’s philosophical program and his biographical writings. On Plutarch’s political philosophy, see G. J. D. Aalders, Plutarch’s Political Thought, trans. A. M. Manekofsky (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1982); contributions in Lukas de Blois, Jeroen Bons, Ton Kessels, and Dirk M. Schenkeveld, eds., The Stateman in Plutarch’s Works: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen  / Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002, 2 vols., Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava Supplements 250 (Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005); Christopher Pelling, “Political Philosophy,” in Beck, Companion to Plutarch, 149–62; Hugh Liebert, Plutarch’s Politics: Between City and Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 28–41.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

43

particular challenges and limitations, especially in relation to the imperial court. Plutarch’s readers, just as those of Josephus’ AJ, are not primarily professional intellectuals (i.e., ὁ φιλόσοφος) but are those whose engagement with moral and political philosophy is contextualized within their activities in public life (i.e., ὁ πολιτικός), either at Rome as senators or equestrians or lower-level elites, or in the cities of the provinces.42 Therefore, although I have primarily referred to exemplarity as a mode of moral and ethical discourse up to this point in the study, and will continue to do so, I also assume this to include the discussion of everyday application of virtue in terms of practical ethics and political philosophy—what I have been calling “pragmatic instruction” and “practical decision-making.” However, before further discussing my appropriation of the concept of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity for application to Josephus in this study, I will briefly review the ways in which moralism and exemplarity have been applied in prior research on Josephus. 3

Moralism and Exemplarity in Josephan Scholarship

The relevant scholarly literature on Josephus which I will survey here can be divided into two categories, those works which refer broadly to “moralism” (and related terms) in Josephus in the context of AJ’s overarching aims, and those which focus more narrowly on “exemplarity,” such as has been formulated in Roller’s model. As to the first group, one of the chief contributions to scholarly discussion of moralism in Josephus is Harold Attridge’s The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. This study aims at clarifying Josephus’ broad goals in AJ and concludes that one of his overarching agendas is—as I discussed briefly in the previous chapter—to show that the Jewish God directs history through divine providence (πρόνοια) in the form of reward and punishment for individual and national behavior. This is, as Attridge terms it, the “moralizing tendency” of Josephus in AJ. The second major contribution to the moralism of Josephus is Louis Feldman’s series of “portraits” of scriptural figures as rewritten in AJ.43 Although attentive to 42

43

On the paths available to a πολιτικός depending upon social rank and status, see Richard Duncan-Jones, Power and Privilege in Roman Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). That Josephus’ readers are not professional intellectuals, especially philosophers, is indicated by the imprecision with which Josephus employs philosophical terminology throughout AJ. Most of these studies were originally published separately in the 1980–90’s and then later collected into two monographs in Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible; idem, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

44

Chapter 2

a wide range of features, Feldman consistently highlights the ways in which Josephus rewrites scriptural narratives so as to present the Jewish ancestors as models of virtue. Aside from some fairly brief summary thoughts which collect his overarching perspective on this feature, Feldman’s analyses are scattered in bits and pieces throughout a large number of separate essays that lack sustained engagement with Greco-Roman exemplary discourse on a broader level, instead focusing on very specific parallels to and genealogical arguments for Josephan alterations of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, Feldman’s portraits are exceptionally important for setting a foundation for later scholars to give closer attention to the precise means by which Josephus employs the characters and events in AJ as moral lessons, and in a later study Feldman himself compares Josephus and Plutarch in a very limited fashion that is suggestive of the possibility of a larger and more fruitful juxtaposition between these two writers that I will undertake in places in this study (discussed below).44 Building upon Attridge and Feldman, Michael Tuval has more recently shown that the particular criteria by which Josephus has God reward piety and impiety underwent a major shift between the writing of BJ and AJ.45 Whereas in BJ, the measure by which God either rewards or punishes human behavior is primarily the treatment of sacred space,46 an outlook entirely expected for a Jewish priest, in AJ God responds to virtue and vice in a de-particularized fashion that is measured by Torah as interpreted for non-Jewish readers as generalized morality.47 Hence, Tuval maps Josephus’ journey “from Jerusalem priest to Roman Jew.” The second set of studies moves beyond the fairly generalized “moralism” of Josephus and focuses specifically on exemplarity in light of the Greco-Roman literary tradition that I reviewed above.48 Annette Reed looks to the prevalence 44 45 46 47

48

Louis H. Feldman, “Parallel Lives of Two Lawgivers: Josephus’ Moses and Plutarch’s Lycurgus,” in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives, Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 209–42. Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew. In BJ, the pollution of the temple by Jewish parties is the direct cause of God evacuating the space and employing the Romans as instruments of punishment. This explains how the temple’s destruction was self-instigated and not a result of (mere) Roman superiority. While Josephus shares the Greco-Roman notion that noble birth and virtue go hand in hand—in fact, the former is to some degree practically a prerequisite of the latter—he also assumes that his (noble) reader must actively cultivate virtue through learning and deed. See Katell Berthelot, “Lineage and Virtue in Josephus: The Respective Roles of Priestly Worldview and Roman Culture,” JAJ 11 (2020): 26–44. I do not include at all in this overview the studies on exemplarity in Second Temple Judaism by Hindy Najman and Eva Mroczek. Although they use the term “exemplarity,” they do so in a completely different way than I am considering in this chapter and should not be confused. I am discussing exemplarity as a type of moralism in which the author

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

45

of exempla in Roman historiography in order to explain the depiction of Abraham in several ancient Jewish sources including Philo, Testament of Abraham, and Josephus’ AJ.49 Although Reed acknowledges that Josephus’ account lacks the explicit terminology scholars have usually associated with exemplarity, she shows how his depiction of Abraham nevertheless aligns with the common Roman historiographical practice of presenting past figures and events as models for the reader. In particular, Reed adopts Roller’s model of the four operations involved in exemplary discourse, which I discussed above in this chapter, using it to demonstrate that Josephus portrays Abraham in an exemplary fashion in the mode of a wise and virtuous philosopher. Beyond merely the appropriation of Greco-Roman exemplarity for interpreting Josephus, two further aspects of Reed’s analysis are particularly important for my study. First, Reed finds the lack of explicit terminology of exemplarity to be no obstacle to appropriating the concept of exemplarity as an analytical framework. As I will discuss further below in this chapter, I agree with this judgement and in the following chapters I will read Josephus’ depiction of the Tobiads and Agrippa I in AJ in part through an appeal to Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, regardless of the presence or absence of key terms (i.e., exemplum and cognates). Second, Reed moves beyond exemplarity as consisting only or mostly in the depiction of past figures as positive role models by showing how Testament of Abraham subverts expectations of Abraham. In Testament of Abraham, “far from being promoted as a model for emulation, Abraham is portrayed as contravening the very virtues for which he is said to be famed.”50 In the present study, then, I will confirm Reed’s important insight and show how the Tobiads and Agrippa I consistently subvert their ancestral exemplars, scriptural Joseph

49 50

engages in the self-formation of the reader through accounts of past figures, events, and deeds. Najman and Mrozcek, however, turn to the language of exemplarity as a way to describe the self-formation of the writer who, it is theorized, reaches back to exemplary figures and events in the Jewish past as a means of expressing their own authorial voice and contribution in continuity with existing authoritative figures and traditions. In particular, Najman and Mrozcek employ exemplarity as a way to explain the rise of pseudepigraphy in cases such as Psalms written as from David, wisdom texts as from Solomon, and the adoption of Moses’ authorial voice in rewritten Pentateuchal texts. See Hindy Najman, Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity, JSJSup 53 (Leiden: Brill, 2010); idem, Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 47–61; Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham,” JSJ 40 (2009): 185–212. Reed, “Construction and Subversion,” 208.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

46

Chapter 2

and Esther. Following on Reed, James Petitfils examines Josephus’ presentation of Moses as an exemplary figure as part of a larger trend among ancient Jews and Christians to theorize about and advocate for varying ideals of leadership by reaching back to the past.51 Adopting Roller’s model of exemplarity consisting in four operations and using Valerius Maximus as comparandum, according to Petitfils the exemplary qualities that Josephus emphasized for Moses are noble lineage, bravery and martial prowess, education and eloquence, generous patronage, and piety. Lastly, situating Josephus firmly in elite literary culture of Flavian Rome, Eelco Glas uses exemplarity as a model for analyzing his practices of autobiographical presentation and strategies of self-praise in BJ.52 While also acknowledging the debt to Langlands and Roller, Glas points out the general dearth of explicit terminology in BJ and avoids adhering to any one model of exemplarity. David Lambert, on the other hand has cautioned against overreach, urging contra Reed (among others) that in many instances the reuse of stories about past figures and events in Second Temple Judaism owes as much to “memorialization” as “exemplarity.”53 In his view, scholars should curb their appeals to exemplarity, since “exemplarity in the fuller sense, that is, as a technology of the self or a mode of self-formation—progress toward perfection through emulation—is taken up as a practice of reading only within a few specific contexts as part of an elite project linked inextricably to Hellenistic moral philosophy.”54 I wholly agree with the sentiment that exemplarity should only be appropriated by scholars when it can reasonably be shown that the ancient text, author, and/or reader can be situated in the context of elite Greco-Roman literary culture—though I see no reason why Josephus should be excluded on this basis. Additionally, I cannot agree with Lambert’s distinction that for Josephus in AJ, “the lesson to be learned [from history] is not about 51 52

53 54

James Petitfils, Mos Christianorum: The Roman Discourse of Exemplarity and the Jewish and Christian Language of Leadership, STAC 99 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). Eelco Glas, “Flavius Josephus’ Self-Characterization in First-Century Rome: A Literary Analysis of the Autobiographical Passages in the Bellum Judaicum” (Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen, 2020). This work is currently under revision for publication in Brill’s Historiography of Rome and Its Empire series. See also Carson Bay, Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity: The Historiography, Exemplarity, & AntiJudaism of Pseudo-Hegesippus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), who focuses on exemplarity in the De Excidio Hierosolymitano of Pseudo-Hegesippus, which lies somewhere between a translation and a redaction of Josephus’ BJ by a late antique Christian. David Lambert, “Biblical Narrative as Ethics? The Limits of Exemplarity in Ancient Jewish Literature,” DSD 28 (2021): 423–47. Lambert, “Biblical Narrative as Ethics,” 428 citing Josephus’ preface in AJ 1.14–15.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

47

the nature of human virtue—how humans ought to act—but about divine righteousness.”55 These seem to me to be inseparable and cannot be pitted against each other. Axiomatic in AJ—as also in Philo and many other Jews situated in the diaspora—is the assumption that the particularity of the Jews’ deity, history, customs, and laws does not obviate their universal applicability and their embodiment of a morality broadly shared with other GrecoRoman peoples. 4

Exemplarity in Josephus’ Antiquities

Rather than engage Lambert’s arguments in detail, I will respond to his objections by surveying programmatic statements in AJ as well as a few instances in which stories and figures function in an exemplary fashion both with and without explicit terminology of exemplarity. This will serve to show that exemplarity is an entirely appropriate framework within which to read AJ. Then, I will conclude the chapter by explaining my own appropriation of exemplarity in this study, which is focused on the interpretation of narratives in AJ in which the exemplary function is frequently implicit, lacking explicit evaluations or characteristic terminology (or both). 4.1 Programmatic Statements There is no doubt that, as I discussed in the previous chapter, Josephus’ overarching purpose in writing AJ is what we might justifiably term “apologetic historiography.”56 It is, therefore, important to keep in mind that Josephus’ presentation of figures and events as exemplary is a corollary of his broader agenda in presenting the Jewish people, their customs, and their history as every bit as worthy as—or more than—the Greeks and the Romans. The moral component of Josephus’ history emerges from his conviction that the Jews possess the noblest of laws and constitutions, and that this can be proven to the reader by reviewing their past figures and events.57 That does not mean that 55 56 57

Lambert, “Biblical Narrative as Ethics,” 435. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. A further consideration that drives Josephus to return to the ancestral past in order to acclaim the Jewish constitution as (in theory at least) the most excellent in the present time is the fact that claims of traditionalism and antiquity were, in the context of the ancient Mediterranean, de facto synonymous with authenticity and nobility. Thus, a return to the Jewish ancestors was, in any case, virtually inevitable if Josephus wished to successfully exalt his people’s laws and customs. On cultural antiquity as a claim which Josephus sought to advance on behalf of the Jewish people in AJ and CA, see Gregory E. Sterling,

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

48

Chapter 2

they always live up to these standards, but history (in his view) still bears it out even in cases of divine punishment. Hence, at the outset of AJ he states openly that: On the whole, what anyone who wishes to review history might especially learn is that those who follow the will of God and do not dare to transgress that which has been soundly legislated prosper in all things beyond belief and are offered happiness from God as their prize. Contrastingly, to whoever should depart from a precise concern over these things, the passable becomes impassable, and any good thing they should eagerly do turns into irreparable misfortune. Consequently, here and now I exhort the readers of these books to turn their mind to God and test whether our legislator [Moses] comprehended his [God’s] nature in a worthy manner and always attributed to him deeds befitting his power by guarding the account concerning him as undefiled by every indecency which is found in other mythologies.58 It is true, as Lambert has observed, that this passage shows that AJ has much to say about God and the divine disposition. However, there is no reason to introduce the false dichotomy that, for Josephus, “biblical narrative, then,

58

“The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Marincola, Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, 234–37; G. R. Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development From the Stoics to Origen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 85–90; Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 177–200; idem, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 83–85. The claim of cultural antiquity was a common currency, as evidenced in the counter-claims of anti-Jewish Egyptian literature. See Boys-Stones, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy, 44–75; and especially the competing chronologies of Moses and the Exodus in William Adler, “Moses, the Exodus, and Comparative Chronology,” in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay, ed. Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day, NovTSup 129 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 47–65. For an intellectual and social history of the discourse of “innovation,” see Benoît Godin, Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries, Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought (New York: Routledge, 2015). τὸ σύνολον δὲ μάλιστά τις ἂν ἐκ ταύτης μάθοι τῆς ἱστορίας ἐθελήσας αὐτὴν διελθεῖν, ὅτι τοῖς μὲν θεοῦ γνώμῃ κατακολουθοῦσι καὶ τὰ καλῶς νομοθετηθέντα μὴ τολμῶσι παραβαίνειν1 πάντα κατορθοῦται πέρα πίστεως καὶ γέρας εὐδαιμονία πρόκειται παρὰ θεοῦ· καθ᾿ ὅσον δ᾿ ἂν ἀποστῶσι τῆς τούτων ἀκριβοῦς ἐπιμελείας, ἄπορα μὲν γίνεται τὰ πόριμα, τρέπεται δὲ εἰς συμφορὰς ἀνηκέστους ὅ τι ποτ᾿ ἂν ὡς ἀγαθὸν δρᾶν σπουδάσωσιν. ἤδη τοίνυν τοὺς ἐντευξομένους τοῖς βιβλίοις παρακαλῶ τὴν γνώμην θεῷ προσανέχειν καὶ δοκιμάζειν τὸν ἡμέτερον νομοθέτην, εἰ τήν τε φύσιν ἀξίως αὐτοῦ κατενόησε καὶ τῇ δυνάμει πρεπούσας ἀεὶ τὰς πράξεις ἀνατέθεικε πάσης καθαρὸν τὸν περὶ αὐτοῦ φυλάξας λόγον τῆς παρ᾿ ἄλλοις ἀσχήμονος μυθολογίας. (AJ 1.14–15)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

49

participates primarily in a theological, not ethical, form of discourse.”59 In fact, Josephus’ preface is not altogether different from the ones that I surveyed earlier in this chapter. He, along with other historians such as Dionysius, Livy, and Tacitus, present their histories as containing exemplary figures and stories within the context of a broader historiographical agenda (e.g., explaining the rapid rise of Rome, proving the greatness of Rome, reassuring of Rome’s success through times of turmoil, demonstrating the excellence of the Jewish people). Thus, we should expect exemplarity in AJ to be a function of Josephus’ more generalized program and not necessarily one that stands alone as a singular agenda. This is because Josephus is writing historiography, not compiling a collection of assorted exempla, as with Valerius Maximus. More helpful for determining the extent to which exemplarity is an appropriate context within which to interpret AJ is the presence of its explicit terminology, as well as passages which clearly and conspicuously draw on that mode of discourse even in the absence of key terms. 4.2 Terminology of Exemplarity (παράδειγμα) in AJ Just after the passage that I quoted above, Josephus continues his introductory statements on Moses and the Jewish scriptures in contrast to those of other peoples, saying that It is necessary to recognize, then, that he [Moses] determined it most necessary for the one about to manage his own life in an excellent fashion and legislate for others to first understand the nature of God and become an observer of his [God’s] works through the mind, and so in this way to imitate the noblest example (παράδειγμα) of all and insofar as possible to attempt to emulate it.60 Here, at the beginning of AJ before the account proper begins in Genesis, is the first occurrence of the terminology of exemplarity. It begins a move from Josephus’ programmatic statement of purpose in AJ—showing God’s providential directing of history in response to piety and impiety as measured by the ethical code contained in the Jewish law and constitution—to the narrative itself and particular instances that serve as proofs. Josephus, in the quote 59 60

Lambert, “Biblical Narrative as Ethics,” 435–36. ἰστέον οὖν, ὅτι πάντων ἐκεῖνος ἀναγκαιότατον ἡγήσατο τῷ καὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μέλλοντι βίον οἰκονομήσειν καλῶς καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις νομοθετεῖν θεοῦ πρῶτον φύσιν κατανοῆσαι καὶ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἐκείνου θεατὴν τῷ νῷ γενόμενον οὕτως παράδειγμα τὸ πάντων ἄριστον μιμεῖσθαι, καθ᾿ ὅσον οἷόν τε, καὶ πειρᾶσθαι κατακολουθεῖν. (AJ 1.19)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

50

Chapter 2

above, claims that a principle of exemplarity is at the heart of his account, as the Mosaic laws and constitution which enshrine Jewish morality and ethics are themselves based on a principle of imitation which flows downwards from God to Moses and thence to the Jewish people (and through Josephus’ work, to the Greeks and Romans). If we turn to the narratives in AJ, there are also numerous passages in which specific characters and events are discussed using the explicit terminology of exemplarity (παράδειγμα), often in the context of speeches.61 For example, Josephus has King David respond to the news of an unsuccessful assault on a city by reproaching that a frontward assault, rather than sieges engines or other such methods, was foolish on the basis that (AJ 7.142) they [the soldiers] have as example (παράδειγμα) Abimelech son of Gideon, who, when he wanted to take the tower in Thebes by force, fell in battle after being struck by a rock thrown by an old woman, and though the most courageous of men, died shamefully on account of the difficult method of assault.62 Here, the lesson is fundamentally practical rather than ethical: don’t prosecute an assault in this way unless you want to risk a swift and shameful death. The implied moral lesson is that honorable deaths are found against men wielding swords, not old women flinging down rocks—virtus, as it were, in its original meaning as masculine valor and courage. When Josephus turns to David’s son, King Solomon, he echoes the programmatic statement that I quoted above by reproaching the king for doing (AJ 8.196) those very things which the legislator [Moses] had suspected and warned about [i.e., worshipping foreign deities and taking foreign wives]  … although having the most excellent and domestic example of virtue (παράδειγμα τῆς ἀρετῆς) in his father [King David] and his good reputation, which he left behind for him on account of his piety towards God (τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειαν).63 61 62 63

One interesting and potentially significant datum warranting further research is that the term παράδειγμα is almost exclusively used in AJ whereas the term ὑπόδειγμα is almost exclusively used in BJ. καὶ ταῦτ᾿ ἔχοντας παράδειγμα τὸν Γεδεῶνος υἱὸν Ἀβιμέλεχον, ὃς ἐπεὶ τὸν ἐν Θήβαις πύργον ἑλεῖν ἐβούλετο βίᾳ, βληθεὶς ὑπὸ πρεσβύτιδος πέτρῳ κατέπεσε καὶ ἀνδρειότατος ὢν διὰ τὸ δυσχερὲς τῆς ἐπιβολῆς αἰσχρῶς ἀπέθανεν·. (AJ 7.142) κάλλιστον δ᾿ ἔχων καὶ οἰκεῖον παράδειγμα τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν ἐκείνου δόξαν, ἣν αὐτῷ συνέβη καταλιπεῖν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσέβειαν. (AJ 8.196)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

51

For Josephus, the divine ordering of the Mosaic legislation, which makes it the most excellent, is clear from the examples of the fates of those figures in the Jewish past who either obeyed or transgressed its mandates. Furthermore, their descendants ought to learn from their examples. This theme reappears in the post-scriptural portion of AJ, when in the account of the Maccabean period he has Simon the Hasmonean rally the inhabitants of Jerusalem by appealing to the examples (παραδειγμάτων) of his father (Mattathias) and brothers (Judas and Jonathan) who died in the cause of freedom (AJ 13.198). More examples could be supplied, but although these passages see Josephus honing in on a very specific deed, more often he reflects on the broader contours of a character’s life and its utility in moral instruction. Sometimes these summary evaluations are also accompanied by explicit terminology of exemplarity, such as his explanation for a lengthy account of Antipater the Idumean, the father of Herod the Great: “I will relate the whole account concerning him [Antipater] so that it might serve as an example (παράδειγμα) for humanity to practice virtue in all circumstances.”64 He similarly concludes Book 17 by defending what preceded on the basis that (AJ 17.354): I did not consider these things [Herodian intrigues] to be immaterial to the account since it is at present concerned with kings and because, in any case, they furnish an example (παραδείγματι) bearing upon the immortality of the soul and divine care for human affairs, I included them; I have judged it good to speak of them. But whoever finds them unbelievable should not let his own opinion be an obstacle to adding on virtue.65 It does not matter for my purposes what precisely Josephus thought the reader might find problematic in the preceding narrative, only that he takes his account to be a useful example (παράδειγμα). 4.3 Absence of Explicit Terminology In the above instances, Josephus’s narrative is marked out by the use of explicit terminology of exemplarity. However, much more often he offers the reader evaluations and commentary in the absence of such references. A case that 64 65

διηγήσομαι δὲ τὸν πάντα περὶ αὐτοῦ λόγον, παράδειγμα τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ γενησόμενον τοῦ ἀρετῇ πολιτεύσοντος ἐπὶ πᾶσιν. (AJ 17.60) Ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἀλλότρια νομίσας αὐτὰ τῷδε τῷ λόγῳ εἶναι διὰ τὸ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων αὐτὸν ἐνεστηκέναι καὶ ἄλλως ἐπὶ παραδείγματι φέρειν τοῦ τε ἀμφὶ τὰς ψυχὰς ἀθανασίᾳ ἐμφεροῦς καὶ τοῦ θείου προμηθείᾳ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια περιειληφότος τῇ αὐτοῦ, καλῶς ἔχειν ἐνομίσα εἰπεῖν. ὅτῳ δὲ ἀπιστεῖται τὰ τοιάδε, γνώμης ὀνινάμενος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ κώλυμα οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο τῷ ἐπ᾿ ἀρετὴν αὐτὰ προστιθεμένῳ. (AJ 17.354)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

52

Chapter 2

will serve to turn this chapter towards the accounts that are the topic of this study is Josephus’ introduction of the figure Agrippa I, whom I will analyze at length in Chapters 5 and 6. Much as Josephus in the quote above justified his extended treatment of Antipater, he presents a similar rationale for dwelling at length on Agrippa I. In a passage that I will return to in Chapter 5 for its connections to the figure of Joseph from Genesis, Josephus explains that (AJ 18.127–29): I wish, then, to speak at greater length of what became of Herod and his descendants, both because their story is pertinent to the history [i.e., the Antiquities] as well as because it contains an exhibition of the divinity—how neither greatness nor any other human strength is of benefit in meeting with success apart from piety towards the divine. For indeed, by the close of one hundred years it came about that all but a few of Herod’s descendants died who were previously numerous. So it might lead in some way to the moral education of human nature (σωφρονισμῷ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου) to learn of the ill fate of his offspring and also to narrate the figure of Agrippa, which is most worth marveling over—who from an altogether common station and against every expectation of those who knew him rose up to such a position of power.66 Here, Josephus repeats much the same sentiments that I have now shown several times, both in programmatic statements introducing AJ and in regard to specific figures and events. What is notable, however, is that although he never uses the terminology of exemplarity (i.e., παράδειγμα), he clearly considers the account of Agrippa I to function as an exemplary story. By observing how Agrippa’s successes originate in divine favor owing to his piety (and, in the opposite fashion, impiety is implied to be the cause of his failures) this past figure and his deeds “might lead in some way to the moral education of human nature (σωφρονισμῷ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου).” As I have by now amply documented in the context of Greco-Roman writing, and this instance further shows for the case of Josephus, exemplary discourse need not utilize in 66

βούλομαι οὖν εἰπεῖν ἐπὶ μακρότερον περί τε Ἡρώδου καὶ γένους αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐγένετο, ἅμα μὲν καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνήκειν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τὸν περὶ αὐτῶν λόγον, ἅμα δὲ καὶ παράστασιν ἔχειν τοῦ θείου, ὡς οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ πλῆθος οὐδ ̓ ἄλλη τις ἀλκὴ τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτετευγμένων δίχα τῶν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβειῶν, εἴ γε ἐντὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν ἐξόδου συνέβη πλὴν ὀλίγων, πολλοὶ δ ̓ ἦσαν, διαφθαρῆναι τοὺς Ἡρώδου ἀπογόνους· φέροι δ ̓ ἄν τι κἀπὶ σωφρονισμῷ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους τὸ τὴν δυστυχίαν αὐτῶν μαθεῖν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἀγρίππαν διηγήσασθαι θαύματος ἀξιώτατον γεγενημένον, ὃς ἐκ πάνυ ἰδιώτου καὶ παρὰ πᾶσαν δόξαν τῶν εἰδότων αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοσόνδε ηὐξήθη δυνάμεως. (AJ 18.127–29)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

53

every case the narrow and limited terminology of exemplum, παράδειγμα, or ὑπόδειγμα, nor will Roller’s formal model always apply. But that has no direct bearing on whether or not past figures and events are treated by either the author or reader as examples for moral and pragmatic instruction. The passage on Agrippa I that I quoted above brings me, at last, to an explanation of how I will appropriate the concept of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity in this study moving forward. 5

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity in This Study

As I have surveyed in this chapter, the majority of the research on the ethical dimensions of AJ has focused on moralism in the sense of Josephus’ heightened emphasis on the virtuous qualities of scriptural figures or his consistent demonstration of God’s providential reward and judgement in response to human piety and impiety. The application of the concept of exemplarity to AJ has, by contrast, been much more limited. To date, those handful of scholars who have studied exemplarity in AJ have exclusively adopted Roller’s model in the absence of explicit terminology. Although a full-fledged study of exemplarity in AJ is clearly needed, that is not the lacuna which this book seeks to fill. I will not be utilizing Roller’s model or the presence of explicit terminology as indicators of exemplary discourse. Rather, Greco-Roman discourse of exemplarity is, in this study, understood as a subfield of moralism constituted by the implicit or explicit use of past figures and events as models to be imitated or avoided and as touchstones for moral and pragmatic reasoning concerning the practice of virtue, often in the context of discharging public duties as a politikos. The historical subjects in these writings are, then, exemplary in the sense that they serve as cases of behavior to be followed or avoided, or they provoke and/or complicate that very discussion without necessarily reaching a resolution. As I have already indicated in this chapter, my appropriation of discourses of exemplarity draws on research on Plutarch, who is a particularly apropos comparandum for Josephus.67 First, Plutarch and Josephus are very near contemporaries, with Plutarch being only around ten years younger than

67

For what follows, see similar views expressed in Ursula Westwood, “A Jewish Lawgiver in a Greek World: Moses in Josephus’ Antiquities in light of Plutarch’s Lives” (Ph.D. diss., Wolfson College, Oxford, 2020), 43–49.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

54

Chapter 2

Josephus, and both writing works under the Flavian emperors.68 It is, therefore, entirely justifiable to seek in Josephus some of the same practices, habits, and trends that we find in Plutarch. While Plutarch did not write in Rome like Josephus, he made multiple trips there and, like Josephus, had close and ongoing contacts in the capital.69 Second, Josephus’ AJ can be read as largely consisting of a series of biographies of illustrious individuals (e.g., Abraham, Joseph, Moses, etc.), in which light AJ stands much closer to Plutarch’s Parallel Lives than it might otherwise appear.70 Drawing on models of exemplarity that have emerged from research on Plutarch allows me to highlight the fact that while explicit terminology may appear, neither it nor explicit evaluations of character are necessary for exemplarity to be fruitfully applied as an explanatory framework. More importantly, I employ in this study the distinction between expository and exploratory exemplarity that has been made by a number of scholars of Plutarch. This distinction recognizes that Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, though an eminently moralistic work, cannot be readily described as containing a moralism that is principally protreptic, prescriptive, didactic, or expository. His narratives engage in exemplary discourse, but in a much less direct fashion than many of the other ancient writers surveyed earlier in this chapter who are frequently studied under the rubric of “exemplarity.” I find exploratory exemplarity to be an extremely helpful framework with which to approach Josephus’ accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, which are the topic of this study, because while moral import is laden in the narratives, the accounts themselves are often morally complex, the subjects are ethically ambiguous, explicit terminology of exemplarity is almost entirely lacking, and summary evaluations are at times at odds with the narrative depictions—all features of exploratory exemplarity as scholars have described in Plutarch’s Lives. But Plutarch is also a useful comparandum in this study because of his format of juxtaposing two subjects and interpreting them in parallel. While Plutarch’s synkriseis make this evaluative juxtaposition explicit by weighing 68

69

70

Josephus wrote exclusively under the Flavians (excepting perhaps Contra Apionem), while Plutarch wrote only minimally under the Flavians and mostly under Nerva and Trajan. On the chronology of Josephus’ works, see the previous chapter. On the chronology of Plutarch’s works, see C. P. Jones, “Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works,” JRS 56, nos. 1 and 2 (1966): 61–74. On Plutarch’s contacts in Rome, see Philip A. Stadter, “Plutarch and Rome,” in Beck, Companion to Plutarch, 13–31; idem, Plutarch and his Roman Readers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), esp. 6–12. On Josephus’ Roman context, see the contributions in Edmondson, Mason, and Rives, eds., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, as well as my overview in the previous chapter. On AJ as essentially serial biography, see Steve Mason, introduction, xxxii; idem, “Josephus as Roman Historian,” 100; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 74–75; Schwartz, “Many Sources But a Single Author,” 37. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Greco-Roman Discourses of Exemplarity and Josephus

55

each figure in the pair in turn (excepting the pairs which lack a synkrisis, as noted above), the moral lessons contained within the narratives themselves are considerably more ambiguous and open-ended. The core of this book in the following four chapters is an analysis of Josephus’s adaptation of the stories of Joseph and Esther in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I. As I will show, one can likewise read the Tobiads in parallel with scriptural Joseph, and Agrippa I in parallel with both Joseph and Esther. However, the parallel is considerably more complex than imitation or copying, as the very expectations that the parallels establish are frequently subverted in surprising and ironic fashion. As I will comment in the conclusions to each chapter and will reflect on more fully in Chapter 7 that concludes this study, drawing on Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity allows me to interpret Josephus’ procedure of subversively adapting scriptural figures and accounts as creating disruptions that invite reflection upon the moral qualities of the protagonists with respect to their archetypes: how should the reader evaluate the behavior of the Tobiads and Agrippa I by the standards of scriptural Joseph and Esther, whom they so conspicuously resemble?71 This comparative evaluation is implicit and never openly made by Josephus, but arises out of what we might term “moments of tension,” which Chrysanthou describes Plutarch also exploiting in his Parallel Lives: Plutarch presents his readers with incongruous elements … that are not compatible with what readers already know or have assumed from the preceding or wider narrative. These “moments of tension” … are capable of drawing readers, through their subsequent surprise, into reflecting on and re-evaluating the various threads in a bid to pass their own moral judgement on the men of the biographies. This is also the case when readers confront gaps or silences in the text, temporal displacements, and evocations of past and future, or when they may recognise intertextuality. All these devices prove highly effective in increasing readers’ engagement with moral evaluation, sensitising them to exploratory parallels and wider contexts that inform their act of judging in many challenging ways.72

71

72

Regarding the capability of and opportunities for elite Greco-Roman readers to carry out this interpretation and evaluation, which would suggest familiarity with traditional Jewish figures and stories, see my comments about AJ’s audience, readers, and publication in Chapter 1. Chrysanthou, Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, 2. For a similar perspective, see also Duff, Plutarch’s Lives, 52–71. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

56

Chapter 2

At the end of each of the four following chapters, then, I will offer thoughts as to how a reader might interpret the Tobiads and Agrippa I as moral and pragmatic actors in light of their parallels with scriptural Joseph and Esther, as well as reflect on how their exemplary function might be utilized by Josephus’ reader to draw ethical and pragmatic lessons within the context of elite GrecoRoman culture of the Flavian era. To that end, I will now turn to the first account, known as the Tales of the Tobiads, and show in the next two chapters how the main characters and major plot points are modelled in significant respects upon the story of Joseph from Genesis.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 3

A Tale of Two Josephs: Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph 1

Introduction

After concluding the account of the Book of Esther, the last scriptural text in AJ, Josephus rounds out Book 11 with a story of high priestly controversy and foreign intervention under the Persian general Bagoses (AJ 11.297–302) and the legends of Alexander the Great, the Jews, and the Samaritans (AJ 11.304–47). He then begins Book 12 with an account of the translation of the Jewish scriptures drawn from Letter of Aristeas (AJ 12.11–118). But before turning to Maccabean history, derived primarily from 1 Maccabees,1 Josephus narrates a rather peculiar account of two generations of a Jewish family and their dealings with the Ptolemaic court set in the early second century BCE. This account, spanning approximately AJ 12.154–236, has been dubbed “Tales of the Tobiads” after the family’s patronym.2 Because the Tales of the Tobiads is not among the better-known passages in Book 12, such as the surrounding material on the translation of the Septuagint and on the Maccabean revolt, it will be useful to briefly summarize the account itself and then scholarly discussion of it. While my own interests in this account lie in its literary features, namely the notable parallels between it and the story of scriptural Joseph, many of those very same features that I discuss here have long perplexed scholars seeking to use the story as an historical source. Therefore, I anticipate that my conclusions in this chapter, though not primarily oriented towards historical matters, may nevertheless prove useful for those wishing to understand Judea during 1 The form of 1 Maccabees used by Josephus is uncertain as his account does not extend past 1 Macc. 13. It is possible that his use of 1 Maccabees was mediated by an intermediate source or that he possessed the text in a form other than is now extant. In this study, therefore, my reference to Josephus’ use of 1 Maccabees should not be taken to resolve this lingering question; it is, rather, convenient shorthand. For an overview of this issue, see Gafni, “Josephus and I Maccabees,” 116–17. 2 Sometimes the title “Tobiad Romance” is also used in scholarship, as in Wills, Jewish Novel, 187–93; idem, Ancient Jewish Novels, 198–212; Seth Schwartz, “A Note on the Social Type and Political Ideology of the Hasmonean Family,” JBL 112, no. 2 (1993): 305–17. However, I avoid the term “romance” since in modern English popular usage it has become synonymous with erotic elements. These do not drive the plot as they do in the classic Greek romances/novels of Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus, Achilles Tatius, Longus, and others.

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_004

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

58

Chapter 3

the pre-Maccabean Hellenistic period. For the purposes of convenience, I have divided my treatment of the Tales of the Tobiads into two chapters, this first of which will show how the figure of Joseph the Tobiad is in many ways an adaptation of scriptural Joseph, though with surprising and unexpected turns, while the next chapter will do the same for Joseph the Tobiad’s son, Hyrcanus. Lastly, moving beyond the description of affinities between the Tobiad patriarchs and scriptural Joseph, I will end each chapter by showing how my findings can be read through the lens of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. 1.1 Summary of the Tales of the Tobiads Josephus establishes the setting for the tale by narrating the Seleucid cession of taxation rights of Coele-Syria to the Ptolemies after the formers’ conquest of the region, prompting a showdown between King Ptolemy and the Jewish people after the Jewish high priest Onias refuses to render tribute (AJ 12. 154–59). A young Joseph the Tobiad steps in as envoy to the Ptolemies to defuse the situation and travels to Alexandria. Well-equipped with finances and gifts from friends so as to woo the king, he ultimately wins favor above all the other contenders and secures tax-farming rights of Coele-Syria for himself (AJ 12.160–79). Once back in Judea, Joseph exacts tribute from Coele-Syria with no small measure of severity, securing for himself sufficient financial standing to ensure the Ptolemies’ goodwill for his enterprise for many years to come (AJ 12.180–85). After siring seven sons by one wife, he eventually marries his niece under profligate circumstances and has a final child by her, named Hyrcanus, who inspires his older brothers’ jealousy by besting them at every turn and becoming the favored child (AJ 12.186–95). In Joseph’s old age, Hyrcanus avails himself of the opportunity declined by his brothers to travel to Alexandria in his father’s stead and congratulate the king on the birth of a son, but secretly plans to wrest control of his father’s operation. He carries out a plot to seize his father’s finances from the steward managing them and to exploit these resources to give lavishly, both to the royals to win their favor as well as to other courtiers so as to allay the jealousy thus inspired—not, however, without eliciting his brothers’ rage back home. The bad blood goes so far as to spur a violent battle in which two of the older brothers are even killed, with the result that Hyrcanus is forced to retreat into the Transjordan and establish tax-levying activities there among the tribesmen (AJ 12.196–222). After a quick digression following the notice of Joseph’s death (AJ 12.223–27), another war breaks out between the older Tobiad brothers and Hyrcanus, which now embroils the city of Jerusalem as well (AJ 12.228). The story ends with a description of the fortress estate Hyrcanus builds in the Transjordan and his abrupt suicide upon the accession of Antiochus IV (AJ 12.229–36).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

59

1.2 Previous Scholarship Although the review of scholarship which follows is admittedly lengthy, I consider it a necessity given the many fundamental interpretive difficulties which plague the Tales of the Tobiads and which scholars have long pored over, since I engage several of them in this chapter or the following one from a literary perspective. But the reader who finds it superfluous may skip ahead to the next section in this chapter. Although the distinction is somewhat artificial, I will first survey studies on the Tales of the Tobiads that are of an historical bent and then will turn towards those of a literary nature, which are most relevant for my own analysis in this chapter, before concluding the review by situating my own approach among them. A number of studies have devoted close attention to the Tales of the Tobiads with primary interests in Josephus’ sources as well as the historical Tobiads’ setting, dealings, and leading figures. In a two-part study, Benjamin Mazar distills the principal points of what is known about the family on the basis of Josephus’ account and other sources, such as the archaeology of the family fortress-estate and the Zenon papyri.3 Working backwards from the Tobiad family’s most prominent and well-documented dealings in the Ptolemaic era, Mazar traces their history through the early Second Temple Period and even into pre-exilic Judah. In addition to the family’s history, Mazar also examines the origins of the Tobiads’ territory and estate in the Transjordan. In Victor Tcherikover’s landmark monograph, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, substantial space is allotted to discussion of the Tobiads and their role in pre-Maccabean affairs in Judea.4 He concludes that Josephus’ chronology is badly wrong and repositions the historical setting of the narrative so that it begins in the era of Ptolemaic rule of Judea, in the late third century BCE, and ends in the early second century BCE under Seleucid rule just before the Maccabean revolt.5 Tcherikover focuses on the Tobiad family as indicative of 3 B. Mazar, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7, no. 3 (1957): 137–45; idem, “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7, no. 4 (1957): 229–38. On the fortress and the papyri, see below. 4 Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Applebaum (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1959), 127–42, 153–56. Originally published in Hebrew as ‫היהודימ‬ ִ ‫[ והיוונימ בתקופה ההלניססית‬The Jews and the Greeks in the Hellenistic Age] (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1930). 5 One indicator of an original third century BCE setting is that the Ptolemy referred to throughout the story is addressed in several places with the epithet “Euergetes” (i.e., Ptolemy III Euergetes, r. 246–222 BCE). Although it is never stated explicitly in the narrative, most scholars accept that the Ptolemy intended by Josephus’ literary setting in the second century BCE is Ptolemy V Epiphanes (r. 204–180 BCE). The epithet “Euergetes” occurs as a textual variant at AJ 12.158, though the phrase ὅς ἦν πατὴρ τοῦ Φιλοπάτορος which follows may be a later scribal interpolation. It is a textual variant and a pun at AJ 12.163. At AJ 12.206 it is a pun alone, not

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

60

Chapter 3

broader changes taking place on the eve of the revolt. In his estimation, the Tobiads were urbane Hellenists who adopted and championed Greek values. Like many other Judean elites at this time, then, they were part of a group seeking to further introduce Hellenism into Judean society and culture. According to him, they also feature prominently in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid factions among the high priests, whose infighting ultimately sparks the repression of Antiochus IV and the Maccabean rebellion. In a lengthy article on the Tales of the Tobiads, Jonathan Goldstein attempts to answer the story’s inconsistencies and contradictions.6 In his view, the difficulties in the text must be explained by positing that Josephus wrote AJ in his old age and through the use of Greek scribes, with the result that many passages—such as the Tales of the Tobiads—were not personally reviewed or properly revised. Therefore, the somewhat sloppy use of a source explains, for Goldstein, the narrative’s difficulties, and a determination of the “original” story in the source will account for them. In Goldstein’s view, the original source is best understood as pro-Ptolemaic propaganda written by Onias IV, the literary setting of which—in agreement with Tcherikover—has been adjusted by Josephus from the late third century to the early second century BCE on the basis of “correcting” chronological errors he found in it. Goldstein ultimately concludes that, save a few minor exaggerations, the Tales of the Tobiads is historically reliable. a variant. In this last instance it occurs in narration of Hyrcanus’ rise to prominence at the Ptolemaic court, not his father Joseph’s as with the other two occurrences. Hyrcanus ought to be addressing a different king from that of his father by any temporal reckoning. However, the chronology of the source was likely imprecise or inaccurate even before Josephus’ interventions and, given the similarities between the portrayals of Joseph and Hyrcanus, it is not unlikely that stories became incorrectly attached to either or both figures as is common in folktales. See Susan Niditch, “Father-Son Folktale Patterns and Tyrant Typologies in Josephus’ Ant. 12:160–222,” JSJ 32, no. 1 (1981): 51–52. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?,” in Jews in a Greco-Roman World, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 53–55 attributes the textual variants to scribal interpolation as attempts to redress the confused chronology of the story. As others have noted, however, Josephus himself presents a tolerable explanation for the setting of the story at AJ 12.154 (the marriage and dowry arrangement between the Seleucids and Ptolemies) which, though it may not pass the historical muster of many modern scholars, would not have unduly perplexed the casual reader in antiquity. Schwartz’s suggestion that an “erudite scribe” made the interpolation does not explain the presence of the puns on the cult epithet, which are a literary device integral to the narrative and not a mere isolated textual insertion, evidence which is dismissed out of hand. 6 Jonathan Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism, and other GrecoRoman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner, 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 3:85–123. On the inconsistencies and contradictions, see below.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

61

The issue of the proper historical setting of the events and figures narrated in the Tales of the Tobiads has also been the subject of a robust exchange between Daniel Schwartz and Gideon Fuks. The question revolves around the narrative’s peculiarity of Ptolemaic taxation of territories under Seleucid control as well as whether or not Josephus’ justification for this—that tax-farming rights were ceded by the Seleucids to the Ptolemies as part of a dowry arrangement—is plausible, cogent, and historically reliable.7 Schwartz argues against proposals such as Goldstein’s and Tcherikover’s, which reject Josephus’ chronological placement of the Tobiad narrative, and instead argues for following Josephus’ setting of the story in the early second century BCE.8 Gideon Fuks, in response, reasserts the challenge to Josephus’ chronology by pointing to defects in Schwartz’s arguments,9 with Schwartz then addressing each of these in a rejoinder.10 Few have been convinced by Schwartz, and Dov Gera has also demonstrated the weaknesses in his arguments,11 but the exchange greatly elucidates the positions, the evidence, and the stakes.12 More recently, several specialists in Seleucid history have renewed these debates, arguing in favor of the essential historicity of the dowry arrangement and, thus, an early second century BCE setting for the historical figures and events in the Tales of the Tobiads (though not necessarily affirming its reliability in toto).13 Although they present detailed arguments and the use 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

Sustained arguments against Josephus’ justification go as far back as Maurice Holleaux, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, 6 vols. (E. de Boccard, 1938–1968), 4:342–45. Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads.” Gideon Fuks, “Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note,” JJS 52, no. 2 (2002): 354–56. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks,” JJS 53, no. 1 (2002): 146–51. Dov Gera, “Unity and Chronology in the Jewish Antiquities,” in Pastor, Stern, and Mor, Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 141–45. Those convinced by Schwartz include Sylvie Honigman, Tales of Taxes and High Priests: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochus IV (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), 342–43; and Maurice Sartre, “Histoire et Mémoire(s) des Maccabées,” in La Mémoire des Persécutions: Autour des livres des Maccabées, ed. Gérard Nahon (Paris: Peeters, 2014), 1–20. For example, Noah Kaye and Ory Amitay, “Kleopatra’s Dowry: Taxation and Sovereignty between Hellenistic Kingdoms,” Historia 64, no. 2 (2015): 131–55, sever Josephus’ account from historical matters completely and argue on independent grounds that the story of the marriage and dowry arrangement should be accepted as at least a realistic possibility. They suggest a distinction between, on the one hand, rights of sovereignty, and, on the other hand, tribute and taxation rights. However, all of the examples they adduce fail as analogies, being cases of subject territories/cities granted by their conquerors the right to collect their own tribute even while the conquering power retains ultimate rights of sovereignty. Crucially, they do not supply another case of one power retaining sovereignty over a conquered territory even while at the same time relinquishing to the recently

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

62

Chapter 3

of numismatic evidence is especially significant,14 I am not persuaded that either the dowry arrangement or a second century BCE setting for the historical figures and events depicted in the Tales of the Tobiads can be salvaged. The lingering signs, discussed above, that Josephus’ source located Joseph the Tobiad’s activities under Ptolemy III Euergetes,15 as well as the impossibility of accounting historically for a situation in which the Seleucids would allow armed Ptolemaic agents to roam hard-won and newly-controlled territory to forcibly and violently extract precious-metal coinage,16 lead me to reject their

14

15

16

defeated rival power the right to collect by force that conquered territory’s tribute, which is the circumstance described in the Tales of the Tobiads. Catharine Lorber argues in several places that the peculiar lack of Seleucid silver coinage during the first generation after gaining control over Coele-Syria (ca. 200–170 BCE), coinciding with the persistent circulation of Ptolemaic silver currency in the region, should be understood in connection with the dowry arrangement and the story of Tobiad tax-farming: the Seleucids used the dowry arrangement as a deliberate means to evacuate Ptolemaic coinage (and, thereby, imagery) from the area, even using the Ptolemies themselves through their tax-farming agents to do so. We may cautiously infer, Lorber suggests, that Ptolemaic silver begins to abruptly disappear ca. 170 BCE precisely because the dowry arrangement had accomplished its purpose (hence Antiochus IV is reported to have disavowed it ca. 171 BCE), and/or that new Seleucid fiscal policy was to be soon implemented (hence increased tetradrachm production ca. 169 BCE). Lorber even speculates that a Jordanian coin hoard ca. 174 BCE should be associated with the death of Hyrcanus, recounted in the Tales of the Tobiads as a suicide brought on by impending conflict with Antiochus IV, who would not tolerate a Ptolemaic agent at his rear when he was soon to mount expeditions against Egypt. See Catharine Lorber, “The Circulation of Ptolemaic Silver in Seleucid Coele Syria and Phoenicia from Antiochus III to the Maccabean Revolt: Monetary Policies and Political Consequences,” Electrum 26 (2019): 9–23; idem, “Silver Coinage in Seleucid Coele Syria and Phoenicia: Implications for the History of Judah,” in The Middle Maccabees: Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom, ed. Andrea M. Berlin and Paul J. Kosmin (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021), 311–30. Lorber, “Circulation of Ptolemaic Silver,” 11, does not satisfactorily deal with this matter. After admitting this detail, she maintains that the depiction of Ptolemaic tax-farming procedures is accurate, and therefore the literary setting of the Tales of the Tobiads is upheld. It is not clear to me, however, why the accuracy (or otherwise) of the depiction of tax-farming in the story necessitates a second century BCE setting rather than an earlier one. Other evidence must carry the day for determining the original setting of the story in Josephus’ source as well as the dates of the historical Tobiads. In my estimation, the papyrological and archaeological evidence for the Tobiad family confirms their tax-farming under the Ptolemies. However, when the Seleucids gained control of the region, Hyrcanus lost that avenue of income and was forced to turn to more predatory and peripheral extraction of wealth from the “Arabs/barbarians” (AJ 12.222, 229, 236). Lorber, “Silver Coinage,” 12, acknowledges that “we should also not lose sight of the enormous anomaly that a Ptolemaic agent was allowed to operate at the head of a small Ptolemaic army within Seleucid territory.” Her allowance that Josephus’ report may here

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

63

proposals. As John D. Grainger points out, the alleged dowry arrangement “only emerged later, in the preliminary crisis which led to the next war [i.e., the Sixth Syrian War]. … It is, of course, merely an invented detail. It is not believable that, having fought two long and difficult wars and finally succeeded, Antiochos III would give up any part of Koile Syria. But the fact that the claim was made and taken seriously, in Egypt and elsewhere, is evidence that the Ptolemaic regime was not reconciled to the loss of its Syrian lands.”17 Lastly, Dov Gera tackles two of the fundamental issues: Is the narrative constituted of more than one source? And is the narrative historically reliable, even in broad terms?18 To the former question Gera avers that Josephus used only a single source and to the latter he argues that the source’s ideological agenda renders the account historically unreliable. In Gera’s view, on the basis of the account’s internal characteristics and its affinities with Letter of Aristeas, the author of Josephus’ source was a Ptolemaic Jew attempting to instill confidence in Egyptian Jews’ involvement in Ptolemaic affairs. These are the principal studies which devote extended attention to the historical issues of Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads. However, there are also a number of surveys of Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods which treat the Tobiads with more brevity.19 Others, meanwhile, have engaged the Tobiads in other contexts. For instance, the archaeology of the family fortress in the Transjordan, the Araq al-Amir, is useful for enriching Josephus’ picture of the social and cultural background of the Tobiad family and for testing Josephus’

17 18

19

be “an exaggeration” or that this circumstance might only have been allowed for the initial collection during that first year does not alleviate the fundamental problem, which in my view poses an intractable obstacle to her hypothesis. John D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Mnemosyne Supplements, History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity 320 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 270–71. Dov Gera, “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus Antiquities 12, 156–222, 228–236),” in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, ed. A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (Israel: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1990), 21–38; idem, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B.C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 37–58. Representative are Hugo Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895), 91–107; Walter Otto, “Hyrkanos,” RE 9.1 (1914): 527–34; Holleaux, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, 3:337–55; Solomon Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962–1978), 1:60–67; Elias J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 231–34; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 30, 107; John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 74–77; Lester Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Volume 2, The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE), LSTS 68 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 75–78.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

64

Chapter 3

claim as to when and by whom the installation was built.20 The Tobiads also appear in relation to the Zenon papyri.21 This trove of documents dates to the third century BCE and reports the business dealings of the Ptolemies through one of their administrators, Apollonius, and his subordinate, Zenon. While the “Tobiah” of the papyri dates at least a generation before the figures in Josephus’ narrative (likely the father of Joseph), the archive nevertheless helps to provide raw details that corroborate Josephus’ portrait of a family profitably engaged in business with the Ptolemies.22 Likewise, the principal characters of the third or second century BCE Book of Tobit, “Tobiah/Tobias” and “Tobit,” may serve to corroborate the prominence and renown of the Tobiad family around the same time as the historical setting of the Tobiads of Josephus’ account.23 Although historical issues have been the dominant interest of many studies on the Tales of the Tobiads, literary analysis of Josephus’ account has received 20

21

22 23

See C. C. McCown, “The ʿAraq el-Emir and the Tobiads,” BA 20, no. 3 (1957): 63–76; the contributions in Ernest Will and François Larché, eds., with Fawzi Zayadine et al., ʿIraq al Amir: Le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan, 2 vols. (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1991); Ehud Netzer, “Tyros, the ‘Floating Palace,’” in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, ed. Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardin, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9 (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000), 340–53; Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg, “Airaq al-Amir: The Architecture of the Tobiads,” (Ph.D. diss., University College, London, 2002). It has been conclusively shown that, contrary to Josephus’ account, the construction of the fortress predated Hyrcanus even if he may have been responsible for significant renovations. George McLean Harper, “A Study in the Commercial Relations between Egypt and Syria in the Third Century before Christ,” AJP 49, no. 1 (1928): 1–35; idem, “Tax Contractors and their Relation to Tax Collection in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Aeg 14, no. 1 (1934): 49–64; Claude Orrieux, Les papyrus de Zénon: L’horizon d’un Grec en Egypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C. (Deucalion; Paris: Macula, 1983); Xavier Durand, Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe Siècle avant Jésus-Christ: Le Dossier Syrien des Archives de Zénon de Caunos, 261–252 (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 2003). The discovery of the Zenon papyri in 1914–15 and subsequent publication brought substantial attention to the Tobiads. As the scholarly literature reviewed up to this point has shown, the Tobiads were very marginal in the scholarly discourse before that point. Robert J. Littman, Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 45–46. Paul Carbonaro, “Le Contexte Littéraire et Théologique du Livre de Tobit,” RB 127, no. 3 (2020): 352–70, reads the Tales of the Tobiads in dialogue with Tobit as one piece of a larger body of Tobiad literature from antiquity, which he regards as stemming ultimately from Dositheus, posited as the son of Hyrcanus, founder of a Samaritan group partisan to the Ptolemies, and responsible for the closure of the Torah. Carbonaro’s arguments are intricate and entangled in a broader framework that spans several articles, in which he argues that for much of AJ 11–13, Josephus used a source composed by Dositheus’ party that centered on Jewish and Samaritan conflict in Alexandria. See Paul Carbonaro, “Les trois pages de Darius, du premier livre d’Esdras (3,1–5,6) aux Antiquités juives (XI, 33–67),” RB 119, no. 1 (2012): 20–44; idem, “Les Samaritains et la naissance du Pentateuque,” RB 120, no. 1 (2013): 42–71. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

65

attention as well. Scriptural allusions in the Tales of the Tobiads have previously been noted in passing, beginning from Hugo Willrich,24 and more recently in the work of Dov Gera, who lists nine scriptural parallels.25 While many of these connect the Tales of the Tobiads to the scriptural Joseph story, a substantial number are also connected to the patriarch Jacob. This presents a helpful starting place for my own analysis, though Gera does not elaborate on these parallels beyond briefly listing them, and his broader interest lies in their bearing on the narrative’s historical reliability. Erich Gruen includes the Tales of the Tobiads in his survey of Hellenistic images of Joseph alongside others in Philo, Artapanus, and Joseph and Aseneth.26 He emphasizes that Josephus’ narrative explicitly appraises its protagonists positively despite their often ruthless, cunning, and apparently sordid behavior. Although he attempts to find some grounding for this portrayal in scriptural Joseph’s more calculating moments, in general Gruen focuses on parallels between the Tales of the Tobiads and the other Hellenistic images of Joseph which he surveys. Sara Johnson discusses the Tales of the Tobiads as one of several instances of “historical fictions” in Hellenistic Jewish literature that serve as background to her interpretation of 3 Maccabees.27 Johnson argues that in this type of literature, historiographical details are manipulated for didactic purposes. Therefore, while Johnson extensively surveys the historical problems of the narrative in the Tales of the Tobiads, it is with their literary manipulation in mind. Johnson attributes this manipulation of historiographical details to the pre-Josephan author of the pro-Ptolemaic source, concluding that Josephus’ attempts to “fix” some of the chronological errors resulted in even further distortions. Challenging Goldstein’s conclusion that the Tales of the Tobiads is an almost entirely historically-reliable account, Susan Niditch applies the typologies of traditional folktales to the Tales of the Tobiads.28 The dominant pattern underlying the Tales of the Tobiads is, in her view, that of “the displacement of an elder figure of authority by a younger son (or son-equivalent) … by essentially outsmarting the elder … or more typically by showing himself to be the family member most capable of carrying on family leadership responsibilities.”29 By showing 24 25

26 27 28 29

Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 91–107. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 49–51. These parallels are: 1) Substitution of a close female relative to trick a male relative into marriage; 2) Access to a ruler through a minister; 3) Invitation to ride in the ruler’s chariot; 4) Return from Egypt with an army; 5) Older brothers’ refusal to travel to Egypt in their father’s old age; 6) Imprisonment of an oikonomos; 7) War between brothers; 8) Flight across the Jordan; and 9) Tax levied upon non-Jews. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 99–106. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 76–93. Niditch, “Father-Son Folktale Patterns.” Niditch, “Father-Son Folktale Patterns,” 47. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

66

Chapter 3

that this broader folk pattern significantly shapes the narrative in some of its repeated sequences and its scriptural allusions, Niditch is able to provide at least a partial explanation for some of its perennial problems and to account for some of its defining features. Finally, Lawrence Wills places the Tales of the Tobiads in the genre of “historical novel” alongside similar literature such as the Acts of the Apostles, pointing out that, although the story is firmly novelistic and even fictional, its characters are real historical personages.30 He notes that the narrative consistently glorifies the Tobiads’ Ptolemaic patrons and expresses utter partiality for the branch of the Tobiad family occupied by Joseph and Hyrcanus. But unlike other scholarship, which mobilized this insight for the purpose of characterizing the historical author of Josephus’ source, Wills argues that it is from these features that much of the narrative’s literary coherence derives. Like these scholars, I will undertake to provide a close literary reading of the Tales of the Tobiads rather than an historical study of Josephus’ account. My narrower interest, however, is in Josephus’ use of the scriptural Joseph story as archetype, focusing on the motifs of wisdom at court and sexual virtue. Additionally, where possible I will link my analysis of the Tales of the Tobiads to the story of Joseph as retold by Josephus in AJ 2, a procedure which previous scholarship has failed to carry out by instead generically referring to allusions to the Joseph story without differentiating between the scriptural version of it and Josephus’ own retelling of it. Lastly, I will explore forms of affinity with the Joseph story beyond simple parallels, focusing on more creative and imaginative modes of engagement between a fresh composition and its archetype such as subversion, inversion, and irony. These yield a rich intertextual foundation for me to conclude the chapter by reading the figure of Joseph the Tobiad in parallel with scriptural Joseph and through the lens of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as a successful but morally ambiguous hero. 2

Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Wise Courtiers

A significant portion of the narratives of both the Tales of the Tobiads and the scriptural Joseph story takes place in the setting of the Egyptian court. Conspicuous parallels spring to mind and even a cursory pass reveals to the reader that Joseph the Tobiad resembles scriptural Joseph in several apparent ways. Most obviously, both stories feature protagonists named “Joseph” who journey to Egypt, attain favor and prominence there in the court of the 30

Wills, Jewish Novel, 187–92.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

67

A Tale of Two Josephs

ruler, and thereby resolve a dire crisis facing the Jewish people. However, as my review of scholarship showed above, these features have long been noted and, so, in what follows I will push deeper to explore more subtle and complex points of contact. While Josephus praises both scriptural Joseph and Joseph the Tobiad for resolving national crises through occupying powerful positions in the foreign court and exercising economic ingenuity, he also presents them as attaining those positions in dramatically different ways. 2.1 Friends in High Places In both the scriptural Joseph story and in the Tales of the Tobiads, the protagonists resolve a national crisis and do so through their elevated status in the foreign court and their exercise of economic acumen—points in which Josephus takes evident pride. The Book of Genesis describes the position attained by scriptural Joseph at court as second in command to Pharaoh, a status embellished in Josephus’ retelling as “lord of Egypt, differing by but a little from the king,”31 and “savior of the people.”32 It is this position which allows him to help all of Egypt—and unwittingly his family as well—to weather a global famine. The national dimension of the crisis is implicit since it is only the family of Jacob that is threatened, but they (as also the other patriarchs) are obviously intended to stand in for the whole of the Jewish people who descend from them. The implied national dimension is utterly manifest from Jacob’s alternate name (Israel) and the fact that his sons (and two grandchildren) give their names to the twelve tribes. Although the narrative thread of the crisis posed by the famine is not introduced until later in the story of scriptural Joseph, after the protagonist is already in an elevated position in the Egyptian court, it is recurrent throughout the second half of the plot. And while familial drama certainly comes to overshadow the crisis, it is never forgotten. For his part, Josephus in his retelling of Genesis in AJ several times emphasizes Joseph’s status and accomplishments to the reader above and beyond the scriptural account. His summary of Joseph’s career, for instance, reports that: Having been marvelous with respect to virtue (θαυμάσιος τὴν ἀρετὴν) and administrating all things with reason (λογισμῷ) and regulating himself in his exercise of authority, which thing also was the cause of such a good

31 32

τῆς Αἰγύπτου κύριον, ὡς ὀλίγῳ διαφέρειν τοῦ βασιλέως. (AJ 2.174) σωτὴρ ὁμολογουμένως τοῦ πλήθους. (AJ 2.94)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

68

Chapter 3

fortune (εὐδαιμονίας) for him among the Egyptians—him who had come from a foreign land with such misfortune (κακοπραγίας).33 Thus, although scriptural Joseph’s wise economic plan saves his family and, thereby, the future Jewish people, in many respects Josephus’ focus is on its other effects. Joseph’s wise administration saves the Egyptians en masse and also enriches Pharaoh at the same time. Although he ultimately returns the land ceded by the populace to the Egyptian royal house, it is at the cost of one fifth of the yield in perpetuity. For this, Josephus has Joseph praised as “savior (σωτὴρ) of the people”34 and reports that the result was to “increase much more both the Egyptians’ honor (ἀξίωμα) to himself and their loyalty to Pharaoh.”35 When we turn to the Tales of the Tobiads, the crisis stems from the wrath of the Ptolemaic king brought on by the petty high priest Onias’ refusal to pay tribute (AJ 12.158–59). The crisis is explicitly a national threat in the Tales of the Tobiads, where we find references to “the Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι),36 “the nation” (τὸ ἔθνος),37 “on behalf of the nation” (ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους),38 and “the populace” (τὸ πλῆθος).39 While the crises in both the scriptural Joseph story (including Josephus’ retelling of it) and the Tales of the Tobiads are, therefore, national in scope, in that they confront the Jewish people collectively, they are configured in non-ethnic terms. That is to say, neither in the Tales of the Tobiads nor in the scriptural Joseph story are the crises facing the Jewish people configured as resulting from ethnic exceptionalism, nor is the threat the result of any sort of anti-Jewish plot. Rather, it is mundane matters of tribute and famine which give rise to crisis. Therefore, under the broader heading of ancient Jewish court-tales, both the scriptural Joseph story and the Tales of the Tobiads converge in stark contrast to the Books of Esther and Daniel, in which national crisis is closely bound up with the Jews’ distinctive customs and laws. Notably, however, although the crisis opens the whole Tobiad saga and is the critical device whereby the protagonist, Joseph the Tobiad, makes his fateful 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

θαυμάσιος τὴν ἀρετὴν γενόμενος καὶ λογισμῷ πάντα διοικῶν καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταμιευόμενος, ὃ δὴ καὶ τῆς τοιαύτης εὐδαιμονίας αἴτιον αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις ἀλλαχόθεν ἥκοντι καὶ μετὰ τοιαύτης κακοπραγίας. (AJ 2.198) σωτὴρ ὁμολογουμένως τοῦ πλήθους. (AJ 2.94) τό τε ἀξίωμα παρὰ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις αὐτοῦ μεῖζον Ἰώσηπος ἀπεργάζεται πλείω τε τὴν εὔνοιαν τῷ βασιλεῖ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν. (AJ 2.193) AJ 12.159. AJ 12.161. AJ 12.164. AJ 12.164, 165, 167.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

69

journey to the Egyptian court (AJ 12.158–67), unlike the scriptural Joseph story its thread is quickly lost in the narrative and instead the issue of tax-farming takes center stage. No resolution to the threat of the Ptolemaic king’s ire is, in fact, ever clearly narrated as such, though it is certainly implied. In some ways, then, the crisis in the Tales of the Tobiads serves only to thrust the protagonist into the spotlight and to locate him in Egypt, but once accomplished, quickly recedes.40 This is similar to the way that the sibling rivalry in the scriptural Joseph story serves to transition the protagonist to Egypt and the foreign court there but is then largely forgotten until the older brothers re-enter the narrative much later. The position attained at the Egyptian court by Joseph the Tobiad, and by which the crisis is resolved, is described as προστάτης (AJ 12.167). The precise nature of this position is not known but it implies financial oversight such as is explicit in Joseph the Tobiad’s capacity as tax-farmer.41 In this way it mirrors scriptural Joseph’s role as economic administrator of Egypt. Josephus’ interest in Jews who occupied powerful positions in the Egyptian court, such as Joseph the Tobiad and Joseph of Genesis, is unsurprising given his apologetic concerns throughout AJ, which expanded further afterwards in Contra Apionem.42 There, we find that one of the criticisms which diaspora Jews endured was that, in their people’s long and storied history, they had produced no notable rulers and had suffered numerous times the misfortune of subjugation and conquest. Josephus has Apion allege that the Jews were always slaves, not rulers (CA 2.125–32). It is clear that, while Josephus could easily argue that the Egyptians (including Apion himself) suffered the same plight, he struggles to extricate the Jews from this slander. He refers to David and Solomon as conquering rulers but, by and large, the best he can do is claim that the Jews maintained periods of independence, mostly in the distant past, not that they ever ruled a grand empire like the Greeks or Romans (CA 2.132–34). 40 41

42

Noted by Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 54. See also AJ 12.161–62, where the antagonist Onias is described as possessing in addition to the “high priesthood” (τῆς ἀρχιερατικῆς τιμῆς) also the “chief office of the people” (τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν προστασίαν). On the position of προστάτης in Hellenistic Judea, see Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 132–33; Arnaldo Momigliano, Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico, 2 vols., Storia e Letteratura: Raccolta di Studi e Testi 135–36 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975), 2:612–14. Wills, Jewish Novel, 192 n. 14, on the other hand, suggests that προστάτης should be understood simply as referring to Joseph as a patron to the populace but not as a technical term for an office. The date of composition of CA is unknown other than sometime in the mid- or late-90’s after AJ, or possibly the very early second century CE. On the date of CA, see John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxvi–xxviii.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

70

Chapter 3

The scriptural Joseph story, therefore, presents Josephus with a double-edged sword: the patriarch enters Egypt as a slave, and so the story could be used to confirm the shameful notion that Jews have their earliest origins as slaves;43 on the other hand, Joseph’s life ends with him practically ruling over Egypt second only to Pharaoh. Given these two widely differing poles, it is unsurprising that Josephus de-emphasizes the former while heavily emphasizing the latter. However, the stakes were apologetic not only in a national and ethnic sense but also a personal one. Josephus’ own self-portrayal closely mirrors his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story in several respects, including skill in dream interpretation put into service to aid the foreign ruler (see also Chapter 5).44 Additionally, scriptural Joseph’s broader transitions in status, which encompass the whole story, also parallel Josephus’ own self-portrayal:45 initial freeborn status and marked for great things early on in life;46 then, forced enslavement under violent circumstances (i.e., not a slave by birth and by nature);47 and, finally, released in such a manner as to publicly dispel any taint of the period of enslavement.48 Josephus received, then, not only his name from scriptural Joseph but appears to have shared (or so represented) his life experiences 43

44

45 46 47 48

On the anti-Jewish claim that the Jews originated as slaves and Josephus’ response in AJ through his retelling of scriptural stories (esp. the stories of Joseph and the Exodus), see David A. Friedman, “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews,” JSJ 45 (2014): 523–50. Friedman, 540–41, points out the way that Josephus downplays Joseph as a slave but he does not note the corresponding emphasis on Joseph’s status as ruler of Egypt. It is also significant that, as Friedman notes, in his retelling of the Joseph story, Josephus specifically relates (AJ 2.177) that “in order, however, to demonstrate to those who do not think we [Jews] are from Mesopotamia but are Egyptians, it is necessary to make mention of the names [of the descendants of Jacob’s children].” For a list of ancient writers who propagated this and other disparaging theories of Jewish origins, many of whom are cited and confronted directly by Josephus in Contra Apionem, see Table 1 in Friedman, “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews,” 528–29. When introducing the Exodus story (AJ 2.201), Josephus bitterly calls the Egyptians “soft” (τρυφεροῖς), “idle towards labor” (ῥᾳθύμοις πρὸς πόνους), and “weak with respect to both pleasures in general and greed in particular” (τῶν τε ἄλλων ἡδονῶν ἥττοσι καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς κατὰ φιλοκέρδειαν). BJ 3.350–54, 399–408. See David Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JSJ 31, no. 1 (1980): 27–28; Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, AGJU 36 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 30–31. Note, however, the reservations of Eelco Glas, “Reading Josephus’ ‘Prophetic’ Inspiration in the Cave of Jotapata (J.W. 3.351–354) in a Roman Context,” JSJ 52 (2021): 522–56. Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” 27–28. Josephus narrates his promising early life in Vita 7–12. Josephus’ surrender to and imprisonment by the Romans are recounted in BJ 3.387–98. The release of Josephus is narrated in BJ 4.622–29. Friedman, “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews,” 544, points out that the ceremony performed to release Josephus from imprisonment was designed to reverse the social effects of enslavement.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

71

with the scriptural patriarch as well; Joseph’s success, so heavily emphasized throughout the Genesis account and heightened even more in his own retelling in AJ 2, was crucial to Josephus’ own sense of achievement in the diaspora after overcoming the harsh misfortune of forcible enslavement. As we have seen already and I will continue to point out below, the Tobiads’ prosperous careers at the Ptolemaic court offered a similar opportunity as the scriptural Joseph story for Josephus to highlight Jewish successes (like also Josephus’ own) over and against the detractions and objections of some—even if the Tobiads’ methods and lifestyles were considerably more sordid than the revered ancestor’s, as I will discuss below. Even some of the Tobiads’ less-savory moments, however, can be concorded to a limited degree with the Joseph of Genesis. Gruen, for example, has argued that Joseph the Tobiad’s cunning and ruthless behavior is parallel to scriptural Joseph’s plan in Genesis for Egypt to weather the famine, which in the process exploits the Egyptian peasantry by taking over their land.49 While Josephus certainly does not emphasize an exploitative element to scriptural Joseph’s plan in his retelling of the story, it is true that he is enamored with the protagonist’s economic acumen and quite satisfied with the outcome of a plan which benefits both the patriarch and the Egyptian sovereign alike. Philo, too, interprets Joseph as a model statesman, describing him as “a most excellent overseer and judge in famine and plenty, most capable to govern in each season.”50 This heightened interest in the economic resourcefulness of scriptural Joseph may help to explain why Josephus portrays Joseph the Tobiad as admirable in ruthlessly enacting a plan which “restored the Jewish people from poverty and a state of weakness to more splendid means of living.”51 As different as these two figures may be, Joseph the Tobiad and scriptural Joseph are both examples of Jews successfully implementing administrative plans on behalf of foreign rulers and their own people that capitalize on clever solutions to economic obstacles. 2.2 Wise, Witty—and Ambitious Despite this convergence, however, there is a significant disparity in the manner in which the respective figures reach their success in the foreign court. Scriptural Joseph is famed for his oracular and divinatory wisdom, the exercise 49 50 51

Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 105. λιμοῦ καὶ εὐθηνίας ἔφορος καὶ βραβευτὴς ἄριστος, τὰ πρὸς ἑκάτερον καιρὸν πρυτανεύειν ἱκανώτατος (Ios. 170). For Philo’s interpretation of scriptural Joseph as a model statesman more fully, see Ios. 157–62. τὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων λαὸν ἐκ πτωχείας καὶ πραγμάτων ἀσθενῶν εἰς λαμπροτέρας ἀφορμὰς τοῦ βίου καταστήσας. (AJ 12.224)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

72

Chapter 3

of which wins him Pharaoh’s approval and trust and grants him the status as second in power in all of Egypt. Josephus further emphasizes this facet in his retelling in AJ 2. There, he consistently ensures that scriptural Joseph’s fellow prisoners and even Pharaoh himself voice open acknowledgement of and praise for his remarkable wisdom evidenced through dream interpretation. Thus, in several extra-scriptural additions Josephus has the cupbearer seek out Joseph “because he thought that he [Joseph] exceeded him in understanding,”52 and has Pharaoh “wondering at the discernment and wisdom of Joseph.”53 Joseph the Tobiad (and his son Hyrcanus), on the other hand, display a very different sort of wisdom before Egypt’s rulers as masters of charming words. The Tobiads are not the least bit cowed by the royal presence, instead displaying a witty boldness that at times even verges on impertinence and disrespect, but that ultimately woos the sovereigns who cannot help but be impressed with their clever wit and fearlessness. For example, Joseph the Tobiad gains access to the Ptolemaic king by charming his trusted courtier, Athenion. He “receives with hospitality the one sent as envoy from Ptolemy [Athenion], prodigally giving him gifts and lavishly banqueting for many days.”54 Contrast this with scriptural Joseph’s access to Pharaoh, which is gained by an act of divinely aided dream interpretation (Gen. 40–41/AJ 2.60–86).55 Gera holds that Joseph the Tobiad’s access to the king through a trusted minister is a parallel between the scriptural Joseph story and the Tales of the Tobiads. While this is true, I maintain that the manner in which this access takes place is, in fact, strikingly different. Scriptural Joseph does not have any need of charm, flattery, or guile—either in the original Genesis account or in Josephus’ retelling of it—in order to gain access to the Egyptian ruler. Even if the Joseph of Genesis and Joseph the Tobiad are both, in Josephus’ view, laudable for their success in reaching the highest spheres of power in Egypt, there is no doubt that the precise circumstances in each case are drastically and pointedly divergent. So, too, when Joseph the Tobiad interacts with royalty it can only be described as witty and charming. At their first meeting, we hear that (AJ 12.172–73): Ptolemy first welcomed him [Joseph the Tobiad] with affection and even invited him to mount his chariot. And as he sat, Ptolemy began to complain about the things [the high priest] Onias had done. So he [Joseph] 52 53 54 55

συνέσει γὰρ ἐδόκει αὐτὸν προύχειν. (AJ 2.63) Θαυμάσαντος δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τὴν φρόνησιν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Ἰωσήπου. (AJ 2.87) ξενίᾳ τε ὑποδέχεται τὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου πεπρεσβευκότα καὶ δωρησάμενος αὐτὸν πολυτελέσι δωρεαῖς καὶ ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἑστιάσας φιλοτίμως ἡμέρας. (AJ 12.165) Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 50. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

73

said “Excuse him on account of age. For you must not be unaware that both the elderly and infants happen to have the same mind. But from us young people you will have all things such that you will have nothing to bring charges over.” So he [Ptolemy] was pleased at the gift and the wittiness (τῇ εὐτραπελίᾳ) of the young man. …56 Likewise, when the time comes for Joseph the Tobiad to bid on the rights to tax collection, after making his pitch to the king it is reported that (AJ 12.177–78): The king heard him out gladly and, as the proposal would increase his income, he said that he would ratify the contract for tax collection with him, but asked if he had any persons who could serve as guarantors for him. He [Joseph the Tobiad] replied most wittily (ἀστείως). For he said “I will give persons good and noble whom you will not distrust.” So the king asked if he would tell him who these persons might be, and he [Joseph] said “It is both you, O King, and your wife, who I give as guarantors, each of the other’s portion.” Laughing, Ptolemy conceded to him taxation rights without an agreement [concerning guarantors].57 Hyrcanus, whom I will discuss in the following chapter, goes on to imitate his father’s modus operandi as well through clever ripostes and through flattery by means of extravagant gifts (AJ 12.212–18). It is rather ironic that any resemblance between the personalities and temperaments of the Tobiads and of scriptural Joseph is actually with the latter’s younger self back in Canaan—but only in the Genesis account, which verges on characterizing him as brash and recklessly arrogant toward both his older brothers and his father. Josephus, however, fastidiously erased all semblance of this characterization in his retelling in AJ 2. Missing from Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story, for example, is the reference from Gen. 37:2 to the negative report which Joseph brings back to Jacob concerning the other 56

57

ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πρῶτός τε αὐτὸν ἠσπάσατο καὶ δὴ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ ὄχημα παρεκάλεσεν καὶ καθεσθέντος ἤρξατο περὶ τῶν Ὀνίᾳ πραττομένων ἐγκαλεῖν. ὁ δέ “συγγίνωσκε, φησίν, αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ γῆρας· οὐ γὰρ λανθάνει σε πάντως, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς πρεσβύτας καὶ τὰ νήπια τὴν αὐτὴν διάνοιαν ἔχειν συμβέβηκεν. παρὰ δ ̓ ἡμῶν ἔσται σοι τῶν νέων ἅπαντα, ὥστε μηδὲν αἰτιᾶσθαι.” ἡσθεὶς δ ̓ ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι καὶ τῇ εὐτραπελίᾳ τοῦ νεανίσκου. (AJ 12.172–73) τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως ἡδέως ἀκούσαντος καὶ ὡς αὔξοντι τὴν πρόσοδον αὐτοῦ κατακυροῦν τὴν ὠνὴν τῶν τελῶν ἐκείνῳ φήσαντος, ἐρομένου δὲ εἰ καὶ τοὺς ἐγγυησομένους αὐτὸν ἔχει, σφόδρ ̓ ἀστείως ἀπεκρίνατο· “δώσω γὰρ εἶπεν ἀνθρώπους ἀγαθοὺς καὶ καλούς, οἷς οὐκ ἀπιστήσετε.” λέγειν δὲ τούτους οἵτινες εἶεν εἰπόντος, “αὐτόν, εἶπεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, σέ τε καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα τὴν σὴν ὑπὲρ ἑκατέρου μέρους ἐγγυησομένους δίδωμί σοι.” γελάσας δ ̓ ὁ Πτολεμαῖος συνεχώρησεν αὐτῷ δίχα τῶν ὁμολογούντων ἔχειν τὰ τέλη. (AJ 12.177–78) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

74

Chapter 3

brothers (“And Joseph brought a bad report to their father”).58 As Franxman has observed, Josephus “certainly wants Joseph to appear the wholly innocent victim of human weakness in others and hence anything of the original which might suggest either deliberately or through want of sufficient clarity that there was anything about Joseph which could have constituted for others a reasonable cause for irritation is altered.”59 The detail of the bad report could be taken to imply that Joseph had foolishly brought his fate upon himself.60 Josephus’ Joseph, then, is not the least bit indecorous or impertinent, even with his contentious family and certainly not before Pharaoh; respect and deference are his bywords. Therefore, the heart of the contrast between Joseph the Tobiad and scriptural Joseph, especially as the latter is portrayed by Josephus in AJ, lies in the characterization of the former as ruthlessly ambitious and charmingly witty. While both are highly successful as Jews within the Gentile world of the foreign court, Joseph the Tobiad’s reliance on wit is paired with a single-minded ambition to prosper, a characterization that is explicit in the statement put on the servant Athenion’s mouth to Ptolemy the king that Joseph the Tobiad is “amibitious” (φιλότιμος).61 Although Josephus extols Joseph the Tobiad’s accomplishments as elevating the material state of the Jewish people, the same ambition leads his son, Hyrcanus, to seek his own interests above both nation and family; he fractures both in his pursuit of dominance, as I will discuss in the following chapter. Scriptural Joseph, on the other hand, displays not one bit of ambition either in the Genesis account or in Josephus’ retelling. To the contrary, in fact, even in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story, where the protagonist’s innate wisdom is emphasized far beyond the scriptural account, God’s providence is also at work (see further in Chapter 6). But in the Tales of the Tobiads, it is seemingly ambition alone which motivates the protagonists’ success as courtiers. We will find in Chapters 5 and 6 that such 58 59 60 61

MT Gen. 37:2: ‫יהם‬ ֽ ֶ ‫ל־א ִב‬ ֲ ‫ת־ד ָב ָ ֥תם ָר ָ ֖עה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ֹיוסף ֶא‬ ֛ ֵ ‫יָבא‬ ֥ ֵ ַ‫ ;ו‬OG Gen. 37:2: κατήνεγκεν δὲ Ἰωσὴφ ψόγον πονηρὸν πρὸς Ἰσραὴλ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν. See also Jubilees 34:10, which omits the bad report as well. Thomas W. Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities” of Flavius Josephus, BibOr 35 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 224. See the discussion in James L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), 79–84. AJ 12.171. Sylvie Honigman, “Before the Spark Ignites the Fire: Structural Instabilities in Southern Syria,” in Berlin and Kosmin, Middle Maccabees, 262–63, points out that both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic rulers exploited the ambitions of local elites to set them against each other and, thereby, maintain control in conquered regions. In this sense, the careers of Joseph and Hyrcanus represent the norm rather than the exception.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

75

A Tale of Two Josephs

ambition is also a characteristic of Agrippa I and is a dominant factor in his meteoric rise within the Roman emperor Gaius’ closest circle at court. 3

Joseph the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph as Sexually (Im)moral

The incident between scriptural Joseph and his master’s wife is one of the most memorable of Genesis and certainly one of the dramatic peaks of the Joseph cycle (Gen. 37–50). In the following pages, I will show how the widespread popularity of this scene and others like it among a broad range of ancient readers allows me to read the Tales of the Tobiads as subverting audience assumptions of how Joseph the Tobiad is expected to behave in a similar scenario as scriptural Joseph. 3.1 Joseph the Chaste Aside from Josephus’ own interests in the scene, which I will discuss shortly, he was likely aware that it was a popular and recognizable type or trope in Greco-Roman novelistic literature. Feldman, for example, highlights this scene’s parallels with the Hippolytus-Phaedra myth, known most famously now through the medium of Euripides’ tragedy, Hippolytus, wherein Phaedra is smitten with and pursues Hippolytus (her stepson), who spurns her advances.62 However, more significant parallels are to be found in the Ephesian Tale of Xenophon of Ephesus. In Book 2, the protagonist Habrocomes languishes as the imprisoned slave of a pirate chief. After the pirate chief’s daughter, Manto, is erotically attracted to Habrocomes, she propositions him. When he refuses, she becomes enraged and falsely accuses him of rape before her father, who punishes him severely. The father soon discovers his daughter is lying and Habrocomes is released and set over the pirate chief’s household. The parallels with the story of Joseph’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife in Genesis are significant and beyond dispute. To my knowledge, this constitutes the single closest parallel to the scene between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife among the GrecoRoman novels.63 Disregarding questions of genetic relationship or literary 62 63

Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 369–70. On the parallels between the Joseph story (and the related literature it spawned) and Xenophon, see Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtschreibung, 55ff.; idem, History and Romance, 48; Tim Whitmarsh, “Josephus, Joseph, and the Greek Novel,” Ramus 36, no. 1 (2007): 88–89; Wills, Jewish Novel, 164. For discussion of such “blocking figures” as Potiphar’s wife in the Joseph story and Manto in Ephesian Tales, as well as their function within the romance element of the ancient novels, see Tim Whitmarsh,

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

76

Chapter 3

dependence, which are not my concern here, the shared motifs illustrate the popularity and appeal of such stories to ancient readers, including nonJewish ones. The incident between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife is likewise dear to Josephus himself. A singular indication of its significance for Josephus is indicated by Feldman’s calculations that a scene which constituted 32 lines in the Old Greek and 33 in the Masoretic Text spans 120 lines in Josephus.64 The substantial liberties which Josephus takes in adapting the scene in AJ 2 include an abundance of alterations, expansions, and wholesale additions, most of which elevate Joseph as a model of moral fortitude. Only a survey of Josephus’ interventions is necessary since they have been well-documented.65 Josephus consistently elevates the intensity of the temptation facing Joseph, thereby making his endurance even more inspiring. For example, Josephus crafts for Potiphar’s wife devious plotting to get Joseph alone in order to proposition him. Josephus describes her careful plan to obtain the opportunity (AJ 2.45) such that she timed her attempt with the arrival of a “civic festival” (Δημοτελοῦς … ἑορτῆς), which she managed to forego on the basis of “alleging that she was sick” (σκήπτεται νόσον) so that she might have an opportunity with Joseph once again through “seeking time alone and rest” (θηρωμένη μόνωσιν καὶ σχολὴν).66 The scriptural version, by contrast, says only that the proposition occurred “on a certain day … [when] there

64 65

66

Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel: Returning Romance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 155–67. There is also a wealth of parallels with much earlier non-Greek literature, especially Egyptian folklore, most famously the “Tale of Two Brothers.” See Susan T. Hollis, The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study, 2nd ed. (Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008). Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 144 n. 142. For instance, Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 352, 369–72; ad loc in idem, Judean Antiquities 1–4; Maren R. Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature, AGJU 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 101–107; and scattered throughout Braun, History and Romance. On the theme of masculinity in the incident with Potiphar’s wife in Josephus, see Jessica Tinklenberg Devega, “‘A Man Who Fears God’: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of the Story of Joseph” (Ph.D. diss., The Florida State University, 2006), 31–56. AJ 2.45. As Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 43, points out, Josephus is the first attestation of the tradition that the fateful encounter took place on a religious holiday but thereafter this detail lives on in many other Jewish traditions, including Rabbinic texts. Thus, it is not unlikely that the basic scene here reflects broader Second Temple Jewish tradition and exegesis but that Josephus has elaborated it with added detail and vivid narration of his own. See also Étienne Nodet, Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume I: Livres I à III, 3rd ed. (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000), 91 n. 7.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

77

was no one among the household workers present in the house.”67 Similarly, in the scriptural version of the Joseph story, the sum total of the reported speech by Potiphar’s wife consists of a terse command repeated twice: “Lie with me.”68 Josephus seizes this opportunity laden with dramatic potential to put into her mouth, on the second occasion at which she propositions Joseph, a full-blown speech on the rewards for acquiescing and the corresponding dangers of rejection (AJ 2.46–49). Josephus himself enters the story at this point to interpret for the reader with authorial authority that “she was looking at his outward appearance (τὸ σχῆμα), which was presently one of servitude, but not his habitual ways (τὸν τρόπον), which remained steadfast even during vicissitude (τὴν μεταβολὴν).”69 Joseph, meanwhile, is made by Josephus to pontificate on sexual self-control, giving a philosophically-tinged argument in which he appeals to the woman “to conquer her passions” (κρατεῖν … τοῦ πάθους), tries to convince her of the “despair” (ἀπόγνωσιν) of ever bringing about her “desire” (ἐπιθυμίας), and attempts to teach her the principle of enduring passion on the basis that it “departs … once there is no hope [of fulfilling it] (σταλήσεσθαι … μὴ παρούσης ἐλπίδος).”70 As with the added speeches, Josephus’ addition of erotic terminology, including eros,71 passion,72 and pleasure,73 serves to make the moral choice facing Joseph both stark and explicit.74 Doubtless some elements of Josephus’ adaptation may serve to explain gaps in the Genesis account, such as how precisely Potiphar’s wife was able to find an opportunity in such a large MT Gen. 39:11: ‫ ;וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַהֹּיום ַהּזֶ ה … וְ ֵאין ִאיׁש ֵמ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ַּביִת ָׁשם ַּב ָּביִת‬OG Gen. 39:11: ἐγένετο δὲ τοιαύτη τις ἡμέρα … καὶ οὐθεὶς ἦν τῶν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἔσω. 68 MT Gen. 39:7, 12: ‫ ; ִׁש ְכ ָבה ִע ִּמי‬OG Gen. 39:7, 12: Κοιμήθητι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. 69 πρὸς τὸ σχῆμα τῆς τότε δουλείας ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πρὸς τὸν τρόπον ἀφορώσης τὸν καὶ παρὰ τὴν μεταβολὴν παραμένοντα. (AJ 2.42). These statements echo Josephus’ editorial comments from a bit earlier, at the outset of the incident between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (AJ 2.40): “So he [Joseph] enjoyed these things [the honors from Potiphar] and even on account of vicissitude (τῆς μεταβολῆς) he did not abandon the virtue (τὴν ἀρετήν) which was round about him, but he showed plainly that a resolute spirit (φρόνημα) is able to overcome life’s difficulties in those whom it is genuinely present and not only adapted for temporary success.” 70 AJ 2.43. 71 AJ 2.41: ἐρωτικῶς; AJ 2.44: ἔρωτα; AJ 2.48: ἔρωτι. 72 AJ 2.42: ἐπιθυμίαν; AJ 2.43: AJ 2.46: πάθους; τὴν τοῦ πάθους ὑπερβολήν; AJ 2.51: ἐπιθυμίας; AJ 2.53: πάθος. 73 ἡδονῇ. (AJ 2.51) 74 The spin-off story of Joseph and Aseneth (discussed below) may be seen as a similar but lengthier expansion of the romantic/erotic elements of the scriptural story—though concerned with Joseph’s piety to an even greater extent. Devega, “Constructions of Masculinity,” 41–42, notes how the erotic language Josephus uses in relation to Potiphar’s wife serves to emphasize her “impulsiveness” and “impetuousness.” 67

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

78

Chapter 3

and industrious household during which she was alone with Joseph. Another function, though, and one more salient for my interests in this chapter, is to draw the reader in to this scene which is so important to Joseph’s image of a moral exemplar. Josephus was not alone, however, in his heightened focus on this scene and his awareness of its potential to highlight the Jewish patriarch as a moral exemplar and model of sexual virtue. Because claims of moral virtue became a common currency for all groups from the Hellenistic period onward who wished to express the superiority and excellence of their ancestors and customs, moral exemplarity—especially in the sexual domain—thereby became a virtual hallmark of scriptural Joseph and one of the most enduring images of him to live on in subsequent Jewish literature and thought.75 For example, Jubilees retells the scene between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife with several significant extra-scriptural elaborations: Joseph was good-looking and very handsome in appearance. His master’s wife lifted up her eyes and noticed Joseph. She desired him and urged him to lie with her. But he did not surrender himself. He remembered the Lord and the words that Jacob his father would read from the words of Abraham: no man is to commit fornication with a woman who has a husband; there is a death sentence that has been ordained for him in heaven before the Lord Most high; and the sin will be always inscribed with respect to him in the eternal books before the Lord. Joseph remembered what he said and did not want to lie with her. She kept asking him for one year and a second. He refused to listen to her. ( Jub. 39:5–9 NRSV) Notably, in this passage the Jewish law is employed as the crucial device by which Joseph resists sexual temptation, an anachronism the author consistently employs, and Joseph’s sexual virtue is heightened dramatically with the duration of his endurance reported as an awe-inspiring two years. Alternatively, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Wisdom of Solomon represent two opposite extremes as retellings of the incident between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, each in diverging ways attesting to its significance and popularity in Jewish antiquity. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, for instance, the Testament of Joseph dramatically lengthens the dialogue between Joseph and the woman and greatly exaggerates her plotting, allotting 75

See discussion of Joseph’s sexual virtue in ancient Jewish reception in H. W. Hollander, Joseph as Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 33–42; Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 28–65; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 75–79, 89–91.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

79

an entire seven chapters to the scene and even extending her attempts to proposition him to the period of his imprisonment (T. Jos. 3–9). On the other hand, Wisdom of Solomon provides an exceptionally brief reference to the incident between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, reporting only that: “When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him, but delivered him from sin.”76 The fact that this famous scene is related in the span of a single verse, without either naming Joseph himself or explaining the nature of the sin from which he was delivered, suggests that Joseph’s sexual virtue was so well-known that it could be referenced obliquely and still be instantly recognized by a familiar reader. Lastly, similar themes and terminology as Josephus employs are found in the brief reference to Joseph in the highly philosophical 4 Maccabees:77 And why is it amazing that the desires of the mind (αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπιθυμίαι) for the enjoyment of beauty are rendered powerless? It is for this reason, certainly, that the temperate Joseph (ὁ σώφρων Ιωσηφ) is praised, because by mental effort he overcame sexual desire (διανοίᾳ περιεκράτησεν τῆς ἡδυπαθείας). For when he was young and in his prime for intercourse, by his reason (τῷ λογισμῷ) he nullified the frenzy of the passions (τῶν παθῶν). Not only is reason (ὁ λογισμὸς) proved to rule over (ἐπικρατεῖν) the frenzied urge of sexual desire (τῆς ἡδυπαθείας), but also over every desire (πάσης ἐπιθυμίας). Thus the law says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or anything that is your neighbor’s.” In fact, since the law has told us not to covet, I could prove to you all the more that reason is able to control desires (τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν κρατεῖν δύναται ὁ λογισμός). (4 Macc. 2:1–6 NRSV) To a significant extent, then, scriptural Joseph’s sexual virtue became so closely identified with him as a literary figure that it could be used as a sort of synecdoche. Hence, it could be assumed that a Joseph-like figure would exhibit sexual virtue. Ultimately, scriptural Joseph’s sexual virtue became so emblematic that, in his reception, it became disconnected from the particular narrative context 76 77

Wis. 10:13 NRSV. Interestingly, Josephus was credited as the author of 4 Maccabees by both Eusebius and Jerome, and 4 Maccabees was even included in some manuscripts of Josephus’ works. Although the attribution is plainly incorrect, one can see why, solely on the basis of the passage quoted above, it might have been made; there is considerable overlap, even at the level of terminology, with Josephus’ retelling of the incident with Potiphar’s wife. On the association of Josephus with 4 Maccabees, see David deSilva, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2006), xi–xii.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

80

Chapter 3

in which it was embedded in Genesis and could be mobilized independently in new narrative contexts. In Joseph and Aseneth, for instance, Joseph’s sexual virtue is the subject of intense focus in the narrative, as the drama hinges on his refusal to accept his future wife, the Egyptian Aseneth, until she purifies herself appropriately. The facts that, one the one hand, scriptural Joseph’s sexual virtue did not necessarily have to be deployed within the narrative sequence whence it originated, and, on the other hand, that even Greco-Roman audiences would have been familiar with the basic type-scene employed, go a long way toward explaining the transformation of this element in the Tales of the Tobiads, as I will now show. 3.2 Mrs. Potiphar and a Dancing Girl There is one prominent and salacious episode in the Tales of the Tobiads that is in dialogue with scriptural Joseph’s renowned sexual virtue and the incident with Potiphar’s wife. The scene is brief enough to quote in full (AJ 12.187–89): One time, he [Joseph the Tobiad] was going to Alexandria with his brother [Solymnias], who was also taking his daughter of marriageable age so that she might be married to one of the most honored Jews. While dining alongside the king a beautiful dancing girl entered the banquet. Desiring her, he revealed this to his brother, pleading with him to do him a good service by covering up his wrongdoing so that he might fulfill his desire—since among the Jews, it is prohibited by the law to have sexual relations with a foreign woman. But his brother, glad to be of service, beautified his daughter and took her to him at night and he slept with her. So not knowing the truth on account of being drunk, he slept with his brother’s daughter. After this happened repeatedly he fell greatly in love with her. So he [Joseph] said to his brother [Solymnias] that he [Joseph] was risking his [Joseph’s] life by being in love with the dancing girl, whom the king might not allow him to have. So his brother encouraged him not to worry but to enjoy the woman he loved without fear and to take her as his wife, telling him the truth and disclosing what he had done—that he had chosen to dishonor his own daughter rather than wait around for his brother to fall into shame.78 78

τἀδελφῷ ποτε συνελθὼν εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἄγοντι καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα γάμων ὥραν ἔχουσαν, ὅπως αὐτὴν συνοικίσῃ τινὶ τῶν ἐπ ̓ ἀξιώματος Ἰουδαίων, καὶ δειπνῶν παρὰ τῷ βασιλεῖ, ὀρχηστρίδος εἰσελθούσης εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον εὐπρεποῦς ἐρασθεὶς τῷ ἀδελφῷ τοῦτο μηνύει παρακαλῶν αὐτόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ νόμῳ κεκώλυται παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἀλλοφύλῳ πλησιάζειν γυναικί, συγκρύψαντα τὸ ἁμάρτημα καὶ διάκονον ἀγαθὸν γενόμενον παρασχεῖν αὐτῷ ὥστ ̓ ἐκπλῆσαι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν. ὁ δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἀσμένως δεξάμενος τὴν διακονίαν, κοσμήσας τὴν αὐτοῦ θυγατέρα νυκτὸς ἤγαγε πρὸς αὐτὸν

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

81

Scholars have correctly noted the resemblance between the switch performed by Joseph the Tobiad’s brother in this episode and that performed in Gen. 29:15–20 by Laban upon his son-in-law, the patriarch Jacob.79 However, this episode can also be fruitfully interpreted in dialogue with the scriptural Joseph story. When the reader is told that “while dining alongside the king, a beautiful dancing girl entered the banquet …,”80 the reader’s pre-existing identification of Joseph the Tobiad with his scriptural archetype, which I established above in this chapter, creates a strong expectation for the reader that the protagonist will act virtuously. However, the renowned sexual virtue of scriptural Joseph lends a trajectory to this episode which is then completely disrupted. First, both the dancing girl and the niece are entirely passive and play no active role in the story at all. They neither speak nor act but are acted upon by Joseph the Tobiad. This is quite unlike the aggressive characterization of Potiphar’s wife—especially in Josephus’ retelling in which careful planning and plotting is ascribed to her, along with persuasive dialogue. Then, unlike scriptural Joseph, who rejects the forbidden woman’s advances repeatedly and ultimately flees to preserve his virtue, Joseph the Tobiad capitulates at the sight alone.81 Finally, when his brother Solymnias is informed of his wish to fulfill the forbidden desire and is enlisted in covering up the intended transgression, the reader is told that Joseph the Tobiad “implored” (παρακαλῶν) him to lend his aid (AJ 12.187)—much the same way, in fact, that in Josephus, scriptural Joseph “implored” (παρεκάλει) Potiphar’s wife to contain her passions (AJ 2.43, 51) and that she warned him (AJ 2.46) to submit to those same passions as “one imploring” him (της παρακαλούσης). This is not, of course, how a figure whose namesake is the scriptural icon for moral fortitude is expected to behave but is its very inverse. The patriarch in the Tales of the Tobiads is hardly the paragon of moral virtue that is implied by his name and his arc of success at the Egyptian court; placed in circumstances of sexual enticement, he not only fails to resist or flee but actively pursues the

79 80 81

καὶ συγκατεκοίμισεν. ὁ δ ̓ ὑπὸ μέθης ἀγνοήσας τἀληθὲς συνέρχεται τῇ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ θυγατρί, καὶ τούτου γενομένου πολλάκις ἤρα σφοδρότερον. ἔφη δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόν, ὡς κινδυνεύει τῷ ζῆν ἐρῶν ὀρχηστρίδος, ἧς ἴσως οὐκ ἂν αὐτῷ παραχωρήσειν τὸν βασιλέα. τοῦ δὲ ἀδελφοῦ μηδὲν ἀγωνιᾶν παρακαλοῦντος, ἀπολαύειν δ ̓ ἧς ἐρᾷ μετ ̓ ἀδείας καὶ γυναῖκα ἔχειν αὐτὴν φήσαντος καὶ τἀληθὲς αὐτῷ φανερὸν ποιήσαντος, ὡς ἕλοιτο μᾶλλον τὴν ἰδίαν ὑβρίσαι θυγατέρα ἢ περιιδεῖν ἐκεῖνον ἐν αἰσχύνῃ γενόμενον. (AJ 12.187–89) Noted by Willrich, 94–95; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 104. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 49–50, elaborates with the most detail. δειπνῶν παρὰ τῷ βασιλεῖ ὀρχηστρίδος εἰσελθούσης εἰς τὸ συμπόσιον εὐπρεποῦς … . (AJ 12.187) The term of passion used of Joseph the Tobiad is ἐρασθεὶς (AJ 12.187).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

82

Chapter 3

forbidden object while dragging his family in with him.82 As I will go on to show in the following chapter on Joseph the Tobiad’s son, Hyrcanus, this is one part of a larger network of affinities in the Tales of the Tobiads in which the main characters are depicted in ways that simultaneously evoke the scriptural Joseph story (and Josephus’ own retelling of it) while upending the very expectations those echoes engender. 4

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented several novel ways in which Josephus’ depiction of Joseph the Tobiad exhibits notable affinities with the figure of scriptural Joseph. These affinities, however, form a network of interactions more complex than simple imitation. In some ways, Joseph the Tobiad mirrors scriptural Joseph’s laudable success at the Egyptian court, and both figures manage to exploit their powerful positions for the benefit of the Jewish people. However, in other respects Joseph the Tobiad would seem to be presented as an ambiguous or even cautionary figure. In my reading, Josephus adeptly builds up audience expectations with a character who evokes scriptural Joseph and then dashes them. His use of subversion serves not merely to entertain, though, but can also be read in the context of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. If scriptural Joseph is remarkable for his famed virtue and wisdom, by contrast Joseph the Tobiad is an instructible lesson through the prominent character defects that accompany his successes. In fact, it is precisely the ambiguity and contradiction resulting from the juxtaposition of the two Josephs which makes the Tales of the Tobiads both so intriguing as a story and so useful for provoking the reader’s self-reflection. The ambiguity and contradiction inherent in Joseph the Tobiad as a character is nowhere more evident than in the disjunction between Josephus’ summary statements and narrative depiction. Thus, Josephus introduces him as “having a reputation for righteousness among the people of Jerusalem on account of his dignity”83 and notes one of the positive outcomes of his relent82

83

As one of my anonymous reviewers helpfully pointed out, the implicit problem with Joseph the Tobiad’s pursuit of the dancing girl is twofold: (1) she is a foreigner and not Jewish; (2) as a slave, she is property of the king and not available for marriage. As the same reviewer also noted, there are resonances with instances in the Hebrew Bible of a male character offering up a daughter for the purposes of making illicit sexual gratification licit (Gen. 19 and Judges 19), possibly explaining why there is no moral condemnation of Joseph the Tobiad’s brother. AJ 12.160.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

83

less drive: unprecedented success at the Ptolemaic court which affords the opportunity to affect the deliverance of his people. He is unambiguously eulogized by Josephus for the fact that “he restored the Jewish people from poverty and a state of weakness to more splendid means of living.”84 Yet, as I have emphasized in this chapter, Joseph the Tobiad is also depicted as fundamentally defective in virtue. His extraordinary self-interest is manifested in sexual incontinence and a cunning way with deceptive words—departures in whole from the legacy of scriptural Joseph. He also unleashes destructive ripples through the example of his ambition, this latter point to be pursued more fully in the next chapter. One solution scholars have proposed to this problem of incongruence between summary statement and narrative depiction holds that any perceived contradiction indicates only that Josephus (or his source) was concerned with the national or ethnic dimensions of Jewishness, not the moral or religious ones.85 This is tantamount to suggesting that Josephus invariably and unreflectively praised his Jewish protagonists even though the narrative did not bear out that approbation. A second option is to posit that such disjunctions and contradictions arise from Josephus’ (sloppy) use of sources.86 While I consider this latter possibility to be a likely circumstance in places (see Chapter 4), on its own source criticism does not coherently explain why, beyond sheer incompetence, Josephus might have allowed this situation to stand in the final composition or how the reader might have made sense of it—issues which I will address shortly below. A third possibility, and one which I have entertained in this chapter as having limited merit, appeals to other Second Temple traditions about scriptural Joseph in which he is a less-exemplary figure, thereby accommodating the Tobiads’ sordid behavior—though at the expense of ignoring the explicit eulogistic summary statements.87 While I agree that many scholarly judgements about what is or is not properly Jewish behavior are anachronistic or too narrowly conceived for the texts in question, this fails to fully account for the circumstance we find in the Tales of the Tobiads. None of the options surveyed above are wholly satisfying as explanations for why, despite Josephus’ explicit praise of Joseph the Tobiad, the logic of the narrative alone assumes that his attempt to marry a foreign woman is morally reprehensible and in need of extreme intervention by his own brother. 84 85 86 87

AJ 12.224. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 75. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 88–89, holds a similar position. Schwartz, “Many Sources But a Single Author,” 42–44. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 105.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

84

Chapter 3

I suggest that the conflict between the narrative depiction of Joseph the Tobiad and the summary evaluations of him can be read as engaging in exemplary discourse in a manner analogous to Plutarch, who allowed tensions and contradictions to exist in the Parallel Lives between his synkriseis and the narratives they evaluate (see Chapter 2). These tensions and contradictions add a layer of complexity to the moral texture of the Tales of the Tobiads. In this light, one can read the Tales of the Tobiads as doing more than just straightforwardly naming virtue and vice, for we should imagine that Josephus’ readers hardly needed to be told that Joseph the Tobiad’s sexual dalliances demonstrate a fundamental character flaw. If some of the lessons of the account are blindingly obvious, however, others are more subtle and remain implicit. For instance, beyond the simpler questions as to what actions and deeds constitute virtue, which readers would have well understood in broad strokes without Josephus’ aid as part of their shared παιδεία, this account can be read as engaging a much more relevant topic for Greco-Roman elites about the interplay of pragmatic and ethical decision-making in the context of conducting public affairs. To this, the Tales of the Tobiads does not supply easy or simple answers; the reader must form their own judgements. Does Joseph the Tobiad’s success and his contributions to the Jewish people justify his flaws and his methods? How do personal “indiscretions” factor into evaluative judgements if they do not impede a figure’s success and prosperity? How does a πολιτικός channel ambition appropriately? In this light, Josephus’ statement that Joseph the Tobiad held a reputation for righteousness among Jerusalem’s inhabitants (AJ 12.160) can be understood in hindsight as not a little ironic: reputations are not always reflective of reality. That is not to say that Josephus undermines the accomplishments of Joseph the Tobiad, since, as I have shown, throughout the Antiquities Josephus is enamored with Jews who rise to prominence in the foreign court and thereby bring safety and prosperity to the Jewish people (e.g, Joseph, Esther, Daniel, Agrippa I, and even Josephus himself). However, the contradiction that Josephus permits between the Jewish people’s assessment of Joseph the Tobiad as righteous and the repeated stories of his flagrant vice suggest that a significant point is being implicitly raised. Great men can accomplish important deeds, and it is precisely these accomplishments which may obscure their true character as judged by “the masses.” Josephus’ own view of the common people is patently elitist and consistently negative throughout AJ, such as when he refers to the Israelite people in a moment of uproar against Moses as “the whole mob (ὁ δὲ πᾶς ὅμιλος), who by nature enjoys crying out against those in office and turning their mind towards whatever someone (τις) might say

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

A Tale of Two Josephs

85

about a matter … .”88 The reader must judge Joseph the Tobiad for themselves, then, and judgements of “the people” in the narrative cannot be considered a reliable guide to good character. It may be the case, the reader could surmise, that Joseph the Tobiad’s liberal benefactions earned him an undeserved reputation for righteousness with the populace of Jerusalem, a point at which Plutarch is again a useful comparandum. The problematic relationship between public reputations earned through liberal benefactions is also emphasized, among other places, in his lives of the Gracchi brothers (Tib. Gracch. 8; C. Gracch. 7.3–4), whose account is framed, like Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads, “in such a way as to raise interesting moral questions.”89 One way in which he raises these questions in his treatment of the Gracchi and in virtually all of the Lives, as I showed in the previous chapter, is by interweaving seemingly clear summary evaluations, ambiguous depictions of character, and grand accomplishments which together lack straightforward criteria of judgement. His Alcibiades, for example, features a similarly complicated title character as Joseph the Tobiad.90 Plutarch has the Athenians’ “reputable men” (οἱ ἔνδοξοι) loath and fear Alcibiades (Alc. 16.2), particularly given the prospect of tyranny he represents, while “the people” (ὁ δῆμος) oscillate inconsistently between hatred and love (Alc. 16.3–5). Earlier in Alcibiades’ life, Plutarch has him much loved by Socrates for his “excellence and natural good qualities.”91 But in his summation, Plutarch noncommittally asserts that “what thoughts he [Alcibiades] himself had about tyranny is unclear.”92 The result is that the reader is ultimately left to question and judge for themselves “to what extent crises demand leaders who might in normal times be considered distasteful or dangerous.”93 I propose that Josephus provokes much the same reflection on the reader’s part through his complex characterization of Joseph the Tobiad. He is a character with a precarious mixture of qualities who always seems to be teetering on the brink of disaster, yet arguably it is precisely this nature which allows him to avert the collision course that the high priest Onias initiated between the Ptolemaic king and the Jewish nation. Despite his reputation among the 88 89 90 91 92 93

ὁ δὲ πᾶς ὅμιλος φύσει χαίρων τῷ καταβοᾶν τῶν ἐν τέλει καὶ πρὸς ὅ τις εἴποι πρὸς τοῦτο τὴν γνώμην τρέπων … . (AJ 4.37) See Mason, “Should Any Wish to Enquire Further,” 84. Geert Roskam, “Ambition and Love of Fame in Plutarch’s Lives of Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi,” CP 106 (2011): 218. Duff, “Plutarch’s Lives and the Critical Reader,” 71–72. τῆς ἀρετῆς καὶ εὐφυΐας. (Alc. 4.1) Cf. Alc. 6.1. Αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν ἐκεῖνος ἣν εἶχε διάνοιαν περὶ τῆς τυραννίδος ἄδηλόν ἐστιν. (Alc. 35.1) Duff, “Plutarch’s Lives and the Critical Reader,” 72.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

86

Chapter 3

people of Jerusalem, there is nothing dignified or righteous about either his ambitions or his methods in the story, and his personal life is even worse. If Joseph the Tobiad narrowly avoids the wrath of kings and lifts the Jewish people to a new level of prosperity, he also sets a poor example for his children which will ultimately fracture the entire family. Joseph the Tobiad’s flaws do, in fact, have a lasting and deeply negative impact which can only be understood when traced on a larger canvas that extends beyond his own lifetime. As I will now turn to show in the following chapter on his son, Hyrcanus, Joseph’s ambitions and willingness to realize them unscrupulously becomes a virus with disastrous consequences for the collective Jewish people. The Tobiad family turns to infighting that infects the nation in a way that, unlike the legacy of his scriptural namesake from Genesis, undermines all of his benefactions upon the Jewish people.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 4

“He Loved Him Still More as if He Were His Only Genuine Son”: Hyrcanus the Tobiad and Scriptural Joseph 1

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I presented a variety of ways in which the figure of Joseph the Tobiad strikingly resembles scriptural Joseph, as well as how those resemblances are undercut when the former is depicted in a subversive or ironic fashion in relation to the scriptural model of virtue and wisdom, such as the shocking incident with an Egyptian dancing girl, his witty and deceptive way with words, or his bold and ambitious drive to prosper at any cost. It is these very qualities that make Joseph the Tobiad such a compelling figure, especially when placed in juxtaposition with scriptural Joseph. I will now turn to Joseph the Tobiad’s youngest son, Hyrcanus, whose exploits occupy a sizable portion of Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads (see Chapter 3 for a summary of the account). In many respects, my analysis of Hyrcanus will mirror that of the previous chapter and will reinforce my findings there. If Hyrcanus and scriptural Joseph do not share their name, as did the former’s father, nevertheless several of the most prominent aspects of the scriptural Joseph story are first echoed and then subverted in spectacular fashion. What is more, I will show in this chapter how Hyrcanus’ affinities with scriptural Joseph can be read within Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as illustrating the grave costs of unchecked ambition upon both family and nation. 2

Sibling Rivalry in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story

Of all the areas in which the Tales of the Tobiads exhibits connections to the story of the famed scriptural patriarch Joseph, perhaps the most obvious and striking is that of the rivalry among siblings brought on by the father’s favoritism. Other scholars have also noted the parallels between the Tales of the Tobiads and the scriptural Joseph story concerning this aspect of the narrative, though the results have been limited to rather basic findings that would be obvious to almost any reader familiar with Gen. 37–50 (or Joseph’s retelling

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_005

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

88

Chapter 4

of it in AJ 2).1 While I will contribute to the discussion of the more obvious parallels, I will also elucidate some of the more creative and complex ways in which Josephus’ account of Hyrcanus echoes the sibling rivalry of scriptural Joseph—indeed how the compositional process itself was driven by the affinities. 2.1 Precocious Youths The qualities, characteristics, and basic description of both scriptural Joseph and Hyrcanus the Tobiad are very similar and show how Josephus juxtaposes the two figures as precocious youths who garner their fathers’ love and stir their older brothers’ jealousy. This is evidenced in the statement that opens the sibling rivalry in the Tales of the Tobiads, which sets out the basic description of the characters and the conflict (AJ 12.190): But when this youngest son [Hyrcanus] was still thirteen years old he demonstrated innate courage (ἀνδρείαν) and intelligence (σύνεσιν) such that he was bitterly envied (ζηλοτυπηθῆναι) by his brothers for being greatly superior and for being such a person as should be the object of envy (φθονηθῆναι).2 There are several parallels between this introductory statement and Josephus’ language in his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story (AJ 2.9–10), both in terms of general similarities as well as key terms: Jacob loved Joseph, who was born from Rachel, much more than his other sons on account of both his nobility of body (τὴν τοῦ σώματος εὐγένειαν) and virtue of soul (ψυχῆς ἀρετήν), for he excelled in discernment

1 Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 49, following Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 94–95, notes without any detailed analysis the parallel between the wars among the brothers in both stories. But Gera then moves on to other scriptural parallels, many of which are beyond the Joseph story and therefore not of concern to me in this study, valid though they may be. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 104, 106, repeats the findings of Willrich and Gera while adding a few parallels of his own between the Tales of the Tobiads and non-scriptural Joseph traditions, Josephus excluded. For a full review of the history of scholarship on Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads, see Chapter 3. 2 ἔτι δὲ ὢν τρισκαίδεκα ἐτῶν οὗτος ὁ παῖς νεώτερος ἐπεδείκνυτο τὴν φυσικὴν ἀνδρείαν καὶ σύνεσιν, ὡς ζηλοτυπηθῆναι δεινῶς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὄντα πολὺ κρείττονα καὶ φθονηθῆναι δυνάμενον. (AJ 12.190)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

89

(φρονήσει). The love of his father provoked both jealousy (φθόνον) and hatred (μῖσος) against him among the brothers.3 Although I will return to some of the parallels between these two passages shortly below, there are several items that are worth noting immediately. For instance, the term ζηλοτυπέω, used in the Tales of the Tobiads to describe the envy of Hycranus’ older brothers, is also used by Josephus in his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story. In a redactional phrase that interprets the moral import of the story for the reader, Josephus comments on Joseph’s older brothers that “indeed human beings envy (ζηλοτυπούντων) even the success of their own flesh and blood.”4 The other lexical root used for envy of Hyrcanus in the passage quoted above, φθον-, is also used in Josephus’ retelling of the Joseph story, where he reports of the patriarch that “the love of his father [Jacob] provoked both jealousy (φθόνον) and hatred (μῖσος) against him [Joseph] among the brothers.”5 The shared vocabulary of φθόνος is significant because, while it is not derived from the Greek translation of Genesis, it is common in Hellenistic biography.6 Likewise, the term σύνεσις, which is used to describe the perceptive powers of understanding of Hyrcanus, is used frequently and consistently in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story, particularly in relation to Joseph’s powers of divination.7 Finally, both scriptural Joseph and Hyrcanus are the youngest children born of a different mother from their older 3 Ἰώσηπον ἐκ Ῥαχήλας πεπαιδοποιημένος Ἰάκωβος διά τε τὴν τοῦ σώματος εὐγένειαν καὶ διὰ ψυχῆς ἀρετήν, φρονήσει γὰρ διέφερε, τῶν ἄλλων πλέον υἱῶν ἠγάπα. τούτῳ παρὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἥ τε τοῦ πατρὸς στοργὴ φθόνον ἐκίνησε καὶ μῖσος. (AJ 2.9–10) 4 ζηλοτυπούντων ἄρα τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τὰς τῶν οἰκειοτάτων εὐπραγίας. (AJ 2.10) 5 τούτῳ παρὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἥ τε τοῦ πατρὸς στοργὴ φθόνον ἐκίνησε καὶ μῖσος. (AJ 2.10) See also AJ 2.13 discussed below. 6 Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 65. 7 AJ 2.63, 65, 76, 86, 91. Later in the Tales of the Tobiads (AJ 12.195), Joseph the Tobiad also praises Hyrcanus’ “mental acuity” (τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας). While the general tenor is redolent of the Joseph story in AJ, Josephus never uses the term διανοία with respect to scriptural Joseph. It is used twice of Jacob, at AJ 2.15 for Jacob “comprehending with/in his mind” the import of Joseph’s dreams (αὐτοῦ τῇ διανοίᾳ συλλαβὼν), and at AJ 2.19 for Jacob’s state of mind after his sons fail to report back from the fields (σκυθρωπότερον τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν διάνοιαν λαμβάνων). The term φρόνησις is also used by Josephus of scriptural Joseph and is virtually interchangeable with the term σύνεσις used of Hyrcanus in the quoted passage. On the prominence of Joseph’s moral and intellectual excellence in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story, see Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 86–89. Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres I à III, 85 n. 2, especially notes that Joseph’s φρόνησις should be understood not as “ordinary intelligence” (l’intelligence ordinaire) but must be interpreted in relation to Joseph’s divinatory skills. Compare with Philo, who similarly reports that it was on account of a “noble spirit” (φρόνημα εὐγενὲς) that Jacob loved Joseph above the other sons (Ios. 4).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

90

Chapter 4

siblings.8 Josephus introduces scriptural Joseph as the child “who was born from Rachel.”9 Similarly, Hyrcanus is introduced when Josephus recounts how Joseph the Tobiad “produced also from the daughter of his brother Solymnias one [son] named Hyrcanus.”10 These aspects of Hyrcanus’ description serve to call to mind the figure of Joseph and superimpose him upon the figure of Hyrcanus: each possesses extraordinary powers of perception and understanding which result in the father’s favoritism, such that each becomes the object of violent jealousy from older brothers who share a different mother than their youngest sibling.11 Josephus is, however, no simple copyist of the Joseph narrative but is creating a new story in its own right. While he clearly evokes scriptural Joseph’s rivalry with his brothers through the use of parallel vocabulary and shared motifs, Josephus also shows a willingness to depart from the model. For instance, in the passage quoted above (AJ 12.190), one quality attributed by Josephus to Hyrcanus that is entirely unprecedented in the scriptural Joseph story is “innate courage” (τὴν φυσικὴν ἀνδρείαν). The term ἀνδρεία is, in fact, almost entirely lacking in the Greek scriptures though prominent in 4 Maccabees, a text which may even post-date Josephus. The closest parallel that we find in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story is the more general vocabulary of masculinity, such as in Jacob’s praise for Joseph’s “nobility of body” (τὴν τοῦ σώματος εὐγένειαν).12 While it is possible, as Nodet suggests, that this is an allusion to the beauty of his mother Rachel, which is emphasized prominently (Gen. 29:17/AJ 1.288),13 it is notable that “nobility of body” along with the other characteristics attributed to Joseph in AJ 2.9 are precisely those which Aristotle claims characterize the individual who is not by nature a slave (Politics 1254b 6–10, 20–23).14 The clear implication in the context of Josephus’ retelling of 8 9 10 11

12

13 14

Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 94–95; Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 49; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 104. Ἰώσηπον ἐκ Ῥαχήλας πεπαιδοποιημένος. (AJ 2.9) ποιησάμενος δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ Σολυμίου θυγατρὸς ἕνα Ὑρκανὸν ὄνομα. (AJ 12.187) The parallelism between Josephus’ opening statements on scriptural Joseph at AJ 2.9–10 and Hyrcanus at AJ 12.190 is so strong that I find it likely that Josephus has consciously modeled the latter on the former. The parallelism is noted also by Niditch, “Father-Son Folktale Patterns,” 50–51, although substantiation through analysis of vocabulary and language is not provided. AJ 2.9. Devega, “Constructions of Masculinity,” 31–56, notes Josephus’ tendency to emphasize the scriptural patriarch’s masculinity in a negative contrast with Potiphar’s wife. On Joseph’s beauty as part of a larger interest in romance in Josephus’ retelling, see Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 85–86. On the beauty of Joseph as a prominent feature in post-scriptural texts, see Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 66–93. Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres I à III, 85 n. 1. I find a more likely origin to be in the praise for his appearance later in the scriptural story at Gen. 39:6–7. Friedman, “Josephus on the Servile Origins,” 540–41. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

91

the Joseph story is that, while Joseph is indeed a slave, he is by nature free and only a slave by circumstance.15 Thus, Joseph’s masculinity, though heightened by Josephus, is unrelated to any violent or militaristic skills or qualities and so lacks the terminology of ἀνδρεία associated with Hyrcanus. On the other hand, ἀνδρεία is a wholly apropos characteristic to ascribe to Hyrcanus given his penchant for dealing back violence and death in kind to his family, to barbarians/Arabs, and to generally all who stand in his way. Right from the start, then, the reader senses that Hyrcanus’ rivalry with his older brothers will not end in the same way as scriptural Joseph’s. 2.2 Selection, Splicing, and Seams After introducing Hyrcanus, Josephus turns to the story which illustrates his older brothers’ inferior dispositions (AJ 12.191) followed by one reporting Hyrcanus’ contrasting success (AJ 12.192–95). The first story, at least, seems incomplete in that the reader expects, after hearing how each of the older brothers returned from their schooling no better than before, to then be told of Hyrcanus’ brilliance as a young student by contrast. But the story illustrating Hyrcanus’ cleverness has nothing at all to do with the story about the brothers’ lackluster performance as students and is a completely unrelated scenario. Likewise, the story of Hyrcanus’ brilliant efforts to overcome his father’s test has no parallel in which the older brothers fail at the same task. So Hyrcanus is never mentioned in the first story and the brothers are entirely absent in the second one. The suspicion arises, therefore, that the two stories were not originally joined in Josephus’ source. This suspicion is further strengthened by the fact that the second story (AJ 12.191) is introduced with the vague temporal phrase “after these things” (μετὰ δ’ἐκείνους). This phrase functions in the same manner as the more common “about this time” (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν), which is ubiquitous throughout AJ as a device for coordinating sources, although here I concede that no great elapse of time is implied between the two stories.16 By way of analogy, another and more frequently noted example of a likely seam between sources comes 15 16

The implications of this aspect of the scriptural Joseph story for Josephus were explored in the previous chapter. Daniel R. Schwartz has extensively documented Josephus’ use of the phrase “about this time” (κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν) to coordinate sources in “Kata Toyton ton Kairon: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II,” JQR 72, no. 4 (1982): 241–68. Although redactional phrases are often paired with a conspicuous temporal gap, that is not invariably the case. The New Testament Gospels, for example, are full of pericopes that originally circulated independently but were joined with a redactional phrase without implying any great gap in time between them; the lack of implied temporal gap between narrative units is no argument against the presence of editorial activity. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

92

Chapter 4

with the transition of Hyrcanus from a youth of thirteen years (AJ 12.190) to an adult (AJ 12.197);17 it is extremely abrupt and lacks any indication of elapsed time even though the story presumes that a lengthy period of time has passed. This is paralleled by Joseph the Tobiad’s change from very young man to old age, which takes place in the impossible span of a mere twenty-two years (AJ 12.186).18 These transitions are accompanied by phrases that Josephus is known to have used to manage transitions within or between sources, such as “under these circumstances” (ἐξ αἰτίας τοιαύτης) and “as we have related before” (ὡς προειρήκαμεν), which bookend the story of Hyrcanus’ birth and lead into the stories of the sibling rivalry (AJ 12.187, 189).19 I conclude that it is likely that we have here as well, with the stories of Joseph the Tobiad’s older sons’ failure and Hyrcanus’ success, two fragments of Josephus’ source extracted and joined together. In terms of the literary analysis with which I am concerned in this study, however, Josephus’ compositional procedure raises the question of why he chose precisely these units to excerpt and splice, and how his practices of selection and arrangement aid in understanding the parallels between the Tales of the Tobiads and the scriptural Joseph story. 2.3 Older Brothers’ Mediocrity As to the story of the older brothers in AJ 12.191, an answer is supplied by the fact that one of Josephus’ tendencies in his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story in AJ 2 is to portray the older brothers in a more negative light than in the scriptural version. A few examples will serve to illustrate this tendency. When Joseph reports his first dream to his older brothers, Josephus adds the non-scriptural detail that they feign incomprehension of its import, reporting that they act “as [if] the dream was not understood by them.”20 Josephus also enlists divine agency against Joseph’s older brothers. In the Genesis account, Joseph’s second dream is assumed to be sent from God but with no purpose stated as such. Josephus, however, seizes upon this as an opportunity to fill in the gap. He surmises that “God sent the second dream to Joseph in order

17 18 19

20

See, for example, Johnson, Historical Fictions, 80. Again, see Johnson, Historical Fictions, 81. On Josephus’ use of these phrases to manage sources, see H. G. M. Williamson, “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI. 297–301,” JTS 28, no. 1 (1977): 50–55; Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads,” 58. For example, at AJ 10.212–13 the phrase ἐξ αἰτίας τοιαύτης functions as a transition between Daniel 2 and 3, at AJ 12.112–18 it introduces the use of Letter of Aristeas, and at AJ 14.268 it marks a return to Josephus’ use of BJ source material after a listing of decrees added specially for AJ. ὡς οὐ γνώριμον αὐτοῖς τὸ ὄναρ. (AJ 2.12)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

93

to fight against their [the older brothers’] envy.”21 This has the effect of pitting the older brothers not only against Joseph but against God himself: they have ignored the import of the first dream, even pretending not to understand despite comprehending it full well, and then they brush aside the second chance offered them by God to turn from their fratricidal path. Additionally, just after the second dream, Josephus makes a brief but extra-scriptural excursus condemning the brothers’ fratricidal urges: And they treated him as if he were just some stranger who was about to obtain the good things signified by the dreams but not as a brother and one with whom they would share in the pleasure [of those good things]; it was reasonable that just as they were joined by birth so also they should be joined in good fortune.22 Such authorial interpretations of the narrative for the reader constitute keys for understanding Josephus’ own interests in the Joseph story and his purpose in redacting it as he did—in this case, so as to further implicate Joseph’s older brothers and heighten the wickedness of the violent plot against the innocent youth. Lastly, the brothers’ plotting is introduced earlier by Josephus, right at the conclusion of Joseph’s second dream, recounting that immediately thereupon “they hastened to kill the young man.”23 The scriptural account at this juncture (Gen. 37:11) says only that “his brothers were jealous of him,”24 while the plot to kill Joseph begins somewhat later at the point when the brothers, far off in the fields, see their brother approaching at a distance and initiate the conspiracy (Gen. 37:18). In Josephus’ account, therefore, the murderous plot enters the narrative somewhat sooner, allowing also for it to be reiterated more times.25

21 22 23 24 25

Τῷ δὲ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν φθόνῳ προσφιλονικῆσαν τὸ θεῖον δευτέραν ὄψιν ἐπιπέμπει τῷ Ἰωσήπῳ. (AJ 2.13) The term φθόνος is also used by Philo, Ios. 5, to describe the older brothers’ attitude towards Joseph. καὶ διετέθησαν ὡς ἐπ ̓ ἀλλοτρίῳ τινὶ μέλλοντι τὰ σημαινόμενα διὰ τῶν ὀνειράτων ἀγαθὰ ἕξειν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἀδελφῷ καὶ ὧν συναπολαύσειν αὐτῷ εἰκὸς ἦν κοινωνοὺς ὡς τῆς γενέσεως οὕτως καὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας ἐσομένους. (AJ 2.17) ἀνελεῖν τε ὡρμήκεσαν τὸ μειράκιον. (AJ 2.18) MT Gen. 37:11: ‫ ;יְ ַקנְ אּו־בו ֺ ֶא ָחיו‬OG Gen. 37:11: ἐζήλωσαν δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 95, additionally notes the seeming spontaneity of the plot in the scriptural story in contrast to Josephus’ retelling of it. Josephus’ introduction of the plot earlier in the narrative has the effect of flattening the brothers’ characterization and their development with the tradeoff that it raises the dramatic tension by previewing for the reader what is soon to happen.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

94

Chapter 4

Given the clear tendency in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story to highlight the negative qualities and behaviors of the older brothers, it should not be surprising to find the same trend in the Tales of the Tobiads. Arguably, it was his interpretation of the scriptural Joseph story which guided his selection of this narrative unit about the older brothers’ inferiority for inclusion in the Tales of the Tobiads. Thus, here in the Tales of the Tobiads, Josephus jumps on the chance to recount a story concerning the failings of Hyrcanus’ older brothers. 2.4 Younger Brothers’ Brilliance Turning now to the story of Hyrcanus’ cleverness (AJ 12.192–95), in which he successfully overcomes obstacles thrown up by his father as a test and completes the task set before him, it is clear enough that Josephus wished to narrate an example of the youngest son’s superior intelligence and besting of his older brothers on the model of the scriptural Joseph story. Even though the story about Hyrcanus has no precise parallel in Gen. 37–50, it nevertheless serves a comparable purpose of foreshadowing Hyrcanus’ ultimate eclipse of his brothers, just as the dreams did for scriptural Joseph and his brothers. However, it is notable that in Genesis the stories of Joseph’s superiority to his brothers never involve any superior skill or performance of deeds—the reporting of dreams that predict his ascendancy notwithstanding, since these say more about God’s providence than Joseph’s abilities. So, even if this was the only story of Hyrcanus’ youthful brilliance which was present in Josephus’ source, why narrate it at all? The question is particularly acute since it is quite likely, in my view, that Josephus did have access to other anecdotes in his source illustrating Hyrcanus’ innate superiority, such as the missing ending to the above story of Joseph the Tobiad unsuccessfully sending each of the older brothers in turn to school. Given this circumstance, why did he select this particular anecdote? Several factors can plausibly be posited as attracting Josephus to this passage. The basic setting, for example, in which Hyrcanus is sent off to “the wilderness” (τὴν ἐρημίαν) by his father (AJ 12.192), bears strong resemblances to scriptural Joseph being sent off to “the flocks” (τὰ ποίμνια) by his father Jacob (AJ 2.19/Gen. 37:14). Also, however, the passage several times makes reference to Hyrcanus’ admirable characteristics and his father’s resultant favoritism, which cues Josephus’ portrayal of scriptural Joseph in AJ 2, who also earned his father Jacob’s favor by means of his inherent qualities. At AJ 12.191, for instance, Joseph the Tobiad wishes to know which of his sons is naturally inclined “towards virtue” (πρὸς ἀρετὴν). According to Josephus’s version of the scriptural Joseph story, “Jacob loved (ἠγάπα) Joseph, who was born from Rachel, much more than his other sons on account of both his nobility of body

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

95

(τὴν τοῦ σώματος εὐγένειαν) and virtue of soul (ψυχῆς ἀρετήν), for he excelled in discernment (φρονήσει).”26 These are all extra-scriptural qualities that serve in Josephus’ retelling as the principal causes of Jacob’s preference for Joseph over the other sons and of their resulting jealousy, and stand in for the tunic and bad report, both of which Josephus has omitted from the Genesis account.27 Throughout Josephus’ version of the scriptural Joseph story, in fact, these qualities are substantially amplified in comparison with the scriptural text. Additionally, upon Joseph’s death (AJ 2.198), Josephus repeats this theme when he eulogizes that Joseph was “marvelous with respect to virtue (τὴν ἀρετὴν).” Josephus’ use of this term is significant, since ἀρετή is extremely rare in the Jewish scriptures, occurring only once in the Old Greek translation of Esther and thereafter only in 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees; its usage in his retelling of the Joseph story is unlikely to have been spurred by his scriptural text of Genesis, and can therefore be taken as representing his own interpretation of Joseph (and Hyrcanus). Then, at the end of the passage that relates Hyrcanus cleverly overcoming his father’s test, Josephus closes with a description of Joseph the Tobiad’s resulting favoritism for Hyrcanus over the older brothers (AJ 12.195): But after coming to him [Joseph], the father loved him [Hyrcanus] exceedingly because of his resolute spirit (τοῦ φρονήματος), and praising his mental acuity (τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας) and bold deed (τολμηρὸν), he loved (ἔστεργεν) him still more as if he alone were legitimate (γνήσιον) [among his children], thereby aggrieving the brothers against him [Hyrcanus].28 Hyrcanus is here said to be loved by his father Joseph more than the other brothers as a result of his superior qualities and character in a manner strongly reminiscent of the scriptural Joseph story. Josephus uses the term ἀγαπάω to describe Jacob’s love for scriptural Joseph (AJ 12.195), while the love of Joseph 26 27

28

Ἰώσηπον ἐκ Ῥαχήλας πεπαιδοποιημένος Ἰάκωβος διά τε τὴν τοῦ σώματος εὐγένειαν καὶ διὰ ψυχῆς ἀρετήν, φρονήσει γὰρ διέφερε, τῶν ἄλλων πλέον υἱῶν ἠγάπα. (AJ 2.9) In Josephus’ account, then, Jacob’s favoritism is entirely warranted and merely a recognition of Joseph’s moral and intellectual superiority. Unsurprisingly, therefore, where the scriptural account of Gen. 37:10 has Jacob rebuking Joseph as he reports his first dream to his father and brothers, Josephus reports (AJ 2.15) that Jacob “was delighted” (ὁ δὲ ἥσθη τῷ ὀνείρατι). See discussion in Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres I à III, 86 n. 1. Philo, too, has Jacob rebuke Joseph for his indiscretion (Ios. 9). ἐλθόντα δ ̓ ὁ πατὴρ ὑπερηγάπησεν τοῦ φρονήματος, καὶ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας καὶ τὸ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῇ τολμηρὸν ἐπαινέσας ὡς μόνον ὄντα γνήσιον ἔτι μᾶλλον ἔστεργεν ἀχθομένων ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν. (AJ 12.195)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

96

Chapter 4

the Tobiad for his son Hyrcanus is described with the term στέργω. This term (στέργω) is used fairly infrequently in AJ and never in Josephus’ account of scriptural Joseph or Genesis more broadly. However, the nominal form στοργή is used by Josephus to describe Jacob’s love for scriptural Joseph (AJ 2.10). Hyrcanus is also described in the quote above as possessing a “resolute spirit” (φρόνημα), a term which is used by Josephus in a passage in his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story that is undisputedly redactional and one of Josephus’ prominent moralizing asides (AJ 2.40). The term φρόνημα is significant as it is used nowhere in the Greek scriptures until 2 Maccabees; it is likely, then, to reflect Josephus’ own interpretation of the figures in his narratives. Immediately after concluding the summary of Joseph’s elevated role managing Potiphar’s affairs but before turning to Joseph’s run-in with his master’s wife, Josephus adds that: So he [Joseph] enjoyed these things [the honors from Potiphar] and even on account of vicissitude (τῆς μεταβολῆς) he did not abandon the virtue (τὴν ἀρετήν) which was round about him, but he showed plainly that a resolute spirit (φρόνημα) is able to overcome life’s difficulties in those whom it is genuinely present and not only adapted for temporary success.29 The meaning of the term φρόνημα as used here of scriptural Joseph (and above of Hyrcanus) requires some clarification. Its meaning can range broadly from “courage” to “pride” to “mind” to “reason,” but the best guide for translation is the context in which it must function in the larger narrative. Feldman’s choice to gloss it in the passage quoted immediately above as “reason” and to treat it as synonymous with λογισμός is understandable but misleading.30 It is understandable because scriptural Joseph’s wisdom and perception are emphasized by Josephus throughout the narrative. However, in context it is clear that “reason” cannot be the intended meaning here. On the one hand, reason cannot easily be described, as Josephus goes on to do (AJ 2.40), as being of benefit only “if genuinely present” (ἂν παρῇ γνησίως)—as if reason could exist only in appearance but not actuality—or could be merely an artifice that is “only adapted to temporary success” (πρὸς τὰς εὐπραγίας τὰς κατὰ καιρὸν 29 30

ὁ δὲ τούτων τε ἀπέλαυε καὶ τὴν ἀρετήν, ἥτις ἦν περὶ αὐτόν, οὐδ ̓ ὑπὸ τῆς μεταβολῆς ἐγκατέλιπεν, ἀλλὰ διέδειξε τὸ φρόνημα κρατεῖν τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ δυσκόλων δυνάμενον, οἷς ἂν παρῇ γνησίως καὶ μὴ πρὸς τὰς εὐπραγίας τὰς κατὰ καιρὸν μόνον ἡρμοσμένον. (AJ 2.40) Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 143 n. 137. Josephus does indeed apply the term λογισμός to scriptural Joseph, but it is in a moralistic evaluation at the notice of the protagonist’s death (AJ 2.198). There, it is explicitly connected to governance and administration.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

97

μόνον ἡρμοσμένον). On the other hand, if we understand φρόνημα as something like a quality of resolution or mental fortitude emerging from an inward disposition, then both of Josephus’ concessions concerning it make sense: it can indeed be a mere artifice which is not actually genuine because it is present only during times of success but fragments under misfortune.31 This also describes φρόνημα in the quoted passage on Hyrcanus. There, it is paired with praise for Hyrcanus’ διανοία, and so would be redundant and superfluous if it referred to a mental activity akin to reason or intellect. Rather, as in Josephus’ description of scriptural Joseph, it refers to ineluctable determination such as Hyrcanus demonstrated by accomplishing his father’s task even in the face of insurmountable obstacles. The convergence of ἀρετή and φρόνημα in the figure of scriptural Joseph in the passage quoted above brings us full circle back to the description of Hyrcanus’ “resolute spirit” (τοῦ φρονήματος) and “mental acuity” (τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας) with which we began. 2.5 Rivalry Turns Deadly While narrated quite differently, there are, nevertheless, several ways in which the account of the older brothers’ violent plotting against Hyrcanus exhibits parallels with the plot against scriptural Joseph. During the lengthy account of Hyrcanus’ rise to prominence at the Ptolemaic court, the reader is told that the older brothers are plotting his death in his absence and by the hands of others: “But when he [Hyrcanus] left, his brothers wrote to all the Friends of the king that they should get rid of him.”32 This conspiracy is later realized at the very end of Hyrcanus’ time at the Ptolemaic court and at the height of his successes there, when the reader is reminded that: “For his brothers had written to them [the Friends of the king] to kill Hyrcanus.”33 Although the detailed circumstances are very different from the plot of scriptural Joseph’s brothers, there are two basic similarities. First, both instances of fraternal plotting take place from a spatial distance. In the scriptural Joseph story, the brothers 31

32 33

Thackeray, LCL ad loc., translates the term as “noble spirit,” which, though now a somewhat dated gloss, is comparable to my own preference for “resolute spirit.” Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres I à III, 91, follows suit with “noblesse d’esprit.” The term φρόνημα is used by Josephus in a parallel sense at AJ 6.179: “Do not let your spirits be downcast.” (μὴ ταπεινὸν ἔστω τὸ φρόνημα.) See also a comparable usage by Philo in his biography of Joseph where he uses it in his allegorical interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream (Ios. 144), urging that though “fortunes are low, yet do not let spirits (τὸ φρόνημα) sink.” For glossing φρόνημα as “resolute spirit,” see entry II.1 for this term in the standard Greek lexicon Liddell-Scott-Jones. ἐξελθόντος δ᾿ αὐτοῦ γράφουσιν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοῦ βασιλέως φίλοις ἵν᾿ αὐτὸν διαφθείρωσιν. (AJ 12.202) τούτοις γὰρ ἐγεγράφεισαν αὐτοῦ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ διαχρήσασθαι τὸν Ὑρκανόν. (AJ 12.218)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

98

Chapter 4

observe him approaching from far off and decide in the meantime how to dispose of him. In the Tales of the Tobiads, the pattern is something of an inverse. Rather than being prompted by the approach of the hated younger brother, the older Tobiad brothers instead take advantage of his departure for Alexandria to enact their plot in his absence; in both cases, however, spatial distance is key. Second, in the cases of both Hyrcanus and scriptural Joseph, older brothers ultimately choose to carry out violence indirectly rather than by their own hands. In the scriptural Joseph story, the brothers decide to sell him off to slave traders, while in the Tales of the Tobiads, the brothers write letters to associates of the Ptolemaic court in Alexandria that they should dispose of Hyrcanus. 2.6 Retribution, Not Reconciliation In the scriptural Joseph story, the violent rivalry between the brothers is ultimately resolved peacefully. In Genesis, a statement of forgiveness is not explicitly given, but it is implied nonetheless when Joseph allows that what the brothers intended for evil was used by God for good (Gen. 45:8). In Josephus’ retelling, on the other hand, the resolution is made all the more clear and Joseph issues a specific statement of forgiveness to his brothers: “I remember no longer those things in which you seemed to sin against me.”34 Given the expectations which Josephus has by this point in the tale erected through the careful and clear echoes of the sibling rivalry from the scriptural Joseph story, the reader might expect Hyrcanus and his older brothers to put aside their differences, come to terms, and heal the rift as did the sons of Jacob. This expectation is even greater given Josephus’ trend in his own retelling of the scriptural Joseph story to resolve the sibling rivalry with more clarity. For example, in the scene when the brothers encounter an adult Joseph again in Egypt for the first time and bow in reverence before him, the scriptural versions note that Joseph remembered his youthful dream which predicted his ascendance over them (Gen. 42:9). Josephus omits this altogether (AJ 2.98), probably perceiving that it imbues the protagonist with haughty arrogance and implied approval of his family’s predicament, characteristics unbecoming of a moral exemplar.35 Likewise, while Josephus never outright states scriptural Joseph’s intention to help his brothers all along when they come before him in Egypt as suppliants during the famine, he does add justifications at several key points concerning Joseph’s intention to test the brothers. At the outset 34 35

ὧν εἰς ἐμὲ δοκεῖτε ἁμαρτεῖν ἔτι μνημονεύω. (AJ 2.162) The omission is noted by Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities,” 250, but he does not postulate a reason for it. See also Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 161 n. 288, who likewise views the omission as motivated by a desire to preserve the protagonist’s character.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

99

of Joseph’s accusations against the brothers, Josephus states the just reason for his behavior: “he tested them as to their general intent.”36 The Genesis account does not supply a reason this early, leaving the reader to wonder what Joseph has in mind.37 While Joseph himself tells the brothers that he is testing their claim not to be spies (Gen. 42:15–16), that still does not inform the reader as to his own motivations but only his ostensible ones, since the reader already knows that Joseph has recognized them as his long-lost brothers. Josephus evidently did not wish his readers to have any doubts as to Joseph’s motive in his dealings with his brothers and set the record straight right from the start.38 Hence, Josephus takes it upon himself to clarify to the reader even further that Joseph undertook the testing of his brothers out of the fear that, just as they had attempted his own murder, so also had they done to his younger brother Benjamin (AJ 2.99). Even when Joseph throws his brothers into prison, Josephus rationalizes this as a ploy (AJ 2.105), an action without explanation in the scriptural account (Gen. 42:17). All of this clarifies what could otherwise be construed in the Genesis account as a complete lack of interest in saving his own family or even as vengeful toying with them. Correspondingly, when Reuben first addresses Joseph on the brothers’ behalf before they are briefly imprisoned in Egypt, Josephus reports (AJ 2.101) that they had “heard repeatedly” (ἠκούομεν) of Joseph’s “humaneness” (τὴν ὑμετέραν φιλανθρωπίαν), particularly in regard to “foreigners” (ξένοις). These qualities suggested to the brothers that Joseph “had determined to supply the means of safekeeping to all those in need.”39 Not only, therefore, is Josephus’ reader reassured that the protagonist is not simply toying with his brothers out of a desire for revenge, but Joseph is furthermore portrayed in a way that instills confidence as to his innate wish to deliver his family from crisis. The older brothers are not making their request out of sheer blind hope but are depending upon the good character of a reputed benefactor—who is, unbeknownst to them, their long-lost brother. As Franxman has observed, these alterations pertain to “our author’s penchant for continually enlightening us regarding the motives 36

37 38 39

διεπείραζεν, ὡς ἔχοιεν γνώμης περὶ τῶν ὅλων (AJ 2.97). Such is also the rationale when the brothers are stopped on the second return trip from Egypt (AJ 2.125): “he did these things wishing to put the brothers to the test.” (ἐποίει δὲ ταῦτα διάπειραν βουλόμενος τῶν ἀδελφῶν λαβεῖν.) See very similarly Philo, Ios. 232, who says that “all these and the former things were a test.” (Πάντα δ’ ἦσαν ἀπόπειρα καὶ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ πρότερα.) See also Jubilees, which reports in a similar manner as Josephus that “Joseph devised a plan by which he could learn their thoughts.” ( Jub. 42:25 NRSV) Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 161 n. 288. According to Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 97, by explaining Joseph’s motives “the reader’s sympathy is thus again ensured.” πᾶσι τὸ σώζεσθαι τοῖς δεομένοις παρέχειν διεγνωκότας. (AJ 2.101)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

100

Chapter 4

for Joseph’s actions which Genesis leaves unexplained.”40 Josephus displays, therefore, a definite tendency to elucidate and justify Joseph’s somewhat opaque motives for delaying the ultimate resolution and, as related above, resolves the brothers’ violent feud with an explicit statement of forgiveness. The reader of the Tales of the Tobiads might be forgiven, then, for anticipating a similar reunion between Hyrcanus and his siblings. However, in what can only be described as a shocking twist, the rivalry within the Tobiad family instead escalates into further violence through two bouts of open warfare which end entirely unresolved—two of the older brothers are even killed by Hyrcanus in a skirmish.41 Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads is not the only text in dialogue with the scriptural Joseph story to escalate the cycle of violence that ends peacefully in Genesis. Joseph and Aseneth also concludes the story of Joseph with war among the brothers, though Joseph himself is not involved in the fighting at all; the brothers align either against him or on his behalf in a plot hatched by Pharaoh’s son.42 As Wills comments concerning this aspect of Joseph and Aseneth, and much like I am arguing for the Tales of the Tobiads, “a more surprising innovation is the internecine fighting of Joseph’s brothers and their attempt to kill him, after he has been reconciled to them in Egypt. This, above all, would appear as a narrative digression wholly outside the scrolls of history.”43 A key difference from the Tales of the Tobiads is that, ultimately, forgiveness still prevails, as Aseneth persuades the brothers not to kill one another. If Joseph and Aseneth is, indeed, of Hellenistic Jewish origin, then it helps to show how the unexpected wars among the brothers in the Tales of the Tobiads, in fact,

40

41

42 43

Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities,” 250. Another such change, though somewhat more minor, is the omission from Gen. 42:7 (AJ 2.97) that Joseph spoke to the brothers “severely” (‫ ָקׁשו ֺת‬/σκληρὰ). As Niehoff, Figure of Joseph, 99, notes, although Philo also exhibits a similar tendency, he is much less concerned on this point than Josephus. The first bout of warfare between Hyrcanus and his brothers, and the occasion of the death of two of them, is narrated at AJ 12.221–22. The second is narrated at AJ 12.228–29. Rosenberg, “Airaq al-Amir,” 47–48, points out that the first bout, upon which Hyrcanus is driven back from Jerusalem by his brothers to the Transjordan, resembles the story of the judge Jephthah from Judges 11. Like Hyrcanus, Jephthah is deprived of his inheritance on account of his illegitimate parentage and driven out by his brothers into the land of Tov (possibly identical with the later Tobiad territory known as the “land of Tobiah”), where he thereafter settles with a band of followers (Judges 11:1–3). Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 106, also notes the parallel with the Tales of the Tobiads. Wills, The Jewish Novel, 220. Emphasis original.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

101

participate in the mélange of images of scriptural Joseph circulating at the time.44 While the eruption of the Tobiads’ sibling rivalry into war rather than resolution through forgiveness might, at first, seem to be an indication of the story’s departure from its scriptural model, I suggest that this is, rather, a continuation of Josephus’ dialogue with it. The wars among the Tobiad brothers show how Josephus utilizes the scriptural Joseph story as a model beyond simple imitation or copying. While these may be some of the most common ways of using source material, and I have noted many such instances in this chapter and the previous one, they are neither the only ones nor the most imaginative. The warring among the Tobiad brothers exploits more complex modes of literary indebtedness such as subversion to draw the sibling rivalry to a close in a manner which is both in recognizable dialogue with its model but at the same time charting territory that distinguishes it sharply. Therefore, the superficially confusing choice by Josephus to narrate two outbreaks of violence among the Tobiad brothers, traditionally understood simply as doublets due to the use of two parallel sources,45 becomes an intelligible—even innovative—literary choice when viewed as subversive echoes of the sibling rivalry from the scriptural Joseph narrative. In the Genesis account and in Josephus’ retelling of it, there are two separate occasions of resolution between Joseph and his brothers following actual or anticipated violence: once, when Joseph finally reveals himself to them at the height of his power in the Egyptian court long after they sold him off as a slave (Gen. 45:1–15/AJ 2.160–67); and a second time, after Jacob’s death, when the brothers once again fear Joseph will seek violent vengeance (Gen. 50:15–21/AJ 2.197). It is not insignificant, then, that the second outbreak of violence among the Tobiad brothers—and therefore the second failure of the expected resolution of the rivalry—also takes place immediately following the death of the family patriarch, Joseph the Tobiad (AJ 12.228–29). This helps to explain, on literary grounds, what is otherwise a puzzling feature of 44

45

For a recent study contextualizing Joseph and Aseneth as a Jewish composition in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Patricia D. Ahearne-Kroll, Aseneth of Egypt: The Composition of a Jewish Narrative (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2020). However, for the position that it is a Christian text that dates to no earlier than the third or fourth century CE, see Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Joseph Met Aseneth: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). On two-source theories, the varieties of which I will not here distinguish among, see Walter Otto, “Hyrkanos.” RE 9, no. 1 (1914): 529; Momigliano, Quinto contributo, 2:607–609. For a rejection of two-source theories, see Gera, “On the Credibility,” 31–38; Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads,” 57.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

102

Chapter 4

the Tales of the Tobiads.46 Rather than condemning Josephus for thoughtlessly copying his source, with the effect of creating or exacerbating narrative problems, I take this as a case in point that he was, at times, simply more creative in his compositional strategies than he is often credited or engaged in a literary agenda heretofore overlooked by modern commentators. 2.7 Summary There are multiple clear and conspicuous resonances between the sibling rivalry in Josephus’ Tales of the Tobiads and his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story. Most obviously, both stories feature younger sons who are favored by their father above their older brothers on account of their inherent brilliance and demonstrated superiority. Likewise, in both narratives the rivalry takes a dark and violent turn as the older brothers plot against their younger sibling from afar and attempt murder through the hands of others. However, Josephus exploits these obvious parallels to incorporate a shocking ending into the rivalry of the Tobiad brothers. In the conclusion to this chapter, I will reflect on the ways in which this subversive ending can be read through the lens of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. 3

Reward and Punishment in the Tales of the Tobiads and the Scriptural Joseph Story

Although the sibling rivalry is the primary point of contact between the figure of Hyrcanus and the scriptural Joseph story, a second but more subtle one can be detected in the career of Hyrcanus. In the scriptural Joseph story and in Josephus’ retelling of it, there is a clear principle of just rewards and punishments which is called into question in the middle stage of the narrative, when justice appears to fail, only to be ultimately reasserted and resolved. Thus, the older brothers appear at first to get away with their attempted murder, but it will, in fact, ultimately catch up to them when they are justly placed in several precipitous circumstances in Egypt as a result of their wicked dealings with their younger brother long ago. Likewise, scriptural Joseph at first appears to languish unjustly in prison despite deserving to be rewarded for his moral 46

I do not dispute that the doublet is also a signal of Josephus’ use of another source for the same events. However, this source-critical observation does nothing to explain its literary function within the narrative. Although much scholarship has implicitly proceeded on the notion that literary-critical and source-critical explanations are mutually exclusive, this need not be so.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

103

integrity, but eventually receives the renumeration he warrants and ultimately prospers as a result of his virtue and faithful labor. In each case the principle of just rewards and punishments is consummated to bring about a fitting close to the shifting fortunes of the main characters. Given the abundant parallels that I have already noted in this chapter and in the previous one, we are invited, then, to look for similar instances in the Tales of the Tobiads in which this plain and ubiquitous principle is either imitated or subverted. As it happens but as we have come expect, we find the latter circumstance. Hyrcanus’ behavior at several points in the story leads the reader to expect righteous punishment that never comes. For instance, while traveling ostensibly on behalf of his elderly father, Joseph the Tobiad, to congratulate the Ptolemaic king on the birth of a son, but in actuality with the intent to supplant his father and older brothers, we hear that: When he [Hyrcanus] arrived in Alexandria, he gave the letter to Arion [his father’s steward] who asked him how many talents he wished to have but hoped he would ask for ten or a bit more. When he [Hyrcanus] said he wanted one thousand, he [Arion] became angry and reproached him for having decided to live in a depraved manner. And he [Arion] made clear to him that his father accumulated riches through toiling and resisting desires and asked him to be an imitator of the one who fathered him—but he would give him nothing more than ten talents and these for gifts for the king. But becoming infuriated, the youth threw Arion into chains.47 This irreverent behavior is not at all becoming of a figure whose childhood relationships with his father and sibling so closely echo scriptural Joseph. Clearly, on the principle of just desserts Hyrcanus ought to be punished. And, indeed, the reader is given to think that such a fate might be in store when Hyrcanus is summoned to account for his actions: But once the wife of Arion made this [imprisonment of her husband] known to Cleopatra, begging her to reproach the youth—for Arion was held in exceeding honor by her—she [Cleopatra] revealed this to the 47

Ὡς δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰς τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἀπέδωκε τῷ Ἀρίονι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἐπερωτήσαντος αὐτοῦ, πόσα βούλεται τάλαντα λαβεῖν, ἤλπισε δ ̓ αὐτὸν αἰτήσειν δέκα ἢ βραχεῖ τούτων πλέον, εἰπόντος χιλίων χρῄζειν ὀργισθεὶς ἐπέπληττεν αὐτῷ ὡς ἀσώτως ζῆν διεγνωκότι, καὶ πῶς ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ συναγάγοι τὴν οὐσίαν πονῶν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις ἀντέχων ἐδήλου καὶ μιμητὴν αὐτὸν ἠξίου γενέσθαι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος· δώσειν δ ̓ οὐδὲν πλέον ἔλεγε ταλάντων δέκα καὶ ταῦτα εἰς δωρεὰς τῷ βασιλεῖ. παροξυνθεὶς δ ̓ ὁ παῖς εἰς δεσμὰ τὸν Ἀρίονα ἐνέβαλεν. (AJ 12.203–204)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

104

Chapter 4

king. So after Ptolemy sent for Hyrcanus he told him that he was amazed that, having been sent by his father, he [Hyrcanus] had not even been seen by him [Ptolemy] but, moreover, had imprisoned the steward. He [Ptolemy] commanded him [Hyrcanus] to come and indicate the reason [for his behavior] to him. It is said (τὸν δέ φασιν) that he [Hyrcanus] replied to the one sent by the king that he should say that there is a law which prevents him who is celebrating a birthday from consuming sacrificial meals before going into the temple and sacrificing to God. It was in accordance with this reason that he himself had not come bringing gifts to him who had been a benefactor of his father.48 The reader surely expects Hyrcanus to now learn the consequences of such dishonorable treatment of an elder. Furthermore, as if Hyrcanus’ actions thus far have not been sufficiently deplorable, he lies to the monarch about his rationale for not yet making a visit to honor the royal pair, spuriously claiming a religious exemption while he was, in fact, taking the time to prepare a devious plot.49 But the anticipated punishment does not arrive, as Hyrcanus skillfully exercises the charm and wit that so characterized his father before him and goes on to tell the king that:50 The slave he had punished for disobeying what he [Hyrcanus] ordered. For it matters not, he said, whether one was a small master or a great one. 48

49

50

τῆς δὲ τοῦ Ἀρίονος γυναικὸς τοῦτο δηλωσάσης τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ καὶ δεηθείσης, ὅπως ἐπιπλήξῃ τῷ παιδί, σφόδρα γὰρ ἦν ὁ Ἀρίων ἐν τιμῇ παρ ̓ αὐτῇ, φανερὸν τῷ βασιλεῖ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἡ Κλεοπάτρα. ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πέμψας πρὸς τὸν Ὑρκανὸν θαυμάζειν ἔλεγεν, πῶς ἀποσταλεὶς πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς οὔτε ὀφθείη αὐτῷ καὶ προσέτι δήσειεν τὸν οἰκονόμον· ἐλθόντα οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτῷ μηνύειν ἐκέλευσεν. τὸν δέ φασιν ἀποκρίνασθαι τῷ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως λέγειν αὐτῷ, ὅτι νόμος ἐστὶ παρ ̓ αὐτῷ κωλύων τὸν γενεθλιάζοντα γεύσασθαι θυσιῶν, πρὶν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ καὶ θύσῃ τῷ θεῷ· κατὰ δὴ τοῦτον τὸν λογισμὸν οὐδ ̓ αὐτὸς ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν περιμένων τὰ δῶρα κομίσαι τοῦ πατρὸς εὐεργέτῃ γεγενημένῳ. (AJ 12.204–206) The religious exemption is narrated at some authorial distance through the phrase “it is said” (τὸν φασιν), elsewhere unprecedented in the Tales of the Tobiads. Since Josephus nowhere explicitly condemns Hyrcanus’ behavior, I find it unlikely that it is the act of lying about a claimed religious exemption from which he is trying to distance the protagonist. Rather, since on most scholarly readings of the text the purported religious exemption itself has no actual basis in Jewish law (see discussion by Marcus, LCL ad loc.), the phrase reflects Josephus’ embarrassment at the fabricated legal injunction and is his way of trying to subtly downplay it by assuring the reader that he himself is not representing it as an accurate bit of Jewish custom. On such expressions in ancient historiography and biography, see D. A. Pauw, “Impersonal Expressions and Unidentified Spokesmen in Greek and Roman Historiography and Biography,” Acta Classica 23 (1980): 83–95. On the resemblances of father and son here and elsewhere in the Tales of the Tobiads, see Niditch, “Father-Son Folktale Patterns,” 51–52. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

105

“If we do not punish such as these ones you can expect for those we rule to hold us in contempt.” After hearing these things Ptolemy was turned to laughter and was amazed at the proud spirit (μεγαλοφροσύνην) of the youth.51 With these clever words Hyrcanus ultimately woos the king and not only wins reprieve but garners sanction. Arion releases the funds and Hyrcanus gets his way (AJ 12.208). The unsettling failure both of justice and of the protagonist’s moral character disturbs the superimposition of scriptural Joseph upon Hyrcanus which was so effectively achieved in the protagonist’s sibling rivalry with his older brothers. By virtue of the expectations established through the affinities with the scriptural Joseph story, Hyrcanus ought eventually to be justly punished, but instead his success continues unimpeded; no moral lessons are learned and justice never appears. Yet, in one of the triumphs of Josephus’ narrative, the audience is also predisposed to root for Hyrcanus and applaud his success through the positive evaluations which punctuate the narrative (AJ 12.190, 195, 207, 214). He may not have all the moral qualities of his famed archetype, but he does possess all of scriptural Joseph’s intelligence and Josephus presents him as a character that is as laudable as he is unscrupulous. 4

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have shown how the figure of Hyrcanus in the Tales of the Tobiads exhibits clear similarities with scriptural Joseph through the motif of paternal favoritism and sibling rivalry. This much has been noted by others before me. However, I have presented the novel argument that these parallels serve as a foundation for Josephus to subvert the reader’s expectation for how the Tobiads’ familial dysfunction will end. This subversive adaptation of the scriptural Joseph story is mirrored as well in the fact that, unlike the Joseph of Genesis, the expected principle of just reward and punishment is never enacted upon Hyrcanus. The most one can say is that Hyrcanus’ persistently unscrupulous behavior, which furthers only his own ambitions at everyone else’s expense, leaves him so isolated and exposed that by the story’s end Josephus has him commit suicide rather than face Antiochus IV (AJ 12.236). 51

τὸν δὲ δοῦλον κολάσαι παρακούσαντα ὧν προσέταξεν· διαφέρειν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἢ μικρὸν εἶναί τινα δεσπότην ἢ μέγαν· “ἂν οὖν μὴ κολάζωμεν τοὺς τοιούτους, καὶ σὺ προσδόκα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων καταφρονηθήσεσθαι.” ταῦτ ̓ ἀκούσας ὁ Πτολεμαῖος εἰς γέλωτα ἐτράπη καὶ τὴν μεγαλοφροσύνην τοῦ παιδὸς ἐθαύμασεν. (AJ 12.207) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

106

Chapter 4

Josephus’ depiction of Hyrcanus can be analyzed through the lens of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity by posing the question: what might Josephus’ audience learn by reading Hyrcanus in light of exemplary Joseph from Genesis, to whom he owes a significant literary debt? There are, obviously, some basic moral lessons which can be gleaned, such as the value of reconciliation and the consequences of favoritism. However, I find it unlikely that such conspicuous evaluations were the only ones which a skilled Greco-Roman reader familiar with the moralistic bent of historiography would derive. In continuation with the figure of Joseph the Tobiad and my conclusions in the last chapter, I suggest that the function of Hyrcanus in the context of exemplary discourses is much more significant when he is treated as perpetuating his father Joseph’s excess of ambition and carrying its consequences to a logical height on a national rather than merely familial plane. This is indicated by the injection of stasis into Judean political life as the Tobiads’ factionalism spills outside their family unit and irrupts into civic relations. Although the Tobiads’ sibling rivalry ends in violent fracture between Hyrcanus, his older brothers, and even his father, this is no mere family feud but ultimately embroils the Jewish people as well: Upon the death of Joseph [the Tobiad] it happened that the people divided into factionalism on account of his [Joseph’s] children (στασιάσαι διὰ τοὺς παῖδας αὐτοῦ). When the older [brothers] made war against Hyrcanus, who was the youngest of Joseph’s children, the populace was divided. And the majority fought beside the older [brothers] along with the high priest Simon on account of their kinship.52 And again, after the conclusion of the Tales of the Tobiads proper and upon Hyrcanus’ death, the remaining Tobiad children take sides in high priestly factional strife: 52

ἀποθανόντος δὲ Ἰωσήπου τὸν λαὸν συνέβη στασιάσαι. τῶν γὰρ πρεσβυτέρων πόλεμον ἐξενεγκαμένων πρὸς Ὑρκανόν, ὃς ἦν νεώτατος τῶν Ἰωσήπου τέκνων, διέστη τὸ πλῆθος. καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείους τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις συνεμάχουν καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς Σίμων διὰ τὴν συγγένειαν. (AJ 12.228–29) The nature of the kinship between the older brothers and the high priest is unclear, since early in the story the reader is told that Joseph the Tobiad is related to the high priest through his mother (AJ 12.160). Hence, all the sons ought to be related to the high priest through Joseph himself. However, the clear implication of the passage quoted above is that the older brothers are related to the high priest while Hyrcanus, who is the youngest brother and born of a different mother, is not. Perhaps Josephus’ sources for the Tales of the Tobiads were aware of the kinship between the Tobiad family and the high priestly family but were at variance over whether it came through the fraternal or maternal line of the family. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

107

Then the former high priest Jesus formed a faction (στασιάσαντος) against Menelaus, who was appointed after these things, with the populace divided between the two. The Tobiad children (οἱ Τωβίου παῖδες)53 were on the side of Menalaus’ faction but the majority of the people aided Jason.54 By comparison, in BJ the role of the Tobiad family in pre-Hasmonean affairs and as participants in national factionalism was quite obscure, owing to the lack of any accompanying narrative concerning the family’s background (BJ 1.139–41). The inclusion of the Tales of the Tobiads in AJ makes intelligible the family’s crucial role—especially Hyrcanus—in the priestly factionalism that spurs the Maccabean revolt. The Tales of the Tobiads, then, highlights the ways in which the stasis within one prominent family, driven by ambitions that Josephus’ elite Greco-Roman readers no doubt shared in large part, comes to impact the entire Jewish nation. The corrosive effects of unchecked ambition and rivalry upon civic life would be an all too familiar theme to a Greco-Roman reader. As Michael Palmer observes of stasis in Thucydides, who is perhaps the most important ancient writer to deploy the concept in historiographical writing, “stasis is the complete breakdown of a civilized society: friends conspire against and murder their friends; fathers conspire against and kill their sons; the rule of law disappears, most importantly, divine law. Men lose all hope of salvation in stasis, except for resort to evil deeds; words change their meaning, especially those sacred words—oaths—that normally make civilized society stable.”55 This description is just as appropriate for the principal characters in the Tales of the Tobiads, who are stark and unmistakable examples, particularly when read in contrast with scriptural Joseph. 53

54 55

This phrase can also be translated as “children of Tobiah,” implying that their father’s name was “Tobiah,” In the context in the Tales of the Tobiads, however, the father is explicitly named “Joseph,” and his father (i.e., the children’s grandfather) is named “Tobiah.” There may be some confusion in Josephus’ sources over which generation of males in the family held the name “Tobiah,” but more likely is that the phrase is a shorthand for the entire family irrespective of the father’s precise name, and that the whole family had come to be identified by the patronymic of an illustrious ancestor “Tobiah.” The name goes back at least as far as “Tobiah the Ammonite” in the Book of Nehemiah. στασιάσαντος οὖν τοῦ προτέρου ἀρχιερέως Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν μετὰ ταῦτα κατασταθέντα Μενέλαον καὶ τοῦ πλήθους διανεμηθέντος εἰς ἑκατέρους, ἐκ τῆς Μενελάου μοίρας οἱ Τωβίου παῖδες ἐγένοντο, τὸ δὲ πλέον τοῦ λαοῦ τῷ Ἰάσονι συνελάμβανεν. (AJ 12.239–41) Michael Palmer, “Stasis in the War Narrative,” in The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, ed. Ryan K. Balot, Sara Forsdyke, and Edith Foster (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 423–24. See also Jonathan J. Price, Thucydides and Internal War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

108

Chapter 4

As Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers knew well from the example of the civil wars of Rome during the late republic and the aftermath of Julius Caesar’s assassination, and more recently the Year of the Four Emperors that saw the Flavians rise to power (69 CE),56 the breakdown of national consensus and the escalation of elite ambitions into full-blown stasis had happened before—and due care by a nation’s leaders must be exercised if it is not to happen again.57 As Livy laments with all the nostalgia of hindsight and contemporary experience about an incident in the fourth century BCE: Not yet were Romans so hardened as to spill citizen blood, nor did they know of wars other than those against foreigners, and seceding from one’s own people was then deemed to be the height of madness.58 One senses here quite acutely Livy’s overarching conception of history as marked by moral, social, and political decline.59 This interpretive schema for his history of Rome is laid out with the utmost clarity in the preface: My wish is that each reader will pay the closest attention to the following: how men lived, what their moral principles were, under what leaders 56

57

58 59

Steven Ben-Yishai, “‘Brigands’ and ‘Tyrants’ in Josephus’ BELLVM JVDAICVM,” ClQ 71, no. 2 (2021): 902–907, argues that already in BJ, rebel leaders are depicted by Josephus in a way that an aristocratic Roman audience would understand them as analogous to the figures involved in the chaotic Year of the Four Emperors (69 CE), which followed Nero’s suicide and to which chaos Flavian victory brought an end. Ancient historians of Rome periodized their subject matter in several different ways to explain the rise of late republican civil war, but it was common to mark out as particularly significant the defeat of Rome’s final major external enemy (Carthage, ca. 146 BCE) and the subsequent onset of internal strife exemplified by the brothers Gracchi (ca. 130’s BCE), which was interpreted as resulting in large part from the influx of foreign wealth. See Sall., Cat. 10–13; Varro, De vita populi Romani fragment 114; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.11.2–3; Appian, Bel. Civ. 1.1.1; 1.2.4–5; Vell. Pat. 2.3.2–3. For scholarly discussion, see A. W. Lintott, “Imperial Expansion and Moral Decline in the Roman Republic,” Historia 21, no. 4 (1972): 626–38; Barbara Levick, “Morals, Politics, and the Fall of the Roman Republic,” GR 29, no. 1 (1982): 53–62; T. P. Wiseman, “The Two-Headed State: How Romans Explained Civil War,” in Citizens of Discord: Rome and Its Civil Wars, ed. Brian W. Breed, Cynthia Damon, and Andreola Rossi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 25–44. On modern periodizations of Roman history and the influence of ancient authors upon these, see Harriet I. Flower, Roman Republics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010). Nondum erant tam fortes ad sanguinem civilem nec praeter externa noverant bella, ultimaque rabies secessio ab suis habebatur. (Livy, Ab urb cond. 7.40.2, trans. Yardley) See Dexter Hoyos, “Livy on the Civil Wars (and After): Morality Lost?,” in The Historiography of Late Republican Civil War, ed. Carsten Hjort Lange and Frederik Juliaan Vervaet, HRE 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 210–38.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

109

and by what measures at home and abroad our empire was won and extended; then let him follow in his mind how, as discipline broke down bit by bit, morality at first foundered; how it next subsided in ever greater collapse and then began to topple headlong in ruin—until the advent of our own age, in which we can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.60 The motif of a decline from some distant golden age was common in the historiography of the late republic and early principate in the wake of the Roman civil wars.61 There are indications that Josephus adapted it as well, especially in BJ, but also marked out in AJ by a number of signs. In BJ, for instance, the theme of stasis is a principal means of depicting a descent into self-destruction which results in the disastrous war with Rome and the destruction of the temple.62 In AJ, stasis plays a substantially smaller though still important role as one among a number of ways by which Josephus indicates a schema of national decline on a much grander canvas.63 60

61 62

63

Ad illa mihi pro se quisque acriter intendat animum, quae vita, qui mores fuerint, per quos viros quibusque artibus domi militiaeque et partum et auctum imperium sit; labente deinde paulatim disciplina velut desidentis1 primo mores sequatur animo, deinde ut magis magisque lapsi sint, tum ire coeperint praecipites, donec ad haec tempora quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus perventum est. (Livy, Praef. 9, trans. Luce) Stephen Harrison, “Decline and Nostalgia,” in A Companion to Latin Literature, ed. Stephen Harrison (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 287–99; Balmaceda, Virtus Romana, 48–82 on Sallust as historian of decline and fall. On the theme of stasis in BJ, see Gottfried Mader, Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum, Mnemosyne Supplements: Bibliotheca Clasica Batava (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 55–103; Mark Andrew Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations, EJL 127 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 73–82, 86–89; Lada Sementchenko, “La notion de stastis chez Thucydide et Flavius Josèphe,” in Ombres de Thucydide: La réception de l’historien depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au début du xxe siècle, ed. Valérie Fromentin, Sophie Gotteland, and Pascal Payen (Pessac: Ausonius Éditions, 2010), 63–70; Jonathan J. Price, “Josephus’ Reading of Thucydides: A Test Case in the Bellum Iudaicum,” in Thucydides— A Violent Teacher? History and its Representations, ed. Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2011), 79–98; Honora Howell Chapman, “Josephus’s Jewish War and Late Republican Civil War,” in Lange and Vervaet, Historiography of Late Republican Civil War, 292–319. See David R. Edwards, “The Theme of Stasis in Antiquities: Josephus’ Political Philosophy and Periodization of History,” in Peace and War in Josephus / Friede und Krieg bei Josephus, ed. Viktor Kókai-Nagy (Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming), for the distribution of stasis terminology in AJ as a signal of national and civic decline, especially in the final third of the work in Books 13–20. According to Westwood, “Jewish Lawgiver,” 66–69, 221–37, the career of Moses typifies and epitomizes this overarching pattern (i.e., ideal origin of law and constitution degenerating after the lawgiver’s death), which was also utilized by other

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

110

Chapter 4

Tellingly, the theme of stasis punctuates AJ with greater frequency after the Tales of the Tobiads.64 It is employed as an explanation for rifts between the Judean population and their Hasmonean rulers, for internecine divisions and wars among Hasmonean descendants, and even for the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty itself.65 The crowning statement of the infection of stasis among the Hasmoneans comes with Josephus’ conclusion to Book 14: “But they [the Hasmoneans] lost their rule to others on account of factional strife (στάσιν), and so it passed to Herod the son of Antipater—whose family line was common and whose origin was altogether private and who served kings.”66 And while Herod builds a remarkable kingdom for himself, stasis also takes hold and drives his family into self-destructive intrigues which ultimately leave the

64

65 66

authors who discussed ancient lawgivers such as Strabo. The pattern of decline in AJ is, nevertheless, punctuated by moments of renewal and revitalization, such as the return to priestly aristocracy under the administration of Gabinius (AJ 14.91), and Josephus’ interpretation of the prophecies of Balaam and Daniel hold out hope for the pendulum to eventually swing back towards a restored golden age (AJ 4.127–28; 10.210). Other means of structuring AJ as a narrative of national decline include the fact that it is only in the scriptural first half of AJ that the technical term προφήτης is applied to inspired figures. In the non-scriptural second half there are figures with powers of προφητεία but they are never termed “prophet” (προφήτης) as such. This distinction is made explicit in CA 1.37–41, where Josephus differentiates between the works written before and after Artaxerxes such that the Book of Esther demarcates the shift to works of lesser status “due to there not being a precise succession of the prophets.” On this, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25, no. 2 (1974): 239–62; D. E. Aune, “The Use of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in Josephus,” JBL 101, no. 3 (1982): 419–21; Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Louis H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 210–39. Regarding the precise phrase used by Josephus at CA 1.41, which has been the subject of conflicting interpretations (none of which impact my reading, since some kind of rupture is implied in any case), see Steve Mason, “Prophecy in Roman Judaea: Did Josephus Report the Failure of an ‘Exact Succession of the Prophets’ (Against Apion 141)?,” JSJ 50 (2019): 524–56. On stasis in Josephus’ account of the Hasmoneans and Herodians in AJ, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Josephus on Hyrcanus II,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 210–27; Kenneth Atkinson, A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond (New York: T&T Clark, 2016), 166–67; Sharon, Judea under Roman Domination, 212–13. AJ 13.291, 299, 372; 14.22, 58, 77, 100, 120. ἀλλ ̓ οὗτοι μὲν διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους στάσιν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπέβαλον, μετέβη δ ̓ εἰς Ἡρώδην τὸν Ἀντιπάτρου οἰκίας ὄντα δημοτικῆς καὶ γένους ἰδιωτικοῦ καὶ ὑπακούοντος τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν (AJ 14.491). On the rifts within Herod’s family, see Jan Willem van Henten, “Herod the Great in Josephus,” in Chapman and Rodgers, Companion to Josephus, 240–42.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ He Loved Him Still More as If He Were His Only Genuine Son ”

111

Herodian house all but decimated: “Out of these things [Herod’s successful intrigues], to his detriment as well those among his household were divided into factions (ἐστασιάσθη).”67 One of the few survivors of this murderous stasis within Herod’s family is his grandson, Agrippa I, to whom I now turn in the following two chapters. 67

AJ 15.22: ἐξ ὧν αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐστασιάσθη. Josephus similarly comments at AJ 16.66 that: “So the factional strife (στάσιν) in [Herod’s] house proceeded continually and worse.” (Προύβαινε δ ̓ ἀεὶ τὰ κατὰ τὴν στάσιν τῆς οἰκίας καὶ χαλεπωτέραν.) See also AJ 14.340; 15.220.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 5

“You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains”: Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph 1

Introduction

The previous two chapters have shown how Josephus utilized the story of scriptural Joseph as a model for the composition of the Tales of the Tobiads. I will now turn to a second account in AJ where Josephus adapts scriptural court-tales, that of the last Jewish king, Agrippa I, which spans AJ 18.27–19.353.1 Documenting Josephus’ procedure of subversive adaptation in his account of Agrippa I will occupy two chapters. This chapter will engage the affinities with scriptural Joseph in the account of Agrippa I while the following chapter will turn to the reuse of the figure of Esther. In both cases, we will find that Josephus continues the basic practices which I set out in Chapters 3 and 4, and I will further show that Josephus’ account of Agrippa I at the Roman court can be read in light of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as a meditation on vicissitudes of fortune, human response to life’s reversals, and the pitfalls of excessive ambition. Agrippa is a figure equally of highs and lows, and Josephus’ depiction of him provokes the reader to reflect on the ethical and pragmatic implications of this pattern. Before discussing these aspects of the account, however, I will first summarize its contents and then review the pertinent scholarship. 1.1 Summary of Josephus’ Account of Agrippa I Josephus’ narrative of Agrippa I spans AJ 18–19, though with most of Book 19 digressing to relate the elaborate Roman conspiracy against the emperor Gaius. Josephus introduces his account of Agrippa I with a moralizing statement explaining his rationale for dwelling on one of the last Judean kings for great length (AJ 18.127–29), which is followed by a lengthy genealogy of the offspring

1 While there is also a much shorter account of Agrippa I in BJ, and I will at times reference it by way of comparison, when I refer to “Josephus’s account of Agrippa I,” I mean the AJ version unless otherwise stated.

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_006

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

113

of Herod the Great (AJ 18.130–42). The story proper begins with Agrippa in Rome enjoying the highest reaches of society there until he is halted by overspending (AJ 18.143–46), whence he flees to Judea to seek financial help (AJ 18.147–54). When those sources all run dry he returns to Rome, and though he is initially held back in his efforts to re-enter high society by his outstanding debts, he quickly overcomes this obstacle and begins keeping company with the future emperor Gaius (AJ 18.155–67). However, his progress is soon reversed when his freedman makes an accusation of treason against him to the emperor Tiberius, landing him in prison (AJ 18.168–94). While imprisoned, Agrippa receives a prophecy concerning his imminent release and his future death and is cared for by the emperor’s sister-in-law, Antonia, before being released and raised to kingship after Tiberius dies and leaves Gaius as his successor (AJ 18.195–237). After arriving back in Judea to put affairs in his territories in order, Agrippa’s newfound success inspires the envy of his uncle, Antipas, leading again to accusations against him which are this time roundly dismissed by Gaius (AJ 18.238–56). Around the same time, however, riots and civil unrest in Alexandria between its Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants lead both groups to send embassies to Rome, with Gaius retaliating against the Jews by seeking to have his image erected in the Jerusalem temple. However, Gaius’ emissary in Judea, the legate Petronius, foresees the looming disaster that Gaius’ orders would produce and attempts to forestall or derail the emperor’s plot (AJ 18.257–88). Back in Rome, Agrippa throws an elaborate banquet at which he petitions Gaius to abort his plan. Although Gaius agrees and writes as such to Petronius, he goes back on his word once he realizes that his emissary is refusing to carry out the original orders. Further crisis is only avoided by the emperor’s timely assassination (AJ 18.289–309). After ending Book 18 with a few digressions, Josephus then spends the greater part of Book 19 recounting the senatorial conspiracy against Gaius and the accession of Claudius (AJ 19.1–235), returning only after that to Agrippa’s role in Claudius’ accession (AJ 19.236–72), a few assorted stories relating to his kingship under Claudius (AJ 19.273–342), and ending with his death just as prophesied (AJ 19.343–52). 1.2 Previous Scholarship In contrast to the Tales of the Tobiads, which I analyzed in the prior two chapters, Josephus’ account of Agrippa I has been the focus of far less exclusive scholarly attention. When Agrippa I has entered the discussion it has most often been in the context of his involvement in the Jewish crisis under Gaius

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

114

Chapter 5

involving the riots in Alexandria, the subsequent embassies to Rome, and the emperor’s attempt to erect his image in the Jerusalem temple;2 closely related to these is the narrower issue of Jewish rights in Roman cities, which has also been extensively studied.3 However, the figure of Agrippa I has not been of foremost concern to these interests and Philo provides first-hand testimony alternative to Josephus’ second-hand narrative.4 The figure of Agrippa I also features in studies of the Herodians, though the focus is on historical rather than on literary analysis of Josephus’ account.5 Roman historians have extensively investigated AJ 19 as it contains the single most detailed extant account of the conspiracy to assassinate Gaius and the accession of Claudius, in which events Agrippa was intimately involved according to Josephus.6 Unfortunately, little of AJ 19 concerns Agrippa himself; it is, in fact, largely a digression from the larger account of Agrippa I that is the core of AJ 18–19.7 2 The scholarship on these topics is voluminous, but for full-length studies see E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1961); Sandra Gambetti, The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction, JSJSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). For shorter treatments see Per Bilde, “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in The Temple of Jerusalem,” ST 32 (1978): 67–93; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 235–55; James S. McLaren, Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC–AD 70, JSNTSup 63 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 114–26; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 48–78; Allen Kerkeslager, “Agrippa I and the Judeans of Alexandria in the Wake of the Violence in 38 C.E.,” REJ 168, nos. 1–2 (2009): 1–49. 3 For instance, Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985); Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World, 295–356. 4 On the preference for Philo over Josephus, see Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 32. For a rejection of this preference, see Schwartz, “On Drama and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus.” For a demurral to prefer one over the other, see McLaren, Power and Politics, 123. 5 Stewart Perowne, The Later Herods: The Political Background of the New Testament (New York: Abingdon Press, 1958), 58–83; A. H. M. Jones, The Herods of Judaea, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 184–216; Nikos Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, JSPSup 30 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 271–303. 6 See, for instance, Thomas E. Goud, “The Sources of Josephus Antiquities 19,” Historia 45, no. 4 (1996): 472–82; T. P. Wiseman, The Death of Caligula, 2nd ed. (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013). Virtually any history of the emperor Gaius must inevitably contend with the account of Josephus for lack of alternative testimony of comparable detail, length, and contemporaneity. See, for example, a recent biography of Gaius in Geoff W. Adams, The Roman Emperor Gaius ‘Caligula’ and his Hellenistic Aspirations (Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press, 2007). 7 By referring to the section detailing the conspiracy against Gaius as a digression I do not intend to sideline it or to suggest that Josephus failed to exercise adequate planning, but only to express that it does not feature the figure of Agrippa I as the protagonist and primary subject as does the material surrounding it in the larger account of which it forms a part.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

115

There are, though, a handful of shorter studies that have focused solely on Agrippa I and that engage deeply with Josephus’ accounts. Klaus-Stefan Krieger analyzes Josephus’ account of Agrippa I in AJ in comparison to BJ while also attending to the way that Josephus depicts the king in AJ. He shows that Agrippa I is portrayed as a contrast to his grandfather Herod the Great, as pious and Law-observant, and as an advocate for Jewish religious and civil rights.8 Alla Kushnir-Stein, on the other hand, points out several passages in Josephus’ account of Agrippa I in AJ which appear to be historically implausible or outright fictional, noting the implications for using the account to reconstruct the historical figure and events.9 However, the first and only complete study of Agrippa I, relying primarily (but not exclusively) upon critical study of Josephus’ accounts in AJ and BJ, is that of Daniel Schwartz.10 Historical reconstruction of the life of Agrippa I and the events in which he was involved is Schwartz’s principal goal. As such, close attention is paid to discrepancies between Josephus’ and Philo’s accounts and source-critical analysis is given substantial consideration. In all, and excluding the Roman sources which underly large portions of Book 19 and its account of the conspiracy against Gaius, Schwartz detects around half a dozen sources for Josephus’ AJ account of Agrippa I and provides detailed arguments for their character and usage based on vocabulary, variations in nomenclature and On those grounds, I think it fair to call it a digression, though without implying any corresponding negative judgement as to its value. Taken on its own, the account of the senatorial conspiracy serves as a critique of monarchical governance and of tyrants (e.g., the speech of Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus in AJ 19. 167–84), a consistent theme throughout AJ. See Steve Mason, “The Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ Antiquities for his Roman Audience,” in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007, ed. Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 129–53; David C. Flatto, The Crown and the Courts: Separation of Powers in the Early Jewish Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2020), 82–106. For Josephus, if monarchical rule is distasteful, democratic and republican forms are to be avoided as well. Instead, a priestly aristocracy is the ideal form of government (e.g., AJ 4.184–87, 223–24; CA 2.185–86). See James S. McLaren, “Josephus on the Priesthood,” 270–76; Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew, 263–70. 8 Klaus-Stefan Krieger, “Die Darstellung König Agrippas I. in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002, ed. Jürgen U. Kalms and Folker Siegert, Arbeiten aus dem Institutum Judaicum Delizschianum (Münster: Lit, 2003), 94–118. Some of the negative claims about Herod are even contradicted in Josephus’ own account of the king in AJ. Therefore, the explicit comparison of these two figures is definitively a Josephan theme and not a simple reproduction of sources. 9 Alla Kushnir-Stein, “Agrippa I in Josephus,” SCI 22 (2003): 153–61. 10 Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea, TSAJ 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

116

Chapter 5

titulature, and the presence of doublets and contradictions.11 These include: Vita Agrippa, a hypothesized biography of Agrippa I; Antipas, a hypothesized source originating from Agrippa’s elder kinsman, Herod Antipas, and largely hostile to Agrippa; Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium and its promised sequel;12 and Josephus’ own earlier BJ account. Given Schwartz’s objectives, Josephus’ account of Agrippa I does not receive sustained literary analysis. However, as a factor in evaluating the historical worth of Josephus’ account he notes a number of scriptural allusions to the stories of Joseph and Esther.13 While I do not agree with all of his suggestions, his analysis has left a foundation to follow as well as a lacuna which this chapter and the following one aim to fill. I will echo some of Schwartz’s insights as to Josephus’ literary agenda in his account of Agrippa I, but inasmuch as those insights were framed only as brief statements, I will push much further and deeper into Josephus’ literary goals. More specifically, given the precise bounds and contours of this study, I will focus on echoes of the Joseph and Esther stories as well as the compositional practices which he employed to accomplish them. Whether or not the allusions to the Joseph and Esther stories which I discuss in these two chapters were already present in those non-extant sources hypothesized by Schwartz, Josephus’ account cannot be reduced to those sources and it must be admitted that his precise use of them is frequently both unknown and unknowable; in the absence of that knowledge I will assume, as I have done throughout, that the final form of the narrative is Josephus’ own creation and that he exercised full authorial and creative control. As with the last two chapters, I am only concerned with those sections of Josephus’ account which exhibit influence from the Joseph and Esther narratives. Therefore, although Josephus’ account of Agrippa I extends from beginning to end across most of AJ 18 (approximately §126/7–309) and all of Book 19, it is almost exclusively material from the former which is relevant to this study; I do not discuss Book 19 at all aside from a short editorial comment and the account of Agrippa’s death, and I pass over those parts of the Agrippa material from Book 18 which do not bear upon my research question of Josephus’ adaptation of the Joseph and Esther stories. Given that Josephus’ account of Agrippa I in AJ is, in large part, a story about 11

12

13

Source-critical analysis can be found in Schwartz, Agrippa I, 1–37, with a chart at 38 and arguments from vocabulary in Appendix 1. Minor refinements are introduced by Alla Kushnir-Stein, “Agrippa I in Josephus.” For a critique of Schwartz, see Nikos Kokkinos, “Review of Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea,” JRS 82 (1992): 281–82. Concerning this sequel, which is not extant, Philo ends Legat. 373 by claiming: “In a most summary fashion, then, the cause of Gaius’ hatred for the whole of the Jewish nation is told. So also it is necessary to relate the palinode.” (Εἴρηται μὲν οὖν κεφαλαιωδέστερον ἡ αἰτία τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας Γαΐου· λεκτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν παλινῳδίαν.) Schwartz, Agrippa I, 34–35. Repeated also in idem, Reading the First Century, 16–18. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

117

a young Jewish man who attains remarkable prominence in the foreign court but who also experiences drastic reversals of fortune, it is no surprise that Josephus’ account of Agrippa I reverberates strongly with echoes of the story of scriptural Joseph. 2

Josephan Editorial Comments

Before analyzing specific scenes which portray Agrippa in the mold of the figure of scriptural Joseph, it is important to highlight three editorial statements by Josephus which provide second-order reflection for the reader on the lessons learned from the life of Agrippa (AJ 18.127–29, 18.142, and 19.294–96). These comments show Josephus elaborating upon the significance of the figure of Agrippa and his many reversals of fortune and interpreting him for the reader in a manner highly reminiscent of the figure of Joseph.14 2.1 First Editorial Comment (AJ 18.127–29) The first editorial comment occurs at the very beginning of Josephus’ account of Agrippa I and just before he relates the genealogical data of the Herodian family (AJ 18.130–41). The reader is told that: I wish, then, to speak at greater length of what became of Herod and his descendants, both because their story is pertinent to the history [i.e., Antiquities] as well as because it contains an exhibition of the divinity (τοῦ θείου)—how neither greatness nor any other human strength is of benefit in meeting with success apart from piety towards the divine (δίχα τῶν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβειῶν). For indeed, by the close of one hundred years it came about that all but a few of Herod’s descendants died who were previously numerous. So it might lead in some way to the moral education of human nature (σωφρονισμῷ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου) to learn of the ill fate (τὴν δυστυχίαν) of his offspring and also to narrate the figure of Agrippa, which is most worth marveling over (θαύματος ἀξιώτατον)—who from an altogether common station (πάνυ ἰδιώτου) and against every expectation of those who knew him rose up to such a position of power (ηὐξήθη δυνάμεως).15 14 15

Klaus-Stefan Krieger, “Darstellung König Agrippas I,” 103, also notes the first two of the three editorial comments which I discuss here as indicators of Josephus’ use of the figure of Agrippa I as a moralistic lesson. βούλομαι οὖν εἰπεῖν ἐπὶ μακρότερον περί τε Ἡρώδου καὶ γένους αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐγένετο, ἅμα μὲν καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀνήκειν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τὸν περὶ αὐτῶν λόγον, ἅμα δὲ καὶ παράστασιν ἔχειν τοῦ θείου, ὡς οὐδὲν ὠφελεῖ πλῆθος οὐδ ̓ ἄλλη τις ἀλκὴ τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπιτετευγμένων δίχα τῶν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

118

Chapter 5

While in many ways this comment could be applied to all the protagonists of all the scriptural court-tales, its perspective is particularly prominent in the Joseph story and in Josephus’ retelling of it.16 The figures of Esther and Daniel do attain remarkable prominence at foreign courts as well, but their prior positions are not at all stressed as being low. Esther, for instance, is given a suitably honorable pedigree from the start as queen, especially in Josephus’ retelling in AJ 11.17 Likewise, Daniel is already specially groomed for court service from the outset and Josephus adds that he is already known to and admired by the king before the main events are even underway.18 In short, then, neither of these two figures is emphatically of a low status even if they do ultimately rise higher; their stories are more of intrigues and threats to existing status from anti-Jewish elements at court, not tales of “rags to riches.” Joseph, on the other hand, is first a slave and then a prisoner. He alone of the three is especially remembered in the way that Josephus here summarizes Agrippa’s career. I will go on to show in the next chapter how Josephus also plays on parallels with the Esther story, but it is in light of the Joseph narrative that this editorial comment should be read. 2.2 Second Editorial Comment (AJ 18.142) The second editorial comment (AJ 18.142) occurs right after the Herodian genealogy mentioned above and just before the narrative proper begins at §143ff. Josephus’ commentary here shows an emphasis on the changing fortunes of Agrippa, which ultimately terminate in success: “I now recount the rest: what

16

17 18

εὐσεβειῶν, εἴ γε ἐντὸς ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν ἐξόδου συνέβη πλὴν ὀλίγων, πολλοὶ δ ̓ ἦσαν, διαφθαρῆναι τοὺς Ἡρώδου ἀπογόνους· φέροι δ ̓ ἄν τι κἀπὶ σωφρονισμῷ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους τὸ τὴν δυστυχίαν αὐτῶν μαθεῖν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἀγρίππαν διηγήσασθαι θαύματος ἀξιώτατον γεγενημένον, ὃς ἐκ πάνυ ἰδιώτου καὶ παρὰ πᾶσαν δόξαν τῶν εἰδότων αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοσόνδε ηὐξήθη δυνάμεως. (AJ 18.127–29) This comment also forms something of an inclusio with Josephus’ summary of Agrippa’s life and accomplishments when narrating his death (AJ 19.328ff.). There, as Krieger, “Darstellung König Agrippas I,” 104–105, observes, Josephus explicitly compares Agrippa with his infamous grandfather, Herod the Great, assessing the former positively to be quite unlike the latter. In this way, Agrippa is a figure of contrasts within the larger plan of AJ. For example, Josephus goes beyond the Greek and Hebrew scriptural accounts in stating near the beginning of the story (AJ 2.202) that the Persian king “lawfully made her his wife and held a wedding for her” (νομίμως αὐτὴν ἄγεται γυναῖκα καὶ γάμους αὐτῇ ποιεῖται). AJ 10.189: “The king held them [the three Jewish youths] in honor and continued to show them fondness on account of the preeminent progress they made in the areas of natural gifts, zeal for learning to read, and wisdom.” (τούτους ὁ βασιλεὺς δι᾿ ὑπερβολὴν εὐφυΐας καὶ σπουδῆς τῆς περὶ τὴν παίδευσιν τῶν γραμμάτων καὶ σοφίας ἐν προκοπῇ γενομένους εἶχεν ἐν τιμῇ καὶ στέργων διετέλει.)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

119

fates (τύχαι) came upon Agrippa; how he made an escape from them as well as progressed to both the greatest honor (ἀξιώματός) and power (δυνάμεως).”19 The theme of escaping one disaster after another only to reach an exalted status echoes the figure of Joseph, as does also Agrippa’s ἀξίωμα, which is reminiscent of Josephus’ application of the same term to Joseph in several places. First, at AJ 2.97 Joseph’s astounding ἀξίωμα is explained as the reason for his brothers’ inability to recognize him when they come before him in Egypt, even though he recognizes them.20 Then, again at the very end of the account of Joseph, at AJ 2.193, the reader is told of the ἀξίωμα he receives from the Egyptians upon returning the arable land which they had ceded to the royal house during the famine in exchange for the food stored up.21 Notably, the term ἀξίωμα is absent in the Old Greek translation of Genesis, indicating that it is likely Josephus’ own addition. Regardless of the precise terminology, however, certainly in broad terms Josephus’ description of Agrippa in the passage quoted above fits the figure of Joseph closely. 2.3 Third Editorial Comment (AJ 19.294–96) Similar sentiments are expressed in the third editorial comment at AJ 19.294– 96, much later in the narrative at Claudius’ confirmation of Agrippa upon his imperial accession. This is the point which fully resolves the tensions surrounding the protagonist’s fluctuations in status that drive so much of the plot: So the gold chain, which had been given to him by Gaius to serve as a reminder of his dismal fate [of unjust imprisonment under Tiberius] and a testimony of the reversal (μεταβολῆς) for better things, and which was equal in weight to the iron one with which the sovereign hands had been bound, he [Agrippa I] hung up within the temple precincts over the treasury that it might be an example, both that greatness is able to fall as well as that God raises what has fallen (τὸν θεὸν ἐγείρειν τὰ πεπτωκότα). For the dedication of the chain manifested this to all: that King Agrippa, on little account put into chains, was stripped of his former honor (ἀξίωμα) and, after a short time shackled, went out raised as king more splendid 19 20 21

διέξειμι λοιπόν, ὁπόσαι Ἀγρίππᾳ τύχαι συνέλθοιεν, ὥς τε αὐτῶν διάδρασιν ποιησάμενος ἐπὶ μέγιστον ἀξιώματός τε ἅμα προκόψειεν καὶ δυνάμεως. (AJ 18.142) AJ 2.97: “Nor was it possible to enter their minds [any thought that he was their long-lost brother] on account of the greatness of his elevated position.” (τῷ δὲ μεγέθει τοῦ ἀξιώματος οὐδ’ εἰς ἐπίνοιαν ἐλθεῖν αὐτοῖς δυνάμενος διεπείραζεν.) AJ 2.193: “By these means Joseph increased much more both the Egyptians’ honor to himself and their goodwill towards the king.” (καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ τό τε ἀξίωμα παρὰ τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις αὐτοῦ μεῖζον Ἰώσηπος ἀπεργάζεται καὶ πλείω γε τὴν εὔνοιαν τῷ βασιλεῖ παρ’ αὐτῶν.)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

120

Chapter 5

than before. On account of this, then, we ought to reflect on the fact that it is a property of human nature both that for all people greatness slides away and also that it is possible for what has fallen to again attain conspicuous grandeur.22 The particular terminology for “reversal” (μεταβολή) used for Agrippa is twice applied to scriptural Joseph in Josephus’ retelling in relation to the trials he experiences (AJ 2.40, 42.), while the theme of falling and rising is also emphasized here several times. Further, Agrippa’s gold chain (χρυσῆν ἅλυσιν) is highly reminiscent of the gold collar (κλοιὸν χρυσοῦν) given to Joseph by Pharaoh upon his release from prison (OG Genesis 41:42). The term κλοιὸν is also used for collars worn by prisoners and, therefore, seems chosen specifically to represent an inversion of Joseph’s imprisoned state, just like Agrippa’s chain (ἅλυσις). Thus, it seems deliberately placed so as to portray Agrippa here as a Joseph-like figure, particularly through a similar interpretation and framing of the shared experience of unjust imprisonment and ultimate vindication.23 Finally, Josephus rounds out the passage quoted above with a concluding comment of his own in which he enters the narrative as author to instruct the reader in its proper interpretation—that is, “to reflect on the fact that it is a property of human nature both that for all people greatness slides away and also that it is possible for what has fallen to again attain conspicuous grandeur.” Significantly, through composing his own editorial comments such as this at key points of transition, Josephus himself indicates that the portrayal and interpretation of Agrippa I as a Joseph-like figure was not merely reproduced passively from his sources.24 As I will return to at the conclusion of this 22

23

24

διὸ καὶ ναζιραίων ξυρᾶσθαι διέταξε μάλα συχνούς, τὴν δὲ χρυσῆν ἅλυσιν τὴν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ ̈ ἰσόσταθμον τῇ σιδηρᾷ, ᾗ τὰς ἡγεμονίδας χεῖρας ἐδέθη, τῆς στυγνῆς εἶναι τύχης ὑπόμνημα Γαίου καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττω μαρτυρίαν μεταβολῆς τῶν ἱερῶν ἐντὸς ἀνεκρέμασεν περιβόλων ὑπὲρ τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον, ἵν ̓ ᾖ δεῖγμα καὶ τοῦ τὰ μεγάλα δύνασθαί ποτε πεσεῖν καὶ τοῦ τὸν θεὸν ἐγείρειν τὰ πεπτωκότα· πᾶσι γὰρ τοῦτ ̓ ἐνεφάνιζεν ἡ τῆς ἁλύσεως ἀνάθεσις, ὅτι βασιλεὺς Ἀγρίππας ἀπὸ μικρᾶς αἰτίας εἰς δεσμώτην ἀπέδυ τὸ πρὶν ἀξίωμα καὶ μετ ̓ ὀλίγον τῆς πέδης ἐκβὰς εἰς βασιλέα τοῦ πάλαι λαμπρότερον ἠγέρθη. διὰ τοῦτ ̓ οὖν ἐννοεῖσθαι, ὅτι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως καὶ πᾶσιν ὀλισθάνειν τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ κλιθέντα δύναται περιφανὲς λαβεῖν πάλιν ὕψος. (AJ 19.294–96) It is true that in Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural Joseph story in AJ 2 the gold collar is conspicuously absent. However, the large temporal gap of approximately ten years between composing Book 2 and Books 18/19 (assuming a date in the early 80’s for the former and early 90’s for the latter) discourages the assumption that Josephus would have even remembered this, while his deep familiarity with the scriptural account explains its presence here. While Krieger, “Darstellung König Agrippas I,” 101, also argues that AJ 19.294–96 is redactional, he does not note the parallels to the Joseph story.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

121

chapter when I reflect on how the account of Agrippa can be read in the context of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, these comments also indicate that Josephus intentionally presented Agrippa to the reader in such a way as to foster reflection on moral and pragmatic decision-making. 3

Agrippa I and Scriptural Joseph as Falsely Accused and Unjustly Imprisoned

Beyond these brief editorial comments, the full-scale scenes in which Agrippa most clearly and explicitly echoes the figure of Joseph involve false accusation against him and his resulting unjust imprisonment, during which time divine portents are interpreted as presaging his release and ultimate vindication.25 3.1 False Accusation of Agrippa (AJ 18.168–91) In AJ 18.168, Josephus reports that Agrippa once was out riding with Gaius when the former’s freedman, Eutychus, overheard him express the wish in conversation that “Tiberius might soon step aside and yield his rule to Gaius who was more worthy in every way.”26 When Eutychus was later imprisoned by Agrippa for theft, he retaliated by claiming to have information pertinent to the emperor’s safety (AJ 18.170). Though Tiberius allowed the freedman to linger in prison for some time, at Agrippa’s urging he investigated the charges more closely. Eutychus then made the further false charge that he had heard Agrippa offer the idea that, once Gaius was installed as ruler, Tiberius’ grandson (Gemellus) could easily be disposed of so as to present no obstacle (AJ 18.187). Upon hearing this, Tiberius promptly had Agrippa imprisoned as well (AJ 18.188–91). What is so striking about this sequence in relation to the story of Joseph is a false accusation as grounds for imprisonment. 3.1.1 False Accusation of Joseph (Gen. 39:6–20/AJ 2.41–59) Perhaps the most memorable aspect of Joseph’s imprisonment, and one heavily emphasized by Josephus, is that it, too, is based on a false accusation. While I discussed this passage in the context of Joseph the Tobiad’s sexual dalliances in Chapter 3, it is worth briefly reviewing the most salient points 25 26

Several of the points of contact which follow were first noted (though not developed further) by Schwartz, Agrippa I, 34–35. ᾗ άχος Τιβέριον ὑπεκστάντα τῆς ἀρχῆς Γαΐῳ παραχωρεῖν ἀξιωτέρῳ τὰ πάντα ὄντι. (AJ 18.168) Note that in the parallel passage from the much shorter BJ account, the setting of the conversation is not riding but dining (BJ 2.179).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

122

Chapter 5

again here. In his own retelling of the Joseph story, Josephus consistently heightens the emphasis on the false accusation by creating an elaborate plot for Potiphar’s wife (AJ 2.41–59).27 He fabricates an elaborate setting for the fateful encounter between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Where the scriptural account says only that the proposition occurred “on a certain day … [when] there was no one among the household workers present in the house,”28 Josephus, on the other hand, describes a careful plot to obtain the opportunity (AJ 2.45). According to him, she timed her attempt with the arrival of a “civic festival” (Δημοτελοῦς … ἑορτῆς), which she managed to forego on the basis of “alleging that she was sick” (σκήπτεται νόσον) so that she might have an opportunity with Joseph once again through “seeking time alone and rest” (θηρωμένη μόνωσιν καὶ σχολὴν).29 The addition of a civic festival as the opportune moment counters any thought that Joseph “must have been prone to hanging out in the women’s quarters,” and thus in any way deserved his fate.30 Josephus’ liberal sprinkling of erotic terminology of eros,31 passion,32 and pleasure33 draws the reader emotionally into this scene which is so important to his presentation of Joseph as a moral exemplar, while the addition of long speeches by both Joseph (AJ 2.42–43) and the woman (AJ 2.46–49) emphasize the former’s determined rejection of temptation and reasoned perseverance in virtue. These and other alterations that Josephus makes to the scriptural account in his retelling of the Joseph story make it all the more galling when Potiphar’s wife takes recourse to falsely accusing the innocent Joseph, who did nothing but resist her advances. Josephus is, then, quite keen to emphasize the falsity of the accusation and to imbue Joseph with the aura of a victim and a martyr. As we will see, the same cannot quite be said of Agrippa. 27 28 29

30 31 32 33

For discussion of this scene in the context of similar ones in other ancient novelistic literature, see Chapter 3. MT Gen. 39:11: ‫ ;וַ יְ ִהי ְּכ ַהֹּיום ַהּזֶ ה … וְ ֵאין ִאיׁש ֵמ ַאנְ ֵׁשי ַה ַּביִת ָׁשם ַּב ָּביִ ת‬OG Gen. 39:11: ἐγένετο δὲ τοιαύτη τις ἡμέρα … καὶ οὐθεὶς ἦν τῶν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἔσω. AJ 2.45. As Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 43, points out, Josephus is the first attestation of the tradition that the fateful encounter took place on a religious holiday, but thereafter this detail lives on in many other Jewish traditions including Rabbinic texts. Thus, it is not unlikely that the basic scene here reflects broader Second Temple Jewish tradition and exegesis, but that Josephus has elaborated it with added detail and vivid narration of his own. See also Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres I à III, 91 n. 7. Whitmarsh, “Josephus, Joseph, and the Greek Novel,” 78–95. This tradition is traced in detail by Kugel, In Potiphar’s House, 28–65. AJ 2.41: ἐρωτικῶς; AJ 2.44: ἔρωτα; AJ 2.48: ἔρωτι. AJ 2.42: ἐπιθυμίαν; AJ 2.43: AJ 2.46: πάθους; τὴν τοῦ πάθους ὑπερβολήν; AJ 2.51: ἐπιθυμίας; AJ 2.53: πάθος. ἡδονῇ. (AJ 2.51)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

123

3.1.2 Agrippa’s Offense in BJ vs. AJ The falsity of the accusation against Agrippa is a key element in the AJ version of the story but is in stark contrast to the parallel passage in BJ. The latter narrates no more than the report by one of Agrippa’s servants to the emperor of an injudicious remark he had made, in which Tiberius’ death and Gaius’ accession are prayerfully expected (BJ 2.179–80). In this exceptionally brief parallel account in BJ there is no hint that the accusation is false. The most that the reader might infer is that the remark is incredibly ill-conceived and the resulting imprisonment an unsurprising reaction by the emperor. It is, therefore, significant that Josephus chose in AJ to add the extended scenario of false accusation and unjust imprisonment. This is more than simply a case of Josephus acquiring an additional source in the interim and using the added information for his longer account in AJ.34 Josephus’ literary agenda must be factored into a comparison of the very different accounts of Agrippa in AJ and BJ. 3.1.3 Summary At the end of this chapter, I will reflect on the significance of the affinity between the false accusations of Agrippa and Joseph within the context of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. For now, however, it will suffice to point out that the shared motif of false accusation is not merely that of the simple imitation of a scriptural model. Rather, Josephus’ depiction exhibits a playfulness with the character of Agrippa. Whereas Joseph is entirely innocent of the charges against him and did nothing whatsoever to bring his fate upon him, the same cannot be said for Agrippa. Though he is, like Joseph, falsely accused, Josephus does not attempt to lessen the impropriety of Agrippa’s actual remark and he in no way downplays it. Rather, he leaves the reader with a complicated character. Agrippa is certainly falsely accused as the reader well knows; the lie of the freedman is explicit and manifest in the AJ narrative. Yet, Agrippa did in fact come dangerously close to espousing precisely the sentiments which Eutychus attributed to him—so close, in fact, as to border on treason. Unfortunate though it may be, the reader is left to shrug their shoulders and rhetorically ask: what sovereign would not react similarly? Unlike Joseph, then, Agrippa’s misfortune seems to be at least a bit the result of his 34

For example, Schwartz, Agrippa I, 10–11, holds that for the BJ account of Agrippa, Josephus did not yet possess the hypothesized source Vita Agrippa and, because much of his information originated from a different hypothesized source hostile to Agrippa (Antipas), the BJ account is often fairly negative in its perspective on Agrippa. Vita Agrippa is, therefore, a new source acquired in the interim for AJ. While I do not necessarily dispute this, such an explanation fails to engage the literary goals which directed Josephus’ use of sources.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

124

Chapter 5

own poor judgement. Therefore, he does not quite cast the stoic silhouette of the patiently enduring Joseph. Thus, Josephus characterizes Agrippa here— and throughout AJ, as we shall see—as a complex figure who, through his own shortcomings, lands himself in tight spots as often as he manages to squeeze out of them and regain prosperity. Agrippa’s career is more complicated and ambiguous, then, than Joseph’s. The basic affinity between Agrippa and Joseph remains, but it functions also to establish a foundation for the extra layer of complexity and ambiguity. 3.2 Agrippa’s Unjust Imprisonment and Divine Portents (AJ 18.195–204) While imprisoned by Tiberius on charges of treason, Agrippa encounters a German fellow-prisoner who, upon seeing a bird land on a tree over Agrippa’s head, predicts his imminent release by the workings of divine providence as well as his eventual death (AJ 18.195–204). This scene exhibits clear and marked affinities with Joseph’s imprisonment in Genesis, in which the patriarch encounters two of Pharaoh’s disgraced courtiers, a baker and cupbearer, whose dreams he interprets as signifying the former’s death and the latter’s release (Gen. 40).35 The resemblance between the figures of Agrippa and Joseph here is unquestionable. 3.2.1 Recipients of Divine Providence First, both episodes are interpreted within the framework of divine providence, one of Josephus’ favorite themes in AJ.36 In his retelling of the scriptural Joseph story Josephus interprets for the reader that (AJ 2.60): Joseph, for his part, relying completely upon God, did not take recourse either to defense or to a precise report of what had occurred [with his master’s wife], but assumed the chains and confinement in silence, being confident that God who knew the reason for his disaster and the truth

35

36

It has been suggested that the motif of unjust imprisonment and rise to power in the Joseph story also bears the marks of affinity with a number of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern texts (e.g., Aesop Romance; Herodotus, Histories 3.125–37; Ahiqar). See Cristano Grotanelli, Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership, and Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 147–71; Robert Karl Gnuse, “From Prison to Prestige: The Hero Who Helps a King in Jewish and Greek Literature,” CBQ 72, no. 1 (2010): 31–45. On divine providence as a consistent theme in AJ, see Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History. Josephus openly states it himself at AJ 1.14.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

125

was stronger than those who bound him—which proof of the providence (προνοίας) [of God] he received straight away.37 Some of the same tones are to be found in the scene of Agrippa’s imprisonment. For instance, just as Josephus editorialized about Joseph’s plight, the German prisoner also credits divine providence with designing Agrippa’s imminent release (AJ 18.197): “Young man,” he [the German] says, “your sudden reversal weighs you down, the fate which has come upon you being so great and instantaneous. But though these words seem unbelievable to you, they ought to be carefully discerned: divine providence (τοῦ θείου τὴν πρόνοιαν) will devise an escape from the wretched things that have come upon you.”38 The characteristic Josephan appeal to divine providence, through its use in both scenes of imprisonment, links the stories of Joseph and Agrippa and invites reciprocal interpretation. 3.2.2 Interpretation of Divine Signs Second, the exchange between Agrippa and the German also stands out in relation to the Joseph story for the way that both narratives feature one imprisoned and disgraced courtier interpreting divine signs to another concerning their release, return to service at court, and death. The German goes on to tell Agrippa that (AJ 18.200): It must happen straight away that release from these chains will come to you as well as advance to both the greatest honor and power. … But remember, when you see this bird another time your death will take place five days later.39

37

38 39

Ἰώσηπος μὲν οὖν πάντ’ ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ ποιησάμενος τὰ περὶ αὐτὸν οὔτ’ εἰς ἀπολογίαν οὔτ’ ἐπ’ ἀκριβῆ τῶν γεγονότων δήλωσιν ἐτράπη, τὰ δεσμὰ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην σιγῶν ὑπῆλθεν ἀμείνονα ἔσεσθαι τῶν δεδεκότων θαρρῶν τὸν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς συμφορᾶς καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν εἰδότα θεόν, οὗ πεῖραν τῆς προνοίας εὐθὺς ἐλάμβανεν. (AJ 2.60) ὦ νεανία, φησίν, καταχθεῖ μέν σε τὸ αἰφνίδιον τῆς μεταβολῆς πολλήν τε οὕτως καὶ ἀθρόαν ἐπαγαγὸν τὴν τύχην, ἀπιστία δέ σοι λόγων, οἳ ἐπὶ διαφυγῇ κακοῦ τοῦ ἐφεστηκότος διαιροῖντο τοῦ θείου τὴν πρόνοιαν. (AJ 18.197) οὐκ ἔσθ ̓ ὅπως οὐκ εὐθέως ἀπαλλαγή τέ σοι τῶνδε τῶν δεσμῶν παρέσται καὶ πρόοδος ἐπὶ μήκιστον ἀξιώματός τε καὶ δυνάμεως … μνημονεύειν δέ, ὁπότε εἰσαῦθις τὸν ὄρνιν θεάσαιο τοῦτον, πέντε ἡμέραις σοι τὴν τελευτὴν ἐσομένην. (AJ 18.200)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

126

Chapter 5

The German’s dual prophecy of Agrippa’s imminent restoration and eventual death alludes to the two prophecies issued by Joseph (AJ 2.64–73/Gen. 40) to Pharaoh’s cupbearer (for restoration) and baker (for death), while the sight of a bird above Agrippa’s head as the sign instigating the prophecies resembles the baker’s dream in the scriptural Joseph story, where the bird is also the sign of death (AJ 2.71–73/Gen. 40:16–19).40 As with the false accusation facing both Agrippa and scriptural Joseph, which I discussed above, if broad correspondences are rather obvious, nevertheless the finer points of the affinity reveal notable divergences. It is significant, for instance, that Joseph is renowned for his divinatory skill in dream interpretation, while Agrippa is here depicted as the passive recipient only. In fact, Josephus’ retelling of the Joseph story heightens the emphasis on the protagonist’s abilities in dream interpretation. There, Josephus repeatedly has other characters recognize and praise Joseph’s oracular abilities while also attributing them to Joseph himself rather than to God alone as in the Genesis account. For example, in the scriptural version of the story, Joseph himself takes the initiative in approaching the others to recount and interpret their dreams. Josephus, however, reports that the cupbearer shared his dream with Joseph of his own initiative, explaining that this was “because he [the cupbearer] thought that he [Joseph] exceeded him [the cupbearer] in understanding.”41 In the same way, after the cupbearer shares the contents of the dream, Josephus has him go on to prod Joseph to interpret it “if he [Joseph] has been assigned a particular skill in understanding as his lot.”42 The scriptural version wastes no time in assigning qualities to Joseph and instead immediately conveys the interpretation (Gen. 40:12ff.). As with the baker and cupbearer, so too in the scriptural account of the protagonist’s consultation with Pharaoh (Gen. 41), there is no explicit mention of Joseph as particularly wise or full of understanding. Josephus, though, has the cupbearer extol, upon proffering to Pharaoh Joseph’s services and vouching for his past accuracy, that he is “among the Hebrews of the best stock at the same time both by birth and by his father’s good repute.”43 When Joseph then enters the court and meets Pharaoh, the scriptural account only has him inquire to Joseph whether the report of his ability in dream interpretation is true, and Joseph responds that it is not he himself but God alone who supplies the

40 41 42 43

Noted by Schwartz, Agrippa I, 34. συνέσει γὰρ ἐδόκει αὐτὸν προύχειν. (AJ 2.63) εἴ τι μεμοίραται συνέσεως. (AJ 2.65) λέγειν δ᾿ αὐτὸν Ἑβραίων ἐν ὀλίγοις εἶναι γένους ἅμα καὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δόξης. (AJ 2.78)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

127

interpretation.44 While the scriptural account distances Joseph himself from dream interpretation as a personal skill or ability and goes to lengths to place that remarkable capability only on the divine, Josephus, on the other hand, has Pharaoh reiterate to Joseph that the cupbearer has reported his “excellence and considerable intelligence.”45 Likewise, when Joseph has finished recounting the interpretation of the dream, Josephus has Pharaoh “wondering at the discernment and wisdom of Joseph.”46 It is no surprise, then, that Josephus has Pharaoh explicitly approach Joseph to “inquire” (πυθομένου) how he should proceed in planning for the future crisis disclosed by the dream (AJ 2.87). By contrast, in the scriptural account Joseph proceeds to instruct Pharaoh in how to proceed unprompted (Gen. 41:33). When Pharaoh does recognize Joseph’s wondrous feat, the scriptural account also emphasizes first that Joseph is a mere intermediary in whom the divine spirit dwells, with God being the primary agent: “Shall we find another man such as this one in whom is the spirit of God?”47 Although in the scriptural account Pharaoh does go on to say that no one else has the wisdom and discernment of Joseph (Gen. 41:38), this is only after both Joseph and Pharaoh have already attributed these qualities primarily to God. Josephus, however, connects them much more closely with Joseph himself. The relevance of this will be apparent shortly, as it reinforces the sense that the parallel between Agrippa and Joseph regarding divine signs and their interpretation during imprisonment is somewhat imbalanced; if Joseph is especially closely associated with oracular skill in AJ, Agrippa is conspicuously lacking in this area and instead sits alongside Pharaoh and Joseph’s fellow prisoners as recipients of the interpretation. 3.2.3 Care and Release Lastly, there are several other minor points of convergence and contrast between Joseph and Agrippa regarding their terms of imprisonment and conditions of release. First, both Agrippa and Joseph experience very mild conditions during imprisonment and are recipients of their jailers’ goodwill (AJ

44 45 46 47

MT Gen. 41:15b–16: ‫וַ ֲאנִ י ָׁש ַמ ְע ִּתי ָע ֶליָך ֵלאמֹר ִּת ְׁש ַמע ֲחלו ֺם ִל ְפּתֹר א ֹֹֽתו׃‬ .‫ת־ׁשלו ֺם ַּפ ְרעֹה‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים יַ ֲענֶ ה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ת־ּפ ְרעֹה ֵלאמֹר ִּב ְל ָע ָדי ֱא‬ ַ ‫ֹיוסף ֶא‬ ֵ ‫וַ ּיַ ַען‬ OG Gen. 41:15b–16: ἐγὼ δὲ ἀκήκοα περὶ σοῦ λεγόντων ἀκούσαντά σε ἐνύπνια συγκρῖναι αὐτά. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Ιωσηφ τῷ Φαραω εἶπεν ῎Ανευ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἀποκριθήσεται τὸ σωτήριον Φαραω. ἄριστος καὶ σύνεσιν ἱκανώτατος. (AJ 2.80) Θαυμάσαντος δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τὴν φρόνησιν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ Ἰωσήπου. (AJ 2.87) MT Gen. 41:38: ֺ ‫ֹלהים ּבו‬ ִ ‫ ; ֲהנִ ְמ ָצא ָכזֶ ה ִאיׁש ֲא ֶ ׁ֛שר ֥ר ַּוח ֱא‬OG Gen. 41:38: Μὴ εὑρήσομεν ἄνθρωπον τοιοῦτον, ὃς ἔχει πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

128

Chapter 5

18.203–204/AJ 2.61/Gen. 39:21–23).48 In Agrippa’s case, however, it is not God who ensures his safekeeping in prison, but Antonia the Younger, sister-in-law of Tiberius and mother of the future emperor Claudius.49 Then, when the German completes his prophecy to Agrippa he begs the latter “to remember me when you have good fortune in your hands and escape our ill fortune which we now share.”50 This mirrors very closely Joseph’s plea to the cupbearer to put in a good word for him to Pharaoh after he is released and returned to service (AJ 2.68/Gen. 40:14). But much as Joseph continues to languish forgotten in prison after the cupbearer’s release (AJ 2.74/Gen. 40:23), so also the reader is never told of the German prisoner’s release after Agrippa is freed by Gaius and appointed ruler of Judea. This may simply be a result of Josephus alternating sources whereby the German prisoner’s fate might have been excised quite unintentionally. However, it is also possible that Josephus intended to leave the German’s fate unaccounted for so as to foster the affinities between the stories of Joseph and Agrippa.51 3.2.4 Summary These correspondences, which carry through the basic affinity that Josephus set out in the editorial comments discussed at the beginning of this chapter, are significant for several reasons. First, Josephus could easily have narrated Agrippa’s imprisonment as a time of trial and misfortune without including the long exchange with the German prisoner. That he chose to include this material should be attributed to a significant degree to his attachment to the 48 49 50 51

Pointed out by Schwartz, Agrippa I, 34. But note my comments below on the playfulness and creativity of this correspondence. As indicated by Shelly Matthews, First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002), 31–32, Antonia functions as something of an inverse of Potiphar’s wife. μνήμην δὲ ποιεῖσθαι εἰς χεῖράς σου παραγενομένου τοῦ εὐδαίμονος καὶ τοῦ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς διαφευξομένου δυστυχίαν, ᾗ τανῦν σύνεσμεν. (AJ 18.201–202) Although it is not possible to say with any certainty whether the source posited by Schwartz (i.e., Vita Agrippa) originally narrated the fate of the German prisoner, several factors are suggestive that it did and that Josephus’ selection constituted a conscious omission. Josephus’s use of Vita Agrippa in the subsequent stages of the narrative is, according to Schwartz, only supplementary. See the chart in Agrippa I, 38. As a result, there are gaps in the narrative which Vita Agrippa surely covered but concerning the content of which we are now able only to speculate. Vita Agrippa elsewhere scrupulously follows up on such details, for instance in narrating how Agrippa did indeed, upon his release, repay the kindness done to him by a servant, a certain Thaumastus (AJ 18.193–94). Therefore, it is not implausible that this source also narrated the release of the German prisoner, but that Josephus chose to leave it out of his account in order to strengthen the affinities between the stories of Agrippa and scriptural Joseph which he had established.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

129

figure of Joseph. It is not unlikely, for instance, that when Josephus emphasized Joseph’s innate insight and understanding as necessary ingredients for successful dream interpretation, it was in no small part due to his own selfconception as a dream interpreter who divined the Jewish God’s support for the Romans (BJ 3.350–54) and accurately predicted Vespasian’s imperial accession (BJ 3.399–408).52 Additionally, however, just as the affinity between false accusations against Agrippa and Joseph was made in a creative and playful manner, so too we find this exhibited in the prison scene. While the whole scenario is highly evocative of the Joseph story, the two protagonists are not connected merely by way of simple imitation or direct parallel but are, rather, inverted or reversed. As I pointed out briefly above, in the case of the scriptural story it is Joseph who skillfully divines the meaning of his fellow prisoners’ dreams, and this skill is even more forcefully emphasized in Josephus’ retelling; it is Joseph who interacts with two fallen courtiers prophesied opposing fates, one for good and the other for ill. In the account of Agrippa, however, it is not the protagonist who possesses skill in reading divine signs but a nameless non-Jewish prisoner. As a result, it is not Agrippa who plays the role of Joseph but, rather, the German prisoner. Agrippa, meanwhile, takes on the function of both baker and cupbearer in that his release as well as his death are predicted by a fellow prisoner. Likewise, although Agrippa is treated well during his imprisonment, like Joseph, unlike the latter this is not attributed to virtue or God’s providential care. Instead, Agrippa receives preferential treatment due to the intervention of benefactors in the halls of power; his release alone is said to be ordained by God. In both of these cases there is a sort of irony at which a reader with knowledge of the scriptural Joseph story could only smile: Agrippa is like Joseph but so much the poorer with respect to personal qualities; like Joseph, God providentially cares for Agrippa in designing his release just as the German prisoner predicted, but it is largely a mystery why this should be deserved in a figure so unlike his archetype. 52

Noted also by Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities,” 215. On the parallels between Josephus’ own self-portrayal and his portrayal of the figure of Joseph, especially regarding dreams and their interpretation, see Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” 27–28; Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports, 30–31. Note, however, the reservations of Glas, “Reading Josephus’ ‘Prophetic’ Inspiration,” 522–56. It is also likely that, for Josephus’ elite Roman audience, skills of an oracular/divinatory type were a priori closely linked to other fields of knowledge. For instance, Ljubica Jovanović, The Joseph of Genesis as Hellenistic Scientist (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 76–118, shows that in Josephus’ retelling and in other ancient Joseph traditions, Joseph’s skills in divination sit comfortably alongside his φρόνησις and other prominent qualities as the stock in trade of the Hellenistic scientist.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

130 4

Chapter 5

Conclusion

I will return to the figure of Agrippa I in the following chapter. However, I will here offer a few conclusions as to how Josephus’ depiction of Agrippa I, particularly the modeling of him on scriptural Joseph, can be read in light of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. One of my most significant findings in this chapter is that, although scriptural Joseph is a model for Agrippa’s false accusation, imprisonment, and association with divine portents, the relationship is more one of a foil than a strict copy. While Joseph is falsely accused and unjustly imprisoned through no fault of his own, the same cannot be said for Agrippa, whose imprisonment resulted from a remark that was ill-timed and carelessly offered. Indeed, Joseph’s exemplary perseverance in virtue is consistently more prominent in Josephus’ own retelling of Genesis in AJ, with the result that the contrast with Agrippa is even more stark. Agrippa’s exemplary function for Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers, then, is as a figure that is cautionary though sympathetic—lucky even—more than straightforwardly admirable or virtuous like Joseph. I suggest that there are, in particular, two aspects of the passages that I have analyzed in this chapter which would have held exemplary value for Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers given that the topics were frequently discussed by Roman elites: the charge of treason against the emperor and the use of flattery to effect social advancement. As to the first of these, in spite of the exaggerations endemic in sources stemming from Roman elites, it is nevertheless true that charges of treason (maiestas)—such as Josephus has Agrippa charged with by his freedman against Tiberius—took on a new dimension in the early principate quite distinct from their late republican origins. Charges of maiestas had once functioned under the late republic, ca. 100 BCE and beyond, as a means to prosecute incompetent or corrupt elites who held public office, especially military command. But a dramatic change took place once the res publica and the populus Romanus came to be embodied in the singular personage of the emperor, and thereby also treason could be understood as offenses against the imperator himself.53 The extent to which individual emperors overtly targeted senatorial elites with charges of treason is not clear, and it may have more 53

On charges of maiestas in the context of Roman law and the evolution from the late republic to the empire, see Jill Harries, Law and Crime in the Roman World, Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 72–85; Clifford Ando, Law, Language, and Empire in the Roman Tradition, Empire and After (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 103–107; Callie Williamson, “Crimes against the State,” in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, ed. Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando, and Kaius Tuori (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 333–44.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

131

frequently been the case that emperors simply exploited in a passive sense the willingness of those same elites to trade allegations of maiestas against each other as a convenient means to deprive rivals of status, resources, and even their very lives.54 No doubt there was a mixture of both occurrences. However, it is notable that Tiberius, for example, exercised a much lighter hand over the Senate, which for better or worse did foster an environment conducive for internecine partisan prosecutions of maiestas, especially as elites attempted to please or anticipate an emperor whose own wishes were frequently opaque.55 Regardless of the precise historical realities, it is incontrovertible that under the principate, elites in Rome had to exercise considerable vigilance and prudence as they navigated the dangerous undercurrents that swirled around the imperial court. In these qualities, Agrippa is depicted by Josephus as perilously deficient, with the result that he nearly drowns in the treacherous waters of the Tiberian court. The implied comparison with scriptural Joseph reminds the reader that Agrippa is no virtuous martyr but, rather, a case of ambition outpacing good judgement. However, Agrippa is not just cautionary but also sympathetic. One of the injustices of the lex maiestatis frequently commented upon by elite Roman authors is its rampant manipulation by informants (delatores).56 Although a delator could, as I mentioned above, be a social peer among Rome’s elites, delatio could also be carried out by a person of inferior social status, who would otherwise never have dared or been permitted to bring an accusation against a social superior—again, as with Agrippa’s freedman Eutychus. Thus, 54

55

56

In his own way, Josephus may have been particularly sensitive to abuses of the lex maiestatis. It has recently been argued that Nerva’s coinage, which proclaimed “fisci Iudaici calumnia sublata” after the well-known abuses of the tax under Domitian, should be interpreted in close connection with false allegations of maiestas. In this argument, alleged tax-evaders would also have been guilty of maiestas since Judean identity was, in the post-war period, de facto impious, illegal, and anti-Roman unless authorized by payment of the tax. See Blake Wassell, “εἰ δή τις … συκοφαντοίη: Impiety and the ‘fiscus Iudaicus’ in Josephus, War 1.11,” JSJ 51, nos. 4–5 (2020): 525–70. For an overview of the interpretations of the coinage, see Goodman, “Meaning of ‘FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA’ on the Coinage of Nerva,” 81–89. For a summary of maiestas charges under Tiberius, see Steven H. Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian (London: Routledge, 2001), 89–102; Robin Seager, Tiberius, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 125–38. For critical analysis of Tacitus’ representation of maiestas charges under Tiberius, see Ellen O’Gorman, Tacitus’ History of Politically Effective Speech: Truth to Power (London: Bloomsbury, 2020), 53–79. On delatores in the reign of Tiberius, during which time the story of Agrippa’s imprisonment is set, and the reign of Domitian, during which time it was written by Josephus and delivered to his readers, see Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 89–102 and 129–34.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

132

Chapter 5

Rome’s elites were particularly galled by the willingness of many emperors to entertain accusations of maiestas from slaves, women, and sundry others.57 Likewise, Agrippa hardly stood alone in his anticipation of Tiberius’ death and his expectation of personal benefit resulting from the accession of a longtime friend; the emperor was nearing eighty years old when he finally died, and it came to pass only after a legendary series of succession plans aborted by alleged treason had frequently left unfulfilled the Roman public’s expectation of his demise.58 Agrippa’s poor judgement aside, then, the fear or even the experience of being so targeted, especially through the machinations of a delator, would have been familiar to Josephus’ readers. In Josephus’ own day, while Vespasian is reported to have pardoned those condemned for maiestas under Nero and prohibited further accusations, Titus may have reopened the door and Domitian, under whose reign AJ was written, apparently abused the lex maiestatis quite thoroughly.59 The recklessness of Agrippa’s comments to Gaius, designed to curry favor with a possible imperial heir but at the cost of angering the still-living imperator, would also be particularly conspicuous to a Greco-Roman reader given Tiberius’ notorious paranoia in his later years.60 Like delatio, flattery (adulatio) is a social currency which received increased attention from Roman elites in the principate, and they found themselves turning to it with greater frequency as they uncomfortably occupied the same side opposite the emperor of an increasingly disparate binary social hierarchy. Where elites in the late republic 57

58 59

60

The tendency of the Roman historians to characterize delatores as socially marginal, lowborn, immoral, corrupt, foreign, or criminal is a result of the prejudices of our sources, which invariably represent the interests of the ruling (male) class that stood to lose the most from novi homines and other aspirants. Prosopography suggests that delatores, in fact, came from a broad cross-section of Roman society and did not always prosper from their informing activity. See Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 20–34. Most famously, the death of Germanicus (d. 19 CE) issued in the postmortem trial of L. Calpurnius Piso, while that of Drusus (d. 26 CE) resulted in the execution of Sejanus. Nerva’s coinage makes a connection only to the fiscus Iudaicus under Domitian. Suetonius, Dom. 9–13, however, links the maladministration of the fiscus to broader abuses of the lex maiestatis. For a survey of charges of maiestas under the Flavians, see Rutledge, Imperial Inquisitions, 126–34. Rutledge does not consider the issue of the fiscus and its connection to charges of maiestas. According to Harriet I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture, Studies in the History of Greece and Rome (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 132, Tiberius’ withdrawal to Capri from Rome and from public life in 26 CE “created an unusually strained atmosphere, shaped by mutual suspicions and disappointments that could produce violent results, such as the purges that followed the downfall of Sejanus [in 31 CE]. The negative picture of Tiberius in surviving literary sources, especially in Tacitus, has been heavily influenced by this last stage of life.” For a moderating view of the negative aspects of Tiberius’ depiction by ancient authors, see Edward Champlin, “Tiberius the Wise,” Historia 57, no. 4 (2008): 408–25. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

133

had been most attentive to detecting flattery directed towards themselves from subordinates and social inferiors, the frightening power that the emperor held almost uniformly over Roman elites had made it a virtual necessity to deploy flattery as a useful (if despised) tool for self-advancement or even self-preservation.61 “Flattery, then, emerges out of and is a mark of the damage that is done by unequal power relations such as subsist between the emperor and his subjects. At the same time, however, the practice of flattery does its own damage, corrupting and degenerating modes of speech which underpin social and political interaction.”62 Flattery evidently became so common (or at least anxiety-inducing) in the early principate that Seneca and other Roman intellectuals devoted significant intellectual activity to arguing against its use as a social lubricant meant to avoid dangerous friction with the emperor. Correspondingly, they developed strategies and techniques for interacting with imperial power in its absence irrespective of the consequences.63 Stoic thought, for example, developed the position that the moral qualities of “good” and “bad” were, properly speaking, interior dispositions arising from states of mind and intent, but not applicable to either deeds themselves or their effects or even the experiences one undergoes in life. Much of life, in fact, consisted of matters termed “indifferent” (i.e., wealth, health, reputation), which had no inherent moral shading at all aside from how a person related to them or used them, albeit with some preferred or valued over others.64 Judging a peer’s choices from externals was, therefore, a fraught enterprise and could result in incorrect evaluations of character as observables do not always align with motives—though even strong advocates of this view, like Seneca, had difficulty maintaining such a nontraditional theory of ethics in actual practice.65 This ethical system held the potential both to suppress elites’ tendencies to make partisan judgements of one another’s behavior and to inspire confidence in virtue as a wholly internal quality that could be maintained even in adverse circumstances when choices were severely restricted; in effect, recourse to flattering the emperor could and should be avoided but also not judged too harshly.

61 62 63 64

65

Matthew B. Roller, Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 108–19. O’Gorman, Tacitus’ History of Politically Effective Speech, 32. Roller, Constructing Autocracy, 115–24. Roller, Constructing Autocracy, 66–77; Jula Wildberger, “Ethics IV: Wisdom and Virtue,” in Brill’s Companion to Seneca: Philosopher and Dramatist, ed. Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil with Mario Weida (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 318–19; John Sellars, Stoicism, Ancient Philosophies (London: Routledge, 2014), 110–14, 120–22. Roller, Constructing Autocracy, 77–88; Wildberg, “Ethics,” 314–16. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

134

Chapter 5

The result for a Greco-Roman reader’s evaluation of Agrippa as depicted in the passages discussed in this chapter is that he is sympathetic in terms of the situation he is placed in and the strategies he uses, though in plain terms he is no model of virtue and his pragmatic decision-making is questionable. Returning to the implied comparison between Agrippa and scriptural Joseph, it bears repeating that, as I repeatedly showed in the previous two chapters, the Genesis patriarch is studiously depicted in both the Jewish scriptures and in Josephus’ own retelling in AJ as acquiring power through divine favor and wisdom but never through the manipulation of words. Flattery is as foreign to scriptural Joseph as it is second nature to Agrippa (and wit and deception is to the Tobiads). This might appear to cement a negative evaluation of Agrippa. However, we should remember that hardliners such as Seneca were not in the majority among Roman elites, and in spite of the wealth of Roman rhetoric advocating frank speech even to the point of self-death, few seem to have been willing to follow Seneca in actually making themselves martyrs for their philosophical principles.66 If Tacitus, to mention but one example, has nothing good to say about flatterers, yet he has no use of self-made martyrs either.67 Of the example set under the emperor Domitian by his father-in-law, Agricola, he remarks: Let those whose way it is to admire only what is forbidden learn from him [Agricola] that great men can live even under bad rulers [i.e., Domitian]; and that submission and moderation, if animation and energy go with them, reach the same pinnacle of fame, whither more often men have climbed by perilous courses but, with no profit to the state, have earned their glory by an ostentatious death.68 Tacitus’ comments here may better represent the moderate view of Rome’s elites than the protestations of the city’s professional philosophers, such as Seneca, who were in any case unlikely to be among Josephus’ immediate readers. In my estimation, the presence of much ethical and pragmatic discourse in the early imperial era criticizing behavior such as Agrippa’s crude attempts at flattery must not mask the fact that elites in Rome did, in fact, overwhelmingly behave in much the same fashion as him—though perhaps exhibiting 66 67 68

Seneca committed suicide at Nero’s behest in 65 CE, concerning which see Thomas Habinek, “Imago suae vitae: Seneca’s Life and Career,” in Damschen and Heil with Weida, Brill’s Companion to Seneca, 15–16. O’Gorman, Tacitus’ History of Politically Effective Speech, 31–51. Tac., Agr. 42.4 (trans. Hutton). Emphasis added.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

“ You Will Forthwith Find Release from These Chains ”

135

more circumspection. If the reader is to judge between Agrippa and scriptural Joseph as inhabiting parallel circumstances, clearly, then, the former is to be learned from and sympathized with—at times even admired—but not necessarily imitated. Scriptural Joseph is undoubtedly the superior example, though as I shall explore further in my conclusion to this book in Chapter 7, that does not necessarily make him entirely relatable or accessible to Josephus’ readers. If exemplary discourse in ancient historiography involves, in part, the narrative’s figures functioning as a sort of mirror by which the reader is able to reflect on their own life and circumstances, then the perfect examples of virtue and pragmatic decision-making, such as scriptural Joseph, are also the hardest to emulate. Imitating Joseph’s perfection might be desirous in theory, but is it attainable in practice? If we ask Seneca, the answer is a resounding “yes.” But it bears repeating that apparently few others were willing to achieve Joseph’s exemplary virtue at the cost of their lives or at the risk of imprisonment. Agrippa, on the other hand, is a figure who, in spite of the many contrasts with scriptural Joseph, better reflects the actual ambiguity of the moral and pragmatic landscape of Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers under the principate. Even if there is no doubt that Agrippa suffers in the implied comparison with scriptural Joseph and it is clear that, despite his ultimate success, his path to power is not to be uncritically followed, a reader can more readily learn from his story and imagine surpassing his example. As I now turn in the following chapter to the ways in which Agrippa also echoes the figure of Esther, we will see similar trends and will confirm the fundamental ambiguity of Agrippa’s character in Antiquities.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 6

Banquets Fit for Kings: Agrippa I and Esther 1

Introduction

In the previous chapter, I demonstrated that Josephus’ account of Agrippa I in AJ shows clear affinities with the scriptural Joseph story through the motifs of false accusation and unjust imprisonment. Not only the general circumstances, but also many of the particulars of Josephus’ account, mirrors Joseph’s trials and tribulations—though also with significant points of irony and subversive resolution. In this chapter I will continue examining Josephus’ account of Agrippa I in AJ, but I will turn from affinities with the scriptural Joseph story to parallels with the Book of Esther.1 The story of Esther, which is one of the most dramatic accounts in the Hebrew Bible and is the basis for the festival of Purim, is retold by Josephus in AJ 11.184–296 with even more flair.2 As I will show in this chapter, both the broad framework of Esther, with its 1 There are three versions of the Book of Esther: the Hebrew version (Masoretic text, or MT) and two distinct Greek translations (Alpha text, or AT, and Old Greek, or OG). The OG is very clearly a translation of the MT but also deviates significantly through many additions, alterations, and omissions. The AT, which survives in only four Greek manuscripts, is distinct from the OG and substantially more abbreviated than it, but the precise relationship of it to the OG and to the MT is disputed. Both of the Greek translations share miscellaneous agreements against the MT as well as six large additions. For a general discussion of the Greek texts of Esther and their relationship to the Hebrew version of Esther, see Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Esther and Additions to Esther,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 203–21. 2 Josephus’ principal source for the Esther story in AJ is a Greek text. His source text was likely a blend of AT and OG readings such as some extant manuscripts of Esther attest, since Josephus’ account shows influence from both textual traditions. But he may have consulted the MT as well, and recent conference papers by Dionisio Candido suggest that the Vorlage of the Vetus Latina may hold significant clues to the nature of Josephus’ text of Esther. See Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 503 n. 2; Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 52–53, with specific examples throughout. Josephus’ tendencies in retelling the Book of Esther in AJ have been amply documented. See Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 500–38; Étienne Nodet, Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume V: Livres X et XI (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2010); Emily Kneebone, “Josephus’ Esther and diaspora Judaism,” in The Romance Between Greece and the East, ed. Tim Whitmarsh and Stuart Thomson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 165–82; Petr Chalupa, “Book of Esther in Josephus,” in The Process of Authority: The Dynamics in Transmission and Reception of Canonical Authority, ed. Jan Dušek and Jan Roskovec (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 139–50; Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 51–87.

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_007

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

137

Banquets Fit for Kings

anti-Jewish threat from the Gentile ruler, along with its climactic scene at a banquet, where the Jewish queen intervenes to save her people from imminent destruction, are adapted by Josephus in his account of Agrippa I. Furthermore, Josephus’ adaptation of the story of Esther in his account of Agrippa I bears distinct marks of subverting the very parallels that it so clearly calls to mind, in that it depicts Agrippa as failing to act with the same courage and selflessness as the queen. In the context of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, then, there is a lesson that may be learned by observing how Agrippa’s ambitions outpace both his means and his virtue. 2

Anti-Jewish Plots in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther

The last chapter focused on the accusations against Agrippa by his freedman as well as his consequent imprisonment by Tiberius. In this chapter I will move further into Josephus’ account to Agrippa’s post-imprisonment fate (see summary in Chapter 5), which is secured through the banishment of Herod Antipas (also known as “the Tetrarch”), who contested his upstart younger kinsman’s elevated status under the new emperor (AJ 18.240–55). It is at this point that Josephus turns once again to Gaius and to his reign. 2.1 The Emperor Gaius and the Persian King Ahasuerus Josephus’ sole interest in Gaius is the emperor’s attempt to erect his statue in the Jewish temple in the wake of the violent unrest in Alexandria between that city’s Greek and Jewish inhabitants and the rival embassies sent by each side to argue their case in Rome.3 While the key scene of Agrippa petitioning on behalf of the Jewish people at a banquet unmistakably echoes Queen Esther, it is also significant that the broader framing of Gaius in AJ more closely mirrors the Persian king in the scriptural Book of Esther in contrast to the parallel account in BJ. 2.1.1 Gaius’ Reign in AJ vs. BJ Beginning from AJ 18.256, Josephus begins to draw on Philo, the use of which source fills out the rest of Book 18 with the exception of only a few short patches.4 In places, therefore, comparison with Philo will be useful for 3 For brief but thorough surveys of the Alexandrian crisis, see Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 235–55; Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, trans. Robert Cornman (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 161–83; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 48–78. For a full-length study, see Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots. 4 See the chart in Schwartz, Agrippa I, 38.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

138

Chapter 6

understanding Josephus’ alterations. However, a more straightforward comparison can be made with Josephus’ parallel account in BJ, though in many places it must be acknowledged that the account of Agrippa I in AJ has been so thoroughly rewritten and expanded that this is not possible.5 At the introduction to Gaius’ reign in AJ, we find a summary statement which frames the emperor for the reader in preparation for the narrative which follows, and which hews very close to the summary statement in BJ: But Gaius Caesar was insolent towards Fortune in such a way: he wished to think himself God and to be called as such; he cut off the ancestral line of the nobility; he extended impiety even to Judea.6 (BJ 2.184) So Gaius ran affairs quite magnanimously for the first and following year and, conducting himself with moderation, advanced much in goodwill both with the Romans themselves as well as the provincials. But as time went on, he ceased to think of himself in a human fashion and was stirred up [by the honors given to him by the provincials] to govern in all ways in dishonor of the divine by making himself a God on account of the greatness of his rule.7 (AJ 18.256) 5 The question of whether BJ was used as a basis for AJ or whether some common source was used for both has been much debated. In contemporary scholarship the latter position is argued by Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 58–65. However, Cohen focuses on verbal similarities, which are excellent indicators of dependence when present, but given Josephus’ very thorough rewriting of his sources (including himself), they are quite poor indicators to the contrary when absent. It has been shown conclusively and at length that, at least for AJ 18–20, Josephus rewrote his BJ account and added much new material. See Klaus-Stefan Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus, Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 9 (Tübingen: Francke, 1994); English summary in idem, “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117–283 and A 18–20,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, ed. Folker Siegert and Jürgen U. Kalms, Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 12 (Münster: Lit, 2002), 90–100; Nodet, “Josephus and Discrepant Sources,” 265–77. Étienne Nodet, Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume VI: Livres XII à XIV (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2021), xxvi–xxvii, confirms these results for Books 12–14 as well. The diverging results of Cohen and Krieger/Nodet can be taken to suggest, as noted by Schwartz, “Many Sources But a Single Author,” 42, that “it seems that the same answer need not apply to all cases.” 6 Γάιος δὲ Καῖσαρ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξύβρισεν εἰς τὴν τύχην, ὥστε θεὸν ἑαυτὸν καὶ δοκεῖν βούλεσθαι καὶ καλεῖσθαι τῶν τε εὐγενεστάτων ἀνδρῶν ἀκροτομῆσαι τὴν πατρίδα, ἐκτεῖναι δὲ τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίαν. (BJ 2.184) 7 Γάιος δὲ τὸν μὲν πρῶτον ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς πάνυ μεγαλοφρόνως ἐχρῆτο τοῖς πράγμασιν καὶ μέτριον aπαρέχων αὑτὸν εἰς εὔνοιαν πολλὴν προυχώρει παρά τε Ῥωμαίοις αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὑπηκόοις. προϊὼν δ ̓ ἐξίστατο τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φρονεῖν ὑπὸ μεγέθους τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκθειάζων ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐπ ̓ ἀτιμίᾳ τοῦ θείου πολιτεύειν ἦρτοs. (AJ 18.256) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

139

It is most likely, here, that AJ depends directly upon BJ with only minor updates drawn from elsewhere. Although both introductions are so short that it is entirely possible Josephus could have composed them himself without recourse to any source, the strong emphasis on Gaius’ blasphemous aspirations of godhood suggest that Josephus’ original source was Philo.8 There are, however, two important differences between the introductions to Gaius in AJ and BJ which bear upon the former’s affinities with the story of Esther and relate to the respective portrayals of the emperor in Josephus’ two works. 2.1.2 Gaius: Wicked from the Start or a Gradual Decline? First, in BJ 2.184 no indication is given that Gaius administered the empire respectably for any length of time before his wickedness became manifest; he is entirely evil and right from the start. While this was an effective vilification of Gaius appropriate for Josephus’ purposes in BJ, it is insufficient in AJ due to the new context in which the emperor appears. In the AJ account, which dwells at length on the figure of Agrippa as a hero of sorts throughout Books 18 and 19, Josephus could not credibly tell stories of Gaius as his close friend and frequent benefactor if the emperor was irredeemably rotten from the start. Instead, Josephus needed to temper his judgement of Gaius and allow him a measure of time as a good ruler. Thus, AJ 18.256 has Gaius ruling well for the first year and at least a portion of the second. Additionally, and more importantly for my analysis in this chapter, a fundamentally bad ruler such as the Gaius of BJ would bear no resemblance to the Persian king of Esther and would be difficult to integrate into a story of Agrippa I which, in AJ, echoes the Esther story at key points. 2.1.3 Haman and the Persian King in Josephus’ Esther While the Persian king’s portrayal is somewhat mixed in the scriptural versions of the Esther story, Josephus in his own retelling of it perfunctorily rectifies this and distances the king from the anti-Jewish activities of his wicked servant Haman. He leaves out, for instance, any clear reference to Haman’s rank or status at that character’s introduction, noting only that Haman frequented the court (“when he went in to the king”)9 and that the king ordered the prostration of the other courtiers before him (“Artaxerxes [i.e., Ahasuerus 8 Although Philo appears to have been a source of inspiration for Josephus’ presentation of Gaius’ divine aspirations (e.g. Legatio 8–118), this element was commonplace and practically a trope among the emperors’ biographers; on historical grounds they may be understood in light of Gaius’ love of eastern culture and his affinity for Hellenistic models of kingship. See Adams, Roman Emperor Gaius. 9 εἰσιόντα πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα. (AJ 11.209) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

140

Chapter 6

in Josephus] having ordered that there be this honor for him from them”).10 Narrating Haman’s elevation by the king, which all the scriptural versions recount at Esth. 3:1 but Josephus omits, would imply that the king approved of him as a courtier from the start and found his counsel worthy of promotion. Likewise, there is no mention by Josephus of the king giving to Haman his signet ring as is present in all the scriptural versions (AJ 11.215/Esth. 3:10–11).11 Instead, Josephus says only that “the king gives him both the money and the men” which were required (AJ 11.215).12 The giving of the signet ring is a powerful symbol of the king’s absolute trust in Haman and one which Josephus does not include at this juncture. Nevertheless, it is clear that the giving of the signet ring was present in Josephus’ source because this particular item reappears much later in his version of the story after Haman’s downfall, when the antagonist’s house, possessions, and position are handed over to Mordecai. There, Josephus reports that the king gives to Mordecai “this ring which he had given to Haman.”13 Following his source and having forgotten after so much intervening space within the story that he had previously excised the giving of the ring, it here appears as if it had always been present in the narrative. The fact that the ring is not excised when it is presented to Mordecai may give a clue as to Josephus’ rationale (if it is not a simple oversight), both in terms of the ring but also in terms of his purpose in downplaying Haman’s status more broadly. The agenda has less to do with the characterization of Haman than with the characterization of the king. By equivocating on Haman’s status and thereby distancing the king from the antagonist even slightly, Josephus is able to insulate the king from Haman’s ill-conceived scheme against the Jews

10 11 12

13

ταύτην αὐτῷ τὴν τιμὴν παρ᾿ αὐτῶν Ἀρταξέρξου κελεύοντος γενέσθαι. (AJ 11.209) Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 69 n. 711, note that Josephus does not mention the signet ring at this point but do not comment on the rationale or agenda which motivates this choice. ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῷ χαρίζεται καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. The MT and Greek translations of Esth. 3:11 have the king explicitly give over to Haman “the people/nation” (‫ ָה ָעם‬/τό ἔθνος) in addition to the money. Why Josephus reads τοὺς ἀνθρώπους instead is not clear. This word simply does not have the national/ethnic valences of the scriptural texts’ terms and cannot be a straightforward translation; it may be an attempt to distance the king from the act of explicitly handing over the Jews to Haman and instead supplying only the manpower and resources for Haman to do with as he sees fit. It is not clear, though, that this altogether salvages the king’s role in the affair. Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres X et XI, 136, however, seemingly under the influence of the scriptural versions, nonetheless translates Josephus’ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους as “cette nation,” noting only that the text literally reads “les hommes.” ὃν ἔδωκεν Ἀμάνῃ δακτύλιον τοῦτον Μαρδοχαίῳ. (AJ 11.269) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

141

and to present the Gentile ruler in a marginally better light.14 As Kneebone points out, it is “Haman who constructs the polarity between Jew and Persian, loyalty to God and loyalty to the king. Josephus here presents us with no inevitable conflict between Persian sovereignty and Jewish faith.”15 In fact, where the Greek versions of Esther have the giving of the signet ring for the purpose of sending out the decree with the king’s express and clear approval, Josephus very ambiguously says that the decree which he is about to quote in full was sent out by Haman “as (ὡς) from the king.”16 He may very well have intended this phrasing as a double entendre, which on the surface could simply indicate that the king approved of Haman formulating the wording and sending it out under his auspices, as would be quite commonly done.17 But this phrase could also be taken ironically. In this reading, the extolling of Haman contained in the decree is to be understood as shameless self-praise composed by Haman himself, but in which the king had no direct part, and of which he was, in fact, ignorant. In important respects, then, Josephus minimizes the antagonist’s status at court, probably in an effort to distance the king from his subordinate’s anti-Jewish agenda. The Gaius of AJ is a better fit, therefore, with the king in Esther than is the Gaius of BJ. It is also the case that, in both AJ and BJ, Gaius very closely approximates the Nebuchadnezzar of the Daniel story, who at first is a good king but then is led to blasphemously demand divine worship of his image. Both are stories of a Gentile ruler erecting an image of himself, demanding worship of it, and then conflicting with Jewish subjects who refuse. However, the Jewish people do not figure in the Daniel story as they do in Esther and in the account of Agrippa in AJ, but only the lone Jewish figures of Daniel and his friends at court are at risk. 14

15 16 17

Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 503–508, points out that Josephus is more positive in his characterization of the king, but he often pushes beyond what the evidence can bear in attempting to demonstrate this, and he does not note the particular features I have discussed above. However, note his discussion of the contrastingly negative image of the king found in Rabbinic literature in Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 500–503. Kneebone, “Josephus’ Esther and diaspora Judaism,” 174–77, also discusses how Josephus goes to great lengths to distance Haman from the king’s court, explaining this by appealing to his diaspora setting. Kneebone, “Josephus’ Esther and diaspora Judaism,” 172. In this regard, the absence of Additions A and F from Josephus’ retelling of Esther is highly significant, as they paint conflict between Jews and Gentiles as veritably assured. ὡς τοῦ βασιλέως. (AJ 11.215) Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 69, also render this phrase as I have. On alternative renderings, see below. This is the route taken by Marcus, LCL ad loc., who prints “in the name of the king.” Nodet, Antiquités Juives Livres X et XI, 136, prints “au nom du roi” but also notes that the text literally reads “comme du roi.” David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

142

Chapter 6

2.1.4 Divine Aspirations: Actively Solicited or Passively Accepted? A second facet of the framing of Gaius and his reign in AJ in contrast to BJ regards the language used to describe Gaius’ divine aspirations. In BJ, initiative is attributed to the emperor himself, as opposed to AJ, where more passive language is used and significant initiative for Gaius’ decline is attributed to outside forces. In the former text, Josephus claims that Gaius “both thought himself God and wanted to be referred to as such.”18 In AJ, however, Josephus pulls back from this rigid judgement and allows that Gaius “was stirred up [by the honors given to him by the provincials] to govern in all ways in dishonor of the divine by making himself a God on account of the greatness of his rule.”19 In combination with the concession that Gaius initially reigned well, this statement seems to allow that Gaius—though by no means absolved of responsibility—was in some measure moved by outside forces to take his regrettable course; non-Jewish peoples who initiated divine honors for him spurred on his own aspirations of godhood. This is consonant with the portrayal of the Persian king of Esther who is urged by a subordinate into taking anti-Jewish action but is himself not the instigator. In addition to the portrayal of Gaius and the origins of his divine aspirations in AJ, also present is the figure of Apion, devious opponent of the Jews. 2.2 Anti-Jewish Figures at Court: Apion, Isidorus, and Haman The Alexandrian figure Apion appears before Gaius to plead the cause of the city’s Greek embassy in opposition to the Jewish one (AJ 18.257–60), playing the role of anti-Jewish subordinate quite similar to that of Haman in the story of Esther. Apion is, in Josephus’ account in AJ, a central antagonist second only to Gaius himself. But this role of Apion is unique to the account of Agrippa I in AJ in contrast to both the parallel account in BJ as well Philo’s own version of events. 2.2.1 Apion: AJ vs. BJ While Apion features briefly, but (as I shall argue) significantly in AJ, he is absent from the parallel account in BJ 2.181ff. The entirety of the Alexandrian crisis is, in fact, absent from BJ. Josephus may have wished to avoid bringing to mind an instance of violent Jewish civic unrest so soon after the end of the Jewish War. In BJ, therefore, the onus for Gaius’ anti-Jewish action is placed completely on the wicked emperor and his motives are entirely the result of 18 19

θεὸν ἑαυτὸν καὶ δοκεῖν βούλεσθαι καὶ καλεῖσθαι. (BJ 2.184) ὑπὸ μεγέθους τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκθειάζων ἑαυτὸν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐπ᾿ ἀτιμίᾳ τοῦ θείου πολιτεύειν ἦρτο. (AJ 18.256)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

143

his divine ambitions.20 On the other hand, in AJ the Jews come to Gaius’ attention only after the slanderous denunciations of Apion, so that the anti-Jewish Alexandrian and the embassy he leads is largely responsible for the anti-Jewish imperial action. It will be helpful for us to recognize Josephus’ source for this section, for then inferences can be made about his practices of selection and his own alterations so as to gain insight into his literary purposes in his depiction of Apion. When he came in AJ to the point of expanding his BJ account of Agrippa, the crisis under Gaius, and the accession of Claudius, he was faced with many possible paths down which he could direct the narrative. Even should he choose to include the Alexandrian crisis in AJ, it might nevertheless seem imprudent to include for non-Jewish readers’ ears a detailed list of anti-Jewish charges brought by their embassy. However, AJ is not BJ, and Josephus makes pointed efforts throughout the former to detail anti-Jewish charges, especially during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, precisely in order to refute them. By Book 18 of AJ, such charges are not at all new to the reader; to the contrary, they are now stock and readily understood as false and slanderous. However, even if there is no impediment to listing them in his account of Agrippa I and Gaius’ reign as there was in BJ, there is also then less apparent value, for by this point they have already been listed and refuted many times over. Another reason can be sought and is to be found in the literary function of adding the figure of Apion and his anti-Jewish charges. Combined with the figure of Gaius, they work in tandem to create an account with notable resonances of the Esther story. 2.2.2 Apion vs. Isidorus: Or, Josephus vs. Philo Because neither Apion nor the embassy appear in BJ, the source for his appearance in AJ must be found elsewhere. Although Philo’s Legatio is believed to be the source for this section of the AJ account,21 unlike Josephus, Philo never refers to Apion in his extant corpus, much less claims that he led the Alexandrian embassy. Furthermore, Philo never claims that the Alexandrian embassy caused Gaius to attempt to erect his image in the Jerusalem temple. Instead, Philo introduces Isidorus as the leader of the Alexandrian embassy, 20 21

One result of Josephus obscuring the circumstances in BJ behind the fiasco of erecting the image of Gaius in the Jewish temple is that the emperor’s motives remain largely opaque, unlike in the fuller account of AJ. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 18–23. He argues that Josephus also drew on Philo for his account in BJ, though much less extensively. On Josephus’ use of Philo in his account of Agrippa I in AJ, see Schwartz, Agrippa I, 11–33. On Josephus’ use of Philo more broadly, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 52–54; Gregory E. Sterling, “A Man of the Highest Repute’: Did Josephus Know the Writings of Philo?,” SPhiloA 25 (2013): 101–13.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

144

Chapter 6

but only near the end of his account.22 For most of Legatio, though, blame for Gaius’ alignment against the Jews and their embassy is cast upon Helicon, who is an Egyptian courtier in the imperial house, but not part of the Alexandrian embassy itself.23 Similarly, the design to erect Gaius’ image in the Jewish temple is attributed by Philo not to the Alexandrian embassy, as in Josephus, but to the machinations of other anti-Jewish interests.24 If Legatio was indeed Josephus’ source, why did he substitute Apion for Isidorus, and why did he connect the Alexandrian embassy with the attempt to erect the emperor’s image in the temple? I will address these intriguing questions in time, but first the precise passage within Legatio which Josephus was drawing upon must be identified. In Legat. 349–67 we find the actual report of the hearings that the embassies received before Gaius,25 and there are several indications that this was Josephus’ source for AJ 18.257–60.26 Isidorus’ reported allegations in 22

23 24

25

26

Legat. 355. Elsewhere in Legatio the members/leaders of the Alexandrian delegation to Gaius are not named. The substitution by Josephus of Apion in place of Isidorus as head of the embassy frequently goes unnoticed or unmentioned in scholarship. For example, Niehoff, Philo, 14 and throughout, although writing on Philo and his oeuvre, refers to Apion as the head of the Alexandrian embassy. The preference for Josephus’s account over Philo’s firsthand testimony on this point is not acknowledged or explained. The substitution is noted by E. Mary Smallwood, “Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 118–19; idem, Philonis Alexandrini, 248–49, 319; Sterling, “Man of the Highest Repute,” 111. That Isidorus is the formal leader of the embassy is not explicit in Philo, but it is implied by the fact that he alone is named and speaks on the embassy’s behalf to Gaius. Legat. 166–68, 178. Legat. 198–206. Philo mentions Capito (a tax official), Helicon (a freedman, presumably Alexandrian, functioning as a courtier in the imperial house), and Apelles (an actor who was a personal friend and advisor of Gaius). On these figures, see Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 246–47, 261, and 264–65. Earlier, in Legat. 185, we hear only of the Jewish embassy following Gaius from Rome to Puteoli and there tagging along after him attempting to get him to listen. Shortly after, however, the story is interrupted by the arrival of news about the attempt to erect the image in the temple and the account of the ensuing events displaces the resolution of the Alexandrian crisis until the very end, where it returns with Philo’s actual report of the embassy’s hearings that concludes the whole text (with the promised sequel to follow). Note that AJ 18.259–60 does not seem to be drawn from Philo’s extant account. There, upon narrating Apion’s charges, Josephus has Philo prepare to do verbal battle with his opponent—whereupon Gaius abruptly cuts him off and becomes angry, leading Philo to leave the room and urge his companions to trust God. This is possibly Josephus’ own elaboration for dramatic effect. However, Philo makes clear in Legat. 368 that the exchange between Gaius and the Jewish embassy narrated in Legat. 349–67 was only one of many such hearings which the embassy weathered. Although speculative, since Legatio cuts

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

145

Legat. 355 are remarkably similar to those which Josephus attributes to Apion in AJ 18.257/258. The charges in both texts hinge on the Jewish refusal to sacrifice to Gaius, referred to in Philo with the technical terminology of θυσία and θύειν and in Josephus with the more generic term τιμῶν. Beyond that, however, there is also agreement that the Jews are charged with refusing to use or acknowledge the name of Gaius as divine. In Philo this charge comes from Gaius himself (Legat. 353), who mockingly “invoked [his own name] in an address” (ἐπεφήμιζε πρόσρησιν), while Josephus puts the charge on Apion’s lips (AJ 18.256) that the Jews refused “to utilize his name as an oath” (ὅρκιον αὐτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ποιεῖσθαι). The differing origin of the charge—Apion instead of Gaius—is significant in and of itself and can be put down to the fact that (as I will discuss further below) the Gaius of Philo’s account is a poor match for the Persian king of the Book of Esther. This is especially relevant in light Josephus’ depiction of the king in his own retelling in AJ 11, as I indicated above, where he is largely a sympathetic figure manipulated by a subordinate but certainly not one who undertakes blasphemy and anti-Jewish charges at his own initiative. Thus, Josephus’ choice to place the charge in Apion’s mouth more closely approximates the figure of Haman and his relationship to the Persian king. Josephus also adds a slew of other charges which are not explicit in Philo and which he need not have derived from any particular source at all given that they are commonplace. However, they may also be elaborations of Gaius’ charge against the Jews in Philo, asking rhetorically “Are you the ones who hate God, who do not acknowledge me as God—I who am acknowledged to be by all the others but unnamable by you?”27 In addition to the refusal to swear and the refusal to sacrifice this could also be the origin for the additional charges in AJ 18.258 that the Jews do not erect altars and temples to Gaius. With the precise passage that Josephus drew on tentatively identified, it is possible to see that Josephus was carefully selective in his choice of material while at the same time exercising freedom to alter the source for his own literary designs. Although there may be multiple reasons for his selection of particular material, it is the literary one which is pertinent for this chapter. That he had literary purposes at least partially in mind is confirmed by the alterations which he made to his source.

27

off abruptly with the promise of a second volume that is no longer extant, it is possible that Josephus derived these comments—as he did much pertaining to the Roman legate Petronius and the resolution of the crisis—from the lost second half of Philo’s account. ἐστὲ οἱ θεομισεῖς, οἱ θεὸν μὴ νομίζοντες εἶναί με, τὸν ἤδη παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνωμολογημένον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀκατονόμαστον ὑμῖν. (Legat. 353)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

146

Chapter 6

2.2.3 Motive for Selection Josephus honed in on the one passage in all of Legatio which would most readily allow him to portray the crises under Gaius in the mold of the Esther story. In order to do this, he needed a named non-Jewish official urging the ruler on to anti-Jewish action on the basis of false accusations related to Jewish exceptionalism—just as happens in the Esther story with Haman and the Persian king.28 Legat. 349–67 serves that purpose better than any other passage; no other even comes close. Only here do we find a scene in which Philo and the named leader of the Alexandrian embassy face off before Gaius and, furthermore, the named Alexandrian directly brings charges to Gaius against the Jews in their presence. Furthermore, the charges against the Jews in both the account of Agrippa and in Josephus’ version of the Esther story center on Jewish exceptionalism, in particular as expressed in cultic activity. Josephus’ retelling of Esther goes beyond all of the scriptural versions’ singular concern (Esth. 3:8) with the Jews’ differing “laws” (νόμοι/νόμιμα/‫ ) ָד ֵת ֶיהם‬and adds references (AJ 11.212) to their contrasting “cult service” (θρησκείαν), “customs” (ἔθεσι), and “way of life” (ἐπιτηδεύμασιν). However, in addition to exercising intentional selectivity in drawing on source material, Josephus also exercised a significant degree of freedom in re-presenting this choice scene in which the embassies take their stand before Gaius. 2.2.4 Motives for Alteration First, let us return to Josephus’ substitution of Apion for Isidorus. This is not likely to have been due to a simple mistake given that Josephus’ source was completely clear on this point. Unless Josephus possessed some other source (from Apion himself or a third party) which led him to believe that Apion was the leader of the Alexandrian embassy over against Philo’s depiction of Isidorus as the leader, personal and polemical motives are more likely.29 The date of composition of Book 18 of AJ cannot be known with certainty but, given 28

29

In fact, it is principally the ethnic component of the story which makes Esther distinct from other folkloric literature, with which it shares an abundance of forms and types such as the beauty contest of Cinderella stories. See Susan Niditch, Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 136. Andrew Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: The Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 34, notes the discrepancies between Josephus’ and Philo’s accounts and, therefore, assumes that Josephus cannot have used Philo—hypothesizing the use of a non-extant account composed by Apion himself. Allen Kerskeslager, “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 C.E.,” SPhiloA 17 (2005): 89, also suggests that Josephus used an account from Apion himself as his source. However, there is no need to assume that the differences preclude Josephus’ use of Philo when the literary qualities of his account are considered.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

147

that the whole work was completed in 93/94, sometime ca. 90–92 CE is not an unreasonable supposition. This later period in Josephus’ life is proximate in time to the composition of his Contra Apionem, which certainly post-dated AJ but by how much time is not known.30 Therefore, the lone references to Apion in AJ 18.257 and 259 may indicate a first encounter between Josephus and his future rhetorical opponent.31 That Apion is nowhere else mentioned in AJ where anti-Jewish charges are brought up—points where Josephus often deviates from the narrative at hand and engages in polemic with various enemies of the Jews—indicates that he may not have previously been aware of or concerned with Apion. Josephus’ willingness to substitute Apion for Isidorus may reflect, then, a nascent awareness that Apion constituted the greater threat in the long run and may also indicate an incipient interest in that figure—an interest which would soon grow to a degree such as to require writing an entire volume. As Smallwood notes, Apion was to Josephus “the typical anti-Semite.”32 Yet, in light of the affinities he was creating between his account of Agrippa I and the Esther story, Josephus may also have substituted Apion in AJ as a result of the literary sensibility that this figure modelled the Jewish arch-enemy Haman much more closely than the relatively unknown figure of Isidorus.33 By the later 30

31 32 33

The Contra Apionem is Josephus’ last work, written as a rejoinder to the objections that AJ apparently received in some quarters to the effect that his claims about the Jewish national past were controverted by the Greek historians (CA 1.1–3). Its date of composition is unknown other than sometime in the mid- or late-90’s or possibly the very early second century CE. In addition to addressing Apion posthumously in CA, Josephus also quotes extensively from other Greek writers such as Manetho, Chaeremon, and Lysimachus in order to refute disparaging views of Jewish history, personages, and customs. On these writers, see Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010), 306–16. On the date of CA, see John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxvi–xxviii. On Josephus’ claim to have embarked on CA as a result of criticisms that AJ received, see Haaland, “Convenient Fiction or Causal Factor,” 163–75. Sterling, “Man of the Highest Repute,” 111, suggests this possibility as well. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 319. In contrast to Apion’s comparative renown, Isidorus is poorly known and little knowledge of his background has been preserved. He appears in the fragmentary Acta Alexandrinorum, which can be consulted in Herbert A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: Acta Alexandrinorum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954). A recent analysis of this corpus, including the figure of Isidorus, can be found in Harker, Loyalty and Dissidence. Overviews of the historical Apion, his career, and his posthumous reputation can be found in Kenneth R. Jones, “The Figure of Apion in Josephus’ Contra Apionem,” JSJ 36, no. 3 (2005): 278–315; Barclay, Against Apion, 170 n. 7. Kerkeslager, “Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros,” 49–94, argues on the basis of Philo and other evidence that Isidorus (along with Dionysius and Lampo) was neither particularly anti-Jewish nor an official

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

148

Chapter 6

first century CE the very name “Apion” raises to Josephus the same virulently and dangerously anti-Jewish associations as does the legendary “Haman.” The second motive for Josephus’ alterations to Philo relates to the causal connection he establishes between the Alexandrian embassy’s charges in the scene before Gaius and the attempt to erect the emperor’s image in the Jerusalem temple. As noted above, Philo does not make this connection, instead supplying other reasons for Gaius’ outrageous action. Schwartz suggests that Josephus’ reason for omitting Philo’s reference to the letter of Capito and the incident between the Jews and Greeks at Yavneh (Legat. 201–203), which provoke Gaius’ plot in the Alexandrian’s account of the crisis, is because it would seem to Josephus to justify the emperor’s anti-Jewish action as a retaliatory response for the destruction of the altar erected to him—justification which Josephus is not at all prepared to allow.34 Furthermore, Schwartz argues that Philo’s detailed report of the embassies (Legat. 349–67), though presented only after the affair of the temple statue is narrated at length (Legat. 207–348), should actually be located chronologically before that intervening section at the point when the embassy’s encounters with Gaius are first mentioned (Legat. 181–86). There, no report is found because Philo quickly turns to focus exclusively on the emerging threat to the temple. However, in Schwartz’s estimation, the failure of Legat. 349–67 to exhibit any awareness of the threat against the temple is inexplicable unless Philo has displaced the narrative for rhetorical or literary reasons.35 According to Schwartz, therefore, Josephus did no more than reach this same logical conclusion and in his account chose to relocate this scene to its proper chronological place.36 Significantly, Schwartz still avers that Josephus merely narrated the Alexandrian embassy’s anti-Jewish charges to Gaius alongside the decision by the emperor to erect his image in the temple, but did not intend to imply that the former caused the latter.37 While it may be the case that Josephus correctly intuited that Legat. 349–67 belonged chronologically before the account of the temple affair, attributing

34 35 36 37

ambassador for the Greek embassy, but rather a patriotic Alexandrian who functioned unofficially as a legal advocate and counselor for the embassy. If this true, and if Josephus also knew this (and, more importantly, knew that his audience was aware of it), then it further explains his substitution of Apion for Isidorus. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 80–83. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 83–84. The same conclusion is reached by Sterling, “Man of the Highest Repute,” 111, though Schwartz is not cited. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 84. “While Josephus’ report of the audience [with Gaius] immediately precedes his account of Gaius’s orders [concerning the erection of his image in the Jewish temple] … he [Josephus] was at least honest enough not to construct an organic or causal link between the two.”

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

149

Banquets Fit for Kings

that intuition to disinterested powers of perception will not fully explain Josephus’ literary choices. These two alterations, the omission of the Yavneh incident and the relocation of the report on the embassies, must be interpreted not as individual and separate source-related decisions, nor even simply another instance of an ideological agenda, but as a single and deliberate act to capitalize on a literary potentiality. Simultaneously carrying out the omission and the relocation has the obvious effect of portraying the Alexandrian embassy and Apion in particular as directly instigating the emperor Gaius to take action against the Jewish people. It is precisely Apion’s charges of Jewish neglect to sacrifice to/for the emperor which Gaius follows up on with the Jewish embassy and, when dissatisfied with their defense, elects to retaliate against in kind. A causal link is most definitely implied by Josephus.38 What must be confronted here is the strong likelihood that Josephus’ subtle but significant alterations to Philo at this point reflect not simply—if at all—a concern to properly and coherently present the correct chronology of events but, rather, were motived by literary designs. By making Apion the cause of Gaius’ anti-Jewish threat, Josephus was, thereby, able to echo the story of Esther in which the figure of Haman incites the Persian king against the Jewish people. 3

Banquet Scenes in the Accounts of Agrippa I and Esther

After introducing the reign of Gaius, the charges of Apion, and the origin of the crisis against the Jews, Josephus then turns the narrative to focus on the repercussions of the crisis in Judea and Syria surrounding the figure of Petronius, who is the Roman legate charged with enacting Gaius’ orders. Towards the end of this section Josephus returns to Agrippa and to his response to Gaius’ anti-Jewish plot (AJ 18.289–97). Here, he narrates a dramatic banquet scene in which Agrippa speaks boldly with Gaius to preserve the Jewish people from harm. 3.1 Fundamental Parallels Resemblances with the famous banquet scene at which Esther petitioned to revoke the murderous anti-Jewish decree of Haman are conspicuous. They also help form a bedrock for more complex and challenging depictions of Agrippa

38

See also Gambetti, Alexandrian Riots, 267–68.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

150

Chapter 6

in light of Esther.39 Although the scene is somewhat lengthy, it is worth quoting in full with some dialogue removed for the sake of brevity (AJ 18. 289–96): So as King Agrippa was living in Rome, he advanced greatly in honor with Gaius and one time put on a banquet for him with the intention to surpass everyone, both in the expenses for the banquet as well as the pleasure furnished for the guests. The result was that not only others, but even Gaius himself, could not think to equal or surpass it—should he at some point wish to do so. To such a degree did he exceed all others and plan out everything to provide for Caesar. And Gaius, admiring both his planning and munificence which he carried out by force for his [Gaius’] pleasure, and which he exercised with resources beyond the capability of his finances, wished to imitate the extravagance of Agrippa that he had carried out for his [Gaius’] pleasure. He [Gaius] was driven by wine and had his mind turned more cheery and exhorted during the symposium after having been invited to drink:  … [Gaius compliments Agrippa and invites him to make a request]. … And so these things he [Gaius] said thinking that he [Agrippa] would request either a large acquisition of neighboring territory or even the revenue of cities. But he [Agrippa], although ready to put forward his request, did not reveal his intention but quickly replied to Gaius … [Agrippa declines to make his request known]. And Gaius, shocked at his [Agrippa’s] virtue, pressed him even more to tell him what he could furnish him that would gratify him. So Agrippa said … [Agrippa makes the request that Gaius cease the attempt to erect his image in the Jerusalem temple].40 The scene itself and its literary setting, as a banquet at which similar and momentous petitions are made in order to avert a looming crisis against the Jewish people, is the most prominent point of contact between these two stories. However, other significant parallels between the two banquet scenes are also present. Both protagonists, for instance, make their requests to revoke anti-Jewish imperial action in the midst of eating and drinking when the monarch is relaxed and in a good mood. In Josephus’ retelling of the Esther story, the reader is told that Esther’s supplication takes place “in the midst of drinking” (μεταξὺ πίνων) and “while the king [Ahasuerus] together with Haman was 39 40

Several of the points of contact which follow were first noted (though not developed further) by Schwartz, Agrippa I, 34–35. AJ 18. 289–96.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

151

being entertained.”41 In the Agrippa story, similarly, the king’s petition takes place as Gaius was “driven by wine and had his mind turned more cheery.”42 Additionally, when both figures finally issue their petitions it is only after first declining to disclose their request. In Josephus’ version of the Esther story, the queen “delayed until the next day to voice her wish to him [King Ahasuerus].”43 In the account of Agrippa, “although he [King Agrippa] was entirely ready to supply his request, he did not reveal his intention.”44 Finally, in both cases the ruler expects the petition to include a request for territory. In Josephus’ retelling of the Esther story, the king reassures her that she “would not fail to obtain anything, not even should she wish to receive a share of his kingdom.”45 Likewise, Gaius extends his offer to Agrippa “thinking that he would request either a large acquisition of neighboring territory or even the revenue of cities.”46 No reader familiar with the Esther story—including and especially a familiarity derived through Josephus’ own retelling in AJ 11—could fail to note the remarkable role in which Agrippa is here cast. 3.2 Parallels Subverted: Agrippa and Esther Contrasted Just as Esther once put her life on the line to save the Jewish people from certain death, so too (the reader thinks) Agrippa risks all he has gained and hazards the mad Gaius’ wrath in order to preserve his people unharmed. Yet, in several significant ways the clear parallels between Agrippa and Esther are undermined and subverted. 3.2.1 Virtuous Motives? As much as Agrippa resembles the noble Esther in this banquet scene and is no doubt admirable for it, he also fails to reach that illustrious character’s heights of virtue. Gaius may have been “shocked at the virtue” (ἐκπλαγεὶς τὴν ἀρετὴν αὐτοῦ) of Agrippa for demurring to make a request of the emperor when offered the opportunity (AJ 18.296), but Gaius is hardly a compelling judge of character in the story, and as I shall show below, Agrippa’s stated motives belie that judgement in any case; if anything, Gaius is here portrayed as so irreparably blinded by his own ego and by the flattery of his subjects that he cannot even see when his friend is merely prudent rather than virtuous. 41 42 43 44 45 46

ὡς δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς μετὰ τοῦ Ἀμάνου εὐωχηθεὶς. (AJ 11.242, 262) ἀνειμένος ὑπὸ οἴνου καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν εἰς τὸ ἱλαρώτερον ἐκτετραμμένος. (AJ 18.291) ἡ δὲ εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἀνεβάλλετο φράζειν αὐτῷ τὴν αὐτῆς βούλησιν. (AJ 11.243) ὁ δὲ καίπερ τὰ πάντα ἐφ ̓ οἷς αἰτήσαι παρασκευασάμενος οὐκ ἐφανέρου τὴν διάνοιαν. (AJ 18.294) μηδενὸς γὰρ ἀτυχήσειν, μηδ ̓ ἂν τὸ μέρος τῆς βασιλείας ἐθελήσῃ λαβεῖν. (AJ 11.243) καὶ ὁ μὲν ταῦτα ἔλεγεν οἰόμενος γῆν τε πολλὴν τῆς προσόδου αἰτήσεσθαι ἢ καί τινων προσόδους πόλεων. (AJ 18.293)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

152

Chapter 6

Esther goes to exceptional lengths to devise the plan of the banquet, to go to the king in private and make the invitation at great personal risk, and then, finally, to put forward the request itself after the second banquet. The risks to which the queen exposes herself are also present in Josephus’ retelling of the Esther story. Addition C (Esther’s prayer) and Addition D (Esther’s audience with the king), which relate the queen’s extensive preparations in advance of the looming banquet, are retained from the Greek translations and adapted by Josephus through careful alterations, especially key omissions, to his non-Jewish readers’ tastes and expectations.47 Also significant for understanding Josephus’ conception and depiction of Esther’s role in rescuing the Jewish people is his addition of the statement that the king’s anger at the queen’s uninvited entrance transformed into concern for her wellbeing upon her fainting “according to the will of God, I suppose” (οἶμαι).48 This expression (οἶμαι) is not so much one of doubt or uncertainty on Josephus’ own part as to the correctness of crediting divine agency, but rather it pertains to his self-presentation as a historiographer who allows the reader to evaluate the evidence and come to their own conclusions, since many of the narrated instances where this and related expressions are employed could be considered fantastical, mythological, or inappropriate by a reader who would criticize Homer or Herodotus on the same front.49 In Josephus’ retelling of the 47

48

49

Omissions from the prayer, which is Addition C, include Esther confessing the Jews’ past sins, hating pagan idols, and despising the king’s bed—all either irrelevant or offensive to Josephus’ non-Jewish reader (OG/AT Esth. Add. C  17–19, 26–29). Noted by Kneebone, “Josephus’ Esther and diaspora Judaism,” 177; Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 530. From Addition D, Josephus omits the comment that the king was “like an angel of God” (ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ) to Esther (OG/AT Add. D 13). This is very likely a deliberate omission, since Josephus exhibits a tendency throughout AJ to de-emphasize the role of angels. See Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 212–13. Josephus also omits angels at AJ 8.349; 9.20; and 10.259. See Otto Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 233 n. 5. For Josephus’ treatment of angels generally, see Christopher T. Begg, “Angels in the Work of Flavius Josephus,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer et al., Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 525–36. κατὰ βούλησιν οἶμαι τοῦ θεοῦ. (AJ 11.237) Cf. AJ 13.314, where Josephus narrates that the death of Aristobulus, the son of John Hyrcanus happened “according to divine providence, I suppose.” (κατὰ δαιμόνιον οἶμαι πρόνοιαν.) See also AJ 11.139 and discussion in Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 42 n. 459. Noted also by Spilsbury and Seeman, Judean Antiquities 11, 75 n. 790. On such expressions as part of Josephus’ strategy for negotiating the narration of the “miraculous” to an elite Greco-Roman audience, see Friis, Image and Imitation, 167–68, 173–77; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 209–10; Betz, “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,” 212–13. Other expressions which Josephus employs when narrating miraculous

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

153

scriptural story, therefore, Esther’s preparations, her risks, and the divine care for her are all studiously emphasized. Agrippa, on the other hand, has motives that are far less benevolent and far more self-serving. As Josephus introduces the occasion: “One time [he] put on a banquet for him [Gaius] with the intention to surpass everyone (πάντας ὑπερβαλέσθαι), both in the expenses for the banquet as well as the pleasure furnished for the guests.”50 Given that Josephus has already consistently portrayed Agrippa in AJ as over-spending recklessly to the point of bankruptcy in an effort to cultivate social contacts in the upper reaches of Roman society (AJ 18.143–46, 161–67), the motives assigned to him for the banquet are entirely appropriate within the larger narrative.51 Thus, there is not the slightest hint that Agrippa had planned to act out of his exalted position at court to avert the anti-Jewish plot. Although in the cases of both Esther and Agrippa the ruler prompts the protagonist to make a petition, Esther is characterized as elaborately planning the banquet precisely so as to elicit this scenario, while Agrippa events include: “Concerning these things [the long lifespans in the primeval history], then, let each person consider as he pleases” (AJ 1.108); “Concerning these things [the Exodus], then, let each person believe as seems best to him” (AJ 2.348); and “So I have narrated his [Jonah’s] story [of being swallowed by a whale] as I found it recorded” (AJ 9.214). 50 καί ποτε προθεὶς δεῖπνον αὐτῷ καὶ πρόνοιαν ἔχων πάντας ὑπερβαλέσθαι τέλεσί τε τοῖς εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον καὶ παρασκευῇ τοῦ εἰς ἡδονὴν φέροντος. (AJ 18.289) 51 Agrippa’s reputation for overspending to the point of destitution may have persisted in some circles. In the Acta Alexandrinorum (also called Acta Isidori), at a point when Isidorus makes accusations to Claudius against Agrippa, he refers to him as a “three-penny (τρῐωβολεῖος) Jew.” While the expression is obviously intended to be pejorative, its exact meaning is not known. But one likely meaning is to insultingly imply that the referent is poor. Hence, this could be taken as evidence that Agrippa’s financial predicaments were more widely known, at least in the Alexandrian circles where the Acta circulated. See the discussion in Modrzejewski, Jews of Egypt, 176–77. Alternatively, Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 291, translates the term as “cheap Jew,” taking it to deride Agrippa’s Jewishness as no more than a superficial veneer atop his Idumean ancestry and his upbringing in Rome. The identification of the Agrippa of the Acta with Agrippa I rather than his later son, Agrippa II, is contested. For identification with Agrippa I, see Théodore Reinach, “L’Emperateur Claude et les Juifs d’apres un nouveau document,” REJ 74 (1924): 113–14. For identification with Agrippa II, see, Ulrich Wilken Zum alexendrinischen Antisemitismus, Abhandlungen der Königlichen Sächsischen Geschichte Wissenschaft 27 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909), 783–839. But whether or not Josephus’ readers, who were not Alexandrians, at least in the main, would have previously associated Agrippa with prodigal spending, perpetual indebtedness, and lavish banqueting, is more difficult to tell. Dio Cassius associates the Jewish king closely with the hated Gaius, whose legacy suffered damnatio memoriae, but says nothing of finances or banquets (59.8.2; 59.24.1; 60.8.2–3). The only notice of substance (59.24.1) is, however, strongly negative, referring to Agrippa as one of Gaius’ “teachers of tyrants” (τυραννοδιδασκάλους).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

154

Chapter 6

is presented somewhat ironically—though nonetheless admirably—as merely taking advantage of an opportunity which he stumbled upon while trying to ingratiate himself to Roman aristocrats.52 3.2.2 Failure of the Petition In a similar fashion, Agrippa departs from his archetype in the ultimate failure of the petition. Esther is fully successful in convincing the king to revoke the murderous decree of Haman. Josephus at first leads his readers to expect the same outcome from Agrippa’s petition as well. Gaius assents to Agrippa’s request to relent and writes to Petronius in Syria to put the project on hold (AJ 18.298–301). However, no sooner is the reader assured that Agrippa is every bit as successful as Esther than this providential ending is derailed when Gaius receives Petronius’ dilatory letter explaining the necessity of halting the emperor’s plan. Thereupon, in anger Gaius quickly decides to continue on his original course. In Josephus’ narrative, Agrippa’s well-intentioned but unplanned petition is not what brings an end to Gaius’ madness, but only the stalling tactics of a lone Roman legate, Petronius, and a senatorial conspiracy issuing in the emperor’s assassination. Once again, Agrippa’s resemblance to a scriptural archetype is carefully developed in order guide readers’ expectations so as to later disrupt and subvert them. Analysis of Josephus’ selection and arrangement of his source material for the banquet scene will show even further his efforts towards these ends. 3.3 Agrippa’s Intervention: Philo vs. Josephus Josephus’ evocative scene of Agrippa’s supplication at a banquet, which I quoted at length above and which is so reminiscent of the story of Esther, is not the only account of the king’s intervention into the crisis which circulated in antiquity. It is highly significant that Josephus possessed multiple accounts of Agrippa’s intercession and, thus, exercised selectivity in choosing which material to include.53 The alternative account, which he chose not to include, is comprised of Legat. 261–333 and is a scene of Agrippa fainting at 52

53

It may also be the case, as Kerkeslager, “Agrippa I and the Judeans of Alexandria,” 49, argues concerning the king’s actions in relation to the Alexandrian riots, that not merely the literary figure depicted in Josephus’ AJ but also the historical Agrippa I “was motivated primarily by personal interests typical of other Roman elites.” On locating Agrippa principally within a Roman rather than Jewish context, see Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 291. See Schwartz, Agrippa I, 18–23. Although Schwartz convincingly argues that the banquet scene is drawn from a hypothesized biography of Agrippa (Vita Agrippa), it is also possible that Josephus invented it. Regardless, I treat the text in its final form as a Josephan composition irrespective of its origin in a putative source. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

155

the news of Gaius’ plan and subsequently writing the emperor a lengthy letter. While Philo’s account of Agrippa’s intervention is too long to quote in full, relating a few brief portions will serve to illustrate the differences between it and Josephus’ banquet scene. When Gaius informs his friend Agrippa of the Jews’ refusal to acknowledge his divinity and of his intention to retaliate by erecting his image in the Jerusalem temple, the reader is told by Philo that (Legat. 266–67): As Gaius was about to add others [charges against the Jews], he [Agrippa] turned every kind of color on account of being disturbed—blood-red, pale, and livid. But already he was possessed also by shivering from the top of his head to his feet; all of his limbs and extremities shook with both trembling and quaking; while his nerves loosened and relaxed he tumbled and, at last, would have fallen down entirely if bystanders had not caught him. At the command they carried him home unconscious and unaware of the mass of afflicting evils [coming upon the Jewish people].54 After awakening several days later, Agrippa hastens to write to Gaius to implore him not to carry out his plan (Legat. 276–329), and then (Legat. 330): Having written these things and marked the letter with a seal, he sent it to Gaius. Shutting himself up in the house, he remained there agitated and disturbed and anxiously thinking especially about how it might strike Gaius. For the danger thrown down was not insignificant but concerning destruction and enslavement and complete devastation, not only against the Jews inhabiting the sacred precinct but those throughout the whole inhabitable world.55 That such a dramatic story of Agrippa’s intervention was ready at hand in the source which Josephus was already drawing upon for the events concerning 54

55

μέλλοντος δὲ προσεπιφέρειν ἕτερα, ὑπ’ ἀγωνίας παντοδαπὰς χρόας ἐνήλλαττεν ἐν ταὐτῷ γινόμενος αἱμωπός, ὠχρός, πελιδνός. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς ἄκρας ἄχρι ποδῶν φρίκῃ κατέσχητο, τρόμος τε καὶ σεισμὸς πάντα αὐτοῦ τὰ μέρη καὶ τὰ μέλη συνεκύκα, χαλωμένων τε καὶ ἀνιεμένων τῶν σωματικῶν τόνων περὶ ἑαυτῷ κατέρρει καὶ τὰ τελευταῖα παρεθεὶς μικροῦ κατέπεσεν, εἰ μὴ τῶν παρεστώτων τινὲς ὑπέλαβον αὐτόν· καὶ κελευσθέντες φοράδην οἴκαδε κομίζουσιν οὐδενὸς συναισθανόμενον ὑπὸ κάρου τῶν ἀθρόων κατασκηψάντων κακῶν. (Legat. 266–67) Ταῦτα γράψας καὶ σφραγισάμενος πέμπει Γαΐῳ καὶ συγκλεισάμενος οἴκοι κατέμενεν, ἀγωνιῶν καὶ συγκεχυμένος καὶ πῶς ἐντύχοι μάλιστα φροντίζων· οὐ γὰρ βραχὺς ἐπέρριπτο κίνδυνος, ἀλλ’ ὁ περὶ ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀνδραποδισμοῦ καὶ παντελοῦς πορθήσεως, οὐ μόνον τοῖς τὴν ἱερὰν χώραν κατοικοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς πανταχοῦ τῆς οἰκουμένης Ἰουδαίοις. (Legat. 330) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

156

Chapter 6

the Alexandrian riots and the attempt by Gaius to install his image in the Jerusalem temple highlights even more his choice to turn from Philo’s version and introduce the banquet scene instead. While there may be a variety of reasons for his procedure here, a literary explanation provides the strongest grounds. Josephus’ propensity for the scriptural court-tales, particularly Esther, would be sufficient on its own to explain his bias towards the banquet scene. However, his introduction of the reign of Gaius, the figure of Apion, and the anti-Jewish plot along the lines of the Esther story (discussed above) shows that he was, indeed, already fitting his developing narrative into the mold of that archetype and, thus, it would be surprising to find him passing over such an attractive opportunity as the banquet scene presented to similarly construct the resolution of the crisis. Even assuming, however, as I have just argued, that Josephus thought the banquet scene superior to the account of Legat. 276–333, in which Agrippa makes his petition by letter, an explanation must be sought for his choice to leave out the scene of Agrippa fainting at the disturbing news. This scene bears some resemblance to Addition D of Esther, where the queen dramatically faints—one of the additions, it will be recalled, which Josephus included in his retelling in AJ 11. If Josephus wished to depict Agrippa as an Esther-like figure, as I am arguing here, why would he spurn material which bears such promise? 3.3.1 Selection, Characterization, and Irony The answer is to be found in an understanding of the complexity of Josephus’ characterization of Agrippa, which utilizes overt parallels, affinities, and resemblances to a scriptural archetype not simply to provide the reader with a “stock” character but in order to playfully and imaginatively imbue the narrative and the protagonist simultaneously with a sense of both the familiar and the surprising. In fact, it is precisely the sense of the familiar which he conscientiously develops that allows him to subvert it at key points with flashes of irony and unsettling foreignness. Hence, while the inclusion of a scene from Legatio which depicts Agrippa dramatically fainting like Esther would further a very simple correlation between the two protagonists, the rather more complex one which Josephus presents in his AJ account of Agrippa I would only be flattened by it.56 Josephus’ Agrippa, though a sympathetic character, is 56

Additionally, Josephus may have found the letter of Agrippa to Gaius problematic on the grounds that it completely ignores the emperor’s blasphemous divine pretensions. See Appendix VI of Schwartz, Agrippa I, 200–202, where he shows that the letter is highly unlikely to have been written by Agrippa but bears distinctive marks of Philonic composition. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

157

far more self-centered and far less concerned over the fate of his people than either Philo’s Agrippa or the figure of Esther. Josephus’ Agrippa would not faint at news of an existential threat to the Jewish people, nor would he devise a clever plan to petition Gaius; he would, instead, carry on a life of luxury in Rome attempting to woo the city’s elites. 3.3.2 Arrangement, Placement, and Narrative Unity The placement of the banquet scene also fits well within an interpretive framework constructed with the Esther story as a model or archetype, since a dramatic appeal made at a banquet directly precedes the successful aversion of the crisis in both narratives. However, this placement of the banquet scene in the Agrippa account is very deliberate. The entirety of AJ 19 narrates the precise circumstances leading up to Gaius’ death—a death which, unlike in the Esther story, where the protagonist’s plea to the monarch successfully averts the crisis, is the actual and direct end of the anti-Jewish plot in Josephus’ account of Agrippa I. On chronological grounds, therefore, the material from AJ 19 all the way up to the death of Gaius ought to come right after the banquet scene (AJ 18.298–304) and before the resolution of the crisis which is announced immediately afterwards (AJ 18.305–309). That Josephus chose not to locate it adjacent to the banquet scene implies that he had literary grounds for doing so. The choice to hold off the material in Book 19 as a separate digression allowed Josephus to create a tightly bounded sub-section of the narrative which holds together as an Esther-like story in miniature, quite apart from the lengthy account of the senatorial conspiracy derived from Roman sources. 4

Conclusion

I have shown in this chapter how the links between Josephus’ AJ account of Agrippa and the story of Esther operate at multiple levels. There are broader parallels which are designed to frame the crisis under Gaius as a reenactment of the basic plot of the Book of Esther. Gaius, then, functions in the place of the Persian king, Ahasuerus (Artaxerxes in AJ); Apion takes the stage as the anti-Jewish agitator Haman; and Agrippa acts as heroic Queen Esther. But the resonances between the Esther story and the crisis under Gaius in general also fit well within the context of Greco-Roman exemplary discourses. The early principate was a period in which aristocratic intellectuals, especially historians, had to take great care in thinking through how their speech and writing might be received by the emperor. Such a concern “reflected the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler, an individual whose behavior and character were of great importance in setting the conditions of the active life David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

158

Chapter 6

in politics. Understanding the character of the ruler is central to understanding whether and when one might or might not be interfered with, or whether one might or might not speak with relative freedom.”57 While the distant past tended to be a fairly safe topic for imperial historians—though not without its own historiographical challenges—writing about more recent history, especially of emperors and their (mis)deeds, could be extremely fraught. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising that Josephus dwells at such length on the crisis under Gaius. It would be all too easy for a reader to draw a direct line between the Persian king of Esther, the madness of Gaius, and the current reigning emperor, Domitian. It certainly does not help that, as I discussed in the conclusion to the previous chapter, Domitian was widely associated with the suppression of Jewish identity in Rome through a severe exaction of the fiscus Iudaicus, making him all the more amenable to this kind of implicit critique. Although it is tempting to read criticism of Gaius as veiled censure of Domitian, the extreme view which dominated earlier generations of scholarship—that Domitian raged an all-out war against philosophy and was generally intolerant of intellectual activity and literature, especially Stoics—has been widely disproven as Trajanic-era propaganda designed to glorify the current emperor at the expense of the previous dynasty.58 Freedom of expression certainly suffered under Domitian, as he was sensitive to what he regarded as subversive activity and literature—indeed more than his father and brother before him. But he was not quite the tyrant depicted by Tacitus, Pliny, Dio Chrysostom, and others. “Domitian’s disgrace illustrates the essential nature of memory 57 58

Daniel J. Kapust, Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought: Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 141. See Flower, Art of Forgetting, 234–75; John L. Penwill, “Politics and Philosophy in Flavian Rome,” in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, ed. A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 358–62; Brian W. Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London: Routledge, 1992), 119–25. Although Domitian’s successor, Nerva, initially distanced himself from the preceding Flavian dynasty, this did not last. The coinage announcing the abolition of the fiscus (or at least the abuses of it) dates only from the first year of Nerva’s reign. From roughly September 97 until his death in January 98 no such coinage is again issued. This timing coincides with Nerva’s forced adoption of Trajan by the praetorian guard in November 97. Trajan’s father had led legions in the Jewish War under Vespasian and beside Titus, so he had good reason to emphasize close ties with the Flavian dynasty and hostility towards the Jews. Thus, Trajan presided over the suppression of the diaspora Jewish revolt of 115–17 CE, while ostraca dated to June 98 CE reveal that he reinstituted the fiscus (CPJ 2.194). See Martin Goodman, “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past & Present 182 (2004): 22–27. Therefore, while Trajan maintained the denigration of Domitian, he asserted continuity with the other Flavians. See Flower, Art of Forgetting, 262–71, and the example of Pliny, Ep. 10.8, requesting permission to erect Trajan’s statue alongside the Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

159

sanctions: they reflect the ambitions and fears of those who implement them, while providing no more than a distorting mirror to the view of the individual who is the subject of the sanctions.”59 If we are not justified in seeing Gaius’ reign of terror in AJ as a thin cover for the current regime, that does not mean that Josephus’s readers would fail to grasp the contemporary implications of Agrippa’s story. It has been noted that an historian’s praise, blame, and exemplary characters (like Gaius) can easily shade into a kind of epideictic and counsel that may be read as the voice of the aristocratic elite warning the current emperor: these are the actions of a tyrant, so be careful not to rule like him.60 Given, however, Josephus’ apparent confidence in writing about tyrants, mad emperors, and their downfall, it is possible or even likely that Josephus expected his readers (and the current regime) to receive his critical portrait of Gaius not as a subtle critique of Domitian but as praise of the last Flavian emperor by way of implicit contrast with his hated predecessor, derisively nicknamed “Caligula.” As I mentioned above, it is not uncommon to find historians of the current dynasty carrying out covert or overt praise by way of denigrating the previous one as savage, cruel, and maniacal. In any case, however precisely we interpret Josephus’ presentation of Gaius and the obvious parallels between his reign, his anti-Jewish plot, and the story of Esther, it must be acknowledged that Josephus harbors a broader ambivalence concerning—or even fundamental rejection of—the institution of monarchy.61 Numerous times in AJ, Josephus expresses his distaste of autocracy and criticizes the institution of monarchy itself on account of it giving rise to tyrants and leading to problems of succession.62 While Josephus wisely

59 60 61

62

Flower, Art of Forgetting, 236. Kapust, Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought, 149–71. For a summary of Josephus’ political thought, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” SCI 7 (1983): 30–52; Tessa Rajak, “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’ Political Thought,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steve Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); idem, “Josephus,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, ed. Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield with Simon Harrison and Melissa Lane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 585–96; Mason, introduction, xxiv–xxix. E.g., AJ 6.33–36, 40–44. See Mason, “Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ Antiquities,” 129–53.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

160

Chapter 6

confines direct criticism of monarchy largely to Jewish history,63 indispensable for interpreting his depiction of Gaius and of Agrippa’s interactions with him as client ruler is the long digression on the conspiracy against Gaius in AJ 19, which features prominent anti-monarchical tones directed against the Roman institutions of government by Roman characters.64 In this light, it is difficult to avoid the inference that Josephus intended or expected his audience to read the account of Agrippa I in Books 18–20 as a plea on behalf of the ruling elite and a veiled criticism of the excesses of the imperial system—if perhaps not criticism of Domitian himself. At least by sticking to figures and events of a half-century past he could maintain the lie that he in no way was critical of the current regime but was only pointing out the defects of the Julio-Claudians. I have also demonstrated in this chapter that there are detailed affinities between the story of Esther and the account of Agrippa I; the iconic banquet stands out unmistakably. But Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers would also have immediately recognized a banquet as a carefully planned setting which functioned in their own day to facilitate exchange between emperor, as the ultimate benefactor, and aristocratic elites. “The give-and-take of convivial interaction comes to generate amicable or hostile reciprocity between emperor and elites.”65 To Roman elites, therefore, the setting of a banquet symbolizes opportunity and potential, but also represents danger. Both Gaius and the Persian king are configured as unpredictable sources of immense power that can either help or harm, particularly with respect to Jews as an ethno-religious minority of imperiled status. However, although Josephus depicts Agrippa constructing the occasion with great care and forethought, there is considerable ambiguity about what he originally envisioned as the end result. The purpose stated in the narrative is, as I discussed above in this chapter, that of seeking his own advancement. It is true that Agrippa ultimately takes advantage of Gaius’ satisfaction with the magnificently furnished banquet to intervene on his subjects’ behalf, and any elite Greco-Roman reader would have known that a beneficium from the emperor was likely be granted if the event was a success. However, as Tuval has pointed out, “Agrippa is often portrayed as a spendthrift and something of a rogue.”66 That characterization could not be more at odds with Esther’s self-sacrificial attitude, and Josephus makes no effort to clarify the 63 64 65 66

On tyranny and succession as inherent defects of monarchy highlighted in Josephus’ account of Herod the Great, see Mason, “Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ Antiquities,” 147–49. E.g., the speech of Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus in AJ 19. 167–84. See Mason, “Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ Antiquities,” 149–52; Sam Wilkinson, Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire (London: Continuum, 2012), 51–57. Roller, Constructing Autocracy, 154. Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew, 238. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

161

tension between what seem to be Agrippa’s self-serving motives and an outcome that speaks of concern for his people. Josephus, then, bears out his overarching interpretation of Agrippa as a figure with a mixed legacy, a ruler who accomplished a great deal and far exceeded the rest of his grandfather Herod’s immediate heirs, yet—quite unlike scriptural Joseph and Esther whom he so frequently resembles—also led a life punctuated by shocking nadirs and marked by self-interest. This interpretation of Agrippa is encapsulated in Josephus’ account of his death in AJ 19.343–52, which brings together the themes that I have explored in these two chapters. Just as the German prisoner predicted to Agrippa during his imprisonment, a passage discussed in the previous chapter, the same sign of a bird overhead that signaled the king’s release would years later signal his impending death. This occurred while Agrippa was in Caesarea celebrating festivities in honor of the emperor (AJ 19.345–46):67 Immediately his flatterers raised their voices from here and there and addressed words to him (though not at all for his good) as a God (θεὸν), saying “Deign to be benevolent.” And they added, “If until now we feared you as a man (ὡς ἄνθρωπον), yet from now on we acknowledge you are greater than mortal nature (κρείττονά σε θνητῆς φύσεως).” The king did not reproach them nor did he refuse the flattery impiously offered (ἀσεβοῦσαν). So then, raising his head a bit later he saw an owl perched atop a certain span of rope above his head. Immediately he recognized this to be the messenger of misfortune (κακῶν) which also at a former time had been [messenger] of good tidings (ἀγαθῶν).68

67

On Agrippa’s death, see Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 302–304. The story of his death is paralleled in Acts 12:19b–23 (NRSV): “Then he [Agrippa] went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. Now Herod [Agrippa I] was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they came to him in a body; and after winning over Blastus, the king’s chamberlain, they asked for a reconciliation, because their country depended on the king’s country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat on the platform, and delivered a public address to them. The people kept shouting, ‘The voice of a God, and not of a mortal!’ (θεοῦ φωνὴ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου) And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.” 68 εὐθὺς δὲ οἱ κόλακες τὰς οὐδὲ ἐκείνῳ πρὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν φωνὰς ἀνεβόων, θεὸν προσαγορεύοντες “εὐμενής τε εἴης” ἐπιλέγοντες, “εἰ καὶ μέχρι νῦν ὡς ἄνθρωπον ἐφοβήθημεν, ἀλλὰ τοὐντεῦθεν κρείττονά σε θνητῆς φύσεως ὁμολογοῦμεν.” οὐκ ἐπέπληξεν τούτοις ὁ βασιλεὺς οὐδὲ τὴν κολακείαν ἀσεβοῦσαν ἀπετρίψατο. ἀνακύψας δ ̓ οὖν μετ ̓ ὀλίγον τὸν βουβῶνα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ κεφαλῆς ὑπερκαθιζόμενον εἶδεν ἐπὶ σχοινίου τινός. ἄγγελον τοῦτον εὐθὺς ἐνόησεν κακῶν εἶναι τὸν καί ποτε τῶν ἀγαθῶν γενόμενον. (AJ 19.345–46) David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

162

Chapter 6

This last and most egregious of Agrippa’s self-instigated turns of fortune makes clear what Josephus stated outright when he first began to recount the king’s life (discussed in Chapter 5): that the character of the king conforms to a definite pattern which conveys moral and pragmatic lessons. Much earlier in his life and at a point of great success in Rome, it was an injudicious remark which was the basis for a false accusation that landed him in prison. Although he was freed that time through the working of divine providence, he later failed to recall to whom he owed his success, and Josephus makes clear that divine judgement is responsible for his death as well (AJ 19.347–48): Leaping up, he [Agrippa] then said to his friends “I, who am to you a God, am now imposed upon to conclude my life because fate (τῆς εἱμαρμένης) instantaneously reproached me for the false addresses which were made to me. I, who was called ‘immortal’ by you all, am now led off to die. What is fated (τὴν πεπρωμένην) must be accepted; it is what God has willed (ᾗ θεὸς βεβούληται). For I also have lived my life in no ordinary way but with the splendor of one deemed happy (ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τῆς μακαριζομένης λαμπρότητος).” Speaking these words, at the same time he was debilitated by a bout of pain. Hastily he was brought into the palace and the word [of what happened] went out to all that he was about to die shortly. So immediately the populace, women together with children, supplicated God on the king’s behalf while sitting in sackcloth according to ancestral tradition, such that all was full of weeping and laments.69 Agrippa’s extravagant lifestyle, which is mentioned prominently in the quote above, was throughout his life a source of both success and failure. Overspending which led to bankruptcy during his earlier years later endeared him with the Roman aristocracy and the imperial family. It was even the means by which he threw the extravagant banquet at which he made his momentous Esther-like petition. However, while Agrippa’s death on account of entertaining impious flattery represents some of Josephus’ harshest and most explicit critique of the king, since this amounts to the same behavior and ultimate end as the hated 69

ὁ θεὸς ὑμῖν ἐγώ, φησίν, ἤδη καταστρέφειν ἐπιτάττομαι τὸν βίον, παραχρῆμα τῆς εἱμαρμένης τὰς ἄρτι μου κατεψευσμένας φωνὰς ἐλεγχούσης· ὁ κληθεὶς ἀθάνατος ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν ἤδη θανεῖν ἀπάγομαι. δεκτέον δὲ τὴν πεπρωμένην, ᾗ θεὸς βεβούληται· καὶ γὰρ βεβιώκαμεν οὐδαμῇ φαύλως, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τῆς μακαριζομένης λαμπρότητος. ταῦθ ̓ ἅμα λέγων ἐπιτάσει τῆς ὀδύνης κατεπονεῖτο· μετὰ σπουδῆς οὖν εἰς τὸ βασίλειον ἐκομίσθη καὶ διῇξε λόγος εἰς πάντας, ὡς ἔχοι τοῦ τεθνάναι παντάπασι μετ ̓ ὀλίγον. ἡ πληθὺς δ ̓ αὐτίκα σὺν γυναιξὶν καὶ παισὶν ἐπὶ σάκκων καθεσθεῖσα τῷ πατρίῳ νόμῳ τὸν θεὸν ἱκέτευεν ὑπὲρ τοῦ βασιλέως, οἰμωγῆς δὲ πάντ ̓ ἦν ἀνάπλεα καὶ θρήνων. (AJ 19.347–48)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

163

Gaius, his evaluation of Agrippa I is, on the whole, both more nuanced and multi-faceted. Before narrating Agrippa’s death, Josephus provides a summation of his life and reign which is altogether more positive (AJ 19.328–31): Now King Agrippa was by nature generous in his gifts (εὐεργετικὸς εἶναι ἐν δωρεαῖ) and made it a point of honour (φιλότιμος) to be high-minded towards Gentiles; and by expending massive sums he raised himself to high fame. He took pleasure in conferring favours (τῷ χαρίζεσθαι) and rejoiced in popularity, thus being in no way similar in character to Herod, who was king before him. The latter had an evil nature, relentless in punishment and unsparing in action against the objects of his hatred. It was generally admitted that he was on more friendly terms with Greeks than with Jews. For instance, he adorned the cities of foreigners by giving them money, building baths and theatres, erecting temples in some and porticoes in others, whereas there was not a single city of the Jews on which he deigned to bestow even minor restoration or any gift worth mentioning. Agrippa, on the contrary, had a gentle disposition and he was a benefactor to all alike (πρὸς πάντας τὸ εὐεργετικὸν ὅμοιον). He was benevolent (φιλάνθρωπος) to those of other nations and exhibited his generosity (τὸ φιλόδωρον) to them also; but to his compatriots he was proportionately more generous (χρηστὸς) and more compassionate. He enjoyed residing in Jerusalem and did so constantly; and he scrupulously observed the traditions of his people. He neglected no rite of purification, and no day passed for him without the prescribed sacrifice.70 Considering that Josephus juxtaposes this positive appraisal with the unflattering account of Agrippa’s death quoted above, we find, therefore, that Josephus presents a highly nuanced portrait of Agrippa I as an example of amazing 70

AJ 19.328–31 (trans. Feldman): Ἐπεφύκει δ ̓ ὁ βασιλεὺς οὗτος εὐεργετικὸς εἶναι ἐν δωρεαῖς καὶ μεγαλοφρονῆσαι ἔθνη φιλότιμος καὶ πολλοῖς ἀθρόως δαπανήμασιν ἀνιστὰς αὑτὸν εἰς ἐπιφάνειαν ἡδόμενος τῷ χαρίζεσθαι καὶ τῷ βιοῦν ἐν εὐφημίᾳ χαίρων, κατ ̓ οὐδὲν Ἡρώδῃ τῷ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλεῖ τὸν τρόπον συμφερόμενος· ἐκείνῳ γὰρ πονηρὸν ἦν ἦθος ἐπὶ τιμωρίαν ἀπότομον καὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀπηχθημένων ἀταμίευτον, Ἕλλησι πλέον ἢ Ἰουδαίοις οἰκείως ἔχειν ὁμολογούμενος· ἀλλοφύλων γέ τοι πόλεις ἐσέμνυνεν δόσει χρημάτων βαλανείων θεάτρων τε ἄλλοτε κατασκευαῖς, ἔστιν αἷς ναοὺς ἀνέστησε, στοὰς ἄλλαις, ἀλλὰ Ἰουδαίων οὐδεμίαν πόλιν οὐδ ̓ ὀλίγης ἐπισκευῆς ἠξίωσεν οὐδὲ δόσεως ἀξίας μνημονευθῆναι. πραὺ̈ς δ ̓ ὁ τρόπος Ἀγρίππᾳ καὶ πρὸς πάντας τὸ εὐεργετικὸν ὅμοιον. τοῖς ἀλλοεθνέσιν ἦν φιλάνθρωπος κἀκείνοις ἐνδεικνύμενος τὸ φιλόδωρον τοῖς ὁμοφύλοις ἀναλόγως χρηστὸς καὶ συμπαθὴς μᾶλλον. ἡδεῖα γοῦν αὐτῷ δίαιτα καὶ συνεχὴς ἐν τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἦν καὶ τὰ πάτρια καθαρῶς ἐτήρει. διὰ πάσης γοῦν αὑτὸν ἦγεν ἁγνείας οὐδ ̓ ἡμέρα τις παρώδευεν αὐτῷ τὰ νόμιμα χηρεύουσα θυσίας.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

164

Chapter 6

success but also of the costs incurred to attain it, the character defects that accompany it, and the ambition that drives it. Like Plutarch, Josephus seems to share the opinion that ambition (φιλοτιμία) is not itself either a virtue or vice but is instead that which drives a person to either of these deeds.71 Hence, Agrippa’s life is one consistently driven by ambition, but with mixed results, and is brought to a premature end due to his susceptibility to the flattery of the masses on account of his love of honor from others. One can detect in Josephus’ account of Agrippa’s relationship to the crowds in the passages quoted above something of the same tragic cycle that Plutarch attributes to the downfall of the brothers Gracchi, as I discussed also in the context of the Tobiads at the end of Chapter 4:72 They [the Grachi] became engaged in a never-ending competitive spiral, whereby they strove to surpass the honours they were receiving with beneficial measures, and were honoured all the more thanks to the measures they were introducing out of gratitude. In this way, as a result of the equal devotion they had kindled in themselves for the people and the people for themselves, they reached a point—the point at which what was not good became bad—where it was no longer possible for them to stop.73 However, whereas the Gracchi are moved by ambition to propose improper measures on behalf of the crowds, Agrippa is moved to accept improper adulation from them. This is a characteristically Josephan inversion, in which a Jewish monotheistic element of proper cultic worship is brought in to substitute for the kind of historical causes that are more frequent in non-Jewish historiography; it is also one that we have seen before (i.e., the death of Gaius). Josephus’ final statements on Agrippa suitably sum up this character and provide an appropriate place to close this chapter: So it is also the case that he [Agrippa I] took in the maximum yield (προσωδεύσατο  … πλείστας) in tribute from these [territories which he ruled], some twelve million [drachmas], but he borrowed much (πολλὰ … 71

72 73

A. G. Nikolaidis, “Aspects of Plutarch’s Notion of Philotimia,” in The Lash of Ambition: Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia, ed. G. Roskam, M. de Pourcq, and L. Van der Stockt, Collection d’Études Classiques 25 (Louvain: Société des Études Classiques, 2012), 31–53. Christopher Pelling, “Plutarch on Roman Philotimia,” in Roskam, de Pourcq, and Van der Stockt, Lash of Ambition, 62–65. Agis 2.7–8 (trans. Waterfield).

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Banquets Fit for Kings

165

προσεδανείσατο). For he spent more liberally than he earned on account of being a munificent person (φιλόδωρος), so his ambition was unsparing (ἦν δὲ ἀφειδὲς αὐτοῦ τὸ φιλότιμον).74 The king who is portrayed in circumstances of imprisonment like Joseph, or at a banquet urgently petitioning the ruler on the Jews’ behalf like Esther, is also shown to enter these roles by means quite unlike the scriptural archetypes— through “unsparing ambition.” 74

προσωδεύσατο δ ̓ ὅτι πλείστας αὐτῶν προσφορὰς διακοσίας ἐπὶ χιλίαις μυριάδας, πολλὰ μέντοι προσεδανείσατο· τῷ γὰρ φιλόδωρος εἶναι δαψιλέστερα τῶν προσιόντων ἀνήλισκεν, ἦν δὲ ἀφειδὲς αὐτοῦ τὸ φιλότιμον. (AJ 19.352)

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Chapter 7

Setting a Good Example: Summary and Conclusions Before synthesizing the results of this book and offering overarching conclusions, it will be helpful to review the foregoing chapters. Chapter 1 began by providing an up-to-date survey of some of the background most pertinent to Antiquities and to this study, such as date of composition, sources, readers, and agenda. Then, I discussed the issue of labels, genres, and categories in the context of the term “court-tales,” which forms part of the title of this book and is a unifying designation behind the accounts of AJ treated herein. I presented pragmatic reasons for grouping together the accounts which I analyze in this study on the basis of my narrow research question, and I further argued for the legitimacy of labeling all of these as “court-tales” on the basis of their shared content and setting. I ended the chapter by presenting my approach to literary analysis in contrast to narratology, in particular highlighting my commitment to analyzing Josephus’ narratives in light of their reconstructed audience, setting, and process of composition. I also responded to potential objections that might be raised on the basis of my method and thesis concerning the plausibility of the imagined reader I reconstruct for AJ, as well as the degree of intentionality exercised by Josephus as author. In Chapter 2, I presented an overview of scholarly reconstructions of GrecoRoman exemplarity as a type of ethical and pragmatic discourse prevalent especially in historiography and biography beginning from late Roman republic and early empire. After providing several textbook cases of exemplarity— that is, the short, self-contained stories with clear ethical or pragmatic lessons which scholars have most frequently cited, studied, dissected, and reduced to a formal model—I turned to recent research on Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, which has shown that Greco-Roman writers could also use past figures as examples in a quite different manner from that usually studied in scholarship. In such cases, exemplified by Plutarch, the explicit vocabulary of exemplarity (i.e., exemplum, παράδειγμα, and ὑπόδειγμα) is lacking or the formal models developed by scholars do not fit, criteria that have normally delimited the scope of prior studies on exemplarity. Termed variously “descriptive,” “experimental,” or “exploratory” moralism, this mode of deploying past figures and stories engaged elite readers in reflection about ethical and pragmatic decision-making without issuing clear injunctions, supplying explicit lessons, or resolving obvious contradictions and tensions. I then explained my rationale in this study for treating exemplarity as a particular sub-type or species of a broader current

© David R. Edwards, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004549067_008

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

167

of moralizing discourse and justified my preference for the term “exemplarity” where some scholars, especially those specializing in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, have referred more generally to “moralism.” Having set out the nature of exemplarity as a Greco-Roman ethical and pragmatic discourse, I turned in the latter half of Chapter 2 to the intersection of Josephus and exemplarity. I began by surveying broader scholarship on Josephus’ moralizing tendencies and the much more limited scholarship on exemplarity in Josephus. Instead of responding in detail to objections that have been raised claiming that exemplarity is a framework illegitimately imposed on Josephus (and other ancient Jewish writers) by scholars, I countered this claim by demonstrating the appropriateness of adapting the concept of Greco-Roman exemplary discourses for application to AJ. Evidence I surveyed includes both programmatic statements as well as specific passages in AJ, in particular showing how exemplary discourse in AJ transcends explicit terminological cues and formal models, just as in Plutarch. Finally, after presenting my own conception of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity, which forms the explanatory model that I employed at the end of Chapters 3–6 to read Josephus’ practices of subversive adaptation of scriptural stories, I ended with a defense for using Plutarch as a particularly useful comparandum proximate to Josephus in both time and social setting. In Chapter 3, I began a two-part analysis of the Tales of the Tobiads that spans Chapters 3–4, with the first chapter detailing the affinities between the figure of Joseph the Tobiad and scriptural Joseph. Before beginning formal analysis, I surveyed past scholarship on the Tales of the Tobiads, which has been the subject of limited literary analysis and has typically been studied for its value in illuminating Judean history in the century before the Maccabean revolt. In the rest of the chapter, I showed the multiple ways in which Joseph the Tobiad resembles scriptural Joseph, yet, then in shocking turns of the narrative, is depicted in ways quite unlike the scriptural model. Beyond sharing the same name, the two Josephs also pass through a similar arc of success at the court of Egypt and both resolve a national crisis through their elevated positions achieved there. However, in spite of these and other points of convergence, I also showed that the two Josephs diverge in significant but surprising ways. Although Joseph the Tobiad achieves remarkable success at the court of Pharaoh, much like scriptural Joseph, yet he does so by markedly different means. Where the Joseph of Genesis is renowned as a skilled diviner and dream interpreter, which abilities led to his elevation at court, Joseph the Tobiad exhibits no such traits. Instead, he is witty, charming, and relentlessly ambitious. Furthermore, when he is placed in a scenario of illicit sexual temptation, unlike the scriptural patriarch who became the definitive icon of moral fortitude in later Jewish reception, Joseph the Tobiad capitulated immediately

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

168

Chapter 7

and even implicated his family in his wicked deed. I showed, therefore, that Josephus utilizes conspicuous affinities between Joseph the Tobiad and scriptural Joseph as a foundation for building surprising turns into his account. Where the reader comes to expect one outcome or characterization, Josephus supplies another entirely. While this subversive mode of adapting the scriptural Joseph story makes for entertaining literature, in my conclusion to Chapter 3 I also demonstrated that this procedure can be read in light of Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. I noted that the most conspicuous lessons, such as a moral condemnation of Joseph the Tobiad’s unsavory sexual exploits, can be set to the side as altogether obvious to the reader. Instead, I highlighted the apparent contradiction between summary statements in the Tales of the Tobiads, which frequently laud the protagonists, and narrative depictions, which frequently present them behaving in questionable ways. I pointed out that Plutarch’s “exploratory” exemplarity also exploits jarring disjunctions between summary statements (synkriseis) and narrative depiction. These disjunctions in both Josephus and Plutarch can be read as opening a space for the reader to actively engage in the complex moral texture of the narratives, inviting them to form judgements for themselves and to question easy and simplistic evaluations. In particular, Josephus’ characterization of Joseph the Tobiad invites reflection on the reliability of the masses’ judgments about the character of a public figure; on the acceptability or necessity of unsavory leaders in times of crisis; and on the relationship of a public figure’s personal character defects to their effectiveness in conducting public affairs. Josephus’ elite Greco-Roman readers would have been familiar with such techniques, as their presence in Plutarch’s work indicates. Thus, I showed that Josephus’ subversive adaptation of the scriptural Joseph story in his depiction of Joseph the Tobiad engages in exemplary discourse by questioning simplistic moral judgements and provoking the reader to form their own evaluations about his character and effectiveness through an implied comparison with the Joseph of Genesis. Chapter 4 continued my analysis of the Tales of the Tobiads, this time focusing on the other major character in the story, Joseph the Tobiad’s youngest son, Hyrcanus. I showed how the portrayal of Hyrcanus closely resembles that of scriptural Joseph through the shared motif of paternal favoritism and sibling rivalry. The use of the sibling rivalry from Genesis as a compositional model extended to Josephus’ emphasis in the Tales of the Tobiads on Hyrcanus’ youthful brilliance, his brothers’ inferior dispositions, and their violent jealousy. While the affinity between the two sibling rivalries is conspicuous and clear, I showed that, just as in Chapter 3, it serves to establish expectations which the narrative then proceeds to subvert. I went on to demonstrate how the rivalry between Hyrcanus and his brothers ends in an entirely unexpected manner

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

169

with two bouts of deadly violence and no signs of reconciliation. By explaining Josephus’ literary agenda in modeling the Tales of the Tobiads on the scriptural Joseph story, I was also able to integrate some of the puzzling features of the account that scholars have frequently debated, such as the presence of literary doublets. Although the sibling rivalry is the most obvious affinity between the figure of Hyrcanus and scriptural Joseph, I concluded my analysis by pointing out a more complex and subtle point of contact. In the scriptural Joseph story, there is a motif of just punishment and reward. Although this principle is dramatically imperiled several times in the story, it is always reasserted and just desserts are rightly distributed. In the Tales of the Tobiads, the reader is led by the resemblances between youthful Hyrcanus and scriptural Joseph to expect a similar pattern, but it never materializes. Instead, in an inversion of the scriptural Joseph story, Hyrcanus never appears to learn any lessons or experience righteous punishment for his behavior; his success is remarkable, though his increasing isolation and abrupt suicide do raise questions about the wisdom of his choices. I ended Chapter 4 by reflecting on how Josephus’ elite Greco-Roman readers might appropriate the figure of Hyrcanus as a pragmatic and ethical lesson. As with his father in Chapter 3, I find it unlikely that the most obvious and pointed lessons were the focus, as readers hardly needed to be instructed in them. But Hyrcanus can be read as a meditation on the risks and consequences of unchecked ambition. I pointed out the way that the ambition of father is exhibited in son as well, and how the drive by Hyrcanus to dominate at all costs leads to a fracture in the Tobiad family that then splits the entire Jewish nation, as the populace is forced to take sides and becomes embroiled in factionalism (stasis). As I concluded the chapter, I reflected on the pointed relevance to Josephus’ Greco-Roman readers of factionalism as a political malaise, as well as its roots in unchecked elite ambitions, in a time when many in the early imperial era contemplated the causes of the political and social degeneration they perceived in recent Roman history and in their own day. Turning away from the Tales of the Tobiads, Chapters 5–6 focused on the figure of Agrippa I. I began in Chapter 5 by surveying prior scholarship on Agrippa I. Although Agrippa has usually been studied peripherally as a participant in the Alexandrian riots or in the context of the attempt by the emperor Gaius to erect his image in the Jerusalem temple, I detailed the few studies which have focused on Agrippa himself, especially reconstructions of his life and of the sources used by Josephus in the narratives about him. Then, I showed how the depiction of Agrippa I in AJ is modeled on the scriptural Joseph story, both in terms of programmatic statements which interpret his significance for the reader as well as specific scenes. In the former, Josephus

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

170

Chapter 7

explains his lengthy account of Agrippa’s life as demonstrating a contrast with his grandfather, Herod the Great, and instructing the reader morally by way of Agrippa’s many vicissitudes of fortune. In terms of specific scenes, I discussed at length Agrippa’s imprisonment by Tiberius and the allegations which led to this predicament. Since the accusations are, in the context of the narrative, patently false and spurious, and therefore the imprisonment unjust, a distinct affinity exists between Agrippa and scriptural Joseph on this front. Additionally, I analyzed the scenes of Agrippa’s imprisonment, in which he receives divine portents foretelling his imminent release, rise to prominence at court, and eventual death—motifs obviously evocative of the scriptural Joseph story. However, as with Chapters 3–4, the parallels between Agrippa I and scriptural Joseph are ultimately undercut. Unlike scriptural Joseph, I pointed out that Agrippa is not imprisoned as a result of his commitment to integrity and moral fortitude, but because his ambitions led him to offer adulation that was borderline treasonous and deeply ill-advised. Furthermore, Agrippa is not proficient in dream interpretation or renowned for wisdom like scriptural Joseph. Ironically, it is a nameless and non-Jewish fellow prisoner who interprets divine portents to Agrippa, whereas scriptural Joseph was the one foretelling his fellow prisoners’ fates. Both Agrippa and scriptural Joseph are aided by divine providence, but in Agrippa’s case the basis for this benevolence is murky. I ended Chapter 5 by indicating how these and other facets of the account can be read through the lens of Greco-Roman exemplary discourses. Charges of maiestas, especially stemming from delatores among lower social classes such as slaves and freedmen, were much discussed among elites in the early imperial era. While the injustice of the imprisonments of Agrippa and scriptural Joseph might be a shared motif, I argued that Agrippa’s stark contrast with scriptural Joseph in terms of the circumstances and proximate cause of internment can be read as providing nuanced commentary. While Agrippa is a sympathetic figure, since elites could identify with the precariousness of his circumstances at the Roman court, he is also cautionary given the recklessness of the comments which landed him in prison. Flattery was also a highly debated topic in Josephus’ day, given the frequency with which elites were forced to take recourse to it in order to curry an emperor’s favor or escape his capricious wrath. So once again, Agrippa is sympathetic but not necessarily an example to follow, since his attempts at ingratiation were extremely risky and only narrowly paid off through the unexpected elevation of Gaius. As I concluded in Chapters 3–4 on the Tobiads, Agrippa’s broader characterization and especially his juxtaposition with scriptural Joseph make him a figure whom Josephus’ readers would find both challenging and complex to evaluate.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

171

Analysis of Josephus’ AJ account of Agrippa I continued in Chapter 6 by considering the ways in which his depiction echoed that of the figure of Esther from the Jewish scriptures. I began setting out the affinities by first establishing that Josephus modified his prior BJ account of the emperor Gaius and his reign so that the AJ version, in which context Agrippa appears, would more closely approximate the principal characters, setting, and plot of the Book of Esther. Apion, I contended, functions in the role of Haman, while Gaius himself in AJ adheres much closer to the Persian king of Esther. Thus, I showed that the narrative framework in AJ was intentionally crafted to echo the Esther story in significant ways. I then turned to the climactic scene of the account, a grand banquet at which Agrippa petitions the emperor to cease his mad plot against the Jewish people. This scene is clearly modeled on the banquet planned by the queen in the Book of Esther, functions in a nearly identical role, and features numerous detailed points of contact as well. Despite these many points of convergence, which indicate that Josephus consciously portrayed Agrippa I and the account of his life with the Book of Esther as inspiration, I also pointed out important ways in which Agrippa and Esther differ significantly. If Esther is impelled by concern for her people and enacts an elaborate plot to intervene, Agrippa is self-consumed and appears to plot only his own rise in the emperor’s circle. His intervention is depicted by Josephus as a benevolent but unforeseen consequence of his ambitions. As I concluded Chapter 6, I considered the way that a Greco-Roman reader might evaluate Agrippa and Josephus’ depiction of him, especially as a figure from whom to learn valuable lessons. Josephus’ narrative of Gaius’ reign, which bore marked affinities with the plot against the Jews in the Book of Esther, would have been patient of multiple and competing interpretations by an elite Greco-Roman reader; potentially it could be understood as veiled criticism of the reigning emperor, Domitian, who was unpopularly associated with abuses of the fiscus Iudaicus against elites, but it also could be read contrastingly as implied praise of Domitian by way of openly denigrating the universally hated Gaius. In any case, the competing possibilities for interpreting the parallels between the reign of Gaius in AJ and the crisis of the Book of Esther show that Josephus was as capable as any of his elite readers in the critical skill of dissimulation. The banquet scene itself, I argued, would have struck Josephus’ readers as a cogent setting for an imperial beneficium and a site fraught with both potential and danger. But the differing motives of Esther and Agrippa could not be more at odds, though the mixture of his selfish intent and providential outcome is consonant with Josephus’ depiction of him throughout AJ 18–19. I ended Chapter 6 by returning to the prediction of Agrippa’s death that was made while he was

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

172

Chapter 7

imprisoned. Agrippa’s demise is accompanied by some of Josephus’ harshest comments about Agrippa, who is mortally punished by God for blasphemy—in effect the same crime as Gaius himself. Yet, Josephus’ final evaluation, I noted, was mixed and highlighted Agrippa’s “unsparing ambition,” a theme that I also have returned to throughout this book. Beyond these detailed findings, however, my study also makes broader contributions. My aim throughout has been to bridge domains that have all too frequently been treated in scholarship as distinct and separated by a wall both high and wide—whether they be texts, methods, or academic disciplines. As to texts, it is quite common for scholars to engage only one of the two halves of Antiquities in a highly bifurcated fashion, with specialists on the Hebrew Bible and its ancient textual forms focusing on Books 1–11, while those interested in Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods interact with Books 12–20. Though this is understandable given the work’s sheer length and entirely justified in many cases, the result can be a limited picture of Josephus as author and of his longest and (arguably) most important work. In Chapters 3–6, therefore, I have consciously tracked Josephus’ strategies and tendencies across the scriptural and non-scriptural halves of AJ. I have drawn connections between Josephus’ retelling of the scriptural stories of Joseph and Esther, in Books 2 and 11, and the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, in Books 12 and 18–19. By engaging texts across the beginning, middle, and end of AJ, I have been better able to address Josephus’ consistent proclivities and overarching agendas. Regarding methods, I have employed both literary analysis and source criticism, approaches that are often considered to be widely divergent if not even incompatible. In this study, however, I used them in a complementary fashion. By conceiving of the search for Josephus’ sources and the ways in which he redacted them as only a step towards a larger goal rather than an end unto itself, I have mobilized my source-critical findings for the purpose of analyzing his literary strategies—in effect, redaction criticism, though I am aware that a great many literary critics would wince at that equation. I am by no means the first to do this, yet it is nevertheless the case that Josephus is still approached far too frequently as merely as a necessary intermediary containing highly prized sources for the Hebrew Bible or Second Temple Judaism, but without sufficient regard for the literary features of his own work in which those sources are inextricably incorporated. The present study has, it is hoped, indicated just how fruitful literary analysis can be when supported by detailed study of Josephus’ redaction of sources, and how much more productive source criticism is when carried out in conjunction with—and not ignorance of or disinterest in—his literary agendas. And lastly, I have endeavored to cross academic disciplines whose boundaries have only recently been transgressed. In a sort of silent consensus, Josephus has David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

173

traditionally fallen under the purview of specialists in ancient Judaism or, by virtue of his paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible, researchers in Biblical Studies. Until fairly recently, classicists have not considered Josephus’ works as meriting study alongside those authors of ancient Greece and Rome who have long been included in the canons of Western literature. To be sure, scholars of ancient Judaism generally have not quarreled with this arrangement. But both sides of the academic divide have increasingly realized that Josephus and his works cannot be understood apart from his Greco-Roman context and must be read through the lens of both the Jewish and Greco-Roman aspects of his identity—if, in fact, he would even have considered these to be distinct and separable components of his authorial self. To this scholarly trend I enthusiastically contribute this study. On the one hand, I have focused on Josephus’ adaptation of ancient Jewish scriptural stories and heroes to creatively write new, non-scriptural accounts. On the other hand, I contextualize this practice within a field heretofore rarely explored by scholars of ancient Judaism by appealing to Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity as an explanatory model. In bringing this study to a close, I would like to reflect in a more theoretical vein on Josephus’ procedure of subversive adaptation within the context of exemplary discourses. One of the most conspicuous features of Josephus’ scriptural characters in AJ—the heroes, that is, not the villains—is their prominent and practically unwavering virtue. As I have shown over and over for the figures of Joseph and Esther, Josephus consistently “improves” them beyond their scriptural selves by eliminating defects, whether real or perceived, and by magnifying or fabricating virtuous behaviors and motives. And this is by no means limited to Joseph and Esther: Aaron’s notorious incident with the idolatrous golden calf is entirely omitted by Josephus,1 and even though Josephus does not omit the highly problematic story of King David and Bathsheba, he minimizes its negative impact and ends the king’s life with an encomium grander than any other in AJ.2 The list could go on. Superficially, at least, the transformation of flawed and fallible—but relatable—scriptural heroes into perfect or near-perfect paragons of virtue would seem to fit well his agenda of depicting piety, impiety, and divine response as a means to instruct the reader through exemplary models. To an extent, this is true. However, I would like to meditate on what actually makes for a “good example,” and whether or not figures like 1 Feldman, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible, 59–62. 2 Michael Avioz, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Books of Samuel, LSTS 86 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 118–24, 162–63. Although there are potentially many reasons why Josephus chose to include this episode, one could argue that he had no real choice in the matter since its omission would unduly strain the narrative logic by cutting off the introduction of Bathsheba herself into the story—the mother of King Solomon and the architect behind his succession. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

174

Chapter 7

Joseph and Esther in AJ are ultimately quite as useful for this purpose as they might appear. A great deal hinges on what we mean when we refer to a figure in a story as an “example,” especially a “good” example. Rebecca Langlands has discussed six key aspects of an exemplary model as a means of learning (and, thus, from an author’s perspective, what and how the reader is to be instructed through it). These are: (1) admiration and wonder; (2) comparison; (3) emulation; (4) modeling; (5) cognition; and (6) discernment.3 I would further add what Langlands elsewhere takes for granted, that an exemplary model can also have the extremely simple effect of instantiating a particular virtue by perfecting it and emblazoning it for the reader. It is as an exemplary model in this sense that Joseph, for instance, clearly has the effect in AJ of instantiating the virtue of sexual temperance. As I showed at length in Chapter 3, Josephus goes well above and beyond the scriptural story to emphasize this element, and so in this respect he is indeed a “good example.” But regarding many of Langland’s six aspects of exemplary learning, I am struck by how poorly Josephus’ Joseph (and Esther) function to mobilize the reader in AJ. The scriptural Joseph story exhibited considerable ambiguity about the protagonist’s motives and behavior at key points in the narrative, elements ideal for exemplary learning through cognition and discernment. Josephus’ elimination of such features, however, makes his Joseph in AJ unsuitable to these modes of exemplary learning; there is simply nothing to discern or cogitate. On the other hand, it might be suggested that Josephus’ Joseph is more suited to comparison, emulation, and modeling. But perfect virtue, it seems to me, is illustrative and emblematic more than it is inspiring of imitation. Simply put, by making Joseph and Esther into perfectly virtuous characters, he runs the risk of elevating them into a moral space that is perceived to be beyond the grasp of the reader. What good is a template, a model, or an object of emulation if it is unattainable? I hesitate to push this sentiment too far, since the byways of Jewish and Christian history are littered with inconceivably virtuous exemplars which were rhetorically deployed time and again by writers and speakers in the expectation that they would actually be imitated by the audience. Nevertheless, there is a certain logic, I contend, that such figures can more easily inspire admiration and awe than they can instigate embodied imitation. If we single out admiration and awe as the most acute result elicited by the figures of Joseph and Esther in AJ, the question remains: to what end? Langlands points out that it is a property of exemplary character and of stories which elicit admiration and awe that “it is almost unbelievable that anyone 3 Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 87–88.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

175

could actually carry out such an act, let alone unflinchingly.”4 The untiring resistance of Josephus’ Joseph against the advances of his master’s wife certainly fits the bill. I note yet again, by contrast, that in the scriptural version of the story, Joseph is still virtuous but not quite as awe inspiring; he could rightly have been thought to have had no business lingering in the house alone with his master’s wife, while her advances are considerably less persuasive than in AJ. Esther, on the other hand, is already wholly selfless in the scriptural versions of the story, but Josephus does nothing to make her more accessible as an example for the reader to imitate. In both stories, then, it is reasonable to wonder whether admiration and awe are sufficient to inspire imitation. Langlands believes so, however, and goes on to argue that these kind of awe-inspiring exemplary stories “require us to modify our ideas of the possible, or at least to examine the limits of the possible.”5 Perhaps, but I am not convinced that this is the case for Josephus’ Joseph and Esther. If imitation is not the point—or at least not the main point—of Joseph and Esther as “good examples” in AJ, then what is? In my view, the reader is supposed to learn from such illustrious Jewish ancestors not so much how to behave in the sense of Landland’s modeling, cognition, emulation, or discernment, nor even what constitutes a particular virtue in a sort of ideal or Platonic form. The reader is, rather, to apprehend that the Jewish past is as filled with brave, virtuous, and noble heroes as that of the Greeks and the Romans. Joseph and Esther are “good examples” in AJ for apologetic reasons more than ethical ones. The reader is to learn not how to behave but that the Jews are a people with a noble ancestry. As I have discussed in several places throughout the study, this was not lost on Josephus’ audience, since the protestations of some readers eventually elicited the Contra Apionem. If we turn now from scriptural Joseph and Esther and return to the Tobiads and Agrippa I in AJ, what can we conclude regarding Josephus’ conspicuous use of the former as models for the latter, particularly his subversive practices of adaptation and his consistent habits of ambiguous and contradictory characterization? For all the reasons and in all the ways that Josephus was, effectively speaking, locked in to depicting some of the most significant Jewish ancestors like Joseph and Esther as wholly virtuous, the exact opposite was the case with the Tobiads and Agrippa (and other post-scriptural figures), with whom he was able to exercise great freedom. They did not have to be perfectly virtuous, and by depicting the Tobiads and Agrippa I in circumstances obviously modeled on scriptural Joseph and Esther, Josephus was able to employ the former as a means of appropriating the latter—in effect, to make them relevant and 4 Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 91. 5 Landlands, Exemplary Ethics, 91.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

176

Chapter 7

useful as “good examples” in all the ways their archetypes were not. Where Josephus’s Joseph and Esther are not altogether helpful for the purposes of modeling, cognition, emulation, and discernment precisely because they are largely unreachable and wholly perfect as moral exemplars, the Tobiads and Agrippa draw these figures down to an approachable level which the reader can engage. Through the Tobiads and Agrippa I, Josephus refashions the figures of Joseph and Esther with all the moral complexity, texture, and ambiguity that a compelling and useful moral or pragmatic exemplum requires, but which the scriptural archetypes could not sustain. The fixity and perfection of Joseph and Esther as perfect models is not a property inherent to these stories or characters but, as I have pointed out, of Josephus’ own agenda in AJ. Both figures, but especially Joseph, have at times been the subject of unflattering interpretations and retellings. There is a strong case to be made that it is the very complexity and ambiguity of the scriptural versions which generated subsequent fluidity and popularity, in antiquity and beyond, in the form of ongoing and conflicting iterations of the character (Joseph),6 revisions of the story (Esther),7 or evaluations of the appropriateness of the story itself (Esther).8 More to the point of this study, however, Langlands contends, quite rightly I think, that “both the moral complexity and the conflicting traditions [of exemplary stories and figures] are best understood as part of a single heterogeneous site of exemplarity that deploys contradiction and lack of clarity to ethical purpose.”9 The subversive character of Josephus’ appropriation of Joseph and Esther in the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I is another proof of this. Although Josephus could not allow for Joseph and Esther themselves to be morally complex figures, he permits them to achieve this function vicariously (and thereby safely vouchsafed) by means of the Tobiads and Agrippa I. The reader of the accounts of the Tobiads and Agrippa I, as I have shown throughout this study, can see in these figures a mirror refracting and reflecting in several different directions. One direction points back to the figures of scriptural Joseph and Esther, upon whom they were modeled. A function of this is, as I have argued, to allow the reader to evaluate the former figures in light of their scriptural models; juxtaposition is, in this case, implied comparison. But 6 See the many post-scriptural interpretations of the figure of Joseph traced by Kugel, In Potiphar’s House. 7 Hence, the MT, OG, and AT texts as distinct versions of the story. 8 See Rabbinic discussions of canonicity in b. Megillah 7a and Sanhedrin 100a. The absence of any manuscripts of Esther from the corpus of Dead Sea Scrolls is suggestive, but not probative, that Rabbinic sentiments were more broadly shared among ancient Jews. Early Christians were likewise torn as to the acceptability of Esther. See, for example, the famous thirty-ninth festal letter of Athanasius, ca. 367 CE. 9 Langlands, Exemplary Ethics, 289. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Setting a Good Example

177

the mirror also points back to the reader. Now armed with a series of case studies on what it might look like to appropriate Joseph and Esther as exempla, the reader can evaluate not only where the Tobiads and Agrippa succeed or fail to live up to their archetypes, but ponder how they might do better themselves in emulating the original model. This manner of simultaneously protecting Joseph and Esther so that they can serve apologetic needs, while making them relevant to the reader through the medium of subversive adaptation, is quite sophisticated—though it is, of course impossible to know how effective it actually was with Josephus’ original audience. As I have acknowledged, it indeed asks quite a lot of the reader. We are in no doubt, however, that many Greco-Roman writers of the late republic and early principate took evident pleasure in crafting narratives which challenged the reader in a multitude of ways. They expected an active reader, and one prepared to engage in the sort of complex thought experiments that are required by my reading of subversive adaptation as kind of exemplary discourse. Whether or not their readers were always up to the task, we cannot say. Given the breadth and depth of Antiquities, however, Josephus seems to have expected no less of his readers either. This study, I hope, has shown that modern readers may rise to the challenge as well.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography Aalders, G. J. D. Plutarch’s Political Thought. Translated by A. M. Manekofsky. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1982. Abbott, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Adams, Geoff W. The Roman Emperor Gaius ‘Caligula’ and his Hellenistic Aspirations. Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press, 2007. Adler, William. “Moses, the Exodus, and Comparative Chronology.” Pages 47–65 in Scripture and Traditions: Essays on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Carl R. Holladay. Edited by Patrick Gray and Gail R. O’Day. NovTSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ahearne-Kroll, Patricia D. Aseneth of Egypt: The Composition of a Jewish Narrative. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2020. Alston, Richard. “History and Memory in the Construction of Identity in Early Second-Century Rome.” Pages 147–159 in Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation. Edited by Sinclair Bell and Inge Lyse Hansen. MAAR 7. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2011. Ando, Clifford. Law, Language, and Empire in the Roman Tradition. Empire and After. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Askin, Lindsey A. “Review of Étienne Nodet The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features.” The Downside Review 138, no. 2 (2020): 80–81. Atkinson, Kenneth. A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond. New York: T&T Clark, 2016. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Josephus’s Use of Scripture to Describe Hasmonean Territorial Expansion.” JSIJ 19 (2020): 1–25. Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. HDR 7. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Augoustakis, Antony. “Literary Culture.” Pages 376–91 in A Companion to the Flavian Age of Imperial Rome. Edited by Andrew Zissos. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Aune, David E. “The Use of ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ in Josephus.” JBL 101, no. 3 (1982): 419–21. Avioz, Michael. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Books of Samuel. LSTS 86. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Avioz, Michael. Legal Exegesis of Scripture in the Works of Josephus. LSTS 97. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2021. Balmaceda, Catalina. Virtus Romana: Politics and Morality in the Roman Historians. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2017. Bar-Kochva, Bezalel. The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

180

Bibliography

Barclay, John M. G. Against Apion. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 10. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Bay, Carson. Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity: The Historiography, Exemplarity, & Anti-Judaism of Pseudo-Hegesippus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. Begg, Christopher T. “Angels in the Work of Flavius Josephus.” Pages 525–36 in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings—Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Pancratius C. Beentjes, Núria Calduch-Benages, and Benjamin G. Wright. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Bell, Sinclair. “Role Models in the Roman World.” Pages 1–39 in Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation. Edited by Sinclair Bell and Inge Lyse Hansen. MAAR 7. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. Ben-Yishai, Steven. “‘Brigands’ and ‘Tyrants’ in Josephus’ BELLVM JVDAICVM.” ClQ 71, no. 2 (2021): 902–907. Berthelot, Katell. “Lineage and Virtue in Josephus: The Respective Roles of Priestly Worldview and Roman Culture.” JAJ 11 (2020): 26–44. Berthelot, Katell. “Philo’s Perception of the Roman Empire.” JSJ 42 (2011): 166–87. Betz, Otto. “Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus.” Pages 212–35 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Bickerman, Elias J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance. JSPSup 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Bilde, Per. “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem.” ST 32 (1978): 67–93. Bledsoe, Seth A. The Wisdom of the Aramaic Book of Ahiqar: Unraveling a Discourse of Uncertainty and Distress. JSJSup 199. Leiden: Brill, 2021. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus.” JJS 25, no. 2 (1974): 239–62. Boulogne, J. “Les ΣΥΝΚΡΙΣΕΙΣ de Plutarque. Une rhétorique de la ΣΥΝΚΡΙΣΙΣ.” Pages 33–44 in Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch: Acta of the IVth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society, Leuven, July 3–6, 1996. Edited by L. Van der Stockt. Collection d’Études Classiques 11. Louvain: Peeters, 2000. Bowersock, G. W. “Foreign Elites at Rome.” Pages 53–62 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

181

Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “Esther and Additions to Esther.” Pages 203–21 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by James K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Boys-Stones, G. R. Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development From the Stoics to Origen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Braun, Martin. Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtschreibung. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1934. Braun, Martin. History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature. Oxford: Blackwell, 1938. Repr., New York: Garland, 1987. Brighton, Mark Andrew. The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations. EJL 127. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Brutti, Maria. “Review of Étienne Nodet The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features, Review of Biblical Literature.” RBL 08/2019. Bücher, Franz. Verargumentierte Geschichte: Exempla Romana im politischen Diskurs der späten römischen Republik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2006. Büchner, Dirk. “The Pentateuch.” Pages 183–200 in The Oxford Handbook of the Septuagint. Edited by Alison G. Salvesen and Timothy Michael Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Cappelletti, Sylvia. The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century A.D. JSJSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Carbonaro, Paul. “Les Samaritains et la naissance du Pentateuque.” RB 120, no. 1 (2013): 42–71. Carbonaro, Paul “Les trois pages de Darius, du premier livre d’Esdras (3,1–5,6) aux Antiquités juives (XI, 33–67).” RB 119, no. 1 (2012): 20–44. Castelli, Silvia. “Between Tradition and Innovation: Josephus’s Description of the Tabernacle (Ant. 3.108–150) as an Improved Alternative to the Greek Bible.” JSIJ 19 (2021): 1–17. Castelli, Silvia “Ebrei illustri nel mondo romano. Il caso di Tiberio Giulio Alessandro.” Pages 93–116 in Roma e Bibbia. Edited by Piero Capelli. Libri di Biblia 6. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2011. Castelli, Silvia. “Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Use of Aramaic Transliterations: On Josephus’ Vocabulary of the Priestly Vestments.” Materia Giudaica 26, no. 2 (2021): 69–80. Chalupa, Petr. “The Book of Esther in Josephus.” Pages 139–50 in The Process of Authority: The Dynamics in Transmission and Reception of Canonical Authority. Edited by Jan Dušek and Jan Roskovec. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Champlin, Edward. “Tiberius the Wise.” Historia 57, no. 4 (2008): 408–25. Chaplin, Jane D. Livy’s Exemplary History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Chapman, Honora Howell. “Josephus’s Jewish War and Late Republican Civil War.” Pages 292–319 in The Historiography of Late Republican Civil War. Edited by Carsten Hjort Lange and Frederik Juliaan Vervaet. HRE 5. Leiden: Brill, 2019. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

182

Bibliography

Chrysanthou, Chrysanthos S. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Narrative Technique and Moral Judgement. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Chrysanthou, Chrysanthos S. “The Proems of Plutarch’s Lives and Historiography.” Histos 11 (2017): 128–53. Clark, Elizabeth A. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Cotton, Hannah M., and Werner Eck. “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites.” Pages 37–52 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cowan, J. Andrew. “A Tale of Two Antiquities: A Fresh Evaluation of the Relationship between the Ancient Histories of T. Flavius Josephus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.” JSJ 49 (2018): 475–97. Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Cribiore, Raffaella. Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. ASP 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Daube, David. “Typology in Josephus.” JJS 31, no. 1 (1980): 18–36. de Blois, Lukas, Jeroen Bons, Ton Kessels, and Dirk M. Schenkeveld, eds. The Stateman in Plutarch’s Works: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen / Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002. 2 vols. Mnemosyne Supplements: Bibliotheca Classica Batava 250. Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. de Jong, Irene J. F. Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. den Hollander, William. Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian. AGJU 86. Leiden, Brill, 2014. deSilva, David. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Devega, Jessica Tinklenberg. “‘A Man Who Fears God’: Constructions of Masculinity in Hellenistic Jewish Interpretations of the Story of Joseph.” Ph.D. diss., The Florida State University, 2006. Duff, Timothy E. Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Duff, Timothy E. “Plutarch’s Lives and the Critical Reader.” Pages 59–82 in Virtues for the People: Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics. Edited by Geert Roksam and Luc Van der Stockt. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2011.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

183

Duff, Timothy E. “Plutarch’s Readers and the Moralism of the Lives.” Ploutarchos 5 (2007/8): 3–18. Duff, Timothy E. “The Prologues.” Pages 333–49 in A Companion to Plutarch. Edited by Mark Beck. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Duncan-Jones, Richard. Power and Privilege in Roman Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Durand, Xavier. Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe Siècle avant Jésus-Christ: Le Dossier Syrien des Archives de Zénon de Caunos, 261–252. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 2003. Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1979. Edwards, David R. “The Theme of Stasis in Antiquities: Josephus’ Political Philosophy and Periodization of History.” In Peace and War in Josephus / Friede und Krieg bei Josephus. Edited by Viktor Kókai-Nagy. Berlin: De Gruyter, forthcoming. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Feldman, Louis H. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Feldman, Louis H. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Feldman, Louis H. “Parallel Lives of Two Lawgivers: Josephus’ Moses and Plutarch’s Lycurgus.” Pages 209–42 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Feldman, Louis H. “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus.” Pages 210–39 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Feldman, Louis H. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. JSJSup 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Feldman, Louis H. “Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus.” Pages 455–518 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Jan Mulder. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. Flatto, David C. The Crown and the Courts: Separation of Powers in the Early Jewish Imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2020. Flower, Harriet I. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Studies in the History of Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Flower, Harriet I. Roman Republics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Franxman, Thomas W. Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities” of Flavius Josephus. BibOr 35. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979. Friedman, David A. “Josephus on the Servile Origins of the Jews.” JSJ 45 (2014): 523–50. Friis, Martin. Image and Imitation: Josephus’ Antiquities 1–11 and Greco-Roman Historiography. WUNT 2/472. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

184

Bibliography

Fuks, Gideon. “Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note.” JJS 52, no. 2 (2002): 354–56. Gafni, Isaiah M. “Josephus and I Maccabees.” Pages 116–31 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Gambetti, Sandra. The Alexandrian Riots of 38 C.E. and the Persecution of the Jews: A Historical Reconstruction. JSJSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gera, Dov. Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B.C.E. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gera, Dov. “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus Antiquities 12, 156–222, 228–236).” Pages 21–38 in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays. Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks. Israel: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1998. Gera, Dov. “Unity and Chronology in the Jewish Antiquities.” Pages 125–47 in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor. JSJSup 146. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Glas, Eelco. “Flavius Josephus’ Self-Characterization in First-Century Rome: A Literary Analysis of the Autobiographical Passages in the Bellum Judaicum.” Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen, 2020. Glas, Eelco. “Reading Josephus’ ‘Prophetic’ Inspiration in the Cave of Jotapata (J.W. 3.351–354) in a Roman Context.” JSJ 52 (2021): 522–56. Gnuse, Robert Karl. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A TraditioHistorical Analysis. AGJU 36. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Gnuse, Robert Karl. “From Prison to Prestige: The Hero Who Helps a King in Jewish and Greek Literature.” CBQ 72, no. 1 (2010): 31–45. Godin, Benoît. Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries. Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought. New York: Routledge, 2015. Goldhill, Simon. “The Failure of Exemplarity.” Pages 51–74 in Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature. Edited by Irene J. F. de Jong and J. P. Sullivan. Mnemosyne 130. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Goldstein, Jonathan A. “The Tales of the Tobiads.” Pages 85–123 in vol. 3 of Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Goodman, Martin. “The Fiscus Iudaicus and Gentile Attitudes to Judaism in Flavian Rome.” Pages 167–80 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Goodman, Martin. “The Meaning of ‘FISCI IUDAICI CALUMNIA SUBLATA’ on the Coinage of Nerva.” Pages 81–89 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joshua J. Schwartz. AGJU 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Goodman, Martin. “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews.” Past & Present 182 (2004): 3–39.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

185

Goud, Thomas E. “The Sources of Josephus Antiquities 19.” Historia 45, no. 4 (1996): 472–82. Gowing, Alain M. “The Imperial Republic of Velleius Paterculus.” Pages 411–18 in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Grabbe, Lester. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Volume 2, The Early Hellenistic Period (335–175 BCE). LSTS 68. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Grainger, John D. The Syrian Wars. Mnemosyne Supplements: History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity 320. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Grojnowski, Davina. Situating Josephus’ Life within Ancient Autobiography. London: Bloomsbury Academic, forthcoming. Grotanelli, Cristiano. Kings and Prophets: Monarchic Power, Inspired Leadership, and Sacred Text in Biblical Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gruen, Erich S. “The Hasmoneans in Josephus.” Pages 222–34 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Gussmann, Oliver. Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus. TSAJ 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Haaland, Gunnar. “Convenient Fiction or Causal Factor? The Questioning of Jewish Antiquity according to Against Apion 1.2” Pages 163–75 in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor. JSJSup 146. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Habinek, Thomas. “Imago suae vitae: Seneca’s Life and Career.” Pages 3–32 in Brill’s Companion to Seneca: Philosopher and Dramatist. Edited by Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil with Mario Weida. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Hägg, Tomas. The Art of Biography in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Hägg, Tomas. The Novel in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Hanhart, Robert. Esther. Göttingen Septuagint 8.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Harker, Andrew. Loyalty and Dissidence in Roman Egypt: The Case of the Acta Alexandrinorum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Harper, George McLean. “A Study in the Commercial Relations between Egypt and Syria in the Third Century before Christ.” AJP 49, no. 1 (1928): 1–35. Harper, George McLean. “Tax Contractors and their Relation to Tax Collection in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Aeg 14, no. 1 (1934): 49–64.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

186

Bibliography

Harries, Jill. Law and Crime in the Roman World. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Harrison, Stephen. “Decline and Nostalgia.” Pages 287–99 in A Companion to Latin Literature. Edited by Stephen Harrison. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Hau, Lisa Irene. Moral History from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016. Hidber, T. Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass: Die Praefatio zu De oratoribus veteribus. Beiträtrage zur Altertumskunde 70. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996. Hollander, H. W. Joseph as Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Holleaux, Maurice. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques. 6 vols. E. de Boccard, 1938–1968. Hollis, Susan T. The Ancient Egyptian “Tale of Two Brothers”: A Mythological, Religious, Literary, and Historico-Political Study. 2nd ed. Oakville, CT: Bannerstone Press, 2008. Holm, Tawny L. Of Courtiers and Kings: The Biblical Daniel Narratives and Ancient Story-Collections. Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Honigman, Sylvie. “Before the Spark Ignites the Fire: Structural Instabilities in Southern Syria.” Pages 257–67 in The Middle Maccabees: Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and Paul J. Kosmin. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. Honigman, Sylvie. Tales of Taxes and High Priests: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochus IV. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Hoyos, Dexter. “Livy on the Civil Wars (and After): Morality Lost?” Pages 210–38 in The Historiography of Late Republican Civil War. Edited by Carsten Hjort Lange and Frederik Juliaan Vervaet. HRE 5. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Huitink, Luuk and Jan Willem van Henten. “The Publication of Flavius Josephus’ Works and their Audiences.” Zutot 6, no. 1 (2009): 49–60. Humphreys, W. Lee. “Novella.” Pages 82–96 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coates. JSOTSup 35. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1985. Humphreys, W. Lee. “The Story of Esther and Mordecai: An Early Jewish Novella.” Pages 97–113 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coates. JSOTSup 35. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1985. Ilan, Tal and Vered Noam, in collaboration with Meir Ben Shahar, Daphne Baratz, and Yael Fisch. Josephus and the Rabbis [in Hebrew]. 2 vols. Between Bible and Mishnah: The David and Jemima Jeselsohn Library. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2017. Jacobs, Susan G. Plutarch’s Pragmatic Biographies. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 43. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

187

Johnson, Sara Raup. Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Johnson, William A. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Johnson, William A, and Holt N. Parker, eds. Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Jones, A. H. M. The Herods of Judaea. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Jones, Brian W. The Emperor Domitian. London: Routledge, 1992. Jones, Christopher P. “Josephus and Greek Literature in Flavian Rome.” Pages 201–208 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Jones, Christopher P. “Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works.” JRS 56, nos. 1 and 2 (1966): 61–74. Jones, Kenneth R. “The Figure of Apion in Josephus’ Contra Apionem.” JSJ 36, no. 3 (2005): 278–315. Jovanović, Ljubica. The Joseph of Genesis as Hellenistic Scientist. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. Kapust, Daniel J. Republicanism, Rhetoric, and Roman Political Thought: Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Kaye, Noah and Ory Amitay. “Kleopatra’s Dowry: Taxation and Sovereignty between Hellenistic Kingdoms.” Historia 64, no. 2 (2015): 131–55. Kerkeslager, Allen. “The Absence of Dionysios, Lampo, and Isidoros from the Violence in Alexandria in 38 C.E.” SPhiloA 17 (2005): 49–94. Kerkeslager, Allen. “Agrippa I and the Judeans of Alexandria in the Wake of the Violence in 38 CE.” REJ 169, nos. 1–2 (2009): 1–49. Kneebone, Emily. “Josephus’ Esther and diaspora Judaism.” Pages 165–82 in The Romance Between Greece and the East. Edited by Tim Whitmarsh and Stuart Thomson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Kokkinos, Nikos. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. JSPSup 30. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kokkinos, Nikos. “Review of Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea.” JRS 82 (1992): 281–82. Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Translated by Keith Tribe. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985. Repr., New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Koskenniemi, Erkki. Greek Writers and Philosophers in Philo and Josephus: A Study of Their Secular Education and Educational Ideals. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. When Joseph Met Aseneth: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

188

Bibliography

Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth. “From Exampla to Exemplar? Writing History around the Emperor in Imperial Rome.” Pages in 181–200 in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Edited by Jonathan Edmondson, Steve Mason, and James Rives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth. “Historiography and Biography.” Pages 403–19 in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies. Edited by Alessandro Barchiesi and Walter Scheidel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. “Die Darstellung König Agrippas I. in Flavius Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae.” Pages 98–114 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002. Edited by Jürgen U. Kalms and Folker Siegert. Arbeiten aus dem Institutum Judaicum Delizschianum. Münster: Lit, 2003. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 9. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117–283 and A 18–20.” Pages 90–100 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001. Edited by Folker Siegert and Jürgen U. Kalms. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 12. Münster: Lit, 2002. Krieger, Leonard. Ranke: The Meaning of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Kugel, James L. In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Kushnir-Stein, Alla. “Agrippa I in Josephus.” SCI 22 (2003): 153–61. Lambert, David. “Biblical Narrative as Ethics? The Limits of Exemplarity in Ancient Jewish Literature.” DSD 28 (2021): 423–47. Landau, Tamar. Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, and the Herod Narratives. AGJU 63. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Langlands, Rebecca. Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Langlands, Rebecca. “Plutarch and Roman Exemplary Ethics.” Pages 75–94 in Literature and Culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235. Edited by Alice König, Rebecca Langlands, and James Uden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Langlands, Rebecca. “Roman Exemplarity: Mediating between General and Particular.” Pages 68–79 in Exemplarity and Singularity: Thinking through Particulars in Philosophy, Literature, and Law. Edited by Michèle Lowrie and Susanne Lüdemann. New York: Routledge, 2015. Langlands, Rebecca. “Rules and the Unruly: Roman Exemplary Ethics.” Pages 103–23 in Rules and Ethics: Perspectives from Anthropology and History. Edited by Morgan Clarke and Emily Corran. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2021. Laqueur, Richard A. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Giessen: Kindt, 1920. [Published in English

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

189

as The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation Based on New Critical Sources. Edited by Steve Mason. Translated by Caroline Disler. Toronto: York University, 2005.] Larmour, David. H. J. “The Synkrisis.” Pages 405–16 in A Companion to Plutarch. Edited by Mark Beck. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Lauwers, Jeroen. “Reading Books, Talking Culture: The Performance of Paideia in Imperial Greek Literature.” Pages 227–44 in Orality, Literacy and Performance in the Ancient World: Orality and Literacy in the Ancient World, vol. 9. Edited by Elizabeth Minchin. Mnemosyne Supplements: Monographs on Greek and Roman Language and Literature 335. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Levick, Barbara. “Morals, Politics, and the Fall of the Roman Republic.” GR 29, no. 1 (1982): 53–62. Lianeri, Alexandra, ed. The Western Time of Ancient History: Historiographical Encounters with the Greek and Roman Pasts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Liebert, Hugh. Plutarch’s Politics: Between City and Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Lim, Timothy H. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Lintott, A. W. “Imperial Expansion and Moral Decline in the Roman Republic.” Historia 21, no. 4 (1972): 626–38. Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Lorber, Catharine. “The Circulation of Ptolemaic Silver in Seleucid Coele Syria and Phoenicia from Antiochus III to the Maccabean Revolt: Monetary Policies and Political Consequences.” Electrum 26 (2019): 9–23. Lorber, Catharine. “Silver Coinage in Seleucid Coele Syria and Phoenicia: Implications for the History of Judah.” Pages 311–30 in The Middle Maccabees: Archaeology, History, and the Rise of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Edited by Andrea M. Berlin and Paul J. Kosmin. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. Luce, T. J. “Tacitus on ‘History’s Highest Function’: praecipuum munus annalium (Ann. 3.65).” ANRW II.33.4: 2904–27. Mader, Gottfried. Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum. Mnemosyne Supplements: Bibliotheca Clasica Batava 205. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Manassa, Colleen. Imagining the Past: Historical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Marincola, John. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

190

Bibliography

Mason, Steve. “Did Josephus Know His Bible When He Wrote the Jewish War? Elisha at Jericho in J. W. 4.459–465.” Pages 603–27 in Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint. Edited by Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk. EJL 47. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2017. Mason, Steve. “The Importance of the Latter Half of Josephus’ Antiquities for his Roman Audience.” Pages 129–53 in Pentateuchal Traditions in the Late Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the International Workshop in Tokyo, August 28–31, 2007. Edited by Akio Moriya and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Mason, Steve. Introduction to Judean Antiquities 1–4, by Louis H. Feldman. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Mason, Steve. “Josephus as Roman Historian.” Pages 89–107 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Mason, Steve. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Origins. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Mason, Steve. “Josephus, Publication, and Audiences: A Response.” Zutot 8 (2011): 81–94. Mason, Steve. “Josephus’ Autobiography (Life of Josephus).” In A Companion to Josephus, edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers, 59–74. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Mason, Steve. “Prophecy in Roman Judaea: Did Josephus Report the Failure of an ‘Exact Succession of the Prophets’ (Against Apion 141)?” JSJ 50 (2019): 524–56. Mason, Steve. “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’ Judean Antiquities/Life.” Pages 64–103 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Matthews, Shelly. First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Mazar, B. “The Tobiads” [part 1]. IEJ 7, no. 3 (1957): 137–45. Mazar, B. “The Tobiads” [part 2]. IEJ 7, no. 4 (1957): 229–38. McCown, C. C. “The ʿAraq el-Emir and the Tobiads.” BA 20, no. 3 (1957): 63–76. McLaren, James S. “The Jews in Rome during the Flavian Period.” Antichthon 47 (2013): 156–72. McLaren, James S. “Josephus on the Priesthood.” Pages 270–81 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. McLaren, James S. Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of their Land, 100 BC–AD 70. JSNTSup 63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

191

Meinhold, Arndt. “Die Gattung des Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I.” ZAW 87, no. 3 (1975): 306–24. Meinhold, Arndt. “Die Gattung des Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II.” ZAW 88, no. 1 (1976): 72–93. Modrzejewski, Joseph Mélèze. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Translated by Robert Cornman. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Moehring, Horst R. “Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, Chicago: 1957. Momigliano, Arnaldo. Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. 2 vols. Storia e Letteratura: Raccolta di Studi e Testi 135–136. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975. Morgan, Teresa. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Musurillo, Herbert A. The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: Acta Alexandrinorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. Nadel, George H. “Philosophy of History before Historicism.” History and Theory 3, no. 3 (1964): 291–315. Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Najman, Hindy. Past Renewals: Interpretive Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Netzer, Ehud. “Tyros, the ‘Floating Palace.’” Pages 340–53 in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Edited by Stephen G. Wilson and Michel Desjardin. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 9. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. Niditch, Susan. “Father-Son Folktale Patterns and Tyrant Typologies in Josephus’ Ant. 12:160–222.” JJS 32, no. 1 (1981): 47–55. Niditch, Susan. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Niehoff, Maren R. The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. AGJU 16. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Niehoff, Maren R. Philo: An Intellectual Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Niese, Benedictus. Flavii Iosephi opera: Edidit et apparatu critic instruxit. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887–1895. Nikolaidis, A. G. “Aspects of Plutarch’s Notion of Philotimia.” Pages 31–53 in The Lash of Ambition: Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

192

Bibliography

Edited by G. Roskam, M. de Pourcq, and L. Van der Stockt. Collection d’Études Classiques 25. Louvain: Société des Études Classiques, 2012. Nimis, Stephen A. “The Novel.” Pages 617–27 in The Oxford Handbook of Hellenic Studies. Edited by George Boys-Stones, Barbara Graziosi, and Phiroze Vasunia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Noam, Vered. Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Nodet, Étienne. Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume I: Livres I à III. 3rd ed. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000. Nodet, Étienne. Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume V: Livres X et XI. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2010. Nodet, Étienne. Flavius Josèphe: Les Antiquités Juives. Volume VI: Livres XII à XIV. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2021. Nodet, Étienne. The Hebrew Bible of Josephus: Main Features. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Nodet, Étienne. “Josephus and Discrepant Sources.” Pages 259–77 in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor. JSJSup 146. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Nodet, Étienne. “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism from Rome.” Pages 103–22 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rogers. JSJSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Norton, J. D. H. Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus, and the Yahad. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. O’Gorman, Ellen. Tacitus’ History of Politically Effective Speech: Truth to Power. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. Orrieux, Claude. Les papyrus de Zénon: L’horizon d’un Grec en Egypte au IIIe siècle avant J.C. Deucalion. Paris: Macula, 1983. Otto, Walter. “Hyrkanos.” RE 9.1 (1914): 527–34. Palmer, Michael. “Stasis in the War Narrative.” Pages 409–26 in The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides. Edited by Ryan K. Balot, Sara Forsdyke, and Edith Foster. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Pauw, D. A. “Impersonal Expressions and Unidentified Spokesmen in Greek and Roman Historiography and Biography.” Acta Classica 23 (1980): 83–95. Pelletier, André. Flavius Josèphe: Adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée: Une Réaction Atticisante contre la Koinè. Paris: Librairie c. Kincksieck, 1962. Pelling, Christopher. Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies. London: The Classical Press of Wales, 2002. Pelling, Christopher. “Plutarch on Roman Philotimia.” Pages 55–67 in The Lash of Ambition: Plutarch, Imperial Greek Literature and the Dynamics of Philotimia. Edited by G. Roskam, M. de Pourcq, and L. Van der Stockt. Collection d’Études Classiques 25. Louvain: Société des Études Classiques, 2012.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

193

Pelling, Christopher. “Political Philosophy.” Pages 149–62 in A Companion to Plutarch. Edited by Mark Beck. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Penwill, John L. “Politics and Philosophy in Flavian Rome.” Pages 345–68 in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Edited by A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Perowne, Stewart. The Later Herods: The Political Background of the New Testament. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958. Petitfils, James. Mos Christianorum: The Roman Discourse of Exemplarity and the Jewish and Christian Language of Leadership. STAC 99. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Price, Jonathan J. “Josephus’ Reading of Thucydides: A Test Case in the Bellum Iudaicum.” Pages 79–98 in Thucydides—A Violent Teacher? History and its Representations. Edited by Georg Rechenauer and Vassiliki Pothou. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2011. Price, Jonathan J. Thucydides and Internal War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam. Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Rajak, Tessa. “The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus’ Political Thought.” Pages 222–46 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Rajak, Tessa. “Josephus.” Pages 585–96 in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Edited by Christopher Rowe and Malcolm Schofield with Simon Harrison and Melissa Lane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Rajak, Tessa. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Reardon, B. P. “General Introduction.” Pages 1–16 in Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Edited by B. P. Reardon. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham.” JSJ 40 (2009): 185–212. Reinach, Théodore. “L’Emperateur Claude et les Juifs d’apres un nouveau document.” REJ 74 (1924): 113–44. Roller, Matthew B. Constructing Autocracy: Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Roller, Matthew B. Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Rosenberg, Stephen Gabriel. “Airaq al-Amir: The Architecture of the Tobiads.” Ph.D. diss., University College, London, 2002. Roskam, Geer. “Ambition and Love of Fame in Plutarch’s Lives of Agis, Cleomenes, and the Gracchi.” CP 106 (2011): 208–25. Rutledge, Steven H. Imperial Inquisitions: Prosecutors and Informants from Tiberius to Domitian. London: Routledge, 2001. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

194

Bibliography

Rutledge, Steven H. “Writing Imperial Politics: The Social and Political Background.” Pages 24–61 in Writing Politics in Imperial Rome. Edited by W. J. Dominik, J. Garthwaite, and P. A. Roche. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sartre, Maurice. “Histoire et Mémoire(s) des Maccabées.” Pages 1–20 in La Mémoire des Persécutions: Autour des livres des Maccabées. Edited by Gérard Nahon. Paris: Peeters, 2014. Satlow, Michael L. “Josephus’ Knowledge of Scripture.” JAJ 11 (2020): 385–417. Schepens, Guido. “Zum Verhältnis von Biographie und Geschichtsschreibung in hellenistischer Zeit.” Pages 335–61 in Die griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit: Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 26.–29 Juli 2006 in Würzburg. Edited by Michael Erler and Stefan Schorn. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 245. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Schwartz, Daniel R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea. TSAJ 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Josephus on Hyrcanus II.” Pages 210–32 in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community.” SCI 7 (1983): 30–52. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?” Pages 47–61 in Jews in a Greco-Roman World. Edited by Martin Goodman. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Kata Toyton ton Kairon: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II.” JQR 72, no. 4 (1982): 241–68. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Many Sources But a Single Author: Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities.” Pages 36–58 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Schwartz, Daniel R. “On Drama and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus.” SCI 10 (1991): 113–29. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks.” JJS 53, no. 1 (2002): 146–51. Schwartz, Daniel R. Reading the First Century. WUNT 300. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schwartz, Seth. “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum Book 7.” HTR 79 (1986): 373–86. Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judaean Politics. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Schwartz, Seth. “A Note on the Social Type and Political Ideology of the Hasmonean Family.” JBL 112, no. 2 (1993): 305–17. Seager, Robin. Tiberius. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Sellars, John. Stoicism. Ancient Philosophies. London: Routledge, 2014. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

195

Sementchenko, Lada. “La notion de stastis chez Thucydide et Flavius Josèphe.” Pages 63– 70 in Ombres de Thucydide: La réception de l’historien depuis l’Antiquité jusqu’au début du xxe siècle. Edited by Valérie Fromentin, Sophie Gotteland, and Pascal Payen. Pessac: Ausonius Éditions, 2010. Sharon, Nadav. Judea under Roman Domination: The First Generation of Statelessness and Its Legacy. EJL 46. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2017. Shutt, R. J. H. Studies in Josephus. London: S.P.C.K., 1961. Skidmore, Clive. Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations. SJLA 22. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Smallwood, E. Mary. “Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Events.” Pages 114–29 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Smallwood, E. Mary. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Smith, Tyler. “Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities in Competition with Nicolaus of Damascus’s Universal History.” JAJ 13 (2022): 52–76. Spilsbury, Paul. “Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact.” Pages 348–68 in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and John R. Levison. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Spilsbury, Paul. The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible. TSAJ 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Spilsbury, Paul. “Josephus and the Bible.” Pages 123–34 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: WileyBlackwell, 2016. Spilsbury, Paul. “Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire.” Pages 209–27 in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. Edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi. JSJSup 104. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Spilsbury, Paul, and Chris Seeman. Judean Antiquities 11. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 6a. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Stadter, Philip A. “Biography and History.” Pages 1082–1107 in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Stadter, Philip A. Plutarch and his Roman Readers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Stadter, Philip A. “Plutarch and Rome.” Pages 13–31 in A Companion to Plutarch. Edited by Mark Beck. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Stadter, Philip A. “The Proems of Plutarch’s Lives.” Illinois Classical Studies 13, no. 2 (1988): 275–95. Stadter, Philip A. “The Rhetoric of Virtue in Plutarch’s Lives.” Pages 493–510 in Rhetorical Theory and Praxis in Plutarch: Acta of the IVth International Congress of David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

196

Bibliography

the International Plutarch Society, Leuven, July 3–6, 1996. Edited by L. Van der Stock. Collection d’Études Classiques 11. Louvain: Peeters, 2000. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography. NovTSup 64. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 1992. Sterling, Gregory E. “The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography.” Pages 231–43 in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Edited by John Marincola. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Sterling, Gregory E. “A Man of the Highest Repute’: Did Josephus Know the Writings of Philo?” SPhiloA 25 (2013): 101–13. Stern, Pnina. “Life of Josephus: The Autobiography of Flavius Josephus.” JSJ 41 (2010): 63–93. Swain, Simon C. R. “Plutarchan Synkrisis.” Eranos 90 (1992): 101–11. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Translated by S. Applebaum. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1959. [Originally published in Hebrew as ‫היהודימ והיוונימ בתקופה ההלניססית‬ ִ (Tel Aviv: Devir, 1930)]. Tcherikover, Victor. “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered.” Eos 48, no. 3 (1956): 169–93. Thackeray, H. St. John. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. New York: Ktav Publishing, 1929. Thackeray, H. St. John, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wilkgren, and L. H. Feldman. Josephus. LCL. 9 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Toher, Mark. “Nicolaus and Herod in the Antiquitates Judaicae.” HSCP 101 (2003): 427–47. Turner, E. G. “Tiberivs Ivlivs Alexander.” JRS 44 (1954): 54–64. Tuval, Michael. From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew: On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism. WUNT 2/357. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. van der Blom, Henriette. Cicero’s Role Models: The Political Strategy of a Newcomer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. van der Blom, Henriette. “Historical exempla as tools of praise and blame in Ciceronian oratory.” Pages 49–67 in Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric. Edited by Christopher Smith and Ralph Covino. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2011. van Henten, Jan Willem. “Herod the Great in Josephus.” Pages 235–46 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. van Henten, Jan Willem. “Josephus as Narrator.” Pages 121–50 in Autoren in religiösen literarischen Texten der späthellenistischen und der frühkaiserzeitlichen Welt. Edited by Eve Marie-Becker and Jörg Rüpke. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Van Hoof, Lieve. Plutarch’s Practical Ethics: The Social Dynamics of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. von Ranke, Leopold. Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1535. Leipzig: G. Reimer, 1824. David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Bibliography

197

Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus.” Pages 147–72 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Wacholder, Ben Zion. Nicolaus of Damascus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. Ward, J. S. “Roman Greek: Latinisms in the Greek of Flavius Josephus.” ClQ 57, no. 2 (2007): 632–49. Wardman, Alan. Plutarch’s Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974. Wassell, Blake. “εἰ δή τις … συκοφαντοίη: Impiety and the ‘fiscus Iudaicus’ in Josephus, War 1.11.” JSJ 51, nos. 4–5 (2020): 525–70. Westwood, Ursula. “A Jewish Lawgiver in a Greek World: Moses in Josephus’ Antiquities in light of Plutarch’s Lives.” Ph.D. diss., Wolfson College, Oxford, 2020. Wevers, John William. Genesis. Göttingen Septuagint 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. White, Hayden V. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. White, Hayden V. The Fiction of Narrative: Essays on History, Literature, and Theory, 1957–2007. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. White, Hayden V. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. Whitmarsh, Tim. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Whitmarsh, Tim. “Josephus, Joseph, and the Greek Novel.” Ramus 36, no. 1 (2007): 78–95. Whitmarsh, Tim. Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel: Returning Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Wickes, Jeffrey. Bible and Poetry in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Ephrem’s Hymns on Faith. Oakland: University of California Press, 2019. Wildberger, Jula. “Ethics IV: Wisdom and Virtue.” Pages 301–22 in Brill’s Companion to Seneca: Philosopher and Dramatist. Edited by Gregor Damschen and Andreas Heil with Mario Weida. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Wilken, Ulrich. Zum alexendrinischen Antisemitismus. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Sächsischen Geschichte Wissenschaft 27. Leipzig: Teubner, 1909. Wilkinson, Sam. Republicanism during the Early Roman Empire. London: Continuum, 2012. Will, Ernest, and François Larché, eds., with with Fawzi Zayadine, Jacqueline DentzerFeydy, and François Queyrel. ʿIraq al Amir: Le Château du Tobiade Hyrcan. 2 vols. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1991. Williams, David S. “On Josephus’ Use of Nicolaus of Damascus: A Stylometric Analysis of BJ 1.225–273 and AJ 14.280–369.” SCI 12 (1993): 176–87.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

198

Bibliography

Williamson, Callie. “Crimes against the State.” Pages 333–44 in The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society. Edited by Paul J. du Plessis, Clifford Ando, and Kaius Tuori. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI. 297–301.” JTS 28, no. 1 (1977): 49–66. Willrich, Hugo. Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895. Wills, Lawrence M. Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Wills, Lawrence M. “The Differentiation of History and Novel: Controlling the Past, Playing with the Past.” Pages 13–30 in Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: The Role of Religion in Shaping Narrative Forms. Edited by Ilaria Ramelli and Judith Perkins. WUNT 348. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. HDR 26. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Wills, Lawrence M. “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity.” JSJ 42 (2011): 141–65. Wills, Lawrence M. Judith: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2019. Wise, Michael Owen. Language and Literacy in Roman Judea: A Stud of the Bar Kokhba Documents. ABRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. Wiseman, T. P. The Death of Caligula. 2nd ed. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013. [Originally published as Death of an Emperor. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1991.] Wiseman, T. P. “The Two-Headed State: How Romans Explained Civil War.” Pages 25– 44 in Citizens of Discord: Rome and Its Civil Wars. Edited by Brian W. Breed, Cynthia Damon, and Andreola Rossi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1953. Yakobson, Alexander. “Rome’s Attitude to Jews after the Great Rebellion—Beyond Raison d’état?” Pages 186–202 in Rome, an Empire of Many Nations: New Perspectives on Ethnic Diversity and Cultural Identity. Edited by Jonathan J. Price, Margalit Finkelberg, and Yuval Shahar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Zeitlin, Solomon. The Rise and Fall of the Judean State. 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962–1978.

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Index of Modern Authors Aalders, G. J. D. 42 Abbott, Porter H. 21 Adams, Geoff W. 114, 139 Adler, William 47–48 Ahearne-Kroll, Patricia D. 101 Alston, Richard 35 Alter, Robert 27 Ando, Clifford 130 Askin, Lindsey A. 9 Atkinson, Kenneth 110 Attridge, Harold 17, 43, 124 Augoustakis, Antony 13 Aune, David E. 110 Avioz, Michael 6, 173 Balmaceda, Catalina 31, 109 Bar-Kochva, Bezalel 147 Baratz, Daphne 7 Barclay, John M. G. 11, 63, 69, 114, 147 Bay, Carson 46 Begg, Christopher T. 152 Bell, Sinclair 37, 42 Ben-Yishai, Steven 108 Ben Shahar, Meir 7 Berthelot, Katell 44 Betz, Otto 152 Bickerman, Elias J. 63 Bilde, Per 3,5, 8, 114 Bledsoe, Seth A. 19 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 110 Boulogne, J. 39 Bowersock, G. W.  12 Boyd-Taylor, Cameron 136 Boys-Stones, G. R. 47–48 Braun, Martin 22, 75, 76 Brighton, Mark Andrew 109 Brutti, Maria 9 Bücher, Franz 34 Buchner, Dirk 16 Candido, Dionisio 136 Cappelletti, Sylvia 11, 12 Carbonaro, Paul 64 Castelli, Silvia 9, 11, 16 Chalupa, Petr 136

Champlin, Edward 132 Chaplin, Jane D. 29, 34 Chapman, Honora Howell 109 Chrysanthou, Chrysanthos S. 38, 41, 55 Clark, Elizabeth A. 21, 32 Cohen, Shaye J.D. 138 Collins, John J. 63, 83 Cotton, Hannah M. 12 Cowan, J. Andrew 30 Cribiore, Raffaela 8 Daube, David 70, 129 de Blois, Lukas 42 de Jong, Irene J. F. 21 den Hollander, William 10, 12, 14 deSilva, David 79 Devega, Jessica Tinklenberg 76, 77, 90 Duff, Timothy E. 38, 39, 40, 41, 55, 85 Duncan-Jones, Richard 43 Durand, Xavier 64 Eco, Umberto 24–25 Eck, Werner 12 Edmonson, Jonathan 54 Edwards, David R. 109–110 Faulkner, William 27 Feldman, Louis H. 3, 4–5, 9–10, 20, 43–44, 47–48, 54, 75, 76, 96, 98, 99, 110, 136, 141, 143, 152, 163, 173 Fisch, Yael 7 Flatto, David C. 115 Flower, Harriet I. 108, 132, 158, 159 Franxman, Thomas W. 74, 98, 99–100, 129 Friedman, David A. 70, 90 Friis, Martin 13, 152 Fuks, Gideon 61 Gafni, Isaiah M. 6, 57 Gambetti, Sandra 114, 137, 149 Gera, Dov 61, 63, 65, 69, 72, 81, 88, 90, 101 Glas, Eelco 46, 70, 129 Gnuse, Robert Karl 70, 124 Godin, Benoît 47–48 Goldhill, Simon 25

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

200 Goldstein, Jonathan 60, 65 Goodman, Martin 11, 131, 158 Goud, Thomas E. 114 Gowing, Alain M. 36 Grabbe, Lester 63 Grainger, John D. 63 Gray, Rebecca 110 Grojnowski, Davina 19 Grotanelli, Cristano 124 Gruen, Erich S. 18, 19, 65, 71, 78, 81, 83, 88, 90, 100 Gussmann, Oliver 7 Haaland, Gunnar 13, 147 Habinek, Thomas 134 Hägg, Tomas 17, 18 Hanhart, Robert 3 Harker, Andrew 146 Harper, George McLean 64 Harries, Jill 130 Harrison, Stephen 109 Hau, Lisa Irene 17, 37, 41 Hidber, T. 30 Hollander, H. W. 78 Holleaux, Maurice 61 Hollis, Susan T. 76 Holm, Tawny L. 19 Honigman, Sylvie 61, 74 Hoyos, Dexter 108 Huitink, Luuk 14 Humphreys, Lee W. 18 Ilan, Tal 7 Jacobs, Susan G. 42 Johnson, Sarah Raup 18, 65, 83, 92 Johnson, William A. 13 Jones, A. H. M.  114 Jones, Brian W. 168 Jones, Christopher P. 12, 54 Jones, Kenneth R. 147 Jovanović, Ljubica 129 Kapust, Daniel J. 158, 159 Kasher, Aryeh 114 Kaye, Noah 61–62 Kerkeslager, Allen 114, 146, 147, 154 Kneebone, Emily 141, 152

Index of Modern Authors Kokkinos, Nikos 114, 116, 153, 153, 161 Koselleck, Reinhart 31 Koskenniemi, Erkki 9 Kraemer, Ross Shepard 101 Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth 35 Krieger, Klaus-Stefan 115, 117, 120, 138 Krieger, Leonard 32 Kugel, James L. 75, 76, 78, 90, 122, 176 Kushnir-Stein, Alla 115, 116 Lambert, David 46, 47, 48–49 Landau, Tamar 20, 21 Langlands, Rebecca 34, 35, 37, 41, 46, 174–75, 176 Laqueur, Richard A. 22 Larmour, David H. J. 39 Lauwers, Jeroen 9 Levick, Barbara 108 Lianeri, Alexandra 31 Liebert, Hugh 42 Lim, Timothy H. 6 Lintott, A. W. 108 Littman, Robert J. 64 Lorber, Catharine 62 Luce, T. J. 30 Mader, Gottfried 109 Manassa, Colleen 18 Marcus, Ralph 3, 104, 141 Marincola, John 8, 10 Mason, Steve 3, 7, 10, 14, 16–17, 22–23, 54, 85, 110, 115, 159, 160 Matthews, Shelley 128 Mazar, Benjamin 59 McCown, C. C. 64 McLaren, James S. 12, 114, 115 Meinhold, Arndt 18 Modrzejewski, Joseph M. 137, 153 Moehring, Horst R. 16, 22 Momigiliano, Arnaldo 69, 101 Morgan, Teresa 33 Mroczek, Eva 44–45 Musurillo, Herbert A. 147 Nadel, George H. 31 Najman, Hindy 44–45 Netzer, Ehud 64 Niditch, Susan 60, 65–66, 90, 104, 146

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

201

Index of Modern Authors Niehoff, Maren R. 76, 89, 90, 93, 99, 100, 144 Niese, Benedictus 3 Nikolaidis, A. G. 164 Nimis, Stephen A. 18 Noam, Vered 7 Nodet, Étienne 5, 9, 10, 76, 89, 90, 95, 97, 122, 136, 138, 140, 141 Norton, J. D. H. 8

Shutt, R. J. H. 6, 30 Skidmore, Clive 34 Smallwood, E. Mary 11, 114, 136, 144, 147 Spilsbury, Paul 3, 6, 9, 12, 136, 140, 141, 152 Stadter, Phillip A. 35, 38, 40, 54 Sterling, Gregory 15, 47, 143, 144, 147, 148 Stern, Pnina 13 Swain, Simon C. R.  39

O’Gorman, Ellen 131, 133, 134 Orrieux, Claude 64 Otto, Walter 63, 101

Tcherikover, Victor 12, 59, 69 Thackery, H. St. John 3, 14, 97 Toher, Mark 6 Turner, E. G. 11 Tuval, Michael 3, 7, 17, 44, 160

Palmer, Michael 107 Parker, Holt N. 13 Pauw, D. A. 104 Pelletier, Andre 6 Pelling, Christopher 39, 40–41, 42, 164 Penwill, John L. 158 Perowne, Stewart 114 Petitfils, James 46 Price, Jonathan J. 107, 109 Pucci Ben Zeev, Miriam 6, 16, 114 Rajak, Tessa 16, 159 Reardon, B. P. 18 Reed, Annette Yoshiko 44–46 Reinach, Théodore 153 Roller, Matthew B. 34, 35, 37, 42, 45, 46, 133, 160 Rosenberg, Stephen Gabriel 64, 100 Roskam, Geert 85 Rutledge, Steven H. 131, 132 Sartre, Maurice 61 Satlow, Michael L. 8 Schepens, Guido 35 Schwartz, Daniel R. 3, 5, 22–23, 54, 60, 61, 83, 91, 92, 101, 110, 114, 115, 116, 121, 123, 126, 128, 137, 138, 143 148, 149, 154, 156, 159 Schwartz, Seth 4, 7, 57 Seager, Robin 131 Seeman, Chris 9 Sellars, John 133 Sementchenko, Lada 109 Sharon, Nadav 110

van der Blom, Henriette 34 van Henten, Jan Willem 14, 17, 21, 110 Van Hoof, Lieve 42 von Ranke, Leopold 32 Wacholder, Ben Zion 6 Ward, J. S. 7 Wardman, Alan 17 Wassel, Blake 131 Waterfield, Robin 164 Westwood, Ursula 53, 109 Wevers, John William 3 White, Hayden 33 Whitmarsh, Tim 8, 75, 122 Wickes, Jeffrey 27 Wildberger, Jula 133 Wilken, Ulrich 153 Wilkgren, Allen 3 Wilkinson, Sam 160 Will, Ernest 64 Williams, David S. 5 Williamson, Callie 130 Williamson, H. G. M. 92 Willrich, Hugo 63, 65, 81, 88, 90 Wills, Lawrence M. 18–20, 57, 66, 69, 75, 100 Wise, Michael Owen 8 Wiseman, T. P. 108, 114 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 20 Yakobson, Alexander 11 Zeitlin, Solomon 63

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 12 82 29:15–20 81 37–50 87–88 37:2 73–74 37:10 95 37:11 93 37:14 94 37:18 93 39:6–7 90 39:6–20 121–22 39:7 77 39:11 76–77, 122 39:21–23 128 40 124, 126 40:12ff. 126 40:14 128 40:16–19 126 40:23 128 40–41 72 41 126 41:15b–16 127 41:33 127 41:38 127 41:42 120 42:7 100 42:9 98 42:15–16 99 42:17 99 45:1–15 101 45:8 98 50:15–21 101 Judges 11 100 11:1–3 100 19 82 Esther 3:1 140 3:8 146 3:10–11 140

Daniel 2–3 92 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Ahiqar 124 Tale of Two Brothers

76

Deuterocanonical Books 4 Maccabees 2:1–6 79 Additions to Esther C 152 D 152, 156 Wisdom of Solomon 10:13 79 Pseudepigrapha Jubilees 34:10 73–74 39:5–9 78 42:25 99 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Joseph 3–9 78–79 Ancient Jewish Writers Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 1.1–11.297 5–6 1.5–6 8 1.6 4 1.8–9 10 1.12 13

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

203

Index of Ancient Sources 1.14 124 1.14–15 48 1.19 49 1.108 153 2 87–88 2.9 90, 95 2.9–10 88–89, 90 2.10 89, 96 2.12 92 2.13 93 2.15 89, 95 2.17 93 2.18 93 2.19 89, 94 2.40 77, 96–97, 120 2.41 77, 122 2.41–59 121–22 2.42 77, 120, 122 2.42–43 122 2.43 77, 81, 122 2.44 77, 122 2.45 76, 122 2.46 77, 81, 122 2.46–49 77, 122 2.48 77, 122 2.51 77, 81, 122 2.53 77, 122 2.60 124–25 2.60–86 72 2.61 127–28 2.63 72, 89, 126 2.64–73 126 2.65 89, 126 2.68 128 2.71–73 126 2.74 128 2.76 89 2.78 126 2.80 127 2.86 89 2.87 72, 127 2.91 89 2.94 67, 68 2.97 99, 100, 118, 119 2.98 98 2.99 99 2.101 99 2.105 99

2.125 2.160–67 2.162 2.174 2.177 2.193 2.197 2.198 2.201 2.202 2.348 4.37 4.127–28 4.184–87 4.197 4.223–24 6.33–36 6.40–44 6.179 7.142 8.196 8.349 9.20 9.214 10.189 10.210 10.212–13 10.259 11 11.139 11.148–296 11.209 11.212 11.215 11.237 11.242 11.243 11.262 11.269 11.297–302 11.304–47 12.11–118 12.112–18 12.154 12.154–59 12.158 12.158–59 12.158–67

99 101 98 67 70 68, 119 101 95, 96 70 118 153 84–85 110 115 12 115 159 159 97 50 50 152 152 153 118 110 92 152 118, 156 152 136 139, 140 146 140, 141 152 151 151 151 140 57 57 6, 57 92 60 58 59–60 68 69

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

204

Index of Ancient Sources 12.158–236 12.159 12.160 12.160–79 12.161 12.161–62 12.163 12.164 12.165 12.167 12.171 12.172–73 12.177–78 12.180–85 12.186–95 12.186 12.187 12.187–89 12.189 12.190 12.191 12.192 12.192–95 12.195 12.196–222 12.197 12.198 12.202 12.203–204 12.204–206 12.206 12.207 12.208 12.212–18 12.214 12.218 12.221–22 12.222 12.223–27 12.224 12.228 12.228–29 12.229 12.229–36 12.236 12.239–41 12.241–13.214 13.198

57 68 82, 84, 106 58 68 69 59–60 68 68, 72 68, 69 74 72–73 73 58 58 92 81, 90, 92 80 92 88, 90, 92, 105 91, 92, 94 94 91, 94 89, 95, 105 58 92 67–68 97 103 103–104 59–60 104–105 105 73 105 97 100 62 58 71, 83 58 100, 101, 106 62 58 62, 105 106–107 6 51

13.291 110 13.299 110 13.314 152 13.372 110 14.22 110 14.58 110 14.77 110 14.91 110 14.100 110 14.120 110 14.268 92 14.340 111 14.491 110 15.22 111 15.156–17.199 20 15.220 111 16.66 111 17.60 51 17.354 51 18–19 114 18–20 138 18.27–19.353 112 18.127–129 52, 112–113, 117, 118 18.130–41 117 18.130–42 113 18.142 117, 118–19 18.143–46 113, 153 18.143ff. 118 18.147–54 113 18.155–67 113 18.161–67 153 18.168 121 18.168–91 121–24 18.168–94 113 18.170 121 18.187 121 18.188–91 121 18.185–204 124–29 18.193–94 128 18.195–237 113 18.197 125 18.200 125 18.201–202 128 18.203–204 127–28 18.238–56 113 18.240–55 137–39 18.256 137, 138, 139, 142, 145 18.257 145, 147

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

205

Index of Ancient Sources 18.257–60 142, 144 18.258 145 18.259 147 18.259–60 144 18.289 153 18.289–96 150 18.289–97 149 18.289–309 113 18.291 151 18.293 151 18.294 151 18.296 151 18.298–301 154 18.298–304 157 18.305–309 157 19 114 19.1–235 113 19.167–84 115, 160 19.236–72 113 19.273–342 113 19.294–96 117, 119–20 19.328–31 163 19.328ff. 118 19.343–52 113, 161 19.345–46 161 19.347–48 162 19.352 165 20.262–63 8 20.263 8 20.267 4 Contra Apionem 1.1–3 147 1.37–41 110 1.41 110 1.50 4, 14 1.51 11 2.125–32 69 2.132–34 69 2.185–86 115 Jewish War 1.13–16 15 1.13–17 4 1.22 15 1.139–41 107 1.204–673 20 2.179 121 2.179–80 123 2.181ff. 142

2.184 138, 139, 142 3.350–54 70, 129 3.387–98 70 3.399–408 70, 129 4.616–18 11 4.622–29 70 7 4 Vita 7–12 70 8 8 361 4 362–67 11 Philo of Alexandria De Iosepho 4 89 5 93 9 95 144 97 157–62 71 170 71 232 99 Legatio ad Gaium 8–118 139 166–68 144 178 144 181–86 148 185 144 198–206 144 201–203 148 207–348 148 261–333 154 266–67 155 276–329 155 276–333 156 330 155 349–67 144–145, 146, 148 353 145 355 144–45 368 144 373 116 New Testament Acts of the Apostles 12.19b–23

161

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

206

Index of Ancient Sources

Rabbinic Sources Babylonian Talmud Megillah 7a Sanhedrin 100a

176 176

Greco-Roman Sources Acta Alexandrinorum 147, 153 Aesop Romance 124 Appian The Civil Wars 1.1.1 1.2.4–5

108 108

Dio Cassius Roman History 59.8.2 59.24.1 60.8.2–3 65.15.3–5 67.12.1–2

153 153 153 11 11

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 1.1.2 29 1.2.1 32 1.5.3 30 2.11.2–3 108 Eurypides Hippolytus 75 Herodotus Histories 3.125–37

124

Livy Ab urbe condita Praefatio 10–11 Praefatio 9 108–109 7.40.2 108

Pliny the Younger Epistles 7 14 7.17.1 14 10.8 158 Plutarch Life of Agis 2.7–8 164 Life of Alcibiades 4.1 85 6.1 85 16.2 85 16.3–5 85 35.1 85 Life of Alexander 1.1–3 38–39 Life of Caius Gracchus 7.3–4 85 Life of Demosthenes 1 8 Life of Tiberius Gracchus 8 85 Parallel Lives 35, 38 Polybius The Histories 1.1.5 6.54.6

32 34

Sallust Bellum Catalinae 10–13 108 Seneca Epistle 24

34

Suetonius Lives of the Caesars 35 Life of Domitian 9–13 132 12.2 10 Life of Titus 7.1–2 11 Tacitus Agricola 35 42.4 134

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

207

Index of Ancient Sources Histories 1.3

30

Valerius Maximus Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 34 Velleius Paterculus 119 35–36 2.3.2–3 108 Varro De vita populi Romani f.114

108

Xenophon of Ephesus Ephesian Tale 75 Inscriptions and Papyri CPJ 1.80–83 2.108–37 2.194 2.204–209 2.418b

11 11 158 11 11

Zenon papyri

59, 64

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Index of Subjects adulatio. See flattery Agrippa I (Jewish king) and banquet scene 149–54 and divinatory skill 125–27 and divine providence 124–25 and flattery (adulatio) 132–35, 151, 162–63 and treason charges 121–23, 130–32. See also maiestas (treason) death of 161–63 evaluation of in Antiquities 153, 161–65 exemplary function of 128–29, 130–35, 157–65, 175–77 imprisonment of 124–29 in Legatio 142–49, 154–57 literary connections to Esther (Jewish queen) 149–57 literary connections to Joseph (Genesis patriarch) 117–29 relationship to Gaius 121, 123, 132, 139, 149–51, 154–56. See also Gaius (Roman emperor) reputation for profligacy 153, 161–65 scholarship on 113–17 summary of accounts in Antiquities  112–13 See also subversive adaptation Ahasuerus/Artaxerxes (Persian king) in Antiquities 139–41 See also Gaius (Roman emperor) Antiquities of the Jews aims and purpose 15–17 audience 10–13, 24–25  date of composition 4–5 overview of sources 5–10 publication 13–15. See also recitatio See also historiography Apion in Antiquities and Jewish War compared 142–43, 146–49 in Antiquities and Legatio compared 143–49 in Contra Apionem 69, 147 literary connections to Haman 145, 147–48 See also Isidorus, Jewish identity

criticism, source and redaction of Antiquities account of Agrippa I 114–16, 137–49, 154–57 of the Tales of the Tobiads 60, 63, 65, 91–92, 101–102 debated in Josephan scholarship 22–23 See also literary analysis delatio. See maiestas (treason) Domitian and date and audience of Josephus’ works 4, 10–12 damnatio memoriae 158–59 implicit criticism of by Josephus 158–60 See also fiscus Iudaicus, Jewish identity, political philosophy education (παιδεία) Greco-Roman ideals 8–9 of Josephus 7–9 See also exemplarity, exemplum Esther (Jewish Queen) and banquet scene 149–54 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king) Esther, Book of form used in Antiquities 136 Josephan alterations to 118, 139–41, 152–53 textual history 136 exemplarity and ethical systems 34, 37–38 and moralism 41–42 and practical decision-making 42–43 as interpretive framework 27–28 definition of 33–37, 41–42, 53 in Antiquities 47–53, 173–74 in Josephan scholarship 43–47 in Plutarch 38–43, 84–85, 164. See also Plutarch modes of (descriptive, expository, protreptic, exploratory, experimental)  40–41, 54 scholarly model of 37, 45, 46 theorization of 173–77 See also Agrippa I (Jewish King), Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Tobiad), Tales of the Tobiads David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Index of Subjects exemplum/exempla Greek cognates in Antiquities  49–51 social and literary contexts of 34–35, 166 See also exemplarity fiscus Iudaicus 10–11, 131–32, 158–59. See also Domitian flattery (adulatio) among Roman elites 132–33 in Stoic thought 133–34 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king) Gaius (Roman emperor) death of 154, 157 depiction in Josephus 137–39, 141–46, 148–49, 158–60 in Antiquities and Jewish War compared 142–43 in Antiquities and Legatio compared 144–46 literary connections to Ahasuerus/ Artaxerxes (Persian king) 139–42, 146, 150–51, 160 literary connections to Nebuchadnezzar 141 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king), Jewish identity genre and court-tales 19–20 and Jewish novelistic literature 18–20 See also historiography Greco-Roman discourses of exemplarity. See exemplarity, exemplum Haman. See Apion, Gaius (Roman emperor) historiography ancient and modern ideals compared 29–33 and aims of Josephus 15–16 and Jewish apologetic 47–49 moralistic disposition of in antiquity 29–31 periodization and schematization in 108–109 See also Antiquities of the Jews, exemplarity, genre Hyrcanus (Tobiad) at Ptolemaic court 103–105 birth of 80–82 death of 105–107

209 literary connections to Joseph (Genesis patriarch) 88–90, 92–94, 94–105 sibling rivalry motif 87–102 supplanting father and brothers 97–98, 101–102, 103–105 See also Joseph (Genesis patriarch), Joseph (Tobiad), Tales of the Tobiads inversion. See subversive adaptation irony. See subversive adaptation Isidorus 143–44, 146–48. See also Apion, Jewish identity Jewish identity Greco-Roman antipathy towards 10–12, 69–70, 113–14, 136–37, 142–45 Greco-Roman attraction to 10–12, 13 See also Apion, Domitian, fiscus Iudaicus, Gaius (Roman emperor) Joseph (Genesis patriarch) and divine providence 124–25 and dream interpretation 71–72, 125–27 and Potiphar’s wife 75–78, 121–22 at Egyptian court 66–68, 71–72 imprisonment of 127–28 in Antiquities and other sources compared 67–68, 71–72, 73–74, 75–80, 88–90, 92–101, 119–22, 124–28 paralleled in Greco-Roman and Egyptian literature 75–76 parallels with biography of Josephus 70–71, 128–29 sibling rivalry motif 88–90, 92–101 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king), Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Tobiad), Tales of the Tobiads Joseph (Tobiad) and sexual virtue 80–82 at Ptolemaic court 68–69, 71–74 literary connections to Joseph (Genesis patriarch) 66–69, 71–74, 80–82, 94–95 See also Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Genesis patriarch), Tales of the Tobiads literary analysis authorial intent 23–25 narratology 21–23 reader (implied, ideal, model, historically-reconstructed) 24–25 See also subversive adaptation David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

210 maiestas (treason)  among Roman elites 130–32 and fiscus Iudaicus 131 and informants (delatores), informing (delatio) 131–32 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king) moralism. See exemplarity παιδεία. See education παράδειγμα. See exemplum Philo of Alexandria as source for Josephus 143–49, 154–57 depiction of Joseph (Genesis patriarch) 71, 89, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100 on the Alexandrian crisis and Agrippa I  114, 116, 137–38, 143–49, 154–57 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king), Gaius (Roman emperor), Jewish identity Plutarch and exemplarity in Antiquities account of Agrippa I 164 and exemplarity in Tales of the Tobiads 84–85 as comparandum to Josephus 53–55 moralism and exemplarity in 39–41 synkrisis in 39–40 See also exemplarity, exemplum, political philosophy political philosophy and Greco-Roman elites 107–109 of Josephus 109–11, 159–60 See also stasis practical decision-making, practical ethics. See exemplarity

Index of Subjects recitatio (recitation) and Josephus 14–15, 24–25 Greco-Roman practice of 13–15  See also Antiquities of the Jews stasis (factionalism) definition of 107 in Antiquities 109–11 in Greco-Roman sources 108–109 in Jewish War 109 in Tales of the Tobiads 106–107 See also political philosophy subversive adaptation and exemplarity 175–77 definition of 23–24 in Antiquities account of Agrippa I 123– 24, 127, 129–30, 151–54, 156–57 in Tales of the Tobiads 71–75, 81–82, 90–91, 100–102, 103–105 See also Agrippa I (Jewish king), exemplarity, Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Tobiad), literary analysis, Tales of the Tobiads Tales of the Tobiads exemplarity in  82–86, 106–11 scholarship on 59–66 summary of 58 See also exemplarity, Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Tobiad), subversive adaptation Tiberius (Roman emperor). See Agrippa I (Jewish king), maiestas Tobiad Romance. See Tales of the Tobiads Tobiads. See Hyrcanus (Tobiad), Joseph (Tobiad), Tales of the Tobiads treason. See maiestas ὑπόδειγμα. See exemplum

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

Brill_JSJS209.qxp_SPINE : 19 mm cmyk 15-05-2023 11:19 Pagina 1

jsjs 209

David Edwards explores how Josephus in Antiquities adapts the scriptural stories of Joseph and Esther in unexpected ways as models

Edwards

for accounts of more recent Jewish figures. Terming this practice “subversive adaptation,” Edwards contextualizes it within GrecoRoman literary culture and employs the concept of “discourses of exemplarity” to show how Josephus used narratives about past figures to engage Roman elites in moral reflection and pragmatic decision-making. This book supplies an analysis of frequently overlooked accounts as well as Josephus’ broader literary strategies, and shows how ancient Jews appropriated imperial historiographical conventions and forms of discourse while countering Greco-Roman

articles and book chapters on Josephus, the New Testament, and early Christianity, and is a contributor to the Brill Josephus Project.

brill.com/jsjs

David Edwards - 978-90-04-54906-7 Downloaded from Brill.com06/22/2023 07:31:40AM via Western University

In the Court of the Gentiles

*hIJ0A4|VUZQVq

issn 1384-2161 isbn 978-90-04-54905-0

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism [209]

David R. Edwards, Ph.D. (2021), Florida State University, has published

BRILL

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism [209]

claims of cultural superiority.

In the Court of the Gentiles Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus

David R. Edwards

BRILL