PASSOVER IN THE WORKS OF JOSEPHUS
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Editor
JOHN J. COLLINS The Divinity School, Yale University Associate Editor FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Advisory Board P. ALEXANDER — J. DUHAIME - A. HILHORST- P.W. VAN DER HORST A. KLOSTERGAARD PETERSEN - M.A. KNIBB - J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN J. SIEVERS - G. STEMBERGER - J. TROMP
VOLUME 75
PASSOVER IN THE WORKS OFJOSEPHUS BY
FEDERICO M. COLAUTTI
BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KOLN 2002
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Colautti, Federico M. Passover in the works of Josephus / by Federico M. Colautti. p. cm. - (Supplement to the Journal for the Study ofjudaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ;v. 75) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 9004123725 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius—Views on history of Passover. 2. Passover—History I. Title. DS115.9J6C65 2002 933'.05'092—dc21
2002073532
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme Colautti, Federico M.: Passover in the works of Josephus / Federico M. Colautti. - Leiden ; Boston; Koln : Brill, 2002 (Supplements to the journal for the study ofjudaism ; Vol. 75) ISBN 90-04-12372-5
ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 90 04 12372 5 © Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
To my parents Rudy and Betty, to my sister Cecilia, and my brothers Rodolfo, Guillermo, and Juan
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS Preface
xi
Introduction 1. Principal Aim of this Study 2. Aims and Intended Readers of the Works of FJ 3. The Terminology Employed by FJ for this Feast 4. The Process of this Investigation
1 1 3 5 8
PART ONE THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE REWRITTEN ACCOUNT OF IT BY FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS Chapter One: Methodological Premises 1. The Problem of the Relationship between Ant. and Its Sources 2. Methodology and Aim of the First Part Chapter Two: The Pentateuch 1. Comparison of the Account of Passover in Exod 11-13 and in Ant. 2.311-319 1.1. Summary 2. Ant. 3.248-251 and Its Biblical Parallels 2.1. Summary Chapter Three: The Historical Books 1. Ant. 5.20-32, 34 and Its Rewriting of Josh 4-6 1.1. Summary 2. The Celebration of Passover in the Period of the Monarchy According to FJ 2.1. The Passover of Hezekiah 2.1.1. Summary 2.2. The Passover of Josiah 2.2.1. Summary
13 13 20 23 23 33 34 43 45 45 52 53 53 59 59 66
Vlll
CONTENTS
3. Passover on the Return from Exile in the Version of FJ 3.1. Summary Chapter Four: Conclusions 1. General Considerations 2. Specific Considerations
67 75 77 77 78
PART TWO THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD Chapter Five: Hellenistic and Roman Periods 1. Events Which Took Place at Passover from the Hellenistic Period until the End of the Reign of Herod 1.1. Summary 2. Passover and the Events Which Occurred after the Death of Herod 2.1. Summary 3. Passover and the Samaritans 3.1. Summary 4. Passover and the Visits of Vitellius to Jerusalem 4.1. Summary 5. Another Revolt during the Feast of Passover 5.1. Summary 6. Passover during the Progress of the Jewish War 6.1. Summary 7. Other Mentions of Passover in J. W. and in Ant 7.1. Summary 8. Two Significant Omissions? 8.1. Summary 9. Conclusion Excursus I: The Theme of Purity in the Work of FJ Excursus II: The Language of FJ regarding Passover and Its Implications
87
87 96 97 101 101 107 107 109 110 114 115 120 121 123 124 127 127 133 144
CONTENTS
IX
PART THREE
TOWARDS A SETTING AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED Chapter Six: The Setting within Jewish Literature 1. Some Introductory Observations 2. Passover in the Writings of Post-exilic Phophets 3. Passover in Wisdom 18:5~25 4. Passover in Ezekiel the Tragedian 5. Passover in Jubilees 6. Passover in Qumran Literature 7. Passover in Aristobulus 8. Passover in Philo 9. Passover in the New Testament 10. Passover in Pseudo-Philo 11. Passover in m. Pesahim 10 12. Conclusion
155 155 155 158 160 161 164 168 169 174 184 186 189
Chapter Seven: The Setting within the Historical Situation 1. Passover and the Revolutionary Movements before A.D. 70 1.1. Uprisings at the End of Herod's Governorship 1.2. From the Census of Quirinius to Felix's Governorship 1.3. From Felix to Florus 2. The Signs Foretelling Destruction 3. Conclusion
191
196 201 205 216
Chapter Eight: Other Means of Placing the Results in Context 1. Passover and the Other Pilgrimage Feasts 2. Passover and the Politeia/Politeuma of the Jews 3. The Celebration of Passover after A.D. 70
219 219 224 229
General Conclusions 1. Principal Results 2. Hypothetical Reconstruction of FJ's Position 3. Possible Paths for Further Research
237 237 239 241
191 192
X
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations 1. Bibliographical Abbreviations 2. Common Abbreviations
243 243
Bibliography
245
Index of Modern Authors Index of References
259 262
PREFACE This work is the result of many providential "coincidences." Therefore, first of all, I want to give thanks to the Lord in Heaven. The contents of this book reflect, with slight modifications, the product of several years of research in order to attain the doctoral degree at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. For this wonderful time in my life and for the successful achievement of this goal, I am grateful to Prof. Joseph Sievers, Ph.D. His wise and kind advice made this difficult task lighter, while at the same time he encouraged me to defend my own views. Most of all, however, I am grateful for his friendship and generosity in introducing me to the academic world. I thank Prof. Charles Conroy, Ph.D. who was my second advisor; his meticulous observations were very helpful. Fr. Anthony Trafford assumed the hard intense labour involved in translating my original Spanish text. For the love and dedication he gave to this enterprise, there is no just compensation. May the Lord give him a hundredfold! For the opportunity of studying in Rome and for my Christian and priestly formation, I am greatly indebted to the Neocatechumenal Way and to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. I would like to thank them all through the persons who initiated this Way, Kiko Argiiello and Carmen Hernandez, and the rector of the Seminary, Msgr. Claudiano Strazzari. The rector of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary of Vienna, Rev. Giuseppe Rigosi, Ph.D., as well as the seminarians there have given me great help during my time of service among them, and also deserve my recognition. Prof. Giinter Stemberger, Ph.D. was very generous in reading the Spanish version of the work, and his comments were valuable to me. I am deeply obliged to him for making me feel at home in Vienna. I would like to thank the personnel of the Pontifical Biblical Institute's library in Rome, and Mag. Monika Humer of the "Institut flir Judaistik" library in Vienna. Without their unselfish assistance, my work would have been almost impossible.
Xll
PREFACE
Mr. Mark Kovacik, Ms. Cathy Cancino, Mss. Margaret Waymel, and Ms. Anne Thurow dedicated many hours to checking the English manuscript. To all of them, I wish to express my sincere gratitude. However, the responsibility for the translation and any remaining mistakes is mine alone. In the early stages of my original work, the advice of Ms. Cristina Featherston de Arregui was invaluable for refreshing—after so many years in Rome—the usage of my own language. I want to thank her and her husband for their generosity. Finally, I am greatly indebted to Prof. Florentino Garcia Martinez, Ph.D. and Prof. John J. Collins, Ph.D.; without their approval, it would have been impossible to publish this book in the Series, Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. This is obviously a great honour for me. At the same time, I would like to thank the Brill publishing personnel for their professional and friendly way of working. My family at large as well as my community were always a source of encouragement for me. To all of them, I dedicate this book.
INTRODUCTION 1. PRINCIPAL AIM OF THIS STUDY
While working on this project, whenever I would explain my plan to friends, the reaction was always, though for different reasons, one of surprise and perplexity, on the part of specialists and nonspecialists alike. The latter could not grasp how a man called Flavius Josephus (henceforward: FJ), whom they knew vaguely as a historian, could speak about Passover. Those who knew a little more about this author in some way questioned whether FJ had said enough about this feast to merit a scientific study. It is my hope that these pages will demonstrate that the surprise of both groups was without foundation, and that they may usefully bring to light an aspect of FJ's work which until now has received little attention. The principal aim of this study is to identify and analyse the passages in FJ's writings which deal with this feast. The entirety of his work has been considered with the intent of capturing a comprehensive vision of what FJ endeavours to convey when he mentions, refers to, or situates the celebration of Passover in a particular historical context. Once the results of the research are collated, it will be possible to make a prudent attempt at formulating a hypothesis which might explain the data gathered. Above all, I shall attempt an explanation of the part which the feast played, according to this author, both before and during his time: in particular, the role of the feast in the process of reconstructing Judaism after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. An introduction needs to mark out the limits which this work, like any human endeavour, presupposes and consciously accepts. This is not an investigation of Passover in early Judaism, nor in early Christianity. It is not my intention to exhaust or to revive again the debates which have arisen in modern times concerning this subject. In relation to the NT, it is important to state clearly the position of this study. It is true that, given its importance for Christianity, studies of Passover in the NT, or works of exegesis on NT passages, are numerous.
2
INTRODUCTION
In the field of research the most common questions are well-known: Did Jesus celebrate the Jewish Passover at the Last Supper? Which timetable is historically most trustworthy, that of the Synoptics, or that of John? Normally, in these writings FJ is referenced with the idea of proving one hypothesis or another, and consequently, this is done in a fragmentary fashion and out of context.1 Here it is not necessary to argue about the validity of such a method. However, in my opinion it does not do justice to the riches apparently revealed both by investigation of this theme as a whole and by forming a global view of its value for FJ. I shall indeed draw a comparison with some aspects of Passover in the NT, but will not try to clarify what the fundamental document of Christianity has disclosed regarding this feast. Some similarities between both literary works will be briefly underlined, thereby highlighting, among other sources, what FJ has preserved for his posterity. A compilation of all the historical events which led to the destruction of the Temple does not come within the scope of this work. Nor is it possible to deal with the groups which at that time were aligned either for or against the armed anti-Roman reaction. I will simply present a context, within a reconstruction of the historical events, for the results obtained, taking principally into account the actual way in which this author develops it. The reason for this is that the meaning and evocative power of this celebration is of greater interest than the actual events which took place. Actually, I believe that, in the way the events are narrated, the strength of an institution such as Passover is clearly shown— either consciously or unconsciously—according to the role it is given within the continuum of events. Finally, it is necessary to clarify that an analysis of the significance of this feast in rabbinic literature is excluded, because it would extend beyond the scope of this monograph. I shall make a comparison— as in the case of the NT—only in order to highlight the information presented by FJ. Clearly, the importance of the results thus obtained will depend on the view one has of FJ as a historian, and above all on the assess1
A typical example is the work of J. Fitzmyer, which is considered a classic for the study of the Semitic background of the N T ; cf. J. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background, 222, 230, 232, 235; Id., A Wandering Aramean, 2, 31, 33-34, 61.
INTRODUCTION
5
ment one makes of the depth of his assimilation into the Roman world. Therefore, the next section will briefly discuss the various positions which have been held and are defended even today, in regard to the sincerity and credibility which this author merits as well as the audience for whom he writes. 2. AIMS AND INTENDED READERS OF THE WORKS OF FJ
It is well-known that FJ has suffered from a bad reputation among scholars in the last two centuries. Undoubtedly his desertion from the Jewish side and his alignment with the Romans do not aid his cause. FJ had to put up with this judgement in his own lifetime. This was no doubt part of the motive behind his abundant writings. Considering recent studies, one notes that from the beginning the same condemnation affects any evaluation of his work: you cannot expect anything but lies or half-truths from a traitor.2 In recent years FJ has received somewhat gentler treatment. He has been viewed with less passion and in a more balanced way, taking into account the content which he transmits rather than his personal strengths and failings.3 Instead of the cold and calculating apologist, one begins to glimpse a theologian and writer who is open to the future, and is concerned about what will happen to his people.4 Between these two positions are others (more or less clearly defined) which affect in one way or another the manner in which FJ is interpreted and utilised. At this point it is necessary to make a distinction. One cannot equally evaluate or categorise the surviving writings of FJ, because he wrote in different situations and, as he himself affirms, with different aims. 2 H.St.J. Thackeray will regret the harshness of R. Laqueur in his biography of FJ, but he himself will not avoid coming under some negative influence. Nevertheless, his opinion is much more balanced. In fact, for a good introduction to FJ, H.StJ. Thackeray's lectures are highly recommended. Recently they have been translated into French by E. Nodet; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the
Historian, 20, 76; H.StJ. Thackeray, L'homme et I'historien.
' To obtain an up-to-date perspective of the present situation conserning studies about FJ cf. H.K. Bond, "New Currents in Josephus Research," 162-190. 4 One of the first authors to take this line is H.W. Attridge, who underlines FJ's view of history. He regards FJ's reading of events as a theological interpretation; cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 181-184.
4
INTRODUCTION
Jewish War (henceforward: J. W.) is his earliest known work. As the author himself insists, this is a new version of what he had previously written in Aramaic for the Jews who were outside the Roman Empire. The intention which he makes clear in the prologue (J.W. 1.9—12), i.e. to recount the successive events of the Jewish war in an impartial way, seems, from its content, sufficiently fulfilled.3 The audience of this new composition, then, is broad, and probably includes both Jews and non-Jews.6 On the other hand, its aim is more specific and narrower. If alone J.W. had endured until the present, or this work were the sole product of his pen, there would probably be little reason to correct the commonly held view of this author. However, considering without prejudice his second work, viz. Jewish Antiquities (henceforward: Ant.), it is difficult to consider it merely as a one-sided apologia.7 The question of the audience he hoped to attract as well as the aim of Ant. led to a change of attitude in the appreciation of this author. In the introduction of P. Spilsbury's book, there is a good presentation of the various positions.8 His attitude, which I adopt, is that FJ writes for non-Jewish and Jewish readers, and only in this way can the content found there be justified.9 In my opinion, it seems rather unlikely that FJ, considering the situation in Rome in which he found himself, would have taken on such a wide-ranging task only as a pastime. It seems even less to be merely a work of self-justification, which he attempts in his Life. While the apologetic character of Ant. is undeniable, it cannot be compared to Against Apion (henceforward: Ag. Ap.), which is a true
5
In saying this, one does not exclude the obvious bias in favour of the Romans and against the revolutionaries which FJ does not conceal. On the other hand there is no historiography which totally avoids being partisan. There is no doubt that FJ will try to put all the blame for what happened on one group of people—the socalled brigands. However, this does not completely invalidate his version of events, even if it does demand a critical reading of his narrative. On the limitations of the historical-critical method cf. P. Sacchi, "Riflessioni metodologiche sulla critica biblica," 179-183 esp. 180-181. 6 H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 23-29. 7 Such a work, in fact, at the time of writing J.W., FJ thought to be unnecessary (cf. J.W. 1.17). When he found himself in Rome as a freedman of the Flavian family, he considered it to be either necessary, or in his best interests. 8 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 16-22. 9 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 22.
INTRODUCTION
0
apologia, faithful to the norms for this kind of literature. In fact, it is not surprising that in Life and Ag. Ap. he never mentions the feast with which we are concerned. Furthermore, one must ask why FJ, during his time in Rome, came under so many attacks. Among these was the accusation of his having underwritten a revolution in Cyrene.10 A possible and likely explanation is that FJ could have applied himself in some way to the re-organisation of Judaism after A.D. 70 or that he was laying claim to some kind of recognition from his fellow-citizens.11 If he had limited himself only to his personal interest, he would not have made so many enemies so easily. To sum up, it is Ant., FJ's work of broadest scope, which will prove most fruitful for this investigation. The audience for which FJ intended this work probably included, in different ways, but not separately, non-Jewish and Jewish readers. As he himself affirms in his prologue, non-Jews can benefit from the wisdom of his people's law, and the Jews can remember that distancing themselves from these same laws has brought them only ruin and perdition (cf. Ant. 1.5, 14). Thus, it seems probable that FJ strove to present himself to his compatriots as an authority deserving respect, and that he aimed to build around himself a form of Judaism capable of surviving the destruction of A.D. 70.12 3. THE TERMINOLOGY EMPLOYED BY FJ FOR THIS FEAST
In the biblical text there is a problem which is already well-known, namely, the relationship between the feasts of Passover and of Unleavened Bread. While the distinction between them is clear, the boundaries between them are not always well-defined. This has occasioned a long debate about the origin and significance of these celebrations.13 Obviously, this question cannot be considered fully here, but I endeavour to outline where FJ stands on this matter.
10
H.StJ. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 16. ' M. Goodman takes the same view, claiming that FJ retained a strong Jewish identity after the destruction of the Temple. For that reason one has to assume that his links with the Jewish community in Rome were undoubtedly strong; cf. M. Goodman, "Josephus as Roman Citizen," 329-338. 12 S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 209-216. 13 Cf. J.B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, E. Olavarri, "La celebracion de la Pascua 1
D
INTRODUCTION
Certainly FJ is familiar with both names and even attempts an etymology of the difficult word Passover (PIOS). For now, it will be sufficient to review rapidly how these are presented in the writings of FJ. In J. W. the word "unleavened" {aC,x>\ioq) appears eight times, and is always linked to the word "feast" (eopxfi).14 Only on one occasion are they not paired, but the context makes it clear that he is referring to the feast {J.W. 5.99). In Ant. the situation is more developed. Eleven times the word refers to the feast,10 three times to the bread which was eaten at it (Ant. 3.249; 17.213; 20.106), and on one occasion, to the loaves which were presented at the Temple every Sabbath, which were also unleavened (Ant. 3.142). Furthermore, and always in relation to these loaves, he uses a similar expression, namely, "without leaven" (£6|ITI<; anoipoq) (Ant. 3.255). The etymology of this expression is known and there is no reason for FJ to clarify it for his readers. On the contrary, the reason why this feast is celebrated by eating unleavened bread is a question worth answering for FJ. Thus, in Ant. 2.317 he contends that the unleavened bread recalls the time of food shortage suffered after leaving Egypt. A look at the occasions when the word Passover (rcdoxcc) is used by FJ reveals that in J.W. it occurs only twice (2.10; 6.423). The first is practically identical with the feast of Unleavened Bread; the second, even if the feast is mentioned a little earlier (J.W. 6.421), seems to refer to a different celebration. In Ant. Passover is referred to more frequently: it occurs sixteen times, many of which are in close relation to the feast of Unleavened Bread. However, one must distinguish between the feast and the sacrifice of Passover. In most cases he refers to the feast in general,
y Acimos." A general overview of these feasts in D. Kellermann, "illSQ," IV, 1074-1081; E. Otto, "PIO?," VI, 659-682. Bibliographical updatings for both articles in E. Hamacher et aL, "Literaturnachtrage," X, 561, 598. A synthetic presentation in different contexts (OT, NT, Jewish and Christian literature) in B.M. Bokser, "Unleavened Bread and Passover," VI, 755-765. 14 Cf. J.W. 2.10, 224, 244, 280; 4.402; 6.290, 421. In this study, we shall refer to the feast of unleavened bread using capital letters (Unleavened Bread), and to the bread itself with the lower case (unleavened bread). 15 Cf. Ant. 2.317; 3.249, 250, 321; 9.263, 264, 271; 10.70; 11.109; 14.21; 18.29.
INTRODUCTION
7
which includes the sacrifice and at times is identical with Unleavened Bread.16 On four occasions he refers to the sacrifice of victims on the afternoon of the fourteenth day of the first month (Ant. 3.248, 294; 9.271; 11.110).'7 The etymology of this word (FIDS), according to FJ, is "to pass over," because God passed over the people of Israel, while the plagues struck the Egyptians. Certainly, this is not the only possible explanation, but this theme will be dealt with during the course of this study. Regarding the orthography of this term in Greek, it is necessary to point out that there are two alternatives, i.e. pascha (jidaxa) or faska (
16
Cf. Ant. 2.313; 3.249; 5.20; 10.70, 71; 14.21, 25; 17.213; 18.29, 90; 20.106.
17
J.W. Ant. 18
unleavened bread (loaf)
Unleavened Bread (feast)
passover (sacrifice)
Passover (feast)
— 3 times
8 times 11 times
— 4 times
2 times 12 times
In the Latin version of Ant. 14.25 one finds paschae. '•' Cf. B. Niese, Flavii Iosephi Opera. In the concordance of K.H. Rengstorf it appears in Ant. 14.21 as part of the critical text; cf. K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance, III, 350. 20 Gregory of Nazianzus (Or. Bas. 45.10) states that the t e r m ^ a ^ ((pdo"K(x) is the correct Hebrew term, but this is not sufficient reason for maintaining the likelihood that this comes directly from FJ; cf. J.P. Migne, Patrologiae graecae, XXXVI, 635-636.
8
INTRODUCTION 4. THE PROCESS OF THIS INVESTIGATION
I shall begin by examining the biblical paraphrase of FJ contained in Ant., with the intention of laying down a solid foundation for the work which will follow. Its solidity, obviously relative, will stem from the fact that here we have an objective point of reference which is the biblical text. It will not be possible to explore fully into the general use that FJ makes of the material. However, taking it into account, an attempt can be made to determine whether the author follows in each case one or another textual tradition in Sacred Scriptures. This investigation will always be subject to the difficulty that FJ, in accordance with normal practice at that time, follows the source(s) with great freedom, producing a lively paraphrase. By means of the variations, omissions or additions which will be found in this comparison, it will be possible to start outlining what this feast meant for this author. From this outline, some questions will arise which will have to be answered as far as possible: e.g. why does FJ never mention the possibility of celebrating this feast in the second month, in the case of impurity or distance (cf. Num 9:10 12)? or what is the relationship between the Passover of Egypt and later ones? After completing this section, a scrutiny of the passages in the rest of Ant. in which FJ mentions Passover will follow. With the help of explicit references, I shall try to delineate the role played by Passover, according to FJ's literary interpretation, in the history of the Jewish people during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Here it will be necessary to compare these passages with J. W., which was written earlier, in order to determine if in the end there was an evolution in the author's view or his estimation of this institution. In Ant. there are more frequent references to Passover, and the narrative covers a longer period. Hence, from this work it will be possible to attain a clearer view of FJ's thought, without ignoring J. W. which describes the most dramatic moment in his life. Compilation of the results of this investigation will highlight the importance FJ seems to give to the theme of purity, particularly in relation to Passover. For this reason, it will be necessary to devote an excursus to this theme in the work of FJ. However, rather than delve into the problem of purity in the Bible or in early Judaism, a synthesis with specific bibliographical suggestions will be made.
INTRODUCTION
9
At this point, in a chapter of partial conclusions, I shall make a summary and indicate the lines along which my work might develop. The third part attempt to put the data acquired so far in their setting. This will be done in two principal stages: firstly, a comparison with literature contemporary to this author; secondly, an attempt to locate FJ in the history of early Judaism, starting from his own presentation, but always maintaining a critical attitude, as required in any historical reconstruction. The first phase will require a comparison with the following writings: post-exilic prophets; Wisdom 18:5^25; Ezekiel the Tragedian; Jubilees; Qumran; Aristobulus; Philo; New Testament; Pseudo-Philo; m. Pesahim. This comparison, with the necessary distinctions, will enable one to better appreciate where FJ stands in relation to previous or contemporary authors. In the second phase, the socio-political situation will be analysed as it is presented by FJ and other sources. The literary aspect will be considered first, namely, the role played by Passover in the unfolding of his narrative by the historian. From this, some conclusions of a historical nature will be drawn. This analysis will provide evidence that the importance of an institution cannot be judged merely by how frequently it is mentioned, but rather by the role it plays in the events that are described. Hence it will be essential to examine why FJ introduces, at certain points in his people's history, the mention of this festival. Another necessary step will be a comparison with the other Jewish feasts FJ mentions in the course of his works, particularly the two remaining pilgrim feasts: Pentecost and Tabernacles. The aim of this section is to ponder the importance FJ places on Passover, and to determine whether this feast is more significant than others. For a well-founded theory on the position FJ seems to want to give to Passover, one needs to analyse the idea of Politeia/politeuma which FJ defends. Starting from some apparently accidental links, clarification will be necessary as to whether Passover could have had a specific influence on the form of government or that of cohesion among the Jews, which FJ proposes or defends after the destruction of the Temple. In this case also, it will be quite impossible to cover everything regarding the Politeia/politeuma of the Jews. However, after considering the various positions of scholars on the matter, I prefer those that see in this concept the aim of forming a community with well-marked
10
INTRODUCTION
boundaries (which imply rites and institutions), without opposing or competing with the normal structure of the Greco-Roman polis. An examination will follow as to whether FJ suggests or actually achieves this celebration in Rome or in Jerusalem at the end of the first century, namely, after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. Finally, I shall draw some general conclusions, endeavouring to classify them, according to the probability which they seem to merit.
PART ONE THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN SACRED SCRIPTURES AND THE REWRITTEN ACCOUNT OF IT BY FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER ONE
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES 1. THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANT. AND ITS SOURCES
Before tackling the central issue in this study, it is first necessary to investigate how the work of FJ and his sources are related to one another. The first chapter in particular will deal with the sources he used in his biblical paraphrase. In his foreword to Ant. FJ presents many elements which are useful for weighing up his work {Ant. 1.1-26). Among other things, he asserts that he will describe all the ancient history and "constitutions" {nok\x£\)\\,axa) of the Jews translated (|4,£0r|pnr|V£'U|4,£vr|v) from the Hebrew writings (EK TCOV 'EppociKcov ypamidxcov) {Ant. 1.5). He also announces that his work will faithfully follow the Scriptures (dvaypacpaii;), without adding or removing anything (o\)5evrcpooGeic;oi)8' ocu juocpaXuicbv) {Ant 1.17). These two claims have aroused the interest of scholars because, at first glance, neither appears to be true. S. Rappaport says, with good reason, that one cannot consider the problem of the Vorlage of Ant., without examining the variations which FJ introduces in the text.1 Thus, the faithfulness of FJ to his source(s) needs to be analysed first. In 1718 J. Fabricius pointed out the differences between the biblical text and the work of FJ.2 Later on, other authors carried out similar work.3 However, S. Rappaport was the first to do a detailed analysis of the problem. He began by defending FJ's independence in relation to rabbinic literature, as L.H. Feldman notes, but he often stressed the parallels between FJ's work and such writings.4 One should keep in mind right from the beginning that not all FJ's writings have the same relationship to the biblical text. As N.G.
' S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, X. J. Fabricius, Histonae Bibliothecae Fabnciane, II, 386-396. Cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 121. + L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 122. 2
3
14
CHAPTER ONE
Cohen affirms,5 the first five books of Ant. seem to diverge more from their source than the rest. For his part, H.St.J. Thackeray suggests that from 1 Sam to the end of the historical books, FJ follows very closely the Lucianic recension of the Greek text.6 Therefore, even if one may fairly question the meaning and validity of FJ's phrase in his foreword, any generalisation is premature.7 Given the apparent contradiction between the declaration of FJ and his behaviour as a "translator," some authors have taken his statement as a mere formality: either FJ was lying, as G. Siegfried asserts,8 or he was using a cliche typical of ancient historians, as is claimed by H.W. Attridge, as well as others.9 On the other hand, other authors go to great lengths to understand the sense of FJ's assertion, believing that for him it was not a mere declaration of principles. Thus, L.H. Feldman believes that FJ is only referring to the halakic material, and for that reason, he can be taken as a witness of the pre-rabbinic halakah.10 He also suggests that his work would embrace both oral and written tradition, since FJ distinguishes between v6|j,oi and dvaypcupcu.'l From what has been said so far, one can conclude that evaluating FJ's claim is extremely difficult and depends to a great extent on the overall view one takes of his entire work.12 Indeed, if this view will inevitably be coloured by a value judgement on his person and on the positions he adopted in life, it is vital to take care not to allow oneself to be conditioned by unfounded prejudices.13 5
N.G. Cohen, "Josephus and Scripture," 311-332. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 81-83. 7 With respect to the use of extra-biblical sources in the paraphrase of the biblical text cf. J.E. Bowley, "Josephus's Use of Greek Sources," 205-215. 8 C. Siegfried, "Die hebraischen Worterklarungen des Josephus," 32-33 n. 3; he believes that FJ takes advantage of his readers' ignorance, which is not likely, as will be shown later. 9 H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 59-60. It should not be forgotten that the work of FJ is not only an attempt to defend Judaism in the face of the Greco-Roman world, but also an apologia in order to restore his image among his own people. Otherwise, his work would have no meaning, cf. K.S. Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik, 3 2 6 - 3 3 0 . 10 L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 123. 11 L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 469-470. 12 S. Mason and also P. Spilsbury rightly maintain that the first approach to FJ should be through his work and not through his personality. S. Mason, "Will the Real Josephus," 60-61, 68; P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 11-12. 13 It is interesting to note that H.St.J. Thackeray begins with an assessment of the person, following G.F. Moore, who gives the impression of starting from the 6
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
15
It is true that there already exist works that follow the descriptive route in order to address the problem of the relationship of Ant. with the biblical text. However, there are not many studies of any real weight.14 Among such works is that of T. Franxman, who analyses the entire book of Genesis and tries to identify a typology in the behaviour of FJ as "translator."15 The work of C. Begg follows the same line.16 L.H. Feldman, on the other hand, by means of a long series of articles, emphasises, basically, the application of the virtues of the Greek heroes by FJ in order to exalt the biblical characters.1' In spite of the fact that the analysis and cataloguing of the variations introduced by FJ are very useful for identifying some similarities in them,18 as is noted in the work of T. Franxman,19 in terms of drawing general conclusions, there are some difficulties. In fact, as S.J.D. Cohen shows, FJ is not consistent in his modifications; for example, while in most cases he avoids compromising episodes, sometimes he also includes them.20 Following the authors who display a sensitivity to the style and purpose of FJ's work and who compare it with the other Hellenistic
basis of a mere prejudice; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 76; G.F. Moore, Judaism, I, 210. 11 L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 125. Id, "Rearrangement of Pentateuchal Material," 1-80. Kl T. Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities." "' C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy. This first book was followed by a considerable number of articles analysing brief sections of the biblical text; Id., "Hezekiah's Illness and Visit According to Josephus," 365-385; Id., "The Abigail Story (1 Samuel 25) according to Josephus," 5-34; Id., "Ahaz, King of Judah According to Josephus," 28-52; among many others. Recently he has summarised these articles with clarifications and updates; cf. Id., Josephus' Story of the Later Monarchy. u L.H. Feldman, "Hellenizations in Josephus'Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham," 133-153; Id., "Josephus' Portrait of Moses (Part One)," 285-328; Id., 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses (Part Two)," 7-50; Id., "Josephus' Portrait of Moses (Part Three)," 301-330; Id., "Josephus' Version of Samson," 171-214; Id., "II ritratto di Assalonne in Giuseppe Flavio," 3-30; Id., "Josephus Portrait of Elijah," 61-86; Id., "Josephus' Portrait of David," 129-174. Lately, L.H. Feldman has gathered together several of these articles in two books with a more extensive chapter on the way in which FJ rewrites the Bible; Id., Rewritten Bible, 539-570; Id., Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, 14-73. A critique of L.H. Feldman's view can be found in P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 32-34, 186-187. 18 A good synthesis can be found at the end of the book by C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 276-284. 19 T. Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities," 288-289. 20 S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 37; cf. C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 278.
16
CHAPTER ONE
historiographies,21 it seems necessary to consider first of all the problem of the literary genre of Ant. This is because, in order to determine the nature of the changes made by FJ, an individual analysis and cataloguing of them into their different types is not sufficient.22 In the first place, it is logical to ask oneself if Ant. can be included in one of the known genres of Jewish literature such as the Midrash, or if it is a translation, like the LXX or the Targumim. With respect to the first hypothesis, the solid argument of A. Wright is convincing. He argues that Ant. is not a Midrash and that the haggadic material which is presented therein does not have the same force that it would have in the context of a Midrash.23 With respect to the LXX, it is clear that it cannot be classified in the same literary genre as Ant. Even if FJ himself mentions this translation in order to justify his own work {Ant. 1.10—12), in no way does he present this as a copy of the LXX. Far from it, his mention of the translation at the time of Ptolemy II, serves only to demonstrate the validity of the undertaking and the interest of the non-Jews in Jewish culture. Regarding the Targumim, one has to say that, as a literary type, they are closer to the LXX than to Ant. Since there is no known work in Jewish literature similar to Ant., it must be assumed that Ant. is closer to the literary style known as "Hellenistic historiography" than to anything else. Hence not a few of FJ's variations will be explained by the need to present the content within the canons of this literary genre. Consequently, they cannot be considered as true modifications of the content, but, as T. Franxman says, as a "retelling" of it.24 In fact, FJ obviously includes himself in the historiographical school of those who do not willingly alter the content for merely rhetorical purposes. This does 21 I. Heineman, "Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities," X; S J . D . Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 2 4 - 3 3 ; H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 43-57; T. Rajak, 'Josephus and the 'Archaeology' of the Jews," 465-477; she emphasises that FJ should be compared with non-Greek authors (Manetho and Berosus), who wrote the history of their country for the Greeks, rather than with Greeks who wrote their own history. 22 M.R. Niehoff also emphasises the importance of the choice of the narrative style by FJ. She insists on its effectiveness as a means for transmitting a message. She recalls that FJ himself says that he brings to the text a new order which he gives to the story line, since Moses received it from God in a disordered fashion (Ant. 4.196-197); cf. M.R. Niehoff, "Two Examples of Josephus' Narrative Technique," 31-45. 23 A. Wright, The Literary Genre Midrash, 93-95. 2+ T. Franxman, Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities," 24—27.
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
17
not exclude, as S.J.D. Cohen points out, changes to the source in order to facilitate the readers' understanding.20 In this context, it should not be forgotten that FJ considers Greek authors—so a fortiori readers— unable to grasp accurately (aKpifJeia) Jewish writings (Ag. Ap. 1.218).2b Consequently his "translation" ((xe9ep(ir|ve\)(o) is, more than anything, an "adaptation." As L.H. Feldman shows through a philological analysis of the word n£9ep(ir|veiL)co, FJ uses this word only once with the narrow meaning of translation.2' The second element to be taken into account is the purpose, which FJ claims for his work. He wants to demonstrate to the Hellenistic world, on the one hand, the wisdom of the Law of Israel (Ant. 1.5). To his compatriots, on the other hand, he tries to explain the lesson of history: "that those who comply with the will of God and are not so bold as to transgress a law so perfectly conceived, prosper beyond all expectation" (Ant. 1.14).28 Hence one expects that many elements have been put aside as being unnecessary for his purpose while others have been accentuated in order to underline it.29 It must be added, as some authors have noted, that changing the wording of the source was a stylistic necessity in Hellenistic historiography: it was seen as "unprofessional" to reproduce the source in a pedestrian manner.30 Only by bearing in mind all the elements mentioned, does it make sense to undertake the task of classifying the variations and, above all, to see their true nature in relation to the biblical source. The explanations for the changes which one may suggest must take into account the elements already referred to. Among these, one cannot exclude those arising from the personality, religious convictions, life experience to the known extent, or other strictly personal factors pertaining to FJ. However, these will have to be proposed with extreme caution after dealing with motivations of a literary nature. 25
26
S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 25-27.
Cf. D. Moessner, "'Eyewitness,' 'Informed Contemporaries,' and 'Unknowing Inquirers'," 105-122. It is important to stress that Ag. Ap. 1.218 is not an attack on such authors, but an emphasis on the merit of their efforts. 2/ L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 468-469. 28 L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 471. 29
311
H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 78-92.
S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 31; M.V. Spottorno, "Flavio Josefo. Tecnicas de adaptation," 227-234; M. Harl, "L'originalite lexicale de la version grecque du Deuteronome," 1-20.
18
CHAPTER ONE
In light of what has already been said, it is necessary to refer back to the foreword for an explanation of the presumption that FJ is not simply bluffing when he claims to be faithful to his source. This would be rather unlikely since a scrutiny on the veracity of his works is not merely plausible, but a known fact and one admitted by FJ himself {Life 367). The way in which he understood his assertion cannot resist a close, critical examination. However, his view of faithfulness could be defined as dynamic, i.e. open to changes that do not compromise what FJ considers essential.31 Thus he would not accept a static conception which, not allowing variations, would lead to a change of what he saw as essential. As a starting point then, his good faith can be pre-supposed.32 As this work progresses, the extent of his faithfulness, or lack thereof, will be pointed out. Now the other question can be confronted: what is the Vorlage which FJ used in the first part of Ant? While it is true that the links with other literary works are plentiful, one can assume that FJ based his writings only on a biblical text. To assume there was an analogous work which FJ had copied is a methodological error, which seeks to explain the mysterious by means of something even more mysterious. This merely postpones the difficulty. Many studies on the subject have been grounded on the translation of names and numbers, in order to get back to the text used by FJ. Nevertheless, S.J.D. Cohen shows that this method is invalid:33 it is precisely the names and numbers which, with the passage of time, are most liable to corruption, since copyists would tend to match them with those of the LXX.34 An element which increases the difficulty of identifying the text used by FJ is, as mentioned earlier, the fact that FJ systematically changes the language of the source. Regarding the Pentateuch, there is the additional problem that, in reality, the Hebrew and Greek texts do not differ greatly,35 and that in this section, as has already been noted, FJ paraphrases more freely.
31
G. Vermes, "A Summary of the Law," 290. One should not, however, adopt a totally uncritical attitude that explains the differences too easily, as in the article by SJ. Pearce, "Flavdus Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law," 477-492. 33 S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 33-34. 34 L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 460-461. 3) L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 460-461. 32
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
19
H.St.J. Thackeray put forward the idea that FJ had used a Semitic source for the Pentateuch, and that the historical books closely followed the Lucianic recension. He speaks of a Semitic source, because he is open to the possibility that at times FJ might have used a Targum. He does not discount the use of a Greek text for the Pentateuch as an additional source, and of a Semitic text as an additional source for the historical books. In his opinion, the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth must be studied separately.36 The most recent study on this matter is one by E. Nodet, who promises to accompany the work of translation in which he is engaged with an investigation of the source used by FJ for his biblical paraphrase.37 In the first volume dedicated to the Pentateuch, there is a brief account of his research which underlines the lack of examples used in previous studies. As he himself says briefly, his study will confirm the proposal of H.St.J. Thackeray with respect to the Pentateuch.38 For the purposes of this investigation, it is sufficient to know that FJ can present links to various textual traditions, and that in each case it will be necessary to determine—if possible—the eventual link to one or another of these texts. As a general working hypothesis that of H.St.J. Thackeray is acceptable, as it was for E. Nodet. With respect to extra-biblical additions, in each case the parallels with other known Jewish sources will have to be found. Simply for reasons of convenience, in cases where there are no substantial differences between the MT and the LXX, the latter will be used as the basis for comparison.39 On the other hand, when one finds an affinity between Ant. and one text (MT or LXX) in opposition to the other, both shall be presented, in order to demonstrate the difference.
3(>
H.StJ. Thackeray, Josephus, the Alan and the Historian, 81-83. E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, I, 5. Nevertheless, he believes that the use of the LXX can be demonstrated only in one case, and that this would have been a later revision, either by FJ or by a collaborator; E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, I, 7-8, 14-17, 45. 39 Normally, the so-called Gottingen Septuagint edition will be used or, when this is not available, the A. Rahlfs edition; cf. J.W. Wevers et ai, Septuaginta; A. Rahlfs, 37
38
Septuaginta.
20
CHAPTER ONE 2. METHODOLOGY AND AIM OF THE FIRST PART
It is now possible to move on to consider the specific method and aim of the first part of this investigation. In the first instance, an attempt will be made to identify and analyse the contents of the passages which differ from known biblical texts. Then, one must attempt to determine the reasons for these divergences, namely, whether they stem from the literary genre of his work, from his style, from his apologetic aims, from the influence of the liturgical-religious practice of his time, or from other causes.40 The possibility of a combination of these factors is not excluded. This initial research will reveal those divergences which can provide evidence, on the one hand, about the practice of the celebration of Passover in the first century of this era, and on the other hand, about the significance of this feast in the Jewish world of FJ's time. Undoubtedly, a judgement on whether a piece of evidence is useful or not cannot be made a priori. Hence no evidence will be discounted until it is shown to be outside the scope of this study. Apart from the literary difficulties presented by the work of FJ, it is necessary to keep in mind, considering the results of recent research, that the Jewish world before A.D. 70 was highly articulate.41 This means that there is no single, normative Judaism which embraces all the religious groups that consider themselves part of the Jewish people. Rather, these groups differ in some of their religious practices and in certain aspects of their doctrine. Generally, the consequence is that they are in conflict with one another. Therefore, it is not easy to pick out those common underlying elements, which allow each of these groups to identify themselves as "Jewish."42 In addition to these difficulties, there is the fact that FJ himself cannot be clearly identified with any one of these groups.43 For this 40
E. Nodet, La Bible de Josiphe, I, 16. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Modern Study," 1-30; G.G. Porton, "Diversity in Postbiblical Judaism," 57-73; E. Schiirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The 41
History of the Jewish People, II, 381-414, 488-606. R.A. Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs; J. Maier, Zjvischen den Testamenten, 249-300; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 317-494. G. Stemberger, Pharisder, Sadduzaer, Essener. 42
The very word "Judaism" is not very exact, but it is the one commonly used in scientific works; cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Modern Study," 2. 43 The classic view, which holds that FJ was a Pharisee, was thrown into crisis by S. Mason: S. Mason, 'Josephus on the Pharisees reconsidered"; Id., "Was Josephus a Pharisee?," 31-45; Id., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 325-371. G. Stemberger
METHODOLOGICAL PREMISES
21
reason, one must be very prudent in the use of other material in order to confirm or deny the data that he provides. Nevertheless, it is precisely this characteristic of FJ, along with the fact that he is an eyewitness, which makes him an important factor in the understanding of Judaism in the first century A.D. and, in particular, in the understanding of the significance of Passover during this period. In practice, it may well be impossible to resolve all the puzzles already mentioned within the scope of this study. However, it is important not to consider them insuperable obstacles. An attempt will be made to synthesise the additions of FJ in his rewriting of the Sacred Scriptures, in order to understand the significance of this feast in his time. This should create a solid foundation for the subsequent examination of all the references to this celebration in the works of FJ.
advocates once again the view of S. Mason but in a toned-down form; cf. G. Stemberger, Pharisder, Sadduz&er, Essener, 10-23. J. Sievers suggests that S. Mason did not give sufficient weight to the comparison made by FJ between the Pharisees and the Stoics; cf J. Sievers, "Chi erano i Farisei?," 57 n. 7. Subsequently he corrects himself slightly; cf. J. Sievers, "Who Were the Pharisees?," 147.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER TWO
THE PENTATEUCH 1. COMPARISON OF THE ACCOUNT OF PASSOVER IN EXOD 11
13
AND IN A\T. 2.311-319 A general comparison of Ant. 2.311-319 with Exod 11—13 immediately reveals that the narrative of FJ is appreciably briefer and more concise, and that the accounts of direct speech disappear in it. This kind of "retelling" of biblical events is frequent in Ant.1 Furthermore, in the account of Exod 11 — 13 legal prescriptions related with the Exodus from Egypt are interpolated these FJ ignores almost completely.2 This approach in FJ is habitual. He does not wish to overload his account of historical events with excessively detailed legal prescriptions, as he explains in Ant. 1.25 and on all the other occasions that he mentions the future work on "Customs and Reasons" (Ant. 3.257; 4.198; 20.268). Another possible reason is that in Ant. 3.224 257, he summarises all the sacrifices the people had to offer. Therefore, he did not think it opportune to go into greater detail in the text in question. A more detailed analysis of FJ's narrative will disclose other reasons apart from these. Taking Exod 11 as a starting-point, one notes that the entire chapter has been summed up in one speech (Ant. 2.311). For reasons already given, this does not especially attract attention. However, what is surprising is the absence of other details in FJ's text. While the Bible mentions God's command to ask for precious objects from
1 T. Franxman, Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities," 24-27; M.V. Spottorno, "Flavio Josefo. Tecnicas de adaptacion," 232~234; C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 276-284. The latter divides FJ's variations into four principal categories: a) omissions; b) re-locations; c) modifications; d) additions. He then subdivides these categories again. This classification will be borne in mind in this study, but the stress will be on the meaning, or meanings, of the variations encountered. 2 It must be noted that the biblical text presents differences between the orders which God tells Moses to give to the people and those that Moses actually gives them. This literary phenomenon is not uncommon in the Bible; cf. R. Alter, Trie
Art of Biblical Narrative, 101.
24
CHAPTER TWO
the Egyptians, FJ makes no mention of it at all.3 Further on (Ant. 2.314), he will say simply that the Egyptians gave some gifts to the Israelites to make them leave more quickly, and gave other gifts as a sign of friendship. After this brief introduction, FJ presents the command of God to make a sacrifice, which is described succinctly. In this way, he discards the instructions about the calendar found in Exod 12:2,4 which clearly state that the year begins with the month of Nisan.5 He then indicates the period of preparation for the sacrifice—from the tenth to the fourteenth of Nisan—as in Exod 12:3, and adds a translation of the name Nisan. Through the use of the participle 7iapaaK£uaaalaivoix; (preparing), he sums up all the instructions which the Bible gives about how to prepare the sacrifice. On this point he adds a little note, "with all their possessions," which could be a veiled allusion to the command of God (Exod 11:2) to ask of the Egyptians precious objects, which, as already stated, FJ does not include. From this moment on, he begins to describe the events. The orders he chooses to preserve are not recorded as directly commanded by God: rather they appear as the initiative of Moses, or at least the divine command is presupposed by the conjunction KOU, as seems to be presumed by H.St.J. Thackeray's translation "accordingly,"6 when he attributes a strong sense to this conjunction. In the following description, he says that they were divided into "fraternities" (eiq cpaTpiccc,),7 interpreting the phrase "according to their Fathers' houses" 8 (KOCT' OIKOIX;rcaxpicov)in this way (Exod 12:3). However, he does not stop to consider the possibility that a family might not be large enough to consume the sacrificial meat, and might have to combine
3
Cf. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Moses (Part Two)," 42. The problem of the calendar in antiquity is complicated. Normally, it is taken for granted that two calendar systems are mutually exclusive. However, R.T. Beckwith shows how both in the Bible and in early Judaism—including FJ—more than one system can coexist without great difficulty. Later, once the practice is abandoned, doubts and disagreements arise, as one can find in b. Bet. 26a cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 1-9. 5 Nevertheless, in other passages he does say that the year begins in Nisan (cf. Ant. 1.81; 3.201, 248; 4.78; 11.109). 6 H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.312. 7 Cf. ch. V § 7. 8 The difference in prepositions (eiq—raxa) cannot be decisive for establishing whether FJ was following a Semitic or a Greek text, because both are good translations, in this context, of the Hebrew preposition b. 4
THE PENTATEUCH
25
with their neighbour, as is laid down in Exod 12:3-4. He does not indicate that it must be an animal without blemish and one year old,9 nor that it can either be a young sheep or goat, nor that it will have to be kept apart from the tenth until the fourteenth day, nor that it must be sacrificed in the evening (Exod 12:5—6).10 He does insist on the close relation between the sacrifice and the Exodus from Egypt. If indeed this link is not extraneous to the biblical text (cf. Exod 12:11), FJ stresses it by repeating it twice, which is to be noted, given his tendency to shorten and synthesise his sources.11 Quotation 1
And then he, having already prepared the Hebrews for the exodus, divided them according to fraternities, keeping them together; then, when the fourteenth day arrived, all being ready to leave, they
3
You shall say to the whole assembly of the Israelites that, on the tenth of this month, they shall take, each of them, a lamb for each household, one for each family. (Exod 12:3 LXX)
sacrificed. . . (Ant. 2.312)
He goes on to say that the people of Israel purified (tiyvi^ov) the houses, with the blood of the sacrifice, using branches of hyssop. This rite is given by God to Moses (Exod 12:7) who passes the order on to the Israelites, adding some details (Exod 12:22). While the verbs used in each case are not the same (STIOOUCJIV; 0i^ete), they
9
In Ant. 3.279 he establishes that, in all the sacrifices offered by the priests, the victims must be without defect. In Ant. 3.228, speaking of the well-being sacrifices he contrasts them with private sacrifices, saying that the animal must be unblemished and one year old. It would appear that, for FJ, the fact that the victim must be unblemished is a characteristic reserved for the sacrifices in which priests are involved. 10 In J.W. 6.423 it says that they sacrificed from the ninth to the eleventh hour. " Henceforward, when it is necessary to point out a parallel between FJ and his source(s) or other pericopes of the same author, a synopsis will be used, emphasising the common elements with bold type.
26
CHAPTER TWO
express the same action which does not, of itself, imply a purification,12 as FJ understands in Ant. 2.312.13 Quotation 2
. . . and with the blood, they purified the houses, sprinkling it with branches of hyssop . . . {Ant. 2.312)
'And they shall take some of t h e b l o o d and shall put it on the two doorposts and the lintel, of t h e h o u s e s in which they shall eat it. (Exod 12:7 LXX) 22 You shall take, then, a bunch of h y s s o p and dipping it in t h e b l o o d which is near the door, you will put on the lintel and on both doorposts t h e b l o o d , which is near the door. (Exod 12:22 LXX)
Regarding the instructions about the way the animal should be cooked (Exod 12:9), FJ says nothing, just as Moses says nothing when he repeats God's commands to the elders of the People (Exod 12:22). However, he does not fail to say that after the meal, the people of Israel burnt the leftover meat before leaving. In this way, he takes up again what Exod 12:10 puts into the mouth of God. Quotation 3
12
Cf. E. Otto, "ncs," VI, 670-671. The translation of the verbal form dvaXa(36vt£c; presents difficulties, as is pointed out by E. Nodet, Flavins Josephe. Les Antiquites Juives, 2.312 n. 5. If one follows the translation of H.St.J. Thackeray "to sprinkle," the text of Ant. 2.312 is a little closer to the biblical text, but it involves correction of the text of Ant., by exchanging the verb dvaXapovxet; for dvaPaA,6vxe<;. 11
THE PENTATEUCH
. . . and having eaten, they burnt the rest of the meat, in the manner of people who are going away. (Ant. 2.312)
27
10
But what is left over of it until morning, you shall burn it with fire, completely. (Exod 12:10b LXX)
As far as the other instructions in Exod 12:10-11, he only preserves those that are concerned with the hasty way of eating the sacrifice, since, as has already been said, he underlines this element (Ant. 2.312). Thus, the command not to break the bones of the animal, which the LXX transfers here from Exod 12:46, is not considered.14 Nor will FJ return to the rest of the divine discourse (Exod 12:11—20), in which God orders that this feast be celebrated for all generations, giving instructions on how it is to be celebrated. Among these instructions, the one most often repeated is that of eating unleavened bread during the seven days of the festival. In the same manner, he excludes the transmission of orders passed on by Moses to the people (Exod 12:20-27), apart from those elements which have already been indicated above. One could say that FJ develops what the biblical text implies, namely, what the people of Israel actually did in following the commands of Moses (Exod 12:28). When he finishes describing how the Israelites celebrated the first Passover, FJ feels it appropriate to add a gloss in this point which can be very significant for the purposes of this study. He maintains that in his own day, the Jewish people still sacrifice Passover in the same way that they did when leaving Egypt (Ant. 2.313). With the adv. 60ev (hence), he establishes a relationship between the sacrifice made in Egypt and that made by the Jews in his day.15 Then he adds an etymology of the word naoxa, which he uses here for the first time in Ant.16 This etymology seems to be taken directly from the Hebrew without following the LXX, which translates with
14
Bearing in mind that FJ omits various elements, one cannot say for certain that the absence of this one proves that FJ did not have a text with this insertion in front of him. One can only observe that this absence fits in well with the working hypothesis adopted by this study. 15 It is fair to ask oneself if vuv (now) refers to the period in which FJ is writing his book, or to the time before the destruction of the Temple. Furthermore, since he uses the first person plural (Gvfoiiev), one may legitimately wonder if he is referring to the place where he is writing, namely, Rome. An attempt to resolve such questions will be made in the third part of this work. l(> He had already used the same word in J.W. 2.10; 6.423, without explaining its etymology.
28
CHAPTER TWO
OK£7raoco \>[iac, (I will protect you), the phrase DDbv TITOS! (I will pass over you) (Exod 12:13).17 In fact, FJ goes on to assert that God passed over the people when he struck the Egyptians with the plague. After this digression, he resumes the description of the events, saying that the very night of the "destruction of the firstborn" he struck the Egyptians. In this way, he takes up again the biblical text in Exod 12:29, but omits the details regarding the different classes of firstborn. Quotation 4
So, that very night, the destruction of the firstborn came upon the Egyptians ... (Ant. 2.313)
29
Then it happened in the middle of the night, that the Lord struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt. . . (Exod 12:29b LXX)
The reactions of Pharaoh and the Egyptians are presented by FJ, in a way that follows basically the biblical text, but with significant variations. In the first place, it is interesting to note that the role of influential people who live around the palace is highlighted. Secondly, the text of Ant. tends to diminish the drama of the biblical passage, in that it does not mention the great cry that went up from the whole land of Egypt. In addition, Pharaoh's permission to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt is reduced by FJ to a few words. He thus makes the intention of Pharaoh clear; according to him, Pharao gave this permission simply to put a stop to the evil that was afflicting the Egyptians. 17 The difficulty of interpreting Exod 12:13 can be verified in the translation of the Tg. Neqf., which presents the two possibilities side by side, cf. M. McNamara -
R. Hayward - M. Maher, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus,
48. A. Le Boulluec - P. Sandevoir, La Bible d'Alexandrie, II, 48-51, 147. For modern hypotheses on the etymology ofnos, cf. J.B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover, 95-101. With respect to early versions, cf. S.P. Brock, "An Early Interpretation of pasah:5aggen," 27-34; D. Biichner,"noD: Pass Over or Protect?," 14-17. It is possible that the meaning of nos has been affected by the verb "?2£2 (to save), since both appear in parallel in Exod 12:27, and that the whole problem stems from this. Also, the ambiguity could have been generated by Exod 12:23, where the LXX personifies the destruction as 6 6A,e9pet)tov and God, preventing his entry into the house of the Israelites, would have "defended" them. In this case also, the agreement with the MT indicates a Semitic source, even if it is a gloss.
THE PENTATEUCH
29
The biblical text may suggest this intention with the words of Pharaoh "and bless me" (Exod 12:32). However, it appears more obvious in the attitude of the people, who drive the Hebrews out with haste, saying "we are all going to die" (Exod 12:33). Immediately afterwards FJ says that the Egyptians gave gifts to the Hebrews; FJ, as already noted, had avoided God's command to ask the Egyptians for precious objects. Consequently, he does not mention the execution of the order here. Instead, he replaces it with this gesture which arises from an initiative of the Egyptians. This action has, according to FJ, two motives: to hasten the departure and to make a sign of friendship. It is very interesting that here (Ant. 2.314), FJ makes no mention of the unleavened dough which the Israelites took with them as they departed from Egypt (Exod 12:34). This corresponds to his way of dealing with the theme of unleavened bread in this section: he completely reinterprets the facts, as will become evident later. In Ant. 2.315 he begins to describe the actual departure of the Israelites from Egypt. Before describing the route they took, he adds a description of the Egyptians' attitude towards the Israelites, saying that the Egyptians were full of regret and repented of treating them so badly (Ant. 2.315). With respect to the route taken, FJ combines Exod 12:37a and 14:2. As for the places mentioned in the biblical text, FJ identifies them with places known in his time. He also adds some historical details, which show that at that time the places were desert. At the same time, he thinks it opportune to add that the Israelites arrived at the Red Sea by the shortest route, ignoring the statement of Exod 13:17-18, which says that God did not make them go out by the shortest route. Quotation 5
30
CHAPTER TWO
And they took the path towards Letopolis, which at that time was desert, then Babylon rose up there, when Cambyses conquered Egypt. Leaving the country by the shortest route, they arrived on the third day at Beelsephon, which faces the Red Sea. (Ant. 2.315)
37
Then the Israelites left Rameses in the direction of Succoth . . . (Exod 12:37a LXX) 2 You will say to the Israelites to turn back and to encamp on the other side of the camp, between Migdol and the Sea, on the other side of Baal-zephon. you shall pitch camp facing them, on the shore of the sea. (Exod 14:2 LXX)
At this point he takes up the theme of unleavened bread again (Ant. 2.316), following in part the biblical narrative, but varying the facts significantly, as has been said. Still more interesting is the fact that he completely changes their significance. In the first place, he says that the Israelites made dough in the desert, presupposing that they had taken flour, rather than dough that had already been prepared (Exod 12:39). This precarious cooking of the loaves is justified by FJ, saying that the land in which they found themselves was so dry, it offered no other possibility. According to FJ, the Israelites had fed themselves on these loaves for 30 days,18 enduring great suffering because of the lack of supplies. Quotation 6
18 This assertion can be based on Exod 16:1, which says that on the fifteenth of the second month of the departure from Egypt, the people were hungry and murmured, and God sent them manna. In fact, in Ant. 3.11 he states that on the thirtieth day of the journey their provisions ran out; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 3.11 n. d.e.
THE PENTATEUCH
Having no provisions because of the aridity of the land, they
31
39
And they cooked the dough that they had brought from
made dough and cooked the
Egypt, making unleavened
loaves with little heat; they fed on them, and for thirty days they met their needs from them. This was because they could not make what they had brought from Egypt last any longer, even though they rationed the distribution of food according to necessity, without ever having sufficient. (Ant. 2.316)
loaves, cooked under ashes since it was not leavened. This was because the Egyptians had driven them out, and they could not delay or make provision for the journey. (Exod 12:39 LXX)
FJ purposely links the significance of the feast of Unleavened Bread to the hardships of this moment. Up until this point, he had not mentioned it at all. For some reason, he now abandons the meaning which the biblical text gives to this celebration and gives it a totally different meaning. This explanation can be considered parallel to the gloss of Ant. 2.313 on the Passover sacrifice, both in relation to structure and content. Both passages are effectively introduced by the adv. O6EV (hence); both have a verb in the present tense, first person plural 0t>o|iev—ayojiev (we sacrifice—we make), which indicate present actions in relation to the historical past. As for the content, these passages emphasise the importance, according to FJ, which the feast had in his day. In the last of these two sections one finds the phrase eiq uvf||ir|v (in memory), with which FJ takes up again what the biblical text expresses with the word "["TOT and which the LXX translates with uvriuoouvov (cf. Exod 12:14). Finally, FJ assigns eight days to the feast, not seven, as in the biblical text (Exod 12:15, 19; 13:7) and Ant. 3.249. H.St.J. Thackeray suggests that it would be customary in the Diaspora to add a day to the feasts,19 but L.H. Feldman, offering the same hypothesis, recalls that Philo (SpecLeg 2.28, 156)—even though he belongs to the Diaspora—gives the feast seven days.20 It is probable that when he is dealing with a gloss it comes from FJ himself, but when he closely follows his source, he does not change the number of days he finds there {Ant. 3.249; 9.271; 11.110). 19 20
Cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.317 n. a. Cf. L.H. Feldman, Flavins Josephus. Judean Antiquities, 2.317 n. 844.
32
CHAPTER TWO
This gloss probably presupposes a somewhat inexact method for calculating the days of Unleavened Bread, as found in the Synoptics (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:17), which consider the day on which the paschal lamb was sacrificed (fourteenth of Nisan) as the first day of Unleavened Bread. 21 This error can be understood if— as R.T. Beckwith shows—there co-existed two ways of considering the beginning of the day,22 namely, one which calculated it from sunset and the other from dawn, 23 and if Passover was identified, in practice, with Unleavened Bread.24 Quotation 7
Hence, even today, we sacrifice in this way the feast called Passover, which signines "to pass over," because on that day God passed over them, when he struck the Egyptians with the plague. {Ant. 2.313) After this brief digression, scribes the multitudes that FJ re-works the content, and avoiding a definition
21
Hence, in memory of that time of need, we celebrate a feast, which lasts eight days, called Unleavened Bread. (Ant. 2.317)
he returns to Exod 12:37b~38, which deleave Egypt. As in previous opportunities, omitting the description of the animals of the multitude as eTuuiKioq (mixed).25
Cf. ch. VI § 9. Cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 1-9. 23 The period between morning and evening of the fourteenth of Nisan would count as one day, even if it does not strictly belong to the feast of Unleavened Bread, which would begin on the fifteenth. The fact that passover also had to be eaten with unleavened bread could have contributed to this confusion (Exod 12:8). 24 Cf. ch. IV § 2. Another indication of this probable confusion is that FJ on one occasion maintains that the Israelites were freed from Egypt on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (J. W. 5.99) and on another says that it was on the fifteenth (Ant. 2.318). 23 This is probably for reasons of apologetics; cf. Ag. Ap. 1.229. 22
THE PENTATEUCH
33
Nevertheless, he does not change the number of men prepared for war, namely, some six hundred thousand. The last paragraph which speaks particularly of the departure from Egypt (Ant. 2.318), takes up again the biblical details about the time which the people has spent in captivity. It is well-known that there is a difference between the MT and the LXX along with the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sam.).2b FJ follows these latter two witnesses in his text and divides the period of 430 years into two equal parts, so that one half is the time of the patriarchs in Canaan and the other half is the time of captivity in Egypt.2' Finally, before beginning to narrate the events following the escape from Egypt, he takes up again two indications which the Bible gives in different places: on the one hand, he gives the ages of Moses and Aaron (Exod 7:7) and, on the other hand, he recalls that they took with them the bones of Joseph as he himself had commanded (Exod 13:19). In the Scriptures, before the description of the crossing of the Red Sea, there is a series of commands related to the Exodus from Egypt. As has been said, FJ does not mention these. They are, in fact, the laws regulating participation in the celebration, which definitively exclude from it everyone who is not circumcised (Exod 12:43-49); the laws on the firstborn, which are linked with the destruction of the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exod 13:1, 11-16) and the laws on Unleavened Bread which are repeated anew (Exod 13:3-10). These last two seem to become effective after the people reach the Promised Land (Exod 13:5, 11). 1.1. Summary
The greatest quantity of omissions which one finds in Ant. 2.311319, consists of the liturgical prescriptions laid down by God to Moses for the celebration of Passover. Nonetheless, since many of these instructions are put aside in the biblical text when Moses gives
2(1
A. Le Boulluec - P. Sandevoir, La Bible d'Alexandrie, II, 153 n. 1. E. Nodet, La Bible de Josephe, 53. In this case, the hypothesis about the use of a Semitic text gains in weight, because it agrees not only with the LXX, but also with Sam. 2/ It should be noted, however, that on both occasions FJ gives the round number of 400 years; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 2.204 n. b.; Id, J.W. 5.382 n. a.
34
CHAPTER TWO
orders to the people, one can presume that FJ based his account more on this second list of orders than on the first. It should not be forgotten that this type of omission is part of the style and intention of FJ, who promises a treatise specifically intended to explain the laws {Ant. 3.257; 4.198; 20.268). It is of greater interest to note the changes which FJ makes to the biblical text with the definite intention of altering the meaning of the events described. In the first place, he suppresses all mention of God's command to ask the Egyptians for precious objects. He also insists on the kindness of the Egyptians towards the Israelites. Secondly, one notes the variations in relation to the feast itself, which will ostensibly be more important for this investigation. Among these, reference has already been made to FJ's insistence on relating the sacrifice of Passover to the Exodus from Egypt, combined with an idea of purification that is extraneous to the biblical passage (Ant. 2.312). It has also been seen that on two occasions FJ adds a gloss, which links the celebration of the feast in his day "with the events of the Exodus. The most significant change appears to be in regard to the theme of unleavened bread. This is interpreted in a totally different way and, for this reason, will require deeper study in the course of this work. It is also surprising that, among so many omissions, FJ considered it important to underline the family character of the feast, by showing, as in the biblical text, that the sacrifice is performed in family groups (biaxa^aq eiq cpaxp(aq). Finally, it has already been said that he does not mention either the prohibition against participation by the uncircumcised in the commemoration, or the law concerning the consecration of the firstborn. 2. A\T. 3.248 251 AND ITS BIBLICAL PARALLELS In this part of Ant. FJ sums up the laws on Passover that are found in Lev 23:5-14 and Num 28:16-25. Also in this seccion, FJ presents a more concise version of his source. In Ant. 2.312 FJ does not state plainly, whether the orders come from God or from Moses. However, in Ant. 3.248 he clearly asserts that the order to sacrifice is given by Moses, who is the tacit subject of the long command governed by the verbal form evojiicev (he
THE PENTATEUCH
35
ordered). 28 If indeed the style of FJ is more refined than the biblical text, both do begin by indicating the date of the feast in analogous terms. As in Ant. 2.311 FJ mentions the month not only by its Hebrew name, but also by the Greek name. Furthermore, he adds a valuable detail, i.e. that the fourteenth day is fixed according to the moon. A sign that the lunar calendar is not familiar to all his readers is his indication that the sun is in Aries. 29 Following the line already pointed out in the previous section, he again accents the fact that this feast commemorates the departure from Egypt; again he affirms that it is a family feast and that nothing should be left till the following day. 30 As before, he ignores the detail about the hour of the sacrifice, which is indicated in Lev 23:5. Quotation 8
28
This fact compels one to face the problem of FJ's conception of revelation, which may be very important in assessing the changes that he brings to the biblical text; and most importantly, for determining the value of the results of this investigation. If, as A. Momigliano says, FJ was simply the representative of a Judaism without true faith, and with a merely formal conception of the law, what will be discovered will be of little value, cf. A. Momigliano, "Un apologia del giudaismo," 63-71; Id., "Cio che Flavio Giuseppe non vide," 564-574. However, this position is too extreme and cannot be used to devalue all the work of FJ, given that, without doubt, one of his stated aims is the defence of Judaism in the face of the GrecoRoman world. A more balanced view is that of H.W. Attridge, who maintains that the work of FJ is of a theological nature, cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 26~27. P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, 182-191. Ch. Gerber, "Die Heiligen Schriften des Judentums," 91-113. On prophecy in FJ cf. J. Sievers, "Michea figlio di Imla," 97-105. 29 Nevertheless, it must be remembered that this indication also means that the spring equinox has already passed, because the feast of Passover could not fall before it; cf. E. Schlirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The History of the Jewish People, I, 593; J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea, 39-40. R.T. Beckwith, however, reminds one that the calculation of the equinox was not always exact, cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 282-286. "' R.T. Beekwith uses precisely this passage to demonstrate that, for FJ, it was no problem to calculate the days beginning from the evening or from sunrise; cf. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 7.
36
CHAPTER TWO
In the month of Xanthicus, which among us is called Nisan and is the beginning of the year, the fourteenth [day], according to the moon, when the sun is in Aries, since in this month we were freed from the slavery of Egypt, [Moses] then ordered us, that each year we should offer the sacrifice, which we offered on leaving Egypt, [which] as we said, is called Passover. (Ant. 3.248)
5
In the first m o n t h , t h e fourt e e n t h d a y of the month, between the evenings, t h e P a s s o v e r of the Lord. (Lev 23:5 LXX) 16 And, in the first m o n t h , t h e fourteenth of the month, t h e P a s s o v e r of the Lord. (Num 28:16 LXX)
At this point it is possible to stress the fact that FJ, referring to the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt uses the first person plural, clearly including himself in the number of those saved. It will also be necessary to take into account the use of "we" when referring to the Hebrews, because it will be essential to clarify to whom he refers, or better, whom he includes or excludes. Furthermore, it is surprising that FJ adds two elements not in the biblical text, namely, that the feast will be celebrated in families and that nothing must be kept till the following day (cf. Ant. 3.248). In Ant. 3.249 he revisits, almost literally, the beginning of Lev 23:6 and, partially, Num 28:17, preserving the difference of style. Quotation 9
THE PENTATEUCH
And the fifteenth [day], the feast of Unleavened Bread follows Passover . . . (Ant. 3.249)
37
6
And the fifteenth day of the same month, the feast of Unleavened Bread for the Lord. (Lev 23:6a LXX) 17 And the fifteenth day of the same month, a feast. (Num 28:17a LXX)
At this point, the question arises as to how FJ considers these two festivities: as distinct entities or as two parts of only one feast.31 The description of the feast is practically the same, apart from the differences of style, which have already been identified; a characteristic of such variations is the use of synonymous verbs. Quotation 10
. . . it will be of seven days, during which they will feed on unleavened bread . . . (Ant. 3.249)
6
Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. (Lev 23:6b LXX) 17 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. (Num 28:17b LXX)
In the biblical text (Lev 23:7; Num 28:18) it says that on the first day there will be a gathering or sacred assembly and that nobody should do any servile work. FJ, for his part, completely ignores this element, as he had also done in the paraphrase of Exod 12:16. In this way, he passes directly to the description of the sacrifices that accompany this feast. Here he closely follows the text of Num, given that Lev says only in a general way, that sacrifices must be offered for seven days, and that on the seventh day there will be a sacred assembly. Quotation 11
F. Chenderlin, "Distributed Observance of the Passover," 373—375.
38
CHAPTER TWO l9
. . . and each day they slaughter two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs. And these are offered as a holocaust ... (Ant. 3.249)
And you shall offer holocausts, a fitting offering for the Lord, two young bulls, a ram, and seven lambs a year old, which will be without blemish in your eyes. (Num 28:19 LXX)
In the preceding synopsis it is evident that, in spite of the differences in terminology, the animals that must be sacrificed coincide in the two texts. It is true that FJ ignores the offering which, according to Num 28:20-21, should accompany the burnt offerings. However, one has to note that in Ant. 3.233^235 he takes up again Num 15:4-10, where it states that the animal sacrifices are always accompanied by an offering of fine flour, oil, and wine. Nor does it state here, as in Ant. 2.312, that the lambs must be without blemish and one year old. Quotation 12
. . . in addition to these there is also a young male goat for a sin offering, as a daily gift for the priests. (Ant. 3.249)
22
And a male goat, from among the flock, for a sin offering, for the rite of expiation for you. (Num 28:22 LXX)
In this case also the two texts coincide, apart from the difference of terms. It should be noted, however, that FJ states that this offering is for the priests, apparently taking for granted that this is for an expiation rite. From here FJ returns to Lev 23:11, which says that the day after the Saturday (n3$n) an offering of the first fruits of the harvest must be made. However, he leaves aside Lev 23:9—10, which declares that it is the Lord who imposes this sacrifice on Moses and that it will be maintained on entry into the promised land. In Lev 23:11 the difficulty of the Hebrew text is well-known. It says that the first sheaf shall be offered on the day following the Saturday (rQ$il). In the Jewish tradition there are two ways of inter-
THE PENTATEUCH
39
preting this phrase:32 one which sees in the word ni)©n (Saturday) a synonym for the feast, so that the offering should be made on the day following the feast, whether it be the Saturday or not; the other interprets the Saturday as the seventh day of the week, so that the offering will always be made on the Sunday following the first Saturday after the feast. Among those who support the former interpretation are Philo [Spec. 2.162) and the rabbinic literature (m. Menah. 10:3). From the rabbinic literature, it is known that the "Boethusians"— normally identified with a group of Sadducees33— represent the opposite view (m. Menah. 10:3). Whether the LXX adapts itself or not to the rabbinic tradition has already been debated, and there seems to be no solution within the limitations of the existing text.34 In Qumran they used a solar calendar of 364 days in which no commemoration fell on a Saturday.35 These calendars indicate that the presentation of the first sheaf always fell on the twenty-sixth of the first month, which was always a Sunday.36 This implies that for them the day mentioned in Lev 23:11, 15 was the Sunday after the week of Unleavened Bread, which went from the fifteenth (Wednesday) to the twenty-second (Wednesday).37 In another Qumran fragment (4Q513) the presentation of the first sheaf is mentioned—in a polemical context—but the fragment is too small to be able to enable the 32
Cf. m. Menah. 10:3. E. Nodet, Ant. 3.250 n. 1; P. Harle - D. Pralon, La Bible
cTAlexandrie, III, 189. A. Jaubert, La date de la Cene, 32. 35 A. Schremer, "The Name of the Boethusians," 290-299; presents briefly the various theories on the identification of this group. ;u In the LXX the word i"Q£?n (Saturday) is translated in v. 11 by xr\c, np(i>jr\q (of the first) and there appears to be a reference to the rabbinic tradition which understands rotSn (Saturday) as "after the first day of the feast"; on the other hand in v. 15 rQEin (Saturday) is translated xtov oaPfkrccov (Saturday or week). Accordingly, if the LXX has been adapted to the rabbinic tradition, v. 15 is inexplicable; but if it is contrary to the rabbinic tradition, v. 11 cannot be explained. Cf. H.B. Swete,
The Old Testament in Greek, 17. A.E. Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos, 142. !i F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (I)," 329-338; with a generous bibliography on the subject. R.T. Beckwith, Calendar & Chronology, 93-140. * Among other fragments one can cite 4Q325, cf. F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (II)," 547. The book of Jubilees seems to agree with the calculation found in Qumran (Jub. 15:1; 44:4-5); cf. J.C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea, 31. t; In 4QLevh the text of Lev 23:11 is found, which seems to be identical to the MT. Evidently the halakah of Qumran interprets the Hebrew text literally, and hence the feast always falls on Sunday. What the biblical text does not explain is why it falls on the Sunday after the week of Unleavened Bread and not on the Sunday during the week of Unleavened Bread.
40
CHAPTER TWO
determination of the exact sense of its content.38 FJ also includes himself within the supporters of the first of these two positions, and furthermore declares that it is the sixteenth day.39 Both the Qumran texts and the precision with which FJ identifies the day indicate that the polemic found in m. Menah. 10:3 at least originated in the first century of this era. FJ then adds a justification for this offering, saying that they consider it right to honour God from whom they receive that abundance. He continues to describe how this offering of the first sheaf should be made. In this description he takes up again Lev 2:14-16, which says that the offering of the first fruits of the grain must be made with roasted ears. Apart from this detail, the two descriptions of the way in which this offering must be made do not agree at all. However, the method described by FJ is the same as is found in m. Menah. 10:4.40 When he speaks of the lamb that must be offered with the first ear, FJ cuts out all mention of the offering of flour, oil, and wine which, according to Lev 23:13, accompanies this sacrifice, probably because, as stated previously, in Ant. 3.233-235 he establishes it as a general rule. After this divergence from the text of Lev 23:11, FJ agrees again with Lev 23:12 when speaking of the sacrifice of a lamb that has to be done along with the offering of the first fruits. He does not make it clear, as on other occasions, that the lamb must be without blemish and one year old. Quotation 13
38 This is what the editor himself proposes, cf. M. Baillet, Qumran Grotte 4, 289-290. The nature of the halakic material found in 4 Q was much debated. There are two principal problems: a) to which group this halakic material should be attributed (Sadducees or Essenes); b) what link can be established with the Tannaitic halakah. J.M. Baumgarten and K.L. Hanson defend the antiquity of the Tannaitic halakah and the possibility of comparing it with Qumran material. J.M. Baumgarten, "Recent Qumran Discoveries and Halakhah," 147-158; K.L. Hanson, Reflections of Early Halakha, 142-158. 39 Tg. Onq., Neof., and Ps.-J., are on the same line of interpretation as FJ, cf. M. McNamara - R. Hayward - M. Maher, Targum JVeofiti 1: Leviticus; Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, 90 n. 7, 192 n. 7. 40
E. Nodet, Ant. 3.251 n. 4.
THE PENTATEUCH
As well as the first fruits of the harvest, a lamb is sacri-
41
l2
And on the day on which you bring the sheaf, you will offer
ficed as a holocaust to the
as a holocaust for the Lord a
Lord. (Ant. 3.251)
lamb without blemish and one year old. (Lev 23:12 LXX)
The content of Lev 23:14, where the harvesting of grain before offering the sacrifice is prohibited, is explained by FJ with two phrases: one which expresses the prohibition and another which specifies the moment at which the prohibition ceases (cf. m. Menah. 10:5). Quotation 14
. . . which have not been touched before [. . .] and then it is permitted for all to harvest both for public and private use. (Ant. 3.250, 251)
14
And you shall not eat until this day bread of roasted ear, until you have offered the gift to your God. (Lev 23:14 LXX)
In this way, FJ finishes his reinterpretation of the content of the two biblical pieces already mentioned. The other texts that refer to Passover in the Pentateuch FJ either ignores or barely mentions, as will be seen later. In Exod 34:25 the content of the covenant, renewed after the Israelites sinned with the golden calf, is laid down. The order is also given, as in Exod 12:10, that nothing of the sacrifice must remain until the following day. Since FJ omits the entire episode of the golden calf,41 logically he does not include the second list of laws. However, as the preceding texts have shown, one of the elements of Passover which he most emphasises is precisely the law that demands the consumption of the entire sacrifice during the night (cf. Ant. 2.312; 3.248). In Ant. 3.294, after describing the manufacture of the trumpets (Num 10:1-10), FJ returns to the text of Num 9:1 14, which describes the second celebration of Passover after the Exodus from Egypt.
H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 3.99 n. c.
42
CHAPTER TWO
Nevertheless, he mentions only briefly this second commemoration of Passover. Thus he leaves aside the possibility that God allows a celebration of Passover one month later, for those who are in an impure state at the time of the feast, either through contact with a corpse, or because they are travelling too far to be able to arrive at the right time (Num 9:6-13).42 He also ignores the possibility that a foreigner might celebrate Passover with the Hebrews (Num 9:14).43 Finally, in Ant. 4.203—204 FJ refers to the three annual pilgrimages which are laid down in the Pentateuch (Exod 23:14-19; Exod 34:22^26; Deut 16:16). Probably he grounds himself chiefly on the text of Deut 16:16, given the immediate context, which gathers together some laws from Deut. With the usual change of vocabulary, FJ respects the content of the law, which establishes three pilgrimages to the Temple. Quotation 15
They will gather together, then,
l6
in the city, in which they shall declare (that stands) the Tern-
male shall present himself before the Lord your God, in the place
pie, three times a year, from
which the Lord will choose,
the ends of the earth, that the Hebrews shall conquer . . . (Ant. 4.203)
(Deut 16:16 LXX)
Three times a year, every
Apart from the differences in vocabulary and other minor details, it is noteworthy that in Ant. it is not God who chooses the place of the Temple, but the people who declare where it shall be.44 The text of Deut 16:16 proceeds to name the three feasts which coincide
42
This may be related to the emphasis noted in Ant. 2.312 on purification. Philo also ignores this aspect, cf. G. Dorival, La Bible d'Alexandrie, IV, 272. 44 This could be an indication of the way in which FJ understands revelation, especially considering that shortly before this, he has stated that God will choose by means of prophecy the city where the Temple will be constructed (cf. Ant. 4.200). 43
THE PENTATEUCH
43
with these pilgrimages; by contrast, FJ does not mention the festivities, but includes an explanation of the purpose of such pilgrimages. These serve not only to thank and to petition God, but also to strengthen links among all the people of Israel by reminding them that they are one people with the same customs (cf. Ant. 4.204). In fact, FJ does not include the elements that Deut 16:1^8 gives on Passover. Nevertheless, his explanation of the meaning of the pilgrimages can serve to illuminate one aspect of the commemoration that is being examined, because in other passages FJ states explicitly that for the feast of Passover there were pilgrimages to Jerusalem (cf. J.W. 6.421). Hence one may transfer what is said about the pilgrimages to the Passover celebration, but without forgetting that it is not the only feast celebrated in conjunction with a pilgrimage (cf. Ant. 14.337; J.W. 2.515). 2.1. Summary
In this second series of texts, FJ preserves the same characteristics which were found in the series previously examined. As before, he is briefer and has a more refined style than the biblical text. One begins to discern a train of thought which seems to be what FJ wishes to leave as a general impression with respect to Passover. In fact, it has become clear that he adds three elements to the biblical text which he had somehow underlined in the first text analysed. These are the relation between Passover and the departure from Egypt, the family character of the feast, and the importance of keeping nothing from the sacrifice for the following day {Ant. 3.248). Another relevant aspect, in agreement with the idea of memorial introduced in Ant. 2.317, is the fact that when he speaks of the liberation from Egypt, he uses the first person plural. Thus, he includes himself among those saved from Egypt, in spite of the fact that the event belongs to his past {Ant. 3.248). In regard to the problem of the presentation of first fruits, FJ firmly lays down that they must be presented on the sixteenth of Nisan {Ant. 3.250), agreeing with Philo (Spec. 2.162) and the rabbinic literature (m. Menah. 10:3). He adds a series of details on the manner of presentation of the first fruits, which must be roasted, purified, ground, and divided between the altar and the priests (Ant. 3.251). This process, which is not completely clear, is the same
44
CHAPTER TWO
as that found in m. Menah. 10:4 in greater detail. Finally, it must be recalled that he adds an explanation of the meaning of this offering, saying that they consider it right in the first place to give glory to God from whom they receive this abundance (Ant. 3.250).
CHAPTER THREE
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 1. ANT. 5.20-32, 34 AND ITS REWRITING OF JOSH 4-6 The passages examined until now have not differed greatly between the Hebrew and Greek texts. However, that which must be looked at now shows considerable variations between the two textual traditions (e.g. Josh 6:3—8). It is not useful to spend time on a textual critical analysis concerning these pericopes.1 It is, however, necessary to pay attention to those passages where the rewriting of FJ seems to indicate a greater affinity with one or the other textual tradition (MT or LXX).2 Nevertheless, it is possible to anticipate that there will be few cases in which such a conjecture will be possible, due to the extent of the changes which FJ makes to his source(s). At this point a detailed analysis of Ant. 5.20-32, 34 can be embarked on, with the aim of demonstrating the changes FJ brings to the biblical text. In the first place, FJ begins with some details about the location of the Israelites' camp that are not found in the biblical text. Further on, he mentions the events described in Josh 4, summing them up in just one phrase. In this chapter, the biblical text describes the crossing of the river Jordan and the carrying out of God's command to raise up twelve stones taken from the riverbed as a memorial of this event for future generations. The MT presents a double tradition on the twelve stones. In Josh 4:9 it says that Joshua set them up in the middle of the river, under the feet of the priests who carried the Ark of the Covenant, while Josh 4:20 states that he set them up in the camp at Gilgal. The LXX resolves the contradiction by adding to v. 9 the word OC 1
There is no lack of studies on this theme; a good starting-point would be J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d'Alexandrie, VI, 32. 2 The text of Joshua found at Qumran (4QJoshab), which is in Hebrew, appears to represent another textual tradition quite unlike both MT and LXX. This is even shorter than LXX, but the fragments are too few to draw general conclusions. L. Greenspoon, "The Qumran Fragments," 159-194. E.C. Ulrich, "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar," 89-104.
46
CHAPTER THREE
(other). In this way it distinguishes between the stones which remained in the river and those that he set up later in the camp at Gilgal. FJ only mentions those stones that Joshua set up in Gilgal, ignoring the difficulty of the biblical text. He attributes to this monument the character of an altar, something not found in the biblical text.3 Furthermore, he says that on this altar Joshua sacrificed to God. In accordance with his style, he gives no more details on the kind of sacrifices offered. However it does not seem that they should be identified with Passover, which he goes on to mention with the verb eopxd^co (to feast), a verb with a broader meaning than the verb Qxxo (to sacrifice). By making an altar of this monolith, FJ does not deny its validity as a memorial of the crossing of the Jordan and of the retention of the river's flow. Indeed, he affirms it explicitly: T£K(ir)piov yevrio6|ievov xr\q dvaK07ni<; xox> pev\jiaxoc, (as a sign of the retreat of the current) (Ant. 5.20). He also says that the stones with which the altar was constructed were taken from the riverbed by order of the prophet, who in this case would be Joshua (cf. Josh 4:5; Sir 46:1; Ant. 4.165). In this way, just as he had already done with the figure of Moses, he accentuates the part played by Joshua and diminishes the role of God, in that he does not say that the command actually comes from God (Josh 4:1-3). Proceeding immediately to mention the celebration of Passover, FJ excludes the circumcision of the Israelites born in the desert, which is described in Josh 5:2~8. The circumcision is linked with the etymology of the name Gilgal which appears in Josh 5:9. This omission could be due to several reasons: first, the Hebrew and Greek texts differ greatly; second, as already established, FJ avoids the connection between the circumcision and Passover (Ant. 2.311—319); third, FJ gives, as will be shown, a totally different etymology of the name Gilgal. Regarding the commemoration of Passover, he only says that they celebrated in this region, leaving out the indication of the date that 3 E.C. Ulrich suggests that the construction of the first altar in the Promised Land, according to the fragment of Josh found at Qumran (4QJosha), would be at Gilgal as FJ says. If E.C. Ulrich's suggestion is correct, FJ together with 4QJosha would represent another textual tradition distinct from MT and LXX. E.C. Ulrich, "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar," 92~93, 96. On this point, it is also possible that FJ does not ignore the textual difficulty of the twelve stones, but that this was absent from his text.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
47
appears in Josh 5:10. Between the mention of Passover and the cessation of the manna, after the Israelites came to enjoy the fruits of Canaan, FJ adds a gloss, which turns out to be very significant. In it, he contrasts the previous situation in the desert, when they were totally in need, with the present, when everything is readily available. It is noteworthy that both situations are linked by the celebration of Passover, since both commenced with the same feast. In this way, FJ also reinforces the link between the feast of Passover and the gathering of first fruits. This link exists in the biblical text, but only because these two events are contemporaneous. In reference to the gathering of first fruits, FJ uses the word "grain" (oixov). This term, in place of the broader concept of "fruit" in the MT (TI3I?), could perhaps be a small indication that FJ is closer to the Greek text which also uses this word.4 But, as has already been said, no certain conclusion can be drawn, given the difference between Ant. and the biblical text. It is equally difficult to divine whether FJ had in front of him the indication concerning the time: "from the day following Passover" (nOQPI rTFIQQ), which is not found in the Greek text; the free paraphrase of this passage does not allow a clear conclusion in favour of one or the other.5 Quotation 16
So then, the grain of the Canaanites, already ripe, they harvested and of the rest they made booty, (Ant. 5.21)
"And they ate the grain of the earth, unleavened bread and the first fruits on the same day. (Josh 5:11 LXX)
"And they ate the fruits of the earth, from the day following Passover, unleavened bread and roasted grain, on that same day. (Josh 5:11 MT)
1 This affinity does not imply that FJ had a Greek text in front of him. It is possible that there was a Hebrew text different from the MT. ' Here it can also be noted that he has already explained in Ant. 3.250 that the first fruits were only consumed from the second day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, on which the roasted grain was offered.
48
CHAPTER THREE
In regard to the manna, FJ is definitely states that the people were fed on it for forty years. In this case also, it is significant that the period in the desert is placed between instances when the people were fed on unleavened bread. FJ does not say explicitly that they ate unleavened bread, as in the biblical text (Josh 5:11). Although, it can be deduced from the fact that the leftovers from the grain (xoc Xoina) became booty (Xeiav), so that a part was eaten immediately, without their being able to let it rise (Ant. 5.21). In calculating the time spent in the desert—40 years—(Ant. 5.21; cf. Ant. 3.32), FJ agrees with the MT, since the LXX asserts in this passage that it was 42 years.6 Next, FJ ignores the episode of the meeting between Joshua and the angel, general of the army of the Lord (Josh 5:13—15). He passes directly to the account of the conquest of Jericho (Josh 6). Following the line of diminishing God's role, he disregards all the commands God gives to Joshua (Josh 6:1-5), and makes Joshua the protagonist in all the events. In fact, Joshua decides to surround the city because the Canaanites have not moved: on the contrary, they have closed themselves inside, even though the Israelites have gathered in their harvest of grain (Ant. 5.22). Faithful to his style, FJ does not trouble to anticipate the events in the form of orders (Josh 6:2^10) and then narrate the events briefly (Josh 6:11), as is common in the biblical text. Rather, he describes the events at length, according to his interpretation of the orders given in the biblical text. He tells how the first day of the siege unfolded, identifying it with the first day of the feast of Passover. According to E. Nodet, this identification, which does not come from Josh and goes against S. cOlam Rab. 11, contradicts the context of FJ's work.7 This affirmation, while indeed not illogical, appears a bit forced, because it is based on the assumption that the gathering of the edible grain must be after Passover.8 Although it is true that the highest quality grain ripens after Passover, barley, which is gathered before Passover, can be edible (cf. Lev 23:14). In fact, FJ declares in Ant. 3.250 that nobody shares in what has been gathered,9 before 6 7 8 9
J. Moatti-Fine, La Bible d'Alexandrie, 118. E. Nodet, Ant. 5.22 n. 5. E. Nodet, Ant. 5.21 n. 3. If indeed the verb (ietaXa(i(3dv(0 (to take part) used by FJ does not only mean
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
49
making the offering on the sixteenth day of the first month. To identify the feast of Ant. 5.22 with Tabernacles, as E. Nodet suggests, does not seem justifiable, for the reasons already given, and because it would contradict the immediate context.10 FJ gives an account of the taking of Jericho which is concise and reasonably coherent. On the one hand, it harmonises the differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. On the other hand, it somewhat rationalises the order of the procession presented in Josh 6:21, by putting the soldiers around the ark for protection, and the old men (who do not appear in the biblical text) at the rear. In short, he repeatedly says that the only thing they did was to surround the city, while the priests played the trumpets. In this way, he does not rationalise the whole event by removing its miraculous character. In fact, the description of the first day closely resembles that of the second day as described in the biblical text (Josh 6:12-14), which is very similar in the MT and the LXX. Quotation 17
"to eat," from the context one can presume this meaning among others. In fact, Ant. 3.270 says that the priest uses the fistful of flour which is offered as food. Certainly Ant. 5.219 says that the barley cake, which symbolised Gideon, is too ordinary to serve as food. However, he seems to speak of a particular type of barley, which implies that not all the barley is inedible. Finally, it is also possible that the adv. f|5T| indicates an earlier than normal time for the ripening of the corn: otherwise it seems superfluous. Actually, the Jericho climate is hotter than that of the rest of Palestine and corn can ripen earlier. FJ was certainly well-aware of these details about local conditions (cf. J.W. 4.471-475). Cf. O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age, 57. 1(1 H. Weiss suggests identifying this feast with a Saturday. This is unlikely since the celebration of the Saturday lasts only one day. Thus, the expression "first day of the feast" cannot be linked to the Saturday; cf. H. Weiss, "The Sabbath," 370-371.
50
CHAPTER THREE
And, the first day of the feast, the priests carried the ark, around it a section of soldiers were on guard. And the former advanced, playing the seven trumpets to encourage the army.
12
And on the second day, Joshua got up in the morning and the priests took up the ark of the covenant of the Lord 13 and the seven priests who carried the seven trumpets marched before the Lord
And, Joshua got up early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the Lord. BAnd seven priests, who carried seven trumpets, played before the ark of the Lord, while they walked [...]
They made, then, the circuit of the wall, followed by the elders. And after the priests alone had played, then they did nothing else, they returned to the camp. (Ant. 5.22-23).
[...] they circled the city [...]
14
And they circled the city [...]
H
and they returned to the camp. (Josh 6:12-14a TM)
And they returned to the camp. (Josh 6:12-14a LXX)
12
From the description of the first day, FJ proceeds directly to the phrase of Josh 6:14b, which sums up all the activity of the six subsequent days, repeating it almost literally.
Quotation 18
And thus they did for six days . . . (Ant. 5.24)
l4
Thus he did for six days . . . (Josh 6.14b LXX)
l4
And for six days they did . . . (Josh 6.14b TM)
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
51
In this way, FJ continues his account of the events of the seventh day (Ant. 5.24), revisiting a fundamental element which he had omitted previously: God had put the city into their hands (Josh 6:2). For the action of transmitting this news, FJ uses the verbal form £\)T|YY£AA^ETO;11 in the biblical text Joshua announces this good news explicitly and in direct speech (cf. Josh 6:16). In the biblical text there follows a brief discourse in which Joshua gives orders regarding how the sack should be carried out and what to do with the prostitute Rahab.12 In Ant. 5.25-26 almost all the elements of this discourse are included, with some emphases on the manner of carrying out the slaughter and other minor differences, which do not offer any data significant for this study. FJ resumes his description of the capture of Jericho, staying closer to the biblical text than he has up to this point. However, as always, he maintains his differences of style and language. For the history of Rahab as well, he remains close to the biblical text, with small differences that do not affect this work. A sign of the likelihood that FJ was using a text closer to the textual tradition of the LXX, is the fact that, in reporting the curse of Joshua on whoever rebuilds Jericho, he refers to the fulfilment of that curse in the time of King Ahab (Ant. 5.31).13 It is precisely the Greek text—not the MT—which has a gloss referring to just that fulfilment (Josh 6:26). Finally, FJ places the etymology of the name Gilgal, which he had omitted in his rewriting of Josh 5:9, at the end of the whole history of the conquest of Jericho. In the biblical text the etymology is based on the Hebrew root ^ 3 (gll), which basically means "to roll in order to take away"; therefore Gilgal signifies the fact that God, by rolling, has taken away (<>nf?3) the shame of Egypt, after the people have been circumcised.
11 G. Friedrich maintains that FJ uses this verb with a meaning different from that of the OT. This seems unjustified, at least in this passage. The fact that this announcement is given after they have gone around Jericho presupposes that it is an announcement of something that will be accomplished without fail, and not merely a promise. G. Friedrich, "e{>ayyeA.i^o[iat," T\VKT II, 711-712. 12 FJ, like the Targum, presents her as an innkeeper cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.8 n. b. i;i Even though he promises that later he will describe the episode, in the paraphrase of 1 Kgs 16:34 (Ant. 8.318) he does not fulfil his promise, cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.31 n. a.
52
CHAPTER THREE
For FJ the etymology of the name Gilgal is "freedom,"14 because it says that, having crossed the river, they felt they were free, both from the Egyptians and from the misery of the desert. No doubt, it is a loose etymology by FJ, as H.St.J. Thackeray suggests,15 but it is also possible that FJ derives it from assonance with the Hebrew root b\&2 (g'l), which means to redeem.16 Beyond the real meaning of the word or the scientific basis of its etymology, the interpretation of FJ in itself is of real interest: it is highly significant that this entire passage ends with this kind of synthesis of the complete account of the liberation from Egypt. If doubts remained about the relation between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, this section makes it clear that—for FJ— the process began at the Passover of Egypt is concluded only at the Passover of Gilgal. The latter marks the definitive liberation from slavery and the beginning of the conquest of the land of Canaan.17 1.1. Summary
In this narrative (Ant. 5.20-32.34), apart from the textual difficulties, it is clear that FJ preserves the characteristics observed in the preceding passages. His text is more concise than the biblical one and resolves some of its contradictions. The figure of God is diminished in favour of greater prominence for Joshua (Ant. 5.20), just as FJ did in order to give greater prominence to Moses (Ant. 2.311-319). As in his resume of the Passover of Egypt, the theme of circumcision is left aside.18 There are vari14
He applies the same etymology to the word "?3f when speaking of the Jubilee year {Ant. 3.283). 15 H.St.J. Thackeray, Ant. 5.34 n. e. 16 This being the case, it could be another indication that the text which FJ has in front of him is similar to that of the LXX, which gives the name as Galgala {Takyaka). It has already been noted that names are the least reliable guides for proving the use of one or another textual type. However, in this case, the etymological connection could strengthen the probability of the hypothesis. 17 E. Nodet and J. Taylor maintain that for FJ there is no link between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, cf. E. Nodet - J. Taylor, Essai sur les Origins du Christianisme, 346. Another proof that FJ was not unaware of and that he did not discount the union of these two events, is that in Ant. 4.242—following Deut 26:1-10—FJ says that an Israelite, after he has presented the tithe, will have to give thanks for being freed from Egypt and brought into the Land. As E. Nodet observes, this event is linked by FJ to the pilgrimage feasts and thus also to Passover, cf. Id., Ant. 4.242 n. 2, 5. Another text which shows a very close link between the escape from Egypt and the occupation of the land is Ant. 2.268-269. 18 Cf. ch. VI 8 3.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
53
ous indications in the account of Ant. 5.20—32, 34 which cause one to think that, with his revision of the biblical text, he wants to emphasise both the union between the Passover of Egypt and that of Gilgal, and the connection of Passover with the gathering in of the grain. In fact, he identifies the first day—of the seven days it took to conquer Jericho with the first of Passover. This fact, along with his mentioning the etymology of the name of Gilgal at the end of the passage (Ant. 5.34), gives to all the events a paschal character, which is not evident in the biblical text. 2. THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN THE PERIOD OF THE MONARCHY ACCORDING TO FJ
Throughout the entire literary collection of 1—2 Kings, the only mention of a commemoration of Passover occurs in 2 Kgs 23:21 23, where King Josiah—after his religious reform—organises it. On the other hand, in the books of Chronicles, there is also a celebration of Passover in the time of King Hezekiah, corresponding to his religious reform (2 Chr 30).19 FJ, for his part, refers to the celebration of Passover both under King Hezekiah and in the time of King Josiah.20 2.1. The Passover of Hezekiah
Concerning the reign of Hezekiah, FJ makes particularly unusual use of the sources.21 At one moment he develops the content of 2 Chr 29~30, showing a Hezekiah who is devout and a reformer (Ant. 19 From 1-2 Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles, there is the so-called Lucianic or Antiochene recension of the LXX. Generally, for the passages to be examined in this work, it does not introduce variations of note. In fact, in the edition of this recension by N. Fernandez Marcos and J.R. Busto Saiz, no mention of FJ appears in the notes, even though the authors claim to be very thorough in mentioning the occasions when FJ and the said recension coincide. N. Fernandez Marcos —J.R. Busto Saiz, El Texto Antioqueno, II, 148-155; III, 148-154. M.V. Spottorno claims that it is not possible to draw general conclusions about the text used by FJ in his rewriting of 1-2 Kings; regarding 1-2 Chronicles, she believes the points of agreement between FJ and the LXXAnt are very relevant; M.V. Spottorno, "Josephus' Text for 1-2 Kings," 151-152; Id., "The Books of Chronicles," 390. 20 For an overall view of the biblical texts that will be dealt with in this work, one can consult P. Vannutelli, Libri Synoptici Veteris Testamenti, 539-553, 620-649. 21 In a recent article of 1997, C. Begg again proposes what he claimed in his book in 1993, namely, that studies comparing Ant. with 1-2 Kings or 1-2 Chronicles
54
CHAPTER THREE
9.260-276); at another moment, after describing the fall of the northern kingdom, he presents the reign of Hezekiah in a less favourable light (Ant. 10.1-35) re-using the content of 2 Kgs 18 20, which mentions the religious reform, but does not report the celebration of Passover.22 In analysing Ant. 9.260 276, one discovers that FJ, apart from varying his source in the usual manner, draws together the content of 2 Chr 29-30, and alters the order of some episodes. In the first place, he inserts Hezekiah's invitation to all Israel to celebrate Passover between the purification of the Temple and the rites of expiation carried out by the king, the dignitaries, and the people. In this way, he arranges the events so that all those who would then participate in the feast are also present at the moment of expiation, whereas in the biblical text only the inhabitants of Jerusalem make expiation. With this change, he avoids all the difficulties presented by 2 Chr 30 regarding the ritual purity of participants in the feast, and insists once again on the fact that ritual purity is indispensable in order to celebrate Passover. Concerning the invitation of Hezekiah to take part in the celebration, FJ reflects almost all the elements of the biblical text, expressing them in a different style: for example, he changes direct speech
are still lacking. As for the passages which he has studied, C. Begg claims that FJ makes use of one or the other work equally, and applies to both his typical modifications. E. Nodet, on the other hand, asks himself—generalising the conclusions of E.C. Ulrich—if FJ actually knew 1-2 Chronicles or had a fuller text of 1 Samuel-2 Kings than one knows today. As far as concerns the part of Ant. which is in question, one can say that it contains elements found today in 2 Chronicles. It is difficult to believe that one can affirm from the data available today whether FJ had them already included in his text of 2 Kings. Regarding FJ's way of combining in this passage the sources known today, it seems right to agree with the conclusions of C. Begg's article. However, a comprehensive response to the problem of the sources for this section of Ant. would be beyond the scope of this work. E. Nodet, "Pourquoi Josephe?," 100. E.C. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel, 163-164. C. Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy, 2-3; Id., "Joash of Judah," 317-320. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 165-178. 22 L.H. Feldman says that FJ, faced with the figure of Hezekiah, finds himself at a crossroads, since it was likely that even in his time Hezekiah was seen as a prototype of the Messiah, something which FJ obviously could not accept. Given this difficulty, FJ's presentation of Hezekiah is very ambiguous, because, on the one hand, he is unwilling to exalt him, and, on the other hand, he cannot deny that during his reign God intervened miraculously, as FJ himself will record in his speech to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (J. W. 5.388). For this reason, FJ will emphasise the piety of Hezekiah, the quality which moved God to help him; cf. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus's Portrait of Hezekiah," 597-610.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
55
to indirect. The most outstanding aspect is that FJ feels it necessary to declare that Hezekiah had no political aim to reunite the kingdom, but that he invited the Israelites to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover freely and for their own good (Ant. 9.264). In this way, he synthesises the long exhortation of the biblical text (2 Chr 30:5 8) with this paragraph (Ant. 9.264). Quotation 19
!l
He said this to encourage them, not to make them in this way submit to him, if they did not wish, but for the personal good of each one, since they would be blessed. (Ant. 9.264)
8
And now, do not stiffen your necks. Give glory to the Lord God and enter into his sanctuary, which he has sanctified forever, and serve the Lord your God and he will repent of his anger against you. -'Because when you convert to the Lord, your brothers and your sons will enter into the goodwill of all those who have deported them, and he will make them return to this land. Because the Lord our God is merciful and kind and he will not turn his face from us, if we convert to him. (2 Chr 30:8-9 LXX)
He proceeds to describe how the majority of Israelites reject the invitation and make fun of the king's envoys. Furthermore, FJ injects greater vitality into his narrative by adding that they also despised and finally
56
CHAPTER THREE
killed the local prophets, who were announcing their destruction within a short time, should they reject the king's invitation. Just as in the biblical text, FJ says that, in spite of everything, some men decide to take part in the feast, influenced by the encouragement of the prophets who do not appear in the biblical text. By this, he continues to insist on the theme of the prophets. Nor does he agree with the biblical text in listing the tribes to which these men belong, since he omits those of Asher and Ephraim, who appear in 2 Chr 30:11, 18 respectively. Quotation 20
Many, however, of the tribe of "But some men of Asher and of Manasseh and of Zebulon Manasseh and of Zebulon and of Issachar, being conwere ashamed and went to vinced by the prophets who Jerusalem. (2 Chr 30:11 LXX) were calling them to loyalty, were converted. (Ant. 9.267) As already mentioned, at the very moment when all who have accepted the invitation to Passover are in Jerusalem, FJ inserts the sacrifices of expiation, which are found in the biblical text in 2 Chr 29:20—36. In this case, he again stays close to the biblical passage, while still modifying the style and some details (Ant. 9.268-270). Immediately afterwards, FJ describes the celebration of Passover, which, according to him, took place on the usual date in the first month (Ant. 9.271). In doing so, he once again avoids mentioning the possibility of commemorating Passover in the second month, as he had done in Ant. 3.294.23 This makes it more probable that FJ did not accept this practice, since he does not merely omit a part of the text, but also modifies it.24 23 The link between 2 Chr 30 and Num 9:6-11, as M. Delcor remarks, has been noted by the majority of commentators. M. Delcor, "Le reck de la celebration de la Paque," 106. 24 By contrast, in the calendar found in Qumran, the Passover of the second month always appears; what one does not know is this: whether it was intended
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 57hhhhhhhhhhh
In this passage, FJ maintains the distinction between the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover. He combines them in the same way as the biblical text: i.e., naming them separately but as two acts of worship intimately linked. Between the mention of the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover, the biblical text says that the altars in Jerusalem were torn down (2 Chr 30:14). FJ, on the other hand, omits this description, and will only mention later the other purification of the land described in 2 Chr 31:1. In this way, he presents a more ordered and less repetitive sequence of events. Quotation 21
When the feast of
13
And many people gathered in
Unleavened Bread arrived, having sacrificed the sacri-
Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Unleavened Bread in the
fice called Passover, for seven days they offered the remaining sacrifices. (Ant. 9.271)
second month, a very great assembly. 15And they sacrificed Passover on the fourteenth of the second month. (2 Chr 30:13, 15a LXX)
In regard to the events occurring during this celebration, FJ excludes some aspects that are important for the biblical text. Firstly, having already resolved the problem of the purification of the people, he does not mention that the Levites had to celebrate Passover in place of those who had not been purified, and that some people of Ephraim dared to sacrifice without ritual purity. Secondly, he does not report the songs sung by the priests and Levites during the sacrifices of the week of Unleavened Bread.23 Thirdly, he omits to note that Hezekiah decided to continue the commemoration for a further seven days. It
for those who were not purified in the first month or simply as another feast for all. F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (I)," 332. 20 However, he describes the musical performance of the Levites and the priests during the rites of purification before the week of Unleavened Bread, cf. Ant. 9.269.
58
CHAPTER THREE
is possible that this practice was inconceivable for FJ; so he places the sacrifices in the first week which, according to the biblical text, were offered during the second. While he agrees with the biblical text that the king and the dignitaries donated the sacrifices, he does not agree on the quantities of big or small cattle that were sacrificed. Finally, he avoids listing those who take part in the feast, while, in the biblical text (2 Ghr 30:25) these also include foreign residents (CH^n) in Israel and in Judah.26 Both the biblical text (2 Ghr 30:26) and Ant. 9.272 conclude the account of Passover with the affirmation that such a feast had not been celebrated since the time of King Solomon. It is interesting to note that while the MT says in general terms that there had not been such joy (nnptp) in Jerusalem since the time of Solomon, the LXX and Ant. refer specifically to the feast (eopxri). Quotation 22 KOcl TOVTOV TOV TpOTIOV
GOTO Ix)h}\iG)vo<; Tov
PaaiAiox; OUK d%0eiaa fi eoprn . . .
And since King Solomon the feast had not been celebrated in such a way . . . (Ant. 9.272)
26
26
And there was a great joy in Jerusalem, since
And there was great joy in Jerusalem, because
the days of Solomon, son of Israel, there had not been such a
since the days of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel, there was not such in
feast in Jerusalem. (2 Chr 30:26 LXX)
Jerusalem. (2 Chr 30:26 TM)
David, king of
FJ takes up again the content of 2 Chr 31:1-21, which relates how Hezekiah extended his reform to Judah and Israel, and organised their worship. Nevertheless, FJ will maintain a more cautious atti-
26 In Exod 12:48 it says that the "3 (foreign resident) who wants to take part in Passover must be circumcised along with all the males of his family.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
59
tude: without ever saying explicitly that Hezekiah also extended his reform to the northern kingdom, as 2 Chr 31:1 says, he speaks in general of the country or region (eiq xr\v %cbpav). 2.1.1. Summary
For the reign of Hezekiah, FJ combines his sources in an original way. In two separate blocks he presents the following: on the one hand, his religious reform and the celebration of Passover (Ant. 9.260274), and on the other hand, the events of his reign (Ant. 10.1-36). For the first part, he bases himself in 2 Chr 29-30. This is the only biblical passage that reports on this celebration. Aside from the changes already highlighted in other parts of his work. FJ modifies the order of the events narrated, so that the rite of expiation carried out by Hezekiah may include all who take part in the commemoration, not just the inhabitants of Jerusalem as in the biblical text. With this change of structure he resolves all the problems of purification found in his source. Hence he does not need to affirm that the Levites sacrificed Passover in place of those who had not been purified. Since the invitation of Hezekiah to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem could be interpreted as a political ploy to reunite the kingdom, FJ is careful to show that Hezekiah had only the good of the Israelites in mind. FJ contradicts the biblical text by putting Passover at its proper time and not in the second month. In this way, he avoids for a second time mentioning the possibility of postponing Passover to the second month due to problems of purification (cf. Ant. 3.294). He also excludes the possibility of prolonging the feast for a further week as 2 Chr 30:23—24 says, and he omits to mention the "resident foreigners" (DHijil) among those who take part in the celebration, as appears in 2 Chr 30:25. 2.2. The Passover of Josiah
Moving on to analyse the rewriting of the Passover of Josiah, it will be necessary to focus on the three possible sources (2 Kings; 2 Chronicles; 1 Esdras)27 and, as on other occasions, the different textual traditions there are of them. 27
The MSS of the LXXBA call it 1 Esdras, which is the term used in this work. The MSS of the LXXAnt call it 2 Esdras. The Vulgate, on the other hand, puts
60
CHAPTER THREE
The description of the reign of Josiah in Ant. 10.48-80 generally presents all the elements found in the biblical text (2 Kgs 22—23; 2 Chr 34-35), adding some aspects and synthesising others. The events preceding the commemoration of Passover {Ant. 10.48—70) seem to unfold according to the scheme of 2 Chr 34, more than to that of 2 Kgs 22-23. Actually, in 2 Kgs 22 the first work of Josiah is the repair of the Temple, which results in the finding of the Book of the Law, and this moves Josiah to abolish pagan worship. On the other hand, in 2 Chr 34 as in Ant. 10.50-70, the king commences his reform by abolishing pagan worship and calling the people to be faithful to the God of the Fathers. After this, the Book of the Law is found (2 Chr 34:14-15; Ant. 10.58), the prophetess Huldah is consulted (2 Kgs 22:13-20; 2 Chr 34:21 29; Ant. 10.59-62), the Law is solemnly proclaimed, and they swear loyalty to it.28 However, the use of the sources in this part of Ant is not so simple. In fact, FJ returns to 2 Kgs 23:4 18 starting from Ant. 10.65, where he describes for the second time the purification of the Temple (in 2 Kgs 23:4 for the first time), the profanation of the high places, the destruction of the altar of Bethel, and other episodes, which in Ant. 10.65—67 are presented in abbreviated form. As for the application of this reform to the territory of the exkingdom of the North, the biblical text, in its various witnesses, has noteworthy variations: for example, 2 Chr 34:6 describes this reform as far reaching as the land of Naphtali, while 2 Kgs 23:19 refers only to Samaria. Without doubt, in regard to this detail, the geographical understanding of the authors plays a fundamental role. In fact, FJ remains a little vague in his statements, and says that, after the reform in Jerusalem, Josiah went to the yj&pav (country or region), including in it the territory that had belonged to King Jeroboam (northern kingdom) {Ant. 10.66-67). Further on, he mentions Josiah going to "other Israelites" {Ant. 10.68),
this book outside the canon in the appendix after the NT and calls it 3 Esdras. A. Diez Macho, Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, I, 200—202. N. Fernandez Marcos, "3 Esdras," 445-451. D.J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 152-165. 28 The mention of the God of the Fathers (jidtptov Koci ixeyioxov Geov) en Ant. 10.68 recalls 2 Chr 34:32, which speaks of the God of the Fathers {Qeoxircoaepcovamcbv).
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
61
which could be identified with the assertion of 2 Chr 34:6 (land of Naphtali) as R. Marcus suggests. As a new proof of FJ's complex use of sources in Ant. 10.48 80, before starting to describe the celebration of Passover, he introduces a clause on the destruction of some sacrilegious chariots offered to the sun, which appears in 2 Kgs 23:11. After this, as an introduction to the commemoration of Passover, he synthesises everything done by Josiah, in these words: "having thus purified the whole land" {Ant. 10.70). In this manner, the idea of purification before the celebration of Passover appears once more (cf. Ant. 2.312). Also, in 2 Ghr 34:5, the action of Josiah is summarised as a purification of Judah and Jerusalem, which reinforces the hypothesis that FJ is following more closely the work of the Chronicler, since in 2 Kgs 22~23 purification is not mentioned. After this swift glance at the material that precedes the celebration of Passover, a more detailed analysis of the actual commemoration of the feast must be made. As far as the description of the feast is concerned, the problem of the combining of sources is complex. Apart from the biblical texts mentioned, 1 Esd 1 must be taken into account, since it is a text very close to 2 Chr 35.29 The influence of 2 Kgs on this passage cannot be discounted, but undoubtedly the text of Ant. is closer to 2 Chr 35 and 1 Esd 1.
29 The problem of the relation between 1 Esd with 2 Chr and Ezra-Neh is fairly complex. Fundamentally, there are two theories to explain the evident link between these two works: a so-called "compilation hypothesis," which says that 1 Esd is a compilation of all of 1-2 Chr-Ezra-Neh; and a so-called "fragmentary hypothesis," which would make 1 Esd a fragment of the original work of the Chronicler, who had written 1—2 Chr and 1 Esd, while Ezra-Neh would be a later arrangement of the material. T.C. Eskenazi proposes a third hypothesis, namely, that 1 Esd would be a separate composition by the author of 1-2 Chr, using Ezra-Neh as his source. As far as the material in question here is concerned, the literary link between 1 Esd and 2 Chr-Ezra-Neh is beyond question. Hence the "compilation hypothesis" seems more plausible. From the point of view of textual criticism, A. Schenker maintains that 1 Esd is prior to Ezra-Neh, but his analysis seems a little lacking from the literary criticism point of view (for example, he does not consider the relation between 1 Esd 1 and 2 Chr 35-36). H.G.M. Williamson, who supports the first hypothesis, offers a recent presentation of the problem. All things considered, the comprehensive answer to this problem does not come within the scope of this work. T.C. Eskenazi, "The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras," 39. A. Schenker, "La Relation d'Esdras A'," 218-248. H.G.M. Williamson, "The Problem with First Esdras," 201-216.
62
CHAPTER THREE
In the first place, the celebration of Passover is presented as an action of Josiah (Ant. 10.70; 2 Chr 35:1; 1 Esd 1:1), and not as a command that he gives to the people (2 Kgs 23:21). Secondly, FJ explicitly states that the feast was celebrated in Jerusalem,30 as in 2 Chr 35:1 (according to TM)31 and 1 Esd 1:1.32 Quotation 23A
. . . and there he conducted the feast of Unleavened Bread and so-called
Passover.
'And Josiah
conducted Passover in Jerusalem for his Lord. (1 Esd 1:1)
'And Josiah made in Jerusalem, Passover for the Lord his God . . . (2 Chr YHWH. (2 Chr 35:1 35:1 LXX) MT) 'And Josiah
made Passover for
(Ant. 10.70)
In 2 Chr 35:1 and 1 Esd 1:1 it speaks only of the celebration of Passover, but in 2 Chr 35:17 and 1 Esd 1:17, both Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread are mentioned separately. From the beginning FJ distinguishes between Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread (Ant. 10.70). Practically, he repeats what 2 Chr 35:17 and 1 Esd 1:17 say only inverting their order. However, in 2 Kgs 22~23, there is no mention at all of the commemoration of Unleavened Bread.33
30 31
The crasis KCXKEI (and there) refers to the preceding 'IepoooXufia (Jerusalem). Strangely this detail does not appear either in LXX B or in LXX Am .
32 It should be noted that the likenesses—in this section—between Ant. and 1 Esd are not only of content but also of vocabulary (fiyayev, na.a%a, e5a)pr|oaxo, dpvcov Koci ep((pcov). R. Marcus believes that FJ consulted 1 Esd, and RJ. Coggins says he is practically certain that FJ knew 1 Esd. It is enough to look at Ant. 11.33-58, which paraphrases material known today only through 1 Esd 3:1-4:46. In fact, H.G.M. Williamson affirms, without any doubt, that FJ knew 1 Esd; cf. R. Marcus,
Josephus, VI, 510. R J . Coggins - M.A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras,
6. H.G.M. Williamson, "The Problem with First Esdras," 209. 33 2 Kgs 23:9 says that the dissident priests ate unleavened bread with their families without going to Jerusalem. It does not appear probable that this reference is
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
63
Given this textual agreement—especially with 1 Esd 1:1734—the amendment of the text suggested by Dindorf does not seem pertinent, i.e. to change the order of the words "and also" (KOCI TTJV) to
"the also" (xf|v Kod) so that the phrase would read: "the also called Passover" (xf|V KOU naa%a Axyo|i£vr|v),33 resulting in an identification of both celebrations, to harmonise it with Ant. 20.106 where FJ clearly fuses together Unleavened Bread and Passover. Quotation 23B
. . . and there he ''And the Israelites conducted the who met together feast of Unleavened made Passover at Bread and the sothat time and the called Passover. feast of Unleavened {Ant. 10.70) Bread, for seven days. (2 Chr 35:17 LXX)
17 And the Israelites, who met together at that time, conducted Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days. (1 Esd 1:17)
FJ omits the indication of the date of carrying out Passover, as in Ant. 5.20 21. He also omits to specify that Passover is for the Lord (2 Chr 35:1; 1 Esd 1:1). Later, following 2 Chr 35, FJ excludes w. 2-6, which are a set of commands given to the priests, and proceeds directly to 2 Chr 35:7 9, which states that the king gave gifts to the people for Passover, and that in this gesture he was followed by other dignitaries.
to the feast of Unleavened Bread, but rather to the loaves that were placed in the holy places (cf. 1 Sam 21:3-4; Exod 29:23; Lev 8:26). The commentators who face this problem are divided between two groups: those who see in this term—or an emendation of it—a reference to the portion that belongs to the priests, and those who see in this term a reference to the feast of Unleavened Bread. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor say that an emendation of the text is not necessary and that this can signify either the offering of the grain (Lev 2:4, 5) or the consumption of unleavened bread during Passover. M. Cogan - H. Tadmor, / / Kings, 287. 54 Again, the terminology is closer (ayco, rcaa/a); the structure also is more similar because Passover and Unleavened Bread appear more closely linked in both. 3; ' Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 10.70 n. a. R. Marcus himself is not entirely in favour of this emendation.
64
CHAPTER THREE
Josiah gave 30,000 small cattle and 3,000 oxen; on this the biblical witnesses, Ant. 10.70, and 1 Esd 1:7 are all in agreement.36 An interesting addition to his source is offered, namely, that the small animals are newborn (veoyvoix;); this is particularly interesting if one recalls that, in the other mentions of Passover, he had ignored the fact that the animals had to be one year old for the sacrifice of Passover (Ant. 2.312; 3.249; 3.251). As for the gifts made by the chief priests to the priests and by the chief Levites to the Levites, FJ retains the same quantities as the biblical text,37 but does not give the names of these leaders. FJ sums up in a few words the entire lenghty description of the celebration of Passover and Unleavened Bread, which can be found in his sources (2 Chr 35:10-19; 1 Esd 1:10-19). He says that the sacrifices were carried out according to the Law of Moses and that this was possible due to the abundance of animals available. This last explanation is not found in the biblical text. However, the mention of the Law of Moses appears in the account of all the witnesses, but in different places and in different ways. Thus, in 2 Kgs 23:21b Josiah orders that Passover be celebrated according to the book of the Covenant; 2 Chr 35:6b says that the Levites must help the priests so that Passover can be celebrated according to the word of the Lord given through Moses; in 2 Chr 35:12b there is also an allusion to what is written in the book of Moses, and in 1 Esd 1:6b, 10b the passages parallel to 2 Chr 35:6b, 12b are to be found.38 In the description of the celebration of Passover—in the biblical text (2 Chr 35:10^12)—the activity carried out by the priests and Levites assumes a central position. Given that 1 Esd 1:10-12 is notably different from 2 Chr 35:10-12—which does not occur in the rest of the chapter—it seems probable that the author of 1 Esd had a corrupt text of this passage.39 36
The RO MSS say that it was 20,000 small cattle and not 30,000, but, according to E. Nodet, they are not the most reliable MSS. On the other hand, H.St.J. Thackeray thinks they are the best. E. Nodet, Flavius Josephe, I, XVII. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, IV, XVII. Anyway, as has been pointed out, numbers and names tend, in the hands of copyists, to be made uniform in accordance with the biblical text, cf. S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 33-34. 3/ 1 Esd 1:9 presents a small difference, since, in place of 500 oxen he says that the leaders of the Levites gave 700. 38 In the edition of A. Rahlfs the reference is 1 Esd 1:6b, 12b. 39 For example, 1 Esd 1:11 is appreciably shorter. Only two words are found in
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
65
Indeed, MT and the LXX do not agree in all the details of these verses, which increases the likelihood that, in this section, the text was not completely clear. FJ, for his part, avoids the textual difficulty of 2 Chr 35:10-12, offering only a synthetic phrase in which he states that the priests guided and served each of the men in the crowd (Ant. 10.72). In this way, he does not even say clearly that the Levites sacrificed the Passover victims, which would contradict the legislation of the Pentateuch (Deut 16:6).40 So it does not seem that one can connect the phrase emoto) xcov iepecov e^riyo\)|j.evcov . . . (the priests guided each one . . .) (Ant. 10.72) with the phrase mxa xf|V 8iaipeaiv . . . (according to the sections . . .) (1 Esd 1:10 LXXAllt) as R. Marcus suggests—because 1 Esd l:10Ant says explicitly that those who sacrificed were the Levites, and this statement, as has been noted, does not appear in Ant. 10.72.41 In 2 Ghr 35:13-17 and 1 Esd 1:11-17 there is a series of details which FJ omits. First, as he stated previously in Ant. 2.312, he says that the passover, i.e. the Passover victim, was cooked with fire according to the Law (2 Chr 35:13; 1 Esd 1:11). Also, he does not mention the cooking—apparently in boiling water—of the other sacrifices (2 Chr 35:13; 1 Esd 1:11). Nor does he describe the help given by the Levites to the priests in preparing their Passover victim, because the priests were occupied in offering the fat and the burnt offerings (2 Chr 35:14; 1 Esd 1:12-13). He says absolutely nothing about the Temple singers established by David, nor about the gatekeepers who guarded the doors (2 Chr 35:15; 1 Esd 1:14r—15).42 It is important to keep in mind that also in these verses there are small differences to be found between 2 Chr this v. as in 2 Chr 35:11, the preposition 3 (according) translated by m t a and the noun fll^p (order), but the latter is spelt niHQ (unleavened bread), in Greek a£u|ia. As confirmation of the material corruption of the text, it is clear that in MT the word •"] (blood) is missing, whereas it is to be found in the LXX. Another proof of the difficulty of transmission is seen in v. 12, where 1 Esdras reads £\XKpoaGev, in Hebrew this could be "S1? (in front of), instead of "D1? (to the sons of) in the MT. 40 Nor does it say in 1 Esdras of the LXXB that it was the Levites who sacrificed the lambs, but, in 1 Esd 7:12—the first Passover after the exile—it is clearly stated. 41 On the other hand, the phrase mice if|V 8iaipeaiv . . . (according to the division . . .) is found not only in the Antiochene recension of 1 Esd 1:10, as R. Marcus says, but also in 2 Chr 35:12 of the LXX BAnt , which faithfully translates the Hebrewtext ni3'??Qi? (according to the divisions . . .); cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 10.72 n. e. 42 He will mention these in Ant. 11.70, 80.
66
CHAPTER THREE
and 1 Esd, which indicate a difficulty in the transmission of the text. It has already been pointed out that in 2 Chr 35:17 and 1 Esd 1:17 there is a distinction between Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. Also in this verse the feast is said to last seven days. However, it is not clear in this text—particularly in 1 Esd 1:17—if the seven days refer to Passover and Unleavened Bread or only to the latter. FJ, for his part, does not mention here the length of the celebration, just as in 2 Kgs 23:21 23 which, as stated already, never speaks of the feast of Unleavened Bread. From this point onwards FJ takes up, almost verbatim, an expression found in all the sources concerned: the assertion that such a Passover had not been celebrated since the time of Samuel (2 Ghr 35:18; 1 Esd 1:18-19) or as 2 Kgs 23:22 affirms, since the time of the judges.43 FJ modifies the terminology, as always, and abbreviates the description, but by explicitly naming Samuel, he shows again that his version is based more on 2 Chr 35 and 1 Esd 1. FJ ignores the descriptions of 2 Kgs 23:23; 2 Chr 35:19 and 1 Esd 1:20, which all say that Passover was celebrated in the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign. Instead he adds a gloss to explain the preceding declaration, that never had such a Passover been celebrated in the time of the kings. His statement is based on the fact that this Passover had been carried out "according to the laws and ancient customs of the Fathers" (ai'xiov f]v xo rcdvxa Kaxd v6(j.ouc; KCU Kaxd xrjv dp%a{av 7tapaxr|pr|Giv xfjq naxpioxt o-uvr|0£ia<; eTuxetacGfjvca) (Ant. 10.72). This addition provides an understanding that, for FJ, there existed the possibility of celebrating Passover not in accordance with the laws and customs of the Fathers. Later, FJ will finish his narrative on Kingjosiah by describing the manner of his death (Ant. 10.73-80). 2.2.1. Summary
The use of the sources in Ant. 10.48—80 is extremely complex. However, it is possible to affirm that FJ draws closer to 2 Chr 34-35 and 1 Esd 1 than to 2 Kgs 22—23. His text, like the others analysed so far, is shorter, since he leaves out some juridical requirements (e.g., the fact that they cooked the meat over a fire) and other details,
43
This difference is not great, since Samuel can be considered the last of the judges (cf. Acts 13:20).
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
67
some of which are contrary to the Pentateuch, (e.g., the fact that the Levites sacrificed the Passover victims). Nevertheless, at times he follows his sources closely, as in the description of the gifts given by Josiah and the dignitaries, or in the statement that such a Passover had not been celebrated since the time of Samuel. While it is true that his tendency is to shorten the content of his sources, he also adds some glosses in order to clarify the sense of some passages, which to him seem obscure. At other times, when his sources do not agree, he seems simply to ignore such material or reduce it to a more general explanation (cf. 2 Chr 35:10-12; 1 Esd 1:10-12). The idea of purification before the celebration of Passover appears once again in this passage (Ant. 10.70). One peculiarity is that in his rewriting of the Pentateuch legislation he never says that the Passover victim must be one year old, but in this passage, he explicitly states that the lambs given by Josiah for Passover were newborn (veoyvo-uq), a detail which is not to be found in his sources. As far as the relation between Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread is concerned, in this section—as in 2 Chr 35:17 and 1 Esd 1:17—FJ maintains the distinction between the two celebrations. 3. PASSOVER ON THE RETURN FROM EXILE IN THE VERSION OF FJ
Obviously it is not possible to deal here with the entire difficulty regarding the sources FJ uses for the entire Persian period.44 For the purposes of this work, and having seen the links between Ant. and 1 Esd established by the previous section, the working hypothesis chosen is that FJ uses 1 Esd as his source for the pericopes that will be examined.43 4+
L.H. Feldman claims that there has been no substantial study on the way in which FJ makes use of Ezra, and says the same in relation to Neh. In fact, many authors have doubted whether FJ knew of these two books. L.H. Feldman, on the other hand, believes that FJ could not be ignorant of Ezra-Neh. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 183-189, 199-200; Id., 'Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," 212-214; Id., "Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah," 188 n. 3. 15 According to L.H. Feldman, this is the view of K.F. Pohlmann, H.G.M. Williamson, and H.StJ. Thackeray, but he maintains that this is an extreme position. His arguments are based on the presupposition that FJ must have known Ezra-Neh, because in Ag. Ap. 1.40 he says that he knows the whole canon. Nevertheless, he does not explicitly name these books in this section; cf. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," 213-214.
68
CHAPTER THREE
The eventual dependence on Ezra is not excluded a priori, but the arguments posited by L.H. Feldman to prove the link do not seem conclusive, since the examples are not strikingly significant.46 In effect, the first aspect worth considering (Ant. 11.66) is found in 1 Esd 4:62-63 and has no equivalent in Ezra. This concerns the feast in response to the edict of King Darius, which allows the exiles to return to the land of the Fathers. With this decree the second group of exiles leaves, since a first group had already returned after the decree of Cyrus (1 Esd 2:14; Ezra 1:11; Ant. 11.18). In Ezra this edict of Darius is certainly known and also the return linked to it, but there is no mention of festivities following it. This feast before the return to Jerusalem is of interest for the following reasons: a) this feast, according to FJ, was celebrated in the first month; b) FJ varies the meaning of the celebration that is presented by 1 Esd 4:62-63. That the commemoration was celebrated in the first month can be deduced from the indication of the date given in Ant. 11.75, which says that the deportees arrived in Jerusalem seven months after leaving Babylon, and that they celebrated in that month the feast of Tabernacles, which falls in the seventh month. Hence, FJ places the beginning of the journey back in the first month. This detail is not found either in 1 Esd 5:46 or in Ezra 3:1.47 Even though FJ does not say that they celebrated this feast immediately before departing, it can be deduced from the fact that FJ does not include any event between these two.48 These clues suggest that FJ probably wished to identify this feast with Passover or, more precisely, with Unleavened Bread, which also lasts seven days and is celebrated in the first month (cf. Ant. 11.110).
46 He proposes two examples: the first is the agreement on the type of sacrifice (sin-offering) between Ant. 11.137 and Ezra 8:35, as opposed to 1 Esd 8:63; the second is the use of the word "remnant" (Xcidavov) which is only found in Ezra 9:7 of the MT (HIT). However, FJ also speaks of "seed" (cntepuoc), which is not found in any text. L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," 213. 47 In the account of the third return to Jerusalem, organised by the priest Ezra, both 1 Esd 8:60 and Ezra 8:31 state that the journey began on the twelfth day of the first month. Thus, it is not surprising that FJ suggested this date for the previous return. It should be noted that these two sources—as FJ also—presuppose that Ezra and his companions did not celebrate Passover on this occasion because they were travelling. 48 Note the use of the adv. enena (then), which unites the two propositions, giving them a temporal sequence.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
69
Another indication that, for FJ, the feast before the return (Ant. 11.66) was a celebration of Passover is that he gives the same reasons for the feast as for Passover in Ant. 11.110.49 Quotation 24A
Those who listened on the one hand gave thanks to God,
. . . and they offered sacrifices of thanksgiving because the divine
because he had returned the land of their Fathers to
will had brought them again to the land of their Fathers and to the laws of this
them; on the other hand, giving themselves over to drinking and revelry, they celebrated
and feasted the new creation and the rebirth of the
[land]. And he turned the opinion of the king of Persia in their favour. (Ant. 11.110)
Fatherland. (Ant. 11.66)
This similarity between the reasons for the feast before the departure and the feast of Passover, is also clear, to a lesser degree, in 1 Esd 4:62™63 and 7:15. In the first case, the celebration takes place because it is now possible to go and reconstruct Jerusalem and the Temple; in the second, joy bursts out because the king has changed his mind and again allows them to construct the Temple. This could have motivated the association drawn by FJ between the two feasts. Perhaps, more significant than the association of the two commemorations (Ant. 11.66 and Ant. 11.110), however, is the fact that FJ changes the reason behind the feast before the return. According to him, they celebrate the fact of possessing the land again and the rebirth of the Fatherland, whereas for 1 Esd 4:62~63 they celebrate the freedom to be able to reconstruct Jerusalem and the Temple. 49 Even if there is no verbal identity between "the laws of the land" (xohq ev oruxfj v6|j.oi)<;) and "the new creation and the rebirth of the Fatherland" (xf|V dvdiKxriaiv Kai Jta^vyyeveaiav xfjc; naxpidoq), one can deduce from the context that FJ is referring to the same reality.
70
CHAPTER THREE
Q u o t a t i o n 24B
Those who listened on the one hand gave thanks to God, because he had returned to them the land of the Fathers; on the other hand, giving themselves over to drinking and revelry, for seven days they celebrated and feasted the new creation and the birth of the Fatherland. (Ant. 11.66)
62
And they thanked the God of their Fathers, because he gave them permission and freedom 63to go up and reconstruct Jerusalem and the Temple where his name alone is invoked, and they made themselves drunk with music and joy for seven days. (1 Esd 4:62™63)
At this point it is necessary to consider the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem after the return (1 Esd 7:10-15; Ezra 6:19—22 and Ant. 11.109-111). This occurred after the second edict of Darius, which commanded that the reconstruction of the Temple should not be obstructed. In regard to this second edict and its execution, 1 Esd 6:22-7:9 and Ezra 6:1-18 agree in almost all their details. Leaving aside the complex problem of the chronology of the events linked to the return from exile.50 Consideration must be given only to the episode subsequent to this decree, in which, according to all the texts examined (1 Esd 7:1; Ezra 6:13; Ant. 11.105), the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, together with his collaborators, assists the completion of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which is then consecrated during the last month of the year. These events provide the context closest to the celebration of Passover, which should be examined next. It has already been established that for this section (Ant. 11.106-108) the two possible sources (1 Esd 7:1-9; Ezra 6:13-18) are almost identical. Apart from the typical differences of style and vocabulary, there are few disagreements in detail, e.g. the date of the consecration of
50
None of the sources presents a plausible sequence of events; nor does FJ improve the chronology.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
71
the Temple.51 FJ, both in vocabulary and in details, is closer to 1 Esdras and summarises all the elements of his sources,32 adding some details in order to make the events more comprehensible.33 When he begins the description of the celebration of Passover after the return (Ant. 11.109), things change appreciably, because FJ varies the structure, some details, and the significance of the events described, in addition to the usual differences of style and vocabulary. One of these changes is that FJ begins to name the feast of Unleavened Bread whereas, in his possible sources, Passover is mentioned (1 Esd 7:10; Ezra 6:19). It is true that in this passage FJ will maintain the difference between the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover (xcbv d^i)(icov kopxr\q—xf|v rcaa/cx TCpooayope'uo(levriv Svaiav), but he brings them together in such a way that they appear more intimately related than in his sources. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that between mentioning the feast of Unleavened Bread and the sacrifice of Passover—in this order—he says that they celebrated "the commemoration," without specifying which feast he refers to. Furthermore, after mentioning Passover, he repeats that they celebrated for seven days, during which they made burnt offerings and sacrifices of thanksgiving. Immediately after the first mention of the feast of Unleavened Bread (Ant. 11.109), FJ adds to his sources by specifying that the entire people gathered from the villages into the city for this celebration (auveppwi naq 6 Xabq £K xtov KCO(J.COV eiq xr\v noXiv). In this way, he first makes it clear that the feast took place only in Jerusalem; secondly, he resolves the difficult problem presented by the sources when they mention those who "distanced themselves from the abominations of the people of the land" (Ezra 6:21; 1 Esd 7:13). The difficulty is this: in 1 Esd 7:13 the lack of a m i (and) means that those who distance themselves from the abominations are the same as those who were deported; however, in Ezra 6:21, they appear to be different people, perhaps Jews who were not deported. FJ— as previously demonstrated—avoids the difficulty by using the expression naq 6 Xabq (the whole people), which does not distinguish between •'' Ezra 6:15 says that it was the third day of the month of Adar, but 1 Esd 7:15 mentions the twenty-third of Adar. '2 This is another indication suggesting that FJ was probably using only 1 Esdras. )! For example, he adds the duration of the work, which lasted seven years. He also says that the Jews had constructed a portico around the Temple to justify the work of the gatekeepers.
72
CHAPTER THREE
those deported and the people of the village as Ezra 6:21 says; nor does he specify, as in 1 Esd 7:13, that among those deported, some distanced themselves from the abominations of the people of the land, and others did not. Quotation 25A
. . . the whole people flocked together from the villages to the city. And made feast after purifying themselves. (Ant. 11.109)
2
And the Israelites ate Passover, those of the exile and every one
who separated himself from the wicked behaviour of the people of the land towards them,
in order to seek the Lord God of
13
And the Israelites ate, those of the
exile, all those who distanced themselves from the abominations of the land, seeking the Lord. (1 Esd 7:13)
Israel. (Ezra 6:21 LXX)
Next, FJ confronts the problem of the purification of those who take part in the feast. It is true that at this point the two possible sources diverge from one another, because 1 Esd 7:1 Ob— 11 has one phrase more than Ezra 6:20. However, according to almost all MSS available today, both sources intend to convey the same thing, namely, that the Levites sacrificed the Passover victims for the people and for the priests, apparently because the Israelites had not been purified. FJ declares, on the other hand, that all had been purified, even the women and children, according to the Law of Moses. There could be a number of reasons for this change: firstly, it may reflect the interest FJ had already shown in the purification of the people before Passover (Ant. 2.312); secondly, it is also possible that the text in FJ's hands spoke of a purification of all the people;54
54 In fact, the text of 1 Esd 7:10b-11 without ox>% (no) after aixiiocXcoaiac; (captivity)—as in MS 130—would have the same sense as the text of Ant.
73
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
thirdly, it is possible that FJ did not wish to say that the Levites sacrificed the Passover victim for all, and for this reason wrote that all the people were pure and fit to offer sacrifice. Quotation 25B 20
And they made feast, having purified themselves and their women and children, according to the Law of the Fathers.
20
When the priests and Levites had purified themselves as one man.
'"When the priests and Levites had purified themselves together u and all those deported had not been purified, because the Levites had been purified at the same moment.
And having accomplished the sacrifice called passover on the fourteenth of that month, they made feast for seven days . . . (Ant. 11.109-110)
And they slaughtered the passover for all the deported and for their brothers, the priests, and for themselves. (Ezra 6:20 LXX)
12
And they sacrificed passover for all the deported and for their brothers, the priests, and for themselves. (1 Esd 7:10b-12)
As gradually evidenced in the previous synopsis, FJ adds a mention of the law of the Fathers, which is found in neither 1 Esdras nor in Ezra." At this point, FJ assigns the date of the Passover sacrifice—
X)
In regard to the use and importance of the concept of "laws of the Fathers"
74
CHAPTER THREE
the fourteenth of the month—which 1 Esdras and Ezra had put at the beginning (1 Esd 7:10; Ezra 6:19). For FJ, the actual manner of celebrating the feast consists in the fact of tendering burnt offerings and thanksgiving sacrifices, detailing precisely that they did it without considering the expenses (Ant. 11.110). Burnt offerings appear in the Pentateuch legislation linked with the feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:8; Num 28:19). However, nowhere in the Pentateuch are thanksgiving sacrifices mentioned during these seven days. Nevertheless, 2 Chr 30:22 states—as has already been noted—that during the seven days of Unleavened Bread celebrated at the time of Hezekiah, they made communion and thanksgiving sacrifices.56 Therefore it will be necessary to clarify whether here FJ has transferred this element from his rewriting of 2 Chr 30:22, or if he is reflecting a practice already common in his time.5/ The fact that FJ does not explicitly say that they ate unleavened bread for these seven days does not allow one to deduce that the well-being sacrifices took the place of unleavened bread. It appears more likely that both were offered together.58 Just as FJ, with great freedom, had changed the meaning of the feast of Unleavened Bread in Ant. 2.317, so also 1 Esd 7:15 and Ezra 6:22 give a new significance to the feast, namely, that the Lord had changed the view of the king, since he had allowed them to reconstruct the Temple.
in FJ cf. B. Schroder, Die wdterlichen Gesetze>, 263-270. S. Schwartz puts more emphasis on paternal laws in the debate within Judaism after the destruction of the Temple; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 216.
°6 This is probably linked with 1 Kgs 9:25, which says that Solomon offered burnt offerings and well-being sacrifices three times a year; in the parallel text of 2 Chr 8:13 these three times are identified with the three pilgrimage feasts: Unleavened Bread, Weeks (Pentecost) and Tabernacles. The relation between 2 Chr 30:22 and 1 Kgs 9:25//2 Chr 8:13 is reinforced by the phrase of 2 Chr 30:26, where it says that a feast such as this had not been celebrated since the time of Solomon. 57 The terminology for these sacrifices is not the same in Ant. 11.110 and in 2 Chr 30:22. FJ uses the word xapiaxr|pio<; (offering of thanksgiving) and 2 Chr 30:22 aorrripioc; (offering of thanksgiving for liberation), but in Lev 3:1, which speaks of well-being sacrifices, the LXX uses acotfipioc; and FJ, in his re-working of this passage, uses /aptaxripux;; which does guarantee that these terms are equivalent. Also in his rewriting of 2 Chr 30:22 FJ uses the verb xocpv^o (to offer with freedom) referring to the sacrifices (cf. Ant. 9.271). 38 On the other hand, according to the legislation of Leviticus, the well-being sacrifices of thanksgiving are eaten with unleavened bread, as are the portions of the priests (cf. Lev 7:12; 10:12).
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
75
For his part, FJ in Ant. 11.110 ascribes a meaning to the celebration, which does not agree either with Ant. 2.317 or with 1 Esd 7:15 or with Ezra 6:22. While he says in Ant. 2.317 that Unleavened Bread was celebrated in memory of the time of deprivation, in Ant. 11.110 he says that they celebrate because they have been able to return to the land of the Fathers. In fact, he says that the burnt offerings and the thanksgiving sacrifices are offered to God because he has enabled them to return to the land of the Fathers and to their laws. However, the context induces one to understand that he is referring to the whole feast.59 In this way, FJ would once again assign to the commemoration of Unleavened Bread a meaning of liberation that is closer to the sense found in Exod 12:17; 13:3. Consequently, just as in Ant. 11.66, he does not mention the reconstruction of the Temple. If he does indeed mention a change of view by the king of the Persians, this seems to refer to what he had said just before, namely, to the possibility of living according to the laws of the Fathers. Undoubtedly, this contingency presupposes the reconstruction of the Temple. However, FJ emphasises more the fact of living according to the laws of their Fathers, because later, without much connection with the context, he will begin to speak of the regime (noXneia) under which those who came back from exile will live. Before going on to describe the form of government at that time and all the ways in which the people of Israel was ruled (kings, judges or monarchs), he again repeats that, for reasons he had already explained (imep tomcov), they had abundant sacrifices and honoured God generously. It will be necessary to look more deeply into the relation between the form of government and Passover since it could be very important for understanding the role that FJ gives to this feast. 3.1. Summary
In this section (Ant. 11.66, 106-111), without claiming to provide a definitive answer to the problem of FJ's sources for the Persian period, it emerges that FJ probably bases himself on 1 Esd and not on Ezra. In fact, the feast, which appears only in 1 Esd 4:62-63, FJ places 59
1 Esd 7:15 and Ezra 6:22 connect the explanation for rejoicing directly with the feast of Unleavened Bread.
76
CHAPTER THREE
in the first month, and presumably identifies it with a celebration of Passover or Unleavened Bread, but also varying the meaning attributed to it by 1 Esd 4:62^63. Unlike the description of the event preceding Passover—the reconstruction and consecration of the Temple (Ant. 11.106-108)—in describing the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem after the return of those who were deported (Ant. 11.109-111), FJ distances himself appreciably from the known sources; he alters the structure of the description, certain details, and the meaning of the feast. Among the changes he introduces, it is important to underline the fact that FJ reinforces the connection between the sacrifice of Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread, and that he states that the entire people had been purified for the celebration. Furthermore, FJ asserts that during the seven days of the feast there were thanksgiving sacrifices. This is a prescription that was not contemplated in the regulations of the Pentateuch, and may represent a post-exilic practice, since, in 2 Chr 30:22, thanksgiving sacrifices carried out for seven days are also mentioned. Finally, it is important to note that FJ links Passover with the way the people of Israel is governed (noXmia). This can be of considerable significance for this investigation.
CHAPTER FOUR
CONCLUSIONS 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
After analysing the texts of Ant. that speak of Passover and follow a biblical text in various ways, it is possible to state that, even if a full and complete portrait of the feast is not given, the information which FJ conveys is by no means insignificant. Certainly, apologetic motivation is not lacking, as in his description of the departure from Egypt: it can be seen even more clearly in his Ag. Ap. However, one should not for this reason categorise everything he can tell about Passover in such a way. On the contrary, there are also elements that grant a glimpse of the internal politics of Judaism, and which, in the light of data known from other sources, acquire considerable relevance. Within the scope of some general aspects, it can be said that, in the first place, FJ covers the theme of Passover extensively, even if, as has been seen, he ignores some texts of the Pentateuch. In the second place, it is noteworthy that in several cases when he speaks of Passover, FJ makes more changes to his source(s) than in the context close to these passages. Perhaps one can discern in this behaviour the influence of the theme of Passover on FJ's religious sensibility. It has already been pointed out that, by apparently diminishing the role of God in the revelation of the Law and enhancing the task of its mediators, Moses and Joshua, FJ seems to express a very unusual view of revelation, namely, that God reveals himself through history. He sends those who can discover his presence and make it visible to the people: these FJ calls prophets.1 All these facts have to be weighed up in the light of FJ's personality. Even if it is impossible to fit him into a specific kind of
1
This diminution of the role of God, according to L.H. Feldman, is also present in other passages of Ant., but in these cases, for him, there is simply the desire to build up the achievements of human personalities, L.H. Feldman, Rewritten Bible, 541-542, 568. A text that can clarify FJ's view of revelation is Ag. Ap. 2.157-163.
78
CHAPTER FOUR
first-century Judaism, this shows that FJ aims—successfully or not— to represent a form of common Judaism, which is able to dialogue with the non-Jewish world. This implies that FJ strives to show himself acceptable to his interlocutors, but at the same time, he has to stay within certain limits, so as not to be considered a complete stranger to the religious reality he wishes to represent. These general considerations should make it possible to put the specific results of the analysis on Passover in their proper perspective. 2. SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS
FJ promises a separate work on laws and customs. It is not known if he ever wrote it, but in any case, it does not survive. However, in this analysis, on more than a few occasions there has appeared more or less clear evidence about the Halakah in force, according to FJ, in the first century. On the other hand, omissions must be judged in the light of this promise of a separate work, and in view of the literary genre chosen by FJ for his work, which assumes an audience not very interested in the details of the Mosaic Law. Overall, some omissions—such as the mention of the second Passover—gain particular significance due to other evidence at hand from the first century A.D. First, one can consider those commands that FJ considers necessary to mention and even at times to underline, repeating them or adding them when they are not to be found in his source. As far as the calendar is concerned, FJ clearly states that the liturgical year begins in Nisan, and that it was arranged thus by Moses because in that month the people left Egypt: the civil calendar preserves the previous arrangement, beginning in the autumn. While it is true that in FJ's writings the calendar fluctuates between the solar and lunar systems, he explicitly states that Passover is determined according to the lunar calendar. The feast normally lasts seven days. However, on one occasion he comments that it ran for eight (Ant. 3.317). The first view reflects the content of the sources that FJ is following, while the second seems to insert a personal intervention by FJ, since this is a gloss explaining a praxis. This lengthening of the feast may reflect the custom in the Diaspora of adding a day to the feasts. Nevertheless, it appears more likely to be an identification of the first day of
CONCLUSIONS
79
Unleavened Bread with the fourteenth of Nisan, as is seen in the Synoptics (Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). A final element in relation to the calendar is the fact that, in his rewriting of the Pentateuch, FJ never says that the sacrifice of the Passover victim must be done in the evening. In fact, in J. W. 6.423 he gives the exact times in the afternoon at which Passover was sacrificed, confirming that it was the lunar calendar in force for the liturgy. Regarding the number of victims necessary to be sacrificed during the week of Unleavened Bread, FJ agrees precisely with Num 28:19. Concerning the offering of fine flour, which should accompany the victims, he speaks in general terms when he touches on the theme of the sacrifices. He does not say what kind of animal should be sacrificed at Passover or what the characteristics of the victim are, i.e., one year old and without blemish. However, in reference to the Passover of Josiah, he says that the animals given by the king for the sacrifice were one year old. Furthermore, in regard to the sacrifices in general, he says that those carried out by the priests had to be without blemish; so some commands, which he does not detail systematically, he adds at times in a casual way, as if they were well-known. It is interesting to note how precisely FJ fixes the day on which the first sheaf must be presented, which according to him is the sixteenth of Nisan. The ambiguity of the biblical text, the diverse interpretations known from other sources, and the precision of FJ in this case, all suggest a lively dispute in progress at that time. This clear connection between the presentation of the first sheaf and the feast of Unleavened Bread makes it clear that, for FJ, the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread are closely linked with the celebration of Pentecost, given that the count of fifty days begins from the sixteenth of Nisan. It would be intriguing to consider whether this connection has further significance. As regards the first sheaf, FJ agrees with the biblical text that a lamb must be offered with it, but he presents a rite of offering closer to that of the Mishnah (m. Menah. 10:4) than to the biblical text. Other regulations stressed by FJ are those relating to purity and purification. It has already been noted how he adds these elements when they are not mentioned by his source(s), or increases their importance when they are mentioned. Linked with this is the theme of participation by foreigners in the feast. Here FJ maintains a
80
CHAPTER FOUR
certain ambiguity:2 on the one hand, he excludes the possibility considered in Exod 12:48 and in Num 9:14 that resident foreigners should celebrate Passover—provided that all the males in the house had been circumcised—and he excludes resident foreigners from those who celebrated the Passover of Hezekiah (Ant. 9.271); on the other hand, he also eliminates the prohibition of the uncircumcised from taking part in the feast. However, in J. W. 6A27 he says explicitly that foreigners may not participate. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the rule given in J. W. was in force at the time, and that, even if FJ seems to accept it, he has difficulty in stating it very clearly in Ant., for fear of an adverse reaction from his readers. As to the manner of eating the Passover victim, while he insists that it is a family feast, he does not explain how they should arrange the meal in the case of a family nucleus that does not reach the quorum of ten people. Many rules do not appear, as mentioned earlier, but it is worth inspecting those that are more significant. In the first place, no distinction is to be found in Ant. between the Passover celebrated in Egypt and that celebrated after the arrival in the promised land. Indeed, where the biblical text mentions laws that will come into force after the occupation of the land (Exod 12:20—27), FJ ignores them or fails to say from what point on they must be kept.3 This concurs with FJ's view of Passover as a unity "escape from Egypt— entry into the promised land." There is no information about the consecration of the firstborn, which in Exod 13:1116 is presented as a command in force when they enter the promised land, and connected with the destruction of the firstborn of Egypt. Another significant omission is that of the second Passover. Not only does FJ omit it, but he also avoids mentioning it when his source(s) refer(s) to it as a possibility or as a fact. Nor does he speak of this possibility when he describes how a group of exiles began the journey back to Jerusalem on the twelfth of the first month and consequently could not celebrate Passover on the correct date. This is one element—the other is the calendar—which most differentiates the halakah of FJ with respect to Passover from the texts of Qumran. 2
On FJ's ambiguity in Ant. cf. L.H. Feldman, "The Concept of Exile," 166-168. It should be noted that FJ is well-aware of the distintion between the norms which came into force before or after the entry into Canaan (cf. Ant. 3.281). 3
CONCLUSIONS
81
It is true that FJ does not systematically repeat the laws on Passover of Deut 16:1~8. However, some of these appear either explicitly or because he excludes some aspect of his source(s) that would go against such laws. The latter case occurs in the texts that describe the Levites sacrificing the Passover victims. FJ does not accept this at all and it is opposed to Deut 16:6, where it seems taken for granted that any Israelite can sacrifice Passover. In any instance, FJ always diminishes the role of the Levites, because he considers the increase of their tasks to be a tragic transgression of the Law of Moses (cf. Ant. 20.216-218). In the same way, he omits all the liberties taken at times by the kings of Israel with respect to the celebration of Passover and which go against the Law of Moses, for example, the week added to the feast by Hezekiah. Finally, he provides no explanation regarding the way to cook the Passover victim. This could point to a lack of dispute surrounding this aspect of Passover. The unity between the Passover of Egypt and the Passover celebrated from generation to generation is confirmed later by the gloss in Ant. 2.313. This states that Passover is commemorated at the time of FJ in the same way as in Egypt, but there always remains the doubt about the meaning of the adverbs exi vvv (still now), which seem to suggest that FJ sacrificed Passover in Rome. This unity is also indicated by the insistence on relating the sacrifice of Passover to the escape from Egypt. The manner in which FJ reinterprets the entry of the Israelites into the promised land at the hand of Joshua also reinforces the connection between the Passover of Egypt and those celebrated later. Furthermore, this passage clarifies that the integral meaning of the feast lies in the escape from Egypt and the entry into the promised land. This means that the period of the desert is in some way included in it, and this is confirmed by the etymology FJ gives for the name Gilgal, in saying that the liberation of the Israelites came to a close after the taking of Jericho. In several other mentions of Passover in the pre- and post-exilic periods, he demonstrates that the feast commemorates not only the departure from Egypt, but also the occupation of the land. On this subject, the fact that FJ includes himself in the number of those who were saved from Egypt acquires particular interest, because this concept of belonging to the people who came out of Egypt is to be found in rabbinic literature in connection with the
82
CHAPTER FOUR
Passover haggadah (m. Pesah. 10:5). These factors show the importance of trying to determine who were the true Israelites in FJ's opinion. There is another gloss parallel to that of Ant. 2.313, which gives the meaning of the celebration of Unleavened Bread {Ant. 2.317). This is based on the sufferings of the Israelites who, on leaving Egypt, had suffered great hardship for thirty days until God sent the manna from heaven. FJ probably avoids the concept of the "bread of haste" for apologetic reasons, since the Israelites were accused of having been wickedly driven out because they were lepers. On the other hand, it should be noted that he does not give any metaphorical or spiritualised meaning to the unleavened bread, such as is found in the NT (cf. Matt 16:6—12; 1 Cor 5:7-9). Considering everything, this analysis has shown that this kind of change in the meaning of a feast is not uncommon, since it is also found in Ezra 6:22 and lEsd 7:15. If the identification of the feast mentioned in Ant. 11.66 with that of Unleavened Bread is correct, FJ himself gives to the unleavened bread on that occasion a meaning of liberation closer to that in Exod 12:17 and 13:3. Concerning the meaning of Passover and Unleavened Bread, it has become clear that FJ, even if he is not always consistent in the way he links these two feasts, is well-aware of the difference between them. On the one hand, he speaks explicitly of the sacrifice called Passover, and gives a definite and comprehensible etymology of the word; on the other hand, he knows the commemoration of Unleavened Bread, which he mentions by name independently of the sacrifice called Passover. To sum up, on most occasions, given the close temporal link and most of all the way their meanings are tied together, he uses one name or the other to indicate the entire celebration. Thus, he embraces the sacrifice called Passover as well as the seven succesive days on which unleavened bread was eaten and the sacrifices laid down by the Law continued. It could be said that when it is necessary to distinguish between these two, for reasons of clarity with respect to the norms of the Law, FJ does so, and when such distinction is superfluous, he opts for one or the other term indiscriminately. It must also be remembered that, for FJ, the pilgrimage feasts, and especially Passover, are the occasions for reinforcing the bonds of brotherhood among the Israelites. This is occasioned through personal contact and through recalling their common ties. Even though
CONCLUSIONS
83
he does not explain concretely how this memorial was brought about, it is significant that FJ presents it as an absolute necessity. In conclusion, it has also been noted that in Ant. 9.265 FJ adds, in relation to Passover, the assassination of the prophets who insisted on the need for the people to celebrate this feast.
This page intentionally left blank
PART TWO THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER IN THE SECOND TEMPLE PERIOD
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER FIVE
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS 1. EVENTS WHICH TOOK PLAGE AT PASSOVER FROM THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD UNTIL THE END OF THE REIGN OF HEROD
It is quite a complicated task to examine the sources that FJ would have used to compile his narrative of this period. According to SJ.D. Cohen, J.W. 1.51-357 and Ant. 13.225-14.491 are particularly close to one another. This suggests that, in Ant., FJ follows J-W., which is not unusual in the ancient world. This closeness does not alter the fact that, in his later work, FJ adds other material and changes some elements. As a result, one comes to the conclusion that, for Ant. 13-14, FJ in all likelihood used J. W., the same source(s) that he used for this latter, as well as new sources.1 SJ.D. Cohen does not engage in the problem of establishing what FJ's sources were for this period. It is normally assumed that Nicolaus of Damascus was frequently used.2 However, J. Sievers points out that from the beginning of the Hasmonaean revolution until 63 B.C., Nicolaus of Damascus is quoted three times: on two of these occasions Ant. and J.W. differ, and the third is found only in Ant.3 For the purposes of this work, it is not necessary to resolve all the questions concerning the sources of FJ.4 However, it will be necessary to concentrate more on the differences to be found between J.W. and Ant., since it is likely that, in the same manner that FJ
1
SJ.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 50-51. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, 229; B.Z. Wacholder, 'Josephus and Nicolaus," 147-172. Whether FJ was more influenced by Nicolaus of Damascus in J.W. or in Ant. cf. T. Ilan, "Josephus and Nicolaus on Women," 223. This provides a brief discussion of different views and their respective bibliographies. 2
:i
4
J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 11.
The extant fragments of Nicolaus of Damascus outside of the work of FJ are very few; cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, nos. 94-97, 246-260; F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 133-136. For a synthetic and clear presentation of the possible sources of FJ for this period cf. J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 10-13.
OO
CHAPTER FIVE
uses his sources in the OT period, he will do so later. In other words, he does not fail to give a personal touch to the material on which he is working. With these considerations in mind, it is possible to undertake a comparison between the parallel passages of Ant. and J. W., which speak of Passover, or of events which took place during the feast. It is necessary to find—if they exist—changes in vision or interest between one work and the other, in the hope of completing the picture, which emerges from the analysis already completed in the first part of this book. It should be noted that from the last mention of a celebration of Passover at the height of the Persian period until almost the beginning of Roman hegemony in Palestine (ca. 63 B.C.), there is no reference to Passover in FJ. However, it should not be forgotten that even in the most important sources, which he probably used and which one knows independently of FJ, there is no reference to Passover or Unleavened Bread.5 To find a passage on Passover one must go to Ant. 14.19—28, which is a parallel of J. W. 1.125—127. As has been observed, Ant. 14 is very close to J. W. 1. Hence it is necessary to find a motivation for almost all the variations encountered.6 In fact, after a first reading, there can be no doubt that Ant. 14.19 28 follows the order of events described in J. W. 1.125 127, but it is equally evident that FJ has added a considerable quantity of material, beginning with the mention of Passover, which in J. W. 1.125—127 is not to be found.7 Leaving aside the preparations made by Antipater with the purpose of persuading Aretas to support Hyrcanus against Aristobulos, the comparison can be started at the actual attack on Aristobulos and the resulting siege of Jerusalem. On this point the two texts, even though describing the same event, differ greatly, because they do not coincide in terminology or in detail; the only phrase that is practically the same does not appear to agree on the number of sol-
3
I.e., in Esth, 1 Mace, and the Let. Aris. SJ.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 52. However, the very fact that the conten of Ant. is more than twice the respective material in J. W. indicates that FJ used other sources as well as those used for J. \V.\ cf. J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters, 13. For a synopsis of the passages of J. W. and Ant. cf. J. Sievers, Synopsis 6
of the Greek Sources, 251-252. 7 R. Laqueur, Der judische Historiker, 142.
hh
diers, either on foot or on horseback.8 As for the rest, while in Ant. Aretas commands the army, in J. W. Antipater only asks him to supply soldiers in order to restore the authority of Hyrcanus; also he does not agree, at the end, in the manner of describing the victory over Aristobulos. After the first offensive against Aristobulos, the two texts differ still more because in Ant. 14.19-28, FJ adds two episodes that are not found in J.W. 1.125 127. The point of insertion chosen by FJ for this new material is the moment when Aristobulos flees to Jerusalem: in fact, at this moment the two texts coincide with only a small variation in terminology. However, before and after this description in Ant. 14.19, 20, FJ repeats that the people supported Hyrcanus, and presents another attack on Aristobulos by Aretas. These repetitions— as R. Laqueur notes—are a sign that the material to follow is an interpolation.9 Quotation 26
Aretas m a d e w a r o n
The king of the Arabs gath-
Aristobulos with fifty thousand horse and infantry and conquered in battle. Then, after the victory, many deserted to
ered all his forces and attacked Aristobulos in the Temple and besieged him and the people went over to Hyrcanus, and besieged him together, since only the priests supported Aristobulos. (Ant. 14.20)
Hyrcanus, and Aristobulos was left alone and fled to Jerusalem. (Ant. 14.19)
8 In any case, it is clear that he exaggerates, since such a number of troops on horseback would be greater than any Seleucid force, which is not very likely; cf. B. Bar Kochva, The Seleucid Army, 7-19. 9 R. Laqueur, Der jiidische Historiker, 142^143.
90
CHAPTER FIVE
The new material found in Ant. 14.21-28 presents two events that deserve divine retribution: the first is the stoning of a certain Onias, and the second is the refusal to give the priests the victims for the Passover sacrifice after paying a high price for them. Before introducing Onias, FJ says that the dignitaries of the people (oi 5OKI(I(OT(XTOI) abandoned the country and fled to Egypt. The strange character of the event—an exodus to Egypt at Passover— suggests that FJ is pointing to something that really happened, since it is highly unlikely that he would have invented it.10 Nevertheless, it should be noted that the language is typical of FJ. One therefore has to ask himself why FJ attributes this action, which appears negative at first glance,—it would be an anti-exodus—to a group of people whom he defines in positive terms with the adjective SOKI^ICOTCCTOI (the most reputable).11 When FJ attributes this adjective to a group of Jews, without specifying further, it seems that he wishes to emphasise that they are people who are faithful to the Law (J.W. 1.35; 4.160; Ant. 12.255): suffice it to say that he includes himself among those who are defined as 5oKi|iicoTaxoi (J.W. 1'.447). On the other occasions that he uses this attribute, it almost always has a positive meaning (J.W. 2.482; Life 55, 228, 293). This comparative superlative adjective appears in the work of FJ fifteen times.12 Twice it is applied to an individual (J.W. 5.45; Ant. 6.191): these instances are not relevant to this work. In two other passages, the group of Jews defined as 8oKi|K»xaxoi is without doubt characterised by a particular authority, but it is unclear if this authority is deserved or not. One of these is Ant. 14.43, which says that Antipater presented the 8oKi(io)xaToi as witnesses against Aristobulos, but the number (more than a thousand) and the fact that Antipater had prepared them for the occasion (rcccpacK£'i)<xG<xvxoq) give the phrase a certain irony. The other is Life 386 in which
10 A. Schalit underlines the parallel between this episode and the flight of the leaders of Jerusalem in A.D. 66; cf. A. Schalit, Konig Herodes, 5 n. 19. The idea of an anti-exodus is confirmed by the use of the verb EK^einco, which has several meanings, but is often used to describe the departure from Egypt by the people (Ant. 2.200; 3.16, 201; 20.230; Ag. Ap. 1.88; 2.157). 12 However, in the LXX it is never used. Philo uses it thirty times, applying it to things and people (cf. Opif. 128; Leg. 1.66-67). The similarity between the mention of the SoKtucoTorccH in J.W. 2.482 and by Herodotus in Hist. 9.93 is noteworthy; cf. A.D. Godley, Herodotus, IV, 266-267.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
91
FJ classifies a group of Galileans as 8oKi|icoxaToi. These did not support the cause of independence. This would merit condemnation, but the discourse is presented as a ruse of FJ in order to calm the multitude and not as his true opinion, which, given his later attitude, was probably the opposite. Lastly, there are two passages in which FJ uses this adjective applying it to the Greeks: the context is in fact critical, but he clearly defines them as the best among the Greeks (Ag. Ap. 1.18; 2.259). For these reasons it seems most likely—given the meaning of 8oKi|ticoTaxoi—that FJ identifies, within this group that leaves for Egypt, those faithful to the Law who cut themselves off from the two pretenders to the throne. After they left, they would go to a place where they could observe the Law:13 for example, the Temple of Onias.14 If this were true, one can imagine that for FJ it would not be strange to celebrate Passover outside Palestine. The difficulty remains, however, that FJ does not state explicitly what they hope to achieve in going to Egypt. The Onias of this episode is known from rabbinic literature,15 precisely for the same reason that FJ identifies him, namely, that he brought about rain after a period of drought.16 However, no references are to be found in rabbinic literature to the event which FJ 13 That FJ entertained the possibility of abandoning their land as a response to the impossibility of enduring the instability of the sociopolitical situation is seen clearly in Ant. 20.256. 14 The Temple was actually constructed, according to J. W. 7.425, to draw the inhabitants of Jerusalem to a place of greater religious tolerance. The fact that he proceeds to narrate a history in which the principal character is called Onias could indicate that FJ substituted mention of a Passover celebration in Egypt for this episode. On FJ's presentation of the foundation of this temple cf. J.E. Taylor, "A Second Temple," 297-310. On the significance and situation of this temple in ancient Judaism cf. E.S. Gruen, "The Origins and Objectives," 47-70 esp. 69; J. Frey, "Temple and Rival Temple," 186-195. 15 Cf. m. Tacan. 3:8; b. Ta'an. 23a; y. Tacan. 66d. J. Derenbourg attributes a parallel to this event to Meg. Ta'an. 34, which would be an ancient source. In reality, it is part of the commentary in Hebrew (a%6Xiov) on Meg. Tacan, which is posttalmudic and of less historical value; cf. J. Derenbourg, Essai sur I'histoire, 112-113; H. Lichtenstein, "Die Fastenrolle," 257-351 esp. 264, 299, 348. G. Stemberger thinks that some parallels shared by FJ and late rabbinic literature could be the result of contacts with Christians from the fourth century onwards, but this requires more detailed study; cf. G. Stemberger, "Narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi," 80. 16 The prayer of Onias for rain seems to have taken place close to the time of Passover, since the Mishnah mentions the pits for cooking the Passover victims. The mention of Simeon ben Shetah in the Mishnah is not compatible with FJ's dating of this episode (cf. m. Ta'an. 3:8). Also, FJ seems to speak of this event as something that happened slightly before Passover (cf. Ant. 14.22).
92
CHAPTER FIVE
describes.17 Thus one must assume that FJ had some other source that has not survived, but it is also possible that the episode and, principally, the prayer of Onias are from the pen of FJ.18 As O. Betz points out, the event recalls in some way the prophet Balaam, and it is curious that here too—as in Ant. 9.265—it speaks of the murder of a prophet with the punishment reserved for the false prophets, according to Deut 13.10—II.19 In FJ's version, Onias, who is considered a just man, goes into hiding when he sees that the revolt continues to grow (8ioc TO if|V Gidaiv opav ...), but when he is found, he is forced to curse Aristobulos and his companions. Onias refuses and instead makes a prayer to God, emphasising that the division is between the people of God and the priests of the same God. It is intriguing that Onias calls God "king of all" (paaiAeu TCQV o^icov) precisely at the moment when the two brothers are fighting over the kingdom. A little later on, Aristobulos and Hyrcanus appear before Pompey to obtain the title of king (Ant. 14.41-45). FJ adds a gloss in which he makes it clear that the entire people was opposed to both of them, because they wished to alter the traditional form of government, which, according to FJ, was under the authority of the priests (Ant. 14.41).20 This modification was effectively going to enslave the people (cf. Ant. 14.77).
17
A. Dupont-Sommer, without being too precise, leaves open the possibility of identifying this Onias with the master of justice at Qumran, cf. A. Dupont-Sommer, Les ecrits esseniens, 370. According to rabbinic literature, he died after waking from a sleep of seventy years. However, this is a late tradition based on a popular legend (cf. b. Tacan. 23a); C. Roth - G. Wigoder, "Honi Ha-Me'aggel," VIII, 965; J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions, I, 176—182; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 69-72. 18 On the speeches in the works of FJ cf. P. Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, 8 9 - 1 1 7 ; H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus, 40-42; obviously, these studies focus on the longest speeches. 19 O. Betz, "Das Problem des Wunders," 27. R. Gray thinks that the presentation of Onias by FJ is linked to the prophet Balaam and also to the prophet Elijah, because of his ability to call down rain; R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 145—147. 20 There is a parallel to this episode preserved by Diodorus Siculus. There it speaks of a ruling class who explains to Pompey that, after the first agreement with Rome, they had received authority over the Jews, and that their chiefs were the high priests and not a king. The precise argument is that both Hyrcanus and Aristobulos are lording it over them, which is contrary to the laws of the fathers (jtdxpioi vouoi), and are making slaves of the citizens. FJ follows this information closely. Both are probably dependent on Theophanes of Mytilene, but the possibility that FJ adds his personal touch should not be excluded; cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, no. 64, 185-187.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
93
In this way, FJ places a dramatic incident at the time of Passover which seems to go against the sovereignty of God over Israel. It also creates a division within the governing class that will bring them to slavery. These two elements seem to be the opposite of what the feast of Passover celebrates (cf. Ant. 4.203-204). The second episode appears to interrupt the description of the previous event: after the death of Onias he says that the murderers were immediately (jiapaxpfijia) punished, but in reality he proceeds to recount another incident that will deserve God's punishment. One has to assume that both evils are punished with the same drought described at the end of this interpolation.2' This lack of continuity seems to suggest that the second incident comes from some other source;22 another sign of the heterogeneous origin of both is the fact that FJ mentions again the siege by Aristobulos and the feast of Passover, even though he indicates with the phrase o\)ve(3ri xr|v eopxriv E7noTfjvai. . . (happened as the feast drew close . . .) a moment closer to the date of the celebration. The event described refers to the malice of the assailants: faced with the priests' request to give them victims for the Passover sacrifice, after exacting an absurd price, they refuse to yield them the animals. According to the Babylonian Talmud, however, an exorbitant amount is not demanded; the offering is not for the Passover sacrifice but for the daily sacrifice; and the wickedness is that a pig is given in place of a sacrificial animal. Furthermore, there are other differences of context and intention in the text. Considering the differences between Ant. 14.25 28 and b. Sotah 49b or its parallels,23 it is not possible to establish literary dependence. However, the fact that both refer to the same event suggests a common source, if not necessarily a written one.24 The aims of the two texts certainly differ, and a direct comparison cannot be made.
21
R. Marcus, Ant. 14.25 n. a. This is also known in rabbinic literature (cf. b. Sotah 49b; b. Menah 64b; b. B.Qam. 82b), but with substantial differences. u There are also minor differences between the talmudic texts: in particular b. B.Qam. 82b seems much less exact than the other two texts (b. Sotah 49b; b. Menah. 64b), especially since it alters the positions by placing Hyrcanus inside the besieged city and Aristobulos outside it. 24 It is also possible that the rabbis came to know this tradition later through Christians, as G. Stemberger suggests, but until now there has been no exhaustive research on this; cf. G. Stemberger, "Narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi," 80. 22
94
CHAPTER FIVE
Nevertheless, it is possible to discover some data which is useful for comprehending FJ's text. In the first place, the Talmud also appears to place the event at the time of Passover.23 Secondly, the Talmud preserves the memory of another punishment linked with this one, namely, an earthquake,26 so that there would be two distinct punishments for one single event.27 Thirdly, the fact that the Talmud makes no mention of the Passover sacrifices,28 accentuates even more strongly the emphasis by FJ when he says that the victims were for this feast.29 Previous examination of the text of Ant. 14.25 28 showed that, in this case, the celebration of Passover is mentioned without being linked to the feast of Unleavened Bread. However, the kind of misfortune that subsequently occurs—the harvest destruction—is probably an implicit mention not only of the first sheaf but also of the unleavened bread. To be precise, the first event shows the rejection of the one who prays that God may be able to reign over the people, and that thus may end the struggles which will lead inexorably to the loss of independence. The second points out the peak of disdain for God who, having freed the people from Egypt, deserves fitting worship at the 25 In fact, the three texts go on to speak about the presentation of the first ear which took place at Passover time. 26 If this earthquake has to be linked with the one mentioned by Dio (Hist. 37.11), which took place in 64 B.C., one can then conclude that FJ joined two distinct episodes, one in the spring of 65 B.C. and the other in the spring of 64 B.C., and that these are punished by two separate disasters. However, there is not sufficient evidence to support the probability of this hypothesis (cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.28 n. b.). E. Cary, Dio's Roman History, III, 119. 2/ This is because the difficulty of presenting the first ear, to which the Talmud refers, presupposes the disaster described by FJ. Accordingly, in FJ there would be two crimes punished by one disaster, while in the Talmud there are two punishments for only one crime. 28 In all the passages of the Talmud (cf. b. Sotah 49b; b. Menah 64b; b. B.Qam. 82b), the priests need the victims for the daily sacrifice. 29 As for the kind of sacrifice the priests are pressed to carry out, it is not clear whether this is the sacrifice of the fourteenth of Nisan in the evening—which would be precisely the so-called Passover sacrifice—or the sacrifices that were made throughout the week of Unleavened Bread. Nevertheless, it is very probable that FJ is thinking of both and identifies them, just as he does in Ant. 11.110, where he also says that, on that occasion, they did not worry about the expense. In fact, on this occasion, the priests who were with Aristobulos were not concerned about the cost, since they paid one thousand drachmas per head, while in Ant. 11.297 it says that Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes, imposed a tax of fifty drachmas for each lamb sacrificed in the daily offering. This would make the offering prohibitive, as R. Marcus notes in appendix B (cf. R. Marcus, Josephus, VI, 504).
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
95
feast of Passover (cf. Ant. 11.110): instead of adoration, a robbery of extraordinary magnitude is effected. This addition of two events that took place at Passover is certainly noteworthy for the purposes of this work.30 Undoubtedly FJ takes these episodes from two distinct sources because, as has been demonstrated, the two do not agree perfectly. Nevertheless, the fact that these two do not originate from the hand of FJ does relegate them to only secondary importance. As previously noted, the passages of the Talmud may well have made use of a source (or sources) common to that (or those) used by FJ. The differences in the version of Ant. 14.25 28 indicate some of the changes that FJ would have made to his source(s). Principally, this suggests that the explicit placing of the events within the period of Passover is probably his work. Quite apart from whether this is true or not, the most significant fact seems to be that FJ introduced this material at this particular point in his narrative, namely, just before the first intervention by the Romans in Palestine (cf. J.W. 1.19). Unfortunately, it is impossible to be absolutely certain whether the first intervention of Scarus in Palestine took place in the spring of A.D. 65 because the only available sources for this event are J.W. 1.127-130 and Ant. 14.29-30.31 If one were to identify the event mentioned in 4Q324a with this incident,32 without knowing other deeds of Scarus which could be of interest to the author of this calendar,33 one would have another source for this event which places it not in the spring, but in the autumn.
30 If J. W. 1.126-127 were based on a text of Nicolaus of Damascus, the fact that he does not mention Passover would suggest that this author is not interested in Jewish feasts. This is not at all surprising, given that he is a Syrian and culturally Hellenistic. It is also possible, though less likely, that these facts were in the source of J. IV., but FJ did not consider them useful until the time of writing Ant. 31 The other known sources of this period do not mention the intervention of Scarus in Jerusalem, but this is comprehensible, since it is an episode of only minor importance in the history of Rome. 32 This text mentions clearly the name of Emilius—certainly referring to Emilius Scarus—in relation to some dates in the sixth and seventh month of the sixth year of the cycle of priestly service, during which Scarus had killed someone, cf. F. Garcia Martinez, "Calendarios en Qumran (II)," 540-546. In his work, FJ does not mention any assassination by Scarus, but in Ant. 14.37, he is accused with Gabinius of having extorted money, and in J.W. 1.132, he is described as corrupt. 33 M.O. Wise admits the possibility that it refers to this event, but believes that is more likely a referecne to some event that occurred during the conquest of
96
CHAPTER FIVE
Regardless of whether Scarus entered Palestine in spring or in autumn, the text of Ant. 14.21-29 suggests that the direct intervention of the Romans in Jewish politics is a consequence of the internal divisions of the people, or more precisely of their rulers, as FJ states explicitly in Ant. 14.77. These divisions are most clearly manifested during the celebration of Passover, which is transformed into the opposite of what it should be.34 Also, since this is the beginning of the end of freedom, it is significant that it happens during the feast that commemorates the liberation from Egypt and the occupation of Palestine. 1.1. Summary
FJ adds two sections in the narrative of Ant. 14.21 28, which he had not included in J. W. 1.125-127. These are two events which precede and, in a certain way, provoke the intervention of the Romans in Palestine, marking the beginning of the end of freedom. The first event shows the division of the people among themselves, specifically among their rulers (cf. Ant. 14.77), who try to be kings and oppose the traditional system of government. This change will cause the people to lose their independence. These ideas are suggested by FJ in the prayer of Onias {Ant. 14.24) and completed in a gloss on the moment when Aristobulos and Hyrcanus come before Pompey (Ant. 14.41). The second event shows how the people distance themselves from God, in that the aggressors are not only unwilling to sacrifice in his honour, but also take advantage of the moment to effect a robbery of monumental proportions, preventing the priests from sacrificing. The fact that these episodes occur at Passover time could be a way of stressing the wickedness which this division implies. Finally, in a very concise way he says that a group from among the most respectable people (8OKIJJ.(OTCXTOI) leave for Egypt because of this situation. Given the brevity of the phrase, it is not possible to Jerusalem by Pompey in A.D. 63. This being the case, the reasons given to justify the mention of Scarus rather than Pompey are not convincing, since it was Pompey who was the great protagonist in the fall of Jerusalem. M.O. Wise, Thunder in Gemini, 213-218. 34 As has been pointed out in the preceding texts, FJ maintains and emphasises the elements that indicate the unity of the people in the celebration of Passover (cf. Ant. 2.312 and Ant. 3.248 family unity; Ant. 9.268; 10.70 and 11.109 the whole people is purified together).
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
97
draw any certain conclusion from it. However, it could indicate that, for FJ, the most important concern is to fulfil the law, even if this apparently leads to an anti-exodus. Bearing in mind his personal experience of exile, this hypothesis appears to gain credibility. 2. PASSOVER AND THE EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED AFTER THE DEATH OF HEROD
All explicit mention of Passover again disappears until the moment immediately after the death of Herod, which will unleash another struggle for succession to the throne, very similar to that of Hyrcanus and Aristobulos. This time the leading characters are Archelaus and Antipas. They are sons of Herod the Great, who had left precise instructions about the succession. If in the case of Hyrcanus and Aristobulos, the Roman intervention was one of the first outside interferences in the government of Judea, this time it was clear that the ultimate decision on Herod's successor fell to the Emperor Augustus. The time of waiting for this decision created conditions favourable to a revolt, which was to break out at Passover in the year 4 B.C. The events which followed in this period appear both inJ.lY. 2.1—13 and in Ant. 17.200-218. In the latter, the text of Ant. follows that of J. W. even closer than previously. However, there is no lack of differences that will define the emphasis which FJ wishes to cast on this event in Ant.33 The following comparison starts from the moment when Archelaus, eager to leave for Rome to have his authority ratified, finds himself forced to confront the rebellious attitude of those who are mourning for the "doctors" of the Law, who have been put to death by Herod (J.W. 2.8; Ant. 17.208-209). These two texts say basically the same thing, and even share some similarities of terminology.
3> A text of Nicolaus of Damascus has survived, which tells of the last events in the life of Herod and starts at the dispute over the succession to the throne. This text is certainly briefer than the work of Nicolaus of Damascus generally quoted by FJ, namely, his Historiae (cf. Ant. 1.94), since it is an autobiography (De Vita Sua). In any case, he gives a vision of the events that is quite distinct from the one presented by J. W. and Ant. Hence it cannot be presumed that FJ always slavishly uses Nicolaus of Damascus; cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, no. 97, 250-260; F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 136.
98
CHAPTER FIVE
Quotation 27
On the one hand, Archelaus was exasperated by this; but, on the other hand, he delayed the punishment because of the urgency to depart, fearing that in opposing the multitude, he might be detained by a revolt. So, by persuasion more than by force, he tried to hold off the rebels and sent to call the general in secret, in order to make them stop. (J.W. 2.8)
Archelaus accepted these [petitions], but with displeasure, striving to bridle their anger, because of his haste to journey to Rome as soon as possible to sound out the view of Caesar.
Then he sent the general to use p e r s u a s i o n and to see to making them abandon the madness of their demands . . . (Ant. 17.208-209)
Nevertheless, in Ant. 17.209, there is an insertion that is clearly circumscribed by the repetition of the phrase "he sent the general..." in Ant. 17.209 and 210 (ne[i\\faq 6e xov aTporrrryov [. . .] xov axpaxriyov eK7teu7i£i). Regarding this insertion, it is worth stressing that Archelaus mentions harmony (ojiovoeiv), saying that this is not a favourable time for revolts. Archelaus refers to the time of the transfer of political power, but one cannot exclude an allusion to the time of the feast, which always appeals to the feeling of national unity (cf. Ant. 4.204). Further on, the two texts again become very similar in describing the first meeting between the envoy of Archelaus and the rebels. However, when he describes the events immediately following this first meeting in Ant. 17.210-211, FJ takes the opportunity to add some views about the rebels which, even if they are somewhat ambiguous, are not at all favourable.36
36
FJ uses the word aocpioxrn; (sophist) to describe the two people who urged for the destruction of the image placed in the Temple by Herod and were punished by him with death (J.W. 1.648-656; 2.6-13; Ant. 17.149-167, 206-218). H.StJ.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
99
The two texts again converge at the moment of stating the date of these events, namely, the feast of Unleavened Bread called Passover {J. W. 2.10; Ant. 17.213). Between these two texts, many coincidences of terminology are to be found, but that of Ant. 17.213, is, by and large, longer and more detailed. Quotation 28
And the feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, which is called Passover by the Jews, a great multitude of sacrifices was expected,
Then there arrived at that time, the feast at which it is customary for the Jews to offer
unleavened bread. This feast, then, is called Passover, being a memorial of their departure from Egypt. And they sacrifice
Thackeray clearly states that in this case oocpiaxfiq should be translated as "doctor," since it is used by FJ as an equivalent to "Rabbi" (H.StJ. Thackeray, J. IV. 1.648 n. b.): A. Wikgren suggests the Hebrew term hakanim [sic] and recalls the translation of H.StJ. Thackeray in J.W. (A. Wikgren, Ant. 17.152 n. f). In the translation led by T. Reinach, the word "sophist" is used in Ant. 17.149-167, 206-218, whereas in J.W. 1.648-656; 2.6-13, it is rendered as "doctor" (T. Reinach, Ant. 17.152, 155; J. If. 1.648, 650, 655, 656; 2.10). Actually, it seems better to translate it always as "sophist": it has to be remembered that the term co(piaTr|<; and related terms have, in FJ, a negative connotation, which is clear in all the other passages that do not refer to these two characters {J.W. 1.1; 2.118, 433, 445; Ag. Ap. 2.236). Moreover, FJ knows the term oocpoc;, which has an undeniably positive sense on every occasion it is used {J.W. 3.376; Ant. 10.237; Ag. Ap. 2.168, among many others): if he were so favourable towards these two personalities he could have used it. Hence it seems that FJ is not so convinced of the wisdom of these two characters, in spite of the eulogies which can be taken as somewhat ironic: it should not be forgotten that they are on the same line of thinking as the zealots who brought Jerusalem to destruction.
100
CHAPTER FIVE
with enthusiasm and a multitude of victims, as in no other (feast) laid down for them to sacrifice. on the one hand, an endless crowd comes down from the regions for their worship . . . (J.W. 2.10)
And a countless multitude goes down from the regions, even from abroad, for the worship of God. (Ant. 17.213)
As already explained, in the work of Nicolaus of Damascus which speaks of this revolt, there is no reference to Passover, even if this is a work distinct from that which FJ uses.37 In any case, if FJ's source(s) were to mention Passover by name, the text would have to be closer to that of J.W. 2.10, probably with even less details,38 since, in fact, the details that he gives about the feast are found in other parts of the work of FJ.39 There does not appear to be sufficient reason for attributing all this material to FJ's source(s): the fact that he uses the expression "is called Passover by the Jews," instead of saying "is called Passover by us," as on other occasions (Ant. 14.21; 18.29) or simply—without specifying further—"is called Passover" (J.W. 6.423; Ant. 9.271; 14.25), given that FJ uses the same expression in other texts that describe events of his own time (cf. J. W. 4.402).40
3/ This is a fragment of his work De Vita Sua, preserved by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Nicolaus presents the uprising as an attack on the Greeks by the Jews, cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, no. 97 lines 53-64, 252; F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 136 (8-9) lines 16-28. 38 There can be no doubt that these events occurred at a moment close to Passover, since, in Ant. 17.167, an eclipse is mentioned which must have been on the thirteenth of March in 4 B.C.; cf. A. Wikgren, Ant. 17.167 n. b. 39 These details include commemoration of the departure from Egypt (J. W. 4.402; Ant. 1.81; Ant. 3.248); sacrifice of a great number of victims (Ant. 10.72); a multitude that heads to Jerusalem for the feast (J.W. 2.224; Ant. 20.106). Cf. Excursus II. 40 It is more probable that- these are simply variations of style, as when he speaks of the month of Nisan, sometimes saying "it is called by us Nisan" (Ant. 3.248; 11.109) and on other occasions, "it is called by the Hebrews Nisan" (Ant. 2.311; 3.201). It is difficult to doubt that FJ identifies himself with the Jews, since he personifies all the possible meanings of the word 'Iau8aio<;, i.e. Jewish, as follows: a) nation; b) birth in Judea; c) religion; cf. SJ.D. Cohen, '"IOYAAIOI TO TENOS,"
26-27.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
101
The other expansions of Ant. 17.213 in relation to J. W. 2.10 are also significant. Two of these, namely, that Passover is a commemoration of the departure from Egypt, and that they also came to the feast from abroad, are found in J. W. 4.402 and J. W. 6A27 respectively. What is surely new in Ant. 17.213 is the indication that they sacrificed enthusiastically (7tpo0\)|ico<;), and that at Passover they sacrificed more animals than at any other celebration (ox; OTJK ev aXkr\). This last information is vital because it is a way of emphasising the preeminence of the feast for FJ. Aside from these small deviations, the two texts are practically identical in their content, even though their terminology coincides on few occasions. It only remains to point out that, according to FJ, the rebels profaned the feast by using the same hands to sacrifice with which they had killed the soldiers (J.W. 2.12; Ant. 17.216), underlining once again the wickedness of the rebels.41 2 . 1 . Summary
A mention of Passover appears once again during a period of political instability. Historically, it is very probable that these events actually took place around the time of Passover. However, that does not make it any less significant because FJ pauses not only to mention this feast, but also to give even more extensive details about it. Therefore, one can presume a development of the content of his source(s), and agree that there is an expansion in Ant. with respect to J-W. These additions acquire even greater relevance on observing that, in the rest of the immediate context, the two works are extremely close to one another. FJ furnishes many indications about Passover in this text. The most important of this is that, for the first time, he compares Passover with the other feasts and accords it prominence, because it requires more sacrifices than any other feast [Ant. 17.213). 3. PASSOVER AND THE SAMARITANS
After the tragic end to the reign of Archelaus {J.W. 2.111; Ant. 17.344), FJ describes the first events which marked the beginning of the Roman province of Judea under the direct rule of Coponius, who 41
It has to be kept in mind that, for FJ, the theme of ritual purity was essential; cf. Excursus I.
102
CHAPTER FIVE
in his turn was subordinate to Quirinius, governor of Syria [J.W. 2.117-118; Ant. 18.1-2). The census ordered by Quirinius would unleash the opposition [anooxaoiq) headed by Judas, known as the Galilean [Ant. 18.1-4). FJ credits him with the foundation of the fourth Jewish faction, which is distinguished from the other three principally by being an innovation [J.W. 2.118; Ant. 18.7-9).42 For this reason, FJ proceeds to give, both in J.W. and in Ant., a description of the three factions considered traditional. However, while in J. W. he continues narrating the most important occurrences from A.D. 6 to A.D. 66, in Ant. he feels it is right to add the account of an event at Passover during the rule of Coponius, the protagonists of which are a group of Samaritans.43 FJ begins this passage [Ant. 18.29-31) by repeating that Coponius had been sent together with Quirinius [Ant. 18.2, 29),44 and ends it by mentioning the end of his mission [Ant. 18.31). From this, it may be concluded that the episode constituted a narrative unit in itself, which FJ thinks it opportune to include. Hence one has to pay more attention to the role played by the event in its context rather than to the details given since these are few and far between. FJ adds presumbly this mention of the Samaritans to complete the picture
42 Certainly, as L.H. Feldman confirms, in Ant. 18.23 FJ corrects the exaggeration of J. W. 2.118, where he suggests that this faction has nothing in common with the others. However, J.W. 2.118 can be read in the light of Ant. 18.11, which says that traditionally Judaism was divided into three groups. Hence these three are completely different from the fourth faction on account of their age. P. Bilde shows how—for FJ—one of the most important remote causes leading to the Jewish war is the introduction of innovations into the laws of the fathers; P. Bilde, "The Causes of the Jewish War," 196. B. Schroder says it is unfortunate that P. Bilde limited himself to studying only the biblical part of FJ's work, giving one to understand that in the rest of the work he had found more proofs to defend the importance placed by FJ on the violation of the laws of the fathers. However, B. Schroder's study does not aim to shed light on this question. He insists more on FJ's use of the laws of the fathers as a concept linking the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds; cf. B. Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze,' 67 n. 109. 43 J.W. 2.117-118, 167-279 covers events from A.D. 6 to 66. In contrast, Ant. 18-20 is much more extensive because FJ, in order to arrive at twenty books, adds material on the Parthians, Romans, and Jews in Rome, Alexandria, Adiabene, and Babylon. There are very few cases in which Ant. paraphrases J. W. in his description of this period. Hence, it is very likely that FJ again used his source for J.W, along with other complementary sources, but it should not be forgotten that he could have included his own personal memories and experiences; cf. SJ.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 5 8 — 6 6 . 44 In Ant. 18.2 he uses the verb at»YKaxa7ieu7ico and in Ant. 18.29 cruveioteuTico, which have practically the same meaning, with only a slight difference.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
103
of the religious factions present in Palestine at that time:45 he reaffirms what was already vaguely known in the pagan world,46 i.e., that the Samaritans were a group distinct from, but not totally foreign to, Judaism. It is not possible within the scope of this work to fully describe how FJ presents the Samaritans, but it is fair to state, with RJ. Coggins, that FJ, even without wanting to, has provided a vision fairly close to reality, namely, that the Samaritans remained within the broad spectrum of ancient Judaism, and had not completely broken away.47 R. Egger, with greater emphasis, advances again a proposal that is already well-known, namely, that FJ would not always identify the Samaritans with the members of the religious community, but at times would use this term simply to refer to the inhabitants of Samaria who did not belong to the said community.48 It is certainly not possible to do a serious appraisal of R. Egger's proposal here, still less to discuss each of the passages in which FJ speaks of the Samaritans. This particular passage describes how a group of Samaritans, who have secretly entered Jerusalem during the night of Passover, scatter human bones in the porticoes and probably on the esplanade of the Temple (Ant. 18.29-30).49 R. Egger is determined to identify 43 A little further on, the famous reference to Jesus and the Christians is found (Ant. 18.63-64), and in the same book, the one to John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116-119). Perhaps such references have the same purpose as this passage. Recendy K.A. Olson has endeavoured to show that the Testimonium Flavianum is a creation of Eusebius of Caesarea, but his arguments are not convincing. The discussion deserves more detailed treatment than can be supply here. Nevertheless, it seems more probable that at least the essential elements of the passage are the work of FJ; cf. L.H. Feldman, Ann. 18.63 n. b.; J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, I, 56-88; Id., "Jesus in Josephus," 76-103; K.A. Olson, "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," 305-322. 46 Certainly the view from outside was even less clear, but Tacitus broadly reflects what seems to have been the real situation of relations between Jews and Samaritans [Ann. 12.54); cf. J. Jackson, Tacitus, III, 392-395. 4/ RJ. Coggins, "The Samaritans in Josephus," 271-272. L.H. Feldman, without denying the affirmation of RJ. Coggins, also points out a certain ambiguity here on the part of FJ; cf. L.H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic, 126-136. For a summary of FJ's presentation of the Samaritans cf. A. Kasher, "Josephus on JewishSamaritan Relations," 217-236. 48 R. Egger uses three different words to distinguish these groups: the religious group would be "Samaritans"; the inhabitants of Samaria, "Samarians"; and when it is not possible to distinguish between one group or the other, he uses the indeterminate "Samar." For a synthetic presentation of his position cf. R. Egger, 'Josephus Flavius and the Samaritans," 109-114. w Entry into the Temple was possible that night because the priests opened the doors (Ant. 18.29). Regarding the possibility of a messianic interpretation of this action cf. R. Le Deaut, La nuit pascale, 288-289.
104
CHAPTER FIVE
these Samaritans with people who do not belong to the religious community ("Samarians"), but prefers in this text to use the indeterminate term "Samar."30 It is evidently necessary to distinguish between the literary and historical levels in order to respond to this difficulty. From a literary point of view it appears more probable that FJ identifies these "Samaritan men" (ocv8p£<; Ea|iapeixai) with the religious group based on Mount Gerizim because he was speaking in the immediate literary context of the religious groups present in Palestine, even if this somewhat obscures the purpose of this addition. On the other hand, from the historical point of view, in reality, there remain more questions than answers since the elements which the text contributes are few, and the deductions that can be made always depend on information drawn from a period after the event.51 Concretely, what the Samaritans believed concerning the resurrection is unknown,52 likewise how they determined the date of Passover,33 and finally whether this always coincided with the celebration in Jerusalem.54
30 He says explicitly: "Mit Neigung zur Lesart 'Samarier' lassen wir in Ant. 18,30 das unbestimmte Wort 'Samar.' stehen," R. Egger, Josephus Flavins und die Samaritaner, 245-246. Dl J.S. McLaren follows his own method, which is concerned with discovering who was really in control in Palestine at that moment. He draws the following historical conclusions from this section: a) the priests seem to have had an active role in relation to the internal problems of the local community; b) they had real power to prevent certain groups from entering the Temple; c) their actions seem to have been sufficient to maintain order and peace; d) at times the Romans stayed out of local conflicts; and e) not all the problems in Judea arose from conflicts between Romans and Jews. These conclusions, though interesting, contribute nothing substantial to this study, since they do not refer to the fact that this episode took place during Passover; cf. J.S. McLaren, Power and Politics, 28-34, 80-81. °2 It is not certain whether religious Samaritans could carry human bones and if there was already a connection between Passover and belief in the resurrection. 53 What is presendy known regarding the Samaritan calendar comes from mediaeval manuscripts. S. Powels has dedicated serious research to this material. Even if she does not refer specifically to what are possibly the most ancient elements, as M. Baillet notes in his recension, some aspects are similar to the calendar of Qumran. S. Powels points out that today the Samaritan and Jewish calendars almost never coincide, because the system for fixing the first day of the month and that of intercalation are not the same. It is very likely that the same was true in ancient times, particularly since it is assumed that the first day of the lunar month was fixed by observation of the new moon; cf. S. Powels, Der Kalender der Samaritaner, Id., "The Samaritan Calendar," 691-742 esp. 717, 723, 727; M. Baillet, "Le calendrier samaritain," 481-499 esp. 484-485. 54 For this reason the Samaritans could not belong to the religious community because they had to be on Gerizim for the celebration of Passover.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
105
Such a situation with the available evidence brings about the risk of falling into circular arguments. Thus, it seems that this action by the Samaritans presupposes a kindred religious sensibility, and therefore, whoever was responsible truly believed that they were causing harm, which justified the risk involved.15 In any case, the literary aspect of the episode seems more relevant than the historical one. Apart from the information lacking in the text regarding the development of events (Ant. 18.29-30), at the conclusion of the passage— which should explain the reason for inserting this event in the work—the text becomes even more complex (Ant. 18.30). For this reason it has been suggested that there is a textual lacuna.06 The difficulty begins with the verbal form fjp^ocvxo, taking the text as it is: Tip^ocvxo |if|rcpoxepoverci XOIOUXOK; vojji^ovxet; xa xe ak\a 8m q>D?uxKfi<; |ie{^ovo<; f|yov TO iepov, this should be translated as follows: "they began (then), not before, to make rules because of people like these and everything else (and) they guarded the Temple with greater vigilance." The phrase in itself makes sense, even if it presupposes the use of the verb ap%co with a participle (vo|ii^ovx£<;), which is not usual in FJ. The expression xa XE aXka (and the others) appears to presume another prohibition that does not appear in the text. For this reason, some emendations of the text have been proposed, but there is no textual basis to sustain the likelihood of any of these.5' Quite apart from whether a textual problem exists or not, it is possible that this text aims to justify the rules that prevailed in the Temple of Jerusalem regarding the admission of people to take part in worship. The restrictions are known from other sources (cf. Acts 21:26-30; Eph 2:14),18 and would probably not be welcomed by non-Jews.59 •" One cannot exclude another kind of benefit that could be obtained through this event, namely, the forcing of the pilgrims to go to Gerizim to make their Passover sacrifices. However, the evidence to uphold the probability of this hypothesis does not exist. E.M. Smallwood also suggests that this would be an attempt to establish once again the importance of Gerizim, E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 158. 56
Cf. L.H. Feldman, Ant. 18.30 n. 3. The proposal of Carcopinus presented by L.H. Feldman seems too hypothetical, even if a link between this event and the inscription found in Palestine prohibiting the movement of human bones is possible. L.H. Feldman, Ant. 18.30 n. d. )fi Two of the inscriptions have been found, which prohibit entry by non-Jews to the internal precinct of the Temple and are mentioned by FJ in J.W. 5.193-194 and Ant. 15.417, cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 15.417 n. d. For a good presentation with a bibliography on this inscription; cf. L. Boffo, Iscrizioni greche e latine, 283-290. 39 It is possible that, in the Babylonian Talmud, the memory of a restriction of 17
106
CHAPTER FIVE
In any case it should not be forgotten that, as stated earlier, it is not self-evident that the Samaritans and other foreign peoples are treated equivalently. This weakens the connection of this section with the inscriptions placed on the balustrade of the Temple, which indicated that non-Jews were barred from entry. On the other hand, the negative presentation of the Samaritans by FJ in practice minimises the difference:60 i.e., for FJ they could easily fall under this exclusion.61 As for the meaning of the Samaritans' action, it appears more likely that it was an attempt to defile the Temple and perhaps the priests, who were possibly engaged during the night in some activities connected with the liturgy (cf. J.W. 6.299).62 It cannot be excluded, but it seems less probable, that the action alludes to the resurrection of the dead and to the prophecy of Ezek 37.63 Nevertheless, given FJ's insistence on purity in relation to Passover,64 it is even more probable that this was an attempt at profanation.65 Finally, it should be noted that FJ adds again in Ant. a mention of Passover, during a time of change in the type of political regime in Judea, which will be a further step towards the complete disappearance of Jewish rule in Palestine.
permission for entry to the Temple has been preserved which is similar to that described here by FJ, since he says that eighty years before the destruction of the Temple the peoples who lived on the borders of Palestine were declared ritually impure (cf. b. cAbod. %ar. 8b). 60 Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 9.291 n. a; 11.341; 12.257. 61 It is interesting that in Luke 17:16-18 a Samaritan is called "foreigner" [bXkoyevri*;), a term that in J.W. 2 All seems to refer clearly to all who are not Jews. 62 A similar profanation is to be found in Ant. 10.66, where King Josiah burns the bones of the false prophets on the altar built in Samaria by Jeroboam. Regarding the transmission of impurity by bones cf. 4QMMT" 72~74, E. Qimron - J . Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V, 170-171. 63 L.H. Feldman, Ant. 18.30 n. d. 64 Cf. Excursus I. A similar episode is found in b. ^ebah 113a, where some want to declare not only the Temple impure, but also the entire city. The rabbis will say that it is not possible, but this can be linked with the description of this attempt by the Samaritans in the ancient lists of the contents of Ant. That list of contents states that the whole people remained impure for seven days, even though the bones were scattered only in the Temple (cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus, IX, 392-393). On the possibility that these tables of contents come directly from FJ, i.e., that they were a scheme which he had written in order to arrange the material he intended to develop, cf. E. Nodet, Bapteme et Resurrection, 127-132. 63 Concerning the origin of the Temple on Mount Gerizim, and to what extent it can be considered a rival to the Temple in Jerusalem; cf. J. Frey, "Temple and Rival Temple," 180-186.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
107
3.1. Summary
This brief section, which describes an act of sabotage perpetrated by the Samaritans in the Temple of Jerusalem {Ant. 18.29-30), includes a great number of puzzles which, with the evidence available at present, cannot be solved. In effect, by placing this passage after presenting the religious groups existent in Palestine (Ant. 18.11-25), FJ could have intended to complete the portrayal of the situation by speaking of the Samaritans, who appear as a group related with Judaism, but also in strong opposition to it. The original reason for describing this event is presented in a confused manner and seems to aim at justifying the norms in force in the Temple that relate to the admission of foreigners (Ant. 18.30). The significance of the act performed by the Samaritans may be manifold, but the most probable meaning is that this was an attempt at profanation. Thus it seems likely that FJ incorporates this episode both to complete the religious portrait of Palestine, and in order to underline, with a mention of Passover, another stage in the inexorable disappearance of Jewish government in Palestine, since Coponius is the first procurator of Judea. 4. PASSOVER AND THE VISITS OF VITELLIUS TO JERUSALEM
FJ tells in Ant. 18.90-95 and in 18.120-124 (in J.W. they are not mentioned) of two visits by Vitellius to Jerusalem. As on other occasions in FJ's narrative, the facts do not coincide with the chronological date known from other sources. E.M. Smallwood presents the problem well, making it clear that, if Vitellius had sent Pontius Pilate to Rome somewhat prior to Passover of A.D. 36—as he apparently says in Ant. 18.89—it is difficult to understand why he did not succeed in reaching Rome before the death of Tiberius in March of A.D. 37, especially considering that in Ant. 18.89 he says that Pilate hastened to reach Rome, as one would expect given his situation. As a solution, E.M. Smallwood suggests that the first visit of Vitellius had taken place at the end of A.D. 36 or the beginning of 37, and that it did not coincide with any Jewish feast. On the contrary, the second visit, which coincide with a feast not specified by FJ, took place during Passover of A.D. 37, since it was during this celebration that news of Tiberius' death arrived.
108
CHAPTER FIVE
She supports her argument on the basis of two pieces of evidence. Firstly, according to Ant. 15.405, before authorising the custody of the high priest's vestments by the Jews, Vitellius writes to Tiberius about the matter. For this reason, it is unthinkable that the Jews already enjoyed this benefit at Passover of A.D. 36. In fact, in 15.405 no feast is mentioned. Secondly, in Ant. 19.314 the high priest Jonathan, who had been installed by Vitellius on his first visit, says that he wore the garments of the high priest only once (anaty. This would not follow if he had officiated from Passover of A.D. 36 until Passover of 37. E.M. Smallwood also points out that other events of the period would fit in well with this chronology.66 Aside from the kind of answer given to this evident chronological problem, it can be maintained that FJ explicitly placed a first visit by Vitellius during a celebration of Passover. As has been noted, this would not reflect historical reality. On the other hand, the feast mentioned in Ant. 18.122, which is almost certainly Passover of A.D. 37,67 he carefully avoids identifying with any particular celebration. The fact that FJ places the first visit by Vitellius during a Passover is in line with the observations previously made with respect to Ant. 14.21-28; 17.200 218; 18.29 31. That is to say, in some way the motif of Passover is linked with certain important moments that will lead to the outbreak of the Jewish war. This case deals with the end of the governorship of Pilate, who is presented as the first Roman procurator to abuse his power (Ant. 18.55-62, 85-89).68 On the other hand, it is significant that the feast, at which Vitellius is asked not to enter Jerusalem with foreign troops, is not identified by FJ. This episode calls to mind the request made to Herod by 66 E.M. Smallwood, "The Date of the Dismissal," 12-21. Another position is that presented by D.R. Schwartz. Reconsidering an old hypothesis of W. Otto, he suggests that in reality Vitellius visited Jerusalem only once, and that the double account of this reflects two distinct sources, cf. D.R. Schwartz, "Pontius Pilate's Suspension," 383-398; W. Otto, "Herodes," 185-187. K.S. Krieger also adopts D.R. Schwartz's view, criticising E.M. Smallwood's position, without offering convincing proofs. In fact, he seems to complicate the historical picture still more: suffice it to mention his last point, namely, that Vitellius' control over Jerusalem was weakened by the agreement with the Parthians. It seems more probable that Vitellius wished to be sure of tranquillity in Judea in order to undertake the negotiations with the Parthians. Cf. K.S. Krieger, "Die Problematik chronologischer Rekonstruktionen," 27-32. 6/ It could also be Pentecost, but it is less likely, because one knows the exact date of Tiberius' death, as well as the time needed for such important news to arrive from Rome, which could not be so long. 68
Cf. H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History, 77.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
109
Hyrcanus not to bring foreigners into the area around Jerusalem (J.W. 1.229; Ant. 14.285) during an unspecified feast. Since the reason furnished by Hyrcanus for this prohibition is linked to the purification of the people, it is fair to think that this was a celebration of Passover:69 the connection made by FJ between Passover and purification—as has been noted several times—is very marked.'0 If these two feasts, which are not specified by FJ, were in fact celebrations of Passover, it could be considered that FJ wished to make his readers forget that during Passover a xenophobic feeling would be unleashed among the people, which was stronger than during other commemorations, perhaps precisely because their liberation was being celebrated (cf. J.W. 4.402; 5.99; Ant. 3.248). The generous gestures of Vitellius recall the attitude of Archelaus in his desire to avoid a popular uprising before his departure for Rome (Ant. 14.208—218). This increases the probability that Passover was an occasion of particular restlessness against foreign domination, bearing in mind that in general, as FJ makes clear, the feasts were an opportunity for revolts {J.W. 2.224; Ant. 20.107). 4 . 1 . Summary
The description of the two visits of Vitellius to Jerusalem (Ant. 18.90— 95, 120-124) presents a chronological difficulty, which cause to suppose that, in reality, the first visit was not during Passover, but instead the second one was made at that time. This would fit in with previous observations about FJ's tendency in Ant. to emphasise certain events, which will lead to war breaking out, by placing them in the context of a celebration of Passover, on this occasion, the end of Pilate's governorship. On the other hand, FJ—as one might well expect—does not identify the feast mentioned in Ant. 18.122 with Passover. Probably he does so, in order to avoid emphasising that in this celebration the rejection of foreign rule was more acute. Actually, Vitellius found himself invited not to process through Jerusalem with his army, based on the odd excuse of not carrying their military standards.71 69
R. Marcus suggests that it must be Tabernacles only because in Ant. 14.285 it is named as "the feast," a name that rabbinic Judaism will confer on Tabernacles to emphasise its position as the feast par excellence. 70 Cf. Excursus I. 71 The gravity of this request can be understood by taking into consideration the
110
CHAPTER FIVE
5. ANOTHER REVOLT DURING THE FEAST OF PASSOVER
The last two passages that speak of Passover in Ant. are parallel to J.W. and are substantially the same in their content.72 Between these two mentions of Passover {J.W. 2.224, 244; Ant. 20.106, 133) is a series of violent events, which will cause the direct intervention of Quadratus, governor of Syria. According to J.W., these unfolded over the course of an entire year because they began and ended with Passover, or according to the text, with the feast of Unleavened Bread. In Ant. the second mention of the feast (20.133) is not identified with a particular celebration and, for this reason, leaves the possibility open of placing the events within a shorter time frame. However, considering the similarity of J. W. and Ant. in regard to the description of what happened between these two commemorations, reasons are not strong enough for assuming that, in Ant. 20.133, FJ refers to another celebration. Quotation 29
fact that Suetonius stresses that Vitellius succeeded in making the Parthians venerate his standards (De Vita Caesarum 7.2.4); cf. J . C . Rolfe, Suetonius, II, 250. 72 A closer analysis of the text confirms the conclusions of S J . D . Cohen on Ant. 18—20, namely, that there are few coincidences of terminology with J. W. and that it is probably based on the source of the latter, along with other sources; cf. S J . D . Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 58—66.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
T h e n , when the m u l t i t u d e had gathered together f o r
the feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem,
11
When the feast of Passover approached, at which it is our custom to serve unleavened bread, a great multitude from all around gathered together for the feast.
and the Roman cohort having established themselves upon the portico of the Temple . . .
Cumanus, fearing that a revolt on their part would arise, called a squadron of soldiers to take position, once they had taken up arms, upon the porticoes of the Temple,
Then always a battalion stands guard during the feasts, to prevent the assembled crowd from making tumult. . .
suppressing the tumult, in case anything should happen. (Ant. 20.106)
(J.W. 2.224) After achieving these things, from Lydda he went up towards Jerusalem and, meeting the multitude who were celebrating the feast of Unleavened Bread peacefully, he returned to Antioch. (J.W. 2.244)
He, then, fearing that the multitude of the Jews might again turn to revolt, arrived
at the city of the Jerusalemites, but he found it in peace and observing a national feast for God. Believing, then, that there would be no other uprising on their part, he left them celebrating and went back to Antioch. (Ant. 20.133)
1 12
CHAPTER FIVE
The first incident during the governorship of Gumanus {J. IV. 2.223227; Ant. 20.105 112), one which would lead to an uprising and cause the loss of many lives, was started by the provocation of one of the Roman soldiers, positioned by Cumanus precisely to prevent trouble breaking out {J.W. 2.224; Ant. 20.108). The description of the affront generated by the soldier varies between J.W. and Ant., and the first seems more offensive/3 presenting the soldier in a more negative manner and justifying somewhat the reaction of the crowd. Quotation 30 T
C
O
V
a
x
p
a
x
i
r
a
x
c
o
v
•
•
•
a
x
p
a
x
u
o
x
r
|
<
;
x
. . . one of the soldiers lifted
. . . a soldier uncovered himself
up his garment, and bending over in a shameful manner, turned his behind towards the Jews and gave out a sound fitting for this position.
and showed to the crowd his private parts . . . {Ant. 20.108)
{J.W. 2.224) The presentation of the disturbances also displays some differences. Of these, the most outstanding is the evaluation of the gesture, which in Ant. is considered a blasphemy, whereas in J. W. it is not mentioned explicitly {J.W. 2.225-226; Ant. 20.109-110). The conclusions are almost identical, i.e., that the celebration is transformed into grief, even though the accounts do not agree on the number of victims {J.W. 2.227; Ant. 20.112).74 This disaster is followed by another, also caused by a Roman soldier {J.W. 2.228-231; Ant. 20.113-117), who exceeds the scope of his orders, and destroys a roll of the Law which he finds during the
73 Without doubt, one has to acknowledge an exaggeration in J. IV., because it is highly improbable that the crowd would have heard the noise made by a soldier from the porticoes. Hence, the description of Ant. seems more plausible. /4 In fact, S.J.D. Cohen says that it is one of the two parallels between J. IV. and Ant. 18—20 which can be established with certainty; cf. S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in
Galilee, 59.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
1 13
sack of a village. This time, Cumanus is afraid of another revolt. He concedes to the demand of the Jews, and punishes the Roman soldier with death. The third calamity of this year results from an attack by some Samaritans on a group of Galilean pilgrims who are going to Jerusalem for a feast not specified by FJ (J.W. 2.232-244; Ant. 20.118-133). Given the refusal of Cumanus to exercise justice in the matter, the Jews who are in Jerusalem for the feast rise up in arms to take vengeance on the Samaritans. Now, Cumanus does intervene, killing many and imprisoning a number of others. The leaders of the Jews go to Quadratus and demand justice. He defers the case until his visit to the region of Palestine, which presumably takes place at the end of winter, since his intervention will end with his visit to Jerusalem during the celebration of Passover (J.W. 2.244; Ant. 20.133). The commemoration, to which the Galileans were travelling when the Samaritans killed them, could be the feast of Pentecost or that of Tabernacles. However, considering that the intervention of Quadratus almost certainly ends with Passover, the feast of Tabernacles appears the more likely of the two (J.W. 2.232-240; Ant. 20.118-124). Two things are noteworthy in FJ's presentation of the Jewish reaction against the Samaritans: first, that the masses are willing to abandon a feast in order to take up arms (J.W. 2.234; Ant. 20.121); second, that the nobles of Jerusalem oppose this rebellious attitude, principally because they fear the destruction of the Temple and their subsequent reduction to slavery (J.W. 2.237; Ant. 20.123). Without doubt, here FJ displays his typical opposition to war. He will maintain this position in the face of events that later will lead to the destruction of the Temple. The narrative of Ant. stops just before the point where in J.W. 2.280—283 he describes what happened at Passover of A.D. 65 or 66, when Florus was governor, slightly before the beginning of the Jewish war. It is noteworthy to note how both J.W7. 2.279 and Ant. 20.255 257 say that, given the situation, many felt forced to go abroad and abandon the customs (r|0cbv or eGoov) of their Fathers or their own customs./0 In Ant. 20.257 FJ adds that this anti-exodus made them
13 H.St.J. Thackeray translates this word in J.W. 2.279 as "haunts," and L.H. Feldman in Ant. 20.256 as "country." Either the word "custom" or "character"
1 14
CHAPTER FIVE
begin the war, prefering to die all together rather than little by little (KCIT' oXiyov). This assertion emphasises once again the importance FJ placed on the unity of the people. It also shows that the danger of assimilation of the Jews with the non-Jews was a real preoccupation for him (cf. Ant. 1.14; 20.47 48; Ag. Ap. 2.123, 261, 271-273); to the point that, for him, it justified going to war.76 5.1. Summary
The last explicit mention of Passover, in Ant. 20.106, has its parallel in J.W. 2.224, and presents a very similar description. In J.W. 2.244 the Passover of the following year is cited, while the parallel text of Ant. 20.133 does not state explicitly that the feast referred to is Passover. However, given the similarity of the texts, one assumes that, in Ant. 20.133, FJ is also speaking of Passover. The first provocation by a Roman soldier is exaggerated in J.W. 2.224 and the presentation of Ant. 20.108 seems more credible, plausibly because FJ adapts himself more to the source of J. IV., which would be more neutral.77 In the description of the events that took place between one Passover and another, the tendency of FJ to defend the nobility of Jerusalem and present them as innocent is clear. On the other hand,
would seem preferable, in the sense of that which characterises something, because it is in accord with the use of this term in the rest of FJ's work, and because it is the only meaning of the word eQoq, which seems the most correct reading—between r|0(ov or e0ff>v—from the point of view of textual criticism; cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J.W. 2.279 n. 2; L.H. Feldman, Ant. 20.256 n. 1. 76 There is a tendency to view as relative the importance which FJ attributed to the land, particularly when assuming only part of the conclusions of the work of B. Halpern-Amaru. Nevertheless, as P. Spilsbury occasionally notes, this element is not at all secondary and FJ's view of the Diaspora is ambiguous. On the one hand, he sees it as the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham, while on the other, he sees clearly the dangers this implies. L.H. Feldman, in his article on the exile, emphasises the positive view of the Diaspora, without stressing any danger. Later in Rewritten Bible he briefly mentions the danger of assimilation, and \iews as relative the opposition of FJ to mixed marriages. However, the separation of the Jews (dfit^ta) does not seem to be a problem for FJ (cf. Ant. 13.245-247). In fact, as K. Berthelot demonstrates, FJ does not respond to the accusation of separatism among the Jews, except by means of a circular argument which does not deny their separation (otui^ia); cf. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 183; B. HalpernAmaru, "Land Theology'," 219-229; L.H. Feldman, "The Concept of Exile," 145-172 esp. 172; Id., Rewritten Bible, 544; P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 70-71, 123-124, 152-153, 159; K. Berthelot, "Kotvcovia et Oitaxv0pomia," 120. 11
S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 62.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
115
it is not irrelevant that the Jews are prepared to leave the celebration of a feast in order to take up arms. The narrative of Ant. ends just before the beginning of the war, since FJ himself says that, for knowledge of what happened in the following period, the work he wrote previously can be read (Ant. 20.258). In Ant. 20.255^257 he says that before the war the people were forced by the situation to abandon their own customs and to emigrate abroad. In other words, an anti-exodus was taking place. 6. PASSOVER DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE JEWISH WAR
FJ seems to bestow secondary importance on the fact that the Jews decided to interrupt the sacrifice in honour of the emperor. This would be a real declaration of war against Rome {J.W. 2.409). However, he accentuates the events preceding this decision, in order to make it clear that the war truly began in response to the atrocities committed by Florus {J.W. 2.284).78 In this way, even if the terminology is ambiguous and presents the beginning of the war as a process and not as a particular moment,79 it seems fair to say that, for FJ, hostilities began in the month of Artemisius in A.D. 66 (J.W. 2.284; cf. Ant. 20.184).80 In relation to this date, the other indirect reference to the beginning of the war is comprehensible: wishing to justify the great number of deaths during the siege of Jerusalem, FJ says that a great multitude of people was present, because the war had taken them by surprise when they went up to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (J. W. 6.421). Certainly it is strange that, after four years, all the people who went up to Jerusalem for the Passover of 66 had not been able to return to their homes. However, one cannot rule out the fact that many freely chose to remain in order to support the rebels' cause, and that others were not able to embark on the return journey.81 78
J.S. McLaren, Power and Politics, 169-170. When he refers to the cessation of sacrifices in favour of the emperor (J. W. 2.409), he says that this was the foundation (mTapo?if|) for the war, as if it were a formal declaration, but in J. W. 2.284 he says that it was the beginning (dpxT|v) of the war. 80 According to J J. Price, FJ is not consistent, and sometimes puts in different contexts statements which are self-contradictory. The consequence is a confused vision of some events. Accepting the possibility that FJ may not always be consistent, it still seems that J. W. 2.409, 284 are not necessarily contradictory; cf. J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 188 n. 13. 81 Although the numbers given by FJ are undoubtedly exaggerated, it should be 79
1 16
CHAPTER FIVE
There is, nevertheless, another possibility, namely, that the point made in J. W. 6.421 refers to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (cf. J.W. 5.567), by Titus.82 However, this hypothesis presents two major difficulties: first, it is practically impossible that the Romans would have allowed a great number of people to gather in Jerusalem—while they had almost all the territory under their control—for the celebration of the year 70;83 second, it does not make sense that FJ should say that they suddenly (i^amv^q) found themselves trapped in the war (rc6A,£|io<;), when it had already been in progress for four years.84 J J . Price thinks that in J.W. 6.421 FJ is either greatly exaggerating, or he is speaking of a previous Passover, but he does not specify which.85 The fact that, immediately after mentioning Passover in J.W. 6.421, FJ describes how Cestius ordered a census during Passover, increases the probability that in J.W. 6.421 he is referring to the Passover mentioned in J.W. 2.280-283. This is the only one during which it is known that Cestius visited Jerusalem before the War. Nevertheless, this Passover could be that of A.D. 65 or 66. Furthermore, since the account goes on to describe the disturbances that took place in Caesarea in the month of Artemisius in A.D. 66 and connects them with the temporal expression 'Ev 5e xovxco KOCI (meanwhile also), which indicates quasi-simultaneity, it is more probable that it is that of A.D. 66.86 noted that the percentage is fairly plausible: if three million Jews were in Jerusalem at Passover A.D. 65 or 66, one third could be a probable number for those who were still in Jerusalem in the month of Artemisius and found themselves caught up one way or another in the revolt (cf. J.W. 6.421). In the census by Cestius, FJ uses the word dvf]p, which normally refers to an adult male, but, since afterwards he deducts from the number all menstruating women, it is more logical that he should refer here to people in general (cf. J.W. 6.425). 82 This is the opinion held by the majority, but, as J J . Price shows, it is less probable; cf. J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 109-111. 83 M. Goodman, without spending too much time on the difficulty, presupposes that in J.W. 6.421 FJ is referring to Passover in A.D. 70, but his view of how events unfolded seems to favour the Jews too optimistically; cf. M. Goodman, The ruling Class, 179-182. 84 Even if it must be realized that in J.W. 5.71 FJ describes the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem as a sudden event (6 e^coGev noXepioq e£,aiq>vr\c, noXvc, erceABcov), the difficulty remains, i.e., that such a quantity of people had gathered in a city already hungry and torn apart by internal strife (J.W. 5.26-27). 80 If it were not that of A.D. 70, it is not clear what other event of the war could have taken the people in Jerusalem by surprise, unless it were the Passover of A.D. 66; cf. J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 110 n. 22. 86 N. Kokkinos thinks that these two events must belong to the same year, but
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
1 17
For this reason, it seems important to examine the events that took place in Caesarea around the time of Passover, which—in spite of several later attempts to delay the war—will mark, for FJ, the true beginning of hostilities {J.W. 2.284—292). Immediately before this episode, FJ describes a visit by Cestius, together with Florus, to Jerusalem during the time of Passover, at which time a multitude of three million people, according to FJ, demand justice of Cestius and denounce Florus {J.W. 2.280 283). A little later, during the month of Artemisius, which always falls within the fifty days between Passover and Pentecost,87 the Caesarea incident had taken place. It all began with a Greek provoking the Jews who were going towards the synagogue on a Sabbath day. For a joke, this man was sacrificing birds over a bowl, which caused the most bellicose of the Jews to react to the insult {J.W. 2.289-292). H.St.J. Thackeray supports the view of Reland,88 namely, that this sacrifice was a way of reminding the Jews that they had been driven out of Egypt because they were lepers (cf. Ag. Ap. 1.279), since, according to Lev 14:4-6 sacrifices of this kind had to be offered for the purification of a leper. Certainly, this possible interpretation gains credibility from the fact that it refers to an inicident close to the celebration of Passover. Accordingly, if the interpretation of the joke is correct, it may be concluded that, during the time between the feasts of Passover and Pentecost, the theme of the liberation from Egypt was still alive in Jewish religious consciousness, so that the connecting of the joke with Exodus was spontaneous. It is then possible to say that, for FJ, the beginning of the war is indirectly connected with Passover.89 In this way, again according to FJ, the fact that the war will end definitively on the fifteenth of Xanthicus in A.D. 74 {J.W. 7.401),90 when the rebels besieged at
in his view it is more likely to be A.D. 65. Thus one would have to emend the date given in J.W. 2.284, changing the twelfth year of Nero (= A.D. 66) to the eleventh (= A.D. 65). In light of what has been said, this hypothesis—if it were more probable—would not alter what has been indicated; cf. N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 386-395. 87 This month begins no more than ten days after the end of the week of Unleavened Bread. 88 H.St.J. Thackeray, J.W. 2.289 n. a. 89 It must be remembered here, once again, that the narrative of events in Ant., which stops immediately before the outbreak of war, finishes by describing a kind of anti-exodus {Ant. 20.256). 90 Even if in J. W. FJ does not make the equation Xanthicus equals Nisan, as in
1 18
CHAPTER FIVE
Masada commit mass suicide, acquires a particular character.91 It is conceivable that FJ had remembered an exact date,92 but it seems more plausible that it is an approximation,93 which would signify that, for FJ already after writing J.W.,9i this whole catastrophe had been marked paradoxically by the feast of the liberation of the Hebrews.95 During the years A.D. 66-70, FJ explicitly mentions two celebrations of Passover, that of A.D. 68—presumably—{J.W. 4.402) and that of A.D. 70 {J.W. 5.99). The first is mentioned in relation to the destructive activities of the Sicarii, who attack the village of EnGedi during the night {J.W. 4.400 405). H.St.J. Thackeray assumes that the majority of the inhabitants would be in Jerusalem for the
Ant. 1.81; 2.311; 3.201, 248; 11.109, it is clearly the month of Passover in J.W. 5.99; 6.290. On the nomenclature of the months in the Hellenistic period cf. A. Pelletier, "La nomenclature du calendrier juif," 218-233 esp. 220. 91 E. Schiirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The History of the Jewish People, I, 512, 515. 92 It is interesting that, in the ancient Slavonic version, the date in this case is the eighth of Xanthicus. Even though there is general rejection of the hypothesis of Eisler, i.e., that this work is a translation of the original of J.W. in Aramaic, there could be an indication here that FJ a posteriori—for some reason—changed this date. It does not appear that this detail would have any greater meaning for a Christian interpolator, and thus it is less likely to have been altered. Discussion of the Slavonic version has been reopened by E. Nodet, in his translation of the classic work of H.St.J. Thackeray; cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 51-55; H.St.J. Thackeray, L'homme et Vhistorien, 125-237. 93 A. Strobel, on the other hand, does not entertain the idea that the date determined the event, i.e., that the typical hope of a saving event at the feast of Passover could have incited the Sicarii to suicide. He maintains that FJ wished to deny this connection by not mentioning that it was Passover, but it seems more probable that, if FJ wished to conceal this link, he could have avoided mentioning the date or could have given only a general indication of it. Therefore, it seems more likely that this is a fictitious temporal device aimed at his Jewish audience, who could understand perfectly to what he was referring; cf. A. Strobel, "Die Passa-Erwartung," 188-195; H.H. Chapman, "A Myth for the World," 11 n. 51. 94 S. Schwartz proposes a solution to the problem of the redaction of J. W. 7, a book that is different in style and composition from the rest of J.W. According to his reconstruction hypothesis, the work would have been done in three distinct phases: the first in 79-81; the second in 82-83; the third at the beginning of Trajan's reign. This text would correspond to the first phase, which in any case is later than the publication of the first six books. S. Schwartz, "The Composition and Publication," 173-186; S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 84-90. 95 This hypothesis is more plausible if the theory of J J . Price is accepted, i.e., that FJ fixed the dates according to the Jewish lunar calendar, using only the Macedonian names of the months, and that consequently it is impossible to relate those dates to the modern solar calendar, so that one has to accept an inexact chronology; cf. J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 213.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
1 19
feast.96 This is possible because it would make the timing of the attack more comprehensible, but the text does not impose necessarily this deduction.97 In this passage, FJ again reminds his audience that the feast is a commemoration of the liberation from Egypt and of the occupation of the land, thus here also bringing these two events together. With respect to terminology, he characterises the sacrifices offered at this feast as acorripioc; (thanksgiving for liberation), while in Ant. 11.110 he had replaced this term from his possible source(s) with %apicn;r|pioq; however, it has already been noted that for FJ the terms are equivalent.98 The reference to the celebration of Passover in A.D. 70 is more significant because, in spite of the totally chaotic situation in Jerusalem, they try to somehow celebrate the feast (J.W. 5.98-104). The passage begins by reiterating the reason for celebrating this feast, but with a somewhat unusual phrase: "when the day of Unleavened Bread arrived, the fourteenth day of the month of Xanthicus, during which the Jews believe they were first freed from Egypt" {J.W. 5.99). On the one hand, he uses the verb SOKECO (to think, to suppose), which could be taken in a negative sense; on the other hand, he says that it is the first liberation from Egypt, as if there had been others. Concerning the first peculiarity, it must be said that this verb does not always have a negative sense.99 Hence, it is not essential to attribute this phrase to FJ's non-Jewish collaborator, as H.St.J. Thackeray proposes. In regard to the second peculiarity, H.St.J. Thackeray seems to be right:100 "the first time" (xovrcpcbiovKoapov) can refer to the fact that the people were later liberated from Babylon, and therefore the liberation from Egypt was the archetype of the liberation of the people from the power of foreigners.101
96 H.St.J. Thackeray, J . W. 4.402 n. a. '" However, J. IV. 2.515 says explicitly that the city of Lydda was empty because the people h a d gone to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles: if this were A . D . 66, the situation would still allow such pilgrimages. 98 Cf. ch. I l l n. 57. 99 Cf. S. Mason, Flavins Josephus on the Pharisees, 106-110. 1(10 H.St.J. Thackeray, J. W. 5.99 n. c. 1(11 This connection was already noted in discussion of the first celebration of the feast of Passover by those who returned from exile (Ant. 11.109-111); cf. ch. Ill § 3.
120
CHAPTER FIVE
An indication that it was practically impossible to sacrifice the Passover victims that year, or to make any other sacrifice, is to be found in the use of the verb Ttpocncuveoo (to adore) instead of Guoo (to sacrifice) {J-W. 5.99),102 because if the sacrifices had taken place, FJ would likely have used the second verb. Finally, it seems worth noting that again on this occasion, the problem of purification is mentioned in conjuction with the celebration of Passover, since FJ considers it important to state that the majority of John's soldiers who enter surreptitiously into the Temple are not pure (J.W. 5.100). FJ does not explain the reason for their impurity, but one can easily imagine that it was, at least because of contact with dead bodies. However, the fact that carrying arms would itself cause impurity must be ruled out, since if that were the case, not just the majority of the soldiers, but all would be impure. FJ's narrative goes on to describe the terrible scenes that came out of what should have been a feast of Passover {J.W. 5.101-104). 6.1. Summary
As far as the beginning of the war is concerned, FJ is fairly ambiguous. However, it can be said that he wishes to emphasise the events that took place around Passover in A.D. 66, which he considers to be the true commencement of the war. He intends to conceal the decision that was made to suspend the sacrifice in favour of the emperor, which would be the true declaration of war. For this reason, it seems clear that in J. W. 2.280 283 FJ is describing Passover in A.D. 66,103 to which J.W7! 6.421 also refers, when it says that a great crowd was surprised by war during a celebration of Passover. In light of this assertion, it has been deemed significant that FJ sets the definitive end of hostilities on the fifteenth of Xanthicus in A.D. 74—on the feast of Passover—when the Sicarii commit mass suicide before the Romans take Masada {J.W. 7.401). Just as FJ somewhat forces the link between the outbreak of war and Passover, it also seems that he forced the link between this celebration and the end of hostilities.
102
J J . Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 114 n. 4 1 . N. Kokkinos—as indicated earlier—believes that this is A.D. 65, but even if that were the case, this argument would not be affected; N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 386-395. 103
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
121
During the progress of the entire war, FJ mentions only the Passover of A.D. 68—probably—and that of A.D. 70. The latter is the more significant of these two because, in spite of the very difficult situation prevailing in Jerusalem, an attempt was made to celebrate this feast in some way. In relation to this last reference to Passover, FJ states once again that it is the feast which commemorates the liberation from Egypt, perhaps bestowing on this liberation an archetypal character. He reintroduces the theme of ritual purity when he remarks that the majority of John's soldiers, who surreptitiously entered the Temple, were not pure. 7. OTHER MENTIONS OF PASSOVER IN J.W.
AND IN ANT.
Apart from the references already pointed out, there are two other explicit references to Passover in J. W. The first is linked with a series of extraordinary events which, according to FJ, were a warning from God for the people, but were interpreted as positive signs of God's support for the rebels' activity against the Romans {J.W. 6.288-300). The second is connected with the passage already examined, in which FJ indicates the number of those who fell during the siege of Jerusalem {J.W. 6.421): to justify the figure given, FJ refers to a census effected by Gestius during the feast of Passover {J.W. 6.422-427). The first of these is intriguing, because it connects the celebration of Passover and Pentecost with a series of signs and prodigies presaging the destruction of the Temple. These will be interpreted wrongly by the ignorant and correctly by the sacred scribes.104 The importance, for this work, of the possible connection between the feast of Passover and the so-called "sign prophets,"103 suggests the need to consider this problem in a separate section.106 The second reference, on the other hand, provides a number of details about the way Passover was celebrated, which are those normally cited as FJ's contribution to the knowledge of Passover prior to A.D. 70. Undoubtedly these are of interest, but it should not be forgotten that they are largely linked to the mention of the census. For that
104 105 106
These passages will be analysed in ch. VII § 2. R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 112-113. Cf. ch. VII § 1.3.
122
CHAPTER FIVE
reason they should not be considered as the way, par excellence, for presenting Passover on FJ's part. Concretely, he relates that the groups gathered together around each Passover victim were composed of between ten and twenty people.107 This is similar to rabbinic literature, which establishes ten as the minimum number for an assembly.108 The sacrifices took place between the ninth and eleventh hours, thus precisely interpreting what the biblical text says with the expression "between the evenings" (•>'3~lPn ]'3), which is not completely clear (cf. Exod 12:6; Lev 23:5). Excluded from the number of those admitted were those with leprosy or gonorrhoea, women who were menstruating, and all those who were impure. Thus it is obvious that, already in J.W., FJ is noticeably preoccupied with the idea of ritual purity in relation to Passover. On the other hand, it is interesting to observe the connection between purity (mGapoc;) and holiness (ccyioq). Further on he will deny, clearly and only this once, the possibility that foreigners could participate in Passover (aXXoyxyXoit;).109 This is a difficult idea for him to present, given that the Jews were accused of misanthropy (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.148). Perhaps he may be excused from criticism in this case because here he is speaking precisely of the number of people covered by the census and not of a total exclusion from worship.110 In Ant. 3.321 there is a mention of Unleavened Bread which seems to be totally casual. This is a proof of the coercive power of the 10/
The term that he uses here ((paxp(a) is linked etymologically to the semantic field of the family. However, since out of four occurrences {J.W. 6.423; Ant. 2.312; 3.248), only once is it not used to designate the Passover assembly (Ant. 5.43), it cannot be certain to what type of association it refers. In any case, it presumably refers to family groups, as the text of Exod 12:4 says. 108 The difference seems to be that in rabbinic literature those assembled had to be males more than 13 years old. For FJ, even if he uses the word dvfip (adult male), they can also be women, since he explicitly excludes menstruating women. In Ant. 11.109 he clearly states that the women and the children purified themselves for the feast; cf. E. Ashtor, "Minyan," XII, 67. 109 In ch. VIII § 2, FJ's vision of the relations between Jews and non-Jews will be carefully analysed. 110 The word GprjaKeia (worship) did not imply sacrifice. Another passage in which he clearly says that generally foreigners cannot sacrifice is Ant. 3.318-319. From that passage, even if he strives to present the situation in an edifying form, one can presume that, in reality, events did not unfold in such a peaceful way (cf. Acts 21:27-31).
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
123
Law of Moses. The example given by FJ is that, at a time of great need slightly before the Jewish war, the priests did not eat even a crumb (icp{|ivov), although great quantities of flour had arrived, probably from abroad. H.St.J. Thackeray says it must be understood that the flour had already been made into loaves with leaven, so that they were not permitted to eat it at that feast.111 Nevertheless, since he speaks previously of flour (dXeupou) and not of cooked bread, it is possible that the prohibition stems from the foreign origin of the flour: an analogous case would be that of the oil which the Jews apparently did not accept from foreigners {J. W. 2.591-592; Ant. 12.119-120; Life 74-76).112 In any case, for the purposes of this work it should simply be noted that an example of strict adherence to the Law is directly linked with the feast of Passover, which clearly emphasises the importance of the latter. These passages complete the examination of explicit references to Passover in the work of FJ. Meanwhile it should not be forgotten that neither Life nor Ag. Ap. make any mention of this feast or of any other celebration.113 By way of a temporary balance sheet, it can be said that Passover is the feast mentioned most in the known work of FJ. 7.1. Summary
Apart from the references already indicated, there are two other explicit mentions of Passover in J. W. One is related along with the listing of extraordinary events, which, for FJ, represented a warning from God for his people, but were seen as a positive sign by the rebels. The other appears when FJ details the total number of human
111
H.StJ. Thackeray, Ant. 3.321 n. d. M. Goodman, "Kosher Olive Oil," 227-231. 113 In Life and Ag. Ap. the Jewish feasts are not explicitly mentioned (eopxri). The only time that sacrifices in general are spoken of, a more generic word is used: eijcoxvoc (revelry) {Ag. Ap. 2.138). The other reference states that the Jews cannot have great revelry (EIKOXIOC) on the occasion of the birth of a son {Ag. Ap. 2.204). The exception would be the Sabbath (od(3(3aTov), which is named three times in Life 159, 275, 279 and five times in Ag. Ap. 2.20-27, plus two others with the word seventh (epSo^on;), referring to the days of the week {Ag. Ap. 2.175, 282). Although he does not expressly state that the Sabbath is a feast (eopxn), elsewhere in FJ's work it is clearly put on a par with the feasts (cf. J.W. 5.230; Ant. 13.52; 14.242). 112
124
CHAPTER FIVE
victims during the siege of Jerusalem. While justifying this figure, he mentions the census carried out by Cestius during the feast of Passover. In Ant. 3.321 there is also a reference to Passover, but it appears to have no particular significance. The argument that FJ is developing is the importance of keeping the law for the Jews, and the example he gives is precisely the strict observance of one of the commands for that feast. While it is true, as has been noted, that neither in Ag. Ap. nor in Life is there a mention of Passover, a simple calculation demonstrates that, in all the surviving works of FJ, Passover is the feast mentioned most. 8. Two
SIGNIFICANT OMISSIONS?
If the accounts of the sieges of Jerusalem by Pompey and Titus are studied, some eloquent analogies quickly appear. Regarding the first, there are two texts {J.W. 1.142-154; Ant. 14.58-73) which basically describe the same events, with the addition of some extra details in the second version.114 The second is transmitted only by J.W. 5.106-135 and refers to events that FJ had been an eyewitness. It is useful to list the elements common to both episodes, without forgetting the inevitable differences found when dealing with two distinct events, which are also separated in time. In both passages, there is a Roman general who is preparing to conquer Jerusalem and finds the city divided into two factions {J.W. 1.142-144; 5.105). In the case of Pompey one party is on his side and another against him, while in the case of Titus both parties are against him. However, with intent to ambush, one group pretends to be willing to open the gates for Titus {J.W. 1.143; 5.109-119). In this case, a group of unruly soldiers falls into the trap and Titus wants revenge, but, due to the mediation of the other legionaries, he withdraws his threats. With this problem resolved, both texts describe in detail how the Roman army sets about the siege. The texts agree in designating the northwest sector as the area where the military manoeuvres begin. However, the geography of Jerusalem does not permit better alternatives, so for this reason, it 114
This section of Ant. appears to follow J. W. (cf. ch. V § 1) so closely that a detailed comparison does not seem worthwhile.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
125
probably happened just like that in both episodes. This does not alter the fact that FJ could have been inspired by what he witnessed to describe what happened a century earlier."3 Obviously, the description of the siege and conquest of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is much longer and more detailed than that of 63 B.C. Consequently, a comparison with the later material is impracticable. All that remains to be done is to examine the supposed omission indicated in the title of this section. This concerns the possible mention of Passover, at least as an aid to dating. It is convenient to begin with J. W. 5.128 135, where the omission seems to be more evident. In fact, J.W. 5.567 states plainly that the day on which Titus pressed the siege was the fourteenth of Xanthicus, but there is absolutely no trace of this in its proper context. Furthermore, just before he describes the movements of the armies towards Jerusalem {J.W. 5.106), FJ relates an act of treachery by John—one of the leaders of the revolt {J.W. 5.98-105)— which will give him command of the Temple on the very day of Passover in A.D. 70. Consequently, at the moment of the siege, Passover seems to be already an event of the past, when in truth these are simultaneous events. Thus, FJ does not mention Passover in relation to the advance of Titus. Rather, it seems he wishes to show that the feast had passed, and that during it, the Jews had once again behaved in a disastrous way by turning against one another. The vague mention in J.W. 5.567 of the fourteenth of Xanthicus is not easy to connect, in continuous reading, with the episode described in J.W. 5.128 135. In a similar way, FJ appears to have scrupulously concealed a potential connection between Pompey's bellicose activity and Passover, even though here things are less clear. A detail in J.W. 1.138 and in Ant. 14.53 makes it obvious that the attack took place in spring, i.e., that Pompey knew of the death of Mithridates before advancing on Jerusalem. Other sources inidcate that this happened in the spring of 63 B.C.,116 which means that these events approximately coincide with the feast of Passover.
113
From this instance, the possible contradiction could arise between this passage and J. IV. 5.506 on the position of Pompey's camp. 116 Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.53 n. d. Furthermore, Ant. 14.38 says that Pompey abandoned his winter quarters at the beginning of spring.
126
CHAPTER FIVE
In both versions, he insists on the priests' faithfulness to their worship during a very difficult situation, but he only explicitly refers to the daily sacrifice,117 while the other terms he uses are general and do not permit discovery as to which feast was being celebrated. Nevertheless, the date of Jerusalem's fall into the hands of Pompey could be another indication that the time of Passover is in question. In J.W. 1.149 he says that it was after three months of siege, and in Ant. 14.66, apart from the exact year, he says it was on the day of fasting. This generated much debate; because if he meant Yom Kippur, the dates would not fit. For this reason, it is suggested that FJ had copied this from non-Jewish authors who confused the Sabbath with a day of fasting.118 This solution is not entirely satisfactory either. Indeed, another possibility is that this was a day of fasting already known in the time of FJ, which rabbinic literature preserved in a clearer form. However, this hipothesis is not without some difficulties (cf. b. Tcfan. 28b). The implied fast would be the one in the fourth month, the seventeenth of the month of Tammuz, which is linked to the ninth of the month of Av, the day of the destruction of the Temple. According to the Mishnah (m. Tcfan. 4:6), on the seventeenth of Tammuz, five setbacks took place: a) Moses broke the tablets of the Law; b) a breech was opened into the city; c) the daily offering was interrupted; d) Apostomos burnt a roll of the Law in the Temple; and e) an idol was placed in the Temple. Some of these events, for which there is no other evidence, could have happened on the day that Pompey entered the Temple. It is still more probable that FJ looks for some similarity with previous tradition, as he does in J.W. 6.250, when he links two catastrophic events, such as the two occasions when the Temple was burnt. In any case, what does seem plausible is that a date for fasting during the fourth month was already known in the time of FJ. Thus, there would be another indication that the beginning of the siege took place during the time of Passover. If it were possible to be certain that the mention of the fast referred to the seventeenth of Tammuz,
117 It should be remembered that in the previous episode, while rabbinic literature speaks of the daily sacrifice, FJ refers to Passover (cf. Ant. 14.19-28). Here he asserts that the daily sacrifice was not interrupted, in spite of the difficulties of the war, which seems highly unlikely. 118 Cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.66 n. c.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
127
the siege would have started during the week of Passover (the seventeenth of Xanthicus). Once it could be shown with some degree of probability that FJ' aim is to avoid relating Passover to these two events caused by the Romans, it would be necessary to set forth a reasonable explanation for what does not seem to be merely by chance. The two episodes are preceded by an account of the exceedingly serious rivalries among the Jews in the midst of a celebration of Passover. One may also disregard the fact that, precisely at the time of the feast commemorating the liberation from Egypt, the Romans decide to press the siege around Jerusalem. Bearing all this in mind, the simplest explanation seems to be the use of a literary device to underline his main point—made exactly after describing the entry of Pompey into the Temple (Ant. 14.77)—that the disastrous situation of the Jews is due to their internal divisions, and in passing, he manages to excuse the Romans for taking advantage of this celebration to exercise their warlike activities. This section leads to the conclusion that probably the two omissions are not insignificant, but rather contribute to the purposes of this author. 8.1. Summary
Between the two descriptions of the sieges of Jerusalem, by Pompey and Titus respectively, there are clearly discernible analogies. What is of greatest concern to this work is that both attacks appear to be preceded by the celebration of a Passover. This prompts to the thought that FJ constructed these two episodes with the intention of accenting one of the ideas that inspires his work, namely, that the internal divisions among the different Jewish groups brought the whole nation to ruin. At the same time, he succeeds in concealing the fact that the Romans took advantage of the festivity in order to attack the Jews. Consequently, these two omissions are significant because they would aid in consolidating one of the messages that FJ wished to convey. 9. CONCLUSION
It has become clear from analysing the reference to the feast of Passover in J. IV., that, on the majority of occasions, it is named only
128
CHAPTER FIVE
in relation to other events, and thus does not appear to play a fundamental part in the work. However, two references to Passover— one direct and the other indirect—give the impression that, for FJ, this festival is not so insignificant (J.W. 2.280-283; 7.401). The first of these is Passover of A.D. 66, during which—as it seems for FJ— the hostilities that will lead to declaration of war against the Romans begin; the other is the allusion to the fifteenth of Xanthicus (Nisan) as the day on which the war ended definitively, after the conquest of Masada. The fact that FJ links—it seems intentionally—the beginning and subsequent failure of the war with the feast of Passover, indicate that FJ saw this event in the light of a commemoration which celebrated exactly the opposite, namely, the liberation of Israel. Confirmation of this theory can be found in the fact that many of the prodigies which occurred before the beginning of the war and presaged the defeat are also located by FJ in the period between Passover and Pentecost {J.W. 6.290 300).119 The examination of Ant. has disclosed that these intuitions gain strength from the reality that during the entire period when J.W. and Ant. are parallel, the references to Passover in Ant. are more frequent. The impression conveyed is that FJ adopts and develops the idea of Passover as the antithesis of the events of war, because he apparently wishes to provide some clear indicators for the Romans' presence in Palestine, adding a reference to Passover. Actually, it has already been noted that, in Ant. 14.19 28, FJ adds a mention of Passover at the moment when the Romans first intervene in Palestine. This intervention is the fruit of internal divisions among the rulers in Jerusalem, and these conflicts among the leaders of the people reach a climax during a celebration of Passover. If indeed it is true that the pilgrimage festivals were meant to reinforce the bonds of unity among the Jews, it has become evident that FJ highlights Passover in a special way and sets conflict situations within it in order to stress the intrinsic evil of the divisions among those who are called to lead the people. Within this event specifically, he presents an isolated group who prefer to return to Egypt, perhaps with the intention of finding surroundings which will permit fulfilment of the Law. This supposition is based on the
Cf. chap. VII § 2.
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
129
definition of this group as those "most highly regarded" (5oKi|j.cbTaxoi). Undoubtedly, this was an alternative reaction to the chaotic situation which had arisen. There are three other sections that are parallel in J. W. and Ant. and refer to Passover. In the first section, the two texts do not present great differences and, as was shown, the allusion to Passover is merely incidental {J.W. 2.8-13; Ant. 17.208-218). Perhaps the version of Ant. regarding this event reveals FJ's tendency as somewhat accentuated, because he puts the statement that it was a time of "harmony" (ojxovoeiv) in the mouth of Archelaus; on the other hand, in the narrative of Ant. FJ also emphasises that Passover is a feast when they sacrifice with zeal, with the number of victims exceeding that of any other celebration. The other two passages do not present great differences between the versions of J.W. and Ant., and in both cases the mention of the festivities serves only as a temporal marker to the unfolding of events {J.W. 2.224-227; 2.241-244; Ant. 20.105-112; 20.128-132). In the eighteenth book of Ant., FJ once again adds some episodes related to Passover, which have no parallel in J.W. In general, it has already been demonstrated that these events are accompanied by certain incidents, which will inevitably lead to the unleashing of hostilities. The first episode mentions a rather strange incident perpetrated by the Samaritans (Ant. 18.29-30), who for some reason wished to contaminate the Temple of Jerusalem with human bones during a Passover night. This event, as became clear, generates more questions than answers, but what seems relevant—and has already been stated—is that FJ places it during the governorship of Coponius, who was the first procurator of Judea. Another possible reason for incorporating this incident into the narrative of Ant. could be the desire to complete the portrayal of the religious groups existing in Palestine, since somewhat earlier FJ had briefly described the various philosophies current in Judaism. Another text of Ant. which speaks of Passover has also been examined. It has no equivalent in J.W., and deals with the visit of Vitellius to Jerusalem during a feast of Passover (Ant. 18.90—95). This reference is also linked with, or at least coincides with, another event, which seems to be relevant to FJ's presentation of the Roman presence in Palestine. He is describing the end of the tenure of the procurator Pontius Pilate, who was, according to FJ, the first procurator to abuse his power, causing protests on the part of discontented Jews.
130
CHAPTER FIVE
FJ describes two visits by Vitellius to Jerusalem, which again presumably indicate his intentions. He situates the first of these to coincide with a feast of Passover, though it is almost certain that was not the case. He thus clarifies once again the position he attributes to Passover in Ant. In contrast, it is practically certain that the second visit by Vitellius took place at Passover in A.D. 37 (Ant. 18.120 124), but in this case FJ does not refer to this feast, because he apparently does not wish to identify it with the concern that Vitellius should not enter Jerusalem with foreign troops. It has already been suggested that FJ probably wished to separate Passover from these reactions to the presence or foreign military, which would have been more accentuated at Passover, since this feast celebrates liberation from foreign rule. This episode permits the suggestion that a feast of Passover is also at stake when they asked Herod not to enter Jerusalem with foreign soldiers during an unspecified feast, and not during that of Tabernacles, as others have thought. The last element which must be pointed out is that FJ finishes his account of events in Ant. with a presentation of a kind of anti-exodus. A great number of people realise that they cannot live in Palestine according to the Law any longer and so decide to emigrate. Faced with this, FJ has two concerns. One is the fear of the Jews who had emigrated so they might be absorbed into the other nations, a fate which he defines as "to die little by little." The other is that the tyranny imposed by thugs and bad Roman procurators might forever deprive the Jews of the land that God had given them, after finding themselves forced to begin a war which would end in disaster. At this point in the work it can be asserted that, in spite of the lack of information about Passover that can be garnered from the narrative of events in the Second Temple period, such information as there is acquires a certain relevance when placed within the broad spectrum of FJ's work. It is not difficult to imagine that, at the time FJ was writing J. IV., he had already linked their loss of freedom with the feast that commemorated the beginning of their freedom. This tendency seems to become more conscious and intentional in Ant. Hence, it appears that FJ wished to emphasise, by mentioning Passover, certain key dates in the process, which would lead to the total loss of political autonomy for the Jews. The probable omission of Passover at two key moments in the process of submission to the Romans, namely, the sieges of Pompey
HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
131
and Titus, which actually seem to happen during this feast, could serve as a counterproof of the partial results achieved. Both are preceded by—but apparently are not connected to—the allusion to a Passover at which strong rivalries among the Jews arose and which would subsequently contribute to the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. These partial conclusions lead to the question of what, in the consciousness of the people—beyond the differences between opposite groups—was the real meaning or relevance of Passover. It seems that it might also legitimately asked whether FJ saw in Passover a feast which could play an important role in the reconstruction of Judaism—as FJ conceived it—after A.D. 70.
This page intentionally left blank
EXCURSUS ONE: THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
Without any doubt, the theme of purity occupies an important position in both biblical and post-biblical Judaism, as it does in other religions. This has elicited a considerable list of works approaching this subject from various points of view.1 In the first place, the system of purity as described in the Sacred Scriptures seems to present some inconsistencies or internal contradictions. Hence attempts have been made to discover the logic behind the individual prescriptions. The classic author in this field is J. Milgrom, who maintains that the basic contaminating element is death, and that the other sources of contamination can all be explained by analogy with this element.2 The discussion on this matter continues to produce opposing views, even up to the present time.3 In the second place, there is also an abundant bibliography that addresses the post-biblical period.4 Concerning the system of purity upheld by rabbinic literature, the outstanding author is J. Neusner, with his copious works.3 He basically maintains that the rabbis created a system that was not based exclusively on biblical prescriptions, and that they adapted the laws of purity to the new situations confronting them. Furthermore, there are studies of the laws of purification in other Jewish works, such as Jubilees or the Qumran literature.6 It is clearly impossible here to embark on a description of the problems embraced by such a broad theme. For such a task, it is possible to consult the introduction of H.K. Harrington, who outlines the question clearly and synthetically.7
1
For an introduction and general bibliography, compare F. Hauck - R. Meyer, "KaGapoq," TWNT III, 416-430; J. Klausner, "Purity and Impurity," 1405-1414. 2 J. Milgrom, "Rationale for Cultic Law," 103-109; Id., "Confusing the Sacred and the Impure," 554-559. 3 R.A. Kugler, "Holiness, Purity, the Body, and Society," 3-27. 4 H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems, 293-304; F. Garcia Martinez, "The Problem of Purity," 165-168. ' J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism; Id., A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities; Id., Purity in Rabbinic Judaism. 6
J. Milgrom, "The Concept of Impurity," 277-284; E. Lupieri, "La purita impura," 15-43; F. Garcia Martinez, "The Problem of Purity," 165-186. ' In this work, the most important views held on this theme over the last
134
EXCURSUS ONE
On the other hand, FJ's contribution to the understanding of the system of purification in early Judaism does not seem to have aroused interest similar to that which has just been presented.8 G. Vermes, in an article dedicated to FJ's presentation of the laws, affirms that the laws of purification do not occupy a pre-eminent position for FJ. Thus he contradicts rabbinic literature, which does accord them a central role.9 Nevertheless, it must be remembered that FJ promises a special work on the laws:10 as L.H. Feldman says, it is understandable that FJ does not develop this theme a great deal, since his work is a history and not a juridical treatise.11 Furthermore, if this theme is considered throughout the entire work of FJ and not only in the juridical sections, it will become evident that, far from being secondary, it is of primary importance. Before outlining briefly what FJ says in regard to this question,12 it is necessary to remember that already in biblical writings, there is a link between ritual and moral purity.13 These two spheres are united by one central reality which justifies both, namely, the holiness of God. For the purpose of simplification, the following equation is fundamental: all moral impurity is simultaneously ritual, but not all ritual impurity is automatically moral. This clarification is vital in order to understand the information provided by FJ. Many of the texts which speak of purity in his work are difficult to decipher, precisely because these two aspects interlock without always having clearly defined limits (cf. J. W. 2.7; 5.380; Ant. 3.278). hundred years are presented. The contribution of sociology with works such as that of M. Douglas is valued by H.K. Harrington, but she considers that it cannot be applied without previously examining the sources: H.K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems, 1-43. For a critique of H.K. Harrington's work, the recension of E. Nodet and an article by J. Maier can be consulted. These show that not all the laws of purity in Judaism can be linked with the Pentateuch; cf. E. Nodet, "Recensions: The Impurity System," 116-128; J. Maier, "La Torah di purita nel Levitico," 39-66; M. Douglas, Purity and Danger. 8 Cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 500-502. 9 G. Vermes, "A Summary of the Law," 292. 10 Cf. Ant. 3.223, 257; 4.198; 20.268. 11 L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 510. 12 A monograph on this subject in FJ would be invaluable, but would extend beyond the scope of this work. 13 J. Klawans, "The Impurity of Immorality," 1-16; Id., "Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity," 391-415. Strangely, in neither of the two articles—otherwise excellently written—is there any mention of FJ.
THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
135
As far terminology is concerned, FJ's language can be described as varied and specific, thus displaying his accurate knowledge on the subject. The two principal semantic areas to be examined are those derived from the verbs ayve'ucQ (to purify ritually)14 and KocGapeixo (to purify in general).15 The first of these verbs is the more specific, and almost certainly refers to strictly ritual purity.16 Noteworthy for this research is the close relation established by FJ between this type of purity and the sacrificial system (cf. Ant. 3.224 273), which includes the entire festive calendar of Israel. A good example of the precision of this expression is to be found in a passage that speaks of the baptism of John the Baptist, which is only a ritual symbol (ocyveia) of a purity of soul (rcpo£KK£Ka9ap|ievr|<;), already won by just behaviour (cf. Ant. 18.117). The second verb (Koc0ap£-6co) often coincides with the first, since they are practically synonymous.17 However, it also embraces a variety of meanings, which even extend to apparently quite different aspects of ayveijco (ritual purity), such as the purity of a cloudless sky (cf. Ant. 3.203; 8.344). In any case, the most common meaning of the terms derived from KaSapevco is that of moral purity or innocence.18 It seems fair to state that, for FJ, the equation suggested above was clear, namely, that all moral purity was also ritual,19 but not all ritual purity was automatically moral:20 hence the connection between purity and holiness. In relation to these two, there is also a distinction between holy and profane things. These four categories (holy—profane; pure—impure) appear in the work of this author. For him, in this field also, a simple equation holds true: everything holy is pure (cf. J.W. 6.425), but not everything profane is of itself impure (cf. J.W. 2.128; 5.18; 6.271). The precise term for indicating what is profane is (3e(3ri?i6<;,21 which at 14
Cf. among others: J.W. 1.229; Ant. 3.78; Life 11; Ag. Ap. 1.199. Cf. among others: J.W. 5.227; Ant. 3.278; Life 74; Ag. Ap. 2.202-203. 16 Cf. among others: J. W. 1.26; 2.129; 5.194; 7.264; Ant. 3.152; 4.80. 17 Cf. J.W. 2.129, 138; 5.227; 6.425; Ant. 1.322; 3.197, 261, 278; 4.81; 19.331; Life 74; Ag. Ap. 1.306; 2.202. 1(1 Cf. J.IK 1.114, 453, 621; 2.31, 141; 7.228; Ant. 1.75; 2.52; 4.114, 222; 6.303; 8.120. H) Cf. J.W. 4.562; 5.380; 6.99-102. 20 Cf. J.W. 6.426; Ant. 3.261-264. 21 Cf. J.W. 2.128; 4.182; 5.18; 6.271; Ant. 12.38. 15
136
EXCURSUS ONE
times is combined with KOIVO<; (common), but this latter term has a great variety of meanings, which have nothing to do with the distinction between sacred and profane (cf. Ant. 3.181; 12.320). The category of "profane" is occasionally defined by contrasting priests with lay people (J. W. 6.271), or the Temple with an ordinary place (Ant. 15.90). Holiness is described by the word ayioc;, which, in the great majority of cases, is applied to the Temple (cf. J. IV. 1.26; 2.129), and in the superlative form (xot> ayiov TO ayiov) to the Sanctuary itself (J.W. 5.219; Ant. 3.125). It is also applied to objects in the Temple or those used for worship (J.W. 2.321; Ant. 7.342), to the oil (Ant. 6.83, 157; 7.355; 9.106), and to the feasts (Ant. 8.100; 11.77). It is curious that he only applies this adjective (ccyiot;) to a group of Israelites— not just priests—i.e., to those who are ready to celebrate Passover
(d. J.W. 6.425). FJ's tendency to rationalise the meaning of the laws is well-known. For this reason, it would be strange if, in the case of purity, he were to make an exception. Considering the sacred and profane use of the semantic derivations from KaGapeiJCQ, the element most common to both areas seems to be that of purity as an absence of mixture. Hence it is probable that, for FJ, the essential element, which makes the whole system of ritual purity logical, is the absence of mixture.22 It is difficult to state with certainty whether, for FJ, the first mixture which gives rise to ritual impurity is a consequence of the contact between life and death. There is no doubt that Ag. Ap. 2.203 seems to suggest it, since it offers an explanation of the impurity derived from sexual relations and from the moment of death, which seems based on the fact that in both events there is a mixing of living and dead elements.23 On the other hand, in Ag. Ap. 2.205 he seems to
22 For the profane use cf. Ant. 3.83, 203, 251; 4.228; 6.229; 7.378; 8.344. For the sacred use cf. J.W. 1.229; Ant. 3.258, 279; 11.153; 18.19; Ag. Ap. 2.203, 257. 23 In regard to the possibility that, in this synthesis of the Law, FJ takes as his basis a pre-existing source, the work of G.P. Carras can be consulted. When he compares Ag. Ap. 2.190-200 with a part of the fragment of Philo's book called Hypothetica handed down by Eusebius of Caesarea (PrepEv. 8.6.10-7.20)—an apologia similar to Ag. Ap.—he draws the following conclusion: both authors probably drew from the same source—a great proportion of the material would be of biblical origin—and direct dependence of FJ on Philo is highly unlikely. Ch. Gerber, in her work on Ag. Ap., arrives at a similar conclusion. On the other hand, Philo
THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
137
justify impurity caused by contact with the dead as a barrier against the shedding of blood, i.e., against murder.24 Consequently, because FJ has not left a systematic treatise on ritual purity, it seems more useful to describe briefly the principal causes of ritual impurity as well as the concrete occasions when a purification is explained, than to determine the fundamental basis of the whole system. Returning to the specific terminology FJ uses to define the impure and that which contaminates (jiiodvco and its derivatives), some basic concepts become clear: moral evil is a source of contamination (J. W. 1.500; 4.562); for the Essenes, according to FJ, noises are a source of contamination (J. W. 2.132),23 as well as also one's own excrement (J.W. 2.149);26 pagan sacrifices are a cause of impurity for the Jews in general, at least if they occur in places considered sacred by them (J.W. 2.289); blood especially contaminates if it is the result of a murder, or more particularly fratricide (J.W. 3.391; 4.201; Ant. 2.22, 31). The following are als considered sources of contamination: corpses (J.W. 5.10); leprosy, gonorrhoea and a woman's menstruation (J.W. 6.426); illicit sexual relations (Ant. 2.55; 3.275), and even licit ones (Ag. Ap. 2.203); idols (Ant. 5.42); apostasy and all the other crimes committed by Manasseh (Ant. 10.37); the presence of foreigners in the Temple (Ant. 11.297, 300); and the statue of the emperor in Jerusalem (Ant. 18.271). This list is certainly not complete, but it gives an idea of FJ's thinking on ritual purity and on morality in relation to it. The connection between the two is very close, but they are not quite identical. It appears that when ritual purity touches on the moral order, it is subordinate to it (cf. Ant. 18.117). totally excludes the theme of purity in this fragment; cf. G.P. Carras, "Dependence or Common Tradition," 24-47 esp. 42-47; Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 111-116. Concerning the theme of purity in Philo cf. C M . Vian, "Purita e culto nell'esegesi giudaico-ellenistica," 74-84. J.C. O'Neill's theory, namely, that Ag. Ap. in its entirety is the work of FJ's collaborators, seems exaggerated and is not adequately proven; cf. J.C. O'Neill, "Who Wrote What," 270-281. 24 Cf. L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 501-502; Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, 226. This statement appears to be a gloss; cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, Ag. Ap. 2.205 n. 1. 25 Considering the way FJ presents the Essenes, one has to assume that it is also a ritual contamination, since they live perpetually in a state of perfect purity (cf. J.W. 2.129). 2h These two sources of contamination are presented as typical to the Essenes, and thus not common to all the Jews.
138
EXCURSUS ONE
Therefore, it is probable that ritual purity is seen by FJ as a return to a primordial state (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.179-181), to an integrity dictated by the moral law (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.192). For this reason, an essential aspect of purity for FJ is also the absence of foreign elements within the community {Ag. Ap. 2.210) and within the priestly families {Ant. 3.258, 276-279; Ag. Ap. 1.30-32). As a consequence of this, there is a severity in the laws against mixed marriages (cf. Ant. 11.139—143), and in the need for total acceptance of Jewish laws in order to become part of the Jewish community {Ag. Ap. 2.210). In the course of this work, other passages have been emphasised or will be mentioned where there appears a very close connection between the celebration of Passover and the theme of purity (cf. Ant. 2.312; Ant. 9.268-272; 10.70-72). An endeavour will be made to review these texts with the intention of assessing the possible importance of what it seems to be a casual connection. The first text is precisely the account of the escape from Egypt {Ant. 2.312). Here the allusion to purification is brief but significant, considering that it is an addition to the biblical text. It deals with the purification of the houses, which could perhaps be an analogy to the purification of the Temple, i.e., a fitting environment for the manifestation of God's holiness. The need for purification can be explained simply by the fact that they found themselves in a foreign country, which represented a sure source of impurity. The second consideration is that FJ systematically removes the possibility of celebrating a second Passover for those who are either not in a state of purity in the first month, or are unable to celebrate for other reasons. This omission is not easy to evaluate in relation to the problem of purity. On the one hand, at times he contradicts his source(s), declaring that all were fit to celebrate {Ant. 9.268—272); on the other hand, he does not deny that some were excluded from the feast due to problems of impurity {J. W. 6.426). It could be assumed that FJ preferred the impure to wait a year, rather than having to devalue the feast by granting a second, lowkey opportunity. Continuing with the listing of relevant passages, one finds the three celebrations in the pre- and post-exilic periods. The two reformer kings, Hezekiah and Josiah, celebrate the feast of Passover at the correct time, and each occasion lends itself to a purification of the people and of the land {Ant. 9.268-272; 10.68-72). Similarly, those who return from exile are not divided by this author into pure
THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
139
and impure, but are all ready to take part in the sacrifice (Ant. 11.109-111). In no way can these occasions be term secondary. On the contrary, these are landmarks in the history of Israel, and examples as to how the people and their rulers should behave. Given the relevance of these events, the importance of purity on these occasions can be assumed, because FJ disregards other aspects, but does not wish to omit this one. It seems equally worth noting that, in the three cases when the people are in a state of purity, he avoids the divisions and distinctions among the people that are present in his source(s). It is now necessary to move on to an event occurring at Passover towards the beginning of this era. FJ recounts that a group of Samaritans scattered human bones in the Temple (Ant. 18.29-30).27 This incident, in spite of being very mysterious, is a further proof of the importance of purity at Passover, since one must suppose that the Samaritans, in their desire to do real harm, would have chosen the most significant moment. Thus the impurity undoubtedly caused by the bones would have been a great scandal connected with the celebration of that Passover. On another occasion, according to this analysis—FJ does not say it explicitly—the leaders (rcpcoTOi) among the Jews ask Vitellius not to enter Jerusalem with foreign troops during a feast of Passover (Ant. 18.120-124).28 This request shows that purity at the celebrations of Passover was significant not only for FJ, but for all in general, since the requirement does not seem exceptional.29 That FJ does not explicitly say this was a Passover could be explained by the fact that the petition would sound somewhat suspicious precisely on the feast of the liberation of Israel. The provocative act of a Greek in Caesarea, who sacrifices birds on an inverted jar at the entrance to the synagogue (J. W. 2.289—290), can be weighed equally.30 This is considered a profanation of the place (|i£|iiao|jiv(ov xo\> %opicm), which unleashes the anger of some who are present. Once again, without being the central theme of the passage, the preoccupation with purity at the time of Passover reappears. It should be noted that, even though he is not dealing 27 28 29 30
Cf. ch. V § 3. Cf. ch. V § 4. It says explicitly that it is a tradition (ndtptov) which establishes this prohibition. Cf. ch. V § 6.
140
EXCURSUS ONE
with Jerusalem or the Temple, he speaks, nevertheless, of impurity with a technical term such as |iiouvco (to profane). The last text which must be examined has already been quoted several times:31 FJ's famous description of the requirements for celebrating Passover. Among all he lists, one of the most important is precisely ritual purity, the absence of which automatically prevents participation in the Passover feast (J. W. 6.425-427). Foreigners, who cannot participate in the sacrifice, are treated in the same way as the impure (cf. m. Tehar. 7:6; t. Pesah. 7:13). It is fair to ask how this exclusion was carried out, and what effect it could have on the celebration of this feast. In the first place, it is important to stress the fact that one also finds in the N T a severe presentation of these practices of exclusion. This conclusion is drawn from John 11:55 and especially from J o h n 18:28. The first passage mentions the people who went up to Jerusalem before Passover to be purified (ayviacoaiv eoruToix;). This has definite parallels in the work of FJ: one needs only to mention the purification before the Passover led by Josiah as well as that enacted after the exile (Ant. 10.70; 11.109-110). Still more specifically, FJ explains that around the eighth of Xanthicus the people began to gather together for Passover (cf. J. W. 6.290). The second passage states clearly that the Jews do not wish to enter the Praetorium for fear of being contaminated and thus being unable to eat the Passover (iva \ir\ (iiccvGcoGiv).32 The prohibition seems to have been even more severe in Qumran, where participation in the Passover meal by women and minors was excluded, as will be shown in more detail.33 In all probability, this was due to an extreme effort to ensure ritual purity. 34 This strict attitude seems to have been moderated later by the rabbis, since there emerges a more permissive approach to the purity required for the celebration of feasts (cf. b. Hag. 26a; t. cEd. 3:3) and especially Passover (m. Pesah. 7:6).35
31 32
Cf. ch. V § 7.
Without denying the theological value of this passage, it is probable that this attitude was historically possible; cf. ch. VI § 9 n. 105. 33 Cf. ch. VI § 6. 34 For a comparison of this fragment with FJ and rabbinic literature cf. J.M. Baumgarten, "Scripture and Law in 4Q265," 31-33. 33 The exception to this is the preparation of the High priest for the day of expiation (Yom Kippur) to which he dedicates more than two chapters (cf. m. Yoma 1:1—3,
THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
141
In this respect, a point of some interest is the debate about the possibility of eating Passover on the afternoon before the feast for a pagan converted to Judaism (cf. m. Pesah. 8:8). According to the school of Shammai, it is sufficient that he bathes and, at sunset, be purified. On the other hand, the school of Hillel says that he who is circumcised is like one who comes away from a tomb: he is impure for seven days, and must be purified on the third and seventh days.36 These different positions could be a sign that not all were in complete agreement on this matter.37 The need for preparation does not seem to be an invention of post-biblical authors, because it is already found in Ezek 45:18—20. There the prophet states in the name of the Lord that, on the first day of the first month, the sanctuary must be purified by the sacrifice of a young bull without blemish, and afterwards its blood must be spread on the doors of the Temple and the altar. The same operation must be repeated a week later, in case somebody has sinned inadvertently, to make expiation for the Temple. Even though it is not clearly stated, it is possible that for the last week they envisaged staying in a pure place in order to avoid further contamination. However, this passage is not very explicit in regard to the purification rites which the people had to carry out, because it refers principally to the Temple. FJ does not say specifically of what the preparation consisted, nor why the people gathered together some days before Passover. Indeed, there is no help in John 11:55, which seems to take these details for granted. A survey of FJ's work leads to some possible conjectures in this regard. In Ant. 2.311 he summarises the Passover preparations, which are found in Exod 12:3^6, with the verb TtapaoKEuaoaiiivcnx; (being prepared), which has a general sense and could include rites of purification, while in the Bible it refers explicitly to the choice of the animal for the sacrifice. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that this preparation begins only on the tenth of the first month,
5). Regarding the tendency of the rabbis to mollify the laws on purity cf. E. Ottenheijm, "Impurity between Intention and Deed," 142. 36 G. Beer, m. Pesah. 8:8 n.b. 37 In general, the opinions of the house of Hillel prevail in the praxis of the later rabbis. Hence there would be a tendency here to rigidity rather than laxity, but in this case it does not say explicitly which view should be followed. For more information on the difficult problem of the immersion of proselytes cf. SJ.D. Cohen, "Is 'Proselyte Baptism' Mentioned in the Mishnah?," 278-292.
142
EXCURSUS ONE
and that the purification is carried out later, using the blood of the victim. A more exact expression occurs in J. W. 1.229, which speaks of a period of purification before the feast—probably Passover, as was seen—38 during which troops are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. Considering these facts, it could be suggested that the minimum time for preparation of the people for Passover would be a week or eight days before the fourteenth of the first month (cf. J. W. 6.290). This idea connects extremely well with the laws of purity in general, since the impurity that remains longest lasts seven days (cf. Ant. 3.261—264). Thus, if the priests in the Temple must be sure that those who enter therein are pure and do not defile it (cf. Ant. 18.30), the only possible way to ensure this seems to be by obliging the people to stay in pure territory—namely Jerusalem—for at least seven days. The city and the Temple were divided according to the degree of purity (cf. m. Kelim 1:6-9), and access to each sector depended on the situation of the one who wished to enter (J.W. 5.227; Ag. Ap. 2.103^104). The gate of Nicanor seems to be the check-point for gaining access to the area reserved to Israelites in a state of purity (Ant. 15.418). According to the opinion of H.StJ. Thackeray (J.W. 1.26)39—following T. Reinach—with the expression knxa ayveiaq (seven purities), FJ refers to these grades or sectors into which the holy city was divided. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the expression relates to the seven days of purification, which could be necessary in the worst cases of impurity. Against this last hypothesis it must be remembered that FJ is aware of lesser periods of purification: in Ant. 6.235, Saul does only one day of purification before a new moon; and in Ant. 3.78 the people remain in a state of purity for three days before the theophany of Sinai, abstaining from conjugal relations, but here he follows the biblical text (Exod 19:14-16). In favour of the same hypothesis, one could suggest that Acts 21:27 also speaks of a period of seven days of purification as a concept that is well-known, even if not in relation to a feast.40 38
Cf. ch. V § 4. Cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J.W. 1.26 n.a. The coincidences between what FJ maintains about purity and what is found in Temple Scroll and other Qumran writings are worth noting, but they are also 39
40
THE THEME OF PURITY IN THE WORK OF FJ
143
In writings contemporary with this author—as will become plain later—two writers, namely, the author of Jubilees and Philo, connect purity with Passover.41 The more significant of these is undoubtedly Philo: he maintains clearly that at Passover all the Israelites can act as priests, and therefore must be purified [Spec. 2.145—146). All that has been said so far makes the affirmation possible that, while FJ does not treat the theme of purity extensively (cf. Ant. 3.258 273; Ag. Ap. 2.198), it is not any less important. Suffice it to say that one of FJ's most repeated accusations against the rebels— from his own mouth or from others—is that they denied Jerusalem, and, in their zeal for freedom, achieved slavery and the definitive profanation of the Holy City and the Temple {J.W. 4.240 244; 5.401-403; 6.99-103). This double equation, Purity—Passover and Impurity Rebels, has the potential to be useful in denning the role played by the feast in the work of FJ. Alongwith this combination, FJ prudently but clearly specifies the need for a purity that excludes elements foreign to the Jewish community.42
beyond the limitations of this work. A detailed study of both texts would be worthwhile; cf. E. Eshel, "4Q414 Fragment 2," 3-10. Similarly, it seems that in recent studies on purity in the first century, FJ is systematically ignored, which undoubtedly impoverishes the results; cf. G.M. Vian, "Purita e culto nell'esegesi giudaicoellenistica," 67-84; E. Ottenheijm, "Impurity between Intention and Deed," 129-147; E. Regev, "Non-Priestly Purity," 223-244; C. Werman, "The Concept of Holiness," 163-179. 41 Cf. ch. VI § 5, 8. 42 Cf. ch. VIII 8 2.
EXCURSUS T W O : T H E LANGUAGE OF FJ REGARDING PASSOVER AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
At the beginning of this work, the difficulty involved in comparing the work of FJ with his sources became obvious, especially when a general summary of his approach is being attempted.1 At the end of the first two parts of this study, however, it is necessary to broach this question in light of the texts that have been analysed in order to better understand the language FJ uses concerning this feast. Since the biblical source used by FJ is the best known, that was the starting point of this work, in order to attain a clearer grasp of how FJ re-worked his sources. Without repeating all that has been said already,2 his approach can be summarised as follows. He has no major difficulty in reducing much of his material to one or two phrases, discarding several aspects of his source(s) (cf. Ant. 2.311). He re-works the content, giving it his own distinctive form. However, at certain moments, he re-establishes points of contact with his source(s)—taking up again, almost literally, some elements—which allows an easier understanding as to which passage of his source(s) he is rewriting (cf. Ant. 2.311—319; Exod 12). On other occasions he seems to either ignore a passage or reduce it to a general phrase, if his sources do not coincide (cf. Ant. 10.72; 2 Chr 35:10-12; 1 Esd 1:10-12). In spite of his great determination, when he goes back to remodel his source(s) which makes it possible to consider him a true author and not a mere copyist—it cannot be said that the content he transmits is completely different from that of his source(s). For that reason his faithfulness to the text can be denned as dynamic.3 It is precisely because of this dynamism, however, that it becomes very difficult to distinguish, in the rest of his work, the material which FJ takes from his source(s) and that which he freely adds. Especially, when he paraphrases authors whose works are only preserved in fragmentary form, as in the case of Nicolaus of Damascus.
Cf. ch. I § 1. Cf. ch. IV. Cf. ch. I § 1.
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING PASSOVER
145
Since a basic structure is discernible in his mentions of Passover or Unleavened Bread, it is possible to make a hypothesis on the aspects which seem characteristic of this author, those which may come from some other source(s), or others which simply reflect the language of preceding authors. The scheme that appears consists of the following: a) a temporal introduction; b) mention of Passover or Unleavened Bread without identifying them; c) identification of both; d) historical motivation; e) mention of the sacrifices; f) reference to the multitude of people who come to Jerusalem. All the elements clearly are not always found together: there are passages in which only Unleavened Bread is mentioned (J-W. 6.290), and others that are enriched with great detail (Ant. 17.213). In general, the terminology he uses occurs frequently in all the rest of his work—apart from some significant exceptions. It therefore seems more probable that they come from the pen of FJ, who also—as will become evident—adopts the terminology of others. A table summarising all these elements follows. a) Temporal Introduction . . . when the feast had arrived...4 . . . for the feast . . .6 . . . during the feast... . . . during the time of the feast... . . . before the feast. . .8 . . . in . . .9
4
J.W. 2.10, 280; 5.99;5 6.423; Ant. 9.271; 11.109; 14.25; 17.213; 20.206 J.W. 2.224; 6.421 J.W. 4.402; Ant. 3.321 Ant. 14.21; 17.2137 J.W. 6.290 J.W. 5.99; Ant. 3.248, 249; 11.109, 110
The formula appears with slight variations, but is always a genitive absolute. The verbal form used—except in J.W. 2.280—is evaxa.cr\c, (being on the point of arriving or of beginning). In Ant. 14.25 another verbal form is used (emcHfivat) with a similar meaning, but the phrase is not part of a genitive absolute as in the other cases. 5 Instead of "feast" it says "day" here. 6 The preposition erci is used with the accusative. ' In this passage it is combined with the expression "when the feast had arrived." 8 The preposition npoq is used with the accusative. 9 It sums up several temporal details expressed simply with a dative.
146
EXCURSUS TWO b) Mention of Unleavened Bread or Passover without Identifying Them . . . of unleavened bread . . .
. . . Passover . . .
J.W. 2.224, 244, 280; 4.402; 6.290, 421; Ant. 2.317; 3.249, 321; 9.263264, 271; 10.70; 11.109; 18.29 j \y 6.423; Ant. 2.313; 3.248, 249, 294; 5.20; 9.271; 10.70-71; 11.110; 14.25
c) Identification of Both Feasts . . . of Unleavened Bread, called Passover. . .10 . . . Passover, in which it is the custom to serve unleavened bread . . .
J.W. 2.10;11 Ant. 14.21; 18.29
Ant. 17.213; 20.106
d) Historical Motivation . . . which the Jews do as thanksgiving from the time when, freed from the slavery of Egypt, they went down to the land of their Fathers . . . . . . in which the Jews think that they were first freed from Egypt. . . . . . for this reason up to the present time we sacrifice in the same way . . .12 . . . for this reason in memory of that shortage . . .13 . . . since in that month we were freed from the slavery of Egypt. . ,14 . . . being a memorial of their escape from Egypt. . .
J.W. 4.402
J.W. 5.99
Ant. 2.313 Ant. 2.317
Ant. 3.248 Ant. 17.213
10 The verb mXeco is used twice and Xeyco {Ant. 14.21) once, but the meaning is the same. In Ant. ^.eyco is used more often when mentioning Passover (3.248, 294; 9.271; 10.70), KaAico four times (2.313; 14.25; 17.213; 18.29) and npoaayopeijco twice {Ant. 11.110; 20.106). In general, the name of the feast of Unleavened Bread is not specified further, except in Ant. 2.317, where it is referred as follows: "the so-called (Xeyoiaevriv) feast of unleavened bread". '' Here he specifies that it is the Jews who call it thus: r\ naaya 12
It precedes the description of the first Passover {Ant. 2.312). This refers to Unleavened Bread. 14 This is before the exact date of the celebration of Passover, namely, the fourteenth of Nisan. 1!
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING PASSOVER
e) Mention of Sacrifices . . . a great abundance of sacrifices are offered . . . . . . in which they sacrifice from the ninth hour . . . . . . and the sacrifice . . . . . . they sacrificed Passover... . . . in which it is our custom to sacrifice abundantly to God . . . . . . and they sacrifice with zeal and an abundance of sacrifices, as in no other is it their custom to slaughter . ..
147
J. W. 2.10 J.W. 6.423 Ant. 3.248 Ant. 3.294; 9.271; 11.110 Ant. 14.25
Ant. 17.213
f) Reference to the Multitude of People Who Come to Jerusalem . . . since an endless crowd comes forth from the area for their worship . . . . . . since when the multitude has gathered in Jerusalem. . . . . . he met the multitude . . . . . . when the people had gathered together . . . . . . he called the people to Jerusalem . . ,15 . . . all the people came together from the countryside to the city. .. . . . then a multitude without number from the countryside and also from abroad for the worship of God... . . . and having gathered together a great crowd from all quarters . . .
J.W. 2.10 J.W. 2.224 J.W. 2.244 J.W. 6.290 Ant. 9.263; 10.70 Ant. 11.109
Ant. 17.213 Ant. 20.106
In Ant. 9.263 the verb is mXeco (to call), in 10.71 cruvKaXeco (to call together).
148
EXCURSUS TWO
This list seems to indicate a great deal, but it must not be forgotten that this is a partial analysis, which will ensure that the proposals to follow cannot simply be generalised regarding the rest of his work. Nevertheless, they can serve as good working hypotheses for future investigations. A first observation is that, though he repeats throughout his work without fail some of the elements noted—at times even within the same work—he almost never repeats words in a mechanical way. In fact, a great variety of small differences in vocabulary and syntax can be noted. Among his temporal introductions, one in particular attracts attention, which seems to be almost a technical formula for introducing an event, namely, "when the feast arrived . . ." (evaxaarn; eopxfic;. . .). Counting only the occurrences linked with Passover, this phrase occurs some seven times, with minor variations. However, this phrase appears in other passages of FJ, and is linked to both Pentecost and Tabernacles (cf. J.W. 1.253; 2.42; Ant. 17.254; 13.46). Since a similar expression for introducing a feast is found at least twice in Nicolaus of Damascus,16 it could be concluded that FJ drew on his language, without insisting that every passage containing this expression comes from him. To be exact, many of the words FJ uses in the passages collated above are found in the known fragments of Nicolaus of Damascus. However, a great number of these are in passages that could hardly have been taken from him.17 Thus it can be said that FJ probably utilises part of this author's vocabulary throughout his work. Since it is not possible to give this comparison the attention it deserves,18 one way of giving a concrete example would be to analyse 16
Cf. F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 127 (13); 130 (71). Here are a few examples. The word [ivr|(ir| (memorial) appears in a gloss, which is certainly an addition by FJ to the biblical text {Ant. 2.317), and Nicolaus of Damascus uses it on at least five occasions; cf. F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 125 (1) lines 10, 15; 130 (51), (56), (62). The noun TiapaoKeufi (preparation) used by FJ some seventy-three times, appears twice in a short space of time in Nicolaus of Damascus; cf. Id., Fragmente, II A 90, F 130 (98), (99). The combination of the adverbs ext and vuv, which is found among other cases in a gloss by FJ in Ant. 2.313, is present in one of the fragments of Nicolaus, which FJ himself has preserved in Ant. 1.160. The verb Ttpoaocyopeuco in passive form with the sense of "to be called," which in FJ occurs more than twenty times, is found twice in the fragments of Nicolaus; cf. Id., Fragmente, II A 90, F 130 (120); 137 (5). 18 It would be a very worthwhile task for the study of FJ to produce a concordance of the fragments of Nicolaus of Damascus. A summary of this problem is found in G. Holscher, "Josephus," PW, IX.2, 1944-1949. For a bibliography on this theme cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, 232. 17
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING PASSOVER
149
J.W. 2.10 and Ant. 17.213, where, as has been shown,19 it seems likely that FJ is paraphrasing the historian of Damascus. These passages have already been compared in regard to content.20 The terminology must now be analysed, in order to reach a hypothesis on how FJ elaborated his texts. Ant. 17.213 seems to have been composed with J. W. 2.10 in front of him because all the elements in the latter are also to be found in the former, with some additions. Nevertheless, in Ant. 17.213 there are aspects, which very probably belong to Nicolaus of Damascus, that are not found in J.W. 2.10. Consequently, it seems most plausible that neither of the two passages represents an exact copy of the narrative of Nicolaus of Damascus. J.W. 2.10 would be a reproduction of the content, abbreviating it and improving the style,21 while Ant. 17.213 would follow more closely the account of Nicolaus of Damascus, but with additions which do not appear to come from him. The probability of the proposed hypothesis can now be demonstrated from the text in question. Starting with the temporal introduction, already pointed out, it is probable that FJ—in this case—took this phrase from Nicolaus: "when the feast had arrived . . ."; since the same construction is used by this author in VitaCaes. 13,22 and in a similar form in VitaCaes. 71.23 In Ant. 17.213 he adds pleonastically the phrase "at that very moment. . ." (raxa xovSe xov Kaipov . . .), which could be inspired by the vocabulary of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.24 It seems more probable that, of the two ways of mentioning Unleavened Bread, the phrase of Ant. 17.213: "at which for the Jews to serve unleavened bread is an ancestral custom" (ev r\ 'Ioi)8a{oi<; a^\)(ia TipoTiGeaBai rcdxpiov) is closer to Nicolaus. On the other hand, the laconic phrase of J.W. 2.10: "of Unleavened Bread" (xwv &^Q|icov), seems to be an abbreviation of the former.25 In fact, in Ant. 13.251, 19
Cf. ch. V § 2. Cf. ch. V § 2. 21 Probably due to the assistance of his Greek collaborators. 22 F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 127 (13). 23 F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 130 (71). 2t Other similar phrases occur In this author's work, such as m r a TOVSE xov dycova (AntRom. 3.14.1); Korea xov5e xov vouov (AntRom. 6.66.4); Korea xov8e tov 7t6A,euov (AntRom. 5.49.3). FJ uses an identical phrase in Ant. 14.460. E. Cary, The Roman Antiquities, II, 56-57; III, 144-145; IV, 52~53. 25 The form of the expression here presupposes that the reader knows what FJ is talking about, or that the author did not think it worth explaining. 20
150
EXCURSUS TWO
where FJ quotes Nicolaus verbatim, a similar phrase appears: "at which for the Jews it is not customary to go on a journey" (ev f| xoi<; 'Io\)5aioig OUK r\v VOJIIJXOV e^oSeueiv). The identification of Unleavened Bread and Passover was ostensibly found in simpler form in Nicolaus: "called Passover" (
2B
The variation between (pdoica and naona does not seem to be significant, as was explained in the introduction; cf. § 3. 27 F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 130 (71). 28 This kind of elaboration of his source(s) has already been noted in other passages; cf. ch. V § 1, 3. 1-29 E. Cary, The Roman Antiquities, I, 142-143, 238-239; II, 216-217, 232-233, 282-283; V, 296-297. This word appears only once in the LXX: Num 33:2. 30 For more information on the role of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Ant. cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, 56-58. 31 F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 130 (71).
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING PASSOVER
151
The word "multitude" (nXr\doq) re-establishes a point of comparison between J. W. 2.10 and Ant. 17.213. Nevertheless, since in Nicolaus of Damascus the verb KaxaKorcxco (to tear apart) appears with the noun iepeiov (victim)32—similar to Ant. 17.213—it seems more probable that this latter passage is closer to the text of Nicolaus. However, the decision is not so easy, because the participle £K6exo|ievr| (they offer themselves), which appears in J. W. 2.10, is not foreign to the vocabulary of the historian of Damascus. 33 The following phrase in Ant. 17.213, "is for them a custom" (eaxiv amoic, v6|ii|iov), could tilt the balance in favour of the view that this latter text is closer to its supposed source, since the link between rcdxpiov (ancestral) and v6(ii|j.ov (custom) is reminiscent of the passage of Nicolaus reproduced in Ant. 13.251. The phrase "as in no other" (coq C/UK ev aXkv[) could be a gloss by FJ, because he appears to change the syntactical order. However, there are no strong factors to sustain the probability of this hypothesis. There is another clear point where the two texts under consideration come together. The word in question is mxeiai (they go down), which is the beginning of a new element, namely, the mention of the crowds who come to Jerusalem. The major difference lies in the fact that in J. W. 2.10 the narrative opens with this sentence, since there is the typical construction . . . [iev . . . 8e . . . (. . . since . . . for this...), 3 4 whereas in Ant. 17.213 it seems to end the preceding description. The remaining differences are minor ones, and because the text of J. W. 2.10 appears better redacted, the improvements can probably be attributed to FJ's Greek collaborator. Only the phrase in Ant. 17.213: "and also from abroad" {r\hx\ 5e KCU £K XT\C, wtepopmq), could be an addition by FJ, since it does not seem to fit in with the syntax of the speech and because the noun tmepopicxc; (abroad) appears also in Ant. 3.241; 4.295.3a Similarly, it is possible that the specification in Ant. 17.213 indicating that the worship is "of God" (xot> Qeov) may
" F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 66 (27). F. Jacoby, Fragmente, II A 90, F 20 (31) = Ant. 7.102. 54 This distinction is not made clear in H.St.J. Thackeray's translation; cf. J.W. 2.10. !> It is also found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus some seventeen times; cf. AntRom. 1.21.1; 1.57.2; 2.3.8; 2.12.1; 5.53.1; etc. The word dvapOnrixog (countlesss) which occurs in Ant. 17.213, also appears once in AntRom. 13.4.2; E. Cary, The Roman Antiquities, I, 66-67, 188-189, 322-323, 346-347; III, 156-157; VII, 242243. :i:i
152
EXCURSUS TWO
come from FJ's pen, because if it had already been present in Nicolaus of Damascus, he would presumably not have omitted it from J.W. 2.10. In summary, the signs of a re-working of the source seem to be clear. However, in this case FJ does not appear to be combining two independent sources. Instead, keeping J. W. 2.10 in front of him, he uses Nicolaus of Damascus once again. Furthermore, he adds details from his own hand, at times using terminology he may have learned from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. After this analysis, it is possible to affirm that, in this case, the redactional technique of FJ is very similar to that which has been noted in the examination of his re-working of the biblical text. Furthermore, it is clear that he is not afraid to repeat some aspects already mentioned, even if the variations of language suggest that he is not simply copying what has already been said. With respect to his possible readers, this examination of his language seems to confirm what was suggested in the introduction,36 that he aspires to reach both non-Jews and Jews. This conclusion can be drawn from the basic scheme which he follows in the majority of his references to Passover, since he gives sufficient detail for those who do not know Jewish customs, without ever being so inexact that he might arouse criticism among his compatriots. This diligence on two fronts seems more evident in Ant. than in his first work.
Cf. § 2.
PART THREE TOWARDS A SETTING AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER SIX
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE 1. SOME INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS
It is obvious that FJ cannot be considered in isolation or outside his cultural and temporal context. It is essential to immerse oneself in the wide variety of works, which have been handed down by Judaism, in order to understand the elements shared with the work of FJ, those which he wishes to emphasise, as well as the new elements he wishes to present. Given the particular character of this work, it will not be feasible to examine deeply each of the writers to be considered in the same way as has been done with the writings of FJ. In each case we shall draw, as far as possible, on previous works on the subject, even if these are, unfortunately, not very numerous. In this comparison, no attempt is made to establish parallels in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, it is assumed that—as far as previous Jewish literature is concerned—FJ knew it, either directly or indirectly;' in each case it will be shown what kind of relationship is to be found between the texts compared. With respect to rabbinic literature, it is easy to determine the use of traditions shared with FJ.2 2. PASSOVER IN THE WRITINGS OF POST-EXILIC PROPHETS
Attention has already been paid to the texts from the exilic period that explicitly mention Passover, and to how FJ presents them in Ant. The prophetic books normally attributed to this period make no reference to Passover, except for a brief portion of Ezekiel (Ezek 45:21 24), which gives a series of legal prescriptions to be applied in the post-exilic period.3 It is worth mentioning that, in this context, Ezekiel 1
L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Isaiah," 583. SJ.D. Cohen, "Parallel Historical Tradition," 7-14. [i The number of animals that have to be sacrificed during the seven days of Unleavened Bread does not coincide with the prescriptions of Num 28:19, nor indeed with those of Ant. 3.249. 2
156
CHAPTER SIX
refers to a rite of purification, which precedes the feast of Passover (Ezek 45:18-20). Even though it is not exactly equal to the purifying power attributed by FJ to the blood of the Paschal sacrifice (Ant. 2.312), there appears to be a connection here between Passover and purification, not found in the Pentateuch.4 In another passage of Ezekiel (Ezek 32:17-32) there is an oracle, which in the LXX is dated the fifteenth day of the first month, that is to say, very probably during Passover. However, Origen considers that the phrase "of the first month" (xo\) 7ipcoxo"u (rnvoc;) should be removed, so that it agrees with the version of the MT. The oracle mentions Egypt, Pharaoh, his army and the descent to the depths of the underworld. These themes undoubtedly recall the crossing of the Red Sea: from this the connection with Passover could have arisen, by which the reference to the firs1 month would have been added to the date. The other possibility—which appears less probable—is that the MT modified the date in an attempt to reduce the polemic sense of Passover, since in this oracle the destruction of the peoples hostile to Israel is prophesied. In any case, whether the LXX is the more original text or this is merely a case of a gloss, it can be said that this text definitely shows an association between the defeat of Egypt and of the other foreign nations with Passover. It is also important to note the mention of the uncircumcised (Ezek 32:19, 21, 24-30, 32),5 because the Passover meal is the only one of which it is explicitly said that no uncircumcised person should take part (cf. Exod 12:43—49). The prophet Isaiah does not explicitly mention Passover,6 but the so-called Deutero-Isaiah (Is 40-55) makes generous use of the Exodus theme as the key in the reading of the return from exile. The structuring of this material has elicited to considerable discussion up to
4 Only Num 9:6-14 mentions the possibility of celebrating Passover in the second month for those who are impure through contact with a corpse on the fourteenth day of the first month, but there is no mention of an obligatory rite of purification during the first days of the first month; cf. Excursus I. 5 In this passage, the uncircumcised are mentioned more often than in all the OT and NT (seven times in the LXX; ten times in the MT). 6 The problem with the composition of the book of Isaiah has aroused a great debate in recent times. For an orientation in the different approaches to the study of Isaiah cf. M.A. Sweeney, "The Book of Isaiah," 141-162.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
157
the present,7 but pursuit of this theme would extend beyond the limits of this work. It is sufficient to note that in Isa 40-48 the motif of the Exodus is employed as one of the vehicles for the announcement of salvation.8 The Exodus is viewed as the opening of a way and also as a journey under God's protection: the writer ignores the aspect of liberation from an oppression, or that of taking possession of the land.9 FJ undoubtedly places great importance on the role of the prophets and of prophecy, but in the case of Isaiah he tends to diminish it.10 As far as the Exodus is concerned, FJ appears to accentuate the idea of the "journey" less than the idea of salvation (cf. Ant. 2.347).11 With respect to the return from exile and the prophecy of Isaiah, he emphasises more the possibility of returning to take possession of the land of the Fathers (cf. Ant. 11.2-7); this distances him from the reinterpretation of Deutero-Isaiah. More than anything else it must be made clear that from the very beginning of the post-exilic period, the events linked with Passover and the Exodus are seen as prototypes of God's action in favour of his people. For this reason, one should not be surprised if FJ, in his reworking of Jewish history, attributes to Passover—which for him embraces the time from the leaving of Egypt to the conquest of the land12—a particular role, as already demonstrated. The antiquity of this link between the Exodus and the return from exile supports the suggestion that FJ identifies Passover with the feast celebrated before the return from Babylon (Ant. 11.66).
7
Cf. C. Stuhlmueller, "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions," 1-5; A. Laato, "The Composition of Isaiah 40-55," 201-208; J. Werlitz, Redaktion und Komposition, 1-14. 8 Stuhlmueller maintains that chs. 41-48 can be considered as a unity with their own particular theology; cf. C. Stuhlmueller, "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions," 8. The theme of the Exodus also appears in other passages of Deutero-Isaiah (49:8~12; 50:2; 51:9-10; 52:11-12; 55:12-13), but these passages do not substantially change what is said in Isa 40-48. 9 The conclusions of Kiesow are the fruit of a historic-redactional analysis, which he then tries to fit into the context of the whole book of Isaiah; K. Kiesow, Exodustexte im Jesajabuch, 190-191, 201-203. 10 L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Isaiah," 607-608. " When he uses the word "journey" (686<;) in reference to the escape from Egypt—in particular during the passage through the Red Sea—he links it with "liberation" (acoxripia) in the immediate context {Ant. 2.333, 339, 342). 12 Cf. ch. Ill § 1.
158
CHAPTER SIX
3. PASSOVER IN WISDOM 18:5-25 Without doubt, this reworking of Passover is found in a literary context quite different from that in FJ. It is not possible to make a direct comparison of the treatment of Passover in one work or the other. However, it seems legitimate to compare the themes and elements, which hover around Passover in both passages. Considering the work of M. Priotto as a point of departure,13 it must be asked first, whether FJ attributes the same role in Passover to the Patriarchs as the Pseudo-Solomon does. The answer has to be negative: in FJ one cannot find an anticipation of the feast of Passover in the life of the Patriarchs.14 In fact, the only point of contact that can be established is FJ's insistence on stressing the importance of celebrating Passover according to the "law of the Fathers" (Ant. 9.263, 274; 10.72; 11.109). Nevertheless, in this context he seems to emphasise the Law of Moses more than a link with the Patriarchs. On the other hand, this could correspond with the mention of the covenant in Wis 18:9 which, according to M. Priotto, is one element of connection between Passover and Pentecost.l3 Even though FJ does not use biblical terminology to express the relationship between God and the people, he maintains the basic idea of a special covenant between God and the Jews.16 This consists in faithfulness to God through obedience to the laws of the Fathers.17 Such obedience is the only condition sine qua non for being part of the Jewish people (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.209-210). Passover, then, together with Pentecost, would be a time during which the people, in a special way, by renewing their adherence to God, would reinforce the bonds of unity.
13
M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua. For FJ, the oppression in Egypt is not part of the plan of God but the fruit of the Egyptians' envy (cf. Ant. 2.201). In fact, the divine plan foresaw the occupation of the land promised to the Fathers (cf. Ant. 2.171, 175). For this reason, God freed the Jews from Egypt (cf. Ant. 2.268-269; 5.261). Nevertheless, the conquest of the land is not separated from the figure of Moses, that is to say, of the Law. For FJ, this is not simply a unilateral relationship based on the promise to the patriarchs, but a reciprocal one in which obedience of the people to the Law and to the person of Moses is fundamental (cf. Ant. 4.1—6). 15 M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua, 80. 16 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 70-71, 219-221. '' B. Schroder says that FJ sees the "laws of the Fathers" as a kind of religious14
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
159
These bonds between the members of the people—in Wis 18:9 as in Ant. 3.248—are evinced with particular strength through the use of the first person plural of the pronoun (fifieiq). This expresses complete identification of the generation contemporary to these authors with the generation that experienced the salvation of the Exodus. According to both texts, such participation is brought about through liturgical celebration. Another common element worth indicating is the insistence on the fact that it is the entire people who sacrifice the Passover victim (Wis 18:9);18 it is not simply a rite reserved for the Levites or priests (cf. Ant. 9.271; 10.72). Along with this, it must be remembered that FJ accentuates the fact that Passover is a family feast (cf. Ant. 2.312; 3.248), as can also be seen in the Pseudo-Solomon.19 A difference of emphasis is found regarding the subject of circumcision. According to M. Priotto, in Wis 18:9 this sign is central, because it signified and occasioned the unity of the people, and was thus the indispensable condition for taking part in the feast.20 Concerning FJ, it has already been seen how he not only downplays circumcision, but also avoids mentioning it in relation to Passover (cf. Ant. 2.311-319; 5.20). Only once does he state that foreigners (&A,A,6(pDA,oi) may not take part (cf. J. W. 6.427).21 The general impression seems to be that FJ leaves his compatriots in no doubt as to the importance of circumcision, but avoids upsetting his non-Jewish readers by not insisting on it too much.22 political constitution and identifies them with the laws given at Sinai. This is why this religious tradition entails political consequences; cf. B. Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze,' 267. 18 Priotto says that this is a characteristic of Diaspora Judaism; cf. M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua, 74. 19 M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua, 89. 20 M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua, 76—77. A. Schenker thinks that the mention of the law in this section refers to the salvation of the firstborn. This would mean that the paschal sacrifice in Wis 18:9 would be interpreted in light of the rite of redemption of the firstborn. M. Priotto's interpretation seems more plausible, even if—as will be seen—in Ezekiel the Tragedian this connection is clear enough (Exag. 167-174); cf. A. Schenker, "La Loi de la Divinite," 183-187. 21 FJ seems to have some difficulty dealing with the theme of circumcision. On one hand, it is evident that this practice aroused criticism from some non-Jews (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.137). On the other hand, FJ does not fail to acknowledge that it is the distinguishing sign between Jews and non-Jews (cf. Ant. 1.192). In regard to its necessity for the full incorporation of a convert into the Jewish people, FJ appears to express himself clearly enough (cf. L.H. Feldman, Ant. 20.43 n. a). 22 Regarding the practice and significance of circumcision in ancient Judaism cf. J J . Collins, "A Symbol of Otherness," 163-186.
160
CHAPTER SIX 4. PASSOVER IN EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN
This author, who is certainly prior to FJ, is not quoted in his work. However, it is quite likely that FJ was acquainted with him, as he was with Philo, who is likewise not mentioned.23 With respect to the laws about the celebration of Passover, Ezekiel— unlike FJ—twice reiterates the list of instructions with some variations {Exag. 152-174; 175-192). This is not mere duplication, but a speech by God to Moses and then by Moses to the people. Through the changes introduced by Moses, Ezekiel seems to wish to stress the characteristic of "lawgiver" attributed to Moses.24 It has already been demonstrated how FJ also accentuates Moses' initiative, even though he is less inclined to use direct speech (cf. Ant. 2.311-312; 3.248). With regard to the actual instructions, Ezekiel is much more detailed, and preserves a greater number of them than FJ.25 The reason could be—as previously pointed out—FJ's intention to write a special work on the laws so as not to unbalance the narrative of events. In any case, to find a place for such a list of prescriptions within a dramatic work shows that FJ could have done something similar. Therefore, the elements preserved in his version must be considered as the ones that were essential for FJ. Without ignoring the fact that these are two different literary types, it is necessary to point out the following similarities to and differences from Ant. Both agree in identifying Nisan as the first month of the year {Exag. 153.193), although FJ says it in a different context {Ant. 1.81; 3.201, 248; 4.78; 11.109);26 both present the Egyptians as welldisposed towards the Hebrews {Exag. 162^166; Ant. 2.314-315).27 It is curious that Ezekiel gives two arguments for the understanding of the meaning of this feast. First, he explains its duration, justifying it through the seven days the journey lasted from the departure
23 H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 38—39; C.R. Holladay, Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors, II, 317. 24 H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 121-124; C.R. Holladay, Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors, II, 484—487. 25 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 138 n. 35. 26 This similarity is not very significant and provides little reason to think that FJ is dependent on Ezekiel, since such information about the first month of the year is already found in Exod 12:2 and Esth 3:7, 12. 2/ H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 126-127.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
161
from Egypt [Exag. 167—171).28 Second, concerning the meaning of Unleavened Bread, he conveys that they were freed from evils and were able to leave Egypt. As noted earlier, on one occasion FJ says that Unleavened Bread is the memorial of the sufferings endured during the first thirty days of the Exodus (Ant. 2.317),29 but on another occasion he links it more with the liberation from Egypt (J. W. 4.402). In Ezekiel there is no mention of purification, unlike what has been observed in FJ's work.30 On the other hand, he agrees with FJ in making no allusion to circumcision, which could be another proof that in a non-Jewish environment the subject was a difficult one.31 As for the meaning of the verb PIOS, Ezekiel is close to FJ's understanding (i)7iepPa{vco) when he translates it with a verb of motion (7iapepxo|iai) (Exag. 159.187). 5. PASSOVER IN JUBILEES
This is a work similar in some respects to Ant., because it is presented as a reworking of biblical material. This does not alter the fact that there are substantial differences of structure and content between the two.32
28
In the description of these seven days he includes all the liturgical activities: eating unleavened bread (a£un' e'8ea0e); worshipping God (Gecp AmpeuaeTe); sacrificing to God (6"6OVT£<; Gecp). It is significant that he identifies the Passover sacrifices with those of the firstborn (Exag. 167-174). While the text is elliptical and complex, the explanation of H. Jacobson—as he himself admits—does not explain the fact that there is only one underlying reason for two distinct elements (Unleavened Bread; sacrifice of the firstborn). It seems probable, instead, that the use of the participle Guovxeq (sacrificing) gives the three verbs a unity which makes them inseparable and also favours the identification of the Passover sacrifices with those of the firstborn; cf. H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 130-131. 29 On this occasion he says the feast lasts eight days. 30 H. Jacobson seems to liken, somewhat freely, "pure," "good" and "not problematic"; cf. H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 129. 31 H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 135; J J . Collins, "A Symbol of Otherness," 169. J.M.G. Barclay's view on the silence in regard to circumcision in this context seems valid; in contrast to J J . Collins, he thinks that Ezekiel does not necessarily deny the distinctive nature of the Jews, but instead that this is a theme almost incomprehensible to the Greeks, and, far from being a distinction, it was rather a characteristic shared with the Egyptians; cf. J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 136-137 n. 30. 32 For an introduction to this work cf. J.C. VanderKam, "The Origins and Purposes," 3-24; Id., The Book of Jubilees; F. Schubert, Tradition und Erneuerung, 257-266.
162
CHAPTER SIX
A common element—though not identical—is the attempt to justify the action of the Jews on leaving Egypt, when they took the Egyptians' wealth (Jub. 48.18 19). However, considering that Jub. is written for the Jews, the apologetic tone is less obvious than in Ant. 2.314-315. A comparison of the instructions for the celebration of Passover laid down in Jub. 49 with those found in Ant. 2.311-313; 3.248-251, shows again that those of FJ are less numerous and less detailed. Without ignoring the differences already noted, it is worth emphasising those elements that are common to both, and those dissimilarities that seem most important. In the first place, according to Jub. 49.3 faced with the blood of the sacrifice on the doors of the Israelites, the destroyer will have to "pass over," just as in Ant. 2.313.33 With respect to the theme of jubilation, in Jub. 49.2 a link is made between this theme and Passover, as well as in Ant. 17.213. In Jub. 49.6 there is a succinct description of the rite of the paschal meal, which describes how this joy is manifested. This information is a clue to realising how FJ understood the manifestation of paschal jubilation. In fact, Jub. 49.6 affirms that at this feast, while they ate the meat of the Passover sacrifice, they took wine, giving glory, blessing and praise to the Lord. As far as FJ is concerned, it must be acknowledged that, in general, he is somewhat more cautious in his description of the Passover celebration. The two accounts more similar to that of Jub. are that of the feast of purification before the Passover celebrated by Hezekiah (Ant. 9.269—271), and that of the commemoration before the return from exile at the time of king Darius (Ant. 11.66). This latter account has already been identified with a Passover, even if FJ does not explicitly do this.34 On the subject of wine, FJ is even more cautious. In Ag. Ap. 2.204 he maintains that the birth of sons among the Jews is not an occasion for festivities (£"uco%ia<;) or drunkenness ((aeGrjq).33 Nevertheless,
33 Jub. identifies the destroyer with Mastema and his forces (Jub. 49.2-3). In Ant. 2.313 it is God himself who passes over the houses. 34 It is possible that precisely the mention of drink and revelry caused a hesitation in FJ to identify this feast more explicitly with Passover (cf. 1 Esd 4:63). 33 He also makes it clear that during their religious duties the priests cannot drink; cf. Ant. 3.279; Ag. Ap. 1.199.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
163
by using the noun eucoxioc (festivity) and the verb exxoxio.^ (to feast), he defines all religious celebrations (eoptf|) as moments of joy (cf. Ant. 3.254). This joy during the festivities (e\)co%{a) is often brought on by drinking (Ant. 1.140-141; 6.362; 11.66, 220; 18.231).36 To sum up, FJ is not too inclined to describe the Passover celebration as a feast like the evcoxioc, but in the context of all his work one may conclude that, for him, Passover was a joyful feast at which wine was probably not lacking. In regard to the need for celebrating Passover in a centralised way, Jub. 49.16, 17, 21 seem to be more definite and incisive than FJ. While FJ says that the pilgrimage feasts enhance the unity of the people (Ant. 4.203-204), he never explicitly denies the possibility of celebrating Passover outside Jerusalem. Concerning who may take part, Jub. explicitly prohibits anyone who is not a male of more than twenty years from taking part in the celebration. FJ, on the other hand, never expressly says this: rather in Ant. 11.109 he states explicitly that they celebrated in the company of women and children.3' Finally, some more precise points of common ground need to be indicated. In Jub. 49.6 there is a mention of the Fathers (God of their Fathers) and a connection between the banquet and the imminent departure from Egypt, which is reminiscent of Ant. 2.312. In Jub. 49.7 it is stressed that Passover must be celebrated on the correct day, without changing the month either. This seems to exclude, as in FJ, the possibility of a second Passover.38 Jub. 49.9 speaks of purity in relation to the person who is to celebrate the feast, but this subject is presented more forcefully in Jub. 50.5, which will be examined later. Leaving aside the partial analysis of each element, it seems more useful to compare the role of Passover in Jub. and Ant., taking these works as a whole. J.C. VanderKam shows that behind the structure of Jub.—which divides the history in jubilee periods—there is a concealed message which transcends the chronological account. Starting from an * It is not always clear that it is wine being drunk, but that is most likely, given the high regard FJ seems to have for it, cf. Ant. 7.231; 8.141, 398; 15.200. :i/ If FJ gives the impression of having in mind a minimum age for worship, it must be twelve years, because in Ant. 5.348; 10.50 he adds this information to the biblical text, and in Ant. 11.69 he agrees with 1 Esd 5:41, even if there is a difficulty of textual criticism; cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 11.69 n. b. ;ia He repeats this argument in Jub. 49.10, 14, 15.
164
CHAPTER SIX
analysis of Jub. 50.2-5 he demonstrates a connection between the law and the jubilee year—laid down in Lev 25—and the liberation of Israel from Egypt, which includes even the occupation of the promised land. Thus, just as in the jubilee year, lost land was recovered, so too Israel returns to his own land.39 From this conclusion, the first thing that must be emphasied is that the brief mention of something apparently marginal can actually be essential and fundamental in a work. From the work of J.C. VanderKam, it becomes clear that the underlying purpose of Jub. is to proclaim a new Exodus as well as the recovery of the land, which will both have to take place in the future.40 Jub. 50.2^5 does not explicitly mention Passover, but it is found in the immediate context, in relation to the Exodus and the occupation of the land. In Ant. 14.19-28; 18.29-30; 18.90-95 it has also been established that the mention of Passover seems to fulfil a purpose beyond what is presumed at first glance. This likewise became discernible at the end of the narrative of Ant., where FJ presents an anti-exodus, which in his view justified the fact of going to war against the Romans (cf. Ant. 20.256). It is evident that no attempt is being made to establish parallels or a literary dependence between these two works. However, there are similar characteristics here, probably as a result of the deep significance of the Passover celebration. 6. PASSOVER IN QUMRAN LITERATURE
At the present moment, the study of the Dead Sea manuscripts is still arousing heated and lively debate. There are many theories about their origin and diverse interpretations, which can be attributed to these manuscripts.41 However, in regard to Passover and Qumran, scientific study is practically non-existent, because references to this feast in Qumran literature are few and far between. 39
J.C. VanderKam, "Das chronologische Konzept," 98-99. Due to this perception, the fact that FJ attributes to the names "Gilgal" and "Jubilee" the same etymology, i.e. "freedom" (eAxuGepioc), takes on particular significance. In both cases it seems to be a device, since neither of the two words has any clear relationship with "freedom." This increases the suspicion that it is not a simple mistake on the part of FJ, who in general displays a good knowledge of Hebrew (cf. Ant. 3.283; 5.34). 41 G. Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, 1-8. 40
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
165
The problem of the calendar and the feasts has been touched upon earlier, and the information furnished by FJ and that found in Qumran have been compared.42 However it remains necessary to analyse the possible mentions of Passover in some of the prayers found in caves one and four (1Q34; 4Q503; 505; 508).43 The MS 4Q503 is very fragmentary, and unfortunately little can be recovered from it. It lays down prayers, which should be said twice a day on some days of the month. Since it mentions Passover and Unleavened Bread, one assumes that it refers to the first month of the year.44 It is enough to say that a comparison with the work of FJ is virtually impossible due to the paucity of information and the difference of literary genre. In spite of this, some expressions can be highlighted, such as "our redemption from the beginning" (n^E^-D IDPinS), which recall to mind the way FJ refers to the departure from Egypt (J.W. 5.99) and "joyful pilgrimage feasts" which is also a way that FJ describes Passover (cf. Ant. 17.213).4' The texts 4Q505 125, 127 and 1Q34 3 i 1-8 (//4Q508 1 1-3) are prayers for the feasts. The mention of Passover in 4Q505 is only a supposition, but, according to D. Falk, is very probable, given the allusion to the "vigil" and to "[passing] over the houses."46 From this fragment, one can draw for the purposes of this work just one fact, that the words "salvation" (f^Tf) and "all the foreign nations" (U^T\ ^1D) appear there, even though it is clear enough that, considering the uncertainty of the information, no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn. On the other hand, the text of 1Q34 can be put into various contexts, and its relationship with Passover is only one among several possibilities.4' D. Falk concludes that the prayers for the feasts do not originate from Qumran, but rather represent a type of prayer which was widespread among the Jews of the time.48 Hence, the fact that the MSS are so fragmentary is very frustrating, because, had they been more complete, they would have confirmed an understanding
42 43 44 4) 4l> 47 48
Cf. ch. II § 2. D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily, D . Falk, Daily,
Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath,
and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival and Festival
Prayers, 21-57, 155-187. Prayers, 2 1 . Prayers, 34. Prayers, 175-176. Prayers, 176-178. Prayers, 253-255.
166
CHAPTER SIX
of the meaning of Passover that would be common to a significant proportion of the Jews of that period. A text of the Temple Scroll can also be helpful because it mentions some norms in relation to Passover (11QJ9 xvii).49 D. Altshuler shows that FJ presumably did not make any use of the Temple Scroll at all, and that one of the few similarities between Ant. 3 4 and this work is the grouping of the laws together in thematic form.50 The portion that is of interest here—even though it is a completely new redaction—reflects the laws given in Lev 23:5-14 and Num 28:16-25. For this reason, it also agrees with FJ, who, as has been noted, is quite faithful to these two texts. The only detail added to the biblical text in 11Q) 9 xvii is that the participants must be at least twenty years old.51 This regulation—as noted a little above—is also found in Jub. but not in FJ. On the other hand, according to Sh. Talmon and J. Ben-Dov, the Temple Scroll shares with the fragment 4Q326 the fact that it separates the ritual of the Passover sacrifice from the feast of Unleavened Bread.52 Now, when FJ wishes to be precise—as has been mentioned33—he also makes a clear distinction between these two rituals, and thus also resembles, in this respect, the two documents referred to here. Another fragment, which does not explicitly mention Passover, is 4Q462. This is likewise of significance for the purposes of this work. Line 13 mentions, according to the editor,'4 a second period of slavery in Egypt after an unspecified reign which will be endured.53 The text is admittedly obscure, but seems to have clear biblical connotations and would refer to the command not to return to Egypt (Exod 14:13; Deut 17:16; Hos 11:5).56 49 Regarding this work cf. M.O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll, 195-201; E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 1-8. 50 D. Altshuler, "On the Classification of Judaic Laws," 1-14. Dl This is probably deduced from Num 1:20; cf. E. Qimron, The Temple Scroll, 27. 52 Sh. Talmon J. Ben-Dov, "4Q326—A Festival Calendar," 167-176. ;3 ' Cf. ch. IV § 2. 04 His reading seems acceptable; cf. M. Broshi et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 200-203. Recently it has been suggested that 4Q467 is another copy of the text of 4Q462, and for this reason adds some words to lines 2-4 of 4Q462; cf. E. Tigchelaar, "More Identifications of Scraps and Overlaps," 63-64. 55 4Q462 13: lft]'pm rD^QQ ^p3 VT1D D'-tfM 1X1] n:m[ * M. Smith, the editor of the text, suggests this; cf. M. Broshi et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 203-204.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
167
According to M. Smith, there are three possible interpretations of this text, namely, that it refers either to a second captivity of Israel in Egypt (cf. Hos 8:13b; 11:5a), or to the flight to Egypt at the time of the Babylonian exile, or to the Jewish community in Egypt during the post-exilic period. M. Smith holds the third as the most likely, and links it with a gloss inserted in the Temple Scroll 56.16 as well as in Pss. Sol. 17.33.57 There it is evident that the prohibition against a return to Egypt applies exclusively to a return for the purpose of war (nnn^D1?), which would legitimise the existence of a Jewish community in Egypt. In revisiting the main argument, it has already been seen that at the time of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulos II—in the view of FJ—a group of important characters fled to Egypt (Ant. 14.21)."8 Even if it cannot be claimed that 4Q462 13 or Temple Scroll 56.16; Pss. Sol. 17.33 are linked directly with this event,59 the difficulty seems to be similar. Thus, one can maintain that Ant. 14.21 together with Temple Scroll 56.16; Pss. Sol. 17.33 do not see the biblical prohibition against returning to Egypt as absolute, nor even as an event negative in itself, as 4Q462 13 seems to suggest.60 Recently, some further halakic texts belonging to the fourth cave have been published.61 In one of these fragments (4Q265 3) there is an allusion to Passover. In spite of its brevity, it is noteworthy for this study.62 It prohibits minors and women from taking part in the feast, which—as the editor points out—has no parallel in the work of FJ, but is found in Jub. 49.17 and in 11Q19 xvii. Nevertheless, there is a likeness to FJ's insistence on the problem of purity, which
5/
D. Rosen - A. Salvesen, "A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll," 99—101. Cf. ch. V § 1. M The mention of the end of a kingdom (HD^QQ ^p^) as the condition for the restoration would allow for the possibility that this fragment might refer to the event described in Ant. 14.21, namely, that those who went away to Egypt were the same as those who were awaiting the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. However, the brevity of both passages does not permit one to propose the likelihood of this hypothesis. 1)0 J. Vazquez Allegue, in an article of limited usefulness, appears to suggest that this text expresses the situation of the inhabitants of Qumran, who lived their real situation as a time of slaver)7, and for this reason were awaiting a new Exodus. J. Vazquez Allegue, "El 'Segundo Exodo' en Qumran," 61-83. This subject has already been well-examined by D.R. Schwartz, "Temple and Desert," 29-43; cf. ch. VII § 1.3. 1)1 J.M. Baumgarten et al, Qumran Cave 4, 57-78 esp. 63-64. 1)2 The reconstruction and commentaries by the editor are adopted here. 58
168
CHAPTER SIX
this prohibition intends to protect. The difference lies in the fact that FJ does not exclude a particular category of persons, but rather those who are impure on the date of the feast. However, what is truly intriguing is the biblical quotation found in this section and which, J.M. Baumgarten claims, should be linked to this regulation.63 This comes from Mai 2:10, which says that all have been created by God, and therefore it makes no sense to be dishonest with one another. From the context, one concludes that the word "all" includes only the members of the community, who would be male and adult.64 Hence, this interpretation is similar to what FJ says in relation to Passover, as far as it excludes some person from the celebration, and suggests the idea of unity and the absence of any mixing.63 7. PASSOVER IN ARISTOBULUS
Only five fragments of this author have survived until the present day, preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea.66 The very first of these includes a mention of Passover.6' It specifies that this feast must be celebrated after the spring equinox when the moon is exactly at the opposite extreme, namely, in the position of the autumn equinox, after sunset. This brief reference undoubtedly recalls to mind Ant. 3.248 where FJ declares that the date of Passover is fixed according to the moon, but it must take place when the sun is in Aries. J.M.G. Barclay thinks that Aristobulus is justifying—within his naturalist theology—two institutions that are central to Jewish life: Passover, in this fragment, and in the fifth fragment, the Sabbath. Aristobulus, then, is ascribing a cosmic meaning to this feast, since it comes within the structure of nature, and for this reason is completely rational.68 63
J.M. Baumgarten et ai, Qumran Cave 4, 64. Concerning this biblical quotation in this fragment cf. J.M. Baumgarten, "Scripture and Law in 4Q265," 31-33. 65 Cf. ch. VIII § 2. 66 Two of these are in the work of Clement of Alexandria and one in Anatolius, but all five fragments are only to be found in the work of Eusebius. For an introduction to these cf. A.Y. Collins, "Aristobulus," 831-836; C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, 43-126. 67 On the position of this fragment in the work of Eusebius and its use in the debate over the date of Passover in the first centuries of Christianity cf. C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, 198-199 n. 1. b8 J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 155. 54
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
169
Without entering into a deep consideration of the intention of this author and his possible contacts with Stoicism, as J.M.G. Barclay suggests,69 it seems that the fragmentary nature of the material does not permit such clear assertions. The parallel of FJ shows that a similar affirmation in a much broader context cannot be credited with such definite significance. For this reason, it seems essential not to fall into the temptation to attribute rashly the same ideas to FJ based on such a brief statement/0 Finally, it must be pointed out that, in this fragment, Aristobulus calls Passover the "feast of the crossings" (xfj xcov SiaPaxriptcov eopxfi). This term (Sux|3axf|pia) was normally used for sacrifices performed before crossing a frontier or a river/1 As pointed out earlier, FJ explains in Ant. 2.313 the etymology of Passover as tmepfiaoia (to pass over), thus staying closer to the biblical text. By contrast, Philo seems to follow Aristobulus in this terminology, using—as will be seen later—the words 8uxPocxf|pioc and 8idpacn<; in reference to Passover. 8. PASSOVER IN PHILO
As H.W. Attridge remarks, opinions about FJ's possible use of Philo are divided/2 Regarding the subject of Passover, comparisons are even more difficult, because the normal tendency of Philo—to give an allegorical interpretation to the biblical text—finds no exception in the case of this feast. Examination of Philo's mentions of Passover shows that, in general, he interprets this feast, which he calls the "passage" (8id[3aoi<;),73 as an allegory for the passing of the soul from a state of subjection to the passions to a state of freedom from them.74 Obviously, this is far from what has been seen in FJ, who—even though he is well-aware of some allegorical interpretations—in the case of Passover, always gives a historical interpretation of the event.
b9
J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 153-154.
'° The Stoic ideas that can be found in FJ and the eventual parallels with Aristobulus, are beyond the scope of this work. '' C.R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, III, 203 n. 20. H.W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 36-37; G.P. Carras shows
72
that both authors, at least in the case studied, had used a common source, cf. G.P. Carras, "Dependence or Common Tradition," 24-25, 42-47. 73
Sacr. 63; Spec. 2.146; QE 1.4. P. Borgen et al., Philo Index, 7, 275. ' 4 K.G. Sandelin, Wisdom as Nourisher, 137.
170
CHAPTER SIX
In spite of all this, some elements in the work of Philo can be identified, which seem to have some relationship with what FJ says. Rather than becoming lost among the allegories of Philo, it is best to follow principally two sections, which contain the most important material left by Philo about this feast {Spec. 2.145 187; QE 1.1-23).75 His allegorical interpretation draws inspiration from the etymology he gives for the Hebrew word PIDS—which he transliterates as FJ does, nda%a, probably from the Aramaic KnO2 (cf. Mos. 2.224)— that is,76 "transfer" or "crossing."'7 At no time, even when he speaks explicitly of the "destroyer" (Leg. 2.34; QE 1.23),78 does he understand this word as meaning "to pass over," as FJ expressly says in Ant. 2.313. Further on, without specifying an exact number, he states—just as FJ—that many thousands of animals are sacrificed, and that this happens—again agreeing with FJ—after midday and before sunset (Spec. 2.145).79 Without breaking the continuity, he says that the entire people, old and young, act like priests in offering sacrifice,80 and this
7:> In Spec, the passage leading up to Pentecost is included, because it is closely related with Passover as it is in FJ. There is a doctoral thesis on Passover in Philo, but it has not been published. According to the summary presented by R. Radice and T. Runia, the author maintains that the theme of Passover in Philo cannot be separated from the rest of his interpretation of the Bible, i.e., it is based on allegory and an ethic-religious approach. Passover is connected with the more general theme of migration and corresponds with the first step of spiritual progress, which culminates in ecstasy. Philo, thus, spiritualises the feast by removing its sacramental meaning, and giving it a psychological-moral value; cf. D. Delassus, Le Theme de la Paque chez Philon d'Alexandrie, in R. Radice - T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 213-214. 76 In Spec. 2.145 and in Decal. 159 he explains that rcao/cc is a word from the paternal language of the Hebrews. This could show the relationship between Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century, namely, that perhaps they were not seen in practice as two completely different languages (cf. Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14). FJ is wellaware of the distinction between Hebrew and Syriac (Aramaic) (cf. Ant. 10.8; 11.159), but when he refers to the word 7rda%a, he says only that that is what it is called by "us" {Ant. 3.248), or by the Jews (J.W. 2.10). This does not help to solve the problem. On the other hand, both know alternative forms of transliteration: cpdoeK (Leg. 3.94) and cpacm (Ant. 5.20). An useful pericope for revealing the closeness of these two languages, particularly in the view of the Greeks, is Ant. 12.14-15, which speaks of the translation of the Law into Greek. A. Pelletier claims with certainty that the name of the feast comes from the Aramaic; cf. A. Pelletier, "La nomenclature du calendrier juif," 221. 77 Cf. F.H. Colson, Spec. 2.145 n. a. ' 8 Ex 12:23b is interpreted in QE 1.22 with some degree of difficulty. 79 Cf. F.H Colson, Spec. 2.145 n. b. In QE 1.11 he says more precisely that they cannot begin before the ninth hour (3 p.m.); cf. R. Marcus, QE 1.11 n. d, f. 80 This idea is also found in Decal. 159; Mos. 2.22.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
1 71
is done while in a state of ritual purity (ayvaiq xePa^v)- According to Philo, this act is justified because the feast is a memorial and a thanksgiving for the migration from Egypt by more than two million people, who were so exultant and joyful that they started to sacrifice without waiting for the priests. This practice later became accepted as a law (Spec. 2.145—146). To analyse these indications by Philo in depth would be fascinating, but it is not feasible to do more than a comparison with the work of FJ. In any case, most of the elements correspond to those FJ refers to in various parts of his work. As for differences, it is notable that Philo is less concerned with concealing the kind of migration this exodus represented. It could be truly an expulsion, a practice which he himself mentions in this context: in short, there is clearly a less apologetic intention than in FJ. The explanation as to why the Israelites can sacrifice at this feast never appears at all in FJ, and presumably he would not have accepted it, even though, as has been noted, he appears to admit the practice. Next, he adds an association between Passover—always understood as a journey—and the purification of the soul. Apart from the etymological difference already mentioned, FJ's insistence on the need for purity in connection with this feast speaks volumes. Thus, even if Philo does not expressly say that the blood sprinkled on the lintels purifies (cf. Ant. 2.312), he makes it clear that each house is like a Temple, and that all must purify themselves with lustrations (ayvevxiKoi<;7i;epippavTr|p{oi(;). Obviously, he is not speaking merely of moral purity {Spec. 2.147-148). In the same context, he specifies that it is not the moment, as at other festive gatherings, for drinking wine and eating to excess—just as FJ says about celebrations for a birth (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.204). Rather, joy is expressed through prayer and the hymns, which are the custom of the fathers (Ttdxpiov e'Goq) (Spec. 2.147-148). This mention of the practices of the fathers does not lack importance for this analysis, in spite of the fact that FJ does not specifically include among them the hymns and prayers. On various occasions he takes the opportunity to refer to these customs of the forebears in relation to Passover. By contrast, the discourse on the perfection of the number fourteen—the day on which the feast begins—has no equivalent in FJ (Spec. 2.149). Indeed, the same is true of some similar explanations
172
CHAPTER SIX
he makes later regarding the fullness of the moon {Spec. 2.155-156).81 Concerning the celebration of Passover in the second month, Philo allows the possibility, but considers it a concession better avoided (Leg. 3.94). This fact highlights FJ's total silence on this law: he does not clarify what should be done in the case of ritual impurity during the days of Passover, which would prevent participation in the feast. However, in J.W. 6.426—427 he refers to cases that would exclude participation in the feast, some of which are temporary and could be resolved with a celebration in the second month. Finally, the presence of the theme of thanksgiving (xapiaxripiov) and of memory or memorial (im6fivr||X(x) (Spec. 2.146) should be noted. Here there is a great resemblance to FJ (Ant. 11.110; 17.213). Both use almost identical terminology and apply it to the departure from Egypt. However, there still does not seem to be sufficient evidence for stating that FJ depends directly on Philo. The feast of Unleavened Bread should now be considered. In Philo, it is referred to as a distinct celebration, but concurrent with Passover (Spec. 2.150).82 This distinction appears more rigid than is found in FJ, who distinguishes them on some occasions, but at times uses one name or the other, or treats them as the same (cf. Ant. 2.313, 317; 3.248-249; 14.21; 17.213). While Philo continues to further develop the primacy of the month of Unleavened Bread according to the cosmic order;83 it has to be acknowledged that, though this idea is not foreign to FJ, such full treatment is not to be found in his work, especially concerning the affinity between Passover and creation (Spec. 2.150-156).84 Nor does FJ stress the importance of the first day and of the seventh and final day in the period of commenoration (Spec. 2.157-158). This absence in FJ looks more significant since Philo does not ignore it. Philo is not always consistent with regard to the meaning of the unleavened loaves, as FJ is. He retains one aspect of the biblical text—unlike FJ—namely, that this food represents the haste with 81 J.W. McKay maintains that Philo was the first to identify Passover with a feast of the full moon, and though this is not found in the OT, many assumed this was the case, letting themselves be guided by Philo's interpretation; cf. J.W. McKay "The Date of Passover," 435-436. 82 Cf. F.H. Colson, Spec. 2.147. 83 Cf. G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World, 130. 84 For FJ, the primacy of Nisan is linked with the departure from Egypt as in Exod 12:2 (cf. Ant. 1.81).
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
173
which the Israelites left Egypt [Spec. 2.158). However, in the development of this theme, he arrives at an interpretation similar to that of Ant. 2.316-317, i.e., that the unleavened breads represent self-control, a non-satiety. For FJ, it is a situation of necessity, whereas for Philo, it exemplifies the admirable virtue of frugality. From this, Philo will draw an analogy with the twelve unleavened loaves, which represent the twelve tribes of Israel. This development is not to be found in FJ (cf. Ant. 3.142). In the same manner, Philo states in Congr. 161—162 that these are loaves of "affliction" (apxov KaKobaecix;) (cf. Deut 16:3). Though this does not coincide with the explanation of Ant. 2.316-317, it is not too far from it. Finally, in order to cover the references of Philo to unleavened bread somewhat rapidly, it is necessary to point out the allegory he sets up in Sacr. 62 regarding this food. There he explains that the Israelites were not "puffed up" at receiving a special revelation, namely, that they were the recipients of the word of God. Such an explanation has no equivalent in the interpretation of FJ. The feast of the first sheaf is treated at length in Philo. Concerning its basic meaning he agrees with FJ, but perhaps the difference between the philosopher and the priest is clearer here. The philosopher is more concerned with unravelling all the possible meanings of the event, and the priest with the actual performance of the rite. As already said, both specify precisely the day on which this celebration must take place.83 Since it is a liturgical action for both in response to the abundance which God provides, they also agree that from this day the seven weeks until the feast of Pentecost are counted {Spec. 2.171.176; Ant. 3.250-252).86 What he continues to say about this latter feast has no parallel in FJ, who refers to Pentecost, as will be demonstrated later, in a very accidental manner.8' When comparing QE with the work of FJ, the emphasised elements will be those where he coincides with FJ, but they have not yet been considered. Among these is the mention of the astrological sign "Aries" to indicate the month in which Passover must be observed (QE 1.1; Ant. 3.248). Commenting on Exod 12:3b (QE 1.3),88 83
Cf. ch. II § 2. It is not easy to determine whether Pentecost or Passover is the most important feast for Philo; cf. F.H. Colson, Contempt 65 n. b. 87 Cf. ch. VIII § 1. 88 M. Priotto develops this theme in Philo and compares it to the Last Supper discourses in John 13:14-15; 15:12, 17; cf. M. Priotto, La Prima Pasqua, 89-90. 86
174
CHAPTER SIX
Philo embarks on a long explanation of the meaning of the phrase "in their households," in which he agrees with FJ, both about the minimum number of ten people (J. W. 6.423), and in alluding to the harmony and bonds of friendship which this gathering creates (cf. Ant. 4.204). One point made in passing by Philo may be useful in uncovering a suggestion which Passover might conceal. In QE 1.4 he comments that the Passover sacrifice is most fittingly offered when the soul abandons the youthful state of terrible disorder (endow),89 and returns to a better and more ancient state. In spite of the difference of context as well as interpretation of the word "disorder" (axdaiv), there is a connection with Passover here, which cannot be by chance. At varioius points, as M. Priotto points out, Philo connects the theme of harmony with Passover. However, perhaps what demonstrates most clearly the importance of unity among the Israelites in their celebration of Passover is QE 1.10, which gives a proof of the unusual relation between Passover and the cohesion of the people. Philo also explains the importance of eating the entire victim before dawn or of burning the remains (QE 1.13). In accordance with his narrative style, he stops to elucidate the literal and the allegorical meaning, unlike FJ, who only describes the execution of the instructions on this matter (cf. Ant. 2.312). To conclude, this comparison has made it possible to see that, in spite of great stylistic differences between the two authors, some elements present in Philo are adopted by FJ. Nevertheless, it cannot be shown that FJ depends directly on the Alexandrian philosopher, in regard to the matter in question. 9. PASSOVER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
In this section, an attempt will be made to illustrate—without being exhaustive—some of the possible correlations, which can be found between FJ and the literary corpus that is the NT.90 The approach utilised will be the opposite of what is most usual, so that FJ will 89
R. Marcus, QE 1.4 n. a. Given the vast quantity of works and studies carried out on themes related to Passover in the NT, it is beyond the purposes of this work to sufficiently examine the passages mentioned and other possible connections with the work of FJ, which certainly can be found. 90
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
175
not be used to comment on, interpret or set in context the NT. Rather, the NT will serve as the background to clarify or reaffirm some of the observations which have arisen from the analysis of the works in question. Naturally, the differences that clearly distinguish one work from another must not be underestimated. The NT is not the work of one person, nor is it historiography, as FJ claims to be. It embraces a great variety of literary types and styles. In terms of their aims, the works are not comparable. Nevertheless, there must be elements to justify a comparison, because these are two works compiled ostensibly around the same time. Both were written by Jews in Greek,91 and have the OT writings as a background. They show strong connections between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism, and they mention, directly or indirectly, events and historical personalities of the first century of this era. They represent and presuppose Palestinian Judaism of that time in its various manifestations, but certainly from different perspectives. Deeper investigation would certainly reveal other similarities and differences. However, those aspects will be pointed out which, taken from the NT, illustrate or make more comprehensible what FJ wished to communicate through his use of the theme of Passover. In the first place, it is necessary to look at the terminology. A perusal of all the passages throughout the NT where the feast is mentioned reveals a phenomenon similar to that found in FJ. The celebration is given two possible names—Passover or Unleavened Bread—without distinction (Matt 26:17; Acts 12:3 4), but it appears that the difference beween the two rites is not unknown (Mark 14:12). In effect, one finds either more or less precision, depending on the authors. Thus, Matt 26 is less explicit than Mark 14 (cf. Mark 14:12) when mentioning these two feasts. Luke, however, is the one who seems to come closest to the practice of FJ: he has a phrase almost identical to a reference of FJ, in which he appears to identify the two feasts (cf. Luke 22:1; Ant. 14.21). Nevertheless, he does 91
This is certainly not the moment to discuss the possible Aramaic origin of some texts of the NT—e.g., the Gospel of Matthew—but, if this were the case, there would be a similarity with FJ too, who says that he wrote the original version of his first work in this language. As for the author of Luke, it is very probable that he was not a Jew but a proselyte, who later converted to Christianity; cf. R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, 267-269, 322-327; U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das
Neue Testament, 255-259 esp. 258-259.
176
CHAPTER SIX
not always identify them, because later he says that on the first day of Unleavened Bread, the passover must be sacrificed (e'8ei SveaGai TO Tidaxa), making it plain that he is referring to the Passover victim (Luke 21:7). In John, where Passover is most often mentioned, there is never any allusion to Unleavened Bread, either combined with Passover or in another context, but he does not ignore the subject of purity in relation to it (cf. John 11:55; 18:28). Lastly, it should be noted that Paul, while he does not explicitly mention this celebration,92 calls the Christians of Corinth, in the context of an exhortation, not to live according to the old leaven of sin—mentioned a little earlier—but to be new dough, unleavened. In the same verse he speaks of Christ as the passover—Passover victim—immolated (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-8). This brief exhortation includes a number of words and themes that could be significant in light of what has become clear up to this point. In an unequivocal way, Unleavened Bread is connected with purity, which is not limited to a ritual procedure, but is connected with moral perfection (1 Cor 5:8). This could support the idea that FJ's insistence on purity in relation to Passover is neither extrinsic nor coincidental, but represents a normal and natural association between Unleavened Bread and purity. Summarising the number of times the feast is mentioned in both works, it becomes evident that the total number—for Passover and Unleavened Bread—is practically the same. Only the choice of name varies, because in the NT the word Passover is used more,93 while in FJ the term Unleavened Bread is more frequent. Although it should not be forgotten that the NT is considerably shorter than the work of FJ, it seems that the importance this feast supposedly had balances the figures, producing a certain levelling between both bodies of writing. In other words, the number of allusions to Passover is relatively low within the broad context of both works. This leads to reflection on the fact that the importance of something is not determined by the number of times it is mentioned, but by its significance in the context of the whole. The case of Jub. has already shown the probability that the brief account of Passover at 92 At least in 1 Cor 5:8, he uses the verb eopxd^co, putting his exhortation in a festive context, probably that of Passover. 93 The NT uses the same word (naoxa) as FJ, which—as already said—seems to come from Aramaic and not from Hebrew.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
177
the end of the work gives full meaning to the whole.94 Thus, in the case of the Gospels, the claim of M. Kahler—that the Gospels are an account of the Passion with a long introduction—is certainly an exaggeration,95 but undoubtedly the intent of the narrative and its full meaning appear in the closing sections, which are placed in the context of Passover. As far the Synoptics are concerned, Passover is mentioned only at the beginning of the account of the last days of Jesus, in order to date them. The one exception is Luke 2:41, where he describes the disappearance of the child Jesus and the discovery of him among the doctors of the Law in the Temple. This is possibly an anticipation of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus at the end of his ministry. If that is the case, it must be an isolated mention,96 but logically the text allows other interpretations. The Gospel of John is unique in that it mentions three different Passovers, which mark the nearly three years of Jesus' public ministry (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). This literary device is comparable to that which was noted in Ant., when it was suggested that the references to Passover mark the stages leading to the total loss of political autonomy in Palestine. While in both works every mention of the feast has a meaning in relation to its immediate context, it can legitimately be suggested that these references also serve as structural elements within a greater project.97 All the Gospels seem to presuppose that Passover was a pilgrimage feast during which a great multitude gathered together in Jerusalem (Matt 26:5; Mark 14:2; Luke 2:41-50; John 12:12). Nevertheless, in John 6:1 71 a number of events and discourses that took place at the time of Passover are described, but in fact, Jesus is apparently in Galilee. This could be an indication that for a pious Jew—as Jesus is presented in the Gospels—it was possible not to travel to Jerusalem every year.98 Actually, in John 7:2-8 Jesus debates with
94 93
96
Cf. ch. VI § 5. M. Kahler, Der sogenannte historische Jesus, 33 n. 1.
A. Valentini, "La rivelazione di Gesu," 261-304 esp. 293, 302-304. Certainly this element is not sufficient to dictate the entire structure of John. There are other feasts that mark the development of Jesus' public life (cf. John 7:1-8:59). For a summary of the various positions and an attempt at solution cf. R. Fabris, Giovanni, 28-43. 9B By contrast Luke 2:41 says explicitly that every year (KCIT' exoq) the family of Jesus went up to Jerusalem, so within the NT differing approaches are found. 91
178
CHAPTER SIX
his relatives as to whether the time is ripe to go up to Jerusalem for the feast of Tabernacles. At first, Jesus says that he will not go, but then does so in secret (John 7:10). Concerning the calendar and the debate relating to it, one must point out before anything else that the Synoptics identify the first day of Unleavened Bread with the day on which the Passover victims are sacrificed. It is not stated explicitly, but most probably this refers to the fourteenth of Nisan and not the fifteenth, though the fifteenth is in any case the undisputed date for the sacrifice of the Passover victim (cf. Exod 12:18; Lev 23:6; Num 28:16-17). In this way, the feast of Unleavened Bread would really last eight days, as FJ indicates on one occasion (Ant. 2.317). However, these would be calculated with precision following a unique system—with the beginning of the day at sunset—whereby there would be only seven days (Ant. 3.249), because the victim was sacrificed between the two suns: this would be calculated as the beginning of one day and the end of another. The Gospel of John, which never mentions Unleavened Bread, seems more precise in its calculation of the days, because it does not call the day on which the victims were sacrificed the first of Unleavened Bread, but rather the Day of Preparation for Passover (napaoKEvi) TOX) iiaoxa) (J°hn 19:14, 31, 42). It is curious that the Synoptics also identify the day of Jesus' death with a day of preparation (jcapaoKe-ufi), not for Passover, but instead for the Sabbath. At least that is said explicitly in Mark 15:42. This time for preparations is known to FJ, who clearly states in Ant. 16.163 that it begins at three in the afternoon on every Friday (OCTIO copac; This possible confusion between two kinds of preparation, however, does not allow reconciliation of the chronological divergence between the versions of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. On the contrary, they seem to be a consequence of the said divergence. Rather than become embroiled in this problematic debate, it is sufficient to point out that the Synoptics intentionally put the Last Supper in the context of a paschal banquet (Matt 26:20; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:14-15), and John puts the sacrifice of Jesus at the exact
99
Regarding the origin of this name cf. A. Pelletier, "La nomenclature du calendrier juif," 227-228.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
179
moment when the victims were offered in the Temple (John 19:14, 31, 42). There is a reference in FJ to both moments, which supports the plausibility of both interpretations. The description of the group that, according to the Synoptics, celebrates Passover with Jesus seems to agree with the brief indications furnished by FJ in J. W. 6.423 concerning the "fraternities" (cpaxp(a), which gather together around each Passover victim. They are more than ten and less than twenty. Women are not explicitly mentioned. This suggests that likely they did not take part, and thus the possibility of impurity due to menstruation was avoided. Nor is it clear whether anyone was impure, in the sense of ritual impurity,100 because at least Judas Iscariot—or perhaps all the apostles (cf. Luke 22:24)— could be considered morally impure. It is intriguing that not even the Gospel of John, which—as will be seen—insists on purity in connection with Passover, excludes Judas from the meal (Matt 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21 23; John 13:21-30). Only the term (paxpia (fraternity) appears not to accurately describe the kind of company surrounding Jesus. However, it has been shown that this word does not necessarily refer to blood relationships.101 On the other hand, the relationship between master and disciples was sometimes like that of family ties, and often in conflict with them.102 Regarding the matter of purity and Passover, the Gospel of John stands out. As is well-known, in this Gospel probably the action involving bread and wine is replaced by the washing of the feet.103 This raises a number of considerations concerning purity, participation in the feast, and involvement with Jesus himself (cf. John 13:8).104 It also says that people went from the country up to Jerusalem before the feast in order to be purified (John 11:55). It describes the concern of the Jews not to be contaminated by entry into the praetorium and thus be prevented from eating Passover (John 18:28).1Cb 100 The mention in John 13:10 of bathing the whole body may refer to a purifying ablution for the feast. 101 Cf. ch. V § 7. 102 Cf. R. Neudecker, "II rapporto maestro-discepolo," 57-73 esp. 62-63. 103 Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Das Johannesevangelium, III, 49 esp. n. 23. 104 It is understandable enough that it is not possible to enter into discussion of the meaning of purity in the Gospel of John, which is also developed in other passages (cf. John 3:25-36; 15:3). 1(b The reflections of Brown on this verse are noteworthy. He asks himself what impurity could have contaminated the Jews in entering the praetorium. He accentuates the fact that, as a sign of theological irony, John 18:28 does not clarify it:
180
CHAPTER SIX
Just like FJ, even though he shows interest in purification, he does not refer to the need to cleanse the surroundings of all leaven for the liturgy, perhaps because it was something too common to need explicit mention. A significant passage which requires examination, even if it cannot be dealt with in depth,106 is Acts 12:1 —19, which describes the captivity and liberation of the apostle Peter. The scene is set close to Passover (Act 12:3) without being too exact.107 The first event was Herod's execution of James the brother of John.108 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he put Peter in prison in order to execute him after Passover.109 These events could reasonably correspond to the statement of FJ mJ.W. 1.88,110 namely, that the festivals tended more to enkindle revolutions. Clearly, the NT does not present the apostles' action as revolutionary, but there is no lack of proofs showing that the Jewish authorities perceived it that way (cf. Acts 5:17-18, 27-28). The fact that it was Herod Agrippa, the king established by the Romans, who led the persecution, suggests that the nascent Christian community in Jerusalem was viewed as a threat to the relationship between the Romans and the Jewish authorities (cf. John 11:45-50). Considering the literary aspect of this passage, those elements regarding the liberation of Peter, which can throw light on the subthose who are so concerned about purity wish to kill Jesus; cf. R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 744-746. 106 The meaning of this pericope has provoked many reactions, and today new interpretations are still being proposed cf. J.A. Harrill, "The Dramatic Function," 150-157. Regarding the function of this event and its parallel in the death and resurrection of Christ cf. D.T.N. Parry, "Release of the Captives," 156-164 esp. 164. 107 The expression "they were the days of Unleavened Bread," suggests that very probably this is the week that runs from the fourteenth to the twenty-first day of Nisan, since later he says that Herod wishes to execute Peter after Passover (Acts 12:4). This—as has been seen—presumably refers to the whole week in general. However, the possibility that this refers to some days before that week, during which the preparations were already beginning, cannot be excluded. 108 This is Agrippa I who, according to Acts 12:20-25, dies some time later in Caesarea. FJ speaks of his death in Ant. 19.343-350. According to D.R. Schwartz, the date of his death was approximately October of A.D. 43; cf. D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 145-149. 109 The temporal proximity of these two episodes is not entirely certain, but due to the way they are presented, it seems probable. In regard to this persecution cf. D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 153-156; G. TheiBen, "Die Verfolgung unter Agrippa I.," 263-289. 110 Cf. ch. VIII § 1.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
181
ject in question will be emphasised.111 Reminders of the history of the Exodus seem to be quite evident in this section.112 Apart from the theme of liberation (cf. Acts 12:17),113 some factors are present— without being exactly parallel—which recall the salvation from Egypt, such as the presence of an angel of the Lord (cf. Exod 14:19; 23:20-23), the sandals on the feet, the need to gird themselves and the haste (cf. Exod 12:11). This means that there is an example here of this motif being applied to a concrete situation of arrest and rescue during Passover. This escape contains supernatural elements, which may help to give a background to some of the signs FJ reports, when he reflects on the obstinacy of the revolutionaries, because they did not recognise the warnings from God.114 In this case also, exact textual parallels do not exist, which suggests that there is no direct dependence between them. However, since both pericopes are situated in paschal time, the similarities may well reflect a common tradition. Concretely, what is in question here is the light that shines in the darkness (cpcoq e'A,afx\|/ev) of the prison (cf. Acts 12:7), and that which shone around ((pco<; 7uepieA,a(x\)/ev) on the eighth of Xanthicus in the middle of the night over the altar and the sanctuary (J. W. 6.290). The other phenomenon is the opening of a door by itself (J.W. 6.293; Acts 12:10). In this case too, although there are differences, the likenesses are relevant, because both doors (jrrAf|) are of heavy material (oiSripav; x«^K^), and their opening without human intervention (a\)xo(idxri/a'i)TO|id'CC0<;) has two possible meanings. For some, it will be a help or liberation, and for others, death or destruction; that is to say, Peter will be liberated and the guards will die in his place (Acts 12:19). On the other hand, the rebels will see this as a good
1
'' Undoubtedly, the theological value of this passage and its possible similarities to the resurrection of Christ extend beyond the limits of this work. For this reason, they are not pursued here. 112 Concerning the theme of the Exodus in Luke, and particularly in this passage, cf. S.R. Garrett, "Exodus from Bondage," 656-680 esp. 675-680. 13 ' The use of the verb e^dtyoo (to lead out) seems to be a clear reference to the departure from Egypt (cf. Exod 3:8-12; 6:6-7, 26-27; 7:4-5; esp. 12:17, 42, 51; 13:3, 9, 14, 16 LXX; etc.). 114 In ch. VII § 2 there will be a more extensive analysis of all the supernatural signs which, according to FJ, announced the destruction of Jerusalem, and which were incorrectly interpreted by the revolutionaries. In the same section, the wrays in which the signs and prodigies are related to Passover in the NT and in FJ will be compared.
182
CHAPTER SIX
omen, and the wise as a sign of weakness and future destruction {J.W. 6.295-296). This comparison appears to draw more strength if the text of Codex Bezae, which represents another textual tradition,115 is taken into consideration. According to J. Heimerdinger this episode represents the abandonment of Jerusalem by the new people of God, and consequently, by God himself. The prison, which is described as divided into two parts (7tpobxr|v qnAaicfiv iced 8ei)xepav) (Acts 12:10), is a symbol of the Temple, and the phrase indicating that Peter went away to another place (exepov TOTTOV) (Acts 12:17), is an allusion to a new Exodus of the people of God.116 The strongest support for this hypothesis is rooted in the fact that in this manuscript there is an addition, namely, that the angel and Peter went down seven steps (KaxepVioav xovq £' PaG^ioix;). These would represent the steps at each door of the Temple in the vision of Ezek 40:22, 26. This likeness is clear enough. However, it could be equally linked with the seven steps, or grades of purity (enxa ayveia<;), mentioned in J.W. 1.26, which would be the areas into which the city of Jerusalem was divided.11' Furthermore, it is impossible to omit the mention of Passover in Heb 11:28. This entails a long list of the fruits of faith in the history of Israel. One of these events, which happens due to the faith of the people, is the celebration of this feast. In relation to FJ, one can state, as he does, that the text of the NT stresses the link between the sacrifice, the sprinkling of the blood and the liberation of the firstborn (rcpoxoxoKcx) from the action of the exterminator (6 oXoGpeucov), although Heb 11:28 is closer to the text of Exod 12:22-23 than FJ's paraphrase. As will be discussed later,118 FJ reports a number of signs and prodigies (oruieiaKaixepaxa),119 the majority of them occurring between Passover and Pentecost (J.W. 6.290-300). These are strongly connected to the false prophets who will bring the people to destruction (cf. Ant. 20.168). Without anticipating what will be explained at us Regarding the western text of Acts cf. M.E. Boismard, Le texte occidental des Actes. Concerning Codex Bezae cf. Id., "Le codex de Beze," 257-270. 116 J. Heimerdinger, "The Seven Steps of Codex Bezae," 303-310. 117 Cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J.W. 1.26 n. a. 118 Cf. ch. VII § 2. 119 In J.W. 1.28 he uses these two terms to summarise a series of events, which will be described in detail in J.W. 6.288-315.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
183
the proper time, it is important to point out the similarities to the NT that are to be found. On one hand, the NT is no stranger to the use of the word or]|i£iov (sign) without the addition of the word xepcu; (prodigy), but this latter word never appears without the reinforcement of the former. Thus, the expression "signs and prodigies" forms almost a hendiadys, which expresses the phenomenon of extraordinary events with particular significance.120 On a number of occasions, the use of the word or||i£iov in isolation seems to mean the same as the combination just mentioned (Matt 24:30; 8:11; Luke 11:16; John 2:18; etc.), but that is not always the case (Matt 26:48; Luke 2:12; Rom 4:11). This work cannot attempt to exhaust the theme of the miracles in the NT, which has become so developed by modern exegesis.121 However, it must be pointed out that in the NT, signs and prodigies are also linked with false prophets (Matt 24:24 and Mark 13:22) and with Passover-Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:19). Perhaps the most links concerning signs (armeia) with Passover are found in the Gospel of John, where the hendiadys "signs and prodigies" appears (Jn 4:48), but normally he uses only the noun "signs" to designate these unusual manifestations. Thus, after the purification of the Temple at the first Passover of his public life, the Jews ask Jesus what sign he will give to justify his behaviour (John 2:18). Jesus responds by saying that they may destroy the Temple, but he will rebuild it in three days, with the well-known ambiguity between his body as Temple and that which stands in Jerusalem (John 2:19—21). The passage that follows also establishes a link between Passover and the signs, since many believe in him because of these (John 2:23). Among the belivers is Nicodemus, who recognises that these signs come from God (John 3:2). Another sign linked with Passover is the multiplication of the loaves in Galilee, which enhaces the recognition of Jesus as the prophet who had to come (Deut 18:15). At that moment Jesus does not accept this (John 6:14, 15), because he is promising something much greater (cf. John 6:26-27). Jesus' last sign, which occurs close to Passover, is the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1—57). The consequence for him is the decision
Cf. Matt 24:24; John 4:48; Acts 2:43; 2 Thess 2:9 among others. Cf. J.A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission, 493-502.
184
CHAPTER SIX
by the Pharisees and the high priests to destroy him, because he works too many signs (or||ieia). However, one should not forget that in John this theme is much wider, and that signs appear which are not related to Passover (cf. John 4:46-54; 7:31; 9:1-16). Finally, it is worth noting that in the NT the persecution which the OT prophets had to endure is referred to often.122 It has been mentioned that FJ also at times insists on the rejection of the prophets in connection with Passover (Ant. 9.263—267). Even if this relationship is not explicitly stated in the NT, the fact that Jesus—who is considered and identifies himself as a prophet (Matt 13:57; 14:5)— is crucified during this feast is good reason to maintain that this was probably a common theme in the the first century. From what has been seen so far, it can be concluded that even a superficial analysis easily reveals points of contact between the two works. This could serve as encouragement for a specific investigation to pursue such a comparison further. 10. PASSOVER IN PSEUDO-PHILO
The work of Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B., is presented as analogous to FJ's Ant., but in its method it more closely resembles a Midrash, using this label in the broadest sense.123 L.H. Feldman, who has studied the relationship between these two works, says it is quite likely that they drew on common sources. Therefore, any reciprocal dependence must be discounted.124 The theme of Passover in L.A.B. seems to have only ephemeral value. In fact, in the account of the Exodus, it is not mentioned at all: after describing the plagues of Egypt, the narrative continues immediately to the crossing of the Red Sea.120
122 Cf. Matt 5:12; 23:29-37; Luke 6:23; 11:47-51; 13:33-34; Jas 5:10; Rev 16:6; 18:24. 123 FJ. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 4-5. 124 L.H. Feldman, "Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's" 61, 69-76. 125 FJ. Murphy shows, contrary to the thesis of S. Olyan, that Pseudo-Philo does not uphold the military option in LibAnt. 10. He tends towards a date for LibAnt. prior to the Jewish war, but the outcome of his investigation better accords with a date after the War, where the rejection of the military option would be more likely. The work of D. Mendels follows the same line; cf. FJ. Murphy, "The Martial Option," 676-688. Id., Pseudo-Philo, 6.61-64. D. Mendels, "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities;' 294-313.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
185
A. Jaubert already pointed out the total lack of any reference to the paschal lamb.126 H. Jacobson maintains that this work must be dated after the destruction of the Temple, and not before, as was thought until recently.12' The time of its composition, therefore, is very close to that of Ant. This reveals that the importance FJ appears desirous of conferring on Passover was not shared in all parts of Jewish society of that time. Given the possibility of presenting the history of Israel with little weight attributed to this celebration—as L.A.B. does—there can be greater conviction that the presentation of Ant. conceals a conscious intention on the part of FJ. It must be said that, just as FJ places the conquest of Jericho by Joshua during a celebration of Passover, Pseudo-Philo identifies two feasts with Passover, which are not specified in the Bible [L.A.B. 48.3; 50.3). However, he does not seem to use this context to convey any significance to the events. According to L. Ginzberg, these two mentions of Passover appear because in these texts (Judg 21:19; 1 Sam 1:3) the feast is called nQ^Q"1 DTTQ (annual), just as Passover is described in Exod 13:10.128 In any case, two similarities to the work of FJ, which are found in L.A.B. 13.4, must be pointed out: the first is the mention of joy in connection with Passover, which, as H. Jacobson notes, does not appear in the Pentateuch;129 the second is the characterisation of this feast as a memorial of the departure from Egypt (cf. J. W. 4.402; 5.99; Ant. 17.213). This minimal role of Passover in L.A.B. could be the result of many motives. If H. Jacobson's dating is correct, one motive could be the difficulty of dealing with a feast which had played a decisive part in the events prior to the Jewish war.
l2t>
A. Jaubert, "Jesus et le Calendrier de Qumran," 23. H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's, I, 199-210. 128 L. Ginzberg, The legends of the Jews, VI, 213; H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's, II, 1065. More precisely, Exod 13:3-10 refers to the feast of Unleavened Bread, so that, if L. Ginzberg's idea is correct, the names of Passover and Unleavened Bread are clearly interchangeable here. 129 H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's, I, 510. 127
186
CHAPTER SIX 11. PASSOVER IN M. PESAH IM 10
A comparison between the vision of Passover unfolded by FJ and the various references to be found throughout rabbinic literature would be immensely useful. Nevertheless, such an analysis goes beyond the scope of this work. It will be sufficient to compare the work of FJ with m. Pesah. 10, departing from the investigation of B.M. Bokser. The purpose of this will be to show that—in opposition to B.M. Bokser's claim—a comparison between rabbinic literature and FJ on this subject can be useful in providing a better understanding of both.130 B.M. Bokser starts with the presupposition that the paschal seder is a response to the inability to celebrate Passover after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. He states that the rabbis would have found support in previous experiences, which existed before A.D. 70, and, while recognising the importance of the Temple, they celebrated this feast without taking it into consideration.131 In his list of sources B.M. Bokser—unjustly—omits FJ. On the contrary, from the analysis already completed, it is clearly conclusive that FJ in a surprising way—since he is a priest—does not indicate the Temple as necessary for the feast of Passover. It has been pointed out how he stresses the family nature of the feast (cf. Ant. 3.248); how he diminishes the centralisation of worship (cf. Ant. 4.200-203); how he accentuates, as does Philo, the role of the laity in this sacrifice (cf. Ant. 9.271; 10.72); how he seems to maintain that even after A.D. 70 the paschal lamb was sacrificed (Ant. 2.313);132 how he considers the possibility of abandoning Jerusalem at the time of Passover, driven by a group considered "pious" (cf. Ant. 14.21). This means that FJ represents an attempt prior to m. Pesah. 10 to save the liturgical celebration of Passover after the disappearance of the Temple. B.M. Bokser also claims that the importance of the supper was increased by the early rabbinic literature. As a proof, he mentions the fact that all have to take part in it.133 However, it has been 130 B.M. Bokser claims the following: "Josephus, the first-century C.E. Jewish historian who wrote in Greek but lived first in Palestine and then in Rome, frequently mentions Passover but adds little that differs structurally from what has been encountered in other sources"; cf. B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 24. 131 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 4 - 5 . 132 Cf. ch. VIII § 3. 133 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 11.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
187
shown how FJ also insists on the participation of all at the paschal sacrifice, with the exception of those who are disqualified by some impurity.134 Strangely, in his description of the extra-biblical sources, B.M. Bokser equates FJ with the other sources, as far the importance of the paschal sacrifice is concerned.135 Although the significance of the paschal sacrifice has become evident in this study, this affirmation seems to be exagerated. In the first place, this feast is more often named "Unleavened Bread" than "Passover"; in the second place, the description of the week of Unleavened Bread occupies an essential place in his presentation of this celebration (cf. Ant. 3.249-251; 9.271). Lastly, the equal weight given by FJ to both the paschal sacrifice and to Unleavened Bread can perhaps be deduced from his complete omission of the possibility of sacrificing a second Passover.136 Perhaps the similarities between the "priest" FJ and m. Pesah. 10 may cause some annoyance to B.M. Bokser concerning his thesis.13' Sometimes it is said with excessive ease that FJ did not expect a reconstruction of the Temple,138 and perhaps the same can be said of m. Pesah. 10.139 Nevertheless, merely the fact that the possibility of celebrating without the Temple is foreseen does not ipso facto mean that the reconstruction of the Temple is excluded at some future date.140 134 The absence of further details about the protocol of the banquet are easily explained in FJ by the nature and purpose of his work. 133 According to B.M. Bokser: "Therefore, like Wisdom and Philo, Josephus sees the holiday as structured around the passover sacrifice"; cf. B.M. Bokser, The Origins
of the Seder, 24.
136 B.M. Bokser, ignoring this characteristic of FJ's work, uses the same argument to prove the opposite; cf. B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 54. 13/ L.H. Feldman shows how FJ closely resembles what will become the rabbinic halakah; cf. L.H. Feldman, "Use, Authority and Exegesis," 107^518. 138 Q Vermes, on the other hand, thinks that both FJ and the Mishnah hoped for a rapid reconstruction of the Temple; cf. G. Vermes, "A Summary of the Law," 296. IW The problem of dating rabbinical sources is well-known, but it seems clear that the similarities with FJ can help to date the material within well-defined parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that some lines of development, which run contrary to FJ, are after his time. Naturally, arguments ex silentio require great caution. 140 It must be remembered that the Jews had undergone an analogous situation, and the experience of the reconstruction of the Temple was essential in their religious consciousness (cf. Ant. 4.125, 312-314). The same approach must be used with the theme of the Land. This study agrees with or at least does not dispute the conclusions of B. Halpern-Amaru, which should not be interpreted only one
188
CHAPTER SIX
The Christian authors drawn on by B.M. Bokser, who blame the Jews for not being able to offer the paschal lamb, are from the second century onwards.141 However, there is no similar criticism to be found in the NT, which is largely contemporary with the writings of FJ. On the contrary, the theme of the paschal sacrifice seems to be rather central, even in the later books, such as Revelation (cf. Rev 5:6, 12). Concerning the joy of Passover, B.M. Bokser makes a great effort to show that, even if the paschal supper is a joyful celebration, it was never identified with a Greek "symposium."142 Actually, FJ's desire not to relate Passover with the pagan celebration was noted while seeking an explanation of his lack of reference to the use of wine in this feast. An essential aspect of the paschal seder is the teach ng of the Law to the children, which according to B.M. Bokser is transformed in m. Pesah. 10 into an academic discussion about the laws of the feast.143 FJ never mentions anything of this kind in explicit connection with Passover. Nevertheless, the high profile which FJ ascribes to the teaching as well as the constant recollection of the laws should not be forgotten (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.175). This knowledge produces, according to FJ, a unity and harmony among the people, which is admired by all (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.179-180).144 On at least two occasions, he says that the moment dedicated to this study is the weekly meetings (cf. Ant. 16.43; Ag. Ap. 2.175), and at another time, he connects it with the public reading of the Law every seven years at the feast of Tabernacles (cf. Ant. 4.209-211). If it is true for FJ—as has been seen—that Passover is a feast at which the Israelites are called to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood {Ant. 4.204), it is likely enough way. She concludes that, while FJ diminishes the centrality of the promised land in his vision of Judaism, the possibility of returning to it is always a hope for the future in his mind; cf. B. Halpern-Amaru, "Land Theology," 219-229. 141 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 25-28. It is interesting to see that the description by Justin concerning how to cook the paschal lamb is exactly the same as present-day practice at the Samaritan Passover. It is possible that having been born in Samaria, he had been an eyewitness of this feast on Gerizim. 142 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 5 0 - 6 6 . 143 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 67-71. 144 Ch. Gerber demonstrates that the teaching on God is, according to FJ's presentation, closely linked with the actual acts of worship each Jew must carry out. Later this same author develops the theme of harmony, saying that it is the fruit of putting the said doctrine into practice; cf. Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 300-337, esp. 336-337 and 360-366, esp. 362.
THE SETTING WITHIN JEWISH LITERATURE
189
that in some way they were reminded of the laws that produce this unity.145 As for the rest of B.M. Bokser's analysis,146 it would take too long to discuss each point. It is sufficient to indicate the partial use, out of context, which the author makes of the view FJ supposedly has of Passover. Quoting only Ant. 4.204, for example, he states that FJ attributes only one national role to this feast, namely, thanksgiving for the Exodus from Egypt. After all the evidence offered in the analysis above, it is certainly understood that FJ is dealt with inadequately. In conclusion, it is impossible to claim, superficially or otherwise, a perfect resemblance between FJ and rabbinic literature. However, there is evidence that certain statements, which appear to be more presuppositions than demonstrations, require much greater precision.147 In this way, it may be possible to establish the true continuity in discontinuity, which was the consequence of the destruction of the Temple. 12. CONCLUSION
This rapid review of Jewish literature has proved fruitful. No literary dependence between the work of FJ and this material has been found, which can withstand a serious critique. However, on the other hand, it is evident that all these writings developed in a common environment, starting from one single source of inspiration, which is the celebration of Passover. It is precisely the similarities and dissimilarities that help foster an appreciatin of the modus operandi in regard to what is normally called Jewish tradition. 140
The theme of the teaching of the Law and the deeds of the Fathers (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.204), in relation to liturgical activity or on special occasions, could make an interesting subject for investigation; unfortunately it goes beyond what is possible in this work. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that even everyday life is an opportunity—according to FJ—for learning the laws, because they embrace all aspects of life, starting with how to eat {Ag. Ap. 2.173). FJ seems to present the life of a Jew as a liturgy, because the law that governs sacred and profane activities is one and the same. 116 B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 76-100. 147 As an example of these, one could quote B.M. Bokser: "Further, there is a new attitude toward history. The exodus, more than a unique event in the past, takes on a mythic quality to a far greater degree"; cf. B.M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder, 83.
190
CHAPTER SIX
Whoever accentuates the differences simply lights up the diversity of experiences, which were embraced in that period by the name of Judaism; whoever limits himself to marking the similarities can, with slight difficulty, recognise a common background, which allows the waters to flow as in a riverbed. For the purposes of this work, this review is indispensable for a better evaluation of the information gleaned from the analysis, and for a future reconstruction of that information. It is reasonable to declare that FJ inserts himself well in a tradition, which already enlivened Passover in "making present" the salvific events of the past by means of a liturgical action. It did not necessarily need the intervention of the priests, and was subject to various interpretations, which could even vary within one and the same context. This variability should be judged as enriching meaning and not a contradiction in a culture as open to "analogy" as was Judaism. Apart from these general words of appreciation, it is necessary to stress the existence of some recurrent themes, which are found in the various works with differing degrees of intensity. The following can be mentioned: the joy characteristic of the feast which does not appear in the Pentateuch; the motif of the fathers; harmony and communion;148 the importance of the departure from Egypt; the possibility of celebrating this feast, even outside of Jerusalem. Finally, it seems useful to remember the possibility that Passover might have become the structural element of a work—as is apparently the case with Jub.—, since it was previously indicated that FJ appears to desire the structuring of at least a part of Ant. by means of this feast. In spite of everything, given the fragmentary nature of the information, it is vital to avoid fabricating a general picture, utilising elements from heterogeneous sources. The final reconstruction will attempt to use other sources as contrasting elements, in order to put into perspective the picture FJ seems to wish to present.
148
In regard to the sense of unity, in intention and in action; cf. Ch. Gerber,
Ein Bild des Judentums, 360—366.
CHAPTER SEVEN
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION 1. PASSOVER AND THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS BEFORE A.D.
70
The literature regarding the history and especially the social situation of the first century A.D. is quite extensive.1 Thus, it does not seem useful to deal with this subject again.2 D.R. Schwartz delineats the development of the study of the so-called "opposition to the Roman presence in Palestine" among the Christian scholars after the Second World War; it could be very enlightening to read it.3 FJ is unquestionably one of the main sources, perhaps the most important one, as far as the knowledge of this century is concerned. The difficulty for the historical reconstruction of this time stems directly from the great dependence on the information furnished by FJ as well as the scarcity of other sources, which serve to verify his reliability. There is no doubt that FJ presents the first century movements "opposing the Roman presence in Palestine" in a partial and biased way. In fact, the most apologetic aspects of his works relate to this argument. This study is not aimed at pointing out the finality or motives that have aroused the Jewish opposition to the presence of the Roman Empire in Palestine. However, the relationship that these antiimperialistic reactions eventually had with Passover, according to FJ's presentation, will become essential for the settings of the previous results. The most recent studies on this subject conclude that all the persons or groups involved in the violent reactions against Rome should
1 The concept of "social" includes all the elements of life, from the religious to the political. 2 E. Schiirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The History of the Jewish People. S. Safrai - M. Stern, The Jewish People; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and ;i The events of the twentieth century, such as the Holocaust or the foundation of the State of Israel, determine the interest in this subject to a great extent. His analysis extends to Horsley's work. D.R. Schwartz, "On Christian Study," 128-146.
192
CHAPTER SEVEN
not be classified under the same denomination.4 Nevertheless, before taking a position in this debate, it could be more productive to analyse the role of these persons within FJ's narrative, and then inquire if the common elements are sufficient to suppose a sort of unity among the different manifestations of Roman hostility. 1.1. Uprisings at the End of Herod's Governorship
FJ's presentation of Herod's succession is filled with manifestations of tension as well as refusal of his dynasty (J. W. 1.647—2.111; Ant. 17.146-342). It should be noted that Ant. in this case follows Bell very closely, changing only in regard to the vocabulary and some minor details.5 When the people think that Herod is already dead, the first explosion of this anger appears.6 The two "doctors" of the Law, who— as previously seen—FJ portrays in an ambiguous way, incite their disciples to pull down the eagle that Herod had allowed to be set at the entrance of the Temple {J.W. 1.648-650; Ant. 17.148-154). Concerning this episode, it is essential to consider two things: first, that is concurrent with the presumed death of Herod and, second, the object of the attack. Certainly the death of Herod produced a void of power, which favours this sort of expression, but FJ's narrative suggests that this 4
The classic thesis of M. Hengel was that all the people involved should be classified as Zealots, since all of them were inspired by a religious motive. There are many authors opposing M. Hengel's theory, many of them connected with the implication of this argument, as D.R. Schwartz indicated. M. Hengel, in his last version of his book, actually its Italian translation, still supports his view. In any case, without exaggerating either aspect, it seems exceedingly rare that an antiimperialistic reaction in Palestine at that time would be completely separate from a religious motive. M. Hengel, Die ^eloten, 383; Id., Gli £eloti, 448; D.R. Schwartz, "On Christian Study," 128-146; L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 637-667; K.P.Jackson, "Revolutionaries in the First Century," 129-140. For a synthetic and clear vision of Messianism in the Second Temple period cf. H. Iichtenberger, "Messianic Expectations and Messianic Figures," 9-20. ' S J.D. Cohen maintains that in all likelyhood FJ uses J. W. and the source of J.W., which he sometimes follows more accurately to redact Ant. 17 (cf. Ant. 17.182-208 / / J.W. 1.661-673 and 2.1-8; Ant. 17.286-299 / / J.W. 2.66-79). The common source was probably Nicolaus of Damascus, but it is necessary to remember that FJ does not hesitate to alter the form and content of his sources—as demonstrated, cf. Excursus II. SJ.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 58, 232-233. 6 V. Nikiprowetzky thinks that for the Jews, Herod was the last oppressor whose terrifying power foretold the coming of the Messiah of Israel; cf. V. Nikiprowetzky, 'Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties," 224.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
193
event is not simply the result of a political contingency. The insubordinate are trying to defend the laws of the Fathers—at least according to the way these "doctors" interpreted them. Hence the religious motives seem to be very profound (J.W. 1.649-650; Ant. 17.150-151). The object that provoked the reaction is presented as offensive and contrary to the Law of Moses by being the representation of an animal {J.W. 1.650; Ant. 17.152). However, it is quite evident that the animal has a special meaning because the eagle is the characteristic symbol of the Romans (cf. J.W. 3.123).7 Thus, it seems apparent that FJ's account is misleading in various ways. One one hand, he does not hesitate to articulate the religious motives of this act, discarding all the anti-Roman and political implications.8 On the other hand, stressing the temporal relationship between the event and Herod's death, he suggests that the "doctors'" instigation has a meaning only in regard to the domestic political affairs of Palestine.9 Thus, even if it is highly likely that the events were actually articulated, it is possible that he emphasises some elements and hides others in order to create a picture, which better serves his purposes. The expectation of a real change in the political situation, which was painful for the most observant Jews during the entire reign of Herod,10 explains more clearly the attack against the eagle precisely
7
Cf. Plutarco, Vitae. Caius Marius, 23.5.; B. Perrin, Plutarch's Lives, IX, 524-527. For the military standards cf. Y. Le Bohec, "Feldzeichen," IV, 458-462. In relationship to the destruction of sacrilegious objects in the Temple as purification for Passover, it should be recalled that FJ speaks of a similar event before the Passover ofjosiah. This aspect is one of the few that FJ preserves from 2 Kgs 23 (cf. Ant. 10.69; Sir 49:1-3). 8 It is also possible that underneath Herod's words of reproach, the real mind of FJ is hidden, which considers this act sacrilegious (cf. J.W. 1.654; Ant. 17.163). 9 This is one of the aspects which suggests that, as might be thought after a superficial reading, FJ's appreciation of the behaviour of the "doctors" is not so positive. Another clue to the ambiguity in the presentation of these characters could be the use of aocpiaxai (sophists), ercavdaTaaK; (insurrection); cxpaxorceSov (army) {J.W. 1.648-649). The narrative of Ant. 17.149-150 seems to be less negative, but essentially it is not positive (cf. Ant. 17.148). 10 The difficulties with Herod's government were manifested not only through the attack on the eagle, but also in the petitions made to his son Archelaus, which included the replacement of the high priest by one who was purer (cf. J.W. 2.7; Ant. 17.207-208). Another piece of evidence is the reference to Herod's atrocities in front of Caesar when the Jews demanded the end of his dynasty; according to them, he was the worst ruler since their return from Babylon (J.W. 2.86; cf. Ant. 17.310).
194
CHAPTER SEVEN
after the rumour about Herod's death. The hope for a more radical transformation, excluding definitively the strangers in the land, is a plausible consequence of that historical juncture. Accordingly, the destruction of the oppressor's symbol was probably aimed at hastening the arrival of these new realities.11 FJ instead—contrary in principle to any anti-Roman reaction— gives a religious explanation for the attack on the eagle, avoiding any connection between the symbol and the Romans.12 At the same time, the connection of the events with Herod's death (J. W. 1.651; Ant. 17.155) seems to indicate that the reaction is only restricted to the domestic political affairs. Whether this reconstruction is correct or not, in fact the way in which FJ tells the events produces the results that he seems to have in mind.13 Actually, Passover and Pentecost occupy an odd place in the narration. Though it is extremely probable that the event actually began around the time of Passover and it was appeased after Pentecost,14 this connection is completely hidden in his reconstruction. Between these two feasts, FJ inserts many tales about the difficult process of Herod's succession, in order to obtain the effect he is seeking: to let the reader think that Passover and Pentecost have only a marginal significance in the unfolding of this history. This impression seems to be better conveyed in Ant, where the discourses for and against Archelaus in front of Caesar are longer (J.W. 2.26 36, 80-92; Ant. 17.228-247, 299-316).
11
It is not the purpose of this study to determine what sort of expectation is presented in this situation: whether it was the hope of an eschatological reign (complete change of the historical situation), or simply to wait for the banishment of the strangers, in order to establish a kingdom totally befitting the laws of the Fathers. It is also not possible to ascertain, according to the available information, if the expected Messiah was supposed to be a king, or a priest, or both. In any case, this is not fundamental as far as results of this work are concerned. 12 Taking into consideration the episode in which the Jews ask Vitellius not to enter in Jerusalem carrying their standards during a Passover feast {Ant. 18.121-123), it is possible to infer—by analogy—that the attack against the eagle was due to the concern surrounding the preparation for this feast. In fact, Passover required a special degree of purity for the people, and for the Temple, and probably even its environs (cf. Ant. 9.263; 10.68-70; 11.109). Cf. Excursus I. 13 The literary genre chosen by FJ is not at all neutral. On the contrary, it is a means to transmit his intended message; cf. M.R. Niehoff, "Two Examples of Josephus' Narrative Technique," 31-45; J.S. McLaren, Turbulent Times?, 48-67. 14 FJ mentions an eclipse in Ant. 17.167, which could be dated exactly on the thirteenth of March, 4 B.C.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
195
The confusing exposition of incidents could be attributed to FJ's lack of skill. However, it seems more reasonable that his intention is to reduce the whole reaction to an internal political problem. It seems fundamental then to keep in mind this literary analysis before attempting any evaluation of FJ as historical source. This is true particularly when the various attempts made at that time in order to get the political power are examined. In all likelihood FJ is using a well-known literary technique, i.e. to group together some events according to their common characteristics or arguments.15 In fact, he gathers different undertakings of individuals and groups to overcome the control of the situation (cf. J.W. 2.55-65; Ant. 17.269— 285), within the account of the siege of Sabinus in Jerusalem after the upraising at Pentecost {J.W. 2.51-54; Ant. 17.265-268). These characters or groups are part of the scene that FJ wants to create and consequently they have a role within it. It is then reasonable to doubt FJ's historical accuracy in this case. He emphasises the political-military aspect of the events, but it is probable that he hides—at least in some instances—the relationship of them to Passover, according to his proclivity, which was already pointed out. Evidently, any messianic or eschatological implication of these reactions cannot be deducted from the narrative. It is salient to stress that FJ attemps here—as he does even more pointedly in other instances {Ant. 18.121-123)—to disengage Passover of any anti-Roman aggression, which for him—with or without a religious ground—is always a mistake. Although he does not manage to avoid all the indirect references to Passover—e.g., the Jews mention freedom or national independence during the attacks to the Romans at Pentecost (cf. J.W. 2.53; Ant. 17.267)—, he clearly expresses his opinion in a gloss inserted in Ant. 17.277. There he affirms that it was a moment of anarchy and of provocation caused by the strangers (&A,A,6qn)A,oi). In this portrayal that he seeks to depict, there is not much room for the religious inspiration of the characters nor, accordingly, for a strong connection with Passover.
I;1
Other examples of this sort of compilation of similar episodes are found in FJ's works. Some of them will be studied later in this research (i.e. J.W. 2.254-265; Ant. 20.164-172; J.W. 6.285-315). In regard to this characteristic skill of FJ cf. SJ.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee, 53.
196
CHAPTER SEVEN 1.2. From the Census of Quirinius to Felix's Governorship
After evil kingship of Archelaus had ended, the Roman decided to join his dominions to the Roman province of Syria. This provides the occasion for Quirinius to undertake a census. Ant. 18.1—28 develops this episode more than J. W. 2.118-168 in which FJ pays more attention to the different 'Jewish philosophies." According to Ant. 18.2 Quirinius visits Judea and on this occasion Judas, together with a Pharisee called Saddok, incite the people against the Romans.16 In Ant. 18.4-10 FJ establishes an explicit relationship between this first movement of opposition and the incidents that will lead to the Jewish war. Although he does not conceal the religious motivations of Judas and Saddok, he also openly expresses his refusal, which is not because these persons are religious, but because they constitute an innovation [Ant. 18.9).17 Later on he will admit that the only actual difference between them and the Pharisees is an invincible passion for freedom (8VGV IKTITOC; 5e xox) £A,£\)9epoi) epcoq). Hence, the concept of freedom held by those of the so-called fourth philosophy was, according to FJ, against the paternal traditions. The date of the census made by Quirinius elicite a great deal of discussion, since in Luke 2:2 is used as a means of dating Jesus' birth.18 Although it is not vital for this study to determine the exact date of this census, two details—at a literary level—could be noteworthy. Normally the Governors of Syria visited Judea after the winter, thus it is possible that this visit of Quirinius also occurred at that time (cf. J.W. 2.244, 280; Ant. 18.122-123; 20.133). A little further on FJ will mention—out of context—the episode of the Samaritans who scatter human bones in the Temple during Passover. These two hints are insufficient to suggest the probability that FJ is again hiding a connection between Passover and the Judas-Saddok aggression; however, it is not impossible that FJ also here is at work. In fact, the mention of Florus in this context, who, because of his
16 In this passage, Judas is called "Gaulanite," and in J.W. 2.118 and Ant. 18.23, he is called "Galilaean." Saddok does not appear in J.W. 2.118. 17 The radical opposition of FJ to any change in the "law of the Fathers" was previously mentioned; cf. ch. V § 1; P. Bilde, "The Causes of the Jewish War," 196. 18 E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 568-571. For more recent studies cf. K.S. Krieger, "Die Historizitat des Census," 17-23; B.W.R. Pearson, "The Lucan Censuses," 262-282.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
197
crimes, will force the Jews to take arms around the time of Passover, increases the probability of this supposition. In J.W. 2.167-168 FJ rapidly proceeds to describe Pilate's governorship after his outline of the three Jewish "philosophies," referring in passing to the construction of some cities by Herod's descendants, and Tiberius' ascension to throne in A.D. 14. In Ant. 18.26-54, instead, he tells in detail some incidents that happened in Judea, Rome and Mesopotamia. Immediately afterwards, he reports the arrival of Pontius Pilate as procurator of Judea {Ant. 18.55). At the very beginning of his mandate, Pilate brought standards with the image of the emperor into Jerusalem. The popular reaction of disgust had no delay, and Pilate, astonished by Jewish devotion to the law, granted their petitions {J.W. 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59).'9 In Ant. 18.55 FJ states that these events took place slightly before the beginning of winter.20 Thus, this incident occurred around the time of the feast of Tabernacles (cf. Ant. 3.244). Although it is not possible to conclude with any certainty that the reaction was in connection with this feast, it seems to be highly likely. This could provide an explanation of the fact that sometimes the presence of the Roman standards was unbearable, and at other moments it was tolerated. In reality, it is difficult to imagine that a Roman battalion were always deprived of its insignias.21 In fact, FJ himself presents some episodes in which the importance of the standards for the Romans is evident, as far as their strategic and religious significance.22 Concerning the strategic role in J.W. 6.225—226, it appears that they are ready to die for them because to lose them would mean their ruin. The religious connotation is
19
H.K. Bond presents the general outline of Pontius Pilate as composed by FJ; cf. H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History, 49-93. 20 It could be of merit to point out that also in Ant. 18.124, where it seems FJ conceals the fact that Vitellius' visit to Jerusalem was during Passover, there is the order to withdraw the troops from the winter encampment. In both passages, this annotation appears to be out of context: in Ant. 18.124 the winter seems to be faraway, and in Ant. 18.55 it sounds exceedingly odd that the army would encamp in Jerusalem during the winter, where the weather is much more severe than in Caesarea. 21 This problem provoked a debate that L.H. Feldman summarises: he suggests that the easiest solution is to believe the reaction is against the human images—as FJ explicitly says—and not against any standard, cf. L.H. Feldman, Ant. 18.55 n. h. 22 Cf. Y. Le Bohec, "Feldzeichen," IV, 458-462.
198
CHAPTER SEVEN
witnessed in J.W. 6.316, which relates that the Romans actually venerate them. Furthermore, FJ justifies the uprising during Pilate's governorship, saying that the people's agitation was provoked by the human representations and not by the insignias themselves. However, there are at least two reasons to consider this explanation somewhat artificial. First, the religious sensibility of some Jews at that time seemed to be deeper than what FJ is willing to admit in this episode. In fact, there is another uprising caused by objects that merely have the appearance of human images (cf. Ant. 15.276-279). Second, FJ himself admits that not only are the human images against the Law of Moses (cf. J.W. 1.650; Ant. 3.91; 17.151), and as far as it could be inquired, almost all the Roman standards had images of animals, which would also be against the law of Moses.23 In conclusion, the problem of the standards could hardly be reduced to those bearing images of the emperor,24 instead it seems to have been an extremely harsh religious conflict of interest. The episode of Ant. 18.120-124, when the Jews ask Vitellius not to travel through Judea bearing insignias because of the religious celebration,25 appears more reasonable and could imply a certain compromise between the two counterparts.26 The Romans would have agreed not to expose the standards during the feasts (cf. Ant. 14.285),2/ but they would not always have been deprived of them during their stay in Jerusalem.28 Resuming the analysis of this episode, it is noteworthy that FJ describes the reaction of the crowd as very positive as well as the pacific solution of the problem {J.W. 2.174; Ant. 18.59). He seems to suggest that tenacity and attachment to the Law is the right behaviour when confronted with the despotic demands of the Roman 23
Cf. Y. Le Bohec, "Feldzeichen," IV, 458-462. The difficulty of FJ's presentation is also evident in the fact that, in J.W. 2.170, the prohibition is limited to Jerusalem, and there is no distinction between human and animal images. 20 In this case, the prohibition is not confined to the human images nor bound to the city of Jerusalem (Ant. 18.121), thus it corresponds better with the exposition in Ant. 3.91 of the law against images. 26 The official compromise was possible not satisfactory for all, and could create an unstable sort of harmony. It is also possible that this kind of tension related to the problem of images appears in the NT as well (cf. Matt 22:15—22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). 27 Cf. cap. V § 4. 28 In times of peace, the insignias were kept in custody in the aerarium populi romani; cf. Y. Le Bohec, "Feldzeichen," IV, 459. n
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
199
authority. The absence of the most incendiary moods, common to the time of Passover celebration, would have helped to achieve this peaceful end, at least, according to FJ's presentation of the events. Actually, the subsequent episode shows that Pilate is not always so understanding of the Jewish requests, nor are the Jews depicted in a totally favourable way, since their reaction is describe as "revolt" {czaaiq) (JW. 2.175-177; Ant. 18.60-62).29 In Ant. 18.63-89 FJ groups together a series of events following this sedition, all of which seem to be related for him in a certain manner. He begins by mentioning Jesus and his disciples (Ant. 18.63—64), followed by the affair of Paulina and the priests of Isis (Ant. 18.65-80). Next he relates Tiberius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Ant. 18.81-84). Finally, the list ends wiht the account of the Samaritan "prophet," who promises to reveal the hidden treasures of Moses in Mount Gerizim. The slaughter of Samaritans that follows will signal the end of Pontius Pilate's governorship in A.D. 36 (Ant. 18.85 89). Vitellius will be responsible for Pilate's dismissal and—according to FJ—will visit Jerusalem during a Passover feast. On this occasion he will be received in splendid style, and no one will reproach him for anything, contrary to the narration in Ant. 18.120 123, when the Jews are described as very angry. In this general presentation, FJ seems desirous of conveying that Passover is compatible with the presence of good Roman governors. Although in J. IV. 2.181-184 FJ proceeds to relate Gams' attempt to set his statue in the Temple without delay, in Ant. 18.90 260 he takes time to narrate certain incidents regarding the imperial court and King Agrippa I, who will play an important role in the peaceful resolution of the statue affair. For this study, it is not necessary to deal with this entire chapter, however, it is essential to stress that in J.IV. 2.184-203, where the conflict'resembles the one over the standards in Pilate's time, the good disposition of the Roman authority it is also determinant, and the resolution of the Jews to die as victims—but not to declare a war—in defending their Law (J.W. 2.197).
29
The scene in J.IV. 2.175 is located in Jerusalem during a visit from Pilate; hence it is possible that it happened at a Passover celebration. Regarding the different presentation of both episodes in J.W., and the apologetic reason behind it cf. H.K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History, 52-62 esp. 54-57. "
200
CHAPTER SEVEN
In Ant. 18.261^309, instead, FJ adds the intercession of Agrippa I before Gaius, which will fail due to a misunderstanding. Gaius will send a letter to Petronius, condemning him for his decision, which providentially will not arrive until after the news of Gaius' death. Thus, all will be solved fairly and Petronius will have a successful future, due to the risk he had endured in his endeavour to help the Jews (Ant. 18.309). A temporal hint for the dating of this episode is given in J. W. 2.200, just as in the first incident concerning Pilate (cf. Ant. 18.55), it was the time of sowing, i.e., before the winter.30 Undoubtedly, there is no need to correlate this episode with a festivity, since the gravity of Gaius' attempt—much greater than Pilate's offenses—would justify that reaction in any season of the year. In any case, a connection with Passover can positively be discharged.31 Once again, FJ will be much more expansive in Ant. 18.310-20.104 than in J. W. 2.204-223, recounting facts about the life of Agrippa I and of the Jews in Mesopotamia. The parallel account in J. W. will only enumerate briefly some achievements of Herod's successors, quickly reaching the report of another Passover insurrection.32 This uprising was already the object of this study {J. W. 2.224-227; Ant. 20.105—112), however, it should be now weighed according to the role it plays in the tale. In J.W., the proximity to the Gaius incident is very close; in Ant, instead, FJ places the majority of books 18-20 between these two events. He thus achieves separation of this revolt from the previous context, and it seems as if it is just the beginning of a restless year that will end at the next Passover, which FJ will refer to in Ant. 20.133 as merely an unspecified feast. All the terrible deeds that transpired during this year are attributed in the narrative to the evil intentions of the Romans, to a Samaritan attack, and to the rebels among the people. Hence, this year is very likely a literary device, since, for example, the governor
30
Cf. O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age, 31-44. Contrary to Ant. 18.55, in J.W. 2.200, it does not appear possible to suppose that there is an alteration of the real date. Actually, the description of the events corresponds well with that season, as well as the account of the same event in Ant. 18.284-287. 32 Slightly before the reference to Passover in Ant. 20.97-99, FJ mentions Teudas, however, this character will be analysed in the next section, since he is normally identified as a "sign prophet"; cf. R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 112-113. 31
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
201
Cumanus punishes two misdeeds perpetrated by soldiers within a short interval in opposite ways. In one instance, he reacts against the multitude, in the other, he puts the soldier to death. If FJ would have narrated the true succession of events, it is higly unlikely that such different behaviour could be conceivable in a short period of time. In any case, FJ states clearly that Passover could be an occasion for revolt, because in these massive gatherings the rebels take advantage of the situation and the Roman authorities are not always reasonable. In this manner, FJ guides his reader to a certain period of calm that includes the mandate of Felix. Although he will consider Felix a bad procurator in Ant. 20.162—166, since he ordained the assassination of the high priest Jonathan, and naturally he did not condemn his killers. These two misdeeds will occasion—according to FJ—the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Ant. 20.166).33 1.3. From Felix to Florus
This is the period immediately precedent to the outbreak of the Jewish war, in which FJ points out the errors and crimes that—in his opinion—impel the Jewish people to a fatal destiny. Departing from the analysis of J. W. 2.252~292, it is easier to realise how FJ organises the information he has regarding this period,34 since the scheme he follows is simpler and better arranged. The governorship of Felix begins with success; he captures Eleazar and defeats the brigands (J. W. 2.253-254). Immediately afterwards, however, another brigand's association emerges that has the distinctive way of attacking with the knife called sicas, from which their name Sicarii is derived (J. W. 2.254-257). Subsequently, according to his style, FJ will bring together a series of persons who in certain aspects resemble themselves, among them one who deserves a special mention the impostor called the "Egyptian." For FJ, these false prophets (yorixe^) are no better than the bandits (^riatpiKoi) are, in fact, he associates both groups together in their delinquent activities (J. W. 2.264 265). Next, FJ refers to the disputes among Jewish ;i3
FJ will further identify these assassins with the Sicarii (cf. Ant. 20.185-187). It is very plausible that the majority of this information comes from FJ himself, because this is the time when he was active in Jerusalem political life (cf. Vita 13-16). 34
202
CHAPTER SEVEN
and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea (J. W. 2.266-270),35 leaving the account of their resolution for a later moment. Concerning the two forerunners of Florus, FJ has little to say. Festus, he recalls, persecuted the evildoers somewhat successfully (J.W. 2.271). Albinus, on the contrary, took their part and favoured their wicked activities {J.W. 2.272-276). Florus will succeed Albinus not only in the government, but also in his corrupt behaviour, surpassing his predecessor in his wickedness, because he does not trouble to hide his crimes. Immediately following this brief introduction of Florus (J.W. 2.277279), FJ mentions a visit to Jerusalem from Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, accompanied by Florus at the time of a Passover feast. Though there are demonstrations against Florus, all will be peacefully settled (J.W. 2.280-283). This is the last episode before the events that will lead to the outbreak of the war, and that according to FJ, will be the impending causes of it. The first one is the solution to the disputes between the Jewish and Syrian population of Caesarea (J.W. 2.284-292), which was left unresolved in J.W. 2.266. It could be affirmed that this incident serves at the literary level as a turning point: it concludes the previous account, and it is the beginning of what follows. It is now possible to identify in this narrative complex the tendencies that were already noticed in this analysis. On one hand, he endeavours to classify all the different positions against the Romans into one homogeneous form, and to separate them from Passover. This feast, however, is not completely set apart from the context, but is described as a moment when the crowd put its confidence in Florus' superior authority, manifesting their bitterness peacefully. The redaction of Ant. 20.137 258 is less clear than that of J. W., since FJ seems to possess more information and simply adds it in, without a pattern. Actually, he connects the new data to the different procurators, changing at times his appreciation of them, e.g., Albinus is no longer an evil character. Instead, the rich priests of Jerusalem will be shown in an unfavourable light. The connection of the incident with Passover, which was explicit in J.W., disappears in Ant, since the account finishes precisely before it (cf. J.W. 2.279; Ant. 20.258).
33
Here the term Syrians refers to the Hellenistic population of the city.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
203
Through this literary device, the section regarding the "sign prophets" remains even more isolated in Ant. 20.168-172 than in the parallel passage of J. W., and totally disconnected from Passover. The same happens with the inclusion of Teudas to the narration in Ant. 20.97^99, which does not have any relation to the immediate context, except for the fact that Teudas was active during the governorship of Fadus {Ant. 20.98-99). What the actual intention of these "prophets" was in the first century of this era, has been thoroughly studied, although the scarcity of data makes the task exceedingly difficult.36 Nevertheless, it is still an open question as to whether there was a relation between the so-called "sign prophets" and the feast of Passover. In order to attempt to confront this challenge, two perils must be avoided: first, considering the different figures as totally homogeneous; second, stressing the differences to the point that no common element can be discerned any longer. D.R. Schwartz also warns that the different presentation in J. W. and in Ant. creates a series of difficulties, which from a historical point of view should be solved. Concretely, in J.W. 2, FJ characterises these movements as religious within the context of the state; in Ant, however, he separates these two environments, so that the Jewish religion cannot be accused of having political implications. At the same time, FJ could have avoided—as D.R. Schwartz stresses— the reference to these events, however, he prefers to relate them in a way that they accord as much as possible with his vision of history. Certainly, he does not achieve a perfect accommodation of this data.37 Taking into consideration these aspects of FJ's narrative, it is easy to understand the well-known difficulty of weighing and determining the real intentions of these characters. D.R. Schwartz attempts to fill in the gaps left by FJ, comparing them with the available information from Qumran. Thus, he recognises two different kinds of expectations: those who wait for salvation in the Temple, and those who expected that it happened in the desert, taking as inspiration the words of Isa 40:3.38 The prophets mentioned by FJ should be included in this second category. "' The work of R. Gray is highly recommended as a point of departure, since it presents the positions of previous authors well; cf. R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, esp. 112-144. " D.R. Schwartz, "Temple and Desert," 32—33. 38 D.R. Schwartz, "Temple and Desert," 37-43.
204
CHAPTER SEVEN
Although the reconstruction of D.R. Schwartz is attractive, B.W. Longenecker's critics seem to be justified.39 For him, Isa 40:3 is too short and cannot be so significant as to explain such a huge reaction; on the other hand, the theme of "exodus-conquest" is more fitting as a religious background of these movements.40 Precisely, given the amplitude of the desert motive, it is not possible to propose an exclusive relationship between Passover and these movements. On the other hand, it is also not correct to dismiss absolutely the notion that Passover had a role in these uprisings. This impossibility of a clear definition is also the result of the form in which FJ conveyed his reconstruction of the facts. One potential key to elucidating the real intention of these "prophets" could be to discover what sort of signs (aruieia) and miracles (xepaxa) FJ refers to when he explains the promises these impostors made in order to bring the people into the desert. R. Gray discusses extensively and acutely in regard to the significance of these signs and portents. She concludes that, in all likelihood, FJ refers to the ones that God showed to Moses in the burning bush to authenticate his mission. Hence, the "sign prophets" would have promised similar signs as proof of their heavenly mission.41 Among all these impostors,42 two—Teudas and the Egyptian—are identified by almost all scholars as characters that took Moses and Joshua as model.43 Specially Joshua, since he was charged to bring the people into the promised land; this warrior type appears as more suitable for justifying a violent reaction against the Romans. Theoretically, the most appropiate season for these sort of military campaigns should be the time between Passover and Pentecost, considering that the climatic conditions should be better,44 and that the mood of the masses gathered in Jerusalem should be more exas-
39 Subsequently, D.R. Schwartz published a response to B.W. Longenecker in which he shows that the criticism he received is exaggerated. In reality, he did not want to present Isa 40:3 as the only reason why the rebels went to the desert. His defense seems to be pertinent; cf. D.R. Schwartz, "Whence the voice?," 42~46. 40 B.W. Longenecker, "The Wilderness and Revolutionary Ferment," 322^336. 41 R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 123-133. 42 Only the events before the war will be taken under analysis. The incident reported in J.W. 6.283-287 seems to be more an act of despair than a movement such as those under scrutiny here. The case of Jonathan seems to be a personal apology from FJ, so it is not helpful to this work {J.W. 7.437-450; Vita 424-425). 43 R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 137 n. 84. 44 In fact, spring was considered the best season to begin a military attack.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
205
perated.43 Nevertheless, FJ provides no element to confirm this hypothesis nor does he suggest that all necessarily happened in the same season of the year.46 Consequently, FJ does not indicate any direct connection between these "prophets" and Passover. Indirectly, however, there could be a hidden association. In fact, FJ occasionally adds in his account of Passover a reference to the prophets, those he considers true, since they announce destruction instead of triumph (J. W. 6.300-309; Ant. 9.263-267; 14.21 24).47 The most significant example could be the addition to the biblical text in Ant. 9.263 267, in which Hezekiah sends messengers to the northern tribes in order to invite them to join the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem. The majority of the people despised these messengers, as well as the prophets that announced to them the destruction that was to come from God if they did not obey; these are spat on and finally killed. Those considered by FJ as false prophets, since they announce a better future before the Jewish war, are also killed, not by the people, but by the authorities. Hence, in FJ's works a relationship exists between the prophets and Passover. However, for apologetic reasons, the roles seem to be altered: good prophets are added to certain Passover celebrations, and the reputed false ones are completely unrelated to the celebration of this feast. The fact that the signs, which announce the destruction but were wrongly interpreted by the rebels, occurred mainly in the period between Passover and Pentecost, could be another clue to strengthen the plausibility of this hypothesis. Hence, they deserve to be analysed in detail. 2. THE SIGNS FORETELLING DESTRUCTION
In this instance, there is also a literary construction in which FJ compiles a series of signs that were considered good omens by the rebels,
•*•' For Tabernacles a big crowd also came to Jerusalem, but since it was at the beginning of winter, it does not seem to be a proper time for this sort of uprising. 46 The Egyptian mentioned by FJ may be identified with the one referred to in Acts 21:38. Since Paul went on that occasion to Jerusalem in order to celebrate Pentecost (Acts 20:16), this should be an independent hint that the Egyptian's revolt happened around Passover time; cf. R. Gray, Prophetic Figures, 118. 47 Though in Ant. 14.21-24, Onias is not explicitly called a prophet, it was already
206
CHAPTER SEVEN
though they were actually signs of the coming destruction of Jerusalem {J.W. 6.288-315). The nature of these signs is variegated, while some could be classified as "portents" (xepaxa) (J. W. 6.288-300), the others recall a great deal passages of the OT {J.W. 6.300-309).48 In addition, FJ mentions two oracles of the Scriptures that should be fulfilled— according to him—through the destruction of the Temple, and the proclamation of Vespasian as Emperor during his sojourn in Jewish land {J.W. 6.310-315). The analysis of the signs that transpired during the time between Passover and Pentecost will be considered first {J.W. 6.289—300).49 These extraordinary events are reported with few divergences by two Roman historians. Tacitus refers to certain portents that happened before the war but the Jews did not "exorcise," since they are against religion.50 Concretely, the reference is to the apparition of fighting armies in the heaven, a bright weapon, and a fire coming from the clouds, which illuminated the Temple. Another sign was the opening of the Temple's gates and the sound of a human voice crying: "the gods are leaving." The majority, according to Tacitus, interpreted these signs as positive omens, since the priestly scriptures foretold that one man, starting from Judea, will possess the earth. Naturally, Tacitus connects this prophecy with the ascent of Vespasian to power. Suetonius has preserved a long list of signs or portents announcing Vespasian's future ascension to the throne.31 Among these he reports that it was an old, constant opinion, which assured that the governor of the world should come from Judea;52 further on, he mentions FJ's prophecy to Vespasian that deserved his liberation.33
stated that his presentation recalls the prophet Balaam, as well as the unjust death of the false prophets established by Deut 13:10-11; cf. cap. V § 1. 48 O. Michel, "Studien zu Josephus," 240. 49 The first one is, actually, one year long, but it is not specified when it begins or ends. In any case, it is connected with the following portents. 50 Hist. 5.13; cf. C.H. Moore, Tacitus, II, 196-199; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 23, 31, 60~61. 51 De Vita Caesarum 8.4-6; cf. J.C. Rolfe, Suetonius, II, 286-297; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 119-124. 52 De Vita Caesarum 8.4-5; cf. J.C. Rolfe, Suetonius, II, 288-289; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 119-122. 53 De Vita Caesarum 8.5, 6; cf. J.C. Rolfe, Suetonius, II, 288-291; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 122-123.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
207
From these two non-Jewish authors, it becomes evident that for the Roman culture these sorts of signs are not at all rare,54 and they do not need a rational explanation. Regarding the historical sources these authors should have utilised, it is possible to assert that these were common to FJ's sources, since a direct dependence from FJ should be excluded.05 Though it is plausible that some of these episodes came only from FJ's memory, since they supposedly occurred in Jerusalem during his lifetime, it is more likely that this reconstruction is the product of the compilation of previous elements taken from different sources.56 Consequently, the fact that FJ sets many of them in the time around Passover could not be solely by chance. The first of these signs has many parallels in other literary works,37 it concerns a comet that, being a particular sort of celestial body, normally provokes astonishment,58 in addition, the spectacle endures for an abnormal term {J.W. 6.289).59 54 It is possible to add to the list both Dio's reference to a comet, which was visible for a long period, and the automatic opening of Augustus' mausoleum. These signs were a prediction of Vespasian's death, but he refuses this interpretation applying the portents to the Parthian king (Hist, 66.17); cf. E. Cary, Dio's Roman History, VIII, 294-295. ):1 Other Roman sources are aware of FJ's prophecy. The rabbinic literature, instead, attributes this premonition to Yohanan ben Zakkai; cf. T. Reinach, J. W. 3.408 n. 2. 5b S.V. McCasland reports many parallels of these portents in the Hellenistic and Roman literature. He maintains that FJ obtained them from the "memoirs" of Titus (•u7to|ivrmaTa). The correspondences proposed by S.V. McCasland are obvious; however, it is not correct to discharge a priori any relationship with episodes or prophecies from the OT; cf. S.V. McCasland, "Portents in Josephus," 323-335. 57 Cf. O. Ricoux, "Sirus ou l'etoile des Mages," I, 131-154; A. Wolters, "Halley's Comet," 687-697; W. Horowitz, "Halley's Comet," 456-459." Th. Mommsen, "Das Datum der Erscheinung," 180-182. 38 The text is not completely clear, because it seems to refer to two different celestial bodies. However, since the first one is plainly described as a comet, it may be presupposed that the second part of the sentence is just a clarification of the first part. Thus, the passage should refer to only one comet. G. Dorival maintains that this sign is a proof of the popular belief in the relationship between Messianism and Balaam's prophecy (Num 24:17). Hence, FJ should have had this prophecy in mind—according to G. Dorival—when he affirms that the governor of the world should come fromjudea {J.W. 6.313); cf. G. Dorival, "Un astre se levera," 303-305. Nevertheless, in spite of the proximity of these two passages, their connection is not guaranteed. )9 W. Horowitz supports the proposal of Hunger, who thinks that FJ's description refers to Halley's comet. However, he himself confirms that in this case, contrary to the report in 164 B.C., there is no astronomical record. Hence, it seems audacious to propose this identification here. No doubt that FJ relates an account
208
CHAPTER SEVEN
The second portent falls a few days before Passover—on the eighth of Xanthicus—and there are two detailed explanations of its meaning, both according to the rebels and according to the sages {J. W. 6.290-291). A light for a brief period illuminates the Temple during the night. Tacitus unites this sign to the one of the heavenly chariots, while FJ presents them separately.60 This divergence in FJ could derive from the fact that, as O. Michel suggests, FJ perceived a relation to certain OT pericopes.61 The ignorant people interpreted this sign as a good omen, while for the sacred scribes, it was a token of destruction. The ambiguity of the event is evident; however, FJ does not explain how the sages grasped the real meaning of it before the hostilities commenced. The third sign is closely connected to the former, and it appears to refer to one of the sacrifices of big cattle during the seven days of Unleavened Bread (cf. Ant. 3.249).62 The episode narrates that a cow, while it is brought for the sacrifices, gives birth to a lamb (J. W. 6.292). The question regarding the historicity of this event is beyond any reasonable consideration.63 Even so, FJ endeavours to justify it much less than the case of the heavenly chariots.64 The actual significant question is whether this event is reminiscent of a familiar prophecy for the Jews. Without doubt, there is nothing similar to this abnormal birth in the OT.65 Tertullian, among others, conveyed a sentence attributed to the prophet Ezekiel, which was likely part of an apocryphal book attribof a comet, but the duration of such is too long to be true. In any case, the historical reliability is not the central point of this episode, since only the symbolic aspect of the event plays a role in the narrative. W. Horowitz, "Halley's Comet," 458-459. 60 Hist. 5.13; cf. C.H. Moore, Tacitus, II, 196-197; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 23.31.60-61. 61 The passage proposed by O. Michel is Isa 60:1-2; cf. O. Michel, "Studien zu Josephus," 242. 62 Even if FJ uses the masculine noun raupoi (bulls) in Ant. 3.249, in J.W. 6.292, there is (3ouc; (bovine), which can refer to either a male or a female. In any case, the episode is portentous enough to add the presupposition that it refers to a bull. 63 Aside from the extraordinary nature of the narration, it is also surprising that a cow was about to give birth at Passover season. This could be an indication that in the source for this episode, there was no relationship with Passover. 64 The long list of unnatural births in the Hellenistic and Roman literature provided by S.V. McCasland could suggest that for FJ's readers this was not so difficult to believe. However, parallels to the account of the heavenly chariots is also wellknown in that literature; cf. S.V. McCasland, "Portents in Josephus," 328. 65 Isa 11:7 refers to a cow in an unnatural situation, but it cannot be the background for this passage.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
209
uted to this prophet that FJ seems to know.66 The sentence proclaims the following: "legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca ilia, quae peperit et non peperit" (we read, thus, in Ezekiel that the cow gave birth and did not give birth).6' According to Tertullian, this text demonstrates that it was already foretold that certain people would have scoffed at the virginal birth of Jesus Christ.68 Since the remaining fragments of this apocryphal book are very few, any reconstruction of this sentence should remain tentative. However, the sentence appears cut off, even accepting that Tertullian presented it in an enigmatic form. Hence, it may be possible to complete the sentence in this way: "the cow gave birth and did not give birth to a calf but to a lamb." Accordingly, the text acquires a full meaning and could be the inspiration for FJ's account. Now, the connection of the two cows that unnaturally gave birth seems to strengthen the probability of this hypothesis.69 Other messianic implications of this sentence could be possible;70 however, there is no reason to support their plausibility. Finally, it could be salient in this regard to recall that in Ant. 2.292, FJ adds to the biblical text a consideration concerning those who oppose the will of God; specifically, he refers to the Pharaoh who refuses to accept Moses' request. The expected punishment for those persons is that they will beget (TEKVWV) offspring in an unnatural way.71 The fact that this addition appears slightly before the departure of the Israelites from Egypt could have aided in the association of this abnormal birth with Passover. In other words, FJ seems to point out in this account that the Jews are opposing the will of God. The fourth presage is the automatic opening of the Sancturary's door (J. W. 6.293-296).72 There are several parallels of this wonder
66
Actually, in Ant. 10.79 FJ says that Ezekiel wrote two books; cf. J.R. Mueller, The Five Fragments, 16, 120-138. 67 In De Came Christi 23; cf. J.P. Mahe, Tertullien. La Chair du Christ, I, 304-305. J.R. Mueller, The Five Fragments, 128, 136-137. 68 J.R. Mueller, The Five Fragments, 129. 69 The absence of terminological agreements could be explained by the manner in which FJ re-works his sources. The only coincidence is the use of the verb xeicvoco (to give birth). 70 J.R. Mueller, The Five Fragments, 121-122. 71 On the contrary, to generate according to nature is a sign of God's blessing for FJ; cf. Ant. 3.88. '- Concerning the possible messianic meaning of this episode cf. R. Le Deaut, La nmt pascale, 288-289, 294.
T
in the Hellenistic and Roman literature,73 but again, relationships with the OT are not to be excluded.74 The ambiguity of the portent is stressed another time by FJ: the false interpretation surmises that the wealth of the world will enter into the Temple; the true one understands that the Temple will become vulnerable. However, there is no explanation regarding the means by which the sages arrived at the right conclusion, or concerning the authority that justified it. The fifth wonder is the apparition at sunset of chariots and an army in the sky. It seems to be dated on the twenty-first of Artemisius (J. W. 6.296 299).7s Aside from the insistence on the fact that many people were eyewitnesses of this marvel, FJ provides no further interpretation of this event. The sixth portent occurs on the day of Pentecost. While the priests are ostensibly preparing the Temple for worship, they hear some uncommon noise, they perceive strange movement, and finally they hear the utterance: "we are leaving from here" (J. W. 6.299^300). In this case, the parallel proposed by S.V. McCasland is not obvious.76 Instead, EzekiePs vision of the Glory of God departing from the Temple appears more fitting as background for this wonder (Ezek 10:18 19; 11:22 24).77 In this instance, FJ does not add any comment, since the event leaves no room for equivocal interpretations. It is evidently a bad omen for the Jews. If the feast of Pentecost was already depicted as the celebration of God's covenant with his people during FJ's time, God's departure from his Sanctuary is more than an eloquent gesture. In addi73
S.V. McCasland, "Portents in Josephus," 328. O. Michel suggests that Isa 60:11 is implied in this portent. It is also possible that it alludes to Ps 24:7-10, in which it seems that the doors themselves are the subjects of the action. M. Stern recalls the parallelism with b. Toma 39b; cf. O. Michel, "Studien zu Josephus," 242; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 60. 15 It is noteworthy that in J.W. 3.142 FJ assigns this date to his entrance into the city of Jotapata, creating some chronological discrepancies (cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, J.W. 3.142). This could be a clue to understanding the symbolic value of certain dates for FJ. 76 He suggests a text of Dio in which the debacle of Rome in Britain is foretold (Hist. 62.1);cf. E. Cary, Dio's Roman History, VIII, 82-83. S.V. McCasland, "Portents in Josephus," 329. His idea notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that this is a wellknown motif in the ancient literature; cf. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II, 60-61. '' The rabbinic literature also includes many references to the exit of the Shekinah from the Temple. A. Goldberg shows that the prototype of this departure is that of the exile; thus, the departure at the time of Titus is interpreted in light of the previous one; cf. A. Goldberg, Vorstellung von der Schekhinah, 487-493. 74
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
21 1
tion, Ezekiel's vision is in the context of an oracle of condemnation and another of salvation which finishes with the typical covenantal statement: "they will be my people and I will be their God" (Ezek 11:20). Actually, the similitude between Ezekiel's description of Jerusalem at his time and FJ's account of Jerusalem's siege is a great deal sound to doubt their literary dependence.78 After this analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn. 'Even though the images are mostly borrowed from the Hellenistic and Roman literature, they still have an evocative strength in the Jewish culture. In certain cases, they seem to be even more related to this latter milieu than to the former, just as in the reference to God's departure from the Temple on the day of Pentecost. Furthermore, FJ supplies only twice the twofold interpretation of the events, i.e., the one of the rebels and the other of the sages; both wonders could be associated with Isa 60, where the prophet announces God's extraordinary act of salvation for his people. Through these literary devices, FJ indicates that he opposes the groups that used the war as a means of liberation, not by denying their ways of expression but by rejecting the contents of that expression/9 Regarding the contents that these groups seem to believe, there is not much that one can come to know. Two elements appear probable: first, these groups were waiting for an action of God which could easily grant them victory over their foreign enemies; second, there was a relationship between this hope and the time between Passover and Pentecost, since FJ chooses this period to date the signs that encourage the rebels, but actually were bad omens for them. There are other signs that foretell the Temple's destruction for FJ (J. W. 6.300-315). Even if at first glance they seem to be completely separated from the Passover, it could not be merely by chance that they are so closely related to the signs examined above. 78 It could be very fruitful to study FJ's dependence on Ezekiel and Jeremiah in his narration of Jerusalem's siege, but it extends beyond the limits of this work (cf. Ant. 10.79-80). In fact, in J.W. 5.391-393, FJ cites Jeremiah and also somewhat identifies himself with this prophet. 79 It is really difficult to ascertain the proper terminology when speaking of messianic, apocalyptic, or eschatological groups, since all these aspects could be found interrelated or separated, either totally or just in part. In fact, there are very few sources for this period besides FJ. Hence, it could be better not to classify these groups in any form in order to avoid the resulting confusion, e.g., in O. Michel's article; cf. O. Michel, "Studien zu Josephus," 242.
212
CHAPTER SEVEN
The first one is the prophecy of a certain Jesus son of Ananias (J.W. 6.300-309), which is the most terrible presage of all (TO 8e TCUTCOV (poPepcbxepov) for FJ. This specification guarantees the connection with the previous omens, being the most fearful one of all, it is certainly connected to them. The fact that this prophet was killed during the Passover of A.D. 70 is another indication of the immediate dependence of this sign on the preceding ones. This date can be deduced by the terms of his mission: from the feast of Tabernacles—four years before the war (J.W. 6.300)—to slightly after the beginning of Jerusalem's siege {J.W. 6.308), which began on the fourteenth of Xanthicus (cf. J.W. 5.567), i.e., the first day of Unleavened Bread (cf. J.W. 5.99). In confirmation of this date, FJ affirms that his mission was seven years and five months long (J.W. 6.308); actually, the time between Tabernacles and Passover is six months, however, considering the normal inaccuracy of FJ, the divergence of one month is not a real problem.80 This prophet is actually a peasant without education, who suddenly during the feast of Tabernacles—most probably in A.D. 62— begins to shout, prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. After a time this man is arrested, examined, and flogged by the Jewish authorities, but his only response to all this will be the repetition of his lament over the city. Suspecting that a supernatural power was active in him, he is brought in front of the Roman procurator, Albinus, who dismisses him believing that he is simply crazy. The prophet resumes his wailing, which will be louder during the feasts. Finally, a stone thrown from outside the walls will hit and kill him. The historicity of this character cannot be seriously doubted, FJ could be an eyewitness of the prophet's preaching, and could even have been at his interrogation. Nevertheless, FJ is the only source that preserves this account, hence, some details could be attributed to FJ's intention to convey a specific message. The content of the prophet's proclamation has typical OT reminiscences (cf. Jer 7:34; 16:9:25:10; Bar 2:23), and the reference to the bridegroom and the bride also recalls Rev 18:23. The judgement of Albinus regarding this prophet brings to mind the one pro80 In addition to the fact that FJ appears to stress the connection between Passover and the premonitory sign in this episode, he also seems to attribute special prominence to the feast in general, when he refers to these portents.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
213
fessed by his forerunner concerning Paul (cf. Act 26:24). Both prophet and Paul are considered crazy, even if Paul's behaviour is quite different. FJ's appreciation of this character, though, is not at all negative. Actually, FJ adds a the confirmatory gloss (orcep f^v 8ai(iovicoxepov TO Kwrijia Tav8p6<;), in order to qualify the strength at work in Jesus son of Ananias, which, even if he uses the comparative adjective "more demoniac," in this context should be translated as "supernatural" or "wonderful" (cf. J.W. 4.649). The wailing over Jerusalem certainly recalls the wailing that Jesus of Nazareth exclaimed some years earlier (cf. Luke 13:34-35; Matt 23:37-39). Nevertheless, it is not possible to establish a literary parallelism, or even less a certain relationship between the two persons. It is also superfluous to recall that the homonym has no particular meaning; in fact, FJ mentions a great many persons called Jesus or Joshua, among them also, Jesus called the Christ (Ant 20.200). The only similarity that can be stated, according to the sources, is that both predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and both died at the time of Passover. There are also some likenesses in their trials, but the differences appear to be more abundant than the affinities. In conclusion, the contributions of this episode to the understanding of FJ's presentation of Passover are the following: a) the most terrible sign of the refusal to hear God's admonitions regarding the future destruction is the rejection of the prophet that explicitly announces it; b) the death of one or several prophets during Passover is a recurrent theme in FJ's work; c) God can use various ways to bring salvation to the people (cf. J.W. 6.310), but they remain free to choose their own destiny. The two examples that FJ subsequently narrates are a development of the last conclusion above, and of the fact that God's warnings inevitably come to fulfilment.81 The first refers to an oracle—supposedly well-known—that foretells the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, when the latter would have become "four-sided" or "quadrangular" (xexpaycovov) {J.W. 6.311). The second concerns the prophecy recorded in the
81 It seems more normal to translate in J.W. 6.314 TO yjpt&v as "debt," instead of "destiny," since FJ maintains the free will of human beings (oaJGoupexoov) in J. W. 6.311.
214
CHAPTER SEVEN
Jewish Scriptures regarding one coming from that country who should become the master of the world. It is evident that the first prophecy is totally unknown,82 and it is hard to understand what it means in saying that the Temple should become square. On one side, the inner area of the Temple is already described as square in J.W. 5.195.83 On the other, if he refers to the fact that the Jews in the final attack burnt the wall separating the Temple from the Antonia (cf. J.W. 6.165-168), apparently creating a four-sided area, even in this case his reasoning is not sound. Actually, the Antonia has already been demolished by the Romans and transformed ostensibly into a pile of debris {J.W. 6.93, 149), hence, it is hardly likely that a square form would have appeared. Thus, it seems more plausible that FJ combines one strategic mistake of the Jews, such as the devastation of the last defensive wall, with an oracle containing the word "quadrangular." Bearing these two elements in mind, two hypotheses seem to be possible. The first is the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding the destruction of the city and the Temple (Ezek 7); there it is stated that the end should come upon the four angles {kn\ xac, xioGapac, Kiepvyaq) of the earth (xfj<; yn<;) (Ezek 7:2). If FJ preserves an interpretation similar to those common to the rabbis,84 it is possible to suppose that the preposition £7tl is considered according to its causal meaning, so that the verse should be translated as follows: "the end will come due to the four angles." The two final words of the sentence xf|<; yr\c, (of the earth) should become the beginning of the next verse, remaining only to supply a connection between the four angles and the Temple.85 The second hypothesis is that FJ suggests in an obscure way that the rebels transformed the Temple into a military camp, such as the Roman ones. In his description of the Roman camps, FJ himself says explicitly that they are square and that in the centre, as if a shrine, there is the tent of the commander-in-chief (J. W. 3.77-84). Thus, in the centre of the Temple, instead of God's presence in the
82
Cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J.W. 6.311 n. a. Regarding the historical value of FJ's description of the Temple, as well as a comparison with other sources cf. L.I. Levine, "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple," 233-246. Concerning the cosmic significance of the Temple for FJ cf. S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean, 40-43. 84 Cf. G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 25-40. 85 This interpretation also works by taking the Hebrew text as a point of departure. 83
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
215
holy of holies, there should be the presence of the leaders of the revolt. In fact, FJ twice affirms that the rebels transformed the Temple into a fortress (cf. J.W. 6.121, 240). This unequivocal abomination (cf. J.W. 6.124-128) could be related to the prophecy of Dan 9:26-27,86 which is also utilised by the Gospels as an immediate sign of the destruction of the Temple (Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15). Unfortunately, the textual preservation of Dan 9:26^27 is rather poor, both the Hebrew as well as the Greek text present notable difficulties. Hence, even if in the Hebrew text and in some Greek versions the word "angle" is mentioned (^3? by); ETti 7ixepiJYiov), there are not sufficient elements to suggest the probability of a direct connection with FJ's reference.87 Finally, the possibility should be considered that a combination of the two proposed texts has actually induced FJ to consider such an unusual sign as an anticipation of the destruction of the Temple. Consequently, it is impossible to find only one text that coincides with his utterance. On the other hand, the mere artificial invention of the prophecy seems to be still less probable, since it could be a source of critics on the side of his Jewish enemies. There is yet another possibility, i.e., that FJ refers to an apocryphal work which is not available any longer. However, this would be an explanation of the mysterious through something even more mysterious. The second example provided by FJ is not any easier to grasp. It is a messianic oracle,88 which seems to be familiar to some non86 FJ also reports in J.W. 4.388 an "ancient" prophecy regarding the Temple's destruction in case the Jews defile it. However, H.St.J. Thackeray does not find any fitting reference to this "ancient" prophecy; cf. H.StJ. Thackeray, J. W. 4.388 n. a. 87 It could be advantageous to point out that FJ relates in J. W. 6.93-95, where Titus's order to destroy the Antonia is reported, that the same day the daily sacrifice ceased. In addition, he plainly accuses the rebels of having defiled the Temple. In Dan 9:26-27, the cessation of the sacrifices is also mentioned, thus, this could strengthen the probability that FJ was thinking in this passage of Daniel. Furthermore, FJ says explicitly in Ant. 10.276 that Daniel foretold that the Romans would have conquered Jerusalem, though he does not state the exact pericope. Nevertheless, he also indicates Jeremiah and Ezekiel as foretellers of the events that happened during the Jewish war (cf. Ant. 10.78). Regarding these identifications cf. W. Adler, "The Apocalyptic Survey of History," 201-238 esp. 208-217. 88 Though the word "messianic" could entail other meanings, in this case it is supposedly indicates a king or kingdom that will govern the whole world. According to FJ, it is not necessary that the king comes from Jewish descent, but he should be proclaimed king in Jewish territory.
216
CHAPTER SEVEN
Jewish historians as well.89 The problem then, is to determine which prophecy FJ intended, since there is more than one candidate (Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Dan 2:44-45). Taking into consideration that FJ plainly affirms that the prophecy was fulfilled by Vespasian, thus saving his own life (cf. J.W. 3.399-404; J.W. 6.313), it seems more likely that he intended Daniel's oracle (Dan 2:44-45), since it does not specify that the king should be one of the Jewish people.90 Nevertheless, in Ant. 10.210 FJ affirms that Daniel's prophecy should still be accomplished; hence, it could not be the one he applied to Vespasian. However, it is possible that FJ changed his mind while he was writing Ant. several years afterwards, and he waited again for a Jewish dominion of the world. It is even possible that he believed this already at the time of the War, but he applied the prophecy to Vespasian simply as a matter of convenience. In any case, Ant. 10.210 confirms FJ's faith in the scriptures and seems to uncover his messianic expectations that he could not proclaim openly (cf. Ant. 4.125). Concerning the possibility of linking this oracle with Passover, nothing can be stated with any degree of probability. Though the function of this oracle in the context is not the same as the premonitory signs presented slightly earlier by FJ, it is always true that the utterance is part of the same digression that FJ makes in J.W. 6.288-315. On the other hand, FJ presents this prophecy as the main motive, which moved the rebels to such an irrational endeavour. Thus, it is not possible to negate entirely any connection between the rebels and Passover as L.H. Feldman categorically did.91 3. CONCLUSION
After this analysis, it seems to be plain that FJ hides behind his style of redaction certain intentions that are not evident at first glance. Hence, it is necessary to take note of them in order to achieve a better historical understanding of that period. 89 H.St.J. Thackeray affirms that Tacitus and FJ should depend on a common source; cf. H.St.J. Thackeray, J. W. 6.313 n. b. 90 H. Lichtenberger prefers the oracle of Num 24:17; cf. H. Lichtenberger, "Messianic Expectations and Messianic Figures," 19. F.F. Bruce suggests that it could be a combination of Dan 9:24-27 and Num 24:17; cf. F.F. Bruce, 'Josephus and Daniel," 158. 91 L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 508.
THE SETTING WITHIN THE HISTORICAL SITUATION
217
In a manner at times clearer than others, he seems to strive to disjoint the feast of Passover from the activities of the groups opposing Roman presence in Palestine. Thus, he demonstrates that Passover can be celebrated in a peaceful way if the Roman authorities are not corrupt and the rebels do not take advantage of the great number of people gathered in Jerusalem in order to carry out their evil plans. Accordingly, when Passover will turn into bloodshed, FJ will incriminate particular persons or circumstances, totally unrelated to the true significance of the feast. In the same line, he will sometimes alter the meaning of a political reaction to make it a religious one and vice-versa. In this way, FJ depicts a somewhat distorted image of the real events, by attempting to free Passover of any political implication that it almost certainly had. This process is discernible in embryonic form in his J.W., but appears more clearly in his Ant. As far as the nature of the rebel groups is concerned, FJ plays a double game: on one hand, he distinguishes between the brigands and the impostors; on the other, he unites them in their evil activities. Through this means, he manages to present the issues in a very confused way. Even though he tries to hide the relationship between the "false prophets" and Passover, through this very negation he shows it, especially by dating most of the warning signs of the destruction in the time between Passover and Pentecost. Even keeping in mind that the brigands are not to be identified with the impostors— according to FJ's terminology—it is fair to imagine that if the impostors have acted in connection with Passover, the brigands also should have done so. In summary, what seems to be an easy conjecture, i.e., that the feast of liberation from Egypt would have been an inspiring motive for those that were striving to definitely expel the foreign oppressors, does not appear to be true in FJ's account. This is not because it is false, but due instead to FJ's attempt to let his reader understand this. Fortunately, he was not totally successful.92 92
A. Strobel had already proposed—somewhat a-critically—that FJ endeavours to hide the messianic aspect of the revolution against the Romans. L.H. Feldman notes that FJ never connects Passover with the messianic expectations. According to this study, however, even if it is not possible to state a specific messianic relation between Passover and the Jewish war, it seems to be evident that a certain link between Passover and the revolution was real. Hence, it is also fair to suppose that there was also a kind of expectation; cf. A. Strobel, "Die Passa-Erwartung," 186-195; L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 508.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER EIGHT
OTHER MEANS OF PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT 1. PASSOVER AND THE OTHER PILGRIMAGE FEASTS
A first glance at the references to the Jewish festivities provided by FJ makes it possible to appreciate that these have a significant place in his works, especially in Ant., where FJ mentions some feasts that do not appear in J. W. With the term eoptfi (feast), FJ denotes the religious celebrations as well as some profane ones (cf. e.g. Ant. 16.137). In Ant. 3.254 FJ conveys two characteristics of the religious commemorations in general, i.e., that in these occasions the Jews offer sacrifices (burnt offerings and well-being),1 and they rest from work. Among these, three have a special importance, since they entail a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, i.e.'. Tabernacles, Passover, and Pentecost. The other feasts that he records are the following: Yom Kippur (Ant. 3.240-243);2 Purim (Ant. 11.292-296); the feast of the Restoration of the Temple, or Hanukkah (Ant. 12.323-325); the festivity of Nicanor (Ant. 12.412); and that of the Wood (J.W. 2.425). The Sabbath (odpporcov) and the new moon (vo\)fir|via) are equated with festivities (cf. Ant. 3.237238; J.W. 5.230), in spite of the fact that they are not explicitly called such (eoprn). On several occasions he mentions a feast without indicating which one he is refering to (cf. e.g., J.W. 1.88; Ant. 5.172). This may be due to the fact there was not this indication of it in his sources, or that he did not consider this information important, or it may be possible—as already pointed out—that sometimes he conceals the name for a special reason.
1 He does not use this terminology, but it is implied in the text, i.e., sacrifices in which parts of the victims were eaten by the participants in a joyful manner (npbc, Exxo%iaiq). 2 Although FJ describes this feast at length, he does not reveal its name, nor does he call it eopxf|.
220
CHAPTER EIGHT
In J. W. 1.88 FJ suggests that all the feasts are propitious settings for popular revolts; however, it is more plausible that he intended in particular the three main feasts of pilgrimage, since the crowd gathered in Jerusalem at those times was greater. This statement seems to apply also in Samaria, since Herod had to appease a revolt there just prior to a feast (cf. J.W. 1.229). Only a few of the feasts that FJ mentions (religious as well as profane) are presented as annual recurrences. Among these, only three contain a special temporal phrase, which specifies that they were commemorated up until the time when FJ is writing in Rome. Other feasts—such as Tabernacles—are referred to with verb forms in the present tense, which could be only a literary form to express a past event, the so-called "historical present" {Ant. 15.50). For the three celebrations mentioned above, FJ uses three different temporal phrases: for Purim, "60ev KOCI vt>v" (whence, still now);3 for Hanukkah, "|oixpi tov Sevpo" (up to this point);4 for Passover, "o0ev vvv exi" (hence, even now).5 Among the pilgrimage festivities, Tabernacles has a pre-eminent place in the works of FJ.6 In Ant. 8.100 he asserts that for the Hebrews it was the holiest and greatest celebration (ccyicoxaxric; Kal |i£yiaxr|<;). This declaration should not be transformed into an absolute, and driven out of context. In fact, the phrase, "the holiest" (ayicoxdxr|<;) is a means of indicating that there could not have been a better moment for such a solemn act, i.e., the translation of the ark of the 3 There is no exact parallel for this expression in FJ's works. Only two are similar: in Ant. 1.322 there is also a connection between antiquity and his time, and in Life 338 where FJ reports a previous event that has consequences during his present time. 4 This phrase has some exact parallels (e.g., Ant. 4.185; 5.303\ and others with slight divergences (e.g., Ant. 13.212); however, it is not always a temporal expression, nor a connection between history and FJ's present time. 5 This expression, the most definite and emphatic of the three, will be analysed afterwards while studying the celebration of Passover after A.D. 70. At present, it is merely noteworthy that all these expressions and their parallels are found in Ant., with only one exception in Life. 6 J.L. Rubenstein appears excessively anxious to demonstrate that Tabernacles is the most important feast of the Second Temple period, thus, he does not seem to weigh the information in a balanced form. His results should be pondered more if he would have considered FJ's references to Passover with greater seriousness, these are more abundant than those to Tabernacles. R. Vicent's study, in this regard, is better articulated, but it lacks a conclusion. H. Ulfgard dedicates only few lines to FJ; cf. J.L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot, 75-84; R. Vicent, La fiesta judia de las Cabanas, 161-178; H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot, 239-240.
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
221
covenant and the consecration of the Temple.7 FJ declares in Ant. 15.50 that the feast is observed with special care, an analogous expression to that found concerning Passover in Ant. 17.213. The sign that there was an intrinsic connection between Tabernacles and the Temple for FJ is that three times he explains the meaning of this celebration accordingly: "building tabernacles for God" {J.W. 1.73; 6.300-301; Ant. 13.304).8 Thus, FJ erases all the commemorative aspects from the feast, and consequently, he provides no actualisation for it in the successive history of the people. Similar utterances such as "we were liberated from Egypt" {Ant. 3.248) are missing; hence, there is nothing analogous to the appropriation of Passover as a means to understand the subsequent historical events.9 FJ barely supplies any explanation concerning how Tabernacles should be celebrated. In addition, he states explicitly—contrary to his statement about Passover—that the Hebrews should celebrate it after their entry into the promised land [Ant. 3.245), and not each year, as in the case of Passover (cf. Ant. 3.248). All these elements imply that this celebration was less expressive for FJ at the time when he was writing, probably, because of its strong dependence on the Temple.10 As far as the disorders occurring at this feast are concerned, in general they are caused by internal tensions, in regard to politics and the succession of the high priests (cf. J.W. 1.73; Ant. 13.303-306). Actually, it seems noteworthy to point out that the division between the kingdom of the north and the south in the time of Jeroboam was consummated—according to FJ—during a celebration of Tabernacles. At that time, a prophet appears who will announce that, in the time of Josiah, the counter-altar must be destroyed, and 7 The other instances in which FJ utilises this adjective in the superlative are all when indicating the Temple of Jerusalem and the heavens (J-W. 3.374; 4.388; Ant. 15.115). The automatic identification of Tabernacles as the "feast par excellence" seems exaggerated, since it is only based on the rabbinic literature, which calls it "the feast" (jnn); cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 13.372 n.d.; J.L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot, 82. 8 This establishes an implied relation with the tent of meeting during the time in the desert; cf. Ant. 20.228; Ag. Ap. 2.12. 9 In this regard, it is remarkable that, contrary to 2 Mace 1:9, FJ does not relate Hanukkah with Tabernacles; cf. R. Vicent, La fiesta judia de las Cabanas, 178. 10 While FJ is careful not to mention that, during the Passover of Ezekiah, they have celebrated for one additional week {Ant. 9.272), when he reports the Tabernacles at the time of Solomon, he has no problem imparting that they continued to celebrate for two weeks (Ant. 8.123).
222
CHAPTER EIGHT
that upon it will be burnt the bones of the false prophets. Josiah will subsequently do all this as preparatory purification for the Passover that he will celebrate in Jerusalem (cf. Ant. 8.230^232; 10.66-67). Pentecost appears to be less meaningful for FJ. Actually, out of the seven times that he mentions it, four are parallel passages {J.W. 1.253 / / Ant. 14.337; J.W. 2.42 / / 17.254), which serve practically as temporal indications without special significance, i.e., only to justify the great abundance of people in Jerusalem. In Ant. 17.254 he omits the explanation of the name he reported in J.W. 2.42, perhaps, because he has already explained it in Ant. 3.252. It is precisely in Ant. 3.252, where FJ deals with the other feasts, that he also mentions Pentecost, and furnishes an explanation that is somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, due to other sources, it is possible to understand what he means. This is literally what he says: "the seventh week (or Sabbath) after this sacrifice,11 these are the forty-nine days of the weeks (or Sabbaths), in the fiftieth day—which in Hebrew is called Asartha, meaning this fiftieth—is offered to God .. ." {Ant. 3.252). On one hand, then, the Hebrew name of the feast, i.e., "Weeks" (niiOE?), seems to be preserved; on the other, a false etymology of the word Asartha (Nm^l?) is given, saying that it means "fiftieth." In reality, this is an Aramaic word designating the last day of an important festivity (cf. Lev 23:36; Num 29:35), and in the rabbinic tradition, it indicates Pentecost.12 On that day a general assembly of all the participants at the feast is convened, this assembly was called in Hebrew rn^i? (cdseret). However, FJ completely removes this prescription, and accentuates the familiar character of the feast of Passover, even though he does not deny that it is one of the pilgrimage festivities. It is odd that FJ conveys a false etymology of Asartha, since it is very improbable that he could have erred here, indicating that he consciously wants to avoid the reference to this massive congregation, which had created so many problems in history, as he himself reveals in his account. On the other hand, the connection at this point between Passover and Pentecost is evident, since the latter celebration is transformed into the closure of the former.13 This dependence is also plain in the This refers to Passover, which he has previously mentioned (Ant. 3.248-251). E. Nodet, Ant. 3.252 n. 3, 4. If Philo refers to Pentecost while he is speaking about the Therapeutae, as
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
223
concatenation of marvels and signs dated between Passover and Pentecost before the War (cf. J.W. 6.299). Returning to the problem of the calendar, it should be noted that in all the instances where FJ uses the word £(35ofiac; (seven) to indicate a date, he is referring to the Sabbath and not to the week.14 The only ambiguous cases would be those that refer to Pentecost {J.W. 2.42; Ant. 3.252).15 Due to the fact that in Ant. 13.252 FJ asserts that Pentecost falls on Sunday (iieta TO caPfkxxov), it can be assumed that these two cases are not exceptions to the rule, accordingly, they should be interpreted as "Sabbath," in place of "week," as in all other instances. This element further complicates the calendric matters. Actually, it is surprising that FJ gives the exact date for the presentation of the first sheaf (Ant. 3.250),16 since the two things cannot work together practically, i.e., the fact that Pentecost falls always on a Sunday and the mobility of the day for the presentation of the first sheaf. It should consequently be determined whether FJ ignored the calendar system—which appears impossible—or intentionally presented things in a confusing manner to overcome the divisions implied by the different interpretations. In summary, it can be affirmed that in no way can the importance of this celebration be compared to that of Passover in FJ's presentation. Pentecost functions as a closure of the cycle inaugurated by Passover, and, consequently, its significance appears also linked to this aspect.
seems to be the case, this relationship is inverted. Consequently, for him, Pentecost should be the most important feast. Nevertheless, the canticle of Moses after the crossing of the Sea is included in the celebration; hence, the connection with Passover seems to be present through the reference to the deliverance from Egypt; cf. Contempt 65, 85-89. 14 The only occasion in which FJ utilises this word with another meaning is to designate the cipher "seven" (J. IV. 7.149); all other instances clearly mean "Sabbath"; d.J.W. 1.60, 146; 2.147, 289, 392, 517; 4.99, 100, 103, 582; 5.230; 7.53; Ant. 3.91, 281; 13.234; 14.63; Ag. Ap. 2.175, 282. In Ant. 3.281, where the Sabbatical Year is meant to be referenced, instead of reading "weeks" (plural), it is possible to understand "seventh Sabbath of years"; hence, in the same paragraph, the Sabbatical Year is compared with the repose of the Sabbath (cf. Lev 25:8 LXX). 15 In Lev 23:15-16 LXX, where the problem of interpretation started, there is the word ePSouaq, signifying "Sabbath." 16 He states explicitly that the first sheaf should be offered on the sixteenth of Nisan; cf. ch. II § 2.
224
CHAPTER EIGHT 2. PASSOVER AND THE POUTEIA/POLITEUMA OF THE JEWS
This section attempt to determine whether or not any relationship— direct or indirect—existed for FJ between Passover and the Politeia/ Politeuma of the Jews. In the affirmative case, this would be one more indication of the function this festival could have exercised in the portrayal that FJ draws of Judaism. Certainly, it is difficult to verify, whether the aforementioned portrayal was actualised in a concrete group of Jews or not. In any event, it should not be rashly inferred, that it necessarily regards an unrealisable or a merely theoretical presentation. The concept of the politeia or politeuma has been studied thoroughly in FJ,17 as well as in other Greek authors.18 In the classical Greek world, this terminology was created after the word nokiq (city), and in some instances, a distinction may be established between Politeia and Politeuma.
The first of these—the more ancient of the two—indicates an abstract concept; the second—and more recent—expresses the concrete realisation of the first; although this distinction should not exist in each occurrence.19 In actuality, both can designate the right of citizenship or the political life of a city, and accordingly, its organisation.20 The semantic field for these terms is very broad, and subsequently, the systematic translation of politeia or politeuma as "constitution"—associated with the national constitutions in the modern world—seems to be a reduction of the word's meaning, as well as that of "citizenship" for the same reason.21 17 L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1027; D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on the Jewish Constitution," 30-52; H. Cancik, "Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft," 65-77; Y. Amir, "Josephus on the Mosaic 'Constitution'," 13-27; L. Troiani, "The nOAITEIA of Israel," 11-22; S. Mason, '"Should Any Wish to Enquire Further'," 64-103. 18 M. Casevitz, "Le vocabulaire politique de Diodore de Sicile," 27-33; J.P. Liou, "Apercus sur Isocrate," 5-14; E. Levy, "Politeia et politeuma chez Polybe," 15—26. 19 Cf. E. Levy, "Politeia et politeuma chez Polybe," 16. 20 Regarding this concept in the Greek culture cf. J. Bordes, Politeia dans la pensee grecque. 21 The same difficulty can also be observed in the commentaries and translations of the Pauline Epistles. On three occasions, words from this semantic field appear (Eph 2:12; Phil 1:27; 3:20), and the tendency is always to read them in light of the Roman law; hence, the meaning of these words is always interpreted in a juridical way. A short note of G. Menestrina could be helpful; he shows that the Vulgate translates Acts 22:28 (jioXvceiocv) with civilitas [sic] (read civitas), referring to the Roman citizenship, however, in Phil 3:20, it translates with conversatione (i.e., way of
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
225
The use of this terminology by Jewish authors, in order to define the reality of the Jews among the other peoples in the Greco-Roman world, has generated ample debate. The problem is whether these authors, while referring to the Jewish community in relation to the Greek society or cities (noXiq), demand an equal level of rights (iaorcoAitela) or a total assimilation in the politeia of the Greeks.22 In this regard, Philo and FJ plainly show that the Jews constituted a community with certain rights in various cities of the Hellenistic and subsequently Roman Empire, which was called politeuma (cf. Ant. 12.108). Due to the ambiguity of the terminology, it is not evident in all cases whether belonging to this politeuma excluded the possibility of having the right of full citizenship from a polis, or whether, viceversa, possessing full citizenship of the polis implied the apostasy from the politeuma of the Jews.23 G. Liideritz, analysing the epigraphic material at his disposition, endeavours to determine the meaning that the word politeuma would have had. According to him, it is time to forget the historiographic legend of the politeuma as being civil organisations recognised by the Greeks' polis. On the other hand, having considered the great variety of meaning that this term can entail, he seeks to provide an explanation for what would have been the politeuma of the Jews of Berenice, since is the only true attestation to an organisation with an apparent civil recognition inside a polis. Although he based his conclusions upon various deductions not liable of an exhaustive verification—e.g., the meaning of the word "amphitheatre"—the politeuma in the case of the city of Berenice is for him a kind of council (PotAf|), similar to those of other cities of the Cyrenaica.24
life, as well as other meanings). W. Cotter attempts to read this Greek concept in light of the Roman collegia. If FJ and Philo were taken more seriously into consideration, ostensibly the Pauline verses could be translated in a more meaningful manner; cf. E.C. Miller, "noXtxeijeaGe in Philippians 1.27," 86-96; G. Menestrina, "7io^ixeu|aa," 254; S. Cox, "The Heavenly Citizenship," 303-313; R. Schnackenburg, "Die Politeia Israels," 467-474; W. Cotter, "Our Politeuma is in Heaven," 92-104. 22 L.H. Feldman, Ant. 19.281 n.d.; A. Kasher, Vie Jews in Hellenistic, 358-364. 23 E.M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 224-235. 24 Without questioning G. Liideritz's hypothesis, from the analysis of FJ's references to the politeuma, it does not seem that this meaning would apply in his works. Ch. Gerber's definition, i.e., a politeuma is a theocracy that includes all the people that follow the Law of Moses, seems to fit better with FJ's conception; cf. G. Liideritz, Corpus judischer Zeugnisse, 151, 154, 158; Id., "What is a Politeuma?," 183-222; Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 338-359.
226
CHAPTER EIGHT
Without pretending to resolve this difficult problem, the conclusions of D.R. Schwartz will be adopted since they appear to be a balanced evaluation of the information. He demonstrates that FJ conceives the future of the Jewish community in the Roman Empire as a politeia/politeuma, guided by a high priest (rcpoGxaaia). Consequently, in order to expose at the proper manner this form of government, FJ antedated it to the stages prior to the destruction of the Temple. Thus, his model does not appear as an innovation, which is exactly his criticism of the rebels.25 It is noteworthy that in J. W. only the word politeia is used and politeuma does not appear. The first word—in the few instances that it is mentioned—clearly possesses a technical meaning, which oscillates between form of government (e.g., aristocracy, monarchy, etc.; cf. J.W. 1.169) and right of Roman citizenship.26 The verb rcoXrceiKG is present only once, and expresses the action of making a treaty or pact (J.W. 1.513).27 In Ant. the word politeia, while maintaining the most technical meaning such as in J.W., is opened to a series of aspects that reflect the constitutive reality of the Jews, i.e., what characterised the Jews as a distinct community (cf. Ant. 1.10). The word politeuma, which normally is analogous to politeia excluding the concept of "citizenship," is also found in Ant.28 Ch. Gerber maintains that a distinction can be made between the terms politeia and politeuma, since politeuma is never used to designate a "constitution" or "administrative organisation," but rather a community of persons. In the case of the Jews, this politeuma is not united because of the place in which they live, but by the Law that they follow.29 Even if this distinction may be valid, it cannot be denied that in some contexts of FJ's works the words politeia and politeuma are interchangeable (cf. Ant. 1.5, 10). For this reason, in this study a strict separation of these two terms is not particularly useful. 25
D.R. Schwartz, "Josephus on the Jewish Constitution," 49-52. When the word politeia means "Roman citizenship," it is a technical term that can be easily understood, since the information regarding the evolution of this institution is copious. Part of the imperial policy was to grant citizenship to different people, as a strategy of expansion; cf. A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship. 27 Regarding the way in which FJ utilises this verb in other parts of his works cf. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 347-352. 28 B. Schroder, Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze,' 123 n. 185. 29 Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 347-348. 26
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
227
The use of this term will be more frequent in Ag. Ap., since this work aims to defend the antiquity and the value of the politeia/politeuma of the Jews (e.g., Ag. Ap. 2.226). Accordingly, when FJ refers to the politeia/politeuma of the Jews in Ant. and Ag. Ap., these terms are often accompanied by a reference to the laws (v6(ioi) (Ant. 3.213; Ag. Ap. 1.250), or more specifically to the laws of the Fathers (Ttorcpioi v6|j,oi; Ttdtpia) (Ant. 11.140; 12.240, 280; 13.3). It is not easy to determine what sort of relationship exists between the politeia/politeuma and the laws (vojxoi); furthermore, such a determination extends beyond the limits of this research.30 It would be sufficient to realise that on various occasions this combination of words forms a hendiadys, which seems to express in Greek terminology, the meaning of the Law for the Jews (Torah) (cf. Ant. 1.10-14; 4.193; Ag. Ap. 2.184 189, 287).31 The question that should now be resolved is whether FJ endeavours to present a model of life that is universal, i.e., that is not bound to certain particularities, or one that is unique to Judaism. Since this argument cannot be presented exhaustively here, the conclusions of K. Berthelot's work will be assumed. She proposes that, even though FJ is open to the admission of proselytes in the politeia/politeuma of the Jews, in no way does he conceive of it as a universal fraternity in the manner of the Stoics. On the contrary, FJ has a community in mind with well-defined borders,32 and responds to the accusations of misanthropy brought against the Jews by saying that within the same community the bonds
30
B. Schroder allots part of his work to the study of this relationship. Even if it is true that in FJ's works there is no univocal meaning for the politeia/politeuma, the critiques he makes of D.R. Schwartz's work regarding the narrow perspective of his analysis seem inappropriate. Hence, it appears more productive to look beyond the Greek terminology for the Jewish concepts, which FJ more probably wanted to transmit, cf. B. Schroder, Die 'vdterlichen Gesetze,' 123-124 esp. n. 186. 31 It does not include solely the juridical aspect, but it expresses the entire body of doctrine and wisdom necessary to attain a fulfilled life. 32 P. Spilsbury's study confirms these statements and supplies in his conclusions all the elements characteristic of a Jew according to FJ's opinion; P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 217-230. It is also useful to consider Ch. Gerber's chapter regarding philanthropy; cf. Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 367-379. SJ.D. Cohen's analysis is noteworthy, since he also presents a comparison with the modern times; cf. SJ.D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 341-349.
228
CHAPTER EIGHT
of friendship are very strong, and that members of the community fulfil the minimal norms of humanity towards those outside.33 Before taking a closer look at the work of K. Berthelot, the passage where an accidental relationship seems to appear between Passover and the Politeia will be analysed. Immediately after narrating how Passover was celebrated upon the return from exile in Ant. 11.111, FJ continues by making reference to the kind of government (aristocracy) under which the Israelites have lived, and provides a historical synthesis of the different politeia (TtoXueioci) (Ant. 11.112). Certainly, it could be supposed that this reference is completely incidental. However, after this analysis regarding Passover, it seems justifiable to suggest that there is a connection between these two realities. Recalling that the text speaks about the return from exile and the reinstallation of the community of the Jews in the Holy Land, it is evident that this pericope is not of minor relevance for FJ. Actually, it is probable that he desired that something similar would have occurred at his time (cf. Ant. 4.311-314). In this context, FJ affirms that the Jews lived then under the form of government he considered the best, i.e., aristocracy.34 Thus, it may be—since FJ appears to propose this regime—that in this passage he is foreseeing or longing for a situation, in which the people could celebrate Passover afresh in the Holy Land, under the authority of a high priest, accompanied by a body of priests (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.185). This concomitance between Passover and the politeia/politeuma seems even less incidental if some of the results of the previous analysis are drawn together, specifically, the themes of unity and harmony. Resuming the analysis of K. Berthelot, it can be observed that FJ conceives this cohesion not as something theoretical, but as the fruit
33
K. Berthelot, "Koivoovioc et <Jhtaxv0p(O7ua," 9 4 - 1 2 3 . While using this terminology FJ is not precise. In Ant. 20.234 he maintains that it was a democracy, but actually he sets democracy in opposition to tyranny or despotism {J.W. 4.320, 358; Ant. 19.162, 173, 187); hence is not incompatible with aristocracy. This lack of precision is also a sign that, while speaking of the politeia/politeuma, FJ is more interested in stressing what is specific to the Jewish system than what is common to the non-Jewish forms of government. Thus, what is essential to a good Jewish regime, as Ch. Gerber proposes, is to be a theocracy; how this is accomplished in the concrete historical situation is accidental; cf. Ch. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 343. 34
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
229
of a series of practices common to all the Jews, which touch each aspect of daily life.35 Passover as commemoration is probably one of these, and given the value FJ attributes to it in relation to fostering the unity of the people,36 not one of the least significant. Another indicator of the place that Passover could have had in this daily practice is that when FJ asserts that the Jews pray twice a day (Ant. 4.212), the content of this prayer is precisely to thank God for having led them out of Egypt, and to ask for his future blessings.37 As E. Nodet notes, this daily prayer (Shema) is connected with the Decalogue.38 Accordingly, the last connection that seems plausible could be proposed, i.e., a link between Passover and the politeia/politeuma could be established through the laws of the Fathers. FJ reiterates several times that Passover was celebrated according to the tradition of the Fathers. As was already observed, these laws of the Fathers are intimately related with the politeia/politeuma; hence, there would be another indication that Passover occupied a pre-eminent place in the ensemble of practices that constitute this community. In conclusion it can be stated that, even though the relationship between the politeia/politeuma and Passover at first glance seems to be incidental or non-existent, in reality, they appear substantially connected. This link appears clear in regard to the semantic fields— through the laws of the Fathers—as well as the common themes that both realities comprehend. 3. THE CELEBRATION OF PASSOVER AFTER A.D.
70
The question as to whether or not the sacrifices on the part of the Jews after A.D. 70 continued has been much debated, and still cannot be considered completely resolved. A synthetic vision of the
35
K. Berthelot, "Koivcovicc et OitaxvGpcoTua," 102. It is one of the three pilgrimage feasts that was intended as a means to strengthen the fraternal bonds among the Jews; cf. K. Berthelot, "Kowtovia et $iA,av0pa)7ua," 100. 37 This remark regarding the prayer should be completed with a more generic statement about this argument, i.e., that the Jews do not ask anything of God, except the capacity to receive and protect the benefits that God has already fulfilled (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.197). 38 E. Nodet, Ant. 4.212 n. 4, 6. 36
t
status questionis can be seen in the work of E. Schiirer, revised later by G. Vermes and other authors.39 The opinion sustained in E. Schiirer's revised book is basically that of A. Guttmann, who maintains that the official cult after A.D. 70 had ended.40 The principal motive that he seems to adduce is that it would be unthinkable that Yohanan ben Zakkai—founder of rabbinic Judaism—could have given again to the priests—identified with the Sadducees—the possibility of resuming the leadership. Consequently he has not undertaken any effort to restore the sacrifices. Another motive is that the Romans would not have appointed another high priest, since this ruling class was not able to deal with the circumstances of the Jewish war.41 Nevertheless, considering that explicit references to persons offering sacrifices after A.D. 70 exist, A. Guttmann cannot fail to recognise that a certain private cult was maintained until A.D. 135.42 E. Schiirer's revised work does not cite the analysis of K.W. Clark, nor does A. Guttmann respond to his challenges.43 In the first place, his opinion is not completely different from A. Guttmann's, since he does not suggest that the cult was totally resumed as it was before A.D. 70, but he maintains that the cult continued in a inferior manner.44 The difference is that A. Guttmann catalogues this as a private and sporadic cult, while K.W. Clark proposes it as one that was official and continuous. The arguments ex silentio are normally exceedingly weak, however, in this case they seem to be of fundamental importance, if properly utilised. In the first place, there is no explicit reference to a prohibition of the cult in the rabbinic literature of that time.45 This 39
E. Schurer - G. Vermes - F. Millar - M. Black, The History of the Jewish People, I, 521-523. 40 A. Guttmann, "The End of the Jewish," 137-148. 41 A. Guttmann, "The End of the Jewish," 147-148. 42 B. Isaac's interpretation is significant, since he demonstrates that Vespasian did not take alljudea as his possession, and that the Jews continued to live there, repurchasing the land. The opposite happened after the revolution of A.D. 132-135; cf. B. Isaac, 'Judaea after AD 70," 44-50. 43 K.W. Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple," 269-280. 44 K.W. Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple," 273. 40 It could be an indirect prohibition in the prescriptions that, according to Justin, Trypho affirms, that the paschal victim should be offered only in Jerusalem. This should correspond to an explicit prohibition after A.D. 135, since uniting the sacrifice of the paschal victim to Jerusalem made the whole procedure impossible in practice. Actually, the Romans forbade access for the Jews to Jerusalem. In m. Pesah
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
231
is surprising if the Jewish leadership really intended to make a clean break with the sacrificial cult after A.D. 70.46 Even more surprising is the absence in the New Testament of an apologetic, such as that of Justin in the second century A.D. If the cult had ended definitively, the New Testament's authors would have taken advantage of this fact in an evident manner, as it happened subsequently.47 The only argument ex silentio to the contrary would be the fact that explicit references are not found regarding a new beginning of an official cult. However, this can be explained by the political situation, since conditions did not permit speaking aloud about this argument. Even the minimalist position also recognises that at least a sporadic private cult had remained, though for this study—as it will be shown—it is not essential to maintain that Passover was sacrificed after A.D. 70 in the place where the Temple of Jerusalem was built. On the other hand, one should first face the problem presented by FJ within his work, in order to later attempt to determine whether the paschal victim was sacrificed after A.D. 70, and where. It would not be correct to base the entire discussion on an isolated sentence of FJ, even if the value of his declaration in Ant. 2.313 could not be discounted. The first step is then to verify if there are elements in FJ's presentation that contradict this affirmation. The greater impediment should have been the necessity of the Temple in order to perform this act of worship. FJ affirms the uniqueness of the Temple at least two occasions (cf. Ant. 4.200: Ag. Ap. 2.193). Nevertheless, in the first case, the assertion is made relative by the fact that it would be the people that should choose it,48 and, in the second case, it is probably a presentation more ideal than a real.49
4:4 there is a partial prohibition, which implies that outside Jerusalem the paschal victim should have still been sacrificed. As there is no explicit prohibition before A.D. 135, it is correct to presuppose that what Philo declares concerning the sacrifice of the Passover victims in the Diaspora was as yet in force between the years A.D. 70 to 135; Justin, Trypho, 46; cf. G. Archambault, Justin, I, 202-209. 46 It should be recalled here that to presume the existence of a united and strong leadership at that time seems to be anachronistic. 47 When Justin is invoked to demonstrate that the sacrifice ceased after A.D. 70, he is quoted anachronistically, since his arguments were proposed after A.D. 135; hence, they cannot be used as proofs for the previous time. 48 It is not stated that Jerusalem is the appointed place, even if it should be in the land of Canaan {Ant. 4.200). 49 In this context, FJ presents the Jewish people as having an intimate unity in their way of thinking and working, which can hardly be considered a realistic portrayal (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.179-181).
232
CHAPTER EIGHT
Actually, FJ never condemns, e.g., the Temple of Onias, as the rabbinic literature would never do.30 In any event, this would not be an insurmountable obstacle, since even if FJ presents Passover as one of the feasts of pilgrimage to the Temple, nowhere does he explicitly state that it cannot be celebrated outside of it. The mention of the destruction of the idolatrous cults before or after the Passovers of Josiah and Hezekiah are not in relation to the possibility of commemorating Passover outside of Jerusalem (cf. Ant. 9.272-273; 10.68-69). On the other hand, this practice is known in the Diaspora from the time of the Elephantine papyri,51 as well as attested to by Philo.32 For this reason, it is evident that Passover could at least be conceived as a special sacrifice, which could be carried out away from Jerusalem. After the destruction of the Temple—or perhaps before— FJ apparently assumes this possibility and presents Passover in a manner compatible with that of Philo. In fact, the elements that FJ emphasises in his works lead to this conclusion. Actually, the celebration is mainly domestic for him. The few indications that he gives refer to the sacrifice, which should not last until the next day. The blood of the sacrifice is purifying. All the Israelites can sacrifice it, thus diminishing the role of the Levites and priests. Finally, he presents a decree in favour of the Jews of Sardis in which it is said that they can make sacrifices [Ant. 14.260).53 Another indication regarding the fact that FJ ostensibly thought of the possibility of celebrating Passover in the Diaspora even before A.D. 70, is that he systematically erases all mention of the possibility of commemorating the feast in the second month. This occasion was offered principally to those who were not able to arrive at Jerusalem in time. Instead, if it was not obligatory to arrive at that city, it would not have been necessary to allow this second chance. This would explain the systematic absence of the second Passover in FJ's works.
50
E.S. Gruen, "The Origins and Objectives," 61-62. P. Schafer, Judeophobia, 123-128. 02 Cf. Spec. 2.145 where Philo affirms that the whole nation performs this rite; hence, it was also accomplished in the Diaspora. 53 R. Marcus affirms that it should be understood as "offerings" and not "sacrifices," but he did not provide parallel passages where Qvaiaq could be translated as "offerings"; cf. R. Marcus, Ant. 14.260 n.d. 51
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
233
In conclusion, it seems that the indications in favour of the fact that the Passover was actually celebrated after A.D. 70 are more obvious than the possible impediments. The proofs alluded to the contrary appear to be transpositions of the rabbinic mind, which crystallised definitively after the complete impossibility of sacrificing in Jerusalem, i.e., after A.D. 135.34 Returning to the affirmation of Ant. 2.313, and having verified that in the works of FJ, as well as in the references outside of these, there are no serious oppositions to its plausibility; it should be analysed what it says exactly. The sentence is pure and clear: "hence, even today according to the custom we sacrifice in the same manner, calling the feast Passover" (60ev vuv exi mxa TO eGoc; ovxcoq 0t>o(i8v xr|v eopx^v Ttdoxa KaXo\)vxeq).M There is no doubt that a sacrifice (0{>O|iev) is intended in this sentence. Furthermore, not only verbs in the present tense are used—which would be a weak argument—but a temporal expression of marked precision, vt>v exi (even today), is added. This expression—contrary to what one would believe—is not excessively frequent in FJ, since it appears only twenty-two times.56 It is a typical expression of Ant., through which, most of the time, FJ connects an event of the past to his present historical situation.57 The events or adduced realities are presented as subject to verification. Hence, if someone would have wished—as seems probable—to prove it wrong, he could have done so by verifying the truth of his assertion. Given the adduced parallels, it seems likely that FJ also presents Passover as an actual celebration of his time, which his readers could verify. If this was not the case, at least it could be suggested that
34 Justin's declarations could be a sign of this development, which does not reflect the reality prior to A.D. 135. The case of Rabban Gamaliel II (ca. 90-110), who ordains the preparation of one Passover sacrifice, should not be considered an exception. E. Schiirer's identification of this character with Rabban Gamaliel I seems to be strained; cf. E. Schiirer - G. Vermes - F. Millar — M. Black, The History of the Jewish People, I, 522-523 n. 47, 55. " The adv. oiSxcoq (thus, in the same manner) suggests that the sacrifice was accomplished according to the prescriptions of Moses before the departure from Egypt (cf. Ant. 2.311-312). The accusative TTTV eopTTyv (the feast) should be united to the participle Katamvte*; (calling), which also governs the word nua%a (Passover). 56 Cf. Ant. 1.35, 92, 125, 131, 160, 203, 212, 337; 2.313; 3.31, 299; 5.125; 6.20; 7.378; 8.154, 174, 281; 9.290; 10.267; 12.119; 14.188; 18.66. Among these instances, it could be interesting to accentuate Ant. 10.267, where FJ affirms that, even in his day, the books of Daniel are read and are considered trustworthy. 57 The only exceptions are present in the direct speech (Ant. 6.20; 8.281), and one that does not have a temporal meaning (Ant. 7.378).
234
CHAPTER EIGHT
FJ was bluffing, in order to indicate that celebrating Passover was an extremely convenient thing for him, even if it did not actually happen. In respect to the place of the intended celebration, the problem is more complicated. There are two possibilities: either he is speaking of Rome or Jerusalem. On one hand, Jerusalem would be the first candidate, given that FJ does not deny that Passover is one of the pilgrimage feast, and that the pilgrimages serve to strengthen the ties of unity among the people. On the other hand, FJ is writing from Rome, and it is from there that he declares "even today they sacrifice the Passover." Nevertheless, the fact that he makes the centrality of the Temple relative for the celebration of Passover could be an indication that it is more likely that he is referring to Rome, and consequently, all the Diaspora, without excluding the regions around Jerusalem.38 In this regard, it is fitting to mention the reference of the rabbinic literature to a certain person called Todos (DHin), who would be Theodosius of Rome (y. Mo'ed Qat 81d [3:1]).59 It seems that he attempts to establish the practice of the paschal sacrifice outside of the Temple, specifically, in Rome. The rabbis communicate to him that if he had not helped in supporting the sages, they would have excommunicated him. The Babylonian Talmud adds that, if what Todos does is only something resembling a sacrifice, it is permitted, but if he understands it to be a true sacrifice, it is not permitted (b. Pesah. 53a-b).60 An identification of this character with FJ would be highly speculative, since there are not sufficient motives to propose it. Lack of motives notwithstanding, it is already a significant indication that precisely such a problem has been presented in Rome, and probably at the same time of FJ.61 This clue corroborates the possibility that FJ has practiced or tried to practice Passover in the aforementioned city.
08 This is the same as in the case of Rabban Gamaliel II, which probably happened in Yabneh (cf. m. Pesah. 7:2). 59 Cf. D. Sperber, "Theodosius of Rome," XV, 1102. 60 Cf. b. Besah 22b-23a; b. Ber. 19a; t. Besah 2:15. 61 In the event that the Rabbi Yose mentioned in this passage is Yose the priest who flourished around A.D. 90—130. The reference of b. Pesah. 53a-b to Simeon suggests that the pair mentioned is Yose the Priest and Simeon ben Nathanael; cf. G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 78.
PLACING THE RESULTS IN CONTEXT
235
Whether what FJ proposed was just an apparent sacrifice or a true one, is hard to determine. In any case, he knew the performance of sacrifices without a cultic meaning (Ant. 4.74), i.e., as a way of preparing food; thus, it should more properly be called "slaughter." This is what the rabbis suppose—in the best of the hypothesis—that Theodosius made for Passover. It is not possible to discard totally the idea that FJ also refers to something similar, when he speaks of the paschal sacrifice in his time (Ant. 2.313), but if this were the truth, he would probably have been more explicit.62
62 Concerning the real possibilities that the Jews had to celebrate the feasts during the time of the Roman Empire cf. A.M. Rabello, "L'observance de fetes juives," 1288-1312. It is noteworthy that Augustine (Retract. 1.10) mentions the paschal sacrifices of the Jews as a matter-of-course during his time, and that he expresses the same doubt regarding the cultic significance of those acts. During the time of Emperor Justinian (ca. A.D. 543), Procopius of Caesarea (Anecdota 28.16—19) relates that some Jews were persecuted because they eat the flesh of sheep (icpopaxeicov Kpecov); cf. H.B. Dewing, Procopius, VI, 332-335. Even if it is not clearly stated that this concerns the Passover victim, from the context it seems that this feast is intended. Nevertheless, in this case, the lamb could also be slaughtered without any ritual meaning; cf. ibid., 1311.
This page intentionally left blank
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 1. PRINCIPAL RESULTS
The first conclusion of this investigation is that: it can be stated with some certainty that, Passover deserves in FJ' writings—and especially in Ant.—a significant place. This might appear to be a tautologous assertion. However, since many doubts have been raised concerning the importance of this feast in early Judaism, and particularly in regard to the work of FJ, this is actually a meaningful claim. This is not to say that the other feasts—especially Tabernacles and Pentecost—are unimportant. However, for the reasons which will be listed, it is clear that for FJ—as a historian and as a Jew who identified with his people—Passover is the most significant or, to be more exact, the most useful. Its centrality may also be observed by the fact that FJ adds or includes references to it at certain key points in his narrative. Hence, even if it is not the only aspect mentioned, it is one of the essential ones for understanding the message he wishes to transmit through his works to his contemporaries—naturally only J. W. and especially Ant. are in question here—whether Jews or non-Jews. Another evident sign of the usefulness of this feast for FJ is that, while he could have ignored it or downplayed it—as other authors of his time did—instead he stresses it, and often utilises it. The reason that could have caused him to suppress it fits well with his fundamental purpose: it would have suited him to pass off as secondary or accidental to Judaism, a feast that had given rise to such antiRoman reactions and in fact, also played a part in the outbreak of the Jewish war. Consequently, it would have been easier for him to simply eliminate it. Far from choosing this alternative, he bestows to Passover more than one meaning. This allows it to be called an open commemoration, or one that lends itself to several applications. Certainly, the liberation from Egypt is its core, as FJ explicitly affirms on many occasions. This capacity to be actualised means that the feast is able to provide an interpretation of events of history, both those prior to and
238
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
contemporary with this author. In a subtle, but still recognisable way, FJ picks out certain milestones from the past—which led to the final disaster of A.D. 70—by describing events that occurred on this feast. The most striking example is that both the beginning and the end of the revolution are set in the context of paschal time. This is especially true of the end, since FJ places the voluntary slaughter of the last rebels of Masada on the night between the fourteenth and fifteenth of Xanthicus. It is hardly necessary to recall that this coincided with the moment when the paschal victims had to be sacrificed. This coincidence may be artificial, which indicates that the overriding significance of Passover is prior to FJ, and that he employs a motif, which must already have been well-known. A proof of this is that many of the signs that, according to him, spoke of the impending destruction of Jerusalem are also linked with the time between Passover and Pentecost. At this stage, when everything was falling apart and heading towards ruin, he would, with some degree of partiality, blame the final disaster on certain well-defined groups. For this purpose he makes use of, among other devices, episodes in which, for different reasons, Passover is transformed into the opposite of what it should have been. In this way, he stresses that the mistake in the past was not rooted in the actual commemoration, but in the false interpretation, which was attributed to it. This longing to restore the true meaning of this memorial suggests that, to some extent, it still had a role to play after the destruction of the Temple. Due to its validity as a means for the understanding of past and future events, it is implicitly understood that for FJ, there is no essential difference between the Passover of Egypt and those commemorations which followed. The opposite is true in rabbinic literature. In fact, FJ understands the derparture from Egypt and the entry into the promised land as a single process, which begins and ends with this feast. Hence, care must be taken not to limit its scope to only one aspect, thus reducing the wealth of content found in the annual celebration. As far as the liturgical rite for this feast is concerned, it is true that no exhaustive description is found in FJ's works. However, one can draw the following conclusions. On the one hand, even though he knows the Temple worship well, nowhere does FJ imply that without the Temple the feast cannot properly take place; rather, the centralising elements—already present in the biblical text—become
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
239
relative as far as is possible. On the other hand, where there is a well-known debate from other sources, he is at pains to clarify his position in response, and he ignores other positions. Thus, he gives the impression that there was no disagreement (e.g., regarding the presentation of the first sheaf). Instead, if the debate is not wellknown, he becomes more vague in order to avoid emphasising it (e.g., the differences about the calendar). Lastly, regarding the procedure of the liturgy, one difficult aspect to explain is his complete silence in reference to the rite of collecting everything leavened (f pn) before the feast. It is possible that this procedure is so well-known that it does not justify an explicit reference. However, it is more probable that the theme of purity replaced it, considering the extreme weight FJ attributes to that theme, especially in relation to Passover. To be precise, this connection will be one of the decisive factors in the defence of the hypothesis to be proposed later. The most important themes linked with Passover are the following: first, the departure from Egypt and the subsequent entry into the promised land, including, naturally, the intermediate period; second, the mention of the ancestral laws or customs, which are very relevant, since they are the criteria for the validity of the celebration, i.e., whether or not they have been adhered to; third, in order of importance there are unity, joy and harmony. Finally, one thing must be borne in mind: comparison here of the conclusions drawn with literature prior to FJ has shown that, even if direct dependence cannot be demonstrated,1 common elements exist confirming that FJ constitutes part of a line of tradition within early Judaism. This does not imply an attempt to solve the difficulty of this historian's actual affiliation to one of the known groups of the time, but it can be suggested that his view is not exclusive, and does not exclude the views of other groups. 2. HYPOTHETICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF FJ'S POSITION
Considering the situation following the great turmoil which must have accompanied the destruction of the Temple, and the other 1
Excluding, naturally, the biblical tradition and some deuterocanonical books, e.g., 1 Esd, which—as has been observed—FJ uses in his reworking of Jewish history.
240
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
measures taken by the Romans after the rout inflicted on the Jews, it is not difficult to imagine that there were several attempts to reconstitute Judaism. These must have been based—given its very nature— on the possibility of continuing to celebrate or observe some rites and customs, such as the Sabbath rest or circumcision. With the fruit of this investigation collected, it seems that FJ presents Passover in an indirect way—though a clear one for his compatriots—as one of the essential elements, which could assist in the reunification of the Jews and the consolidation of that very identity which had been sorely tested by the disastrous war. On one hand, he strives to diminish the centralising aspects, which insisted that this feast only be celebrated in the Temple of Jerusalem. He stresses the fact that every Israelite has the right to sacrifice Passover, and that consequently the priests and Levites are not indispensable, and likewise the Sanctuary. Although he insists on purity, he does not suggest the possibility of celebrating the so-called "second Passover," ostensibly emphasising the need for all to celebrate on the same day, and the fact that it is possible to do so, wherever they are. He does not exclude women (only those who are menstruating) or children in principle, which seems to indicate that he tends towards stressing the feast as centered on the family. In short, the feast, as FJ presents it, is accessible to every Jew who wishes to celebrate it according to the customs of the Fathers. On the other hand, since this solemnity must be celebrated every year, FJ strives to separate it from the content given to it by the revolutionaries, namely, a feast of liberation from political domination, so that the Romans might not prevent its celebration. For this reason, he brings to light the fact that at this feast, good Roman governors have been generously welcomed without any difficulty, and that the difficulties that historically did arise, on the contrary, were the fault of a limited group of agitators, as well as the wickedness of some representatives of Roman dominion. In short, the feast was not celebrated in defiance of the political power that governed the world at that time. It was, instead, an opportunity for strengthening the bonds of brotherhood among those that identified themselves openly with the politeia/politeuma of the Jews. Actually, this politeia/politeuma has its origins in the process that runs from the liberation from Egypt up to the occupation of the promised land. From what has been explained up to this point, it can be understood that, while it cannot be firmly stated that FJ sacrificed Passover
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
241
in Jerusalem or in Rome after A.D. 70, there is nothing in his writings to prevent his statement in Ant. 2.313 from being taken seriously; namely, that even at the time when he published this work (ca. A.D. 93), the Jews sacrificed this feast just as their forefathers had done. 3. POSSIBLE PATHS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
It only remains to delineate some points that may merit further study, if it is true that the work of FJ represents an attempt to reconstitute Judaism. In the first place, to further clarify the idea that FJ defends regarding the politeia/politeuma of the Jews, it would be necessary to better analyse the other rites or institutions that are implicit in it, such as the Sabbath, the rules on purity, the daily prayers, the education of children, etc. A second stage would be a more comprehensive comparison of this material with Judaism as presented in the NT and, above all, with the elements that resemble or differ from early Christianity.
This page intentionally left blank
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS In general this book adopts the abbreviations of The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near East, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, eds. P . H .
Alexander et al., Peabody 1999. The abbreviations not reported in the above follow the work of S.M. Schwertner, Internationales AbkiirTheologie und Grezgebiete, Berlin-New Y o r k 1992 2 .
zungsverzeichnis fiir
Additional abbreviations are as follows.
1. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
BMid BSJS CR.BS DSBP JCPS JosT JSJSup MJSt JVU StPhiloA
Biblioteca Midrasica Brill's Series in Jewish Studies Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dizionario di Spiritualita biblcio-patristica Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series Josephe et son temps Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Miinsteraner Judaistische Studien JVuova Umanitd Studia Philonica Annual 2. COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
Exag.
Exagoge
FJ
Flavius Josephus Idem Codex Oxoniensis (Bodleianus) Codex Regius Parisinus
Id. O
R
This page intentionally left blank
BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, W., "The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel's Prophecy of 70 Weeks," in The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, eds. J . C . VanderKam - W. Adler, C R I N T III, 4, Assen - Mineapolis 1996. Alon, G., Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud. Translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, Jerusalem 1977. Alexander, P.H. et al, The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near East, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Peabody 1999. Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, New York 1981. Altshuler, D., " O n the Classification of Judaic Laws in the Antiquities of Josephus and the Temple Scroll of Qumran," AJSR 7/8 (1982-1983) 1-14. Amir, Y., "Josephus on the Mosaic 'Constitution'," in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, eds. H. Graf Reventlow - Y. Hoffman - B. Uffenheimer, J S O T S u p 171, Sheffield 1994, 13-27. Archambault, G., Justin. Dialogue avec Tryphon. Texte grec, traduction francaise, introduction, notes et index, I I I , T D E H C 8, 11, Paris 1909. Ashtor, E., "Minyan," Encjud XII, 67. Attridge, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus, H D R 7, Missoula 1976. Baillet, M., "Le calendrier samaritain," RB 85 (1978) 481-499. , Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482~4Q520), DJD VII, Oxford 1982. Barclay, J.M.G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE117 CE), Edinburgh 1996. Bar Kochva, B., The Seleucid Army. Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns, Cambridge - London - New York - Melbourne 1976. Baumgarten, J.M., "Recent Qumran Discoveries and Halakhah in the HellenisticRoman Period," in Jewish Civilazation in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, ed. Sh. Talmon, JSPSup 10, Sheffield 1991, 147-158. , "Scripture and Law in 4Q265," in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12—14 May, 1996, eds. M.E. Stone - E.G. Chazon, STDJ 28, Leiden - B o s t o n - Koln 1998, 25-33. , et al., Qumran Cave 4. XXV Halakhic Texts, DJD 35, Oxford 1999. Beckwith, R.T., Calendar & Chronology, Jewish & Christian. Biblical, Intertestamental & Patristic Studies, AGJU 33, Leiden - New York - Koln 1996. Beer, G., Die Mischna. Text, Ubersetzung und ausfuhrlkhe Erkldrung: Mit eingehende geschichtlichm und sprachlichen Einleitungen. II.3. Pesachim (Ostern). Text, Ubersetzung und Erkldrung: Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang, eds. G. Beer - O. Holtzmann, GieBen 1912. Begg, C , Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212-420), BETL 108, Leuven 1993. , "Hezekiah's Illness and Visit according to Josephus," EstBib 53 (1995) 365-385. , "Ahaz, King of J u d a h according to Josephus," SJOT 10 (1996) 28-52. , "The Abigail Story (1 Samuel 25) according to Josephus," EstBib 54 (1996) 5-34. , "Joash of J u d a h according to Josephus," in The Chronicler as Historian, eds. P. Graham - K.G. Hoglund, J S O T S u p 238, Sheffield 1997, 301-320.
246
BIBLIOGRAPHY
, Josephus' Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1-10,185), BETL 145, Leuven 2000. Berthelot, K., "Kotvcovia et OiAavGpamia dans le Contre Apion de Flavius Josephe," in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brussel 1998, eds. J.U. Kalms - F. Siegert, MJSt 4, Munster 1999, 94-123. Betz, O., "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium," in JosephusStudien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, FS O. Michel, eds. O. Betz - K. Haacker - M. Hengel, Gottingen 1974, 23-44. Bilde, P., "The Causes of the Jewish War according to Josephus," JSJ 10 (1979) 179-202. , Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works, and their Importance, JSPSup 2, Sheffield 1988. Blum, L., CEuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, ver Reinach. Boccaccini, G., Beyond the Essene Hypothesis. The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, Grand Rapids - Cambridge 1998. Boffo, L., Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, Brescia 1994. Boismard, M.E., "Le codex de Beze et le texte occidental des Actes," in Codex Bezae. Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994, eds. D.C. Parker - C.B. Amphoux, NTTS 22, Leiden - New York - Koln 1996, 257-270. , Le texte occidental des actes des apotres, Paris 2000. Bokser, B.M., The Origins of the Seder. The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1984. , "Unleavened Bread and Passover, Feasts of," ABD VI, 755-765. Bond, H.K., Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, MSSNTS 100, Cambrigde 1998. , "New Currents in Josephus Research," CR.BS 8 (2000) 162-190. Bordes, J., Politeia dans la pensee grecque jusqu'd Aristote, Paris 1982. Borgen, P. - Fuglseth, K. - Skarsten, R., The Philo Index.A Complete Greek Index to the Writings of Philo of Alexandria, Leiden - Boston - Koln 2000. Borowski, O., Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, Winona Lake (IN) 1987. Bowley, J.E., "Josephus's Use of Greek Sources," in Pursuing the Text, FS B.Z. Wacholder, eds. J.C. Reeves - J . Kampen, JSOTSup 184, Sheffield 1994, 205-215. Brock, S.P., "An Early Interpretation of pasah^aggen in the Palestinian Targum," in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible, FS E.IJ. Rosenthal, eds. J.A. Emerton - S.C. Reif, Cambridge 1982, 27-34. Broshi, M. et al, Qumran Cave 4. XIV Parabiblical Texts, Part 2, DJD 19, Oxford 1995. Brown, R.E., The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, New York - London - Toronto - Sydney Auckland 1994. , An Introduction to the New Testament, New York - London - Toronto - Sydney - Auckland 1997. Bruce, F.F., "Josephus and Daniel," ASTI 4 (1965) 148-162. Buchner, D., "TOD: Pass Over or Protect?," BN 86 (1997) 14-17. Cancik, H., "Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft. Die mosaische Verfassung bei Flavius Josephus, c. Apionem 2, 157-198," in Religionstheorie und Politische Theologie. III. Theokratie, ed. J. Taubes, Miinchen - Paderborn - Wien - Zurich 1987, 65-77. Carras, G.P., "Dependence or Common Tradition in Philo Hypothetica VIII 6.107.20 and Josephus Contra Apionem 2.190-219," StPhiloA 5 (1993) 24-47. Cary, E., Bio's Roman History. In Nine Volumes, LCL 32; 37; 53; 66; 82; 83; 175-177, London - Cambridge (MA) 1914-1927. , The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In seven Volumes, LCL 319; 347; 357; 364; 372; 378; 388, Cambridge (MA) - London 1937-1950. Casevitz, M., "Le vocabulaire politique de Diodore de Sicile: noXueia, no'kixzv\ya et leur famille," KTEMA 15 (1990) 27-33. Chamonard, J., (Euvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Reinach.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
247
Chapman, H.H., "A Myth for the World: Early Christian reception of Infanticide and Cannibalism injosephus, Bellum Judaicum 6.199-219," 1-26. Cited 21 November 2000. Online: http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/chapman2000.pdf. Chenderlin, F., "Distributed Observance of the Passover," Bib 56 (1975) 369-393. Clark, K.W., "The Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70," NTS 6 (1959-1960) 269-280 = The Gentile Bias. And Other Essays, NovTSup 54, Leiden 1980, 9-20. Cogan, M. - Tadmor, H., // Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 11, New York 1988. Coggins, RJ. - Knibb, M.A., The First and second Books of Esdras, Cambridge 1979. , "The Samaritans injosephus," in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, eds. L. Feldman G. Hata, Detroit 1987, 257-273. Cohen, N.G., "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative Similar throughout the Antiquities I-XI?," JQR 54 (1963-1964) 311-332. Cohen, SJ.T)., Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as Historian, CSCT 8, Leiden 1979. , "Parallel Historical Tradition injosephus and Rabbinic Literature," in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem August 4-12, 1985, Jerusalem 1986, 7-14. , "IOYAAIOE TO FENCE and Related Expressions injosephus," injosephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS M. Smith, eds. J. Sievers - F. Parente, StPB 41, Leiden - New York - Koln 1994, 23-38. , "Is 'Proselyte Baptism' Mentioned in the Mishnah? The Interpretation of M. Pesahim 8.8 (= M. Eduyot 5.2)," in Pursuing the Text, FS B.Z. Wacholder, JSOTSup 184, Sheffield 1994, 278-292. , The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley - Los Angeles London 1999. Collins, A.Y., "Aristobulus. A New Translation and Introduction," in The Oh! Testament Pseudepigrapha, II, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, Garden City (NY) 1985. Collins, J.J., "A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century," in 'To See Ourselves as Others See Us.' Christians, Jews, 'Others' in Late Antiquity, eds. J. Neusner - E.S. Frerichs, Chico 1985, 163-186. Colson, F.H. - Whitaker, M.A., Philo in Ten Volumes, LCL 226; 227; 247; 261; 275; 289; 320; 341; 363; 379; Cambridge (MA) - London 1929-1962. Cotter, W., "Our Politeuma is in Heaven: The Meaning of Philippians 3.17-21," in Origins and Method. Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity, FS J.C. Hurd, JSNTSup 86, Sheffield 1993, 92-104. Cox, S., "The Heavenly Citizenship. Philippinas iii.20," Exp. 2.Ser 3 (1882) 303-313. Delassus, D., Le Theme de la Paque chez Philon d'Alexandrie, Lille 1972 (non vidi). Delcor, M., "Le recit de la celebration de la Paque au temps d'Ezechias d'apres 2 Chr 30 et ses problemes," in Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alien Testament, ed. A. Schenker, FAT 3, Tubingen 1992, 93-106. Derenbourg, J., Essai sur I'histoire et la geographic de la Palestine. D'apres les Thalmuds et les autres Sources Rabbiniques, Paris 1857. Dewing, H.B., Procopius. In Seven Volumes, LCL 48; 81; 107; 173; 217; 290; 343, London - Cambridge (MA) 1914-1940. Diez Macho, A. et al, Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, I-V, Madrid 1984-1987. Dorival, G., La Bible d'Alexandrie. Les Nombres, Paris 1994. , "'Un astre se levera de Jacob' l'interpretation ancienne de Nombres 24, 17," ASEs 13 (1996) 295-352. Douglas, M., Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, London 1966. Dupont-Sommer, A., Les ecrits esseniens decouverts pres de la Mer Morte, Paris 1959, I9602.
248
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Egger, R., Josephus Flavins und die Samaritaner. Eine terminologische Untersuchung zur Identitdtskldrung der Samaritaner, NTOA 4, Freiburg Schweiz - Gottingen 1986. , "Josephus Flavius and the Samaritans," in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Societe d'Etudes Samaritaines. Tel-Aviv, April 11-13, 1988, eds. A. Tal — M. Florentin, Tel-Aviv 1991, 109-114. Eshel, E., "4Q414 Fragment 2: Purification of a Corpse Contaminated Person," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization
for Qumran Studies Cambridge 1995, FS J.M. Baumgarten, eds. M. Bernstein F. Garcia Martinez - J. Kampen, STDJ 23, Leiden 1997, 3-10. Eskenazi, T.C., "The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras," CBQ4-8 (1986) 39-61. Fabricius, J., Historiae Bibliothecae Fabricianae, II, Wolfenbiittel 1718. Fabris, R., Giovanni. Traduzione e commento, Roma 1992. Falk, D., Daily, Sabbath, and Festival Prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls, STDJ 27, Leiden Boston - Koln 1998. Feldman, L.H., Josephus, see Thackeray. , Josephus and Modern Scholarship {1937-1980), Berlin 1984. , "Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham," in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, eds. L. Feldman - G. Hata, Detroit 1987, 133-153. , "Josephus' Version of Samson," JSJ 19 (1988) 171-214. , "Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus," in Mikra, ed. M.J. Mulder, CRINT 2,1, Philadelphia 1988, 469-470. , "Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, eds. L. Feldman - G. Hata, Leiden 1989, 59-76. , 'Josephus' Portrait of David," HUCA 60 (1989) 129-174, , "Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah," JJS 43 (1992) 187-202. , 'Josephus' Portrait of Hezekiah," JBL 111 (1992) 597-610. , 'Josephus' Portrait of Moses," JQR 82 (1992) 285-328; 83 (1993) 7-50; 83 (1993) 301-330. , "II ritratto di Assalonne in Giuseppe Flavio," RivB 41 (1993) 3-30. , 'Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," FT 43 (1993) 190-214. , "Josephus Portrait of Elijah," SJOT 8 (1994) 61-86. , Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, AGJU 30, Leiden - New York - Koln 1996. , 'Josephus' Portrait of Isaiah," in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaia. Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, II, eds. C.C. Broyles - C.A. Evans, VTSup 70,2, Leiden - New York - Koln 1997, 583-608. , "The Concept of Exile in Josephus," in Exile. Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions, ed. J.M. Scott, JSJSup 56, Leiden - New York - Koln 1997, 145-172. , Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible, JSJSup 58, Leiden - Boston — Koln 1998. , Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, Bekeley - Los Angeles - London 1998. , "Rearrangement of Pentateuchal Material in Josephus' Antiquities: Books 1-4," 1-80. Cited 22 November 1999. Online: http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/feldman. pdf. , Flavius Josephus, see Mason. Fernandez Marcos, N., "3 Esdras {LXX 1 Esdras)," in Apocrifos del Antiguo Testamento, ed. A. Diez Macho, II, Madrid 1983, 445-478. Fernandez Marcos, N. - Busto Saiz, J.R., El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega. I. 1-2 SAMUEL. II. 1-2 REYES. III. 1-2 CRONICAS, Madrid 1989-1996. Fitzmyer, J., Essays on the Semitic Background of the Mew Testament, London 1971. , A Wandering Aramean. Collected Aramaic Essays, SBLMS 25, Missoula 1979. , The Semitic Background of the New Testament. Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and a Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays, Cambridge 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
249
Franxman, T., Genesis and the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus, BibOr 35, Roma 1979. Frey, J., "Temple and Rival Temple - The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis," in Gemeinde ohne Tempel Community without Temple, ^ur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alien Testament, antiken Judentum und fruhen Christentum, eds. B. Ego - A. Lange - P. Pilhofer, WUNT 118, Tubingen 1999, 171-203. Friedrich, G., "e\>ayyeWE;°Lun," TWKT II, 705-718. Garcia Martinez, F., "El problema de la pureza: la solution qumranica," in Los hombres de Qumran. Literatura, estructura social y concepciones religiosas, eds. F. Garcia Martinez - J. Trebolle Barrera, Madrid 1993, 165-186. , "Calendarios en Qumran (I), EstBib 54 (1996) 327-348. , "Calendarios en Qumran (II), EstBib 54 (1996) 523-552. Garrett, S.R., "Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24," CBQ52 (1990) 656-680. Gerber, Ch., "Die Heiligen Schriften des Judentums nach Flavius Josephus," in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, eds. M. Hengel - H. Ltihr, WUNT 73, Tubingen 1994, 91-113. , Ein Bild des Judentums fur Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus. Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem, AGJU 40, Leiden - New York - Koln, 1997. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews. VI. Notes to Volumes III and IV. From Moses in the Wilderness to Ester, Philadelphia 19879. Godley, A.D., Herodotus. In Four Volumes, LCL 117-120, London - Cambridge (MA) 1920-1925. Goldberg, A., Untersuchungen u'ber die Vorstellungen von der Schekhinah in der fruhen rabbinischen Likratur. Talmud und Midrash, SJ 5, Berlin 1969. Goodman, M., The Ruling Class of Judea. The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70, Cambridge 1987. , "Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity," in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, eds. P.R. Davies - R.T. White, JSOTSup 100, Sheffield 1990, 227-245. , "Josephus as Roman Citizen," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS M. Smith, eds. J. Sievers - F. Parente, StPB 41, Leiden - New YorkKoln 1994, 229-238. Gray, R., Prophetic Figures in IMU Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The Evidence from Josephus, New York - Oxford 1993. Greenspoon, L., "The Qumran Fragments of Joshua," in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings. Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990), eds. GJ. Brooke B. Lindars, SBLSCS 33, Atlanta 1992, 159-194. Gruen, E.S., "The Origins and Objectives of Onias' Temple," SCI 16 (1997), 40-70. Guttmann, A., "The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult," HUCA 38 (1967) 137-148. Halpern-Amaru, B., "Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities," JQR 71 (1980— 1981) 201-229. Hamacher, E. et al, "Literaturnachtrage," ThWAT X, 561.598 Hanson, K.L., Reflections of Early Halakha in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ann Arbor 1993. Harl, M., "L'originalite lexicale de la version grecque du Deuteronome (LXX) et la 'paraphrase' de Flavius Josephe (AJ. IV 176-331)," in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Paris 1992, eds. L. Greenspoon - O. Munnich, SBLSCS 41, Atlanta 1995, 1-20. Harle, P. - Pralon, D., La Bible d'Alexandrie. Le Levitique, Paris 1988. Harmand, R., CEuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Reinach.
250
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Harrill, J.A., "The Dramatic Function of the Running Slave Rhoda (Acts 12.13-16): A Piece of Greco-Roman Comedy," NTS 46 (2000) 150-157. Harrington, D.J., Invitation to the Apocrypha, Grand Rapids - Cambridge 1999. Harrington, H.K., The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Biblical Foundations, SBLDS 143, Atlanta 1993. Hauck, F. - Meyer, R., "Ka0ap6<;," TWNT III, 416-434. Heineman, I., "Josephus' Method in the Presentation of Jewish Antiquities," %ion 5 (1940) 180-203 (hebrew); english summary, X. Heimerdinger, J., "The Seven Steps of Codex Bezae: A Prophetic Interpretation of Acts 12," in Codex Bezae- Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994, eds. D.C. Parker - C.B. Amphoux, NTTS 22, Leiden - New York - Koln 1996, 303-310. Hengel, M., Die J^eloten. Untersuchungen zur judischen Freiheits-bewegung in der %eit von Herodes I. bis 70 n. Chr., AGSU 1, Leiden - Koln 1961; trad, italiana, Gli ^eloti. Ricerche sul movimento di liberazione giudaico dai tempi di Erode I al 70 d.C, BSSTB 11, Brescia 1996. Herrmann, L., CEuvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Rejnach. Holladay, C.R., Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors. II. Poets. The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian. III. Aristobulus, SBLTT 12, 13, Atlanta 1989. Holscher, G., "Josephus," PW IX.2, 1934-2000. Horowitz, W., "Halley's Comet and Judean Revolts Revisited," CBQ 58 (1996) 456-459. Horsley, R.A., Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus, Minneapolis 1985, 1995. Ilan, T., "Josephus and Nicolaus on Women," in Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion, FS M. Hengel, eds. H. Cancik - H. Lichtenberger - P. Schafer, Tubingen 1996, I, 221-262. Isaac, B., "Judaea after AD 70," JJS 35 (1984) 44-50. Jackson, J., Tacitus. III. The Annals, Books IV-VI, XI-XII, LCL 312, Cambridge (MA) - London 1937. Jackson, K.P., "Revolutionaries in the First Century," in Masada and the World of the New Testament, eds. J.F. Hall - J.W. Welch, Provo 1997. Jacobson, H., A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. With Latin Text and English Translation, I—II, Leiden - New York - Koln 1996. Jacobson, H., The Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge 1983. Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923-1958. Jaubert, A., "Jesus et le Calendrier de Qumran," NTS 7 (1960-1961) 1-30. , La date de la Cene, Paris 1957. Kahler, M., Der sogenannte historische Jesus und der geschichtliche, biblische Christus. Vortrag auf der Wupperthaler Pastoralkonferenz, Leipzig 1892. Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle for Equal Rights, TSAJ 7, Tubingen 1985. , "Josephus on Jewish-Samaritan Relations under Roman Rule (BCE 63-CE 70), in New Samaritan Studies of the Societe d'etudes samaritaines, III IV, ed. G.D. Sixdenier, Armidale 1995, 217-236. Kelhoffer, J.A., Miracle and Mission. The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, WUNT 112, Tubingen 2000. Kellermann, D., "n^Q," ThWAT IV, 1074-1081. Kiesow, K., Exodustexte im Jesajabuch. Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analysen, OBO 24, Fribourg (Suisse) - Gottingen 1979. Klausner, J., "Purity and Impurity, Ritual," Encjud XIII, 1405-1414. Klawans, J., "Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism," JSJ 29 (1998) 391-415.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
251
, "The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism," JJS 48 (1997) 1-16. Kokkinos, N., The Herodian Dynasty. Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, JSPSup 30, Sheffield 1998. Krieger, K.S., "Die Problematik chronologischer Rekonstruktionen zur Amtszeit des Pilatus," AY 61 (1992) 27-32. , Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavins Josephus, TANZ 9, Tubingen 1994. , "Die Historizitat des Census des Quirinius," BN 87 (1997) 17-23. Kugler, R.A., "Holiness, Purity, the Body, and Society: The Evidence for Theological Conflict in Leviticus," JSOT 76 (1997) 3-27. Laato, A., "The Composition of Isaiah 40-55," JBL 109 (1990) 207-228. Laqueur, R., Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biographischer Versuch, GieBen 1920. Le Bohec, Y., "Feldzeichen," DNP IV, 458-462. Le Boulluec, A. - Sandevoir, P., La Bible dAlexandrie. L'Exode, Paris 1989. Le Deaut, R., La nuit pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pdque juive a partir du Targum d'Exode XII 42, AnBib 22, Roma 1963. Levine, L.I., "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities, and Other Sources," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS M. Smith, eds. J. Sievers - F. Parente, StPB 41, Leiden - New York - Koln 1994, 233-246. Levy, E., "Politeia et politeuma chez Polybe," KTEMA 15 (1990) 15-26. Lichtenberger, H., "Messianic Expectations and Messianic Figures in the Second Temple Period," in Qumran - Messianism. Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. J.H. Charlesworth - H. Lichtenberger - G.S. Oegema, Tubingen 1998, 9-20. Lichtenstein, H., "Die Fastenrolle eine Untersuchung zur judisch-hellenistischen Geschichte," HUCA 8-9 (1931-1932) 257-351. Lindner, H., Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage, AGJU 12, Leiden 1972. Liou, J.P., "Apercus sur Isocrate a la lumiere de l'emploi de quelques termes du vocabulaire politique," KTEMA 15 (1990) 5-14. Longenecker, B.W., "The Wilderness and Revolutionary Ferment in First-Century Palestine: A Response to D.R. Schwartz andj. Marcus," JSJ 29 (1998) 322-336. Liideritz, G., Corpus jiidischer ^eugnisse aus der Cyrenaika mit einem Anhang von Joyce M. Reynolds, BTAVO.B 53, Wiesbaden 1983. , "What is a Politeuma?," in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, eds. J.W. van Henten - P.W. van der Horst, AGJU 21, Leiden - New York - Koln 1994, 183-225. Lupieri, E., "La purita impura," Hen 7 (1985) 15-43. McCasland, S.V., "Portents in Josephus and in the Gospels," JBL 51 (1932) 323-335. McKay, J.W., "The Date of Passover and Its Significance," £ W 8 4 (1972) 435-447. McLaren, J.S., Power and Politics in Palestine. The Jews and the Governing of their Land 100 BC-AD 70, JSNTSup 63, Sheffield 1991. , Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE, JSPSup 29, Sheffield 1998. McNamara, M. - Hayward, R. - Maher, M., Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus; Targum PseudoJonathan: Exodus, ArBib 2, Edinburgh 1994. , Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus, ArBib 3, Edinburgh 1994. Mahe, J.P., Tertullien. La chair du Christ, I—II, SC 216, Paris 1975. Maier, J., Zjvischen den Testamenten: Geschichte und Religion in der ^eit des zweiten Tempels, Wurzburg 1990. , "La Torah di purita nel Levitico e sua trattazione nella letteratura giudaica del periodo del Secondo Tempio e nei primi secoli cristiani," ASEs 13 (1996) 39-66.
252
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marcus, R., Josephus, see Thackeray. , Philo. Supplement. I. Questions and Answers on Genesis. II. Questions and Answers on Exodus, LCL 380; 401, Cambridge (MA) - London 1953. Mason, S., "Josephus on the Pharisees reconsidered: A critique of Smith/Neusner," SR 17 (1988) 455-469. Mason, S., "Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Re-Examination of Life 10-12," JJS 40 (1989) 31-45. , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, Leiden 1991. , "Will the Real Josephus please stand up?," BAR 23/5 (1997) 58-68. , '"Should Any Wish to Enquire Further' {ANT. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus''s Judean Antiquities/Life," in Understanding Josephus. Seven Perspectives, ed. S. Mason, JSPSup 32, Sheffield 1998, 64-103. Mason, S. - Feldman, L.H., Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. III. Judean Antiquities 1-4. Translation and Commentary. IX. Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary, Leiden - Boston - Koln 2000, 2001. Mathieu, G., (Euvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Reinach. Meier, J.P., 'Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal," CBQ52 (1990) 76-103. , A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of the Problem and the Person, New York - London - Toronto — Sydney - Auckland 1991. Mendels, D., "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the 'Fourth Philosophy,' and the Political Messianism of the First Century CE," in Identity, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic History, ed. D. Mendels, JSPSup 24, Sheffield 1998, 294-313 = in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. J.H. Charlesworth, Minneapolis 1992, 261-275. Menestrina, G., "TtoMteuua," BeO 118 (1978) 254. Michel, O., "Studien zu Josephus. Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6, 290 f, 293-95); ihre Umdeutung bei Josephus," in Neotestamentica et semitica, FS M. Black, eds. E. Earle Ellis - M. Wilcox, Edinburgh 1969, 240-244. Migne, J.P., Patrologiae cursus completus. Patrologiae graecae tomus XXXVI, Parisiis 1885. Milgrom, J., "Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity," Semeia 45 (1989) 103-109. , "Confusing the Sacred and the Impure: a Rejoinder," FT 44 (1994) 554-559. , "The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Tempel Scroll" RevQ_/(l993-l995) 276-284. Miller, E.C., unoXixeveuQe in Philippians 1.27: Some Philological and Thematic Observations," JSNT 15 (1982) 86-96. Moatti-Fine, J., La Bible dAkxandrie. Jesus (Josue), Paris 1996. Moessner, D., "'Eyewitness,' 'Informed Contemporaries,' and 'Unknowing Inquirers': Josephus' Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of TIAPAKOAOYQEQ," NovT38 (1996) 105-122. Momigliano, A., "Cio che Flavio Giuseppe non vide," RSit 91 (1979) 564-574. , "Un apologia del giudaismo: II Contro Apione di Flavio Giuseppe," in Pagine Ebraiche, ed. S. Berti, Torino 1987, 63-71. Mommsen, Th., "Das Datum der Erscheinung des Kometen nach Caesars Tod," in Gesammelte Schiften von Theodor Mommsen. IV. Historische Schriften, Berlin — Dublin - Zurich 1965, 180-182. Moore, C.H. — Jackson, J., Tacitus. II. The Histories, Books IV—V. The Annals, Books I-III, LCL 249, Cambridge (MA) - London 1943. Moore, G.F., Judaism. In the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim, I, Cambridge (MA) 1927. Mueller, J.R., The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. A Critical Study, JSPSup 5, Sheffield 1994.
t Murphy, F.J., "The Martial Option in Pseudo-Philo," CBQ 57 (1995) 676-688. , Pseudo-Philo. Rewriting the Bible, New York - Oxford 1993.
Neudecker, R., "II rapporto maestro-discepolo nel giudaismo rabbinico," in ApostoloDiscepolo-Missione, ed. S.A. Panimolle, DSBP 4, Roma 1993, 57-73. Neusner, J., The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. I. The Masters. II. The Houses. III. Conclusions, Leiden 1971. , A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, I - X X I I , Leiden 1974-1977. , The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. The Haskell Lectures, 1972~1973, SJLA 1,
Leiden 1973. Purity in Rabbinic Judaism: a Systemic Account, Atlanta 1994.
Nickelsburg, G.W.E., "The Modern Study of Early Judaism," in Early Judaism and Its Modem Interpreters, eds. R. Kraft - G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Atlanta 1986, 1-30. Niehoff, M.R., "Two Examples of Josephus' Narrative Technique," JSJ 27 (1996) 31-45. Nikiprowetzky, V., "Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, eds. L. Feldman - G. Hata, Leiden 1989, 216-236. Niese, B., Flavii Iosephi Opera, I-VII, Berolini 1885-1895. Nodet, E., Flavius Josephe. I. Les Antiquites Juives, Livres I—III. II. Les Antiquites Juives,
Livres I V V , Paris 1990, 1995. } "Pourquoi Josephe?," in Naissance de la methode critique. Colloque du centenaire de VEcole biblique et archeologique frangaise de Jerusalem, Paris 1992, 99—106.
, "Recensions: The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Biblical Foundations (SBL Dissertation Series, 143), par Hannah K. Harrington," RB 102 (1995) 116-128. La Bible de Josephe. Le Pentateuque de Flavius Josephe, J o s T 1, Paris 1996. Nodet, E. - Taylor, J., Essai sur les Origines du Christianisme. line seek eclatee, Paris 1998. , Bapteme et Resurrection: Le temoignage de Josephe, J o s T 2, Paris 1999.
Olavarri, E., "La celebration de la Pascua y Acimos en la legislation del Antiguo Testamento," EstBib 30 (1971) 231-268; 31 (1972) 17-42, 293-320. Olson, K.A., "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum" CBQ, 61 (1999) 205-322. O'Neill, J.C., "Who Wrote What in Josephus' Contra Apionem?" in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Briissel 1998, eds. J.U. Kalms - F. Siegert, MJSt 4, Miinster 1999, 270-281. Ottenheijm, E., "Impurity between Intention and Deed: Purity Disputes in First Century and in the New Testament," in Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus,
eds. M J.H.M. Poorthuis - J. Schwartz, JCPS 2, Leiden - Boston - Koln 2000, 129-147. Otto, E., "nos," ThWATWl, 659-682. Otto, W., "Herodes," RECA Supplement II, 1-200. Parry, D.T.N., "Release of the Captives - Reflexions on Acts 12," in Luke's Literary Achievement. Collected Essays, ed. CM. Tuckett, JSNTSup 116, Sheffield 1995, 156-164. Pearce, S.J., "Flavius Josephus as Interpreter of Biblical Law: The Council of Seven and the Levitical Servants in Jewish Antiquities 4.214," HeyJ 36 (1995) 477-492. Pearson, B.W.R., "The Lucan Censuses, Revisited," CBQ, 61 (1999) 262-282. Pelletier, A., "La nomenclature du calendrier juif a l'epoque hellenistique," RB 82 (1975) 218-233. Perrin, B., Plutarch's Lives. In eleven volumes, LCL 45; 46; 65; 80; 87; 98-103, London - New York 1914-1926. Porton, G.G., "Diversity in Postbiblical Judaism," in Early Judaism and Its Modem Interpreters, eds. R. Kraft - G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Atlanta 1986, 57-73.
254
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Powels, S., Der Kalender der Samaritaner anhand des KITAB HISAB AS-SIMN und anderer Handschrijien, StSam 3, Berlin — New York 1977. , "The Samaritan Calendar and the Roots of Samaritan Chronology," in The Samaritans, ed. A.D. Crown, Tubingen 1989, 691-742. Price, J.J., Jerusalem under Siege. The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C.E., BSJS 3, Leiden - New York - Koln 1992. Priotto, M., La prima Pasqua in Sap 18,5-25. Rilettura e attualizzazione, RivBibSup 15, Bologna 1987. Qimron, E. - Strugnell, J., Qumran Cave 4. V. Miqsat Ma'as'e Ha-Torah, DJD X, Oxford 1994. , The Temple Scroll. A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions, Beer-Sheva Jerusalem 1996. Rabello, A.M., "L'observance de fetes juives dans l'Empire romain," in Principal. Religion (Helknistisches Judentum in rbmischer £eit: Phikm undjosephus [Forts.]), ed. W. Haase, ANRW 2.21/2, Berlin - New York 1984, 1288-1312. Radice, R. - Runia, D., Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1937-1986, SVigChr 8, Leiden - New York - Kobenhavn - Koln 1988. Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 1935. Rajak, T., "Josephus and the "Archaeology" of the Jews," JJS 33 (1982) 465-477. Rappaport, S., Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Frankfurt am Main 1930. Regev, E., "Non Priestly Purity and Its Religious Aspects according to Historical Sources and Archaeological Findings," in Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus, eds. M.J.H.M. Poorthuis J. Schwartz, JCPS 2, Leiden - Boston - Koln 2000, 223-244. Reinach, T. - Weill, J. — Chamonard, J. Mathieu, G. — Herrmann, L. - Harmand, R. - Blum, L., CEuvres completes de Flavius Josephe. I. Antiquites Judaiques, livres I~V. II. Antiquites Judaiques, livres V I - X . III. Antiquites Judaiques, livres X I - X V . IV. Antiquites Judaiques, livres X V I - X X . V. Guerre des Juifs, livres I III. VI. Guerre des Juifs, livres IV-VII. VII. De I'anciennete du Peuple Juif Paris 1900-1932. Rengstorf, K.H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, I—II—III—IV, Leiden 1973, 1975, 1979, 1983. Ricoux, O., "Sirus ou l'etoile des Mages," in Les Astres. I. Les astres et les mythes. La description du ciel. Actes du colloque international de Montpellier 23-25 Mars 1995, eds. B. Bakhouche - A. Moreau J.C. Turpin, Montpellier 1996, 131-154. Rolfe, J.C., Suetonius. In two Volumes, LCL 31; 38, London - New York 1913-1914. Rosen, D. - Salvesen, A., "A Note on the Qumran Temple Scroll 56:15-18 and Psalm of Salomon 17:33," JJS 38 (1987) 99-101. Roth, C. - Wigoder, G., "Honi Ha-Me'aggel," Encjud VIII, 964-965. Rubenstein, J.L., The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, BJS 302, Atlanta 1995. Sacchi, P., "Riflessioni metodologiche sulla critica biblica e soprattutto sul cosidetto problema del Pentateuco," Hen 21 (1999) 179-183. Safrai, S. - Stern, M., The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, I—II, Philadelphia 1974, 1976. Sandelin, K.G., Wisdom as Nourisher. A Study of an Old Testament Theme, Its Development within Early Judaism and Its Impact on Early Christianity, AAAbo.H 6 4 / 3 , Abo 1986. Sanders, E.P., Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE, London 1992. Schafer, P., Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge (MA) 1997. Schalit, A., Konig Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk, SJ 4, Berlin 1969. Schenker, A., "La relation d'Esdras A' au texte massoretique d'Esdras-Nehemie,"
BIBLIOGRAPHY
255
in Tradition of the Text, FS D. Barthelemy, eds. GJ. Norton - S. Pisano, OBO 109, Gottingen 1991, 218-248. "La Loi de la Divinite, le rachat des fils premiers-nes et le sens de la Paque en Sagesse XVIII,9," RevScRel 70 (1996) 183-187. Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium, I-IV, HTC 4, Freiburg - Basel - Wien 1975. , "Die Politeia Israels in Eph 2, 12," in De la Torah au Messie, FS H. Cazelles, eds. M. Carrez - J. Dore - P. Grelot, Paris 1981, 467-474. Schnelle, U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, UTB.W 1830, Gottingen 19993. Schremer, A., "The Name of the Boethusians: A Reconsideration of Suggested Explanations and Another One," JJS 48 (1997) 290-299. Schroder, B., Die 'vaterlichen Gesetze.' Flavins Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Romer, TSAJ 53, Tubingen 1996. Schubert, F., Tradition und Erneuerung. Studien zum Jubildenbuch und seinem Trdgerkreis, EHS.G 771, Frankfurt/Main - Berlin - Bern - New York - Paris - Wien 1998. Schiirer, E. - Vermes, G. - Millar, F. - Black, M., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, I-II-ffl.1-111.2, Edinburgh 1973, 1979, 1986, 1987. Schwartz, D.R., "Josephus on the Jewish Constitution and Community," SCI 1 (1983-1984) 30-52. , Agrippa I. The Last King of Judea, TSAJ 23, Tubingen 1990. , "Pontius Pilate's Suspension from Office: Chronology and Source," Tarbiz 51 (1982) 383-398 (hebrew); english summary, VII = in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60, Tubingen 1992, 202-217. , "On Christian Study of the Zelots," in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60, Tubingen 1992, 128-146. , "Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea," in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT 60, Tubingen 1992, 29-43. , "WThence the Voice? A Response to Bruce W. Longenecker," JSJ 31 (2000) 42-46. Schwartz, S., "The Composition and Publication of Josephus's Bellum Iudaicum Book 7," HTR 79 (1986) 373-386. , Josephus and Judaean Politics, CSCT 18, Leiden - New York — Kobenhavn Koln 1990. Schwertner, S.M., Internationales Abkurzunsverzeichnis fiir Theologk und Grenzgebiete. ^eitschriften, Serien, Lexika, Quellen werke mit bibliographisen Angabe, Berlin - New York 19922. Segal, J.B., The Hebrew Passover. From the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, New York Toronto 1963. Sherwin-White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship, Oxford 19802. Siegfried, C , "Die hebraischen Worterklarungen des Josephus," %AW 3 (1883) 32-52. Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I, SFSHJ 6, Atlanta 1990. , "Chi erano i Farisei? Un nuovo approccio a un problema antico," JVU 75/76 (1991) 53-68. , "Wrho Were the Pharisees," in HUM and Jesus. Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, eds. H. Charlesworth - L.L.Johns, Minneapolis 1997, 137—155. , "Michea figlio di Imla e la profezia in Flavio Giuseppe," RStB 11 (1999) 97-105. , Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1-2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12-14, SubBi 20, Roma 2001. Silverstone, A.E., Aquila and Onkelos, PUM.SL 1, Manchester 1931. Smallwood, E.M., "The Date of the Dismissal of Pontius Pilate from Judaea," JJS 5 (1954) 12-21. , The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian, SJLA 20, Leiden 1976.
256
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sperber, D., "Theodosius of Rome," EncJud'KV, 1102. Spilsbury, P., The Image of the Jew in Flavins Josephus' Paraphrase of the Bible, TSAJ 69, Tubingen 1998. Spottorno, M.V., "Flavio Josefo. Tecnicas de adaptation del texto biblico (1 Re 3,16-28)," Sef 52 (1992) 227-234. , "Josephus' Text for 1—2 Kings (3-4 Kingdoms)," in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Paris 1992, eds. L. Greenspoon O. Munnich, SBLSCS 41, Atlanta 1995, 145-152. , "The Books of Chronicles in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities," in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Cambridge 1995, ed. B.A. Taylor, SBLSCS 45, Adanta 1997, 381-390. Stemberger, G., Pharisder, Sadduzder, Essener, SBS 144, Stuttgart 1991. , Einkitung in Talmud und Midrasch, Miinchen 19928. , "Narrative Baraitot in the Yerushalmi," in The Talmud Yerushalmi and GraecoRoman Culture, ed. P. Schafer, TSAJ 71, Tubingen 1998, 63-81. Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. I. From Herodotus to Plutarch, II. From Tacitus to Simplicius. III. Appendixes and Indexes, Jerusalem 1974, 1980, 1984. Strobel, A., "Die Passa-Erwartung als urchristliches Problem in Lc 17 20f.," ^NW 49 (1958) 157-196. Stuhlmueller, C , "Deutero-Isaiah: Major Transitions in the Prophet's Theology and in Contemporary Scholarship," CB& 42 (1980) 1-29. Sweeney, M.A., "The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research," CR.BS 1 (1993) 141-162. Swete, H.B., The Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914. Talmon, Sh. — Ben-Dov, J., "4Q326—A Festival Calendar from Qumran," Tarbiz 68 (1999) 167-176, english summary, V. Taylor, J.E., "A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias," JSJ 29 (1998) 297-321. Thackeray, H.St.J. - Marcus, R. - Wikgren, A. — Feldman L.H., Josephus. I. The Life and Against Apion. II. The Jewish War, Books I III. III. The Jewish War, Books IV—VII. IV. Jewish Antiquities, Books I—IV. V. Jewish Antiquities, Books V—VIII. VI. Jewish Antiquities, Books IX~XI. VII. Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV. VIII. Jewish Antiquities, Books XV-XVII. IX. Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII XIX. X. Jewish Antiquities, Book XX. General Index, LCL 186; 203; 210; 242; 281; 236; 365; 410; 433; 456, London - New York - Cambridge (MA) 1926-1965. , Josephus, the Man and the Historian, New York 1929. , Flavins Josephe: L'homme et I'historien. Adapte de I'anglais par Etienne JVodet avec un appendice sur la version slavone de la Guerre. Preface de Justin Taylor, JosT 3, Paris 2000. Theifien, G., "Die Verfolgung unter Agrippa I. und die Autoritatsstruktur der Jerusalemer Gemeinde. Eine Untersuchung zu Act 12,1-4 und Mk 10,35-45," in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte, FS J. Becker, eds. U. Mell — U.B. Miiller, Berlin - New York 1999, 263-289. Tigchelaar, E., "More Identifications of Scrpas and Overlaps," RevQ 19 (1999) 61-68. Troiani, L., "The FIOAITEIA of Israel in the Graeco-Roman Age," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, FS M. Smith, eds. J. Sievers - F. Parente, StPB 41, Leiden - New York - Koln 1994, 11-22. Ulfgard, H., The Story of Sukkot. The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles, BGBE 34, Tubingen 1998. Ulrich, E.C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus, HSM 19, Missuola 1978. , "4QJoshuaa and Joshua's First Altar in the Promised Land," in Mew Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. G.J Brooke, STDJ 15, Leiden - New York - Koln 1994, 89-104.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
257
Valentini, A., "La rivelazione di Gesu dodicenne al Tempio," EstBib 50 (1992) 261-304. VanderKam, J.C., "Das chronologische Konzept des Jubilaenbuches," ZAW 107 (1995) 80-100. , "The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees" in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, eds. M. Albani - J. Frey - A. Lange, TSAJ 65, Tubingen 1997, 3-24. , Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time, London - New York 1998. , The Book of Jubilees, Sheffiled 2001. Vannutelli, P., Libri synoptici Veteris Testamenti seu Librorum Regum et Chronicorum loci paraleleli. Quos hebraice graece et latine critice edidit, Romae 1931. Vazquez Allegue, J., "El 'Segundo Exodo' en Qumran (4Q462)," Salm 47 (2000) 61-83. Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew. A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, London 1973. , "A Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus," NovT 24 (1982) 289-303. Vian, G.M., "Purita e culto nell'esegesi giudaico-ellenistica," ASEs 13 (1996) 67-84. Vicent, R., La fiesta judia de las Cabanas (Sukkot). Interpretaciones midrdsicas en la Biblia y en el judaismo antiguo, BMid 17, Estella 1995. Villalba i Varneda, P., The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus, ALGHJ 19, Leiden 1986. Wacholder, B.Z., "Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus," in Josephus, the Bible, and History, eds. L. Feldman - G. Hata, Leiden 1989, 147-172. Weill, J., (Euvres completes de Flavius Josephe, see Reinach. Weiss, H., "The Sabbath in the Writings of Josephus" JSJ 29 (1998) 363-390. Werlitz, J., Redaktion und Komposition. ^ur Riickfrage hinter die Endgestalt von Jesaja 40-55, BBB 122, Berlin - Bodenheim b. Mainz 1999. Werman, C., "The Concept of Holiness and the Requirements of Purity in Second Temple and Tannaic Literature," in Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus, eds. M.J.H.M. Poorthuis - J. Schwartz, JCPS 2, Leiden - Boston - Koln 2000, 163-179. Wevers, J.W. et at, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Gottingen 1931-1993. Wikgren, A., Josephus, see Thackeray. Williamson, H.G.M., "The Problem with First Esdras," in After the Exile, FS R. Mason, eds. J. Barton - D.J. Reimer, Macon (GA) 1996, 201-216. Wise, M.O., A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, SAOC 49, Chicago 1990. , Thunder in Gemini And Other Essays on the History, Language and Literature of Second Temple Palestine, JSPSup 15, Sheffield 1994. Wolters, A., "Halley's Comet at a Turning Point in Jewish History," CZ?Q,55 (1993) 697-697. Wright, A., The Literary Genre Midrash, New York 1967.
This page intentionally left blank
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Adler 215 Alon 137, 172 Alexander 243 Alter 23 Altshuler 166 Amir 224 Archambault 231 Ashtor 122 Attridge 3, 14, 16, 17, 35, 114, 169
Cohen, N.G. 14 Cohen, SJ.D. 15, 16, 17, 18, 64, 87, 88, 100, 110, 112, 114, 118, 141, 155, 192, 195, 227 Collins, A.Y. 168 Collins, J J . 159, 161 Colson 170, 172, 173 Cotter 225 Cox 225
Baillet 40, 104 Bar Kochva 89 Barclay 160, 161, 168 Baumgarten 40, 140, 167, 168 Beckwith 24, 32, 35, 39 Beer 141 Begg 15, 23, 53, 54 Ben-Dov 166 Berthelot 114, 227, 228, 229 Betz 92 Bilde 35, 102, 196 Black 20, 35, 118, 191, 230, 233 Boccaccini 164 Boffo 105 Boismard 182 Bokser 6, 186, 187, 188, 189 Bond 3, 108, 197, 199 Bordes 224 Borgen 169 Borowski 49, 200 Bowley 14 Brock 28 Broshi 166 Brown 175, 179, 180 Bruce 216 Biichner 28 Busto Saiz 53
Delassus 170 Delcor 56 Derenbourg 91 Dewing 235 Diez Macho 60 Dorival 42, 207 Douglas 134 Dupont-Sommer 92
Cancik 224 Carras 136, 169 Cary 94, 149, 150, 207, 210 Casevitz 224 Chapman 118 Chenderlin 37 Clark 230 Cogan 63 Coggins 62, 103
Egger 103, 104 Eshel 143 Eskenazi 61 Fabricius 13 Fabris 177 Falk 165 Feldman 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 24, 31, 54, 67, 68, 77, 80, 102, 103, 105, 106, 113, 114, 118, 134, 137, 156, 157, 159, 184, 187, 192, 197, 216, 217, 224, 225 Fernandez Marcos 53, 60 Fitzmyer 2 Franxman 15, 16, 23 Frey 91, 106 Friedrich 51 Garcia Martinez 39, 57, 95, 133 Garrett 181 Gerber 35, 136, 188, 190, 225, 226, 227, 228 Ginzberg 185 Godley 90 Goldberg 210 Goodman 5, 116, 123 Gray 92, 121, 200, 203, 204, 205 Greenspoon 45
260
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Gruen 91, 232 Guttmann 230 Halpern-Amaru 114, 187, 188 Hamacher 6 Hanson 40 Harl 17 Harle 39 Harril 180 Harrington, D.J. 60 Harrington, H.K. 133, 134 Hauck 133 Hayward 28, 40 Heimerdinger 182 Heineman 16 Hengel 192 Holladay 160, 168, 169 Holscher 148 Horowitz 207, 208 Horsley 20, 191 Han 87 Isaac 230 Jackson, J. 103 Jackson, K.P. 192 Jacobson 160, 161, 185 Jacoby 87, 97, 100, 148, 149, 150, 151 Jaubert 39, 185 Kahler 177 Kasher 103, 225 Kelhoffer 183 Kellermann 6 Kiesow 157 Klausner 133 Klawans 134 Knibb 62 Kokkinos 116, 117, 120 Krieger 14, 108, 196 Kugler 133 Laato 157 Laqueur 3, 88, 89 Le Bohec 193, 197, 198 Le Boulluec 28, 33 Le Deaut 103, 209 Levine 214 Levy 224 Iichtenberger 192, 216 lichtenstein 91 Lindner 92 Liou 224
Longenecker 204 Luderitz 225 Lupieri 133 Mahe 209 Maher 28, 40 Maier 20, 134 Marcus 61, 62, 63, 65, 93, 94, 105, 106, 125, 126, 163, 170, 174, 221, 232 Mason 14, 20, 119, 224, 225 McCasland 207, 208, 210 McKay 172 McLaren 104, 115, 194 McNamara 28, 40 Meier 103 Mendels 184 Menestrina 224, 225 Meyer 133 Michel 206, 208, 210, 211 Migne 7 Milgrom 133 Millar 20, 35, 118, 191, 230, 233 Miller 225 Moatti-Fine 45, 48 Moessner 17 Momigliano 35 Mommsen 207 Moore, C.H. 206, 208 Moore, G.F. 14, 15 Mueller 209 Murphy 184 Neudecker 179 Neusner 92, 133 Nickelsburg 20 Niehoff 16, 194 Niese 7 Nikiprowetzky 192 Nodet 3, 19, 20, 26, 33, 39, 40, 48, 49, 52, 54, 64, 106 118, 134, 222, 229 Olavarri 5 Olson 103 O'Neill 137 Olyan 184 Ottenheijm 141, 143 Otto, E. 6, 26 Otto, W. 108 Parry 180 Pearce 18 Pearson 196
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Pelletier 118, 170, 178 Perrin 193 Porton 20 Powels 104 Pralon 39 Price 115, 116, 118, 120 Priotto 158, 159, 173, 174 Qjmron
106, 166
Rabello 235 Radice 170 Rahlfs 19, 64 Rajak 16 Rappaport 13 Regev 143 Reinach 99, 142, 207 Rengstorf 7 Ricoux 207 Rolfe 110, 206 Rosen 167 Roth 92 Rubenstein 220, 221 Runia 170 Sacchi 4 Safrai 191 Salvesen 167 Sandelin 169 Sanders 20, 191 Sandevoir 28, 33 Schafer 232 Schalit 90 Schenker 61, 159 Schnackenburg 179, 225 Schnelle 175 Schremer 39 Schroder 74, 102, 158, 159, 226, 227 Schubert 161 Schurer 20, 35, 118, 191, 230, 233 Schwartz, D.R. 108, 167, 180, 191, 192, 203, 204, 224, 225, 227 Schwartz, S. 5, 74, 118, 214 Schwertner 243 Segal 5, 28 Sherwin-White 226 Siegfried 14 Sievers 21, 35, 87, 88 Silverstone 39
261
Smallwood 105, 107, 108, 196, 225 Smith 166, 167 Sperber 234 Spilsbury 4, 14, 15, 114, 158, 227 Spottorno 17, 23, 53 Stemberger 20, 21, 91, 93, 214, 234 Stern 84, 92, 97, 100, 148, 191, 206, 208, 210 Strobel 118, 217 Strugnell 106 Stuhlmueller 157 Sweeney 156 Swete 39 Tadmor 63 Talmon 166 Taylor, J. 52 Taylor, J.E. 91 Thackeray 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 19, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 41, 51, 52, 64, 99, 113, 114, 117, 118, 119, 123, 137, 142, 150, 182, 210, 214, 215, 216 TheiBen 180 Tigchelaar 166 Troiani 224 Ulfgard 220 Ulrich 45, 46, 54 Valentini 177 VanderKam 35, 39, 161, 163, 164 Vannutelli 53 Vazquez Allegue 167 Vermes 18, 20, 35, 92, 118, 134, 187, 191, 230, 233 Vian 137, 143 Vicent 220, 221 Villalba i Varneda 92 Wacholder 87 Weiss 49 Werlitz 157 Werman 143 Wevers 19 Wigoder 92 Wikgren 99, 100 Williamson 61, 62 Wise 95, 96, 166 Wolters 207 Wright 16
INDEX OF REFERENCES
FLAVIUS J O S E P H U S W O R K S
The Jewish 1 1.1 1.9-12 1.17 1.19 1.26 1.35 1.51-357 1.60 1.73 1.88 1.114 1.125-127 1.126-127 1.127-130 1.132 1.138 1.142-144 1.142-154 1.143 1.146 1.149 1.169 1.229 1.253 1.453 1.500 1.513 1.621 1.647-2.111 1.648 1.648-649 1.648-650 1.648-656 1.649-650 1.650 1.651 1.654 1.655 1.656 1.661-673 2 2.1-8
War 88 99 4 4 95 135, 136, 142, 182 90 87 223 221 180, 21, 220 135 88, 89, 96 95 95 95 125 124 124 124 223 126 226 109, 135, 136, 142, 220 148, 222 135 137 226 135 192 99 193 192 98, 99 193 99, 193, 198 194 193 99 99 192 203 192
2.1-13 2.6-13 2.7 2.8 2.8-13 2.10 2.12 2.26-36 2.31 2.42 2.51-54 2.53 2.55-65 2.66-79 2.80-92 2.86 2.111 2.117-118 2.118 2.118-168 2.128 2.129 2.132 2.138 2.141 2.147 2.149 2.167-168 2.167-279 2.169-174 2.170 2.174 2.175 2.175-177 2.181-184 2.184-203 2.197 2.200 2.204-223 2.223-227 2.224
97 99 134, 193 97, 98 129 6, 7, 27, 99, 100, 101, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 170 101 194 135 148, 222, 223 195 195 195 192 194 193 101 102 99, 102, 196 196 135 135, 136, 137 137 135 135 223 137 197 102 197 198 198 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 112 6, 100, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 145, 147
INDEX OF REFERENCES 2.224-227 2.225-226 2.227 2.228-231 2.232-240 2.232-244 2.234 2.237 2.241-244 2.244 2.252-292 2.253-254 2.254-257 2.254-265 2.264-265 2.266 2.266-270 2.271 2.272-276 2.277-279 2.279 2.280 2.280-283 2.284 2.284-292 2.289 2.289-290 2.289-292 2.321 2.392 2.409 2.417 2.425 2.433 2.445 2.482 2.515 2.517 2.591-592 3.77-84 3.123 3.142 3.374 3.376 3.391 3.399-404 3.408 4.99 4.100 4.103 4.160 4.182
129, 200 112 112 112 113 112 113 113 129 6, 110, 111, 112, 114, 146, 196 201 201 201 195 201 202 202 202 202 202 113, 114, 202 6, 145, 146, 196 113, 116, 117, 120, 128, 202 115, 117 117, 202 117, 137, 223 139 117 136 223 115 106 219 99 99 90 43, 119 223 123 214 193 210 221 99 137 216 207 223 223 223 90 135
4.201 4.240-244 4.320 4.358 4.388 4.400-405 4.402 4.471-475 4.562 4.582 4.649 5.10 5.18 5.26-27 5.45 5.71 5.98-104 5.98-105 5.99 5.100 5.101-104 5.105 5.106 5.106-135 5.109-119 5.128-135 5.193-194 5.194 5.195 5.219 5.227 5.230 5.380 5.382 5.388 5.391-393 5.401-403 5.506 5.567 6.93 6.93-95 6.99-102 6.99-103 6.121 6.124-128 6.149 6.165-168 6.225-226 6.240 6.250 6.271
263 137 143 228 228 215, 221 118 6, 100, 101, 109, 118, 119, 145, 146, 161, 185 49 135, 137 223 213 137 135 116 90 116 119 119, 125 6, 32, 109, 118, 119, 120, 145, 146, 165, 185, 212 120 120 123 125 124 124 125 105 135 214 136 135, 142 123, 219, 223 134, 135 33 54 211 143 125 116, 125, 212 214 215 135 143 215 215 214 214 197 215 126 135, 136
264 6.283-287 6.285-315 6.288-300 6.288-315 6.289 6.289-300 6.290 6.290-291 6.290-300 6.292 6.293 6.293-296 6.295-296 6.296-299 6.299 6.299-300 6.300 6.300-301 6.300-309 6.300-315 6.308 6.310 6.310-315 6.311 6.313 6.314 6.316 6.421 6.422-427 6.423 6.425 6.425-427 6.426 6.426-427 6.427 7 7.53 7.149 7.228 7.264 7.401 7.425 7.437-450 7.447
INDEX OF REFERENCES
204 195 121, 206 182, 206 207 206 6, 118, 140, 142, 145, 146, 147, 181 208 128, 182 208 181 209 182 210 106, 223 210 212 221 205, 206, 212 211 212 213 206 213, 214 207, 216 213 198 6, 43, 115, 116, 120, 121, 145, 146 121 8, 25, 27, 79, 100, 122, 145, 146, 147, 174, 179 116, 135, 136 140 172, 137, 138 172 80, 101, 159 118 223 223 135 135 117, 120, 128 91 204 90
Jewish Antiquities 1.1-26 13 1.5 5, 13, 17, 226 1.10 226 16 1.10-12
1.10-14 1.14 1.17 1.25 1.35 1.75 1.81 1.92 1.94 1.125 1.131 1.140-141 1.160 1.192 1.203 1.212 1.322 1.337 2.22 2.31 2.52 2.55 2.171 2.175 2.200 2.201 2.204 2.268-269 2.292 2.311 2.311-312 2.311-313 2.311-319 2.312
2.313
2.314 2.314-315 2.315 2.316 2.316-317 2.317 2.318 2.333
227 5, 17, 114 13 23 233 135 24, 100, 118, 160, 172 233 97 233 233 163 148, 233 159 233 233 135, 220 233 137 137 135 137 158 158 90 158 33 52, 158 209 23, 35, 100, 118, 141, 144 160, 233 162 23, 33, 46, 52, 144, 159 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 38, 41, 42, 61, 64, 65, 72, 96, 122, 138, 146, 156, 159, 163, 171, 174 7, 27, 28, 31, 32, 81, 82, 146, 148, 162, 169, 170, 172, 186, 231, 233, 235, 241 24, 29 160, 162 29, 30 30, 31 173 6, 31, 32, 43, 74, 75, 78, 82, 146, 132, 148, 161, 172, 178 32, 33 157
INDEX OF REFERENCES 2.339 2.342 2.347 3-4 3.11 3.16 3.31 3.32 3.78 3.83 3.88 3.91 3.99 3.125 3.142 3.152 3.181 3.197 3.201 3.203 3.213 3.223 3.224-257 3.224-273 3.228 3.233-235 3.237-238 3.240-243 3.241 3.244 3.245 3.248
3.248-249 3.248-251 3.249 3.249-251 3.250 3.250-252 3.251 3.252 3.254 3.255 3.257 3.258 3.258-273 3.261 3.261-264
157 157 157 166 30 90 233 48 135, 142 136 209 198, 223 41 135 6, 173 135 136 135 24, 90, 100, 118, 160 134, 136 227 134 23 135 25 38, 40 219 219 151 197 221 7, 24, 34, 36, 41, 43, 96, 100, 109, 118, 122, 145, 146, 159, 160, 168, 170, 173, 1786, 221 172 34, 162, 222 6, 7, 31, 36, 37, 38, 64, 145, 146, 156, 178, 208 187 6, 39, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48, 223 173 40, 41, 43, 64, 136 222, 223 163, 219 6 23, 34, 134 136, 138 143 135 135, 142
3.270 3.275 3.276-279 3.278 3.279 3.281 3.283 3.294 3.299 3.317 3.318-319 3.321 4.1-6 4.74 4.78 4.80 4.81 4.114 4.125 4.165 4.185 4.193 4.196-197 4.198 4.200 4.200-203 4.203 4.203-204 4.204 4.209-211 4.212 4.222 4.228 4.242 4.295 4.311-314 4.312-314 5.8 5.20 5.20-21 5.20-32 5.21 5.22 5.22-23 5.24 5.25-26 5.31 5.34 5.42 5.43 5.125 5.172 5.219 5.261
265 49 137 138 134, 135 25, 136, 162 80, 223 52, 164 7, 41, 56, 59, 146, 147 233 82 122 6, 122, 123, 145, 146 158 235 24, 160 135 135 135 187, 216 46 220 227 16 23, 34, 134 42, 231 186 42 42, 93, 163 43, 98, 174, 188, 189 188 229 135 136 52 151 228 187 51 7, 46, 52, 146, 159, 170 63 45, 52, 53 47, 48 48, 49 50, 51 50 51 51 45, 52, 53, 164 137 122 233 219 49 158
266 5.303 5.348 6.20 6.83 6.157 6.191 6.229 6.235 6.303 6.362 7.102 7.231 7.342 7.355 7.378 8.100 8.120 8.123 8.141 8.154 8.174 8.230-232 8.281 8.318 8.344 8.398 9.106 9.260-274 9.260-276 9.263 9.263-264 9.263-267 9.264 9.265 9.267 9.268 9.268-270 9.268-272 9.269 9.269-271 9.271 9.272 9.272-273 9.274 9.290 9.291 10.1-35 10.1-36 10.8 10.37 10.48-70 10.48-80
INDEX OF REFERENCES 220 163 233 136 136 90 136 142 135 163 151 163 136 136 136, 233 136, 220 135 221 163 233 233 222 233 51 135, 136 163 136 59 54 6, 147, 158, 194 146 184, 205 6, 55 83, 92 56 96 56 138 57 162 6, 7, 31, 56, 57, 74, 80, 100, 145, 146, 147, 159, 186, 187 58, 221 232 158 233 106 54 59 170 137 60 60, 61, 66
10.50 10.50-70 10.58 10.59-62 10.65 10.65-67 10.66 10.66-67 10.68 10.68-69 10.68-70 10.68-72 10.69 10.70 10.70-71 10.70-72 10.71 10.72 10.73-80 10.78 10.79 10.79-80 10.210 10.237 10.267 10.276 11.2-7 11.18 11.33-58 11.66 11.69 11.70 11.75 11.77 11.80 11.105 11.106-108 11.106-111 11.109 11.109-110 11.109-111 11.110 11.111 11.112 11.137 11.139-143 11.140
163 60 60 60 60 60 106 60, 222 60 232 194 138 193 6, 7, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 96, 140, 146, 147 146 138 7, 147 65, 66, 100, 144, 158, 159, 186 66 215 209 211 216 99 233 215 157 68 62 68, 69, 70, 75, 82, 157, 162, 163 163 65 68 136 65 70 70, 76 75 6, 24, 71, 72, 96, 100, 118, 122, 145, 146, 147, 158, 160, 163, 194 73, 140 70, 76, 119, 139 7, 31, 68, 69, 74, 75, 94, 95, 119, 145, 146, 147, 172 228 228 68 138 227
267
INDEX OF REFERENCES
11.153 11.159 11.220 11.292-296 11.297 11.300 11.341 12.14-15 12.38 12.108 12.119 12.119-120 12.240 12.255 12.257 12.280 12.320 12.323-325 12.412 13-14 13.3 13.46 13.52 13.212 13.225-14.491 13.234 13.245-247 13.251 13.252 13.303-306 13.304 13.372 14 14.19 14.19-28 14.20 14.21 14.21-24 14.21-28 14.21-29 14.22 14.24 14.25 14.25-28 14.28 14.29-30 14.37 14.38 14.41 14.41-45 14.43 14.53
136 170 163 219 94, 137 137 106 170 135 224 233 123 227 90 106 227 136 219 219 87 227 148 123 220 87 223 114 149, 151 223 221 221 221 88 89 88, 89, 126, 128, 164 89 6, 7, 100, 145, 146, 167, 172, 175, 186 205 90, 96, 108 96 91 96 7, 94, 100, 145, 146, 147 93, 94, 95 94 95 95 125 92, 96 92 90 125
14.58-73 14.63 14.66 14.77 14.188 14.208-218 14.242 14.260 14.285 14.337 14.460 15.50 15.90 15.115 15.200 15.276-279 15.405 15.417 16.43 16.137 16.163 17 17.146-342 17.148 17.148-154 17.149-150 17.149-167 17.150-151 17.151 17.152 17.155 17.163 17.167 17.182-208 17.200-218 17.206-218 17.207-208 17.208-209 17.208-218 17.209 17.210 17.210-211 17.213
17.216 17.228-247 17.254 17.265-268 17.267 17.269-285 17.277 17.286-299
124 223 126 92, 96, 127 233 109 123 232 109, 198 43, 222 149 220, 221 136 221 163 198 108 105 188 219 178 192 182 193 192 193 98, 99 193 198 99, 193 99, 194 193 100, 194 192 87, 108 98, 99 193 97, 98 129 98 98 98 6, 7, 99, 100, 101, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 162, 165, 172, 185, 221 101 194 148, 222 195 195 195 195 192
268 17.299-316 17.310 17.344 18-20 18.1-2 18.1-4 18.1-28 18.2 18.4-10 18.7-9 18.9 18.11 18.11-25 18.19 18.23 18.26-54 18.29 18.29-30 18.29-31 18.30 18.31 18.55 18.55-59 18.55-62 18.59 18.60-62 18.63 18.63-64 18.63-89 18.65-80 18.66 18.81-84 18.85-89 18.89 18.90 18.90-95 18.90-260 18.116-119 18.117 18.120-123 18.120-124 18.121 18.121-123 18.122 18.122-123 18.124 18.231 18.261-309 18.271 18.284-287 18.309
INDEX OF REFERENCES
194 193 101 102, 110,112 102 102 196 103, 196 196 102 196 102 107 136 196 197 6, 7, 100, 102, 103, 146 103, 105,107, 129, 139, 164 102, 108 105, 106,107, 142 102 197, 200 197 108 198 199 103 103, 199 199 199 233 199 108, 199 107 7 107, 109,129, 164 199 103 135, 137 199 107, 109,129, 139, 198 198 194 108, 109 195, 196 197 163 200 137 200 200
18.310-20.104 19.162 19.173 19.187 19.281 19.314 19.331 19.343-350 20.43 20.47-48 20.97-99 20.98-99 20.105-112 20.106 20.107 20.108 20.109-110 20.112 20.113-117 20.118-124 20.118-133 20.121 20.123 20.128-132 20.133
200 228 228 228 225 108 135 180 159 114 200, 203 203 112, 129,200 6, 7, 63,100, 110, 111, 114,146, 147 109 112, 114
112 112 112 113 113 113 113 129 110, 111, 113, 114
196, 200 20.137-258 20.162-166 20.164-172 20.166 20.168 20.168-172 20.184 20.185-187 20.200 20.206 20.216-218 20.228 20.230 20.234 20.253-254 20.255-257 20.256
202 201 195 201 182 203 115 201 213 145 81 221
20.257 20.258 20.268
90 228 201 113, 115 91, 113, [14, 1 117, 164 113 115, 202 23, 34, 134
Against Apion 1.18 1.30-32 1.40 1.88
91 138 67 90
269
INDEX OF REFERENCES
1.199 1.218 1.229 1.250 1.279 1.306 2.12 2.20-27 2.103-104 2.123 2.137 2.138 2.148 2.157 2.157-163 2.168 2.173 2.175 2.179-180 2.179-181 2.184-189 2.185 2.190-200 2.192 2.193 2.197 2.198 2.202 2.202-203
135, 162 17 32
2.203 2.204 2.205 2.209-210 2.210 2.226 2.236 2.257 2.259 2.261 2.271-273 2.282 2.287
227 117 135 221 123 142 114 159 123 122 90 77 99 189 123, 188, 223 188 138, 231 227 228
136, 137 123, 162, 174, 189 136, 137
158 138 227 99 136 91 114 114 123, 223
227
Life 11 13-16
55 74 74-76
159
228 275 279 293 338 367 386
136 138 231 229 143 135 135
424-425
135 201 90 135 123 123 90 123 123 90
220 18 90 204
BIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD
Genesis 49:10 Exodus 3:8-12 6:6-7 6:26-27 7:4-5 7:7 11 11:2 11-13 12 12:2 12:3 12:3-4 12:3-6 12:4 12:5-6
TESTAMENT
181 181 181 181 33 23 24 23 144 24, 160, 172 24, 25 25 141
12:6 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:10b 12:10-11 12:11 12:11-20 12:13 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:20-27
122 25
12:22 12:22-23
216
122 25, 26
32 26 41 27 27 25, 181
27 28 31 31 37 75, 82, 181
178 31 27, 80 25, 26
182
270 12:23 12:23b 12:27 12:28 12:29 12:29b 12:32 12:33 12:34 12:37a 12:37b-38 12:39 12:42 12:43-49 12:46 12:48 12:51 13:1 13:3 13:3-10 13:5 13:7 13:9 13:10 13:11 13:11-16 13:14 13:16 13:17-18 13:19 14:2 14:13 14:19 16:1 19:14-16 23:14-19 23:20-23 29:23 34:22-26 34:25 Leviticus 2:4 2:5 2:14-16 3:1 7:12 8:26 10:12 14:4-6 23:5 23:5-14 23:6 23:6a
INDEX OF REFERENCES 28 170 28 27 28 28 29 29 29 29 32 30, 31 181 33, 156 27 58, 80 181 33 75, 82, 181 33, 185 33 31 181 185 33 33, 80 181 181 29 33 29, 30 166 181 30 142 42 181 63 42 41 63 63 40 74 74 63 74 117 35, 36, 122 34, 166 36, 178 37
23:6b 23:7 23:8 23:9-10 23:11 23:12 23:13 23:14 23:15 23:15-16 23:36 25 25:8 Numbers 1:20 9:1-14 9:6-11 9:6-13 9:6-14 9:10-12 9:14 10:1-10 15:4-10 24:17 28:16 28:16-17 28:16-25 28:17 28:17a 28:17b 28:18 28:19 28:20-21 28:22 29:35 33:2 Deuteronomy 13:10-11 16:1-8 16:3 16:6 16:16 17:16 18:15 26:1-10 Joshua 4 4:1-3
4:5 4-6 4:9
37 37 74 38 38, 39, 40 40, 41
40 41, 48
39
223 222 164 223 166 41 56 42 156 8 42, 80
41 38 207, 215
36 178 34, 166
36 37 37 37 38, 74, 79, 155
38 38
222 150 92, 206 43, 81
173 65, 81
42 166 183 52 45 46 46 45 45
271
INDEX OF REFERENCES
4:20 5:2-8 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:13-15 6 6:1-5 6:2 6:2-10 6:3-8 6:11 6:12-14 6:12-14a 6:14b 6:16 6:21 6:26
45 46 46, 51 47 47, 48 48 48 48 51 48 45 48 49 50 50 51 49 51
Judges
21:19
185
1 Samuel
1:3
21:3-4
185 63
1 Kings
9:25 16:34
74 51
2 Kings
18-20 22 22:13-20 22-23 23 23:4 23:4-18 23:9 23:11 23:19 23:21 23:21b 23:21-23 23:22 23:23
54 60 60 60, 61, 62, 66 193 60 60 62 61 60 62 64 53, 66 66 66
2 Chronicles
8:13 29:20-36 29-30 30 30:5-8 30:8-9
74 56 53, 54, 59 53, 54, 56 55 55
30:11 30:13 30:14 30:15a 30:18 30:22 30:23-24 30:25 30:26 30:5-8 30:8-9 31:1 31:1-21 34 34:5 34:6 34:14-15 34:21-29 34:32 34-35 35 35:1 35:6b 35:7-9 35:10-12 35:10-19 35:11 35:12 35:12b 35:13 35:13-17 35:14 35:15 35:17 35:18 35:19 35-36
56 57 57 57 56 74, 76 59 58, 59 58, 74 55 55 57, 59 58 60 61 60, 61 60 60 60 60, 66 61, 63, 66 62, 63 64 63 64, 65, 67, 144 64 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 61, 63, 66, 67 66 66 61
Ezra 1:11 3:1 6:1-18 6:13 6:13-18 6:15 6:19 6:19-22 6:20 6:21 6:22 8:31 8:35 9:7
68 68 70 70 70 71 71, 70 72, 71, 74, 68 68 68
74 73 72 75, 82
272
INDEX OF REFERENCES
Esther
3:7 3:12
160 160
2 Maccabees
1:9
182 141, 156 155
Daniel
221
Psalms
24:7-10
40:26 45:18-20 45:21-24 2:44-45 9:24-27 9:26-27
215 216 215
210 Hosea
Sirach 46:1 49:1-3
46 193
Wisdom
18:5-25 18:9 Isaiah 11:7 40:3 40-48 40-55 41-48 49:8-12 50:2 51:9-10 52:11-12 55:12-13 60 60:1-2 60:11
208 203, 204 157 156 157 157 157 157 157 157 211 208 210 212 212 212
Baruch
2:23
212
Ezekiel
1 7:2 10:18-19 11:20 11:22-24 32:17-32 32:19 32:21 32:24-30 32:32 37 40:22
167 166 167
Malachi
9, 158 158, 159
Jeremiah
7:34 16:9 25:10
8:13b 11:5 11:5a
214 214 210 211 210 156 156 156 156 156 106 182
2:10
168
Deuterocanonical 1 Esdras 1 61, 66 1:1 62, 63 64 1:6b 1:7 64 1:10 65 1:10b 64 64, 67, 1:10-12 1:10-19 64 1:11 64, 65 1:11-17 65 1:12b 64 1:12-13 65 1:14-15 65 1:17 61, 63, 1:18-19 66 1:20 66 2:14 68 3:1-4, 46 62 4:62-63 68, 69, 4:63 162 5:41 163 5:46 68 6:22-7, 9 70 7:1 70 7:1-9 70 7:10 71, 74 7:10-15 70 7:10b-ll 72 7:10b-12 73 65 7:12 7:13 71, 72 7:15 69, 71, 82 8:60 68 8:63 68
144
66, 67
70, 75, 76
74, 75,
INDEX OF REFERENCES
273
NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew 5:12 8:11 13:57 14:5 16:6-12 22:15-22 23:29-37 23:37-39 24:15 24:24 24:30 26 26:5 26:17 26:20 26:21-25 26:48
184 183 184 184 82 198 184 213 215 183 183 175 177 32, 79, 175 178 179 183
Mark
12:13-17 13:14 13:22 14 14:2 14:12 14:17 14:18-21 15:42
198 215 183 175 177 32, 79, 175 178 179 178
Luke 2:2 2:12 2:41 2:41-50 6:23 11:16 11:47-51 13:33-34 13:34-35 17:16-18 20:20-26 21:7 22:1 22:7 22:14-15 22:17 22:21-23 22:24
196 183 177 177 184 183 184 184 213 106 198 176 175 79 178 32 179 179
John 2:13
177
2:18 2:19-21 2:23 3:2 3:25-36 4:46-54 4:48 6:1-71 6:4 6:14 6:15 6:26-27 7:1-8:59 7:2-8 7:10 7:31 9:1-16 11:1-57 11:45-50 11:55 12:12 13:8 13:10 13:14-15 13:21-30 15:3 15:12 15:17 18:28 19:14 19:31 19:42
183 183 182 183 179 184 183 177 177 183 183 183 177 177 178 184 184 183 180 140, 177 179 179 173 179 179 173 173 140, 178, 178, 178,
Acts 2:19 2:43 5:17-18 5:27-28 12:1-19 12:3 12:3-4 12:4 12:7 12:10 12:17 12:19 12:20-25 13:20 20:16 21:26-30 21:27 21:27-31
183 183 180 180 180 180 175 180 181 181, 182 181, 182 181 180 66 205 105 142 122
141, 176 177, 179
176, 179 179 179 179
274
INDEX OF REFERENCES
21:38 21:40 22:2 22:28 26:14 26:24
205 170 170 224 170 213
Romans 4:11
183
1 Corinthians 176 5:1-8 5:7-9 82 5:8 176 Ephesians 2:12 2:14
224 105
Philippians 1:27 3:20
224 224
2 Thessalonians 2:19 183 Hebrews 11:28
182
James 5:10
184
Revelation
5:6 5:12 16:6 18:23 18:24
188 188 184 212 184
REFERENCES OF JEWISH LITERATURE Pseudepigrapha Jubilees 39 15.1 162 48.18-19 39 44.4-5 162 49.2 162 49.3 162, 163 49.6 163 49.7 163 49.9 163 49.10 49.14 163 163 49.15 163 49.16 163, 167 49.17 163 49.21 164 50.2-5 163 50.5 Psalms of Salomon 17.33 167 Ezekiel the Tragedian 152-174 153 159 162-166 167-171 167-174 175-192
160 160 161 160 161 159, 161 160
187 193
161 160
Pseudo Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 184 10 13.4 185 48.3 185 50.3 185 Philo De Congressu Quaerendae 161-162 173 De Decalogo 159
170
De Opificio Mundi 128 90 De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 62 173 169 63 De Specialibu.j Legibus 2.28 31 2.145 170, 232 2.145-146 143, 171 2.145-187 170 2.146 169, 172 2.147 172
275
INDEX OF REFERENCES
2.147-148 2.149 2.150 2.156 2.150-156 2.155-156 2.157-158 2.158 2.162 2.171 2.176
171 171 172 31 172 172 172 173 39, 43 173 173
De Vita Contemplativa
65
85-89
173, 223 223
4QLevb 4QMMT a 72-74 11Q19 xvii
39 106 166, 167
Temple Scroll
56.16
167
Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9 142 Menahot 10:3 ' 10:4 10:5
39, 40, 43 40, 44, 79 41
Pesahim 4:4 ' 7:2 7:6 8:8 10 10:5
230 234 140 141 186, 187, 188 82
Ta'anit 3:8 4:6
91 126
Teharot 7:6
140
Toma 1:1-3, 5
140
De Vita Mosis
2.22 2.224
170 170
Legum Allegoriae
1.66-67 2.34 3.94
90 170 170, 172
Questiones in Exodum 1.1-23 170 1.3 173 169, 173, 174 1.4 174 1.10 170 1.11 174 1.13 170 1.22 1.23 170 Qumran Writings 165 1Q34 1Q34 3 i 1-8 165 167 4Q265 3 95 4Q324a 39 4Q325 166 4Q326 166 4Q462 167 4Q462 13 166 4Q467 165 4Q503 165 4Q505 165 4Q505 125 165 4Q505 127 165 4Q508 4Q508 1 1-3 165 4Q513 39 4QJosha 46 4QJoshab 45
Tosefta Besah
2:15
234
c
Eduyyot 3:3
140
Pesahim
7:13
140
Jerusalem Talmud Mo'ed Qatan
8Id [3:1]
234
c
Ta anit 66d
91
Babylonian Talmud 'Abodah £arah 106 8b
276
INDEX OF REFERENCES
Berakot 19a 26a
234 24
Besah 22b-23a
234
Baba Qamma 82b 93, 94 Hagigah 26a
140
Menahot 64b '
93, 94
Pesahim 234 Sotah 49b Ta canit 23a 28b
93, 94
91, 92 126
Toma 39b
210
Zebahim 113a
106
1.44.3 1.57.2 1.72.4 2.3.8 2.12.1 3.14.1 3.58.2 3.65.3 4.6.2 5.49.3 5.53.1 6.66.4 9.4.2 13.4.2
150 151 150 151 151 149 150 150 150 149 151 149 150 151
Eusebius PreparatioEvangelica 8.6.10-7. 20 136 Gregory of Nazianzus Oratio in Laudem Basilii 45.10 7 Herodotus Historiae 9.93
90
Justin Dialogus cumTryphone 46 231
Dio Cassius 37.11 94 62.1 210 66.17 207
Nicolaus of Damascus Fragment II A 90 (Jacoby) 20 (31) 151 66 (27) 151 125 (1) 148 127 (13) 148, 149 130 (51) 148 130 (56) 148 130 (62) 148 130 (71) 148, 149, 150 130 (98) 148 130 (99) 148 130 (120) 148 133-136 87 136 97 100 136 (8-9) 137 (5) 148
Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae 151 1.21.1
Plutarch Vitae. Caius Marius x 193 23.5
Seder cOlamRabbah 11 48 Megillah Ta'anit 34 91 Greek and Latin Works Augustine Retractationes 1.10 235
INDEX OF REFERENCES Procopius of Cesarea
Tacitus
Anecdota
Annales
28.16-19
234
12.54
103
Historiae
5.13
Suetonius
206,
De Vita Caesarum
7.2.4 8.4-5 8.4-6 8.5-6
110 206 206 206
Tertulian De Carne Christi
23
209
277
This page intentionally left blank
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM 49. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, L.J. The Antecedents of Antichrist. A Traditio-
Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10455 0 50. YARBRO COLLINS, A. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10587 5 5 1 . M E N N , E. Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis. Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10630 8 52.NEUSNER, J. Jerusalem and Athens. The Congruity of Talmudic and Classical Philosophy. 1996. ISBN 90 04 10698 7 54. COLLINS, J.J. Seers, Sibyls & Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10752 5 55.BAUMGARTEN, A.I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10751 7 56. SCOTT, J . M . (ed.). Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10676 6 57.HENTEN, J-.W. VAN. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People. A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. 1997. ISBN 90 04 10976 5 58.FELDMAN, L.H. Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible. 1998. ISBN 90 04 10839 4 59.MORRAY-JONES, C.R.A. A Transparent Illusion. The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism: A Source-Critical and Tradition-Historical Inquiry. (In preparation) ISBN 90 04 11337 1 60. HALPERN-AMARU, B. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11414 9 6 1 . H E N Z E , M. The Madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. The Ancient Near Eastern Origins and Early History of Interpretation of Daniel 4. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11421 1 62.VANDERKAM, J . C . From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Tempel Literature. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11557 9 63. NEWMAN, C.C., J.R. DAVILA & G.S. LEWIS (eds.). The Jewish Roots
of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11361 4
J.W.M. Full of Praise. An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12-35. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11359 2
64.LIESEN,
65.BEDFORD, P.R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. 2000.
ISBN 90 04 11509 9 J.T.A.G.M. van Primaeval History Interpreted. The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 in the book of Jubilees. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11658 3 67.HOFMANN, NJ. Die Assumptio Mosis. Studien zur Rezeption massgiiltiger Uberlieferung. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11938 8 66.RUITEN,
68.HAGHLILI, R. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum. Origin,
Form and Significance. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12017 3 Gegenwart der Tradition. Studien zur judischen Literatur und Kulturgeschichte. ISBN 90 04 11686 9 70.DAVILA, J.R. Descenders to the Chariot. The People behind the Hekhalot Literature. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11541 2 72. SCOTT, J.M. (ed.). Restoration. Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. 2001. ISBN 90 04 11580 3 73.TORIJANO, P.A. Solomon the Esoteric King. From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. 2002. ISBN 90 04 11941 8 74.KUGEL, J.L. Shem in the Tents of Japhet. Essays on the Encounter of Judaism and Hellenism. 2002. ISBN 90 04 12514 0
69.VELTRI, G.
75.COLAUTTI, F.M. Passover in the Works ofjosephus. 2002.
ISBN 90 04 12372 5 ISSN 1384-2161
