Josephus and History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Studia Post-Biblica)

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA GENFRAL EDITOR

DAVID S. KATZ (Vc\ Aviv) /\DVlSORY EDITORS

ITHAMAR GRUENWALD (Tel Aviv) FFRGUS MILLAR (Oxford)

VOLUME 41

JOSEPHUS AND THE HISTORY OF THE GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD Essays

in Memory

of Morton

Smith

KI)lTEr> RY

FAUSTO

PARENTK

JOSEPH

SIEVERS

•7

^^'^

^

•'6 8 V

E J . L E I D E N

B R I L L

• N E W

Y O R K

1994

•

K O L N

T h e paper in this bwtk meets thp guidelines for p e r m a n e n c e a n d durability of the C o m m i t t e e on P r o d u c t i o n (Juidcliiics for Book L o n g e v i t y of t h e C o u n c i l on I J b r a r y Resources.

Library of C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in-Publicatioii D a t a J o s e p h u s and the hisioiy of the G r e c o - R o m a n period: essays in m e m o r y of Morton Smith / edited by Fausto Parente a n d Joseph Sievers. p. c m . - S t u d i a post-Bibiica, ISSN 0169-9717 ; v. 41) Proceedings of the Josepluis CoLoquium, held Nov. 2-5, 1992, in San Mininto, Italy. Itichides bibliogiaphi.--Mistorio,graphy -<:ongresses. 1. Smith, M o r t o n , 1915-1991. U. Parente, Fausto. III. Sievers, J o s e p h . IV. J o s e p h u s Colloquium (1992 : San Miniato, Italy) V. Series. nSll3.9JGj65 1994 9 3 T . 0 5 ' 0 9 2 - - d c 20 |B| 94-.'i3782 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

CIP-Einheitsaxifiiahme

Josephus a n d the liistory of the G r e c o - R o m a n period: essays in memory of M o r t o n Smith / ed. by Fansto Parente a n d J o s e p h Sievers.- I>eidcn ; New York ; Koln : Brill, 1994 (Studia post-biblicA ; V o l . 4 1 ) I S R N 90 04- 1 0 1 1 4 - 4 N b / I'arenle, Fausto |Hrsg.);

GT

ISSN 0169-9717 ISBN 90 04 10114 4 SD Copytigkt 1994 by E.J. Brill, lAden, llie Netherlands AH rights ratncd. JVo paH of this publication may be reproduced, Iramlaled, stored in a retrieval iyslem, or Iransmifled In anyjorm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or olhenviie, without prior umtten permission from the publisher. Aulhonzation lo photocopy itans foi internal or personal use is panted hy E.J. Brill provided that tlie appropriate fees are paid direct!} lo The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Roseivood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. fees are subject lo change. I'RL."^RKD T.N TIIE NETHKRLANDS

MORTON SMITH May 28, 1915 - July 11, 1991

CONTENTS

Editors' Preface and Acknowledgments

IX

IN MEMORIAM MORTON SMHTI SIIAYI- J. D . COHEN, Morion Smith and his Scholarly Achievement

1

P A R T I. P H I L O L O G I C A L Q U E S T I O N S

KlJCIO TROIANI, University of Pavia The noXiTcia of Israel in the Graeco-Roman

Age

11

SHAYB J.D.COHEN, Brown University, Providence, R.I. 'Iou5o(.ro<; TO fivoc, and Related Expressions in Josephus P A R T 11. T H E

23

SOURCES

LOUIS H. lOiLDMAN. Yeshiva University, New York Josephus' Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees

41

I-'AUSTO PARENTE, University of Rome II Onias III' Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis

69

MIREILLB H A D A S - L E B E L , National Institute for Oriental Languages and Civilizations, Paris Flavius Josephus, Historian of Rome

99

PART III. LITERARY A N D OTHER MODELS JOHANN MAIER, University of Cologne Amalek in the Writings of Josephus

109

CLEMENS THOMA, Institute for Judaeo-Christian Studies, Hochschule of Lucerne John Hyrcanus 1 as Seen by Josephus and Other Farly Jewish Sources

127

TESSA RAJAK, University of Reading, U.K. Cid che Flavio Giuseppe vide; Josephus and the Essenes STEVE M A S O N . York University, Toronto. Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House

....

141 161

VIII

CONTENTS

PART IV. HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY JOSEPH SIEVERS, Pontifical Biblical Institute, R o m e Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus

195

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Josephus on Hyrcanus II

210

LEE I. L E V I N E , The Hebrew University and The Seminary of Judaic Studies, Jerusalem Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities^ and Other Sources

233

PER BILDE, University of Aarhus 'Dte Geographical Excursuses in Josephus

247

PART V. VIEWS OF THE WAR GIORGIO JOSSA, University of Naples Josephus' Action in Galilee during the Jewish War

265

URIEL RAPPAPORT, University of Haifa Wliere Was Josephus Lying - In His Life or in the War.? . . . .

279

SETH SCHWARTZ, King's College, Cambridge, and University of R h o d e Island Josephus

in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown

. .

290

PART VI. ASPECrS OF JOSEPHUS' BIOGRAPHY GOHEI IlATA, Tama Bijyulu University and Tokyo U n i o n Theological Seminary Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus'Life MARTIN GOODMAN, University of Oxford Josephus as Roman Citizen

309

Bibliography Index of Ancient Sources Index of Subjects Index of Cireek Words

339 372 389 392

329

IZDI TORS' P R E F A C E A N D A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

In the s u m m e r of 1990, Professor Morton Smith approached Joseph Sievers with the idea of organizing an international colloquium on Josephus, that should bring together as many specialists in the field as possible, with particular attention to the H a s m o n e a n and R o m a n periods. Sievers had an opportunity to propose this idea to Professor Parente, w h o was then President of the Italian Association for Jewish Studies ( A I S G ) . In November of that year, a first program proposal was worked out by Parente and Sievers and, with s o m e modification, approved by Smith, w h o not only promised to participate in the colloquium, but also to underwrite a substantial portion of its cost. While preparations were well under way, news reached the editors of the sudden death of Professor Smith on July 11, 1991. Grave doubts about the feasibility of the project arose, but within a few days a letter from Professor Robert Somcrville, the executor of Smith's estate, indicated that in the will there was a provision for the Josephus Colloquium. At this point the organization of the Colloquium became not only a challenging scholarly enterprize but also a sacred duty. T h e colloquium took place under the auspices of the Italian Association for Jewish Studies from 2 through 5 November, 1992, at San Miniato near Pisa, Italy. T h e realization of the Colloquium was made possible through the assistance of the local Savings Bank "Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato" and through a substantial grant from the Italian National Research Council ("Consigllo Nazionale delle Ricerche"). Since the colloquium was due to the initiative and the support of Professor Morton Smith, it seemed only natural to dedicate it and the publication of the proceedings to his memory. This volume contains revised versions of all the papers prepared for the colloquium with the following two exceptions: Etienne Nodet's paper "About Jews in Galilee" has appeared in a fuller version as "Galilee juive, de J6sus ii la Mishna" in F. Blanchetidre and M. D. Herr (eds.), Protochristianisme en Judee, Paris-Louvain: Peeters, 1993. Professor Applebaum gave a presentation on "Josephus as a Military Commander," but due to health reasons he was unfortunately unable to put it into publishable form.

X

PREFACF.

T h e style in this volume generally follows that of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, which is based o n the Chicago Manual of Style {13th ed., 1982). We have, however, decided to use footnotes instead of endnotes and adopt s o m e other minor modifica­ tions. Internal consistency of each contribution has been d e e m e d more important than an attempt at consistency throughout. Thus different spellings of the same word or name have b e e n allowed to stand. Where they affect items in the subject index, both spellings are referenced. Bibliographical abbreviations have b e e n kept to a mini­ mum, and all except those for classical, patristic and rabbinic literature are included in the bibliography. In rabbinic hterature, tractates of the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud Yerushalmi and Bavli are identified by m., t., y., b., followed by the (abbreviated) name of the tractate. T h e writings of Josephus are abbreviated AgAp, Ant, JW, and Life, generally without the author's name. T h e cumulative bibliography of this volume includes the publications cited in the various contributions. As such it is also an indication of s o m e of the newer directions in Josephus research, without any attempt to be complete. It includes some, but not all the writings of Professor Morton Smith. His complete bibliography may be found in the forthcoming two volumes of his Scripta minora, edited by Shaye J. D . C o h e n in the Brown Judaic Studies series and titled Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. Beyond the above-mentioned institutions and individuals, the first thanks g o obviously to each of the contributors. Carlo Valentino ably assisted the editors with the technical produc­ tion of camera-ready copy. Rochelle Losman graciously agreed t o g o over the entire manuscript and suggested many stylistic improvements. Last not least, we should like to thank Hans van der Meij and the staff at E. J. Brill, Leiden, for accepting this volume for publication and seeing it through the press. R o m e , May 15, 1994 Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers

IN MF-MORLAM M O R T O N SMITH M O R T O N SMITH AND HIS SCHOLARLY A C H I E V E M E N T

Shaye j . D . Cohen

Morton Smith (1915-1991) was a great scholar, blessed with extraordi­ nary acuity, mordant wit, and expansive range. H e received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1936 and an S.T.B. from the Harvard Divinity School in 1940. At Harvard Smith studied N e w Testament with Henry Cadbury, Judaism with Harry Wolfson, and G r e c o - R o m a n religions with A . D . Nock. Awarded a travel fellowship, Smith spent four years in Jerusalem at the Hebrew University and the American School of Oriental Research, studied Hellenistic Judaism with M o s h e Schwabe and Hans Lewy, and Jewish mysticism and magic with Gershom Scholem. Smith returned to the United States in 1944 but continued work on his doctoral dissertation which was accepted by the Hebrew University in 1948. After s o m e post-doctoral work at Harvard and teaching at Brown University and Drew University, Smith joined the History Department of Columbia University in 1957 where he re­ mained until his retirement in 1985. Smith wrote seven books, s o m e 120 articles, dozens of book reviews, and co-authored two books ( o n e with Moses Hadas, the other with Elias Bickerman). This impressive body of scholarship had four main focal points: Ancient Israel; N e w Testament and Early Christianity; (Ancient) Judaism; Magic. Of course, many of Smith's works resist monothetic classification, and cross the lines separating these four fields in fact, o n e of Smith's major goals was precisely to bridge the gaps b e t w e e n and a m o n g these four fields, as I shall discuss below but this four-fold classification remains useful. U also has the advan­ tage of having b e e n suggested by Smith himself for his Kleine Schrif­ ten, a volume to be entitled Studies in the Cult of Yahweh that he planned in the mid 1980's and which is now in preparation. I shall briefly assess Smith's contribution to each of these four fields, and then treat s o m e general features of his scholarly achievement.

I Ancient

SHAYf-: J.D. COHEN Israel

The Hebrew Bible — its text, its history, its background, and its influ­ ence — remained o n e of Smith's central interests from his first pubhcations (Smith 1951b and 1952) to his last (Smith 1984). In this field Smith is probably best known for his Palestinian Parlies and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (Smith 1971a). In this book Smith argued that the entire Tanak indeed virtually all of Israelite and early Jewish history - should be seen as the product of two conflicting schools or "parties." The "Yahweh-alonc" party was the party of the prophets and the Deuteronomists, who uncompromisingly railed against the "syncretists." Because the "Yahweh-alone" party ultimately triumphed, it shaped the creation of the Tanak and the historiogra­ phical image of the "syncretists" as wicked rebels against G o d . But, Smith argued, the syncretists were not "sinners" and "apostates" but a genuine and authentic expression of Israelite religion, even older than the monotheisls of the "Yahweh-alone" party. Not only in the time of the first temple but even in the second temple period and later as well, synergistic Judaism was much in evidence; witness the materi­ al remains of Judaism in both the homeland (Smith 1975 and 1982) and the diaspora, and, most importantly, the magical texts and rituals of late antiquity. I shall return to this below.

New Testament

and Early

Christianity

T h e N e w Testament, like the Old Testament (if I may use the Chris­ tian appellations e m p l o y e d by Smith), was always at the heart of Smith's work and the subject of s o m e of his earliest articles. Smith's doctoral dissertation, originally written in Hebrew but published in Fnglish as Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (1951a), was primarily a contribution to rabbinic studies. Contrary to what the title suggests, this book was not inspired by Lightfoot or Billerbeck; its goal was not the collection of rabbinic passages that illuminate this or that N e w Testament text. Rather, it was a study of literary form, "the first extensive application, to rabbinic literature, of synoptic criticism and form criticism." This book launched the modern form critical study of rabbinic literature, but its relevance to N e w Testament studies is obvious as well. In Heroes and Gods, published in 1965 and written jointly with M o s e s Hadas, Smith argued that Jesus should be under­ stood as a "divine man," a type well attested in G r e c o - R o m a n antiqui-

IN MtiMORlAM MORTON SMITH

J

ty, and that the gospels were akin to an aretalogy, a recitation of the miraculous powers of a god. This book, amplified by s o m e subsequent articles (Smith 1971b, 1977, and 1978b), launched a new approach (or, perhaps better, revived the old religionsgeschichilich approach) to the study of the Jesus traditions. Smith achieved fame (some would say notoriety) in 1973 with his publication of Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. While travelling through the Ixvant looking for manuscripts of the letters of Isidore of Pelusium (Smith 1954 and 1958a), in 1957 at the monastery of Mar Saba (not far from Jerusalem) Smith stumbled on a fragment of an otherwise unknown letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria. In the letter Clement writes to an otherwise unknown T h e o d o r e and instructs him how to respond to the Carpocratians, a Christian sect of the second century, who rely on a "secret gospel of Mark" which is similar to, but longer than, the canonical Mark. In his book Smith argued brilliantly that the attribution of the letter to Clement was authentic, a point conceded by most reviewers (except for those w h o broadly implied that Smith had forged the whole thing), and that the "secret gospel of Mark" was an important source not only for the history of the second gospel but also for the history of earliest Christianity, a point disputed by many if not most reviewers. In Smith's view early Christianity was a Jewish movement which centered on magic, mysticism, healings, heavenly journeys, ecstatic possession, and secret initiations. This portrait was filled in with even greater detail in Jesus the Magician (1978a), in which Smith argued that the actions attributed to Jesus by the gospels could best be understood against the backdrop of magic in antiquity. Smith used as evidence not only the gospel accounts but also the traditions about Jesus contained in rabbinic and ciassica! literatures, a perspective also advanced in a wonderful article "Pauline Worship as Seen by Pagans" (Smith 1980). At his death Smith was working on Paul the Possessed, whose thesis was to be that Paul is a primary example of "spiritual possession."

Ancient

Judaism

All four Gospels, Clement Magician

of Smith's books so far mentioned Tannaitic Paralleb to Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, and Jesi4s the •• make direct and important contributions to the study of

4

S H A Y E J.I).

COHEN

ancient Judaism, as I hope my brief summaries above have made clear. One of his most influential pubHcations was a brief unannotated article that appeared in a collection of essays of the sort not normally the expression of innovative and original scholarship. But Smith's essay was both innovative and original. Entitled "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century" (Smith 1956), it argued, inter alia, that the Pharisees were not the dominant religious-political party in Judaean society and (hat Pharisaic Judaism was not the dominant or normative variety of Judaism. But, asked Smith, if this reconstruction is correct, what are we to make of Josephus' statements explicitly attributing to the Phari­ sees a predominant influence with the people? Smith answered as follows (Smith 1956: 75-76): Mere a comparison of the (for with iht Antiquities is extremely informative. In t h e War, written shortly after the destniclion of Jerusalem, J o s e p h u s still favors t h e group of which his famjiy had been representative - the wealthy, p r o - R o m a n section of the priesthood . . . . In his account of the Jewish sects h e gives most space to the Hssenes . . . . H e says nothing of the P h a r i s e e s ' having any influence with the people, and the only l i m e he r e p r e s e n t s t h e m as a t t e m p t i n g to exert any influence (when they ally with the leading priests and o t h e r citizens of J e r u s a l e m to prevent the o u t b r e a k of t h e war), they fail. In t h e Antiquities, however, written twenty years later, the picture is quite different. H e r e , whenever J o s e p h u s discusses the Jewish sects, the P h a r i s e e s take first place, and every time he m e n t i o n s t h e m h e e m p h a s i z e s their popularity, which is so great, h e says, that they can maintain o p p o s i t i o n against any government . . . . It is almost impossible not to see in such a rewriting of history a bid to the R o m a n government. Iliat government must have b e e n faced with t h e p r o b l e m : Which group of Jews shall we support? . . . . T o this q u e s t i o n J o s e p h u s is volunteering an answer: T h e Pharisees, he says again and again, have by far the greatest influence with the people.

The thesis that the Pharisees and their rabbinic continuators did not dominate the religious life of Judaism was not new, of course. It had been advanced fifty years earlier by Wilhelm Bousset (1903). But Bousset's account was flawed in two respects: it ignored rabbinic material out of ignorance - an ignorance that was seized upon by Bousset's Jewish critics, notably Felbt Perles, and that was remedied only in the 1926 revision by Hugo Gressman and it advanced the very dubious hypothesis that the apocalyptic and pscudepigraphic works give us a glimpse of real folk piety, of Judaism as lived and believed. Hut there is no reason to think that these recondite and

IN MF.MORIAM MORTON SMITH

D

fantastic works represent the mind of the masses any more than the recondite and fantastic works of the rabbis. Smith avoided both of these pitfalis. U n l i k e Bousset, he knew rabbinic literature first-hand, and his picture of "the people of the land" was far more sophisticated than Bousset's; the apocalyptic and pscudepigraphic works played virtually no role in Smith's reconstruction. What was entirely novel about Smith's thesis was the historio­ graphical argument. The contrast between the War and the Antiquities reflects the shift in the fate of the Pharisees and their successors between the pre- and post-70 periods. Smith would later support this thesis in Jesus the Magician with the argument that most of the synoptics' references to, and virtually all of the synoptics' polemics against the Pharisees, are found in post-70 CH insertions in earlier material {Smith 1978a: 153-157). Thus in both Josephus and the synoptics the picture of Pharisaic dominance is a projection of post-70 C E conditions u p o n the pre-70 CE period. This bipartite thesis the historical argument that the Pharisees were a small but influential group, and the historiographical argument that Josephus' picture of the Pharisees developed over time - has been enormously influential. It was widely publicized through the volumi­ nous and repetitive publications of Jacob Neusner and has aroused continuing controversy {Schwartz 1990 and Mason 1991). Smith clearly overstated the distinction between the War and the Antiquities, but put his finger on an important point, and no matter how the Josephan passages are interpreted the problem of the Pharisees and their influence still remains. The essay "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century" addressed another of his favorite concerns: the Hellenization of Judaism. Smith never ceased railing against the misleading distinction between "Hellenistic Judaism" and "Palestinian Judaism," arguing that Pales­ tinian Judaism was no less Hellenized - albeit in different ways, per­ haps — than Judaism of the diaspora. The literary forms, the social types, the scholarly techniques, much of the theology, much of the art, and virtually all of the realia of life, of Judaism in late antiquity were derived from, or at least heavily colored by, the ambient culture (Smith 1958b, 1971a: 57-81, 1987).

6

SHAYF. J.D. COHF.N

Magic The study of ancient magic was important to Smith for several reasons. First, Smith was always more interested in the narratives about Jesus than in his sayings, and the narratives in large part feature healings and miracles, in other words, magic. Second, magic was the great meeting ground and melting pot of religions in late antiquity. T h e magical papyri edited in Papyri Graecae Magicae are c o m p o s e d of Egyptian, Jewish, and Greek elements, with a generous admixture from other cultures as well. Here, then, was clear proof of cultural and religious mixing, precisely the sort of thing that Smith always found interesting. Third, magic was usually suppressed, and occasionally its practitioners persecuted by the authorities. Magic, then, was the religion of the outsider, the o n e w h o did not get to write the canonical books or the authoritative laws. Magic provided clear proof for the one-sidedness of the literary tradition, and for the necessity of recon­ structing other traditions alongside those of the "winners." Smith always enjoyed discomfiting "winners" (see below). Smith planned to write a catalogue of the magical g e m s of the British Museum and a History of Magic in G r e c o - R o m a n Antiquity, but m a d e little progress on either project. Instead, we have extensive discussions of magic in Clement of Alexandria (Smith 1973: 220-237), Jesus the Magician (passim), and a series of articles o n magical g e m s and magical papyri. General themes and

concerns

Certain themes and concerns unite all of Smith's work. I'irst, a determination to destroy boundaries. Smith was a man who worked comfortably in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and had a g o o d working knowledge of Syriac. H e read Sophocles, Septuagint, Soferim, and C!]yprian with equal ease. H e believed that the world of antiquity was a single whole, and that the scholarly conventions of dividing the ancient world into Jewish, Christian, and classical, and subdividing in turn each of these three, were impediments to scholarship. Smith argued that early Christianity was part of Judaism, that Judaism was part of the Hellenistic world, and that neither Christianity nor Judaism nor Hellenistic culture could be understood in isolation from the other. Because of his ability to s e e the ancient world as a whole. Smith was capable of s o m e remarkable insights. N e h e m i a h was a tyrant of

IN MF.MORIAM MORTON SMFTH

/

the sort described by Herodotus (Smith 1971a: 136-144); through their conquests the Maccabees created a league of 'louSaiot similar to the Aetolian league and the other leagues of Hellenistic Greece (Smith forthcoming); Jesus was a magician like other ancient magicians (Smith 1978a); as a social type the rabbis of the Mishnah were philosophers (Smith 1956). Second, a concern for varieties of Judaism and Christianity, espe­ cially varieties that would counter the traditional and respectable versions of Judaism and Christianity known to most people. Smith saw his own work as complementing that of Walter Bauer on early Chris­ tianity and Erwin G o o d e n o u g h on early Judaism (Smhh 1968: 10-11). In his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Bauer argued, against Eusebius, that "Orthodoxy" does not precede "heresy" but the o p p o s h e : early Christianity was a variegated p h e n o m e n o n in which many m o v e m e n t s and schools which would later be styled "heretical" were at first not heretical at all but were perfectly valid and (in their own environment) acceptable forms of Christianity. They did not b e c o m e "heretical " until an emerging "Orthodoxy" would later make them so. In his Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period G o o d e n o u g h argued that the medieval triumph of rabbinic Judaism should not obscure the fact that in R o m a n and early Byzantine times rabbinic Judaism was nehher dominant nor "Orthodox"; among Greek-speak­ ing Jews and the Jewish masses there thrived a decidedly non-rabbinic, mystical, and I lellenized Judaism. G o o d e n o u g h found evidence for this non-rabbinic Judaism in various patristic texts, in ancient magic, and especially in Jewish art. Like Bauer, Smith argued that in Judaism, as in Christianity, heresy preceded orthodoxy: the "Yahweh-alone" party was a pietist reaction to the reigning syncretism of the day; the Pharisees were an important, but hardly the dominant group in the Judaism of the first century CE. Like G o o d e n o u g h , Smith argued that Jewish magic and art provided clear evidence that non-rabbinic Judaism persisted well into "the rabbinic period." In a brilliant review article of G o o d e n o u g h ' s work. Smith observed that G o o d e n o u g h ' s mystical thesis failed to convince, but that G o o d e n o u g h , like Colum­ bus, had discovered new worlds in the process of his failure (Smith 1967). Third, the concern for varieties was abetted by a great concern for terminological precision (Smith 1983b). Smith argued that scholars use words like "Judaism," "Hellenism," "gnostic" (Smith 1981) and "apocalypse" (Smith 1983a) without realizing their ambiguities and without defining them precisely. The exact meaning of "Jew" or 'louSaioc; was a question to which he returned a number of times in

5

SHAYE J.D. COHEN

the course of his hfe. In an influential article Smith argued that Sicarii were not Zealots, and Zealots were not Sicarii; the terms and the groups must be kept distinct (Smith 1971c). Fourth, a concern for the big picture. Smith never allowed himself to be so blinded by varieties as to deny the fundamental unity of the p h e n o m e n a w e conventionally call Judaism and Christianity. A current scholarly fad is the term "Judaisms"; I believe that Smith never used this awkward word, always preferring instead "varieties of Judaism" or similar locutions. Smith believed that o n e could talk meaningfully of ancient Judaism, its patterns and paradigms (Smith 1960-1961). Similarly, o n e could even speak of "The C o m m o n Theology of the Ancient N e a r I'ast" (Smith 1952). Fifth, scorn for pseudo-scholarship, that is, pronouncements and opinions born of religious faith and confessional conviction but masquerading as "objective scholarship." Smith argued that "the Bible" is a theological category inherited from Judaism and Christiani­ ty and is an obstacle to a proper understanding of ancient Judaism and Christianity. Smith had only scorn for those wh"© believed that any truth might s o m e h o w be lurking in the N e w Testament miracle stories (except insofar as the cures might have b e e n psycho-somatically induced cures of psycho-somatically induced illnesses). Smith had only scorn t o o for those who saw any truth in the prophetic experiences of either the Old Testament or the N e w Testament, as if G o d or any god would ever or did ever communicate in such a way with humans. For Smith the ideal of scholarly objectivity could be met only through atheism or Epicureanism, that is, the assumption that if the gods exist, they intervene not at all in human affairs. (Whether Smith actually was an atheist or an Epicurean, I do not know.) Smith never tired of discomfiting the faithful. A n ordained Episco­ palian priest w h o left the church. Smith knew well that his portrait o f Jesus tlic Magician, and his picture of a Christianity d o m i n a t e d by magic, heavenly ascents, and spiritual possession, was far from the respectable, rational, middle-class Christianity of most of his readers. Smith knew well that his picture of a syncretistic Judaism living on from biblical to rabbinic times would discomfit many of his Jewish readers. Smith reveled in this. But in private life Smith was hardly the wild-eyed radical or the strident orator. In private life, on the contrary, he was staid and somewhat stiff, always well-dressed and perfectly mannered. H e was an impeccable gentleman. Flis memory will e n ­ dure.'

' O n various points I was aided by Calder 1992.

PART I

PHU.OLOOICAL

QUl-STIONS

THE

nOMTEIA

O F I S R A E L IN T H E G R A E C O - R O M A N A G E Lucio Troiani I

According t o the tenets of certain modern scholarship, the JtoXtTeia in Jewish-Hellenistic authors such as Philo, and above all Josephus, is often linked to the integration and assimilation of Judaism into Greek civic life, (I am thinking of Tcherikover's 'Prolegomena' to the Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, for example: CPJ 1.61-74). On the other hand, studies such as those of Smallwood (1976: 358ff; 1970: 5ff.) or Kasher highlight the importance of the Jewish institution in Greek civic life. In Kasher's opinion, the Jews of Alexandria were Jewish n o X i T a t , and were considered noXiTai because they had their own independent TioXtTcia. Likewise, the Jews of Sardis would have b e e n T c o X t x a t , not as citizens of the icoXtc, but as members of the Jewish T c o X t T e u f i a of Sardis, permanent residents of the city, and organized separately from theTCoXtQ(Kasher 1985: 237, 260). As the so-called Letter of Aristeas clearly shows Alexandrian Judaism delighted in giving suitable empha­ sis t o its own internal organization {Ep. Arist. 310; Jos., Ant 12 § 108; cf. D e l i a 1991). I certainly do not mean to enter here into a technicaljuridical d e b a t e as to the position of Judaism in the G r e c o - R o m a n A g e (for this s e e Juster 1914; Rabello 1980: 662-762), nor to draw any general conclusions, which is always dangerous to do. I wish only to draw attention to s o m e ancient texts which can clarify the notion of i c o X t T e i a in the context of s o m e G r e c o - R o m a n Judaism. The evidence of Josephus is naturally fundamental. In Ant 4 § 198-302, he lists everything that Moses would have arranged in the matter of KoXiTeia. T h e Greek reader, used to the political language of contemporary treatises,' discovered that the form of government was rather low o n the list (Ant 4 § 223), and that this list indicated the standards of beha­ viour: from the duty of the three pilgrimage festivals to the forbidding of blasphemy, the rules regarding sacrifices to the prohibition against insulting the city gods, the reading of the laws in the Holy City every

' Cf. P l u t a r c h ' s definitions of n o X i x e i a in De 2.826C-D.

tribus rei publicae.

generihus

12

I.u<:io TROIANI

seven years, prayers and private devotion, the laws on seed-sowing, the rules on witness, the laws o f marriage and the education of children, the forbidding of usury and legislation on theft, the norms on deposits, and the laws in time of war. As in Cicero's ideal constitution, religion is in first place. I-'urthermore, against the danger of centrifugal forces, absolute pre-eminence is given to the principle of one temple and O n e G o d ( C i c , De legibus 2.7-22). The political constitution is part of a religious system. Essentially, Josephus seems to mean by "the laws regarding the rtoAtTEta," those Jaws which would permit the Jews, especially those of the diaspora, to live respecting Mosaic legislation. Supplementing the Book of Deuteronomy, which s e e m s to be his source, Josephus states; "those coming from the ends of the earth must meet three times a year for the principal festivals in the T e m p l e of Jerusalem;" in fact "it is right, he adds, that they do not ignore each other, being conationaJs, and sharing (he same precepts" (Ant^4 § 204). A s the Second Book of Maccabees shows, KoXtTeueo&at in the laws of G o d soon b e c o m e s the slogan of Jerusalem's anti-reformists, those w h o m w e cal! orthodox. In the N e w Testament, which s e e m s in large pari to be the e c h o of the rethinking and the ideology of certain Hellenistic Judaism, the term often means the militancy in the divine laws that follows fixed laws and ethical norms (Moulton-Milligan 1930; S.V.). T h e Antiquities of Josephus, which speak of the relationship b e t w e e n Judaism and the Hellenistic and R o m a n authorities, in general understand the n o X i T e i a as a kind of honour that the kings or the Caesars gave in tribute to the Jews in exchange for their expertise and loyalty; these honours were expressed in concrete fashion, from what w e can understand, in the authorization "to use the ancestral Jaws." For example, Greeks from Ionian cities petition Marcus Agrip­ pa, Caesar Augustus' right hand man: the right to take part in the TioXiTcia granted earlier by King Antiochus II can only be given to them. They add that if the Jews want (o participate in the TroXiTeta they will have to worship the city's gods. A s has been noted by Stern, Josephus d o e s not return after explaining the situation, as we would expect him t o , to the question of "citizenship," but contends that the Jews had the right l o follow their own customs {Ant 12 §§ 125-127 = Stern 1976-84: No.86). The ambiguity between the right of citizenship and M o s e s ' TtoXiTeia {Ant 3 § 322), s e e m s to inspire these apologetic pages. According to Philo and Josephus, the concession of the n o -

T H E nOAlTF.IA OF ISRAEL

13

X t T e i a o n the part o f the authorhies, the kings or the Caesars and their representatives, to the Jews of Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, or Cyrene, equates them to citizens; "those of ours who live in Antioch call themselves Antiochians. In fact, the founder Seleucus gave them the TioXtTEta; equally the Jews of Ephesus and from the rest of Ionia have the same name as the indigenous inhabitants (AgAp 2 § 39)." Philo fears aggression, in the wake of Flaccus' odious measures, on the part of the inhabitants of Greek towns against "their Jewish fellow citizens (In Flaccum 47; 53)." The "struggle for the n o X t T c t a " with which the diplomatic mission to Caligula was charged, was sustained in order to defend "our n o X i x e i a " as abrogated by Flaccus. As Philo explicitly shows, "being Alexandrian" did not consist only in the participation of political rights (Legatio ad Gaium 349; In Flaccum 53). W h e n Josephus touches o n the subject, he usually speaks of "equal chizenship," (CooTcoXiTeia), not of "citizenship." The previous kings had c o n c e d e d "equality o f political rights" (l<jo^o\tia Ant 16 § 160) t o the Jews of Asia and o f Libya. Alexander the Great allowed the Jews of Alexandria t o live in the city "on terms of equality" Jootiotpia(;) in respect to the Greeks (JW 2 § 487). A s the edict of Claudius reported by Josephus (Ant 19 § 281) clarifies, the Jews have obtained iaoKoMreia, equal citizenship, from the kings {Stern 1976-84, 1.399403; Kasher, 1985). It was understood from the bronze stele that Julius Caesar erected for the Alexandrian Jews, as Josephus says, that they are n o X f r a i 'AXe^avSpewv and not simply Alexandrian citizens (Ant 14 § 188). A s an ancient inscription says, the iaoTioXtTcia between Milesians and Hcracleans will be such that "the Milesians will be fellow citizens of the Fleracleans, and the Heracleans of the Milesians" (SIG 633,33). By tooTtoXiTeia the citizens of Keo s are fellow citizens { a u T Q v TcoXLTttt) of the Milesians (Robert 1927: 206-207; 1974; 1977). W e observe h o w the Greek laonoXi-ztia. can be used to indicate foreign institutions and different levels of citizenship, as is shown by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who uses the term to designate nowcivitas sine suffragio now ius Latii (L6crivain 1899: 587; Oehler 1916: 22272231). In his polemical emphasis against the presumed calumnies of A p i o n , Josephus stresses that the Alexandrian Jews had "equal honour" with the Macedonians; Alexander made the Jews of Alexan­ dria J o o n o X i T a i with the Macedonians; Seleucus I "declared (the Jews) to have equal privileges" ( i o o T i ^ o u i ; a T r t c p i r j v e v ) with the Greeks and the Macedonians (Ant 12 § 119; cf. AgAp 2 § 35; Stern 1976-84,

14

l.ucio TROIANI

1 3 9 9 - 4 0 3 ; Kasher. 1985). In the decrees o f the R o m a n authorities in the Antiquities, the Jews exempted from military service are equally defined as reoXTxai 'Pwjiatuv and not as R o m a n citizens (/int 14 §§ 228, 232, 2 3 4 , 2 3 7 ) . In the first Pseudo-Clementine Homily Clement is defined in t h e same way and the report has preserved in all probability a terminology used in diaspora Judaism.^ Even a superficial reading of Josephus' texts suggests that o n e can conclude that the acquisition of the title o f noXixat, in the interpretation that he gives to these d o c u m e n t s , d o e s not e n d with the acquisition of political rights: at t h e solicitation of the R o m a n authorities, those of I ^ o d i c e a , Halicarnas­ sus, Sardis and Ephesus, for example, c o n c e d e privileges in respect of the Jewish T^oXiTeia, and it is for this reason that in Josephus t h e title of n o T d T O A for the Jews of Antioch as for those o f R o m e s e e m s really to involve the exemption of the citizen from certain duties. Josephus d o e s not speak of Jews as Alexandrian or R o m a n citizens, but TioXfTai 'AXe^av5pE6)v or 'P(d(iai6iv. They did not have the same citizenship, but equal citizenship. T h e Jewish noXtTai 'AXe^avSpcwv, "so-called Alexandrians." as the above quoted edict of Claudius illustrates, are established in the city together with the Alexandrians from the very beginning, having obtained "equal citizenship" from t h e (Ptolemaic) kings (Ant 19 § 281). It is legitimate t o ask whether the title of "Ephesians," "Alexandrians," "Romans," "Antiochians," or "Sardians," referring t o the Jews of the G r e c o - R o m a n A g e , should not b e linked t o t h e institution of JooKoXtTcta.^ As Ant 19 § 306 explains, t h e Jews have obtained the privilege "to enjoy the same civil rights as t h e Greeks" (ouiinoXtTeuea&ai xoti; "EXXTIOIV). The disorder which broke out in Caesarea between the Jews and t h e Syrians, did not really concern the noXtTeia, but the iaonoXtxEta. T h e Syrians of the city tried t o extort a letter from N e r o , that would abrogate t h e Jewish iaonoXixeia (Ant 20 §§ 182-184). O n e o f the explanations of these expressions is that offered by Kasher. H i s thorough and erudite analysis depicts an autonomously organized urban Judaism, and inter[)rets the Jewish noXtxeia as being really a political entity, separate inside the o n e TC6XI{;, o n an equal basis with the Greeks. A s Philo explains, however, participation in political rights

' Ps Clem, Homiliae 1,1.1: iyio K^TJFNII;, Tutiaiwv noXtTYji; uv. ' Robert 1964: 54-55;/im 14 §§235, 245, 259; Trebilco 1991; Philo,/n f/accum 47: n o X t T a n ; a u T w v 'iou5aioii;.

THE

nOMTElA

OF ISRAEL

15

was o n e of the c o m p o n e n t s of the iroXiTEia (In Flacc 53). In his view, urban Judaism feared that the negative judgment of Cahgula against the TtoXiTcta of the Alexandrian Jews w o u l d signal the abrogation of the laws of M o s e s and of the rights the Hebrews had in c o m m o n with each of the cities (Legatio 371). An almost unbreakable bond s e e m s to be established between the right of citizenship, (of Alexandria as of Antioch), and Moses' n o X t r c i a , as much in the general view as in the use of the terms. If they are not "Antiochians" or "Alexandrians," they cannot observe the Mosaic laws. In the concession of the TIOXITEIA on the part of the authorities, as we noted above, Josephus stresses "using the native laws." I'or this TtoXtTeia also s e e m s to have pre-eminent ideological value in our texts, and indicates active m e m ­ bership in Judaism. The itoXiTEta is, above all, the constitution of Moses. This superimposition can be expressed in the formula of the t a o n o X t T e i a : in point of fact, the expression used by Philo to indicate the juridical situation of the Jews in the Greek cities, ("rights in c o m m o n with each of noXetc;"), recalls the clauses for those w h o wanted to exercise the rights of the citizen in the decrees of the CaoTcoXiTEia (cf. Robert 1927: 206-207; 1974; 1977).

II Philo of Alexandria wrote his Legatio ad Gaium at the time of Claudi­ us. Although it deals only incidentally with the vicissitudes of a delegation of Alexandrian Jews in R o m e , headed by Philo himself. They had c o m e l o plead the case of the Jews of their city after the disorder which broke out in Alexandria in June, 38 CE. The delegates, anxious about the possible outcome of the audience with the eccentric Caesar (Gaius Caligula), were constantly moving around trying to follow the trail of the restless and unpredictable Caesar. Their expecta­ tions were abruptly put in proportion by a very upsetting piece of news. Word came that the emperor had expressed his intention to introduce an idol of colossal dimensions into the Holy of H o l i e s of the Jerusalem Temple. The news prompted a train of thought in Philo that can perhaps be useful for our argument. According to him, the threatened desecration of the Temple makes the mission's purpose suddenly futile. H e reasons that the efforts "to show that we are Alexandrians," are absolutely pointless, "when the more general TcoXiTEia of the Jews is in very grave danger" (Legatio 194). The

16

lAJCio TROIANI

expression w o u l d s e e m to indicate tiiat the "struggle f o r the n o X t T c t a " that the delegation was called upon t o sustain in front of Caesar, regarded, as in t h e case of t h e documents handed down by Josephus, the defence of s o m e practices connected to "the more general T^OXIT E t a o f the Jews." T h e fears of the pious ambassadors were that the rumored desecration of the Temple would expose the J e w s indiscrimi­ nately to a situation of "irreparable illegality" {Legatio 190). Worries about the Alexandrian n o X i T E i a again enter into t h e s a m e context: "How will if b e possible to open our mouths in front of Caligula regarding the profaned synagogues, when h e is about t o profane the Holiest?" In Philo's description, the diplomatic mission presented itself t o Caesar to ask for the restoration of those standards that guaranteed life to the Alexandrian Jews in accordance with the laws of Moses. T h e contemplated attack by t h e emperor against t h e more general n o X i T E i a of the Jews produced in its extreme conse­ quences the s a m e dangers run by the Alexandrian noXixtia. Philo s e e m s t o s e c t h e Alexandrian n o X t T E i a as part of a "more general" n o X t T E i a . Naturally, his writing is apologetic. Judaism for him is represented by congregations consisting largely of t h e pious, w h o s e only concern is not t o change even a title of the precepts of t h e fathers, which have the age-old approval of the established authority. T o fight for the TtoXiTtia means to fight "not t o abandon everything to irredeemable illegality." A s is natural, the link between the u o X t TEttx and observant Judaism returns in other apologetic writings o f the R o m a n A g e . We can legitimately ask if Philo's celebrated outburst in the preamble t o t h e third book of his De specialibus legibus, in which he laments having been distracted from the meditative life by t h e solicitudes in the TcoXtTEia, does not again refer t o his activities as defender of observant Judaism. A s wc understand immediately after­ wards, this activity must have encountered opposition. H i s exegetical work rather than his political activity must have b e e n p u t in question. Philo has harsh words for those w h o "have a dislike for t h e n o X i T E t a of t h e fathers" {Spec. leg. 3.3-6; Conf. ling. 2-4). According t o 3 Mace 3:4, observant Judaism in Alexandria is o p p o s e d to the impious w h o have abandoned t h e laws o f the fathers; the pious Jews refused t o have anything to d o with the pagans "worshipping G o d a n d conducting t h e m s e l v e s by His law," (xti) TOUTOU v6(i([) TIOXIT£U6[XEVOI). In t h e

Fourth Book of Maccabees, a sermon crammed with ideas that are predominantly identified as stoic, the faithfulness of the heroic martyrs of the persecution of King Antiochus is expressed in the s a m e way.

THR

IIOMTEIA

OF' ISRAEL

17

T h e captivating words of the tyrant Antiochus seek to induce the martyrs to "renounce the native statute of your jioXtxeia." In the s o l e m n dedication, which the author sees as a fitting epitaph for the fallen heroes, he speaks of "the violence of the tyrant who wanted to wipe out the TcoXtTetot of the Hebrews" (4 Mace 17:9; 5:16; 8:7). In the apologetic prose of G r e c o - R o m a n Judaism, faithful observance of the M o s a i c Law is in reality seen as a sort of civil obedience. A n inscrip­ tion from Stobi, presumably belonging to the end of the third century CE, celebrates Claudius Tiberius Polycharmus, also called Achyrius, "the father of the synagogue of Stobi," noXiTcuaajxevoc J t a o a v TtoXctTEtav x a m t o v 'louSaiotiov. A s Prey's commentary on the inscription explains, the expression means that the donor has con­ formed his entire conduct during his life to the laws and customs of the fathers, i.e., has b e e n a practicing Jew {CIJ 1 N o . 694; s e e also H e n g e l 1966). In Justin's Dialogue with Tryphon we find analogous expressions. A s is natural, diaspora Judaism, even of the most obser­ vant kind, did not exist in isolation. It assimilated expressions from the outside world. Plutarch shows us that among the various meanings of icoXtTEta there is also that of a particularly splendid single action, carried out in the public interest, "such as donations of money, the ending of a war, the introduction of a decree" (De tribus rei publicae generibus 2.826C-D). On the other hand, in the language of Imperial inscriptions noXtTEUEo&ai and iioXiTEia do not indicate the exercise of rights of citizenship. Such is the case, for example, with the formula TtoXtTEUoiJiEvoc S e itat i v roiiQ x a T o . Auntav TtoXeoi naaaic, in the Lycian inscriptions. The individuals in the Lycian inscriptions do not have the right of citizenship in all cities, but have performed services in the public interest in ail the cities. A s lx>u\s Robert explains, TcoXiTeia in the Imperial A g e often has the meaning of "civic activity," "civic duty" (Robert 1968: 325). The Jewish communities were so often in danger of being overwhelmed by the rampant conformism of the socalled outside world that faithful observance of the Mosaic law must have b e e n considered by them a very real civic activity, and in conse­ quence, a title of distinction and an example for the whole community.

Ill Observance of the Mosaic law indicated membership in the Jewish nation, persistence in the T c o X t T E i a showed who the real T i o X i T a i were. T h e Jewish expert in Greek literature who invited his fellow Jews in

18

LUCK) TROIANI

the cities to return to the law of M o s e s and n o t to allow themselves to be s e d u c e d by the charms of the Gospel, addressing them, in Greek, with the term " n o X i T a i , " left Origen incredulous (Contra Celsum 2:1). In the ordinance of Dolabella to the municipal authorities at E p h e s u s the envoy o f Hyrcanus II, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, is defined inoXiTirji; of the Jews of Asia Minor (Ant 14 § 226). Similarly, in the decree of the city of Sardis that permits the Jewish community to "live according to the laws," the Jewish izoXiTai who live in the city are perhaps subjects of Hyrcanus il, as has been proposed by Elias Bickerman (Ant 14 §§ 259-60; Bickerman 1958: 335 n. 39). A s Philo explains in the final part of his Legatio ad Gaium the Jews observe t h e "special laws" (of Moses) in their civic context, while enjoying the political rights of their respective cities (Legatio 371; d.Anl 14 § 2 3 5 ) . Perhaps for this reason the Jews of Alexandria or of R o m e are not defined by our sources as being "Alexandrian citizens," or "Roman citizens." The n o X i T e t a went beyond the rights o f citizenship in the single city. It must have also indicated the bond that united the Jews of the Greek diaspora, who were therefore n o X i T a i . 'ITiis interpreta­ tion which we obtain from reading s o m e ancient texts will naturally have a bearing on the most disparate and unpredictable cases. In Luke's parable the Prodigal Son, having squandered the m o n e y inherited from his father in vice and loose living, was able to live by putting himself into the service of o n e of the noXi^rat of the region in an unspecified far-off land.* A s the concordance to Josephus indicates, o n e of the centra! meanings of the term noXiTiii; in his work, is "conational" (Rcngstorff 1973-83: 3.476). Similarly Caesar, the young s o n of Germanicus, according to Philo rebukes King Agrippa for the arrogance "of your fine and g o o d TcoXiTcti." In an apologetic passage Philo explains that "the Jews w e l c o m e foreigners who show respect and consideration for them, n o less than their own TtoXtTat" (Legatio 265; 211). Philo has harsh words for those fxixpoTioXrTai w h o w o u l d interpret the profound truth of the Scriptures in a dull way (De somn. 1.39). T o use a felicitous expression of Martin G o o d m a n , "like the R o m a n s and different from the Greeks, the Jews accepted the notion that their politeia was not fbced to any particular locality" ( G o o d m a n 1 9 9 2 : 6 1 ) . Acccording to 2 Mace 9:17-19, after tremendous punishment

' L u k e \5:\5\ Ep. Arist. 3 distinguishes TOFC; ouv EAUTCP (i.e. E l e a z a r , t h e High Priest) from T O I ^ x a r a TOUI; aXXous; TONOUI; n o X i T a i t ; .

THE nOAITElA

OF ISRAEL

19

inflicted by Heaven, King Antiochus decided to b e c o m e a Jew. In a letter stating this he turns to the Jewish jioXtxai as a consequence, wishing them health and prosperity. We might suspect that the term was already present in the work of Jason of Cyrene, a diaspora Jew. In the symbolic language used by Philo for the exegesis of the Old Testament, full citizenship is made to coincide significantly with the acquisition of suitable title for being members of Israel. Philo also uses the verb K o X t r e u o t i a i frequently to express observance of the Mosaic laws. W e s e e how another diaspora Jew, perhaps a younger c o n t e m p o ­ rary of Philo's, Paul of Tarsus, protests "in all good conscience" his qualifications as an observant Jew, using the same expression in front of the Sanhedrin, arousing the disdain and anger of the high priest.^ liph 2:12 reminds its addressees that "once they were deprived of or alienated from the itoXtTeia of Israel" (anTjXXoTpiwfievot Tiit; TIOXIT e i a ( ; TOIJ 'lopaTjX). The same expression occurs again in Col 1:21. As 3 Mace 1:3 shows, the verb otTiaXXoTptow might preferably be used to indicate the abandoning of the precepts of the fathers (Hatch-Redpath 1897: 116). In the first Pseudo-Clementine Homily the preaching of Jesus has the purpose of "readjusting the noXtTEia of the Jews" (1.6.2). Jewish apologetic in Greek language delighted in connecting the noXiTEia to the origins of Greek urban Judaism, preceding the actual founding of the cities. Philo emphasizes the "foresight of Moses," who wanted the Jews "to seek their laws not after having obtained the cleruchies and having lived in the city, laws by which they would have been ruled; instead they had to settle with the rules of the n o X i T e i a already ready" {De Decal. 15). In a book of propaganda attributed to the Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, an authority on Greek ethnography at the time of the Diadochi, a Jewish high priest, a certain Rzechias, who is depicted as a valued advisor of King Ptolemy, had the noXtxeta written when on the point of founding another Jewish colony in ligypt (Stern, 1976-84: 1, N o . 12 = AgAp 1 § 189). In Philo's above-mentioned outburst {Spec. leg. 3.3-6) "the great sea of worries in the TcoXixcta," s e e m s to refer to exactly this context. T h e K o X i x E i a is first of all that of Moses. In fact he protests: "I not only d o dare draw near the sacred exegesis of M o s e s , but also . . . to unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude." As the

' Acts 23:1-2; Philo, Leg. all. 3.2; De somn, Praem. 4; G. Mayer 1974: s.v.

1.48; Spec. leg. 4.219; Virtut. 161;

20

LUCIO TROIANI

papyrus letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians fortuitously reveals, the diplomatic mission led by our author was only o n e of two Jewish delegations, "as if the Jews were residents in two cities" {CPJ 2 , N o . 153.90-91).

T o sum up, in the Jewish texts of the diaspora, which are for the most part apologetic and edifying, K o X t x E i a and TcoXtTT]<; c o m e to mean s o m e t i m e s a sort of "civic" obedience, almost promoting the clich6 that the urban Judaism of the G r e c o - R o m a n A g e exercised its own particular citizenship, parallel and equal to that of the "native" citizens. Josephus explains that the Jews of Ephesus "have the s a m e name as the indigenous citizens" {AgAp 2 § 3 9 ) . A s a rule, iaonoXiT E t a would allow the Jewish citizenry to reconcile their dual loyalties, to M o s e s and to the iroXit;. T o the R o m a n tribune w h o had mistaken him for an Egyptian fomenter of disorder, Paul proudly replies that he is a Jew from Tarsus, tcoXitiiq of a not unimportant city of Cilicia (Acts 2 1 : 3 7 - 3 9 ) .

IV When w e read of the noXirai in the texts of Hellenistic Judaism, w e should not forget its basic text, the Septuagint. As the lexicons instruct us ( H a t c h - R e d p a l h 1 8 9 7 : 1 J 8 0 ; Zorell 1 9 0 4 : s.v.), the Alexandrian translation often uses the term 7ioXtTT)c for the Hebrew word "fellow citizen" (V"i). In the Greek translation o f the Book o f Proverbs the Greek speaking Jew read that "the snare for the noXtxat is in the mouths of the impious" (Prov 1 1 : 9 L X X ) , in accordance with a model constantly proposed by parenetic literature, (e.g., in the B o o k s of Maccabees). Thus it came about that the term "citizen" made its entry into the patriarchal and seminomadic society of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ( G e n 2 3 : U L X X ) . The men instructed by M o s e s are defined by Josephus as "citizens" {Ans 1 § 2 1 ) . The invective in the CJreck version of Jeremiah was hurled against those w h o committed adultery with the wives of their TroXfTat ( 3 6 | 2 9 1 : 2 3 L X X ) . According to his prophecy (Jer 3 8 | 3 1 ] : 3 4 L X X ) as quoted in H e b 8 : 1 1 , on the day in which Israel will b e a p e o p l e for G o d , "no-one will instruct his own reoXiTrii; any more." T h e Greek version of the Book of Proverbs again admonishes not to bear false witness "against o n e of your own noXiTat" (Prov 2 4 : 4 3 [ 2 8 ] L X X ) . The anonymous author of the Second Book of Maccabees w h o claims to summarize the five books of a work by a Jew

THR nOMTElA OV ISRAEL

21

of the Greek diaspora, Jason of Cyrene, speaks of s o m e hostile behaviour toward his fellow Jews, the - j z o X i T a t (2 Mace 5:23). It is no wonder then, that in Christian texts which seem largely to derive from the meditations and rethinking of the Jewish diaspora in the Greek language, faithfulness to the Gospel comes to be compared to a sort of civic loyalty. Paul invites the Philippians to icoXtTEueaS^ai in a way befitting Christ's Gospel (Phil 1:27). Citizenship of heaven will b e c o m e o n e of the most popular slogans of Christian kerygma. Paul already proclaims that "our noXiTcufxa is in Heaven" (Phil 3:20). The anony­ m o u s rhetorician of the Letter to Diognetus declares that the Christians are spending a short time on earth, but that their i t o X t T e i a is else­ where, they are "citizens of Heaven." He stresses that which he calls "the paradox of Christian life." It consists among other things of the singular contrast b e t w e e n on the one hand the simple and anonymous way of life which on the surface conforms to the different local usages, and on the other hand the marvels of the inner being and the moral revolution announced by them in the secrecy of their conscience: "they show the praiseworthy, but certainly paradoxical nature of the constitu­ tion of their TioXtreia" {Diogn. 5). In the Jewish community, as in the Christian o n e , the connecting bond is not only the worship of a god; active participation in Judaism or Christianity requires obedience and standards of behaviour imposed by a real and actual 'constitution'. As Josephus shows, the persistence of the TioXiTeta e n d e d in exasperating its detractors {Ant 3 § 322). O n e could be active in the Christian at'pEaic, as in that of the Phari­ sees, yet be part of the very same itoXiTEia. T h e observance of Judaism is put o n the same level as the laws of the city, Socrates is a martyr for Jews and Christians. An adversary like Apion can exclaim "why then, if they are uoXtxai, d o they not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians?" (AgAp 2 § 65).

V This picture, based primarily on ancient literary texts, naturally reflects the aspirations and ambitions of an elite; w e may suspect that not all of diaspora Judaism proved so careful and solicitous for the TCOXITEICX as a Philo, or the zealous authors of the Books of Maccabees, to whom we o w e large part of what w e know about so-called Hellenistic Judaism. W e can imagine that Josephus' fears for the noXixeta of the

22

I.ucio TROIANI

Jewish communities, above all for the great centers of the ancient Mediterranean, worries that reverberate through the entire structure of his b o o k s of Hellenistic and R o m a n history, were not in reality s o c o m m o n or widespread. The picture of a Judaism on the defensive and b e s i e g e d by an idolatrous external world, is a cliche created by its proponents. T h e Maccabaean epics, the four Books of Maccabees, proudly vindicate the noXiTeia and claim a superior o b e d i e n c e against occasional dissident voices inside it. On the other hand, the JewishHellenistic historians, whose works were transmitted by Christians, served to enlighten readers on the protohistory, so to speak, of the C'hristian movement. They were consulted on ancestral history. A s the philosopher Epictetus suggested at the beginning of the s e c o n d century CE, adherence to Judaism did not prevent frequent compromises. They led to his grave and austere question, "Why d o you pass your­ selves off as Greek, when you are a Jew?" At times, the most uninhib­ ited and vitriolic intellectuals of the Julio-Claudian age, such as Petronius, could pillory the implacable {and broken) rigour that the Jewish KoXtTEta had to impose on its adherents in the Greek city. Certainly, the diffusion of this sort of civil o b e d i e n c e must have s e e m e d to a Seneca or a Tacitus, a very real threat of "superstition" against free civil living. Strabo could speak of the ethnarch of Alexan­ dria as an absolute chief, who didn't depend on an superior power," he c o m m a n d s over an a u t o n o m o u s and sovereign noXixeia" (Stern 1974-84: 1, N o s . 254, 195, 186, 105; 2, N o . 281). From the times of (?yrus, the n o X i T E i a was imposed on the Jewish community by the authorities. For this reason, in the passages from Josephus' Antiquities on the rights of the Jews to the noXtTeia, the emphasis is always placed on "using the native laws." For this reason again, in Philo, in the troubled and uneasy audience with Caligula, the o u t c o m e of the audience on "Alexandrian citizenship" is c o n n e c t e d indissolubly with the destiny of all the other cities of the empire: "What other city will remain tranquil? Which will not attack the Jews that live there? Which synagogue will be left intact?" (Philo, Legatio 349-373; Bickerman 1935; 1946).

'lOYAAIOI TO n - N O I A N D R H I A T H D KXPRI^SSIONS IN J O S E P H U S Shaye J. D . Cohen

T h e goals of this paper are rather modest. In twelve or thirteen passages Josephus describes various persons as 'Iou8aro<;/'Iou8ai'ot (TO) yevoc,. What exactly d o e s this phrase mean? This modest question impinges directly on two immodest questions, which I cannot avoid entirely here but which await detailed investigation: what exactly d o e s 'louSaio.;/ 'louSarot m e a n in Josephus? how d o e s Josephus understand Jewish identity and "Jewishness"?^ I H e r e are the Josephan passages. The translations are drawn from the L o e b Classical Library edition of Josephus, 1. JW 2 § 101: "At this time a young man who, though by birth a Jew ('Iou5atO(; [IEV TO yiwo), had b e e n brought up at Sidon at the h o u s e of a R o m a n freedman . . . passed himself off as the prince Alexander." Paralleled by text 6 below. 2. JW2% 119: "The followers . . . of the third [of the three schools of Jewish philosophy] are called Essenes . . . . Of Jewish birth ('louS a t o i fiev yevoi; OVTE.;), they show a greater attachment to each other than d o the other sects." 3. JW2^ 308: "For Florus ventured that day to d o what n o n e had ever d o n e before, namely, to scourge before his tribunal and nail to the cross men of equestrian rank (avSpac; IKKI-KOU), men w h o , if Jews by birth, were at least invested with that Roman dignity (ti x a i TO ytMOi^ 'louSarov aXXcc YOOV TO fit^tw^ict 'P&)[Aatx6v ^v)," 'Hie text is somewhat uncertain.^

' O n the varied m e a n i n g s of t h e word ' I o u S a f o i ; / o i , see (inter alia) L o w e 1976 and 1981; Solin 1983: 647-651; T o m s o n 1986; K r a e m e r 1989; C o h e n 1990; Smith (forthcoming). I know of n o study of J o s e p h u s ' conception of Jewish identity a n d Jewishness. ' Instead of 'lou5aiov, s o m e manuscripts (followed by Niese) read ' l o u S a i u v , o t h e r s ' l o u S a i o i . T h e s e readings preserve t h e appositional formula, while t h e text

24

SliAYIi J.O.

COHEN

4. Ant 11 § 207: "Some time afterward Bagathoos and T h e o d e s t e s plotted against the king, but Barnabazos, the servant of o n e of these eunuchs, w h o was a Jew by race ( t o yiy/OQ wv 'louBarot;), discovered their plot." 5. Ant 17 § 141: "This A c m e was a Jewess by birth ( ' l o u S a i a (xev TO yiwc.) but a slave of Caesar's wife Julia." 6. Ant 17 § 324; "After these matters had been disposed of by C'aesar, there appeared a young man, Jewish by birth ('louSatoc; [xev TO yivoc.) but brought up in the city of Sidon by a R o m a n freedman, w h o represented himself as related to Herod." Paralleled by text 1 above. 7. Ant 18 § 103: "Artabanus sent as a hostage to Tiberius his son Darius, together with many gifts, a m o n g which he included a man seven cubits tall, a Jew by race ('louSafov t o yi'^oQ), n a m e d lileazar, who on account of his size was called the Giant." 8. Ant 18 § 1%; "[One of Agrippa's fellow prisoners s e e s Agrippa and inquires as to his identity.) U p o n learning that his name was Agrippa, that he was a Jew by race ('louBafov Se t o yt-^oc,), and that he was o n e of the most notable men of Judaea , he asked the soldier . . . to allow him to approach." 9. Ant 20 § 173: "There arose also a quarrel between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea on the subject of equal civic rights. T h e Jews claimed that they had the precedence because the founder of Caesarea, their king Herod, had been of Jewish descent ('Hp65if]v a u T t J V [iaotXEa ytyovivcu t o Yevoq 'louSarov)^; the Syrians admitted what they said about Herod, but asserted . . . ." 10. Life § 16: "L-anding safely at Dicaearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, 1 formed a friendship with Aliturus, an actor (fit^ioXo-YOc) w h o was a special favourite of N e r o and of Jewish origin" ('louSarot; t o yiwc.)." 11. Life § 382: "The king [Agrippa] promised to c o m e [to the aid of Tiberias], writing a letter in reply, which he handed to a Jew n a m e d Crispus (KptoTiw T o u v o j x a , t o S e yivoQ 'Iou5at({)), a g r o o m of the bedchamber."

p r i m e d in the L o e b edition d o e s not. T h e m e a n i n g is u n c h a n g e d . ' T h e epitome reads 'Iciu5aiov yi\ti. * 'lou&aro;; TO yimQ is o m i t t e d by o n e testimonium.

lOYAAIOS T O I"ENOZ

25

12. Life § 427: "Afterwards 1 [Josephus] married a w o m a n of Jewish extraction (TO Se ytwc, 'iouSaiav) who had settled in O e t e . She c a m e o f very distinguished parents, indeed the most notable p e o p l e in that country." 13. AgAp 1 §§ 178-179: "'Well,' said Aristotle, 'in accordance with the precepts o f rhetoric, let us begin by describing his race (TO ykvoc, a ' u T o u ) . . . the man was a Jew of Coele-Syria (TO [ l e v yevoc; r|v 'lou-

Saiot; E z Tijc; xotXi^c Supia*;). These people are descended from the Indian philosophers. The philosophers, they say, are in India called Calani, in Syria by the territorial name o f Jews (jiapct 5E Zupott; 'louSatot, T o u v o ^ i a X a p 6 v T £ ( ; A,TC6 ToiJ TOTCOU); for the district which they inhabit is known as Judaea.'" This passage, o f course, is a quotation from Clearchus o f Soli and not by Josephus, but I am including t h e passage in my corpus for the sake o f completeness. The Ix>eb translators consistently translate ' l o u S a i o c / a "Jewish" or "Jew/ess," but adopt various translations for TO yk\oc,. They take Y E v o c to m e a n ' e i t h e r "birth" ("a Jew by birth," 1,2,3,5,6), or "race" ( " a Jew by race," 4,7,8), which in this context ! assume has the equivalent force o f the word "nation" {yi\oc, = E&VOI; and Xa6<;), or "origin" ("of Jewish descent," 9; "of Jewish origin," 10; " o f Jewish extraction," 12; 1 assume that these translations are synonymous). T h e word Y E v o t ; has other meanings too, o f course, both within and without the Josephan corpus (Feldman 1992a: 7 n. 18), but these other mean­ ings d o not enter into consideration here.^ In the phrase 'louSafoc; TO Y e v o < ; , the word Y^'^O'; means either birth, nation, or origin. In two passages t h e L o e b translation omits the word altogether ( U , J 3 ) , as if the words TO yivoc, add nothing to 'louSaioc;. T h e I ^ e b translators ignore the ambiguity o f °IouSatO(;, an ambigu­ ity even greater than that of TO y^voi;. 'loMtaXoc, can be either an "ethnic-geographic" term or a "religious" term.'^ A s an ethnic-geo­ graphic term, it designates s o m e o n e who is a member of the nation ( e S ^ v o c , Xa6<;, s o m e t i m e s yi\o
^ F e l d m a n shows that yi^oi^ does n o t always m e a n ' n a t i o n , " b u t d o e s not clearly distinguish b e t w e e n t h e meanings that it d o e s have. * Solin 1983: 647 n. 150, correctly notes that Lowe 1976 overemphasizes t h e geographical aspect, virtually ignores the ethnic aspect, and l o o cleanly s e p a r a t e s t h e geographical from t h e religious aspect. But Lowe's discussion is good n o n e t h e l e s s ; o n J o s e p h u s see Lowe 1976: 104-105.

26

SIIAYE J.I). COHEN

'louSarot; is inseparably linked with a geographic meaning, just as the terms Phrygian, Egyptian, Lydian, etc. are both ethnic and geographic. In certain contexts, of course, the ethnic meaning may have primacy over the geographic, while in other contexts the geographic meaning may have primacy over the ethnic, but both meanings are always present. A s an ethnic-geographic term "louSato.; is more ambiguous than Phrygia, Egypt, Lydia, etc. because 'louSaict is the name of both a country and a specific part of that country. ' l o u S a t a is the n a m e of the entire land of Israel, including its districts Idumaea, Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, etc.; ' l o u S a i a is also the name of a specific district, Judaea, in contrast with the other districts Idumaea, Galilee, Peraea, Samaria, etc. (for example,/>K 2 § 95-96. 247; 3 § 3 5 - 5 8 ; / I m 13 § 50; 17 § 318319). Thus, a 'louSaioc;, that is, an inhabitant of Judaea, can be contrasted with an Idumaean, Galilean. Peraean, Samarian, etc. This usage is attested most clearly \nJW2 § 43 (my translation): A countless multitude ran together (to J e r u s a l e m ) from G a l i l e e a n d from I d u m a e a , from J e r i c h o and from P e r a e a beyond the J o r d a n , but t h e g e n u i n e n a t i o n from J u d a e a itself ( 6 y\T\at.o<^

aiiTii(; louSaioc.; Xao^) e x c e e d e d

t h e m in botli n u m b e r and eagerness.

T h e parallel in Aiu 17 § 254 runs as follows (my translation): M a n y , many myriads of people gathered t o g e t h e r [in J e r u s a l e m ] , G a l i l e a n s and I d u m a e a n s , a multitude of Jerichonians and those who dwell across the J o r d a n . And of t h e J u d a e a n s themselves (auTuv ' l o u S a i w v ) t h e r e was a m u l t i t u d e w h o joined all t h e s e and who w e r e much m o r e e a g e r t h a n t h e others.

I think that these two texts mean the same thing even if the wording of the War is much more striking than that of the Antiquilies'.

The

nation from Judaea itself is genuine (YVTJOIO.;) in that the n a m e 'louSaiot is entirely appropriate to them, while it is only partly appropriate for Galileans, Idumaeans, and Peraeans. CJalileans et al. are 'louSaroi insofar as they inhabit the land of ' l o u S a i a broadly defined and are members of the ESVOC; of the 'louSarot broadly defined, but insofar as they d o not live in ' l o u S a t a narrowly defined and are not members of the £&MO<; of the 'louSafoi narrowly defined - Galileans like Idumaeans can be said to constitute an t&voc of their own {JW 2 § 510; 4 § 105, 243, 272; Ant

15 § 257)

- they are not

lOVAAIOI TO n - N O I

27

'louSaiot. Only the 'louSarot of ' l o u S a i a narrowly defined are 'louSaiot in all respects. In several other passages t o o Josephus explicitly or implicitly distinguishes 'louSafot from Galileans and Idumaeans, but in other passages Josephus includes both of these groups a m o n g the 'louSatoi.' Separate from, or in addition to, this ethnic-geographic meaning, UouBatoc can also have a religious meaning. A 'louSaVoc; is s o m e o n e who believes (or is supposed to believe) certain distinctive tenets, a n d / o r follows (or is supposed to follow) certain distinctive practices, a n d / o r is a m e m b e r (or is supposed to be a member) of certain distinctive religious organizations — in other words, a 'louSatoc; is a Jew, s o m e o n e w h o follows Judaism, the way of life of the Jews. T h e clearest Josephan examples of this usage occur in the Antiquities' account of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene: Izates realizes that "to truly be a 'louSaroc;" (eivat ^t^aioQ 'louSatoO is impossible without circumcision (Ant 20 § 38), but his mother warns him that his subjects will not tolerate rule by a king who is a 'louSaroc (Ant 2 0 § 39).^ In these passages, which speak about conversion to Judaism, the ethnic-geographic meaning of 'louSaiOi; is entirely absent, and only a religious meaning is intended. A gentile can b e c o m e a 'louSaroi;, a Jew.

^Idumaeans: 'Ilie I d u m a e a n contingent is explicitly g r o u p e d a m o n g the ' l o u S a i o i in JW 6 § 1 4 8 . It is Antigonus, not J o s e p h u s , w h o calls H e r o d "an I d u m a e a n , that is, a half Jew" {Anl 14 § 4 0 3 ) . Of course before the I l a s m o n e a n c o n q u e s t s the I d u m a e a n s are not ' l o u S a i o i (Ant 11 § 6 1 ; 12 § 3 2 7 - 3 2 8 , 3 5 3 ) . Galileans: FotXiXaioi are 'louSaVoi: JW 2 § 2 3 2 (but note that the parallel in Ant 2 0 § 1 1 8 m a k e s n o such implication); 3 § 2 2 9 (frequently in this section, beginning with 3 § 1 1 0 , J o s e p h u s a l t e r n a t e s b e t w e e n 'lou&aioi and r a X i X a i o t ) ; v 4 « f 13 § 154 ( D e m e t r i u s supposes that J o n a t h a n will not let the G a l i l e a n s b e attacked because they a r e "his"; text s o m e w h a t shaky); 18 § 3 8 (the foundation of T i b e r i a s violates the ancestral usages of the ' l o u S a i o i ) ; 2 0 § 4 3 (a ' l o u S a f o i ; from G a l i l e e ) ; Life § 7 4 ('lou5tx.roi live in C a e s a r e a Philippi - or does ' l o u S a i o t h e r e m e a n "Ju­ d a e a n s " ? ) ; § 113 ( J o s e p h u s refers to the Galileans as J o u S a t o i ) . FaXiXaioi are not 'loo^aioi: Ant 2 0 § 1 2 0 (contrast between FaXiXaioi a n d T O nXT)9oc; T U V 'IOUSai(i)v); Life § 3 4 6 (Sepphoris forbade any of its citizens from serving with the ' l o u S a i o i ) ; § 3 4 9 ( n o city of ' l o u S a i o i near Tiberias); c f § 2 2 1 ( ' l o u S a i o c ; probably means Judaean). ' C f "the king has b e c o m e a Jew" ('louSafoi; yi^o-vfj 6 BaotXevti;, Bel and the D r a g o n 2 8 ) , a n d the d e a t h b e d promise of Antiochus H p i p h a n e s that h e would b e c o m e a J e w ('louBai'ov eoeo&ai) and proclaim the power of G o d ( 2 M a c e 9 : 1 7 ) .

28

SHAVE J.D. COHBN

T h e religious meaning is evident too in another passage (Am 2 0 § 142), "He [Felix] sent to her [Drusilla] o n e of his friends, a Jew n a m e d A t o m o s , a Cyprian by birth [or: by nation, Kuicpiov TO ykmc]"^ This is the only Josephan passage in which a person is said to be both a 'louSafoc and a member TO yivot^ of an ethnic-geographic group (in this case, Cyprians). It is possible that 'louSaroi; here has a geographic meaning ( A t o m o s is ethnically a Cyprian but is residing in Judaea), but surely it is much simpler to take 'louSaiot; as a religious term ( A t o m o s is a Cyprian but a Jew). The passage, then, is analogous to Mark 7:26, "the w o m a n was Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth ('EXXi^vtc;. 2]upoc p o t v t K t o o a T<j) f£V£i)." The term "Greek" "liXXTiv - 'E>XTjvt<; is n o less ambiguous than 'louSatoc, but the presence of an unambiguous ethnic-geographic term ("Syro-Phoenician") implies that "Greek" should be construed here as a religious term, meaning "pagan." In many passages, of course, perhaps most, the religious meaning is present alongside the ethnic-geographic meaning, but the distinction is important nonetheless. In order to highlight the distinction between the ethnic-geographic and the religious uses of the term, I shall translate 'louSatoc; "Judaean" when the former meaning is paramount, and "Jew" when the latter is paramount. To summarize: the L o e b translators give three different translations for the phrase 'Iou5aro<; TO yiwc;, but these three d o not take into account the ambiguity of the word 'louSaVot;. T h e phrase might be translated in any of the following five ways: a Jew by birth a Jew by origin a Judaean by birth a Judaean by origin a Judaean by nation T h e last three of these are in turn rendered somewhat ambiguous b e c a u s e "Judaea" can have either a narrow or a broad meaning. I omit "a Jew by nation" (equivalent to the Loeb's "a Jew by race") b e c a u s e o n c e w e have distinguished between "Jews" (a religious term) and "Judaeans" (an ethnic-geographic term), the translation "a Jew by nation" b e c o m e s a logical impossibility. Jews did not constitute an e&voQ, Judaeans did. The distinction between "Judaean by birth" and

' T h e text is s o m e w h a t uncertain: some testimonia r e a d "one of his Jewish f r i e n d s ' ( T Q V i a u T o O (piXojv l o u S a i u v ) rather than "one of his friends, a Jew" ( T U V fcauToij fiy<^yi 'louSatov); some manuscripts read Xifiwv instead of " A T O J I O C ; .

lOYAAlOS TO r E N O E

29

"Judaean by nation" will be, in the vast majority of cases, insignificant. A "Judaean by birth" will be, in the vast majority of cases, a member of the Judaean e&voi;, and a "Judaean by nation" will be, in the vast majority of cases, a Judaean by birth. The expressions are virtually synonymous, differing only in nuance. H T h e phrase 'louSatot; TO -yevoc has many analogues in the Josephan corpus. Josephus regularly uses TO yiwc, (or TW yevei or yivti or Y£V0(;) in apposition to adjectives or proper nouns denoting origin. T h e origin being d e n o t e d is either (a) a country or e9-vo<;, (b) a city or village, or (c) an Israelite tribe or group. (a) TO ykw<^ in apposition to adjectives or proper nouns denoting origin from a country or e&vo<;. This pattern is precisely parallel to 'louSatoQ TO yiwQ. Josephus speaks of individuals who TO ytwQ are: Idumaean (JW 1 § 123; An! 8 § 200; 15 § 253) Spartan (JW 1 § 513) Arab (JW 1 § 576) Egyptian (JW 1 ^ 199; Ant 1 §§ 187, 220; 6 §§ 360-361; 7 § 315; AgAp 1 § 73; 2 § 138) Syrian (An! 6 § 244) A m a l e k h e (Ant 7 § 6; 11 §§ 209, 277) Jebusite (Ant 7 § 330, cf. 7 § 61) Israelite (Ant 8 § 76) H e b r e w (Ant 9 § 211)'" Ethiopian (Ant 10 § 122) Cuthaean (Ant 11 § 302, cf. 13 § 255) Parthian (Ant 20 § 81) Cyprian (Ant 20 § 142) Chaldaean (AgAp 1 § 129) In addition, Josephus in the Against Apion refers several times to "Egyptians (plural) TO yimc," (1 §§ 252, 275, 298, 317; 2 §§ 8, 28). (b) TO Yevot; in apposition to adjectives or proper nouns denoting

I d o not include in this corpus /If' 1 § 3 which has J o s e p h u s describe himself as ' a H e b r e w by race" (vevei ' E p p a i o O . because the p h r a s e is almost certainly an interpolation (it is unknown to Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.9.1).

30

SHAYE J.D. COHEN

origin from a city or village." Josepiius speaks of individuals w h o TO yevoi; are; G e r a s e n e (JW 4 § 503) A p a m e a n {Ant 13 § 131) Jerusalemite {Ant 17 § 78; 20 § 163) Samarian {Ant 18 § 167)'^ N e h a r d e a n (Ant 18 § 314) Clazomenian {Ant 20 § 252) Dabarittan {Life § 126) Heliopolitan {AgAp 1 § 250, a quotation from M a n e t h o ; also § 265) (c) TO yivoQ in apposition to adjectives or proper nouns d e n o t i n g origin from an Israelite tribe or group. Josephus speaks of individuals w h o TO yevoi; are Benjaminites {Ant 7 § 47), Levites {Ant 7 § 83), priests {Ant 7 § 315; 10 § 80; cf.7W^4 § 225 andAgAp 1 § 54; s e e D . R . Schwartz 1981), and Naphtalites {Ant 8 § 76). Most striking is Jose­ phus' repeated use of the phrase 'Eaoaioc; TO yivoQ (JW 1 § 78; 2 § 113 //Ant 17 § 346) or 'EaaT\w<^ TO yivoc, {Ant 13 § 311) to designate individual Essenes. The Essenes (Ant 13 § 172; 15 § 371; perhaps yW' 2 § 160) constitute a yivoc, Pliny the Elder calls them a gens}^ What exactly this means is not clear, but is not my concern here.'* T h e s e passages reveal three important points. First, if 'louSaioi; TO is indeed parallel TO yevoc; 'ISoufiaioc; and yivoQ Aaxoiv and the other phrases collected above, 'louSaioc must m e a n "Judaean" rather than "Jewish." Pevo^ refers to ethnic origin, or ethnic-geograph­ ic origin, not "religion." Elsewhere too Josephus uses yevoc; with iK or ianb in an appositional phrase in order to indicate e t h n i c / g e o g r a p h i c origin. For example, Niger was called "the Peraitan" because he was YEVoi;

" Cf. also 7 i o X i T i 5 o < ; TO yimc, {Anl 9 § 186) a n d &OTf,:; TO yevoi; {Ant 9 § 216, 260). '* T h e text is somewhat uncertain. Satiotpeui; might m e a n "Samaritan" r a t h e r than "Samarian." " Pliny, Nat. hist. 5.73 = Stern 1974-84: n o . 2 0 4 , . . . Esseni. . . gens sola et in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira. Stern comment.s, "Did Pliny or his source think of the F.ssenes as a special gens, s e p a r a t e from the Jewish nation though geographi­ cally included in J u d a e a . . . ? This view is perhaps echoed by J o s e p h u s , w h o finds it necessary to emphasize that t h e Hssenes a r e 'louSaioi TO yiwc, {JW2 § 119)." See below. " J o s e p h u s also refers to t h e fivot; of the Sadducees {Ant 13 § 297) a n d t h e •yevoc; of t h e Z e a l o t s {JW 7 § 268), but never uses the phrase "a S a d d u c e a n TO

lOYAAIOZ TO r E N O S

"by birth from Peraea beyond the Jordan" (yevoc

31

S'V iv.

Tijc

p a t a c ) {JW 2 § 566). In other words, he was FlepaiTTii; t o

. . . Fle-

yiMoc,.'^

Second, in virtually all of these passages the translations "by origin," "by birth" and "by nation" are equally possible. Although there is n o clear way t o d e c i d e between them, I think that "by birth" is a s o m e ­ what more natural rendering, and in several passages "by birth" s e e m s preferable."" If there are n o indications to the contrary I shall hence­ forth, for the sake of convenience and consistency, translate t o y e v o c ; "by birth." This rendering is supported by Ant 10 § 237 which has Belshazzar's grandmother tell her grandson that "there is a certain captive from Judaea, w h o was born there (coTt t i c ; 6in6 [or e x ] TT]<;'Iou8aia<; a t x f i a X w T O c ; i z e f & e v t o -yEvoc;) and was brought

[to

Babylon] by Nebuchadnezzar when he sacked Jerusalem." N o t only is D a n i e l "from Judaea," but his ykwoQ also is from there; in other words, he was born there t o o . Josephus could have said e o t e a t / f x a X(I>t6(; T t Q 'louSaroc; t o ykvoQ and the meaning of the passage would not have c h a n g e d . " Third, t h e s e passages demonstrate that generally the function of the phrase t o ykvoQ is to limit the scope of the identity indicated by the ethnic noun. Daniel R. Schwartz has argued that Josephus uses the phrase l E p E u c ; t o yiwi^ t o designate men w h o were priests by birth but not priests by function, that is, men w h o were of priestly lineage but w h o did not actually officiate as priests in the temple of Jerusalem. Priests functioning in the temple would simply be called Uptic. (Schwartz 1981). Similarly, s o m e o n e w h o is an "Idumaean by birth," is, in all likelihood, an Idumaean only by birth; by s o m e other criterion he either is not an Idumaean, or is no longer an Idumaean, or is not behaving as an Idumaean might be expected to behave. In the JW 1 § 123, Josephus says that Antipater was "an Idumaean by birth {yivoc, S'^v 'IBoufiatoc;) w h o was o n e of the most prominent men of his p e o p l e (e^voc;)." The qualification "by birth" prepares the reader for

" JW 1 § 432 {yivoc, JJV

'lepaoXOtiwv); 5 § 532 {yiw(^ i'i 'A\i[i<xo\it;,); 6 § 54

(yevoi; a r o Zupiac;); Ant 19 § 17 (ex KopByPr);; . . . yiwc,). "Birth" clearly seems the preferable alternative in Ant 17 § 78 ( c f JW 1 § 432); 18 § 314; 20 § 163; Life § 126; cf. AgAp 1 § 250 and 265 ( M a n e t h o ) . In any case in (b) a b o v e the translation "by n a t i o n ' is unlikely, since cities d o not constitute e&vi]. " T h e p h r a s e ^xctSev T O yevoi; is J o s e p h u s ' addition t o Daniel: 5.10,13; t h e p h r a s e is not found e i t h e r in our A r a m a i c Daniel or in t h e Septuagint o r in Theodotion.

32

SHAYF, J.D. COHEN

the fact that, when we meet him, Antipater is no longer active in Idumaea but is devoting all his time and attention to Judaean politics, specifically the interests of Hyrcanus against Aristobulus.'" Similarly, Kurycles is called a "Spartan by birth" because w h e n we meet him he is far from Sparta {JW 1 § 513). Corinthus was an "Arab by birth" but was brought up not in Arabia but in Herod's kingdom {JW 1 § 576). Rufus w a s "an Egyptian by birth," but is a R o m a n soldier {JW 7 § 199). A n d so o n for the bulk of the passages listed above under (a), (b), and (c). T o y£.vo
" The parallel in the Am 14 § 8 omits TO yEvoc and simply calls Antipater an Idumaean, because that passage is interested in affirming Antipater's Idumaean idemity (14 § 9).

lOYAAEOZ TO ITNOZ

33

HI

I return to our thirteen Josephan passages. I shall re-translate each of them, translating 'louSafoi; TO ykwc, "Judaean by birth," and comment briefly on each passage. 1. JW 2 § 101: "At this time a young man who, though Judaean by birth ('louSaFoc p.ev TO yivoc.), had been brought up at Sidon at the house of a R o m a n freedman . . . passed himself off as the prince Alexander." Paralleled by text 6 below. To yivoc. indicates that the Judaean-ness of the young man is offset by his Sidonian and R o m a n upbringing. 2. JW 2 § U9: "The followers . . . of the third [of the three schools of Jewish philosophy] are called Essenes . . . . They are Judaeans by birth ('louSaroi y.kv Yevoc; OVTEC;), but they show a greater attachment to each other than do the others." The precise meaning of the phrase here is not entirely clear. Apparently Josephus means the following: although the F^ssenes are devoted to each other - more devoted to each other than are the followers of any other school" - nevertheless, at least by birth, they are Judaeans, that is, members of the ethnic community of 'louSaiot.^ 3. JW 2 § 308: "For Florus ventured that day to d o what none had ever d o n e before, namely, to scourge before his tribunal and nail to the cross m e n of equestrian status (avSpac EnTtixou T o c y ^ i a T O t ; ) , men w h o s e birth may have been Judaean but whose dignity nevertheless was R o m a n (e.i xai T O yiwc, 'louSatov &,XXa yoOv T O o^iw^ia T o [xaiKov ^v). T h e contrast between 'louBatov and T o f i a i x o v makes certain the rendering of the former as "Judaean." Judaean birth and R o m a n rank offset each other. Fevot; here clearly means birth; yivoc, meaning "birth," and o^tw^xa meaning "dignity" or "rank," form a pair also \n JW 4 ^ 358 and 4 § 416.='

" T a k e n by itself the sentence could b e translated "they show a g r e a t e r a u a c h m e n t to each o t h e r than the other 'louSaioi show to each other," but JW 2 § 166 implies that "the others" are the Pharisees and the S a d d u c e e s . " It is most unlikely that ' l o u S a i o i here m e a n s "Jews," for what sense is there to say that t h e F s s e n e s are Jews by birth? Beall (1988: 37) thinks that the phrase implies that "the E s s e n e s did not permit any non-Jew to b e c o m e a m e m b e r of the sect." T h i s is far from the simple meaning of the text. See n o t e 13 above for Stern's cortunent on the passage, but Stern too ignores the structure of the sentence. " F e l d m a n (1992a; 7 n. 18) correctly translates Yevo<; in o u r passage as "birth," but s u p p o r t s that translation with an incorrect argument: yevoc; cannot m e a n nation h e r e b e c a u s e "clearly neither Josephus nor F l o m s would grant that these

34

SHAYF, J.D. COHF.N

4. Ant 1 ] § 207: "Some time a f l e w a r d Bagatlioos and T h e o d e s t e s plotted against the king, but Barnabazos, the servant of o n e of these eunuchs, w h o was a Judaean by birth (TO yivoQ civ 'louSaioi;). discov­ ered their plot." The Judaean-ness of Barnabazos (an invented character not in the book of Jisthcr) is offset by his Persian name, his residence in Susa, and his status as a slave. 5. Am J7 § 141; "This A c m e was Judaean by birth ( ' l o u S a i a [IEV TO yiwc) but a slave of Caesar's wife Julia." Acme's Judaean-ness is offset by her Greek name, her residence in R o m e , and her status as a slave. 6. Ant 17 § 324: "After these matters had been disposed of by Caesar, there appeared a young man, a Judaean by birth {'IOMZCLIOC, (xev TO yiwc.) but brought up in the city of Sidon by a R o m a n freed­ man, w h o represented himself as related to Herod." S e e text 1 above. 7. Anl 18 § 103: "Artabanus sent as a hostage to Tiberius his son Darius, together with many gifts, among which he included a man seven cubits tall, a Judaean by birth ('louSatov TO -yevoc;), n a m e d Eleazar, w h o on account of his size was called the Giant."" Eleazar's Judaean-ness is offset by his geographic setting: he is being sent from Parthia to R o m e . 8. Ant 18 § 196: "[One of Agrippa's fellow prisoners sees Agrippa and inquires as to his identity.) U p o n learning that his name was Agrippa, that he was a Judaean by birth ('louSatov hi TO yiwc.), and that he w a s o n e of the most notable men there, he asked the soldier . . . to allow him to approach." Here 'iouSatoc must m e a n "Judaean," because it provides the antecedent reference for "there" (EXEIVT)); the translator in the Loeb edition, taking 'iou5aro<; to mean "Jew," had to supply the phrase "of Judaea" to translate "there." Agrippa's Judaean-ness is offset by the fact that at that moment he was a prisoner in R o m e . 9. Ant 20 § 173: "There arose also a quarrel between the Judaean and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea on the subject of equal civic rights.

e q u e s t r i a n s were m e m b e r s of a Jewish nation." This is wrong; they w e r e by birth m e m b e r s of a Jewish (that is, J u d a e a n ) nation, the e&voi; of the ' l o u S a r o t . " T h i s giant may also b e m e n t i o n e d by Columella 3.8.2 = Stern 1974-84: n o . 185, ' r e c e n t l y we ourselves might have seen, a m o n g the exhibits of the procession at the g a m e s of the Circus, a man of the Jewish race (ludaeae gentis) w h o was of g r e a t e r stature than the tallest G e r m a n " (1,CL translation). See Solin 1983: 6 0 1 602.

l O Y A A i o i ; TO n - N O i

35

T h e Judaeans claimed that they had the precedence because the founder of Caesarea, their king Herod, had been Judaean by birth ('HpwSTjv a u T w v p a a i X c a ytyo\)Evon T O yiwQ 'louSatov); the Syrians admitted what they said about Herod, but asserted . . . T h e struggle is not b e t w e e n Jews and Syrians but between Judaeans and Syrians. 'Hie Judaeans claim Herod as o n e of their own; he was, they say, a native Judaean, that is, a real Judaean. Not only was Herod "king of the 'louSatoi" {Ant 15 § 409 and elsewhere), he was a 'lou5aro(; him­ self." It is somewhat surprising to find Judaeans loudly claiming H e r o d as o n e of their own, given the ambiguous relationship of the 'louSaiot to the Idumaeans in general and Herod in particular, but in order to win their debate they put aside whatever doubts they may still have harbored about the dead king. It is somewhat suprising to find Syrians readily conceding that Herod was a Judaean, given the fact that H e r o d was of Idumaean origin, but perhaps outsiders were not well informed about the ethnic sub-divisions within the e t h n o s of the 'louSai'oi,"

10. Life § 16: "Landing safely at Dicaearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I formed a friendship with Aliturus, an actor (^iip-oXoYOi;) w h o was a special favorite of N e r o and a Judaean by birth 'louSaroc T O Y E v o t ; ) . " T h e Judaean-ness of Aliturus is offset by his residence in Italy and perhaps by his name. 11. Life § 382: "The king [Agrippa] promised to c o m e [to the aid of Tiberias], writing a letter in reply, which he handed to a man named Crispus, a Judaean by birth (Kptoic(() j z c v T o u v o j x a , T O Se ytwc, 'louSattf)), a g r o o m of the bedchamber." The force of the phrase here is not clear. Perhaps Josephus means that Crispus was born in Judaea in the narrow sense, but was now active in Galilee. Other passages t o o in the Life contrast Galileans with Judaeans." Or perhaps I think this explanation is more likely Josephus means that the foreign name Crispus should not obscure the fact that he was a Judaean (whether in the narrow sense or the wide sense) by birth. Compare the case of Aliturus, just discussed. Compare too JW6 § 54, a reference to a man "named Sabinus, by birth from Syria" (Zaprvot; T o u v o f j i a , YEVOI:; OLTZO Zupiac). Sabinus is an unlikely name for a Syrian, but, Josephus insists, he was a Syrian ("from Syria") native.

" T h e parallel in JW 2 § 266 omits TO yevoi; a n d the emphasis. " T o m s o n (1986: 124 n. 13) observes that Plutarch t o o calls H e r o d 6 Iou5aio<; (Life of Antony 61.3 and 71.1 = Stern 1974-84 nos. 267 a n d 268). See n o t e 7 a b o v e .

36

SHAYH J.D. COHEN

12. Life § 427: "Afterwards I [Josephus] married a w o m a n , a Judaean by birth (TO 5E yiwoc, 'louScxiav) w h o had settled in Crete. She came of very distinguished parents, indeed the most notable p e o p l e in that country." T h e woman's Judaean-ness is offset by her residence in Crete. Her parents were distinguished Judaeans in Crete. 13. AgAp 1 §§ 178-179: "'Well,' said Aristotle, 'in accordance w h h the precepts of rhetoric, let us begin by describing his nationality (or: his birth, TO ytvoc^ aOToxi) . . . the man was from Coele-Syria, a J u d a e a n by birth (TO ( x e v YEVOC;

' l o u S a t o c i-x. TTJC KOIXTII; Iupta<;).

They are descended from the Indian philosophers. T h e philosophers, they say, are in India called Calani, in Syria 'louSatot, taking this name from t h e place (rcapoc 8e ZOpoic; 'louSaioi, T O u v o f i a X a ^ o v T E c ; &rt6 ToO TOTiou); for the district which they inhabit is known as Judaea.'" ITie near equation of "birth" and "nation," each called YEVOC, is clear in this passage. The meaning Judaean for 'louSatot; is also clear. T h e man w h o s o impressed Aristotle had b e e n born in Judaea but was travelling in Asia Minor. IV A s promised, my conclusions are rather modest. I have argued that the Josephan phrase 'louSaio^ TO ye^oc should always b e translated "Judaean by birth." The difficult part of the phrase is not TO yi-^oc., for whether it is translated "by birth" or "by nation" its meaning is more or less the same. T h e difficult part is the word 'Iou8aFo(;, usually translated "Jew," but which often has an ethnic-geographic meaning best captured by the word "Judaean." Of course, with few exceptions virtually all "Judaeans" will have b e e n "Jews," and most "Jews" in Judaea will have b e e n "Judaeans," that is, members of the ethnicgeographic polity of Judaeans.^'' Thus, the practical consequences o f the distinction between "Judaean" and "Jew" may not have been great, but the exegetical consequences are significant. When Josephus calls s o m e o n e "Judaean by birth," h e d o e s not mean that the person was "Jewish," that is, a follower of Judaism. Rather h e m e a n s that the person was born in Judaea. There is no reason t o assume that any of the people called 'louSaiot; TO Y^VOI;

" W h e t h e r "Jews" in t h e d i a s p o r a wih have b e e n "Judaeans," that is, m e m b e r s of t h e e t h n i c c o m m u n i t i e s of p e o p l e hailing from J u d a e a , will have v a r i e d from p l a c e t o p l a c e , d e p e n d i n g o n the n a t u r e of local c o m m u n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n .

lOYiiAIOi: T O f E N O t

37

were born outside of Judaea (broadly conceived). In nine or ten of our thirteen passages, the location of birth seems to be the main point of the phrase: education or activity outside of Judaea should not obscure Judaean birth (1,4.5,6.7.8,10,11?,I2,I3)." 'Iou5aro<; is not (and. as far as I have b e e n able to determine, never was) a purely geographic term (Solin 1983: 647; C o h e n 1990), but in these nine (ten?) passages the geographic c o m p o n e n t of the phrase is paramount. In the remaining three passages the ethnic component of the phrase is paramount: the Essenes (2), the m e n punished by Florus (3). and Herod the Great (9) were all "Judaeans by birth," that is, members by birth of the ethnic community of the 'louSatoL There is no reason to think that any of these ethnic-geographic Judaeans were not also Jews, but their religion is not relevant to Josephus' use of the phrase.^ 'Hie ethnic-geographic usage of 'louSatoi; TO yiwQ, is Hellenistic: it is attested in Clearchus c. 300 B C E (13) and in two inscriptions from Delphi from the second quarter of the second century BCE.^' In the Hellenistic period this usage is not surprising since before the Macca­ b e e s 'lou&aroc was exclusively an ethnic-geographic term; the citizens of Judaea did not yet conceive of "Judaism" as a religion and 'louSafoc; had not yet evolved to the meaning "Jew" ( C o h e n 1990). But by the R o m a n period the religious connotations of the word 'louSatoc; will have been known to all. By the sixth century C E 'louSafof; b e c a m e exclusively a religious term, and w e find such expressions as "a Jew by religion" and (in contrast) "Hebrew by

" f h e m e a n i n g and force of the phrase in 11 are obscure. B a r n a b a z o s has a Persian n a m e , p e r h a p s suggesting that Josephus imagined him to have b e e n b o r n in Persia ( 4 ) ; if this is correct, then 'louSatoi; TO ytvoi; h e r e must m e a n "a m e m b e r of the e&vot; of 'louSaioi" (cf. Ant 11 § 198). But there is n o compelling reason lo reject the interpretation "a native of J u d a e a " even h e r e . A r t a b a n u s sent a giant to T i b e r i u s as a gift; I suppose that the most natural assumption is that t h e giant was a native of Parthia, but the n a m e lileazar strongly suggests that h e was a native of J u d a e a (7). W a s the actor Aliturus a native of Italy or J u d a e a ( 1 0 ) ? I think the latter is m o r e likely; cf Acme ( 5 ) , hardly a native of Italy. " T h u s a m o n g those misled by the translation "Jew by birth" arc Beall 1988 (see a b o v e ) and Williams 1990: 199 ( " . . . Jews from birth, people w h o m J o s e p h u s regularly calls ' l o u S a f o i TO yevot;"). " CIJ nos. 709 a n d 710: a w o m a n and a man being sold as slaves a r e described as TO yevoi; ' I o u 5 a i o v / 1 o u & a i a v . H e r e too the translation " J u d a e a n by b i r t h / n a t i o n " s e e m s best (contrast T o m s o n 1986: 125 n. 19). ' l l i e inscriptions "possibly relate to prisoners of war from the Maccabean period, sold as slaves and t a k e n to G r e e c e " ; see Millar apud Schiirer 1973-87: 3.1.65.

38

SHAYF. J.D. COHEN

nation."^ Josephus t o o uses the word to mean "Jew," even where no ethnic or geographic component is present (see above). Thus in the first century C E the phrase 'louSatot; TO yevot; should have meant "a Jew by birth." Josephus' near contemporary, the author of 3 Macca­ bees, describes Dositheus son of Drimylus as "a Jew by birth (TO y e v o c 'louSaroc) who later changed his customs (v6|jii(ia) and b e c a m e es­ tranged from his ancestral doctrines (SoyfiaTa)" (3 Mace 1:3), H e r e 'louSai'oi; m e a n s "Jew" (perhaps also "Judaean"): D o s i t h e u s was a Jew by birth but not by practice or behef. But Josephus d o e s not use the phrase "louSatoc TO yevoc; to mean "Jew by birth." W h e n he wishes to describe an "apostate." he avoids the phrase TO y e v o c loi^aioQ. "The successor of F-'adus was Tiberius Alexander, the son of that Alexander w h o . . . surpassed all his fellow citizens both in ancestry and in wealth. H e was al.so superior to his son Alexander in his religious devotion, for the latter did not stand by the practices of his people" (Am 20 § 100). In other words, like D o s i t h e u s son of Drimylus, Tiberius Alexander was a Jew by birth but not by practice or belief. Josephus might have called Tiberius Alexander 'louSaroc TO y e v o c but did not, because for Josephus the phrase still had its Hellenistic meaning "Judaean by birth" rather than "Jewish by birth." Why Josephus retained this archaic usage, I do not know. Various Israeli scholars have suggested that Josephus in the War conceived of Judaism (or Jewishness) in national political terms, while in the AnliquU'ies and his other late works he conceived of it in religious terms (Schwartz 1987: 66). Whether (his analysis is correct is not my concern here, but 1 note that the phrase 'louSatoc TO y e v o c retains its meaning unchanged from Josephus' earliest work (the early b o o k s of the War) to his latest (late books of the Amiquities, Life, and AgAp). W e may be sure that Josephus' views on many subjects changed during the twenty or twenty-five years of his literary career, but regarding the notion of Judaean-ness by birth, his views changed not at all."

" "A J e w by religion": Cf'J 3 no. 508 ('louSaiO(; rriv Spi^aitEiav. 542 C K ) ; Suda, s.v. K£xi)ciXio<; = Jacoby, F G r l l ]83 T 1 (TTJV Se 56^av ' l o y S a i o ^ ) . " H e b r e w by nation": CPJ 3 no. 511 ('Lippaio-; e9vei, c. 570 C E ) . " I could not have written this p a p e r without (he assistance of A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Rengstorf e( al. 1973-1983). Al! translations of J o s e p h u s , unless otherwise indicated, a r c from the Z_oeb Classical Library, wbo.se editors a n d translators a r e Henry St. J. Thackeray, R a l p h M a r c u s , Alien W i k g r e n , a n d Louis H. F e l d m a n .

P A R T 11

THE

SOURCES

J O S E P H U S ' P O R T R A Y A L O F THE H A S M O N E A N S C O M P A R E D WTTH 1 M A C C A B E E S Ix)uis H. F e l d m a n

].

Introduction

If w e wish t o study J o s e p h u s ' historiographical g o a l s and m e t h o d s we are m o s t likely t o achieve satisfactory results w h e n w e c o m p a r e him to his k n o w n s o u r c e s . Unfortunately, for the most recent period of his history, s o u r c e s such as Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s are largely lost. H e n c e , o u r best a v e n u e of investigation would s e e m to be to c o m p a r e Jose­ p h u s ' paraphrase o f t h e Bible', t h e Letter o f Aristeas (Pelletier 1962) and 1 M a c c a b e e s , w h e r e it is clear what his source is, t h o u g h , of c o u r s e , w e can never be sure of t h e exact text that he used. D e s p i t e t h e fact that there have b e e n a number o f attempts to c o m p a r e J o s e p h u s ' account with that of 1 Maccabees,^ t h e s e have b e e n c o n ­ c e r n e d primarily with determining which text, whether G r e e k or H e b r e w , h e e m p l o y e d , ' or with discussing which sources o t h e r than 1

' See Feldman 1968b, 1988a, 1968a, 1984a, 1984-95, 1988-89, 1992e, 1991-92, 1989b, 1986, 1988b, 1992g, 1982, 1989a, 1976, 1992b, 1992d, 1992a, 1992c, 1992f, 1970. and 1988c. ' See, in particular, Grimm 1853, Bloch 1879, von Destinon 1882, Buchler 1896, Driiner 1896, Holscher 1904, Fttelson 1925, Cadbury 1927, Momigliano 1930, Melamed 1951, Levenson 1966, Goldstein 1976, and Gafni 1980. ' Josephus was undoubtedly attracted to using a Greek text for his paraphrase of the Bible inasmuch as he was writing in Greek; but the very fact that Josephus sought assistants {AgAp 1 § 50) to help him with his Greek style when he wrote his War and that he admits {Ant 20 § 263) that despite laboring strenuously to master Greek literature, he had failed to attain precision in the pronunciation of Greek because of his habitual use of his native Aramaic, should lead us to suspect that he felt more at home in Hebrew and in Aramaic than in Greek. Moreover, the fact that he chose to paraphrase the Bible in Greek would seem to indicate that he hoped to improve on the rendering in the Septuagint. For the Pentateuch, at least, there is strong evidence, as I have indicated, that his main source was a Hebrew text and/or a targumic paraphrase in Aramaic, whereas for the other books of the Bible, he is generally aligned with the Septuagint in the proto-Lucianic version. See Feldman 1988c: 460-66. For the account of the Ha.smoneans Josephus apparently relied exclusively, or at least almost exclusively, upon the Greek text, ilesnite the attemots of Perles 1921:179; Schwabe and Melamed 1928:

42

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

Maccabees Josephus employed, or with comparing the general outlook of the two works, or citing places where Josephus shows verbal dependence upon 1 Maccabees, or simply listing a selection of passag­ es where Josephus departs from 1 Maccabees, rather than, as in the present essay, comparing the actual portrayals of the Hasmoneans themselves. There arc those who deny any independent value to Josephus' account of the Hasmoneans;'' but, wc may suggest, while it is true that the author of 1 Maccabees was closest to the events and perhaps even participated in some of them, Josephus was a descendant of the Hasmoneans and undoubtedly had oral traditions about the earlier family tradition; moreover, as a non-participant, he was more objec­ tive, as we shall see, than the author of 1 Maccabees. In addition, as a priest, he often appears to supplement from personal knowledge, as

202-4; Melamed 1951: 122-30; Driiner 1896: 35-50; Ettelson 1925: 340-41; and Zeitlin 1950: 57-58, among others, to indicate that he also used the Hebrew text. As Bar-Kochva 1989: 193, has stressed, the differences between Josephus and the Greek text of I Maccabees can be explained by Josephus' tendency to simplify or to adapt the account for the needs of his Greek and Roman readers; indeed, as ITiackeray 1905: 464 and Bar-Kochva 1989: 339, have noted, Josephus often has the same corruptions that are found in the Greek text of 1 Maccabees. Another explanation, we may suggest, for coincidences between Josephus and a Hebrew text of 1 Maccabees may be that the Greek text of 1 Maccabees available to Josephus was different from ours, just as, for example, the new fragments from the Dead Sea caves illustrate that their Greek text of Samuel was closer to our Hebrew text. 'E.g., RanoviC 1950; German trans. 1958, 114. On the contrary, Josephus' version is sometimes of considerable value. Thus, he sometimes (e.g. Anf 12 § 411, cf. 1 Mace 7:46;/fn/ 13 § 21, cf. 1 Mace 9:40; Ant 13 § 161. cf. 1 Mace 11:69) gives us numbers not found in 1 Maccabees, or he disagrees (e.g. Ant 12 § 408, cf. 1 Mace 7:40; Ant 12 § 422, cf. 1 Mace 9:5; Anl 13 § 14, cf 1 Mace 9:49; Ant 13 § 163, cf. 1 Mace 11:74) with its numbers. Moreover, he gives us other precise information not found in 1 Maccabees, such as the name of the officer, Apelles, slain by Mattathias (Ant 12 § 270, cf. 1 Mace 2:25). Furthermore, if not for Josephus (Ant 12 §§ 257-64) we would not know of the Samaritan appeal to Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor, if not for Josephus (Ant 12 § 405), would we know that Judah Maccabee was defeated by Nicanor at Kapharsalama, rather than the reverse, as implied in 1 Mace 7:31-32, unless we adopt Dindorfs emendation of Josephus. Josephus' brief summary at the beginning of the Jewish War contains a number of errors on essential points, as Holscher 1904: 4-5 and Goldstein 1976: 60, have noted; and yet, as Bar-Kochva 1989: 186, has remarked, even that summary (JW 1 §§ 41-46) is of considerable value for reconstructing the battle of Beth-Zechariah, since it accords very well with the military and topographical possibilities.

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF THE HASMONEANS

43

well as from family tradition, in matters concerning t h e priesthood (since t h e M a c c a b e e s w e r e priests) a n d t h e T e m p l e . M o r e o v e r , as D a n c y ( 1 9 5 4 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) , Abel-Starcky ( 1 9 6 1 : 9 ) , a n d Stern (1965: 7-11; repr. 1980: 3 7 - 4 8 ) a m o n g others, have c o n t e n d e d , J o s e p h u s may also h a v e u s e d as s o u r c e s t h e works o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , and, t o a lesser d e g r e e , Holybius, D i o d o r u s , Posidonius, Aristeas, T i m a g e n e s , and a narrative describing t h e founding o f the t e m p l e o f O n i a s . Buchler ( 1 9 8 6 ) , v o n D e s t i n o n (1882: 60ff.), a n d H o l s c h e r (1904: 5 2 ) have argued that for t h e o p e n i n g chapters o f t h e War, at least, J o s e p h u s utilized neither 1 nor 2 M a c c a b e e s but an unknown source. A s a m e a s u r e o f the importance for J o s e p h u s o f t h e material in 1 M a c c a b e e s a b o u t t h e H a s m o n e a n s w e may n o t e that he d e v o t e s 2015 lines (Anl 12 §§ 2 3 7 - 2 5 6 , 265; 13 §§ 6 1 ; 80-108, 121-134, 145-170, 174-214) in t h e Ixicb Classical Library text t o t h e material which h e parallels in 1 M a c c a b e e s (1:1-13:42). This gives a ratio o f 1.30 o f J o s e p h u s t o the G r e e k text o f 1 M a c c a b e e s . T o appreciate the signifi­ c a n c e which J o s e p h u s attached t o this account w e may n o t e that t h e ratio o f J o s e p h u s ' account t o the Greek text o f the L X X for N e h e m i a h is only .18, .55 for G i d e o n , .65 for H e z e k i a h , .68 for D a n i e l , .72 for Rlisha, .72 for Ezra, .89 for S a m s o n , .96 for Elijah, 1.02 for A b r a h a m , 1.14 for A b s a l o m , 1.15 for Josiah, 1.16 for S a m u e l , 1.22 for Jehu, 1.28 for A h a b , and 1.29 for J e r o b o a m . It is higher only for D a v i d (1.34), for J e h o s h a p h a t ( 1 . 3 6 ) , for Balaam (1.39), for J o s e p h (1.47), for Jchoram o f Israel ( 1 . 4 9 ) , and for Saul (1.71).

2. The Hasmoneans as Leaders In his portrait o f the H a s m o n e a n s J o s e p h u s places t h e e m p h a s i s upon t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f leadership. Indeed, throughout t h e first half o f the

Antiquilies, w h e r e

h e parallels the Bible, o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' major goals

is t o build u p t h e characters of t h e major Biblical heroes, perhaps in r e s p o n s e t o t h e charge (AgAp 2 § 135) that t h e J e w s h a d failed t o p r o d u c e any g e n i u s e s . That o n e o f the major p u r p o s e s o f t h e

ties w a s

Antiqui­

t o build up t h e Biblical personalities in answer t o this canard

is clear from J o s e p h u s ' o w n statement (AgAp 1 § 3 6 ) that "our o w n f a m o u s m e n a r c deserving o f winning n o less praise" than t h e great h e r o e s p r o d u c e d by t h e G r e e k s . Consequently, J o s e p h u s , in a series o f

44

LOUIS H. FELDNIAN

purple passages, p r o c e e d s to build up t h e great Biblical heroes.^Hc h e r e follows Thucydides, Plato, and t h e Peripatetic tradition^ ( i n d e e d , his chief s o u r c e after he c e a s e s t o e m p l o y 1 M a c c a b e e s , a n d , t o s o m e extent, p e r h a p s e v e n while h e is using 1 M a c c a b e e s is N i c o l a u s of D a m a s c u s , a well-known Peripatetic) in stressing the role o f great m e n in history. 2.1

Mattathias

In J o s e p h u s ' narrative each o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s is built u p as a personality b e y o n d t h e account in 1 M a c c a b e e s . T h u s w e s e e t h e a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o f Mattathias (Ant 12 § 2 7 8 ) , w h o , in a s t a t e m e n t that has n o parallel in 1 M a c e 2:46-48, is described as driving out t h e officers w h o had b e e n a p p o i n t e d t o prevent t h e circumcision o f Jewish boys. F u r t h e r m o r e , there is no indication in 1 M a c c a b e e s as t o t h e length o f t i m e that Mattathias led the fight against t h e Syrian G r e e k s ; J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 279), o n the other hand, has him in c o m m a n d for a r e s p e c t a b l e period o f a year. O n e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s that must have occurred to t h o s e c o n v e r s a n t with t h e e v e n t s w a s w h o a p p o i n t e d Mattathias t o b e t h e l e a d e r of t h e Jews. F r o m t h e text o f 1 M a c e 2:17 w e k n o w only that Mattathias is a l e a d e r in his t o w n o f M o d i n . J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 275) m a k e s it clear

that Mattathias was a p p o i n t e d t o b e leader by his followers. I n d e e d , in t h e War (1 § 3 7 ) J o s e p h u s is e v e n m o r e explicit in stating that M a t t a t h i a s ' expulsion of t h e foreigners led his c o u n t r y m e n willingly t o submit t o his rulership. Mattathias, in turn, exercises leadership (Ant 12 § 2 7 6 ) by instruct­ ing his m e n to fight e v e n on the Sabbath; in 1 Mace 2:40-41 t h e d e c i s i o n is m u c h m o r e vague, b e i n g ascribed t o Mattathias and his friends. In his long farewell address (245 words) to his s o n s as h e lay dying, Mattathias in 1 M a c e 2:49-68 reviews Jewish history

from

A b r a h a m t o D a n i e l , stressing their faithfulness t o t h e Law in t i m e o f trial; J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 §§ 279-284), in an address almost as long ( 2 0 9 w o r d s ) s p e n d s n o t i m e reviewing Jewish history but rather, u n a b a s h e d ­ ly, urges his s o n s to follow in his o w n spirit. T h e s c e n e is clearly reminiscent o f that in which A e n e a s (Virgil Aen.

12.435-440) bids

' See my essays on Josephus' portraits of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, and Solomon (above, n. 1), among others. ' See my essay on Saul 1982: 46-48.

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF T H E HASMONEANS

45

farewell t o his s o n A s c a n i u s before g o i n g off t o his final battle with Turnus; t h e r e , t o o , t h e father tells t h e son t o learn from and b e inspired by t h e e x a m p l e o f him, the father.' 2.1.1

77ie Goals

of the Hasmoneans:

Liberty

J o s e p h u s portrays t h e H a s m o n e a n s as d e v o t e d to t h e very ideals which w e r e m o s t i m p o r t a n t for t h e R o m a n s , namely liberty, country, laws, and piety, and t h e readiness to die for t h e s e ideals. That liberty was a key c o n c e p t for t h e R o m a n s may be s e e n in t h e fact that w h e n t h e conspirators t o assassinate the E m p e r o r G a i u s Caligula c h o o s e a password {Ant

19 § 5 4 ) , t h e word they select is "liberty" (feXEU&epia).

J o s e p h u s g o e s out o f his way to stress the Jews' d e v o t i o n to t h e ideal o f liberty, as w e s e e , for e x a m p l e , in the great effort (Ant 2 § 290) which M o s e s d e v o t e s to procuring his p e o p l e ' s liberty from

the

o p p r e s s i v e Egyptians. Indeed, w h e n the Israelites angrily c o m p l a i n against him b e c a u s e of their lack of food and water in t h e desert M o s e s (Ant 3 § 19) answers t h e m by declaring that it w a s not from n e g l i g e n c e that G - d had thus tarried in helping t h e m but rather t o test their m a n h o o d and their delight in liberty (TTJC icept TTJV ^Xeu&epiav ^SovTJc;). I n d e e d , almost at t h e very beginning of his account of t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n s , J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 267) has t h e patriarch o f t h e family, Matta­ thias, d e c l a r e that it is better for him and his s o n s t o d i e for their country's laws than t o live ingloriously, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 2:13 there is n o m e n t i o n o f t h e c a u s e of t h e country's laws, and Mattathias and his s o n s m e r e l y put o n sackcloth and m o u r n bitterly. Likewise, w h e n Mattathias issues t h e cal! t o rebellion, in 1 M a c e 2:27 he s h o u t s , "Let e v e r y o n e w h o is z e a l o u s for the Law and w o u l d maintain the c o v e n a n t follow me." In J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 271) the e m p h a s i s is o n patriotism w h e n h e says, "Whoever is z e a l o u s for our country's c u s t o m s (TWV i t a Tpiuv

fe&uv)

and t h e w o r s h i p of G-d let him follow me." G r i m m (1853:

X X V T I I - X X X ) perceptively suggests that J o s e p h u s is here e c h o i n g the kind of patriotic appeal found in Livy (12.53), "Qui r e m p u b l i c a m salvam volunt m e sequantur," which w o u l d certainly appeal to his R o m a n readers. A g a i n , in his farewell address t o his sons, Mattathias

' As to whether Josephus might have known the works of Virgil or latin literature in general, we may note that he does mention Livy on one occasion (^nt 14 § 68). As to his knowledge of Latin see Thackeray 1929: 119-20; Nadel 1966: 256-72; and Daube 1977a: 191-4.

46

LOUIS H. FELDMAN

in 1 Mace 2:49-68 delivers a history lesson noting, one by one, the patriarchs who had received personal rewards for their zeal for the Law. In Josephus' version Mattathias (Ant 12 §§ 281-282), in words that would have been appreciated by patriotic Romans, for whom the highest bliss was to die for one's country, urges his sons to be prepared not merely as in 1 Maccabees to trust in G-d but to die for the laws and declares that G-d will give them not personal rewards but national liberty in admiration for their heroism: &peTTi (a word which was crucial for the Greek code of behavior but which is missing in I Maccabees). The cause (Ant 12 § 280), in a passage that would have reminded readers of the preface to Livy's history, is "to restore our ancient form of government" (TT]V d t p x o t t a v K o X t T e t a v & v a K T a o & a t ) . The famous words of Hnnius come to mind: "Moribus antiquis res stat Romana viresque" (Annals 5.156[500]). Moreover, Mattathias' address introduces a philosophical note (Ant 12 § 282), which would have appealed particularly to Stoics in his audience, namely that through the memory of one's deeds one can attain the heights of immortality. Again, whereas in Judah's address to his men at Emmaus, according to 1 Mace 3:58-60 there is mention only of the Temple but not of liberty for which they are fighting, Josephus' version (Ant 12 §§ 302-303) speaks of the goal of recovering liberty ( £ X e u & e p £ a ) , "which is loved for its own sake by all men, but to you most of all happens to be desirable because it gives you the right to worship the Deity." Now, says Judah, it is within their power to regain this liberty and conse­ quently to live a happy and blessed life. This is particularly striking because one would have expected Josephus, who is so proud of his priestly status, to emphasize, as does 1 Maccabees, the Temple and, indeed, to be wary of mentioning the goal of liberty, since this would seem to imply, in his own day at least, revolt against the Romans. But for Josephus, liberty, as here defined (Ant 12 § 303), is life in accor­ dance with the laws and customs of the fathers; and hence this would be different from the goal of political liberty of the Fourth Philosophy (Ant 18 § 23) and would not be regarded as subversive by Romans in his reading audience. 'ITiis emphasis on liberty may also be seen in Josephus' version of the battle at Emmaus. According to 1 Mace 4:25, Israel had a great deliverance ( o u T T i p i a {leyaXti) on that day; in Josephus' version the victory "contributed not a little to the regaining of their liberty (npoc, T r i v ^ X e u & e p t a v a u v E p a X X e T o , y t « / 1 2 § 312)." Likewise, in the battle at

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF THE HASMONEANS

47

B e t h - Z u r , in I M a c e 4:35, the Syrian general Lysias o b s e r v e s how ready Judah's soldiers are either to live or to d i e nobly, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 1 5 ) adds the key phrase that they are ready t o die if t h e y c a n n o t live as free m e n (iXeu&epoi). W h e n Judah finally falls in battle, 1 M a c e 9:21 l a m e n t s him as "the mighty savior of Israel," but J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 4 3 3 ) e u l o g i z e s him as a valiant m a n and a great

warrior w h o had had t h e fortitude to d o and suffer all things for t h e liberty o f his fellow-citizens. Again, w h e n , after Judah's d e a t h , his c o m p a n i o n s b e g his brother Jonathan t o a s s u m e t h e mantle o f leader­ ship, they recall J u d a h (Ant 13 § 5) as o n e w h o , in his concern for his c o u n t r y m e n , had d i e d o n behalf of the liberty o f t h e m all. 2.1.2

The Goals

of the Hasmoneans:

Martyrdom

In particular, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 0 4 ) advocates martyrdom. W h e r e a s t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g passage in Judah's address t o his m e n at E m m a u s (1 M a c e 3:59) likewise indicates a preference for d e a t h in battle rather than to l o o k u p o n t h e tragedies of "our nation and our sanctuary," J o s e p h u s a d d s a practical reason for preferring martyrdom, n a m e l y that d e a t h is t h e portion e v e n of t h o s e w h o d o not fight, as well as a p h i l o s o p h i c r e a s o n for martyrdom, namely that it will gain eternal g l o t y for t h e martyr. W h e n Judah e n t e r s his final battle against Bacchides, and his m e n (Ant

12 § 4 2 2 ) , d i s m a y e d at being s o vastly o u t n u m b e r e d , a b a n d o n

him, h e strikes t h e p o s e o f a martyr (Ant

12 § 4 2 5 ) w h o valiantly

e n d u r e s all things rather than flee. I n d e e d , in his e n c o m i u m for Judah, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 4 3 3 ) says that he suffered all things for t h e liberty o f his fellow-citizens. I''inally, w h e n Judah's followers approach his brother J o n a t h a n t o s u c c e e d him (Ant 13 §§ 5-6) they recall that in his c o n c e r n for his c o u n t r y m e n he had died on behalf o f t h e liberty of t h e m all, w h e r e u p o n Jonathan assures them that he, t o o , is ready to d i e for t h e m . 2.1.3 Opposition

to Zealotry

and

Disunity

W e m a y n o t e that t h e key feature in Josephus' r e m o l d i n g o f t h e character o f Elijah is his elimination o f t h e features of a Z e a l o t . 'ITius, m o s t notably, w h e r e a s in t h e Bible (1 Kgs 18:40) after his victory in t h e contest with t h e priests of Baal he tells t h e Israelites t o s e i z e t h e p r o p h e t s of Baal, and he himself kills them, in J o s e p h u s (Ant 8 § 3 4 3 )

48

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

it is n o t Elijah but t h e Israelites w h o kill t h e prophets of Baal.^ A g a i n , w h e n Elijah, fleeing from Q u e e n Jezebel, takes refuge in a c a v e a n d a v o i c e (1 Kgs 19:9) asks him why h e has d o n e s o , his biblical a n s w e r (1 K g s 19:10) is that h e has b e e n very z e a l o u s ( T N ^ p KDp) for t h e I ^ r d ; but in J o s e p h u s {Ant 8 § 3 5 0 ) h e m a k e s n o m e n t i o n of his zealotry. O n c e a g a i n , w h e n , according t o t h e biblical version (1 K g s 19:14), t h e still s m a l l v o i c e asks Elijah what h e is doing, h e replies that h e has b e e n very z e a l o u s ("TlKOp K3p) for t h e L-rd. H e t h e n , z e a l o t that h e is, bitterly p r o c e e d s t o indict t h e p e o p l e of Israel as having forsaken t h e c o v e n a n t , thrown d o w n G-d's altars, and slain t h e p r o p h e t s . All this is o m i t t e d in J o s e p h u s ' version {Ant 8 § 3 5 2 ) . In J o s e p h u s t h e d i v i n e v o i c e e x h o r t s t h e prophet not t o b e alarmed and assures h i m that n o n e of his e n e m i e s will s u c c e e d in getting him within their p o w e r . Similarly, o n e of t h e p r o b l e m s that confronted J o s e p h u s in d e a l i n g with t h e H a s m o n e a n s w a s that they s e e m e d t o b e t h e a n c e s t o r s o f t h e revolutionary Z e a l o t s of his o w n day,' w h o m h e s o h a t e d a n d d e ­ s p i s e d . H e n c e , w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 2:24 w h e n Mattathias s e e s a J e w c o m i n g forward t o sacrifice t o t h e pagan g o d s , h e is filled with z e a l (^!^Y]>o)aev), in J o s e p h u s ' version t h e zeal is c h a n g e d t o rage (^up-w&et(;) (Ant 12 § 2 7 0 ) . A g a i n , w h e r e a s in 1 Mace 2:26 M a t t a t h i a s , by killing this Jew, is said t o s h o w his zeal (ii^yiXuoev) for t h e l ^ w a n d is c o m p a r e d t o t h e great p r o t o t y p e of zealotry, P h i n e h a s , a n d t h e n s h o u t s that e v e r y o n e w h o is z e a l o u s (C^l^wv) for t h e l ^ w s h o u l d f o l l o w him,

in J o s e p h u s ' version (Ant

12 §§ 270-271), significantly, t h e

r e f e r e n c e t o P h i n e h a s is o m i t t e d and t h e word z e a l o u s

(^tj^wtyic;)

o c c u r s o n l y o n c e (Ant 12 § 2 7 1 ) , and t h e r e with r e f e r e n c e t o z e a l for t h e ancestral c u s t o m s (naTptwv £&uv). H e n c e , J o s e p h u s , as Gafni (1980: 125) has r e m a r k e d , h a s b e e n careful t o depict t h e H a s m o n e a n uprising as a "just war" against t h o s e w h o h a d defiled t h e n a m e o f G-d, in contrast t o t h e unjust w a r w a g e d

" There is, to be sure, an inconsistency in Josephus in that when Elijah (Ant 8 § 350), upon entering a cave, is asked why he had left the city, replies that he has done so because he has killed the prophets of Baal and is consequently being pursued by Queen Jezebel. ' Indeed, Farmer (1956) argues, to be sure unpersuasively, that the Jewish nationalists of his own day were not only counterparts of the Maccabees but that they deliberately modeled themselves upon them. In particular, we may remark that the Hasmoneans sought both religious and political liberty, whereas the all-consuming goal of the Zealots was political independence. Again, the Hasmoneans lacked the eschatological drive of the Zealots.

JOSRPTIUS' P O R T R A Y A L O F TUP. MASMONF^ANS

by t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s of his o w n day. A just war, as J o s e p h u s

49

(AgAp

2 § 2 7 2 ) d e f i n e s it, is not "for self-aggrandizement but in order to p r e s e r v e o u r laws and willingness t o d i e therefor." Likewise, w h e r e a s , in M a t t a t h i a s ' dying charge to his s o n s (1 M a c e 2:50), he bids t h e m t o b e z e a l o u s for t h e L a w (iCiqXwaaTe avoids mention

o f zeal

v6(ji(^) J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 2 8 0 )

and instead tells t h e m "to preserve

our

country's c u s t o m s and t o restore our ancient form of government." T h e r e a l s o (1 M a c e 2:54) he cites the e x a m p l e of P h i n e h a s as b e i n g zealous

in his zeal (J^TiXwoat C^Xov); w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s o m i t s all

m e n t i o n o f P h i n e h a s . Likewise, in stating that Judah turned wrath from Israel, 1 M a c e 3:8 is clearly recalling t h e picture o f P h i n e h a s ( N u m 2 5 : 1 1 ) , w h o "turned back my wrath from the p e o p l e of Israel"; and h e r e again J o s e p h u s (Am 12 § 286) avoids this p h r a s e o l o g y and is c o n t e n t t o say that Judah m a d e an e n d of t h o s e of his c o u n t r y m e n w h o had v i o l a t e d their fathers' laws and purified t h e land of all pollution. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m that c o n f r o n t e d J o s e p h u s was t h e fact that a g r o u p k n o w n as the H a s i d i m , w h o are described in 1 M a c e 2:42 as an e x c e e d i n g l y forceful (taxupot 5uva{iei) g r o u p in Israel, w h o offered t h e m s e l v e s willingly in d e f e n s e of t h e Law, are clearly s e p a r a t e from t h e H a s m o n e a n s , w h o m they originally j o i n e d in t h e war against A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s but w h o w e r e the first to withdraw (1 M a c e 7:13) from t h e struggle o n c e a p e a c e offer had b e e n m a d e by t h e Syrian B a c c h i d e s g u a r a n t e e i n g the right o f the Jews to practice their religion. H e r e J o s e p h u s w a s clearly c o n f r o n t e d with a d i l e m m a . O n t h e o n e hand, as a lackey o f t h e R o m a n s he s e e m e d to identify with t h e i d e o l o g i c a l v i e w p o i n t of t h e H a s i d i m in s e e k i n g only religious a u t o n o ­ my rather than an i n d e p e n d e n t state; o n the o t h e r hand, he was a d e s c e n d a n t o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s , w h o insisted on t h e latter as well. A t first sight, at least, it w o u l d s e e m that t h e Pharisees, in their o p p o s i ­ tion t o t h e H a s m o n e a n s and to H e r o d , had inherited the point o f v i e w of t h e H a s i d i m . w h e r e a s the revolutionaries of J o s e p h u s ' day had i n h e r i t e d t h e v i e w p o i n t of t h e H a s m o n e a n s . J o s e p h u s ' s o l u t i o n

is

carefully to s i d e s t e p t h e issue by not m e n t i o n i n g t h e H a s i d i m at all in his e n t i r e narrative, d e s p i t e the fact that he s o closely paraphrases t h e 1 M a c c a b e e s in Ant

12

13, and h e n c e t o avoid t h e division b e t w e e n

t h e H a s i d i m a n d the H a s m o n e a n s . Instead, he astutely (Ant 12 § 2 8 4 ) h a s t h e d y i n g M a t t a t h i a s advise his s o n Judah t o admit t o his ranks "the r i g h t e o u s a n d pious," without specifying t h e H a s m o n e a n s by

50

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

n a m e , a n d thus t o increase his power. I n d e e d , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 7:13 s p e c i f i e s that t h e H a s i d i m t o o k t h e lead a m o n g t h e Israelites in a c c e p t i n g t h e p e a c e offer of the Syrians, J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 3 9 5 ) says m e r e l y that "some of t h e citizens" gave ear to B a c c h i d e s ' proposals.'° J o s e p h u s , clearly mindful o f t h e fact that disunity had cost t h e J e w s s o heavily in t h e revolution against R o m e , uses every opportunity in his p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Bible to stress t h e i m p o r t a n c e of unity and t h e d a n g e r s o f civil strife, thus appealing t o his politically-minded a u d i e n c e s o familiar with Thucydides' description (3.82-84) o f t h e disastrous effects o f t h e revolution at Corcyra." I n d e e d , o n e o f t h e charges m a d e by t h e anti-Jewish A p i o n {AgAp

2 § 6 8 ) is that o f f o m e n t i n g

s e d i t i o n in Alexandria; and J o s e p h u s stresses t h r o u g h o u t that

the

Israelites a r e conspicuously well aware of t h e d a n g e r s o f such strife, and that it is t h e e n e m i e s of the Jews ( n a m e l y t h e Egyptians) w h o are t h e real p r o m o t e r s o f sedition, w h e r e a s t h e Jews are n o t e d for their c o n c o r d . H e n c e , it is most effective w h e n Mattathias {Ant

12 § 2 8 3 ) ,

in a p a s s a g e that has n o parallel in 1 M a c e 2:64-66, urges his s o n s , in his d y i n g s p e e c h , "most of all . . . to b e o f o n e m i n d (6fjtovoerv) and t o y i e l d t o o n e a n o t h e r in w h a t e v e r respect o n e is superior to t h e other." 2.2 Judah

the

J o s e p h u s {Ant

Maccabee 12 § 268) shifts early t h e e m p h a s i s from M a t t a t h i a s t o

his s o n s , w h e r e a s 1 M a c c a b e e s plays d o w n the role o f Judah

the

Efron 1987: 24, argues that there was no split between the Hasmoneans and the Hasidim. He cites the Syriac translation of 1 Mace 7:13, which speaks not of Hasidim but of "a congregation of scribes." But it is clear that this Syriac version is a paraphrase rather than a literal translation; and, indeed, another Syriac version of this passage specifically mentions "the heads of the Hasidim." Efron cites the Vulgate, which likewise speaks of "a congregation of scribes," but he neglects to note that immediately thereafter this version mentions that the Hasidim were the first among the Jews who sought peace from the Syrians. " Thus Josephus {Ant 1 § 117) portrays the punishment inflicted by G-d upon the builders of the Tower of Babel as discord ( a x a a K ; , a word not found in Gen 11:9 L X X ) , created by having them speak various languages. Similarly, in his treatment of the rebellion of Korah (Num 16) Josephus {Ant 4 § 12) remarks that it was a sedition (oraaic) "for which we know of no parallel, whether among Greeks or barbarians," clearly implying that information about seditions was familiar to his readers. Likewise, in discussing the consequences of the seduction of the Hebrew youth by the Midianite women, Josephus {Ant 4 § 140) remarks that the whole army was soon permeated by a sedition far worse than that of Korah.

JOSKPJIUS' P O R T R A Y A L O F T H E HASMONFJiiNS

51

M a c c a b e e , in particular, to a considerable d e g r e e . " Indeed, 1 Mac­ c a b e e s a s s o c i a t e s with Mattathias t h e e v e n t s at M o d c i n , as well as the d e c i s i o n t o fight o n t h e Sabbath, the alliance with t h e H a s i d i m , and the s p r e a d of t h e rebellion in Judaea. Again, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 2:17 t h e officers o f t h e Syrian king declare that Mattathias is firmly sup­ p o r t e d by s o n s and brothers, J o s e p h u s remarks that it is especially b e c a u s e o f his g o o d l y s o n s that Mattathias is held in e s t e e m . M o r e ­ over, t h e stature o f t h e H a s m o n e a n family is e l e v a t e d by Josephus' o m i s s i o n (Ant

12 § 2 6 9 ) of the offer o f t h e king's officers (1 Mace

2:18) to h o n o r t h e m with silver and gold and many gifts, inasmuch as e v e n t h e very m e n t i o n of such a bribe w o u l d be d e m e a n i n g . Rather, t h e m a t t e r is p l a c e d on a higher plane by Mattathias' s t a t e m e n t that e v e n if all t h e o t h e r nations obey t h e c o m m a n d s of A n t i o c h u s w h e t h e r through fear or desire t o please him, they w o u l d never b e p e r s u a d e d to a b a n d o n their native form o f worship. Judah t h e M a c c a b e e , in particular, is e l e v a t e d in stature in Jose­ phus' portrait. T h u s , w h e r e a s 1 Mace 3:11 declares that in the battle b e t w e e n Judah's m e n and those o f A p o l l o n i u s many fell w o u n d e d and t h e rest fled, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 287) puts t h e spotlight t o a greater

d e g r e e o n J u d a h by stating that it was h e w h o killed many o f t h e e n e m y a n d left m o r e o f t h e m w o u n d e d . A g a i n , w h e r e a s I M a c e 3:13 s t a t e s that Judah m u s t e r e d a c o m p a n y o f faithful m e n , a l o n g with o t h e r s a c c u s t o m e d to g o i n g out t o war, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 288)

describes t h e m e n w h o m he attracted in m o r e positive t e r m s as "a force t o b e r e c k o n e d with (o^ioXoyov) in a contest of war." Likewise, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 3:24 it is Judah's m e n w h o pursue Seron d o w n t h e d e s c e n t from B e t h - H o r o n and w e hear (in t h e passive v o i c e ) that eight h u n d r e d o f t h e e n e m y are slain, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 2 9 2 ) transfers t h e credit t o J u d a h a l o n e for pursuing the e n e m y and for slaying t h e eight h u n d r e d . M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s adds to t h e respect for Judah's military ability by a d d i n g (Ant

12 § 306) that Judah s h o w e d ingenuity by

surprising t h e e n e m y through leaving m a n y fires in his c a m p w h e n h e

" In this respect Josephus is closer to the viewpoint of 2 Maccabees (e.g., 8:5, 10:21, 13:15, 14:17), which exalts Judah and obscures the other brothers, even lileazar, who performed the daring exploit of attacking an elephant. The Talmudic tradition (Mishnah, Middoth 1:6) is in accord with 1 Maccabees in giving credit to ail the Hasmoneans for the victory over the Syrian Greeks.

52

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

left for E m m a u s . " Judah's military ability is further highlighted by t h e fact that at E m m a u s , w h e r e a s 1 Mace 4:12-14 states m e r e l y that t h e h e a t h e n raised their e y e s w h e n they saw Judah and his soldiers advancing against t h e m and that they were c o n s e q u e n t l y crushed, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 0 8 ) puts t h e spotlight u p o n Judah and dramatical­ ly d e s c r i b e s him as falling u p o n the unsuspecting e n e m y , striking terror into their hearts, and throwing t h e m into confusion, while all w h o w e r e in t h e rear fell by t h e sword, with n o indication of t h e actual role of Judah in all o f this; and, furthermore, in place of t h e passive v o i c e of 1 M a c c a b e e s w e have t h e statement that it is Judah w h o killed many of t h o s e w h o o p p o s e d him. Likewise, t h e purification o f t h e T e m p l e and t h e reconstitution o f h s vessels is, in 1 M a c e 4:42-51, t h e work o f t h e priests w h o m Judah selected, whereas in J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 1 8 )

it is J u d a h w h o purifies the T e m p l e and brings in n e w v e s s e l s . " A g a i n , w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 5:16 w e read that Judah and t h e p e o p l e hear that t h e G e n t i l e s in G a l i l e e have g a t h e r e d to destroy t h e J e w s and that a great assembly is called t o g e t h e r to d e c i d e what t o d o , in J o s e p h u s (Anl 12 § 332) it is Judah a l o n e w h o d e c i d e s what t o d o ; he has n o n e e d o f an assembly. Furthermore, 1 M a c e 5:43 gives t h e credit t o Judah's army for crushing the A m m o n i t e T i m o t h e u s ' army, but for J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 4 3 ) it is Judah w h o falls u p o n t h e m , killing s o m e

and striking fear into the others, forcing t h e m to throw away their arms and t o flee. Likewise, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 5:43 T i m o t h e u s a n d his m e n are crushed by Judah's forces, in J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 4 3 ) it is

Judah w h o falls u p o n t h e e n e m y ; again, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 5:44 it is Judah's army which captures t h e city o f Carnaim, in J o s e p h u s (Ant § 3 4 4 ) it is Judah w h o d o e s s o . Similarly, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12

12 § 4 0 1 )

transfers t o Judah a l o n e t h e charges which, according t o 1 M a c e 7:25, t h e w i c k e d high priest A l c i m u s brings against Judah and his m e n , and

" Tlie stratagem of leaving fires burning to deceive the enemy, as Goldstein (1976: 264) notes, was a commonplace of Greek war narratives, as we see, for example, in Herodotus (8.19) and Thucydides (7.80.3). Goldstein adds that Josephus may have inserted this remark to add to the interest of the story without realizing that he was thus impairing the effort to portray Judah's feat as parallel to that of David (2 Sam 5:23-25, 1 Chr 14:14-16); but as we have noted above, Josephus had ambivalent feelings about David. " Whereas Josephus here attributes the candelabrum to Judah, the Talmudic tradition (b. Rosh Hashanah 24b, b. Avodah Zarah 43b), as Strauss 1960: 122-29 (trans, into German 1962: 43-63), has noted, attributes the golden version of the candelabrum to the later Hasmoneans.

J O S E P H U S ' P O R T R A Y A L O F T H E IL\SMONFA.NS

53

a d d s that t h e injuries which he had suffered at his hands w o u l d b e c o m e stil! greater unless Judah were punished by having a strong force s e n t against him. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s in 1 Mace 7:26 the Syrian king D e m e t r i u s sends his g e n e r a l N i c a n o r to get rid of the p e o p l e ( ^ ^ a p a i TOV Xaov), in J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 4 0 2 ) it is Judah's growing strength, which h e d e e m s h a z a r d o u s t o his o w n interests, which prompts him to this action. Likewise, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 7:35 Nicanor directs his anger at Judah and his army, s w e a r i n g that unless they are delivered into his hands i m m e d i a t e l y he w o u l d burn the T e m p l e , in J o s e p h u s {Ant

12 § 4 0 6 )

Nicanor's anger is against Judah a l o n e and his threat is that if t h e p e o p l e d o not give Judah up t o him he will destroy t h e T e m p l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , in t h e e n c o u n t e r which ensues, 1 Mace 7:43 states that t h e a r m i e s m e t in battle, w h e r e a s Josephus {Ant 12 § 4 0 9 ) again shifts t h e a t t e n t i o n t o Judah by asserting that Judah led his m e n out to battle. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s 1 Mace 7:43 declares that in that e n c o u n t e r Nicanor's army w a s shattered, in Josephus' version {Ant 12 § 4 0 9 ) it is J u d a h w h o d e f e a t s his adversaries after a severe fight and kills many of t h e m . T h e a c h i e v e m e n t of Judah is all t h e greater b e c a u s e he adds that N i c a n o r fought gloriously. Likewise, 1 Mace 7:45 s p e a k s o f Judah's m e n as pursuing Nicanor's army after t h e battle, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 4 1 0 ) s p e a k s only of Judah as pursuing t h e e n e m y . A g a i n , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 3:42 states that Judah and his brothers saw that their misfortunes were increasing and that armies were e n c a m p i n g o n their borders, in J o s e p h u s {Ant

12 § 300) it is Judah a l o n e w h o

catches sight o f t h e c a m p and the great number of t h e e n e m y and tries t o p e r s u a d e his m e n t o have courage. Similarly, after t h e battle o f B e t h - Z u r , Judah and his brothers in 1 Mace 4:36 p r o p o s e to r c d e d i c a t e t h e T e m p l e ; in J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 316) the initiative is Judah's alone. Likewise, according to 1 Mace 5:10, the Jews w h o have taken refuge in t h e fortress of D a t h c m a appeal for h e l p in a letter sent to Judah and his brothers, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s {Ant

12 § 3 3 0 ) they write t o

Judah a l o n e . M o r e o v e r , w h e n Joseph the son o f Zachariah

and

Azariah are r o u t e d , this is due, according to 1 M a c e 5:61 t o their failure to o b e y t h e orders of Judah and his brothers, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s it is only Judah's instructions which they have n e g l e c t e d to obey; he t h e n pays tribute to Judah's foresight w h e n he adds that "in addition to t h e o t h e r instances of Judah's stratagems (npoc; y a p TOIC aXXoic a ^ T o u

aTpaTTiyTmaotv,

'tricks,' 'devices') o n e

might

well

54

LOUIS H. F E L D M A N

a d m i r e him also for having f o r e s e e n that such a reverse w o u l d c o m e t o t h e m e n u n d e r J o s e p h and Azariah if they d e p a r t e d in any respect from t h e instructions given them" (/int

12 § 352). It is significant, in

this instance, that d e s p i t e t h e fact that J o s e p h u s is closely paraphrasing 1 M a c c a b e e s h e o m i t s , presumably b e c a u s e he regarded it as d o g m a t i c a n d parochial, t h e s t a t e m e n t (1 M a c e 5:62) ascribing their d e f e a t t o t h e fact that they w e r e not o f t h e family, that is t h e H a s m o n e a n s , "into w h o s e k e e p i n g w a s entrusted t h e power of saving Israel" — and this d e s p i t e t h e fact that h e himself was d e s c e n d e d from t h e H a s m o ­ neans.'^ A n o t h e r e x a m p l e w h e r e J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 4 0 3 ) has high­

lighted Judah a l o n e is w h e r e , according to 1 M a c e 7:27-28, t h e Syrian g e n e r a l N i c a n o r s e n d s a deceitful m e s s a g e t o Judah and his b r o t h e r s inviting t h e m to m a k e p e a c e ; i n d e e d , he adds t o this d e c e i t by p r o m i s ­ ing that he will give an o a t h that Judah will suffer n o harm at his hands. Judah's skill as a general is all the greater b e c a u s e

Josephus

e m b e l l i s h e s t h e p o w e r and tactics o f t h e e n e m y . T h u s , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 5:2 states very simply that t h e h e a t h e n p l a n n e d to destroy t h e J e w s w h o w e r e a m o n g t h e m , J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 2 7 ) states not that t h e y p l a n n e d but that they actually destroyed many o f t h e J e w s

and

describes their m e t h o d s , n a m e l y through a m b u s h e s and plots, s o that J u d a h had t o w a g e c o n t i n u o u s war against t h e m in o r d e r t o c h e c k their inroads and mischief.'^ Furthermore, w h e r e a s

1 Mace

5:29

" Cohen 1979: 46-47, regards this as an instance of Josephus' inconsistency, but we may perhaps better explain it as an example of his putting greater stress on the individual leader and his qualities than on the family. Goldstein (1976: 56, note 9, 73-74, and 304) tries to explain the apparent inconsistency by asserting that Josephus did not want to claim Judah as a member of the Hasmonean family because of the abuses later committed by that family; but, we might argue, inasmuch as Josephus was a member of the Hasmonean family, he might well have wished to claim him in order to counteract the later members who fell short in virtue. Goldstein; 79-80, notes that in 2 Mace 8:22 we are told that Joseph was a brother of Judah and hence was certainly a member of the family of the Hasmoneans. We may consequently be tempted to say that Josephus was here influenced by 2 Maccabees, but the great majority of scholars - and for good reasons - have denied that Josephus knew that work. See Feldman 1984b; 225-26. " Rengstorf 1964: 106-29, commenting on Ant 12 § 327-329 and its parallel, 1 Mace 5:1-5, concerning Judah Maccabee's destmction of his enemies, claims that Josephus here employs an old Oriental topos which is found in Assyria and Neo-Babylonia, as well as in rabbinic texts, to depict the radical end of a city. But Rengstorf does not consider to what extent Josephus may have been influenced by the occurrence of this topos in Greek, especially historical, literature and

J O S E P H U S ' P O R T R A Y A L OF T H E H A S M O N E A N S

55

indicates merely that Judah left Bosra by night and

arrived at

D a t h e m a by daybreak, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 337) increases o u r admira­ tion for Judah's e n d u r a n c e by noting that not e v e n w h e n night fell did h e call a halt to his march. Kven t h e troops of t h e A m m o n i t e leader T i m o t h e u s , in a remark in J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 339) which has n o c o u n ­ terpart in 1 M a c c a b e e s (cf. 5:34), recognize the courage (6t,v5peta) and g o o d f o r t u n e (e6Tu/ia) o f Judah in war, the latter quality o f which is clearly a key quality o f a general, if w e may judge from the stress given it by C i c e r o in urging that P o m p e y

(De lege Manilla 16.47) b e given the

c o m m a n d against Mithridates of Pontus. In t h e battle at B e l h - Z e c h a r i a h Judah's bravery is all t h e greater b e c a u s e , in an addition t o t h e text o f 1 Mace 6:42, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12

§ 3 7 2 ) m a k e s a point o f remarking that w h e n he saw t h e size of the forces o f t h e Syrian general Lysias, h e was not terrified; a n d w h e r e a s 1 M a c c a b e e s s p e a k s o f Judah and his army and uses t h e passive voice in declaring that six h u n d r e d of t h e king's army were slain, J o s e p h u s shifts t h e focus entirely to Judah and asserts that he valiantly m e t the e n e m y ' s charge and s l e w six hundred of their number. T h e r e is, furthermore, increased admiration for Judah b e c a u s e w h e r e a s , accord­ ing t o 1 M a c e 9:5 he had three t h o u s a n d c h o s e n m e n at A r b e l a w h e n h e faced t h e Syrian general Bacchides, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 4 2 2 ) has

r e d u c e d t h e size o f his force to a m e r e thousand. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 9:7 describes Judah as troubled in spirit and discouraged when h e s e e s his army dwindling away, J o s e p h u s (Anl 12 § 4 2 3 ) o m i t s such details and asserts that h e was ready t o e n g a g e B a c c h i d e s with the eight h u n d r e d m e n that w e r e left. I n d e e d , w h e n he exhorts his m e n , Judah in 1 M a c e 9:8 urges t h e m t o g o against their e n e m i e s if they s h o u l d b e able t o fight against t h e m ; there is n o " i f in Judah's vocabulary in J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 §§ 423-425): there he exhorts t h e m to face d a n g e r bravely and urges t h e m to advance to battle and to s h o w c o n t e m p t for danger. W h e n t h e tide o f battle turns against him, and his m e n urge him to retreat, J u d a h in 1 M a c e 9:10 r e s p o n d s w h h t h e brief s t a t e m e n t that "if o u r t i m e has c o m e , let us d i e bravely for o u r brothers and not

military handbooks, by which he was certainly much influenced elsewhere and which his readers would have appreciated. In any case, the idea of destroying the murderers in a city and then burning it is hardly unique in the passage cited by Rengstorf; it is, in fact, a commonplace in military activities of many nations and many eras.

56

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

l e a v e an accusation against our honor." J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 §§ 4 2 4 - 4 2 5 ) has a m u c h

m o r e e l a b o r a t e response, highly reminiscent o f

the

r e s p o n s e o f H e c t o r ( H o m e r //. 6.440-465) t o A n d r o m a c h e w h e n s h e urges h i m not to g o forth t o battle, that if he must inevitably perish in t h e fight he will stand his ground rather than bring disgrace u p o n his former

a c h i e v e m e n t s . J o s e p h u s , furthermore,

has a much

more

e l a b o r a t e account o f Judah's d e a t h in battle. 1 M a c e 9:17-18 is c o n t e n t m e r e l y t o state that t h e battle b e c a m e d e s p e r a t e and Judah fell, w h i l e t h e rest o f his m e n fled. J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 430-431) describes him as standing firm while surrounded by the e n e m y , as killing many o f his adversaries, and falling while still performing glorious d e e d s . J o s e p h u s was confronted with a major problem in that not only w a s J u d a h d e f e a t e d al B e t h - Z e c h a r i a h (I M a c e 6:47) but h e retreated to s o m e u n k n o w n destination, not to reappear until t h e invasion o f B a c c h i d e s many m o n t h s later. Such passivity and inactivity w e r e hardly c o m p a t i b l e with a hero of Judah's stature, and s o J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 §§ 3 7 5 - 3 8 2 ) has Judah retreat t o Jerusalem, w h e r e he signs a p e a c e treaty with K i n g A n t i o c h u s V E u p a t o r which the Jews gladly accept. A s G o l d s t e i n (1976: 3 2 2 ) has remarked, after t h e defeat at B e t h - Z e ­ chariah Judah's n a m e is absent from t h e rest o f t h e account in 1 M a c e 6:49-62, w h e r e a s in Josephus' version (Ant 12 § 3 8 2 ) Judah is a m o n g t h e last d e f e n d e r s of the T e m p l e . Likewise, in the version of 1 M a c e 7:9, King D e m e t r i u s o f Syria s e n d s Bacchides to take r e v e n g e o n t h e Israelites, w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s ' version (Ant 12 § 393) t h e e m p h a s i s is again o n Judah, as w e hear that D e m e t r i u s instructed

Bacchides

specifically t o kill Judah and t h e m e n with him. J o s e p h u s , however, was careful not t o d a m a g e his credibility by e x a g g e r a t i n g Judah's strength, just as he was careful to avoid t h e rabbinic exaggeration of t h e strength o f S a m s o n ( F e l d m a n 1988b: 183). T h u s , J o s e p h u s totally o m i t s t h e c o m p a r i s o n in 1 Mace 3:3 of Judah t o a giant w h e n he d o n n e d his breastplate and to "a lion in his d e e d s , like a lion's w h e l p roaring for its prey." Likewise, t h o u g h t h e detail (1 M a c e 6:37) that u p o n e a c h o f the e l e p h a n t s at B e t h - Z e c h a r i a h t h e r e w e r e thirty-two (thirty, according t o a variant reading) officers w o u l d h a v e a d d e d to Judah's bravery since it w o u l d h a v e s h o w n h o w mighty t h e e n e m y was, J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 7 1 ) , apparently realizing that such a detail w o u l d render his account less credible, omits it. A key attribute c o n n e c t e d with w i s d o m , as w c may s e e in T h u c y ­ d i d e s ' (2.60) portrait o f t h e ideal statesman, Pericles, is the ability t o

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF T H E H A S M 0 N F j \ N S

p e r s u a d e . T h u s J o s e p h u s remarks (Ant

57

1 § 154) that A b r a h a m was

persuasive with his hearers, K t ^ a v o c t o i i ; a K p o w | j i £ V o i c (a w o r d used e s p e c i a l l y of s t u d e n t s w h o listen to lectures in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s , F e l d m a n 1968a: 151-152) and was not mistaken in his inferences. His p o w e r o f p e r s u a s i o n is s e e n particularly in his ability to c o n v i n c e the E g y p t i a n s (Ant

1 § 167) on any subject which h e u n d e r t o o k t o teach.

A s t o M o s e s , it is n o t h i n g short of amazing that J o s e p h u s is able to praise his extraordinary ability in addressing a crowd (Ant 3 § 13, 4 § 328),

d e s p i t e t h e fact that t h e Bible ( l i x o d 6:12) declares that he had

a s p e e c h i m p e d i m e n t . Similarly, in the case of Judah, in 1 M a c e 3:23 w c read that w h e n h e e n c o u n t e r e d t h e Syrian S e r o n he addressed his m e n in an effort t o inspire t h e m , but that w h e n he s t o p p e d s p e a k i n g h e d r o v e s u d d e n l y at the e n e m y , with no indication in the text that he had actually s u c c e e d e d in persuading his own m e n . J o s e p h u s (Ant

12

§ 2 9 2 ) , o n t h e o t h e r hand, clearly states that Judah s u c c e e d e d in p e r s u a d i n g his m e n to hold in c o n t e m p t the great n u m b e r s o f their adversaries and to e n c o u n t e r Seron. Finally, in a significant addition to 1 Mace 9:57, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12

§ 4 1 4 ) , in a s t a t e m e n t twice repeated (Ant 12 § 419; 4 3 4 ) and actually c o n t r a d i c t e d by him at a later point in his history (Ant 2 0 § 237, w h e r e h e s t a t e s that after t h e d e a t h of Alcimus there w a s n o high priest in J e r u s a l e m for s e v e n years), declares that w h e n the high priest A l c i m u s d i e d t h e p e o p l e g a v e t h e high priesthood to Judah. H e r e , as Fischer ( 1 9 7 5 : 4 6 - 4 9 ) suggests, w e have an indirect recognition of the Jewish high priestly state, inasmuch as what immediately follows is an account o f t h e treaty o f friendship which Judah, presumably in his role as high priest ( i n a s m u c h as t h e treaty is explicitly [Ant 12 § 419] dated, "when Judah

was high

priest"), negotiated with the

Romans." Indeed,

" Goldstein, 1976: 357, appositely remarks that if Judah took the initiative to negotiate a treaty one would expect him to have held some legal office. And yet, the only title, according to 1 Maccabees, that he had was "commander of the army," and that through the mouth of Mattathias rather than through popular election. Since Mattathias was a guerrilla chieftain he had no legal national authority to convey his office. Whereas the later Hasmoneans are spoken of in 1 Maccabees (11:23; 12:6, 35; 13:36; 14:20, 28) as having legal titles, the silence of 1 Maccabees with regard to Judah would seem to indicate that he had no legal right on behalf of the nation to negotiate the treaty with the Romans. Josephus, on the other hand, because he believed that the high priest had the authority to send embassies {e.g.,Anl 11 § \\l;AgAp 2 § 185 and 188), elevates Judah to this position, knowing that the Hasmoneans later held such an office. Josephus' problem, however, was that Alcimus was the high priest at this time (1 Mace

58

LOUES H. F E L D M A N

J o s e p h u s ' final s t a t e m e n t in his e u l o g y o f J u d a h (Ant 12 § 4 2 4 ) is that h e held t h e high priesthood for three years. In v i e w o f this increased e m p h a s i s o n Judah w e may w o n d e r why J o s e p h u s systematically omits t h e passages in 1 M a c c a b e e s (e.g., 3:25-26, 3:43) in which t h e language about Judah is clearly r e m i n i s c e n t o f D a v i d ' s e x h o r t a t i o n s and exploits. W e may likewise n o t e J o s e p h u s ' o m i s s i o n (Ant 12 § 3 1 4 ) in Judah's prayer at B e t h - Z u r o f t h e r e f e r e n c e in 1 M a c e 4:30 t o David's defeat o f G o l i a t h , which w o u l d s e e m t o b e a m o s t apt analogy in view of t h e t r e m e n d o u s o d d s against Judah at this time.'^ T h e answer may lie in t h e fact that J o s e p h u s systematical­ ly d i m i n i s h e s t h e importance of D a v i d as king b o t h in s h e e r length o f g e n e r a l t r e a t m e n t and in t h e length of his final e n c o m i u m (Ant 1 §§ 3 9 0 - 3 9 1 ) , especially as c o m p a r e d with King Saul a n d , m o r e important, in t e r m s o f qualities o f character. 'ITiis may have b e e n d u e t o t h e fact that J o s e p h u s himself was d e s c e n d e d from t h e H a s m o n e a n kings rather t h a n from t h e line of David, or b e c a u s e of David's i m p o r t a n c e as t h e a n c e s t o r of t h e M e s s i a h a figure w h o w a s clearly a n a t h e m a for t h e R o m a n s , inasmuch as t h e key goal of t h e M e s s i a h w a s t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f an i n d e p e n d e n t state (for o t h e r pos.sible e x p l a n a t i o n s s e e F e l d m a n 1989a: 172-174). W e m a y suggest that political considerations w e r e similarly b e h i n d J o s e p h u s ' o m i s s i o n o f t h e reference in 1 M a c e 4:46 to a p r o p h e t w h o , in t h e future, w o u l d advise t h e Jews what to d o with t h e s t o n e s of t h e altar which had b e e n defiled. Similarly, w h e r e a s 1 Mace 9:27 d e c l a r e s that t h e distress that befell Israel after Judah's d e a t h w a s greater than any that had b e f a l l e n t h e m since p r o p h e t s had c e a s e d a p p e a r i n g t o t h e m , J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 5) avoids m e n t i o n i n g this c e s s a t i o n o f p r o p h e c y and instead says that it was greater than any that they had e x p e r i e n c e d since their return from Babylon, presumably b e c a u s e such a m e n t i o n o f p r o p h e c y might have conjured up t h o u g h t s of a M e s s i a n ­ ic era, as n o t e d in t h e prediction cited by J o s e p h u s {JW 6 § 3 1 2 ) , Tacitus {Hist 5.13.2), and Suetonius {Vespasian 4.5). E l s e w h e r e {AgAp

9:54-57), and so he has Alcimus die shortly after the victory over Nicanor, thus making room for Judah's election to the high priesthood. Bauer 1958: 223-24; Jeremias 1962:197-204; and Lieberman 1955-58: Pt.4,909 n. 48, all note, however, that the term ipxiepeui; may refer to any distinguished member of the priesthood. '* Josephus {Ant 12 § 312) omits other intimations of David's victories alluded to in the narrative of 1 Maccabees, notably 4:25, which echoes 1 Sam 19:5; 2 Sam 23:10, 12 and 1 Chr 11:14.

JOSFPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF T H E HASMONEANS

59

1 § 4 1 ) J o s e p h u s s p e a k s o f Ihe failure of t h e exact succession o f t h e p r o p h e t s in t h e reign of Artaxerxes in t h e fifth century B C B " This revival o f prophecy, w e may assume, would b e associated with the M e s s i a n i c era; and any hint of a messiah would, o f course, b e anathe­ m a t o t h e R o m a n s w h o m J o s e p h u s was trying s o hard t o p l e a s e . 2.3

Jonathan

Just as J o s e p h u s builds up the figures of Mattathias and Judah, s o he d o e s with J o n a t h a n , Judah's brother and successor. 'ITius, w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 9:60 s t a t e s that t h e Syrians were unable t o arrest Jonathan and his m e n b e c a u s e their plot b e c a m e known, J o s e p h u s {Ant

13 § 25)

gives t h e credit to Jonathan himself for b e c o m i n g aware o f the plot and for c o n s e q u e n t l y guarding himself closely and gathering a large force {Ant 13 § 2 8 ) . M o r e o v e r , Jonathan is painted as a m a g n a n i m o u s leader, w h o not only p r o p o s e s t o Bacchides that he m a k e p e a c e and r e l e a s e his Jewish prisoners (1 Mace 9:70), but also that h e enter into a friendly alliance a n d that both sides e x c h a n g e prisoners. Indeed, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 9:71 Bacchides a l o n e swears never t o s e e k evil against J o n a t h a n as l o n g as he lived, the oath is mutual in J o s e p h u s {Ant

13 § 3 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e obtain a picture {Ant

13 § 38) of

Jonathan's p o w e r from t h e fact that the Syrian King D e m e t r i u s writes flattering w o r d s t o him in fear that he may bear him a grudge for his former e n m i t y . In particular, Josephus stresses Jonathan's courage, for w h e r e a s A l e x a n d e r Balas, the Syrian king, in his quest for allies, asks (1 M a c e 10:16) w h e t h e r it is possible to find a n o t h e r o n e such as J o n a t h a n , J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 43) spells out that there was n o better ally than J o n a t h a n , w h o w a s courageous in battle. Again, w h e n King D e m e t r i u s o f Syria writes (1 Mace 10:25), he addresses the nation o f t h e Jews, but in J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 48) the letter is sent t o Jonathan and the Jewish nation. A measure of t h e increased regard which D e m e t r i u s had for J o n a t h a n may be seen in t h e fact that w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 10:40 h e p r o m i s e s t o given him fifteen t h o u s a n d s h e k e l s (that

' " S e e F e l d m a n 1990: 4 0 0 - 7 , for a discussion of this s t a t e m e n t a n d of t h e a p p a r e n t e x c e p t i o n s in J o s e p h u s in t h e instances of C l e o d e m u s a n d J o h n H y r c a ­ n u s . W h e n J o s e p h u s {Anl 12 § 352) says that J u d a h f o r e s a w t h e r e v e r s e t h a t w o u l d o c c u r t o J o s e p h son of Z a c h a r i a h a n d A z a r i a h if they d e v i a t e d from his i n s t r u c t i o n s , this is n o t an i n s t a n c e of p r o p h e c y b u t r a t h e r of insight b a s e d u p o n k n o w l e d g e , as w e s e e from t h e v e r b which is used, OUV^KEV, which impHes understanding or realization.

60

LOUIS H. F'TXDMAN

is, sixty t h o u s a n d drachmas) of silver annually, in J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 §

5 5 ) this b e c o m e 150,000 drachmas. M o r e o v e r , Jonathan's military ability is highlighted by t h e fact {Ant 13 § 94), unparalleled in 1 M a c c a b e e s (cf. 10:80), that he d r e w u p his army in a square and thus prepared to fight t h e e n e m y o n e i t h e r line by o p p o s i n g t h e m w h e t h e r they attacked his front or his rear. W e s e e his military g e n i u s in his tactics against A p o l l o n i u s . 1 M a c e 10:80 d e c l a r e s that t h e e n e m y surrounded Jonathan's c a m p and s h o t darts at his p e o p l e without indicating Jonathan's tactics in r e s p o n s e . J o s e ­ p h u s {Ant 13 § 95) describes t h e s e tactics in detail, that h e o r d e r e d his m e n t o m a k e a f e n c e o f their shields and thus s u c c e e d e d in warding off t h e javelins thrown by t h e e n e m y h o r s e m e n . It is J o n a t h a n w h o gets credit for the rout of A p o l l o n i u s : w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 10:83 reports that t h e e n e m y fled to A s h d o d , J o s e p h u s {Ant

13 § 99) a d d s that

J o n a t h a n pursued t h e m as far as A z o t u s , slaying m a n y o f t h e m . T h e r e is an increased p r e m i u m p l a c e d upon Jonathan's military v a l u e in J o s e p h u s ' version (Ant

13 § 102 vs. 1 M a c e 10:88), w h e r e

A l e x a n d e r Balas, after hearing the news that Jonathan had d e f e a t e d A p o l l o n i u s , gives him rewards and h o n o r s ; t h e s e arc all t h e m o r e meaningful b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h u s ' addition that A l e x a n d e r p r e t e n d e d to b e p l e a s e d as if it had b e e n against his will that A p o l l o n i u s had fought with J o n a t h a n . His military ability is further increased by J o s e p h u s ' a d d e d remark (Ant

13 § 122, cf. 1 M a c e 11:21) that t h e

traitorous Jews w h o held t h e citadel in Jerusalem m a d e light of Jonathan's d e v i c e s for capturing it, s o confident w e r e they in t h e strength o f t h e fortress. F u r t h e r m o r e , Jonathan's value as an ally is clear from t h e fact that, in contrast t o 1 M a c e 11:60, w h e r e w e read only that J o n a t h a n w e n t forth w h e n r e q u e s t e d by A n t i o c h u s VI t o fight against D e m e t r i u s ' g e n e r a l s , in J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 148) he d o c s s o with alacrity, thus

e m p h a s i z i n g for J o s e p h u s ' readers how reliable t h e J e w s are w h e n it c o m e s t o h e l p i n g their non-Jewish allies. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 11:60 J o n a t h a n receives t h e help of t h e entire army of Syria as allies, in J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 148) w e hear that though t h e cities of Syria and P h o e n i c i a receive him splendidly they give him n o t r o o p s , and s o he must fight a l o n e . J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 149) paints a splendid picture o f J o n a t h a n t h e loyal ally, for w h e r e a s 1 Mace 11:60 states simply that h e w e n t to A s k a l o n , J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 149) adds his success in p e r s u a d ­ ing t h e p e o p l e o f A s k a l o n to ally t h e m s e l v e s with A n t i o c h u s . I n d e e d ,

J O S E P H U S ' P O R T R A Y A L OF T H E H A S M O N E A N S

61

w h e n J o n a t h a n d e f e a t s King D e m e t r i u s II in G a l i l e e , 1 M a c e 11:74 m e r e l y gives t h e n u m b e r of the e n e m y w h o were slain; J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 163), o n t h e o t h e r hand, terms it a brilliant (Xajxnpwc) victory. In a n o t e which w o u l d have especially a p p e a l e d t o t h e Stoics in his a u d i e n c e , J o s e p h u s {Ant

13 § 163), in an addition to 1 M a c e 12:1,

d e c l a r e s that w h e n Jonathan saw by G-d's providence ( n p o v o i a ) that all his affairs w e r e g o i n g according to his liking, he d e c i d e d t o s e n d e n v o y s t o R o m e . Significantly, however, w h e n Jonathan writes to t h e Spartans s e e k i n g their alliance, in 1 Mace 12:15 he indicates that aid had c o m e t o him from H e a v e n , w h e r e a s in J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 169) his superiority is p l a c e d o n a military plane in his success in o v e r c o m i n g his e n e m i e s . M o r e o v e r , as with Judah, the great leader must be skilled in t h e art o f p e r s u a d i n g and inspiring his m e n . H e n c e , w e read, in a passage (Ant 13 § 176) that has n o counterpart in 1 M a c c a b e e s (cf. 12:27), that h e s u c c e e d e d in exhorting his m e n , during the continuing struggle against D e m e t r i u s II, t o k e e p their spirits high and their s e n s e s alert and t o fight e v e n at night if necessary s o that they might not b e caught u n p r e p a r e d . T h o u g h , to b e sure, 1 Mace 12:28 paints an effective picture of Jonathan's o p p o n e n t s being struck with terror and having their c o u r a g e m e l t e d , J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 177) g o e s e v e n further in

describing t h e effect o f Jonathan upon his e n e m i e s , namely that they w e r e u n a b l e to use s o u n d judgment and were n o longer a match for Jonathan's m e n , inasmuch as their stratagems had failed. A g a i n , in a c o m m e n t (Ant 13 § 182) unparalleled in 1 M a c c a b e e s (cf. 12:37, J o n a t h a n s h o w s military foresight in advising t h e p e o p l e t o e r e c t fortresses t h r o u g h o u t t h e country that w e r e far stronger than t h o s e in their current state. Finally, whereas, after Jonathan has b e e n captured, w e read in 1 Mace 13:2 that the p e o p l e were trembling with fear, J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 195) g o e s much further in his tribute t o

Jonathan's c o u r a g e (dtvSpEia) and foresight (irpovoia). T h e Jews, h e adds, w e r e afraid that the surrounding nations w o u l d rise up against t h e m since it w a s only b e c a u s e of Jonathan that they had r e m a i n e d quiet. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s highlights the status of Jonathan as high priest by constantly referring t o him thus (eg., Ant 13 §§ 8 3 , 121, 133, 2 1 2 ) , w h e r e a s 1 M a c c a b e e s usually omits this title (e.g., 1 M a c e 10:59; 11:20, 4 1 ; 12:23). H i s role as high priest is e m p h a s i z e d by t h e fact thai w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 12:35 Jonathan calls t o g e t h e r t h e elders of t h e

LOUIS II.

62

FELDMAN

p e o p l e , in J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 181) it is specifically in t h e T e m p l e that h e g a t h e r s t h e m and it is t h e part o f the wall a r o u n d t h e T e m p l e which h e bids t h e m set u p and it is t h e precincts o f t h e T e m p l e that h e asks t h e m t o fortify. Finally, his status is e l e v a t e d by t h e fact that w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 10:65 King A l e x a n d e r Balas inscribes him a m o n g his best friends, in J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 85, s o also 13 § 146) h e is

inscribed as his First Friend. 2.4

Simon

A s with Mattathias, Judah, and Jonathan, s o with S i m o n , J o s e p h u s aggrandizes his personality. T h u s , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 9:68 s p e a k s o f t h e d e f e a t inflicted u p o n B a c c h i d e s by S i m o n and his m e n , in J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 29) it is S i m o n a l o n e w h o is given credit for b u r n i n g t h e

s i e g e - e n g i n e s o f t h e Syrians and slaughtering a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r o f their m e n , thus causing B a c c h i d e s t o b e c o m e d e s p o n d e n t , disturbed, and c o n f o u n d e d , and not m e r e l y e n r a g e d , as in 1 M a c e 9:69. W e s e e S i m o n ' s military ability in t h e e n g a g e m e n t with A p o l l o n i u s , w h e r e 1 M a c e 10:82 says merely that h e threw in his army, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s (Ant 13 § 97) d e c l a r e s that w h e n S i m o n perceived that t h e e n e m y w e r e weary, h e wisely e n g a g e d their main b o d y and s u c c e e d e d in routing t h e e n e m y through t h e great ardor which his soldiers s h o w e d . In t h e rout of t h e e n e m y which e n s u e d , 1 M a c e 10:82 declares that S i m o n c o m ­ pletely d e f e a t e d t h e m and they fled, w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 9 8 )

e l e v a t e s t h e role of S i m o n by noting that it was in d i s o r d e r and c o n f u s i o n that they fled, with t h e result that their lines w e r e b r o k e n and t h e y w e r e scattered e v e r y w h e r e in t h e plain. W e s e e S i m o n ' s military skill in that w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 11:63 states simply that he e n c a m p e d against Beth-Zur, fought against it for a l o n g time, and b l o c k a d e d it, J o s e p h u s (Ant

13 § 156) a d d s such specific

details, probably derived, to b e sure, from military h a n d b o o k s , as that h e raised earthworks and set up s i e g e - e n g i n e s , s o that t h e soldiers o f t h e garrison were afraid that t h e place might b e t a k e n by s t o r m and they b e d e s t r o y e d . A g a i n , as with Judah, t h e key c o n c e p t for w h i c h they are fighting (Ant 13 § 198) is liberty (^Xeu&epia), and he, t o o , like his brothers, e x p r e s s e s his readiness t o d i e for this principle, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c e 13:3 there is n o m e n t i o n of liberty or martyrdom and o n l y of t h e d e v o t i o n to t h e laws and t o t h e sanctuary. A g a i n , as with his brothers, t h e great hero must excel in e x h o r t i n g and inspiring his p e o p l e ; h e n c e , w h e r e a s 1 Mace 13:7 says simply that

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF THE

HASMONFALNS

63

h e s u c c e e d e d in rekindling t h e spirit o f t h e p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s {Anl 13 § 2 0 1 ) e l a b o r a t e s by adding that from having b e e n crushed in spirit t h r o u g h timidity they w e r e now raised t o a better spirit and g o o d h o p e . J o s e p h u s {Ant

13 §§ 205-206), m o r e o v e r , m a g n a n i m o u s l y and

democratically, paints a picture of S i m o n consulting his p e o p l e before d e c i d i n g t o accept Tryphon's treacherous offer to free his brother J o n a t h a n in return for s e n d i n g him a hundred talents o f silver and J o n a t h a n ' s t w o s o n s as hostages; in 1 M a c e 13:17 S i m o n m a k e s t h e d e c i s i o n o n his o w n . A s with J u d a h and Jonathan, J o s e p h u s focuses upon S i m o n ' s role as high priest; and s o , in an addition to 1 M a c e 13:2, h e indicates that it w a s in t h e T e m p l e that h e gathered t h e p e o p l e and e x h o r t e d t h e m t o fight against T r y p h o n . Finally, again with S i m o n as with J u d a h and J o n a t h a n , J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 2 1 3 ) , in a passage that has n o counter­ part in 1 M a c c a b e e s (cf. 13:33), e m p h a s i z e s his role as high priest, n o t i n g that h e was thus c h o s e n by the p o p u l a c e . It is this high priest­ h o o d that is t h e basis of Simon's political power, as w e s e e in Jose­ p h u s ' a d d e d remark {Ant

13 § 213) that in the first year o f his high

p r i e s t h o o d h e liberated (TjXEU&epwaev) the p e o p l e from servitude t o t h e M a c e d o n i a n s . W h i l e it is true that 1 Mace 13:42 d o e s m e n t i o n that J e w s b e g a n to d a t e their d o c u m e n t s from t h e first year o f S i m o n "the great H i g h Priest and G e n e r a l and Ruler of the Jews," J o s e p h u s {Ant 13 § 2 1 4 ) a d d s that t h e y d a t e d t h e m "from t h e first year of S i m o n , t h e b e n e f a c t o r and ethnarch o f the Jews," s o great w a s their respect for him, a n d that they p r o s p e r e d exceedingly and o v e r c a m e t h e f o e s that surrounded them.

3.

llieological

Considerations

T h r o u g h o u t m o s t of t h e Antiquities Josephus, while focusing o n t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s o f his h e r o e s , d e - e m p h a s i z e s t h e role of G-d. T h u s h e stresses A b r a h a m ' s address to Isaac {Ant 1 §§ 228-231) w h e n he is preparing t o sacrifice him and omits any appeal to G-d, fraught as it is with t h e p r o b l e m of theodicy, in contrast to the rabbinic e m p h a s i s o n A b r a h a m ' s address t o G-d. T h e r e is likewise a d e - e m p h a s i s o n t h e role o f G-d in t h e narrative of Joseph and Potiphar's wife {Ant 2 §§ 4 1 - 5 9 ) . P e r h a p s t h e m o s t striking e x a m p l e of t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f G - d is in t h e R u t h p c r i c o p e (Ant 5 §§ 318-336), w h e r e Jose­ p h u s n o w h e r e m e n t i o n s G-d d e s p i t e t h e fact that the Biblical account m e n t i o n s H i m s e v e n t e e n times.

64

LOUIS H . IT-LDMAN

Similarly, w h e r e a s in 1 M a c c a b e e s Judah places all his trust in G-d, for "strength c o m e s from H e a v e n " (1 M a c e 3:19), in J o s e p h u s {Ant

12

§ 2 9 0 ) t h e deliverance is transferred from G-d's unconditional b e n e v o ­ l e n c e t o t h e piety and righteousness s h o w n by Judah a n d his m e n . Kven w h e n h e cites (Ant

12 § 291), in addition to 1 M a c e 3:19, t h e

e x a m p l e o f t h e forefathers in inspiring his soldiers, Judah stresses that it w a s b e c a u s e o f their righteousness and their struggles o n b e h a l f o f their o w n laws that they g a i n e d t h e mastery over t h e e n e m y . A g a i n , at E m m a u s Judah c l o s e s his exhortation to his m e n with t h e s t a t e m e n t (1 M a c e 3:60) that G-d will d o w h a t e v e r b e H i s will. J o s e p h u s {Ant

12

§§ 3 0 2 - 3 0 4 ) shifts t h e focus to t h e m e n t h e m s e l v e s , and Judah tells t h e m that it lies within their p o w e r t o recover their liberty and t o regain a h a p p y life in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e laws of their fathers o r t o suffer t h e most shameful fate. H e d e l i n e a t e s their c a u s e as liberty (feXeu&Epiot), country

(naTpic),

laws (vofxoi), and religion

(euoePeia) —

precisely, as w e have n o t e d , the ideals that would m e a n m o s t to t h e R o m a n s . Likewise, at E m m a u s , w h e r e a s in 1 Mace 4:10 Judah tells his m e n t o cry to H e a v e n t o s e c w h e t h e r G-d will have mercy u p o n t h e m a n d will b e mindful o f t h e t e s t a m e n t of t h e fathers, J o s e p h u s ' J u d a h {Ant 12 § 3 0 7 ) appeals not t o G-d's mercy but rather to t h e a d m i r a t i o n which G - d has for t h e c o u r a g e o f m e n , and c o n s e q u e n t l y urges t h e m , in an a d d i t i o n to 1 M a c c a b e e s , t o fight e v e n if with u n a r m e d b o d i e s . A g a i n , at B e t h - Z u r , w h e r e 1 M a c e 4:30-33 has a long prayer by J u d a h to m a k e t h e e n e m y cowardly a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t o let all w h o k n o w H i s n a m e p r a i s e H i m , J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 1 4 ) has a single p h r a s e which p l a c e s G-d's role o n a military level, n a m e l y to be his ally ( a u f x [ j i a x o c ) against t h e e n e m y . L i k e w i s e , w h e n they s e e t h e d e s o l a t i o n of the T e m p l e , Judah a n d his m e n cry out t o H e a v e n in 1 M a c e 4:39-40, but J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 3 1 7 ) m e r e l y has t h e m lament, with n o m e n t i o n of the a p p e a l t o G-d. Similarly, in his version of t h e rededication of t h e T e m p l e , J o s e p h u s {Ant

12 § 3 2 1 ) o m i t s m e n t i o n o f t h e praise t o H e a v e n u t t e r e d by all

t h e p e o p l e (1 M a c e 4:55). T h e r e is a similar shift of centrality f r o m G-d to t h e fighters t h e m s e l v e s in J o s e p h u s ' version o f Judah's a d d r e s s t o his t r o o p s b e f o r e t h e battle of A d a s a . In 1 M a c e 7:41-42 J u d a h prays, r e m i n d i n g his m e n that w h e n t h e m e s s e n g e r s of t h e A s s y r i a n king s p o k e b l a s p h e m y ( 2 Kgs 9:35), G-d's angel struck d o w n 1 8 5 , 0 0 0 o f t h e e n e m y a n d asks G-d t o d o likewise with Nicanor's forces. In J o s e p h u s {Ant

12 §§ 408-409) Judah d o e s not pray but e x h o r t s his

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF T H R H A S M O N F A L N S

men.

65

T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n of G-d or G-d's angel or of t h e previous

biblical p r e c e d e n t o f a miracle; instead Judah inspires his m e n not to be o v e r a w e d by t h e n u m b e r o f t h e e n e m y but rather to take pride in their c a u s e a n d to f a c e their f o e s bravely.

4.

Apologetics

O n e o f t h e recurrent charges against t h e Jews is hatred o f mankind. E v e n H e c a t a e u s {ap. D i o d o r u s 40.3.4 ^ Stern 1976-84: 1, N o . 11), w h o Is o t h e r w i s e well d i s p o s e d toward the Jews, describes t h e Jewish way of life as " s o m e w h a t unsocial" (6(,7cav&p6)Tc6v

Tiva)

foreigners ([ztao^evov). Throughout his Antiquities

and hostile t o

J o s e p h u s is c o n ­

c e r n e d with refuting t h e s e charges ( F e l d m a n 1988c: 4 9 4 - 9 6 ) . Thus h e n o t e s that A b r a h a m is m o v e d with c o m p a s s i o n for his friends a n d n e i g h b o r s t h e S o d o m i t e s (Ant

1 § 176), that J o s e p h sells grain to all

p e o p l e a n d not m e r e l y to native Egyptians {Ant 2 § 94 and 101), that D a v i d , far from b e i n g a misanthrope, is described as fptXav9^pwTtoc;, and that S o l o m o n asks that G-d grant t h e prayers not only o f Jews but a l s o o f f o r e i g n e r s (Ant 8 §§ 116-117). Jews, says J o s e p h u s {Ant 4 § 207 a n d AgAp

2 § 2 3 7 ) , following Exod 22:28 LXX, are forbidden by t h e

T o r a h t o b l a s p h e m e the gods of others out of respect for t h e very w o r d "god." I n a s m u c h as J o s e p h u s is writing for a primarily non-Jewish a u d i e n c e ( F e l d m a n 1988c: 4 7 0 - 7 1 ) , he could hardly afford to offend t h e s e pagan readers. F l e n c e , it is not surprising that he totally o m i t s {Ant 12 § 2 9 0 ) t h e r e f e r e n c e in 1 M a c e 3:49 t o t h e incident in which the "nations" (eS-vr)) d r e w t h e l i k e n e s s e s of their idols u p o n a scroll of t h e Law. A g a i n , w h e r e a s w e read in 1 Mace 3:25 that after Judah crushed S e r o n the fear and d r e a d of Judah and his brothers b e g a n to fall u p o n t h e nations

(e&vT))

a r o u n d t h e m , J o s e p h u s {Ant 12 § 293) o m i t s m e n t i o n

o f t h e effect u p o n t h e nations. Similarly, at E m m a u s , w h e r e a s Judah, according to 1 M a c e 3:58 e x h o r t s his m e n t o be ready early in the morning to fight t h e n a t i o n s (toij

TcoXe[ZT]CTai

toXc,

e&veaiv) w h o have gathered against t h e m ,

Judah in J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 302) o n c e again o m i t s all reference t o t h e n a t i o n s a n d instead c o n c e n t r a t e s on instilling in his m e n c o u r a g e a n d c o n t e m p t for d a n g e r . Likewise, at E m m a u s , w h e r e a s , in t h e version o f 1 M a c e 4:10, Judah tells his m e n t o a p p e a l to G-d s o that all t h e n a t i o n s (^&vt)) m a y k n o w that there is O n e w h o will r e d e e m Israel,

66

U ) U ! S H.

J o s e p h u s (Anl

FELDMAN

12 § 3 0 7 ) , s e e k i n g to avoid a c o n f r o n t a t i o n with n o n -

Jewish readers, again o m i t s t h e reference t o t h e nations. F u r t h e r m o r e , in d e s c r i b i n g t h e battle that e n s u e d , J o s e p h u s (Ant 12 § 3 0 7 ) refers t o t h e e n e m y but not to t h e "nations," as 1 M a c e 4:14 d o e s . A g a i n , w h e r e a s 1 M a c c a b e e s refers several t i m e s (4:45, 54, 58, 6 0 ) t o t h e d e s e c r a t i o n of t h e T e m p l e by t h e "nations," J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 2 0 )

in his p a r a p h r a s e o m i t s all m e n t i o n o f the "nations." I n d e e d , in the o n e place (Ant 12 § 3 2 7 ) w h e r e J o s e p h u s d o e s refer t o t h e "nations," he is speaking not o f the h e a t h e n s g e n e r a l l y but rather o f t h e nations geographically surrounding J u d a e a . Likewise, t h e s t a t e m e n t in 1 M a c e 5:5 that Judah ritually d o o m e d t h e tribe of B a e a n t o c o m p l e t e destruction might well have s e e m e d utterly cruel to his r e a d e r s , and s o it is not surprising that J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 2 8 )

o m i t t e d it. I'-urthermore, in 1 M a c e 5:19, Judah instructs J o s e p h t h e s o n o f Z e c h a r i a h a n d Azariah not to e n g a g e t h e h e a t h e n battle until h e returns; but J o s e p h u s (Ant

(e&VT])

in

12 § 3 3 3 ) avoids t h e slight

t o t h e G e n t i l e s by having Judah instruct t h e m not t o join battle with a n y o n e (jitiScva) until he returns. A g a i n , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 5:43 s t a t e s that all t h e h e a t h e n (E^VT)), that is, T i m o t h e u s and his m e n , w e r e c r u s h e d by Judah's army, J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 3 4 3 ) o n c e again a v o i d s

using t h e word for h e a t h e n and says simply that h e fell u p o n his f o e s (iKiniKT£i

Toti;fex&poic;).M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a s 1 M a c e 5:68 states that

J u d a h t u r n e d a s i d e l o A z o l u s ( A s h d o d ) in t h e land of t h e Philistines, p u l l e d d o w n their altars, and b u r n e d up t h e carved i m a g e s o f their g o d s , J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 § 353), realizing that this w o u l d b e v i e w e d by

his G e n t i l e readers as s h o w i n g disrespect for the religions o f o t h e r s , o m i t s t h e s e incriminating details and is c o n t e n t merely l o indicate that he t o o k t h e city of A z o t u s and sacked it. Similarly, J o s e p h u s is careful t o o m i t o t h e r details which w o u l d hurt t h e feelings o f his G r a e c o R o m a n readers. T h u s , 1 M a c e 7:47 has t h e g r u e s o m e d e t a i l s that J u d a h ' s army cut off Nicanor's h e a d and right hand a n d h a n g e d t h e m n e a r J e r u s a l e m , w h e r e a s J o s e p h u s (Ant

12 §§ 4 1 0 - 4 1 1 ) totally o m i t s

them.

5.

Summary

It s h o u l d not b e surprising that J o s e p h u s , clearly p r o u d o f his d e s c e n t from t h e H a s m o n e a n s , d e v o t e s as m u c h a t t e n t i o n to t h e m as h e d o e s . In general, in his paraphrase o f t h e 1 M a c c a b e e s , he f o l l o w s

JOSEPHUS' PORTRAYAL OF T H E HASMOrOEANS

67

t h e s a m e pattern that he d o e s in his paraphrase of t h e Bible, namely aggrandizing t h e chief personalities in the belief that history is t h e biography o f great m e n and, following his great m o d e l Thucydides, that l e a d e r s h i p is t h e most important ingredient in t h e success of states. In t h e s p e e c h e s , in particular, which h e assigns t o t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n s , he stresses t h o s e ideals of liberty, country, laws, and piety, and t h e r e a d i n e s s t o d i e for t h e s e ideals, which w o u l d have a p p e a l e d s o m u c h t o his G r a e c o - R o m a n audience. J o s e p h u s had to be careful to avoid unduly stressing t h e ideal of political liberty, since this w o u l d have given t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f e n d o r s ­ ing t h e g o a l s of t h e revolutionaries of his o w n day. T h u s he carefully s h u n s t h e r e f e r e n c e s in 1 M a c c a b e e s to the z e a l o t P h i n e h a s as the m o d e l for t h e H a s m o n e a n s . H e n c e , for him liberty m e a n s life in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e laws and customs of the fathers; it is almost as if h e e n d o r s e d E n n i u s ' a b o v e - q u o t e d f a m o u s line, "Moribus antiquis res slat R o m a n a viresque" (Annals

5.156[500]). H e likewise avoids m e n ­

tion o f t h e H a s i d i m , since this would require him to explain the spHt b e t w e e n t h e m and t h e H a s m o n e a n s . Indeed, he u s e s t h e occasion of Mattathias' dying s p e e c h to stress the importance o f unity. T h e figure o f Judah M a c c a b e e , in particular, is e l e v a t e d in Josephus' portrayal. It is he, rather than his brothers or his m e n , w h o is given credit for t h e tactics that win battles; and it is he, rather than t h e priests w h o m h e appoints, w h o is responsible for the purification and r e d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e . A n d yet, in order not t o lose credibility, J o s e p h u s d o e s not unduly exaggerate Judah's strength. Furthermore, as a great leader, Judah must be presented as having, like Pericles, great p o w e r s o f persuasion. Finally, he must b e t h e legitimate head o f state, and this J o s e p h u s achieves by speaking of him as b e i n g c h o s e n t o b e high priest. It is in this capacity that he negotiates t h e key treaty o f friendship with the R o m a n s . A n d yet, J o s e p h u s , significantly, avoids the c o m p a r i s o n s o f Judah with King D a v i d such as w e find in 1 M a c c a b e e s , perhaps b e c a u s e D a v i d was t h e a n c e s t o r of the Messiah, who, as a political leader, w o u l d reinstitute a politically i n d e p e n d e n t Jewish state, and w h o c o n s e q u e n t l y w a s a source of embarrassment to the R o m a n lackey, J o s e p h u s . Likewise, he avoids m e n t i o n of the cessation or reinstitution o f p r o p h e c y , since this, t o o , would be c o n n e c t e d with a messianic era. Judah's successors, his brothers Jonathan and S i m o n , arc likewise p a i n t e d larger than life. In particular, their courage and their loyalty

68

IXiVlS H . FELDMAN

as allies o f t h e Syrians are stressed -

qualities that w o u l d s e r v e an

i m p o r t a n t a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e in J o s e p h u s ' history. L i k e w i s e , their status as high priests, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y as h e a d s o f state, is similarly stressed. J o s e p h u s , in his portraits, d e - e m p h a s i z e s t h e role o f G-d a n d instead p l a c e s t h e stress o n t h e righteousness, piety, and bravery o f his h e r o e s . T h e i r l e a d e r s d o not s o much pray as exhort their p e o p l e t o e x e m p l i f y t h e s e ideals. Finally, in o r d e r t o avoid giving the a p p e a r a n c e of disrespect for t h e beliefs o f non-Jews, J o s e p h u s avoids the references in 1 M a c c a b e e s t o G e n t i l e s or h e a t h e n as t h e e n e m i e s of the Jews.

O N I A S Iir D E A T H A N D T H E F O U N D I N G OF T H E IHMPEE OF LEONTOPOLIS F a u s t o Parente

L In r e c o u n t i n g t h e M a c c a b e a n revolt in the Antiquilies,

b o t h in t h e

single e p i s o d e s and in their order o f occurrence, J o s e p h u s follows 1 M a c c a b e e s relatively faithfully; his account of t h e i m m e d i a t e l y preced­ ing e v e n t s , h o w e v e r , concerning t h e revolt's a n t e c e d e n t s , given in t h e first chapter o f 1 M a c c a b e e s and at greater length in 2 M a c c a b e e s draws o n o t h e r s o u r c e s and gives new data e v e n with respect to 2 M a c c a b e e s which h e most certainly was not familiar with.^ T h e p r o b l e m t o b e e x a m i n e d here is t h e role o f t h e high priest O n i a s III in t h e w h o l e matter, and in particular his part, if any, in f o u n d i n g t h e t e m p l e o f L e o n t o p o l i s in Egypt. 2. T h e third chapter of 2 M a c c a b e e s which o p e n s the narrative proper, b e g i n s by praising O n i a s III: "While the H o l y City was administered in c o m p l e t e p e a c e , and t h e law was observed there most scrupulously, o w i n g t o t h e p i o u s nature of t h e High Priest Onias and his hatred o f evil . . . " ( 2 M a c e 3:1-2). Onias, son of S i m o n II, with w h o s e praise B e n Sira c o n c l u d e s his b o o k (Sir 50), b e l o n g e d to the priestly family w h o s e g e n e a l o g y J o s e p h u s traces as follows in Antiquities

12-13: Onias

I, t h e s u c c e s s o r of Y a d d u a ' ('laSBouc;; L X X : 'laSoO, 'IEBSOU L , N e h 12:11,22), t h e high priest w h o allegedly received A l e x a n d e r in Jerusa­ l e m (Ant

11 § 3 4 7 ) ; his s o n S i m o n "who was surnamed t h e Just" (Ant

12 § 4 3 , 157)^; Eleazar, brother of S i m o n "the Just", m e n t i o n e d in t h e

' For Josephus' sources see: Bloch 1879; Destinon 1882; Biichler 1896-1897; 1897a; Albert 1902; Holscher 1904; Motzo 1924; 1924a; F.ttelson 1925; Momigliano 1930; Shutt 1961: 79-109; Feldman 1984: 392-419. ^ Simon "the Just" (p"**!!*; Sixaiot;) is Simon II father of Onias 111 and not, as stated by Josephus (Ant 13 § 43), Simon I. See: Herzfeld 1863:1.368; Derenbourg 1867: 46-47; Willrich 1895: 105-115; Schiirer 1901-1911: 1. 181-182; 2. 355ff.; Moore 1927; Marcus 1943: 732-736. See: m. Abot 1:2 and Marti-Beer 1927: 6-7; b. Yoma 39a-b. Sir 50:1-6 praises his activity after the restauration of the Temple authorised by Antiochus III.

70

F.

Letter

of Aristeas

PARENTF,

(§§ 33 etc.) {Artt 1 § 11; 12 § 44 etc.); Manasseh,

uncle of FJcazar {Ant 12 § 157); Onias II, son of Simon "the Just" {Ant 12 § 44, 157) and Simon II, son of Onias II {Ant 12 § 224). In Ant 12 § 2 6 1 , Josephus states that he "had attempted to d o c u m e n t the succession of high priests serving throughout the period of hundred years", which would s e e m to indicate his reliance

two upon

written documentation. As Feidman has pointed out, given the a m o u n t of new material in the list, the summary in Ant 20 §§ 224-251 hardly s e e m s a resume of previous statements (I'cldman 1965: 507 n. d). However, 2 Mace 3:4 continues, o n e Simon "of the tribe of Bilga," ( T I C iy. Ti]c B a X y t a ) , ' who held the position of npooTotTTjc Toii iepoij or financial overseer of the T e m p l e , clashed with Onias in his attempt to obtain for himself the position of aYopav6[xoc, at the time a sort of notary public (Abel 1946,57-58). Thwarted, Simon went to A p o l l o n i u s "of Tarsus", who was then governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (Polybius 31. 13 [21]. 3), in 2 Mace 4:4 defined "son of Menesteus" ( A b e l 1949: 300), and drew his attention to the Temple's considerable wealth which, he insitmated, could b e c o m e the property of the king (2 M a c e 4:6). Seemingly this is an invitation to EepoouXia ( X e n o p h o n Apol. Socr. 25; Dittenberger, Syll., 1017, 17). This was perfectly under­ standable given the considerable financial problems caused Seleucus IV Philipator by the indemnity d e m a n d e d by the R o m a n s after t h e Treaty of A p a m e a in 188 B C E (Polybius, 31.40-43; Livy 38.38). In 2 M a c c a b e e s it is made the beginning of the famous story of Heliodorus' miraculous ejection from the T e m p l e , which takes up the rest of t h e chapter (2 Mace 3:7-40)." A s stated at the beginning of the following chapter, faced with the behaviour of Simon and Apollonius, Onias "benefactor of the city, and protector of his fellow men" (2 Mace 4:3), decided to g o to A n t i o c h and expound the problem to the king (2 Mace 4:5-6). O n S e p t e m b e r 3, 175 B C E , however, Seleucus IV was the victim of a conspiracy

' Cf. 1 C h r 24:14; N e h 12:5,18. BaXYea: the text has Bevtafiiv, not a priestly family. Herzfeld (1863: 1. 218) proposed to read Minyamin (1 C h r 24:9; s e e D e Vaux 193(>), but D e Bniyne (1932: 117-118) on the ancient l^atin translations p r o p o s e d Ba^-yEot (Balgea) a n d this reading is generally accepted. See A b e l 1946: 52-5(i; 1949: Tcherikover 1959: 403-4; Hengel 1969: 508-9; H a n h a r t 1964: 483-84; H a b i c h t 1976; 210. But see Bickerman 1944: 8, n. 22; t h e npoaTaT>](; TOU Eepou was not of priestly lineage. ' S e e Bickerman 1944: 10-13 for the possible reasons of H e l i o d o r u s ' r e q u e s t .

O N I A S in

AND THE

FOUNDING

OF T H E TEMPLE O F LEOMTOPOLIS

71

planned against him by Heliodorus (Appian Syr. 45). A few months later he was succeeded by his younger brother, Antiochus IV, w h o took the appellative of ' E r c u p a v T j i ; ( 2 Mace 4:7; Appian Syr. 45; Polybius 26.1a [Athenaeus 10.439a], although the title appears on coins only in 1 7 3 / 2 , (M0rkholm 1963: 34-37; 1966: 48). H e adopted Antio­ chus, Seleucus IV's son, took him as a co-ruler and possibly married the dowager qucen.^ O n e of the new king's first actions was to remove Onias from office and replace him with his brother, Jesus-Joshua, who had changed his name to Jason. Jason, 2 Mace 4:8 informs us, had promised the king an increase in the tributes which Judaea paid to the royal treasury with the offer of more m o n e y if the king would authorize him "to institute, by his own authority, a gymnasium and an ephebeia, and to register the A n t i o c h e n e s of Jerusalem" (2 Mace 4:9; Parente 1994). 1 Mace 1:13-15, states that "there were those who hastened to the king, seeking authorization to observe pagan practice. They constructed a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to the custom of the nations, rebuilt their foreskins, and renounced the holy alliance to put them­ selves under the yoke of the Gentiles".

3. In 172 BCIi Antiochus was in Joppa (Jaffa). H e had sent Apollonius "son of Menesteus" (2 Mace 4:4) to the coronation (KpoToxXriota) of Ptolemy VI Philometor (the latter's mother, Cleopatra I Syra, sister of Seleucus IV and Antiochus IV, her son's regent, had died in 176 BCE). T h e previous year, 173 BCE, Apollonius had been sent to R o m e to ensure the alliance (Livy 42. 6.6f0. and a R o m a n embassy travelled to Antioch s o m e time later (Livy, 42. 6.7-8). Antiochus was keen to secure Rome's support, Cleopatra's death having reawoken Egypt's slumbering ambitions to reconquer Coele-Syria, lost after the battle of Paneion in 200 BCE, which, according to Egyptian propagan­ da, had b e e n promised Cleopatra Syra, Antiochus Ill's daughter, as dowry for her marriage to Ptolemy V Epiphanes in 193 BCE.* This was the reason for Antiochus's journey to Joppa. H e then p r o c e e d e d to Jerusalem, where Jason received him with great ceremo-

' See OCIS 1, n o . 252 with Uittenberger's c o m m e n t a r y : Bouch6-Leclercq 191314: 246 and M 0 r k h o l m 1966: 49-50. * See Polybius 28. 20. 9; Appian Syr 5; J o s e p h u s Anl 12 § 154; Eusebius Chr 136.26-137.2 H e l m ; J e r o m e In Dan 11:17 {PL 25:564A). Hoileaux 1899; BoucheU c l e c q 1903-7: 382-387; 1913-14: 185 and 572-576; Cuq 1927.

72

F.

PARF.I^E

ny: "he was welcomed with a torchlight procession and shouts of applause" (2 Mace 4:22). In 170 B C E Antiochus sent a further embassy to R o m e , lead by Meleager (Polybius 27.19), denouncing Egypt's threatened aggression, but R o m e was engaged in the war against Perseus of Macedonia, and the Senate was not able to receive the ambassadors until the beginning of 169 BCE, at which time only evasive answers were forthcoming (Polybius 27.20.9). By this time the young Ptolemy VI Philometor's two regents, Eulaios and Lenaios (M0rkholm 1961), had set out from Alexandria with troops. The first skirmish, which took place between Pelusium and Mount Casius (Porphyry in Jerome Comm. in Dan. ll:21ff; PL 25: 5 6 6 C = F.Gr.Hisi. 260 fr. 49a) e n d e d in a clear victory for Antiochus, w h o had moved in good time and thus pre-empted the Egyptians, de­ feating them on their own ground (November, 170 B C E ) . T h e battle of Mount Casius was followed by a truce (Diodorus 30.18.2; M0rkholm 1966: 73-76 with chronological table). In Jerusalem this situation gave renewed vigour to both the pro-Seleucid party, led by Jason and the Tobiads, and t h e proPtolemaic one, led by Onias. "Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of Simon, of whom we have spoken |2 Mace 3:4 and 4:1], to the king" (2 Mace 4:23). Menelaus went to deliver tribute, but in return for a considerable sum of money (three hundred silver talents), he managed to obtain for himself the high priesthood and "Jason, w h o had dispos­ sessed his own brother, was in his turn dispossessed by another, and was forced to seek refuge in the land of Ammanitis" (2 Mace 4:26), probably in the fortress of 'Araq el-Emir, the Birta {CPJ 1: 116; U 9 ) of Hyrcanus, the last eminent member of the Tobiad family, w h o had taken his own life when Antiochus came to the throne {Anl 12 § 236) (Will and Larch6 1991). M e n e l a u s failed to keep his side of the bargain despite the pressure exercised by Sostratus, the "enapxot; of the Acropolis" (2 Mace 4:28), head of the garrison and responsible for collecting tributes. Both were c o n v e n e d to Antioch; Menelaus put his brother Lysimachus in his place, while Sostratus left Crates the head of the Cyprian mercenaries (2 Mace 4:27-29). Antiochus in the meantime had been forced to g o to Cilicia to quell an uprising (BouchtS-Lcclercq 1913-14: 250), leaving as his regent a dignitary of the kingdom, Andronicus (2 Mace 4:30-31). Menelaus was quick to take advantage of the situation and plundered the T e m p l e of

ON[AS III A N D I H E [OUNDING OI" THE TEMPLE OF LEONTOPOLIS

73

its gold vessels, thereby gaining the approval of Andronicus, while Onias, in hiding in the famous sanctuary in Daphne near Antioch (hence the name, 'AvTioxetct i) ini Aatpv^, Strabo 16.2.4 [719]; Pliny the Elder 5.79; Benzinger 1901; Stillwell 1938) sacred to A p o l l o and Artemis, look Menelaus severely to task for his behaviour. Menelaus convinced Andronicus of the need to eliminate the high priest and Andronicus in turn persuaded Onias to leave his hiding-place and "put him to death instantly, with no thought of justice" (2 Mace 4:32-38). 4. In the foregoing account of the facts, Onias III undoubtedly has a role of s o m e importance, and for the author of 2 Maccabees he is clearly a principal figure. At the conclusion of the book, in the description of the preparations for the battle of Adasa (161 BCE) against Nicanor, the general of Demetrius I Soter (1 Mace 7:26-32), Judah has a vision in which Onias appears beside Jeremiah, "outstand­ ing in age and dignity", comforting him in the moment of danger (2 Mace 15:1-16). The account is seemingly consistent and cohesive (so, e.g., Niese 1903: 229-30), but a number of doubts arise on closer examination and on comparing it with parallel sources, namely Josephus' versions of the s a m e events in the Jewish War and in the Atitiquities. In 2 Mace 3:1, Onias is presented as a pious and observant Jew: "the holy city was administered in complete peace, and the law was there observed most scrupulously, owing to the pious nature of the High Priest". According to 2 Mace 3:33, Heliodorus was spared by G o d on account of Onias' intercession. Simon implies that Onias is the actual cause of Heliodorus' failure (2 Mace 4:1). When Antiochus c a m e to the throne in 175 BCE, the first thing he did was to depose Onias, who was recognised as leading the pro-Ptolemaic party. In the description of the introduction of Hellenism to Jerusalem, in fact, 2 Maccabees never mentions Onias' name. H e is not seen upbraiding his brother Jason for his impious act, so he presumably lived at s o m e distance from Jerusalem, hidden in the Temple of D a p h n e where he had quite plausibly managed to save his own life. A high priest scrupulously observant of the Law such as Onias, however, should have considered his life in serious and imminent danger from the very fact of taking shelter in Ihe TEIIEVOC of a pagan temple, by definition impure, a danger which could c o m e from the king and his courtiers. It is, then, somewhat improbable that he could reproach Menelaus for

74

F. PARENTI-:

his sacrilegious plunder (2 Mace 4:33), let alone that he should leave his shelter for a reassuring hand-shake (2 Mace 4:34). That Antiochus, on his return, should be "grieved to the depth of his soul" by his death {2 Mace 4:37), and should have Andronicus put to death o n this account (2 Mace 4:38) is unlikely in the extreme. This last doubt, however, is not the subjective impression of the reader of 2 Maccabees. W e know from Diodorus (30. 7.2-3) and John of Antioch (Muller FGH 4 [1851], 558b n. 58), both quoted by C o n stantinus Porphyrogenitus in his Excerpta de insidiis, that Andronicus was actually c o n d e m n e d to death by Antiochus IV for having killed the young son of Seleucus IV Philopator and I ^ o d i c e also called A n t i o ­ chus. T h e latter had been accepted as we have noted — as co-ruler by Antiochus IV at the time of his accession to the throne (M0rkholm 1964; 1966: 38-50 with full bibliography). Antiochus himself had commissioned the crime, but Andronicus was an inconvenient witness, and, as Diodorus puts it, "it is the habit of the dynasts to save t h e m ­ selves from danger by sacrificing their friends". According to BouchdI.eclercq, the killing of Onias offered the perfect pretext for eliminat­ ing Andronicus: "Mais ici reviennent les soupgons transform6s en affirmation par Jean d'Antioche, et Ton se d e m a n d e si par hasard A n t i o c h o s n'avait pas saisi I'occasion de se dcfaire d'un complice fort au courant de la fa^on dont avail disparu le prince royal" (1913-14: 250-251). There could, however, be a different explanation. Wellhausen maintains that the author of 2 Maccabees simply substituted the killing of Onias for that of the young Antiochus.' Abel is sceptical: if this is the case, we should therefore deduce that it was Onias TII and not his son w h o built the temple of l e o n t o p o l i s in Egypt (Abel 1949: 343344). This version, however, is given credence by a number of sources, and is not to be rejected a priori, as almost always happens today. 5. Josephus knows a tradition in which the builder of the T e m p l e of Leontopolis is unequivocally Onias III. \nJlV 1 §§ 31-33, he states that

' Wellhausen 1905: 127 "Darnach ist es hochst wahrscheinlich, dass die Firmordung des seleukidischen Priitendenten mit ihren UmstSnden auf den hohen­ priesterlichen Pratendenten Onias iibertragen ist. Dieser wird dadurch vorzeitig zum Martyrer gemacht". It was Willrich who first cast doubt on the account of 2 Maccabees about the death of Onias III. Along the same line which makes Onias III the founder of the Leontopolis temple see: Motzo 1924b: 185-186 note, and Momigliano 1930: 38-39.

O N I A S III A N D T H E F O U N D I N G

OF THE TEMPLE

OF LEONTOPOLIS

75

"Onias. o n e of the high priests, once in a position of advantage, then expelled the Tobiads from the city. They thereupon sought refuge with Antiochus, offering to guide him if he should invade Judaea". The king agreed, having for long considered the idea; gathering an army, he stormed the city, killing large numbers of Ptolemy's followers and interrupting the daily sacrifice for three years and six months. "Onias the high priest sought the protection of Ptolemy and having obtained from him land in the vojji6<; of Heliopolis, did there construct a small town, modelled on Jerusalem, and a similar temple [to that in Jerusa­ lem]. W e shall return to this in due course". T h e "due course" isJWl §§ 420-436, which recounts how, after the fall of Masada, in 74 CE, o n e unidentified Lupus (Aoijnocor AOUTCTIOC; who T o r e 5te?av5p£tav § 420; 6 TTJC 'AXE^avSpeiac fjYEjiwv, § 433), having informed the emperor of Jewish uprisings in Egypt, received orders to "demolish the Jewish temple in the district called of Onias". "This", Josephus continues, "is a colonised region of Egypt which received its name in the following circumstances; Onias, son of Simon [i.e. Onias III], o n e of the high priests of Jerusalem, fleeing from Antiochus, King of Syria, then at war with the Jews, TtoXEfiouvTa T o t c 'Iou5atoi(;> having been received by Ptolemy [VI Philometor] . . . requested permission to build, in s o m e part of Egypt, a temple for the worship of G o d according to the customs of the fathers . . . . Ptolemy granted him land in what is called the vo^ioc; of Heliopolis. H e r e Onias erected a fortress and constructed a temple which is not in the likeness of that in Jerusalem, but is like to a tower . . . T h e altar and cult objects, however, were like those in Jerusa­ lem, Josephus adds, with the exception of the lampstand. The whole place was surrounded by a brick wall, with a door in stone.* In s o doing, however, "Onias was not moved by honest motives" (ou (iT)v 'Ovtac e^ uYtout; yv(o\tr\Q xauxa e n p a T - r e v JW 7 § 431), but because of resentment towards such as had enforced his exile, and he h o p e d to draw crowds away from the temple of Jerusalem. There existed a prophecy of Isaiah [Isa 19;18-19] announcing the erection of a temple in Egypt by a Jew. In 74 C E Lupus closed the temple

' T h e m a n y p r o b l e m s p o s e d by the t e m p l e itself are not discussed h e r e . See: F r a n k e l 1852; Herzfeld 1863: 2.460-462 and 557-559; liwald 1864: 462-468; J a s t r o w 1872; Naville 1890: 20; Schurer 1901-1911: 2.144-148; 3.42-43; Petrie 1906: 19b-27b; B i c k e r m a n 1934; D u Mcsnis du Boisson 1935; Beek 1943; Baruq 1957; T c h e r i k o v e r 1959; SteckhoU 1967; Delcor 1968; R a p p a p o r t 1969; 1972; H a y w a r d 1982; Schurer 1973-87: 3.47-48 and 145-147. See the following n o t e 10.

76

F. PARF.NTE

without, however, destroying it (JW 1 §§ 433-436). It is clear that the passage from Book 7 (probably added after the work had b e e n c o m p l e t e d ) substantially differs from the version given in the summary at the beginning of Book 1: the temple of Leontopolis is simply a tower, while in both passages it was unequivocally Onias III, "son of Simon" (7 § 423), w h o constructed it. It should be added that this second passage is decidedly derogatory in tone as regards Onias: in JW \ § 32 Onias flees to Egypt when in Jerusalem the perpetual sacrifice is interrupted, obviously to take it up again in Egypt. In the passage in Book 7 it is primarily within the context of the antagonism b e t w e e n Ptolemies and Seleucids that the facts find an adequate explanation, Onias founds the temple out of hatred against those w h o had con­ d e m n e d him to exile. That Onias had thought of "attracting the Jewish multitudes to Leontopolis" is a clearly tendentious statement, and its source clearly anti-Ptolemaic and anti-Oniadic. Furthermore, the source of the passage in Book 7 would not s e e m to tally with that of the similar passage in Book 1. O n e can therefore conjecture that at least two traditions exist, o n e positive, the other negative, in which Onias III is considered the founder of the temple of Leontopolis.

6. T h e o d o r e of Mopsuestia (d. 428 CE), however, knew of a third tradition. In the introduction to his commentary on Psalm 5 4 (55), he gives a summary of Jewish history, and in the parts concerning Antio­ chus IV he follows the account in 2 Maccabees. When, however, he gets to the foundation of the gymnasium in Jerusalem by Jason, he adds: "Observing these things, the blessed Onias was grieved, and lamented and protested. Since he saw that evil was increasing, he left the city and departed for Egypt where he raised an altar and con­ structed a temple." It is impossible to ascertain Theodore's sources; the fact remains, however, that while he s e e m s to have half an eye on 2 Maccabees not only d o e s he not mention the death of Onias but he actually states quite explicitly that when Hellenism was introduced into Jerusalem Onias went into hiding in F-gypt and there constructed an altar and temple so that the Jews (all of them, it would s e e m ) could worship the divinity. The source seems decidedly favourable towards Onias.'

' Baethgen (1886: 277-283, esp 277) noted how closely ' I l i e o d o r e followed 2 M a c c a b e e s u p to this point. Stern 1960 (and 1974-84: 1.406) asserts that T h e o d o r e d e p e n d s on J o s e p h u s but in his c o m m e n t a r y the Heliodorus episode a b s e n t in J o s e p h u s plays a central role.

ONIAS 111 A N D THE FOUNDING OF TFIE TEMPUF OF LEONTOPQUS

77

7. Rabbinic literature, as we shall also s e e below, speaks of the temple of Lcontopolis, the "Mouse of Onias" {T3in rr'D); its cult, with few exceptions, is not considered valid. As regards the priests w h o wor­ shipped in Leontopolis. m. Menahot 13:10 states that: "Those priests w h o have officiated in the House of Onias may not officiate in the T e m p l e of Jerusalem; this is the more true for [priests who have officiated] in other things [in idolatrous cults] since it is written: 'priests of other places will not approach the altar of the Ixird in Jerusalem, but will eat unleavened bread with their brothers' [2 Kgs 23:9]". The gemarah (b. Menahot 109b) first of all draws the logical conclusion: "Therefore the H o u s e of Onias was not a sanctuary of idolatry". It continues by giving a haggadah according to which Onias (whose name sometimes appears as n''3in3, and who is here the son of S i m o n the Just, i.e. Onias IH) is designated by his father on his death bed to succeed him over the head of his elder brother Shim'ei (Si­ mon). T h e latter, under pretext of instructing him in the temple services, tricks him into subjecting himself to ridicule (by wearing w o m e n ' s clothing), until his fellow priests decide to kill him. This was the reason why Onias fled to Alexandria, where he then "built an altar and sacrificed thereon to the idols." Further on, however, it states that he "offered sacrifices in God's honour since it is written: 'In that day shall there be an altar for the Lord in the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord o n its borders'" [Isa 19:19]. The passage clearly docu­ ments how, for the compilers of the Babylonian Talmud, the history of the founding of the I.eontopo!is temple drew on traditions which gave Onias III as the founder, a figure towards whom their reactions are both positive and negative. A parallel passage in ihc Jemsalem Talmud (y. Yoma VI, 3) similarly gives Onias (iTDim) as the founder of the temple, and expresses a .similar ambivalence: Isa 19:19 is quoted in support of the favourable opinion.'"

8. In the Antiquities Josephus gives a totally different version of t h e death of Onias and of the founding of the temple from that in the Jewish War. \nAnt 12 § 237, after the "tales" of the Tobiads which e n d with the suicide of Hyrcanus at the time of Antiochus IV's accession, Josephus thus begins his description of the internal struggle which

O n the t e m p l e of Leontopolis in rabbinic literature see Hirsch 1906 and T c h e r n o w i t z 1946.

78

F. PARENTE

eventually leads to the introduction of Hellenism into Jerusalem: "At about that time, the High Priest Onias died and Antiochus invested his brother [Jason] with the high priesthood, the s o n of Onias being yet an infant, but I shall give an account of facts relating to this child in due course." Thus in 175 BCE Onias had apparently and plausibly died a natural death, leaving a young son. According to Josephus' source here, Simon II had had three children: Onias (III), JesusJoshua, w h o had changed his n a m e to Jason, and "Onias, w h o was called Menelaus" (Ant 12 § 239). As we know from 2 Mace 4:23, Menelaus was not the brother of Onias III (in which case two of Simon's sons would have had the s a m e n a m e ) , but of Simon npooTotTifjc T o i i Upoij. Josephus' source therefore can hardly be presumed reliable. It also states that Jason was replaced by M e n e l a u s , and that Menelaus and the Tobiads (and not Jason, as in 2 Maccabees) were responsible for introducing Hellenism into Jerusalem, Onias III having died before any of the above events. In Ant 12 § 382, Josephus paraphrases 1 Mace 6:48ff. and its account of how, after Beth-Zur had been taken, (1 Mace 6:50), Lysias had attacked the T e m p l e hill (1 Mace 6:51-53). Given the scarcity of food, since it was a sabbatical year ( 1 6 3 / 1 6 2 B C E ) (1 Mace 6:54), Lysias offered the Jews a revocation of the edict, in the n a m e of the infant king (Antiochus V Eupator). However once the defenders of t h e fortress of Mount Zion had surrendered, Lysias promptly "gave orders for the destruction of the surrounding walls" (1 Mace 6:62). At this point Josephus introduces a digression which is absent from 1 M a c c a b e e s (Ant 12 §§ 383-388). After this last action he states that the king returned to Antioch in the company of the high priest Onias "also n a m e d Menelaus" (who, according to Ant 12 § 238 was the brother of Onias III and Jesus-Jason). Lysias had advised him to put O n i a s - M e n e l a u s to death in order to appease the Jews, since he had b e e n responsible for persuading Antiochus IV to "force the Jews to abandon the religion of their fathers" ( a v a y x a o a t T i j v T i i a r p t o v 9piia)ceiav x a x a X i n c i v Ant 12 § 384); the king had him killed at A l e p p o . In 2 Mace 13:3-4 it is G o d himself (^aatXeu<; TWV paoiXctov) w h o provokes Antiochus' anger against Menelaus w h o , obviously, was not the brother of Onias III and Jason. Josephus g o e s on to recount that Menelaus, for ten years high priest (172-162 B C E ) , had been "iniquitous and ungodly" in forcing the people to violate the law in order to achieve c o m p l e t e control of the

O N I A S III A N D T H E

POUNDING OF THR TEMPLE OF LEONFOPOLiS

79

situation. His successor was Alcimus, also called Jakeimos, who in 1 Mace 7:9 is confirmed high priest by Demetrius I Soter in 161/160 BO'. At this point (162 B C E ) , "Onias, son of the high priest [i.e. Onias the son of Onias IH], as stated hitherto [Ant 12 § 237], was but a child o n his father's death [in 170 BCE]. Seeing that the king [Antiochus V Eupator] had killed his uncle Menelaus [Onias, brother of Onias III] and had granted the high priesthood to Alcimus . . . he fled to Ptolemy [VI Philometor], king of Egypt. H e was treated with all honour by the king and his wife Cleopatra [11], receiving land in the vo[i6c of Heliopolis, whereon he built a temple like (o^iotoc) that in Jerusalem. Of this w e shall speak at the opportune moment [Anl 13 §§ 62-73]" (Ant 12 § 387-388). Josephus' account continues with D e m e ­ trius 1 Soter's flight from R o m e , thus taking up again his paraphra.se at 1 Mace 7:1. Josephus then follows Onias' Egyptian episode with s o m e attention, inserting it into the paraphrase of 1 Maccabees and uniting the different parts according to his traditional method. In Anl 13 § 62, after speaking of the death of Demetrius I Soter, killed in battle against Alexander Balas (1 Mace 10:48), he breaks off the account of events related in I Maccabees and introduces the story of the building of the T e m p l e of l e o n t o p o l i s (Anl 13 §§ 62-73). In Ant 12 § 387 Josephus had stated that Onias had fled into Egypt in 162, i.e. at the beginning of Demetrius I Soter's reign. In Ant 13 § 62 he states that "the son of the High Priest Onias w h o bore the same name as his father", having taken refuge with Ptolemy named Philo­ metor (Ptolemy VI, 181-145 BCE), "lived in Alexandria as w e have recounted." H e then gives as synchronism for the construction of the temple the death of Demetrius I Soter (Ant 13 § 68), who died after reigning for eleven years (Ant 13 § 61): 162-151 B C E . Polybius (3.5.3) calculates a reign of twelve years, which puts the construction of the temple at about 150 B C E . In this version, then, at the moment of his father's death, in 175 B C E (when Antiochus IV ascended the throne), Onias son of Onias III was a young boy of about ten. In 162, at about twenty three years of age, he fled to Egypt; in 150 BCE, at thirty-five, he founded the temple of Leontopolis. His reason for requesting the king's authorisation to construct the temple was that he "saw that Judaea had been ravaged by the Mace-

80

F. P A R E N T F

donians and their kings", and that he "craved to acquire for himself eternal f a m e and glory" (Ant 13 §§ 62-63). By 150 the T e m p l e of Jerusalem had been reconsecrated for fifteen years (1 Mace 4:52). 1 hus it was necessary to justify the erection of a t e m p l e of this kind. D e u t 12:11 excludes any sacrificial cult other than that practised "in the place where Y H W H shall choose to cause his name to dwell," i.e. in Jerusalem. Indeed Josephus states that Onias "was particularly encouraged in his desire by the words of the prophet Isaiah . . . w h o had prophesied that a temple to the Great G o d , iityiaxKfi & E q i , would b e raised in Egypt by a Jew" {Ant 13 § 64). This passage (Isa 19:19) is found in a later gloss (19:16-25) to the "Oracle o n I'-gypC (19:1-35), which contains a clear allusion to the Jewish c o l o n i e s known to us above all from the Elephantine papyri. Verse 18 possibly contains a reference to Heliopolis: the Qumran scroll ( I Q Is") reads Dinn TJJ, "city of the sun", instead of Dinn TV, "city of destruction" ( o n D"in see Job 9:7 and D h o r m e 1926:117); Symmacus has Tj^iou (Field 1875: 2.463b); the Targum tCQm mD. But this d o e s not necessarily imply an ex eventu prophecy something also suggested by the fact that the text of Isaiah speaks, not of a "temple" but only of an "altar" and "pillar." "In that day there will stand an altar (riDTQ) consecrated to Y H W H in the land o f I'^gypl, and a pillar (nD!iD) for Y H W H on its borders". Isa 19:19 would then s e e m to be used to justify the temple, rather than fabricated to justify its construc­ tion. There follows in Josephus (Ant 13 §§ 65-71) a correspondence between Onias and Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra 11. "Many and great are the services I have rendered you in the course of the war, with the help of G o d , when 1 was in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia and w h e n I arrived with the Jews in Leontopolis in the W[ib<^ of Heliopolis" {Ant 13 § 65), Onias' letter begins. This s e e m s to be the Onias w h o m Ptolemy VI Philometor and his wife Cleopatra placed with D o s i t h e u s at the head of the whole army {AgAp 2 § 49). In AgAp 2 §§ 49-51 Josephus mentions an episode which occurred after the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor (thus after 145 BCIi) in which Onias was instrumental in saving Cleopatra IPs life. The rest of the letter speaks of Jewish settlements, almost all of which possessed a t e m p l e ( E ) ( O M T a < ; £epa): built witliout regard to the rules, these had caused contention and division among the faithful. Given that the letter is almost certainly spurious, it is hard to gauge the exact significance of

ONIAS in AND THE FOUNDING OF THE TEMPLE OF LEONTOPOLIS

81

this. A. Vincent maintains that Onias' intention was to build only o n e Eepov for the whole country (Vincent 1937: 334), but this is nowhere staled in the letter. Its tone is decidedly hostile to the Leontopolis temple, since Onias states that he had found a suitable site in the fortress named 'Aypioc Bou^aaxic, (Naville 1891), with an abundance of trees and sacred animals. Adding his intention to purify it, he invokes the prophecy of Isaiah (Ant 13 §§ 62-68). In their reply the sovereigns ask "whether this temple, built in an impure place and full of animals, can be pleasing in the sight of God" (Ant 13 § 70), and give their authorisation, while expressing their desire not to be guilty of violating Jewish law (Ant 13 § 71). Josephus' source is thus decidedly hostile to the Temple of Leontopolis, but its identity remains unknown to us. 9. As mentioned above, the Mishnah states precisely (and as the temple ceased its functions in 74 CH it can be considered reliable testimony) that the temple of Leontopolis was called the "House of Onias" (vy)T\ FT'S), and that it was considered unsuitable in s o m e cases for precepts and vows. "[If o n e should say] i shall work to offer the holocaust,' he must offer it in the Temple [of Jerusalem]. [If one should say] 'I shall offer it in the H o u s e of Onias', he must offer it in the T e m p l e [of Jerusalem] . . . [If one should say], 'I wish to b e c o m e a nazir', he must make offer of his hair [m. Nazir 2:5] in the T e m p l e [of Jerusalem]; if he makes the offer in the H o u s e of Onias, he has not met his obligations. [If o n e should say], 'I shall make my offer in the H o u s e of Onias', he must make it in the T e m p l e [of Jerusalem], but, if he should make the offer at the H o u s e of Onias, he will have met his obligations. R. Simeon says: T h i s man may not be considered a nazir'" (m. Menahot, 13.10). T h e prevailing opinion, then, although a number of sages demur, is that the temple of Leontopolis had s o m e legitimacy, albeit limited; it was certainly not considered idolatrous, as we have observed. It could therefore be deduced that, at the moment of its construction, it was accorded a legitimacy which was less than that accorded the T e m p l e of Jerusalem, but which was based on the fact that the Egyptian temple acted as a surrogate for the one in Jerusalem. In other words, the Mishnah passage in question justifies the hypothesis that the temple of Leontopolis was founded during the period in which the T e m p l e cult of Jerusalem was abolished: between 167 and 164 B C E .

82

F.

PARFNTh

In this period the Isaiah passage could in effect have constituted sufficient justification for a temple in Egypt wherein to practise the sacrificial cult of the Jewish G o d . The fact that it is m e n t i o n e d and its legitimacy discussed in the Mishnah would indicate that it was different in character from the other minor Jewish sanctuaries, which had probably existed in Egypt for years but had never b e e n m e n t i o n e d in rabbinic literature. According to 2 Maccabees, Onias III died around 170 (between 172 and 170), in the prime of life but, as already mentioned, w h e n the author describes his appearing to Judas Maccabaeus before the battle of Adasa ( 2 Mace 15:13) he depicts him as "outstanding in age and dignity." This is not necessarily significant in itself, of course, but there are other e l e m e n t s which cast doubt on the account of his death in 2 Mace 4:30-38, besides those already given. As Seeligmann has observed, "there is a definite gap b e t w e e n 2 Mace 4:6 and 7". In 4:1-6, Onias intends to report Simon to t h e king after realising that it would be futile to d o s o to ApoUonius, governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. In 4:7, however, Scleucus is already dead, Antiochus has already succeeded him, and Onias has b e e n d e p o s e d and succeeded by Jason. It is then more than likely that "a great deal of the history of Onias III has been deleted b e t w e e n 2 Mace 4:6 and 7 by the Palestinian elaborator of the book, notably the passage dealing with the manner of his flight to Egypt w h e n Jason usurped (he high-priesthood, and the story of his establishment of the sanctuary of Heliopolis" (Seeligmann 1948: 91-92). Jason o f Cyrenc, as a man of the diaspora, should have b e e n interested in the building of a temple in Egypt. T h e epitomator however, probably from Jerusalem, who puts Onias in a highly positive light, must have found it unseemly for him to found a temple, not unlike that in Jerusalem, on Egyptian soil, in o p e n violation of the norms of D e u t e r o n o m y . 10. S o m e o n e like Onias III could indeed have found credence at t h e court of Alexandria, anxious as it was to maintain a strong proPtolemaic party in Jerusalem. While Antiochus IV punished the Jews for rebelling against their sovereign at the mere rumour of his death (2 Mace 5:5), depriving them of their traditional privileges and of the chance of worshipping their G o d in the T e m p l e of Jerusalem (2 M a c e 6:1; Parente 1994: 25-29), Ptolemy VI allowed a Jerusalem high priest.

O N L A S

III

A N D

T H E

F O U N D I N G

O F

TliE

TI:MPI.E

O F

U - Q N T O P O L I S

83

unjustly robbed of his dignity, to recreate in Egypt conditions whereby sacrificial rites to the G o d of Israel could be duly performed. All of this has a certain logic. It is considerably less likely, however, that the son of a high priest, with no such official role, and who had lived at the court of Alexandria since fleeing from Jerusalem when little more than a child, should have requested and been granted permission to build a temple like that in Jerusalem when the original o n e was once again fully functioning. If, however, the temple had been erected in answer to a specific need, it might have b e e n allowed to continue to function even after the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, since the legitimate sacerdotal line represented by Onias probably refused to recognise the authority of the H a s m o n e a n line which had established itself in Jerusalem." n. Besides the occasional references in Josephus, a papyrus and an inscription also refer to family history of the Oniads in Egypt, which I shall now examine more closely. The overall impression from these d o c u m e n t s is that the family of the Oniads must have acquired a position of considerable importance, both in the administration and in the army, with excellent contacts at court. It is clearly a case of a number of generations, the succession of which must be precisely established. Josephus provides sufflcient elements to calculate the year of Onias Ill's birth, which w e can take as the departure-point for further chronological calculations. In Ant 12 § 224 he states that, at the beginning of the reign of Seleucus IV Philipator (and not "Soter", as he writes), i.e. about 187 BCE, both the Tobiad Hyrcanus and Onias II died, the latter leaving the high priesthood to his son, Simon II, father of Onias III. Onias II, son of Simon "the Just" (Ant 12 §§ 156-159: see above n. 2) was a narrow-minded, mean-spirited man who when Antiochus III and Ptolemy V Epiphanes (204-181 BCE) struck up an alliance, and Antiochus gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy (193 BCE), refused to pay the tributes stipulated by the agreement. For this

" Both Willrich (1895: 128) and Motzo (1924: 186 note) explain the presumed change from Onias III to his son as founder of the I,eontopolis temple by an attempt to deligitimate the temple.

84

F. P A R F . N T E

reason {Ant 12 § 160) the young Tobiad Joseph, son of Onias H's sister, travelled first to Jerusalem to persuade his uncle to accept the conditions and then to Alexandria, where he begged Ptolemy to "pardon his uncle on account of his great age" (Ant 12 § ^ 7 2 ) . Onias II was the son of Simon "the Just" (Ant 12 § 44). a contemporary of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (282-245 BCF,), and a boy when his uncle Fleazar s u c c e e d e d Simon during the reign of Ptolemy II {Ant 12 § 157). H e must have been around seventy in 187 BCFZ, and must have been born about 260 BCE. His son Simon II would therefore, have been born around 235 BCH, and Onias III, Simon's son, around 215-210 BCI-;. Consequently in 175 BC1-, the date of Antiochus IV's coronation and, approximately, of his own flight into Egypt or of his death, O n i a s III was around forty, and his son around ten or fifteen. In 1865 W. Brunct de Prcsle published in Paris a papyrus discovered s o m e years earlier by J.A. Ij^tronne in the Sarapicion near M e m p h i s , which Ixjtronne had already studied (Brunct d e Presle 1865: 360-374, esp. 361). It contains three letters from the SioocT|TT)i; Herod to three different p e o p l e , the first of whom, according to I .etronne's reconstruc­ tion, was o n e T h e o n ('Hp6)i5ir]<; [Oew]vt / a i p E i v ) . T h e letter, dated S e p t e m b e r 21, 164 BCE, is addressed to a member of the court circle, of elevated rank, and gives news of the king and queen. T h e king is the pro-Jewish Ptolemy VI Pliilometor. [•"rom his re-examination of the papyrus in 1913, however, U . Wilcken proposed a rather different reconstruction, claiming to read an omikron before the letters v i , making the heading: 'Hp6)tSt]<; [ ' 0 ] v [ [ a t l x«-'p£^^ (Wilcken 1927: 473-496, esp. 487), The t o n e is very different from that of the other two, mere copies of d o c u m e n t s dealing with agricultural questions. Given the place of discovery, Wilcken posits that the addressee might be the cTpaxriYoc; of the Heliopolis vojioc;. If we accept Wilcken's reconstruction, and consider the date, the letter m\\^\ be addressed to Onias HI, then fifty years old, and not his twenty or twenly-five-year-old son, since the recipient is clearly a high-ranking official of considerable influence. In this case the founder of the Temple of l.eontopoIis is necessarily Onias III and not his son. In an aforementioned passage kom Against Apion (2 § 49). Josephus affirms that Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra II "entrusted their entire kingdom to the Jews, and put Onias and Dositheus at the head of the whole army . . . that [Apion] might admire their exploits . . . and be grateful to them for having saved that city of which he had proclaimed

O N I A S 111 A N D T F I F F O U N D I N G O F T I I L T E M P l . H O F I . F O N T O P O L I S

85

himself a citizen". However exaggerated, this must contain an element of truth. The events referred l o took place in the years immediately after the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor, (i.e., ca. 145 BCE), when Cleopatra II had proclaimed their son, Ptolemy N c o s Philopator, king; Philometor's brother, Ptolemy VII Euergeies II called Physcon, came from Cyrene to Alexandria at the request of the Alexandrians, killed the young king, and seized possession of the kingdom by marrying the queen. Nothing more is known about Dositheus. T. Reinach identifies the above Onias as the founder of the l e o n t o p o l i s temple (Reinach 1930: 67 n. 3). This Onias undoubtedly belongs to the generation following Onias HI and could therefore be his son, born around 190 HCE. Thus he would have been about forty-five in 145 BCE, a plausible age to lead, if not the whole Egyptian army, as Josephus claims, at least a regiment of Jewish mercenaries. Josephus informs his readers in Am 13 § 285 that when John Hyrcanus conquered Samaria (107 BCE), Q u e e n Cleopatra was assisted in the war against her son, Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyrus, by two Jewish generals, Chelkias and Ananias, "sons of the Onias who had built the temple in the vofzoc of I Icliopolis, similar to the o n e in Jerusalem, as we have stated above [Am 13 §§ 62-73]". If Onias, son of Onias III, really had been born in ca. 190 BCE, he could plausibly have sons born between 160 and 150 BCIi, who had reached the highest military grades by the last decade of the century. O n e observa­ tion about this passage, however. Josephus takes his information including the n a m e s of the generals from Strabo, (whom he cites specifically); "only those Jews of the district which had taken the name of Onias remained faithful to her, since their fellow citizens Chelkias and Ananias were held in special honour by the queen" (Am 13 § 287). T h e note that Chelkias and Ananias were sons of the founder of the temple of l e o n t o p o l i s is surely Josephus'. With his fondness for internal references, he must have introduced it into the text in order to recall the passage about Onias and the founding of the temple (Am 13 §§ 62-73). Strabo stated only that Chelkias and Ananias came from the district "which had taken the name of Onias." A n inscription discovered in Cairo possibly confirms that Chelkias b e l o n g e d to the second generation after Onias III. The inscription was published by Willrich in the first volume oi APF (dated 1901) and discussed by T. Reinach (Reinach 1900; Willrich 1901; see CJJ 2. no.

86

F.

PARLNTF

1450; Strack 1902-3: 554; Gabba 1958: 36-38). In Reinach's opinion it is an honorary decree from between 108 and 101. or 102 and 99 B C E . In the "premise" Chelkias' name in the genitive is quite clear (line 2). This Chelkias is almost certainly neither the benefactor nor the beneficiary of the decree, the latter being his son, w h o s e n a m e according to Reinach's, reading ['Ovia.;) Xe^Ktou cx[p<xTr\y6(^], was Onias. Chelkias' son, a commander-in-chief, would then have b e e n a low-ranking official, as designated by the term o T p a T T j - y o c ; in late s e c o n d century B C E Egypt. The n a m e of "Onias" here while pure conjecture, based on the passage from Josephus discussed above, is, however, fairly plausible. If Chelkias was born around 150 BCIi, as stated above, he might well have had a son who born around 125 B C E , by the end of the century was holding a reasonably important administrative position. According to Reinach the decree might have been granted by the members of (he "people of the x E j i c v o c ; , " i.e., people living in the district of H e l i o p o l i s around Onias' temple, according to his reconstruction of line four reading: "unip Tovi n X T ) ] & o u t ; tgiv iv t w i Te(i.evet xaToiKouvrwv". T h e stone could be from the Temple of Leontopolis, not far from Cairo. If w e accept Wilcken's reconstruction of the papyrus discovered by I x t r o n n e , and T. Reinach's of the Cairo inscription, w e then possess relatively precise information about four generations of Oniads in Egypt: 1) Onias 111, founder of the temple of Leontopolis; 2) his s o n , of the s a m e name, a general in the service of Ptolemy VI and Cleopa­ tra II; 3) his two sons, Chelkias and Ananias, generals in the service of Cleopatra l U ; 4) Onias, son of Chelkias, an official in the Ptolemaic administration. Unfortunately, conjecture however plausible and convincing, is not necessarily fact, but our case for the Oniad family tree must rest on this. What is certain is that the family had soon risen within the Ptolemaic administration and army. This was probably o n e of the reasons why the Leontopolis temple continued to function until 74 C E .

12. T h e t e m p l e maintained a mostly local relevance, but caused s o m e problems in Jerusalem. It is mentioned significantly in the Mishnah but not in Jewish-hellenistic literature (but see Delcor 1968: 201-202). T h e passage in Sibylline Oracles 5.492-511, often read as a reference to the t e m p l e in question, almost certainly has nothing to d o with it, as Geffcken noted (1902: 26). The fifth book of the Sibylline

Oracles

ONfAS

III A N D T H E F O U N D I N G

OF THE TEMPLE OF LEONTOPOLIS

87

is a collection of six oracles against various nations in which the central figure is the born-again Nero returning as an adversary with the Parthians. The book is entirely Jewish apart from a Christian interpolation at 256-59, and was written in Egypt. The passage contain­ ing the putative reference to the temple of l e o n t o p o l i s is in the sbcth oracle, which speaks of a temple to the true G o d and its successive destruction by the Ethiopians. The reference is chronologically plausi­ ble, since the book certainly dates from around the e n d of the first century Cl'^, but the temple in question cannot be that of Onias. In Egypt, the passage states, "there shall be a great, holy temple," ( v a o c fiEYat; EooETai a-ywc^. Its construction is part of the eschatological process, as is its destruction. The divine wrath falls here when the Ethiopians destroy it as the first of their evil acts "until the last things may c o m e to pass" {Sibyll. Or. 5.501-506). Josephus reports that the temple was closed, not destroyed. Certain­ ly it is difficult to s e e how its putative destruction could be considered the prime cause of the eschatological process, or how it could be defined a "great holy temple." According to Collins (1974: 49-53), the third book of the Sibylline Oracles, written in Egypt in the mid-second century BCE and characte­ rised by the expectation of salvation by a Ptolemaic king w h o assumes a Messianic character, could be the expression of the Jewish circles dominated by Onias, founder of the Temple of l e o n t o p o l i s . This is not implausible. Alexandrian Judaism remained essentially extraneous to the eschatological and messianic aspects of Palestinian Judaism in the first centuries BCIt and CE, which essentially recognised a royal messiah (of David's line), and a superhuman messiah (the Son of Man). This attribution of messianic characteristics to a king of the Ptolemaic dynasty belongs in part to the conceptual framework in which, according to Deuteroisaiah, Cyrus is Y H W H ' s "anointed". From the evidence examined above, the founder of the 'I'emple of Leontopolis and his descendants do indeed appear to be closely connected with single members of the Ptolemaic dynasty, not least of whom the pro-Jewish Ptolemy VI Philometor. If, however, a Jewish colony of an unequivocally military nature was able to express its politico-religious expectations in elaborate hexameters, it was necessar­ ily much more socially articulate than the evidence w e have of them would lead us to suppose.

88

F. PARFNTE

13. T h e s e observations, however, are only marginally relevant to the problem under discussion: whether the founder of the Leontopolis temple was Onias III or his son, or, in other words, whether Onias III was assassinated by Andronicus in 170 UCE at Antioch, as stated by 2 Mace 4:32-35, or whether he fled to Egypt as attested by Josephus in JW 1 §§ 31-33. Most historians still read in Dan 9:26 and 11:22, and 1 Enoch 90:8 allusions t o Onias Ill's violent death. Should this be so, the balance would hang decidedly in favour of the son of Onias III being the founder of the temple. T h e most important passage is the first one: "And after sixty-two weeks, an anointed o n e shall be cut off (rftfffa my) and there shall not be for him . . . . As to the city and the sanctuary, the p e o p l e of a leader w h o is to c o m e shall destroy them. Its end will c o m e t o pass in a flood, and until the end shall there be terrible war and devastation". This occurs in the explanation given Daniel by the angel Gabriel (9:21-22) of the seventy years prophecy in Jer 25:11-14: "In the first year of Darius . . . 1, Daniel, did read in books the number of years which, in accordance whh the word of Y H W H to Jeremiah the prophet, shall pass over the ruins of Jerusalem: seventy years" ( D a n 9:1-2). Gabriel's explanation is that "seventy weeks [of years] are fixed for your p e o p l e and your holy city to cease all iniquity, to put an end to sin, to expiate the offence . , . since the pronunciation of the word on the reconstruction of Jerusalem until the anointed leader, seven weeks. Sixty-two weeks, fortress and moat will be rebuilt, but in a time of misadventure. A n d after the sixty-iwo weeks, an anointed o n e shall be cut off . . . " (9:24-26). T h e "anointed leader" (T'3] rflPQ) of 9:25 is almost unanimously read today as the high priest Joshua (Hag 1:1, 14; Zech 3:1), rather than Cyrus (cf. Isa 45:1), and the "anointed o n e that shall be cut o f f as Onias III, even though the sixty-two weeks, i.e. 434 years, exceed by 64 years the period from the restoration to Antiochus IV. 14. T h e interpretation of this passage has an interesting history.'^ As seen above, D a n 9:26 has a gap: l b yK\

"and there shall not be for

him . . . .". L X X gives an interpretation which presupposes a slightly

" F o r the history of interpretation in ancient and medieval t i m e s see FraidI 1883.

O N U S III

A N D T H K hOlJNDINc; O F THF. TEMPl.K O F LEONTOPOLIS

89

different Hebrew text, but with the same gap: ocKOOTaS-'fjoeTai XP^^'t^"' itai o u K eoTtti, "the anointment shall be removed and shall not be . . .": instead of n''tSf?, "anointed one", L X X has read nntpp, "anoint­ ment" (e.g. l e v 7:36 P), "the anointment (the priesthood) shall be removed (interrupted)". In the Hebrew text, however, the verb, n i p ^ is the nifal imperfect of n~iD, which in H and P is the technical term to indicate the act of "being cut o f f from the community due, to s o m e crime carrying the sentence of capital punishment ( G e n 17:14; I-ev 7:20, 21, 25 and 27; N u m 9:13 etc.; Zimmerli 1954 esp. 13ff.; Boecker 1964, 145 n o t e 4; Hasel 1984), i.e. the Hebrew verb presupposes a person as subject. The L X X interpretation is further d e v e l o p e d by T h e o d o t i o n , w h o completes the gap thus: ^^oXo&peu9-T]aeTai -/(pi'a^ia., y.a.i xpcfia ohK E O T I V aOx^, "the anointment shall be destroyed (abolished) and there shall n o longer remain judgement (rS!i;Q Nestle 1884) in it", while Symmachus translates the Hebrew literally: E X X O K T ] O E T a t xptoToc; and Aquila gives E ^ o X o & p e u & E O E T a t f)Xetti(ievoc;, "the anointed o n e shall be destroyed", presupposing not simply the Hebrew rr'tCD but also a Greek xpicr^oi; given that Aquila (a revision of previous translations rather than a new one) everywhere substitutes T]Xet(i(jiEV0(; for xpiofoc;, which had become a Christian technical term. T h e Vulgate has occidetur Christus, filling the gap with an openly Christian gloss: et non eril eiuspopulus qui eum negaturus est. Occidetur Christus is also certainly a translation that has been aligned to Chris­ tian usage since in Tertullian (or pseudo-Tertullian),y4rfi'. ludaeos 8:6 we read: /;/post ebdomadas has LX et I! semis extcrminabitur unctio, et non erit; et ciuitatem et sanctum exterminabh cum duce adueniente, (1358, 3-5 Kroymann) with the explanation cxplelis his quoque temporibus et debellatis inde ludaeis postea cessauerunt illic libamina et sacrificia, quae cxinde illic celebrari non potuerunt. Nam et unctio Ulic exterminata est post passionem Christi (8,17; 1363, 4-8 Kroymann). Unctio, then, is the Hebrew priesthood abolished on account of the destruction of the T e m p l e and, previously, of Christ's redemption. liusebius takes substantially the same line. "In the B o o k of Daniel", he writes (IlistEccl 1.6.11), "having established very clearly the exact number of w e e k s until the anointed leader, EWQ xptoTou f j - y o u i i E v o u [ D a n 9:24] as w e have demonstrated elsewhere [Ecl.proph. 3.26, 153,12-165,7 (Gaisford) and Dem.Evang. 8.2.55-129] it is shown that, when these weeks have passed, the anointment will disappear from a m o n g the Jews (£^oXo9p£u9T]0£a!>at T O Kapa 'louSatoK; xptofia), and

90

p.

PARF.hfTti

this can clearly be seen to have c o m e to pass at the m o m e n t of the birth of Our Saviour Jesus Christ" ( 1 , 5 2 . 1 4 - 1 5 Schwartz). The passage in the Demotisirath Evangelica alluded to by Eusebius contains an interesting observation: the succession of legitimate pontiffs was interrupted by Herod's killing of Hyrcanus 11 (384 H e i k e l ) . T h e idea was taken up by Theodoret in what is for us the first c o m p l e t e c o m ­ mentary on Daniel {PG 81: 1480-1481 on Dan 9:26): from Herod onwards the high priests were not consecrated, i.e. anointed, according to the Law, but merely nominated by foreigners like H e r o d himself, Archeiaus, and the R o m a n procurators. This was the interpretation given the most credence in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, well summarised by Isidore of Seville in his Chronicon 66 (PL 83:1038B): OctavU(s Augustus regnat annis LVl. . . sub cujus imperio septuaginta hebdomadae in Daniele scriptae complentur, ei cessanie regno et sacerdotio Judaeomm, Dominus Jesus Chrisius in Bethleem Judae ex Virgine nascitur, anno regni eiiis XLIJ. A calculation of weeks could have given different dates, but the significance of the passage in Daniel was clearly understood: the birth of C'hrist and subsequent redemption had abolished the priesthood and the Jewish cult. Isidore spoke for the seventh century; in the eleventh, in \\\^ Antilogus contra Judaeos 4, Peter Damian was to write: Quid apenius, quid cxpressius de morte Christi did potest eo, quod dicitur, "occidetur Christus"? (PL 145: 55A). The passage quoted is from the Vulgate, and it is therefore singular that the expression occidetur Chrisius only refers to the death of Jesus after a certain point in time. What had happened between Isidore and Peter D a m i a n ? T h e answer is to be looked for in the ever-growing importance, from the ninth century onwards, of converted Jews to Western ecclesi­ astical culture. Indirect testimony (indirect in that the text was known only subsequently) is that of the short De adventu messiae praeterito liber by Rabbi Samuel Marochianus, written in Arabic in 1085 and translated into Latin by Alfonso B o n o m o in 1339.'^ Rabbi Samuel, a converted Jew from I-ez, writes (in the Uitin translation):

" The work was first published in Basle in 1474; republished ten times before 1500 and many times during the 16th century. It was translated into Flemish, G e r m a n , Italian, and Spanish. T h e i.atin text was republished in the Bibliolheca Palnim (1589), in the l U a x m n Bibliolheca Patrum (1677) and eventually i n 1 4 9 : 335-368.

O N I A S Iff A N D T H E F O U N D I N C J O F T H I - : T F . M P L E O F L H O N T O P O L I S

91

Cerle, domine mi, ego n o n video evasionem contra prophetiam islam, quia de facto isto probatur nobis quod postquam a reaedificatione fuerunt completae septuaginta duac hebdomadae supra annos, qui sunt anni CCCC et XXXIII. tunc fuit Jesus occisus a patribus nosiris, et postea venit dux, scihcet Titus et populus Romanus. ct fecerunt nobis secundum propheliam istam, hodie sunt miile anni et ultra, ei nihilominus si in ira Dei sumus, et tamen in ipso speramus (PL 149: 344D). T h e exegesis of a converted Jew was based on the Hebrew text, a text which amply justified the interpretation whereby o n e "anointed one" had b e e n liilled and whereby the prophecy could only refer to the death of Jesus. This interpretation soon became, as it were, official and the prophecy of Daniel's seventy weeks of years accordingly became o n e of the many christological prophecies of the Old Testament. 15. T h e calculations could, however, produce quite different results by taking a different starting point. In 1672 John Marsham, in a seminal work in the history of chronography, affirmed that the angel an­ nounced to Daniel two "reconsecrations" {iyxai.via\ioi) of the T e m p l e : Prior, post captivitatem Babylonicam, a Josita & Zerobabele; posterior, post alteram Unetionis excisionem (nunc primum Danieli revelalam) a Juda Maccabaeo celebratus est (Marsham 1672: 572). This consequently places the destruction of the first Temple as the startingpoint for the calculation, and identifies Antiochus IV's profanation of the T e m p l e with the unetionis excisio of Dan 9:26. A n interpretation based on the L X X whereby a K o a T a S r i a e T a t Xpta^ia indicates an interruption either of the legitimate priestly line or of the cult leaves, however, unresolved the problem raised by the M T where it is a person who is killed; and this person is clearly referred to as "anointed," i.e., consecrated (and therefore a king or priest). A solution satisfying both the chronological calculation, placing the event at the beginning of the Maccabean period, and the precise semantics of the Hebrew text was found by Jean Hardouin, the ingenious if eccentric librarian of the Colldge de Clermont, in 1677. Onias, qui summus sacerdos ante annos sex fuerat, Antiochiae. secus Daplmem: ubi tuto loco se contincbai, interficitur ab Andronico, qui eum astu de nsylo retrajierat. 2 Mach. 1V,33 . . . Onias summus sacerdos, post LXII hebdomadas interfectus, ante abominatJonem desotationis in templum ab Antiocho inferendam, typus Christi occidendi ante excidium aedis & Urbis fuit; quemadmodum & quod post Oniae occisionem desertus est a Deo

92

F. PARENTE-,

populus, qui e u m u i b e expulil . . . . Discrepat loio g e n e r c J o s e p h ! n a r r a t i o a b ista. O n i a m enim illc ponit a p e r t e a n t e a n n o s q u i n q u e d i e m s u p r e m u m placide obiisse, p r i u s q u a m lason sacerdotium iniret, libro XJI. Anliq. cap. V I . Exspecto qui se Catholicos dicant, & J o s e p h u m a n t e p o n a n t auctori libri M a c h a b a e o r u m ; cui t a m e n sacro scriptori Danielis e t i a m valicinium (ut inferius videbimus) a p e r t e suffragatur ( H a r d o u i n 1699: 182-183)

A s he himself points out, Hardouin's interpretation satisfied chrono­ logical n e e d s while opting between two contrasting versions of events for the o n e given in a canonical, and therefore inspired text. Since, however, the "anointed o n e cut o f f had for centuries b e e n identified as C'hrisl and it was impossible to wipe it away with o n e stroke, Hardouin felt the need to describe Onias as a typus Christi, His hypothesis, defined nom et inepta, found few followers and aroused violent reactions. Bernard l ^ m y , an Oratorian w h o in his youth had been a friend of Richard Simon's, had g o n e carefully over the calculation of the weeks, reaching the conclusion that they e n d e d exactly in 33 CH, the year of Christ's death. Sic medium ultimae hehdomadis; id est media pars septem annorum, incidil in annum aerae Christianae 33. in quo Jesum Christum passum esse demonstravimus (Lamy 1699; 1.181). This obviously excludes any plausible identification of Daniel's "anointed one" as Onias III, who as Lamy observes, had no merits to justify the typus Christi appellative. Expende, lector, an viro qui meritus sit did Christi typus, conveniat ut reciperet se ad gentes, & moraretur in fano, hoc est, inter idola, occidereturque extra Judaeam; cum affinnante Domino, Christus non extra flierosolyma occtdendus esset? (Lamy 1699; 182). Hardouin replied by praising the L X X , the "prophetic text" by definition, which formulates all the christological prophecies of the O T with utmost clarity. Fuere igitur ex eorum numero Septuaginta Interpretes, qui vel Messiam occidendum esse non crederent, vel ne credereiur, falsandam es.^e potius scripturam sacram censerent? (Hardouin 1709: 898a). If the prophecy in Dan 9:26 really did refer to Christ, the L X X would certainly not have interpreted it as it did. Augustin Calmet, while citing diverse and more "orthodox" opin­ ions, s e e m s to have been convinced by both Marsham and Hardouin. In his commentary he avoids taking any definite stand, but in the Dissertation sur les Septante semaines de Daniel writes: L'Oint du Seigneur mis ii mort a la fin de la soixante deuxieme semaine, est le G r a n d - P r S t r e O n i a s . T r o i s a n s & demi apr5s sa mort, c'est-lk-dire au milieu

O N L A S I I I A N D T H I ; f - ' O U N D I N O Ol

THF. TEMPLK O F LFiONTOPOI.IS

93

d e la septantifinie & dernifire semaine, les sacrifices cessdrent d a n s le T e m p l e , & I'abomination d e desolation y fut plac^e. t i l e y d e m e u r a trois ans, j u s q u ' ^ la fin d e la septantiemo semaine. que J u d a s M a c c a b 6 e nettoya le T e m p l e , & y r^tablit les sacrifices, & ie culte du Seigneur. T o u t cela est bien prouve d a n s I'Hrstoire des Maccabees . . . (Calmet 1726: 620).

Battle-lines were now firmly drawn up, and Calmet was violently attacked. In a note added to the 1745 republication of Robert Estienne's Latin Bible (on Dan 9:26) we read: A c d e Scriptoribus Christianis M a r s h a m u m non m o r a m u r , p r a e i e r luctuosa Antiochi E p i p h a n i s t e m p o r a nihil in tolo Dan 9°. cap. c e r n e n l e m . R"' P " C a l m e t m i r a m u r , qui p o s t q u a m in Diss.de 70.11ebd. p.618 & contra Ecclesiae m e n t e m , & multis p r a e t e r c a ex partibus peccare Marshami systema ostendit . . . . T a m e n in v. 26 Christum occidendutn i n t e r p r e t a t u r Calmet cum H a r d u i n o O n i a m pontificem, toco Marshami sacerdotii & c. ( V a t a b i e 1745: 640a-b).

16. In the early nineteenth century Hardouin's hypothesis was accepted by the majority of Protestant historians (but not by the Anglicans such as Pusey 1876: 167-233 with throughgoing discussion of German litera­ ture), though with the occasional important exception. Hofmann (1836: 51ff.); Wiesler (1839: 49-58); Hitzig (in the second edition 1850: 162, contrary to the first o n e 1838) were for Onias UI; Rdsch (1834:294); von I ^ n g e r k e (1835: 445) and Ewald (1868:435) maintained that the "anointed prince", wwt^, of 9:25 was not the high priest Joshua but Cyrus, who had b e e n given the title in Deuteroisaiah and that the "anointed o n e cut o f f of 9:26 was Scleucus IV Philopator, brother of Antiochus IV, killed by Heliodorus (Appian Syr. 45) about 176-175 B C E and very clearly alluded to in D a n 11:20. On the other hand in 9:25 the "anointed one" is a T'SD rfBJfD, an "anointed prince", an expression which hardly covers a high priest, particularly in a period when he was still far from being "head of the people", and in this case allied with a Persian governor to boot (Ezra 5:2; Hag 1:1). Further­ more, the clearly incomplete expression 1*? ]^ti\ "and there shall not for him", at 9:26 could be reconstructed: "and he had no descendants" (Bertholdt 1806-8: 663-664 and many others). Antiochus IV did indeed rush to kill Antiochus, the young son of Scleucus IV whom Heliodorus had proclaimed king. As Ewald comments, "Nachher, heisst es v.26, wird ein Gesalbter ausgerottet d.i. gewaltsam getodtet oder umgebracht werden und niemanden haben, keinen nachstcn nachfolger oder crben

94

F.

PARFNTE

haben, namlich Seieukos IV. Philopator, welcher im j . l 7 6 v.Chr. von Heliodor umgebracht wurde ohne dass ein sohn oder verwandter um ihn war der nach seinem willen ihn beerbte" (Ewald 1868: 3.435). Wellhausen (1905: 125-127), in casting doubt on the reliability of the news of Onias Ill's assassination by Andronicus in 2 Mace 4:43-50, is evidently considering his teacher's hypothesis regarding D a n 9:26. For carly-twenticth-century commentaries on Daniel (Bevan 1892; Driver 1900; Marti 1901; Montgomery 1927; Charles 1929) the "anointed o n e cut ofP of 9:26 has automatically been taken as Onias 111, and t h e difficulties largely ignored. Recent criticism adopts similar positions. L. F. Harlman in his commentary on Daniel accepts the current hypothesis and adds: "The story of these events is told at length in II Mace. 4:1-38, which is substantially historical" (Hartman and Di l e l l a 1978: 252). D a n 11:21 speaks of Antiochus IV's accession to the throne: he will "take possession of power by means of intrigue." T h e following verse explains how this took place, by killing the "prince of an alliance," n"'"a T'SD. Here t o o the use of the term T'JO makes it less probable that it alludes to a high priest rather than the legitimate successor of Seleucus IV. rr'i^ s e e m s here to be given a profane meaning: s e e 9:27. / Enoch 90:8 is part of the Book of Dreams (83-90) comprising the account o f two of Enoch's dreams. The first (83-84) concerns the F'lood, the second (85-90) is a compendium of the history of the world from creation to the messianic era. The first five verses of chap. 9 0 cover the period from Alexander the Great to the Maccabean revolt. Verses 6-7 refer to the birth of the hasidim movement. Having joined forces with Mattathias (1 Mace 1:42), they successively separated from the Maccabees and were reconciled with Alcimus (1 Mace 7:13): "And the s h e e p no longer bleeted at them, and they took no further h e e d of their words, but b e c a m e as deaf, and their eyes were ever more blinded" (7 Enoch 90:7). The passage seems to allude to the hasidim's change of atthude (1 Mace 7:12-13), and therefore to 1 6 1 / 1 6 0 B C E , more than ten years after Antiochus IV's accession and the presumed death of Onias. / Enoch then adds, for what it is worth given the overtly apocalyptic language: "I saw as in a vision the crows fall on the lambs, grasping o n e , tearing the rams apart and devouring them" (90:8). But this verse can hardly refer to a murder such as that of Onias described in 2 Mace 4:43-50. The text points to a wholesale

O N I A S III A N D T H F . F O U N D I N G O F T H F T R M P I . H Oh" L F . O N T O P O L I S

95

slaughter (in battle or other circumstances) and the capturing (but not killing) of an eminent person who is apparently killed later. A s Dillmann posited, this corresponds better to the last episodes in Jonathan's life than to Onias: Jonathan was defeated by Tryphon at Ftolemais in 143 BCE, captured, and successively put to death (1 Mace 12:48 and 13:23) {Dillmann 1853: 277-78). Even though the c o m m o n dating of Enoch 85-90 before 160 B C E would militate against this identification, there is in any case no clear reference to Onias. 17. Before drawing s o m e conclusions from the points discussed, let me first list the single documented traditions: a) 2 Mace 4:31-33. Between 172 and 170 BCE Onias III was assassinat­ ed by Andronicus in D a p h n e , near Antioch, at the suggestion of the high priest Menelaus, brother of Simon, n p o < T T a T T ] ( ; of the T e m p l e (2 Mace 4:23), w h o succeeded Jason (2 Mace 4:26), brother of Onias III. There is no mention in 2 Maccabees of the Temple of l-eontopolis or a son of Onias III. b) Josephus. \)JW 1 §§ 31-33. On the occasion of the profanation of the T e m p l e by Antiochus IV (end of 167 BCTi), Onias III flees to Alexandria and founds the T e m p l e of Lcontopolis. 2) /H^ 7 §§ 420-436. Onias "Son of Simon", i.e. Onias III flees to Alexandria "when Antiochus was at war with the Jews" because he was reluctant to renounce a position of prestige and pre-eminence. y)Ani 12 §§ 237-239. Onias ill dies (a natural death) in 175, before the Hellenisation of Judaea. The Temple of l c o n t o p o l i s is founded by his son, of the same name. A) Am 13 §§ 383-388. In 162 BCE, Antiochus V Eupator has Onias "also n a m e d Menelaus" put to death, i.e. (according to Ant 12 § 238) the younger brother of Onias III and Joshua-Jason. Another Onias, son of Onias HI, flees to Egypt "because Antiochus V had killed his uncle." The news of Menelaus' murder is confirmed by 2 Mace 13:3-4, but Menelaus is the brother of Simon, n p o o T c t T r i c ; of the T e m p l e (2 Mace 4:23), and not of Onias III. c) T h e o d o r e of Mopsuestia, commentary on Psalm 54. Onias III, o n Jason's building the gymnasium (175 BCE), leaves Jerusalem to seek refuge in Egypt where he erects a temple. For all preceding informa­ tion T h e o d o r e s e e m s to rely on 2 Maccabees.

96

F. P A R E N T E

d) Rabbinic literature. Tlie founder of the Temple of Leontopolis is an Onias (V3in, vzim). According to b. Menahot 109b, the Onias in question is the son of Simon the Just, i.e. Onias III, and he had an elder brother called Simon. e ) T h e papyrus discovered by L-etronne, published by W. lirunet d e Presle and examined by Wilcken. Dating from 164 B C E , with Wilcken's reconstruction [ ' 0 1 v i [ a t ] it necessarily refers to Onias III. The account in 2 Mace 4:31-33 is the most widely accredited and followed by historians and forms the basis for the equally widely accepted interpretation in D a n 9:26. It is, however, totally unreliable: the description of the killing of Onias III contains a number of implausible details. The narrative frame of the murder may be in reality that of the young Antiochus, the son of Seleucus IV Philopator, for which Andronicus was put to death; as Seeligmann has observed, there is an unequivocal gap between 2 Mace 4:6 and 7. T h e o d o r e of Mopsuestia's version, seemingly based on 2 Maccabees since it mentions Heliodorus' abortive attempt to sack the T e m p l e , has it that faced with the introduction of Hellenism into Jerusalem, the t h e n - d e p o s e d Onias 111 hid in Egypt and there built an ahar and t e m p l e to continue cult worship. This tradition is also d o c u m e n t e d by Josephus in JW 1 §§ 31-33 and 7 §§ 420-436. It should be observed that the first of these two passages refers to the prologue, the s e c o n d to the epilogue, so that neither is an integral part of the work, both having b e e n added successively. The second is inexact in stating that M e n e l a u s was Onias Ill's brother; it is also decidedly hostile to Onias. T h e fact that both the rabbinic traditions and t h o s e drawn on by Josephus present Onias alternatively positively and negatively reflects attitudes towards the temple of Leontopolis itself - now positive (justifying its existence), now negative (denying its legitimacy). Similar­ ly, the Mishnah states that the validity of certain sacrificial offerings made there (connected with the completion of nazirate vows) was re­ cognised. This is explicable only by presupposing that in a given period, and in exceptional circumstances, full validity had b e e n granted to sacrifices m a d e in the temple. As stated above, this could only have b e e n when the T e m p l e of Jerusalem had ceased to function, i.e., between 167 und 164 BCE. If we accept this deduction, the tradition d o c u m e n t e d by Josephus in JW 1 §§ 31-33 and 7 §§ 420-436, by rabbinic literature (b. Menahot

O N L A S III A N D T H F . F - O U N D I N G O F T H E T F M P l . E O V l . t - O N T O P O L I S

97

109b) and by Theodore of Mopsuestia in his commentary on Psalm 54 e m e r g e s as clearly the most plausible, particularly if we consider that Wilcken's proposed reconstruction of Letronne's papyrus is the result of direct inspection, and not mere conjecture. Onias III, as head of the pro-Ptolemaic party, was deposed by Antiochus IV immediately after his accession to the throne. From his refuge with Ptolemy VI, Onias had no part in the opposition to the introduction of Hellenism into Jerusalem led by his brother Jason, who had replaced him as high priest. Having received from Ptolemy VI an administrative position, most probably as aTpaniYOc; in the Heliopolis vofioc, w h e n the T e m p l e of Jerusalem ceased to function, Onias obtained from the king permission to found a temple which might in s o m e way replace it, justifying the procedure on the basis of Isa 19:19. Only an illegally d e p o s e d high priest would had the authority to take such a step. In Egypt his descendants were active above all in the army as leaders of Jewish mercenaries. They probably also held more important positions, defending as we have seen above different members of the dynasty. F'or this reason they were able to k e e p the temple of Leontopolis functioning, rejecting the Hasmonean sacerdotal line, even after the Jerusalem Temple had been reconsecrated. I-or the same reason a number of Sages continued to recognise the Egyptian temple as valid. Successively, Onias III had to appear in a positive light even though the construction of a rival temple constituted a patent violation of the law. T h e undertaking was, therefore, attributed to a son by the s a m e name a detail which is far from straightforward. T o remove all blame from Onias it was said that he had died previously, without specifying how. This is the version Josephus gives in Ant 12 §§ 2.37-239 and 383-388. T h e author of 2 Maccabees, greatly inclined to find tragedy and high drama everywhere, adopted this version but without mentioning the temple of Leontopolis, and transforming the death of Onias into his murder. Wellhausen is probably right in asserting that the s a m e author also simply replaced the murder of Seleucus IV Philipator's young son Antiochus with that of Onias, a hypothesis which is far from "du pur arbitraire", as Abel would have it (Abel 1949: 343-344). That said, reasons remain for believing that the description of the death of Onias was not part of the original epitome of the work of Jason of Cyrene. The image of the stately, elderly Onias accompanying

98

F.

PARENTE

J e r e m i a h in Judas M a c c a b a e e ' s nocturnal vision ( 2 M a c e 15:12-14) m a y well derive from Jason, w h o maintained that O n i a s had not b e e n assassinated. H o w e v e r , the textual gap perceived by S e e l i g m a n n ( 1 9 4 8 : 9 1 - 9 2 ) b e t w e e n 2 M a c e 4:6 and 7 invites caution. T h e n e w s o f O n i a s ' flight into Egypt s e e m s to have b e e n r e m o v e d from 2 M a c c a b e e s at s o m e s t a g e after t h e text had b e e n c o m p l e t e d , since t h e g a p is still visible. 'ITiercforc it follows that the report o f his murder w a s a d d e d afterwards. T h e traditions which present Onias III in a positive light must h a v e originated from t h e party hostile to t h e H a s m o n e a n priestly line. H a v i n g O n i a s killed by A n d r o n i c u s meant m a k i n g a martyr o f him, thus extolling t h e legitimacy o f t h e O n i a d s as against that o f t h e usurping H a s m o n e a n s . Conversely, affirming that O n i a s had fled t o Egypt at t h e t i m e w h e n A n t i o c h u s was profaning t h e T e m p l e , m o v e d by r e s e n t m e n t at t h o s e w h o w e r e forcing him into exile, and with t h e idea o f attracting t h e m u l t i t u d e s away from t h e T e m p l e o f Jerusalem, m e a n s accusing t h e line o f t h e O n i a d s of treachery, thus implicitly extolling t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n line which had stayed put, faced t h e Syrians, r e c o n s e c r a t e d t h e T e m p l e , and o n c e again m a d e worship o f t h e G o d o f Israel p o s s i b l e . This c o n t r a p o s i t i o n is also e c h o e d in rabbinic literature. In any case, w c d o have a tradition that is w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d in a variety o f sources, according t o which O n i a s III was t h e f o u n d e r o f t h e L e o n t o p o l i s t e m p l e . G i v e n this fact, the q u e s t i o n arises h o w such a tradition a ) u l d h a v e originated, if Onias III had really b e e n killed in 170 B C E as 2 M a c c a b e e s affirms. If, h o w e v e r , this reconstruction o f the facts is a c c e p t e d , t h e i n g e ­ n i o u s h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e C o l l 6 g e d e Clermont's clever and e c c e n t r i c librarian ( H a r d o u i n

1699: 182-83; 1709: 8 9 8 a ) , which n o w e n j o y s

a l m o s t u n a n i m o u s critical consensus, has to b e j e t t i s o n e d , and t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e "anointed o n e cut o f f of D a n 9:26 roundly t h r o w n o p e n o n c e again.

" 'ITie author is grateful to Professor Frederick E. Brenk, S.J., for many suggestions that have considerably improved this paper.

F L A V I U S J O S E P H U S , H I S T O R I A N OI- R O M E Mireille H a d a s - l £ b e l

Fiavius J o s e p h u s is generally described as a Jewish historian, which h e m o s t certainly was, occasionally as a G r e e k historian b e c a u s e o f t h e l a n g u a g e in which his works have reached us, but never as a R o m a n historian. Y e t it is in R o m e that Josephus, a R o m a n citizen since t h e year 6 9 , s p e n t at least half of his life; it is in R o m e that he wrote his e n t i r e works; and t h e s h a d o w of R o m e hovers over most of t h e p e r i o d h e describes. T h e t i m e has c o m e , as w e shall try t o d e m o n s t r a t e here, t o render J o s e p h u s his d i m e n s i o n as an historian of R o m e . T h e passages in Ant 18-20 d e v o t e d exclusively t o R o m a n history d o not suffer by compari­ s o n t o parallel passages by Suetonius or Tacitus. H o w is it that J o s e p h u s had information that is often m o r e detailed than that offered by t h e s e a c k n o w l e d g e d historians of R o m e ? His credibility regarding t h e R o m e o f his t i m e d e p e n d s o n t h e answer t o this q u e s t i o n . 1. Written Sources of Antiquities T h e last t h r e e b o o k s of t h e Antiquities

18-20

cover a period of 6 0 years (6

through 6 6 C E , w h e n t h e revolt broke o u t ) . J o s e p h u s , w h o w a s born in 37 C B , t h e first year of (;!aligula's reign, can b e c o n s i d e r e d a reliable w i t n e s s from a b o u t t h e year 5 0 onward. H e was a b l e to obtain infor­ m a t i o n o n N e r o ' s reign during his trip to R o m e in 6 4 / 6 5 , but w h o p r o v i d e d him with such valuable data o n the reigns of Caligula and Tiberius t o w h o m relatively long passages are d e v o t e d ? T h e s e passages are s o l o n g that they can appear t o be t e d i o u s digressions, described by T h a c k e r a y ( 1 9 2 9 : 6 8 ) as "interesting but strictly irrelevant

detail(s)

c o n c e r n i n g R o m a n court history" ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . O n e o f

the

e x p l a n a t i o n s offered by t h e latter is that while J o s e p h u s was busy writing his Jewish Antiquities,

the Emperor Domitian meditated on the

100

M.

HADAS-IP.BF.L

reign o f Tiberius: according to S u e t o n i u s "Itxcept for the m e m o i r s ' and d e e d s o f Tiberius h e read nothing" (Domitian 2 0 ) . Thackeray says "We can i m a g i n e that he ( D o m i t i a n ) w o u l d not refuse J o s e p h u s access t o this source" ( 1 9 2 9 : 6 8 ) . This implies that t h e two w e r e o n e x c e l l e n t terms, which is q u e s t i o n a b l e , at a time w h e n Tacitus w a s in favor at t h e imperial court. F u r t h e r m o r e , such an explanation is only valid in the c a s e of t h e reign o f Tiberius. It c a n n o t explain the origin o f t h e e x t r e m e l y d e t a i l e d account o f Caligula's death that is found

mAnt

19.

O n e must a s s u m e

that J o s e p h u s had the works of a contemporary Latin author translat­ e d (it is unlikely that he knew Latin well e n o u g h ) . E v e r since T h . M o m m s e n suggested it in 1 8 7 0 ( 3 2 0 - 2 2 ) , o n e n a m e is u s e d with disconcerting unanimity by atl of t h o s e puzzled by this long digression

on

Roman

history: Marcus Cluvius

Rufus.

This

attribution d e s e r v e s t o b e m o r e closely r e - e x a m i n e d . In t h e m o d e r n e d i t i o n s a character by t h e n a m e of KXOUIOC or KXOUITOI;, possible transcriptions of Cluvius, appears o n c e in Ant 1 9 § 9 1 , but J o s e p h u s n e v e r identified him as an historian or c l a i m e d him as a s o u r c e . H e is merely t e r m e d a "consular personage" and his p r e s e n c e in t h e account is justified only by t h e prudent answer he is said t o have given to the Senator Vaticinius w h o q u e s t i o n e d him about t h e conspiracy against Caligula. H e is reported to h a v e said, q u o t i n g t h e Iliad: "Noble friend, hold your t o n g u e for fear that any o t h e r A c h e a n hear your words" ( 1 4 . 9 0 - 9 1 ) . T h e a s s u m p t i o n c o m m o n l y accepted since M o m m s e n e x p r e s s e d it is b a s e d o n t h e fact that a R o m a n historian by t h e n a m e o f Cluvius did live at t h e t i m e o f t h e s e events but his works have disappeared.^ Pliny and Tacitus, w h o m e n t i o n him, link his works rather t o t h e reign of N e r o . ' T h e truth is that while all pertinent J o s e p h u s manuscripts contain t h e n a m e KXOUITOC;, t h e n a m e Cluvius is found in n o n e . In fact t h e entire a s s u m p t i o n rests o n t h e corrections m a d e by H u d s o n in t h e

' cf. Life of Tiberius 61: "In a memoir in which he rapidly summarized his Hfe, he dared write he punished Sejanus because he had discovered his fierce hatred for the children of his son Germanicus." ' Cf. Feldman, Antiquities vol.9 LCL pp. 212-13; 582 (bibliography). Feldman and others do however express some doubts. * Pliny Epist. 9.19.5; Tacitus Annals 13.20 and 14.2. Plutarch mentions Cluvius (Quaest. Rom. 107) but in connection with an ancient event dated 361 BCR.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, HISTORIAN OF ROMF

101

e i g h t e e n t h century (KXouptoc;) and N i e s e in t h e n i n e t e e n t h (KXOUIO(;). T h e uncertain spelling of a consular personage's n a m e that, o n c e m o d i f i e d , brings to m i n d that of an historian w h o s e lost works deal with a n o t h e r era is m e a g e r e v i d e n c e to justify such unanimity. All o f t h e o t h e r suggested written sources have already r e c o r d e d by disappeared

L. F e l d m a n

(1962). Since all of t h e s e works

any c o n c e i v a b l e c o n t e n t can be attributed to

been have them:

w h e t h e r it b e t h e story of Aufidius Bassus, Pliny the Elder, Servilius N o n i a n u s , S e n e c a t h e E-lder, Fabius Rusticus or o f t h e Claudius w h o , according to Suetonius (Claudius

Emperor

4 1 ) , wrote t h e account

o f his y o u t h . T h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s provide only n a m e s - o n e may or may not accept t h e m - and leave t h e true question unanswered: why w a s J o s e p h u s s u d d e n l y s o interested in R o m a n events? Thackeray, w h o can at least b e credited with raising this question, offers a purely formal explanation: J o s e p h u s took as a m o d e l the history of D i o n y s i u s of Halicarnassus in twenty v o l u m e s ; however, s i n c e h e probably lacked data, he did not hesitate t o add padding, "notwithstanding its irrelevance to his proper subject" (Thackeray 1929:

69).

This

is

an

example

of

the

casualness

with

which

c o n t e m p o r a r y critics treat ancient authors! Thackeray h o w e v e r d o e s not tell us why J o s e p h u s c h o s e precisely t h e e p i s o d e o f t h e murder of Caligula. H e d o e s not consider either that J o s e p h u s c o u l d

have

a p p o r t i o n e d his material otherwise in order t o fill twenty v o l u m e s . T w o m o r e plausible explanations were suggested by F e l d m a n (1962: 3 2 9 ) but they are relevant only to Caligula's death. This e v e n t saved t h e J e w s from disaster, as the insane e m p e r o r had p l a n n e d to erect a s t a t u e o f himself in t h e T e m p l e of Jerusalem; to narrate his punish­ m e n t w o u l d therefore be a fine way to praise D i v i n e

Providence.

M o r e o v e r , as t h e intervention of Agrippa 1 had m o d e r a t i n g effects on Caligula, J o s e p h u s s a w an opportunity to flatter his son Agrippa II, a n o t h e r p r o t e g ^ o f t h e Flavian emperors. All this is not very convincing because in order to d e m o n s t r a t e the action o f D i v i n e P r o v i d e n c e (as Philo did in the lost part o f the Legatio),

J o s e p h u s hardly n e e d e d t o describe the details o f the organi­

zation o f t h e conspiracy against Caligula; furthermore, he had other, m o r e direct m e a n s o f flattering Agrippa II. In t h e s a m e article, F e l d m a n suggests that J o s e p h u s may have t h o u g h t this e p i c description could h e l p to sell his work. But o n e

102

M. HADAS-l.EBFI.

w o n d e r s what R o m a n w o u l d have purchased t h e twenty v o l u m e s o f t h e

Antiquities

for this digression alone.

2. Oral Sources For all t h e s e reasons, t h e oral sources suggested by F e l d m a n s e e m m o r e promising. Indeed, J o s e p h u s knew many w i t n e s s e s t o r e c e n t e v e n t s o f R o m a n history: not only King Agrippa II w h o had o b t a i n e d a c c o u n t s from his father, but also the Jewish actor Aliturus w h o had h e l p e d him during his mission in 65 {Life § 16) and, a b o v e ail, his p r o t e c t o r Epaphroditus, Nero's freedman I, 296;

Life

{Ant

1 § 8;

AgAp

1 § 1; 2 §§

§ 4 3 0 ) . T h e latter two could have i n f o r m e d J o s e p h u s about

political life in R o m e under N e r o , but hardly about e v e n t s during p r e v i o u s reigns. A n d how could Agrippa II possibly r e m e m b e r s o m a n y details a b o u t e v e n t s of his c h i l d h o o d ? T h e war of t h e J e w s against R o m e , in which h e had participated, was t h e subject o f additional i n f o r m a t i o n h e provided to J o s e p h u s by letter'' and after t h e c o m p l e ­ tion o f t h e b o o k ; e v e n if J o s e p h u s had frequent o p p o r t u n i t i e s to m e e t with t h e king, it w o u l d s e e m that t h e latter did not e n g a g e in lengthy m e m o r y - f i l l e d conversations. T h e r e is a m p l e reason t o give credit t o oral t e s t i m o n i e s r e c o r d e d by J o s e p h u s . The e v e n t s narrated are often a n e c d o t e s , and, m o s t i m p o r ­ tant, o f t e n contradict or are m o r e c o m p l e t e than t h e parallel a c c o u n t s by T a c i t u s or S u e t o n i u s o n t h e reigns of Tiberius and Caligula. F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s credits A n t o n i a , t h e m o t h e r o f G e r m a n i c u s with a c o n s i d e r a b l e role in t h e disgrace o f Trajan {Ant

18 §§ 181-82). H e

p r o v i d e s a m u c h m o r e prolbt account o f t h e scandal of t h e t e m p l e o f Isis, w h i c h brought about t h e expulsion o f t h e oriental cults {Ant 18 §§ 6 5 - 8 0 ) . H i s narration o f the d e a t h o f Tiberius and o f

Caligula's

a c c e s s i o n to t h e t h r o n e differs greatly from t h o s e o f T a c i t u s and S u e t o n i u s . T h e latter calls o n at least two written s o u r c e s c o n c e r n i n g this matter, obviously not u s e d by Josephus: Pliny and S e n e c a . A d i s c r e t e witness appears in Josephus' account; he is t r e a t e d with c o n s i d e r a t i o n d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e to his rank and political role: T h a u mastus, a former slave of Caligula's t o w h o m A g r i p p a I, w h i l e still a p r i s o n e r of Tiberius, is said t o have promised f r e e d o m in e x c h a n g e for

* Life § 366: "If you will come to meet me, I shall also inform you about matters generally not known."

F I A V I U S JOSEPHUS, HISTORIAN O F R O M E

103

a drink. "He kept his word and repaid him as h e had said; later, having b e c o m e king, h e set T h a u m a s t u s free with great c e r e m o n y w h o had b e e n offered t o him by Gaius the e m p e r o r , and h e a p p o i n t e d him administrator o f his fortune. W h e n he died he left T h a u m a s t u s to serve his son Agrippa and daughter B e r e n i c e in t h e s a m e function. T h u s T h a u m a s t u s died at an old age with this title but this occured m u c h later" (Am

18 §§ 193-94).

J o s e p h u s can hardly b e m o r e explicit about having k n o w n T h a u ­ m a s t u s since t h e latter "died at an o l d age." H e obviously o b t a i n e d all t h e a n e c d o t e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e imprisonment and liberation of Agrippa I directly from him, since the y o u n g slave then lived within t h e imperial court. J o s e p h u s could easily question a f r e e d m a n , a G r e e k as indicated by his n a m e , w h o had probably learned A r a m a i c at t h e court o f Agrippa 11 and to w h o m he viewed himself as socially superior. J o s e p h u s could h a v e o b t a i n e d his testimony in R o m e w h e r e they both l a n d e d after 7 0 C;!E. B e i n g in possession of little-known information of w h o s e value h e w a s aware, h e c h o s e to divulge it in his works. A n o t h e r indicator s e e m s to corroborate this hypothesis. A t various t i m e s , w h e n e v o k i n g t h e reigns of Tiberius and Caligula, J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s t h e n a m e s of slaves unknown e l s e w h e r e : Eutyehus, Caligula's c o a c h m a n (Ant 18 § 179), Dallas, Antonia's emissary t o Tiberius (Ant 18 § 182), Marsyas and Strieheus, t w o of Agrippa's f r e e d m e n (Anl

18

§ 184), E v o d u s , Tiberius' freedman for w h o m J o s e p h u s had t h e most esteem

{Ant

18 § 2 0 5 ) , Callistus, Caligula's venal

and

insolent

f r e e d m a n w h o c l a i m e d he spared Claudius w h o m he w a s s u p p o s e d to p o i s o n {Ant 19 §§ 6 4 - 6 9 ) . T h e s e were all c o m p a n i o n s of T h a u m a s t u s ' y o u t h , saved by J o s e p h u s from oblivion. 3. Josephus'

Contribution

to Roman

History

J o s e p h u s not only transcribed the words o f the administrator T h a u ­ mastus, he also lived during the wars of Judea, a p a g e o f R o m a n history. W h e t h e r h e b e a direct or an indirect witness t o t h e e v e n t s he described,

he

indisputably

offers

historians

of

Rome

additional

information, which they t o o rarely think to s e e k in his works. T h e works of Tacitus, our main source of data o n t h e history o f the H i g h E m p i r e , have not c o m e down t o us in their entirety. U n f o r t u ­ nately t h e b o o k s o f t h e Annals

concerning t h e disgrace o f Sejanus

( B o o k 5 ) , t h e reign and t h e assassination of Caligula ( B o o k s 7-8) and

104

M. HADAS-I,EBEL

t h e a c c e s s i o n to t h e t h r o n e and reign of Claudius ( B o o k s 9-10) have b e e n lost. This is precisely t h e period covered by J o s e p h u s in Ant 19.

Brotier,

an

almost

forgotten

eighteenth

century

18-

French

c o m m e n t a t o r , saw their value and used t h e m as sources of inspiration to reconstitute t h e lost works o f Tacitus. This approach strikes us as exemplary. Tacitus, w h o s e anti-Judaism is well known, carefully c o n c e a l e d t h e friendship o f A n t o n i a , t h e mother of G e r m a n i c u s and Claudius, with B e r e n i c e , t h e m o t h e r o f Agrippa I; he thoroughly ignored t h e return o f t h e latter to t h e t h r o n e thanks t o Caligula's assistance; and he did not m e n t i o n t h e protection Claudius granted to Agrippa II. I n d e p e n ­ dently o f their b e l o n g i n g to Jewish history, e l e m e n t s o f this type w o u l d be useful to a n y o n e w a n t i n g to study the relationship b e t w e e n R o m e and t h e various vassals o f t h e Empire. T h e d e a t h of Tiberius offers an e x a m p l e of a c a s e for which w e h a v e J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t as well as that o f R o m a n historians. J o s e p h u s o f f e r e d a considerably m o r e detailed narration of t h e last m o m e n t s o f Tiberius' life and o f his succession than cither Tacitus or S u e t o n i u s did. Tiberius w h o , all authors agree, believed only in fate, had left a will d e s i g n a t i n g as equal heirs his grandson Tiberius, t h e s o n o f D r u sus, and G a i u s , t h e son of his a d o p t e d son G e r m a n i c u s . A s it had b e e n p r e d i c t e d t o him that his successor would be the first o n e t o visit him t h e following day, h e sent the tutor for the y o u n g Tiberius. T h e for­ mer, o n his way t o t h e palace, met Gaius and let him g o in first

....

E v e n m o r e valuable information is found in J o s e p h u s ' work, for h e himself w i t n e s s e d an e v e n t crucial t o t h e future o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e : t h e a c c e s s i o n to t h e t h r o n e of Vespasian. W e k n o w the i m p o r t a n c e of this event in the life o f J o s e p h u s : he survived only b e c a u s e after the siege o f Jotapata in 6 7 h e had predict­ e d to V e s p a s i a n that he w o u l d b e c o m e e m p e r o r ; two years later t h e prediction c a m e true and J o s e p h u s was freed by the n e w e m p e r o r and then b e c a m e an historian. S u e t o n i u s , while evoking t h e portents that let V e s p a s i a n h o p e to b e c o m e e m p e r o r m e n t i o n s that "a n o b l e captive by t h e n a m e o f J o s e p h u s declared with utmost c o n f i d e n c e , w h e n h e w a s i m p r i s o n e d , that h e w o u l d s o o n be delivered by t h e very s a m e Vespasian,

then

emperor"

{Vespasian

5 ) . This

substantiates

the

t e s t i m o n y of J o s e p h u s . W c p o s s e s s three parallel accounts of t h e e l e c t i o n o f V e s p a s i a n t o t h e t h r o n e . In chronological order they are: that of J o s e p h u s {JW 4 §§

FLAVIUS JOSHPHUS,

HISTORIAN OF R O M E

6 1 6 - 2 0 ) towards 75, that o f Tacitus that o f S u e t o n i u s

{Vespasian

105

{Histories 2.81) towards 106 and CK According to Tacitus,

6) towards 120

t h e c h o i c e w a s m a d e by Tiberius Alexander, prefect of ligypt, o n July 1 o f t h e y e a r 6 9 C E and w e l c o m e d with enthusiasm by the army o f J u d e a o n July 3 . S u e t o n i u s reported that as other armies had d o n e after Nero's s u i c i d e t h e p r e c e d i n g year, the two thousand m e n of the army o f M o e s i a d e c i d e d to designate the n e w e m p e r o r t h e m s e l v e s . T h o u g h they were "both u n k n o w n to him and distant from him" their prefer­ e n c e went t o V e s p a s i a n , and they inscribed his n a m e o n all o f their banners. Tiberius A l e x a n d e r is said t o have m a d e his army swear fidelity t o V e s p a s i a n o n July 1, and the army of J u d e a is r e p u t e d to h a v e f o l l o w e d suit o n July 10. T h e narration by J o s e p h u s was written prior to the other t w o and published during t h e lifetime of Vespasian. ( W o u l d he have dared to d o s o had it b e e n incorrect?) It is extremely realistic and a b o u n d s in detail: V e s p a s i a n , indignant upon learning of t h e election o f Vitellius t o t h e t h r o n e , did not sail for R o m e despite his impatience; his troops shared his indignation and compared t h e merits of their leader to t h o s e of t h e newly e l e c t e d cruel and d e b a u c h e d e m p e r o r ; they im­ p l o r e d V e s p a s i a n t o save the Empire; he cautiously hesitated and then d e c l i n e d . "But his officers insisted strongly, and the soldiers, w h o had g a t h e r e d around him sword in hand, threatened him with d e a t h if he refused to live in a m a n n e r worthy o f him;" he finally a c c e p t e d . B e f o r e leaving for R o m e , he wanted to secure the loyalty of Egypt, t h e bread basket of t h e Empire; he therefore wrote to Tiberius Alexander, w h o i m m e d i a t e l y had his army take the oath of fidelity. T h e legions of M o e s i a and P a n n o n i a , hostile to Vitellius w e l c o m e d the news with joy. N o t only is J o s e p h u s ' account superior in literary terms to t h e t w o o t h e r s , it is also m o r e convincing. What could be m o r e natural than Vespasian's troops trying to bring him to power in this "year o f the four e m p e r o r s " during which (he R o m a n army b e c a m e aware of its political role? W i t h o u t doubt they revered their c o m m a n d e r and h o p e d t o s e e his merits rewarded; fhcy probably also e x p e c t e d to benefit from b e i n g known by the new e m p e r o r . In addition t o t h e s e reasons that could have motivated t h e army to d e s i g n a t e V e s p a s i a n as the n e w e m p e r o r , o n e m o r e must b e added: t h e w h o l e army k n e w that a Jewish captive by the n a m e of J o s e p h u s , son

of

Matthias,

defeated

at

Jotapata,

had

predicted

that

his

106

M. I I A D A S - L E B E L

v a n q u i s h e r w o u l d b e c o m e e m p e r o r . Predictions s o m e t i m e s c o m e true b e c a u s e they t e n d to provoke the e v e n t they foretell. U n d e r this h y p o t h e s i s J o s e p h u s c o u l d b e credited with a much greater role. H i s a c c o u n t has t h e merit o f explaining t h e e l e c t i o n , which t o

many

historians is still "not fully elucidated,"^ o f a man w h o apparently w a s n o t d e s t i n e d to b e c o m e e m p e r o r . H o w is it that J o s e p h u s ' works are s o rarely used as s o u r c e s by historians o f R o m e ? W e b e l i e v e the main reason t o b e that

for

c e n t u r i e s he w a s the only k n o w n historian contemporary o f J e s u s to h a v e written about him. ( W e will not discuss the authenticity o f t h e w e l l - k n o w n Testimonium

Flavianum

in Anl IS). Since t h e first w o r k s o n

t h e history o f R o m e and that o f Christianity, historians referred t o J o s e p h u s as a witness of t h e "time of Jesus" and reserved

pagan

s o u r c e s for purely R o m a n history. T h o u g h the G o s p e l s and t h e w o r k s of

Josephus

display

a

few

incompatibilities,

the

latter

remains

s u r r o u n d e d by a sacred aura that disqualified him in t h e e y e s o f secular historians. T h e t i m e has c o m e to realize that J o s e p h u s ' works contain m o r e than w h a t t h e o l o g i a n s sought therein: secular history prevails o v e r sacred history.

' Cf. L e G I a z 1991: 260. H e a d d s (262) "It is p e r h a p s b e c a u s e T i t u s e x i s t e d a n d h a d a b r o t h e r that V e s p a s i a n w a s c h o s e n to b e e m p e r o r . H i s s u c c e s s i o n w a s p r a c t i c a l l y certain." W h e n J o s e p h u s briefly e v o k e s this r e a s o n , it l o o k s like flattery towards Titus. Many other generals throughout the Empire must also have had sons.'

P A R T III

LITHRARY

AND

OTIIHR

MODELS

A M A L E K IN T H E WRITINGS O F J O S E P H U S Johann Maier

1. 1.1 Biblical

Introduction

evidence

In G e n 36:12, 22 Amaiek is o n e of the grandsons of Esau and in other Biblical texts he appears as a fierce archenemy of Israel. The A m a l e kites were the first w h o according to Exod 17:8-16 attacked the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt and together with other groups barred direct access to the Land of Ganaan. They also figure among the most threatening neighbours throughout the early history of Israel. King Saul is said to have almost totally annihilated them. It was David, however, to w h o m the Bible attributes the elimination of this threat from the southern borders. Consequently, Amaiek should have been regarded later on as a figure of the past but in traditional Jewish historiography he appears nevertheless as the typus of the foremost and irreconcilable e n e m y of Israel. Already in the Torah ( D e u t 25:17-19; cf. E x o d 17:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:2-3) Israel is c o m m a n d e d a) always to remember what Amaiek had done, b) to try to blot out the memory of Amaiek. and c) not to forget it. The territory of Amaiek is regarded as part of Israel's heritage just like the land of the Canaanites ( N u m 14:25) or the seven nations which G o d c o m m a n d e d and promised to expulse or to extirpate. In this respect they were (cf. D e u t 2:4-9) in spite of their alleged descendance from Esau clearly distin­ guished from the Edomites "who live in Seir" and are called brothers of the Israelites and whose territory must not be invaded by the Israelites (cf. D e u t 2:19 concerning the sons of Ixtt). In the literature of early Judaism we find only a few references to Amaiek outside the materials dealing with Biblical traditions. S o m e of them indicate an increasing interest in Amaiek as a typus, a fact which is corroborated by the addition of the name Amaiek on certain

110

J.

MAIER

occasions by s o m e translators or scribes of the Greek Bible.' T h e Biblical and early Jewish picture of E s a u / E d o m and A m a l e k is already a complex product of historical experiences and metahistorical evalua­ tions ( D i c o u 1990; Hartberger 1986). It is evident that Amalek represented an actual e n e m y for the early Jewish authors and not only one of the past. This image was possible by assuming that the Amalekites were still a living ethnic group trying to harm Israel and they were often identified with s o m e dangerous contemporary tribes in the area. On the basis of the B o o k of Esther (see below) even Agagitcs, descendants of the Amalekite king Agag, were said to have survived. In other instances the designation "Ama­ lek" had no genealogical implication at all but served as a mere c o d e name for the most dangerous contemporary e n e m y ( N o l d e k e 1864). This melahi.storical application remained in use throughout t h e centuries; even today it may be found in connection with Nazi-Germa­ ny and with Palestinians.^ Both methods of application, the g e n e a l o g i ail and the symbolical intertwined regularly. For Amalek remained in Jewish historiographic-political consciousness a figure in intimate relationship to "E^au/Edom" even when reduced to a mere lypus without any stated genealogical links. One reason for this was that E s a u / E d o m himself constituted a metahistorical c o d e n a m e for the R o m a n empire in its quality as the most threatening political and eschatological power in the sense of Daniel's fourth kingdom. It is the function as lypus in this sense which is the subject of this paper. N o t the historical relationship between the Edomites (Weippert 1982 with bibliography; Bartlett 1989; Axelsson 1987) and the A m a ­ lekites on the southeastern borders of Israel/Judah,' nor the real history of these ethnic groups but the use of their name as a symbol or a c o d e name is what we are treating." T h e origins of the symbolic application of "Esau/Edom" to the R o m a n empire is difficult to trace. It is obvious that historical experi-

' 2 K g d m s 10:6 (B) for M T n D r a ; J u d g 7:1 ( A ) ; ! Kgdms 15:13; 31:13 / 2 K g d m s 1:1. O n the o t h e r hand, the n a m e A m a l e k has b e e n eliminated in J u d g 5:14 ( A ) ; p e r h a p s d u e to an alternative reading, e.g., as a result of a correction as in J u d g 12:15 in c o n n e c t i o n with a m o u n t a i n called "pbavn "in in the land of E p h r a i m . S e e T h o m a s 1895: 426-28. ' P a g a n o n i (1986) used "Amalek" for representatives of the anti-Zionist left. ' See esp. Bartlett 1989; Sawyer and Clines 1987; Bienkowski 1992; Finkelstein 1992. * D a u b e (1977: 13) referred only to Mekhilta R. Jishmael on FJI 8-12.

AMAI.HK

IN T I I K W R I T I N G S O F J O S E P H U S

111

enccs during the late period of the kingdom of Judah, at the time of its fall from the 7th to the 6th century BCE and during the Persian period,^ shaped the image of E s a u / E d o m as the menacing rival "brother" and neighbour of Israel. The geographical basis of this threat was the Negev, south of Judah, and it was this specific confron­ tation which overshadowed also the Biblical items which point to an original location of Amaiek on the eastern side of the Arabah (Simons 1959: 1-2: T h o m a s 1895: 427-32). According to Exod 17:8-16 and N u m 13:28-29 it is evident that the Amalekites lived in the Negev, blocking the highways from the south and from the desert of Sin to the Land of Canaan. This is corroborated by (see below) Num 14:40-45 and Deut 1:44. According to Judg 1:16 the Amalekites were neighbours of the Kenites, and in 1 Sam 15:4-6 they arc connected with the locality of T e i a i m / T e l e m which is in the Negev (Simons 1959: 317, 143). This is also mentioned in 1 Sam 27:8, a text which defines the regions of the Amalekites, Geshurites and Girzites as extending from Tclaim to Shur near Egypt. The proximity to Egypt is also expressed in 1 Sam 15:7 ("from Havilah to Shur"). It seems therefore that during a certain period in Israel's history a group of tribes not only east of the Arabah but especially west of it, on the Sinai Peninsula was regarded as Amalekites or their allies. It is this situation which led to the descrip­ tion of A m a i e k as the rr'tPNI (the best, the elite; LXX: apxT]) of the nations" in N u m 24:20. It was particularly the location on the western side that embarrassed s o m e Jewish authors during the late Second Commonwealth. They tried to displace Amaiek, locating them exclusively in the east again and thus excluding any claims from foreign tribes on the southern territories in question. There is, however, another aspect which needs to be considered. 1 Chr 4 contains traditions (not attested elsewhere) about s o m e southern clans of Judah. Beginning with v 24 there appear s o m e strange remarks about the Simeonites and 4:41-43 report about a campaign of the Simeonites against Hamites* in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah. In w 42-43 we read: "And five hundred men of these Si-

' R e c e n t archaeological finds contributed m u c h to the understanding of the historical relationship between I s r a e l / J u d a e a and l i d o m . It was evidently the role of H d o m after its expansion into the Negev and into the southern p a n s of J u d a e a which provoked the rivalry reflected in the Biblical texts. See Beit-Arieh 1989. ' See below on Testament of Simeon 6:3.

112

J.

MAIER

mconjtes, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and IJzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. (43) They killed the remaining Amalekites w h o had escaped (cf. 1 Sam 30 in Ant 6 §§ 356-67), and they have lived there to this day." According to this tradition, Seir is evidently south of Judah and the remnant of the Amalekites from the days of David had found refuge here. There is no other historical evidence for this statement. The polemics in the Biblical prophetic books against hostile foreign nations do not include Amalek as a target while polemical sayings against Edom are quite c o m m o n (Kaufmann 1977: 431-33; Cresson 1972). Thus the real e n e m y was "Edom" or tribes in the south which in certain traditions were charac­ terized as descendants of lisau "the brother." The reason for the new rivalry was the fact that the Persian province of Edom d e v e l o p e d tendencies to expand its territories (de Gens 1979/80). Consequently, the establishment of the new province of Judah with its increasing influence on former Israelite as well as Judaean populations in the south concurred with lidomite aspirations. An even more critical confrontation emerged during the Hellenistic period (Bartlett 1982). At the northern boundaries of Judah (Schreiner 1979: 224-25) the Samarians were playing a similar role and not by accident both groups met a comparable fate under the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus. T h e historiographical introduction of the Amalekites into the region of S e i r / E d o m in the south of Judah served perhaps as a basis for an excuse for campaigns into the territory of E d o m . In addition, it may be have b e e n done in order to avoid the impression violating the negative command not to attack the descendants of lisau or to invade the land of E d o m / E s a u (Deut 2:22-25). A hint of such conditions may be found in 1 Kgs 16:6, where the Hebrew textual tradition provides two readings. After his victory over Ahaz of Judah, King Rezin of Syria conquered Elat on the shore of the Red Sea and expelled all D''nrT'. H e returned this area to OHK, originally evidently D~iii for A r a m / D a m a s c u s has never been in possession of Elat. Consequently, •^DiN/D^DiN c a m e to HIat and settled there. The H e b r e w Bible editions preferred the reading D*'fDlK/"Aramaeans," whereas the Greek Bible translated - in a historical sense - "Idumaeans." This was d o n e notwithstanding the accepted reading DTK (and not OIN) in the first half of the verse, rendered as "Syria." iiut the authors of 2 Chr 28:4-5 simply skipped the passage in question, while Josephus in Anl 9 § 245 preferred in this case "Syrians." He thus followed the reading of the

AMALEK

IN T I I E W R I T I N G S O F J O S F P I I U S

113

later M T but translated it according to the Greek of the first half of the verse. By locating the Amalekites in the realm of E d o m all military actions in E d o m i t c territories appeared not only permitted but even as fulfillment of a positive command: to extirpate the memory of Amaiek and to conquer their land. In later times we find this kind of argumen­ tation in certain Rabbinic traditions (Maier 1993). 1.2 Josephus' general attitude to "Edom" The E d o m i t e s ceased to represent an independent ethnic group after their defeat and forced conversion to Judaism under the H a s m o n e a n John Hyrcanus {Ant 13 §§ 257-58).' The symbolic genealogical posi­ tion of Esau was now free for a reinterpretation and a new applica­ tion. This s e e m s to have been a well known concept already at the end of the first century CE: E s a u / E d o m became a code name for the R o m a n empire. Josephus tried to avoid any hint of the disastrous rival attitude toward R o m e . Pleading for coexistence, he did not explicitly renounce the traditional eschatological expectations so far as they concerned a remote future. While reworking and interpreting the contents of the B o o k of G e n e s i s his endeavours met a serious obstacle. The Jacob Esau stories were at that time already conceived as indicating the relationship between R s a u / E d o m and Jacob/Israel. Consequently, Josephus had to eliminate any possible interpretion of the rivalry between the Biblical twins Jacob and Esau which represented typologically the rivalry between Israel and R o m e . This fact has recently b e e n pointed out again by L. H. Feldman (1987-8: 202-4; 1988-89) and M. Hadas-Lcbel (1986; 1987; 1991; cf. Stern 1987). In s o m e respects Josephus anticipated the attitude of s o m e later Rabbis w h o also tried to avoid a direct confrontation with "Edom" by accentuating Amalek's character as the archenemy of Israel.

2. J--arly non-Biblical

Jewish

evidence

2.1 In the function as typus Amaiek was not only conceived as a figure of the past or present but also as an eschatological enemy of Israel. At

' It is difficult to believe that some O T texts still reflect this new state of affairs, a hypothesis expressed by D i e b n e r and Schult 1975.

114

J.

MAIER

the beginning of the "War ScroU" from Qumran we read in I Q M 1.1-2, that the "sons of hght" will be waging their final wars . . against the lot of the sons of darkness, against the army of Belial, the host of E d o m and M o a b and the sons of A m m o n , (2) and the ar[my (or; the sons) of Amalek and the sons) of Philistaea and against the hosts of the Kittim of Assur and with them to their help are t h e trespassers of (the) covenant." It is true that in this source the name Amalek has to be restored in a lacuna. This has led to several alternative suggestions*. T h e given restoration is rather plausible (Carmignac and Guilbert 1961: 91) because of Ps 83:7-9 which is evidently the background of the passage. 2.2 In the Pseudepigrapha of the O T there is only o n e passage dealing with A m a l e k , and it occurs again in an eschatological context, in t h e Testament of Simeon 6:3, a prophetic oracle (similar to N u m 24:17-19 and Jubilees 24:27-32): " T h e n t h e seed of C a n a a n will b e destroyed and t h e r e will b e no posterity to Ainalek. All t h e C a p p a d o c J a n s shall b e destroyed a n d all the Hittites shall be wholly obliterated. (4) T h e land of H a m ' shall b e wanting and all that p e o p l e shall perish, and the w h o l e earth shall b e at rest from trouble a n d everything under heaven shall b e free from war. 'ITien S h e m shall b e glorified . . . etc" (trans. H. C. K e e in C h a r l e s w o r t h 1983; 787).

T h e traditional names "Canaan" and "Amalek" represent the nonJewish population of the Land of Israel and its surroundings (of "Syria") during the Hellenistic era. The Cappadocians for example, had a certain reputation as fierce soldiers. They appear in the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran ( I Q a p G e n 21.23), where they replace "Ellasar" in the MT of G e n 14:9 ( L X X 'EXXaodp), and "the land of Ham" points towards Ptolemaic Egypt. It s e e m s that during the Ptolemaic-Seleucid wars certain indigenous e l e m e n t s in the vicinity of Judaea tried to gain ground at the expense of the Jews.

' V e r m e s (1987: 105); "and [against the army of the sons of the e a s t ] . ' ' C f a b o v e on 1 Chr 4:41-43.

A M A L E K TN T H F W R I T I N G S O F J O S E P H U S

2.3 Philo

115

Alexandrinus

in the works of Philo of Alexandria Amaiek represents most of all a certain type of immorality. The behaviour of the Amalekites illustrates the disastrous effects of Jta&T] {De congregatione 45-62 on G e n 36; Legurn allegoriae 3.186-87). 3. Fiavius Josephus and the Biblical traditions on Amalek^° 3.1 Gen 14:5-7 in Ant 1 § 174 The Masoretie Text reads: . . and they defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zusaites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim, (6) and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as HI Paran near the desert. (7) Then they turned back and went to linmishpat, that is, Kadesh, and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as of the Amorites who were living in ChazazonThamar." In the geographical context of this pa.ssage, the Amalekites have to be located in the region of Kadesh in the western part of the Arabah. The Greek translators placed on the western side of the Arabah only the leaders of the Amalekites (the apxovTec, reading '•~W in place of mil?), and this only temporarily, during the war. \n Jubilees 13 w e find a remarkably different but unfortunately not complete r^sumi^ of the story. The Aramaic Genesis Apociyphon from Qumran ( I Q a p G e n 21-22), however, provides a more elaborate version. In 21.28-29 (concerning Gen 14:6) it offers a peculiar reading: T h e y d e f e a t e d the R e p h a i t e s of Ashterol Karnaim, the Z u m z a m i t c s of A m n i o n , die Emites of Shaveh-Kiriolh and the H o r i t e s in the m o u n t a i n s of G e b a l (replacing Seir!), arriving at El (30) Paran which is situated in the desert. And they turned back [ . . . ! . . . |. . . ] in H a z a z o n - T h a m a r .

Unfortunately, the passage regarding the Amalekites is not preserved, but it may be that the announced new critical edition will provide a more c o m p l e t e text. The replacement of "Seir" by "Gebal" is, howev­ er, sufficiently suggestive because it places the action unequivocally on the eastern side of the Arabah. Gebal, usually the Hebrew name for Byblos (Ezek 27:9, cf. L X X ) , refers also in Ps 83:8 (in the L X X

Citations from the works of Josephus follow the 1X^1-.

116

J.

M/MF.R

transcribed as repaX/NaiPctX) to a region on the eastern side of the Arabah. Eusebius in his Onomasticon (see index in Klostermann 1904) identified it more or less with Arabia Petraea (Simons 1959:512). Seir, on the contrary, was also connected with areas on the western side, s o it s e e m s that certain traditions tried to locate the Amalekites unequiv­ ocally and exclusively on the eastern side. In this case Josephus could have used this tradition for the specific purpose of removing the Amalekites from the western side of the Arabah and placing them anyway in a region outside the R o m a n realm. This tendency is evident in his treatment of more than o n e Biblical passage, the first being Genesis 14 itself. In Ant 1 § 174 Josephus omitted the passage "En-mishpat - that is, Kadesh - and the whole territory of the Amalekites and Amorites, as well as of the Amorites who were living at Hazor-Tamar" from G e n 14:7(-9). His version reads: "They ravaged the whole of Syria and subdued the descendants of the giants; then, on reaching the region of S o d o m , they encamped in the valley called Bitumen pits." Josephus continues immediately with G e n 14:10: "for at that time there were pits." This procedure is almost certainly not an incidental shift but rather a deliberate omission with the aim of excluding any relationship between the region south of Judaea and the territory of the A m a l e ­ kites. 3.2 Genesis 36 in Ant 2 §§ 5-6 a) G e n e s i s 36 contains three lists of the descendants of Esau: (1) G e n 36:11-14 a list of his sons, (2) Gen 36:15-19 a list of rulers (the clans), and (3) G e n 36:40-43 a short list of the chiefs, clans and the regions involved. The list in G e n 36:12 concludes with Timna, calling her a concubine of Eliphaz who bore him Amalek. G e n 36:40-41, instead, as a list according to regions, begins with PDftn. b) T h e author of a fragment from Qumran, 4 Q 2 5 2 , frg. 1 col. iv, which recently has b e e n published in a preliminary form (Wacholder and A b e g g 1992: 214-15), added to the genealogical statement of G e n 36:12 a remark about King Saul and the Amalekites. It is followed by a citation from Deut 25:19 replacing the first part of the verse with 0''tT'n iT'intO as in N u m 24:14: "(1) Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz the son of Usau, and she bore him Amalek. It was he, w h o had b e e n defea[ted by king] (2) Saul [ (lacuna) . . . ,] as He had said to M o s e s (cf. Deut 25:19): In the end of days you shall blot out the memory of Amalek (3) from under heaven."

A M A L E K IN T H E WRITINCiS O F J O S E P H U S

117

c) T h e Biblical designation of Amaiek as the son of a concubine was certainly a polemical point and Josephus stressed this by speaking expressis verbis of a "bastard." d) In his Antiquities, Josephus began Book 2 (§§ 1-3) with the juridic statement that after the death of Isaac his sons agreed to divide the territorial heritage according to their new changed status. Conse­ quently, Esau left Hebron to Jacob, as told in Gen 36:6-8, and went to "Saeira" where he had lived before (see Anl 1 § 336). Immediately after this passage Josephus listed in accordance with G e n 36:9-14 the children of Esau by his three wives adding the sons of Eliphaz and concluding the passage Gen 36:9-14 with "the bastard (vo^oc) A m a ­ iek" (Anl 2 §§ 4-5). Here (after Gen 36:14) he added a significant remark: T h e s e occupied ihe region of I d u m a e a termed Gobolitis and that called, after A m a i e k , Amalckitis; for Idumaea, formerly extensive, has kepi that n a m e for the whole country and in its several provinces preserved the n a m e s that were derived from their founders.

It is characteristic of Josephus" that after omitting the Amalekites in G e n 14 he tried to give the impression, that the Gobolites and Amalekites occupied a certain (eastern!) part of a territory o n c e called in its entirety Idumaea. Also in Ant 3 § 40 and in 9 § 188 he desig­ nates this eastern part as the land of the Amalekites which is unequi­ vocally identical with Arabia Petraea. This was at that time actually the realm of the Nabataeans and of other Arab tribes, but still outside the R o m a n empire. The region was a .source of continual trouble until the establishment of the province "Arabia" under Trajan in 105/106 C E and the construction of the I.imes (Sartre 1991; Parker 1987). Thus we may conclude that Josephus deliberately placed the Amalekites in the eastern parts of an allegedly greater Idumaea of the past. This was done not only in order to remove them from the territory of a later Idumaea but also to identify the archenemy of Israel Amaiek — as an actual enemy of R o m e . At the same time he tried to transfer the emotional aspects of the hostility between Israel and A m a i e k to the relationship between Romans and Arabs. This impression may be confirmed by the following passage.

" F r a n x m a n (1979: 218-20) missed the problem connected with the symbolism of the parting of Esau and J a c o b in G e n 36. Additionally, he did not realize the significance of the omission of the Amalekites of G e n 14 in Ant 1 §§ 171-175.

118

J.

MAIER

3.3 F'jcod 17:8-16 in Ant 3 §§ 39-62 In his Antiquities Josephus devoted no less than 24 paragraphs to the short story (of only nine Biblical verses) about the first battle against the Amalekites. This story was, therefore, of special significance for him and for the expression of his intentions. In Ant 3 §§ 39-40 Josephus described the Amalekites as t h e leading and instigating group among a number of tribes which worried about the approaching Israelites. They argued for a preventive attack o n the Israelites in order to avoid a future situation under less favorable conditions. Josephus classified these clever instigators in § 4 0 expressis verbis as "inhabitants of Gobolitis and Petra w h o are called Amalekites and were the most warlike of the peoples in those parts. It was their king w h o sent messages exhorting one another and t h e neighbouring p e o p l e s to make war on the Hebrews." The lengthy description of the preparations for the battle by Moses, the admonition before the war, the appointing of Joshua as commander in chief, the admonition before the battle, the description of the victorious battle itself, of the spoils and of the celebration of the victory are together a kind of anticipation of Deuteronomistic warfare laws and war ideology. It is as well a skillful celebration of Jewish heroism in a Hellenistic manner,'^ combined with the religious device that trust in G o d counterbalances disproportionate military equipment and experience. G o d is called v t x a i o i ; ("Giver of victory," for M T "'D} mir") and the paragraph concludes with the words: "and he predicted [Exod 17:14] that the Amalekites were to be utterly exterminated and not o n e o f them should survive to after ages, because they had set u p o n the H e b r e w s at a time when they were in desert country and in sore distress" {Ant 3 § 60). This recalls Deut 25:17-19 (cf. Ant 4 § 304). Heroism is a characteristic which Josephus knew how to utilize in various respects. Apart from the wars treated in this paper, heroism plays a prominent role in Josephus' picture of King David ( F e l d m a n 1989a). In such contexts he always pursued the s a m e aim. By stressing the aspect of heroism h e managed to conceal from non-Jewish readers the militant, eschatological-messianic implications of the traditions in question. The same is true of his treatment of the wars of the Macca­ b e e s and last but not least regarding the Zealotic trends during the

" In m o d e r n research the description o£ the battle itself is usually r e g a r d e d as the w o r k of the so-called "Thucydidean assistant."

AMAi.RK

IN T H t

WRITINOS OF JOSEPHUS

119

first century CH. In spite of his gcneraily negative picture of the Zealots, Josephus managed in his formulations of the speeches of Eleazar at the end of the War to moderate the negative Zealot image. This was d o n e by stressing the aspects of heroism and of total personal c o m m i t m e n t to an allegedly higher religious and national vocation. 3.4 Num 13:28-29 in Ant 3 §§ 304-5. Josephus omitted the Amalekites in Num 13:29, where they appear together with Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites as inhabitants of the southern part of the land of Canaan. However, he did mention the descendants of the giants at Hebron. 3.5 Num 14:25 in Ant 3 §§

311-14

Josephus omitted the passage about the Amalekites and Canaanites. 3.6 Num 14:43-45 in Ant 4 §§ 1-8 Josephus described an unsuccessful campaign against the Canaanites only, omitting the Amalekites. 3.7 Num 21:1 in Ant 4 §§ 83-89 Josephus skipped N u m 21:1-9, speaking in this context only of A m o ­ rites. 3.8 Num 24:7, 20-21 in Ant 4 §§

102-24

Josephus omitted in Balaam's prophecy the passages which deal with Amaiek. 3.9 Deut

25:17-19

The Biblical passage reads: I. Remember what Amaiek did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt (18) when they met you on the way and cut off (LXX: "the rearguard") those (who were) lagging behind (you) while you were faint and weary, and he did not fear God. H. (19) When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land which he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, your shall blot out the memory (LXX: TO ovopa) of Amaiek from under heaven. II). Do not forget it.

120

J.

MAIER

This passage concerning Amaiek which plays such a prominent role in Jewish mctahistoricai consciousness and which later on was counted as three (I-III) c o m m a n d m e n t s (two positive and o n e negative) of the 613 precepts in the Written Torah, appears in Anl 4 § 304 only in a shortened form. At first sight it d o e s not s e e m to be congruent with the halakhie tradition: H e also exhorted (!) the p e o p l e , once they had c o n q u e r e d the country a n d were established therein, not to forget that insolence of t h e Amalekites, but to t a k e t h e field against t h e m a n d exact vengeance for t h e wrong which they had d o n e t h e m when they were in t h e desert (cf. Anl 3 §§ 39ff.).

But in fact Josephus knew very well the significance of this passage, for he refers to it explicitly as a commandment in the sense of the Biblical text proper (Anl 6 §§ 133, 138-39; 7 § 6). 3.10 Judg 3:13 in Ant 5 ^ 186. Josephus omitted the A m m o n i t e s and Amalekites as allies of Bglon. 3.11 Judg 5:14 Jo.sephus did not reproduce the Song of Deborah. 3.12 Judges 6-7 in Ant 5 §§

210-29

Judg 6:3, 33 and 7:12 lists the invaders as "the Midianite, Amalekite, and eastern (tribes)." Josephus added two accentuations: "Barak and D e b o r a h having died simultaneously, the Madianites, calling the A m a l e k i t e s and Arabians to their aid, marched against the Israelites" (Ant 5 § 210). 3.13 Judg 10:11-12 in Ant 5 §§

255-56.

Josephus skipped the relevant passage. 3.14 Judg 12:15 in Ant 5 § 274 I.XX B (not A ) reproduced the MT with

opet TOU (3c[xaXT)K (A:

Acxvax), Josephus gives only the name Pharathon.

AMALEK

IN T H E W R I T I N G S O E J O S E P H U S

121

3.15 ; 5 a m 14:47-48 in Ant 6 § 129 W h e n Saul had assumed rule over Israel, he fought against their e n e m i e s on every side: (against) M o a b , against the Anunora'tes, against E d o m ( L X X a d d s "and against Baitheor"), against the king of Z o b a and against the Philistines. . . . (48) H e fought valiantly and defeated Amalek and delivered Israel from the h a n d s of those w h o plundered them.

Josephus reproduced the passage thus: "He then reigned happily and, having made war on the neighbouring nations, subdued those of the A m m a n i t e s and Moabites, besides the Philistines, Idumaeans, Amale­ kites and the King of Soba." 3.16 ; Samuel

15 in Ant 6 §§

131-55

As in the case of Hxod 17:8-16 Josephus elaborated the description of the battle against Amalek also in the present chapter, thus indicating a special interest. Reproducing in §§ 132-33 more or less literally the request of G o d as formulated in 1 Sam 15:2-3 Josephus added in § 133 a reference to M o s e s (the commandments in Deut 25:17-19). In § 134 Josephus followed the Greek textual tradition which read Gilgal/Galgala in place of Telaim. Galgala was more likely to serve as a starting point for a campaign in territories east of the D e a d Sea and the Araba while Telaim (cf. 1 Sam 27:8 below) in the south of Judah was belter suited for a campaign in the Negev. T o avoid any connection with the Negev, Josephus transposed the passage concerning the Kenites, and in this way gave the impression that Saul invaded the land of the Amalekites immediately after leaving Galgala. On the other hand, according to § 140, Saul conquered "the whole region extending from Pelusium in Egypt to the Erythraean Sea," sparing only the "Sikimites" (according to the context the Kenites transposed from above). According to Josephus, they lived among the more remote Midianitcs, and not, as in the Biblical text, among the Amalekites of the Negev. Josephus underlined the religious importance of the commandment to annihilate Amalek by contrasting il with the motivation for Saul's compassion with King Agag: Saul admired Agag's beauty and stature, a noble but human sentiment (Ant 6 §§ 136-39). This motif contributed an additional trait to the tragic-heroic character of Saul'^ which

" Pseudo-Philo's I.iber Aniiquitaium negative trait.

Biblicarum introduced, on the contrary, a

122

J.

MAIER

certainly fitted the Hellenistic-Roman mentality. In addition, Josephus stressed that it was Israel's army which had really sinned by looting the best of the banned goods. Finally, according to § 155 Samuel ordered Agag to be put to death while according to 1 Sam 15:33 it was h e himself w h o cut him to pieces. 3.17 ; Sam 27:8-9 and 28:18 in Ant 6 §§ 323,

336

Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurite (missing in LXX, which adds "all"), the Girzite and the Amalekite, for there were the populations of the land from ancient times beginning from Telam (cf 1 Sam 15:4, 7 and LXX variants) on your way to Shur and until the I^nd of Egypt (••""ISO yiK i n nmo -[N13 obvin nwK yiKn mDC nan ""D). This Biblical text implies in v. 9 that David in turn invaded the territories of the hostile tribes and that he executed the ban on their cities (cf. D e u t 20:16-18), completely extinguishing their population in performance of the precepts of Deut 25:17-19 which Saul had neglect­ ed. In 1 Sam 28:18 it is stated as a reproach against Saul, and this is also reproduced by Josephus in Ant 6 § 336. But Josephus avoided to specify the peoples "south of Judah" as in 1 Sam 27:10 (mentioning the Kenites). It s e e m s that he interpreted the gentilicia in 1 Sam 27:8 as covering the whole range from the west to areas east of the Arabah. 3.18

I Samuel

30 in Ant 6

§§356-67

A s the Biblical text speaks about an invasion of the Amalekites there was no reason to change the place of action of David's campaign against the Amalekites. 3.19

/ Samuel

31 Ant 6 § 371 and 7 §§ 1-6

In the story about Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 Josephus inserted the account of the Amalekite in 2 Sam 1:6-10. \nAnt 7 § 6 he introduced a special issue, where according to Josephus, David ordered the man to be put to death because of his Amalekite extraction, thus perform­ ing the c o m m a n d m e n t in Deut 25:17-19. It is noteworthy that, on the contrary, the authors of 1 Chr 10 in their version of Saul's death have omitted this Amalekite. 3.20 2 Sam 8:12 in Ant 7 §§ 108-9. Jo.sephus omitted the passage on the dedicated spoils while in 1 Chr 18:11 it is attested.

AMALtK

3.21

IN T H K WRITIN<;S O F J O S E P H U S

2 Chr 25 in Ant 9 §§

123

188-98

a) While 2 Chr 25:5-6 does not mention any destination of the preparatory military measures, Josephus adds in Ant 9 § 188: "for he had decided to undertake a campaign against the nations of the Amalekites and iidomites and Gabalites." In § 198 he substituted "lidom" of the MT in 25:18 by "Amalekites." There is no question about his intention to localize the campaign on the eastern side of the Arabah, as explicitly attested by the following passage. b) 1 Chr 25:11-12: "Amaziah then marshalled his force and led his army to the Valley of Salt, where he smote ten thousand of the sons of Seir [2 Kgs 14:7: A n d he smote Hdom"]. (12) The army of Judah also captured ten thousand men alive, took them to the l o p of a cliff and threw them down so that all were smashed." In Ant 9 § 191 Josephus identified the cliffs of 2 Chr 25:12 as "the great rock which is over against Arabia." c) 2 Chr 25:14: "When Amaziah returned from smiting wryw. ( L X X : 'ISoujiat'a), he brought with him the gods of the sons of Seir. H e set them up as his own gods, bowed down to them and burned sacrifices to them." Josephus mAnt 9 § 198 formulated: "But Amaziah . . . began to neglect G o d . . . and persisted in worshipping the gods which he brought from the country of the Amalekites." 4. Haman

the Agagite

T h e Book of Esther contributed a very special aspect to the develop­ ment of Amalek as a metahistorical typus. In three instances the M T calls the wicked Haman a "son of Hamedatha, the Agagite," a formulation which caused this name to be related to the Amalekite king w h o m king Saul had taken prisoner. On this basis, H a m a n received the quality of an Amalekite in the genealogical in addition to the symbolical sense. In Esth 3:1 the Greek versions have Bou-Yctroc" as do ihe, Additions to Esther (Bardtke 1973: 35-36), the latter with such variants as FwyctXoQ and M a x c S o v a , results of specific actualizations. The s a m e appellations appear in M T listh 3:10 where the Greek versions only have "Haman." In 8:3 the M T has "Haman the Agagite," and in 8:5 w e find again the tripartite appellation , but in the Greek versions we

" According to Levy (1939) derived from Bagian, a follower of the Mithras cult.

124

J.

MAIER

read again only "Haman." The tripartite appellation is found also in tlie M T of Usth 9:24, where the Greelc version replaced "the Agagite" by "the Macedonian." It is clear that "Agagite" served for different polemical purposes. Josephus made it unequivocally clear that "Agagite" indicates "Amale­ kite," as in Ant 11 § 209: ".. . Haman, the son of Amadathos, who was of Amalekite descent . . .." And in Ant 11 § 211 he explained (as later the Targum) the hatred of Haman against Mordechai and the Jews in general as a consequence of his descent. He "decided to exterminate this whole nation, for he naturally hated the Jews because his own race, the Amalekites, had been destroyed by them." A l s o in Ant 11 § 277 Josephus adds to the content of Esth 9:24 the characteristic remark: "Haman, the son of Amadathos, of the Amalekite race, an alien among those of Persian blood."

5.

Conclusions

T o avoid the impression of an existing linkage between Esau's grand­ son A m a i e k and R o m e . Jo.sephus emphasized the difference b e t w e e n E d o m i t e s / l d u m a e a n s and Amalekites in a geographical as well as in an ethnographical respect and located the Amalekites outside the R o m a n empire. In most cases, he did this by identifying these e n e m i e s of Israel with the inhabitants of the later province "Arabia" and the regions cast of it w h o at that time caused continual trouble at the R o m a n borders (Kasher 1988). By identifying the archenemy of Israel with those tribes, Josephus achieved three aims: (a) A m a i e k appears as an e n e m y c o m m o n to R o m e and Israel; (b) as an e n e m y outside the R o m a n empire the archenemy of Israel did not represent any m o r e the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine/Syria w h o had b e e n involved in the riots and quarrels which finally culminated in the R o m a n Judaean war of 66-70 C E ; (c) very likely Josephus labelled the Arabs as "Amalekites" because of the role Arab soldiers played during that war ( c f . y H ' 3 §§ 168, 211, 262; 5 §§ 290, 551-58).'* By identifying Haman in the Esther story as an Amalekite Josephus stressed the militant character of the Book of Esther. At the s a m e time he gave the impression that the foremost e n e m y of the Jewish

" T h i s convincing argument was introduced by Daniel Schwartz during the discussion of this paper at San Minialo.

AMALliK

IN THF. W R I T I N G S O F J O S E P H U S

125

p e o p l e is not t o b e found within the realm of the R o m a n empire but in that of its oriental rival power: the Persian/Parthian empire. In later Jewish traditions, we find the opposite tendency, Amalek's character as grandson of Esau was underlined, and thus Israel's archenemy A m a l e k characterized as the point of Esau's sword. Modern readers may b e astonished by the fact that Josephus wrote without any apologetic considerations about the ban as a kind of "genocide" to have been executed on the "seven nations" of the Land of Canaan and in the case of Amalekites, to be executed also in the future. But in the case of irreconcilable and dangerous e n e m i e s the Hellenistic-Roman reader scarcely felt the sentiments which w e find already expressed in Rabbinic literature and in mediaeval commentar­ ies. There it was stressed that the Amalekites as well as the seven nations had also b e e n asked t o submit peacefully (as c o m m a n d e d in D e u t 20:10) and were thus given the chance to escape their sinister fate. T h e R o m a n attitude against pertinacious and rebellious tribes was m o r e or less the same. T h e question"^ of why Josephus did not skip such Biblical passages but even expanded some of them in his account is nevertheless an interesting o n e . One answer may be derived from the positive effects of heroism and brave commitment to self-defence and defence of their own land in the eyes of the Romans. In addition w e have t o take into account an apologetical device of Josephus. H e underlined repeatedly that the Israelites fought so bravely because they knew that they were fighting not only a "just war" but essentially in the name of G o d . Still in other cases they were defeated because of their disobedience t o God. Josephus described the war of 66-70 C E as the c o n s e q u e n c e of a wrong Judaean policy which misled the people to believe that the war was something like a "war of the ix)r6." Josephus could depict the determined commitment t o fight in spite of everything as a noble and religious motive. T h e effects of such procedures were clear-cut for Roman readers. But Josephus' accounts also included a very clear message t o prospec­ tive contemporary and future Jewish readers, especially considering the background of increasing Jewish radicalism in the western diaspora: A m a l e k is t o b e found outside the R o m a n empire. But a Jewish reader w h o knew the Bible and therefore was able to grasp the differences b e t w e e n the Biblical accounts and the formulations of Josephus might

R a i s e d by Prof. L. II. i-eldman in t h e discussion at S. Miniato.

126

J.

MAIER

well have arrived at opposite conclusions. He could very well attribute the deviations from the Bible in Josephus to tactics. S o the first address s e e m s to be the Roman audience. Furthermore, as in the case of "Edom" and the "fourth empire" of Daniel, for Jewish readers there remained a {deliberately conceived?) ambiguity including at least the promise of an eschatological turning point in history. Although this was not intended for the near future because the "iron empire" had to be regarded as the most enduring o n e of the four. In summary, his treatment of "Amaiek" confirms the assumption that Josephus was very well aware of the significance of the metahistorical symbolism c o n n e c t e d with "I-dom" and its political implications.

J O H N H Y R C A N U S 1 AS SEIIN BY J O S E P H U S A N D O T H E R E A R L Y JEWISH S O U R C E S

Clemens Thoma

In JW 1 §§ 68-69 and Ant 13 §§ 299-300 Fiavius Josephus has extraor­ dinary praise for the social and private personality of the H a s m o n e a n high priest and prince John Hyrcanus I {134-104 BCE). Hyrcanus had b e e n all in one: high priest, prince, prophet, and G o d had a unique relationship of trust with him. Therefore Hyrcanus held three dignities {latin: tria munera), which were made possible and were protected through an exceptionally intimate relation between G o d and him. Josephus d o e s not grant such an overall attestation of perfection to any other personality. The influence of that eulogium spread out to later generations. Since the time of the early Church, traditional Christology attributed the same 'offices' (munera) to Jesus as internal union: H e is high priest, Icing and prophet. Moreover Jesus is so distinguished by such an intimate relation to G o d that the c o m p l e t e being of the Deity dwells embodied in him (Col 2:9). That 'Three Offices Christology' is for instance unfolded in the Church History (1:3) of Eusebius of Caesarea (about 264-340 CE) (Kraft 1981; 90-93). In s o m e cases the 'Three Offices' have been ascribed to the R o m a n Popes, to the bishops and even to every believing Christian as well. Thus Josephus has become the father of many allegoric adaptations of the three offices of Hyrcanus. Are we to understand the words of Josephus as merely a hyperbolical eulogy of this wise Jewish ruler, or might they have historical roots and imply a Messianic meaning? In order to approach a possibly unambiguous answer to these questions, the relevant texts shall be reviewed below for their historical and exegetical message. A further section deals with the interpretation of John Hyrcanus' life, activities and epoch. The last section will treat the subject of the Messianic hopes, which had arisen so powerfully in various Jewish groups, and their possible connections with John Hyrcanus.

128

CLEMENS

1. Provisional

THOMA

lixegesis of S'H 1 §§ 68-69 and Ant 13 §§

299-300

There are only slight stylistic differences between the two texts; in their meaning they are in agreement. Therefore, a synthesized text can be elaborated which d o e s justice to both, the War and the Antiquities. Presumably, Josephus intended his great eulogium to form the keystone in his portrayal of Hyrcanus. The following .synthesized text can be established from JW 1 §§ 68-69 -AwdAnt 13 §§ 299-300: "Hyrcanus lived happily thereafter; and when he died, after administering the government excellently for thirty-one years, he left five sons. Truly he was a blessed individual and o n e who left no ground for complaint against fortune (T) TUXT)) as regards himself. H e was the only man to unite in his person three of the highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in touch with the Deity {JW 1 § 69: ^jiiXei a u T ^ T O Saijjiovtov; Ant 13 § 300: ouvYjv a u T 9 T O &eiov) that he was never ignorant of the future; thus he foresaw and predicted that his two elder sons would not remain at the head of affairs. The story of their downfall is worth relating, and will show, how great was the decline from their father's g o o d fortune". This eulogium, as mentioned by Peter Kuhn (1989:192-98), is to b e read together with Ant 13 §§ 282-83 and the somewhat shorter parallel in JW 1 §§ 64-65. There the prophetic quality of Hyrcanus is referred to. While his two sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus, made war against Antiochus IX Cyzicenus in the region of Samaria in the years 1 0 8 / 1 0 7 BCIi, Hyrcanus is said to have been confronted with a paradox: "The Deity ( T O &eiov) communicated with him", which had b e e n quoted in the tradition as follows: "On the very day on which his sons fought with Cyzicenus, Hyrcanus, who was alone in the temple, burning incense as high priest, heard a voice saying that his s o n s had just defeated Antiochus. A n d on coming out of the temple he revealed this to the entire multitude, and so it actually happened" {Ant 13 §§ 282-88). T h e parallel loAnt 13 §§ 282-83, in /. Sota 13:5-6;>'. Sota 9 / 2 4 b and b. Sota 33a, is surely not dependant on Josephus or his source. T h e r e must have b e e n various early Jewish traditions about the prophetical charisma of John Hyrcanus. T h e version in (. Sota 13:5-6, which is obviously the earliest Rabbinic interpretation of older traditions, reads as follows: "The high priest Jochanan heard a voice in the Holy of

JOHN HYRCANUS I AS SEEN BY JoSEPHUS

129

Holies: 'Victorious arc the young men who marched t o wage war in Antiochia!' That hour and day had been written. And later it was found out that it was right at that hour when their victory occurred." In the Tosefta we d o not have an historical narration but rather an example of how the Bat 0 6 1 has given a revelation to the high priest Hyrcanus. However, one essential point is made clear by Ant 13 §§ 282-83 as well as in the Rabbinic p a r a l l e l s : 1 3 §§ 282-83 par. is not concerned solely with an equivalent series of three offices, charisms, qualities or dignities. The essential point of Josephus is that in the case of John Hyrcanus the questionable double-office of high priest and ruler of the p e o p l e was not directed against God's will. On the contrary, G o d has confirmed this double-office by bestowing the gift of prophecy on Hyrcanus. Neither ihe Pharisees {Ant 13 §§ 291 par) nor any Apocalyptics can therefore find any confirmation for their assumption that it should not be permitted to combine the high priestly office with that of ruler in the same person. This is why Josephus probably felt it proper to emphasize the prophetic and charismatic gifts of Hyrcanus so strongly, because Hyrcanus had not yet declared himself king. That was only done by his successors. Hyrcanus looked at the high priesthood as his highest office {dx.Ant 14 § 41). Several times Hyrcanus heard God's voice. This voice whispered the future into his ear. The truth of these prognoses could be ascertained and verified. The prognoses also had consequences for the Jewish p e o p l e . Hyrcanus did not only foresee the victory of his sons in Samaria. He also foresaw that both his sons, Aristobulus and Antigonus, would not be able to keep the reign for a long time. According to Ant 13 § 322 G o d appeared to Hyrcanus once in a dream and revealed to him that his son Alexander Jannaeus would b e his heir and succes­ sor. Foreknowledge given by G o d , public proclamation of this knowl­ e d g e and its verifying by the Jewish public -- these three points are, according to Jasephus, the surest sign that Hyrcanus was chosen to rule and save the Jewish p e o p l e . John Hyrcanus has in Josephus' view - held a high post in the history of revelation. In Ant 3 §§ 214-18 he does not name Hyrcanus explicitly, but it is clear that it is him whom he means. Josephus says, that, until the time of Hyrcanus, G o d had insinuated his special presence at the offerings in the temple by the shining of the precious stones on the high priest's shoulders in a mild glow (a'j-yTj). In a

130

CLEMENS THOMA

similar way the precious stones on the high priest's breast-plate lighted up, w h e n G o d wanted to predict the victory to the Hebrews: "So brilliant a light {oiuyy\) radiated from them, ere the army was yet in motion, that it was evident to the whole host that G o d had c o m e to their aid" {Ant 3 § 217). Josephus adds: "Although the aOyr) ceased to shine two hundred years before I composed this work, because of God's displeasure at the transgression of the laws" {Anl 3 § 218). Hyrcanus lived about 200 years before Josephus. So he was a high priest living in postbiblical times, but biblical miracles still h a p p e n e d during his lifetime. Therefore the Jewish people lived during his reign happily and .secure, and Josephus could rely on him as an important figure of (he history of salvation. For Josephus, Hyrcanus was not only a figure of the past. H e looked at Hyrcanus as o n e of his religious and personal prototypes. In his exemplarincss Hyrcanus was presumably comparable to the prophet Jeremiah (cf.JWS §§ 392-93). Hyrcanus was personally nearer to Josephus than Jeremiah, because he was his forebear. M e n a h e m Stern pointed to a strange discrepancy: On the one side Josephus was a very proud patriot and a very proud descendant of the royal H a s m o ­ neans. On the other side he described particularly the most important H a s m o n e a n s very dryly. Josephus "presents us with a rather cold picture of the three main figures of the Hasmonean monarchy, namely Aristobulus I, Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandra (Stern 197484: ] . 230). Stern ascribes this detached attitude of Josephus to his informant, Nicolaus of Damascus. This Hellenistic historiographer is the main source of Josephus for the period between Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B C I ^ and the accession of Archelaos (6 C E ) . T h e descriptions of John Hyrcanus' deeds s e e m to contain far m o r e spiritual-theological infiltrations o f Josephus himself than the descrip­ tions of the rest of Josephus' H a s m o n e a n forebears. In the s a m e way as he describes Hyrcanus as high priest, who has received the knowl­ e d g e about the future by G o d , and who has proclaimed this knowl­ edge, he also describes his own part during the first Jewish uprising against R o m e . Josephus "was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books" {JW 3 § 352). Because of his foreknowledge he had changed sides from the Zealots to the Romans privileged by G o d {JW 3 § 354). H e predicted the office of emperor to Vespasian {JW 3

J O H N

H Y R C A ^ ^ J S

I A S

S E E N

B Y

J O S E P H U S

131

§§ 400-8). This prediction proved true (JW4 §§ 622-28). Thus Josephus gained his reputation anew, and "he became trustworthy in the highest degree whenever the future was at stake" {JW 4 §§ 629). 2. Life and work of John Hyrcanus I W e can only give limited answers regarding the sources of Josephus for Hyrcanus. With s o m e probability he had, besides oral sources, especially the following works at his disposal: 1. The chronicle of the high priesthood of Hyrcanus, mentioned in 1 Mace 16:24. Probably it was a kind of sequel to 1 Maccabees. Unfortunately this chronicle was lost very early. T h e report of its existence in the Bibliolheca Sancla of Sixtus Senensis (1566: 62; s e e vSchurer 1901-11; 1.201) is t o o doubtful for drawing any valid conclusions. 2. The work of the Jewish historian Hupolcmus (middle of the 2nd century RCF) on the kings of Juda. H e may be m e n t i o n e d in 1 Mace 8:17 and in 2 Mace 4:11. 3. The abovementioned historian Nicolaus of Damascus, who had b e e n in the service of Herod I. 4. Several R o m a n historians like Polybius of Megalopolis (middle of the 2nd century BCE), Curtius Rufus (1st cent. B C E ) , Strabo of Amaseia (1st cent. BCE), Diodorus (1st cent. B C E ) (Sehurer 1973-87 1. 200-215; 3. 184-187; Schafer 1977: 539-604; l ^ b r a m 1974). The harvest that Josephus could glean from his sources about Hyrcanus is rather meager. Particularly, he could hardly gain any insights into the moiives which moved Hyrcanus to his deeds and to his decisions. 'Ilius there is a strong discrepancy with ihe eulogies in JW 1 §§ 68f -and Ant 13 §§ 299f. A s may be gathered from his work, Josephus was at least able to draw out this much from his sources, that the official life of Hyrcanus consisted of three phases. 1. The period of acute danger; from 134 to 129 BCIi. 2. 'ITie period of successful warfare, diplomacy, inner-Jewish struggles and reforms: 129-108/107 BCE. 3. The sunny period of his old age: 108-104 B C E (Egger 1986:158-59). (!) Tiie period of acule danger begins with his father Simon's murder by his son-in-law Ptolemy near Jericho (134 BCIi)- The murderer took Hyrcanus' mother hostage and killed both her elder sons. Hyrcanus managed to avoid this fate by a quick adventurous flight to Jerusalem (1 Mace 1 6 : 1 1 - 2 4 ; / ! ^ 1 §§ 54-55; Ant 13 §§ 228-29). H e immediately took on the offices of high priest and prince (fjyeiiwv) and undertook to pursue the murderer w h o had hidden in a fortress near Jericho {Ant

132

CLEMENS TFJOMA

13 § 230). vSincc Ptoiemy held Hyrcanus' mother hostage, and what is more, a Sabbatical year ( 1 3 4 / 1 3 3 BCV.) had begun, the conquest o f the fortress was delayed. When Ptolemy finally realized that his cause was lost, he killed Hyrcanus' mother and then managed to escape {Ant 13 §§ 230-35). Soon thereafter the Syrian king Antiochus VII Sidetes invaded Judea. H e devastated it and besieged Jerusalem. T h e plight of the defenders became grim: a famine broke out, and the cause of Hyrcanus and of Jerusalem became hopeless (Ant 13 §§ 236-41). Finally on the Feast of Tabernacles Antiochus Sidetes could impose the conditions of peace after diplomatic mediations. Although Hyrca­ nus was defeated, he did not accept a Seleucid garrison in Jerusalem, but agreed to pay for conquered cities (e.g Joppe), to settle most of the costs of war, to surrender hostages and to provide soldiers for Seleucid war services {Ant 13 §§ 242-48). Antiochus VII undertook in 130 B C F : a campaign against the Parthians, and Hyrcanus had to take part in it. (2) The period of successful warfare, diplomacy, inner-Jewish struggles and reforms: The death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in this campaign in 129 B C E {Ant 13 §§ 251-59) was "providential" for Hyrcanus (Schurer 1973-87; 1. 207). Antiochus VII's successors proved weak. After Antiochus VII's death John Hyrcanus used every occasion to increase his power and renown. H e tried to reach three aims: (1) Enlargement of the Jewish territoi-y. (2) Intensification of diplomatic relations with the R o m a n s with the ulterior motive to use the battles of rivalry b e t w e e n the Ptolemies and Seleucids to spread Jewish influence. (3) Strengthening of the unity in the inner-Jewish domain. About 127 B C E he undertook a campaign against Shekhcm, the North of G a l i l e e and Trans-Jordan. During this campaign he conquered Medaba, and brought the temple on Mount Garizim under his control. Fie also conquered Idumea. The destruction of the Garizim temple (in 127 B C E it may have been only a partial destruction) and the conquest of the small state of Idumea have frequently attracted scholars' interest. The text in Ant 13 § 256 lets us understand this interest: H y r c a n u s c a p t u r e d . . . S h e k h e m and Garizim and the C;!ulhaean nation, which lives n e a r the temple built after the model of the sanctuary in J e r u s a l e m , which Alexander permitted their governor Sanballetes to build in h o n o u r of his son-in-law Manasses, the b r o t h e r of the high priest Jaddus.... N o w it was two h u n d r e d years later that this temple was laid waste. H y r c a n u s also c a p t u r e d the I d u m a e a n cities of A d o r a and Marisa and after s u b d u i n g

JOHN FIYRCANUS 1 AS SliEN BY JOSIfPHUS

133

all t h e I d u m a e a n s , permitted t h e m to r e m a i n in their country so long as they had t h e m s e l v e s circumcised a n d consented to observe t h e laws of the Jews. And so, o u t of a t t a c h m e n t to the land of their fathers, they submitted to circumcision a n d to a d a p t i n g their m o d e of life in all o t h e r respects to that of t h e Jews. And from that time on they have continued to be Jews. (Ant 13 §§ 25.S-58).

I-ater in 1 0 8 / 1 0 7 B C E Hyrcanus undertook another campaign against the city of Samaria. Presumably the Garizim temple was completely destroyed only in 107 together with the city of Samaria. The d e ­ struction of the Garizim temple s e e m s to have been directed against a sanctuary, in which a syncrctistic cult had taken place, and which, besides, was occupied by foreign Sidonians (Egger 1986:287-300). By t h e s e d e e d s Hyrcanus could gain status as a zealot for the true divine worship and for the national independence of Judaea and Samaria. That g o e s similarly for the successful forced conversion of the Idumeans. All these conquests gave new encouragement to the national-religious identity in the Hasmonean state. A decree of the R o m a n Senate shows the successful diplomatic activities of Hyrcanus {Ant 13 §§ 260-66). In this decree the conquests of Hyrcanus, made since 129 BCI?, are acknowledged and the alliance (
' ••'"in'-n i D m " s n i n p D n p m r ; \ 'iliese coins a r e partly unrightfully attributed to H y r c a n u s II; cf. M a g e n 1986.

134

CL.F.MFNS TliOMA

ascertain whether liie seller of this fruit tithe has already d o n e s o m e ­ thing which could have defiled these fruits. It only d e p e n d s on his own ritually pure action. This is the meaning of the sentence in m. MSh 5:15, according to which "in the days of the high priest Jochanan (Ilyranus) nobody needed to inquire into the doubtfulness any longer". Hyrcanus further forbade the liturgical custom of the "awakeners" (•"•Tnucn). According to b. Sota 48a the Levites used to awaken G o d allegorically every morning from sleep until the time of Hyrcanus, singing among other things Ps 44:24: "Wake up, A d o n a i , why d o you sleep?" Hyrcanus founded his prohibition on Ps 121:4, according to which G o d knows no sleep. According to b. Sola 48a Hyrcanus introduced changes even in the Jewish butchering of the sacrificial animals. Until then the priests used to w o u n d the sacrificial calves between the horns, so that b l o o d ran into the eyes of the animals, which made it easier to butcher them. A n o t h e r method was to make them malleable to butchering by flogging. Hyrcanus forbade these practices so as not to give the impression that a physical defect was inflicted upon the animal and therefore it would be unsuitable (according to Lev 22:19-24): During the intermediate non-festive days of the eight-day Passover the w o r k m e n , especially smiths, worked in the temple precinct and caused a disturbing noise of hammering (/. Sota 13:10; b. MQ 11a). John Hyrcanus' prohibition of hammering on these days heightened the feast's dignity. Thus, according to the Mishnah, Hyrcanus was a great and efficient cult reformer and restorer. This image is in agreement with the Festal l e t t e r , recorded in 2 Mace 1:1-9, which was sent from Jerusalem to the Jews of Egypt in 124 BCE. to encourage them to celebrate the F'east of Tabernacles (Bickerman 1933; Habicht 1976: 177-185; 199-201). In 124 Hyrcanus was in the best years of his rule. The question for Hyrcanus was to emphasize Jerusalem, its T e m p l e and the dynasty of the H a s m o n e a n s also in the western diaspora. T h e composition of 1 Maccabees took place at the time of Hyrcanus t o o (cf. 1 Mace 16:22-23). Early Jewish and Rabbinic sources present Hyrcanus as a highly gifted high priest, conqueror, zealot against idolatry, advocate of Jewish national interests and a pious mystic with a view for future developments. Hyrcanus' turning away from the Pharisees to the Sadducees de­ scribed in 13 §§ 288-300 was not an emotional step, as may be inferred from Josephus. Josephus makes Eleazar say to Hyrcanus that

JOHN

HYRC:ANIJS

I AS SEEN

B Y J O S E P H U S

135

he should give up the position of high priest, "because we heard from our elders that your mother was a captive in the reign of Antiochus Fpiphanes" (Anl 13 § 292). It is to be presumed that his mother had been violated by the soldiers of Antiochus and so would have been unsuitable to b e c o m e the mother of a high priest (according to Lev 21:12-15). This attack must have made Hyrcanus furious, because it was known that his mother had lost her life as a hostage of his father's murderer (Am 13 §§ 231-235). With a certain probability w e can assume that Eleazar was a hidden adherent of the Pharisees. But in b. Qid 66a the event does not take place in Hyrcanus' time, but under the reign of Alexander Janneus, and the opponent is not Eleazar but Jehudah b e n Gedidyah. According to the Talmud, Jehudah said to Alexander Janneus: "King Jannai, be content with the king's crown and leave the priest's crown to the descendants of Aharon". T h e Talmud may be inaccurate in its formulation, but in the matter it is exact: T h e criticism against the Hasmoneans developed fully only after they crowned themselves as kings (D.R. Schwartz 1992: 57-80). Hyrcanus' change to the Sadducees was essentially an act of political cleverness in order to keep his power. In the beginning of the revo­ lution under Mattathias and Judas the Pharisees probably were useful allies of the H a s m o n e a n s (IMacc 2:39-41). Hyrcanus, in his best period, when reforms in the domain of cult and law were at stake, d e p e n d e d o n the Pharisees, because they were susceptible to changes. "Hyrcanus also probably tried to settle disputes in Jewish Law through his claim to prophetic inspiration. He may have used his prophetic authority to enforce Pharisaic interpretations and also to justify his own abolition of ancient rites prescribed in the Torah (m. MSh 5:15)" (Goldstein 1989: 331). In later years of rule, when abolitions, renewals and reforms were no longer at stake but only the consolidation of the achievement, a change to the traditional priestly authority was a political necessity (Schafer 1991).

3. John Hyrcanus' lifework in the Jewish interprelation of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE Josephus saw an especially fortunate Jewish leader and hierarch in Hyrcanus, because in his youth Hyrcanus had escaped his pursuers, because he had c o m e through the initial crises in his reign, because he had proved a clever conqueror, diplomat and ruler, because as high

136

CI-HMENS THOMA

priest he was an active reformer of cult and law and, above ail, because in his activity as high priest and prince he was guided in an exceptional way by G o d and so could foresee and plan ahead things t o c o m e . Presumably Hyrcanus inspired Josephus for a theory, as to w h o of all the Jews was to be considered the greatest and most fortunate: H e who holds the three highest positions of high priest, king and prophet and does so with prudence and vigour; who, besides, has especially intimate contacts with heaven and therefore knows about the future. Whether for Josephus the advantages ascribed to Hyrcanus carry messianic implications as well must be denied. He d o e s not make even the slightest allusion in connection with JW 1 §§ 68-69 and Ant 13 §§ 299-300, that might be understood as messianic. Josephus exercises the utmost restraint in his opus concerning Jewish messianic hopes. H e had to d o that, among other reasons, because of his R o m a n addressees and patrons. That he himself accepted messianic beliefs in a restricted way may be gathered from Ant 10 §§ 203-15 (if the Testimonium Flavianum is left out of consideration). In these paragraphs Josephus interprets the second chapter of the Book of Daniel. In connection with t h e "slonc" mentioned in Dan 2:34,44-45, which would c o m e loose from a mountain by itself without human help and which symbolizes God's final reign, Josephus says in Ant 10 § 210: "And Daniel also revealed to the king the meaning of the stone, but I have not thought it proper to relate this, since I am expected to write of what is past and done and not of what is to be; if, however, there is anyone w h o has so keen a desire for exact information that he will not stop short of inquiring more closely but wishes to learn about t h e hidden things that are to come, let him take the trouble to read the Book o f Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings".^ Josephus knew also of messianic speculations and was in agreement with t h e m , at least in part, though he did not connect t h e m with Hyrcanus. It is not unlikely that Asidean circles in connection with the life and d e e d s of Hyrcanus were animated to have ideas, still in his lifetime, which can be called messianic in a broader sense of the word. T h e Testament of Levi may be an indication of an interpretation ( d e Jonge

' L o u i s H. F e l d m a n points to the fact that Ant 10 § 210 shows J o s e p h u s having messianic h o p e s ( F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989: 37). Cf. Mason in this v o l u m e .

JOHN HYRCXNUS 1 AS SKEN BY JoSfTHIJS

137

1978:24-50)^ of John Hyrcanus, that comes close to being messianic. S o m e passages give the impression that they may be geared to the d e e d s and prerogatives of Hyrcanus. In the Greek TestLev 6:1-7:3, Levi, the Son of Jacob and ancestor of the temple priests, tells the following story given in G e n 34, about Shekhem the ancestor of the Samaritans, respectively the Shekhemites, who had violated his sister Dinah. Together with his brother Simeon, L.evi had taken bloody revenge on the Shekhemites out of zealotry. But in doing so he was not sure of himself, as his father was opposed to this blood vengeance. Eventually he recognised, however, that his own and his brother's proceedings against the Shekhemites had been decreed by G o d himself (anocpaaic; &eou: 6:8), because the Shekhemites had opposed Israel since Abraham's time: "And they behaved like this to all foreigners: They took their wives from them by force, and then sent them away. But retribution from the Lord overtook them at last (6:10-11)". Certainly this description is motivated by Gen 34. But it was very much topical at the time of John Hyrcanus, who waged war twice against the Samaritans and the temple on Mount Garizim. The author of the Testament of Levi may have formulated his theological emphasis of the story in G e n 34 to support ideologically the cultic operations of Hyrcanus against the temple on Mount CJarizim and his political actions against the Samaritans. TestLev 6:11 could allude to it. In TestLev 8 the inthronisation of a high priest takes place, which is recreated in part based on Zech 3-4. The essential point in TestLev 8 in compari.son with all biblical texts is that the high priest receives, or already possesses, the princely, prophetic and high priestly preroga­ tives. T h e text in its most important parts is highly allegorical and g o e s as follows;

(1) A n d after we had been there seventy days, I had a n o t h e r vision just as I had before. (2) I saw seven men clothed in white, saying to m e : G e t up, p u t on the crown of righteousness, the breast-piece of understanding, the m a n t l e of truth, the rosette of faith, the turban of the sign and the e p h o d of p r o p h ­ ecy. (3) A n d o n e by o n e they brought these things and put t h e m on me and said: F r o m now on be priest of the Lord, you and your d e s c e n d a n t s for ever. A n d t h e first a n o i n t e d me with holy oil and gave m e a staff of j u d g e m e n t (^apSov xjsioGuc;). (5) T h e second washed m e with p u r e water and fed me with b r e a d and wine (the holiest of the holy things) and arrayed me in a holy

' T h e translation follows in the main lines that of de J o n g e in Sparks 1984: 505-600.

138

CLEMENS THOMA

a n d glorious robe. (6) T h e third clothed me with a linen v e s t m e n t like an e p h o d . (7) T h e fourth put round me a purple girdle. (8) T h e fifth gave m e a branch of rich olive. (9) T h e sixth put a crown on my h e a d . (10) T h e s e v e n t h put on my head a d i a d e m of priesthood, and they filled my h a n d s woth incense, so that I might serve as a priest to (he Ixird. (11) A n d they said t o m e : l £ v i , by t h r e e functions (ipx*-;) will your d e s c e n d a n t s b e distin­ guished, as a sign of the glory of the Ixjrd w h o is to c o m e . (32) A n d he w h o believed will be the first, a n d no office shall be g r e a t e r t h a n his. (13) T h e s e c o n d will be the priesthood. (14) T h e third will be called by a new n a m e , for a king shall arise out of J u d a h and establish a new priesthood, after the fashion of the G e n t i l e s a n d for all the G e n t i l e s . (15) And his c o m i n g will be marvellous, as that of a mighty prophet of the stock of A b r a h a m o u r father. (16) Everything that is so desirable in Israel shall b e yours a n d your d e ­ s c e n d a n t s ' ; and you shall eat of everything that delights the eye, a n d from the Ixjrd's table shall your d e s c e n d a n t s assign themselves a p o r t i o n . (17) A n d s o m e of t h e m shall be high priests, judges a n d scribes; for by their testimony shall what is holy be preserved.

R . H . Cliitrles in his edition (1908) ascribes the Testament of Levi to the e p o c h of John Hyrcanus. He says TestLev is Ihe oldest of all testa­ ments of the twelve patriarchs "written in the later years of John Hyrcanus (in all probability between 109 and 106 B C E ) . T h e author was a Pharisee, who combined boundless admiration for Hyrcanus, in w h o m the Pharisaic party had c o m e to recognize the actual Messiah"." In these sentences of Charles several theories are contained, which are to be unravelled. First of all, TestLev 8:17 speaks in favor of a scribe (not necessarily a Pharisee) as author. This scribe accepts the H a s m o ­ nean high priest-prince-ideology. The thus inthroned high priest has not only priestly functions but also princely ones (staff of judgement: V 4; crown: v 9; purple girdle: v 7). Elements of prophecy and wisdom shimmer through: The crown of righteousness, the breast-piece of understanding, the mantle of truth, Ihe rosette of faith, the turban of the sign and the ephod of prophecy: v 2. But the high priest is distinguished from the Messiah named in w 11 and 14-15. In the fragments of an older Testament of Levi, found in the first and fourth caves of Qumran, the question of a priestly-princely double-function establishes the connection with Levi, it is said in 1, 32:1: "The office of priestly dignity is more elevated than the function of t h e sword (nmn Tcobr:i ]f3 nDi nn:nD mD'?^)." This sentence corre­ s pond s with the ideology of those Hasmoneans not yet crowned kings;

* ITiis synopsis of C h a r l e s ' view is to be found in Sparks 1984: 508.

JOHN HYRCANUS I AS SF-P.N BY JOSF.PHUS

139

Hyrcanus was the last of them. The motive of the two rWDbtz appears on several Qumran fragments^ Prophetic elements are hardly to be perceived directly (in the hitherto published fragments). Spiritual e l e m e n t s stand more in the foreground instead. 'Hie high priest and prince being an image of Jacob's son Levi stands in a distinctly intimate relation with G o d . He says long prayers. And heaven answers him. In L 32:7 celestial characters say to him: "Look! We have made you greater than all! Look how H e (sc. G o d ) will prepare for you the perfect fullness of eternity."^ In L 43-45 Levi - and probably also Hyrcanus as his representative - is called bti iTi"' (God's uniquely b e l o v e d ) (Beyer 1984:207). This expression may be interpreted as a prophetic or charismatic explanation of I^vi's or Hyrcanus' identity. The findings of Qumran again speak for the great age of TestLev. O n e manuscript ( 4 Q 213,214) dates from the second half of the 2nd century BCE. Therefore Klaus Beyer dares draw (among others) the inference that "this work was written at the latest for John Hyrcanus I, most certainly in Jerusalem" (Beyer 1984: 189). It is characteristic for all versions of TestLev that l^w'i represents the model of a H a s m o n e a n high priest-prince w h o has an intimate connection with G o d . This mythological-historic double-figure is a character for the future, therefore a teleological figure. He is the scion, the root, the father of the future stemming from the past, the type of the coming N e w A g e . H e gives the decisive impulse for the future through his sacerdotal and political d e e d s . H e is on his way becoming a Messiah. But he is not an ultimate figure. T h e final Messiah is shrouded in TestLev in the sphere of secrecy. Moreover it is suggested in the Greek TestLev 8:14 that the Messiah will create a new priesthood, which will be appropriate for all p e o p l e s . This idea may have been created under Hellenistic influence. For the authors of TestLev Hyrcanus was not "the Messiah" himself but a precursor of the Messiah and a sign of the dawning of the messianic era. But this interpretation was soon surpassed by other Jewish authors. In the Book of the dream-visions (/ Enoch 90:8-12) either Judas M a c c a b e e or his nephew John Hyrcanus is designated as "the big horn", which cannot be conquered by the eschatological e n e m i e s . That such a Messianisation was, however, not uncontested,

' E.g.: in 1 0 2 1 / 3 : P a r t of a TestLev aram.: B a r t h l J e m y and Milik 1955: 88. * SeveraJ fragments of t h e a r a m a i c TestLev from O u m r a n a r e to b e found in Beyer 1984:188-209. L 32:7 is on p . 195-196.

140

CLF.MENS THOMA

t h e Q u m r a n scrolls s h o w . In I Q H 4:16 bitter c o m p l a i n t s are m a d e a b o u t "Liar-Prophets, e n t i c e d by errors." It is also p o s s i b l e that by t h e r e p e a t e d l y d e n o u n c e d "wicked Priest" (r©"in ]mDn; I Q p H a b 8:8, 9:9, 11:4 e t c . ) Hyrcanus was m e a n t . T h u s a s e l e c t i o n o f texts and thoughts e n d s which, b e g i n n i n g from J o s e p h u s Flavius, c l o s e s with the A s i d e a n s and Q u m r a n - L i t e r a t u r e . T h e s e p r e - J o s e p h a n texts suggest a certain reliability o f J o s e p h u s ' reports o n John Hyrcanus and his time, including t h e praises o f his priestly, princely, prophetic and charismatic personality. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d w e can take from it that John Hyrcanus was, already in his l i f e t i m e , subject to different interpretations and that t h e s e

inter­

p r e t a t i o n s are c o n n e c t e d with messianic h o p e s surging in m a n y p l a c e s in t h e 2nd century B C E .

C l 6 CHH FLAVIO GIUSHPPE VIOi;: JOSE'PHUS A N D T H E ESSENES Tessa Rajak

J o s e p h u s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s o f o n e of t h e Jewish sects will, I h o p e , b e an a p p r o p r i a t e subject for a memorial tribute to IVIorton Smith. Smith's brilliant and provocative reading of the historian's s t a t e m e n t s about t h e P h a r i s e e s in t h e

Jewish Antiquities

( 1 9 5 6 ) , which he saw as a retro-

j e c t i o n t o t h e pre-war period of t h e religio-political n e e d s of t h e 90's, has had a major impact on scholarship. A s w e all know, it w a s d e ­ v e l o p e d in various ways, especially by J a c o b N e u s n e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) and by S h a y e C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) . It b e c a m e almost an orthodoxy. N o w

Steve

M a s o n ( 1 9 9 1 ) has m o v e d sideways, with his o w n theory that J o s e p h u s n e v e r c l a i m e d t o b e a Pharisee. I myself have never b e e n comfortable with M o r t o n Smith's reading, for a variety o f reasons (in brief, Rajak 1983: 3 3 - 4 ) , but its fruitfulness is not in doubt. E v e n m o r e to our purpose, as I was reading for this paper, I re­ called that it w a s M o r t o n Smith (1958) w h o first queried t h e precise c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e notice o n the E s s e n e s in I lippolytus o f R o m e ( S m i t h preferred t o refer simply t o t h e a n o n y m o u s

Philosophoumena)

and J o s e p h u s ' remarks o n t h e subject. I shall have occasion to consider this study later. T h e r e , Smith produced a summary o f J o s e p h u s ' early career which p e r h a p s says all that n e e d s to b e said o n t h e subject: "he w a s a b l e . . . to s p e n d three years with a hermit (evidently, therefore, not an E s s e n e , in spite of the fact that he b a t h e d every day) and returned t o J e r u s a l e m by the age of 19, n o doubt tired o f asceticism and ready for t h e pleasures of R o m e , w h e r e he m o v e d in t h e circle of t h e E m p r e s s P o p p a e a ( w h o also bathed every day, but was probably not an E s s e n e ) " (Smith 1958: 277-8). T h e E s s e n e s h a v e another claim t o our attention here. W e arc, hopefully, m a p p i n g t h e present and t h e future state of J o s e p h u s -studies, and it s e e m s t o m e that o n e of the most important challenges that lie a h e a d is t o redefine the writer's Judaism, in the light of t r a n s f o r m e d perspectives in Jewish studies. First and foremost, n o o n e has yet b r o u g h t t h e full wealth o f t h e material from Q u m r a n and with

142

TESSA RAJAK

it o u r n e w v i e w o f t h e spectrum o f S e c o n d T e m p l e t h o u g h t , t o b e a r systematically and on a b r o a d front o n the study of J o s e p h u s ' religious i d e a s . 1 s h o u l d , however, like t o signal t h e recetM b o o k by R e b e c c a Gray, b a s e d o n an Oxford doctoral dissertation, as a large s t e p in t h e right direction (Gray 1992), H e r study d e m o n s t r a t e s that J o s e p h u s s h a r e d fuUy in t h e m e n t a l world of c o n t e m p o r a r y Judaism, w h a t e v e r he m a d e o f it for his o w n p u r p o s e s . Today's paper is n o m o r e t h a n a skirmish o n t h e margins o f t h o s e concerns.

1. The problem S o m e extraordinary claims have b e e n m a d e about J o s e p h u s ' t w o e x c u r s u s e s o n t h e Hssenes. B e f o r e t h e D e a d S e a Scrolls w e r e k n o w n , it w a s p o s s i b l e t o argue, as n o less a scholar than W. B a u e r did in t h e l o n g entry o n t h e Etssenes in

Pauiys Realencyclopddie ( 1 9 2 4 ) , Jewish War excursus

of J o s e p h u s ' data o n t h e subject in t h e

that all w a s an

i d e a l i z i n g invention o f Greek-Jewish writing, an e t h n o g r a p h i c fantasy d e r i v e d - o n e n e e d hardly say - from s o m e "source" or o t h e r , p r o b a ­ bly P h i l o ( O n t h e persistence of such thinking s e e Petit 1 9 9 2 : 1 4 2 , n.9). WeJI after 1947, D e l M e d i c o c o u l d still maintain that, w h i l e t h e n a m e E s s c n e o r i g i n a t e d with Philo, t h e references and descriptions in o u r text o f J o s e p h u s w e r e interpolations by a precursor o f t h e S l a v o n i c translator ( D e l M e d i c o 1952). A l s o q u i e t e d today are t h o s e vigorous d e b a t e s about t h e relation o f Ihe literary E s s e n e s t o t h e D e a d S e a sect, which marked t h e first O u m r a n re.search, e v e n if "the establishment E s s e n e theory" is a target for o c c a s i o n a l snipers ( E i s e n m a n and W i s e 1992: 5,11,273,275). In Beall's c o m p a r a t i v e study ( 1 9 8 8 ) , t h e identity o f t h e t w o g r o u p s is taken as a working hypothesis. Beall's c o m m e n t a r y serves, a m o n g o t h e r p u r p o s e s , to highlight t h e high level o f c o n g r u e n c e in p o i n t s o f detail b e t w e e n t h e E s s e n e s o f J o s e p h u s and t h e sect of t h e sectarian scrolls. H e r e , t o o , it will b e s u p p o s e d that J o s e p h u s w a s describing Jewish ascetics w h o w e r e , at t h e very least, part o f t h e s a m e tradition as t h o s e w h o , o v e r t h e g e n e r a t i o n s , w r o t e t h e sectarian scrolls from O u m r a n , e v e n if t h e correlation is not exact; a n d that t h e portrait is b a s e d u p o n t h o s e w h o o c c u p i e d , in o n e fashion or another, at o n e s t a g e

or

a n o t h e r , t h e installations at Q u m r a n . Josephu.s, as is well k n o w n , d o e s n o t m e n t i o n t h e D e a d S e a area in c o n n e c t i o n with his description. T h e E s s e n e s o f J o s e p h u s are, h o w e v e r , linked with that area t h r o u g h t h e

JOSKPIIUS A N D T H E EiSSF.NES

143

m e n t i o n in Pliny t h e Elder's short notice on the "Esseni", of t h e striking, if not o n e hundred percent correct geographical specification "infra h o s E n g a d a o p p i d u m fuil . . . inde Masada castellum in rupe, et ipsum haut procul Asphaltite" {Natural

History

5.17.4).

T o p r o c e e d cautiously, w e can s e c from Beall that J o s e p h u s had a d e c e n t k n o w l e d g e o f a sect which shared practice and doctrine with t h e p e o p l e o f Q u m r a n . W e certainly c a n n o t d e n y that he supplies g e n u i n e information. E.P. Sanders' recent conclusions sum up this p o s i t i o n succinctly: "The scrolls allow us t o c o m m e n t on J o s e p h u s and also on t h e relationship b e t w e e n primary sources and

secondary

description. J o s e p h u s was quite a g o o d historian; that is, he had g o o d s o u r c e s plus s o m e personal k n o w l e d g e , and he got a remarkable n u m b e r o f things right . . . . W h e n it c o m e s to theology, w e find him a little less trustworthy. Certainly, his description d o e s not convey a d e q u a t e l y t h e flavour o f the scrolls" (Sanders 1992: 379). Sanders' last p o i n t will require further c o m m e n t . J o s e p h u s ' excursuses on the E s s e n e s are, then, d u e for a fresh investigation in t h e light of recent scholarly concerns. T h e complexity o f t h e Q u m r a n material should not d e t e r us. Josephus' remarks are still intermittently important t o scrolls research. Issues such as t h e sectaries' c o m m i t m e n t t o celibacy and their attitude t o sacrifice are discussed by scholars in relation t o what J o s e p h u s says: t h o s e are t h e t e r m s in which the p r o b l e m s are o f t e n p o s e d . M o r e o v e r , w e are again c o n f r o n t e d with radical re-interpretations o f t h e Q u m r a n site, by which e v e n its m o n a s t i c character is being called into question; from this p o i n t o f v i e w t o o it will be important t o k n o w h o w w e s h o u l d view J o s e p h u s ' remarks about t h e E s s e n e lifestyle. A p a r t from any a g e n d a dictated by Q u m r a n scholarship, with which I c a n n o t deal directly in this paper, there is also the c h a l l e n g e simply o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g J o s e p h u s o n his o w n terms; and n o b o d y here at San M i n i a t o n e e d s persuading of t h e value of that. In this context, t o o , the E s s e n e s are an important test case: to find that J o s e p h u s k n o w s m o r e or less what he is talking about is certainly not t h e e n d of t h e matter. A c o l l e c t i o n o f n e w translations ( V e r m e s and G o o d m a n

1989)

brings t h e texts from different authors together, conveniently remind­ ing scholar and student alike that t h e texts arc m o r e than just reposi­ tories o f disparate observations (cf. A d a m 1972; D u p o n t - S o m m e r 1961). Brief f o o t n o t e s

offer Q u m r a n parallels; these, and,

more

e s p e c i a l l y Beall's b o o k ( m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ) , which sets out t h e parallels

144

TESSA RAJAK

in detail, invite us to look at t h e relationship b e t w e e n

Josephus'

s t a t e m e n t s and t h e O u m r a n texts m o r e closely. It b e c o m e s necessary t o t a k e t h e s e c o n v e r g e n c e s seriously and to think afresh a b o u t J o s e ­ p h u s ' k n o w l e d g e and its origins. F o r all o u r a c c e p t a n c e of J o s e p h u s as a witness, there are limita­ t i o n s in his account, which spring from his modus

operandi

as a

historian and from t h e formal aspects of his text. J o s e p h u s ' e x p o s i t i o n s display, as has o f t e n b e e n n o t e d , many features typical o f t h e moraliz­ ing ethnographical digressions favoured by ancient writers (Triidinger 1918: e s p . 133-45; Miiller 1972, 1980). Y e t they are also u n u s u a l . Writing ancient e t h n o g r a p h y usually p r e s u p p o s e d k n o w i n g rather little a b o u t what y o u w e r e talking about, because, apparently, it w a s not felt that there w a s any d e c i p h e r m e n t to b e d o n e ( M o m i g l i a n o 1975; J. Z . S m i t h 1985: 20-1). H e r e , by contrast, w c have as w e p r e s u m e an a u t h o r w h o b o t h had s e e n for himself and had t h e capacity to d e c i p h e r . It is r e a s o n a b l e to p r e s u m e , as Sanders d o e s , and as m a n y early c o m m e n t a t o r s did, that J o s e p h u s ' information has a c o n n e c t i o n with his personal e x p e r i e n c e : his s t a t e m e n t in the Life (§ 11), that h e had taken a lot of trouble to try out t h e practices of all three Jewish .sects, can b e given s o m e c r e d e n c e e v e n in the case o f t h e E s s e n e s . I h a v e s h o w n that t h e story is not chronologically impossible, and I w o u l d stress again t h e observation that for t h e description o f t h e t h r e e s e c t s to b e an established topos

is not i n c o m p a t i b l e with veracity (Rajak

1983: 3 4 - 9 ; for a different d e f e n c e s e e F e l d m a n 1984: 8 1 - 2 ) . H o w e v e r , t h o s e w h o remain u n c o m f o r t a b l e with Josephus'

autobiographical

assertions h a v e still to give s o m e weight to t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n that t h e J e r u s a l e m priestly e s t a b l i s h m e n t could hardly have afforded t o b e wholly ignorant of what radical Jewish sectaries a stone's t h r o w from J e r u s a l e m w e r e thinking and doing. T h e r e was n o language barrier t o s t o p t h e m from finding out. T h e significance o f this paper's title s h o u l d n o w b e clear: t h e e y e ­ witness e l e m e n t in the descriptions of t h e R s s e n e s is in my v i e w a very important feature of t h e m . It will not have e s c a p e d y o u that I h a v e inverted a f a m o u s title o f A r n a l d o Momigliano's. In fact, m y p o s i t i o n is n o t far r e m o v e d from t h e o n e h e took in t h e essay entitled "C\6 c h e F l a v i o G i u s e p p e n o n vide" ( M o m i g l i a n o 1980; 1987): for there t h e focus lay precisely in aspects o f Judaism which, in M o m i g l i a n o ' s view, J o s e p h u s must have b e e n q u i t e aware of, but which s o m e h o w he c h o s e not t o register -

t h e s y n a g o g u e , o n t h e o n e hand, and apocalyptic

JOSKPHUS A N D THF. ESSENES

145

currents o n t h e other. H e r e , t o o , w c are thinking about h o w and why a particular picture of a s p e c i e s of Judaism has b e e n f a s h i o n e d by an a u t h o r w h o c o u l d have said s o much m o r e . At t h e s a m e time, M o m i gliano's interpretation o f Josephus' silences was, I think, implicitly psychological and personal - like s o much of what is written about Josephus

w h i l e m i n e o p e r a t e s o n a literary level and has the aim o f

e x p l a i n i n g h o w t h e nature of t h e narrative limits what is or can be stated. T h e position may b e s u m m e d up by saying that w e are d e a l i n g not with an either/or

as tends t o be s u p p o s e d {either e t h n o g r a p h i c fiction

or a realistic a c c o u n t ) , but with a both/and.

Josephus' digressions o n

t h e E s s e n e s are texts which both conform t o historiographical c a n o n s and draw u p o n t h e author's experience.' T h e r e is nothing i m p o s s i b l e in that. T h e difficulty lies in understanding h o w t h e t w o e l e m e n t s interact. T h e distinctive feature of Josephus' descriptions of t h e E s s e n e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e longest version, in B o o k 2 of the Jewish War, is precisely this mbc o f real information with quite considerable m o d e l l i n g and i d e a l i z a t i o n . F o r both o f Josephus' excursuses d o , after all, form part o f that well k n o w n , stylized reading in which he analyses Judaism in t e r m s o f t h r e e "philosophical schools," with differing views o n fate, and in structure and attitude t h e s e excursuses are far from represent­ ing u n m e d i a t e d information. S o m e would describe them as "Helle­ nized" ( M o o r e 1929; Wiichter 1969). In a different context, w h e r e he i n t r o d u c e s M c n a h e m ' s p r o p h e c y of H e r o d ' s kingship, J o s e p h u s claims that t h e E s s e n e s f o l l o w e d t h e Pythagorean way o f life (Ant 15 § 371). T h e E s s e n e digressions are thus very much part of a "text" (in today's s e n s e of that t e r m ) . But in c o n n e c t i o n with this sect, in contrast t o t h e o t h e r two, our k n o w l e d g e of the Q u m r a n literature serves as a control o n t h e process, albeit o n e which n e e d s careful handling. If w e can u n d e r s t a n d what J o s e p h u s is up to here, w e may obtain s o m e l e v e r a g e o n what he is d o i n g in m o r e o p a q u e areas of his writing. This is a c h a n c e t o watch J o s e p h u s at work. 'Fhe enterprise b e c o m e s e v e n m o r e p r o m i s i n g w h e n w e take into account the fact that J o s e p h u s left us not o n e excursus o n the subject in question, but two; and, again, w h e n w e r e m e m b e r that his great precursor Philo had also (in all

' For Feldman (1984: 416-7), the assumption that personal experience was the "chief source" excludes any use of Philo.

146

TliSSA RAJAK

probability) written at least twice about the Hssenes, w h o m he calls ' E a a a t b t (while J o s e p h u s uses equally t h e form 'EooTivot and in Ant 15 §§ 3 7 1 - 9 e v e n c o m b i n e s t h e two in o n e passage). T h e first P h i l o n i c a c c o u n t , in intricate G r e e k , is in the Stoically-influenced

Quod omnis probus liber sit

discussion

(Praep. ev. Hypothetica,

(75-91) contained in E u s e b i u s

8.12) and ascribed by him to Philo, and t h e other in t h e

a l s o preserved, in fragmentary form, in t h e s a m e b o o k o f E u s e b i u s {Praep. ev, 8.6,11). Both Philonic accounts must have b e e n k n o w n by Jo,sephus.

2. Contrasts between the War and the Antiquities In JW2

§§ 119-61, J o s e p h u s describes the F,ssenes at far g r e a t e r length

than he d o e s t h e Pharisaic and S a d d u c e a n "philosophies", and he a l s o p u t s t h e m b e f o r e t h e others. T h e r e is undoubtedly s o m e i m b a l a n c e in this d e s i g n , e v e n if Sanders ( w h o locates "common Judaism" a r o u n d t h e T e m p l e ) is misleading in speaking of "a tiny and fairly marginal sect" ( S a n d e r s 1992: 341): t h e urban and village E s s e n e s m a y q u i t e well h a v e m a d e a significant impact o n Jewish society, e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e living in Jerusalem, o f w h o m Sanders himself has a fair a m o u n t t o say. H i s u n d e r v a l u i n g o f t h e E s s e n e s may, perhaps, b e influenced by their a b s e n c e from N e w T e s t a m e n t literature. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o think that t h o r o u g h g o i n g Pharisees, still less S a d d u c e e s , w e r e m o r e than a minority in t h e population as a w h o l e : m a n y " c o m m o n Jews" will probably not have b e e n affiliates of any g r o u p i n g . T h e E s s e n e s , t h e n , may have had quite a high visibility. F o r all that, t h e m a n n e r in which J o s e p h u s parades t h e m s h o w s that h e w a s well a w a r e o f t h e appeal o f t h e most "philosophical" o f t h e s e c t s t o a G r e c o - R o m a n readership. Paul (1992: 131) suggests that J o s e p h u s w i s h e d t o depict the F^ssenes to R o m a n s as the quintessential Jews. P h i l o had acclimatized t h e subject to G r e e k literature a n d Pliny t h e E l d e r had a l e r t e d a R o m a n readership. Pliny, it w o u l d s e e m , w a s not u n a w a r e o f t h e Jewish revolt and its c o n s e q u e n c e s for the region, s i n c e e l s e w h e r e h e m e n t i o n e d Vespasian's post-war c o l o n i z a t i o n , and n o ­ ticed G a m a l a

{Natural History

5.69). N o r is it out o f t h e q u e s t i o n that

Tacitus, in t h e lost part o f Histories b o o k 5, had included t h e grim f a t e o f t h e E s s e n e s which J o s e p h u s details towards the e n d o f his excursus: "the war against t h e R o m a n s fully revealed their souls. D u r i n g it their limbs w e r e twisted and broken, burned and shattered . . . . " ( 2 § 152,

JOSKPHUS AND THE F.SSKNHS

147

V e r m e s a n d G o o d m a n ' s translation). S o t h e E s s e n e s w e r e u n d o u b t e d l y a suitable c a s e for treatment, and especially s o in t h e 70's. W h e n it c o m e s t o the Antiquities (11 §§ 11-22), t h e o r d e r in which t h e s e c t s are h a n d l e d is reversed, and t h e balance b e t w e e n t h e m is regularized. W h a t Is n o w in n e e d of explanation is t h e n e w d e p e n ­ d e n c e o n Philo, especially o n t h e e x t e n d e d Quodomnlsprobus account. T h i s is a s s o c i a t e d with t h e loss of much that w a s specific and i m m e d i ­ a t e in J o s e p h u s ' earlier version. T h e Philonic account is highly philo­ sophical, t o t h e extent w h e r e it views Judaism from t h e outside, a n d its focus is o n extolling a virtuous and free life, lived in c o m m u n i t y , a s d e s i g n e d in a c c o r d a n c e with divine inspiration. Distinctly Philonic in J o s e p h u s is t h e attribution t o t h e E s s e n e s of opposition t o slavery {Ant 18 § 2 1 ) , a characteristic which Hellenistic writers had fathered o n various little k n o w n p e o p l e s (for e x a m p l e , M e g a s t h e n e s o n t h e Indians), a n d o n which t h e Q u m r a n literature s e e m s t o b e silent either way ( B e a l l : 129);^ t h e high valuation o n agriculture, which g o e s t o g e t h e r with reservations about all o r s o m e crafts {Ant 18 § 19); a n d a d e g r e e o f d e t a c h m e n t about t h e normal sacrificial ritual {Ant 18 § 19).' J o s e p h u s ' c e l e b r a t e d analysis of t h e sects in terms of their views o f divine p r o v i d e n c e c o n n e c t s with his making E s s e n e d e t e r m i n i s m his first d e f i n i n g characteristic here, and this may b e anticipated in Philo's

"the D e i t y is t h e cause o f all g o o d but o f n o evil" {Quod omnis 8 4 ) . T h e s e t h e m e s in t h e m s e l v e s might not s e e m t o b e treated sufficient­ ly similarly by t h e respective authors t o assure us of a c o n n e c t i o n , especially given t h e textual problems in t h e J o s e p h u s passage. But t h e total figure o f 4,()00 for t h e E s s e n e s which appears in b o t h places c l i n c h e s t h e d e p e n d a n c e {Ant 18 § 2 0 and Quod omnis 7 5 ) . W h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s J o s e p h u s ' acceptance o f Philo in the Antiquities, o n e c a n n o t h e l p w o n d e r i n g what t h e historian c o u l d have m a d e of t h e confident assertion in t h e Ilypothetica (in Eusebius Praep. evang. 8.11.3) that t h e E s s e n e s a l l o w e d n o a d o l e s c e n t s or y o u n g m e n near t h e m , w h e n h e h i m s e l f h a d , s o h e tells us, s a m p l e d life in t h e sect w h e n h e w a s at most s e v e n t e e n . Equally, it is r e a s o n a b l e t o say that there is remarkably little information u n i q u e t o t h e Antiquities account. T h e s t a t e m e n t about

' Slavery appears explicitly only in the CD 11.12; 12,10. ' For this purpose, it is unnecessary to discuss the exact statements of either author. There are textual difficulties in both cases, and in Josephus the presence of a negative in the Latin text makes it unclear if Essenes are alleged to have sent sacrifices to the Jerusalem Temple: Vermes and Goodman: 36-7; 55.

148

TESSA RAJAK

E s s e n e sacrifices is garbled, whatever its m e a n i n g , and textual p r o b ­ l e m s apart. T h e n there is the observation that priests h a v e a special role in t h e c o m m u n i t y , and that they are e n g a g e d in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f f o o d (Ant 18 § 2 2 ) . A n d here w e recall that t h e attribution o f a high p o s i t i o n t o religious leaders is a familiar e l e m e n t in t h e G r e e k portray­ al o f various strange p e o p l e s , as for e x a m p l e the Celtic D r u i d s in t h e sketch in D i o d o r u s which is ascribed to P o s i d o n i u s ( D i o d o r u s 5.31; Momigliano

1975 : 69-70). W h a t e v e r were t h e actual functions

of

priests at O u m r a n , and whatever t h e c o m m i t m e n t there to preparing f o o d in purity, J o s e p h u s ' culinary priests are plainly bizarre. H a d J o s e p h u s , assuming that he was writing from m e m o r y , forgot­ t e n what h e had k n o w n perfectly well ail those years a g o ? W a s h e just less interested, b e c a u s e t h e subject was now rather stale to o u t s i d e readers? Or, was it that Pharisees w e r e by then claiming t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e Jewish world? Or, perhaps, was J o s e p h u s at this s t a g e reserving material for t h e projected, but never wrhten work On Customs Causesl

and

Or, again, had o u r author just found that a previously unfa­

miliar s e c t i o n o f P h i l o w a s wonderfully t o his purpose, just as h e w a s to m a k e g o o d use o f the Hypothetica Against

Apion?

w h e n it c a m e t o writing t h e

(Philo, LCL, 9 e d . C o l s o n 1 9 4 ! : 409 n. a ) . T h i s last

e x p l a n a t i o n perhaps s e e m s t h e least likely, since a limited influence o f t h e Quod

omnis probus

may already b e suspected in t h e War version,

especially o n t h e t h e m e of t h e sectarians' resilience in t h e face o f t o r m e n t s inflicted by tyrants (Quod

omnis

89-91; JW 2 % 152), w h e r e

J o s e p h u s s e e m s to offer an u p d a t e . B e y o n d this, I c a n n o t s e e any s e n s i b l e basis for c h o i c e b e t w e e n t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s . M o r t o n Smith identified t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e g a p in c o n t e n t and quality b e t w e e n t h e t w o J o s c p h a n accounts, and grappled with it. H e a l l o w e d that t h e War version s h o w s "considerable k n o w l e d g e o f t h e P-ssenes" (1958c: 276-8). But his conclusion was that J o s e p h u s c o u l d not h a v e written e i t h e r account: "for had J o s e p h u s himself written t h e account in the War he w o u l d probably not, w h e n h e c a m e to write t h e Antiquities,

have r e p l a c e d his work with a copy or c o n d e n s a t i o n o f

s o m e b o d y else's. T h e r e f o r e the account in t h e War must a l s o h a v e b e e n a c o p y or c o n d e n s a t i o n o f s o m e outside source." This r e a s o n i n g , p e r h a p s c o m p e l l i n g in t h e c a s e o f a m o d e r n author, takes insufficient account o f t h e d e m a n d for s h e e r variety and o f t h e high valuation put o n form by ancient authors.

JOSEPHUS AND THE F^SENF5

149

In any case, t h e c o n s e q u e n c e of Josephus' decision is that t h e earlier version is t h e important o n e for us, and not just by virtue of its length. It is t h e m o r e interesting, and, I w o u l d argue, it is the m o r e J o s e p h a n which d o e s not m e a n that it is the less stylized. If I am right, then it b e c o m e s unnecessary to struggle to reconcile the two a c c o u n t s in t e r m s o f real c h a n g e s o v e r time or of variations in practice in the O u m r a n c o m m u n i t y , as s o m e observant investigators have suggested ( V e r m e s 1981)." 3.

'IJte framework of Ihe J W 2 §§

R e t u r n i n g to Jewish

120-161

War 2, it is instructive to consider t h e overall

structure b e f o r e l o o k i n g at individual features in t h e portrayal o f the E s s e n e s t h e r e . Individual "Hellenizations" tend to catch t h e e y e of c o m m e n t a t o r s , but this structural e l e m e n t is generally o v e r l o o k e d . That is hardly surprising, for at first sight there is a puzzling lack of order. But t h e key is, I suggest, that t h e t h e m e s are those favoured in descriptions o f ideal states in G r e e k political thought, and that the organization c o r r e s p o n d s t o a progression appropriate in studying a polity. G r e e k

e t h n o g r a p h i c writing, with its large c o m p o n e n t

of

idealization and e u l o g y , was heavily influenced by t h e philosophers, and J o s e p h u s ' E s s e n e c o m m u n i t i e s are depicted, like t h o s e o f other writers o n t h e subject, as a form of ideal society. T h e t h e m e s may b e listed as follows in the order in which they appear. S i n c e t h e context is inappropriate for g e o g r a p h y or topogra­ phy, first c o m e s t h e family: the distaste for marriage (but w e s h o u l d n o t e t h e qualification in Josephus' afterthought, discussed b e l o w ) , the s e c u r i n g o f increase through the adoption of children, and a general misogynistic observation o n the unfaithfulness of w o m e n , which is re­ grettably quite in k e e p i n g with Josephus' o w n thinking on the subject ( B r o w n 1992). T h e destructive charms of w o m e n are also a feature in P h i l o , w h e r e they are given greater s c o p e (Hypolhet.

in E u s e b i u s Praep.

ev. 8.11.14), but his p r o b l e m d o e s not s e e m to lie with their promiscu­ ity. N e x t w e learn about t h e h o u s e h o l d , w h e r e the e c o n o m y in its literal s e n s e b e l o n g s : w e a l t h is despised, while assets arc held c o m m u n a l l y

* Of course, some discrepancies between sources on the Hssenes do invite explanation in terms of variation or change in practice, in the terms indicated by Vermes.

150

TliSSA RAJAK

and thus e q u a l i z e d . D r e s s follows from this, as part o f t h e basic fabric o f d o m e s t i c life: not only t h e white clothing but also t h e a b h o r r e n c e o f oil o n t h e skin. T h e city is t h e next level up: w c are told that E s s e n e s live in various t o w n s offering hospitality t o o n e a n o t h e r . T h e subject o f cities l e a d s to e x c h a n g e and trade; but h e r e a n e g a t i v e is r e c o r d e d , since t h e E s s e n e s of course permit n o buying and s e l l i n g a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s , and they e v e n avoid buying c l o t h e s until their o l d o n e s are in tatters. C^ultic habits c o m e in only after all t h e s e matters: while n o t n e g l e c t ­ e d , religious practices rarely have pride of place in (Jreek writing: w e learn about t h e daily r e g i m e o f the sect in relation t o purity and holiness, starting from t h e early morning prayers and c u l m i n a t i n g in t h e q u i e t n e s s o f t h e cultic meal with t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g blessings from t h e priests. T h e social hierarchy follows, w h e n t h e great p o w e r s o f t h e o v e r s e e r s are described, with charitable d e e d s b e i n g m e n t i o n e d as t h e o n l y area w h e r e t h e individual's f r e e d o m o f action is preserved. H e r e , t h e authority of t h e traditional texts is also stressed. E d u c a t i o n is t h e n r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e stages of E s s c n e initiation; within this t o p i c c o m e s q u i t e a d e t a i l e d description of t h e attitudes and c o n d u c t e x p e c t e d o f a fully qualified m e m b e r , as e n u n c i a t e d in his initiation o a t h . T h e political and legal system of t h e f ^ s e n e s involves total o b e d i e n c e t o authority, and t h e formidable disciplinary requirements, with r e l e n t l e s s a c c o m p a n y i n g p u n i s h m e n t s , are e x p a n d e d u p o n with a rhetorical flourish. Character —

e&oi;

is t h e beginning and e n d o f any civic organiza­

tion according t o both P l a t o and Aristotle. Later G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s thought

n o differently.

H e r e , t h e essential virtues required

and

e n h a n c e d by t h e system are described as c o u r a g e and w i s d o m , t h e latter especially in relation t o t h e g o o d o f t h e soul. Firm c o n v i c t i o n s a b o u t t h e afterlife are t h e underpinning, and s o a pleasing d o c t r i n e o f t h e immortality of t h e soul is sketched. T h e h e a d i n g s which I have teased out are naturally not explicit in J o s e p h u s . But what l o o k s at first sight like a r a n d o m c o l l e c t i o n falls into p l a c e under this ordering. W e can understand, t o o , t h e o t h e r w i s e baffling placing o f s o m e o f t h e details in J o s e p h u s , such as t h e P^ssene p r e s e n c e in cities or t h e hostility t o olive oil. E x p a n s i o n o f individual topics is p o s s i b l e up t o a point, and J o s e p h u s dwells especially o n t h e cultic m e a l s and t h e c o n t e n t of the initiation o a t h s . E a t i n g habits, it is worth r e m e m b e r i n g , are a topic favoured by G r e e k e t h n o g r a p h e r s , a n d

JOSFPHUS AND THE ESSENES

151

P o s i d o n i u s appears t o h a v e written with particular g u s t o about the feasts o f t h e C e l t s ( M o m i g l i a n o 1975: 6 9 ) . Philo's account o f the ascetic Egyptian &epaiceuTai in De vita contempiativa

(64-89) centres

o n t h e sect's b a n q u e t s , in what is an ironic reversal of t h e familiar, at which h e e x p e c t s his a u d i e n c e t o scoff: those b a n q u e t s are n o n b a n q u e t s , w h e r e satisfaction c o m e s from the d e c o r o u s a n d joyful singing o f t h e Divinity's praises, and from drinking water, rather than from c o n s u m p t i o n a n d carousing. Y e t it is arguable that other important matters, especially in the a r e a o f E s s e n e religious practices and beliefs

e v e n t h e all-important

sectarian solar calendar - are given very short shrift o r o m i t t e d by J o s e p h u s , for t h e s i m p l e reason that t h e s c h e m e d o e s not readily accommodate them. W h e r e d o e s this analysis originate? T h e various t h e m e s under which t h e m o d e l city is discussed in Plato's Republic

and in his Laws,

er with t h e analysis o f t h e e l e m e n t s of the city in Aristotle's

togeth­ Politics

( f r o m c o u p l e t o h o u s e h o l d t o city and s o o n ) , probably lie b e h i n d aM such d e s i g n s , a l t h o u g h t h e philosophers o p e r a t e , of course, o n a much bigger scale than any e t h n o g r a p h i c work s e e m s t o have d o n e . Much e t h n o g r a p h y a p p e a r e d in digressions comparable in length t o J o s e p h u s ' m i n i a t u r e c o m p o s i t i o n . T h e constructions of the p h i l o s o p h e r s influ­ e n c e d t h e historians. T o talk o f a Platonic l i n e a g e in t h e case of J o s e p h u s is by n o m e a n s fanciful. F o r if w e turn o u r attention for a m o m e n t from structure to c o n t e n t , it is hard t o avoid detecting Platonic e c h o e s in J o s e p h u s ' c o n c l u d i n g d e p i c t i o n o f t h e liberation o f t h e souls of t h e blessed from t h e b o d i e s in which they h a v e b e e n entangled: w e scarcely n e e d the Jewish historian t o tell us that t h e "sons of the Greeks" w o u l d b e in a g r e e m e n t with t h e E s s e n e s o n the subject, because w e already know. 4. A source for the W a r

account?

But h o w and why s h o u l d J o s e p h u s hit upon this kind o f analysis? N o o n e is g o i n g t o entertain the idea that h e was busily reading the Republic

at t h e s t a g e in his life w h e n h e was c o m p o s i n g the War. O n e

s o l u t i o n is t o postulate a s o u r c e for Josephus, and in particular t o look to t h e Platonist Philo. Such ideas u s e d t o b e m u c h in favour in J o s e p h u s scholarship, and this o n e is not n e w . It is therefore worth dispelling at t h e o u t s e t the

152

TESSA RAJAK

n o t i o n that any external data d e m a n d s t h e assumption. A description o f t h e E s s e n e s c l o s e in substance to that of J o s e p h u s is t o b e found in the

Refutation of All the Heresies

(9.18-29) ascribed t o t h e third century

R o m a n Christian writer Hippolytus, and t h e o b v i o u s possibility that t h e s e similarities are to b e explained in terms o f a c o m m o n source, u s e d by both J o s e p h u s and Hippolytus, is the main support for t h e claim that J o s e p h u s lifted much of what he says from an earlier writer. H i p p o l y t u s contains strikingly Josephan details, such as his state­ m e n t that e x p e l l e d Rssenes(Often starve to d e a t h . But why s h o u l d H i p p o l y t u s ' account not derive directly from J o s e p h u s himself? T h e acid test is w h e t h e r there is significant information, c o h e r e n t l y struc­ tured, that is present in H i p p o l y t u s but absent from J o s e p h u s : s h o u l d t h e r e be reason to think that this information c a n n o t h a v e b e e n a d d e d by e i t h e r H i p p o l y t u s or any o t h e r late writer u p o n w h o m h e d e p e n d e d , a n d , further, t o a s s u m e that Hippolytus is likely t o have u s e d o n e s o u r c e a l o n e , t h e n it follows that there was a c o m m o n s o u r c e from which H i p p o l y t u s t o o k certain details which J o s e p h u s c h o s e t o o m i t . It w a s M o r t o n Smith w h o saw Ihe value of m a k i n g a d e t a i l e d c o m p a r i s o n o f H i p p o l y t u s and Josephus, and t h e key d i v e r g e n c e s in c o n t e n t are n o w briefly indicated in V e r m e s and G o o d m a n . S m i t h s o u g h t t o establish t h e c a s e for a c o m m o n ( h e b e l i e v e d S e m i t i c ) s o u r c e a c a s e , it s h o u l d b e n o t e d , of which his j u d g m e n t o n t h e J o s e p h u s p a s s a g e s had already i n d e p e n d e n t l y (and in my v i e w

mistakenly)

p e r s u a d e d him. Yet, for all his endeavours, n o t h i n g of s u b s t a n c e e m e r g e s . T h e disparities are entirely explanatory c o m m e n t ,

until

c h a p t e r 26, w h o s e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s can b e simply de.scribed as a m b d u r e of n o n s e n s e and anti-Judaism. T h e additional details are characteristic o f Jews generally, especially the strict Sabbath o b s e r ­ v a n c e w h i c h e v e n forbids carrying coins

a point hardly appropriate

t o p e o p l e without private possessions. Z e a l o t s are wrongly identified with sicarii; and Hippolytus g o e s s o far as t o assert that t h e sectaries will kill any uncircumcised person caught discussing G o d or his laws. T h e vocabulary o f t h e additions is in k e e p i n g with I lippolytus generally (Burchard 1 9 7 7 ) . In chapter 27, t h e resurrection o f t h e b o d y has r e p l a c e d s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' Platonizlng account o f immortality as t h e soul's survival. This c h a n g e is part of a t e n d e n c y in H i p p o l y t u s to "vary", a s Smith puts it, "in t h e direction of Jewish piety." But, at points, s o m e Christianization is also d e t e c t a b l e (Burchard 1977).

JOSEPHUS AND THE ESSENES

153

F o r t h o s e w h o d o u b t that Hippolytus himself altered J o s e p h u s g e n e r a l h e d o e s not s e e m t o have reshaped his sources

in

the hypothe­

sis that h e u s e d an earlier Christian rewrite serves t o explain all the c h a n g e s . B a u m g a r t e n has claimed (1984) that in describing t h e Pha­ risees, H i p p o l y t u s must have had a favourable Jewish s o u r c e apart from J o s e p h u s ; but this i n t e n d e d "test case" has n o r e l e v a n c e t o t h e visibly unfavourable H s s e n e excursus.

5. Philo and Josephus W h i l e t h e a r g u m e n t s from Hippolytus have t o b e dismissed, it cannot b e d e n i e d that J o s e p h u s had s o m e familiarity with what p r e d e c e s s o r s w r o t e a b o u t t h e R s s e n e s . H e undoubtedly had parts o f P h i l o at his disposal, a n d w e have d e t e c t e d t h e earlier author's influence o n the

Antiquilies

notice.

S o it w o u l d in t h e o r y b e n o t inconceivable for Philo t o have originated t h e framework in t h e War. Moralistic t h e m e s comparable t o t h o s e in J o s e p h u s figure in t h e t w o Philonic accounts of t h e Iissenes. Y e t t h e thrust in P h i l o is quite distinct. In both of his descriptions o f t h e E s s e n e s , w e find a greater e m p h a s i s o n the ethical virtues and less o n social organization. C o m m u n i t y of property and of living

looms

particularly large in Philo, and this feature of life is linked with a highly moral stance o n avarice

{Hypolhet.

in Eusebius

Praep. ev.

8.11.8)

and o n t h e corrupting influence of cities (Quod omnis 12;75-6, in contradiction t o what J o s e p h u s writes and also, seemingly, t o Philo's o w n s t a t e m e n t , Hypolhet. 11). It can hardly e s c a p e notice that avarice, as TcXeove^ta, is o n e o f Plato's

heles noires,

and it is in Plato, t o o {LMWS

7 4 3 e e t c . ) that t h e agricultural society is labelled t h e best. S o Philo's j u d g m e n t o f t h e E s s e n e s , not unexpectedly, carries marked Platonic echoes. I d o n o t wish t o claim that t h e s e specific Philonic t h e m e s are entirely a b s e n t from t h e War. T h e y are not. J o s e p h u s d o e s not over­ l o o k t h e standard moral topics, - t h e rejection of p l e a s u r e in favour o f m o d e r a t i o n {JW 2 § 120), sobriety and self-control as an e s c a p e from t h e passions ( 2 § 161). But Josephus' E s s e n e s are by n o m e a n s Philo's "athletes o f virtue"

Praep. ev.

{Quod omnis

89; cf.

Hypolhet. in

Eusebius

8.11.6). T h e y are not seekers of freedom. J o s e p h u s ' moral

a s s e s s m e n t s are not presented in t h e s a m e way as Philo's. W h a t is m o r e , o n a g e n e r a l level, such assessments find a place e v e n in t h e

154

TESSA RAJAK

scrolls: not only the Damascus Document but hodayot and thepesharim contain ringing d e n u n c i a t i o n s o f riches and of their acquisition, if not precisely o f g r e e d (Beall: 4 3 - 4 ) . Disapproval o f w i n e is a l s o a f e a t u r e of the

Damascus Document (Beall: 6 2 ) .

T h e s u p p o s i t i o n that J o s e p h u s got his

Jewish War framework from

a different a c c o u n t of t h e E s s e n e s by Philo, o n e that w a s part o f a work w h i c h is n o w lost. Is thus a possible but not an attractive s o l u t i o n . T h e loss of a third and longer Philonic account, p e r h a p s an entire treatise which p r e c e d e d t h e surviving

De vita contemplativa, w h e r e

t h e r e is m e n t i o n of a p a s s a g e o n the E s s e n e s , w a s argued by B a u e r and has o f t e n b e e n taken as fact (Petit 1992: 141). But t h e r e are o t h e r difficulties in turning this conjectural treatise i n t o J o s e p h u s ' s o u r c e . I b e l i e v e that it m a k e s little s e n s e to ascribe t h e i m m e d i a t e detail of t h e

Jewish War account t o Philo, above J o s e p h u s himself, w h o s e k n o w l e d g e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n considerably m o r e direct and m o r e e x t e n s i v e . l l i e n a t u r e and derivation of Philo's information o n t h e E s s e n e s is, if anything, an e v e n m o r e vexed question than that o f J o s e p h u s ' . T h a t t h e A l e x a n d r i a n is t h e first in t h e line o f surviving writers t o find t h e sect important e n o u g h to dwell on is certainly a fact worthy o f c o m ­ m e n t . A n d unlike J o s e p h u s , Philo never incorporates his d i s c u s s i o n s o f t h e H s s e n e s into any account of t h e three Jewish g r o u p i n g s : t h e E s s e n e s stand a l o n e , and they are entirely

sui generis, as Petit has

p o i n t e d o u t (1992: 139). Both Philonic accounts c e n t r e o n t h e welfare o f t h e s o u l . But w h e t h e r Philo, for his basic Information, d r e w o n oral tradition, o n what he learnt o n his pilgrimage t o J e r u s a l e m , or in his o w n turn, o n a written source, Jewish or non-Jewish, is not a q u e s t i o n which w e

have any m e a n s of resolving, and Petit's

investigation

r e m a i n s wholly inconclusive. T h e difficulty is, it s e e m s t o m e , c o m ­ p o u n d e d by t h e impression given in the

De vita contemplativa ( V e r m e s

and G o o d m a n : 75-9) that Philo, for all his stylization (van d e r I l o r s t 1984: 5 6 ) , did h a v e a firsthand acquaintance with t h e ascetic

ftepaiteu-

T a ( o f L a k e Maraeotis, w h o are distinctly .similar in many r e s p e c t s t o t h e Q u m r a n sect. But t h e identity o f the &epan:euTa£ is a s e p a r a t e problem. H e r e , I w o u l d suggest that the contribution o f Philo t o J o s e p h u s did not lie in what t h e Alexandrian knew about t h e E s s e n e s , b u t in his literary pre.sentation and in s o m e concepts. F u r t h e r m o r e , w h i l e Philo's p h i l o s o p h y w a s occasionally e c h o e d by t h e historian, e v e n m u c h o f that

JOSKPHUS AND THE- KSSKNES

155

w a s unsuitable. P h i l o c o u l d b e of only limited use to t h e writer of the War account. A n o b s e r v a t i o n may n o w be drawn from the relation of framework t o c o n t e n t : if m u c h o f t h e substantive information offered by J o s e p h u s , especially in the relatively long JW 2 passage is taken to reflect the author's o w n e x p e r i e n c e , then it is preferable t o lay the organization and s h a p i n g o f t h e w h o l e at his d o o r as well. It is, quite simply, difficult t o c o n c e i v e o f J o s e p h u s taking over a structure from an earlier author and t h e n packing this with his own content. If it is not t o b e a source, then w e have to think o f J o s e p h u s himself. F o r him t o have supplied a structure, w e must s u p p o s e that by t h e t i m e of t h e writing o f B o o k 2 of t h e War, he had read and a b s o r b e d s o m e t h i n g o f that literature in G r e e k which included por­ traits o f foreign p e o p l e s : he could have g o n e back t o t h e great P o s i d o ­ nius, or h e might h a v e b e e n content with reading m o r e recent writing, by S t r a b o p e r h a p s or by Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s . It is interesting that by way o f c o n c l u s i o n t o the Antiquities

account, an explicit c o m p a r i s o n is

drawn b e t w e e n t h e E s s e n e s and t h e Dacians, which suggests that by then, at any rate, J o s e p h u s had a familiarity with such literature (Ant 18 § 2 2 ) . ' F o r t h e War a c c o u n t , J o s e p h u s did not n e e d a source, but h e did n e e d s o u r c e s of ideas and techniques. W h e n s o m u c h of

Greek

historiography is lost, t h e temptation to speculate o n t h e identity o f J o s e p h u s ' m o d e l s s h o u l d b e resisted. T h e important point is that there is n o difficulty in principle. After all, what t h e preparation for writing t h e War n e c e s s i t a t e d w a s precisely i m m e r s i o n in t h e historians. In an investigation o f t h e tale o f M o s e s ' military e x p e d i t i o n against t h e E t h i o p i a n s in Ant 2 §§ 238-53 (Rajak 1978), a d e p e n d a n c e u p o n G r e e k e t h n o g r a p h i c a l traditions b e c a m e apparent from t h e topography and from o t h e r small details of t h e Josephan narrative. T h e r e I posited an A l e x a n d r i a n s o u r c e for Josephus. H e r e , t h e impact lies in the m e t h o d m o r e than in t h e detail. A n d in this case, although w e are c o n c e r n e d not with the Antiquities,

but with the War, written s o much

earlier, it s e e m s t o m e appropriate for the reasons 1 have given t o e n v i s a g e J o s e p h u s himself as t h e author.

' N o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e G r e e k text in all M S S is u n a c c e p t a b l e as it s t a n d s , a n d , a m o n g t h e e m e n d a t i o n s p r o p o s e d , s o m e e l i m i n a t e t h e D a c i a n s : B e a l l : 121-2.

156

TEiSSA RAJAK

6. The information in Josephus T h e constraints o f structure d o not prevent J o s e p h u s from giving reveaUng — e v e n if consciously picturesque - information about Hssene practices. D e t a i l s o f c u s t o m s arc the other e l e m e n t in all t h e best e t h n o g r a p h i c writing: again w e may point t o t h e Celtic descriptions. In ihe Jewish

War excursus, t h e details are n u m e r o u s and they regularly

echo Qumran

literature. Included

are observations o n

the

early

m o r n i n g prayer*, purifications, the strictness of Sabbath o b s e r v a n c e , t h e distinctive m e a l - t i m e s in which the dining r o o m is s e e n as a shrine, t h e cultivation of s i l e n c e , t h e respect for G o d ' s n a m e and for that o f M o s e s , t h e a b h o r r e n c e of o a t h s and t h e formidable initiation o a t h s ( t h o u g h n o t t h e c o n t e n t s of t h e s e ) together with t h e stages o f initiation in fact, w c have a fair summary of many o f t h e basic e l e m e n t s of sectarian living. O v e r s e e r s are m e n t i o n e d (JW 2 § 123), a reflection, p r e s u m a b l y , of t h e important figure o f the guardian (TpUfa) in Q u m r a n literature, e v e n if t h e o b e d i e n c e of t h e sectaries to t h e m is interesting­ ly c o m p a r e d , in a nice literary touch, to that o f children t o their noLihayoiyoi

(JW 2 § 126). W h a t would s e e m to b e t h e council of t h e

c o m m u n i t y a l s o figures, for a council of m o r e than o n e

hundred

m e m b e r s acts as t h e stern administrator o f justice. T h e t h r e e - y e a r p h a s e d initiation p r o c e d u r e in t h e Jewish well

known, docs

not c o r r e s p o n d exactly with the

d e s c r i b e d e i t h e r in t h e Damascus

Document

War, as is

arrangements

or in t h e Community

Rule.

T h e s t a g e s specified by J o s e p h u s s h o w clear parallels t o b o t h provi­ s i o n s , a n d especially t o t h e latter; but t h e o a t h s t h e r e a p p e a r t o c o m e at t h e e n d o f the initiation process and not at its b e g i n n i n g (Beall: 74-8; V e r m e s 1982: 129). T h e r e is n o reason why all t h r e e versions c o u l d n o t h a v e r e p r e s e n t e d sectarian practice at s o m e s t a g e of its development. Hspecially powerful is J o s e p h u s ' formidable story of t h o s e w h o are p u n i s h e d by e x p u l s i o n a n d then all but starve to d e a t h out o f c o n t i n ­ u e d d e v o t i o n t o the purity laws to which they had sworn a l l e g i a n c e ; h e r e h e g o e s s o m e w h a t further than t h e Community o f deprivation o f t h e pure f o o d (\QS

Rule, which talks

5.15-16; Beall: 9 0 ) . A t t h e s e

points, t h e portrayal of an ideal c o m m u n i t y gives way to a different

*The implication of sun-worship which has been read into these words is a red-herring; the Mishnaic benediction of the light which precedes the morning Shema is a convincing parallel: Beall: 52, with n.89, citing the revised Schiirer.

JOSlfPHUS AND THIi ESSRNLS

157

kind of rhetorical representation, apparently based in reality, but highlighted for effect. C o n t e m p o r a r y life appears also to obtrude, momentarily at least, in t h e r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t o r m e n t s inflicted during t h e war with R o m e , which Tacitus, p e r h a p s d e p e n d a n t o n Josephus, also m e n t i o n s . This is generally taken to refer t o events surrounding the R o m a n seizure of t h e site at Q u m r a n . P h i l o {Quod

omnis 89-91) has an obscure passage

about o p p r e s s i v e kings w h o had torn B s s e n e s limb from limb, but had eventually had their c o m e - u p p a n c e . But what J o s e p h u s volunteers in this line, is specific and up-to-date. A g a i n , w e find what is effectively a correction concerning a different g r o u p o f married Hssenes, tagged on to the e n d of t h e War excursus, as if J o s e p h u s w a n t s to get the record straight. This is an interesting c a s e w h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e wins out in a struggle against t h e stereotype. It is still not agreed, after much discussion, w h e t h e r marriage was ever p e r m i t t e d at Q u m r a n itself, though the Damascus

Document

refers to

it r e p e a t e d l y and o t h e r texts d o not wholly ignore t h e subject (Beall: 3 8 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s offers

us a very important

modification

to t h e

i m p r e s s i o n o f E s s e n e celibacy given earlier. H e also gives us here u n i q u e and valuable indications of a negative attitude to sexuality within marriage in a Jewish sect, for, w e are told, "they observe their w o m e n for three years. W h e n they have purified t h e m s e l v e s three t i m e s . . . then they marry them. A n d w h e n they arc pregnant, they have n o intercourse with t h e m , thereby showing that they d o not marry for p l e a s u r e but b e c a u s e it is necessary to have children" {JW 2 § 161). T h e position of this qualification as a special afterthought, and its factual i m p o r t a n c e suggest that it should not b e read merely as further e x p l o i t a t i o n o f that t h e m e of asceticism that s o fascinated

Greek

readers o f philosophical bent.

7. Josephus'

omissions

But there are significant features of the sect which are not in J o s e p h u s and which may b e d e e m e d a casualty of the interplay b e t w e e n Jose­ p h u s t h e e y e w i t n e s s and J o s e p h u s the G r e e k theorist. W h a t is missing a d d s u p t o w h a t vSanders rightly identified as t h e "flavour" o f t h e scrolls. It scarcely n e e d s saying that many fundamental features of t h e Q u m r a n thought-world are absent from Josephus, e v e n if o u r author d o e s take care t o assure us o f t h e E s s e n e s ' strong c o n c e r n for t h e

158

TESSA RAJAK

inherited texts (JW 2 §§ 1 3 6 ) . A n d it is hardly t o b e credited that J o s e p h u s simply could not grasp E s s e n e thought, e v e n if this u l t i m a t e o u t s i d e r m a y h a v e b e e n kept away from s o m e of t h e sectarian texts an e x p e r i e n c e not unfamiliar t o t h e m o d e r n scholar. It is s o m e w h a t m o r e p r o b a b l e that J o s e p h u s perceived what w a s i n v o l v e d in E s s e n e t h e o l o g y as wholly tainted by dangerously apocalyptic n o t i o n s . But I h o p e I have s h o w n that there are other issues involved. T h e world o f b e l i e f w a s less readily a c c o m m o d a t e d t o t h e G r e e k m o d e l t h a n t h e world o f social organization a n d practice. A n d it is only fair t o a d d that t h e former w a s not readily transferred from o n e l a n g u a g e t o another. W e are, as I have said, told in a s e n t e n c e about R s s e n e respect for t h e secret n a m e s of the angels (JW2 § 142), a small but clear allusion t o t h e c o m p l e x world of Q u m r a n a n g e l o l o g y ( s e e H e n g e l 1974: 1.231-4). W e learn that E s s e n e s m a d e predictions a b o u t t h e future. W e are also m a d e aware o f the ferocity of E s s e n e sabbath o b s e r v a n c e . A n d t h e intensity of their conviction m a k e s a n a p p e a r a n c e in t h e c u r i o u s p h r a s e n i o T e o x ; T t p o a T a T a i (JW 2 § 1 3 5 ) .

But what w e s e e k in vain is any notion of t h e Q u m r a n sectaries' dualism, of their powerful awareness of evil, o f their c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n t h e future, or o f their j o y in praising G o d : this last, it s h o u l d b e said, is beautifully captured in Philo's account o f t h e contemplativa

^-epajteuTai

(De vita

80-90). W e miss, t o o , in J o s e p h u s , m u c h o f a s e n s e of

t h e distinctiveness of Judaism: a m o n g Josephus' E s s e n e s , t h e r e is n o c o v e n a n t , there is n o s e q u e n c e of t h e festivals, t h e r e are n o tribes, t h e r e a r e priests but n o Levites.' W e learn nothing o f any E s s e n e s t a n c e t o w a r d s the rest o f Jewry, even though t h e sectaries are d e f i n e d by J o s e p h u s a s b e i n g Jews by birth (JW2 § 119), in contrast t o Pliny's description o f t h e m as a gens in t h e m s e l v e s , or, again, t o Philo's partial e x p l a n a t i o n that they live in Judaea, but are not a ytwc,,

just v o l u n ­

teers. "What J o s e p h u s did not s e e " s h o u l d therefore p e r h a p s best b e r e f o r m u l a t e d as "what J o s e p h u s did s e e but c o u l d n o t write about." F o r t h e r e w e r e strong constraints upon him, t h e constraints n o t (as is s o o f t e n s u g g e s t e d ) o f p a t r o n a g e o r o f dishonesty, n o t e v e n just t h o s e o f his o w n t e m p e r a m e n t , b u t s o m e t h i n g equally pervasive — t h e c o n ­ straints o f literary form, t h e tyranny o f text.

' However, some take the four groups ofJWl of priest,s, levites, laity and novices: Beall: 99.

§ 150, to refer to the divisions

JOSEPHUS AND THE ESSENF.S

159

I d o not wish t o s e e m to e s p o u s e the naive position that realistic reportage, e v e n if s q u e e z e d , can survive such onslaughts intact and b e extracted in n u g g e t s from a narrative. T h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e t w o e l e m e n t s is necessarily m o r e complex, for they influence

one

a n o t h e r c o n t i n u o u s l y . That is why it has not b e e n profitable t o subject e a c h J o s e p h a n claim in either War or Antiquities

to a test o f truth o r

f a l s e h o o d , e v e n if there are m o m e n t s w h e n scholars n e e d t o d o this o v e r particular claims. For our purposes, it is sufficient t o grasp h o w an e y e - w i t n e s s description can also be a highly literary artefact, and t h e n what impact this has u p o n content. S o m e kind o f negotiation b e t w e e n t h e t w o p u r e types is, after all, what writing history is about. In t h e c a s e o f J o s e p h u s , it is arguable that the d e m a n d s of literary form arc, all things c o n s i d e r e d , t h e largest single d e t e r m i n a n t in his p r e s e n t a t i o n o f Jewish history. 8.

Conclusion

M y starting point w a s t w o s t a t e m e n t s that cannot reasonably

be

d e n i e d : o n t h e o n e hand, J o s e p h u s knew a fair a m o u n t about t h e E s s e n e s w h i l e , o n t h e other, h e drew on G r e e k m o d e l s . My aim has t h e n b e e n t o pursue a closer definition of t h e G r e e k literary c o m p o ­ n e n t in t h e War account. 1 s e e it as a structural, and therefore a perva­ sive and also a limiting feature. Such an analysis offers at least s o m e e x p l a n a t i o n o f what J o s e p h u s reveals and o f what he o v e r l o o k s in e x p l a i n i n g t h e Q u m r a n sect to his readers. It also points t h e way to an approach t o J o s e p h u s ' historiography generally, w h e r e w e o f t e n find that literary form controls c o n t e n t to a surprising extent. I h a v e a r g u e d that the long War excursus is substantially

the

author's o w n , rather than a predecessor's. This is not a matter suscepti­ b l e t o proof, but there is much to support such a conclusion. It d o e s not m e a n that J o s e p h u s had not s e e n other accounts. T h e conclusion entails a d e g r e e o f c o m p e t e n c e in manipulating G r e e k forms on t h e part of t h e J o s e p h u s o f the War period, b e y o n d what w a s directly required by t h e c o m p o s i t i o n of a military history. T h e

underlying

structure o f t h e E s s e n e notice is quite sophisticated, c o n c e i v e d in t e r m s o f certain c a t e g o r i e s taken from G r e e k political thought into e t h n o g r a p h i c analysis. A m a r k e d disparity in quality has e m e r g e d b e t w e e n t h e t w o J o s e ­ p h a n a c c o u n t s , JW 2 and Ant 18, e v e n allowing for t h e difference in

160

TESSA RAJAK

scale. W h e t h e r or not my explanation o f it is t o b e a c c e p t e d , this p h e n o m e n o n s h o u l d , I think, b e taken into account by

Oumran

scholars, w h o h a v e perhaps b e e n unduly p e r p l e x e d by various difficul­ ties in

the Antiquities account

notably, t h e t r o u b l e s o m e assertion that

( o n t h e m o r e usual reading) t h e c o m m u n i t y sent sacrifices t o Jerusa­ l e m . T h e s e difficult s t a t e m e n t s cannot, of course, b e w h o l l y ignored, but their c o n t e x t must b e kept in mind. F o r students o f J o s e p h u s , t h e contrast b e t w e e n t h e t w o accounts is surely a fascinating o n e . P e r h a p s I may b e permitted to e n d o n a speculative n o t e . T o j u d g e by t h e c a s e in hand, t h e J o s e p h u s o f

the Antiquities lacked

the c o m m u ­

nicative p a s s i o n o f t h e aspiring younger m a n . His Palestinian r o o t s had b e e n d i s l o d g e d ; what h e had s e e n c o u n t e d for less and less, and t h e E s s e n e s , o u r p r e s e n t topic, had certainly c e a s e d to matter very m u c h . It was still de rigueur t o write about t h e m in G r e e k historiography

- traditional t h e m e s d i e hard

but he had little that was n e w t o offer: h e

s h o r t e n e d t h e account considerably; but also, for most o f his later description h e drew, s o m e w h a t lazily it may be t h o u g h t , o n a few s t e r e o t y p e s , a n d h e fell back on Philo. S o , finally, I have not m a n a g e d entirely to e s c a p e an analysis in personal terms. A n d thus w e c o m e round again to M o m i g l i a n o . F o r w e may recall t h e essay o f which I have already s p o k e n , and t h e s e d u c t i v e portrayal conjured up there of a J o s e p h u s w h o , in his d e c l i n i n g years in exile, a p p e a r s caught b e t w e e n times and places, culturally isolated, s o m e h o w out o f touch. T h e i m m e d i a c y of t h e War was l o n g g o n e . A n d s o w e r e t h e realities of Palestine.

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, A N D THE FLAVIAN

HOUSE

Steve M a s o n

A s s o o n as it w a s written, the boolc of D a n i e l b e c a m e t h e definitive e x p r e s s i o n o f Jewish apocalyptic h o p e . It was read by groups o f widely different social status and education, including the H a s m o n e a n court, t h e authors o f t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, the rural and urban followers o f Jesus, visionaries, high priests, and rabbis. In his Jewish Antiquilies,

the

Jerusalem aristocrat J o s e p h u s also c o n f e s s e s an absorbing interest in D a n i e l . This p a p e r s e e k s to answer the question: fo what d e g r e e w a s J o s e p h u s ' o u t l o o k , especiaUy his view of the Flavian regime, influenced by his interpretation o f D a n i e l ? I c o n t e n d that a particular reading o f D a n i e l w a s an essential ingredient of his world view by Ihe t i m e that he w r o t e t h e Jewish

War.

D e a l i n g with t h e p r o b l e m before us will illuminate s o m e perennial issues o f J o s e p h a n studie, such as: his d e g r e e of biblical k n o w l e d g e ; his s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g as a Jew; the nature of his service to t h e R o m a n s ; his m o t i v e s in paraphrasing the Bible; his use o f sources; t h e relation­ s h i p b e t w e e n t h e War and the Antiquities;

and the consistency of his

thought. O u r p r o c e d u r e will l a k e us from the known to t h e u n k n o w n . W e begin with a s u m m a r y o f D a n i e l ' s main t h e m e s and the ways in which t h e s e w e r e a d a p t e d by J o s e p h u s ' contemporaries. S e c o n d , w e shall consider t h e function o f D a n i e l in t h e Antiquities,

w h e r e he is discussed al

length. I'inally, w e shall ask w h e t h e r the War,

though

it fails t o

m e n t i o n D a n i e l , is already indebted to the biblical seer. 1. Background

and

Context

T o establish an appropriate grid for understanding J o s e p h u s , w e n e e d first t o recall s o m e salient t h e m e s of D a n i e l and t o c o n s i d e r their significance for o t h e r Jews of the period. 1.1 The Message

of

Daniel

T h r e e features o f the book merit special attention here.

162

1.1.1

STEVE

MASON

First, t h e M a s o r e t i e text is only o n e incarnation o f a consider­

able tradition c o n c e r n i n g t h e exilic wise m a n . That this tradition a n t e d a t e d t h e canonical b o o k (ca. 165 B C E ) by centuries is clear from t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f D a n i e l ' s n a m e in earlier d o c u m e n t s ( C o l l i n s 1977: 1-3).' A n d i n d e p e n d e n t D a n i e l i c traditions c o n t i n u e d t o flourish l o n g after t h e canonical b o o k was written.^ T h e biblical b o o k itself s h o w s signs o f revision (Collins 1977: 8-19; H a r t m a n and D i I ^ l l a 1978: 1320) and its earliest translation into G r e e k c r e a t e d a substantially n e w work. T h e O G w a s such a free rendering (van d e r Kooij 1986: 7 2 - 8 0 ) that later Christians, apparently under Origen's influence, t o o k t h e u n p a r a l l e l e d s t e p o f substituting'Ilieodotion's t r a n s l a t i o n — y e t a n o t h e r incarnation ~ for t h e "real" L X X text (Farris 1990: 7 8 - 8 3 ) . 'ITius w e o u g h t not t o i m a g i n e t h e influence of D a n i e l as e m a n a t i n g from a single d o c u m e n t o f t h e M a c c a b e a n period. 1.1.2 N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e canonical b o o k s of D a n i e l , S e m i t i c and G r e e k , b e c a m e t h e chief repositories of several p o t e n t N e a r - E a s t e r n i m a g e s . For e x a m p l e , D a n i e l ' s e x p e c t a t i o n of divine intervention t o save Israel from its foreign oppressors has solid parallels in older Egyptian a n d Persian d o c u m e n t s (Griffiths 1989; 273-93). D a n i e l ' s p e r i o d i z a t i o n o f history a n d its m e t a p h o r o f four metals, representing d e t e r i o r a t i n g e p o c h s , have M e d i t e r r a n e a n precedents (Collins 1 9 7 7 : 4 0 - 4 1 ; G l a d i g o w 1989: 2 6 3 - 6 5 ) . A n d t h e four-kingdom s c h e m e , in which a k i n g d o m o f r i g h t e o u s n e s s replaces increasingly unjust regimes, t o o k s h a p e

in

M e s o p o t a m i a , w h e n c e it began a distinguished career in R o m a n , Persian, Jewish, and Christian political discourse (Swain 1940; R o w l e y 1959; Flusser 1972; Lucas 1989). O l d e r still is the figure o f t h e wise courtier (cf. D a n 3:6), unjustly accused but finally vindicated (Wills 1990). T h e ubiquitous Ahikar tradition is an e x a m p l e of this

topos,

which a l s o underlies t h e biblical stories o f J o s e p h and E s t h e r ( C o l l i n s 1977: 3 0 ; W i l l s 1990: 3 9 - 4 4 , 7 5 - 1 4 4 ) . In p r o o f of H e g e l ' s claim that t h e great p e r s o n o f an era is o n e w h o e n c a p s u l a t e s its ideals, t h e b o o k o f D a n i e l s e e m s t o have o w e d its literary p o w e r t o t h e archetypes o f N e a r - E a s t e r n c o n s c i o u s n e s s that it e m b o d i e d .

' a . Ezek 14:14; 28:3; the Aqhat legend from Ugarit (dnit), and/ub 4.20; also perhaps F.7,ra 8:2; Neh 8:4.7; 10:6.23. Moreover, the "Prayer of Nabonidus" from Qumran seems to be an earlier version of the story presented in Daniel 4. ' Witness the "apocryphal additions" and the Danielic apocalypse from Oumran (4QpsDan).

JOSKPHUS, DANIEL, AND THK Rj^VlAN HOUSK

1.1.3

163

Y e t D a n i e l is much m o r e than an a m a l g a m of folk tale and

eschatological vision. E v e n those w h o stress t h e original a u t o n o m y o f its discrete e l e m e n t s c o n c e d e that the final form of t h e b o o k has an overriding unity (Collins 1977; 19). Its m e s s a g e , r e p e a t e d in five of t h e six court tales and illustrated in the subsequent visions (chaps. 7 t o 12), is that t h e apparently indomitable k i n g d o m s of earth are in fact transient

and subject t o divine pleasure. It is G o d w h o "removes kings

and installs kings" (2:21), and only his kingdom is everlasting. T h e k e y n o t e c o m e s in D a n i e l ' s interpretation of t h e statue: "The G o d o f H e a v e n will establish a kingdom that shall never b e destroyed, a k i n g d o m that shall not b e transferred to a n o t h e r p e o p l e . It will crush and w i p e o u t all t h e s e kingdoms, but shall itself last forever" (2:44; J P S trans.). N e b u c h a d n e z z a r suffers humiliating p u n i s h m e n t until he learns: That the Most High is sovereign over the realm of man, And He gives it to whom He wishes And He may set over it even the lowest of men. (4:14; cf 4:22, 29). B e l s h a z z a r must b e scared Incontinent by the writing o n the wall {5:6) b e f o r e h e accepts t h e s a m e lesson (5:21). Darius "the Mede", pursued s o relentlessly by scholars, is quite possibly a literary invention t o stress t h e n o n c h a l a n c e with which G o d transfers kingships from o n e nation t o a n o t h e r . H e t o o c o n c l u d e s his act with t h e n o w familiar chorus: "He is t h e living G o d w h o endures forever; His k i n g d o m is indestructi­ ble, and H i s d o m i n i o n is t o the e n d of time" (KD1D l U ; 6:27). In spite o f t h e o s t e n s i b l e mystery of Daniel, therefore, its central m e s s a g e is clear: n o m a t t e r h o w i n d o m i t a b l e the gentile kings may appear, they rule by divine p l e a s u r e and can be r e m o v e d in an instant. This t h e m e also binds t o g e t h e r t h e two formally distinct halves of t h e book: parallel c h r o n o l o g i e s o f the court talcs and visions — u n d e r Babylonian ( 1 : 1 / 7 : 1 ) , M e d i a n ( 6 : 1 / 9 : 1 ) , and Persian ( 6 : 2 9 / 1 0 : 1 ) k i n g s — u n d e r s c o r e t h e instability o f all earthly rule (Collins 1977: 191). F o r o u r p u r p o s e s , three ancillary t h e m e s are a l s o noteworthy. ( a ) D a n i e l refers o f t e n to the "wise" (D"'"?''Dii;a) and w i s d o m . This is not t h e g n o m i c w i s d o m of B e n Sira, but rather an occult insight into t h e m e a n i n g o f d r e a m s and visions, h e n c e an understanding of t h e transience o f earthly rule. In both t h e court tales and t h e visions, revelation is a two-stage process requiring an initial mystery (TI) — a d r e a m or t h e writing o n t h e wall — and then t h e inspired interpretation

164

(•WS).

STEVE MASON

D a n i e l is a b^yuJ2 (1:17, 20; 2:30, 47; 5 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) , w h o can offer

such interpretations, a n d t h e visions l o o k a h e a d t o a t i m e w h e n t h e r e will b e t r u e successors t o the s e e r ( 1 1 : 3 3 - 3 5 ) ; they will participate in t h e e t e r n a l k i n g d o m (12:3; Collins 1977: 28-29, 2 0 7 - 1 2 ) . D a n i e l distin­ g u i s h e s t h e f e w "wise" from the "many" (D'^Din), w h o are o p e n t o p e r s u a s i o n for g o o d o r ill (8:25; 11:33). ( b ) B e c a u s e t h e w i s e understand the i m m i n e n c e of G o d ' s k i n g d o m , they d o not try t o e n g i n e e r change, which is (Jod's prerogative. T h u s D a n i e l t a k e s a p r o n o u n c e d pacifistic

stance. T h i s point has usually

b e e n s u p p o r t e d with reference t o t h e "little help" o f 11:14, which Porphyry already u n d e r s t o o d as a slight o f the M a c c a b e e s . A l t h o u g h that interpretation is d u b i o u s (Lebram 1989: 182)' t h e b o o k ' s o p p o s i ­ tion t o a r m e d resistance is clear e n o u g h e l s e w h e r e . In chapters 2 a n d 8, t h e a u t h o r stresses that the n e w and eternal k i n g d o m is "not m a d e with hands" (2:34, 45; 8:25). Describing the conflicts b e t w e e n A n t i o ­ c h u s II a n d P t o l e m y IV, D a n i e l writes that "the lawless s o n s of y o u r p e o p l e will assert t h e m s e l v e s t o confirm t h e vision, but they will fail" (8:14). T h e s e historically uncertain o p p o n e n t s of the P t o l e m i e s incur t h e a u t h o r ' s wrath for their attempt to r e m o v e a g e n t i l e p o w e r by force ( L e b r a m 1989: 182-184). (c) A practical corollary of this pacifistic o u t l o o k is D a n i e l ' s i m p l i e d a g e n d a o f cooperation

with gentile k i n g d o m s . T h i s is t h e lesson o f t h e

court t a l e s at least: like D a n i e l and his c o l l e a g u e s , w h i l e awaiting G o d ' s perfect k i n g d o m a J e w may participate fully in t h e apparatus o f foreign g o v e r n m e n t without

b e c o m i n g tainted by t h e a s s o c i a t i o n . T h e

y o u n g H e b r e w m e n a d h e r e rigorously t o a lawful diet ( 1 : 5 - 1 6 ) , refuse to a c k n o w l e d g e foreign g o d s (3:12), and maintain a r e g i m e n of prayer (6:11). F a r from excluding t h e m from p o s i t i o n s o f p o w e r , their b e h a ­ viour e a r n s t h e m p r o m o t i o n and prosperity (1:20; 2:48; 3:30; 6:29). W h e n e v e r a ruler b e c o m e s arrogant and objects to t h e s e practices, G o d i n t e r v e n e s t o s a v e t h e righteous. T h e s a m e h o p e is held o u t for t h o s e w h o suffer under A n t i o c h u s I V (11:40-12:3). All o f t h e s e t h e m e s are harnessed in t h e service of D a n i e l ' s e s c h a t o ­ logical t i m e t a b l e , which is articulated in t h r e e different ways. C h a p t e r s 2, 7, a n d 8 c o n t a i n visions in which successive g e n t i l e k i n g d o m s a r e repre,sented by t h e various parts of a s t a t u e (2) o r an a s s o r t m e n t o f h o r n e d b e a s t s (7, 8). T h e point is that G o d ' s k i n g d o m will e r a s e a n d s u p p l a n t t h e S e l e u c i d r e g i m e (2:44; 7:13; 8:25). In chapters 10 a n d 11, t h e angel s p e a k s plainly about the intricate political d e a l i n g s of t h e

JOSFPHUS, DANIFL. AND THE

FIAVIAN

165

HOUSE

p e r i o d b e f o r e the e n d . A n d chapter 9 offers t h e most tantalizing prediction: t h e r e will b e a period of "seventy w e e k s [of years = 490]" b e t w e e n t h e "word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" and t h e arrival o f G o d ' s k i n g d o m ( 9 : 2 4 - 2 7 ) . For t h e original author, all three s c h e m e s c o n v e r g e d o n t h e period following the d e m i s e of A n t i o c h u s IV. T h e author of D a n i e l has woven a patchwork of traditions, distinct in form, p r o v e n a n c e , and e v e n language, into a remarkably unified w h o l e . In a t i m e of d e s p e r a t e straits, he reassures t h e reader that t h e i m p o s i n g nations of t h e world are really p a w n s in the hands of G o d . G o d will s o o n intervene to e n d the unbearable o p p r e s s i o n of the current ruler. But in t h e m e a n t i m e , the wise will maintain their quiet fidelity t o t h e c o v e n a n t . 1.2 The Appropriation

of

Daniel

A s s o o n as it w a s written, Daniel found a receptive a u d i e n c e a m o n g widely divergent groups. W c cannot undertake here a survey o f t h e b o o k ' s Wirkungsgeschichle

(cf. Goldingay 1989 xxi-xl), yet it is necessary

for o u r reading o f J o s e p h u s to have the main interpretive possibilities in view. 1.2.1 S o m e ancient authors were primarily interested in t h e

exemplary

value o f t h e conflict stories in Daniel — the fiery furnace and t h e lion's d e n (4 M a c e 16:21; 3 M a c e 6:7; H e b 11:33-34). This use of D a n i e l c o m p l e t e l y s i d e s t e p s t h e problem of his unfulfilled e x p e c t a t i o n of G o d ' s k i n g d o m after t h e death of A n t i o c h u s IV. His faith b e c o m e s a m o d e l for all t i m e s and places. 1.2.2

In t h e centuries following t h e writing o f D a n i e l , h o w e v e r , most

readers v a l u e d t h e b o o k primarily for its apocalyptic a g e n d a . Since t h e everlasting k i n g d o m

had not arrived with

Antiochus' death,

the

t i m e t a b l e required repristination. In the period of o u r interest, t h e fourth beast, w h o w o u l d devour t h e w h o l e earth with his great iron t e e t h (7:7, 2 3 ) , c o u l d only be R o m e , and s o t h e book was unanimously r e i n t e r p r e t e d by our sources. Such reinterpretation is anticipated by t h e a u t h o r himself, for w h o m Jeremiah's 10years

of d e s o l a t i o n s h o u l d

be u n d e r s t o o d as 7 0 weeks o f years ( = 490; D a n 9:2, 24; Jer 2 5 : 1 1 - 1 2 ; 29:10). A n d t h e e n d of t h e b o o k witnesses to editorial revisions o f D a n i e l ' s 1150 days of desecration (8:14) to 1290 and then 1335 (12:11). T h o s e w h o w a n t e d to extend further D a n i e l ' s 7 0 w e e k s had various o p t i o n s . T h e y c o u l d reinterpret the starting point, "the g o i n g forth o f

166

STEVE MASON

t h e w o r d t o restore and rebuild Jerusalem", from Jeremiah's predic­ tion o f a b o u t 5 9 4 B C E t o t h e beginning o f t h e exile, or t h e putative d a t e o f D a n i e l ' s vision, or the e n d of the exile, or Cyrus' d e c r e e , or Z e r u b b a b e l , or e v e n N e h e m i a h in t h e mid-fifth century. D a n i e l ' s division o f t h e 7 0 w e e k s into 7 - 1 - 6 2 + 1 facilitated further recalcula­ tion ( B e c k w i t h 1979-81: 5 2 8 ) . Later Christians w o u l d outsmart D a n i e l h i m s e l f by m a k i n g e a c h o f the 4 9 0 years a d e c a d e , or e a c h o f t h e 1290 days ( 1 2 : 1 1 ) a year (Farris: 180-304)! T h e w i d e - r a n g i n g influence of D a n i e l o n s u b s e q u e n t apocalyptic literature is illustrated by t h e fourth d r e a m vision o f 4 Ezra ( c h a p s . 1112). T h e Mo.st H i g h interprets the d r e a m for Ezra, making R o m e t h e fourth k i n g d o m : "The e a g l e that y o u saw c o m i n g up out o f t h e s e a is t h e fourth k i n g d o m that a p p e a r e d in a vision to your brother D a n i e l . But it was not explained

to him as I now explain

it to you"

(12:11-12;

N R S V , e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . S o far, eight fragments o f D a n i e l have b e e n identified a m o n g t h e D e a d S e a Scrolls ( S t e g e m a n n 1989: 5 1 0 ) . S e v e r a l s t u d i e s h a v e s h o w n that D a n i e l exercised a pervasive influence o n t h e l a n g u a g e and o u t l o o k of t h e Q u m r a n e r s ( M e r t e n s 1971: 5 1 - 1 7 1 ; Bruce 1969: 2 2 1 - 2 3 5 ; 1959: 59-65; B e a l c 1984; H a r t m a n and D i Leila 1978: 7 2 - 7 4 ) . A t least o n e scholar has placed t h e biblical s e e r in candidacy for t h e l o n g c o n t e s t e d role of T e a c h e r of R i g h t e o u s n e s s (Trever 1985). A m o n g early Christians, t o o , t h e rejuvenation of D a n i e l ' s e s c h a t o l o g y c o n t i n u e d until a b o u t t h e e n d o f t h e s e c o n d century. O n e n e e d o n l y think o f such N T images as t h e imminent k i n g d o m o f G o d (Mark 1:15), t h e "son of man" c o m i n g o n t h e clouds (Mark 13:26; 14:62), t h e "abomination o f desolation" (Mark 13:14), t h e "man of lawlessness" ( 2 T h e s s 2 : 3 - 4 ) , and t h e t e n - h o r n e d beast from t h e s e a ( R e v 13:1), t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e d e p t h and breadth of D a n i e l ' s contribution t o t h e y o u n g church's eschatological fervour ( G a s t o n 1970: 8-64, 3 7 4 - 4 2 8 ) . It is surely n o c o i n c i d e n c e that t h e first biblical c o m m e n t a r y written by a Christian, as far as w e know, was Hippolytus' c o m m e n t a r y o n D a n i e l . 1.2.3

A n o t h e r way of appropriating D a n i e l ' s eschatological

pro­

g r a m m e w a s t o s u p p o s e that G o d ' s k i n g d o m w a s b e i n g e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e a g e n c y o f divinely c h o s e n leaders, w h e t h e r t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n b r o t h e r s or t h o s e w h o led t h e rebellion against R o m e . Writing s o o n after t h e d e a t h of John Hyrcanus ( 1 0 4 B C E ; cf. 1 6 : 2 3 - 2 4 ) — a b o u t 4 9 0 years after Jeremiah's p r o p h e c y — t h e author o f 1 M a c c a ­ b e e s s e e k s t o s h o w that the H a s m o n e a n family w a s c h o s e n by G o d t o bring salvation to Israel. T h e author certainly k n o w s D a n i e l i c traditions

JOSEPHUS,

DANIEL,

AND

THE

HAVIAN

167

HOUSE

(cf. 1 M a c e l : 4 1 - 5 4 / D a n 9:27; 2 : 5 9 - 6 0 ) and I w o u l d argue that he m e a n s t o a p p r o p r i a t e t h e influential s e e r for his a g e n d a (qualifying G o l d s t e i n 1976: 4 2 - 4 8 ) . This is clearest in t h e patriarch Mattathias' d e a t h b e d s p e e c h , which first adduces a D a n i e l l e moral — that faithful­ ness t o t h e L a w is t h e way t o endure against evil (2:61-64) — but then quickly transforms t h e lesson into a call to arms (2:65-68). It is through t h e H a s m o n e a n s that "the y o k e of t h e (Jentiles was r e m o v e d from Israel" (13:41; cf. 4:58). If this analysis is correct, then 1 M a c c a b e e s effects a d o u b l e inversion o f Daniel's purpose: it dissolves t h e apoca­ lyptic t i m e t a b l e into a "realized eschatology," and it replaces quietistic pacifism with divinely authorized militanq'. This inversion may have provided a p r e c e d e n t for later rebels against R o m e , w h o saw t h e m ­ s e l v e s b o t h as heirs o f t h e H a s m o n e a n cause and as fulfilling t h e vision of D a n i e l ( F a r m e r 1956: 108; H e n g e l 1989: 2 3 8 ; G a s t o n 1970: 458463). This brief sketch has s h o w n that t h e b o o k of D a n i e l w a s widely read t h r o u g h o u t o u r period; it was valued mainly as an eschatological p r o g r a m m e . In k e e p i n g with the diversity of its a u d i e n c e , however, there w a s n o o r t h o d o x interpretation. 2.

Daniel in the Jewish

By t h e m i d - n i n e t i e s , w h e n he wrote t h e

Antiquities

Jewish Antiquities,

Josephus

had d e v e l o p e d a sustained interest in D a n i e l . H e knew at least two G r e e k v e r s i o n s ( O G and T h e o d o t i o n ) as well as the H e b r e w / A r a m a i c text and s o m e extrabtblical traditions. H e found valuable support in t h e ancient s e e r for t h e main arguments o f his m a g n u m o p u s . 2.1

Daniel and Ihe Purpose of the

T h e aims o f

the Antiquities

Contemporary

Greek

Antiquities

are set out in their preface (1 §§ 1-26).

and l>atin literature

indicates that

various

slanders a b o u t Jewish origins and c u s t o m s w e r e current in first-century R o m e (e.g. Tacitus,

Hist

5.1-13; Whittaker 1984: 35-84). T h e popular

derision may not h a v e had much practical effect o n its o w n , but it can only h a v e b e e n e x a c e r b a t e d by anti-Jewish s e n t i m e n t s arising from t h e war. J o s e p h u s , for his part, considers il urgent to "refute t h o s e w h o in their writings w e r e d o i n g outrage to the truth" (Ant 1 § 4, s p e a k i n g of t h e War). H e invites t h e G r e e k - s p e a k i n g reader l o j u d g e , o n t h e basis o f his narrative, w h e t h e r t h e Jewish lawgiver did not impart a worthy

168

S T E V E MASON

c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d {Ant 1 §§ 15, 2 4 ) . His a c c o u n t of biblical history m e a n s t o s h o w that Jews have a n o b l e history, e m b r a c e t h e highest ideals o f e(>o£peia and SixaioauMri, and are therefore

exemplary

citizens. In m a k i n g this general point, J o s e p h u s introduces a n u m b e r o f specific t h e m e s that will govern the s h a p e o f his s u b s e q u e n t narrative: ( a ) t h e Jewish v i e w of G o d holds that h e supervises everything ( n a v x a fentpXeicwv; Ant

1 § 20), exercising watchful care over h u m a n affairs

(cf. TCpovoia; Ant

1 §§ 45, 226); (b) M o s e s has trained t h e J e w s in

virtue {^Lpe:TT^•,Ant 1 §§ 6 , 2 0 ) ; and (c) Jewish history d e m o n s t r a t e s that G o d invariably rewards t h o s e w h o practice virtue and live in accord with t h e laws, while punishing t h o s e w h o transgress. This is t h e l e s s o n o f Jewish scripture {Ant

1 §§ 14, 2 1 ) . H a r o l d Attridge ( 1 9 7 6 ) has

s h o w n that t h e s e t h e m e s e m e r g e repeatedly t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e o f t h e Bible in Ant

1-11.

O t h e r c o m m e n t a t o r s have n o t e d that t h e preface t o t h e

Antiquities

is laced with t h e language o f contemporary philosophy ( W e i s s 1979: 4 2 1 - 3 3 ) . A p p a r e n t l y J o s e p h u s wishes to enter Judaism as an o p t i o n in t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l market-place. T h e Jewish view of G o d ' s nature is s o p h i s t i c a t e d and philcsophical, J o s e p h u s says, which is why Jewish l a w a c c o r d s s o perfectly with natural law {fMaiohoyia.; T6Jv (pOaet; Ant

Ant 1 §§ 1 8 - 2 0 / xfj

1 § 2 4 ) . M o s e s ' teaching will b e found "highly p h i l o ­

sophical" ( > t a v (poXoootpot;) by t h o s e w h o care t o investigate it (Ant 1 § 2 5 ) . Just as t h e G r e c o - R o m a n s c h o o l s have their o w n prescriptions for e£)Sai(xovta, Judaism offers this as a reward t o t h o s e w h o o b e y t h e laws (Ant

1 §§ 14, 2 0 ) . T h r o u g h o u t t h e following story, A b r a h a m ,

M o s e s , a n d S o l o m o n all a p p e a r as wise philosophers, and t h e Jewish s e c t s are s c h o o l s (cptXoaofiai or aEpeocic;) of t h e national p h i l o s o p h y {Ant 13 § § 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 18 §§ 11-25). T h i s brief sketch will suffice to s h o w that J o s e p h u s ' substantial p a r a p h r a s e o f D a n i e l {Ant 10 §§ 1 8 5 - 2 8 1 ) is written s o as t o e n h a n c e t h e overall i m p a c t of t h e

Antiquities. M o s t striking is J o s e p h u s ' c o n ­

c l u d i n g s t a t e m e n t . Having s h o w n that the exilic figure predicted t h e p e r s e c u t i o n u n d e r A n t i o c h u s IV {Ant 10 § 2 7 5 ) and e v e n t h e R o m a n d e s t r u c t i o n o f Jerusalem {Ant 10 § 2 7 6 ) , he points out t h e folly o f t h e E p i c u r e a n s , w h o e x c l u d e providence (icpovotav ^Kp&XXouai) and d e n y that G o d supervises h u m a n affairs. D a n i e l proves

Ihc Antiquities' t h e s i s

that G o d d o e s exercise watchful care o v e r h u m a n affairs {Ant 10 § § 2 7 7 - 2 8 0 ) . This attack o n t h e i m p i o u s Epicureans b o t h sustains his

JOSCPHUS,

DANIHL, AND T H E FlJWIAN

HOUSE

169

a r g u m e n t a n d m a k e s J o s e p h u s a conversation partner with his gentile c o n t e m p o r a r i e s (cf. Plutarch, Pyth. Or. 9 ) . In k e e p i n g with this philosophizing t e n d e n c y is J o s e p h u s ' interpre­ tation o f t h e diet m a i n t a i n e d by Daniel and his friends in Babylon. W h e r e a s t h e biblical story had clearly stated that t h e "seeds" (or: v e g e t a b l e s ) e a t e n by t h e youths were t o prevent defilement

through

c o n s u m p t i o n of potentially unclean food ( D a n 1:8, 12), Josephus m a k e s t h e diet into a philosophical issue: they abstained from animal (cfupuxoi;) f o o d o u t of a desire t o live ascetically (aKXTipaywYEtv), b e c a u s e they w e r e unattracted t o it (Ant 10 § 190; Satran 1980: 3 3 4 8 ) ) . J o s e p h u s e v e n introduces dates, a Pythagorean favourite, into the m e n u (Ant 10 § 1 9 0 ) . David Satran aptly observes (1980: 3 7 ) , "amixia has given way t o enkrateia".

Jewish dietary habits w e r e a target o f

ridicule, contributing t o t h e charge of misanthropy (Whittaker 1984: 7 3 - 8 0 ) . J o s e p h u s m a k e s t h e Jews' diet a virtue, c o m p a r a b l e t o that of t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s (cf. Ant 15 § 371). H e observes that t h e y o u n g men's s o u l s w e r e thereby "kept pure and fresh for learning" Ant ( 1 0 § 194). S o D a n i e l j o i n s t h e ranks of illustrious Jewish philosophers. His w i s d o m , b o t h m u n d a n e and occult, far surpasses that of t h e f a m o u s C h a l d e a n s a n d magi. It is also typical of t h e Antiquities

t o reflect o n t h e rewards and

p u n i s h m e n t s m e t e d out t o appropriate parties. T h e y o u n g m e n were u n t o u c h e d by t h e fiery furnace "in consideration of their being thrown i n t o it without having d o n e any wrong"; they were saved by divine p r o v i d e n c e ( & e i a npbvoKx; Ant 10 §§ 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 ) . W h e n Daniel is deliv­ e r e d from t h e lions' d e n , hts accusers deny that it is d u e t o

Ttpovota,

charging rather that t h e animals had b e e n fed b e f o r e h a n d . T h e r e u p o n , in J o s e p h u s ' e m b e l l i s h m e n t , Darius feeds the lions before them

offering

D a n i e l ' s accusers, w h o arc n o n e t h e l e s s torn t o pieces and

c o n s u m e d . J o s e p h u s attributes this t o the w i c k e d n e s s of the m e n , which w a s apparent e v e n t o irrational animals; G o d arranged this p u n i s h m e n t (Ant 10 § 2 6 2 ) . Such moralizing reflections are c o m m o n in this work.^ A l t h o u g h t h e Antiquities

is n o literary masterpiece, J o s e p h u s is

careful t o c h o o s e key t e r m s that will p r o d u c e the desired r e s o n a n c e

' a. Ant 1 § § 4 6 - 5 1 , 65-66, 72, 194-95; 4 §§ 45-53, 154-55. 312-314; 5 §§ 107-9; 6 § § 3-7. 147-151; 8 § § 190-98, 265, 284, 313-14; 9 §§ 103-4; 10 §§ 37-39; 17 § § 168-71; 19 §§ 2 0 1 - 1 1 .

170

STIiVE MASON

with his a u d i e n c e . Whereas, for e x a m p l e , t h e L X X and 'ITieodotionD a n i e l had exclusively used TO fevujcvtov for "dream", J o s e p h u s favours TO o v a p and 6 oveipot;. H e retains t h e L X X u s a g e five t i m e s , but o p t s for o n e o f t h e s e alternatives thirteen times in his D a n i e l paraphrase. O u t s i d e o f t h e D a n i e l story, he consistently a b a n d o n s t h e L X X term e x c e p t in pejorative u s a g e — of uninspired d r e a m s (AgAp 1 §§ 207, 2 1 1 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 , 3 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s already s e e m s sensitive t o A r t e m i d o r u s ' distinction o f fevujcvtov from 6veipo(; o n t h e criterion that t h e f o r m e r refers t o an insignificant d r e a m , w h e r e a s t h e latter signifies an e v e n t s u s c e p t i b l e o f interpretation ( O e p k e 1967: 5.221). O t h e r characteristic features of Josephus' biblical paraphrase that a p p e a r in his treatment o f D a n i e l may b e summarily listed, ( a ) T o p l a c e Jewish history o n t h e world stage, he must s h o w h o w it intersects with t h e records of non-Jewish writers. T h e r e f o r e h e cites a variety o f s o u r c e s that m e n t i o n the Babylonian and Persian kings u n d e r w h o m D a n i e l served {Ant 10 §§ 2 1 9 - 2 3 1 ) . By identifying Belshazzar with fhis father] N a b o n i d u s {Ant 10 § 2 3 1 ) , J o s e p h u s quietly solves t h e p r o b l e m that D a n i e l ' s Belshazzar was not in fact king o f Babylon (contra D a n 5:1,5). ( b ) H e a t t e m p t s t o solve o b v i o u s difficulties within t h e biblical narrative, such as t h e identity o f t h e mysterious "Darius t h e M e d e " , w h o m D a n i e l m a k e s successor to the Babylonians in contradiction o f o t h e r biblical texts which assign that role t o Cyrus t h e Persian. J o s e ­ p h u s m a k e s t h e t w o conquerors relatives and c o m r a d e s {Ant 10 §§ 2 3 2 , 2 4 8 ) . H e e v e n tacitly corrects D a n i e l by noting that several kings c a m e b e t w e e n N e b u c h a d n e z z a r and Belshazzar ( w h o m D a n i e l 5 had m a d e father a n d s o n ) , (c) J o s e p h u s introduces all sorts of "novelistic e l e ­ ments" into his paraphrase ( M o e h r i n g 1957), m o s t notably t e r m s that d e s c r i b e t h e e m o t i o n s of the characters: envy and jealousy {Ant 10 § 2 1 2 ) , grief and u n h a p p i n c s s {Ant 10 § 2 4 6 ) , h o p e , courage, and anxiety (Ant

10 §§ 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 ) .

A l t h o u g h m o d e r n scholars often lose t h e drift o f t h e unwieldy t h e

Antiquities J o s e p h u s

himself maintains a s e n s e of unity. In 10 § 2 1 8 h e

r e m i n d s t h e reader of his g o a l s as defined in t h e preface. 2.2

'Ihe Message of Daniel in the

Antiquities

J o s e p h u s ' interest in D a n i e l g o e s far b e y o n d supporting t h e g e n e r a l argument of

tho Antiquities.

p r o p h e t s " (Ant

F o r him, D a n i e l w a s "one of t h e g r e a t e s t

10 § 2 6 6 ) , with a distinctive m e s s a g e : he p r e d i c t e d in

detail t h e w h o l e c o u r s e of subsequent history and s o offers t h e key t o

JOSEPIIUS, DAEflEL, AND THE [lAVlAN HOUSE

171

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e t i m e s . W e are used to l o o k i n g for t h e central panel of a n c i e n t text t o find t h e heart of an author's c o n c e r n s . It is probably n o c o i n c i d e n c e that Josephus' discussion of D a n i e l falls in t h e exact c e n t r e o f his work. A s is well k n o w n , J o s e p h u s understands "prophecy" as essentially predictive, m i n i m i z i n g its ethical aspects, and s o expresses t h e greatest interest in t h o s e p r o p h e t s w h o left written records of the future (Paret 1856: 8 3 6 - 3 7 ; van U n n i k

1978: 52-54; B l e n k i n s o p p

1974: 244-45;

F e l d m a n 1990: 3 9 6 - 9 7 ) . M o s e s is called a prophet in part b e c a u s e he foretold Israel's p u n i s h m e n t s and repeated loss o f t h e t e m p l e (Ant 4 §§ 3 0 3 , 3 1 3 ) . T h e w h o l e value of prophecy is that it reveals future e v e n t s , t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is characteristically a m b i g u o u s about possibility o f avoiding what is d e t e r m i n e d (Ant

the

8 §§ 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) ; his

d o m i n a n t line is that fate is unavoidable. Speaking o f the prophets he says that "whatever h a p p e n s to us whether for g o o d or ill c o m e s about in accord with their prophecies" (Anl 10 § 35; Marcus, I-CL). W i t h this background, w e are in a position to understand J o s e p h u s ' special interest in D a n i e l . For what distinguishes this prophet from t h e o t h e r s , J o s e p h u s says, is that: "he was not only given to predicting the things t o c o m e , just as t h e other prophets, but he specified a t i m e at which t h e s e things will c o m e to pass" (Ant 10 § 2 6 7 ) . H e g o e s o n to n o t e that D a n i e l a l o n e predicted g o o d things, w h e r e a s the o t h e r s had f o r e s e e n c a t a s t r o p h e s (Ant

10 § 268). If t h e e s s e n c e o f prophecy is

prediction, and if D a n i e l a l o n e predicted t h e future in c o n c r e t e terms, then w e can understand why J o s e p h u s c o u n t s him a m o n g t h e great. G i v e n this predilection for prophecy, it is remarkable that J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e o f D a n i e l is mainly d e v o t e d to t h e court tales o f chapters 1 t o 6, t h o u g h N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s statue dream o f D a n i e l 2 is included. His m o s t significant adjustments to this d r e a m are as follows, (a) T h e B a b y l o n i a n k i n g d o m will be e n d e d by "two kings," represented by the t w o s h o u l d e r s o f t h e statue, rather than t h e biblical "kingdom inferior t o you" (Ant

10 § 2 0 8 ) ; thus the Bible's allusion to t h e M e d i a n king­

d o m is altered t o a M e d o - P e r s i a n coalition, in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h u s ' identification o f D a r i u s t h e M e d e as a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Cyrus, (b) This a d j u s t m e n t l e a v e s t h e third kingdom up for grabs, and J o s e p h u s interprets it as "another king, from t h e west" (Ant

10 § 2 0 9 ) , which

indicates A l e x a n d e r t h e Great, (c) This shift, in turn, leaves the fourth k i n g d o m , which biblical Daniel had c o m p o s e d of m i x e d iron and clay — plainly indicating t h e M a c e d o n i a n e m p i r e s — n o w t o b e identified

172

STHVF. MASON

with t h e R o m a n e m p i r e . J o s e p h u s d o e s not malte the referent explicit h e r e , but h e o m i t s D a n i e l ' s m e n t i o n of clay, e m p h a s i z i n g o n l y t h e s u p e r i o r "iron nature" o f this kingdom, by which it will rule "com­ pletely" (e£(; otTcavxa — not "forever", as Marcus has it; cf. Lindner, 1972: 4 4 ) . In accord with learned interpretation o f his day (cf. 4 Ezra a b o v e ) , J o s e p h u s is able to read D a n i e l ' s prediction as referring to his own time. Y e t t h e fourth k i n g d o m will not last forever, according t o t h e d r e a m , and h e r e w e c o m e u p o n o n e of the most intriguing p a s s a g e s in J o s e p h u s ' writings. I l e vividly describes t h e s t o n e of N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s dream: TTien you s a w a s t o n e b r e a k off from a m o u n t a i n a n d fall u p o n t h e i m a g e , b r e a k i n g it to p i e c e s and leaving not o n e part of it w h o l e , s o t h a t t h e g o l d a n d silver a n d b r o n z e a n d iron w e r e m a d e finer t h a n flour, a n d w h e n t h e w i n d b l e w strongly, they w e r e c a u g h t u p by its force a n d s c a t t e r e d a b r o a d ; b u t t h e s t o n e g r e w s o m u c h l a r g e r t h a t t h e w h o l e e a r t h s e e m e d t o b e filled with it. {Ant 10 § 207)

In t h e vealed proper is past consuh

interpretation of t h e dream, J o s e p h u s n o t e s that D a n i e l re­ its m e a n i n g to N e b u c h a d n e z z a r , but "I have not t h o u g h t it t o relate this (loTopeiv), since I a m s u p p o s e d t o write o f w h a t and d o n e and not of what is t o be". Curious r e a d e r s may t h e b o o k of D a n i e l itself {Ant 10 § 2 1 0 ) .

C o m m e n t a t o r s have almost universally dismissed J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e d m o t i v e as a thin disguise of his unwillingness t o offend R o m a n readers by discussing t h e e n d of t h e e m p i r e ( B r u c e l 9 6 5 : 1 6 0 ; Bilde 1 9 8 8 : 1 8 8 ) . I t o o h a v e s u p p o r t e d this reading in t h e past. But c o n s i d e r t h e follow­ ing, ( a ) J o s e p h u s was not c o m p e l l e d to say anything a b o u t t h e s t o n e . In o t h e r respects, his biblical paraphrase o m h s or alters m u c h that is u n s u i t e d to his p u r p o s e . Y e t not only d o e s he c h o o s e to m e n t i o n t h e s t o n e ; h e d w e l l s o n t h e t h o r o u g h n e s s o f its d o m i n i o n , (b) I lis d e s c r i p ­ tion o f t h e .stone's actions d o e s not require inspired interpretation. It plainly e n v i s i o n s t h e ultimate d e m i s e o f R o m a n h e g e m o n y , and only an o b t u s e reader could have missed the point, (c) J o s e p h u s will g o o n t o say explicitly that D a n i e l predicted t h e R o m a n e m p i r e {Ant 10 § 2 7 6 ) , t h u s placing the identity of t h e fourth kingdom, t o b e d e m o l i s h e d by t h e s t o n e , b e y o n d any doubt, (d) H e has already d e c l a r e d , in his a c c o u n t o f B a l a a m ' s prophecy, that greatness still awaits Israel {Ant 4 § 125). If he is c o n c e r n e d about offending R o m a n readers with such talk, h e has already said far t o o much.

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE I-LAVIAN HOUSli

173

But it is not d e a r that such language w o u l d h a v e o f f e n d e d t h e m , for h e r e m o v e s all traces of Daniel's apocalyptic urgency. T h e s t o n e is not e x p e c t e d i m m e d i a t e l y . Long before J o s e p h u s ' time, Scipio had reflect­ e d that R o m e w o u l d o n e day fall as Carthage had d o n e (Polybius 38.22.3). A n d in t h e JW 3 ^ 396, Titus himself p o n d e r s the general instability o f h u m a n affairs. Josephus' remarks s e e m likewise to fall into t h e c a t e g o r y of harmless philosophical reflection, not revolution­ ary aspiration. W h y t h e n d o e s h e mysteriously invite his readers to consult D a n i e l for further information about the s t o n e ? His stated reason is that he is writing history, and cannot therefore discuss future events. W c are o b l i g e d t o c o n c e d e that e l s e w h e r e he deliberately neglects

large

s e c t i o n s o f t h e Jewish scriptures in t h e pursuit of a single historical t h r e a d , e x c l u d i n g all of t h e w i s d o m literature and most of t h e minor p r o p h e t s ; e v e n from his beloved Jeremiah he excerpts the historical material a l o n e (Franxman 1979: 7). T h e visionary material o f D a n i e l itself ( 7 - 1 2 ) is r e d u c e d to a single c o m p o s i t e vision (mainly drawn from D a n i e l 8 ) ; yet this e x a m p l e t o o pertains to e v e n t s already past, and is o f f e r e d as proof of Daniel's veracity (Ant

10 §§ 2 6 9 - 7 6 ) . S o

J o s e p h u s is aware o f his task as a historian, and this accounts for his o m i s s i o n o f e l a b o r a t e eschatological scenarios. Y e t his invitation to consult the b o o k o f D a n i e l also serves a rhetorical p u r p o s e . W c know that Daniel d o e s not materially clarity t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t o n e b e y o n d what J o s e p h u s has said. It is there­ fore likely that J o s e p h u s d o e s not expect his readers to consult the p r o p h e t (in H e b r e w ? ) any m o r e than he expects t h e m to l o o k up t h e "philosophical discussion" of fate and free will in Jewish law {Ant

16

§ 3 9 8 ) or t h e public registers o f Jerusalem that contain his g e n e a l o g y {Life 6 ) . H e w a n t s t o leave the impression that the Jewish scriptures c o n t a i n all sorts of oriental mysteries b e y o n d what he as a historian can presently discuss. In a d d i t i o n to recounting Nebuchadnezzar's d r e a m , J o s e p h u s cites D a n i e l ' s predictions of world affairs at three significant junctures. First, in t h e p a s s a g e just m e n t i o n e d , he recounts the vision of t h e ram and t h e g o a t ( D a n i e l 8), while c o m b i n i n g s o m e features of t h e other visions ( G o l d s t e i n 1976: 561). T h e goat c o m e s from t h e W e s t , sprout­ ing first a s i n g l e great horn and then four smaller horns. A s u b s e q u e n t s m a l l e r horn m a k e s war on the Jewish nation and disrupts t h e t e m p l e service for 1290 days {Ant

10 §§ 2 6 9 - 7 1 ) . Since D a n i e l itself plainly

174

STEVE MASON

interprets t h e vision as t h e M a c e d o n i a n c o n q u e s t o f Persia a n d A n t i o c h u s ' persecution o f t h e Jews, J o s e p h u s can only marvel that things h a p p e n e d just a s Daniel h a d predicted "many years before"

(Ant

10 § 276).

S e c o n d , w h e n h e is later narrating A l e x a n d e r t h e Great's c o n q u e s t o f t h e East, J o s e p h u s h a s t h e legendary king visit J e r u s a l e m . O n e n c o u n t e r i n g t h e high priest, t h e y o u n g c o n q u e r o r prostrates h i m s e l f in awe, b e c a u s e this w a s t h e figure h e had s e e n in a d r e a m back in M a c e d o n i a . It w a s this d r e a m , in which G o d assured h i m that "he himself w o u l d lead my army a n d give over t o m e t h e e m p i r e o f t h e Persians", that m o t i v a t e d A l e x a n d e r in his eastward march (Ant 11 § 3 3 4 ) . W h e n t h e M a c e d o n i a n g o e s up t o t h e t e m p l e , h e is o v e r w h e l m e d t o d i s c o v e r that t h e b o o k o f D a n i e l h a d long a g o predicted that "one o f t h e G r e e k s w o u l d destroy t h e rule o f t h e Persians'* (Ant 11 § 3 3 7 ) . J o s e p h u s is not merely e n g a g i n g in t h e current veneration o f A l e x a n ­ der (cf. Plutarch, Alexander), although that certainly plays i n t o his h a n d s w h e n h e c o n n e c t s A l e x a n d e r s o closely with Judaism.'* Earlier in t h e narrative, h e h a d Cyrus t h e Persian reading Isaiah (44:28) a n d c o n c l u d i n g that "the M o s t High G o d h a s a p p o i n t e d m e king o f t h e i n h a b i t e d earth" (Ant 11 § § 3 - 5 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s b e l i e v e s with e q u a l c o n v i c t i o n that t h e current R o m a n regime, which will o n e day m e e t its e n d , w a s also installed by G o d . S o t h e A l e x a n d e r story is not a specific e m b e l l i s h m e n t o f his narrative; it e v i n c e s his ongoing c o n c e r n t o s h o w that t h e p r o p h e t s in general a n d D a n i e l in particular provide t h e k e y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g world history. Finally, J o s e p h u s cites t h e fulfilment o f D a n i e l w h e n h e d e s c r i b e s t h e p e r s e c u t i o n under A n t i o c h u s IV. H e reminds t h e reader: "Now t h e desolation

(ipimtiaiQ)

o f t h e t e m p l e c a m e about in a c c o r d a n c e with

t h e p r o p h e c y o f D a n i e l , which occurred four h u n d r e d and e i g h t years b e f o r e h a n d " (Ant 12 § 3 2 2 ) . This further reference i n d i c a t e s t h e c o n s i s t e n c y with which J o s e p h u s wants t o present D a n i e l as an inspired g u i d e t o future events. G o l d s t e i n h a s argued, o n t h e w h o l e plausibly ( 1 9 7 6 : 5 6 0 ) , that s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' adjustments o f 1 M a c c a b e e s 1 : 2 0 - 6 4 s t e m from his "belief in t h e veracity o f D a n i e l 7-12". W h e r e 1 M a c c a b e e s had corrected D a n i e l , J o s e p h u s tried t o rehabilitate t h e

* Cf. the earlier Alexander romance by Ps-Callisthenes, which makes Alexander the son of the Egyptian Pharaoh Nectanebus II (Griffiths 1989: 273-74).

JOSEPHUS, DANlEl^ AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

175

p r o p h e t , w h i l e still following the main lines o f 1 Maccabees.^ D a n i e l ' s t h e m e of t h e rise and fall o f world e m p i r e s performs a critical function in t h e narrative of the Antiquities. O n t h e o n e hand, it e x p l a i n s why t h e Jewish nation, if it has such n o b l e traditions, has s o l o n g b e e n subject t o foreign rule. J o s e p h u s is a b l e to use this subservi­ e n c e as p r o o f of Judaism's truth, for the scriptures t h e m s e l v e s predict­ e d t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s . Me deftly c o n n e c t s t h e rise of k i n g d o m s with his main thesis, that G o d inevitably p u n i s h e s evil. T h e arch-prophet M o s e s articulates t h e p r o g r a m m e at the outset: Moses predicted, as the Deity revealed to him, that when they strayed from devotion to Him they would suffer ill: the land would be filled with enemy armaments; their cities would be demolished; their temple would be burned down; they would be sold into slavery to men who would take no pity on their misfortunes; and that repentance would be of no use in these sufferings. (Ant 4 § 313) W h e n t h e first t e m p l e is destroyed, accordingly, it is an inevitable r e s p o n s e t o t h e Jews' waywardness, and N e b u c h a d n e z z a r is G o d ' s c h o s e n m e a n s o f p u n i s h m e n t (Ant 10 §§ 3 3 , 40, 60, 89, 139). Thus J o s e p h u s effects a neat synthesis of D e u t e r o n o m y ' s two ways and D a n i e l ' s d e t e r m i n i s m . Indeed, D a n i e l had already achieved such a synthesis with t h e incorporation o f a "deuteronomistic prayer" in c h a p t e r 9. T h e resulting theological t e n s i o n d o e s not bother J o s e p h u s as it b o t h e r s m o d e r n scholars, w h o isolate D a n i e l ' s prayer as an alien tradition. F o r his part, J o s e p h u s innocently declares that t h e law j u x t a p o s e s fate and free will (Ant 16 §§ 3 9 5 - 9 8 ) . T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f a b u s e d f r e e d o m and inexorable punishment is a d e e p current flowing through t h e Antiquities. O n t h e o t h e r hand, Josephus' firm belief in t h e rise and fall o f e m p i r e s results, as it did for D a n i e l , in a pacifistic political o u t l o o k . O n e can o n l y accept t h e divine punishment, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel w a r n e d ; it is futile t o resist. This view is restated with increasing force toward t h e e n d o f the Antiquities, as J o s e p h u s describes e v e n t s leading u p t o t h e revolt against R o m e . Recapitulating M o s e s ' prediction, h e cites an array o f transgressions (Ant 2 0 §§ 181, 207, 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 ) as the g r o u n d s o f i m m i n e n t divine punishment:

' For example, Josephus connects Antiochus's attack on Jemsalem in 169 BCE with his withdrawal from Egypt under Roman pressure (cf. Dan 11:30), maintains two expeditions against Jerusalem (cf. Dan 11:28, 31), and creates a single persecution effort out of distinct episodes in 1 Maccabees.

176

STEVE MASON

This is the reason why, in my opinion, even God Himself, for loathing of their impiety, turned away from our city and, because He deemed the temple no longer to be a clean dwelling place for Him, brought the Romans upon us and purification by fire upon the city, while He inflicted slavery upon us...; for he wished to chasten us by these calamities. (20 § 166; Feldman, LCI,) T h o s e w h o refuse t o accept t h e p u n i s h m e n t and s o o p p o s e

the

R o m a n s — J o s e p h u s ' "fourth philosophy" — are accused of introducing an "innovation in t h e ancestral customs" out of a desire for p e r s o n a l g a i n {Ant

18 §§ 7 - 9 ) . J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h o p e for a rebuilding o f t h e

t e m p l e m o r e than o n c e {Ant 4 § 3 1 4 ) , but that must await t h e c e s s a ­ tion o f p u n i s h m e n t . In J o s e p h u s ' wide-ranging advocacy of Judaism, t h e n , D a n i e l plays a f e a t u r e d role. T h e exilic s e e r provides t h e basis for his c o n c e p t i o n o f history as t h e rise and fall o f k i n g d o m s under G o d ' s watchful care, an i n t e g r a t i o n point for d e t e r m i n i s m and d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c t h e o l o g y , a pacifistic poHtical platform, and specific p r o p h e c i e s that h a v e b e e n strikingly confirmed. T h e s e observations support Per Bilde's p r o p o s a l that t h e structure of t h e

Antiquities is

i n t e n d e d t o stress t h e parallels

b e t w e e n t h e first and s e c o n d t e m p l e periods (1988: 89-90). C o m i n g at t h e e n d o f b o o k 10, D a n i e l provides a fitting transition: vwitten i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e fall o f t h e first t e m p l e , it l o o k s a h e a d t o t h e fall o f t h e s e c o n d , and g r o u n d s t h e w h o l e story in a serviceable t h e o r y o f history. F o r all o f its literary fluctuations, detours, and assorted l o o s e ends, the

Antiquities have

a remarkably tight thematic unity.

2.3 Daniel and Josephus' Self-Understanding B e f o r e w e p r o c e e d t o t h e War, w e might consider t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e J o s e p h u s of t h e

Antiquities found

e c h o e s of D a n i e l ' s c a r e e r in his

o w n . His account of J e r e m i a h suggests m a n y such parallels {Ant 10 § § 8 0 , 8 9 - 9 0 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 , 1 3 9 ) . If Jeremiah's life s o clearly anticipated J o s e ­ phus', d i d he also s e e himself as a latter-day D a n i e l ? T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s confirm that h e did. First, in t h e court t a l e s that c o n s t i t u t e t h e substance o f t h e paraphrase, y o u n g Jewish m e n "of n o b l e s t birth" (E^Y^VTIC) happily join the court o f a c o n q u e r i n g king. Naturally gifted learners (cf.

Life

§§ 8-10), they s o o n master t h e f o ­

reign ( C h a l d e a n and native Babylonian) traditions as well as their o w n {Ant 10 § 194). A l t h o u g h they o p e r a t e easily and effectively in g e n t i l e circles, t h e y by n o m e a n s a b a n d o n their o w n "ancestral laws" {Ant

10

§ 2 1 4 ) . O n the contrary, they win universal respect for their traditions,

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

177

which i n d e e d d e s e r v e respect b e c a u s e they accord with natural a n d m o r a l l a w {Ant 10 § 2 1 5 ) . D a n i e l and his c o l l e a g u e s put i n t o practice t h e p r a g m a t i c directives of Jeremiah: "Seek the welfare of t h e city i n t o which 1 h a v e exiled y o u and pray t o t h e Ixird o n its behalf; for in its prosperity y o u shall prosper" (Jer 29:7; JPS). Still, the Jewish youths attract j e a l o u s y and envy b e c a u s e of their success ( 1 0 § 212, 2 5 0 ) , but G o d p r e s e r v e s t h e m . Since J o s e p h u s writes all of this as a J e w w h o is p r o s p e r i n g in t h e Flavian court, having learned a g o o d deal o f G r e e k and Latin literature, w h o is n o w d e f e n d i n g his ancestral traditions b e f o r e t h e literary world, yet w h o runs into persistent accusations from t h o s e w h o "envy" his success, w e can hardly avoid t h e conclusion that his p a r a p h r a s e of D a n i e l 1-6 reflects his o w n i m a g e . W h a t confirms t h e association b e t w e e n D a n i e l and J o s e p h u s is t h e t h e m e o f d r e a m interpretation, xptotc dveipwv. In all o f J o s e p h u s ' writings, only four parties are said t o be adept at Ihe interpretation o f d r e a m s : his biblical

n a m e s a k e J o s e p h / u s ('I6)ot)7i;o(;), D a n i e l ,

the

E s s e n e s , w h o m he consistently praises, and J o s e p h u s himself. This is a s e l e c t g r o u p . Parallels with t h e biblical J o s e p h ( u s ) are obvious, a n d J o s e p h u s a l s o closely identifies with t h e F^sencs (JW 2 § 158; Ant

13

§§ 3 1 1 - 3 1 2 ; 15 §§ 373, 379; 18 § 2 0 ) , s o it is not surprising that t h e figure of D a n i e l t o o w a s especially significant for him. A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , D a n i e l acquired w i s d o m like his Jewish c o l l e a g u e s , but m o r e than that "he o c c u p i e d himself with interpretations of d r e a m s (rcEpt xptoeK; 6v£tp
10

d o not m e n t i o n any of J o s e p h u s ' interpre­

tations, but t h e War d o e s . T h e only o t h e r occurrence in J o s e p h u s of t h e p h r a s e njepi Kptoei<; 6vetpwv c o m e s w h e n he describes his o w n c r e d e n t i a l s w h i l e narrating the surrender s c e n e at Jotapata {JW 3 § 352). By t h e t i m e that he writes the Antiquities,

this ability has m a d e

him f a m o u s . In t h e Antiquities,

t h e n , D a n i e l l e currents run d e e p . D a n i e l offered

J o s e p h u s a programme,

according t o which the c o n s e c u t i v e world

e m p i r e s had risen a n d fallen in k e e p i n g with G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e . R o m e t o o h a d b e e n p r o m o t e d by G o d , though it w o u l d likewise fall s o m e day. J o s e p h u s saw himself as a pacifistic prophetic figure, trying t o c o n v e y this m e s s a g e t o others.

178

STEVE MASON 3.

Josephus'

Daniel in ihe

Jewish War, written

Jewish W a r

in t h e seventies, d o e s n o t expressly

m e n t i o n D a n i e l ( S . Schwartz 1990: 24-35, 2 4 n. 3) This is n o t surpris­ ing, s i n c e t h e topic o f J o s e p h u s ' first effort in Greelc w a s t h e recent conflict, n o t biblical history. N e v e r t h e l e s s , it has b e c o m e c u s t o m a r y t o regard t h e War a s an opportunistic tract in d e f e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' n e w p a t r o n s ( L a q u e u r 1920: 126; Smith 1956: 67-81), w h i c h w o u l d m e a n that h e o n l y b e c a m e seriously interested in Jewish tradition w h i l e preparing

the Antiquities

(S. Schwartz 1 9 9 0 : 1 5 - 5 7 ) . O u r q u e s t i o n t h e r e ­

fore is: d i d J o s e p h u s ' fascination with D a n i e l arise only after t h e War, as part o f a late interest in his national traditions, o r d i d D a n i e l ' s p r o g r a m m e s h a p e his thinking from an early d a t e ? W e m i g h t e x p e c t , a priori, that J o s e p h u s had c o n s i d e r e d D a n i e l in his y o u n g e r years b e c a u s e t h e b o o k w a s s o widely read a m o n g his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . J o s e p h u s himself will exhibit a strong interest in D a n i e l w h e n h e writes t h e Antiquities. A n d much o f t h e later work's interpretation o f history is already apparent in t h e War. F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s ' identification with Jeremiah, which w e s a w in the Antiquities is q u i t e d e v e l o p e d in t h e War (Lindner 1972: 32-33): For, t h o u g h Jeremiah loudly proclaimed that they w e r e hateful t o Ciod for their transgressions against H i m , , . , neither t h e king nor t h e p e o p l e put him to d e a t h . But y o u . . ., y o u , I say, assail with abuse a n d missiles m e w h o exhort you t o save yourselves, exasperated at being r e m i n d e d o f your sins.

ifW5§

393; Thackeray, LCL).

L i k e J e r e m i a h , J o s e p h u s is a priestly prophet [JW 3 § 3 5 2 ) . B o t h cite their c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ' theft, murder, adultery, and t e m p l e p o l l u t i o n as c a u s e s o f t h e t e m p l e ' s destruction (JW 5 § 402; cf. Jer 7:9). B o t h call for c o m p l i a n c e with t h e foreign regime. Most telling, J o s e p h u s c o n ­ s c i o u s l y a d o p t s t h e forms a n d language o f "lamentation" (6>o(pup(i6c) a n d s o e v o k e s t h e b o o k traditionally attributed t o J e r e m i a h ( L i n d n e r 1 9 7 2 : 132-141). T h e War's parallels b e t w e e n t h e destructions o f t h e first a n d s e c o n d t e m p l e s (cf.JWS § 4 1 1 ) anticipate t h e m a i n structural criterion o f the Antiquities. T h e s e e x a m p l e s e n c o u r a g e o u r s u s p i c i o n that J o s e p h u s h a d also given s o m e thought t o t h e b o o k o f D a n i e l by t h e t i m e that h e wrote t h e War. T h e q u e s t i o n o f D a n i e l ' s influence o n t h e War has b e e n t a k e n u p m o s t t h o r o u g h l y by F. F. Bruce (1965). H e identifies a "succession o f

JOSFPHUS. DANIEL, AND THE HAVIAN HOUSE

179

'abominations'" cited by J o s e p h u s in t h e Wan t h e rebels p o l l u t e t h e sanctuary (JW 4 §§ 150, 201), appoint an unworthy high priest (JW 4 § 157 — a "monstrous sacrilege" for J o s e p h u s ) , and assassinate t h e former high priest A n a n u s . J o s e p h u s claims that the fall o f t h e city b e g a n with this last e v e n t (JW 4 § 3 1 8 ) , s o Bruce thinks that J o s e p h u s saw A n a n u s as "the anointed one" w h o w o u l d be "cut o f f after 6 9 w e e k s , b e f o r e t h e cessation o f sacrifice ( D a n 9:26; H e b r e w only). B r u c e argues further that "the particularity with which

Josephus

records t h e c e s s a t i o n of t h e daily sacrifice" in 7 0 (JW 6 § 9 4 ) indicates that this event fulfilled an important p r o p h e q ' , and that J o s e p h u s saw t h e c r o w n i n g "abomination" as t h e R o m a n soldiers' sacrifice t o their standards in t h e t e m p l e court (JW 6 § 3 1 6 ) . Finally, Bruce c o n t e n d s that t h e mysterious ancient oracles cited by J o s e p h u s as predicting t h e city's ruin could all plausibly c o m e from D a n i e l : t h e reduction of t h e T e m p l e t o a "square" (JW 6 § 3 1 1 ; m m in D a n 9:25); the prediction o f interna! strife as a sign of t h e e n d (JW 4 § 388; 6 §

109/Dan

1 1 : 3 0 / 3 2 ) . T h e p o p u l a r e x p e c t a t i o n of a world ruler from J u d e a "at that time," w h o m J o s e p h u s identifies as Vespasian (JW 6 § 3 1 2 ) , is likely b a s e d o n t h e prediction of a "coming prince" in D a n i e l 9:26, b e c a u s e this is t h e only scriptural passage that provides a d a t e d chronology. If B r u c e is right, then Daniel played a decisive role in J o s e p h u s ' thinking as he c o m p o s e d t h e War. I h o p e to s h o w that Bruce's conclu­ sion is correct, but not for t h e reasons that he gives. O t h e r s have n o t e d that his description of t h e t e m p l e calamities as "abominations" s k e w s t h e e v i d e n c e , since J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e u s e s Daniel's p5eXuYp.ot (Farris 1990: 96 n. 2 7 ) . 'I'hat unusual term w o u l d have drawn i m m e d i ­ a t e a t t e n t i o n t o D a n i e l ' s f a m o u s prophecy (cf. t h e g o s p e l s ' "let t h e reader understand"; Mark 13:14), if J o s e p h u s had s o i n t e n d e d . But h e d o e s not use a consistent term c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o Bruce's "abomina­ tions." M o r e o v e r , his sayings about t e m p l e catastrophes are part of a m u c h larger priestly-cultic t h e m e in t h e War that is not d e p e n d e n t o n D a n i e l ( L i n d n e r 1 9 7 2 : 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 4 2 - 4 3 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s gives n u m e r o u s c a u s e s o f t h e city's destruction; A n a n u s ' d e a t h is part o f a larger story o f rebel atrocities that, o n c e again, is not g r o u n d e d in D a n i e l . N e v e r ­ t h e l e s s , o u r analysis of t h e Antiquities

e n a b l e s us to s e e that s o m e

central t h e m e s o f the War probably d o derive from J o s e p h u s ' "Danielic" o u t l o o k . After considering these, w c shall return t o t h e "ora­ cles" discussed by Bruce.

180

STEiVE MASON

3.1 The Outlook of the War In k e e p i n g with t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of hellenistic historiography, J o s e p h u s u s e s t w o d e v i c e s t o c o n v e y his major t h e m e s to t h e reader; an e l a b o ­ rate p r e f a c e at t h e outset, f o l l o w e d by s p e e c h e s t h r o u g h o u t

the

narrative. T h r e e s p e e c h e s are definitive; those of Agrippa II {JW2

§§

3 4 5 - 4 0 4 ) , J o s e p h u s {JW5

§§ 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 ) , and the M a s a d a leader Hleazar

(JW 7 §§ 3 2 3 - 8 8 ) . F r o m t h e preface w e learn that J o s e p h u s writes against a back­ g r o u n d o f anti-Jewish s e n t i m e n t following the revolt (JW 1 §§ 1-2, 7 - 8 ) . A n u n a b a s h e d representative of the c o n q u e r e d nation, w h o had full access t o b o t h sides o f the conflict (JW 1 §§ 3, 12, 16), he will set t h e record straight (JW 1 §§ 3 , 6, 9 ) . His strategy is clear: h e w a n t s t o i s o l a t e entirely t h e rebel leaders as a handful of m u r d e r o u s xupavvot, w h o forced the unwilling

8T}(JIO(;

(JW

1 § 10-11) t o join t h e m . T h e

p e o p l e t h e m s e l v e s w e r e o n t h e side o f the R o m a n s all a l o n g , but t h e rebels' atrocities brought divine p u n i s h m e n t o n t h e w h o l e n a t i o n (JW 1 § 10). T h i s formulation achieves several things at o n c e : w h i l e trying to s a l v a g e t h e reputation of surviving Jews around t h e world, it still affirms t h e R o m a n right t o rule. Implied (and later s t a t e d ) is that Jewish tradition accepts foreign rule without demur; t h o s e w h o rebel are i n n o v a t o r s (JW 2 §§ 118, 414; M a s o n 1991: 285 n. 2 2 ) . Y e t Jo.sep h u s d o e s not adopt e i t h e r a R o m a n or a Flavian world v i e w ( Y a v e t z 1971: 4 1 1 - 4 3 2 ; Lindner 1972: 64; Rajak 1 9 8 3 : 1 8 5 - 2 2 2 ; Stern 1987). H e maintains t h r o u g h o u t that it is the Jewish G o d w h o u s e s t h e R o m a n s to p u n i s h his o w n p e o p l e (cf.

JW 6

§ 411). A s in t h e

Antiquities,

he

s e e k s t o find a place for Jews in t h e e m p i r e by portraying t h e m as g o o d citizens, w h o typically live in p e a c e and harmony with foreign rulers. T h e War's insistence that foreign rule is divinely o r d a i n e d , and t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of pacifism and o p p o s i t i o n to revolt, anticipate t h e

Antiquities, w h e r e

t h e s e t h e m e s are g r o u n d e d in Jeremiah and D a n i e l .

T h e t h r e e main s p e e c h e s further d e v e l o p t h e preface and also stress that n a t i o n s rise and fall under G o d ' s / F a t e ' s direction. A g r i p p a , for e x a m p l e , o b s e r v e s that "the purest and sincerest o f t h e STJJIOI; are d e t e r m i n e d to maintain peace" (JW 2 § 345); he d o e s not w a n t t h e g o o d to suffer for t h e bad decisions o f a few (fevtwv). T h e bulk o f his s p e e c h (JW 2 §§ 3 5 8 - 8 7 ) is a c a t a l o g u e of o n c e powerful n a t i o n s w h o n o w a c c e p t R o m a n rule. C h i e f a m o n g t h e s e are G r e e c e and M a c e d o n , w h o n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g their former glories n o w "submit t o e n d u r e such a reversal of F a t e and b o w before t h o s e to w h o m F o r t u n e has trans-

JOSF.PHUS, DANinU AND THR FLAVIAN HOUSE

181

ferrcd her favours" (JW 2 ^ 360; Thackeray, L C L ) . The mighty G a u l s t o o a c q u i e s c e b e f o r e t h e Fortune of R o m e , "which brings her m o r e triumphs e v e n than her arms" (JW 2 § 373). Josephus' characteristic u s e o f "Fate" and "Fortune" as e u p h e m i s m s for G o d ( M o o r e

1929)

is clear also here, for Agrippa concludes that divine collaboration, to w h i c h t h e r e b e l s l o o k for help, is o n the side of t h e R o m a n s : "without G o d ' s aid, s o vast an e m p i r e could never have b e e n built up" (JW 2 § 390; Thackeray, L C L ) . J o s e p h u s ' s p e e c h b e f o r e the walls of Jerusalem similarly reflects his a s s u m p t i o n s about t h e rise and fail of e m p i r e s and t h e obligation of pacifism. T h e tyrants k n o w that the power of the R o m a n s is irresist­ ible, y e t they obstinately persist in rebellion: "For F o r t u n e had p a s s e d o v e r (fiETapfjvai) around

to t h e m from everywhere, and G o d , who

the rule from one nation to another,

brings

was now over Italy" (JW 5

§ 3 6 7 ) . T h e Jews' ancestors w o u l d not have yielded t o t h e R o m a n s if they had not realized that "God was o n the R o m a n side" (JW 3 § 368; Thackeray, LCX). J o s e p h u s d o e s not view R o m a n h e g e m o n y as t h e goal and apex of h u m a n history; t h e R o m a n s are merely t h e current recipients o f Fate's pleasure. This presentation intersects neatly with that o f t h e Antiquities,

though the four-kingdom s c h e m e is not ad­

d u c e d . In b o t h works, J o s e p h u s asserts that t h e R o m a n regime, which is obviously irresistible, is part of G o d ' s established plan. H e r e t o o t h e corollary o f Jewish pacifism is pointed. J o s e p h u s provides a rhetorical lour de force,

s h o w i n g (a) that Jews have always c o n q u e r e d

their

e n e m i e s without resort t o arms (JW 5 §§ 3 7 9 - 8 9 ) and (b) that "if they fought t h e y w e r e invariably defeated" (JW 5 § 390; Thackeray, L ( X ) . Particularly interesting in Josephus' s p e e c h advocating pacifism is his r e f e r e n c e t o t h e persecution under A n t i o c h u s IV. T h e r e , if any­ w h e r e , J e w s c o u l d claim success in rebellion, and it s e e m s likely that t h e rebels o f J o s e p h u s ' day cited t h e M a c c a b e a n revolt as a p r e c e d e n t ( F a r m e r 1956). I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s himself has already praised

the

H a s m o n e a n s for their c o u r a g e o u s and just war (JW I §§ 3 4 - 6 9 ) . But n o t i c e h o w h e b e n d s t h e story to his current rhetorical

purpose.

W i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g the H a s m o n e a n s at all, he says. O r a g a i n , w h e n o u r a n c e s t o r s w e n t forth in a r m s against A n t i o c h u s ,

sur­

n a m e d E p i p h a n e s , w h o w a s b l o c k a d i n g this city and h a d grossly o u t r a g e d t h e Deity, t h e y w e r e cut to p i e c e s in the b a t t l e , t h e town w a s p l u n d e r e d by t h e e n e m y , a n d t h e s a n c t u a r y lay d e s o l a t e (^pr|[jtQ&T)) for t h r e e y e a r s a n d six m o n t h s ( y H ' 5 § 394).

182

STEVE MASON

ITiis passage at last breaks through t o the D a n i e l i c substratum o f J o s e p h u s ' o u t l o o k in t h e War, for only D a n i e l specifies t h e p e r i o d o f t h e t e m p l e ' s d e s o l a t i o n as three and a half years. This is o n e p o i n t o n which 1 M a c c a b e e s corrects t h e seer (1 Mace 1:54; 4:52). N o t only h a s J o s e p h u s a d o p t e d D a n i e l ' s date; h e has taken o v e r that work's r e p u d i ­ ation o f t h o s e w h o tried t o bring in G o d ' s k i n g d o m with force. It is left to t h e last rebel leader, Eleazar, to articulate J o s e p h u s ' o u t l o o k from t h e s i d e of t h e c o n q u e r e d . H e c o m e s to realize that h e has not b e e n fighting t h e R o m a n s , hated as they are, for: "by G o d himself, evidently, w e have b e e n deprived of h o p e for rescue" {JW 7 § 3 3 1 ) . T h e R o m a n s are merely instruments in G o d ' s hands; a "more powerful cause" has u s e d t h e m t o accomplish his o w n p u r p o s e s a n d punish transgression a m o n g t h e Jews {JWl § 3 6 0 ) . Kleazar's synthesis o f d e t e r m i n i s m ("God long a g o passed the verdict" — 7 § 359) and free will ( o u r "many unjust acts" — 7 § 332) is characteristic o f t h e War a n d , as w c h a v e s e e n , o f t h e Antiquities and D a n i e l itself. T h e War d o e s not claim that t h e R o m a n s have g o v e r n e d J u d e a well. J o s e p h u s freely recounts the governors' and soldiers' many c r i m e s . Still, h e asserts that, n o matter h o w unjustly they g o v e r n e d , t h e central p o w e r o f R o m e is currently ruling according to G o d ' s plan and m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e e n d u r e d {JW 2 § 352). All o f this — t h e rise and fall o f nations u n d e r G o d ' s supervision, pacifism, and disavowal o f r e b e l l i o n — recalls J o s e p h u s ' interpretation of Daniel in the Antiquities ( L i n d n e r 1972: 4 3 ) . It appears therefore that D a n i e l , a l o n g with J e r e m i a h , had profoundly influenced his o u t l o o k by t h e t i m e that he w r o t e t h e War.

3.2 Literary Allusions to Daniel If that is true, t h e n w e should expect to find further allusions t o D a n i e l t h r o u g h o u t t h e carefully crafted narrative. 'Ilie following are e n o u g h t o suggest that J o s e p h u s included t h e ancient s e e r in his reservoir of e x c m p l a . 3.2.1 In JW 2 §§ 1 1 1 - 1 3 , J o s e p h u s tells the story of A r c h e i a u s ' fall from power. H e includes an e p i s o d e in which t h e ethnarch, b e f o r e his r e m o v a l , d r e a m e d of nine ears of corn b e i n g e a t e n by o x e n . S o , "he sent for t h e soothsayers and s o m e o f t h e C h a l d e a n s and a s k e d w h a t t h e y t h o u g h t that it signified"

((jtcTaTccmpafiEvoc;

8e

TOUC; ( j i a v T E i c ;

xai

TWM XaXSai6)V Tiva^ inuv&aveTO, T I aT]fiaivEiv SoKorEv). W h e n their interpretations disagreed, an E s s e n e n a m e d S i m o n offered his inter-

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

183

pretatton, which was i m m e d i a t e l y verified. Thackeray directs t h e reader t o Pharaoh's d r e a m in G e n e s i s as a m o d e l for t h e story, presumably in v i e w o f t h e corn a n d o x e n (cf. G e n 41:2-4). W i t h o u t d e n y i n g that parallel, w e may n o t e that this p a s s a g e contains t h e only o c c u r r e n c e o f "Chaldean" in t h e War, and that it s e e m s peculiar ( t h o u g h not i m p o s s i b l e ) within t h e context o f A r c h e l a u s ' court. N o r w e r e there C h a l d e a n s in Pharaoh's court according t o either G e n e s i s o r the Antiquities. T h e o n l y o t h e r p a s s a g e in J o s e p h u s that has ( i a v T c t t ; a l o n g s i d e X a X S a r o i is his account o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s first d r e a m (Ant

10 §

195). H a v i n g forgotten his d r e a m , t h e Babylonian king "sent for the C h a l d e a n s a n d t h e M a g i and the soothsayers" {\IETCILK£{I^6L\I£WC. S E Tou<; XaXSaiouc; Kat TOUC; \ia.yo\iQ, xai TOUI; j i a v T e i c ) ; h e asked t h e m what t h e d r e a m w a s and "what was the significance" (xt TO oirmeiov). W h e n t h e y w e r e u n a b l e l o tell him, D a n i e l provided him with a c o m p e l l i n g interpretation (Ant 10 § 2 1 1 ) . T h e verbal and formal corre­ s p o n d e n c e is t o o striking to be coincidental. T h e Antiquities

d o not

m a t c h e i t h e r t h e O G o r T h e o d o t i o n - D a n i e l . W e are left with t h e u n e x p e c t e d possibility that J o s e p h u s already had t h e D a n i e l story of t h e Antiquities

in mind w h e n he portrayed A r c h e l a u s ' r e m o v a l in the

War. It may well b e , as J o s e p h u s suggests in a c o u p l e of places, that he h a d b e g u n t o write t h e Antiquities

b e f o r e h e w r o t e t h e War (Ant 1 §§

6-7; 2 0 § 2 5 9 ) . 3.2.2

W o r t h noting a l s o is J o s e p h u s ' charged u s e o f t h e term XfjoTfjc

( R e n g s t o r f 1973-83: 4. 2 5 8 ) Martin H e n g e l (1989: 24-46) has convinc­ ingly a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s uses Xt)^T?)(; (normally "robber" o r "pi­ rate") o f t h e Jewish rebels "to brand the Z e a l o t s as lawless rebels and criminals in t h e R o m a n sense." T h e unsavoury c o n n o t a t i o n s o f this w o r d p r e c l u d e any serious discussion of the rebels' religious motives; t h e y are merely out for personal gain (JW 1 § 2 5 6 ) . In view o f Jose­ p h u s ' strong e m p h a s i s o n t h e rebels' cultic impiety and violent b e h a ­ viour, it s e e m s plausible that his usage is further influenced by L X X Jer 7:11. A c c u s e d o f h e i n o u s transgressions by J e r e m i a h , t h e prophet's i n t e r l o c u t o r s say, "We h a v e refrained from practising all o f t h e s e a b o m i n a t i o n s " (pSeXuYfiaTa 7:10). Jeremiah r e s p o n d s o n b e h a l f of G o d , "Is m y h o u s e , w h e r e my n a m e is called u p o n , a d e n o f robbers (anr|Xaiov XyjaTuv) in y o u r view?" H e r e XTl^fTfic; is linked with much m o r e than robbery, a n d J o s e p h u s accuses t h e rebels o f t h e s a m e list o f c r i m e s (Jer 1:9 jJW 5 § 4 0 2 ) . S o this passage may b e an interpretive

184

STEVE MASON

key t o J o s e p h u s ' u s a g e o f X|]OTY|(;. But in L X X Jer 7:11,

"kfioriici

trans­

lates |*"''ia, which a l s o appears at D a n 11:14 t o describe t h e "violent o n e s " (y'TD

' ' 3 3 ) w h o try to force G o d ' s k i n g d o m w i t h o u t w a i t i n g for

t h e fulfilment o f t h e divine s c h e d u l e . A l t h o u g h t h e O G r e m o v e s all reference

to t h e s e p e r s o n s and T h e o d o t i o n

renders oi

utot TWV

Xot(X6>v, it s e e m s plausible that J o s e p h u s associated t h e s e t w o p o i n t e d u s e s of f i s , by his favourite prophets, w h e n he characterized t h e r e b e l s as XyioTai. T h e word association w o u l d h a v e b e e n facilitated by t h e proximity of p8eXuY(JIA. in Jer 7:10.^ 3.3 Oracles,

Dreams,

and the Prediction

to

Vespasian

O f g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e for understanding J o s e p h u s ' m o t i v e s is t h e e p i s o d e o f his surrender t o V e s p a s i a n , which lies very n e a r t h e c e n t r e o f t h e War. T h e fateful m o m e n t was triggered by J o s e p h u s ' s u d d e n ability t o interpret a series of nightly d r e a m s indicating that V e s p a s i a n would b e c o m e emperor. W e h a d b e s t begin not with t h e surrender story itself, but w i t h t h e m y s t e r i o u s o r a c l e m e n t i o n e d later. D e t a i l i n g t h e various o m e n s that God

provided

to warn the

p e o p l e of c o m i n g disaster,

Josephus

remarks: But what especially moved them to war was an ambiguous oracle (xpTiondt; 6t(iq)tpoXo(;), likewfise found in the sacred writings (£v TOFC; tepori; ypk\/L[ l a a i M ) , that at that time (jcotTot TOV x a i p o v fexcivov) someone from their region would come to rule the world. This man they understood to be one of their own (wi; oixeiov), and many of the wise (noXXoi TWV ootp£iv) were misled with respect to the interpretation ( n e p i Tii^ K p i o i v ) ; but actually the oracle indicated the rule of Vespasian, who was proclaimed a i i T o x p o t T o i p in Judea. . . . Of these signs, then, some they interpreted to please themselves (itpo^ TiSovYiv), some they disregarded, until with the capture of their homeland and their own ruin, they were convicted of their foolishness (JIV 6 §§312-315). D i d t h e o r a c l e c o m e from D a n i e l ? Bruce argued that J o s e p h u s must h a v e identified

V e s p a s i a n as t h e "coming prince" of D a n i e l

9:26

b e c a u s e only D a n i e l specifies a t i m e t a b l e such as J o s e p h u s a s s u m e s . T h e p r o b l e m with this theory is that t h e c o m i n g l e a d e r o f 9:26 M T is

' Hengel (1989) suggests that Josephus either took the derogatory word over from Nicolaus of Damascus (p. 41, "probable") or that it is his own contribution (p. 43, "possible").

JOSEPHUS, DANIEI, AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

185

evidently not favoured by G o d : his army "will destroy t h e city and t h e sanctuary and his ( o r its) e n d will b e in a flood". T h e O G d o e s away with t h e c o m i n g prince, and T h e o d o t i o n s e e m s t o have him d e s t r o y e d a l o n g with t h e city. In spite o f t h e s e difficulties, Bruce's proposal that J o s e p h u s f o u n d t h e oracle s o m e w h e r e in Daniel s e e m s likely. Jose­ p h u s ' remark that "many o f the wise" were d e l u d e d in their interpre­ tation o f it (JW 6 § 31.3) is noteworthy, since J o s e p h u s d o e s not e l s e w h e r e u s e ol ootpot in this absolute way, except in his paraphrase o f D a n i e l {Ant 10 § 198). W e have s e e n that this is a significant term in D a n i e l itself a n d , m o r e o v e r , that s o m e o f t h e wise in D a n i e l a l s o g o astray by b e c o m i n g involved in war ( D a n 1 1 : 3 3 - 3 5 ) . W h e n w e c o m b i n e this c l u e with t h e observation that, for J o s e p h u s , D a n i e l is t h e p r o p h e t w h o specified t h e xatpov o f future e v e n t s {Ant 10 § 2 6 7 ) w e h a v e g o o d r e a s o n for agreeing that this book was Josephus' most likely source. T a k i n g into account t h e problems with Bruce's proposal, R o g e r Beckwith ( 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 1 : 532-535) has revived an older suggestion that J o s e p h u s identified V e s p a s i a n as t h e "son o f man" figure o f D a n 7:13. This figure d o e s c o m e from t h e a m o n g t h e Jews a n d is given world d o m i n i o n — forever (7:14). But t h e eternal character o f t h e rule is a p r o b l e m : everything w e have s e e n s o far, in the Antiquities a n d t h e War, indicates that J o s e p h u s did not s e e R o m a n rule as eternal. N e v e r t h e l e s s , D a n i e l 7 offers o t h e r interesting possibilities. K n o w i n g h o w J o s e p h u s will interpret the four-kingdom s c h e m e o f D a n i e l 2 , w e h a v e strong clues about h o w h e must have read t h e beast vision o f chapter 7: Four mighty beasts different from each other emerged from the sea. (7) After that, as I looked on in the night vision, there was a fourth beast — fearsome, dreadful, powerful, with great iron teeth — that devoured and crushed, and stamped the remains with its feet. It was different from all the other beasts which had gone before it; and it had ten horns. (8) While I was gazing upon these horns, a new little horn sprouted up among them; three of the older horns were uprooted to make room for it. 'ITiere were eyes in this horn like those of a man, and a mouth that spoke arrogantly. (Oan 7:3-8; J P S ) W h e n J o s e p h u s read this vision after 70, it must have i m p r e s s e d h i m as a prediction o f his o w n time. H e would have s e e n t h e fourth beast as t h e R o m a n e m p i r e , as h e had t h e fourth beast o f D a n i e l 2. Indeed, conflation o f t h e t w o visions probably explains his claim that t h e fourth beast o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s dream was m a d e solely o f iron. N o w

186

STEVE MASON

in D a n i e l 7, t h e fourth beast has t e n horns. A n d w e k n o w that at least o n e p o p u l a r way o f counting e m p e r o r s in J o s e p h u s ' day w a s from t h e first dictator, Julius Caesar. ( S u e t o n i u s , Lives of the Twelve

Caesars;

Sib. Or. 5 . 1 2 - 1 5 ; R e v 13:1). T h e author of 4 Ezra 1 1 - 1 2 u s e s just such a s c h e m e t o reinterpret this vision — counting twelve

emperors to

D o m i t i a n . In this scenario, t h e tenth h o r n / e m p e r o r is V e s p a s i a n . T h e t h r e e h o r n s that w e r e "uprooted t o m a k e r o o m for" t h e t e n t h c o u l d o n l y b e G a l b a , O t h o , and Vitellius. T h e n w h o w o u l d b e t h e "little horn" that sprang u p in addition, before w h o m t h e three fell? O b v i o u s c a n d i d a t e s are Titus, w h o was s o m e h o w involved in t h e short reign o f G a l b a a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y ruled alongside his father, and D o m i t i a n , w h o w a s in R o m e t h r o u g h o u t the year o f the four e m p e r o r s and g o v e r n e d until his father's arrival; he w o u l d later be r e m e m b e r e d for r e m a r k a b l e a r r o g a n c e during his father's reign (Suetonius, Domitian

1-2; C a s s i u s

D i o 6 5 . 2 . 3 . 9.3-5). It is hard t o i m a g i n e h o w a Jew living after 7 0 c o u l d h a v e read this p r o p h e c y and not identified V e s p a s i a n as t h e t e n t h horn o f t h e vision. Still, t h e t e n t h horn is not a world ruler from J u d e a , and J o s e p h u s c a n n o t fairly h a v e criticized his compatriots for failing t o s e e that V e s p a s i a n w a s t h e p r o m i s e d ruler "from their region." P e r h a p s , as s o m e h a v e s u g g e s t e d , h e w a s conflating a "messianic" p r o p h e c y like N u m 24:17 with D a n i e l — "a sceptre c o m e s forth from Israel; it s m a s h e s t h e b o w o f Moab." M o r e likely, however, J o s e p h u s is e n g a g ­ ing o n c e again in rhetorical sleight of hand. In t h e p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e h e c a s t i g a t e s t h e rebels for having m a d e t h e t e m p l e "a square" by d e s t r o y i n g t h e fortress A n t o n i a , e v e n though their scriptures

had

d e c l a r e d that t h e city w o u l d b e taken w h e n it b e c a m e s q u a r e ! W h e r ­ e v e r J o s e p h u s got this from, he is making an ad hoc interpretation; o f c o u r s e t h e rebels had heard of n o such oracle. Similarly in o u r p a s s a g e , h e w a n t s t o d e m o n s t r a t e the impiety of t h e rebels by c l a i m i n g that t h e y failed to understand Jewish scripture hself. A g a i n , h e d o e s not e x p e c t his R o m a n readers to look up t h e scripture. If D a n i e l 7:3-8 w a s w h e r e J o s e p h u s found Vespasian's reign predict­ e d , t h e n presumably h e also had this passage in mind w h e n h e w r o t e t h e s u r r e n d e r story. W h i l e h e w a s trying t o surrender w i t h o u t facing t h e wrath of his c o m p a n i o n s : suddenly there came back into his mind those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sovereigns. He was an interpreter of dreams (^v iztpi Kptoci.; dveipuv

JOSFPHUS, DANIEL, AND THE FLAVIAN HOUSE

187

[Kav6<;) and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances (TOC &|jt
found

in

"sacred writings" concerning

the

Roman

leader(s).

C o n n e c t i o n s with D a n i e l are equally clear: a Jewish interpreter of d r e a m s p r e p a r e s t o s p e a k t o a foreign world leader about his fate, and t h e r e v e l a t i o n c o m e s in t w o phases — initial mystery and s u b s e q u e n t interpretation. W i t h a play o n iepeijc/iepoc, J o s e p h u s characteristically claims s p e c i a l c o m p e t e n c e to interpret the sacred texts (cf. AgAp

1 §

54). W e d o n o t learn t h e c o n t e n t of Josephus' revelation until h e has s u r r e n d e r e d and is about t o b e sent by V e s p a s i a n t o N e r o . H e objects and, having b e e n granted an a u d i e n c e with the general, remarks: To Nero do you send me? Why, then? Will those who succeed Nero before you endure? You are Caesar, Vespasian, and aiTOKpotxtop, you and this son of yours . . . . You are master not only of me, Caesar, but of earth and sea and of the whole human race. (JWi §§ 401-402) T h e r e is n o t h i n g in t h e substance of this prediction that c o u l d n o t have c o m e from reflection o n D a n i e l 7, once Josephus

knew that V e s p a s i a n

w a s t h e t e n t h "Caesar" and s o could identify him as t h e tenth horn — t h o u g h h e is m o r e s a n g u i n e than D a n i e l about t h e fate o f t h e fourth beast! That t o o m a y b e attributed t o political and rhetorical constraint. W e are left with t h e o l d historical question: w h e n did J o s e p h u s k n o w that V e s p a s i a n w o u l d a c c e d e t o imperial p o w e r — b e f o r e or after t h e e v e n t ? In s u p p o r t o f his predictive ability, s o m e have n o t e d the f a m e that f o l l o w e d him o n its account (van U n n i k 1978: 42; Lindner 1972: (infra),

7 1 ) . H i s claim t o prognosis was probably known by Tacitus and w a s cited by S u e t o n i u s (Vespasian

5.6.4) and Cassius D i o

( 6 5 . 4 ) . Further, J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e s to regard himself as a s e e r , which might b e best e x p l a i n e d by t h e p r e m i s e that o n e important prediction h a d b e e n realized. If he did predict the future, w e must reckon with g o o d luck, intuition, or divine inspiration. But t h e prediction can b e m o r e easily explained. First, if t h e R o m a n historians t o o k their information ultimately from J o s e p h u s himself, t h e n t h e a r g u m e n t from multiple attestation (van U n n i k 1978: 42)

188

STEVIi MASON

s h o u l d b e retired.' S p a c e d o e s not permit a full d e f e n c e o f this u n f a s h i o n a b l e v i e w (Lindner 1972: 71-72; Rajak 1983: 193 n. 18; but W h i s t o n 1987 [1737]: 827 [dissertation 3]) here, but Tacitus reads like a precis o f J o s e p h u s . T h e Jewish historian offers a series o f six p r o d i ­ gies, f o l l o w e d by t h e story o f Jesus son of A n a n i a s , f o l l o w e d by t w o oracles. Tacitus, in his m u c h briefer version, m e n t i o n s four o f t h e prodigies and t h e o r a c l e that w e are discussing. T h u s : / H ' 6 §§ 288-300

Tacitus Histories 5.13

Comet over the city for one year. Midnight light at Passover. Cow gives birth to lamb. Temple gates open spontaneously. Armies with chariots fight in the sky. 6. Voice in temple "as of a host: 'We are departing hence'".

"Contending armies were seen in the sky, arms flashed (5), and suddenly the temple was illumined with fire from the clouds (2). Of a sudden the doors of the shrine opened (4) and a superhuman voice cried: 'The gods are departing': at the same moment the mighty stir of their going was heard" (6).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

C o m p a r e also Tacitus' remarks o n the oracle with t h o s e o f J o s e p h u s : Few interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings {anliquis sacerdotum Utteris) contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the Bast should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world, lliis mysterious prophecy {Quae ambages... praedixerat) had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titu,s, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity {ibid.. Id). N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g Tacitus' adjustment o f the oracle t o include Titus, his p r e s e n t a t i o n is s o similar to Josephus' — the d e l u d e d c o m m o n p e o p l e ; the

ancient

priestly/sacred

writings; "at that

time";

"ambiguous"

o r a c l e ; t h e real m e a n i n g of t h e oracle; interpreting for o n e ' s "plea­ sure" [strong w o r d in b o t h cases] — that s o m e sort o f d e p e n d e n c e is indicated. Since Tacitus wrote in the generation following J o s e p h u s , t h e s i m p l e s t e x p l a n a t i o n is that he had s o m e k n o w l e d g e o f J o s e p h u s ' writings.

T o b e sure, Tacitus' antagonistic account o f Jewish history

' Rajak (1983) distinguishes between the story of the prediction, which the Roman historians did not get from Josephus (191), and the oracles and prodigies, which they did get from Josephus (193 and n. 18). I find the distinction implausi­ ble.

JOSEiPHUS,

DANIEL, A N D T H E

189

FIAVL^LN H O U S E

s h o w s n o e v i d e n c e o f his k n o w l e d g e of J o s e p h u s . But it was t h e practice of hellenistic historians to rework their sources: critics have l o n g b e l i e v e d that J o s e p h u s himself used n o n - and e v e n anti-Jewish s o u r c e s ( H o l s c h e r 1916). Tacitus could borrow J o s e p h u s ' prodigy list w i t h o u t a c c e p t i n g his interpretation of history. Perhaps 'Tacitus e v e n l e a v e s a c l u e about t h e origin o f his material w h e n he remarks that "the c o m m o n p e o p l e " (vulgus)

interpreted the oracle in their favour.

T h i s qualification implies that he knew of a n o t h e r a m o n g t h e nobility — t h e few (pauci). J o s e p h u s was, as S u e t o n i u s did (Vespasian

interpretation

H e must have k n o w n w h o 5.6.4), since R o m a n aristo­

cratic circles w e r e not large. We c o n c l u d e that 'Tacitus k n e w J o s e p h u s ' work but did not buy t h e Jewish historian's attempt t o isolate the rebels. S u e t o n i u s ' account, in turn, was likely taken from 'Tacitus. S e c o n d , t h e c o n d i t i o n s for t h e fabrication and spread of such a prediction w e r e all in p l a c e . Vespasian was not of n o b l e birth and had n o natural link to t h e Julio-Claudian h o u s e . O n his accession

he

p r o c e e d e d t o e n g a g e in projects that look like efforts at legitimization with t h e aristocracy ( S u e t o n i u s Vespasian

1.1; 9.1). A c a t a l o g u e o f

favourable o m e n s w a s an indispensable condition of legitimacy. I n t o this situation c a m e Josephus, w h o had b e e n

a

reluctant

c o m b a t a n t all a l o n g b e c a u s e he and his circles e s p o u s e d a "Danielle" v i e w of foreign rule. O n c e Vespasian had b e e n a c c l a i m e d by his l e g i o n a r i e s , J o s e p h u s s a w him as t h e tenth horn of D a n i e l 7 ( w h o f o l l o w e d t h e rapid d i s p l a c e m e n t of three others) and was e a g e r to tell him that his sovereignty was foreseen in Jewish scripture. O n c e this g e m had b e e n shared, it was in everyone's interest to a n t e d a t e and publicize it. J o s e p h u s c o u l d use it as much n e e d e d justification of his surrender. V e s p a s i a n c o u l d use t h e testimony of this Rastern n o b l e m a n as rare and exotic p r o o f of his legitimacy. Since J o s e p h u s had b e e n V e s p a s i a n ' s prisoner for t w o years before the latter's accession, few o t h e r s w o u l d h a v e b e e n in a position to d a t e the p r o p h e c y exactly. Interestingly, e v e n J o s e p h u s d o e s not claim that he told V e s p a s i a n a b o u t t h e prediction i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n surrender; it was only Titus' f o n d n e s s for him that s a v e d his life during his early i m p r i s o n m e n t ( 3 § 397)1 P e r h a p s J o s e p h u s had impressed his captors from t h e first with t h e g e n e r a l claim that Rome's

rule was foreseen in D a n i e l as t h e

fourth k i n g d o m , and then later he was able t o "clarify" V e s p a s i a n ' s role.

190

STEVE MASON

A l t h o u g h w e c a n n o t take Josephus' account o f this controversial p e r i o d in his life at face value, and w e must m a k e d u e a l l o w a n c e for a p o l o g e t i c and rhetorical artifice, it s e e m s m o r e likely than not that h e had D a n i e l in m i n d w h e n he c o m p o s e d t h e s e s e c t i o n s o f t h e

War.

D a n i e l i c t h e m e s of the rise and fall of nations u n d e r divine supervi­ s i o n , Jewish pacifism, and o p p o s i t i o n to rebellion run d e e p t h r o u g h o u t his earliest work. It s e e m s , therefore, that this o u t l o o k sprang from his youth and education. 4. Summary By t h e t i m e h e w r o t e t h e

and

Antiquities,

Conclusion near the e n d o f D o m i t i a n ' s reign,

J o s e p h u s had d e c i d e d to use D a n i e l as a basis for his interpretation o f world history. H e wished t o s h o w that Jews held t h e rise and fall o f k i n g d o m s to b e u n d e r G o d ' s providence, and that t h e secrets o f t h e future w e r e already revealed in Jewish scripture, with t h e c o n s e q u e n c e that J e w s a c c e p t e d g e n t i l e rule and disavowed rebellion. H e e v e n s a w himself as a latter-day D a n i e l , e n s c o n c e d in t h e c o u r t s of foreign p o w e r a n d advising p o t e n t a t e s while faithfully maintaining his native traditions. A l t h o u g h D a n i e l is not m e n t i o n e d in t h e War, h s e e m s that J o s e ­ p h u s had already t h o u g h t much about t h e ancient s e e r by t h e m i d s e v e n t i e s . F o r t h e subordinate t h e m e s of

the Antiquities, which

explicit­

ly link t h e m t o D a n i e l , are a m o n g the d o m i n a n t t h e m e s o f t h e War: world e m p i r e s c o m e and g o ; G o d currently supports t h e R o m a n s and u s e s their p o w e r to punish t h e Jewish nation for transgression; a c c e p ­ t a n c e o f foreign rule is t h e traditional Jewish p o s i t i o n ; and r e b e l s are unfaithful

to t h e tradition. Anticipating t h e

Antiquities,

Josephus

a p p e a r s in Ihe War as a Jewish n o b l e m a n and interpreter o f d r e a m s in t h e court o f t h e foreign king. H e d o e s not c o n s i d e r R o m a n p o w e r e t e r n a l . H e s e e m s t o h a v e D a n 7:3-8 in m i n d w h e n h e "predicts" V e s p a s i a n ' s rise t o p o w e r . Identifying this consistent matrbt o f thought d o e s not require us t o force all o f J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e m e n t s into a systematic w h o l e . W e c a n still m a k e d u e a l l o w a n c e for his rhetorical exhibition. W e m a y n o w fill o u t o u r picture of D a n i e l ' s influence in t h e s e c o n d t e m p l e p e r i o d . T h e b o o k had a w i d e readership a m o n g all sorts o f g r o u p s . S o m e w e r e mainly interested in its e x e m p l a r y stories; o t h e r s r e j u v e n a t e d its apocalyptic h o p e for their o w n day; still o t h e r s trans-

JOSEPHUS, DANIEL, A N D T H E F L A V I A N H O U S E

191

p o s e d its quietistic p r o g r a m m e into an agenda for military action against foreign o p p r e s s o r s . J o s e p h u s shows us yet a n o t h e r interpreta­ tion. H e borrows D a n i e l ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e rise and fall o f nations, and a l s o its pacifism, but jettisons any h o p e of i m m i n e n t salvation. If w e can m a k e t h e minimal assumption that J o s e p h u s ' views w e r e not idiosyncratic, then w e h a v e discovered an appropriation o f D a n i e l that w a s favoured by a certain sector o f t h e priestly aristocracy.

PART

HISTORY

AND

IV

TOPOGRAPHY

JERUSALEM, THE AKRA, AND JOSEPHUS Joseph Sievers One of the most vexing problems in the history of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period is that of the so-called Seleucid Akra. General­ ly, in recent studies the Akra's presence is acknowledged whenever 1 Maccabees makes reference to it, but in between these moments, its existence seems to be almost forgotten. It was Morton Smith who first drew my attention to this deficiency. Thus it is with a special sense of gratitude that I dedicate this essay on the history of the Akra to his memory. L TJie Long-Term Influence of the Akra During much of the second century BCE Jerusalem was controlled or influenced by the so-called Akra. The Seleucid takeover in 200 consisted in driving the Egyptian garrison out of the otitpa {Ant 12 §§ 133,138). Menelaus was able to weather Jason's attack (probably in 168 BCE) by taking refuge in the dtxponoXtc (2 Mace 5:5). In 168 or 167 BCE Apollonius established what is commonly referred to as the Seleucid Akra. From then until 164, intermittently until 161, and from 161 to 152 the Akra was in control of all of Jerusalem (Sievers 1990: 62-63). After 152, it continued to exist for another eleven years while at the same time the Hasmonean high priests Jonathan and Simon held political, military, and religious leadership functions in Jerusalem. Apparently only shortly before Jonathan's demise was the Akra seriously attacked and cut off from communication with the rest of the city and the countryside (1 Mace \2:36;Ant 13 § 182). Several prior attempts to besiege it had failed because of intervention or threat of intervention by the Seleucid government (1 Mace 6:18-21; \\:20; Ant 12 §§ 362-65; 13 § 121). Even after its fall in 141 BCE, Antiochus VII demanded compensation for it (1 Mace 15:28-31), and may eventually have received it (cf. Ant 13 § 247). The Akra should therefore not be seen as an occasional nuisance, but as a constant feature to be reckoned with in the history of Jerusa­ lem in the second century.

196

JOSEPH SIEVERS 2. Location

Is Not

Everytliing

In t h e first article of t h e first issue of the Revue

Biblique,

over o n e

h u n d r e d years a g o , I ^ g r a n g e dealt with t h e topography o f J e r u s a l e m . In his discussion o f Josephus* description o f t h e city he r e m a r k e d that "Toute la difficult6 est d e trouver la collinc basse et c o u r b c qui portait I'Acra o u viUe basse" (1892: 2 2 ) . O n an a c c o m p a n y i n g m a p h e indicat­ e d with a q u e s t i o n mark t h e two possible locations of t h e Akra; o n e t o t h e northwest, t h e other to t h e s o u t h e a s t o f t h e t e m p l e area ( 1 8 9 2 : 19). B e f o r e then and since then much ink has b e e n spilled o n t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e S e l e u c i d Akra. N u m e r o u s a t t e m p t s have b e e n m a d e t o p i n p o i n t t h e l o c a t i o n o f such a .structure. Tsafrir ( 1 9 7 5 : 5 0 4 ) lists just nine a m o n g t h e m a n y suggested locations, to t h e north, west, and s o u t h o f t h e T e m p l e . A t present, a location i m m e d i a t e l y s o u t h of t h e T e m p l e a r e a s e e m s t o b e preferred (Tsafrir 1 9 7 5 . 1 9 8 0 ; B e n - D o v 1980; Schwartz 1985; W i g h t m a n 1989-90), although o t h e r p r o p o s a l s h a v e not b e e n a b a n d o n e d (Luria 1981; D e q u e k e r 1985; D e c o s t e r 1989; BarK o c h v a 1989: 4 6 0 - 6 2 ; Strange 1991). It appears unlikely that t h e q u e s t i o n c a n definitively b e settled o n archaeological or topographical g r o u n d s . O n e r e a s o n for this is t h e fact that it is not e v e n clear h o w o n e w o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h e site of t h e Akra if o n e f o u n d it: s h o u l d o n e c o n s i d e r H e l l e n i s t i c fortification walls, R h o d i a n w i n e jars, or traces o f e x t e n s i v e levelling activity as referred to by J o s e p h u s , t h e best e v i d e n c e for t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e Akra? Over o n e t h o u s a n d s t a m p e d h a n d l e s o f mostly R h o d i a n a m p h o r a e have b e e n found in excavations o n t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n hill o f Jerusalem, c o m p a r e d with only several

dozen

s p e c i m e n s from o t h e r areas o f t h e city. T h e vast majority o f t h e d a t a b l e s t a m p s c o m e from t h e years 2 6 0 - 1 5 0 B C E , and have b e e n taken

as indication that a non-Jewish or at least

non-observant

p o p u l a t i o n such as that of t h e Akra used t h e s e jars ( D e q u e k e r 1985: 2 1 0 ) . Y e t t h e archaeologist w h o published t h e s e items (Ariel 1990: 18-28) s u g g e s t s e x t r e m e caution in drawing c o n c l u s i o n s about the i m m e d i a t e p r o v e n a n c e and contents o f t h e a m p h o r a e . F o r t h e s e reasons I will not address t h e q u e s t i o n s of t h e location o f t h e A k r a and w h e t h e r t h e P t o l e m a i c akra S e l e u c i d akropolis

o f J o s e p h u s , t h e early

( 2 M a c e 4:12, 28; 5:5) and t h e later A k r a o c c u p i e d

t h e s a m e location. Instead, I w o u l d like to c o n c e n t r a t e a t t e n t i o n o n t h e p r o b l e m s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n and functions o f t h e Akra, which u p

JERUSALFM, THE AKRA. AND JOSEPHUS

197

t o n o w h a v e b e e n discussed by only a few scholars ( B i c k e r m a n 1937; 71-89; Bar-Kochva 1989: 438-444; 1973: 32-47; D c q u e k e r 1985: 196-7). In order t o a d v a n c e t h e study of this point, a closer look at c o m p a r a ­ tive material from different areas of the hellenistic world might b e helpful. It w a s normal for a hellenistic city to have a fortified citadel, called

akra or akropolis, at

or near the highest point of its walled area. T h e

available e v i d e n c e suggests that Seleucid citadels w e r e usually built at t h e e d g e of town, s o that there w o u l d b e direct access t o and from the countryside (Grainger 1990: 86-87; m a p s 6 A - F ) . This general pattern is best e x p l a i n e d by positing that such citadels w e r e m e a n t t o control as well as t o d e f e n d t h e city (Grainger 1990: 6 2 ) . In t h e hellenistic age citadels w e r e regularly o c c u p i e d by foreign troops ( I ^ u n e y 1949-50: 2 . 6 3 3 - 3 4 ) . S u c h w a s t h e case in Jerusalem at t h e t i m e o f t h e Fifth Syrian W a r ( 2 0 0 B C E ) , w h e n A n t i o c h u s III c o n q u e r e d t h e city and e x p e l l e d t h e P t o l e m a i c garrison from t h e local p o p u l a t i o n

{Ant

akra with

the h e l p o f t h e

12 §§ 133,138). Apparently this

akra

w a s not

entirely d e s t r o y e d during t h e war and was taken over by t h e Seleucid administration. In fact, 2 Mace 4:28 m e n t i o n s a certain Sostratos, w h o in 172 B C H as c o m m a n d e r o f the

akropolis {xr\c,

&,xpo7t6>e6)<; ^ n a p / o u )

had responsibilities c o n n e c t e d with the collection of r e v e n u e . T h e m e a n i n g o f T U V StaYoptov here is not entirely clear. It may signify "cash," "interest," or "arrears." In any event, b o t h M e n e l a u s

and

Sostratos w e r e s u m m o n e d by the central administration for n o n ­ p a y m e n t , viz. n o n - c o l l e c t i o n of revenue. W h e n necessary, t h e citadel served of c o u r s e as a d e f e n s i v e struc­ ture, as in t h e c a s e of M e n e l a u s w h o took refuge in t h e

akropolis

during Jason's a t t e m p t e d comeback.' But it should also b e s e e n in its fiscal and e c o n o m i c function and not only as a military installation. W i t h t h e c o m i n g o f A p o l l o n i u s in 168 or 167 B C E b e g i n s what is c o m m o n l y referred t o as t h e Seleucid Akra. T h e account in 1 Mace 1:33 is o f t e n t a k e n t o m e a n that an entirely n e w building c o m p l e x w a s c r e a t e d . 'ITie verse xai ^xo56p.T]oav TTJV noXtv A a u t S

Kai 6x^PV. itupyoK;

built t h e

d/upoii;,

xai

feyevETo

TEt/Et

[AEyaXtp

oSixoic, sXc. aKpav ("and they

City o f D a v i d with a great and strong wall, with strong towers,

' 2 M a c e 5:5. Fortresses were often designed to a c c o m m o d a t e (part of) the local civilian p o p u l a t i o n in times of danger. S e e Welles 1934: no. 11.22-25; cf. Briant 1982: 193.

198

JOSEPH SIEVERS

a n d it b e c a m e for t h e m a citadel") presents several p r o b l e m s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . A literal translation is unrealistic, b e c a u s e t h e City o f D a v i d b y definition existed b e f o r e h a n d . T h e r e f o r e G o l d s t e i n a n d t h e N R S V translate 4>xo56[iir]oav as "they fortified." H e r e a n d e l s e w h e r e in 1 M a c c a b e e s t h e Akra is p r e s e n t e d as c o e x t e n s i v e with t h e City o f D a v i d , o r at least t h e inhabitants o f t h e Akra control t h e e n t i r e City o f D a v i d (cf. 1 M a c e 7:32; 14:36). What was t h e n t h e relation o f t h e A k r a t o t h e City o f D a v i d ? W a s t h e Akra only a citadel o r w a s it a city quarter with a civilian p o p u l a t i o n In addition t o a garrison?

3.

Ihe Occupants of the Akra in I Maccabees and the

Antiquities

In 1 M a c e 1:34 t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e Akra a r e n o t identified as a garrison o f soldiers, but only as S9-WQ 6TN(xpTwX6v, otvSpac; 7coLpav6(iou(; ("a sinful p e o p l e , lawless men").^ T h e adjectives a r e rough transla­ t i o n s o f H e b r e w terms such as J?tl?T a n d

bs'h^.

Especially t h e latter

e x p r e s s i o n is frequently used in t h e L X X in g e n e r a l a n d in 1 M a c c a ­ b e e s in particular t o d e s i g n a t e Jewish adversaries.^ A s h a s b e e n n o t e d by G r i m m ( 1 8 5 3 : 2 3 ) , however, grammatically avSpou; T t a p a v o ^ i o u c ; c a n h e r e o n l y b e read in apposition t o or, as h e puts it, as "rhetorische V a r i a t i o n " o f e&vo*; &[i(xpTuX6v, which is generally u n d e r s t o o d a s a r e f e r e n c e t o n o n - J e w s (pace G o l d s t e i n 1976: 124). Similarly, in t h e W a r Scroll o f Q u m r a n e v e n t h e Kittim, just as o t h e r "sons o f dark­ ness," b e l o n g t o t h e "army o f Beli'al."'* Therefore

it c a n n o t b e p r e s u m e d

that t h e e x p r e s s i o n

avSpat;

notpav6(iouc refers exclusively t o transgressors o f t h e T o r a h a n d that t h e a n c i e n t r e a d e r o r hearer w o u l d have clearly u n d e r s t o o d

that

J e w i s h r e n e g a d e s w e r e i n t e n d e d . Instead, t h e a u t h o r o f 1 M a c c a b e e s e m p h a s i z e s t h e foreign character o f t h e Akra's o c c u p a n t s in a p o e t i c l a m e n t , p e r h a p s c o m p o s e d by himself (1 M a c e 3:45): Jerusalem wa.s uninhabited like a wilderness, not one of her children went in or out. l l i e sanctuary wa.s trampled down, and aliens held the citadel, (itai uEoi iXXoYevtiv £v x f j & x p q L ) ; it was a lodging place for the Gentiles, ( x a x a ^u[ia i:oX<;, e S v e o i ) (trans. M. Callaway, NRSV).

' Codex Sinaiticus has n a p a v o u < ; , perhaps a simple scribal error, perhaps an indication of a perceived difficulty. ' 1 Mace 1:11 (variant readings!); 10:61 (variant readings!); 11:21; cf. Deut 13:14 (13); 2 Chr 13:7. Cf. Sievers 1990: 18 n. 71. ' IQM 1.1-2; 15.2-3; 18.1-2. Whether the term Kittim here refers to the Romans or to other enemies is immaterial. They certainly are Gentiles.

JERUSALEM, THE AKRA, A N D JOSEPHUS

199

Jewish s u p p o r t e r s o f t h e Akra are criticized at 1 M a c e 6:21 and 11:21, but they are clearly distinguished from the p e o p l e in t h e A k r a . A l s o , t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e Akra are contrasted with t h e avSpac; 'Iou8atou(; w h o r e p l a c e d t h e m after Simon's c o n q u e s t (1 M a c e 14:37). N e v e r t h e ­ less, e v e n 1 M a c e 4:2 offers strong indications o f Jewish inhabitants of t h e Akra. A c c o r d i n g t o this passage, "the s o n s of t h e Akra" w e r e c h o s e n t o s e r v e G o r g i a s as g u i d e s in t h e countryside. T h u s they were well a c q u a i n t e d with t h e area, m o r e than a recently installed garrison w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to b e . 1 M a c c a b e e s c o m e s closest p e r h a p s to a c k n o w l e d g i n g that t h e Akra included Jews w h e n it a c c u s e s "those from t h e Akra" o f providing "support to t h e Gentiles" (6:18). Even this s t a t e m e n t , h o w e v e r , is a m b i g u o u s since in the s a m e s e n t e n c e the p e o p l e o f t h e A k r a are set in o p p o s i t i o n to "Israel." T h u s it appears that 1 M a c c a b e e s is reticent about the p r e s e n c e o f Jews in t h e Akra. A very different i m p r e s s i o n is c o n v e y e d by J o s e p h u s . In t h e War he refers only t w i c e to t h e Seleucid Akra, and each t i m e in the context o f military o p e r a t i o n s . ' In the Antiquilies

instead he m e n t i o n s

it o n

n u m e r o u s o c c a s i o n s , generally following the o u t l i n e o f 1 M a c c a b e e s . H e e m p h a s i z e s q u i t e consistently, h o w e v e r , that not only a foreign garrison lived in t h e Akra. T i m e and again he adds that it h a d Jewish inhabitants as well, as is evident from t h e synopsis b e l o w . In a d d i t i o n

to a "Macedonian"'' garrison, as J o s e p h u s calls it,

"there r e m a i n e d n o n t h e l e s s in the Akra the i m p i o u s o f the p e o p l e and t h o s e o f evil character" {Ant

12 § 2 5 2 ) . O n a b o u t ten o c c a s i o n s he

m a k e s specific reference to Jewish residents of t h e Akra. T h e y are always referred t o in unflattering terms, the two most c o m m o n being tpuYctBec ("fugitives," o r "exiles," or "deserters" o r "renegades") and 6La£^tic, ("ungodly"). S o m e t i m e s the e m p h a s i s on their p r e s e n c e may e v e n b e r e s p o n s i b l e for grammatical or logical i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s in J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t . ' Clearly he is not only rendering explicit what is

' / W 1 §§ 39, 50. AtJW5§ 139, in the famous description of Jerusalem, there is a reference to the levelling o f the Akra Hill by the Hasmoneans (without closer identification). ' Bar-Kochva (1989; 506) emphasizes that in hellenistic Jewish literature this term frequently refers to the Seleucid army in general. ' Ant 12 § 362 states that the garrison and the Jewish renegades did much harm to the Jews (oi tf] &xpc»i TUV 'lepoooXuiiuv qjpoupoi Kat (pxiyaZ^i^ TWV 'louSaiwv TcoXXa T o u i ; 'louSatouc; EipyotoavTo). This reminds one of statements like John 9:22 where Jews are afraid of "the Jews." Ant 13 § 133 expands 1 Mace 11:41, but leaves the location of the renegades grammatically unclear.

200

JOSEPH SIEVERS

implicit in 1 M a c c a b e e s , but adds to and corrects liis s o u r c e , a n d this with extraordinary consistency. I n d e e d in n o o t h e r c a s e h e s e e m s e q u a l l y c o n s i s t e n t in adding factual information t o 1 M a c c a b e e s . T h i s b e c o m e s particularly evident in a synoptic p r e s e n t a t i o n as t h e o n e b e l o w . J o s e p h u s ' additions and deliberate c h a n g e s that e m p h a s i z e a Jewish p r e s e n c e in the AJcra are highlighted. 1 Mace 1:34 Kcti

Ant

^ f t T j K a v ixei e^voc;

4:2 Kai o i u i o i T^C; &>tpa<; ^ootv a u T ^ 6:18 Kat oi I k r^t; &)cpot<; ^oav

tjuyxXeiovTtc, TOV lopaTjX 6:21 Koti ^^X&ov aOxwv

TOU

Kai iito>Xi^9^T)aav aiiTofi; TIVEJ; TUV &o£puv lapaTjX 10:7 Tuv ky. T^(; aitpott; 10:14 K'XrivfevBai&ooiipoii; (iKeXeifpftTiootv TIVEC; TWV xaTaXiTtovTov TOV V6[IOV x a i TO. npooTot-yfxaTa 11:20 ouvYiYaYEv IwvotSav ToOi;fejtTTJ(; ' I o \ j 5 a i a < ; ToO £:KTCO>etxfjaa.i Tr|v Stxpav T^v iv IepouaaXT)[i, xai iKoi-r\aixv e n ' auT^v f i T j x a v o u ; TUO^Xai;.

12 § 252 e^evov . . . £v Tyj axpc^ x a i TOU TtXif|9^ui: o i d i a z ^ e i c xat Tcovijpoi TOV TpOTTOV 12 § 305 65TiYoij(; ly(pvTO<; aiiToij Ttvo^ T t j v neyeuyoTtJV 'louSaLfaiv 12 § 362 o i 6v Tfj &xpqi TMV 'kpoaoXufiuv ippoupoi xat yu-yaSec TMV 'louSattjv noXXa TOIH; 'louSaiouc; EtpYOtOOtVTO 12 § 364 TuoXXoi Se Tti>v auxfi (scil. fev Tfj ^xpcf) fMya^tav vOxTwp ^^EX96vTE<; t i < i T^v Xbtpixv x a i Ttva^; Tfa)V b\ioiti}v x a i 6iaep(jv auvaYayovTEi; 13 § 40 oE AOEPEIC xai yuyaSec o i Ix T^i; dtxponoXsui; 13 § 42 jrapc^ TWV e v B E 9 a o u p t f TtoXsi xai T&vfeyTfj &xpa TMV 'lepoooXii^tov• ouToi ycLp ^ TTXEIUV fiorpa Twv ioepwv 'louSatcov x a i TteyeuYOTdJv ^oav 13 § 121 Iwva&Tit; h i 6 ipxiepcij.; &7caoT]i; T^t; 'louBaiai^ oTpaTtav ouvaYaY"^! i^pooPaXwv fenoXiopxei T ^ v i v Toi<; 'lepoooXu(ioi<; axpav EXOUoav MaxE5ovtx:^v t p p o u p a v xai T6)v aoepiijv TIVOI: xat neyEUYOTov TOV n a T p i o v ouvT)9eiav.

11:2! x a i EiTopeu&T)(jav T i v e < ; ttiaoOvTEt; TO E9-VOI; auTuv oivSpei; TCotpavo[AotrepOi;TOV ^ a a i X s a 11:41 x a i AnsaTeiXev luvaftav Kp6(; AT)[ir|Tpiov TOV paaiXeot, I'va ^xpaXy] TOUC ^it T^:; axpat; 1^ IcpouoaXfi x a i TOUi; i v TOII; 6xupunaaiv- •^aav yap KoXstxouvTEi; TOV lopaTjX.

13 § 122

... v u x T O t ; SE T i v e g TGJV £V

auTtp TtoVT)p(JV l;^eX9-6vTE(; TJXOV itpot; AT)[lfiTpiOV 13 § 133 'O 8' ipxiEp£u<; 'Iwva^iit; ^^eXfteiv pouX6(iEvoc TOIK; xfi OLY-pq. T w v lEpoaoXi)[ji(jv xat TOUC 'louSatcjv yuYaStti; xai i n a z ^ z i c xai TQIK; i v knoLOfi Tf) xwptf (ppoupout;

JERUSALEM, THE AKRA, A N D JOSEPHUS

13:51 ouvETpip-r] iyi^poc, [ieya.;

13 § 216

eTca&ov

201

(iKo TUM (ppoupuv

W h i l e t h e r e are n o serious grounds to doubt that J o s e p h u s used 1 M a c c a b e e s directly (Gafni 1989: 117), he evidently k n e w about the A k r a n o t only from this work. This b e c o m e s particularly clear w h e r e his p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 M a c c a b e e s breaks off, just b e f o r e the description o f S i m o n ' s c o n q u e s t o f t h e Akra. J o s e p h u s at that point recounts, in stark contrast t o 1 M a c e 14:37, the decision to level not only t h e Akra itself, but a l s o t h e hill o n which it s t o o d . H e e n d s this story with a c o n c l u d i n g remark "Such was the nature of t h e things a c c o m p l i s h e d in t h e t i m e o f S i m o n " {Ant 13 § 2 1 7 ) . Hlsewherc he e m p l o y s formulas o f this kind t o indicate not merely the e n d o f a reign, but also t h e e n d of a s o u r c e h e used.^ T h u s t h e concluding formula, the shift from local t o S e l e u c i d history, a n d t h e reintroduction of "Simon, t h e high priest of t h e Jews,"' strongly suggest a change from o n e s o u r c e t o another. It w o u l d b e u n w i s e and o u t s i d e t h e purview of this study t o attempt a d e t a i l e d source-critical analysis. N e v e r t h e l e s s it s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e that J o s e p h u s had at his disposal at least o n e o t h e r source b e s i d e 1 M a c c a b e e s and Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s . This (written or oral) s o u r c e c o n t r a d i c t e d 1 M a c c a b e e s regarding t h e disposal of t h e Akra. J o s e p h u s probably s t o p p e d using it after its account of the levelling of t h e A k r a . T h e inconsistency of the concluding formula with what f o l l o w s a n d t h e strong hostility against t h e p o p u l a t i o n of t h e Akra suggest that this source was different from N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . J o s e p h u s may h a v e learned of the p r e s e n c e o f Jewish o c c u p a n t s in the Akra through this source because the "renegades" are m e n t i o n e d in it {Anl

13 § 2 1 6 ) . O t h e r channels are of course possible, but it s e e m s

unlikely that he w a s merely interpreting 1 M a c c a b e e s or that N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s w a s his main source concerning the Akra.'"

* See /4m 11 § 296 (end of Esther); cf. 11 § 183 (end of Nehemia), 12 § 118 (end of Letter of Aristeas). "Ant 13 § 223. This phrase would normally indicate a non-Judean source ~ but it is parallel to 1 Mace 15:1 where It .serves to introduce Antiochus' letter to Simon. In fact, Josephus continues to relate events described in 1 Mace 15-16, but not coming as close to it as to 1 Mace 1-13. Holscher (1904: 11) thought that the account of the levelling of the Akra was derived from folk legend. Bar-Kochva (1989; 452) instead strongly argues that Nicolaus of Damascus was Josephus' source for this story. He attributes the differences b e t w e e n / l y 1 § 50 andAnt 13 §§ 215-217 entirely to the abbreviating

202

JOSEPH SIEVERS

J o s e p h u s ' accounts o f t h e levelling o f t h e Akra have generally b e e n c o n s i d e r e d historically indefensible and archaeologically i m p o s s i b l e , and rightly s o . " O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e p r e s e n c e o f Jewish inhabit­ ants in t h e Akra has b e e n accepted, o n t h e w o r d of J o s e p h u s ( a n d o f P r o f e s s o r Bickerman and others), s o m u c h s o that it has influenced t h e translations o f 1 Maccabees.'^ In this ca,se there s e e m t o b e g o o d r e a s o n s for following J o s e p h u s against 1 M a c c a b e e s , but it is i m p o r t a n t t o b e aware o f t h e fact. Perhaps there are s o m e c o n s e q u e n c e s t o b e drawn c o n c e r n i n g t h e relative reliability of b o t h 1 M a c c a b e e s and Josephus.'^ 4. Ihe Akra and the

Gymnasium

If t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e Akra w a s mixed, consisting o f Jewish and n o n - J e w i s h inhabitants, what w a s its status? 2 M a c e 4:9 is g e n e r a l l y t a k e n t o m e a n that J a s o n acquired for Jerusalem t h e status o f polis

or

at least m o v e d t h e city in that direction (Stern 1992a: 2 3 9 - 4 3 ) . U s u a l l y t h e g y m n a s i u m built by him On' auTtiv T^M itxpoicoXiv ("right u n d e r t h e Akropolis")'^ is thought of primarily as t h e symbol of J e r u s a l e m ' s n e w civic status or of Jason's hellenistic reform of Judaism and o f Jewish e d u c a t i o n ( D o r a n 1990). Little thought has b e e n given t o t h e g y m n a s i u m ' s relation to t h e akropolis

and t o t h e soldiers s t a t i o n e d

t h e r e . Probably they w e r e at first at least in part Cypriot m e r c e n a r ­ i e s . " T h e y w o u l d certainly have c l a i m e d access to t h e nearby athletic

style of JW. However, he does not seem to pay sufficient attention to the disconti­ nuity after Ant 13 § 217, pointed out above. " See, e.g., Bar-Kochva 1989; 456-58; Sehurer and Vermes 1973-87: 1.192 n. 10. " 'Iliis fact is noted by Dequeker (1985:196 n. 13). Dequeker himself, however, seems to read Josephan terminology into 1 Maccabees (1985: 196 n. 15). " Applebaum's interpretation of a fragmentary inscription from Jerusalem would indicate pagan occupants of the Akra (1980: 58), without excluding Jewish inhabitants. Unfortunately the reading and restoration of the inscription is quite uncertain at cmcial points. See Supplemenlum Epigraphicum Graecum 30,1980, no. 1695. " 2 Mace 4:12; 4 Mace 4:20 locates the gymnasium i n ' auxfi xfj axpcjc. " Cf. 2 Mace 4:29. This verse refers to the time of Menelaus (c. 172 BCE) whereas the gymnasium was built about three years earlier. Although the presence of a Cypriot contingent or of any garrison in the akropolis is not attested for the time of Jason, nothing leads us to suspect that there had been a drastic change in the intervening period. On Cypriot and, later, Mysian garrison troops in Jemsalem see Bar-Kochva 1989: 116-19.

JERUSALEM, THE AKRA, AND JOSEPHUS

203

facilities and may e v e n have b e e n a m o n g t h e p r o m o t e r s o f

the

c o n s t r u c t i o n project. T h e Jerusalem g y m n a s i u m is never m e n t i o n e d again after t h e t i m e of Jason, but since w e d o not hear of its destruc­ tion, t h e r e is a strong liltelihood that it r e m a i n e d in u s e throughout ( m o s t of) t h e Akra's history." T h e decision of A n t i o c h u s V (i.e., his guardian Lysias) t o let Judeans "conduct their affairs in accordance with their ancestral customs" (2 Mace 11:25) basically returned Jerusa­ l e m t o the status it had b e e n granted by A n t i o c h u s III in 2 0 0 B C L ( H a b i c h t 1976: 2 5 8 ) . Tcherikover (1959: 227) claims that as a c o n s e ­ q u e n c e "As a t o w n and center o f t h e polis of A n t i o c h t h e Akra c a m e t o an e n d in 162; but t h e Akra as fortress c o n t i n u e d t o b e very important in t h e v i e w o f the Syrian government." This s e e m s t o be a n e a t s o l u t i o n , but d o e s not square with t h e later history o f t h e Akra. E v e n t h o u g h p e r h a p s less than a polis (but s e e Bickerman 1937: 73, 89), t h e Akra r e m a i n e d m o r e than a military installation. It had a fiscal, e c o n o m i c , and perhaps cultural function and was probably also p e r c e i v e d as a threat t o Jerusalem's civic status (cf. Ant 13 § 245).

5. Fiscal,

Economic,

and Social Functions

of the

Akra

W e h a v e already m e n t i o n e d the fact that t h e S e l e u c i d c o m m a n d e r o f t h e akropolis

w a s also responsible for collecting r e v e n u e and forward­

ing it t o t h e central administration ( 2 Mace 4:28). T h e r e is no reason t o b e l i e v e that this function w a s changed either by the d e c r e e of A n t i o c h u s I V or by its revocation. Responsibility for collecting taxes w a s m o s t o f t e n q u i t e distinct from military positions, but coercive p o w e r , a l s o for r e v e n u e collection, resided with t h e military forces, as t h e T o b i a d r o m a n c e illustrates {Ant

12 §§ 169, 175-85). A l t h o u g h

military and fiscal administration were generally distinct, they were m o r e closely c o n n e c t e d than is often a c k n o w l e d g e d (cf. Briant 1982: 210-11). B e f o r e its fall, t h e Akra was not subjected t o a military siege, but to an e c o n o m i c b l o c k a d e : its inhabitants were p r e v e n t e d from g o i n g out t o buy and sell (1 M a c e 12:36; 13:49). Buying and especially selling

" Whether or not the old akropolis and the Akra of Apollonius the Mysarch were in the same location is in this context less important than the fact that hellenistic garrisons generally required access to a gymnasium. For the importance of the gymnasium to hellenistic troops see G. M. Cohen 1978: 36; Launey 1949-50: 2.847-8.

204

JOSHPH SiliVERS

is o f c o u r s e not the primary activity of an exclusively military establish­ m e n t . W e d o not know what the p e o p l e of the Akra c o u l d have s o l d , but apparently they controlled a section of t h e countryside. It is n o a c c i d e n t that t h e Akra w a s captured shortly after G e z e r and that t h e s u r r e n d e r and purification of both places is described in similar t e r m s (1 M a c e 13:45-48, 5 0 ) . Probably there had b e e n c l o s e similarities a n d c o n n e c t i o n s not only militarily, but also e c o n o m i c a l l y a n d p e r h a p s culturally and religiously. B o t h 1 M a c c a b e e s and J o s e p h u s offer indications o f h o w valuable t h e A k r a w a s to t h e S e l e u c i d administration. A c c o r d i n g to 1 M a c e 15:28, A n t i o c h u s VII c l a i m e d t h e restitution of Joppa, G e z e r , a n d t h e AJtra in J e r u s a l e m : "You hold control of J o p p a and G a z a r a a n d t h e A k r a in J e r u s a l e m ; they are cities (iroXeic;) of my kingdom." A s an alternative t o returning t h e m , A n t i o c h u s VII d e m a n d e d

monetary

c o m p e n s a t i o n : "Now t h e n , hand over t h e cities that y o u have s e i z e d , a n d t h e tribute (xouc; tpopouc;) of the places that y o u h a v e c o n q u e r e d o u t s i d e t h e borders of Judea; o r e l s e pay five hundred talents o f silver for t h e m and for t h e destruction that you have c a u s e d a n d for t h e tribute o f t h e cities a n o t h e r five hundred talents."" It is i m p o s s i b l e t o b e sure w h e t h e r polis with r e f e r e n c e to t h e A k r a is i n t e n d e d in its technical m e a n i n g (cf. Grainger 1990: 6 3 - 6 5 ) , al­ t h o u g h B i c k e r m a n (1937; 73) thought that t h e A k r a had t h e con,stitution of a polls.

It is equally impossible t o extrapolate t h e e x a c t v a l u e

a s s i g n e d to t h e A k r a h e r e , but it constituted a major p o r t i o n o f t h e e x p e c t e d r e v e n u e . This was not general tribute o r taxes o f J u d e a , but r e v e n u e specifically to be g e n e r a t e d by t h e Akra as by t h e o t h e r "royal" cities. A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , the s a m e figure o f five h u n d r e d t a l e n t s (plus several h o s t a g e s ) was agreed u p o n later o n

between

A n t i o c h u s VII and J o h n Hyrcanus in lieu of a garrison in Jerusalem.'^ C o m p e n s a t i o n for lost r e v e n u e .seems t o have b e e n a major p o r t i o n o f this s u m . A p p a r e n t l y only a minor portion o f this r e v e n u e , p e r h a p s less than t w o talents a year, c a m e from the T e m p l e . ' '

" 1 Mace 15:30-31. It is not clear whether compensation for the destruction is to be included in the first or in the second 500 talents. See the different transla­ tions in NRSV and Goldstein (1976). " Ant 13 § 247; cf. JW 1 § 6\;Anl 7 § 393; Diodorus 34/35.1.5 (Stern 1974-84, No. 63); Ps.-Plutarch, RegtJm et Imperatomm Apophthegmala p. 1841i-F (Stern 1974-84, No. 260). " 1 Mace 10:42 indicates an annual sum of 5000 silver shekels as revenue from the Temple; cf. Am 13 § 55. Usually, 3000 shekels are considered the equivalent

JERUSALEM, THE AKRA, AND JOSEPHUS

6.

The Akra, Jerusalem,

and the

205

Countryside

If t h e A k r a was s u p p o s e d to g e n e r a t e r e v e n u e , it must have had control o v e r substantial territories and perhaps c o m m e r c i a l activities o f its o w n . T h i s s h o u l d b e obvious t o any attentive reader of 1 M a c c a ­ b e e s and J o s e p h u s . liut t o o often o n e finds reference t o t h e rule of Judas M a c c a b e e , or of Jonathan, in periods in which their situation w a s rather precarious (e.g. Kasher 1990: 87, 9 8 ) . Even after t h e r e d e d i c a t i o n o f t h e T e m p l e , Judas did not control Jerusalem

for

e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s o f time, much less did Jonathan before 152 B C E . A s l o n g as t h e Akra existed u n h a m p e r e d , e v e n after 152, it is problematic t o s t a t e that "Jerusalem was ruled exclusively by t h e

Hasmonaean

brothers" ( B a r - K o c h v a 1989: 4 5 8 ) . In this context, the role o f t h e high priests M e n e l a u s and A l c i m u s and their relations with t h e regional c o m m a n d e r s and t h e Akra w o u l d n e e d further clarification. 7. Ihe Akra's

Loyalties

T h e p e r s i s t e n c e of t h e Akra for over 25 years is not e x p l a i n e d in any o f o u r s o u r c e s . D a n 11:39 states that "he (i.e. A n t i o c h u s I V ) will distribute land as a prize".^ This s t a t e m e n t is often taken to m e a n that h e a w a r d e d tracts of land to t h e garrison of t h e Akra or to his Jewish supporters.^' In t h e Seleucid e m p i r e local g o v e r n m e n t pres­ e n c e w a s frequently maintained through katoikiai,

in which m e n with

military training w e r e settled, t o g e t h e r with their families. T h e y were given a l l o t m e n t s of land, often confiscated from the local p o p u l a t i o n . T h u s through t h e acquisition of land also foreign m e r c e n a r i e s might h a v e d e v e l o p e d local ties in Judea that would have induced t h e m t o

of one talent, but there were several different weight standards (cf ABD 6.907908). At times, substantially higher revenues were expected from the Temple, as 2 Mace 11:3 shows (cf. 2 Mace 4:7-8, 24). According to Josephus, in the Persian period for every lamb offered in the Jerusalem Temple a tax of 50 drachms (12.5 or 25 shekels?) was imposed {Ant 11 §§ 297, 301). It is impossible to annualize this figure, which in any case is not representative since it is based on a temporary punitive measure. Cf. Bickerman 1938: 114. " Or "for a price"; AB: "as their wages'. Koehler-Baumgartner (1967-90: 539) Sub voce THD 1.3: "Lohn, als Belohnung." " So Di Leila, AB; Bar-Kochva (1989: 438-44) thinks that the land was sold •for a price" to hellenized Jews. Not only from Daniel but also from other sources we learn that land was taken away from its original owners, and given to new ones (1 Mace 1:38; 6:24; 7:6; 4:61 with 10:14; cf.3:36;^m 12 §§ 251, 392).

206

JOSEPH SIEVERS

Stay o n in tlie Akra b e y o n d tiieir tour of duty. Certainly t h e r e w e r e t i m e s w h e n t h e H a s m o n e a n s w e r e able t o prevent a c c e s s t o rural l a n d h o l d i n g s from t h e Akra, but t h e s e periods were q u i t e limited and t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e Akra and the countryside s e e m to have b e e n for t h e most part undisturbed." 1 M a c e 10:14 h o w e v e r distinguishes b e t w e e n foreigners, w h o fled w h e n J o n a t h a n was authorized to recruit troops, and ( p r o - S e l e u c i d , h e l l e n i z e d , or simply a n t i - H a s m o n e a n ) Jews w h o r e m a i n e d in B e t h Zur. J o s e p h u s states and t h e further course of e v e n t s s h o w s that not o n l y in B e t h - Z u r but also in t h e Akra the inhabitants held o u t . A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s this w a s b e c a u s e "these consisted o f t h e g r e a t e r part o f t h e g o d l e s s and r e n e g a d e Jews, and for that r e a s o n they did not a b a n d o n the garrisons" (Ant 13 § 4 2 ) . Clearly it w a s not primarily military discipline that kept t h e m in t h e Akra. A l s o , b e f o r e t h e A k r a finally surrendered to S i m o n , according to 1 Mace 13:49, m a n y o f its o c c u p a n t s .starved to d e a t h . It is hardly conceivable that a garrison o f m e r c e n a r i e s would s h o w that kind o f tenacity, if less

dangerous

alternatives w e r e available. Hven t h o u g h the Akra's p o p u l a t i o n did not consist only o f a military c o n t i n g e n t , it certainly included s o m e form o f a garrison. F o r any s u c h military b o d y t o function efficiently, it n e e d s a clear c o m m a n d struc­ ture. T h i s was very difficult to maintain in t h e stormy years o f t h e d e c l i n e o f t h e S e l e u c i d dynasty. P o w e r struggles led t o easily shifting alliances, o n e o f t h e major questions b e i n g w h o was a b l e t o pay t h e largely mercenary armies, e i t h e r in cash or through o t h e r b e n e f i t s . T h e military or paramilitary p e r s o n n e l o f t h e Akra h o w e v e r , as that o f o t h e r garrisons, w a s not directly paid by t h e royal treasury, but o u t o f local r e v e n u e . A s w e have s e e n , t h e Akra w a s e v e n s u p p o s e d t o g e n e r a t e substantial r e v e n u e s for t h e treasury. T h e r e f o r e it had a certain self-sufficiency. G e n e r a l l y it s e e m s to h a v e b e e n fairly clear, to which ruler t h e A k r a o w e d loyalty, but as t h e struggles b e t w e e n various S e l e u c i d c o n t e n d e r s intensified, there must have b e e n problems. W h e n D e m e t r i u s p e r m i t ­ t e d J o n a t h a n to raise an army and t o retrieve t h e h o s t a g e s from t h e A k r a , A l e x a n d e r Balas o u t d i d him and offered J o n a t h a n t h e high p r i e s t h o o d (1 M a c e 10:6, 18-21). A s Jonathan a s s u m e d that office, h e

" 1 Mace 13:49; cf. 1 Mace 7:24, where Alcimus and his followers are hindered in their movements.

J E R U S A L E M ,

T H E

A K R A ,

A N D

J O S E P H U S

207

a l s o c o l l e c t e d t r o o p s and arms. F r o m that time in 152 BCH, or at least from t h e t i m e of the d e a t h of D e m e t r i u s I (winter 1 5 1 / 1 5 0 ) until the arrival o f D e m e t r i u s II in 147, A l e x a n d e r Balas, w h o assigned a p r o m i n e n t role t o Jonathan, had n o apparent rivals for t h e sovereignty over J u d e a . " It is not unknown that different military or p o l i c e forces can work

at cross-purposes in t h e s a m e jurisdiction,

according t o the principle divide

et impera.

sometimes

The complex command

structure in t h e S e l e u c i d e m p i r e allowed for such duplication: P t o ­ lemaios,

t h e strategos

(military c o m m a n d e r )

and

high

priest

of

(;!oele-Syria a n d Phoenicia, apparently did not have direct authority o v e r t h e garrison c o m m a n d e r s (tppoupapxoi) in his territory, as t h e Hefzibah inscription shows.^" Similarly, in an earlier period, t h e m o r e important fortresses in the Persian e m p i r e were not u n d e r t h e control o f t h e satrap, but their c o m m a n d e r s reported directly t o t h e king.^ Such a practice was c o n t i n u e d also later (cf. Polybius 5.48.14; D i o d . 2 0 . 1 0 7 . 5 ) . T h u s it is conceivable that the Akra was loyal to A l e x a n d e r B a l a s without b e i n g u n d e r t h e control of Jonathan, his local governor. O n e indication in that direction is the fact that Jonathan tried for the first t i m e t o take t h e Akra i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e death of A l e x a n d e r Balas (1 M a c e 11:20). Y e t , it appears problematic that Jonathan w o u l d b e a p p o i n t e d a m e m b e r of the circle of "first friends," strategos, meridarches

and

(1 M a c e 10:65), with t h e right and the duty t o maintain an

army, without at least s o m e m e a s u r e of control over t h e Akra s o close to his o w n residence.^*

" Allegedly, Demetrius I offered to turn over the Akra to the high priest {1 Mace 10:32), but it appears that he problably lacked the power to carry this out. In any event, the provisions of his letter were not put into effect. landau 1966, esp. lines 15-16 of the inscription, with comments on pp. 66-67; see emendations by J. and L. Robert 1970; commentary by Taylor 1980; Fischer 1980: 1-3. ^ Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.9; Briant 1982: 211. "Bengtson (1937-52: 2.151-153) follows Jo.sephus (Ant 13 §§ 88, 102) in positing that Apollonius was appointed governor of Coelesyria by Alexander Balas, and not, as 1 Mace 10:69 indicates, by Demetrius 11. Bengtson (1937-52: 2.180) also concludes that Apollonius, Jonathan's sworn enemy, must have been in charge of the Akra and the other garrisons in Judea. Most scholars prefer the account in 1 Mace 10:69 as much more plausible (Abel 1949: 197; Goldstein 1976: 420).

208

JOSEPH SIEVERS

8. An Agreement between Jonathan and the Akra? D u r i n g t h e s e v e n years (152-145 B C E ) in which J o n a t h a n w a s an a p p o i n t e e of A l e x a n d e r Balas, with authority to raise an army, t h e Akra c o u l d not h a v e survived without s o m e tacit or probably e v e n explicit a g r e e m e n t with him. It is possible that A l e x a n d e r

Balas

p e r m i t t e d t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f t h e Akra, and p e r h a p s m a d e it a c o n d i t i o n of his grant o f offices t o J o n a t h a n . Still, this w o u l d m e a n that t h e Akra had lost much of its function as a S e l e u c i d s t r o n g h o l d in J e r u s a l e m . A direct a g r e e m e n t with Jonathan cannot b e proven, but is likely t o h a v e b e e n in effect during t h e reign of A l e x a n d e r Balas. D u r i n g that p e r i o d J o n a t h a n m a d e n o attempt t o curtail t h e activities o f t h e A k r a . I lis relations with t h e Akra as well as with t h e Seleucid rulers m a y b e t h e m a i n reason why he is given far less favorable t r e a t m e n t in 1 M a c c a b e e s than e i t h e r Judas or S i m o n (Sievers 1990: 82, 103). In c o n c l u s i o n , there remain many o p e n q u e s t i o n s about t h e history o f t h e A k r a , its c h a n g e s in population and function. In s o m e r e s p e c t s it w a s similar t o a military c o l o n y s o c o m m o n in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c p e r i o d . In o t h e r respects it w a s a unique entity, e v e n giving Jerusalem at t i m e s t h e character o f a divided city. T h e division h o w e v e r c o u l d not last. T h e 23rd of lyyar 141 B C E w a s a day t o celebrate, t o c e l e b r a t e t h e purification o f t h e Akra and t h e reunification of J e r u s a l e m . "

9. Summary W e might sum up o u r tentative findings in the following points: 1. T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e history of Jerusalem in t h e years 2 0 0 t o 130 B C E it is necessary t o understand t h e role of the Akra. 2. T h e q u e s t i o n of t h e location and possible m o v e s of t h e J e r u s a l e m akra/akropolis is o f importance, but s h o u l d not exclusively d o m i n a t e t h e discussion. T h e p r o b l e m s of history and function or functions s h o u l d equally b e addressed. 3 . J o s e p h u s and 1 M a c c a b e e s offer fundamentally different views o f t h e Akra's p o p u l a t i o n . Scholars usually follow J o s e p h u s ' view, s o m e ­ t i m e s w i t h o u t b e i n g c o n s c i o u s of it. 4. T h e Akra c a n n o t simply be identified with t h e p r e s u m e d polis o f A n t i o c h in J e r u s a l e m .

" 1 Mace 13:51; Megitlat Ta'anii ad 23 lyyar.

JE'RUSALEM, THE AKRA, AND JOSEPHUS

209

5. B e s i d e s its military function, t h e Akra had fiscal, e c o n o m i c , and social functions. It w a s s u p p o s e d to b e a revenue-generating o p e r a t i o n . 6. F o r m u c h o f its existence, the Akra w a s in u n c h a l l e n g e d control o f Jerusalem and t h e surrounding countryside. 7. Its inhabitants had reasons t o remain there, b e y o n d military o r d e r s and e v e n without Seleucid support. 8. T h e A k r a could not have survived for as long as it did without s o m e tacit or explicit a g r e e m e n t with the high priest J o n a t h a n . ^

'* 1 would like to thank the colloquium participants, especially Daniel R. Schwartz, for helpful suggestions that have improved the final shape of this paper. All remaining deficiencies are, of course, solely my own responsibility.

J O S E P H U S O N H Y R C A N U S II D a n i e l R. Schwartz

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. (Harry S. Truman)' 1.

Introduction

H y r c a n u s II, w h o s e career b e g a n by taking him from b e i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e heir to t h e J u d a e a n t h r o n e t o collaboration in t h e R o m a n t a k e o v e r o f J u d a e a , and e n d e d with his return from Parthian captivity t o e x e c u t i o n by t h e I d u m a e a n w h o usurped t h e J u d a e a n t h r o n e , is k n o w n t o us virtually o n l y from t h e p a g e s o f J o s e p h u s . A n d his i m a g e t h e r e is far from t h e best: twice in War (1 §§ 109, 2 0 3 ) and n u m e r o u s t i m e s in Antiquities (13 §§ 407, 4 2 4 ; 14 §§ 13, 44, 158, 179; 15 §§ 165, 177, 182), w e are told that h e w a s by nature u n s u i t e d for politics. M o r e o v e r , e v e n apart from this summary o f Hyrcanus' life, n u m e r o u s e p i s o d e s r e p o r t e d by J o s e p h u s apparently confirm t h e s a m e i m p r e s ­ sion. Sixty-five years ago, Bacchisio M o t z o published a little-noticed p i e c e o n "Ircano II nella tradizionc storica," which remains, t o m y k n o w l e ­ d g e , t h e only study e v e r d e v o t e d t o t h e i m a g e of H y r c a n u s II; F a u s t o P a r e n t e wisely a d d e d that essay to his 1977 c o l l e c t i o n o f M o t z o ' s p a p e r s . ' W h a t m o v e d M o t z o to write his study was, it s e e m s , t h e 1 9 2 4 p u b l i c a t i o n in t h e central reference work for classical antiquity o f Erich Obst's highly u n c o m p l i m e n t a r y p i e c e o n H y r c a n u s II. Obst, f o l l o w i n g J o s e p h u s , had o p e n e d his account of H y r c a n u s as f o l l o w s ( O b s t 1924: 788, cited o n M o t z o ' s first p a g e ) : Hr war so recht geeignet, das Recht der Erstgeburt in MiGkredit zu bringen, ein schwacher, geistig ziemlich beschrankter, untatiger Charakter ohne alien Ehrgeiz, eine Puppe in der Hand seiner Ratgeber, feig, ohne Ehrgefiihl und vielleicht sogar mit Mordern unter einer Decke steckend.

' Truman 1960: 229. ' Motzo 1927. For an idea of how unnoticed this study remained, see Marcus 1943: 514, n. b.

JOSBPIIUS ON HYRCANUS [[

211

M o t z o , in contrast, building primarily on t h e contrast b e t w e e n J o s e ­ p h u s ' frequent d e n i g r a t i o n of Hyrcanus and Julius Caesar's praise for h i m (Ant 14 § 192), and u p o n t h e contrast b e t w e e n t h e p r o m i n e n c e o f A n t i p a t e r in t h e narrative as o p p o s e d t o that of Hyrcanus in t h e d o c u m e n t s of Ant 14 ( s e e , inter alia, § 156 vs. §§ 144,200!), d e d u c e d that J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t s in both Ant

14 and JW 1 w e r e based u p o n

N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o had striven t o give Antipater all t h e credit for Hyrcanus' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s . This not only glorified H e r o d ' s father; N i c o l a u s ' characterization of Hyrcanus as incapable also served t o justify H e r o d , w h o t o o k o v e r for him. In fact, however, M o t z o c o n ­ c l u d e s , t h e historian w h o e x a m i n e s Hyrcanus' life and a c c o m p l i s h ­ m e n t s , following not t h e partisan version supplied by N i c o l a u s but, rather, t h e d o c u m e n t s and the facts, will c o n c l u d e that Hyrcanus, in difficult t i m e s , was i n d e e d a worthy man to close t h e H a s m o n e a n line, v a l o r o u s in war, prudent and capable in negotiations, t e n a c i o u s in t h e pursuit o f t h e interests o f his family and his p e o p l e ( M o t z o 1927: 17-18). T h u s , M o t z o a t t e m p t e d to set aside the familiar J o s e p h a n i m a g e o f Hyrcanus, s u m m a r i z e d s o well by Obst, by contrasting J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t with d o c u m e n t s preserved by Josephus. A similar p r o c e d u r e had b e e n followed at the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e century by Karl Albert, w h o s e dissertation o n Josephus' use o f Strabo e m p h a s i z e d that t h e picture of Hyrcanus which e m e r g e s from Jose­ p h u s ' q u o t a t i o n s from Strabo is o n e of a much m o r e active and successful politician than that supplied by Nicolaus.' Albert n o t e s , especially, t h e contrast b e t w e e n JW 1

187,193-94 and Ant

14 §

127,137: while War has A n t i p a t e r throwing his support to C a e s a r and heroically fighting for him in Egypt, Caesar correspondingly rewarding A n t i p a t e r and confirming Hyrcanus as high priest

Antipater,

the

Antiquities

in order to please

account has A n t i p a t e r aiding C a e s a r d u e t o

H y r c a n u s ' orders, and Caesar's rewards for Hyrcanus are m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e t h o s e for A n t i p a t e r and are not m a d e d e p e n d e n t u p o n Anti-

* Albert 1902: 39-41. It is noteworthy, given a widespread conception about the prejudices of German scholarship, that Albert assumed that Josephus was so honest that he would not correct Nicolaus' account without another one: "Josephus war so ehrlich, seine Quelle nicht willkiirlich zu falschen oder abzuandern; sie zu korrigieren, sah er sich (in War] infolge der Unkenntnis anderer Oberlieferungen ausser stande. Ganz anders in der Archaologie! Hier hatte Josephus die Bekanntschaft des Strabo gemacht..." (p. 40).

212

D A N I E L R. S C H W A R T Z

pater's merits. This i m p r o v e m e n t of Hyrcanus' role resulted directly, A l b e r t argued, from the t w o passages from Strabo which J o s e p h u s cites verbatim

mAnt

14 §§ 138-39. W h i l e Nicolaus had m a d e it s e e m

that A n t i p a t e r had d o n e all t h e work, and that was reflected in t h e War a c c o u n t , in writing the Antiquities

J o s e p h u s had t h e b e n e f i t o f n e w

input f r o m Strabo, a n d h e corrected his narrative accordingly. T h u s , w h e r e M o t z o u s e d Caesar to correct N i c o l a u s , A l b e r t used Strabo. A major d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o scholars was, h o w e v e r , that for M o t z o , Caesar's e v i d e n c e a p p e a r e d only in isolated s e c t i o n s o f Antiquities Antiquities

a n d did not influence t h e rest o f t h e narrative, s o b o t h and War could basically be c o n s i d e r e d t o b e d e p e n d e n t

u p o n N i c o l a u s . F o r Albert, in contrast, War r e m a i n e d roughly e q u i v a ­ lent t o N i c o l a u s , but, as w e saw in the a b o v e e x a m p l e . Antiquities

had

not o n l y b e e n i n t e r p o l a t e d with material from Strabo, but a l s o rewrit­ t e n t o s o m e e x t e n t u n d e r t h e impact o f the n e w material. Strabo, however, as t h e briefness of Albert's discussion s h o w s , c a n n o t e x p l a i n very m a n y differences b e t w e e n t h e pictures of Hyrcanus a n d his p e r i o d in War and Antiquities."* T h e a p p r o a c h f o l l o w e d by A l b e r t , which understands t h e s e differences as a result o f J o s e p h u s ' rewriting o f N i c o l a u s in Antiquities,

could be applied o n a b r o a d front

only if t h e n e w input w a s found in a broader s o u r c e . T h i s is w h e r e R i c h a r d L a q u e u r e n t e r s . T h e fifth chapter of Laqueur's 1 9 2 0 m o n o ­ g r a p h , a l m o s t a h u n d r e d p a g e s long, c o n s t h u t e s t h e m o s t a m b i t i o u s a t t e m p t a n y w h e r e t o analyze t h e import of parallel narratives in J o s e p h u s , and is d e v o t e d entirely to Ant 14 and its parallels in JW 1. l i q u e u r ' s main point in this chapter is that in c o m p o s i n g Ant

14

J o s e p h u s had o n e main V o r l a g e , viz., his o w n War a c c o u n t , a n d o n e n e w s o u r c e which Strabo

contrary t o the localized i n f l u e n c e o f Albert's

c o v e r e d t h e entire s c o p e o f t h e narrative. T h a t n e w s o u r c e ,

h o w e v e r , w a s not a literary o n e , but, rather, J o s e p h u s ' o w n mind and e m o t i o n s : for l i q u e u r , the Antiquities

narrative r e p r e s e n t s J o s e p h u s '

rewriting o f his War narrative, which is basically identified as Nicolaus', u n d e r t h e impact o f his o w n n e w f o u n d , or newly expressible, n a t i o n a ­ lism. T h i s nationalism t o o k especially t h e form o f anti-Antipatridism: in p a s s a g e after p a s s a g e , l a q u e u r argues, t h e c h a n g e s b e t w e e n

War

* Although it is of course possible that Strabo's account influenced .^n(/^iV/eT in places where no named fragments indicate his influence; see Stern 1991: 424; 454-55.

J O S E P H U S

and Antiquities

O N

H Y R C A N U S

213

H

reflect a t e n d e n t i o u s effort on Josephus' part to make

A n t i p a t e r and H e r o d took worse. Laqueur's efforts achieved an a m b i g u o u s result. O n t h e o n e hand, his call to interpret J o s e p h u s in Antiquities

as a writer motivated by his

o w n v a l u e s and ideals, not a m e r e creature of his sources, basically s w e p t t h e field ( s e c D . R . Schwartz 1992: 262-264). O n the o t h e r hand, h o w e v e r , his claim ihai Ant 14 had rewritten War from an anti-Antipatrid point o f v i e w was subjected t o much criticism; and rightly so.^ A l t h o u g h t h e r e is s o m e anti-Antipatrid material in Ant 14, b e g i n n i n g from t h e nasty introduction o f Antipater w h e r e J o s e p h u s e v e n troubles t o argue with N i c o l a u s about Antipater's birth {Ant 14 §§ 8-9), there is also pro-Antipatrid material — such as the e u l o g y at Ant

14 § 283,

w h e r e A n t i p a t e r is t e r m e d "a man distinguished for piety, justice and d e v o t i o n t o his country." Why s h o u l d w e d e p e n d o n t h e introduction a n d not o n t h e e u l o g y ? Moreover, there are many c h a n g e s in Ant

14,

in c o m p a r i s o n to War, which d o not contribute o n e way or t h e other t o t h e a n t i - H e r o d i a n t h e m e , although l i q u e u r often tries to force their significance. Thus, for e x a m p l e , in t h e very first s e c t i o n of his d i s c u s s i o n l>aqueur argues that the notion, found in Ant 14 § 7 but not in t h e parallel at JW I ^ 122, that an oath s c a l e d t h e c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n A r i s t o b u l u s and Hyrcanus, w a s c o n c o c t e d by J o s e p h u s in o r d e r t o increase t h e guilt involved in Hyrcanus' subsequent o p p o s i t i o n t o Aristobulus. This guilt, l i q u e u r further asserts, is really t o b e u n d e r s t o o d as that o f Antipater's, w h o was t o be r e s p o n s i b l e for H y r c a n u s ' r e n e w e d o p p o s i t i o n : "So w e n d e t sich in letzter Linie die U m a r b e i t u n g g e g e n d i e s e n , d e n Stammvater der Herodcer" (l^aqucur 1920: 136). But b e f o r e accepting this interpretation w e w o u l d wish that J o s e p h u s at least o n c e pointed to t h e o a t h and its breaking in t h e c o n t e x t o f Hyrcanus' o p p o s i t i o n t o his brother. "Itidbruch" figures p r o m i n e n t l y in l i q u e u r ' s text here, but never in Josephus'. Similarly, t h e third section of I^aqueur's discussion (1920: 142-145) d e a l s with t h e parallel narratives of t h e siege of Jerusalem by A r e t a s and Hyrcanus, brought to an e n d by t h e intervention o f P o m p e y ' s g e n e r a l , Scaurus {JW 1 §§ 126b-130; Ant 14 §§ 19-33). l i q u e u r quite

' For criticism of this chapter of laqueur's work, see esp. Helm 1921: 507-513, also the running skirmishing by Marcus in LCL. According to Stern (1991: 454), "In general one may note that in Ant 14 Josephus made only minor changes in the panegyric tone [concerning Antipater and Herod] which derives from Nicolaus and is reflected in War - despite Laqueur's efforts to prove the opposite."

214

DANIEL R. SCFIWARTZ

rightly p o i n t s o u t t w o major differences. Kirst, Antiquities,

but n o t War,

s t a t e s that t h e p o p u l a c e (S^(io<;) of Jerusalem s i d e d with Hjrrcanus, "only t h e priests" siding with Aristobulus. This, h o w e v e r , L a q u e u r explains away as b e i n g only an implication of t h e O n i a s story w h i c h J o s e p h u s received from Jewish tradition (cf. n. 16) -- but L a q u e u r gives n o r e a s o n for J o s e p h u s ' decision t o include this story and m a k e s n o a t t e m p t t o interpret its relevance t o his t h e m e . A s for t h e o t h e r major d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two narratives, while War reports o n l y that A r i s t o b u l u s g a v e Scaurus a bribe, and d e n o u n c e s it as a perversion o f justice, Antiquities

reports that both brothers gave bribes, d e n o u n c e s

H y r c a n u s as niggardly, and states that Scaurus' decision w a s b a s e d o n his a p p r e c i a t i o n o f Aristobulus' superior qualities. H e r e , again, w e have a g o o d e x a m p l e of t h e forced nature of l a q u e u r ' s overall thesis, l a q u e u r writes as follows; Aber die damit [in War] gegebene Auffassung, als habe Aristobul seine Anerkennung bei Scaurus nur durch Bestechung erwirken konnen, kann dem zum Gegner des Antipatros gewordenen Josephus nicht mehr genugen. Scaurus musste sich aus sachlichen Griinden fiir Aristobul und gegen Antipater entscheiden (1920: 143 - original emphasis). This, a c c o r d i n g t o Laqueur, is the reason J o s e p h u s c o m p o s e d a n d inserted Ant

14 § 31, which points up Aristobulus' greater w e a l t h ,

m a g n a n i m o u s n e s s ((xeyaXotpuxot;) and the greater e a s e with w h i c h his g o a l s c o u l d b e r e a c h e d (ibid.).

But in this entire s e c t i o n , in b o t h

narratives (JW 1 §§ 126b-130;y4m 14 § \9-33), ned,

Antipater

is never

mentio­

apart from t h e very last line w h e r e t h e d e a t h o f his brother

h a p p e n s to b e r e c o r d e d . In o t h e r words, quite apart from t h e pro-Antipatrid material in Ant 14 w h i c h l a q u e u r w a s forced t o ignore or to explain away, t h e r e is also simply a lot of rewriting in Antiquities

which s e e m s not t o h a v e t o

d o with t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Antipatrids. D o e s this m e a n , however, that w e must simply accept t h e c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s ' Antiquities

narrative has u n d e r g o n e a

tendentious

rewriting? Hardly; e v e n Laqueur's m o s t trenchant critic a g r e e d with h i m that Antiquities

shows, in general, a "gestcigertes j u d i s c h e s N a t i o -

nalgefuhl," and t h e s a m e p o i n t is widely recognized.* But Jewish

' See Helm 1921; 513. Hehn's critique focuses mainly on Laqueur's argument that the Ant 14 narrative was based on that in War, rather than on the latter's source; for this question, see the survey in Cohen 1979: 50-51, also D.R. Schwartz

JOSEPHUS ON HYRCANUS 11

215

n a t i o n a l i s m c o u l d express itself in this c a s e as p r o - H a s m o n e a n i s m , not only as a n t i - A n t i p a t r i d i s m / and, given l i q u e u r ' s attempt o n e suspects that t h e analysis s h o u l d focus o n the H a s m o n e a n s t h e m s e l v e s , rather than o n t h e Antipatrids. That is t h e approach followed, most recently, by G i d e o n F u k s in a study d e v o t e d to "Josephus and t h e H a s m o n e a n s " ( F u k s 1990). B e g i n n i n g with t h e s e c o n d generation of H a s m o n e a n s , w h e r e 1 M a c c a b e e s left off and J o s e p h u s is our major source, Fuks c o m p a r e d J o s e p h u s ' parallel narratives in s o m e detail and c o n c l u d e d , as Laqueur, that J o s e p h u s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e m in Antiquities is in g e n e r a l signifi­ cantly m o r e positive than that in War.^ W c note, however, that in m a k i n g his a r g u m e n t Fuks e x a m i n e s only John Hyrcanus I, A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s and Mattathias A n t i g o n u s skipping not only t h e shortlived reign o f A r i s t o b u l u s I but also S a l o m e Alexandra (76-67 B C E ) and o f particular interest here, Hyrcanus II, w h o ruled, or was s u p p o s e d to, during t h e last quarter-century of H a s m o n e a n s t a t e h o o d ( 6 7 - 4 0 BC;)E). T h a t Fuks s k i p p e d S a l o m e Alexandra is readily understandable, for Josephus in Antiquities pours v e n o m o u s c o n d e m n a t i o n u p o n her. P e r h a p s this is only b e c a u s e she was a w o m a n . But t h e characteri­ z a t i o n o f H y r c a n u s II is not s o readily explained away, and s h o u l d not be ignored. M o r e o v e r , e v e n regarding the monarchs he d o e s discuss, Fuks must c o n c l u d e that t h e Antiquities

picture is at times only marginally m o r e

1989-90: 120-29. Our conclusion there about Josephu!;' failure to depart in/iitt 14 from the dramatic quality of Nicolaus is not affected by the argument, below, about the changed evaluations of characters. For Josephus' dependence upon Ni­ colaus in War in contrast with the more nationalist standpoint advocated by Jose­ phus in Antiquities, and its anti-Herodian implications, see also Stern 1991: 453459, and, posthumously. Stern 1992: 22-23. On Anl 14, however, cf. above, n. 5. ' In the introduction to his comparison of Ant 14 and War 1, liqueur (1920: 131-132) points lo Ant 16 § 187 and concludes, "Da sich nun aber Josephus hier ausdriicklich in Gegensatz stellt zu der Herodeer-freundlichen Darstellung des Nicolaus von Damaskus . . . aus seiner personlichen Stellung zu den Herodeern einer-, den Hasmoneern andererseits, so folgt, daB Josephus durch sein eigenes personliches Urteil dazu veranlalJt wurde, seiner Archaologie eine anti-I lerodische Richtung zu geben . . 'Hie double-edged prota-sis should have engendered a double-edged apodosis. * Fuks (1990: 176) explains this in a way only marginally different from l-aqueur: whereas laqueur thought that the change was due to Josephus becoming more independent of his Roman patrons, Fuks thought the recession of the rebellion of 66-70 into the past allowed for the subsiding of Roman feelings which had prevented Josephus from praising a line ~ his ancestral line - which had fought Rome.

216

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

positive than t h e o n e in War. All o f Josephus' e x t e n u a t i o n s , a s s e m b l e d by F u k s ( 1 9 9 0 : 1 6 9 - 7 0 ) , hardly soften, for e x a m p l e , t h e terrible picture o f J a n n a e u s enjoying himself with his c o n c u b i n e s w h i l e eight h u n d r e d o f his e n e m i e s w e r e crucified b e f o r e his e y e s a n d t h o s e o f their relations (Ant 13 § § 3 7 9 - 8 3 ) , behavior which e a r n e d him

to Antiquities in

an addition to

Warl -

according

t h e d a m n i n g n i c k n a m e "Thraki-

das" (which Marcus aptly c o m p a r e s t o "Cossack"; cf. Stern 1 9 9 1 : 125-127). Finally, a n d apart from t h e i n c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e revision ( a n y narrative b a s e d ultimately o n o n e o f an o p p o s i t e p o i n t o f v i e w will necessarily

retain

inconsistencies), there

treating o n l y what c h a n g e d b e t w e e n

War

is a n o t h e r and

p r o b l e m : by

Antiquities,

F u k s left

u n t o u c h e d s o m e salient e l e m e n t s o f t h e former which r e m a i n e d in t h e latter. P r e s u m a b l y , his guiding principle w a s that J o s e p h u s w a s n o t always c o n s i s t e n t , s o while changes may b e ascribed t o t h e nationalist m o t i v e , t h e r e t e n t i o n o f War ( N i c o l a u s ) materials is t o b e chalked u p t o J o s e p h u s ' s l o p p i n e s s . H o w e v e r , this s h o u l d b e a last resort. O u r point o f d e p a r t u r e will b e o n e such item: t h e fact that in Antiquities (13 § 3 2 3 ) , n o less than in War (1 § 85), A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s b e g i n s his career b y killing o n e o f his brothers — an incident Fuks d o e s n o t discuss, and which, presumably, he w o u l d v i e w as an inconsistent carry­ o v e r from t h e hostile War narrative. H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s d o e s not c o n d e m n t h e act. M o r e o v e r , it is n o t a b l e that J a n n a e u s ' b r o t h e r a n d p r e d e c e s s o r Aristobulus I is similarly said t o h a v e b e g u n his career by killing his m o t h e r , w h o w a s s u p p o s e d t o have inherited t h e t h r o n e (JW 1 § 7 1 ; Ant 13 § 3 0 2 ) ; a n d Jannaeus' w i d o w a n d successor, S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , is also said, in both narratives (JW 1 § 109; Ant 13 § § 4 0 7 - 8 ) , t o h a v e b e g u n h e r reign by neutralizing t h e s o n w h o s h o u l d h a v e r e i g n e d ( s e e b e l o w ) — just as H e r o d w a s later t o kill A r i s t o b u l u s III. Such practice, as J o s e p h Sievers has recently r e m i n d e d us in his study o f H a s m o n e a n w o m e n , w a s i n d e e d standard in t h e H e l l e n i s t i c world, a n d adjudged normal by a contemporary c o l l e a g u e o f J o s e ­ p h u s . ' A n d it s e e m s t o provide a starting point, b e t t e r t h a n s i m p l e anti-Antipatridism o r p r o - H a s m o n e a n i s m , for t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' picture o f Hyrcanus II.

' See Sievers 1989: 135, referring to Plutarch, Demetrius 3.4, who terms the murder of brothers "a common and recognized postulate in the plans of princes to secure their own safety" (trans. B. Perrin in IJCL).

JOSF.PHUS ON HYRCANUS li

217

In t h e p r e s e n t study, therefore, w e will a t t e m p t t o c o m b i n e a n u m b e r o f o b s e r v a t i o n s . First, w e will assume, as is usual, that Jose­ phus' narrative for this period in JW 1 is based u p o n N i c o l a u s and reflects his I l e r o d i a n point of view. S e c o n d , w e shall a s s u m e , as is equally usual, that J o s e p h u s ' parallel narrative in Antiquities

is based

u p o n that s a m e s o u r c e , u s e d directly a n d / o r through t h e m e d i a t i o n of War. Third, h o w e v e r , w e will also accept t h e w i d e s p r e a d c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s ' increased nationalism c o m e s to expression in

Antiquities;

this resulted in s o m e rewriting, whether or not s u p p o r t e d by n e w material

(such as M o t z o ' s d o c u m e n t s and Albert's S t r a b o ) .

The

p r o b l e m will b e h o w to understand Josephus' picture o f Hyrcanus II, s o pithily s u m m a r i z e d by Obst, and s o often worse in Antiquities

than

in War, in light o f t h e s e assumptions.

2. Josephus

on Hyrcanus

Let us first turn t o a passage in Ant

II

14 w h e r e , I believe, w e can be

virtually certain as t o w h e r e Josephus is following N i c o l a u s and where h e is freely c o m p o s i n g . In Ant 14 §§ 74-76, J o s e p h u s reports P o m p e y ' s reorganization o f Cocle-Syria in 63 BCR: P o m p e y i m p o s e d a tribute u p o n Jerusalem, confined the Jewish p e o p l e ("which had raised itself s o high") to its o w n borders and restored cities - previously c o n q u e r e d and in part d e m o l i s h e d by t h e H a s m o n e a n s ~ to their o w n inhabitants. T h e p a s s a g e is q u i t e detailed, but also quite positive a b o u t t h e s e Syrian cities, giving t h e n a m e s of the cities "set free" and

even

p o i n t i n g out that G a d a r a was treated favorably d u e t o P o m p e y ' s grace to his f r e e d m a n , D e m e t r i u s the G a d a r e n e ; t h e passage also troubles to p o i n t out that H e r o d later refounded Strato's T o w e r as C a e s a r e a . 'ITiat is, this p a s s a g e is full of details about Syrian cities and approves o f P o m p e y ' s restoration of the natural balance by forcing t h e Jews back into their o w n borders and restoring the cities t o their inhabi­ tants. This passage is i m m e d i a t e l y followed, however, by a p a s s a g e (Ant 14 §§ 77-78) which bewails this misfortune, blaming it on t h e axcuaic. of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus; the result is summarized as "our" subjuga­ tion to R o m e , loss of territories, tribute, and, eventually, t h e replace­ m e n t of high-priestly rule by rule by c o m m o n e r s . T h e s e c o m m e n t s e n d with "But of t h e s e things w e shall speak at the (proper) place."

218

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

H e r e , t h e n , a passage which spealts in details about t h e Syrians, refers t o t h e Jews in t h e third person and praises P o m p e y ' s m e a s u r e s o n b e h a l f o f t h e former at the e x p e n s e of t h e latter, is f o l l o w e d by a p a s s a g e with n o n e w c o n t e n t but which, taking a first-person Jewish p o i n t o f view, reflects o n w h o was t o b l a m e for this

misfortune

( n a & 0 ( ; ) and what its short- and long-term c o n s e q u e n c e s w e r e . T h e n t h e writer reveals himself t o b e t h e book's author: h e p r o m i s e s t o return to t h e latter t o p i c at t h e appropriate place. It s e e m s o b v i o u s that t h e first passage,

14 §§ 74-76, gives us N i c o l a u s ' a c c o u n t , full

o f details which N i c o l a u s k n e w and J o s e p h u s w a n t e d t o supply; t h e n , in §§ 7 7 - 7 8 , J o s e p h u s reflects upon t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s . This a s s e s s m e n t is b o l s t e r e d , m o r e o v e r , by t h e fact that JW 1 §§ 154-57 s u p p l i e s c l o s e verbal and c o n t e n t u a l parallels to Ant

14 §§ 7 4 - 7 6 and 79. T h a t is,

J o s e p h u s f o l l o w e d N i c o l a u s ' account closely in b o t h War and

Antiqui­

ties, but in t h e latter h e interrupted it with s o m e c o m m e n t s o f his o w n . N o w if w e analyze J o s e p h u s ' c o m m e n t s in Ant

14 § 7 7 - 7 8 , w e find

t w o p o i n t s which are, t o my mind, quite remarkable. 'ITie first is that J o s e p h u s b l a m e s b o t h Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, for their

oTototc

b r o u g h t about t h e catastrophe. This is remarkable, first of all, in that J o s e p h u s d o e s not b l a m e only o n e for c o n t e s t i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e rights o f t h e o t h e r ; rights and legitimacy have n o t h i n g t o d o with t h e matter. M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s ' s t a t e m e n t here is remarkable b e c a u s e from t h e very b e g i n n i n g o f Ant

14 J o s e p h u s has m a d e it clear that it w a s not

Hyrcanus, but, rather, Antipater, w h o w a s responsible for t h e oTotoic; (or for Hyrcanus' part in it). Thus, in t h e very first p a s s a g e w h e r e h e is i n t r o d u c e d , ^ / ! / 14 § 8, Antipater is portrayed as SpaoTTipiog 5 e Tr)v ( p u o i v OV K a t o T a a t a o T r | ( ; , and it w a s h e w h o p e r s u a d e d Hyrcanus to

p u r s u e t h e struggle against Aristobulus d e s p i t e his a g r e e m e n t , r e p o r t e d in t h e p r e c e d i n g lines (Ant 14 § 7), to retire t o private life. Why, t h e n , w h e n s u m m a r i z i n g in §§ 77-78 t h e process which led t o P o m p e y ' s t a k e o v e r , d o e s J o s e p h u s b l a m e Hyrcanus and A r i s t o b u l u s ? T h e o t h e r remarkable point in Ant 14 §§ 7 7 - 7 8 , in my reading — and w h i l e I readily admit that the Israeli setting in which I live and work has s e n s i t i z e d m e t o such matters, I d o not b e l i e v e , in this c a s e at least, that it has led m e t o s e c what isn't t h e r e — is that J o s e p h u s m a k e s n o a t t e m p t t o assess t h e rights or wrongs o f P o m p e y ' s territorial a r r a n g e m e n t s . T h e regions r e m o v e d from Jewish control and given t o Syrians

w e r e they Jewish territories? Syrian territories?

Were

JOSF.PHUS ON H Y R C A N U S 11

219

P o m p e y ' s a r r a n g e m e n t s just? Nicolaus evidently viewed t h e m as just; for N i c o l a u s (Ant 14 §§ 74-76), the Jews have their natural b o r d e r s and t h e Syrians h a v e their c h i e s , and it is wrong t o upset this order and right and praiseworthy to restore it. Josephus, in contrast, while bewailing P o m p e y ' s arrangements, did not consider t h e m unjust. H e simply b e m o a n s t h e fact that "the land, which by o u r arms w e had g a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n o f from t h e Syrians, w e w e r e forced to return t o the Syrians." T h a t is, what matters in affairs of state is w h o is successful and w h o is not.'" Just as with regard to t h e aioLcic, of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus J o s e p h u s saw n o point in inquiring w h o was in t h e right and w h o in t h e wrong, s o t o o with regard to territory: territory b e l o n g s t o w h o can h o l d it, and a J e w may b e m o a n as unfortunate, but not as unfair, t h e loss o f territory which his side had previously taken fair and square in war. T h a t this is i n d e e d J o s e p h u s ' point of view is s h o w n by t h e fact that Ant

14 is veritably bracketed by similar s t a t e m e n t s by Josephus.

N a m e l y , o n t h e o n e hand, in Josephus' account o f S a l o m e Alexandra, which c o n c l u d e s ^ n / 13, w e twice find the view that t h e p e o p l e w h o let her reign h a v e only t h e m s e l v e s to b l a m e (Ant 13 §§ 417, 4 3 0 ) ; in both p a s s a g e s J o s e p h u s characterizes her - a l o n e a m o n g all figures in his works, just as s h e is virtually t h e only Jewi.sh q u e e n - as m o v e d by "love o f power" ((piXap/iot, (ptXap/wv). Correspondingly, in t h e latter p a s s a g e (his e u l o g y , as it were, for this q u e e n ) , J o s e p h u s points out that her reign s h o w e d t h e stupidity (fitaOvcxov) o f m e n w h o fail to maintain r u l e . " In o t h e r words, S a l o m e Alexandra, as a w o m a n , s h o u l d n ' t h a v e ruled, but n o o n e can b l a m e her for trying, just as

in

t h e p a s s a g e with which w e b e g a n - t h e H e r o d i a n s s h o u l d not rule but J o s e p h u s did not b l a m e t h e m for trying. T h e p e o p l e t o b l a m e are the l e g i t i m a t e rulers o f the Jews, w h o failed to preserve that which was e n t r u s t e d t o t h e m . It is a fact of life, apparently, that p e o p l e w h o

For the as,similation of Josephus' point of view by one of his closest .students, see Schalit 1969: 481: "der Hnderfolg dariiber entscheidet, wer 'Recht' behalt." a . D. R. Schwartz 1987: 10-13. " This means, as is shown by the parallel at Ant 13 § 417 and by the explicit contrast here in § 430 between Salome being a woman and Josephus' complaint about men (fiivSpuv), that men are stupid if they let women rule. As Josephus explicitly opines in the next paragraph (§ 431), the things Salome wanted were unbecoming a woman. (Chamonard [1904: 201] notes that he doesn't know what the phrase in § 430 means and surmises that it is "sflrement ait^r^e," and Marcus' IX?L translation and explanation seem to miss the point.)

220

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

s h o u l d not rule

- such as w o m e n and Antipatrids

will try t o ; t h e

p e o p l e worthy of c o n d e m n a t i o n are t h e legitimate rulers w h o d o n ' t k e e p t h e illegitimates o u t . Similarly, just as in Ant

14 § 77 J o s e p h u s

b e m o a n s t h e loss of territory which had b e e n taken by force from t h e Syrians, s o t o o in Ant

13 § 431 he m o u r n s t h e fact that t h e result of

A l e x a n d r a ' s rule was t h e loss of H a s m o n e a n sovereignty, w h i c h had b e e n g a i n e d at t h e price of great d a n g e r and suffering. S o t h e t w o striking points a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' c o m m e n t s at Ant

14 §§ 7 7 - 7 8 are

c l o s e l y paralleled by his c o m m e n t s on S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , and t h e fact that t h e y t o o a r e not paralleled in War bolsters our c o n f i d e n c e that this is J o s e p h u s ' o w n point of view. A s for t h e o t h e r bracket, it c o m e s at t h e very e n d o f Ant

14 ( § §

4 9 0 - 4 9 1 ) , w h e r e , after t h e e x e c u t i o n of Mattathias A n t i g o n u s , J o s e p h u s p a u s e s t o c o m m e n t o n t h e e n d o f t h e H a s m o n e a n line. H e r e h e first e m p h a s i z e s that t h e founders of t h e H a s m o n e a n s a c c o m p l i s h e d m u c h o n b e h a l f o f the nation, but t h e n g o e s o n to explain that they — t h e Hasmoneans

threw away their rule by fighting a m o n g s t t h e m s e l v e s

( 5 i a T T | V Tzpoc, aXXTiXou<;

o T a o i v TTJV

fiipx^^ fitnePaXov) just as at Ant

14 § 77 it w a s specifically t h e fraternal a T c t o i t ; of Hyrcanus a n d A r i s t o b u l u s which J o s e p h u s b l a m e d for the b e g i n n i n g of t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n s ' e n d . A n d h e r e t o o , as there, J o s e p h u s c o m p l a i n s that t h e result was the

p a s s a g e o f the royal p o w e r from

its prestigious

priestly

i n c u m b e n t s t o a h o u s e o f c o m m o n e r s (hmoTiKcdM/ folKioLQ . . . 5Tf](xoT i K T J t ; K a i ytwMc,

i S t o T i x o u ) . This passage a l s o has n o parallel in War,

a n d its p r o m i n e n t position, at the e n d of t h e dynasty a n d t h e e n d o f a b o o k , confirms that here t o o w e have J o s e p h u s ' o w n o p i n i o n . J o s e p h u s ' s t a n c e , in

Antiquities, is

thus clearly that t h e Jews t h e m ­

s e l v e s w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for their fall. T h e l e a d i n g citizens (oi — Ant

Suvaxoi

13 § 4 1 1 ) a l l o w e d a pushy w o m a n to take p o w e r a n d had

t h e m s e l v e s t o b l a m e (§§ 417, 4 3 0 ) , Hyrcanus a l l o w e d a t r o u b l e m a k e r t o p u s h h i m i n t o r e n e w i n g t h e struggle against his brother (Ant 14 §§ 8ff), a n d w h e n t h e leading Jews saw that A n t i p a t e r a n d his s o n s w e r e b e c o m i n g real c o m p e t i t i o n t o Hyrcanus he failed t o t a k e notice of it ( § § 163ff); the result w a s that H e r o d eventually t o o k o v e r . Hyrcanus' e n d w a s that H e r o d killed him; a l t h o u g h that w a s n e i t h e r just nor fair (Ant

15 § 182), it was s o m e t h i n g r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e s h o u l d

have

e x p e c t e d (Ant 15 § 2 0 ) ; after all, Alexandra t o o had given n o c o n s i d e r ­ a t i o n for d e c e n y o r justice (Ant

homo poUtictis d o e s .

13 § 4 3 1 ) . That's not s o m e t h i n g a

JOSHPHUS ON H Y R C A N U S 11

In Antiquities,

221

in o t h e r words, J o s e p h u s convicts I lyrcanus of having

failed t o d o w h a t politicians have to d o but having still tried to play t h e g a m e . H i s term o f office falls into two periods, first 6 7 - 4 8 BCK, during which h e c o m p e t e d with his brother Aristobulus, and then 4 8 - 4 0 B C E , which saw the conclusive rise o f Antipater and his sons. H a d H y r c a n u s stayed out of politics in the first period, t h e R o m a n s might not h a v e had such an easy entrance into Judaea, or a reason to punish it by stripping it of its territories. H a d he b e e n a stronger figure in t h e s e c o n d p e r i o d , the Antipatrid takeover might have

been

p r e v e n t e d and a I l a s m o n e a n left at the head of t h e state. But he took n e i t h e r c o u r s e ; h e did c o m p e t e but he couldn't rule, and t h e result was catastrophe. J o s e p h u s m a k e s this point in Antiquities

in several passages. First, at

t h e very b e g i n n i n g o f Hyrcanus' specific line, w e s e e his father and o n e of his u n c l e s acting out the two proper options: at Ant

13 § 323, w e

read that H y r c a n u s ' father, A l e x a n d e r Jannaeus, u p o n acceding to t h e t h r o n e , killed o n e o f his brothers w h o had designs u p o n the crown, but held in h o n o r a n o t h e r o n e [ A b s a l o m

d.Ant

14 § 71] w h o preferred

t o live an unpolitical life (irepa-vijiovtaf;'^ C'jv). T h e s e steps are then s u m m a r i z e d {Ant 13 § 3 2 4 ) as Jannaeus having arranged his rule as h s e e m e d a d v a n t a g e o u s t o him (aufxtpepetv aOrtp), following which he set off at war against t h e G r e e k cities of Palestine

- n o justification

o f f e r e d ; au{A
For the term's lliucydidean background, see Nestle 1926 and Fhrenberg 1947. In Josephus, it appears only in Antiquities, including three times of Hyrcanus 11 (13 § 408; 14 §§ 6,13); cf below. Part 3. It may be, as Marcus notes on Ant 13 § 321 (IXL), that Salome was already said to have followed the same policy upon the death of her first husband too; see also Sievers 1989: 135.

222

DANIF.L R. SCHWARTZ

e x a m i n a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to JW

\ § 107, A l e x a n d r a easily w o n

the

affection o f t h e p o p u l a c e . In § 108, however, w e a l s o read that s h e t o o k firm hold o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t (^xparrioev TIJC;

&px^<;)- T h e r e a f t e r ,

in § 109, w e read as follows: She had two sons from Alexander: the elder, Hyrcanus, due to his age she appointed high priest, as well as because he was too lethargic to give trouble about the whole, but the younger, Aristobulus, due to his hotheadedness she kept as a private person. W h a t J o s e p h u s s e e m s to m e a n is that vSalome a p p o i n t e d to t h e high p r i e s t h o o d t h e s o n w h o c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d not to cause her any t r o u b l e about

"the whole,"

i.e., t h e

p r i e s t h o o d plus kingship}*

whole

Hasmonean

patrimony:

high

S h e couldn't be high priest, but s h e did n o t

w a n t a n y t r o u b l e about remaining q u e e n . F r o m Aristobulus s h e f e a r e d such t r o u b l e , and s h e eventually g o t it {Ant 13 §§

422{i).

In JW \ ^ 107, referring t o her piety and popularity, it is clear that J o s e p h u s w a s saying s o m e t h i n g positive about S a l o m e . W h a t o f §§ 108-9? S t e v e M a s o n h a s recently c l a i m e d , in reference t o this p a s s a g e , that "Alexandra w a s c o m m e n d e d for her j u d i c i o u s t r e a t m e n t o f her s o n s . S h e g a v e the high p r i e s t h o o d to Hyrcanus b e c a u s e he w a s o l d e r a n d m o r e s u b d u e d ( v u & e o T e p o v ) ; Aristobulus, by contrast, w a s a ' h o t - h e a d ' (&ep(x6TT)Ta,

JW

1 §§ 109, 117) and w o u l d h a v e

been

u n s u i t a b l e for office" ( M a s o n 1991: 251-52). H o w e v e r , vw&ECTrepov d o e s n o t m e a n merely "subdued," which might only m e a n

"disci­

plined" a n d s o g o well with "suitable for office," and t h e p o i n t o f §§ 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 is not that Hyrcanus w a s suitable for t h e position h e g o t but, rather, that he w a s s o unenterprising that h e c o u l d be d e p e n d e d u p o n not t o s e e k m o r e . S a l o m e did what rulers d o : they m a k e s u r e t o k e e p t h e c o m p e t i t i o n u n d e r control. S a l o m e had to a p p o i n t s o m e o n e high priest, s o s h e a p p o i n t e d t h e s o n w h o w o u l d p o s e n o threat. T h i s point is m a d e e v e n m o r e strongly, h o w e v e r , in t h e parallel at Ant

13 § § 4 0 7 - 8 . H e r e , Hyrcanus is first characterized by t h e clearly

n e g a t i v e w o r d ao&evTi(;: h e was t o o w e a k for g o v e r n m e n t ,

while

A r i s t o b u l u s w a s "a m a n o f action a n d o f high spirit (Spaaxripiot; r e K a i ^ a p a a X e o c ) . " T h e n , J o s e p h u s tells us that A l e x a n d r a a p p o i n t e d

" Thackeray apparently obscures some of Josephus' intent. Hyrcanus is said to have been vtd&EOTepov ij worefevoxXetvnepi TUV oXav, which Thackeray rendered 'too lethargic to be troubled about public affairs" {JW 1 § 109 LCL). But ^vo/Xeiv is in the active voice and nepi TWV OXWV does not simply mean "about public affairs."

JOSKPHUS ON HYRCANUS 11

223

H y r c a n u s t o t h e high priesthood, d u e t o his a g e "but h o w e v e r much more" (TCOXII ^ievToi icXeov) d u e t o his inaction (otKpaYfiov). That is, in c o m p a r i s o n with War, in Antiquities politician,

while

Hyrcanus l o o k s e v e n less like a

Aristobulus' energetic

nature

has improved,

in

c o m p a r i s o n with War, from "hotheadedness" t o b e i n g "a m a n o f action a n d high spirit." M a s o n takes t h e s e changes t o m e a n that J o s e p h u s n o l o n g e r c o m m e n d s S a l o m e ; rather, "the implication is that A r i s t o b u l u s o u g h t t o have b e e n given t h e executive power" ( M a s o n 1 9 9 1 : 2 5 2 ) . In fact, however, t h e s e c h a n g e s s e e m t o m e a n just t h e o p p o s i t e : t h e y explain all the better why S a l o m e a p p o i n t e d w h o m s h e a p p o i n t e d a n d feared w h o m s h e feared. Hyrcanus w a s really n o threat; A r i s t o b u l u s w a s real c o m p e t i t i o n , and had t o b e dealt with as such. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , n o t e that while in War S a l o m e is said t o have m a d e H y r c a n u s high priest d u e t o his a g e and d u e t o his harmless character, in Antiquities

t h e first criterion, t h e o n e which

makes

Hyrcanus t h e rightful a n d legitimate candidate, is in t h e s h a d o w o f t h e other: "however m u c h more" it was the matter o f political e x p e d i e n c e which m o v e d S a l o m e . This, indeed, was what was t o b e e x p e c t e d from t h e ruler who.se reign J o s e p h u s would later summarize, as w e have s e e n , a s a s t r o n g lover of power (Ant 13 §§ 430-31). Several m o r e c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n War a n d Antiquities

will s h o w

h o w t h o r o u g h g o i n g this distinction is. A t JW 1 § 117, w e read that w h e n A l e x a n d r a w a s taken ill, Aristo­ bulus d e c i d e d t o s e i z e t h e opportunity; with his n u m e r o u s followers, h e t o o k p o s s e s s i o n o f the fortresses a n d t h e m o n e y in t h e m , u s e d t h e latter t o recruit mercenaries, and proclaimed himself king. That is, a self-serving putsch, i n Ant 13 §§ 422-23, in contrast, h e w e n t t o t h e fortresses w h e r e his father's friends w e r e stationed, o u t of fear that d u e t o his brother's incapacity (6i5uvaTov) - t h e w h o l e p e o p l e (TO n d v yevoi;

s o , not "family" as Marcus in L C L ) might c o m e u n d e r t h e

control o f t h e Pharisees. A n d it is not said that h e proclaimed himself king. T h a t is, Aristobulus is not said t o have b e e n a rebel, and h e is said t o h a v e d o n e what h e a s s u m e d n e e d e d t o b e d o n e for t h e g o o d o f t h e nation a n d t h e state, given his brother's w e a k n e s s . A n d h e did it in continuity with the dynasty: in contrast t o War, w e h e a r not of A r i s t o b u l u s ' followers and his mercenaries, but, rather, o f his operating in c o n c e r t with his father's friends. Similarly, at Ant 14 § 4 4 , d e f e n d i n g himself before P o m p e y against t h e c h a r g e o f usurpation, Aristobulus e m p h a s i z e s that h e had taken

224

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

o v e r p o w e r o u t o f fear that d u e t o his brother's being ineffective a n d h e n c e c o n t e m p t i b l e , o t h e r s might take over t h e realm; and h e e m p h a ­ sized that his title w a s t h e s a m e as that o f his father. H e h a d d o n e what w a s necessary (i^ k^cnyKric,); Hyrcanus had n o t . T h e p a s s a g e is u n p a r a l l e l e d in War, a n d in D i o d o r u s 4 0 . 2 (Stern 1974-84: n o . 6 4 ) , p r e s u m a b l y b a s e d o n a c o m m o n source, w h e r e t h e s c e n e

before

P o m p e y is described, Aristobulus' a r g u m e n t s are not given. T h u s , t h e y are J o s e p h u s ' o w n contribution. A g a i n , w h e n Aristobulus' s o n A n t i g o n u s a p p e a r e d b e f o r e Caesar, b o t h o f J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t s a g r e e that h e c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t t h e d e a t h o f his father a n d t h e t a k e o v e r o f rule by Hyrcanus and A n t i p a t e r (JW 1 §§ 195-96; Anl 14 § 140). B u t only t h e former version criticizes A n t i g o n u s for c o m p l a i n i n g against Hyrcanus and A n t i p a t e r , saying that h e o u g h t t o have c o n f i n e d himself t o c o m p l a i n t s against Caesar's e n e m i e s w h o had killed his father and brother; A n t i g o n u s . a c c o r d i n g to

War,

s h o u l d n o t have muted in "jealous pathos." In

Antiquilies, in

contrast, t h e r e is n o criticism o f A n t i g o n u s for his c o m p l a i n t against H y r c a n u s a n d Antipater, a n d , moreover, his c o m p l a i n t is m a d e m o r e political: w h e r e a s War has A n t i g o n u s c o m p l a i n i n g about having b e e n b a n i s h e d t o g e t h e r with his siblings from his native land (iraTpiou Y'J';),

Antiquities

h a s him c o m p l a i n i n g about his being thrown o u t o f rule

( T ^ C ^PX^<; fe>cpe|SXY]^evou); n o t h i n g is said o f his siblings. That is, in War A n t i g o n u s h a s a humanitarian p l e a a n d it is crUicized, w h i l e in Antiquities h e has a political p l e a and it is n o t criticized o r characteri­ z e d a s b e i n g a result o f jealousy. A l l politicians are s u p p o s e d t o s e e k office actively, a n d for t h e J o s e p h u s o f

Antiquities,

it is g o o d a n d

praiseworthy for H a s m o n e a n s t o d o s o . A p a r t f r o m t h e vigorous politicians. Ant 14 also s u p p l i e s u s with e x a m p l e s o f t h e o t h e r legitimate o p t i o n : like Hyrcanus' u n c l e A b s a l o m , o n e c a n c h o o s e n o t t o participate in politics. T h e r e are four main e x a m p l e s . T h e first is s u p p l i e d by Hyrcanus himself: according t o Ant 14 § 6, H y r c a n u s a g r e e d t o live unpolitically (i^TJv dtTcpayi^ovwi;), just as A b s a l o m o n c e did (dtTcpay^iovwc ^fjv - Ant 13 § 3 2 3 ) . H a d h e kept t o this a g r e e m e n t , Hyrcanus w o u l d have b e e n just as praiseworthy. In t h e parallel at JW 1 § 122, in contrast, Hyrcanus is said t o h a v e b e e n g i v e n a p o s i t i o n o f significance in t h e royal court: "the king's brother," a l o n g with all t h e h o n o r s pertaining t h e r e t o . W h i l e t h e truth o f that s t a t e m e n t m a y b e d e b a t e d (Laqueur 1920: 134-35; Schalit 1 9 3 8 - 3 9 ) , truth is o f n o significance here; what is important is that J o s e p h u s

JOSHPHUS ON HYRCANUS II

b e g i n s Ant

225

14 by s h o w i n g how, in his mind, things c o u l d or s h o u l d

h a v e b e e n . F r o m t h e n on it is all downhill. T h e next t w o c a s e s of praiseworthy withdrawal from politics c o m e during t h e s i e g e o f J e r u s a l e m by Hyrcanus and A r e t a s . First, w e read that w h e n t h e s i e g e b e g a n , it w a s the Passover s e a s o n , s o t h e most r e s p e c t a b l e J e w s (oi SoKi(X6>TaToi TUV ' l o u S a t u v ) left t h e country and fled t o Egypt (Ant 14 § 2 1 ) . Apparently, respectable Jews n e e d t a k e n o s h a r e in t h e struggle.*' Correspondingly, s e c o n d , o n e especially p i o u s Jew, O n i a s , hid himself w h e n he saw t h e aTcnaic, was c o n t i n u i n g strongly ( § 2 2 ) ; apparently, he had b e e n unwilling or u n a b l e t o flee. W h e n H y r c a n u s ' m e n caught him and asked h i m t o curse Aristobulus a n d his f e l l o w stasis-makers ( a u o T a a t a o T u v

§ 2 2 ) , his r e s p o n s e was

a prayer t o G o d asking H i m to h e l p neither side. In other words, the Jewish religion — t h e realm of g o o d and evil

has nothing t o d o with

polities; a n d CJod i n d e e d s t e p s in only w h e n s o m e of Hyrcanus' m e n killed O n i a s (§ 25).'^ T h e fourth c a s e o f respectable religionists w h o are not involved in affairs o f s t a t e c o m e s a few p a g e s later, in t h e a p p e a l s m a d e t o P o m p e y . H e r e , a l o n g s i d e o f Hyrcanus and Aristobulus w h o each a p p e a l e d for t h e royal crown, a third group, t e r m e d "the nation" (eS^voc

Ant

14 § 4 1 ) , is said to have argued against b o t h o f t h e m ,

c l a i m i n g that t h e brothers w e r e trying t o c h a n g e the native c u s t o m , w h i c h w a s g o v e r n m e n t by priests, not by kings. T h u s , t o s u m m a r i z e . Antiquities

consistently t e a c h e s that polities is

a nasty g a m e , a n d o n e should either play it as it is to be played or l e a v e It; H y r c a n u s did neither. H e was by nature unsuited t o political life but did not leave it; t h e result was that during most o f his career h e e n g a g e d in oTototc; again.st his brother, a aTcaaic, which p r o v i d e d for t h e loss o f t h e H a s m o n e a n state a n d the H e r o d i a n takeover.

" When .such people reappear in Ant 14 § 43 in support of Hyrcanus, the explanation is immediately given: they had been "procured" by Antipater. Ilie true position of the Jewish people in that story is "a plague on both your houses;" see below. It is noteworthy that Josephus introduces here, via T O U T U T U TpoTCfp, a story which explains the ensuing drought as punishment not - as per the introduction - for the murder of Onias, but, rather, for a desecration of the Temple cult. That story too, in turn, as the preceding story about Onias, has talmudic parallels; cf. Derenbourg 1867: 112-15; Cohen 1986: 13. Josephus' own interpretation is given in the introduction (Ant 14 § 25). As Marcus (LCL) points out, the fact that there are two separate references to the Passover festival (§§21,25) is further indication of the source-splicing here.

226

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

T o m a k e this picture clear, J o s e p h u s not only r e p e a t e d l y contrasts t h e active and effectual Aristobulus to t h e p h l e g m a t i c and ineffective H y r c a n u s , but also s h o w s us, time and again, a H y r c a n u s w h o is a totally i n c o m p e t e n t player in t h e arena h e refuses t o leave, a s c h l e micl. In Ant 14 §§ 4-7 he is c o m p l e t e l y deserted and flees a l o n e t o t h e citadel in J e r u s a l e m , w h e r e h e finds m e m b e r s o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' family b u t fails t o take t h e m hostage, in t h e e n d c o m p l e t e l y capitulating t o his brother (contrast JW 1 §§ 120-22, w h e r e he and followers t a k e t h e m h o s t a g e and trade t h e m for a respectable c o m p r o m i s e ) ; at Ant 14 § 18 h e p r o m i s e s t o give A r e t a s territory and cities c o n q u e r e d by his father, s o m e t h i n g which, as w e h a v e s e e n , J o s e p h u s in Ant 13 § 431 a n d 14 § 77 regards as catastrophic ( n o t h i n g like this in TH^ 1 § 126); at Ant 14 §§ 30-31 Hyrcanus can't e v e n bribe and n e g o t i a t e convincingly, but A r i s t o b u l u s can (JW 1 § 128 has only Aristobulus bribing), just as Ant 14 §§ 3 4 - 3 6 has only Aristobulus bribing; at Ant 14 § 5 8 h e has n o party o f supporters, only Aristobulus d o e s (in JW 1 ^ 142 they b o t h d o ) ; " at Ant 14 § 8 2 h e is said t o have b e e n incapable o f w i t h s t a n d i n g A l e x a n d e r (unsaid in yW' 1 § 160); at Ant 14 § 165 h e is s o u n a w a r e o f his o w n interests that h e ignores or is e v e n p l e a s e d t o learn that A n t i p a t e r has given his gifts t o R o m a n officials as if they w e r e his o w n (JW 1 § 2 0 8 has him j e a l o u s and resentful of t h e growing popularity o f A n t i p a t e r and his s o n s ) ; correspondingly, according to Ant 14 § 179 after H e r o d ' s a b o r t e d trial Hyrcanus still did nothing t o s t o p H e r o d , d u e t o his "cowardice and folly" (JW 1 § 2 1 2 has him s t y m i e d by real d a n g e r - - ["the greater strength o f t h e enemy"]); etc. H a d s u c h a person left politics, like A b s a l o m or t h e religionists o f Ant 14 §§ 21-24,41, h e w o u l d have b e e n praiseworthy; staying in, which r e s u l t e d in o T o t o K ; and then in a H e r o d i a n takeover, bring u p o n him c o n d e m ­ nation. T h e r e are, then, apart from plain p r o - H a s m o n e a n i s m , t h r e e e l e ­ m e n t s which inform J o s e p h u s ' understanding o f H y r c a n u s II in Antiquities; t w o are matters of principle and o n e is empirical. J o s e p h u s c o n d e m n s oTaaic a s s u m e s politics are divorced from religion, and c o n d e m n s Hyrcanus for attempting to s u c c e e d in politics w h i l e b e i n g i n c a p a b l e of it. W h e r e did h e get t h e s e three points? T h e first is very J o s e p h a n ( B i l d e 1979: 190-91; Rajak 1983: 91-96). B e g i n n i n g in t h e

" So too in Cassius Dio 37.15.2 (M. Stern 1974-84:no. 406). To point up the slant in War, It is interesting that in Dio's whole long account of Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem there is no mention of Antipater.

J O S E P H U S O N H Y R C A N U S II

227

very preface of War, J o s e p h u s saw internal a x d a n ; as t h e c a u s e of the worst catastrophe ever t o hit t h e Jews (JW 1 § 10). T h e t h e m e reap­ p e a r s ceaselessly, including, specifically, as t h e explanation for t h e fall o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s ( P o m p e y was drawn in by t h e B t a o x a a i d o a v T e c ; o f t h e last H a s m o n e a n s — JW 1 § 19) and t h e institution o f direct R o m a n rule ( d u e to t h e p e o p l e having x a T e o T a o i a o e v after Herod's d e a t h - § 2 0 ) ; in t h e Life t o o (§ 100) w e find t h e n o t i o n that the R o m a n s c o u l d e x p e c t t h e struggle of rival Jewish factions (izpoc, 6iKKy\koMC. o T o t o e o i v ) t o bring about their destruction. S o it w a s very natural for J o s e p h u s t o apply this notion also to the particular catas­ t r o p h e with which w e are d e a l i n g here, viz., t h e e n d o f t h e I l a s m o n e a n state and its r e p l a c e m e n t by Herod's kingdom. T h e s e c o n d e l e m e n t t o o , namely, t h e separation of religion from state, is also a typically J o s e p h a n point in Antiquities (and his other works), as I have argued e l s e w h e r e (1983-84: 4 2 - 5 2 ; 1992: 29-56). T h e third c l e m e n t , however, t h e empirical p o i n t a b o u t Hyrcanus' constitution and capabilities, J o s e p h u s s e e m s t o have inherited from Nicolaus. But for N i c o l a u s t h e implication w a s very different. T o this w e must briefly turn.

3. Nicolaus on Hyrcanus 11 In describing Hyrcanus, Nicolaus had t o deal with a delicate p r o b l e m . H e had t o describe him positively e n o u g h t o b e a worthy patron for A n t i p a t e r and H e r o d , s o m e o n e w h o s e legitimacy w o u l d b e transferred t o t h e Antipatrids.'* H o w e v e r , t h e reason for t h e transfer had t o b e m a d e clear; t h e usurpation had to be justified. H e a c c o m p l i s h e d t h e s e g o a l s in t h r e e ways. First, of course, Nicolaus e x p e n d e d t r e m e n d o u s e n e r g y o n exalting A n t i p a t e r and his sons, including - as M o t z o (1927) emphasized transferring many of Hyrcanus' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s t o t h e m . S e c o n d , w h i l e N i c o l a u s frequently n o t e s Hyrcanus' non-political nature, h e praises his character: right at t h e outset o{ Ant 14, Hyrca­ nus' t e n d e n c y not t o b e l i e v e slander is characterized as a result o f his d e c e n c y and kindness (xpy\ai6c, wv...St' feTctetxeiav); only undiscerning observers might c o n c l u d e that h e was ignoble and unmanly (dtyevvT) x a i ocvavSpov - Ant 14 § 13)."

" This happens implicitly throughout the story, explicitly a t / W l § TAAI/Ant 14 §§ 325-26, where Hyrcanus recommends "Herod and his men" to Mark Antony. " In further support of the assumption that this assessment derives from Nicolau.s, recall that Ant 14 § 179 in fact attributes Hyrcanus' inability to move

228

DANEEL R. SCHWARTZ

'Ilius, for N i c o l a u s , A n t i p a t e r and H e r o d were both active individu­ als ( A n t i g o n u s : SpaoTr)piO(; kvr\p JW 1 § 226; H e r o d : tpuoei Spaar?)pioc, JW 1 § 2 0 4 ) , just as much as Aristobulus was; they contrast with Hyrcanus, w h o s e
against Herod to the former's otvavSpia and &voia (unmanliness and folly). This latter passage, however, is a Josephan composition, a result of his new use in Antiquities of the tradition which had Herod summoned to the Sanhedrin (see below). So Josephus himself viewed Hyrcanus as "unmanly," leaving the statement at 14 § 13 to Nicolaus. As we have noted, in Part 2, Nicolaus himself explained Hyrcanus' failure to move against Herod as a result of Herod's objective advanta­ ge (/H^ 1 § 212).

JOSHPHUS ON HYRCANUS rr

229

T h e s a m e contrast reappears b e t w e e n JW 1 § 2 0 3 and Ant 14 §§ 157-58. In War, w e find Antipater talcing measures t o o r g a n i z e t h e country, for h e s a w that Hyrcanus was t o o phlegmatic (VQ&TJ) and w i t h o u t t h e energy n e e d e d for kingship (paotXEiac d T o v o T e p o v ) . N o t e well: a s t a t e m e n t has b e e n m a d e only about Hyrcanus' qualities as a king, a n d A n t i p a t e r is d o i n g what has t o b e d o n e for t h e country. But in t h e parallel at Ant 14 §§ 157-58, w e read only that w h e n A n t i p a t e r saw that Hyrcanus was dull and phlegmatic (PpaSuv icai V6)9-Ti) h e a p p o i n t e d his o w n s o n s as governors. That is, a general s t a t e m e n t c o n d e m n i n g Hyrcanus ( n o t just q u a king) is f o l l o w e d by a report that A n t i p a t e r t o o k a d v a n t a g e of him. In War, presumably

following

N i c o l a u s , A n t i p a t e r has responsibly s t e p p e d in t o fill a poWer v a c u u m . In Antiquities,

in contrast, J o s e p h u s has Antipater taking advantage o f

a w e a k sovereign.^" T h e latter t w o contrasts (JW 1 § \24//Ant 203//Ant

14 §§ 8-14; JW 1 §

14 §§ 157-58) are precisely t h e reverse of what w e s a w above

regarding Aristobulus' putsch at the e n d of his mother's life. In that c a s e , according t o War Aristobulus self-seekingly took advantage o f her w e a k n e s s , w h i l e Antiquities

has him looking o u t for t h e r e a l m ; here,

with regard t o Antipater, t h e caretaker of t h e state in War has b e e n r e p l a c e d by t h e self-seeking climber in Antiquities.

T h e explanation,

clearly, is that War Is N i c o l a u s ' version W\\\\Q Antiquities for t h e J o s e p h u s of Antiquities,

is Josephus';

as w e have s e e n , it is always g o o d for

a m a l e H a s m o n e a n t o d o what must b e d o n e t o maintain office. This role reversal c o r r e s p o n d s precisely t o what w e have s e e n a b o v e with r e g a r d t o 5paCTTT)piO(; a n d

^epjiOTTjc;.

S o far, then, w e have s e e n that Nicolaus presented A n t i p a t e r as H y r c a n u s ' faithful right-hand m a n and Hyrcanus as a g o o d m a n w h o n e e d e d Antipater's help. That wouldn't d o , however, for t h e relation­ s h i p b e t w e e n H e r o d a n d Hyrcanus, for Herod eventually replaced and killed Hyrcanus. T o cover this, N i c o l a u s provided an e p i s o d e which s u p p l i e d H e r o d with s o m e justification: the e p i s o d e o f H e r o d ' s trial, o n e o f t h e most confusing e p i s o d e s in all of the parallel narratives o f JW 1 and Ant 14 ( L a q u e u r 1920: 171-86; Gilboa 1979-80; Efron 1987: 190-97). In War t h e story begins at 1 § 208: after reporting H e r o d ' s s u c c e s s in suppressing banditry in t h e Syrian borderlands, J o s e p h u s

" Thi.s difference between the two narratives is missed by Helm 1921: 509, who views JW 1 §§ 109,203 as simply agreeing with Anl 14 § 158.

230

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

c o m m e n t s that "In success (eOnpaYiatc;) it is i m p o s s i b l e t o e s c a p e j e a l o u s y (
by

m a l i c i o u s courtiers, until, after gradual i n f l a m m a t i o n , Hyrcanus' rage e x p l o d e d a n d he s u m m o n e d H e r o d to trial (1 § 2 1 0 ) . T h i s is very r e m i n i s c e n t o f JW 1 § 67, w h e r e J o h n Hyrcanus I's s u c c e s s e s (eOnpayicLc,), a n d t h o s e of his s o n s , aroused t h e envy ((p&ovoc) o f t h e Jews, w h i c h g r e w until t h e s m o l d e r i n g flames burst o u t i n t o o p e n war. But that p a s s a g e clearly derives from N i c o l a u s ( a s results not only from o u r g e n e r a l a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t JW 1 but also from specific local c o n s i d e r ations^'), a n d s o w e m a y safely a s s u m e that §§ 2 0 8 - 2 1 0 d o t o o . A s t h e War story p r o c e e d s , w e read that H e r o d w e n t u p to Jerusa­ l e m but e s c a p e d j u d g e m e n t d u e t o t h e intervention o f S e x t u s Caesar, t h e g o v e r n o r of Syria, w h o o r d e r e d Hyrcanus t o r e l e a s e H e r o d . H e r o d a s s u m e d that his e s c a p e was contrary t o Hyrcanus' w i s h e s (JW 1 § 212), and

after Sextus Caesar a p p o i n t e d him g o v e r n o r o f C o e l e - S y r i a

and Samaria

p l a n n e d t o march u p o n J e r u s a l e m a n d d e p o s e Hyrca­

nus. F r o m this, h o w e v e r , h e w a s d i s s u a d e d by his father a n d brother.

" See D. R. Schwartz 1983:158-59. I will respond briefly to two crhiques. (1) Mason (1991: 222-227) has taken issue with my analysis of the parallel at Ant 13 § 288, claiming that Josephus authored it without help from Nicolaus. But at pp. 222-23 he apparently admits, in any case, that the statement in JW 1 § 67 is indeed to be traced to Nicolaus. Moreover, it is difficult to accept Mason's analysis of Ant 13 § 288-298, which concludes (p. 245) that Josephus could author the defamatory statement about the Pharisees at 13 § 288 because by oversight he failed to see that the traditional story he thereafter inserted had a pro-Pharisaic point of view. (2) In a lecture at the 1991 conference of the American Association for Jewish Studies, Professor David Williams argued that, judging from the use of a particle and two prepositions ( Y « f . x a T o t and n p o i ; ) and its comparison to a data-base compiled from compositions by Nicolaus and Josephus, Josephus seems to have been the "final author" of Ant 13 § 288. Professor Williams kindly sent me a copy of the yet-unpublished paper, entitled "The Authorship of Anti-Phari­ saic Material in Antiquities: A Stylometric Analysis." In response, we note that, even apart from the doubts one has about the appropriateness of statistical analysis for such a short text, the fact remains that, as Williams stipulates, "[Josephus] may have worked from source material when writing them." Thus, the point seems nugatory. In general, agreements, contradictions and changes in point-of-view, along with usage of striking vocabulary, appear to be better guides for source-analysis in ancient historiography; the methods which Williams applied were developed, as he indicates, not for the study of writers who used sources, but, rather, for the identification of political essayists, each of whom has a well-identi­ fied corpus of writings known with security lo have been written independently. We have neither for Josephus nor Nicolaus.

JOSEPHUS ON HYRCANUS 11

231

arguing that he o u g h t t o spare t h e king under w h o m h e h a d g a i n e d great power, and b e grateful, for the present, for having e s c a p e d with his Hfe. That is, Hyrcanus - m o v e d by envy -- had p e r s e c u t e d H e r o d , and H e r o d had exercised a n o b l e forgiveness in sparing him for the present. W h e n t h e t i m e will c o m e , H e r o d will b e m o r e justified in replacing t h e o l d man.^^ N i c o l a u s ' a p p r o a c h is m a d e clear by t h e contrast with J o s e p h u s ' version in Antiquities,

which is influenced by a Jewish tradition of

I lerod's trial (cf. b. Sanhedrin

19a); there is n o trial in the War version.

H e r e , first o f all, H e r o d p o s e s a true threat, and it is t h e leading Jews (Ant

14 § 163) and t h e m e m b e r s of t h e Sanhedrin, not malicious

courtiers, w h o initiate t h e m o v e against him. In Antiquities, ingly, Hyrcanus — as n o t e d a b o v e

correspond­

is not j e a l o u s of H e r o d ; t h e threat,

as L a q u e u r e m p h a s i z e d s o well (1920: 171-84), is to t h e state, not to H y r c a n u s , " and Hyrcanus, w h o s h o u l d have b e e n responsible for the state, fails t o r e c o g n i z e t h e threat. In fact, Hyrcanus secretly c o n n i v e s with H e r o d in m a n a g i n g t h e latter's e s c a p e (§ 177), thus e l i m i n a t i n g t h e n o t i o n (JW 1 § 2 1 2 ) that H e r o d might think that H y r c a n u s o p ­ p o s e d his e s c a p e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , H e r o d ' s p l a n n e d attack w a s not against Hyrcanus, as InJW 1 § 214, but, rather, against Jerusalem {Ant 14 § 181)

w h o s e court had a t t e m p t e d t o c o n d e m n him. ( A t this point

[Ant 14 § 181], J o s e p h u s reverts t o Nicolaus' version, w h e r e t h e e n e m y w a s H y r c a n u s , not t h e Sanhedrin.) T h u s , t h e difference b e t w e e n Josephus and N i c o l a u s is, that while they b o t h a g r e e that Hyrcanus was ineffective w h e n A n t i p a t e r w a s at his s i d e ( J o s e p h u s c o n d e m n i n g Hyrcanus for staying in t h e race and N i c o l a u s praising A n t i p a t e r for serving his master w e l l ) , w h e n push c a m e t o s h o v e and Hyrcanus, as ruler of the H a s m o n e a n state, had to

" Unfortunately, it is not clear whether we have Nicolaus' account of Hyrcanus' death, for the account mJW 1 §§ 43.3-34 is so anti-Herodian that Stern (1991:451) doubts it is Nicolaus'. Of the two accounts mAnt 15 §§ 165-78, one is attributed in § 174 to "Herod's memoirs," whatever that means, and the other is attributed to unnamed others who are hostile to Herod. ° Helm's complaint (1921: 510), that laqueur's distinction is artificial sinccAnt 14 § 167 has the prominent Jews complaining not only that Herod did what orjy the Sanhedrin may do, but also that he executed his victims without Hyrcanus' permission, is hardly to the point. The point is that at the parallel at JW 1 § 209 there is no reference to the Sanhedrin, and that the new reference to it, in Ant 14 § 167, results in a self-contradiction - which points up the composite nature of the narrative there.

232

Stand

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ

u p against H e r o d , J o s e p h u s c o n d e m n s him for faihng t o s t a n d

u p . N i c o l a u s , in contrast, has Hyrcanus, m o t i v a t e d by j e a l o u s y and not by interests o f state, initiate t h e persecution of H e r o d , t h u s exculpating H e r o d for later r e s p o n d i n g i n kind. 4.

Conclusion

In s u m m a r y , w e may say that in rewriting t h e history o f this p e r i o d for h\s Antiquities,

J o s e p h u s i m p o s e d u p o n it t h e interpretational d e v i c e o f

aTOLoiQ just as i n his earlier work axaai^

by t h o s e w h o failed t o

r e c o g n i z e t h e R o m a n facts of life had explained t h e final c a t a s t r o p h e o f t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e period, s o t o o axaaic,

b e t w e e n t h o s e w h o failed

t o r e c o g n i z e t h e R o m a n and Antipatrid facts o f life it is m a d e t o e x p l a i n t h e fall o f t h e H a s m o n e a n s and t h e takeover by R o m e and t h e H e r o d i a n s . T h a t OXOLOIQ was t h e struggle b e t w e e n t h e t w o s o n s o f S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , and should have b e e n a v o i d e d by t h e retirement from politics o f Hyrcanus, w h o by nature was unfit t o rule; had h e s t a y e d o u t o f politics h e w o u l d h a v e b e e n respected. I l e did not retire, h o w e v e r , and t h e struggle which e n s u e d allowed for t h e

Roman

t a k e o v e r . M o r e o v e r , after t h e R o m a n s r e m o v e d Aristobulus from t h e arena, Hyrcanus' incapacity prevented him from d e a l i n g with t h e n e w c o m p e t i t i o n . J o s e p h u s turned t h e n o t i o n o f Hyrcanus' incapacity, which N i c o l a u s had applied — invented? - in order t o explain and justify t h e rise o f t h e Antipatrids, not into a w e a p o n t o c o n d e m n t h e A n t i p a t r i d s , as L a q u e u r thought, but into o n e to c o n d e m n Hyrcanus, a n d b l a m e him for t h e fall of t h e Jewish national state.

JOSEPHUS' DESCRIFI'ION OF T H E JERUSALEM TEMPLE: WAR, ANTIQUITIES,

AND OTHER SOURCES

I ^ e I. Levine

Historians o f antiquity often b e m o a n the fact that they are severely l i m i t e d by t h e paucity of sources at their disposal. T h e y wish for m o r e but, alas, all are c o m p e l l e d to focus on t h e relatively small a m o u n t o f s o u r c e s available, analyzing and dissecting every p i e c e of information to t h e fullest. C o l l e a g u e s of the m o d e r n period are faced with the o p p o s i t e p r o b l e m ; inundated with sources, they o f t e n have t o make difficult d e c i s i o n s about what to

exclude.

T h e r e is n o s i m p l e solution to the quandary besetting t h e historian o f antiquity, for e v e n w h e r e there are sources available o n e always has t o ask h o w representative t h e s e sources are, and how reflective they are o f t h e society at large. At times, o n e may fall into t h e trap of a s s u m i n g t h e historicity of an event or the accuracy of a depiction o f f e r e d by a given source, and this is in large part d u e to the fact that it is n o w h e r e contradicted or that there is no o t h e r m e a n s by which to m e a s u r e its veracity. All t o o often credibility follows in t h e w a k e o f availability. O n t h e o t h e r hand, the very existence of a n u m b e r o f different s o u r c e s d e a l i n g with a specific topic d o e s not assure an accurate r e a d i n g of reality. Several sources dealing with the s a m e subject may b e contradictory and problematic, making it almost impossible to d e t e r m i n e which, if any, of t h e m is the m o r e reliable. For e x a m p l e , the varying d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e Jerusalem sanhedrin in Greek and H e b r e w s o u r c e s h a v e led scholars over the g e n e r a t i o n s to formulate a bewilder­ ing array o f o p i n i o n s o n the subject ( M a n t e l 1965: 5 4 - 1 0 1 ) . A n e v e n m o r e perplexing e x a m p l e of historical sources at s e e m i n g l y cross p u r p o s e s has t o d o with t h e Jerusalem T e m p l e . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e T e m p l e and its centrality to Jewish society are well d o c u m e n t e d . T h r o u g h o u t t h e S e c o n d T e m p l e period this institution served as the heart of J u d e a n life, not only in terms of cult and ritual, but politically, socially, judicially, and culturally as well (Jeremias 1969: 27ff, 51ff, 73ff, 126ff). It is not surprising, therefore, that t h e T e m p l e has b e e n d e -

234

t e n 1. LEViNF,

scribed in a variety of ways by Hellenistic and R o m a n authors such as H e c a t a e u s (AgAp 1 § 197-99; Stern 1974-84: 1.39), Agatharehides (AgAp 1 § 209; Stern 1974-84: 1.107), Ari-steas,' the writers of the T e m p l e Scroll (Yadin 1977-83: 1.179-276; 2.129-200), and Tacitus {Histories 5.12.1; Stern 1974-84: 2.30,57). T h e sources they have left us are at times cryptic, general, ambiguous or, alternatively, incredibly detailed; it is not always clear whether they were describing something real or painting an idealized portrait.^ T w o literary sources Josephus* and the Mishnah {m. Mid. 1-5. S e e H o l t z m a n n 1913; HoUis 1934) present a comprehensive picture o f what appears to have been Herod's T e m p l e of the first century C B . However, in examining these two sources w e s e e that there is a minimal amount of agreement between them. Discrepancies are in evidence at every turn: the size of the T e m p l e Mount, the number of outer gates, the size of the stones used in constructing the walls, the number of stairs leading up to the sacred precincts, the number and location of the inner gates, the plan and size of the inner gates, the height of the T e m p l e and its doors, etc. Disagreement is apparent regarding specific details as well, for example, the location of t h e large (;!orinthian brass gate or of Nieanor's Gate (if indeed they arc not o n e and t h e same") and the size, shape and location of the W o m e n ' s Court. U p o n further scrutiny our problem becomes even more complicated. It is o n e thing to try and reconcile diverse sources, it is quite another to reconcile contradicting information within a specific source. T h e discrepancies between Josephus' War and Antiquities, for example, are not insignificant. JW 5 § 192 reports that the area of the T e m p l e

' /•->. Arisi. 83-99. Cf. Bonfil 1972: 133; Vincent 1908-09. ' S o m e have o p i n e d that J o s e p h u s ' description of the T e m p l e courts of S o l o m o n {Ant 8 §§ 95-98) in fact reflects those in the time of H e r o d . See T h a c k e r a y ' s c o m m e n t s in the I.C'i. to Ant 5 §§ 622-23. See, however, the c o m m e n t s of Y a d i n 1977-83: 1.192-194. For o t h e r Second T e m p l e descriptions of the p r e - H e r o d i a n T e m p l e , see Yadin 1977-83: 1.194-196. Convenient bibliographies relating to studies on the T e m p l e may b e found in F e l d m a n 1984: 438-444; Purvis 1988: 1.178-192. W 5 §§ 184-247; Am 15 §§ 380-425. O n J o s e p h u s ' account of the T e m p l e ' s construction, see Horbury 1991: 108-115. ' O n this question, see now J. Schwartz 1991 and bibliography cited t h e r e .

JOSF.PHUS' DF-SCRIPTION OF THE JHRUSALEM TEMPLE

235

Mount enclosed by Herod measured sbc stades. Ant 15 § 400 four stades; Ant 15 § 418 speaks of triple inner gates, JW 5 § 202 of double gates. According to-4n/ 15 § 391 the Temple was 120 cubits high. War fixes it at 9 0 or 100 cubits;^ Ant 15 § 418 describes an undisclosed number of gates to the north and south of the T e m p l e precincts and o n e to the east; JW 5 §§ 198-99 mentions eight to the north and south and four to the east and speaks of the separation of men and w o m e n upon entering the sacred p r e c i n c t s ; 1 5 §§ 418-19 instead speaks of men and w o m e n entering these precincts together. The Mishnaic account of Tractate Middot also contains contradicto­ ry information. At various stages the Mishnah speaks of five, seven, and thirteen gates leading to the sacred courts.^ Not only d o the numbers vary but so d o the names of s o m e of these gates (cf. m. Mid. 1:5 and 2:6). O n occasion, variant descriptions are offered within the Mishnaic or Rabbinic literature: how the Israelite court was separated from the priestly one: by mosaics, a wall, or differing heights (m. Mid. 2:6); whether Nicanor's Gate was flanked by two smaller gates or by two offices (cf. m. Mid. 1:4 and 2:6); which offices and gates stood to the north and south of the Temple building (cf. m. Mid. 5:3-4 and h. Yoma 19a). There is no limit to the ingenuity of scholars in dealing with these baffling discrepancies. Only a few have opted for the priority of the Mishnah over Josephus for o n e or more of the following reasons: it is a halakhic document and therefore its details are precise; much evidence in it is attributed to R. Eliezer b. R. Jacob of the mid- to late first century and can therefore be presumed accurate, as the rabbis were k e e n to record a meticulous description of the T e m p l e . ' More often, however, the primacy of Josephus' descriptions has b e e n assumed owing to the fact that he was a priest living in Jerusalem during the last d e c a d e s of the Second Temple period and was thus a first-hand witness; owing to his claims to accuracy as a professional

^JW 5 § § 207, 209. Within JW there a p p e a r s to be s o m e confusion with the above two n u m b e r s cited. Moreover, in one place (§ 207) the back of the T e m p l e building is described as n a r r o w e r than the front; in o t h e r places, the s a m e width (§§ 209, 215). ' S e e m. Mid 1:1 (5 gates); 1:4 (7 gates); and 2:6 (13 gales; see also m. Sheqalim 6:2). F o r various a t t e m p t s to explain this discrepancy, see b. Tainid 27a. ' H i l d e s h e i m e r 1876-77; Klein 1939; 132-133; Kaufman 1977; 66. See also Hollis 1934: 18-20 and the c o m m e n t s of Luria 1968; 3-14.

236

LEf- I. I.F.VINE

historian; and, by defauh, owing to the rabbis' proclivity to idealize their descriptions with data taken from earlier (i.e., Biblical) periods.^ F e w historians have specified which of Josephus' depictions they prefer. Perhaps many were unaware of the scope and gravity of the internal contradictions and, as a result, they merely lumped together e v i d e n c e from both Antiquities and War. Only on rare occasion has the issue of Josephus" contradictory evidence been raised. Recently, both Busink (1978-80: 2.36f0 and E. P. Sanders (1992: 59-60) have explicitly stated their preference for the description in War. A n o t h e r approach to this problem of reconciling the variant data has b e e n to accept the reliability of both sources and then to try and resolve the differences between them. This approach claims that the IVIishnah is to be relied upon for all descriptions of the T e m p l e ' s inner sacred precincts, as it was this aspect of the Temple M o u n t complex that was of primary concern to the sages and, at the same time, accords credence to Josephus' descriptions regarding the surrounding T e m p l e Mount (Avi-Yonah 1956: 396-397). H o w e v e r , a second, more popular approach has b e e n a d o p t e d , wherein the descriptions in Josephus and the Mishnah are assigned to different historical periods. Thus, it has been assumed that J o s e p h u s speaks of the first-century T e m p l e while the Mishnah relates to a preH e r o d i a n structure of the Hasmonean era (Magen 1980: 47-53) or, according to some, to the T e m p l e of Zerubbabel in the Persian period.' All of these attempts must also take into consideration the archeological finds, which, of course, present their own set of problems (see below). Into this maze of opinion and speculation we tread cautiously and hesitantly, knowing full well that a myriad of conceivable positions has b e e n suggested to date. In what follows we will attempt to delineate an overall strategy for dealing with this problem, suggest an approach to reconcile the various sources, point out several problems that will stiti remain unexplained, and. finally, examine the ramifications of our

' V i n c e n t a n d St^ve l954-.'i6: 2.517-25; Simons 1952: 404-8, esp. 407-8; H o l t z ­ m a n n 1913: 3; T h a c k e r a y , IXT- to / T f 5 § 197 (p. 259 n o t e e ) ; F e l d m a n 1984: 440; F e l d m a n in F-eldman and H a t a 1987: 42; see also W a c h o l d e r 1979. ' L u r i a 1968: 14; Brand I960: 212, 216. Cf. F e l d m a n in F e l d m a n a n d H a t a 1987: 42-43.

JOSEPHUS' niLSCRlPTiON OF THE JF.RUSALEM TEMPLE

237

suggestion vis-fi-vis several wider issues within Jewish society of the first century. W e suggest commencing with the m o r e certain

and

reliable data at hand and then following with what we consider to be the less certain and reliable information. Beginning with the archeological material

the e v i d e n c e revealed

in excavations since the mid-19th century, and especially during the last twenty-five years, is definitive although, admittedly, quite limited in s c o p e . The following are three of the m o r e salient pieces of data t o be garnered from excavations of the southern and western sectors of the T e m p l e Mount: (1)

H e r o d e x p a n d e d t h e T e m p l e Mount area t o t h e south, west, and north. T h e m e a s u r e m e n t s of these areas at the time of t h e destruction of J e r u s a l e m c a n b e calculated r a t h e r precisely: the western wall was 488m long, the southern 280m, t h e n o r t h e r n 315m, and t h e e a s t e m 460m, all together - some 1550m in circumference.'"

(2)

T h e n u m b e r of gates in the western and southern walls of the T e m p l e M o u n t has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d with certainty, four o n the west a n d two on the south." T h e s e gates served a variety of purposes, a n d each o n e s e e m s to have b e e n designated for a specific function. T h e two southern gates offered access t o the sacred T e m p l e precincts, and t h e gate above Robinson's Arch near the s o u t h w e s t e r n c o r n e r of t h e T e m p l e Mount gave entrance to t h e royal stoa, which s p a r m e d almost t h e entire southern part of the T e m p l e Mount. T h e r e may have b e e n a similar entrance from the southeast, thereby affording access from t h e two entrances at either end of t h e basilica t o those a p ­ p r o a c h i n g t h e T e m p l e Mount from the south for non-cultic purposes. Barclay's G a t e on the west may also have led t o the basilica area, while two o t h e r w e s t e r n gates, further north, offered direct access t o t h e T e m p l e precincts: t h e g a t e associated with Wilson's Arch facilitated entry from t h e U p p e r City (for priests a n d o t h e r wealthy residents), and W a r r e n ' s G a t e gave e n t r a n c e from t h e north a n d northwest of t h e T e m p l e M o u n t ( B e n - D o v 1982: 135-47).

(3)

In addition t o the archeological material, we suggest assuming the intrinsic veracity of Josephus' descriptions of the T e m p l e M o u n t although given his propensity to exaggerate at times, and his inclina­ tion toward apologetics, his descriptions should always be taken with s o m e d e g r e e of caution. T h e major difficulty in Josephus' accounts lies

Vincent a n d StSve 1954-56: 2.528ff; Simons 1952: 346; Busink 1978-80: 2.1005-1016; B e n - D o v 1982: 77. " Vincent a n d Stfive 1954-56: 2.539-53; Simons 1952: 357-69; Busink 1978-80: 2.951-79; B e n - D o v 1982: 135.

238

LFF. 1. LEVINE

in the discrepancies between War -and Aniiquiiies, the most salient of which w e have noted above. It would seem that the simplest and most reasonable explanation for these contradictions is that Josephus was, in fact, describing two different buildings, i.e., the T e m p l e as it existed in two historical contexts. The Antiquities account reflects the T e m p l e that H e r o d built ca. 20 BCE, while the War account reflects the T e m p l e as known first-hand by Josephus and as viewed by Titus when he reached Jerusalem. In other words, it is the T e m p l e described in War that was destroyed in 70.'^ The description of the T e m p l e in the Antiquities account, at the end of Book 15, is set in the chronological context of Flerod's reign; the War account in Book 5 describes the situation immediately following Titus' encampment by the walls of Jerusalem. How, then, are wc to explain the substantial differences b e t w e e n these two buildings? I lere w c have the good fortune of being aided by a variety of sources. While none clearly specifies what exactly was d o n e during the eighty-year interim between the two periods described by Josephus, they do attest to the fact that the T e m p l e building and the entire mount had undergone far-reaching renovations; ongoing repairs, alterations, and reconstruction appear to have b e e n carried out during the course of the first century. References to these renovations are derived from independent sources and their combined impact is therefore all the more significant. In the gospel of John, the Jews responded to Jesus' claim, that were the T e m p l e to be d e m o l i s h e d h e would rebuild it in three days, by saying: "It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple" (John 2:20)! It may thus be assumed that work o n the T e m p l e continued down to at least the mid-20s of the first century C E . A second reference - from Rabbinic literature alludes to constru­ ction work on the Temple Mount during the time of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (fl. ca. 25-50 CE). While sitting on the monumental staircase south of the T e m p l e (rr'nn inn nbst^n 31 bs) an Aramaic targum of Job was brought to him. Rabban Gamaliel ordered a construction worker to rebury it in o n e of the courses of the T e m p l e wall.'* Finally, the best-known source regarding Temple repairs is Josephus himself, w h o speaks of the termination of work on the Temple Mount

" A point touched on by A. Biichler (1898: 678-682) but never d e v e l o p e d . " t. Shabbat 13.2 ( L i e b e r m a n 57); I.ieberman 1955-88: 3.204.

JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF THE JERUSAU-.M TEMPLE

239

complex in 6 4 CE, which left no less than 18,000 workers unem­ ployed.'* Thus, on the basis of the above three sources, it appears reasonable to assume that extensive work was carried out on the T e m p l e Mount complex during the 75-or-so years between the comple­ tion of the building (at least hs first stage) by Herod and the termina­ tion of repair work in 64." In addition to the significant differences in the physical features of the T e m p l e Mount attested by War in comparison with Antiquities, which w e noted above (e.g., the doubling of the T e m p l e Mount area and the design of the gates), the following changes may also be noted (1) the number of inner gates increased significantly and they were modified from triple to double portals; (2) the height of the Temple building was altered; (3) the number of gates leading to the Temple's sacred precincts increased to twelve (Buchler 1898: 712-718); (4) the so-called "Women's (or Outer) Court" became a walled-off area restricted now to w o m e n only; (5) wealthy Diaspora Jews took a leading role in the lavish decora­ tion of the T e m p l e , as evidenced by Nicanor's Gate,'' the gold-plating of the other gates by Alexander, an alabarch from Alexandria,'" and the gifts of H e l e n a and Monobaz (m. Yoma 3:10).

'"Ant 20 § 219; J e r e m i a s 1969; 22; R h o a d s 1976: 82; G o o d m a n 1987: 52-54; Rajak 1983; 124-125. liven after 64, there were plans to continue repairing and reconstructing the T e m p l e . Agrippa II had timber brought from l ^ b a n o n to s u p p o r t the sanctuary and raise it a n o t h e r twenty cubits (JW 5 § 36). " C a d o u x 1937: 180-181 n. 6. O n dating H e r o d ' s building itself, see J e r e m i a s 1969: 21-22 n. 39; Schalit I960: 194 and n. 744. Cf. Corbishley 1935: 26-27. " S e e / H ' 5 § § 192, 198-99, 2 0 2 , 2 0 7 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 5 ; 15 §§ 391, 400, 418-19 and n. 5 a b o v e . " S e e m , y o m a 3:10; r. Vomfl 2.4 ( L i e b e r m a n 231);y. Yoma3Ala;b. Yoma 38a; a n d J. Schwartz 1991. S o m e confusion exists over w h e t h e r this gate's n a m e derives from a d o n o r ( t h e usual assumption, but see Schwartz), and whether h e was a J e r u s a l e m i t e or an Alexandrian. Rabbinic literature claims the former (/>. Yoma 3 8 a ) b u t J o s e p h u s and archeological evidence point to the latter, and this is u n d o u b t e d l y correct. See CIJ 2.261-262 no. 1256; Kane 1978; 279-282. O n A l e x a n d r i a n artisans brought to Jerusalem, see (. Yoma 2.5 ( L i e b e r m a n 231) and L i e b e r m a n 1955-88: 4.761. '*JW 5 § 206. A l e x a n d e r was the father of Tiberius Alexander, praefect of J u d e a , and the b r o t h e r of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo. Cf. Anl 18 § 259; on the lavish use of gold in the T e m p l e , see J e r e m i a s 1969: 24-25.

240

LEF (. LEVINE

Given the basic credibiHty which we propose attaching to Josephus' descriptions of the T e m p l e Mount, this material, in turn, may b e c o m e a touchstone for evaluating other sources. Although w e consider Mishnah Middot to be a less reliable historical source than Josephus regarding the Second T e m p l e , " we find a not insignificant amount of material there in agreement with War. Both sources speak of a W o m e n ' s Court, although many of the Mishnah's details are absent from War, and vice versa (JW 5 §§ 198-199; m. Mid. 2:5), each refers to a monumental eastern gate made of bronze,^ a raven-chaser (JW 5 § 224; m. Mid. 4:6; s e e Lieberman 1950: 172-177). gold-plated doors {JW 5 §§ 201, 205, 207-208; m. Mid. 2:3), a series of steps leading from the T e m p l e Mount to the sacred precincts and a ten-cubit wide terrace (b-^n) at the top of the stairs {JW5 §§ 196-197; m. Mid 2:3), a chancel-screen around the sacred precincts ( / l i ' 5 § 193; m. Mid. 2:3), fifteen steps leading to the inner Israelite court and twelve from the priestly court to the T e m p l e edifice {JW 5 §§ 206-207; m. Mid 2:5; 3:6), identical measurements (100 x 100 cubits) for the T e m p l e facade {JW5 § 207; m. Mid. 4:6), the fact that the facade of the building was wider than the back parls,^' the length of the sanctuary (byn) and the Holy of I lolies (40 and 20 cubits, respectively in JW 5 §§ 216, 219 and ni. Mid. 4:7), three-storied chambers surrounding the T e m p l e {JW 5 §§ 220-21; m. Mid 4:3), a one-cubit high parapet separating the Israelite and priestly courts (at least according to o n e opinion in the M i s h n a h ) . " and an almost identical number of inner gates." Thus, it would appear that much of what has been preserved in the Mishnah

I n addition to the relatively late final redaction of m. Mid. (5.4), its Biblical r e f e r e n c e s (e.g., 2 : 1 , 2:5, 3:1, 3:8, 4:1-2), a n d occasional internal disputes (2:5-6, 3:6, 4:6), it a p p e a r s to have preserved material from the e n t i r e Second T e m p l e p e r i o d as Ihe T e m p l e went through periodic alterations. Y e k o n y a h ' s G a t e (2:6) a n d the Shushan G a t e (1:3) may well reflect the Persian period, references to A n t i o c h u s ' persecutions the H a s m o n e a n era (1:6, 2:3), a n d n a m i n g the K i p o n o s ( C o p o n i u s ? ) CJate the early R o m a n period or the first century (1:3). ' " C a l l e d a "Corinthian" gate in JW 5 §§ 201, 204 a n d N i e a n o r ' s G a t e in m. Mid. 2:3. " See JW 5 § 207; m. Mid. 4:7, although there is d i s a g r e e m e n t over how m u c h this front part projected, 15 cubits on either side (Middot) or 2 0 (JW). " JW 5 § 226; m. Mid. 2:6, following the opinion of R. E l i e z e r b . J a c o b in the Mishnah. ^ According lo JW 5 §§ 198-199, there were twelve gates; according to A b b a Yosi b . H a n n a n in m. Mid. 2:6. there wer e thirteen.

JOSF.PHUS' DF^CRiPTION OF THF. JF.RUSALEM TF.MPLF.

241

was indeed drawn from tlie immediate pre-70 reality.'* Otlier material may reflect alternative traditions offering unsubstantiated filling-in of details or simply references to biblical sources (the disputes recorded in the Mishnah indicate how unclear s o m e of these details were to later generations). It is also possible that s o m e material may reflect either an earlier stage of reconstruction in the first century (cf. n. 19 above) or even a pre-Herodian structure.^ For the present, however, such possibilities are only conjectural. O n e of the most serious discrepancies w e have been unable to account for relates to the area of the Temple Mount. Its perimeter, as reflected in archeological excavations (1550m), is far different from that spelled out in either War (ca. 120Dm) or the Mishnah (lOOOm).^ T h e difference between the actual site and Josephus' figure may be significantly reduced by assuming different measurements for the length of a stade (Josephus notes a circumference of 6 stades) or a generous margin of error. The Mishnah figure is surely influenced by Ezek 42:20.

" In n u m e r o u s articles, Buchler has claimed that most R a b b i n i c traditions r e g a r d i n g t h e T e m p l e reflect a time immediately preceding t h e o u t b r e a k of hostilities in 66 Cli. See, for example, 1898; 1899: 61-62; and the c h a p t e r s " O n t h e History of t h e T e m p l e Worship in Jerusalem" and "Family Purity a n d Family Impurity in J e r u s a l e m before the Y e a r 70 C.E." (1956: 24-98). A typical assertion of his is the following: "All these considerations should m a k e it clear to us that t h e descriptions in t h e Mishnah of T a m i d , Y o m a , Pesahim, and Shekalim p o r t r a y t o us t h e newly organized divine service of the last d e c a d e before t h e destruction of the T e m p l e " (1956: 63). " ['"or e x a m p l e , the n u m b e r of stairs leading from t h e T e m p l e M o u n t a r e a to t h e s a c r e d precincts, fourteen according to JW 5 §§ 197-198, and twelve according to m. Mid. 2:3; JW 5 § 197, 205 speaks of five additional stairs from the t e r r a c e (b'^n) to t h e i n n e r gates, an a r r a n g e m e n t unknown to m. Mid.;JW 5 § 201 knows of d o o r s p l a t e d in silver as well as gold, m. Mid only of gold (2:3); JW 5 § 202 claims that t h e g a t e s to the sacred a r e a were 30 cubits high and 15 cubits wide ), m. Mid. 2:3 s p e a k s of 20 x 10; t h e d o o r of t h e T e m p l e porch (DVIK) was 70 x 25 cubits according t o / H ' 5 § 207, but only 4 0 x 20 cubits according to m. Mid. 3:7, although t h e height in Middot did not include five b e a m s placed over the e n t r a n c e ; t h e d o o r leading to t h e sanctuary ('73''n) was 20 x 10 cubits (m. Mid. 4:1) or 55 X 16 cubits (JW5 § 211); t h e size of the altar in JW is 50 x 50 cubits w h e r e a s t h a t in m. Mid. is smaller, 32 x 32 cubits; the rules b a n n i n g i m p u r e persons a p p e a r m u c h stricter i n / I f than in in. Mid. (e.g. 5 § 227 and 2:5, respectively); ni. Mid. 2:6 s p e a k s of two e n t r a n c e s lo t h e west of the T e m p l e , JW knows of n o n e (5 § 200); a n d , finally, t h e n u m b e r of gates in the W o m e n ' s C o u r t o n e (tn. Mid. 1:4, 2:6) or t h r e e (JW 5 §§ 198-199). " C f a b o v e n. 10; JW 5 ^ 192; m. Mid. 2:1. See Simons 1952: 408ff

242

LEU I. LBVINE

T h e discrepancy regarding the number of gates leading t o the T e m p l e Mount likewise requires explanation. T h e o n e western gate m e n t i o n e d in the Mishnah differs from the four offered by both archeological evidence and Josephus' accounts." While many have opined that the Mishnah may reflect an earlier, pre-Herodian structu­ re, the n a m e Kiponos which it preserves {suggestively similar t o the name of the R o m a n praefeet Coponius of 6-9 C E ) probably indicates a first-century setting.^ Moreover, the discrepancy b e t w e e n the description of the Women's Court in the Mishnah ( m e n and w o m e n together, a balcony erected during the Sukkot festival t o separate the sexes, and four offices in each of the corners) and that in War (a separate walled-off section for w o m e n , with its o w n entrances) is also difficult l o reconcile (m. Mid. 2:5; JW 5 §§ 198-199). Either the Mishnah portrays an imaginary reconstruction or it may represent an intermediate stage between the free mixing of m e n and w o m e n as described in Antiquities and the severe restrictions spelled out in War. If the latter be the case, the Mishnah would b e referring t o s o m e intermediate stage in the first half of the first century C E . This possible reconstruction, however, may be logically sound but historical­ ly unrealistic. Finally, let us turn to s o m e of the implications of the above analysis on the wider issues facing Jewish society and Judaism of the first century. In the first place, it is eminently clear that throughout this period the Temple continued t o retain its position as the central and focal institution of Jewish religious and political life. Partly as a result of the monumental archeological finds along the western and southern walls of the T e m p l e Mount, there exists today a greater understanding and appreciation of the significant presence of the T e m p l e in firstcentury Jewish life and its attraction and meaning for Jews in Jerusa­ lem and Judea o n the o n e hand, as well as for Diaspora Jewry o n the other. During the pilgrimage festivals, tens if not hundreds of thou­ sands of Jews from all over the world gathered at the T e m p l e (Safrai 1965:42-122). Temple-related matters such as priestly status, privileges and obligations, purity concerns, and details of the sacrificial cult had b e c o m e more central t o the Jewish religious agenda generally in late

"m. Mid. \.y,Ant 15 § 4 1 0 ; and above n. 11. Klein 1939: 125; H o l t z m a n n 1913: 50 ( n o t e ) ; Hollis 1934: 245; M a g e n 1980: 45-47; B e n - D o v 1982: 140-141; Ben-Dov et al. 1983: 44-45.

JOSEPHUS' Di:SCRIPTI0N OF THE". JERUSALEM TEMPLE

243

S e c o n d - T e m p l e Palestine. The various organized sects and other religious circles of the period often sought to define themselves in relationship to this central Jewish institution (S. J. D . Cohen 1984: 45-48; 1987: 106-7), and the concerns of the Temple helped define the agenda of many of these groups. T h e dramatic increase in the number of Jews throughout the world — according to most estimates, ranging from about five to eight million, or one-tenth of the total population of the Empire — accorded the T e m p l e an even greater degree of prominence. All Jews, whether in Israel or the Diaspora, whether Jews by birth or converts, viewed Jerusalem as their religious and ethnic center and as their mother city alongside their home cities." The ongoing repairs and ornamentation of the T e m p l e discussed above were a function of the growing and expanding populace which regarded this site as holy and of the e n o r m o u s funds flowing into the city on a regular basis. The large numbers of p e o p l e periodically flocking to Jerusalem also introduced substantial funds. A s a result, the Temple grew in size and its embel­ lishment from contributions, especially from Diaspora Jewry, continued unabated. Moreover, the T e m p l e continued to fulfill a wide range of religious needs, not only for the Jews at large but also for Nazirites, lepers, converts, and w o m e n after childbirth, thus reinforcing its primacy in Jewish consciousness.™ Forces at work in and around the T e m p l e , be they of Sadducean, aristocratic, Herodian or Pharisaic provenance, continued to make the necessary adjustments so that T e m p l e ritual would remain accessible and focal in the lives of the people. It may not be coincidental that post-Herodian renovations of the building, as evidenced by the Mishnah and War descriptions, took many of these groups into consideration. The dramatic action taken by R. S i m e o n b. Gamaliel 1 with regard to the price of doves is a particularly illustra­ tive case in point (m. Ker. 1:7; Buchler 1898; 702-4; E. P. Sanders 1992: 89). According to the Mishnah, prices had soared to such an extent that often w o m e n w h o could not afford to offer the prescribed sacrifices after miscarriages desisted from coming to the T e m p l e . In the face of an explicit stipulation in the Torah to the contrary, R.

Sipre Deut 354 (Finkelstein 416); Philo Spec. Leg. 1.12.68-70; JW ^ §§ 202-4. " O n Nazirites m e n t i o n e d frequently in the first century, s e e m . Nazir 3:5, 6:11; I. Nazir 4.10 ( L i e b e r m a n 140); cf. also m. Nazir 5:5; Acts 21:23-26; Buchler 1898: 697-702, and generally S a n d e r s 1992: 70-92.

244

LEE I. LEVINE

Simeon ruled thai o n e dove would suffice for multiple miscarriages. A s a result, the price of this commodity plummeted to 1/100 of its former rale and w o m e n were able to fulfill this obligation more readily. On the other hand, this heightened degree of activity and the presence of increasing numbers of people, among them proselytes, semi-proselytes,^' and perhaps even non-Jews, may have contributed to very different kinds of developments within the T e m p l e precincts themselves. It would seem that o n e aspect of the religious ambience of first-century Jerusalem and its Temple was moving in the direction of exclusion and separatism. A significant example in this regard is the public criticism by o n e S i m e o n of Agrippa I for entering the T e m p l e precincts,*^ possibly owing to the king's problematic status as a descendant of converts." Simeon's objections carried weight: succeeding to muster a considera­ ble number of people in Jerusalem, he caused a stir and was immedia­ tely s u m m o n e d to Caesarea for questioning by Agrippa. In the end, the king was placated perhaps having b e e n forced to capitulate — and not only relea,sed Simeon unpunished but even rewarded him with a gift! It has b e e n suggested that this incident and others may reflect increased priestly dominance over both Temple affairs and Jerusalem religious life, pcssibly indicating a more severe and restrictive religious attitude and policy in general ( D . R. Schwartz 1987a: 143). T h e eighteen decrees enacted by Bet Shammai over the objections of Bet Hitlel around the time of the outbreak of the rebellion in 66 also attest to the increasing xenophobia within certain Jewish circles. Most of these decrees were aimed at (or, at the very least, would have resulted in) the separation of Jew from non-Jew, as, for example, the o n e concerning the stipulation prohibiting the use of gentile oil (y. Shabbat 1.4.3c; Hoenig 1970: 63-75). The importance of purity issues in first-century Judaism has been emphasized by Biichler ( 1 9 5 6 : 6 4 - 9 8 ) . While never absent from the Jewish agenda, and especially in the last centuries of the Second Temple period, these concerns may well have

" Ant 19 §§ 332-34. O n the inclusion of proselytes in T e m p l e precincts, see the clear-cut e v i d e n c e of R a b b i n i c sources (e.g., m. Bikkurim. 1:4, Mck to Exod 12.49 ( H o r o w i t z - R a b i n 57) as well as c o m m e n t s by J. B a u m g a r t e n 1982: 215-25. " S e e J. B a u m g a r t e n 1982; D. R. Schwartz 1987a: 137-143; cf. F e l d m a n on Ant 19 §§ 332-34 ( L C L p p . 370-71 note c). " D . R. Schwartz 1987a: 130-143. Regarding the b r o a d e r q u e s t i o n on the inclusion vs. exclusion of various .segments of the population in T e m p l e ritual, see the suggestive r e m a r k s of Knohl 1991: 139-146.

JOSEPHUS'

DESCRIPTION OF

THE JERUSALEM

TEMPLE

245

reached an unprecedented pinnacle among certain groups during the decades prior to 70.^ The increasing restrictiveness within certain circles of first-century Judaism is reflected in a number of Temple alterations made in order to emphasize the distinction between Jew and non-Jew as well as between pure and impure. I^ater stages of the Temple building appear to have highlighted these distinctions more profoundly than Herod's edifice. For example, a greater number of steps separated the larger court, that was open to gentiles, from the sacred inner precincts, as had the chancel-screen - with its Greek and Latin inscriptions warning gentiles not to trespass ~ already in Herod's time. Jewish sensitivity to these issues in the first century is reflected in the near-stoning of gentiles w h o attempted to enter the holy precincts (Acts 21:27-36; Bruce 1970: 395; cf. Bickerman 1946-47). Finally, the radically different descriptions in Antiquilies and IVar regarding the place of w o m e n in the Temple clearly indicate an increasing division between the sexes (for purity and other reasons), resulting in a severe limitation in women's access to the inner T e m p l e precincts and probably their participation in public ceremonies (Buchler 1898: 682-706). A women's section is never mentioned in connection with the temples of Solomon or Zerubbabel, nor indeed in Antiquities' description of Herod's edifice. As suggested above, the description in Rabbinic literature may be a kind of interim stage in the movement from the relatively open situation described \n Antiquities to the apparently severe demarcation indicated in War. When and why this sharp division was introduced is difficult to say, but it was appar­ ently of a short e n o u g h duration so as not to affect other frameworks of Jewish worship, such as the synagogue. Before and after 70, men and w o m e n appear to have jointly congregated at the synagogue, and there are n o traces of separation within the synagogue confines throughout late antiquity and the early Middle A g e s (S. Safrai 1963: 329-338; Z. Safrai 1989: 78-79; L. Levine 1991: 48-50). Thus, it s e e m s rather clear that the architectural developments and layout of the Jerusalem T e m p l e in the decades prior to 70 were reflective of far-reaching social and religious changes. These physical

" Various theories have been proposed for dating gentile impurity. Biichler would d a t e it t o the early first century - ca. 17-18 Cii (1926-27: 7-15); Zeitlin to the year 65 and the time of the eighteen decrees (1947-48: 111 and literature cited t h e r e ) ; H o e n i g 1970; s e e , however Alon 1977: 146-189.

246

LEE L LEVINE

changes in the design and dimensions of the Jerusalem T e m p l e ought not be divorced from deeper issues affecting contemporary Jewish society. Just as the Jerusalem Temple determined much of the Jewish religious agenda of the period, it likewise reflected s o m e of the profound changes taking place among Jews of the first century C E . This is but another example of archeological material not only enhan­ cing our knowledge of the past but relating to s o m e of the basic institutional and religious issues of the day, offering, it would appear, new perspectives for consideration (L.evine, forthcoming). Finally, if our argument be granted, this Tern pie-related material affirms the basic integrity of Josephus as an historian of first-century Jerusalem. His descriptions are far from capricious, and apparent contradictions might often be explained by clarifying their historical circumstances and institutional contexts (cf. Z. Safrai 1989; B. Mazar 1989).

T H E G E O G R A P H I C A L E X C U R S U S E S IN J O S E P H U S Per Bilde

1.

lutroduciion

I have long wished (o subject the geographical excursuses in Josephus to a closer examination because I believe that a proper description, analysis, understanding and interpretation of this material might lead to insights of general interest in the study of Josephus.' Generally speaking, Josephus research during the past .several decades has b e e n marked by quite different interests. In particular, great efforts have b e e n invested in the analysis of the personal position of Josephus, his attitude towards R o m e and the Jewish p e o p l e , and the characteristics of his politics, ideology and theology.^ This trend was also reflected in the program for the International Colloqiutim on Flavius Josephus in Memory of Professor Morton Smith in N o v e m b e r 1992. A n d indeed, it is both adequate and appropriate, because it is indispensable for any proper understanding and interpretation of Josephus' historiography. However, these interests should not be allowed to dominate Josephus research completely. We need studies of specific texts and well-defined topics such as Pelletier 1962 on Josephus' adaptation of the Letter of Aristeas, Franxman 1979 on Josephus' treatment of Genesis, Feldman's numerous articles on "Hellenization" in Josephus, Egger 1986 on the Samaritans in Josephus, and Varneda 1986 on Josephus' historiographical methods. In this contribution I intend to take up such a specific subject: the geographical excursuses in Josephus. My reason for this choice is the

' My interest in the geographical excursuses in J o s e p h u s was d e v e l o p e d during the work on my dissertation and the following general m o n o g r a p h on J o s e p h u s . cf. Bilde 1983: 60, 130, 163, 174, 175; 1988: 98. 196, 203, and esp. 211-12. ' C f the recent examples, especially in Lindner 1972; Attridge 1976, 1984; van U n n i k 1978; C o h e n 1979; Bilde 1983, 1988; Schwartz 1990; Mason 1991. T h i s interest is, however, much older and goes back to the works of Holscher 1916 and ! . a q u e u r 1920, cf the account on m o d e r n Josephus research in Bilde 1988: 123-71.

248

PER BILDE

observation tliat it appears to be a characteristie feature in Josephus that he, in all parts of his work, has worked with excursuses on geographical and topographical as well as on a number of other specific p h e n o m e n a . Accordingly, it is my intention to present briefly a description, an analysis, and, hopefully, an interpretation of a repre­ sentative number of the geographical excursuses. I aim at exploring this p h e n o m e n o n , and at discussing its significance for our understand­ ing of Josephus as a historical writer. My method is simple: I begin by sketching the research history of our problem. I continue with a discus­ sion of t h e category "geographical excursus," followed by a catalogue of the material I have judged adequate to present. The examination is rounded off by a brief analysis of this material with the aim of bringing out its characteristics and significance.

2. Research

History

Strangely, the geographical excursuses have not b e e n given much at­ tention in Josephus research: T o the best of my knowledge,^ they have never b e e n analysed as an independent tojiic.'' On the other hand, this material has in fact b e e n taken up in connection with various other subjects such as the sources of ihe Jewish War or Josephus' historiographical methods: In his work on Josephus and Vespasian (1921) Wilhelm W e b e r studied some of the geographical excursuses in the Jewish War with the result that they were assumed to reflect R o m a n military interests. A n d for that reason Weber concluded that these excursuses - almost verbatim

- derived from Josephus' main source, Vespasian's military

bno{ivrm<x.'zaL/commetitarii

(cf. IJfe §§ 342, 35H;AgAp

1 § 56).-^ Recent-

' In t h e bibliographies of Schreckenberg (1968; 1979) a n d F e l d m a n (1984a, esp. pp. 735-36) I have b e e n unable to find even o n e single study o n t h e specific subject of t h e geographical, or even on any o t h e r of t h e n u m e r o u s excursuses in Josephus. * T h e s a m e is t h e case in the geographical-topographical works of B o e t t g e r 1879; S m i t h 1894; Buhl 1896; Schlatter 1893; 1913; Abel 1933-38; K o p p 1959; AviY o n a h 1966; Moller-SchraiU 1976 and Kasher 1990. T h e s a m e result may b e found in g e n e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of Jewish history in t h e Hellenistic a n d R o m a n p e r i o d s such as Zeitlin 1962-78; Schiirer 1973-87; Safrai-Stern 1974-76 a n d S m a l l w o o d 1976. ' C f . W e b e r 1921: 79-80, 142-49. See esp. p. 149: "Sieht m a n auf d a s G a n z e , d a n n ist d e r F i n d r u c k d e r gleiche wie bei d e m Exkurs iiber d a s H e e r w e s e n : J o s e p h u s ubernirrunt die T a t s a c h e n d e r Vorlage moglichst weitgehend. N u n hat

THE (iKOURAPHICAL HXCURSUSES IN JOSKPHUS

249

ly, this hypothesis has been accepted by Magen Broshi and Tessa Rajak.* In other words, o n e interpretation of the geographical excur­ suses in Josephus, which I have termed the classical (Bilde 1988: 12628, 41), is that this material has not been provided by Josephus himself, but — more or less verbatim - has been borrowed from o n e of his sources. Harold W. Attridge restricts himself to mentioning the fact, that Josephus' "historical account is interspersed with a number of excur­ suses providing background information on geographical and institu­ tional matters." (1984: 194). Attridge continues by giving an extensive list of "the most important geographical sections," but there is not even a suggestion of an analysis of this p h e n o m e n o n , ' A third position can be found in Varneda 1986. Pere Villalba i Varneda has provided the most extensive analysis of this material that I am aware of (1986: X I V , 121-24, 169-74). The author d o e s not doubt that the geographical excursuses have been provided by Josephus himself (1986; 123, 173). In his discussion of the material he c o n c e n ­ trates o n a limited number of the more extensive excursuses: JW 3 §§ 419-22; the coast at Joppa; 3 §§ 506-21: Lake Gennesar; 4 §§ 2-10: Gamala; 4 §§ 452-75: Jericho; 4 §§ 607-15: Lgypt and Alexandria.* It is his aim to inquire how this specific material has b e e n used historio-

m a n wohl d i e Sicherheit, dass auch die Exkurse iiber d a s ganze Ijind u n d iiber d e n S e e G e n e z a r e t h keineswegs freie Erfindungen des J o s e p h u s , s o n d e r n seiner Q u e l l e e n t n o m m e n sind." * Cf. Broshi 1982: 381-82, and Rajak 1983: 216. H e r e Rajak refers to the works of W e b e r 1921 a n d Nicols 1978 (who has analysed J o s e p h u s ' chronology only, a n d not his g e o g r a p h i c a l excursuses). However, Rajak concludes this p a r a g r a p h by voicing certain reservations towards this "classical" position. Also F e l d m a n (1984b: 840) s e e m s to accept W e b e r ' s hypothesis. This hypothesis is part a n d parcel of W e b e r ' s general theory of a comprehensive R o m a n source b e h i n d t h e Jewish War, a theory which, in a n o t h e r shape, was already p r e s e n t e d in Schlatter 1893 ( J o s e p h u s ' s o u r c e was Marcus Antonius Julianus, cf. also SchlaUer 1923). F o r t h e g e n e r a l discussion of this theory, I refer to Bilde 1983: 28-30; 1988: 128. Finally, it should b e m e n t i o n e d that, according to M o r r 1926, J o s e p h u s has drawn his geographical information in JW 4 §§ 451-85 from Poseidonius. ' T h e list in Attridge 1984: 194 is much m o r e extensive than the m a t e r i a l which, according to W e b e r 1921, belongs to this category. ' !n this category V a r n e d a also r e c k o n s y i f 2 §§ 188-91: Ptolemais; 3 §§ 35-58: G a l i l e e , P e r a e a , S a m a r i a a n d J u d a e a ; 5 §§ 136-247: J e r u s a l e m a n d t h e T e m p l e ; 7 §§ 164-89: M a c h a e r u s , a n d 7 §§ 280-303: Masada. Accordingly, like Attridge 1984, V a r n e d a defines the category of geographical excursuses m u c h wider than W e b e r 1921.

250

PER BILDE

graphically by Josephus. Therefore, he is not interested in the category as a whole, nor in what this material may else reveal o n Josephus' historical interests. Accordingly, it is evident that no consensus has yet b e e n reached regarding this problem. Further, it s e e m s to be obvious that even a clear attitude toward the geographical excursuses in Josephus has not yet crystallized in Josephus research. Therefore, it is a valid motivation to take up this problem in a more comprehensive manner than has hitherto b e e n the case. 3. Defining Our Task and Delineating

the

Material

O n c e the reader has b e c o m e aware of the issue of Josephus' excursus­ es on geographical and other sorts of specific data, such as cities, fortresses, harbours, agriculture, economics, military and political institutions and s o forth, o n e seems to discover them everywhere.' S o , it is our first task, out of this huge material, to select a limited collec­ tion, and to define what we, in this context, more precisely understand by geographical and by excursus: First, excursus by which 1 here understand a relatively brief, rounded insertion in the general narrative, explaining a specific p h e n o m e n o n in t h e main text, after which the author returns to his narrative thread.'" Accordingly, we have to leave out such pieces as Josephus' descrip­ tion of the places in Galilee and Gaulanitis he fortified during the winter 66-67 (JW 2 §§ 573-75; Life §§ 187-88), precisely because these lists d o not interrupt the general account. The same applies to a number of other texts such as JW 1 § 417 and the parallel in Ant 16 § 142-43 (both on the fertile plain of Antipatris); JW 3 ^ 107 (where Josephus, in the context of his long description of the R o m a n army [JW 3 §§ 70-1091, indicates the borders of the R o m a n Empire); JW 7 §§ 280-84, (see also § 303) (on the rock of Masada, where the account without interruption continues in a description of the fortress);/Im 2 § 18 (on the fertile soil in the region of S i k i m a / S h e c h e m ) , and Ant 2 §§ 244-47 o n Moses' ingenuous (daufiaaxoi;, cf. below) idea to control the dangerous snakes on his way to Ethiopia.

' C f . A u r i d g e 1984: 194; V a r n e d a 1986: 121-24, 169-74. V a r n e d a is not clear regarding the p r o b l e m w h e t h e r the excursuses a r e t o b e r e g a r d e d a.s insertions, id est as interrupting the main text (cf. 1986: 123-24, 124, 170, 171).

THE

G E 0 ( ; R A P H I C A L

EXCURSUSES IN

J O S E P H U S

251

Second, by geographical I understand descriptions, of a certain minima! extent (the length of which is of course open to discussion), of landscapes, rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, caves, soil, fertility and other natural p h e n o m e n a . This means that we have to exclude a great amount of material having obviously the character of excursuses, but without referring to geographical p h e n o m e n a in this sense. Firstly, this is true of Josephus' extensive presentation of the E s s e n e s {JW 2 §§ 120-61). of his brief explanations of the R o m a n tactics of the "tortoise" {JW 2 § 537) and of the R o m a n battering ram {JW 3 §§ 214-16). Similarly, this applies to Josephus' detailed descrip­ tions of the location of the R o m a n legions {JW 2 §§ 365-87), appearing in the great speech of King Agrippa II {JW 2 §§ 345-404), of the R o m a n army itself (TPK 3 §§ 65-69, 70-109, 115-26; 5 §§ 41-49), of the R o m a n siege wall against Jerusalem {JW 5 §§ 502-9), of the miraculous o m e n s portending the fall of the Temple {JW 6 §§ 288-309), and of the R o m a n triumph {JW7§§ 123-62). Further, this holds true of Josephus' account of Moses' military campaign in Ethiopia (Ant 2 §§ 238-53), of his excursus-like account of Paulina in R o m e (Ant 18 §§ 65-80), and of his descriptions of the high priestly vestments (Ant 18 §§ 90-94), the family of King Herod the Great (Ant 18 §§ 127-42), King Agrippa I (Ant 18 §§ 143-255), the particular politics of the Emperor Tiberius (Ant 18 §§ 169-78), the Jews in Babylon (Ant 18 §§ 310-79), the conjuration against the Emperor Gaius Caligula {Ant 19 §§ 17-273), the royal house of A d i a b e n e (Ant 20 §§ 17-96), and the various ancient historiographers' interpretations of the Emperor Nero (Ant 20 §§ 15457). Finally, this is true of Josephus' excursus on the historiographical work of his rival, Justus of Tiberias' (Life §§ 336-39). Secondly, 1 intend to leave out a great amount of genuine geograph­ ical, inserted material simply because of its substantial length. The best known pieces of this sort are the following: The famous descriptions of the Jewish provinces in Palestine: Galilee, Peraea, Samaria and Judaea (JW 3 §§ 35-58), and of Jerusalem, the T e m p l e and Antonia (JW5 §§ 136-247); moreover, almost all the similar descriptions in the Jewish War and in the Antiquities of, in particular, the Herodian cities in Palestine and other countries, as well as the graphic presentations

252

PER BILDE

of the H a s m o n e a n and Herodian fortresses;" and finally, all the soealled itineraries found in JW 1 §§ 277-81 (King Herod's journey to R o m e ) ; 1 §§ 608-13 (Antipater's journey from R o m e to Caesarea); 2 §§ 66-72 (Varus' campaign from Antioch to Jerusalem); 2 §§ 499-516 (Ceslius Gallus' campaign from Antioch to Judaea); 4 §§ 441-50 (Vespasian's campaign in the spring of the year 68); 4 §§ 659-63 (Titus' journey from Alexandria to Caesarea); 5 §§ 50-53 (Titus' campaign from Samaria to Judaea), and Life §§ 230-33 (The Jerusalem delega­ tion's journey in Galilee). "Thirdly, I have decided to exclude excursuses of t o o modest an extent such as JW 1 § 134 (on Coreac as situated on the border be­ tween Decapolis, Judaea and Samaria); 3 § 34 (on Sepphoris as being the largest city of Galilee); 4 §§ 104-5 (on Cydasa between Tyrus and CJalilee); 5 § 70 (and the related text in Anl 20 § 169, on the geograph­ ical situation of the Mount of Olives); Ant 1 § 244 (on the climate in M e s o p o t a m i a ) ; 4 § 100 (on Jericho), and 9 § 7 (on Rn-Gedi and its products). It follows that what I have in fact selected for closer scrutiny really has to be regarded as a modest selection from a huge amount of material, firstly, the great mass of excursuses in general, and secondly, a considerable amount of geographical descriptions from which I have only chosen a certain number. I'urther, it follows that the interpreta­ tion of the selected geographical excursuses has to be discussed in the broader context of all this material. What is left are the relatively brief, but still substantial parenthetical explanations of geographic phenomena, often local peculiarities, which appear in the main text, and in which Josephus s e e m s to give a short, inserted explanation before he continues his narrative.'^

" E x c e p l e d from this rule are the purely geographical descriptions of the natural settings of a n u m b e r of these sites: J o t a p a t a , G a m a l a and M a c h a e m s , but not M a s a d a , for the reason mentioned above. " I have found n o clear-cut criterion on the basis of which an i r r e p r o a c h a b l e definition of a geographical excursus could be established. Especially the category " b r i e r is difficult; A text l i k e y H ' 4 §§ 104-5 might as well have b e e n included in my c a t a l o g u e , while pieces such as JW 1 § 138; 3 §§ 29, 413 and several of the s a m p l e s from t h e Antiquities might have b e e n excluded. T h e r e f o r e , I a d m i t that t h e r e is an e l e m e n t of fortuity in my e s t i m a t e of what is a "relatively brief r o u n d e d 'geographical' insertion in the general narrative." It is, however, my h o p e that the definition I have given and the material I have chosen o n this basts will a p p e a r t o be representative.

THE GROGRAPHiCAL EXCURSUSES IN JOSEPHUS

4.

253

Catalogue

JW 1 § 138; Jericho A brief, obviously parenthetical description of the fertile soil of the region and its products of palms and balsam. There are no crossreferences to JW 4 §§ 452-75 and Ant 4 § 100; 15 § 96 where Jericho is similarly described. JW I §§ 405-6: Paneion A supplementary, romantically exaggerated description of the scenery at Paneion with the towering mountain (Mount H e r m o n ? ) , the mysterious cave with its enigmatic pool, and the springs (of the River Jordan?). T h e description is concluded by a reference to a later explanation of the problem of the sources of the River Jordan (cf. JW 3 §§ 509-15; 15 § 364). JW 1 § 409: T h e coast at Caesarea A parenthetical description of the dangerous and harbour-less coast­ line b e t w e e n Dora and Joppa which, in the context, serves to explain how useful Herod's construction of the port of Caesarea was. There are no cross-references to JW 3 §§ 419-21; Ant 15 § 333. JW2§% 188-91: Ptolemais A broad, parenthetical description of Ptolemais and its geographical situation at the entrance to the Great Plain, with the surrounding mountains and the small river Beleus on the bank of which the tomb of M e m n o n may be seen. T o this description is added a legendary account of the remarkable ( & a u ( i a a T 6 c ; / & a u ( i a o i w T e p o v ) pit of vitreous sand nearby. Finally, the excursus is formally rounded off by an editorial remark. JW3 § 29: Antioch-on-the-Orontes A brief, parenthetical description of the city of Antioch as being the third greatest in the R o m a n world. y ^ F 3 §§ 158-60: Jotapata A parenthetical description of the characteristic geographical situation of Jotapata o n a mountain top, being almost unassailable except from its northern side. The description is formally concluded by an editorial remark.

254

PER BILDE

JW 3 § 413: The climate of Caesarea and Scythopolis A brief, parenthetical description of these two cities' climate being mild during the winter and hot in the summer. JW3 §§ 419-21: The coast at Joppa A parenthetical description of the rough and harbour-less coast at Joppa, though without any cross-references to JW I § 409; Ant 15 § 333. JW 3 §§ 506-21: I.i»ke Ciennesar, the River Jordan and the plain of Genncsar A broad, parenthetical, but interconnected account of these three sites: First, a description of the lake, its name, its measures, its wonderful waters with its excellent taste and pleasant temperature, and its fish (§§ 506-8); further, a description of the River Jordan, the strange story of its miraculous source in 1-ake Phiale, of Paneion, and of the course of the river through Lake Semechonitis into Lake Gennesar, and further through the desert valley into Lake Asphaltitis (§§ 509-15); finally, a flourishing description of the plain of Gennesar, its astonishing fertility, its remarkable climate, its numerous agricultur­ al products, its almost miraculous productivity of walnuts, figs, olives and grapes, and its fertilizing spring at Capharnaum (§§ 516-21). This description is formally concluded, but there are no cross-references to the related descriptions of Paneion in JW 1 §§ 405-6; Ant 15 § 364. JW 4 §§ 2-8: Gamala with Sogane, Seleucia, Lake Semechonitis and Daphne A parenthetical, integrated description of the cities of Gaulanitis: First, the general geographical situation and political affiliation of (Jamala, S o g a n e and Seleucia in Gaulanitis {§ 2), second, a brief description of Lake Semechonitis and D a p h n e (§ 3), and, third, a detailed description of the characteristic natural conditions of Gamala clinging to the camci-like mountain-top surrounded by inaccessible ravines except from the north-eastern side (§§ 4b-8). JW4 §§ 54-56: Ilabyrion/Mount Tabor A parenthetical description of Mount Tabor, its geographical situation, its height, its summit and its fortifications established by Josephus.

THE (iEOGEtAPHICAL EXCURSUSES IN JOSEPHUS

255

JW 4 §§ 452-75: Jericho A broad, parenthetical description of Jericho, of its geographical situation in the Jordan Valley, of the mountains on both sides of the Valley (§§ 452-54); further, a description of the Jordan Valley itself by Josephus also termed the "Great Plain" - with its extension and measures (§§ 455-56) and its climate (§§ 457-58); then follows a long, sub-excursus, inserted in the main excursus, on the legend of the miraculous spring which the prophet F^lisha had once transformed from a damaging to a beneficial one (§§ 459-67); the narrative contin­ ues with a detailed description of the rich vegetation of date palms, balsam trees and other fruits (§§ 468-70), and with s o m e reflections by the author on the beneficial climate of the area and the waters of the spring (§§ 471-73). The excursus is brought to an end by a brief general description of the area and the relations and surroundings of the city of Jericho (§ 474), and concluded by a formal editorial remark (§ 475). However, there are no cross-references to JW 1 § 138; 4 § 100; 15 § 96. JW 4 §§ (456), 476-85: Lake Asphaltitis A broad description, which is partly connected with the foregoing o n e on Jericho and partly parenthetical, of the unique character of the waters of this lake, its bhterness, its buoyancy which was tested by Vespasian - and its changing colours (§§ 476-78); further a description of the lake's production of bitumen, and of the use of this material in shipbuilding and medicine (§§ 479-81); this paragraph is followed by a description of the measures of the lake (§ 482) and of the adjacent land of Sodom, with references to the biblical tales of the miraculous destiny of that city the vestiges of which are still visible in s o m e ruins and in the so-called Sodom-apples (§§ 482-84). The excursus is terminated by a formal editorial conclusion (§ 485). JW4§§ (605), 607-15: Egypt and Alexandria A broad, parenthetical description of the protective borders of Egypt (§§ 607-lOa), of its measures (§ 610b), of the Nile (§ 611), and of Alexandria with its protected port, the lighthouse on the island of Pharos, and the rich trade of the harbour (§§ 612-15). y W 7 §§ 164-70, (171-77), 178-89: Machaerus A broad description of the geographical situation of this inaccessible mountain fortress at the eastern coast of I-ake Asphaltitis (§§ 164-70);

256

PER BILDE

the narrative continues with a description of the buildings constructed by King Alexander Jannnaeus and, in particular, by King H e r o d (§§ 171-77); this piece is followed by the legends of the miraculous rue plant, and of the dangerous and demon-deterrent Baaras root {§§ 17885); further follows a description of the numerous hot and cold springs in the neighbourhood, s o m e of which are highly remarkable (&au^aaeie, § 188), and are used for the most delightful baths, and s o m e of which have medical properties (§§ 186-89a). T h e excursus is concluded by a brief remark about the chemical mines in this area. Am 2 §§ 249-50: Saba in Ethiopia A parenthetical description of the natural protection and the con­ structed fortifications of the city of Saba. An addition to the Bible. Ant 2 §§ 264-65: Mount Sinai A parenthetical description of Mount Sinai, its height and its excellence for pasturage, elaborating on Exod 3:1. Ant 3 §§ 1-2: T h e Sinai Desert A brief, parenthetical description of the sandy desert near Mount Sinai, elaborating generally on Exod 15:22 (cf. Exod 16:1-2). Anl 4 § 85: The River Arnon A brief, parenthetical description (on the basis of N u m 21:13) of the River Arnon, its source and course, and a brief remark on the rich region o f the Amorites. Ant 4 § 95: T h e country of the Amorites A brief, parenthetical description of the country of the A m o r i t e s conquered by the Israelites: It is situated between the three rivers of Arnon, Jobak/Jabbok, and Jordan. An addition to the Bible. Ant 5 § 77-78: The I ^ n d of Canaan A parenthetical description, brief and general, of the nature of the Promised Land with its plains and mounfain.s. Though this country is quite small, its fertility and its beauty exceeds those of all others (cf. AgAp 1 §§ 60-68). Ant 14 §§ 422, (421-30): The caves (of Mount Arbela) A brief, parenthetical description of the caves dug into the m o u n ­ tain half-way up the steep cliff. The description is in.serted in the account of King Herod's war against the Galilean brigands.

THE GEOGR/\PHICAL EXCURSUSES IN JOSEPHUS

257

Ant 15 § 96: Jericho A brief, parenthetical description of the precious products of Jericho: the balsam and palm trees, though without cross-references to JW 1 § 138; 4 §§ 452-75; Ant 4 § 100. Ant 15 § 333; The coast between Joppa and Dora A brief, parenthetical description of the dangerous coast between Joppa and Dora, and of the poor harbours of these two cities. The description serves to illuminate the merits of King I l e r o d in construct­ ing the harbour of Caesarea. There are no cross-references to JW 1 § 409; 3 §§ 419-22. Ant 15 § .364: Paneion A brief, parenthetical description of the cave at Paneion, of the pool below and of the high mountain above the cave, but without crossreferences ioJWl§§ 405-6; 3 §§ 509-14. Ant 18 § 249: Baiac A brief, parenthetical description of the geographical situation of Baiae in Campania, its imperial buildings and its hot springs. Ant 20 §§ 24-25: Carron A brief, parenthetical description of the district of Carron (in A d i a b e n e ) , its fertile soil, its products, and the remains of the ark of N o a h (cf. Ant I § 92, though without explicit reference to this text). 5.

Analysis

W e turn to a brief examination of the material compiled in the catalogue: H o w can w e describe and evaluate the literary form and the contents of the selected geographical excursuses? D o e s this material reflect certain c o m m o n characteristics? How do they relate to Jose­ phus' work in general? And, finally, does this material justify the Schlatter-Weber hypothesis? If we look at the literary form of the collected material it is possible to make the following observations: 1) Our collection of geographical excursuses represents only a selection of a much larger amount of excursus-like accounts, as w e saw in section three above (see also note 15 below): First, our catalogue represents only o n e part of a much more comprehensive mass of dif-

258

Pl-.R BILDE

ferent types of geographical descriptions, whether digressive or not; second, this total amount of geographical descriptions represents only o n e part of Josephus' total number of excursus-like accounts of a great number of all kinds of "interesting" phenomena. Like Thucydides. Livy and other G r a e c o - R o m a n historians, Josephus s e e m s t o have had a predilection for adding this type of material to his historical narra­ tive." Therefore, what we have selected as geographical excursuses has t o b e interpreted in this context. 2) It s e e m s t o be a fact that the selected geographical excursuses have b e e n inserted in every part of Josephus' t w o major historiogra­ phical works, although the insertions are much more numerous in the Jewish War than in the Antiquities. Hven Life does not appear to b e untouched by this p h e n o m e n o n . 3) Q u i t e a few of the excursuses in our catalogue are extensive, and thus closely related to the major part of Josephus' other digressions. However, most of them, especially those in the Antiquities, are rather brief and concentrated. 4) In s o m e of the extensive cases w e have observed that different units of texts have b e e n literarily linked together: JW 3 §§ 506-21; 4 §§ 2-8; 4 §§ 452-75 (and §§ 476-85); 7 §§ 164-89. This p h e n o m e n o n has b e e n observed elsewhere in Josephus, e.g., in Ant 18 §§ 55-90.'^ 5) In Ihe first eleven books of the Antiquities all the selected geographical excursuses appear as additions t o the Bible, a fact pointing in the direction of their editorial character (cf. also Varneda 1986: 124, 174). 6) S o m e of the cases in the catalogue are rounded off by formal editorial remarks:/Pf 2 §§ 188-91; 3 §§ 158-60; 3 §§ 506-21; 4 §§ 45275; 4 §§ 476-85. This phenomenon is well-known in Josephus and turns up everywhere in his works."

" Cf. Bilde 1988: 203. V a r n e d a has t e r m e d this g e n e r a l excursus p h e n o m e n o n ecphrasis (1986: 169-80). " T h i s literary t e c h n i q u e has been analysed in particular in M o e h r i n g 1959; J u s t u s 1973. " A n instniclive example a p p e a r s inJW2 § 161 w h e r e J o s e p h u s c o n c l u d e s his long digression o n the Essenes with the words: 'Such a r e the usages of this o r d e r " ( T o c a i j T a (isv eST) ToijSe TOU T a y j i a T o i ; ) . A n o t h e r related parallel is found in JW 3 § 58, w h e r e J o s e p h u s ends his description of the Jewish provinces in Palestine in t h e s a m e m a n n e r . Similar editorial r e m a r k s e m e r g e i n / H ' 2 § 166 (editorial conclusion after t h e digression o n t h e three Jewish religious schools), § 4 9 9 (editorial conclusion after t h e description of t h e tragedy of t h e J e w s in Alexan-

THE GEOORAPHrCAL EXCURSUSES IN JOSEPHUS

259

7) Only in o n e case, JW 1 §§ 405-6, have we observed a format cross-reference to related material elsewhere in Josephus' works. This is surprising because this phenomenon is one of the most c o m m o n literary characteristics in the works of Josephus.'* Regarding the contents of the selected geographical excursuses 1 have made the following observations: a) A great number of them are marked by concise, conspicuous and graphic descriptions of the natural phenomena in question. This is true especially in JW 1 § 138 (and its parallels), § 409 (and its parallels); 3 §§ 158-60; 4 §§ 4-8, 607-15; 7 §§ 164-70; Anl 2 §§ 249-50; 4 § 85, 95; 14 § 422; 15 § 364 and 18 § 249." b) A number of the excursuses are marked by an obvious interest in dramatic and romantic sceneries: JW 1 §§ 405-6, 409 (and its parallels); 3 §§ 158-60; 4 §§ 4-8; 7 §§ 164-70; Ant 14 § 422 and 15 § 364. This tendency is well-known as being most characteristic of Jose­ phus' writings.'* c) S o m e of the geographical excursuses are marked by a typical tendency of Josephus to exaggerate in the description of natural p h e n o m e n a and in the rendering of measures and numbers: JW 1 §§ 405-6; 3 §§ 506-21; 4 §§ 54-56; 7 §§ 164-89."

dria), § 654 (editorial conclusion of the account of Simon Bar G i o r a ) ; 3 § 98 (provisional editorial conclusion of the description of the R o m a n army); §§ 108-9 (final editorial r e m a r k after the digression on the R o m a n army (3 §§ 70-107); 3 § 442 (editorial conclusion of the description of the Jerusalemites' reaction to the news of t h e fall of J o t a p a t a ) ; 4 § 587; 6 § 192; Ant 3 §§ 158. 187, 257; 4 §§ 308, 3 3 1 ; 5 § 174; 6 § 350; 7 §§ 38, 394 etc. " 'ITiere are several h u n d r e d s of the kind, cf, e.g., JW I §§ 33, 118, 182. 344, 365, 406, 4 1 1 , 418, 668; 2 §§ 114, 137, 222, 449 . . .; Ant 1 §§ 135, 137, 142 . . . ; Life §§ 10, 27, 41 . . . ; AgAp 1 §§ 1, 29, 47 . . . , cf. Bilde 1988: 128-29. " T h e s a m e qualities are found in a great n u m b e r of descriptions e l s e w h e r e in J o s e p h u s such as the descriptions of Jerusalem, the T e m p l e , the H a s m o n e a n and H e r o d i a n cities and fortresses, the Jewish provinces in Palestine and the itineraries m e n t i o n e d a b o v e in section t h r e e . In addition, it is possible to refer to the famous descriptions of the great battle scenes in J o s e p h u s ' works, especially in the Jewish War. " J o s e p h u s ' taste for d r a m a t i c and emotional representation is evident especially in his description of individual destinies such as those of J o s e p h , H e r o d the G r e a t , A g r i p p a I, G a i u s Caligula and many others, cf Bilde 1983:176; 1988: 48. 8 1 , 95, 158, 192, 196. 204. 232; V a r n e d a 1986: 235-41. " Cf. e.g., K o p p 1959: 248; Avi-Yonah 1966: 211, 219; C o h e n 1979; 33-34, 2 3 3 ; Broshi 1982: 383-84. In o t h e r cases, however, J o s e p h u s ' rendering is realistic, as in, e.g., JW2^ 188; 3 § 39; 4 §§ 452-75 etc., a fact which has often b e e n noticed, cf. Broshi 1982: 379-81; Bilde 1983: 176 (with n u m e r o u s references).

260

PLR BILDIi

d) O t h e r cases are marked by an obvious

interest

in

unusual

p h e n o m e n a , often of enigmatic, legendary or miraculous character: JiV 1 §§ 405-6; 2 §§ 188-91; 3 §§ 506-21; 4 §§ 452-75, 476-85 and 7 §§ 17889."" e ) A few of our texts are marked by a characteristic interest in still visible "archaeological" remains:/IK 2 §§ 188-91; 4 §§ 476-85 and

Ant

20 § 25.^' f) A great number of our cases are clearly marked by an interest in natural p h e n o m e n a such as soil and fertility:/M^ 1 § 138; 3 §§ 5 0 6 - 2 1 ; 4 §§ 452-75; Ant 2 §§ 264-65; 4 §§ 85, 95; 5 §§ 77-78; 15 § 96 and 20 § 25." g) T h e s a m e feature reflects a specific interest in productivity and e c o n o m y as welt, an interest which is voiced especially in JW 2 §§ 18891; 4 §§ 476-85, 607-15 and 7 §§ 178-89." h) Finally, 1 have noticed a curious interest in climatology: JW 3 § 413, 5 0 6 - 2 1 ; 4 §§ 452-75 and Ant 3 §§ 1-2."

" Iliis interest a p p e a r s often in J o s e p h u s ' works, cf. JW 1 §§ 286-87 ( t h e m i r a c u l o u s rainfall o n M a s a d a ) ; §§ 331-332 (King H e r o d ' s miraculous r e s c u e in J e r i c h o ) ; 2 §§ 112-13 (King Archeiaus' miraculous d r e a m ) ; 6 §§ 288-309 ( t h e m i r a c u l o u s o m e n s p o r t e n d i n g t h e fall of t h e T e m p l e in J e r u s a l e m ) ; Ant 18 §§ 28488 ( t h e miraculous rainfall during the Gaius Caligula crisis in Palestine in t h e year 39-40); etc., cf. Bilde 1988; 201-2 (with other examples). In many of these texts we m e e t t h e characteristic word 9autiaatOi;/&au[iaaT6i; which a p p e a r s t o b e a favourite of J o s e p h u s , cf. Rengslorf 1973-83 vol. 2, 1975: 317-18. " T h e s a m e interest turns u p in Ant 1 § 92 (on t h e still existing relics of t h e a r k of N o a h ) ; § 150 ( o n A b r a h a m ' s t o m b which is stili visible); 10 §§ 264-65 ( o n D a n i e l ' s castle which is also visible at the time of J o s e p h u s ) . " A similar interest in agriculture appears in a great n u m b e r of J o s e p h u s texts such as JW\% 417; 2 §§ 200, 592; 3 §§ 42-44, 50; 4 § 84; Ant 2 § 18; 4 § 100; 8 § 174; 9 § 7 ; 15 §§ 299-316; 16 §§ 142-43, 271-73; 17 § 340; 18 §§ 3 1 , 272-74, 28384, 287; Life §§ 118-19; etc. ° J o s e p h u s ' interest in economy e m e r g e s most conspicuously in his descriptions of t h e cities a n d agricultural colonies established by King H e r o d the G r e a t : JW 1 § 403 a n d Anl 15 §§ 292-93 ( S a m a r i a ) ; JW 1 §§ 408-15 a n d Anl 15 §§ 331-41 (Caesaraea); 1 § 4 1 7 aMAni 16 §§ 142-43 ( A n t i p a t r i s ) ; 1 § 418 a n d 16 § 145 (Phasaelis); etc. h appears, however, also in a n u m b e r of o t h e r texts such a s i W 2 § 427; 7 §§ 216-18; Ant U§ IS; AgAp 1 §§ 60-68 (cf. below) e t c . " A similar interest a p p e a r s in such texts as JW 3 § 312; Ant 1 § 244, cf. V a r n e d a 1986: 123.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL EXCURSUSES IN JOSEPHUS

6.

261

Conclusions

In section three we noticed that Josephus has a general predilection for digressions, and our material is most easily understood in this context. Furthermore, the geographical excursuses are marked by a number of characteristics which, for the most part, appear in many other parts of Josephus' works too. Finally, this material is found scattered all over Josephus' writings. Accordingly, wc have to conclude that the geographical excursuses in Josephus are deeply integrated in to his works. On this background it is natural to assume that this material derives from the author himself. This conclusion is perfectly in keeping with Josephus' editorial statement in the introduction to the Jewish War where he explicitly mentions geography as o n e of the phenomena he will be addressing in his work: In this connection ! shall describe the admirable discipline of t h e R o m a n s o n active service and t h e training of the legions; the extent a n d n a t u r e of t h e two G a l i l e e s , t h e limits of J u d a e a , the special features of the country, its lakes a n d springs . . .

I'urther, this conclusion corresponds well with the interesting text in AgAp 1 §§ 60-68. Here Josephus is discussing s o m e of the ethnic characteristics of the Jews, on the o n e hand, and of the non-Jews (Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenicians and others), on the other hand, in close connection with the basic geographical conditions of each ethnic group: Well, ours is not a m a r i t i m e country; neither c o m m e r c e nor the intercourse which it p r o m o t e s with the outside world has any attraction for us. O u r cities a r e built inland, r e m o t e from the sea; and we devote ourselves to t h e cultivation of the productive country with which w e a r e blessed (§ 60) . . . . It was to their coming on their ships to traffic with t h e CJreeks that t h e P h o e n i c i a n s owed their own early notoriety; and through their agency t h e Egyptians b e c a m e known a n d all whose merchandise t h e Phoenicians conveyed across great o c e a n s to the G r e e k s (§ 63). A s a general rule, all t h e nations with a sea-board, w h e t h e r on t h e eastern or t h e w e s t e r n sea, w e r e b e t t e r known by authors desirous of writing history, while those w h o lived further inland r e m a i n e d for the most part u n k n o w n (§ 65). Surely, then, it should no longer excite surprise that o u r nation, so

°JW \^ 22. 'I"he translation of this text as well as that from AgAp 1 §§ 60-68 a r e b o r r o w e d from 1X1..

262

PER BILDIi

r e m o t e from the sea, and so deliberately living its o w n life, likewise re­ m a i n e d unknown a n d offered no occasion to historians t o m e n t i o n it ( § 68).

in my view, therefore, the most important conclusion t o b e drawn from the examination of the geographical excursuses in Josephus is the insight that Josephus was deeply interested in geography, id est, in matters of nature, landscape, climate, fertility, agriculture and, conse­ quently, productivity and economy.^^ From this conclusion follows that the Schlatter-Weber hypothesis that the geographical excursuses in Josephus (id est in th& Jewisfi War), in an almost unedited form, derive from the main source t o that work, either A n t o n i u s Julianus' work or Vespasian's military unonvfjfiaTa / commcntani - has to be at least radically modified. This hypothesis overlooks a) that this material appears not only in the Jewish Warb\x\ also in the Antiquities and in the minor works as well, b ) that the extensive geographical excursuses seem to b e closely related both t o the "small" o n e s and to the numerous other excursuses in Josephus as well as t o Josephus' works in general, and c) that the geographical excursuses are not restricted to material of military interest. O f course, it cannot be excluded that Josephus drew upon literary and other sources, but it has to be acknowledged that if and w h e n h e did s o h e generally reworked such .sources and gave them his o w n literary form and substantial character."

' ' S i m i l a r l y V a r n e d a 1986: esp. 121-24, but in contrast t o F r a n x m a n 1979: 13. " C f . Bilde 1988: 128-34, 195-96. Thus, my conclusion points in t h e s a m e direction as L i n d n e r 1972.

PAJ^T V

VIEWS OF THE

WAR

J O S E P H U S ' ACTION IN G A L I L E E D U R I N G T H E JEWISH W A R Giorgio Jossa

T h e purpose of this paper is to discuss the reconstruction of events in Galilee at the beginning of the Jewish war which I proposed in the introduction of my recent translation of the Life by Flavius Josephus. F^or further details, therefore, I refer the reader to that introduction (Jossa 1992: 7-58). This reconstruction, besides the analysis of s o m e conclusive passages of the War and of the Life, is based on two interpretative presupposi­ tions of Josephus' story. T h e first (Jossa 1992: 16-30) is that in the Palestine of those times and, more particularly, during the war against the R o m a n s , two different trends were at work among the rebels: a moderate and a radical o n e . 'Fhe first was typical of those moderate groups of Jews w h o fought for the strict observance of the law and for this reason asked for a change in the government's ways and more particularly, of those religious nationalists who fought for the return to the ancient tradhion against the Herodian kings and the Hellenistic cities. T h e second trend, instead, was typical of those radical groups w h o fought for the liberation of the Jewish people and for the restora­ tion of the kingdom of Israel. In other words, it involved those political rebels w h o dreamed of a social revolution against the R o m a n Empire and the Herodian dynasty. Josephus usually calls the expo­ nents of the first trend "innovators" (vewTepii^ovTec) and those of the s e c o n d "brigands" (^yjaTat). At the same time it appears that he considers vewTept^ovTEQ the Zealots of the two Eleazars, sons of Ananias and of Simon respectively, who fought for the strict restora­ tion of the tradition, for the purity of worship and of the T e m p l e . O n the other hand, he considers XnoTat the Sicarii of M e n a h e m and of Simon bar Gioras, w h o fought for the liberation of the Jewish nation, for the political independence of Israel. Thus both the polemic overtones contained in those terms and the standpoint from which they are used b e c o m e clear. By putting himself on the side of the Jewish religious authorities Josephus can charge

266

GFORGIO JOSSA

those observant Jews fighting for a return to the tradition with being innovators and hence revolutionaries. Similarly, by putting himself on the side of the R o m a n political authorities he can charge those patriots fighting for the liberation of Israel with being brigands and hence "tyrants." It is also clear that the two terms d o not have the same negative connotations. The first s o m e h o w betrays his difficulty in condemning both an attitude which s t e m m e d from the strict observance of the traditions of Israel and s o m e men w h o were part of the most observant groups of Jewish people. T h e second, instead, implies a final condemnation by Josephus, who, aristocrat as he is, cannot feel but horror for the supporters of a political and social revolution. The second presupposition (Jossa 1992: 44-57) I spoke about at the beginning is that the famous "Galileans" of Josephus' Life are a group of Jews particularly attached to the law and to the tradition, w h o accept at least s o m e of the ideological positions of the Shammaites and Zealots. Contrary to the opinion of Zeitlin, these Galileans' deepest motivations for their participation in the Jewish war are religious and national, not political and social, and their most hated adversaries are the Herodians and the Greeks, not the R o m a n s . T h e Galilean protest expresses first of all an attachment to the religious tradition, a defence of national identity, and hence the Jewish popula­ tion's hostility towards the Greeks and those Jews w h o are favourable to the Greeks, not the fighting for political freedom or the h o p e s for social emancipation and hence Jews' hatred against the R o m a n s . T h e y would, therefore, b e in the terms (and in the conception) of Josephus, v e w T E p t C o ^ T E c ; , or, as he says in the Life, v e w x e p i o T a t , that is innova­ tors on the plane of tradition and n o t T p i a e&iri, not X f j O T a t , that is rebels on a political and social level. Yet on this level the Galileans, though certainly hostile to the R o m a n rulers and to the notables of the city, are moderate, always troubled by the attacks of the X^a-rai and rather resigned to R o m a n rule. All this means that the Galileans of Josephus, contrary to the communis opinio, have nothing to d o with Judas the Galilean, w h o is possibly a XTJOTTIC and is surely a rebel. From this it follows that the traditional image of Galilee as a land of political revolutionaries is largely to be revised. Let us now pass to an analysis of what happened in Galilee. For a correct understanding of these developments, it is necessary first of all to weigh the nature of the appointment entrusted to Josephus by the

JOSF.PHUS' ACTION IN GALIl.E-:F

267

government of Jerusalem. In fact, one of the crucial points of the story of the Jewish war against the Romans given by Josephus consists exactly in the mission of the then young priest and future Jewish historian in Galilee, in the autumn of 66 CE, on behalf of the popular government instituted in Jerusalem after the victory over Cestius Gallus. The nature of this mission depends obviously on the character of this government. It is also true nevertheless that on the nature of this mission d e p e n d in their turn, not only the judgement about the activities and personalities of the protagonists of the events in Galilee, but also the evaluation of the character of the government. A s it is known, Josephus gave us two versions of his mission in Galilee. According to that of JW 2 § 568 he was entrusted by those w h o had defeated Cestius Gallus with the task of leading the military operations against the R o m a n s in Galilee.' The subsequent narrative of the War s e e m s to confirm the military character of his mission. According to the version of Life §§ 28-29, on the contrary, he was sent by the authorities in Jerusalem with the goal of persuading the 7covT)poi to lay down their arms, in order to wait for the development of things.* In fact, the Life stresses continually Josephus' peaceful inten­ tions in carrying out his mission. So scholars parted company in the

' After having said that "those w h o had pursued Cestius . . ., g a t h e r e d in the T e m p l e , a p p o i n t e d several c o m m a n d e r s (oTpa-nr]You<;) for the war" (2 § 562), t h e text Slates in fact: "John son of A n a n i a s was appointed c o m m a n d e r (Tjyenuv) of G o p h n a a n d A c r a b a t e n e and J o s e p h u s , son of Matthias, of the two G a l i l e e s ; to this last o n e ' s c o m m a n d {ajpoLTTtyicf.) G a m a l a too was added, the strongest city of the region" (2 § 568). ' "The J e r u s a l e m lead ers . . . sent m e and two o t h e r priests, J o a z a r a n d J u d a s , r e s p e c t a b l e p e r s o n s , to p e r s u a d e the criminals (novripoiic;) to lay down their a r m s a n d to explain to t h e m that it was b e u e r to reserve them for the nation's best men." A difference b e t w e e n the two accounts can b e perceived not only as to the mission J o s e p h u s was charged with, but also as to the authority that e n t r u s t e d him with il. In the War's account those w h o appoint Josephus c o m m a n d e r are the o n e s "who h a d p u r s u e d Cestius," g a t h e r e d in the T e m p l e with the p r o - R o m a n s w h o had j o i n e d t h e m , i.e., a kind of revolutionary council, if not a popular assembly. Instead, in the Life's account those w h o send Josephus to Galilee, a r e "the leaders of J e r u s a l e m , " worried a b o u t falling in the brigands' and innovators' h a n d s . T h e y a p p e a r to b e the aristocratic party's leaders, if not the Sanhedrin itself B u t also in this case the difference b e t w e e n the two accounts d e p e n d s on the different ways in which the historian wants to present the facts. T h e r e is n o d o u b t , in fact, that J o s e p h u s was e n t r u s t e d with his a p p o i n t m e n t by what in the Life h e often defines "the c o m m u n i t y (the xoivov) of Jerusalem," that is by the popular g o v e r n m e n t constituted after the victory over Cestius Gallus (JW 5 §§ 65, 190, 3 4 1 , 393).

268

G I O R G I O

J O S S A

interpretation of the two passages, and hence in the solution of the problem. R. Uiqueur (1920: 103-8), for instance, w h o is never very gentle toward the Jewish historian, charged him with "lack of scru­ ples." H e concluded from the discrepancy that Josephus abused his appointment, assuming a military power that he had not been entrust­ ed with, and building a tyrannical power in Galilee for himself by taking advantage of the situation. H. Drexler (1926: 2 9 9 f 0 , on the contrary, was convinced that at the beginning of the revolt the aristoc­ racy of Jerusalem, t o o weak and incapable to face the situation was half-heartedly involved in the war. Therefore he judged the War version more believable, because that of Life was openly affected by the polemic with Justus of Tiberias. In order to understand well the nature of Josephus' mission in Galilee, it is necessary to weigh both the character of the government of Jerusalem, as revealed mostly by the War story, and the political action pursued by Josephus in Galilee, as told mainly in the Life. This is my aim in these pages. Josephus was entrusted with his appointment by the popular government constituted in Jerusalem after the victory over Cestius Gallus in October of 66 CB. There were several p e o p l e responsible for this victory, according to the War. They were the Jews gathered in the holy city for the Feast of 'Tabernacles, who according to Josephus assailed the R o m a n s when Cestius arrived (2 § 517). More exactly, a few days earlier, the followers of the captain of the T e m p l e , Bleazar the s o n of the high priest Ananias, had defeated and driven t h e followers of M e n a h e m , the grandson of Judas the Galilean, out of Jerusalem. T h e n the ones w h o assailed the R o m a n s were clearly those "innovators," that is those religious nationalists, w h o gathered around Eleazar after he took the initiative of discontinuing the daily sacrifice on behalf of the Romans. They are the same who constituted the immediate precedent of the group of the Zealots, if not, more simply. Z e a l o t s themselves. They arc, however, a group of observant Jews w h o fought for strict observance of law and tradition (Hengel 1961: 365ff; Jossa 1990: 69-77), But when this last group was repelled after a first victorious assault that had already cost Cestius more than five hundred m e n , Simon bar Gioras attacked the Romans from the rear while they were leaving Jerusalem (2 § 521). H e was a young, strong and valiant man, destined to b e c o m e o n e of the leaders, nay the chief leader, of the Jewish revolt; the o n e whom the Romans would pick out for the triumph ceremony and condemn to death as the true leader of the

JOSEPHUS' ACTION IN GALILEE

269

insurrection. Therefore he was Menahem's most legitimate successor, w h o likewise fought for a political and social revolution (Michel 196768: 402-8; Kreissig 1970: 143; Stern 1973: 146-47). Afterwards Cestius resumed the siege of Jerusalem (JW 2 § 527ff) and the assault of the T e m p l e (2 § 535ff). When he suddenly resolved to retreat, he was surely assaulted both by the "innovators" of the T e m p l e (2 §§ 529, 536) and by the "brigands" of the country (2 §§ 538, 541). But among them, o n e of the most important chiefs had to be Eleazar the son of Simon, if "the R o m a n spoils and the money taken from Cestius" (2 § 564) were in his charge. This Eleazar will have a role of the first rank during the siege of Jerusalem, as leader of that Zealot party, that will fight side by side with and against the men of John of Gischala and of Simon bar Gioras: the party of mainly priestly extraction that fights within the T e m p l e enclosure for the purity of worship and tradition ( H e n g e l 1961: 64ff, 373ff; Jossa 1980: 61-77; 92-94). There are at least three groups that helped in the Jews' victory over Cestius Gallus: the o n e of Eleazar son of Ananias, the o n e of Simon bar Gioras, and the o n e of Eleazar son of Simon. Therefore, the popular government that entrusted Josephus with the mission in Galilee should have b e e n constituted mainly by these groups, if what the historian states is true: "those w h o had pursued Cestius, after going back to Jerusalem, attracted those w h o still supported the R o m a n s to their side, s o m e by force and others by persuasion and, gathered in the Temple, appointed several commanders for the war" {JW 2 § 562). It is on the basis of this passage that most scholars speak of the government of Jerusalem as a revolutionary o n e and regard Josephus' mission in Galilee as a military o n e . But Josephus' account leaves out more things than it says. First of all, in the list of commanders ( a T p a T T j Y o t ) appointed by the govern­ ment, Simon bar Gioras is missing. He is mentioned later on at 2 § 652, with the following statement: "in the toparchy of Acrabatene Simon, son of Gioras, after gathering many innovators, took to robberies, and not only ravaged the houses of the rich, but also abused their persons and since then it was clear that he started to act as a tyrant." On that s a m e occasion it is added that "after an army was sent against him by Ananus and the authorities, he and his m e n took refuge with the brigands at Masada where he remained until Ananus and his other adversaries were killed, overrunning Idumaea" (2 § 653). H e r e Simon bar Gioras d o e s not appear at all. It is also said that the

270

(}IORGI0 JOSSA

Acrabatene had John the son of Ananias as c o m m a n d i n g officer (2 § 568). Therefore, the o n e who will be the main leader of the Jewish war and w h o , after a probably moderate beginning,' will assume m o r e and more openly "brigandlikc," that is, radical attitudes, not only has not been entrusted with an appointment by the popular government, but almost certainly departed or was sent away from Jerusalem because of being at odds with government members. T h e s e differences b e c a m e s o profound that Ananus and the other authorities felt c o m p e l l e d to s e n d an army against him. It appears clear that the popular government (at least in its majority) d o e s not share in any way Simon bar Gioras' political and social attitudes, even though these will b e c o m e o p e n l y revolutionary only later on. But Josephus' account contains another equally interesting piece of information, when he says that "no appointment was in fact given to Eleazar son of Simon, though the R o m a n spoils and the m o n e y taken from Ceslius, beyond many other things of the public treasure, w e r e in his charge, since he appeared to be tyrannic and the Z e a l o t s at his d e p e n d a n c c acted as bodyguards" (2 § 564). So even the man w h o will be the leader of the Zealots and who had had such a relevant part in the victory over Cestius Gallus that the expectations of having him charged with the highest c o m m a n d would appear well founded,* did not get any appointment from the government. According to Josephus it will be the p e o p l e themselves, the Bijfiot;, that later on will entrust him with the highest powers (2 § 565). This might be the historian's unintentional admission that the Zealots had d e e p e r roots and a wider consensus a m o n g the p e o p l e than he would like us to believe. But as a matter of fact the Z e a l o t s will have entrusted him more simply with their own group leadership, since later on Eleazar will appear only as the Z e a l o t s ' chief (JIV 5 § 5-8). Here, however, he d o e s not get any

' Simon at the beginning is near to the groups of E l e a z a r son of A n a n i a s a n d E l e a z a r son of Simon and is not defined a "brigand", that is a radical. In t h e A c r a b a t e n e he still lists mostly "innovators," that is m o d e r a t e m e n . e v e n t h o u g h "since t h e n already . . . he started to act as a tyrant." Only after t h e coalition with t h e b r i g a n d s of M a s a d a a n d A n a n u s ' killing the radical c h a r a c t e r of S i m o n ' s positions a p p e a r s clearly. H e first m a k e s a n u m b e r of "brigandlike raids in t h e outskirts of Masada," t h e n r e t r e a t s in t h e m o u n t a i n s promising "freedom t o t h e slaves a n d r e w a r d s to t h e free m e n " (2 §§ 653-54; 4 §§ 503-8). ' Also t h e which editors usually d o not translate points in this direction. After having said that t h e city g o v e r n m e n t was entrusted to J o s e p h son of G o r i o n and to A n a n u s , J o s e p h u s uses it to introduce his r e m a r k a b o u t E l e a z a r .

JOSl-PHUS' ACTION IN CJAI.Il.FR

271

appointmeni. So it appears clear that also the leader of the moderate group of Zealots d o e s not enjoy enough esteem among the majority of the popular government. A final piece of information is emphasized in Josephus' account. It refers to RIeazar son of the high priest Neus, who in the government allotment of appointments got Idumaea {JW 2 § 566). Since no source mentions a high priest called Neus, critics are inclined to identify this Eleazar with Eleazar son of Ananias, the o n e who had stopped daily sacrifices for the R o m a n emperor and afterwards had fought and killed M e n a h e m the grandson of Judas. If this is true, h should be concluded that even a moderate of aristocratic descent, as surely this Eleazar was, w h o repelled the political and social revolution of the "brigand" M e n a h e m {JW 2 §§ 443-48; Jossa 1980: 89-92), was consid­ ered t o o radical by the Jerusalem government to receive a particularly delicate appointment and that he was therefore sent to a peripheric region of Palestine which was less important for the war. If, on the contrary, it were untrue, we should conclude that no appointment was given by the government even to Eleazar son of Ananias, though he had b e e n s o m e h o w the initiator of the revolt. N o n e of the three men most responsible for the victory over Cestius Gallus was therefore given relevant appointments by the new govern­ ment. This says a great deal about the character of that government. Clearly they wanted to get out of the way the most prestigious and passionate persons as the most dangerous ones. But it is no less mean­ ingful to see w h o is in fact appointed. I^t us keep in mind, first of all, that Joseph son of Gorion and the high priest Ananus, both represen­ tatives of Jerusalem's aristocracy, were appointed "highest authorities of t h e city government" (2 § 563). We do not know anything about the former, neither before nor after this election, unless he is to be identified with Gorion son of Joseph mentioned at JW 4 §§ 159, 358, w h o first set himself against the Zealots and later was their victim.* Instead, we know rather a lot about the latter. H e is the one, in fact, w h o will send an entire army against Simon bar Gioras "who started to act as a tyrant" {2 §§ 652-53), as we have already seen but also, according to Josephus, after doing his utmost in order to bring back

' As Drexlcr (1926: 299-300) suggests, recalling the similar exchange of n a m e s in the case of o n e of the messengers sent by Ananus against J o s e p h u s , in JW 2 § 628 and Life § 197.

272

GIORGIO

JOSSA

to reason "those thoughtless of the so-called Zealots" (2 § 651), having failed in his endeavour in this direction, will stir up all the p e o p l e to react against them (4 § 160). A man then not only a long way from Simon bar Gioras' radical positions, but also clearly alien to the Zealots' moderate ones. Obviously we can not disregard Josephus' peculiar outlook, and his attempt to free Ananus from the responsi­ bility for the war, while attributing it completely to "brigands" and "innovators." Yet it is impossible to share those scholars' opinions w h o want the Jewish aristocracy involved in the war against the R o m a n s together with the Zealots and victim only of their own weakness (Drexler 1926: 208-81, 287ff; Riceiotti 1937: 1.5; 2.308-9). T h e tragic end of A n a n u s too, who was killed by the Idumaeans w h o were momentarily allied with the Zealots (4 § 316), is in reality a further confirmation of his rather more ambiguous than weak attitude to the war. His presence at the head of the government of Jerusalem m e a n s therefore that the pro-Roman members still have, at this m o m e n t of the revolt, the situation in their hands, having been successful in keeping the popular government under their control. This is confirmed, in my opinion, by all the appointments of the socalled CTTpaTTjyot, which we can pass judgment on. In fact, Jesus son of Sapphas, perhaps another high priest, was placed in c o m m a n d of Idumaea, together with Hleazar son of Neus, who supposedly is no o n e else but Eleazar son of Ananias; whereas Niger, the Peraean, o n e of those w h o made himself conspicuous by fighting against Cestius, was enjoined to submit to their orders (2 § 566). The toparchy of Thamna, with the cities of Lydda, Joppe, and Emmaus, was granted to John the lissene, of w h o m we know absolutely nothing, but w h o s e previous participation in the renowned pacifist sect makes us suspect of his not going into raptures about the war (2 § 567). Our historian Josephus, son of Matthias, was sent to the two strategically very important Galilees, since the R o m a n s were certainly to c o m e from the North (2 § 568). B e c a u s e of his aristocratic descent (Life §§ 1-6), because of the influence of his friends (Life §§ 7-12, 204) and because of his recent mission to R o m e (Life §§ 13-16), Josephus may well be considered p r o - R o m a n at the time. At this point it is difficult to believe that Josephus could have b e e n charged by the government of Jerusalem (or by its leaders) with a different mission from that of skillfully restraining the most radical e l e m e n t s of the countryside, as it is related in the Life, while waiting

JOSEPHUS' ACTION IN GALILEE

273

for the R o m a n s to arrive and try to save the situation somehow. A s w e shall s e e now, a careful analysis of his behaviour and of his rela­ tionships with the various Jewish groups in Galilee confirms expressly this hypothesis. Against it o n e cannot put forward the fact that Josephus in reality assumed the command of the military operations in Galilee, putting himself at the head of that "innovator" e l e m e n t of p e o p l e , constituted by the so-called "Galileans." For this is only the o u t c o m e both of the development of the situation and of a choice m a d e by Josephus, that can be singled out with relative accuracy (Jossa 1992: 44-57; cf. Laqueur 1920: 103ff, 245f0. I have already said that at the moment of receiving the charge of going to Galilee, Josephus certainly d o e s not have a hostile attitude towards the R o m a n s . At the beginning of his mission his behaviour is essentially moderate and pro-Roman. According to the Life §§ 30-53, as s o o n as Josephus received the appointment, he went into the main cities of Galilee: Sepphoris, Tiberias, Gischala and Gamala. H e finds ferment and turmoil everywhere. More exactly, in each city he finds two parties ( o r a o e i c ) : o n e which intends to remain faithful to the R o m a n government, basically constituted by the ruling classes, w h o m Josephus calls simply the "Sepphorites," the "Tiberians" and so o n ; and another which shows signs of restlessness and longing for revolt, c o m p o s e d of, on the whole, a majority of the Galilean population, w h o m Josephus usually calls the "Galileans." Between these two parties, which w e could also refer to as pwiiaii^ovTcc and vewxepti^ovTEc, there is often a group of the undecided, as in Tiberias, where b e t w e e n the authorities' party, led by Julius Capcllus, and that of the Galileans, h e a d e d by Jesus son of Sapphias, there is the party of the future historian and Josephus' adversary, Justus of Tiberias (Life §§ 3236). In each of these cities Josephus gets in touch first with the local authorities (the JSOUXT), the xtpwrot) and tries to convince the p e o p l e to remain loyal to them. I'or instance, in the case of Sepphoris, Josephus finds the townsmen (but he is referring clearly to the authorities) worried about the Galileans' hostile attitude toward them. H e strives to persuade them to keep their temper. The case of all the other cities of Galilee is clearly similar. F'aced with the Galileans' most daring initiatives Josephus assumes an attitude of moderation and restraint. W h e n , for instance, Jesus son of Sapphias and his followers destroy H e r o d Antipas' palace in Tiberias because of the unlawful images contained therein, he intervenes immediately to stop the pillage and

274

GIORGIO JOSSA

to put the King's property in a safe place (Life § 68). W h e n the Galileans in his service want to force two prominent subjects of King Agrippa, w h o have taken shelter with him, to have themselves circum­ cised, he d e n o u n c e s the attempt and succeeds, though laboriously, in preventing it (§§ 112-13). When s o m e young men of the small town of Dabaritta assail the wife of Ptolemy, the procurator of the King, Josephus intervenes o n c e more to prevent the theft and to put the woman's g o o d s in a safe place (§§ 126-28). In all these events he acts therefore in full conformity with what appears to have b e e n his mission: to try hard especially to prevent that the situation in the country precipitate but keeping o p e n , instead, the possibility of an agreement with the Romans. Because of this attitude quite s o o n the Galileans begin to openly distrust his behaviour and to entertain wellfounded suspicions of his covert actions in collusion with the e n e m y . T h e s e suspicions are vented in an unruly assembly in the Tarichaeae h i p p o d r o m e , which functions almost as the headquarters of these Galileans. There Josephus is charged by Jesus son of Sapphias (Life §§ 132-35) and, if w e may believe JW 2 ^ 599, by John of Gischala. Following the Life's account, therefore, in the first period of his mission, Josephus keeps an attitude of extreme caution as to the war against the Romans, sustaining the positions of the leading classes of the several cities of Galilee, who are faithful to the R o m a n s , and restraining on the contrary the initiatives of the so-called Galileans, w h o are well-disposed toward the innovations. This confirms that the mission he has b e e n charged with by the authorities of Jerusalem, is not that of leading a war in which neither he nor they trusted, but of keeping a peace that at that juncture appeared still possible. Having said this, however, it is necessary to add right away two remarks: the first being that because of the complexity of the situation in which Josephus had to disarm the icovTjpoi without b e c o m i n g estranged from the people, he was compelled from the beginning to make important concessions to the Galileans; the second is that the situation clianged quickly, since both the development of events and his ambitions pushed him toward more advanced positions than he wished. It stands to reason that Josephus' diplomatic mission was extremely difficult and his personal position very delicate. In fact, if he had limited himself to restraining the Galileans' more daring initiatives, backing the various cities' ruling classes, he would have had the great

JOSF.PHUS' ACTION IN GALILKi:

275

masses of Galileans quite soon against him, as the Tarichaeae assem­ bly clearly proves. It was then necessary to pretend to yield, and s o m e t i m e s to actually yield to their demands, even if it should dis­ please the city authorities. This was done by Josephus from the beginning. When for instance Jesus son of Sapphias carried out the order of pulling down Herod's palace, he had no power or did not recognize the opportunity for preventing it, limiting himself to putting the King's property out of pillagers' reach and certainly alienating the 'I'iberias authorities (Life §§ 64-68). Besides, if the decision of pulling down the palace had c o m e right from the government in Jerusalem, as Josephus explicitly affirms (§ 65), he did nothing but obey a government order, which evidently d e e m e d it necessary to make s o m e political concessions to the Galileans. Furthermore, the return to Jerusalem of the two priests first sent on the mission with him (§ 77), whether spontaneously or urged by him we d o not know, remarkably changed Josephus' position, leaving him essentially master of the field. Already then the fear of losing the Galileans' support and the wish of increasing his personal power, pushed Josephus to stake everything on daring. After neutralizing those more radical persons in the country whom he considers "brig­ ands" in an extremely dangerous manner, namely by asking the city p e o p l e to pay them a kind of protection money (§§ 77-78), he put himself resolutely at the head of the Galileans, clearly hoping to subdue them to his own will. It was a position that looked remarkably like the o n e taken by Ananus within the government of Jerusalem, and it had probably been agreed upon just with him. Ananus, taking the chy's highest command, intended to bring back to reason "the thought­ less of the so-called Zealots." Similarly Josephus, taking the direct c o m m a n d of Galileans, evidently thought to succeed in better control­ ling these "innovators." But whether his personality was not as strong as Ananus' or his ambition eventually overturned his own purposes, Josephus e n d e d up increasingly surrendering to the Galileans' pres­ sures. H e not only engaged thousands of Galileans, forming for himself a personal army of considerable proportions (Life §§ 99, 102, 107. 212, 242, 252, 268), he made the leaders of these Galileans, m e m b e r s of a private council of his own, to whom he entrusted the main decisions (§§ 79, 220, 228). H e also helped with soldiers and workers those Galileans who had killed a relative of Agrippa's lieuten­ ant and the brother of Justus of Tiberias in Gamala (§ 186). It is

276

GIORGIO JOSSA

possible as well, of course, that by these methods he still thought he could be successful! in restraining the Galileans' rashness, as he maintains over and over again in the Life. But it is beyond doubt that he, in doing so, appeared as the leader of these "innovators," rather than the o n e who acted as a brake on them.* It is easily explained that in so doing he aroused suspicion and envy in John of Gischala, who, being certainly at this stage of the war still pro-Roman (Jossa 1992: 5357), did not just invite the inhabitants of Tiberias, Sepphoris and Gabara t o forsake Josephus (§§ 87, 123), but took the direct initiative of asking the authorities in Jerusalem to withdraw his c o m m a n d (§ 190). This episode is probably a turning-point in Josephus' life and also a clue for a better understanding of this period's events. If Ananus (not the government), Josephus' influential supporters in the aristocratic spheres notwithstanding, after hesitating for a while, made up his mind and sent a four-man deputation to Galilee, precisely charged with dismissing Josephus (§§ 191-198), this clearly m e a n s that in this phase of the war it was the still pro-Roman John of Gischala rather than the too ambiguous Josephus, who earned his trust. T h e latter's attitude toward the Galileans persuaded the Jewish aristocracy that in order to pursue the goal of the mission in Galilee, it was more suitable to rely upon John than Josephus. This d o c s not mean, though, that from the moment of the two priests' return to Jerusalem, Josephus thought of nothing else but creating in Galilee a personal power base for himself, and that he built this power on the direct support of "brigands," therefore putting himself openly at odds with the Jerusalem government and betraying completely the spirit of the mission that he had been entrusted with, as chiefly Laqueur (1920: 108) believed and Ricciotti (1937: 1.10) held too, though in more moderate terms. This thesis, in fact, stumbles over several objections. First of all, il is difficult to see in the two delegates' return to Jerusalem that radical turning-point in Josephus' behaviour, that Laqueur wants to see. Certainly, free of dealing without direct government control, Josephus could assume attitudes m o r e openly favourable toward the Galileans. But he also continued to d o his utmost in order not to let the situation deteriorate beyond repair, as the two just mentioned episodes of the request of circumcising

*This is what Kreissig (1970: 138) does not see, in my opinion. He believes that all of Josephus' actions aim at delivering Galilee to the Romans.

JOSLPHUS" ACTION IN GAI.II.FE

277

Agrippa's subjects and of the assault on the wife of the procurator Ptolemy clearly prove. In the second place, the fact that the govern­ ment in Jerusalem will in any case eventually recognize Josephus' power, calling back the deputation sent by Ananus to take away his c o m m a n d , shows that this episode does not constitute a radical break in the previous situation. It is Laqueur's (1920: 115) opinion that the government made the best of a bad bargain, recognizing in lawful form the power Josephus had until thfen illegally exercised, depending on the agreement with the brigands. ISut would it have ever done such a thing if that power were completely unlawful and if it really relied upon the brigands? Last, but not least, this thesis is based on the identification of "innovators" and "brigands," two substantially dif­ ferent Jewish groups, as is clear already from Life § 28 (Jossa 1992: 1630). It is also based on the non-identification of the "Galileans," who are a peculiar group of inhabitants of Galilee as attentive students of the Life well know (Jossa 1992: 44-57). As a matter of fact, Josephus did not rely upon the "brigands," as Laqueur and Riceiotti believe on grounds of a sole paragraph of the Life (§ 77), but upon the "Gali­ leans," as is clear from the remainder of the Life. The Galileans are only "innovators": that is not "radical" elements who fight for a general revolt against the R o m a n government, but "moderatee l e m e n t s w h o defend mostly the cultural and religious traditions of the country and live in constant fear of the "brigands" (§ 206). Therefore it is not true that Josephus put himself at the head of the brigands, as L i q u e u r (1920: 108-16) writes, and that, having broken all relations with the government in Jerusalem, he became a thorough "rebel." H e put himself, instead, at the leadership of the Galileans adopting the tactics of waiting and trying to still k e e p open the possibility of a mutual understanding with the Romans. Therefore, it is true that Ananus and his friends, sending the deputation to Galilee, show at last clearly that they do not trust Josephus anymore, but it is also true that the government in Jerusalem, confirming his power, shows that it shares the more open attitude toward the Galileans taken by Josephus and that it wants to back it up. T h e situation then, as it is known, will change once more after Josephus' surrender at Jotapata and John's defence at Gischala. At that point it will be John w h o will b e c o m e the .surviving leader of the Galileans. It will be necessary only to inquire what would have changed the former pro-Roman man into an "innovator," whether it

278

GIORGIO JOSSA

w a s a definite inner e v o l u t i o n or just t h e pressure o f t h e G a l i l e a n s ( R h o a d s 1976: 12-137; R a p p a p o r t 1982: 479-93). Certainly t h e G a l i ­ leans w h o s u c c e e d e d in escaping t h e R o m a n s j o i n e d John's f o r m a t i o n and c o n s t i t u t e d his military support in Jerusalem. T h e r e is n o r e a s o n to think with F r e y n e (1980; 4 1 1 ) that t h e G a l i l e a n s w h o , according t o J o s e p h u s , will support John in t h e further c o u r s e o f t h e war (JW 4 §§ 5 5 8 - 5 9 ) s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d n o w in an exclusively g e o g r a p h i c a l s e n s e , t h o u g h t h e w o r d in t h e War has not yet the religious m e a n i n g it will a s s u m e in t h e Life. O n the contrary, the Galilean participation in t h e Z e a l o t s ' actions in t h e T e m p l e area is t h e last c o r r o b o r a t i o n o f a religious trend a m o n g t h e m akin to the Z e a l o t s , a trend that w a s present already in G a l i l e e and that now involves J o h n t o o . J o s e p h u s is very harsh in his j u d g m e n t o n t h e m (JW 4 §§ 5 6 0 - 6 3 ) . This is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e s i n c e he strikes with a single b l o w at his f o r m e r allies and at his perpetual e n e m y ; the Galileans and John of Gischala. Y e t , t o g e t h e r with t h e 2 ^ a l o t s they remain the e x p r e s s i o n o f a m o r e m o d e r a t e trend a m o n g t h e rebels In c o m p a r i s o n with that o f S i m o n bar G i o r a s and of t h e Sicarii. This is t h e r e a s o n why in t h e triumph c e l e b r a t e d in R o m e at t h e e n d of t h e war, it will b e S i m o n and not J o h n , w h o will b e c o n d e m n e d to d e a t h as the leader o f t h e r e b e l l i o n .

WHRUK W A S JOSEPHUS LYING

IN H I S LIFE O R IN I H E WAR7 Uriel R a p p a p o r t

O n e o f t h e great obstacles in the research o n t h e Jewish revolt against R o m e is t h e m e a g e r n e s s , if not t h e near a b s e n c e of parallel sources a b o u t it. W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of a few details, m e n t i o n e d by historians other than Josephus

(Stern

1983:nO-12; 1974-1984: passim),

we

d e p e n d a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y o n his War as t h e only source. T o arrive at s o m e meaningful historical understanding of t h e Jewish War, w e are forced to pass J o s e p h u s ' e v i d e n c e through the sieve o f

scientific

analysis and interpretation. 'Hie m o s t significant, t h o u g h partial, parallel w e d o have concerning t h e revolt is i n c l u d e d within t h e J o s e p h a n corpus itself, that is the e v e n t s c o v e r e d by b o t h t h e

War and

t h e so-called

Life

of J o s e p h u s .

O b v i o u s l y t h e c u m u l a t i v e value o f t h e s e t w o sources is greatly dimin­ ished b e c a u s e b o t h w e r e written by the s a m e author. A l t h o u g h w e h a v e t w o sources, w e have only o n e author, w h o s e t w o reports are marred by similar w e a k n e s s e s

his involvement in t h e e v e n t s he

describes; his personal, partisan, national and political interests; his a p o l o g e t i c s and his subservience to his R o m a n patrons." N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e have n o better opportunity to use comparative m e t h o d o l o g y for research o n the revolt than in the c a s e o f t h e e v e n t s described by both War and Life. T h e list of c o m p a r a b l e e v e n t s , though not very long, is considerable, but w e will not g o into the details now.^ B e s i d e s t h e c o m p a r i s o n of various e v e n t s w e must c o m p a r e the main t h e m e concerning t h e revolt in each c o m p o s i t i o n . This is u n q u e ­ stionably t h e role o f J o s e p h u s in G a l i l e e , as told in e a c h o n e o f t h e m (Cf. C o h e n 1978:

8). This is a pivotal point, which reflects o n o t h e r

' All these motives were discussed many times, and even additional motives were ascribed to Josephus, such as his relations with Agrippa II, with the high priesthood, with the Pharisees etc. See recently S. Schwartz 1990; passim. ' A comparison of both books can be found in Cohen (1978:3-8; 261-63); Rajak (1983: 154-66), and Bilde (1988: 39), who has mistakenly mentioned Justus in referring to the War.

280

URIEL RAPPAPORT

d i s c r e p a n c i e s in t h e t w o b o o k s , and may s h e d light o n s u c h p r o b l e m s as t h e l e a d e r s h i p of t h e revolt and t h e policy o f its g o v e r n m e n t in general. J o s e p h u s role in G a l i l e e is sharply different in t h e IVar than in t h e Life. In t h e War h e is a general and g o v e r n o r (aTpaTTiyoc) o f G a l i l e e , ' a p p o i n t e d t o l e a d t h e revolt against R o m e in this region. Me w a s e x p e c t e d t o t a k e care o f all t h e necessary preparations t o c o n f r o n t t h e R o m a n invasion, t o o v e r c o m e all kinds o f d i s o b e d i e n c e toward t h e "revolutionary" g o v e r n m e n t in Jerusalem and t o r e d u c e s u p p o r t e r s o f R o m e a n d its allies. In Life J o s e p h u s ' role is considerably different. H e reluctantly j o i n e d t h e rebels' s i d e ; h e w a s s e n t t o G a l i l e e t o m i n i m i z e t h e r e b e l l i o u s t e n d e n c i e s ; h e w a s mainly absorbed in internal quarrels with p e o p l e w h o are a c c u s e d of b e i n g a n t i - R o m a n and f o m e n t i n g revolt, an a c c u s a t i o n which put him clearly o n t h e R o m a n side (for m o r e details see below). S c h o l a r s differ about t h e veracity o f t h e War's account as c o m p a r e d to that o f t h e Life, both o n detail and o n t h e g e n e r a l issue o f J o s e ­ phus' role in Galilee.'' T h o s e w h o prefer t h e War have s e e m i n g l y a solid basis for their p r e f e r e n c e : t h e War's account is far closer in t i m e than Life's t o t h e e v e n t s described; t h e War's account is m o r e c o n c i s e a n d t h e e v e n t s in G a l i l e e are implanted within t h e general f r a m e w o r k of t h e w a r . A s c o m p a r e d t o t h e War, Life's

account is t r e a t e d with

s u s p i c i o n b e c a u s e it is primarily a d e f e n s e against t h e attack o f Justus o f Tiberias, a n d as such is m o r e p r o n e t o fabrication than t h e War.^ But what is t h e value o f t h e s e criteria o f t i m e , f r a m e w o r k a n d m o t i v a t i o n ? In my o p i n i o n they should b e discarded. T h e c l o s e n e s s in t i m e o f a historian t o his subject is o f little i m p o r t a n c e in itself, in c o m p a r i s o n t o q u e s t i o n s like t h e availability o f sources, s o u n d j u d g e -

^ Explicitly in JW 2 §§ 562-69. This word is avoided in Life § 29, a fact which accords with the spirit of the description there. * Rajak (1983: 147) tries to bridge between the two accounts. Schiirer (1973-87: 1.53-4; 489-91) usually follows the War, appreciates Life very little and uses it only as a secondary source. ' Rajak (1973: 344-68); but cf. her more recent work (Rajak 1983; 152), where .she departs from this opinion and suggests that in Life Josephus is replying to various authors, not only to Justus. Cf. also her article (1987) and Cohen (1979: 114). For a review of the changing positions concerning War and Life see (^ohen (1979: 8-23). For recent works which give preference to War as against Life see Bilde (1988: 160-61; 174-75) and for the opposite position, ibid., 175-76.

WHFRF. WAS JOSEPHUS LYING?

281

m e n t , relative objectivity etc. Since no great c h a n g e is n o t i c e d in J o s e p h u s ' a p p r o a c h t o historiography (though his subject w a s c h a n g e d ) or in t h e availability o f sources for his work o n t h e Jewish revolt b e t w e e n t h e s e v e n t i e s and the nineties of the first century C E , the t i m e e l a p s e d b e t w e e n t h e s e d e c a d e s is of little import for o u r discus­ sion.'' T h e literary c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n War and Life carries s o m e weight, but mainly in relation to t h e m o r e detailed report in Life versus War, not o n J o s e p h u s ' role in G a l i l e e . ' T h e third and m o r e important reason to prefer War to Life is Life's t c n d e n t i o u s n e s s , by r e a s o n of its being a response to Justus' accusa-

* Some historians thittk that in his Life Josephus used an earlier source than in the War, but whether right or wrong (we think the latter), it does not affect our argument. More important may be the change in Josephus' attitude, in these decades, towards Agrippa II and his relatives, the High Priesthood, the "upper" priesthood and the Pharisees/Kabbis, as suggested by S. Schwartz (1990). Yet even if such a change may explain Josephus' "new" attitude towards Agrippa or Simeon ben (iamaliel in Life, it does not affect the presentation of his own role in Galilee. Concerning Josephus' attitude towards the Pharisees see Mason (1991) and Feldman (1992h). A possible change in Josephus' position in Rome can be ascribed to Domitian's rule (81-96 CE) and to his policy towards Jews and Judaism. But should it be related to Josephus' description of his role in Galilee? Was he writing under the menace of reprisals because of his generalship in the rebellion (as presented in the War)7 Were Justus' accusations aimed at condem­ ning Josephus before Domitian? If so, did Josephus write Life to exculpate himself in Roman eyes? In fact, Antiquilies was published in Domitian's days, and it shows less sympathy, not to say servility, to Rome, than War. One historian even suggested that in Antiquilies one can find a certain warning to Domitian, in anticipation of inimical measures he may take against Jews (Case 1925: 10-20; Smallwood 1956: 10-11; Cohen 1978: 138). Josephus himself does not show that he had such considerations in Life. There he boasts about the favors that (even) Domitian conferred upon him (Life § 429). 'Ilie publication of Antiquilies under Domitian also testifies to Josephus' relative security at that time (93-94 CE; Cf. Thackeray, LCL vol 1: xi). So the major event in Josephus' literary career, between the publication of War and Life, was Justus' accusations, and in this light the differences between the two works should be seen. Furthermore, it can be argued that even if Josephus' position was less secure under Domitian, because of his unfriendly policy towards Judaism, and especially towards Judaizers (Smallwood 1976: 376-85), and if this attitude brought Josephus to change the description of his role in Galilee from oTpaTTjYO!; to that of a pacifier of Galilee, it does not preclude the probability, that this was his real mission lo Galilee, which he admitted only under the new circumstances of Domitian's later years. ' Cf. Rajak (1983: 154-66). We do not share her opinion that many of the discrepancies between the two works can be resolved because War and Life belong to different literary forms.

282

URIEL RAPPAPORT

tions. I n d e e d in Life

J o s e p h u s is c o m p e l l e d t o r e s p o n d t o Justus'

attack, a n d t o d e f e n d his o w n behavior, s o that h e did not h a v e historical truth in m i n d w h e n he wrote Life, but rather his p e r s o n a l d e f e n s e . S o , it may b e c o n c l u d e d , w e s h o u l d prefer t h e historical writing, with its T h u c y d i d e a n pretence, than t h e personal a p o l o g e t i c p i e c e o f work w h i c h is Life. But a f e w q u e s t i o n s c o m e to mind. Is t h e War a g e n u i n e "Thucy­ didean" w o r k ? A s most scholars agree War is far from b e i n g T h u q ' d i d e a n a n d its veracity is often questionable. A t least four kinds o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l e a d J o s e p h u s astray from t h e q u e s t o f truth: o n e is p e r s o n a l (his role in t h e war and his personal i m a g e ) ; t h e s e c o n d is political ( that is partisan, d e f e n d i n g his and his "party's" position in t h e war); t h e third is national (caring for his p e o p l e ' s interests, as h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e m ) and t h e fourth is t h e service h e r e n d e r e d t o his R o m a n b e n e f a c t o r s , t h e Flavians. C o m p a r e d t o War, Life

with its

d e f e n s e o f mainly personal interests, l o o k s quite i n n o c e n t . B e y o n d this c o n s i d e r a t i o n w e s h o u l d ask w h e t h e r a p e r s o n a l a p o l o ­ getic writing such as Life, is by definition untruthful. Such a s t a t e m e n t is logically incorrect. T h e relation b e t w e e n accusation and d e f e n s e is m a n i f o l d . A n accusation may b e right and a d e f e n s e w r o n g or vice versa, or b o t h can b e right or both can b e wrong. In Life's

c a s e t h e situation is e v e n m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , and various

additional c o n s i d e r a t i o n s interfere with our j u d g e m e n t . T h e f o u n d a t i o n of Justus' accusations against J o s e p h u s can o n l y b e g u e s s e d ( C o h e n 1979: 114-20; Rajak 1983: 152-54), yet it looks as if Justus referred, at lea.st partially, t o War either for information against J o s e p h u s , or t o s t r e n g t h e n s o m e of his accusations. E v e n if this c a n n o t b e p r o v e d , Justus' claim that J o s e p h u s was a w a r m o n g e r and incited Tiberias t o revolt (Rajak 1983: 153, n. 2 1 ; 1987: 81-94) is c o n f i r m e d in t h e War. S o w e m a y a s s u m e that his attack on J o s e p h u s o n this p o i n t did not contradict War but was generally in line with it. A f e w e x a m p l e s m a y s h o w this changing of p o s i t i o n s o n Jo.sephus' side. In JW 2 §§ 6 4 5 - 4 6 it is explicitly admitted that Tiberias w i s h e d , as did S e p p h o r i s , to a d h e r e t o the R o m a n c a m p . It failed b e c a u s e o f J o s e p h u s ' military intervention. This fits well with what s e e m to b e Justus' charges against J o s e p h u s , that he was r e s p o n s i b l e for Tiberias' m i s f o r t u n e {Life § 3 4 0 ) . T h e parallel section in Life §§ 381-89, mitigates considerably t h e a b o v e picture. A c c o r d i n g t o it, J o s e p h u s rescued Tiberias from b e i n g

WHERE WAS JOSEPHUS LYING?

283

s a c k e d by t h e GaHleans. This is contradictory t o JH^ 2 § 6 4 6 (". . . he [ J o s e p h u s ] deHvered it over to his soldiers [that is t h e a b o v e m e n ­ t i o n e d G a l i l e a n s ] t o plunder"). Evidently J o s e p h u s could not stick to his story in t h e War, which s u b s t a n t i a t e d Justus' accusations. H e c h o s e to admit, to s o m e m e a s u r e t h e truth, which suited his actual present interest, t h o u g h it did not support his o w n self-image, which he cherished w h e n he w r o t e War ( R a p p a p o r t 1977: 9 1 - 9 7 ) . T h e hidden truth about his activity in G a l i l e e in 66-67 is that in reality h e did not p o s s e s s much authority in Galilean affairs and that h e s i d e d with t h e m o d e r a t e s . This fact, which h e preferred not to d i s c l o s e in public in t h e seventies w h e n he wrote t h e War, he admitted in IJfe § 175 b e c a u s e it .served him better in t h e nineties than in the seventies. In o t h e r w o r d s : writing in t h e seventies, J o s e p h u s d e p i c t e d himself as a great and resourceful general. A general (axpaTTjyot;) of G a l i l e e , w h o d e s p i t e his personal point of view, did all in his p o w e r to comply with his ( s u p p o s e d ) task to fight t h e R o m a n s . A s such, h e had to force S e p p h o r i s and Tiberias, which inclined towards R o m e and Agrippa II, t o participate in t h e revolt. In t h e n i n e t i e s t h e situation w a s c h a n g e d . H e found himself at­ t a c k e d o n various fronts including his responsibility for t h e misfortunes o f Tiberias. T h i s forced him to disclose that in reality h e w a s not d o i n g his j o b , contrary to what h e declared in the War. I n d e e d he c l a i m e d that h e tried to save b o t h Sepphoris and Tiberias from

Galilean

reprisals. His support o f t h e revolt was only a cover-up, s o as not t o raise t h e s u s p i c i o n s o f t h e rebels (Life § 175). B e i n g attacked in this way, Josephus' d e f e n s e must h a v e b e e n perforce different from t h e report o n his activity in G a l i l e e , as re­ c o u n t e d in t h e War. K n o w i n g War t o be false and perceiving that it w a s b e i n g u s e d against him directly or indirectly, by Justus, J o s e p h u s w a s forced in d e f e n d i n g himself to deny s o m e o f his o w n allegations in t h e War. H e w a s forced to replace t h e m with n e w assertions which w e r e h i d d e n till t h e n and which may represent t h e truth. In other w o r d s , Justus' accusations might have c o m p e l l e d J o s e p h u s t o admit the truth a b o u t his role in G a l i l e e and disclose various matters, which were i n c o n v e n i e n t for him, and were not revealed in t h e War. If w e are right, this reflects o n various e v e n t s and details r e c o u n t e d in t h e War as well as o n t h e Jewish leadership in Jerusalem at that t i m e . In our

284

URrRi. RAPPAPORT

view J o s e p h u s ' Life is a confession or an admission of his real role in G a l i l e e , and not a deceitful denial. Justus' accusations b a s e d o n , or at least in partial a g r e e m e n t with the War p u s h e d J o s e p h u s into an i m p a s s e . D e f e n d i n g his War v/ou\d

have b o u n d his h a n d s in repelling

Justus' attacks. S o he wisely c h o s e to give up his twisted report in the War, and t o admit in Life s o m e of the facts he was hiding in his War.^ Lei

us return now t o t h e most important difference b e t w e e n

and Life,

War

that is, as already m e n t i o n e d , J o s e p h u s ' role in ( l a l i l e e

( R a p p a p o r t 1983a: 36-47). In

2 § 5 6 3 he is o n e o f t h e c o m m a n d e r s

a p p o i n t e d t o p r e p a r e J u d e a against the R o m a n s . Arriving in G a l i l e e he tries t o fulfill this assignment by recruiting a huge Jewish army (100.000

JW2^

576; 6 0 . 0 0 0 + 3 5 0 h o r s e m e n + 4.500 "mercenaries"

+ 6 0 0 b o d y g u a r d s — JW 2 § 5 8 3 ) , organizing and drilling it in t h e R o m a n fashion. H e d e c l a r e d himself to be faithful to this task, and to perform his duty till the bitter e n d . Only then, and only b e c a u s e o f divine intervention, h e went over to t h e R o m a n side.^ W h e n he is b l a m e d o f p r o - R o m a n inclination he d e n i e s it forcefully (JW 2 § 5 9 4 ) . T h e a s s u m e d role of c o m m a n d e r (oTpaTi^YOt;) o f G a l i l e e is also m a i n t a i n e d \nJW 2 § 647, as well as in battles against t h e S e p p h o r e a n s and Placidus (JW 3 §§ 59-63), as is his declaration o f fidelity t o t h e c a u s e o f t h e revolt.'" Obviously t h e story o f Jotapata c r o w n s his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d , although he refrained from discussing it in Life ( s e c o u r discussion b e l o w ) . T h e policy as described by J o s e p h u s in t h e War is in line with the position o f H a n a n b e n H a n a n ' s g o v e r n m e n t , which w a s discussed e l s e w h e r e ( R a p p a p o r t 1983a: 34-36).

' See his own words in Life §§ 338-39: "being therefore, now compelled to defend myself against these false allegations, I shall allude to matters about which J have hitherto kept silent. My omission to make such a statement at an earlier date should not occasion surprise. For while veracity is incumbent upon a historian, he is nonetheless at liberty to refrain from harsh scrutiny of the misdeeds of individuals, not from any partiality for the offenders, but because of his own moderation." Cohen (1979: 114-15) comments that this statement is a commonplace, but even a commonplace is used to serve some aim, and in this case to exculpate Josephus from hiding relevant information from his readers. ' A detailed description with references to the War is to be found in Rajak (1983: 166-71). "'JW 3 § 137, a very suggestive passage indeed: "As for himself, although he might look for pardon from the Romans, he would have preferred to suffer a thousand deaths rather than betray his country and disgracefully abandon the command which had been entrusted to him, in order to seek his fortune among those whom he had been commissioned to fight."

W H E R E WAS J O S E P H U S L Y I N G ?

In Life

285

J o s e p h u s ' role is different. Already in Jerusalem h e is a m o n g

t h o s e w h o wish t o calm t h e t e n d e n c i e s toward revolt

(Life

§§ 17-19).

H e and o t h e r s w h o shared the s a m e conviction, b e c a u s e of t h e threat of d e a t h disguised their o p i n i o n and p r e t e n d e d to agree with t h e rebels

(Life

§§ 20-23, e s p . 22-23, which refer to t h e t i m e

before

Cestius' arrival). After t h e victory over Cestius Gallus, t h o u g h t h e rebellion had g a i n e d wider support, the Jerusalem aristocracy sent J o s e p h u s with t w o o t h e r c o m p a n i o n s to still peaceful G a l i l e e , in order to k e e p it that way, that is to curb the power, influence and activity o f t h e rebels." J o s e p h u s ' role as p e a c e m a k e r is revealed also through various incidents in his story. Sepphoris is initially p r o - R o m a n and as such is h e l p e d by J o s e p h u s on his arrival in G a l i l e e

(Life

§§ 30-31). In

t h e War S e p p h o r i s is described at t h e early stage of J o s e p h u s ' activity in G a l i l e e as c o o p e r a t i n g with him on the a n t i - R o m a n s i d e (JW 2 § 5 7 4 ) . This is an e x a m p l e o f Josephus' consistency in presenting his roles in b o t h his reports

(War and Life)

by adjusting the s e c o n d a r y

e v e n t s t o t h e g e n e r a l picture h e wishes to present. This can also b e s e e n in t h e Dabaritta incident, w h e r e though t h e story is t h e s a m e in its g e n e r a l lines, in

Life

§ 128 he o p e n l y admits his intention to give

back t h e spoils t o their owner.'^ W h a t is t h e truth t h e n ? Is there s o m e hidden motive b e h i n d t h e differences, t h e additions and the omissions in

War and Life?

did J o s e p h u s c h a n g e his story from t h e first version (War) second

(Life)?"

"Why to t h e

( C o h e n 1978: 1). It s e e m s that, at least in part, they

w e r e d i c t a t e d by Justus' accusations, which J o s e p h u s tried to refute. W h a t t h e exact c o n t e n t s of Justus' accusations against J o s e p h u s w e r e , w e can only g u e s s . W h a t e v e r can be g l e a n e d can only b e arrived

" No clear description of them is given. They arc mentioned as XnoToti {Life §§ 77, 106, 145, 175, 206) or Galileans {Life § 30 et passim), never as Zealots or Sicarii. They may be identified by the name of their leader, as in the case of Jesus son of Sapphias. For John of Gischala see Rappaport 1983b: 46-57 (with biblio­ graphy in n. 2); 1982: 479-93; 1983c: 97-115 (Hebrew). For Galileans see Bilde 1988; 40-44, with references to further literature. For references to Josephus' text see Schalit 1968: 32. This role of Josephus as peacemaker is revealed also through various incidents in his story. " In War the valuables were robbed from Agrippa's steward, Ptolemy, whereas in Life from Ptolemy's wife. I doubt if much can be concluded from this variance and 1 a.ssume Josephus is simply adding a detail to his concise report in the War, with no hidden intention behind it. See Life § 126 and M. Stein, in his translation oi Life (1959, note ad loc, Hebrew).

286

URIEL RAPPAPORT

at t h r o u g h J o s e p h u s ' Life.

It s e e m s very probable that a m o n g o t h e r

accusations, Justus b l a m e d J o s e p h u s for Tiberias' e n t a n g l e m e n t in t h e revolt (Life

§§ 3 3 8 - 3 4 1 ; 349). A l t h o u g h t h e city finally s u c c e e d e d in

extricating itself from its e n t a n g l e m e n t , n e v e r t h e l e s s its p o s i t i o n vis-a­ vis R o m e b e c a m e vulnerable and its i m a g e b e s m i r c h e d , e s p e c i a l l y in c o m p a r i s o n t o vSepphoris, the city of p e a c e (Irenopolis)

and t h e favorite

of R o m e in Jewish G a l i l e e (Seyrig 1950: 284-89; 1955: 157-59 and M c s h o r e r 1979). Evidently J o s e p h u s ' personality and behavior w e r e a l s o d e n i g r a t e d by Justus. J o s e p h u s reciprocated by slandering and by b o a s t i n g a b o u t his n o b l e spirit and moral behavior. But this level o f their p o l e m i e s is historically much less important. W h a t really matters is t h e accusation that J o s e p h u s was r e s p o n s i b l e for Tiberias' misfortune, that is, its depiction as un-friendly t o R o m e , unlike its neighboring city, Sepphoris. If J o s e p h u s w e r e i n d e e d a sincerely d e v o t e d c o m m a n d e r o f this region and if he, s u p p o r t i n g t h e rebellion's c a u s e , successfully interfered with Tiberian affairs, t h e n h e must b e guilty o f t h e charge that b e c a u s e o f him, Tiberias failed t o c o m e o u t o f t h e war unsullied in R o m a n e y e s . But w a s J o s e p h u s t h e c o m m a n d e r of G a l i l e e in charge o f l e a d i n g it against t h e R o m a n s ? Or w a s he an envoy (with t w o o t h e r s ) , s e n t t o pacify G a l i l e e ? In Life h e had only o n e motivation, if any, to distort t h e truth, and that was Justus' attack. In War h e had various m o t i v a ­ tions, relating t o his b e i n g a prot6g6 of t h e Flavians, b e i n g i m p l i c a t e d in t h e recent uproar in Judea, trying to depict his o w n p e r s o n in a certain m a n n e r ( R a p p a p o r t 1977; C o h e n 1979: 9 1 - 9 7 ) and d e f e n d i n g certain political and ideological positions. In War his role in G a l i l e e was o n e c o m p o n e n t in t h e c o m p o s i t e construction o f Jewish l e a d e r s h i p and society, which he built up, w h e r e a s in Life his role in G a l i l e e is t h e central and only t h e m e . In War t h e pressure o n J o s e p h u s t o distort t h e truth w a s m u c h greater than in Life, and from this aspect as well Life is m o r e c r e d i b l e than the

War.

W e think that t h e w h o l e picture o f the situation in J u d e a

as

d e s c r i b e d in t h e War is misleading.'' J o s e p h u s , residing in R o m e in t h e n i n e t i e s as a writer favored by t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t , w a s t a k e n by

" S e e Rappaport (1983a: 34-36. 55-59; 1992). It is interesting to note that Salvador (1847: 2.44-53) understood the events in Galilee under Josephus' command, and by implication also the situation in Jerusalem, in a similar way, though his reading of the sources was rather naive.

WHERE WAS JOSEPHUS LYING?

287

surprise by Justus' attack. H e was trapped by Justus tiot only b e c a u s e Justus disclosed u n p l e a s a n t stories about him ( w h e t h e r they w e r e true or false w e c a n n o t tell) and published a b o o k purported t o b e a better a n d m o r e trustworthy work than the War, but a l s o becau.se Justus c o u l d cite, a n d probably cited, J o s e p h u s ' o w n work t o p r o v e his a c c u s a t i o n s , i.e., that Tiberias w a s unnecessarily d a m a g e d by J c s e p h u s a n d that J o s e p h u s f o m e n t e d revolt in Galilee. J o s e p h u s c o n t e n d s in many places, including Life §§ 3 3 9 ; 361-67, that his veracity is irreproachable. N e v e r t h e l e s s he gives up s o easily t h e basic f o u n d a t i o n o f his War, that H a n a n b e n I l a n a n ' s g o v e r n m e n t led t h e revolt in g o o d faith as he himself was d o i n g in G a l i l e e . War's veracity is b r o k e n to p i e c e s by t h e n e w perspective he p r o p o s e s in Life. W h y t h e n did he not try to uphold his War's version faced with Justus' attack o n h i m ? Is it not b e c a u s e under Justus' attack it b e c a m e i n d e f e n s i b l e ? Justus h a d n o interest in describing J o s e p h u s as a p e a c e ­ m a k e r , o n t h e contrary, he wished to s h o w him as a c o m m a n d e r w h o failed in his task, c a u s e d mischief and brought disaster o n t h o s e w h o s e security w a s e n t r u s t e d to him, and was an e n e m y o f R o m e . T h i s picture can b e drawn by partial and intentional u s e o f t h e

War.

J o s e p h u s w a s forced to disclose t h e truth, t o s a v e his reputation, o r e v e n his neck, that n e i t h e r his c o m m a n d of G a l i l e e , nor H a n a n ' s g o v e r n m e n t , w e r e e v e r i n t e n d e d to fight the R o m a n s a n d s o h e cannot b e r e s p o n s i b l e for Tiberias' e n t a n g l e m e n t in t h e war. Probably it w a s e v e n m o r e difficult for J o s e p h u s to r e s p o n d t o Justus' a c c u s a t i o n s that he was lying about the s i e g e of J o t a p a t a {Life § 3 5 7 ) . H i s only r e s p o n s e is to point out that Justus was t h e n far from t h e arena o f war, and s o deprived of auTo4*ict ( s e e i n g with his o w n e y e s ) , while J o s e p h u s b o a s t s {AgAp

1 § 55) auToipia as his o w n virtue

as a historian ( C ^ h e n 1979: 115, and n. 57 for bibliography). H e also m a k e s o t h e r irrelevant m i n o r accusations. Y e t , a d e t a i l e d review o f his own participation in the war at Jota­ p a t a c o u l d have b e e n e x p e c t e d , as he had written c o n c e r n i n g his activity in Tiberias a n d in Galilee. But J o s e p h u s t e r m i n a t e d t h e story of his sojourn in G a l i l e e with Vespasian's arrival there, and for the rest h e refers t h e r e a d e r to t h e War {Life § 412). This c a n n o t b e taken as u n i n t e n t i o n a l , since t h e e n d of Life should have, most naturally, b e e n put at t h e real turning-point, w h e n J o s e p h u s s u r r e n d e r e d t o t h e R o m a n s and his career t o o k a n e w start. In this way Life w o u l d really fully e n c o m p a s s t h e Galilean chapter in J o s e p h u s ' career, w h e r e a s

288

URIEL RAPPAPORT

V e s p a s i a n ' s invasion of G a l i l e e did not influence his life in any m e a n i n g f u l way. I n d e e d , in AgAp 1 § 48 J o s e p h u s divides his career according t o this line, that is before and after his R o m a n captivity. H o w t h e n can t h e conclusion of Life, as it stands, b e e x p l a i n e d ? J o s e p h u s ' e x p l a n a t i o n , that t h e concluding e v e n t at Jotapata w a s d e s c r i b e d in detail in t h e War (Life § 412) is not satisfactory,''* and his g r o u p i n g t o g e t h e r t h e s i e g e o f Jotapata and his capture t h e r e with his c o n d u c t in t h e campaign and in the s i e g e o f Jerusalem, by referring to t h e War, is an exercise in misleading t h e reader ( o f which h e w a s an e x p e r t ) . In any c a s e it should b e stressed, that J o s e p h u s did not refrain from d e a l i n g in Life with topics which w e r e described by him in t h e

War. S o t h e m o s t probable explanation for t h e abrupt t e r m i n a t i o n of Life is that Justus' accusations about his behavior in Jotapata ( a n d probably also t h e m e a n s by which he m a n a g e d to survive) and his description o f his activity in G a l i l e e , hit a very sensitive nerve and hurt J o s e p h u s d e e p l y , b o t h as a historian and as t h e person h e tried s o hard t o depict t h r o u g h his false stories in the War. J o s e p h u s c h o s e not t o respond in detail t o Justus' accusations, that h e w a s a liar and a coward (or a traitor t o his o w n p e o p l e ) . H e preferred t o cast d o u b t o n Justus' veracity, on t h e basis o f t h e general principle o f auTO(|)ia. A d m i t t i n g t h e truth o n this p o i n t w o u l d have b e e n e x t r e m e l y harmful, as well as painful, to J o s e p h u s , and s o h e left Justus' accusations unanswered. That J o s e p h u s is not indifferent to his prestige as a historian c a n b e s e e n by his v e h e m e n t d e f e n s e of it in his AgAp 1 §§ 47-56, written, m o r e or less, in t h e s a m e d e c a d e as L i / e . " Evidently t h e u n d e r s t a n d ­ ing o f t h e contradictions b e t w e e n War and Life, as p r o p o s e d here, d e p e n d s o n s o m e o t h e r assumptions t o o . W e think that p e r s o n a l relations and local interests w e r e m o r e d o m i n a n t in G a l i l e a n politics at that s t a g e o f t h e war than ideology, and that n o major ideological issues t h e n s e p a r a t e d p e o p l e like Josephus, Justus, John of CJischala,

" Rappaport 1983a. Rajak 1983:154 and Cohen 1979:116, n. 61; 121. n. 80, are aware of Josephus' silence about Jotapata in Life, but I do not find their explana­ tions convincing. The themes of this passage resemble Josephus' prologue to the War (cf. Mason 1991: 76). He does not mention Justus, but other "despicable persons who malign his history." Justus may be one of them, but no argument with his specific criticism of War is taken up there by Josephus.

WHBRF. WAS JOSEPHUS LYING?

289

S i m e o n b e n G a m a l i e l , Philippus b e n Jakimos, Agrippa II, t h e S e p p h o rean leaders and t h e Tiberian aristocracy ( R a p p a p o r t 1982; 4 8 1 , 486, 4 8 8 - 9 ; 1983b: 5 3 - 5 4 ; 1983c: 99-100). All o f t h e s e p e o p l e , as well as t h e aristocracy in Jerusalem and in s o m e o f t h e major t o w n s in t h e country, like G a d a r a in P e r a e a {JW 4 § 4 1 4 ) , a i m e d at s o m e arrangement with R o m e . T h e i r d o u b l e - f a c e d policy is v e i l e d by J o s e p h u s in t h e War, but is u n m a s k e d in Life. This w e o w e to Justus, w h o forced Josephus, as he himself admitted, to disclose at least part of what h e w a s hiding until then ( s e e note 8 above).

J O S E P H U S IN GALILEE: R U R A L P A T R O N A G E A N D SOCIAL B R E A K D O W N Seth Schwartz

T h e r e are t h o s e o f us w h o have m a d e a cottage industry o f d e t e c t i n g Josephus* biases. B u t w e have t e n d e d t o neglect s o m e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o n e s , e i t h e r b e c a u s e w e share t h e m o r b e c a u s e w e c o n s i d e r t h e m t o o o b v i o u s t o point out. O n e o f t h e s e biases is J u d a e o c e n t r i s m : J o s e p h u s v i e w e d his t o p i c a s consisting mostly o f t h e history o f t h e J u d a e a n s . T h e Jewish war for J o s e p h u s was mostly t h e J u d a e a n war; h e said little a b o u t t h e I d u m a e a n o r P e r a e a n wars, a n d , apart from h i s o w n activities, little e v e n a b o u t t h e G a l i l e a n war. Likewise, t h e title o f his s e c o n d work can almost b e translated "Judaean antiquities", a n d t h e religion J o s e p h u s d e f e n d e d in Against Apion is that o f priests a n d scholars o f t h e T o r a h , that is, essentially t h e Judaean religion a n d its urban diasporic offshoots,

not t h e unknown

a n d probably

quite

different religion o f G a l i l e e or I d u m a e a . A n o t h e r u n r e m a r k e d e l e m e n t in J o s e p h u s '

oeuvre

is his urban bias.

T h i s J o s e p h u s partly b o r r o w e d from his G r e e k m o d e l s , f o r w h o m history m e a n t t h e history o f civilizations, a n d "civilizations" m e a n t cities. B u t I think this bias also reflects his o w n e x p e r i e n c e . J o s e p h u s c a m e from a l a n d o w n i n g family (Life § 422) but s e e m s t o h a v e g r o w n u p entirely in Jerusalem (Life §§ 7-9). Since his father survived a t least until t h e l i m e o f J o s e p h u s ' surrender (JW 5 § 5 3 3 ) , It is p r o b a b l e that t h e s o n n e v e r had t o worry m u c h about t h e family farm. A n d from 71 o n J o s e p h u s apparently lived in the city o f R o m e , t h o u g h h e c o n t i n u e d

t o o w n land in Judaea (Life §§ 422, 4 2 5 , 429). F o r u s a s historians, t h e s e presumably u n c o n s c i o u s biases are far m o r e damaging

than t h o s e

commonly

noted

b e c a u s e they s h a p e d h i s

narrative in m o r e profound ways. W h e n for e x a m p l e J o s e p h u s says t h e P h a r i s e e s w e r e powerful, w e can observe that they play little role in h i s a c c o u n t o f t h e history o f t h e later s e c o n d t e m p l e p e r i o d and s o correct his m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . But what can w e d o w h e n c o n f r o n t e d with h i s s i l e n c e a b o u t t h e countryside, and areas outside J u d a e a ? But o f c o u r s e his s i l e n c e is not c o m p l e t e . J o s e p h u s s p e n t a f e w miserable m o n t h s

JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE

291

a m o n g t h e country p e o p l e of G a l i l e e . I Ic probably didn't understand t h e m very well, and certainly had plenty of reasons to lie about details o f his visit. N e v e r t h e l e s s , this G a l i l e a n e p i s o d e is important b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s ' reports of it mark his only major departures from his urban and J u d a e a n biases — at least o n e can say that here their influence o n his a c c o u n t is m o r e s u b t l e than usual. This rare information allows us to consider s o m e frequently c o n t e s t e d issues: H o w s h o u l d w e imagine rural social relations in P a l e s t i n e

as

a system in which wealthy and p o o r w e r e generally b o u n d t o each o t h e r by ties of reciprocal obligation - i.e., patronage, as in a "nor­ mal" M e d i t e r r a n e a n society or, as G o o d m a n ( 1 9 8 7 ) has suggested for J u d a e a , as o n e in which relations b e t w e e n rich and p o o r w e r e purely contractual and p a t r o n a g e was therefore insignificant? W a s t h e great revolt c a u s e d a n d / o r a c c o m p a n i e d by s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c o l l a p s e ? I will argue that G a l i l e e , at least, was a patronal society; that the partial urbanization of t h e district by A n t i p a s and the drainage o f w e a l t h from it d u e t o the imposition o f direct R o m a n rule brought a b o u t t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a class o f a b s e n t e e landlords, and t h e impover­ i s h m e n t o f t h e p o o r e r farmers; t h e s e d e v e l o p m e n t s in turn brought a b o u t a partial c o l l a p s e of the patronal system, resulting in t h e rise of b r i g a n d a g e and t h e growth in p o w e r o f s o m e country landlords. W h i l e t h e s e c h a n g e s c a n n o t explain t h e outbreak of revolt, they form an essential part o f its background.

1. Patrons and Clients in

Galilee

Martin G o o d m a n ( 1 9 8 7 : 5 1 - 7 5 ) , in his fundamental discussion o f social c o n d i t i o n s in first-century Judaea , has argued that Judaea w a s not a patronal society in any significant way. T h e point s e e m s overstated and m a n y o f his a r g u m e n t s are of q u e s t i o n a b l e validity;' nevertheless

' E.g., Goodman argues that Judaean peasants were normally bound to landowners only by contract. The peasants knew that the "divinely ordained ideal" required each man to own his own plot, and so, as tenants, felt resentment towards the owners: ties of reciprocal obligation were not sanctioned by custom and did not develop. Similarly, the wealthy were obliged in bad times to provide help to the poor; the poor were not obliged to be grateful. For these reasons, Judaea never became in any significant way a patronal society. But the Judaean peasants' awareness of various "divinely ordained ideals" (i.e., biblical passages) is questionable, and contractual relationships, in themselves, between tenant and landlord would not have (and in many societies have in fact not) precluded the

292

SETH SCHWARTZ

G o o d m a n may b e partly right: p a t r o n a g e was s o m e w h a t less Important in J u d a e a than in m a n y o t h e r rural districts of t h e eastern M e d i t e r r a ­ n e a n . C a n w e e x t r a p o l a t e from Judaea to t h e rest of P a l e s t i n e ? D i d t h e baneful e c o n o m i c influence of t h e T e m p l e a n d city of J e r u s a l e m interfere with normal social relations in other parts o f t h e country as w e l l ? R e v o l u t i o n a r y L o w e r G a l i l e e will have t o serve as a test case. N e e d l e s s to say, J o s e p h u s never c o m e s out and says that p a t r o n a g e w a s i m p o r t a n t in t h e part o f G a l i l e e he knew; his a c c o u n t m e r e l y a s s u m e s it was. W h i l e in G a l i l e e , J o s e p h u s , by his o w n

account,

b e h a v e d in ways w h i c h can best be u n d e r s t o o d as indicating that he w i s h e d t o b e thought of, either by his readers in t h e 80s a n d 9 0 s o r by his victims in t h e 60s, as a patron of t h e local l a n d o w n e r s and city elites. T h i s explains his ( a l l e g e d ) attempts to protect t h e p r o - R o m a n S e p p h o r i t e s from brigands and hostile country p e o p l e (Life § 31),^ his claim t o have p r o t e c t e d t h e country l a n d o w n e r s from brigands by e s t a b l i s h i n g himself as t h e latters' e m p l o y e r (behavior typical o f rural nobility),' his t r e a t m e n t of t h e leading landlords as cpiXoi a n d auvexBr][xoi {Life § 7 9 ) , t h e latters' a t t e n d a n c e o n J o s e p h u s at dinners a n d o n o t h e r occasions,'' a n d his insistence that the TCX^9-OI; o f t h e G a l i l e a n s w e r e m o t i v a t e d in their actions mainly by e u v o t a a n d ntoTic; t o w a r d s him {Life § 84). J o s e p h u s ' p r e t e n s i o n s o f patronage a l s o panfy his i n s i s t e n c e that he p e r f o r m e d all t h e s e services w i t h o u t

explain taking

m o n e y in return, e v e n t h o s e m o n i e s d u e him as a priest {Life §§ 8 0 - 1 ) . W e k n o w J o s e p h u s well e n o u g h to have had d o u b t s a b o u t all this in any c a s e ; what is remarkable, t h o u g h , is h o w transparent J o s e p h u s a l l o w s his p r e t e n s e t o b e : h e admits that he permitted his brigands t o p l u n d e r t h e farms o f his G a l i l e a n prot6g^s if they failed t o p r o v i d e

development of extra-contractual ties based on an ideology of reciprocal benefit. Nor would the legal obligation of charity have done so - gratitude to benefactors being a common human impulse neither ordained nor forbidden by biblical law - unless we suppose that the collection and distribution of it was administered by the state, as in modern welfare systems. But such a system in 1st century Judaea is as poorly attested as a fully developed patronal system and perhaps less plausible. ' Though Josephus represents this as an example of his peaceable behavior in Galilee. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that Josephus tried to win the support of the Sepphorites by controlling the brigands and peasants who were molesting them. If this were his purpose, he failed to attain it: his later relations with the city were hostile {Life §§ 104-11). ^ Hopwood 1989: 171-85; cf. Jossa in this volume. ' Life §§ 79, 144, 220, 228, 305-6, 368.

JOSEPHUS IN OALILEE

293

p r o t e c t i o n m o n e y {IJfe § 78); tliat his "ftXoi" w e r e in fact h o s t a g e s {Life § 79); that t h e G a l i l e a n irXtj^oc; was actually m o t i v a t e d m o r e by fear than by good-will {Life § 207); and that h e often treated h i s "clients" with incredible brutality (the severing o f hands is practically a leitmotif of the Life).^ But this very transparency probably indicates that J o s e p h u s w a s not trying t o impress t h e readers o f his b o o k a n d s u g g e s t s in fact that h e did pretend t o b e h a v e as a patron while in G a l i l e e . J o s e p h u s presumably b e l i e v e d his behavior w o u l d b e correctly u n d e r s t o o d by t h e G a l i l e a n s and therefore effective. A s far a s Jose­ p h u s k n e w in t h e 60s, then, rural Lower G a l i l e e was striated vertically by a network o f patronage** at the t o p o f which h e tried t o set himself. W a s J o s e p h u s ' evaluation o f local conditions correct? T o answer this q u e s t i o n , I will begin with a brief survey o f what w e k n o w about landt e n u r e in G a l i l e e . Such a survey is in order b e c a u s e it will permit us t o e v a l u a t e , o n t h e basis o f o u r understanding o f patronal systems e l s e w h e r e in t h e rural ancient Mediterranean world, t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f w i d e s p r e a d p a t r o n a g e in Galilee. This is s o b e c a u s e it is usually supposed

that there is a rough correlation b e t w e e n

landholding

patterns and p a t r o n a g e . ' Districts in which there are m a n y small farms a n d several larger o n e s are generally c o n s i d e r e d fertile territory for t h e g r o w t h o f a patronal system, w h e r e a s in a district carved into vast s l a v e - w o r k e d plantations p a t r o n a g e will obviously b e insignificant. U n f o r t u n a t e l y w e k n o w little about land tenure in first-century G a l i l e e . J o s e p h u s ' reports o n the matter are well known: m e m b e r s o f t h e H e r o d i a n family, e.g. O u e e n Berenice, o w n e d land ( i c 6 | i a t ) in l o w e r G a l i l e e , in t h e vicinity o f B e t h Shearim {Life § 119), and this was p r e s u m a b l y f a r m e d by tenants. A t least s o m e o f t h e city aristocrats o f Tiberias a n d S e p p h o r i s w e r e landowners and s o m e o f their holdings may h a v e b e e n large: J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s a certain Crispus, o n e o f t h e eiioxTifxoveQ o f Tiberias, w h o sat out t h e revolt in his K T T j o e t Q , located, interestingly e n o u g h , across the Jordan {Life § 33). J o s e p h u s ' h o s t a g e s

^ Life §§ 147; 153 (cf. 113): Josephus tactfully fails to mention that he stole arms and money from the Trachonite refugees whom he "helped escape' from his own men; §§ 171-3; cf. 177: the Galileans had cut off the hands of Justus' brother. See below for an attempt to explain this. * And not horizontally into social classes or, presumably, classes based on religious criteria as perhaps in Judaea: Goodman 1987; 66-7. For a discussion of patronage as social system, see Johnson and Dandcker 1989; 223-8. ' For a useful discussion, sec Garnsey and Woolf 1989; 153-70.

294

SETH SCHWARTZ

w e r e apparently p r o s p e r o u s landowners, though their farms w e r e not necessarily massively larger than t h e average and may h a v e b e e n w o r k e d n o t by t e n a n t s but by family m e m b e r s , day-laborers a n d / o r small n u m b e r s of slaves. Finally, J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s figures like J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , and a certain Jesus (possibly t h e s a m e as t h e l e a d e r o f t h e p o o r faction at Tiberias) w h o o w n e d a castle in G a b a r a (Life

§ 246;

s e e b e l o w ) . Such m e n , about w h o m I will say m o r e later, w e r e o b v i o u s ­ ly significant landlords w h o s e e m t o have o w n e d , or in s o m e o t h e r way c o n t r o l l e d , their villages. I w o u l d suggest t h e following pattern: t h e flatter, richer land o n t h e boundary b e t w e e n L o w e r G a l i l e e and t h e Jezreel V a l l e y was typically carved into large e s t a t e s o w n e d by a b s e n ­ t e e s and farmed by tenants; in t h e hillier areas t h e r e w a s a mixture o f large and small holdings worked for the most part by their o w n e r s . Such a s u p p o s i t i o n c o n f o r m s with t h e e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s and a l s o with patterns of land t e n u r e in o t h e r pre-modern rural s o c i e t i e s ~ in which in a given district the better land will tend t o b e c o n c e n t r a t e d in t h e h a n d s o f fewer owners. Conversely, there is not t h e slightest e v i d e n c e for slave-worked latifundia,

and no reason in t h e a b s e n c e o f

e v i d e n c e t o posit their e x i s t e n c e o n a large scale. N o r d o J o s e p h u s or t h e G o s p e l s provide any reason t o s u p p o s e that e x t e n d e d

kinship

groups,* or local c o m m u n i t i e s , or t h e state, c o u l d provide consistent support t o poorer farmers in the inevitable and frequent c a s e o f c r o p failure. 'Fhere is n o hint b e f o r e t h e Mishnah of t h e sort o f institution w h i c h w a s later t o b e characteristic of all Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s : t h e n p i S - ' N a i ("charity wardens"), t h e ^^nm

("soup kitchen"), t h e free-

loan society:^ "charity" w a s apparently for the most part still a p e r s o n ­ al m a t t e r and therefore presumably a significant factor in t h e establish­ m e n t o f n e t w o r k s o f relations b e t w e e n classes. In o t h e r w o r d s , in m o s t

' On the decline of the extended family, see Goodman 1987: 68-9. ' Fven such institutions can be exploited by wealthy individuals to establish control over or reciprocal ties with poorer farmers. npIS tv^y ("collection of charity") and similar positions were often in medieval and early modern Europe sinecures for local bigshots, and it may have been so in late antique Palestine too (on the oligarchic and evergetistic [the word is mine] stmcture of the European Jewish communities — increasingly so as time went on - see Baron 1948: 34-51), For an excellent example of a landlord's exploitation of his presidency of a charitable society, see Hinton 1966: 30-31; for the coexistence of patronage and the ideology of obligatory charity, see J. Pitt-Rivers, quoted by Scott 1977: 27. It should be superfluous to point out, by the way, that biblical law requires charity, but says nothing about the mechanisms for its collection and distribution.

JOSHPHUS IN GAt.ILF.F.

295

parts o f G a l i l e e the p r e c o n d i t i o n s for a patronal society existed: p o o r a n d rich lived in c l o s e proximity."* T h e picture of G a l i l e e painted by J o s e p h u s entirely c o n f o r m s with t h e s e s u p p o s i t i o n s . With important exceptions, to be d i s c u s s e d later, t h e significant divisions in G a l i l e a n society w e r e not horizontal and c l a s s - b a s e d , but vertical, according to lines of patronage. 'The War and the Life s e e m t o be in a g r e e m e n t about this. I x t m e first return t o an incident

already m e n t i o n e d , which occurred s o o n

after

Josephus'

arrival: a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Life (§§ 77-9), J o s e p h u s , u n a b l e to disarm the local brigands, "persuaded" the UXTI8^0(; to pay t h e m off a n d t h e n had t h e brigands s w e a r t o k e e p away from the countryside unless they w e r e s u m m o n e d o r had not b e e n paid. U n d e r t h e circumstances, J o s e p h u s obviously n e e d e d s o m e h o w to s e c u r e t h e loyalty o f the

Galilean

country p e o p l e , a n d this he did by taking as h o s t a g e s oi iii TcXet xwv F a X i X a i w v - i.e., obviously, the leading landowners of lower CJalilee. What he t a k e s for granted is that t h e s e G a l i l e a n s s o m e h o w c o n t r o l l e d t h e p o o r e r p e o p l e . This is m a d e explicit in t h e story as told in t h e War, which is o t h e r w i s e much sanitized." In t h e e n d t h e plan failed, but not b e c a u s e o f w e a k n e s s in t h e ties b e t w e e n the SuvaToi and t h e KXT]a^oc.'^ I n d e e d , t h e (3alilean SuvaToi are consistently r e p r e s e n t e d as influential a m o n g t h e peasants. W h e n J o s e p h u s a n n o u n c e d t o the G a l i l e a n l e a d e r s his desire t o give up his c o m m a n d , they s e n t m e s s e n ­ gers i n t o t h e countryside w h o a s s e m b l e d throngs o f G a l i l e a n s t o protest J o s e p h u s ' departure. T h e story may be true: J o s e p h u s reveals that t h e p e a s a n t s had n o love for him (§ 207)

rather, they feared his

brigands. In any case, what is important is the peasants' r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o t h e SuvaToi. J o s e p h u s reports other cases as w e l l . "

'° In such circumstances, COMMON in the pre-modern Mediterranean WORLD, patronage is often thought to have been nearly universal. The preci.se legal aspect of the relationship between rich and poor is probably irrelevant. See GarnseyWoolf 1989; 158-61. " JW 2 § 570: ouvtSuv 8 ' o T t touc^ pev SuvaToix; OTKEIWOETOII peTaSiSouc TTJI; i^ouaiac^ cnuxoic,, TO Se nav TCXT]9OI^, ei St'inixwptwv xai auvriSwv xa TcoXXa n p o o T o t o a o i K.T.X.

'* The prevalence of brigandage of course demonstrates that the patronal networks often failed; I leave this aside FOR the moment but will return to it below. Josephus does provide one possible example, from Upper Galilee, of local landlords' loss of control over a section of the population - Life §§ 185-8. But this is at Gamala, a place with a tangled history (see Cohen 1979: 160-9; Price 1991: 75-94). The landlord WAS perhaps the king and the repuTot his agents. "e.g., §§ 305-6. In some cases, though, WHEN Josephus speaks of Galilean TTPWTOI, he may be referring to brigand-chiefs.

296

SETH SCHWARTZ

J o h n o f Gischala may b e another e x a m p l e o f successful

rural

p a t r o n a g e . T h e capsule biography of John in B o o k 2 o f t h e War, in w h i c h J o s e p h u s claims that his e n e m y had b e e n a p o o r m a n and attained w e a l t h and p o w e r through deceit and brigandage, is o f interest mostly as a s a m p l e of stock d e n u n c i a t i o n ( 2 §§ 5 8 5 - 7 ) , t h o u g h e v e n h e r e J o s e p h u s admits that John was surrounded by friends ( w h o m J o h n had d u p e d ) and behaved charitably ( t h o u g h his f i X a v &pw7tia w a s f a l s e ) . " 'ITie Life, which portrays John as t h e l e a d i n g man o f G i s c h a l a and by implication as a prosperous landowner,'^ is almost certainly c l o s e r to t h e truth. John's influence over t h e local p e a s a n t s , and a p p a r e n t l y also o v e r t h e local brigands,'* was c o n s i d e r a b l e and e x t e n d e d also t o t h e Jewish inhabitants of s o m e villages in t h e nearby Tyrian territory, w h o v i e w e d him as protector. F u r t h e r m o r e , this mutual relationship c o n t i n u e d long after it had c e a s e d t o serve t h e interests o f t h e peasants: m a n y o f t h e m followed J o h n t o J e r u s a l e m

(JW 4

§ 106).

T o s u m up, in social terms, Galilee

\x>wer G a l i l e e

(and p e r h a p s a l s o U p p e r

t h o u g h J o h n may not have b e e n typical) was a m o r e or less

n o r m a l rural district o f the eastern Mediterranean; m o s t o f

the

inhabitants w e r e small farmers (whether tenants or o w n e r s ) ; t h e r e was a s m a l l e r n u m b e r o f wealthier farmers. In m a n y cases, m e m b e r s o f t h e s e g r o u p s w e r e b o u n d t o each other by, a m o n g o t h e r things, b o n d s o f reciprocal, extra-legal, obligation — i.e., o f patronage. W e k n o w this b e c a u s e interestingly e n o u g h t h e s e b o n d s generally w i t h s t o o d

the

o u t b r e a k o f t h e R e v o l t , s o that J o s e p h u s witnessed and reported their effects: J o h n of Gischala and many o t h e r G a l i l e a n landlords retained t h e loyalty o f their clients. It was t o a large extent at a higher level that t h e system w a s shaken: Agrippa II lost his hold o n s o m e (but not all) o f his Jewish subjects, and a m o n g t h o s e w h o lived u n d e r R o m a n rule, at least s o m e landowners were willing t o entertain t h e idea o f

" Yet Josephus' claim in the War may have some basis in fact: possibly John had become increasingly wealthy and powerful shortly before the Revolt. See below for reasons this may have happened. In Life § 74. Josephus implies that the large quantity of oil John sent to Caesarea PhiUppi actually belonged to John; in the War, he buys up other people's oil. "•Josephus says he was restrained from protesting against John's profiteering schemes by his fear of the local "nX^Sot;" (Life § 76). This is transparently apologetic, but the relationship it assumes between John and his village may be real and is in any case consistent with Josephus' other reports of John's activities.

JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE

297

revolt. It s e e m s unlikely, then, that the Galilean revolt w a s either c a u s e d or a c c o m p a n i e d by major social collapse. Still, t h e c o l l a p s e o f relations b e t w e e n m a n y of the Galilean landlords and their patrons requires e x p l a n a t i o n — in order to provide it w e must return t o social and e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s : t h e s e may not c o m p l e t e l y explain t h e revolt, but they are certainly part o f its background. I begin with brigandage. 2. Brigands

and Social

Breakdown

T h e p r e s e n c e o f brigandage in G a l i l e e was an important precondition for the o u t b r e a k o f war b e c a u s e it m a d e available to w o u l d - b e rebel l e a d e r s a b o d y o f m e n e x p e r i e n c e d at violence; its p r e v a l e n c e is probably also t h e strongest indication of social trouble in t h e district b e f o r e t h e war. W h y was it s o c o m m o n ? T h e e c o n o m y o f G a l i l e e was necessarily always fragile, notwithstanding Josephus' idealized musings a b o u t t h e district's fertility {JW 3 §§ 41-3). In fact, t h o u g h Ix)wcr G a l i l e e w a s t h e richest district in Palestine, it was relatively poor, even by M e d i t e r r a n e a n standards. In v i e w of this, Josephus' startling claim ( a n o t h e r indication o f his urban bias?) that e v e n t h e m o s t indolent w e r e attracted t o a life o f farming (3 § 42) may m e a n , if it m e a n s anything at all, only that peasants were chronically u n d e r - e m p l o y e d , as they o f t e n are in subsistence e c o n o m i e s , and in especially g o o d years c o u l d scrape by o n relatively little work. But m o s t years w e r e not especially g o o d and many were positively b a d . " H e n c e , p a t r o n a g e or n o n e , w h o e v e r the ruler, and whatever the normal land t e n u r e pat­ terns, a small p r o p o r t i o n o f the rural population w a s always liable to fall through t h e cracks — to g o from ownership to long term indebted­ ness to t e n a n c y t o e n s l a v e m e n t , and finally, in the worst case, to starvation. T h o s e w h o e s c a p e d starvation still had o p t i o n s : emigration cost m o n e y and w a s risky but may still have b e e n c o m m o n - at any rate, this may partly explain the size and extent o f the Jewish diaspora; o t h e r s will have m o v e d t o Tiberias, Sepphoris, Caesarea, P t o l e m a i s , Tyre or Jerusalem in h o p e o f finding work there: in many cases they w o u l d h a v e e n d e d u p beggars; still others will have b e c o m e brig­ ands.'^ In short, brigandage was probably nearly universal in prc-

" O n t h e f r e q u e n c y of c r o p failure in rainier p a r t s of the M e d i t e r r a n e a n basin, G a r n s e y 1988: 8-16. " S e e G o o d m a n 1987: 60-66. B. Isaac's c o m m e n t s on b r i g a n d a g e in J u d a e a (1984, e s p . 176-83; a n d c o m p a r e 1992: 78-83) must b e c o n s i d e r e d p u r e l y p r e l i m i ­ nary; t h e m a n y w o r k s o n t h e t o p i c by R. H o r s l e y (1979; 1981) a r e m a r r e d by the sec

298

SETH SCHWARTZ

m o d e r n rural e c o n o m i e s , including in G a l i l e e , just as street c r i m e is in m o d e r n cities, and for many of t h e s a m e reasons. It is a t t e s t e d in G a l i l e e at all periods for which there is e v i d e n c e . Furthermore, if it is true that J e w s refrained from exposing e x c e s s children, t h e n e c o n o m i c p r e s s u r e s w e r e necessarily m o r e s e v e r e in Jewish Palestine than e l s e w h e r e in t h e eastern Mediterranean, s o that e v e n in o t h e r w i s e calm p e r i o d s brigandage was perhaps m o r e c o m m o n . " Y e t t h e n u m b e r and size o f t h e brigand groups m e n t i o n e d by J o s e p h u s s h o w that t h e period preceding t h e revolt w a s o n e o f heightened distress, if not by any m e a n s a b s o l u t e c o l l a p s e . A t t h e very b e g i n n i n g o f t h e war, Cestius Gallus' d e p u t y C a e s e n n i u s G a l l u s is said t o have p u r s u e d TO hi oTaatwBec Kai XyjOTpiicov Tcav in t h e vicinity o f S e p p h o r i s into t h e hill country and there slain 2,000 o f t h e m (JW 2 §§ 5 1 0 - 2 ) ; if this w a s t h e s a m e group w h o s o o n after pillaged S e p p h o r i s b e c a u s e o f its submission to Cestius, t h e n C a e s e n n i u s did t h e m relatively little d a m a g e (Life §§ 30-1).™ J o s e p h u s ' n u m b e r , if it w e r e accurate, w o u l d imply a vast troop o f brigands; obviously, t h o u g h , it c a n n o t b e a s s u m e d t o be s o . T h e next information c o m e s from t h e story, already m e n t i o n e d , o f Josephus' "pacification" o f t h e local brigand chiefs. T h e Life generally s e e m s m o r e d e p e n d a b l e than t h e War a b o u t n u m b e r s , but gives n o n e here. JW 2 §§ 5 8 3 - 4 , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n s that 4,500 (xia&o
author's naive (or ideologically motivated) over-use of the "social bandit" model, derived from E. Hobsbawm (1959; 1969); see Blok 1972. 'ITie fundamental general study of ancient brigandage is now Shaw 1984. " Possibly the tax burden was heavier too, due to the priestly gifts and temple tax. But Josephus' account of his and his associates' activities in Galilee (especially Life § 63) seems to show that the priestly gifts were not regularly given, at least not in Galilee; see the discussion in Sanders 1992: 145-69. But, though Sanders assumes that all farmers always paid the priestly gifts, his evaluation of economic conditions in Palestine is implausibly optimistic. " But Josephus does not suggest this and specifically does not call the beleaguerers of Sepphoris "brigands'; rather, they are oi FaXiXaiot and x a nXTiS^i). But this does not exclude the possibility that some were brigands. The group men­ tioned in the War consists of both brigands and revolutionaries.

JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE

299

o f D a b a r i t t a w h o robbed the wife of King Agrippa's steward {Life § 126) w e r e m o s t likely Josephus' brigands — at any rate, w h e n J o s e p h u s failed t o give t h e m their cut 600 o f t h e m ( n o w explicitly called Xnaxai) m a r c h e d o n him {Life § 145). T h e only thing certain a b o u t what h a p p e n e d next is that it bore little r e s e m b l a n c e t o J o s e p h u s ' account of it in Life, but t h e figure of 600 may b e worth taking seriously. I.ater, around t h e t i m e o f t h e Jerusalem d e l e g a t i o n , J o s e p h u s says h e had 3 , 0 0 0 "hoplites" in his service, and raised an additional 5,000 from the G a l i l e a n peasantry {Life § 213). T h e s e n u m b e r s are t o o round and p e r h a p s a l s o t o o large, and it is impossible to tell what p e r c e n t a g e of t h e 3 , 0 0 0 w e r e brigands (cf. also the 5 0 0 hoplites J o s e p h u s sent to escort t h e J e r u s a l e m d e l e g a t i o n h o m e Life § 3 3 2 ) . Y e t t h e numbers are not absurdly large and t h e percentage o f brigands a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' "regular" forces, t o t h e extent that he had t h e m , was probably high ( C o h e n 1979: 2 1 1 - 1 3 ) . I would suggest that t h e size of t h e I ^ w e r G a l i l e a n brigand p o p u l a t i o n on w h o m J o s e p h u s could reasonably expect t o draw for support was 2 , 0 0 0 + / - 1 , 0 0 0 . T h e r e w e r e , in addition, brigand bands which did not c o o p e r a t e with J o s e p h u s , or at least retained their integrity e v e n if they w e r e willing t o m a k e d e a l s . W h e n J o s e p h u s arrived at Sepphoris, t h e inhabitants hired a bandit from t h e G a l i l e e - P t o l e m a i s frontier called Jesus, with 8 0 0 m e n , t o protect t h e m from Josephus. J o s e p h u s o b s c u r e s what h a p p e n e d next, but apparently s o m e sort of bargain b e t w e e n the c o m p e t i n g b o s s e s w a s struck. S o o n after, a G a l i l e a n brigand chief, also n a m e d Je,sus, t h e l e a d e r of 600 m e n , turned up at Jerusalem; t h e r e he w a s hired by A n a n u s and his faction t o a c c o m p a n y t h e d e l e g a t e s sent t o r e m o v e J o s e p h u s . T h e r e is no way to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or not the t w o J e s u s e s are identical (Schalit 1968; F e l d m a n , L C L 9, index: sub voce; G o o d m a n 1987: 2 2 4 ) . After the failure o f t h e Jerusalem d e l e g a ­ tion, J o s e p h u s says h e brought about the d e f e c t i o n of 4,000 ( s o Life § 3 7 1 ; in JW 2 § 6 2 5 , 3,000) m e m b e r s o f John's faction ( C o h e n 1979: 2 2 5 - 6 ) plausibly s u p p o s e d that t h e s e constituted John's faction in L o w e r G a l i l e e . S o m e of t h e s e w e r e certainly brigands, but not all: in both JW2 § 6 2 4 and Life § 370 J o s e p h u s says h e had t h r e a t e n e d t o s e i z e t h e property of John's partisans, a c o m m o d i t y brigands are generally s u p p o s e d t o have lacked. In s u m , w e c a n n o t calculate t h e number of brigands in lower G a l i l e e in 6 6 , nor their exact proportion in the p o p u l a t i o n . W e can, however, with a m i n i m u m o f trust in Life's statistics, speak o f orders o f magni­ tude. L-et us suppo.se that Palestine as a w h o l e could support a

300

SETH SCHWARTZ

m a x i m u m o f o n e million p e o p l e , and s o posit a m a x i m u m o f c.200,000 for Galilee.^' Ix)wer G a l i l e e was m o r e intensively farmed and less m o u n t a i n o u s , and s o m o r e p o p u l o u s than t h e north: let us a s s u m e for it a p o p u l a t i o n o f 120,000. J o s e p h u s ' e v i d e n c e suggests a n u m b e r o f b e t w e e n 1,500 and (let's say) 8,000 for t h e brigands b e t w e e n slightly o v e r 1 % and about 7% of the entire population - or b e t w e e n c . 5 % and 2 0 % of m e n b e t w e e n 16 and 60. N o w , brigandage was an o p t i o n a v a i l a b l e only to healthy y o u n g m e n , and was notoriously d a n g e r o u s , s o brigands must have constituted a relatively small p e r c e n t a g e o f t h o s e — e v e n o f t h o s e m e n o f military a g e w h o failed t o find "nor­ mal" m e a n s o f subsistence. All this is both crude and s p e c u l a t i v e but d o e s , I h o p e , suffice to establish that e v e n G a l i l e e , which w a s richer a n d less b e l l i c o s e than J u d a e a , was experiencing unusually s e v e r e social and e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m s in t h e 60s. Why? T h e factors which contributed to an increase in e c o n o m i c p r e s s u r e in first-century Palestine in g e n e r a l are well-known. U n d e r H e r o d a n d , for that matter, u n d e r t h e H a s m o n e a n s , t h e tax b u r d e n in P a l e s t i n e w a s n o d o u b t heavy, but s o m e of the revenues were p u m p e d back into t h e local e c o n o m y especially in t h e form of soldiers' pay u n d e r t h e H a s m o n e a n s and construction workers' salaries u n d e r H e r o d ( G a b b a 1 9 9 0 : 1 6 5 - 6 8 ) . Herod's d e s c e n d a n t s c o n t i n u e d t o k e e p t r o o p s a n d fund building projects but — since their tax bases were s m a l l e r on a s m a l l e r scale than their ancestors, apart from t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f i n c o m e from plunder, which had b e e n significant u n d e r s o m e o f t h e H a s m o n e a n rulers. Furthermore, u n d e r R o m a n rule, t h e tax b u r d e n r e m a i n e d heavy, but r e v e n u e s w e r e generally not reinvested in t h e Palestinian e c o n o m y ; rather, they w e r e lost to corrupt local administra­ tors and t o t h e Imperial treasury at R o m e . This was no trivial matter: j o b s c r e a t e d by t h e H a s m o n e a n s ' and H e r o d ' s local r e i n v e s t m e n t o f wealth had provided a significant safety net for t h e "excess" p o p u l a ­ tion o f Palestine. W h a t o f G a l i l e e ? G a l i l e e had avoided this drainage o f w e a l t h far longer than t h e o t h e r Jewish areas o f the country, s i n c e it had re­ m a i n e d u n d e r royal rule until t h e d e a t h o f Agrippa I in 4 4 . " O n h o w

" For the maximum population of Palestine see Hamel 1990: 137-40, substan­ tially agreeing with Broshi 1979. The estimates for Galilee are my own guesses. Needless to say, the margin of error in all cases is considerable. ^ Whether the Romans collected regular tribute from "client kings" is perhaps unanswerable; see Braund 1984: 63-7, and D.R. Schwartz 1990: 132 n.l02. If they did, then a general decline will have set in under Herod. Still, there is no question

JOSEPHUS IN GALILEE

301

large a scale did Antipas and his n e p h e w reinvest in G a l i l e e ? In Agrippa's c a s e w e cannot answer. J o s e p h u s typically says practically n o t h i n g o f his treatment of G a l i l e e , concentrating instead o n t h e favors h e b e s t o w e d o n Jerusalem and on G r e e k cities (Ant 19 §§ 293-96; 3 3 1 ; 335-37; 3 4 3 - 4 5 ) . Inscriptions from t h e pagan Semitic areas o f his k i n g d o m warn us of the i n c o m p l e t e n e s s o f J o s e p h u s ' narrative (Sehurer 1973-87: 1.445 n. 19 and 4 5 2 nn. 4 1 - 4 2 ) . In A n t i p a s ' case, t h o u g h , J o s e p h u s d o e s not leave us entirely ignorant. Antipas f o u n d e d Tiberias and a l s o raised Sepphoris to s o m e t h i n g approaching city s t a t u s . " A n t i p a s n o doubt believed that t h e s e initiatives w o u l d b e beneficial first of all to himself, b e c a u s e t h e cities were, b e c a u s e o f their n a m e s Tiberias and Autokratoris (Ant 18 § 27), an indisputable e x p r e s s i o n o f his loyalty to his patron, the R o m a n e m p e r o r , and b e c a u s e by f o u n d i n g t h e cities he created (or rewarded) a class o f mostly Jewish aristocrats loyal t o himself.^ But presumably h e also b e l i e v e d that t h e foundjjj|g o f cities w o u l d confer a variety of benefits o n t h e district, e.g., providing for s o m e of the locals construction jobs, and, w h e n t h e cities were built, t h e amenities, and prestige, of city life, c o n v e n i e n t markets for surplus agricultural production, and s o o n . But t h e cities w e r e a mbted blessing for the following reasons. It is a truism that ancient cities were gcneraily exploitative of t h e country­ s i d e , but Tiberias and Sepphoris were small places with tiny territories; t h e creation of Tiberias, presumably by synoecism of villages in the area (this mu,st b e t h e factual basis of Josephus' polemical a c c o u n t ) " w a s necessarily disruptive, but only in a small area; S e p p h o r i s was simply a big village with altered status. S o the cities' effects o n G a l i l e e

that Herod and hi.s descendants oversaw significant redistributions of wealth, whatever its source (in the case of Agrippa I, some of it was borrowed from highly placed Roman friends; one should resist a nationalist interpretation of this). No Roman administrator is known to have behaved likewise, though Pilate had tried to fund the construction of an aqueduct (make-work for his garrison troops, or a building project for the local unemployed?) from the temple treasury. ^ On Tiberias and Sepphoris, see Schiirer 1973-1979: 2.172-82. Antipas built a wall around Sepphoris and renamed the town Autokratoris — Anl 18 § 27. " As is well known, the Tiberian aristocrats of Josephus' day, who probably were the grandsons of the city's founders, had in many cases Herodian names (see Life §§ 32-33; 96) and mainly remained loyal to their Herodian overlord despite being harrassed by Josephus and other rebel-chiefs (see note 27 below). ^ Josephus (Anl 18 §§ 37-8) claims Antipas forced Galilean peasants to leave their land and settle in Tiberias, but lured to the town poor outsiders by offers of housing and land. 'ITiis slight absurdity reminds us of Josephus' hostility to the city and warns us to take his account of its foundation with a grain of salt.

302

SRTH SCHWARTZ

as a w h o l e c a n n o t have b e e n nearly as drastic as t h o s e , d e s c r i b e d by G o o d m a n ( 1 9 8 7 ) , of Jerusalem o n J u d a e a in the w a k e o f t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n e x p a n s i o n and I lerod's massive construction. Still, t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e cities c a n n o t have b e e n entirely i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l : a striking, a n d probably basically true feature o f J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t s o f G a l i l e e , is his reports o f t h e d e e p hatred and r e s e n t m e n t t h e G a l i l e a n p e o p l e felt for t h e S e p p h o r i t e s and Tiberians (cf. Life e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d by C o h e n 1 9 7 9 : 2 0 7 a n d passim).

country

§ 3 8 4 , and

Reportedly, the

G a l i l e a n s hated t h e S e p p h o r i t e s for their loyalty t o R o m e (Life § 3 0 ) . T h e r e m a y b e s o m e truth t o this but it is surely not t h e w h o l e story, for t h e r e is (and can b e ) n o similar e x p l a n a t i o n for their hatred o f T i b e r i a s . J o s e p h u s may provide a hint in a frustratingly v a g u e p i e c e o f p o l e m i c against Justus o f Tiberias. J o s e p h u s claims that at t h e start o f t h e war, Justus had h o p e d t o take c o m m a n d o f G a l i l e e . B u t his h o p e w a s d i s a p p o i n t e d : "for t h e G a l i l e a n s w e r e hostile t o the T i b e r i a n s d u e t o their rage at what they had suffered at his (Justus'; or, "their")^ h a n d s b e f o r e t h e war" (Life § 3 9 2 ) . This m a y b e c o n n e c t e d t o Life § 1 7 7 , w h e r e J o s e p h u s claims that b e f o r e t h e war, "the G a l i l e a n s " h a d cut off t h e h a n d s of Justus' brother o n t h e charge o f having f o r g e d Yp6ttx[jiaTa. A m p u t a t i o n of hands, d e s p i t e its frequent a p p e a r a n c e in Life, is not a t t e s t e d as a penalty in any of t h e legal systems R o m a n , o r Jewish (but s e e D e u t 2 5 : 1 1 - 1 2 )

Greek,

likely t o have b e e n in

force in P a l e s t i n e . It is at m o s t a type o f rough, extra-legal "justice". W h a t sort o f writing w a s Justus' brother a l l e g e d t o h a v e

forged?

P r e s u m a b l y d o c u m e n t s w h i c h had s o m e h o w prejudiced t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c o u n t r y p e o p l e (which is what FaXiXarot normally m e a n s in

Life)

in such a way as t o m a k e t h e m e x t r e m e l y angry — d e e d s , o r t e n a n c y o r l o a n contracts. O n c e again J o s e p h u s is frustratingly v a g u e . A t any rate, at b o t h Life

§ § 1 7 7 and 3 9 2 J o s e p h u s m a y b e inventing, o r h e m a y

h a v e b e e n aware o f specific c a s e s of or a general t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s m i s t r e a t m e n t o f t h e country p e o p l e by s o m e w e l l - t o - d o T i b e r i a n s . I w o u l d like to t a k e up t h e s e hints and suggest that o n e o f t h e m o r e d a m a g i n g effects which the f o u n d a t i o n of t h e cities had in G a l i l e e w a s t h e c r e a t i o n of a large class of a b s e n t e e landlords. A s I p o i n t e d o u t earlier, a b s e n t e e i s m had not b e e n entirely u n k n o w n in t h e district e v e n b e f o r e t h e first century, especially in the m o r e accessible ( a n d fertile) parts o f

L o w e r G a l i l e e , near t h e Plain. P t o l e m a i c a n d

Seleucid

" For the suggestion that the correct reading is C i n ' a u T w v , see Cohen 1979: 136 n. 124 and 207 n. 50. The suggestion is questionable.

JOSF.PHUS IN CiALILFF

303

m o n a r c h s and courtiers had o w n e d land in and near the r e g i o n , " and p e r h a p s s o m e o f this much later turns u p in t h e possession o f m e m ­ bers o f t h e H e r o d i a n family: I have already m e n t i o n e d the estate o f Q u e e n B e r e n i c e , c e n t e r e d on Beth Shearim, on t h e border o f G a l i l e e and t h e Jezreel Valley (Life § 119). It is reasonable to s u p p o s e that t e n a n t s w o r k i n g o n such estates w e r e especially liable t o exploitation by distant landlords ( w h o s e power bases lay e l s e w h e r e ) mainly interest­ e d in collecting rents, and local agents w h o had nothing to gain and a great deal t o l o s e by b e i n g nice. H o w e v e r , t h e normal situation in L o w e r G a l i l e e before t h e first century, and in U p p e r G a l i l e e e v e n during it (as a l s o in J u d a e a and Idumaea at earlier periods) w a s rather different. J o s e p h u s ' account suggests, as I have indicated, that t h e most c o n s p i c u o u s figure in G a l i l e e was the country landlord.^ T h e r e w e r e m a n y such p e o p l e and their behavior necessarily varied widely, but t h e c a s e s w c k n o w of suggest that many of t h e m had strong ties to their villages and in t h e surrounding countryside and could d e p e n d , if t h e n e e d arose, o n the support of t h e farmers w h o worked their land or o w n e d small plots nearby (and vice versa). T h e wealthier m e m b e r s of this g r o u p generally also had tics of friend,ship to their social equals, o f t e n in t h e cities: thus John had acquaintances in Tiberias, Gabara and J e r u s a l e m . Powerful country landlords of this sort had o n c e b e e n c o m m o n t h r o u g h o u t Palestine, and t h e most ambitious of t h e m had r e p e a t e d l y u s e d their patronal and other relations to exert a destabi­ lizing influence o n the country, exploiting any w e a k n e s s in t h e central g o v e r n m e n t for their o w n advancement. T h e Tobiads, t h e H a s m o ­ n e a n s , and t h e H e r o d i a n s had all c o m e from this class, and t h e latter t w o families had recognized its importance and r e s p o n d e d by intimida­ tion, c o o p t a t i o n , bribery and slaughter. It was the considerable a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e later H a s m o n e a n s and H e r o d to have maintained t h e a l l e g i a n c e of t h e country landlords o f G a l i l e e , s o that t h e district,

" On private ownership of land outside city territories in the Hellenistic east see Kreissig 1977: 19-20. For the area around Galilee, see I,andan 1966: 54-70; 2 Mace 12:27, with commentary of Abel; Isaac and Roll 1982: 104-6. ^The importance of this type in Hellenistic and Roman Palestine was noted by Tcherikover 1937: 48-51, and Rostovtzeff 1957: 1.270. (Rostovtzeff believed these people were also targe-scale capitalists, a view extrapolated from Josephus' tales of John of Gischala's profiteering schemes, and corresponding to a view of ancient commerce now generally discredited.) 1 have found occasional acceptance of this view (e.g., Applebaum 1989: 244), but little subsequent discussion. For a suggestion that the Hasmoneans and Herodians had started as members of this class, see S. Schwartz 1993.

304

SETH SCHWARTZ

d e s p i t e its r e m o t e n e s s and p o p u l o u s n e s s , generally r e m a i n e d at p e a c e . But this p e a c e was disturbed by t h e foundation of t h e cities: s o m e of t h e n e w e l i t e s may h a v e b e e n recruited from a m o n g t h e old landlords, but o t h e r s may have b e e n loyal courtiers o w e d a favor.^' In t h e latter c a s e t h e y will h a v e b e e n rewarded with gifts o f land in G a l i l e e and nearby areas, a n d / o r invested whatever wealth they m a d e in t h e cities in such land. 'ITie rise of this class, w h o s e treatment o f t h e country p e o p l e w a s likely to h a v e b e e n , or t o have b e e n thought, exploitative, w a s not only a b l o w to t h e prestige of t h e country landlords but also i n c r e a s e d , p e r h a p s significantly, t h e numbers o f peasants left o u t s i d e any functioning patronal network (for t h e effects of a b s e n t e e i s m o n P a t r o n a g e , s e e G a r n s e y and W o o l f 1989: 158-61; Silverman 1977: 8 ) . Such p e a s a n t s had t h e o p t i o n of s e e k i n g t h e support o f t h e country landlords, and t h e w e a l t h i e r and m o r e a m b h i o u s o f t h e latter will h a v e w e l c o m e d their advances: h e n c e t h e importance of figures like J o h n o f Gischala. But in general the country landlords w e r e increasingly o v e r b u r d e n e d by taxes and could d o little to help: h e n c e t h e rise o f b r i g a n d a g e and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the brigand chiefs with their h u g e b a n d s o f followers. I will n o w c o n c l u d e by returning briefly to the q u e s t i o n s I raised at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this paper: first-century Galilean society w a s charac­ terized by t h e pervasiveness of patronage. In this respect it was, d e s p i t e its Jewishness, an absolutely normal p r e - m o d e r n agrarian s o c i e t y o f t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n basin. T h e H e r o d i a n t e m p l e , w h o s e powerful influence o n t h e Judaean countryside r e n d e r e d J u d a e a socially and e c o n o m i c a l l y fairly unusual, had little s o c i o - e c o n o m i c

Josephus says that some of the settlers in Tiberias were prominent Galileans {Ant 18 § 37). Jesus ben Sapphias may be an example: when Jonathan and his 2,000 back-up troops at Gabara heard that Josephus was marching on them, they withdrew into the castle of a certain Jesus {Life § 246). Jesus' identity is uncertain: Schalit 1968, "lesous" no. 2, and Feldman, LCF index, suggest that he is b. Sapphias; Cohen 1979: 215 n. 66 suggests that "Jesus" is a mistake for "Simon", previously mentioned as leading man of Gabara {Life § 124). If Schalit and Feldman are right, then perhaps b. Sapphias' family had been prominent country landowners who were recruited into the Tiberian aristocracy; or perhaps Jesus himself had settled in Tiberias; or Jesus' ancestor had been given a Galilean country estate upon recruitment. Jesus was unusual among the Tiberian aristocracy in having some support in the countryside (this is apparently the implication of Life § 66: see Cohen 1979: 218). However, Antipas may have preferred to settle his own courtiers in the town, to serve as a counterbalance to the old landlords (see Jones 1971: 275). It may be no accident that Herodian names occur among the city elites (and among military personel), not among country people.

JOSEPHUS TN GALH.EE

305

i n f l u e n c e in G a l i l e e . Furthermore, c o m m u n a l l y or governmentally a d m i n i s t e r e d o r g a n s of redistribution of wealth, which w o u l d surely h a v e i n f l u e n c e d t h e structure of t h e society had they existed, s e e m t o h a v e b e e n as yet insignificant there. J o s e p h u s ' account suggests that by the middle of t h e first century this patronal system, t h o u g h it had not collapsed, w a s u n d e r increasing stress in part for reasons which affected Palestine generally (and which affected G a l i l e e s o m e w h a t less than t h e other districts), but in part d u e t o urbanization. T h e main c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f Tiberias and S e p p h o r i s in the early first century were t h e creation o f a class o f a b s e n t e e landlords based in the cities, a d e c l i n e in t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e country landlords (and s o a b r e a k d o w n in relations b e t w e e n t h e m and /fte/r I l e r o d i a n and R o m a n patrons), and t h e i m p o ­ v e r i s h m e n t o f small farmers. T h e s e processes in turn p r o d u c e d a partial b r e a k d o w n o f t h e patronal system, the most c o n s p i c u o u s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of which were t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a n u m b e r o f large b a n d s o f brigands; t h e violent hostility b e t w e e n t h e urban upper c l a s s e s and t h e country p e o p l e which is such an important t h e m e o f J o s e p h u s ' account; and finally the a d h e r e n c e o f e x p a n d e d groups o f clients t o t h e wealthier and m o r e ambitious country landlords. In short, social and e c o n o m i c c h a n g e s in first-century G a l i l e e p r o d u c e d c o n d i t i o n s in part favorable to revolt. But conditions w e r e less dire in G a l i l e e than e l s e w h e r e in the country, and t h e Galilean social system w a s still partly functioning; t h e number of Galileans d e v o t e d t o t h e revolt w a s not finally very large. T h e Galilean rebels w e r e mostly e i t h e r e n s l a v e d on t h e spot by V e s p a s i a n , or fled with their patrons w h o , following t h e ancient pattern, e n d e a v o r e d to exploit t h e break­ d o w n o f o r d e r and s e i z e control at Jerusalem. T h e r e they m e t t h e s a m e fate as the J u d a e a n rebels. G a l i l e e e m e r g e d from t h e revolt relatively little d a m a g e d which is not to say u n c h a n g e d . In t h e years following t h e revolt, t h e R o m a n s "normalized" the n e w province of J u d a e a — e x p a n d i n g their military presence there, and in conjunction w h h thi.s, building r o a d s . T h e r e m o t e n e s s of the Galilean hills had

For road and city construction in the province of Syria and the Nabataean kingdom after the Revolt, see Bowersock 1973: 133-40; in Judaea in the early and middle 2nd century, see Isaac 1992: 107-11; on the integration of Syria (in the broad sense) into the Roman provincial system in the 1st century, see Rey-Coquais 1978: 48-53. (The articles of Bowersock and Rey-Coquais illustrate, incidentally, that Josephus wasn't the only historian with an urban bias.) Roads in Galilee before 70 had generally been little more than rocky paths; vehicles had to pass

306

SETH SCHWARTZ

always b e e n o n e o f t h e preconditions for t h e strength o f t h e country landlords (as also o f t h e brigand chiefs), and t h e c r e e p i n g nornmalizat l o n o f t h e province (not to m e n t i o n urbanization and t h e war) must h a v e greatly r e d u c e d their influence." T h e d o m e s t i c a t e d G a l i l e e o f t h e third and fourth centuries which w e e n c o u n t e r in t h e T a l m u d Y e r u s h a l m i w a s a very different place from t h e G a l i l e e which in t h e first century w a s t h e s c e n e o f Josephus' downfall.

either south or north of the district: see Josephus' description of the road between Jotapata and Gabara -JW3 § 141; Isaac and Roll 1982: 8-10. " Some passages in Rabbinic literature suppose the post-destruction rise of pp"^!M (oppressors, tax-collectors?). The meaning of the word and the significance of the change, if any, remain uncertain. See Klein 1967: 55ff.; Alon 1980: 59-64.

PART VI

ASPECrS OF JOSEPHUS' BIOGRAPHY

I M A G I N I N G S O M I : D A R K P E R I O D S IN J O S E P H U S ' I.IF'E Gohei Hata

N o Josephan scholar has ever discussed what sorts of transactions Josephus might have m a d e with Nero when he visited R o m e in 64 to petition the Emperor for the release of "certain priests of his acquaintance" (Life § 13). After their release, Josephus s e e m s to have departed from R o m e immediately, but no scholar has ever discussed where Josephus went and what he was doing for two years before his final return to Jerusalem in the early summer of 66 CE. Failure to fill in the intervening two years has resulted in a lacuna in the study of Josephus' life. If we could use our imagination to fill in this period, we would have a different approach to the accounts of his Life and of the War. This paper is special in nature in that we may g o to extremes in our imagination, even at the risk of falling into the category of historical fiction o n our part in places where Josephus keeps silent, or when w e doubt the truthfulness of some of his reports and judge them as fictitious. I'hus, w e d o not claim that we have reconstructed s o m e of the dark periods in the life of Josephus, but our paper will suggest, we hope, that Josephus failed to report something very important, namely his transactions with the Emperor Nero and his military training in Alexandria on his way back to Jerusalem and that without these two important postulates in mind, it would be hard for us to understand the selection of Josephus as commander in the districts of Galilee, his precarious position throughout the war, and his survival in the war. In this paper, w c will trace his life from beginning to end, except the period of his military activities in Galilee, mainly on the basis of his accounts in Life and War, and try to speculate about what he was hiding and fill in s o m e of the lacunae in his accounts.'

' O n s o m e serious p r o b l e m s related to J o s e p h u s ' life, see t h e relevant section in F e l d m a n 1984: 75-98. Basic scholarly discussions on t h e life of J o s e p h u s a r e : Niese 1914; T h a c k e r a y 1929; Rajak 1983; Bilde 1988; Hadas-l.ebel 1989.

310

GOHEI HATA

I In the beginning of Life (§§ 1-5), Josephus tells of his genealogy, of which he proudly declares that his family is "not undistinguished," tracing its descent back to the H a s m o n e a n priestly and royal ances­ tors.^ According to Life, Josephus' father was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus in Judaea, and Josephus was born in the year when Gaius Caligula became emperor in R o m e . We learn from this that his father was born in 6 CF, and that Josephus was born in 37 or 38 CF, when his father was at the age of thirty-one. Josephus s e e m s to have b e e n the second .son because the name of his father, "Matthias," was given to his brother (Life § 8). 'Fhe first son was usually n a m e d after his father at that time.' Since Josephus himself says that his ancestors were not only priests but that they also belonged to "the first of the twenty-four courses" {Life § 2) of the priestly division and that "the high priests and Ihe leading men of the city" {Life § 9) frequent­ ed his house, we would imagine that Josephus' father was a Sadducee and that his ancestors had traditionally been Sadducees. From this w e would further imagine that Josephus was brought up in the Sadducean tradition.'' Josephus tells us in Life §§ 10-12 what he was doing for three years from the age of about sixteen. According to this: (1) Josephus submit­ ted himself to the hard training of three religious sects of his day, that is, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Fssenes; (2) he lived with Bannus, a hermit in the wilderness, for three years; and (3) at age

' O n the genealogy of J o s e p h u s , see the useful discussions of Schurer 1973-87: 1.45-46,46 n.3; Rajak 1983: 14-21; Bilde 1988: 28-29; H a d a s - L e b e l 1989: 17-23; M a s o n 1992: 36-8. Ma.son (38) slates: "As for the genealogy itself, it is easiest to believe that J o s e p h u s was unclear about the details of his p a r e n t a g e beyond two or three generations, but thai he was forced by rhetorical c o n v e n t i o n lo provide an impressive p e d i g r e e . He knew very well that his R o m a n r e a d e r s had n o access lo ( a n d probably n o interest in) the public archives of J e r u s a l e m . " M a s o n ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g may will eventually b e shared by those scholars w h o a t t e m p t to go into J o s e p h u s ' genealogy. ' If the custom of giving a grandfather's n a m e to the first son were p o p u l a r , J o s e p h u s might have b e e n the first son, but we call attention t o the fact that J o s e p h u s d o e s not boast of his being the first son in his Life. ' M a s o n (1991: 342-56) convincingly argues that J o s e p h u s never claimed to b e a P h a r i s e e , though he does not suggest that J o s e p h u s was brought up in the S a d d u c e a n tradition. In his review of the Pharisees oi Jewish Antiquilies, N e u s n e r (1987; 2 8 1 ) points out that "nothing in his account suggests he was a P h a r i s e e , as h e later claimed in his autobiography."

IMAGINING SOMF. DARK PF.RIODS IN JOSEPHUS' LIFE

311

nineteen, he "began t o engage in public affairs, following the Pharisaic school."^ Aside from the question of time, namely, that Josephus s o m e h o w managed, b e t w e e n the ages of sixteen and nineteen, not only to study in depth

three religious sects, but also to spend three years in the

wilderness, we would doubt the truthfulness of his report in other ways as well. First, we would wonder how Josephus at age sixteen could study the t e n e t s and practices of the Pharisees and the F^senes besides those of Ihe S a d d u c e e s of which his family must have b e e n very proud. If he did it, it would have b e e n a serious rebellion against his family tradition.

Second,

if Josephus

had b e c o m e

a "devoted

disciple"

(CriXwTY]c;) of B a n n u s {Life § U ) , the logical selection of his way of life at age n i n e t e e n would have been that of the Essenes or of another sect of that kind, away from mainstream Judaism.* However, according t o Josephus, h e c h o s e the Pharisaic way of life, which would have b e e n a rejection of the two strong "influences" of his life, that of Bannus

' Most scholars, though they are puzzled J o s e p h u s ' account, s e e m to accept a revised version of it. T h u s , they speculate that J o s e p h u s studied t h e three religious sects for a brief p e r i o d (two or three months) and thereafter lived with B a n n u s for three years. Rajak (1983; 34-39) is not an exception, but her a t t e m p t to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' account is worth reading. ' It may b e w o r t h pointing out .several similarities not only in G r e e k expressions but also in biblical t h e m e s b e t w e e n t h e account in Life a n d J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e of t h e account of Daniel in ,4n/ 10 §§ 186-276. T h e expressions "after a thorough investigation (ei naoai; xaxajjaSmjAi) in Life § 10 and "I submitted myself to hard training" (oKXTipaYuyfiaat; ^jiauTov) in Life § 11 correspond to "they [the youth at court] . . . m a s t e r e d all the learning ( r e a o a v . . . fe^efiaSov n a i S e i a v ) in Ant 10 § 194 a n d "to live austerely" {oK'Xrtpaybiyziv tauTov) in Ant 10 § 190 respectively. TTie "three years" with Baruius correspond to t h e "three years" in D a n 1:5 during which Nebuchadnezzar is said to have trained s o m e of the p e o p l e of Israel to m a k e t h e m of service to him. Besides these similarities, the G r e e k expressions "I m a d e great progress in my education . . . for my love of letters" {tic, peyaXiiv nctiSetai; Tcpoujconxov £ntSooiv...5ia T O
312

(fOHF-E HATA

and of the Sadducean background of his family. Josephus evidently makes a false report of his inclination to the Pharisees, the reason for which w c shall later speculate upon. If the report of his life from sixteen to nineteen is fictitious, then what was he doing during this period? N o o n e knows, but here we would g o to the extreme of imagining that he was in the R o m a n auxiliary camp of Caesarea as a mercenary because this could certainly be a matter he had to hide throughout his life. He tried to hide it by inventing a story of his living with Bannus for three years in the wilderness, a story which could not be proven false easily. As we have already noted, Josephus says that at age n i n e t e e n he "returned to the city (of Jerusalem) and began to e n g a g e in public affairs, following the Pharisaic school" (Life § 12).' According to our imagination, Josephus returned to Jerusalem not from fhe wilderness but from Caesarea and "began to engage in public affairs" as a Sadducee, just as his father did.

Il At about the age of twenty-seven, Josephus made a trip to R o m e for the release of "certain priests" of his acquaintance (Life § 13). This was certainly o n e of his "public affairs" and the time was perhaps t h e early spring of 64 C E . According to Josephus, "I reached R o m e after being in great jeopardy at sea. For our ship foundered in the midst of the sea of Adria, and our company of s o m e six hundred souls had to swim all that night. About daybreak, through God's providence, w e sighted a ship of Cyrene, and I and certain others, about eighty in all, outstripped the others and were taken on board" (Life § 15).* W e wonder if the shipwreck story Josephus tells here to his readers is factual.' We could doubt the truthfulness of this report for the follow­ ing two reasons. First, no matter how good a swimmer Josephus was (we w o n d e r where he learned to swim did he learn in the sea off Caesarea?). it would have been extremely difficult for him to k e e p

' O n the translation of this passage, see Mason 1991: 342-56, w h e r e he discusses J o s e p h u s ' religious quest, ' H a d a s - L e b e l (1988: 64-67) discusses in detail a possible route of J o s e p h u s ' voyage. ' W h i l e Rajak (1983: 43-44) points out that the shipwreck motif is c o m m o n ­ place in a n c i e n t writings and that J o s e p h u s ' shipwreck story shows his t e n d e n c y t o "pick out traditional t h e m e s and happenings," she is cautious e n o u g h to d o u b t the truthfulness of t h e story.

IMAGINING SOMK DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS' UW.

313

swimming "all night" until a ship of Cyrene took him and s o m e other survivors o n board. Second, if o n e had such an intense life-threatening experience, psychologically, o n e would either recount it in minute details {as in t h e shipwreck story in Acts 27:13-44) or keep totally silent about it. Josephus' report here is colorless and vague, with n o personal feeling in it at all. Our question is then: Why did Josephus invent this story? Any story of shipwreck catches the attention of those w h o listen t o it. In addition, by inventing a story that only eighty of s o m e six hundred p e o p l e were saved, Josephus believed he could impress upon his readers that h e was under the special care of "God's providence" from the very beginning of his appearance o n the stage of history. Like TUXT), EEfiapjievt], Satfiwv, xp£
Ill From t h e shipwreck, Josephus continues, "landing safely at Dicaear­ chia, which the Italians call Puteoli, I formed a friendship with Alitu­ rus, an actor" o f Jewish origin who was a special favorite of Nero. Through him I was introduced to Poppaea, Caesar's consort, and took the earliest opportunity of soliciting her aid to secure t h e liberation of the priests. Having, besides this favor, received large gifts from Poppaea, I returned to my own country" (Life § 16). Josephus d o e s not tell us how he came to know the actor. That is not important for our purpose, but here we could imagine that Josephus, through the agency of the actor, met not only Poppaea

J o s e p h u s w a s certainly a story-teller with his G r e c o - R o m a n r e a d e r s in mind. R e g a r d i n g his u s e of these terms to introduce novelistic a n d entertaining elements see Rengstorf 1973-83. " T h e G r e e k word y.nio'koyoc, for actor would suggest that Aliturus was o n e of the p a n t o m i m e actors who, like musicians or poets, e n t e r t a i n e d the guests at t h e d i n n e r table. Cf. T r y p h o n in Ant 12 § 212 and Suetonius, Tiberius 6 1 .

314

GOHEI HATA

Sabina but also her husband N e r o for the release of "certain priests" of his acquaintance. N e r o was the s a m e age as Josephus. J o s e p h u s ' information given about the "certain priests" is insuffi­ cient. According to Life § 13, they were sent to R o m e "on account of a minor and trifling charge,"'^ by Felix, the procurator of Judaea ( 5 2 5 9 C E ) , and d e t a i n e d there. This m e a n s that they had b e e n d e t a i n e d in R o m e for at least five years and for as long as twelve years. A l ­ though the trial and punishment of those sent t o R o m e from the provinces often hinged upon the e m p e r o r of the t i m e , " the d e t e n t i o n of prisoners for such a long period "on account of a minor and trifling charge" s e e m s to be unusual. Their charges might have b e e n

some

serious political offenses or they might have had R o m a n citizenship.'" W e would imagine that the gifts which Josephus brought

from

Jerusalem are now at the bottom of the Adriatic Sea. Yet, w e learn

" T h e translation of this passage is from S. J. D . C o h e n 1979; 6 1 . " A c c o r d i n g t o Suetonius, Augustus 32-34, Augustus was speedy in holding a hearing, a n d according t o Anl 18 §§ 170-78, Tiberius was indifferent l o p r o l o n g i n g the o r d e a l of Ihe prisoner. " R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s often d e t a i n e d people *on account of a m i n o r a n d trifling c h a r g e ' a n d then released t h e m in exchange for money. According t o Ant 2 0 § 215, w h e n Albinus, p r o c u r a t o r of J u d a e a (62-64 C F ) , heard that Gessius F l o r u s was c o m i n g t o J u d a e a as his successor, he released those w h o had b e e n impris­ o n e d "on account of a minor a n d trifling charge" ( t h e s a m e expression), after a c c e p t i n g money. If the priests of J o s e p h u s ' a c q u a i n t a n c e were brought in u n d e r this c h a r g e , Felix could have released t h e m in exchange for money. T h e fact that the p r o c u r a t o r could not l a k e that m e a s u r e s e e m s t o suggest that: (1) they h a d R o m a n citizenship a n d d e m a n d e d a hearing before Caesar; o r (2) they w e r e a r r e s t e d b e c a u s e they were engaged in s o m e a n t i - R o m a n activities in o r o u t of J e r u s a l e m . S. J. I>. C o h e n (1979: 60-62) discusses t h e difference in n u a n c e of J o s e p h u s ' use of the p h r a s e "on account of a minor and trifling charge" b e t w e e n Life a n d Am. According to him, the p h r a s e in Life § 13 is t h e o n e which "Jose­ p h u s would u s e t o cover revolutionary activities." With C o h e n , w e would imagine that they were engaged in s o m e political activities against R o m e in t h e t i m e of Felix. W e would further imagine that: (1) b e c a u s e of their strong influence a n d popularity even after they were .sent to R o m e , t h e so-called revolutionaries kept d e m a n d i n g of t h e J e r u s a l e m authorities to have direct negotiations with t h e R o m a n e m p e r o r for their release; (2) the J e m s a l e m authorities, at t h e p r o s p e c t of t h e c o m i n g war, c a m e to think that the a n t i - R o m a n sentiments of those priests in R o m e h a d u n d e r g o n e s o m e change because of the passage of time a n d t h e i r o b s e r v a n c e of R o m a n power; (3) t h e J e r u s a l e m authorities could thus expect that if the priests r e t u r n e d t o Jerusalem, they could exercise their influence t o avoid a direct confrontation with R o m e ; a n d (4) they decided t o dispatch J o s e p h u s t o R o m e for t h e negotiation of their release. According t o o u r speculation, J o s e p h u s ' mission w a s highly political, not private, from t h e beginning.

IMAGINING SOME D A R K PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS'

UVli

315

that Josephus received "large gifts" from Poppaea (Life § 16). This s e e m s to be complete nonsense and makes us wonder if Josephus was hiding something important, for example, s o m e secret transaction he had had with Nero.'* We would also wonder here what sort of con­ versation Josephus had with Nero. W e would imagine that when Josephus met Nero, the Emperor first inquired about the political situation in Palestine and was surprised to hear of the maladministra­ tion of the R o m a n procurators there and of the impending Jewish revolt against R o m e . Then Nero proposed to Josephus that he perform s o m e clandestine activities in Palestine in exchange for the release of the "certain priests." We expect that Josephus accepted Nero's proposal because there was no alternative way for him to obtain their release and because he could convince himself that he was being loyal to the R o m a n cause, after observing the might of the R o m a n empire on his way to Italy. At that point, N e r o released the priests and gave Josephus the "large gifts." Having had an audience with N e r o and having received the gifts from him could be the facts Josephus had to hide, especially because the war against R o m e started in the twelfth year of Nero's reign {JW 1 § 20; 2 § 284). Josephus s e e m s to have tried to hide these facts by introducing Poppaea Sabina instead of N e r o to the scene and signaling already in Ant 20 § 195 that she was a Jewish sympathizer. What were the undercover activities proposed by Nero to Josephus? T h e s e were to maintain order in Palestine by muzzling the anti-Roman political and religious fanatics in Jerusalem and other cities of Pales­ tine. T h e y also included providing smooth passage for the Roman forces in case they should invade Palestine. Josephus was given the "large gifts" to use as operating funds with which to execute the mission assigned to him, evidently the "mission impossible." If our imagination is on track, we would further imagine that on his way back to Jerusalem, Josephus was ordered to see the regular R o m a n forces

" F e l d m a n {ABD 1992: 982) says: "The fact that the e m p e r o r gave s o m e gifts to J o s e p h u s ( w h e r e a s we would have expected Josephus to bring gifts to t h e e m p e r o r ) could b e explained most readily if we assume that N e r o h o p e d thereby to p e r s u a d e J o s e p h u s to use his influence to defuse the i m p e n d i n g Jewish revolt against R o m e . W e d o not know whether Josephus a t t e m p t e d such a mission, but in any case, the revolt did b r e a k out two years later." According to o u r hypothesis (see n. 14), the J e r u s a l e m authorities seem to have tried to use the influence of the priests d e t a i n e d in R o m e , and Nero also s e e m s to have tried to use the priests' influence as well as that of Josephus.

316

GOHEI HATA

(the fifteenth legion) in Alexandria and, if necessary, t o have s o m e military training. If the released priests had been engaged in s o m e anti-Roman activities in Palestine,'* they could be brainwashed in the R o m a n military camp of Alexandria. During his stay in Alexandria which lasted for more than o n e year, Josephus s e e m s t o have had an opportunity t o visit s o m e places in Egypt. His interest in and repeated references t o the T e m p l e of Onias both in the H^ar" and in the Antiquities,^^ and his collection of the stories of M o s e s and the Exodus in the Egyptian versions in the Antiquities^'' and especially in Against Apion would suggest that he had sufficient time in Alexandria t o visit Leontopolis, where the T e m p l e of Onias stood, and other places in the s a m e n o m e of Heliopolis.^

IV In June of 66 CE., the priests of the Temple in Jerusalem ceased t o offer sacrifices for the welfare of the Romans. Though Josephus says in a rather circuitous way that this cessation "laid the foundation of the war with the Romans" (JW 2 § 409. Cf. 2 §§ 411-17), this was evidently tantamount t o a declaration of war to the R o m a n s . Josephus and the priests returned to Jerusalem in the early s u m m e r of that year. According to Life § 17, Josephus (and the priests) urged the various factions not t o revolt against R o m e by emphasizing that they were "inferior t o the Romans, not only in military skill, but in

" S e e Our discussion in n . l 4 . " It is interesting t o n o t e that in t h e very beginning of his narrative {JW 1 § 33) J o s e p h u s refers t o t h e t e m p l e of Onias a n d promises his r e a d e r s t o r e t u r n t o this m a t t e r "in d u e course," about which he talks in detail in JW 1 §§ 421ff. J o s e p h u s s e e m s l o have had a clear picture of t h e temple of O n i a s w h e n h e w a s c o m p o s i n g the War in G r e e k ( s e e t h e contribution by P a r e n t e above). " S e e J o s e p h u s ' favorable description of t h e T e m p l e of O n i a s in Ant 13 §§ 63ff. a n d his r e p e a t e d references t o t h e T e m p l e in Ant 12 § 388; 13 § 2 8 5 ; 2 0 §§ 236-37. " F o r e x a m p l e , information about Moses' expedition t o E t h i o p i a as told in Ant 2 § 238 s e e m s t o have b e e n collected by Josephus while he w a s in Egypt. * If J o s e p h u s h a d a ch^lnce t o visit local areas of Egypt w h e n h e a c c o m p a n i e d V e s p a s i a n a n d Titus in 69 C E o r if h e h a d a chance t o visit A l e x a n d r i a after 7 0 C E , h e could have d e v e l o p e d his interest in t h e T e m p l e of O n i a s , a n d t h e stories of M o s e s o r t h e Egyptian versions of t h e Exodus, which later led h i m t o p u r c h a s e in R o m e t h e written sources o n Moses (sources m e n t i o n e d in Against Apion), b u t it is h a r d for us t o i m a g i n e that such a n opportunity w a s given t o J o s e p h u s in 69 C E o r after 70 C E . T h e r e f o r e , w e would imagine that J o s e p h u s ' stay in Alexandria a r o u n d 6 5 C E w a s t h e only occasion for h i m t o see some p a r t s of Egypt.

IMAGININC; SOMb DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS' LIFE

317

g o o d fortune." Josephus' experience with the regular R o m a n forces in Alexandria might have induced him to his efforts of persuasion. Persuasion is not an easy matter, especially when people are bent on revolt or war. As Josephus himself says in Life § 20, his "incessant reiteration of warning" brought him into "odium and the suspicion of siding with the enemy," and as a result he had to "seek asylum in the inner court of the Temple." Why did Josephus give warning to the Jerusalemites s o incessantly as to risk his own life? If his statement is true, w c would suppose that giving warnings was o n e of the tasks assigned to him by Nero. Of course, the same task would have been expected of the released priests, both by Nero and by the Jerusalem authorities.^' Often with the beginnings of a war, the initial victory causes morale to climb and makes people blind. They refuse to believe that the victory was brought about by s o m e fortuity rather than by their own power, and believe that the slate of victory would continue to the very end of the war. The Jerusalemites were no exception, as their reactions show after they had defeated the Roman force of Cestius in the autumn of that year {Life §§ 24-5, yPK 3 § 9, Cf. JW 2 §§ 499ff.)." According ioJWl §§ 562-68, after the defeat of Cestius, the "war­ time council" or the "provisional government" ( T O icotvov) was c o n v e n e d in Jerusalem for selecting commanders to conduct the war with R o m e . Although the nature of this council and its relationship with the Sanhedrin at this time is not clear at all, Josephus was appointed commander of Upper and Lx)wer Galilee and of Gamala. Regarding strategy, these districts were the most important for the defense of Jerusalem. Why then was Josephus appointed commander of such important districts? This appointment is certainly puzzling to us especially because the council members could easily foresee that N e r o w o u l d instruct his general to muster in Antioch the regular R o m a n forces of the Uast, invade Galilee first, and then proceed to Jerusalem. Since Josephus (and the released priests) failed to achieve their assigned task in Jerusalem, he would have desperately sought

" See Our discussion in n.l4. ^ In Ant 7 §§ 74-5, Josephus seems to have projected the victory of the Jews over Cestius' army into that of the Hebrews and the defeat of an army of Philistines. Not only in this place but also in other places of his Antiquities, Josephus seems to have projected his personal experiences or what he witnessed into his paraphrase of the stories.

318

GOHEI HATA

s o m e districts outside of Jerusalem to execute Nero's mission. If J o s e p h u s could foresee, as the council members s u p p o s e d l y did, where Ihe R o m a n forces would b e mustered and which areas of Palestine they would invade, he would have tried to obtain the position

of

c o m m a n d e r of Galilee. H e did, in fact, obtain it." According t o IJfe § 29, Josephus was sent t o G a l i l e e t o g e t h e r with t w o priests, Joazar and Judas, "to induce the disaffected to lay down their arms."^ W h o were these two priests? On the basis of the fact that the s a m e Greek adjective xaXoc; Ka.ycf.^bc, l o d e n o t e the charac­ ters of the "certain priests" in Life § 13 is e m p l o y e d for the descrip­ tion of the characters of both Joazar and Judas in Life § 29, w e w o u l d suppose

that both Joazar and Judas were the "certain priests" of

J o s e p h u s ' acquaintance w h o had been detained in R o m e . " According to JW 2 § 576, Josephus "levied in G a l i l e e an army of upwards of a hundred thousand young men, all of w h o m h e e q u i p p e d with old arms collected for the purpose," and trained t h e m in the

" As to the a p p o i n t m e n t of J o s e p h u s as c o m m a n d e r , Rajak (1983: 21) states: " W h a t e v e r J o s e p h u s ' talents, it is improbable that he would have b e e n a p p o i n t e d , especially before he h a d proved his ability, unless he was of e q u a l social standing with these m e n (i.e., m e n of high priestly rank who were likewise a p p o i n t e d c o m m a n d e r s in other districts)." F o r o u r argument, Rajak's reference to J o s e p h u s ' ability o r his "equal social standing with these m e n " s e e m s to b e not necessarily a persuasive reason. W e would speculate about the reason why J o s e p h u s , w h o s e e m s not to have b e e n very familiar with the districts of G a l i l e e a n d of G a m a l a , was a p p o i n t e d c o m m a n d e r of these areas. " A c c o r d i n g to o u r hypothesis in n . l 4 , Josephus went to G a l i l e e for t h e p u r p o s e m e n t i o n e d in Life § 17, although the "war-lime council" in J e r u s a l e m did s e n d him a n d o t h e r c o m m a n d e r s for t h e purpose m e n t i o n e d \nJW2 § 563, thai is, "lo conduct t h e w a r ' with t h e R o m a n s . " T h e proximity of the two occurrences in Life § 13 and 29 w o u l d support o u r hypothesis that both J o a z a r and J u d a s were t h e released priests. T h e r e a s o n for J o s e p h a n scholars' failure to identify them as such was probably d u e to T h a c k e ­ ray's Fngtish translation in I.CL. H e translated the ita>ou<; xdiya^oiic^ in Life § 13 as "very excellent m e n ' a n d t h e s a m e expression in Life § 29 as " m e n of excellent character," thus obscuring the repetition of this descriptive p h r a s e a n d hindering our identification of t h e two m e n . If a further usage in Life § 256 also indicates these s a m e released priests, then their n u m b e r might have b e e n three, b e c a u s e that passage says: " H a d my case against J o h n b e e n tried a n d h a d I p r o d u c e d s o m e two o r t h r e e m e n of excellent character as witnesses to my behavior . . ." W e r e these r e l e a s e d priests really "very excellent men"? N o o n e can tell their c h a r a c ­ ters, b u t there is a great possibility that Josephus thought of t h e u s e of this adjective when he w a s reading of his account of Daniel in Ant 10 § 204 w h e r e t h e s a m e expression a p p e a r s . S e e o u r discussions of J o s e p h u s ' u s e of t h e story of D a n i e l in nn. 6, 30, 45, 4 8 (cf. the contribution by M a s o n a b o v e ) .

IMAGINING SOMK DARK PERIODS IN JOSETHUS' LIFF,

319

R o m a n fashion. Although the figure in this passage is a gross exagger­ ation,^ Josephus' report on levying a large number of young people in Galilee, providing them with old arms, and training them in the style of the R o m a n army (JW 2 §§ 577-82) s e e m s to strengthen our hypothesis that Josephus was indeed given operating funds by Nero and that he had s o m e intensive military training in Alexandria." In the winter of 66-67 CE, Nero, who was then staying in Achaia ( G r e e c e ) , ^ instructed Vespasian to lead the R o m a n army in the war against the Jews in Palestine (JW 3 § 7). On this occasion, we would imagine, N e r o revealed to Vespasian that he had already arranged for a Jew named Josephus to do s o m e clandestine activities for the R o m a n cause. After sending his son Titus to Alexandria to muster the fifteenth legion, Vespasian himself proceeded by land to Syria, "where he concentrated the R o m a n forces and numerous auxiliary contingents furnished by the kings of the neighboring districts" (JW 2 § 8). Thus joined his father at Ptolemais of Syria. Thus, the "united army" of Vespasian's fifth and tenth legions and Titus' fifteenth legion, together

We could see the same gross exaggeration in 'one million, one hundred thousand" (JW 6 § 420) as a total figure of Jewish victims of the war or in "two million seven hundred thousand' (JW6^ 425) as a total figure of those assembled in Jerusalem al the time of Passover before the war, and in other figures of casualties throughout the War and Life. Although Josephus says that "the victims thus outnumbered those of any previous visitation, human or divine"(/H^ 6 § 429), the exaggeration in casualties would have served Josephus to give his readers an impression that 'the war of the Jews against the Romans, the greatest not only of the wars of our own time, but, so far as accounts have reached us, well nigh of all that ever broke out between cities or nations' (JW 1 § 1). and as a result his readers would have concluded that both Vespasian and Titus were great generals. Although we cannot speculate whether Vespasian and/or Titus instnicted Josephus to exaggerate the figures of Jewish casualties, we should bear in mind that any officially announced war-time figures are almost always inaccurate not only in ancient wars but also in modern ones. Both sides exaggerate the number of the casualties of the other and minimize the number of their own casualties. The only exception in modern wars is Hiroshima whose casualties America, the victor, minimized extremely for fear of the international reactions to the use of an atomic bomb. " Josephus describes in detail the military training of the Roman forces in JW 3 §§ 70-109. This section seems to have been written partly on the basis of his own experience in Alexandria and, we would suppose that when il was censored by the Roman officers in the Roman camp of Titus after the war, it became an integral part of the pamphlet of warning to be sent to his co-religionists beyond liuphrates or in Adiabene. We will later discuss this pamphlet again. ^ Suetonius, Nero 19, mentions Nero's trip to Achaia.

320

GOHFI HATA

with a considerable force of auxiharies (JW 3 §§ 65-9), w a s now ready for the invasion of Palestine. T h e R o m a n s invaded G a l i l e e in May, 67 C E (JW 3 § 142). Since various and insightful analyses of Josephus' activity in G a l i l e e according to the versions of the War and Life have already b e e n m a d e by many scholars, including a thorough study by Shaye J. D . C o h e n , w e will not g o into the contradictions and discrepancies b e t w e e n the t w o versions." 'Ihe town of Jotapata in Galilee fell in July, 67 C E (JW 3 § 3 3 9 ) . A c c o r d i n g to Josephus, w h e n the town was o n the point of b e i n g taken, h e succeeded

in plunging into a d e e p pit, in which

"forty

persons of distinction" w e r e already hiding. O n the third day, this hiding place was betrayed t o the R o m a n camp by a w o m a n . T w o R o m a n tribunes rushed t o the place and urged Josephus to surrender. H e r e w e would like to call attention to the fact that there d o e s exist a d e e p pit in Jotapata into which Josephus claimed to have j u m p e d . ^

" A s a translator of S. J. D. C o h e n ' s work (1979) into J a p a n e s e ( J a p a n e s e title: losefusu - Sono Hilo lo Jidai (Josephus - The Man and His Age) [Tokyo: Y a m a m o t o S h o t e n Publishing H o u s e , 1991]), I have b e c o m e a little skeptical of w e s t e r n scholars' a p p r o a c h t o t h e life of Josephus. 'ITie premise in their a p p r o a c h is that J o s e p h u s w a s a historian. Certainly Josephus considers himself a s such ( s e e his criticism of c o n t e m p o r a r y o r G r e e k historians in the preface t o t h e War), b u t w e would w o n d e r if J o s e p h u s is telling a story as a historian in t h e m o d e r n sense of the word. As long as t h e r e a r e many entertaining elements, digressions, exaggera­ tions, a n d imaginative inventions both in Life and in t h e War, which a r e indis­ p e n s a b l e t o any story-telling, a n d as long as J o s e p h u s always h a d in m i n d a G r e c o R o m a n a u d i e n c e w h o looked for entertainment, it s e e m s a p p r o p r i a t e that w e should a p p r o a c h J o s e p h u s not a s a historian but as a story-teller. F r o m (his a p p r o a c h , o u r attitude toward those sources would also c h a n g e . In J a p a n e s e c u l t u r e , t h e r e is a story-telling genre called ' K o d a n , " in which feats of s o m e historical figures a r e told t o a n a u d i e n c e , using entertaining e l e m e n t s . T h e a u d i e n c e knows from t h e beginning that although there a r e s o m e historical kernels in t h e story, it has b e e n highly embellished by these e n t e r t a i n m e n t e l e m e n t s . So, on t h e basis of this analogy, we wonder how much exactness t h e G r e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e expected from J o s e p h u s in his telling of the w a r in Palestine t h r o u g h his account in the War. " J o s e p h u s ' experience in t h e pit might have led him t o think of himself a s a D a n i e l i c figure w h o w a s thrown into a lion's den. Indeed, the t o w n s p e o p l e in t h e pit might have b e e n like lions t o Josephus. W e visited J o t a p a t a t h r e e times, a n d d u r i n g o u r third visit ( M a r c h 27, 1987) we believe we finally found t h e pit in which J o s e p h u s j u m p e d . M r s . M o t o k o Kitajima w h o accompanied us in o u r trip w r o t e about t h e day of o u r discovery in her Tabi to Ongaku (Trips a n d Music) ( T o k y o : H o i k u Shiryosha Publishing H o u s e , 1991), p p . 277-78.

IMAGINING SOME DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS' LIFE

321

Ajicient Jotapata is now called Jodephat in Israel. There is a Moshav in its neighborhood and on the opposite side of the hill which w e could s e e from the Moshav, there is a pit which fits exactly Josephus' description. T h e opening of the pit is spacious enough for only o n e person at a time to lower himself and gives "access on o n e side to a broad cavern, invisible to those above," as Josephus claims in JW 3 § 341. If packed, the cavern is large enough for housing "about forty people" (JW 3 § 342). Thus, there is no reason for us not to believe that Josephus plunged into the d e e p pit and found a certain number of the townspeople hiding there. According to JW 3 §§ 353-4, Josephus offered up a silent prayer to G o d before his surrender to the Roman army. This prayer has been analyzed by many Josephan scholars. Since we have assumed that Josephus accepted Nero's mission, w e could understand this prayer on the basis of this assumption. We would contend that this prayer was a reconfirmation of the R o m a n cause due to the shift in fortune, assisted by G o d , which Josephus had first glimpsed on his trip to R o m e , where he was impressed by Nero's strength. When Josephus was to surrender, the townspeople around him in the pit "pointed their swords at him and threatened to kill him"" if he surrendered to the R o m a n s (JW 3 § 360), and they proposed to end their lives in mass suicide. Josephus then harangued them on the crime of such an act, but in vain. In the end, they killed each other according to the order made by the lots they threw, but Josephus escaped death (JW 3 §§ 362-91). W e would wonder how Josephus could harangue in the pit where "forty townspeople" are supposed to have been tightly crowded and w e would also wonder how they could commit suicide in a place like that. Itven those scholars who believe in Josephus' account have wondered if there were s o m e tricks left unmentioned." We will not g o into this problem, but we would suggest that all those in the pit, including Josephus, might have made a mass surrender to Vespasian or that Josephus alone might have surrendered, leaving behind the

" T h i s expression of swords and t h r e a t e n e d death is one of J o s e p h u s ' hterary lopoi. S. J. D . C o h e n (1979: 219 n.75) c i t e s / I f 2 § 619. W e would add 7 1 ^ 4 § 603 w h e r e a hesitant Vespasian was t h r e a t e n e d into accepting imperial h o n o r s . J o s e p h u s says: "But on his declining, the officers pressed him m o r e insistently and the soldiers, flocking round with drawn swords, t h r e a t e n e d him with d e a t h , if he refused to live with dignity." " For e x a m p l e , Rajak (1983: 171) refers to one of the possible tricks. See also T h a c k e r a y 1929: 14.

322

GOKHl HATA

townspeople in the pit for destruction. In any event, Josephus' perfor­ mance in the pit described in his account is theatrical and therefore quite dubious. It could stimulate the curiosity of his audience, but it would invite the doubts of skeptics. Josephus was brought before Vespasian and Titus, to w h o m he was an e n e m y commander. Thus Vespasian could have put him to death on t h e spot "by right of war" (VO^KJ) 7i;oXetiou).^^ What Vespasian did, however, was merely to put him in custody (JIV 3 § 398, Life §§ 413-4). N ot only that, Vespasian also provided him with "raiment and other precious things" (JW 3 § 408),^ and allowed him to marry a Caesarean w o m a n (Life § 414). A series of these favors which, as Josephus himself proudly says, were a definite sign of "a respect b e y o n d the c o m m o n lot of a prisoner" (JW 3 § 438), would again suggest that Vespasian received .some instruction from N e r o about Josephus' mission. Oniy our hypothesis would explain "every care"(Li/e § 414) Josephus received in the Roman camp.^ Josephus predicted before Vespasian and Titus that they would b e c o m e R o m a n emperors (JW 3 §§ 400-402). This is indeed o n e climax of his theatrical play. However, he s e e m s to have made such a predic­ tion because if he were to be sent to Nero, he would be put to death not only as an e n e m y commander but also as a traitor to the R o m a n cause. According to Josephus, when his "prophecy" (literally "what he said before" in Greek) was fulfilled, Vespasian had o n e of his m e n sever his chain with an iixe (JW 4 ^ 629. a. AgAp 1 § 48). This is definitely Josephus' invention because his marriage to a Caesarean Jewess in the R o m a n camp and above all his disclosure of her virginity in Life § 414 indicate that he was already released and active in the R o m a n c a m p prior to the fulfillment of his prediction.^

" In his p a r a p h r a s e of F.lisha's reply to King J o r a m , J o s e p h u s s e e m s to h a v e projected his experience. Elisha said: "that it was right to kill those w h o w e r e c a p t u r e d by the law (right) of war, but that these men h a d d o n e n o h a r m to his country, a n d without knowing it, had come to t h e m by the p o w e r of G o d " (Ant 9 § 58). " 'Ilie Cjreck word for "precious things" ("precious gifts" in ITiackeray, LCL) is Kei[jiT]Xioi in plural form, which means "gem, jewel, s o m e t h i n g precious, t r e a s u r e ; v a l u a b l e objects, article of value.' See Rengstorf 1973-83: 2.485. W e r e these p r e c i o u s things booty and wer e they given to J o s e p h u s as gifts for his m a r r i a g e with a C a e s a r e a n Jewess? " W h a t is i m p o r t a n t for o u r argument is why such special favors, including m a r r i a g e , w e r e given to J o s e p h u s . Rajak (1983) does not ask such a question. " Rajak (1983: 187) discusses the possibility of J o s e p h u s ' earlier r e l e a s e in the R o m a n c a m p and suggests that severing J o s e p h u s ' chain with an axe might h a v e b e e n "ceremonial." W e would rather like to see the invention of this account in

IMAGINING SOME DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS* LIFE

323

N e r o committed suicide on June 9, 68 CE. After the short reigns of Galba and Otho, Vitellius was hailed as emperor on January, 69 CE. W h e n this news reached Caesarea, Vespasian was proclaimed emperor first by the officers of his army (JW 4 §§ 601-4), and then by the R o m a n forces in Alexandria (JW 4 §§ 617-19)." Vitellius was assassi­ nated in R o m e in D e c e m b e r , 69 CE. Vespasian and Titus went to Alexandria accompanied by Josephus. There they heard the news of Vitellius' assassination (JW 4 § 656). Vespasian sailed for R o m e to become emperor. Josephus' Caesarean wife left him around this time (Life § 415), he then married an Alexandrian woman (Life § 415). He returned to Caesarea with Titus and Tiberius Alexander, the former Jewish prefect of I'-gypt w h o was familiar with Jerusalem (JW 2 § 220). T h e siege of Jerusalem began around the Passover of 70 C'E. T h e twelfth legion also joined the three forces of Titus. Josephus d e m o n ­ strated his usefulness as o n e of the spokesmen for the R o m a n camp. H e addressed the so-called revolutionaries within the wall and asked them to surrender to the R o m a n army (JW 5 §§ 360-419, 541; 6 §§ 94117, 129, 365).'® This was dangerous work. Words of hatred, scorn and ridicule as well as stones and rocks were hurled against him from within the wall (JW 5 § 5 4 1 ) . " As a result of his repeated addresses and warnings, s o m e did desert to the Roman camp (JW 5 §§ 538, 548; 6 § 113, 117). This created another job for him to do in the R o m a n

light of the account oiAnt 18 §§ 195-204, where J o s e p h u s describes in detail the prison life of Agrippa ! in R o m e . According to it, a G e r m a n co-prisoner p r o p h e ­ sies to A g r i p p a I that h e will soon be released from his chains and "be advanced to the highest point of h o n o r and of power." T h e conversation b e t w e e n these two prisoners e n d s with a r e m a r k : "The G e r m a n who m a d e these prophecies was as ridiculous in Agrippa's eyes then as he later turned out to b e deserving of admiration." It s e e m s possible to imagine that Josephus had his source ior Ant 18 §§ 195-204 in mind w h e n h e described himself in chains. By describing himself in the s a m e state of condition as Agrippa I, Josephus could expect the sympathy of his r e a d e r s . " O n the allegiance of the R o m a n forces under Tiberius Alexander, see also Suetonius, Vespasian 6. " T h e content of any call to surrender s e e m s to b e very simple: If you willingly surrender, your life is g u a r a n t e e d , otherwise not. In J o s e p h u s ' p a r a p h r a s e of R a p s a k e s ' call i n ^ « ( 10 §§ 9-10, his own call might actually b e reflected. See also the descriptions in Anl 3 §§ 19-21; 4 § 190; 6 § 20; 8 §§ 127-9, 296-7. ^ See J o s e p h u s ' descriptions of Moses w h o was stoned by his fellow Jews {Ant 3 § 12; 4 §§ 11, 22) and of David who was stoned by the relatives of Saul (Anl 7 § 207).

324

(iOHFl IIATA

camp. It w a s "the least glamorous, but probably the most important, of his functions, interrogation of prisoners and deserters" (Seth Schwartz 1990; 8). Thanks to his efforts, Titus and Tiberius Alexander could have gathered information about the Jewish forces within the wall, t h e kinds and amount of the arms they were concealing, t h e locations o f t h e underground passages (Cf. JW 6 §§ 430-33), t h e number and living conditions of the citizens within the wall, including their remaining food and water supplies, etc. In IJfe § 418, Josephus refers to his "personal misfortunes" {i[ia\}zo\} au[x<popwv), without explaining what they are. T h e s e plural misfortunes s e e m t o indicate the fate of his parents who were captured by Simon (JW 5 §§ 418, 533, 544). The account of JW 6^ 432 suggests that w h e n the R o m a n army broke through the wall, they evacuated "those w h o had b e e n captured by the tyrants." If Josephus' parents had b e e n evacuated at that time, h e would have mentioned it in Life § 419, in which he says that when given permission by Titus after t h e war, h e secured t h e liberation of first his countrymen, second his brother and fifty friends, and third, all friends and acquaintances w h o m he recognized. I-ailure to mention the rescue of his parents would suggest that they were executed, perhaps soon after Josephus began t o address the revolutionaries or just before the fall o f t h e T e m p l e and t h e City.** T h e T e m p l e was burned down o n August 30, 70 CH (JW 6 § 250) and the city of Jerusalem fell on September 2 6 / 2 7 , 70 C E (JW 6 §§ 407, 435). After t h e war, Titus visited cities in and outside of Palestine t o give rest to his soldiers and to express his thanks to those kings w h o provided him and his father with auxiliary forces (JW 1 §§ 20, 23, 36-9, 96, 105-16). Josephus would have been with Titus all t h e way through. If so, w c w o u l d wonder what he was doing during these several months in t h e c a m p of Titus. According to Josephus, he wrote the war narra­ tive in his "vernacular tongue," i.e, in Aramaic and sent it t o his fellow Jews beyond t h e Fluphrates or in A d i a b c n e (JW 1 §§ 3, 6 ) . W e have already suggested elsewhere that the present Greek version of the War

'° In his description of the fate of J o h n Hyrcanus' m o t h e r ( a n d his b r o t h e r s ) in Ant 13 §§ 231-33, J o s e p h u s might have projected the fate of his own m o t h e r o r thought of h e r fate. Hyrcanus' m o t h e r w a s brought u p o n a wall by Ptolemy a n d m a l t r e a t e d in the sight of all. Ptolemy t h r e a t e n e d t o hurl h e r d o w n h e a d l o n g if H y r c a n u s d i d n o t give u p the siege.

IMAGINING SOME DARK PERIODS IN JOSEPHUS' I.IFE

325

is not a translation of the first version which Josephus claims to have written and that the first version would have been much shorter.'" If Josephus' account of the war in Aramaic were a shorter o n e , writing it could be d o n e within a short period of time in any place other than R o m e , though many Josephan scholars have taken it for granted that Josephus wrote it in R o m e (e.g Seth Schwartz 1990: 10). Partly because the so-called revolutionaries had already sent emissaries to the co-religionists beyond the Euphrates to foster revolt (JW 6 § 343; cf. JW 1 § 5 and 3 § 108), and perhaps mainly because among those captives to be sent to R o m e were the members of the royal family of Adiabene (JW6^ 357) w h o fought against the R o m a n s during the war (JW 2 § 520; cf. § 388; 5 § 474), we would suggest that writing a pamphlet or a booklet with the nature of a warning (JW 3 § 108) s e e m s to have b e e n a matter of urgency. This urgency s e e m s to suggest that Josephus c o m p o s e d it under the surveillance of the R o m a n officers in the R o m a n camp of Titus. As a result, this pamphlet s e e m s to have given Josephus another chance for demonstrating his renewed loyalty to the R o m a n cause and willingness to be of service to Titus and thus could further ensure his chances of survival in R o m e . Josephus accompanied Titus to Alexandria, and then sailed for R o m e with him after the winter of 71 C E (JW 7 § 117). According to Life § 422, s o m e time before his departure for Alexandria, Josephus' lands in Jerusalem were confiscated for the R o m a n garrisons and replaced with other land on the plain. The temporary owner of this new land was perhaps Josephus' brother Matthias, the sole survivor of his nearest kinsmen. V In R o m e , the joint triumphal ceremonies of Vespasian and Titus were held. Josephus depicts the celebrations in detail (JW 1 §§ 121-162), but curiously e n o u g h , he d o c s not mention exactly when they were held. Not only that, we cannot find in the descriptions any personal feelings

" See H a t a 1975. Cf. criticism by Rajak 1983; 176; F e l d m a n 1984: 811 (no. 3212e), 833-34 ( n o . 3298a); Seth Schwartz 1990: 30. T o our regret, there are still s o m e scholars w h o believe that the G r e e k version of the War is a translation from the first version.

326

(JOHEll H A T A

of Josephus at the sight of the ceremonies.'*^ This might indicate that Josephus liimself did not witness the ceremonies or that he wrote Book 7 of the War in the lime of Domitian (81-96 CE) when, thanks to the passage of time," he could report them as if he had b e e n an eye-witness. In R o m e , Josephus transformed himself from a commander to a story-teUer** of the past war {War); a story-teller, apologist and defender of the past history of his nation {Antiquities); an apologist of his own past behavior in the war (Life); and a staunch defender and poiemist for his people against defamation of the antiquity of Jewish history {Against Apion). According to Life §§ 423-24, Josephus was given "a lodging in t h e house which he (i.e. Vespasian) had occupied before he b e c a m e Emperor," "the privilege of Roman citizenship" and "a pension." Vespasian also presented him with "a considerable tract of land in Judaea" {Life § 425). Of course, as Josephus himself writes, t h e s e privileges "excited envy and thereby exposed (him) to danger."** I'eldman (1984: 92) comments on the purpose of Vespasian's favors that "one cannot avoid conjecturing that Josephus had d o n e s o m e t h i n g to c a m such magnificent treatment." W e would wonder if Vespasian thanked Josephus for his continuing dedication to the R o m a n cause from the time of N e r o , including his writing a pamphlet of warning. In R o m e , perhaps within two years after his arrival, he divorced his Alexandrian wife and married a Cretan Jewess {Life §§ 5, 427), perhaps his third or fourth wife."'' What d o e s a "lodging" mean? T h e Greek word would suggest that Josephus' stay in the house of Vespasian was temporary until he found a permanent place to live outside of Vespasian's palace. His confession

" A c c o r d i n g to Suetonius, Domitian 2, in the c e r e m o n i e s Domitian was riding o n a white horse b e h i n d his father and Titus. If true, the sight should have b e e n quite impressive to any attentive onlooker. Cassius Dio 65.12 also refers t o him riding on a military horse. T h e lack of Josephus's reference to the kind of h o r s e (see JW7 § 152) could argue against J o s e p h u s ' p r e s e n c e in the c e r e m o n i e s . " h'or t h e d a t e of composition of War 7, see C o h e n 1979: 84ff. " W e hesitate to label Josephus a historian. S e e n. 29 above. " In his a t t e m p t to exonerate himself from various accusations, J o s e p h u s evidently projects himself into Daniel in Ant 10 §§ 250-252. See also David's w o r d s to Saul in Anl 6 §§ 285-89. ** W h o is the w o m a n whom J o s e p h u s refers to as his wife d e t a i n e d by t h e revolutionaries in JW 5 § 419? Is she a rhetorical invention?

IMACJINTNG

S O M E

D A R K

P E R I O D S

IN

J O S B P H U S "

L I F E

327

of failure to attain "precision in the pronunciation" of Greek because of the "habitual use of his native tongue" (Ant 20 § 263) and the incessant indictments by his fellow Jews, including those of Jonathan {Life § 424; /H^ 7 §§ 437-53) and Justus of Tiberias (Life §§ 336ff)," would indicate that he resided in a Jewish section of R o m e . Of course, he would have frequented the Flavian court from there to obtain s o m e important information for writing the semi-official account of the war in Greek, for making a report of the progress of his writing, or for making a self-defense before the Emperor against various accusations from his fellow Jews. His special interest in court stories, as told in the Antiquities, might also suggest his frequent visits to the Flavian court. Why was the "privilege of Roman citizenship" given to Josephus? According to Suetonius, Claudius 25, R o m a n citizenship was a prere­ quisite for those foreigners who wanted to have a R o m a n name. Thus, it might have b e e n given to Josephus as a lawful procedure for granting him the F'lavian name.''® According to Life § 429, Domitian gave Josephus the privilege of tax e x e m p t i o n on his land in Palestine.''' The granting of this privilege, called 6tTE^£ta in Greek, would indicate that Josephus had by then expressed his strong desire to return to Palestine to the Emperor. Here w e recall Josephus' report of his selection of the Pharisaic way of life in Life § 12 and his favorable descriptions of the Pharisees in ihe Antiquities. Though perhaps his wish was not realized, he s e e m s to have begun to prepare himself for returning to Palestine by painting on canvas s o m e (not al!) favorable pictures of the Pharisees in Pales­ tine because, with the disappearance of both the Sadducees and the FLssenes in Palestine after the war, the Pharisees b e c a m e the sole ruling class. H o w convenient that Josephus had the wisdom and foresight at the age of nineteen to choose that way of life after "years"

^' C o n c e r n i n g t h e indictments m a d e by Justus of Tiberias a n d J o s e p h u s ' response, s e e S. J. D. C o h e n 1979: 114ff " W h e n given t h e Flavian n a m e , Josephus might have thought of Daniel who was given t h e n a m e of Belteshazzar. U is interesting to note that J o s e p h u s in Ant 10 § 188 changes from t h e chief eunuch in Scripture to t h e king, w h o changed the n a m e s of t h e youths, including Daniel, and ordered t h e m to use their new names. (See also t h e contribution by M. G o o d m a n below). " A c c o r d i n g toJW 1 § 194, JuHus Caesar conferred on Antipater, t h e father of H e r o d , t h e privilege of R o m a n citizenship with exemption of taxes and thus m a d e him an enviable m a n . In Anl 14 § 137, the exemption of taxes is also coupled with t h e privilege of R o m a n citizenship.

328

GOHEI HATA

of intense study and consideration! Perhaps, if a different sect had emerged as the ruling class, Josephus' religious conclusions at that early age would have presaged that turn of events. It was perhaps when he was composing the latter parts of the Antiquities and the Life that he felt a longing for his homeland. No wonder, as more than fifteen years had already passed in Rome by then.^'^ What was the nature of his "pension" (cruvToc^tc xprwuiTav)? Was it given to Josephus out of Vespasian's personal estate or from military funds? Was it temporary or for life? We know nothing, and we leave speculation on this matter to other scholars. VI Using a formula which he often employs in concluding his description of some miraculous event in the first ten books of the Antiquities,^^ Josephus concludes his narrative in Life by saying that "such are the events of my whole life: from them let others judge as they will of my character" (Life § 430). So we conclude our attempts to fill in some of the dark periods in the life of Josephus: let our readers judge as they will our imaginative attempts. However, in closing, we would like to emphasize once again that it is very important for any Josephan biographer to fill in the intervening two years from 6 4 C E to 6 6 C E because it was the events during these two years that constituted a turning point in the life of Josephus. If he had not accepted Nero's mission, he would not have been torn between his loyalty to the Jewish people and his loyalty to the Roman cause.

" J o s e p h u s ' desire to return to Palestine may well b e expressed in his para­ phrase of Ezra's prayer in Ant 10 § 143. " S e e Ant 1 § 108; 3 § § 81, 268, 323; 4 § 158; 8 § 262; 10 § 2 8 1 .

JOSEPHUS AS R O M A N

CmZEN

Martin G o o d m a n

"In spite o f his efforts, J o s e p h u s must have b e e n a very lonely man in his o l d age." This j u d g e m e n t by Zvi Yavetz (1975:432), a distinguished historian of t h e R o m a n e m p i r e , s e e m s t o m e to be unduly pessimistic, and I shall e x p l o r e in this paper s o m e reasons for believing that the truth may lie e l s e w h e r e . It is true that, o n t h e o n e hand, by t h e e n d of his life J o s e p h u s had probably lost his favoured place in t h e imperial court, and o n the other, that after his d e a t h his writings s e e m t o have b e e n totally ignored in the rabbinic Jewish tradition. But there were o t h e r inhabitants o f

Rome

apart

from t h e imperial

family,

and

rabbinic texts e m a n a t e d only from a very restricted region of the Jewish world. I shall consider here the possibility that J o s e p h u s might h a v e found other, m o r e congenial, c o m p a n y in R o m e ,

especially

a m o n g t h e Jews o f the city. J e w s had lived in R o m e since the mid first century BC^E, if not earlier ( I , e o n 1960: 4-5). Jewish captives had b e e n sold o n t h e slave m a r k e t s by P o m p e i u s after t h e capture of Jerusalem in 6 3 B C E and by S o s i u s after his capture of Jerusalem in 37 B C E . T h e d e s c e n d a n t s of such slaves f o r m e d t h e nucleus of t h e eleven or s o s y n a g o g u e s attested in t h e city in the high e m p i r e (Schurer 1973-87: 3. 9 5 - 8 ) . For m o s t o f t h e Julio-Claudian period, t h e Jews of R o m e had

lived

peacefully as part o f t h e h e t e r o g e n e o u s population o f t h e .sprawling capital city. Expulsions under Tiberius and Claudius can only have b e e n temporary or partial (Schiirer 1973-87: 3. 75-8), since J e w s still f o r m e d a sizable c o m m u n i t y in the time o f N e r o (cf. Acts 28:17-29). H o w "Roman" did t h e s e Jews feel themselves to b e ? N o n e of their writings are k n o w n to survive, apart from inscriptions o n s t o n e which are not always easy t o date, so only surmise is possible. W h a t can be said with s o m e certainty, however, is that nothing in t h e e v i d e n c e p r e c l u d e s t h e possibility that the Jews w e r e well integrated

into

R o m a n society, e v e n if t h e temporary expulsions may have left b e h i n d a residue o f t e n s i o n and prejudice. It may i n d e e d b e significant in itself that Jews c h o s e to c o n t i n u e l o live in R o m e in large n u m b e r s , a

330

MARTIN GOODMAN

c h o i c e which t h e y presumably m a d e q u i t e freely, a n d t h e r e a r e s o m e indications in t h e extant e v i d e n c e that Jews might identify t h e m s e l v e s at least t o s o m e e x t e n t with t h e surrounding R o m a n culture. Thu.s, a l t h o u g h t h e Jewish inscriptions of R o m e a r c m o s t l y in G r e e k rather than in Latin, this w a s not an a b s o l u t e rule ( L e o n 1960: 7 6 - 7 ) , a n d in any c a s e u s e o f G r e e k was not unusual a m o n g t h o s e o f t h e R o m a n p l e b s w h o s e origins lay in t h e east. T h e n a m e s a d o p t e d by s o m e o f t h e Jewish c o m m u n i t i e s recorded in t h e e p i g r a p h i c r e c o r d may b e

indicative o f integration. T h e n a m e s

'AuyouoTriaiot

and

'AypiTtTfriCTioi may suggest e h h e r that A u g u s t u s and his friend M a r c u s A g r i p p a had b e e n their patrons or that t h e original m e m b e r s h i p o f t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s c o n s i s t e d in their slaves a n d f r e e d m e n . O t h e r syna­ g o g u e n a m e s may s h o w local attachment t o particular areas o f t h e city, such as t h e Kafin'Tjatot ( n a m e d after t h e C a m p u s Martins) a n d t h e IiPoupTiaioi ( n a m e d after t h e Subura). 'ITie n a m e o f t h e s y n a g o g u e o f t h e BepvaxXT|atot o r BepvaKXwoioi may h a v e distinguished t h e indi­ g e n o u s J e w s (vemaculi)

from immigrants (Schiirer 1973-87: 3 . 9 5 - 8 ) .

T h e literary e v i d e n c e about R o m a n Jews is sparse but a l s o p o i n t s t o w a r d s s o m e d e g r e e of integration into t h e life o f t h e city. J e w s o n o c c a s i o n t o o k a p r o m i n e n t part in R o m a n public life, t o t h e chagrin o f C i c e r o w h e n h e s p o k e in d e f e n s e of Flaccus {Flac.

2 8 [66]). T h e

t h r o n g o f J e w s w h o l a m e n t e d t h e m u r d e r e d Julius C a e s a r in 4 4 BC]E was n o t e d by S u e t o n i u s (/«/. 84.5). T h e m a i n e x p l a n a t i o n of such Jewish integration as o c c u r r e d is s i m p l e . M o s t o f t h e Jews o f R o m e w e r e R o m a n citizens. In R o m a n law, all s l a v e s w h o had b e e n o w n e d by a R o m a n citizen a n d formally g r a n t e d their liberty in front o f a magistrate received c i t i z e n s h i p a n d c o u l d hand it o n to their d e s c e n d a n t s in perpetuity. B u t a l t h o u g h t h e s e Jews might v i e w t h e m s e l v e s as fully part o f R o m a n society, for m o s t o f t h e Julio-Claudian period t h e r e w a s n o rea,son for their R o m a n loyalty to affect their m a i n t e n a n c e o f a d e e p interest in J e r u s a l e m . A c c o r d i n g t o J o s e p h u s , m o r e than e i g h t t h o u ­ sand R o m a n J e w s tried to influence A u g u s t u s ' d e c i s i o n a b o u t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of Merod's k i n g d o m w h e n e m b a s s i e s c a m e from J u d a e a in 4 B C E (JW 2 §§ 8 0 - 8 3 ; Ant

17 §§ 3 0 0 - 3 0 1 ) . T h e e x p u l s i o n o f s o m e

Jews in 19 C E was a p u n i s h m e n t , according to J o s e p h u s (Ant

18 §§

8 1 - 4 ) , for t h e d i s h o n e s t y o f Jewish miscreants w h o h a d s w i n d l e d a convert o u t o f a large s u m o f m o n e y o n t h e pretext that t h e y w e r e s e n d i n g it t o t h e T e m p l e in Jerusalem.

JOSEPIIUS AS ROMAN C m Z E N

S u c h J e w s might quite justifiably s e e t h e m s e l v e s , in effect,

331

as

R o m a n s of t h e Jewish faith, w h o s e dual loyalties c o h a b i t e d without p r o b l e m . T h e y might b e e n c o u r a g e d in such a b e l i e f by t h e wella t t e s t e d popularity o f Jewish c u s t o m s a m o n g s o m e of their g e n t i l e n e i g h b o u r s (cf. Schurer 1973-87: 3. 160-5). Jews had long held the n o t i o n that o u t s i d e r s of all kinds could, as proselytes, b e c o m e Jewish if they a d o p t e d Jewish practices and identified t h e m s e l v e s as Jews (cf., e.g., C o h e n 1983, 1989). Since R o m a n Jews e x p e r i e n c e d n o difficulty in a c c e p t i n g t h e logical possibility of such gentile R o m a n s b e c o m i n g Jewish w h i l e r e m a i n i n g R o m a n , they should have found it equally easy to s e e t h e m s e l v e s as fully part o f R o m a n society e v e n w h e n they also w i s h e d t o stress their Jewish identity. If J e w s in R o m e in t h e mid-first-century CH did i n d e e d feel c o m ­ fortable with their dual identity, t h e change in their status in R o m e after t h e failure o f t h e Jewish Revolt must have c o m e as an awful shock. It is worth trying t o e m p a t h i s e with the likely reactions o f R o m a n J e w s t o t h e e v e n t s o f 6 6 - 7 0 C E . In the preceding four years t h e Jews in distant J u d a e a had fought and lost a great war. T h e Jews in R o m e might h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d to grieve, heartbroken by this attack u p o n t h e sanctuary which they held dear. But they could also argue that t h e s e tragic e v e n t s had not b e e n in any way their fault. S o far as is k n o w n , they had t a k e n n o part whatsoever in t h e war: it may be significant that J o s e p h u s c h o s e not e v e n to m e n t i o n their reactions

at

any s t a g e in t h e conflict, even though w h e n h e w a s writing h e was actually living in R o m e , and e v e n though he w a s quite forthcoming about t h e e r u p t i o n of v i o l e n c e e l s e w h e r e in t h e Jewish diaspora {JW 2 §§ 4 7 7 - 9 8 ) . But J e w s in R o m e were not to e s c a p e t h e results o f t h e war. I m a g i n e t h e horror of R o m a n Jews at t h e triumphal procession o f V e s p a s i a n and Titus, with t h e parade through R o m a n streets of sacred v e s s e l s from t h e T e m p l e {JW 1 §§ 148-52). R o m a n Jews will have w a t c h e d with d e e p g l o o m t h e erection of the victory arches with their d e p r e s s i n g reliefs (cf. D e s s a u 1892-1916: nos. 264-5). Every day w h e n they u s e d cash for petty transactions, they were r e m i n d e d o f t h e disaster by t h e issue o f t h o u s a n d s o f imperial coins o f different types c e l e b r a t i n g t h e Jewish defeat as t h e main justification for t h e seizure o f p o w e r by t h e Flavian dynasty (Mattingly and Carson 1923-75: 2. 115-18). T h e s y m b o l i s m o f th& fiscus Judaicus,

harrowing for all Jews,

332

MARTIN GOODMAN

must h a v e b e e n particularly galling for t h o s e in R o m e w h o c o u l d s e e b e f o r e their o w n e y e s t h e rebuilding of t h e idolatrous t e m p l e

of

Jupiter o u t o f the taxes they were c o m p e l l e d t o pay (Cassius D i o 66.7.2;

d.JWl ^

218).

It w o u l d b e unsurprising if s o m e of t h e R o m a n Jews w h o felt most integrated into R o m a n society reacted to this trauma by rejecting Judaism in o r d e r to be accepted as proper R o m a n s . A fine e x a m p l e o f t h e integration o f apostates into R o m a n society w a s particularly p r o m i n e n t in this period to lead t h e m in this way. Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r , n e p h e w o f t h e Jewish p h i l o s o p h e r Philo, w a s described by T a c i t u s as an

inlustris eques Romanus {Ann.

S u e t o n i u s {Dom.

15. 28. 3 ) . If I interpret

12. 2) correctly ( G o o d m a n 1989), it w a s such apost­

a t e s w h o s e plight c a m e t o light w h e n D o m i t i a n t i g h t e n e d up o n t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h efiscusJudaicus, c o m p e l l i n g e v e n an o l d m a n o f ninety, w h o had p r e s u m a b l y d e n i e d his Jewish origins, t o b e stripped b e f o r e an o p e n court t o s e e w h e t h e r h e was circumcised. T h e significance o f such e x - J e w s a m o n g t h e R o m a n plebs may b e g a u g e d b o t h from t h e a p p a r e n t sympathy with which S u e t o n i u s narrated his story, in contrast t o his d e n i g r a t i o n of Jewish cult as superstition at Tib. 36, and from t h e p r o m i n e n c e a c c o r d e d in 96 C E by N e r v a t o his policy o f "remov­ ing t h e

calumnia

of the

fiscus Judaicus",

which w a s widely advertised

o n c o i n s issued by t h e mint o f t h e city o f R o m e {RIC

1926: 2. 227-8,

nos. 58, 82). But what o f t h e Jews holding R o m a n citizenship w h o d e c i d e d , d e s p i t e t h e disaster, t o insist o n t h e validity o f their long-held dual loyalty? It s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e to assume that at least s o m e r e m a i n e d t o fill t h e s y n a g o g u e s : gentile authors writing in t h e city, such as Juvenal

{Satires 3.13-14;

6.542-7), still a s s u m e d that t h e r e w a s a Jewish c o m m u ­

nity in their midst after t h e destruction o f t h e T e m p l e . If this is correct, o n e and p e r h a p s the preferred, s p o k e s m a n o f such J e w s will surely h a v e b e e n J o s e p h u s . O n a very crude level, o f course, Jews in R o m e must h a v e s e e n Jo.sephus as a highly desirable patron. l i e w a s an important p e r s o n in R o m a n society. Titus and Agrippa II took him seriously e n o u g h t o give their approval t o his work (cf.

{Hist, eccl

Life §§

362-67). A c c o r d i n g t o E u s e b i u s

3.9.2), he w o n sufficient prestige t o b e h o n o u r e d with a

s t a t u e in t h e city and for his work t o be p l a c e d into public libraries. It is u n d o u b t e d l y right t o insist that he w a s never as c l o s e t o t h e c e n t r e o f imperial p o w e r as he liked to suggest he was. P e r h a p s h e b e l o n g e d

JOSEPHUS AS ROMAN CITIZEN

333

in t h e s a m e category in t h e imperial court as doctors and magicians, p h i l o s o p h e r s and b u f f o o n s ( Y a v e t z 1975: 432). But his court c o n n e c ­ tions w e r e substantially greater than most Jews c o u l d ever dream to achieve, and t h e practice of second-order p a t r o n a g e , which gave prestige t o t h o s e b e l i e v e d to have influence higher up t h e social ladder, w a s an established part of life in the R o m a n e m p i r e (Sailer 1982). It is worth recording t h e usefulness to J o s e p h u s himself, w h e n h e visited R o m e b e f o r e t h e revolt, of the Jewish actor Alityrus, w h o had a f o o t h o l d in t h e court of N e r o (Life § 16). W h a t mattered t o the Jews o f R o m e w a s not s o much Josephus' personal religious stance — A g r i p p a I had b e e n enthusiastically accepted by Jews as their champi­ o n d e s p i t e t h e d u b i o u s nature o f his Judaism as a friend and c o m p a n ­ ion o f Caligula (cf. Anl 18 §§ 166-8)

as his willingness to b e identi­

fied as a J e w e v e n w h e n h e was sited s o close t o t h e heart o f R o m a n p o w e r . O n e may d o u b t w h e t h e r he had much social contact with Jews a m o n g t h e R o m a n plebs, let a l o n e w h e t h e r he m i n g l e d in sabbath services in t h e s l u m s of Trastevere (although it is a plausible conjec­ ture that h e a t t e n d e d a s y n a g o g u e s o m e w h e r e in t h e city), but it is p e r h a p s not s o i m p o s s i b l e that such Jews might h a v e j o i n e d t h e m o r n i n g salutatio

at his h o u s e to ask for his h e l p and

amictiia.

T h a t J o s e p h u s portrayed himself to the world as a p i o u s J e w is not in d o u b t . T h e p u r p o s e of writing the Antiquities

and Against Apion

was

t o d e f e n d and e x t o l Judaism. But did Josephus, as p e r h a p s o t h e r Jews w h o lived in t h e city, also think of himself as a R o m a n ? J o s e p h u s certainly could have stressed his R o m a n identity, if he s o w i s h e d . It is t r u e that, unlike many of the existing Jewish inhabitants of t h e city o f R o m e , h e did not inherit his R o m a n citizenship but was g r a n t e d it by V e s p a s i a n (IJfe § 4 2 3 ) while in his thirties. But a man in his early thirties is y o u n g e n o u g h to adopt a n e w p e r s o n a and n e w values, particularly w h e n it is expedient. F u r t h e r m o r e , J o s e p h u s k n e w quite well that it w a s possible for o u t s i d e r s like him to identify entirely with the R o m a n state o n c e they had b e e n given R o m a n citizenship. In his attack o n A p i o n , w h o had e x p r e s s e d a s t o n i s h m e n t that Jews could be called Alexandrians, he r e s p o n d e d : "Have not t h e R o m a n s in their generosity given a share o f their n a m e to nearly all m e n , not just to individuals but t o w h o l e n a t i o n s ? F o r t h o s e w h o were o n c e Iberians and Tyrrhenians and S a b i n e s are n o w called R o m a n s " (AgAp 2 § 40). T h e p h e n o m e n o n w a s correctly o b s e r v e d . A few e x a m p l e s of such assimilation o f provincials

334

MARTIN

GOODMAN

into R o m a n society will suffice to illustrate t h e point. A l r e a d y by Jo.sephus* time, m a n y rich provincials from Spain or G a u l had c o m e t o s e c them.selves as Roman

aristocrats. In t h e early third century,

C a s s i u s D i o , w h o w a s G r e e k and c o m p o s e d his history in G r e e k but w h o w a s also a s e c o n d - g e n e r a t i o n R o m a n senator and eventually twice c o n s u l , s e e m s to have s e e n the history o f R o m e as t h e story o f his o w n society. By t h e mid-third century the e m p e r o r Philip "the Arab" led t h e R o m a n s in the celebrations o f the city's m i l l e n n i u m in 2 4 7 - 8 C E d e s p i t e his own origins near t h e Syrian I^ja'. T h u s J o s e p h u s could

have identified himself with R o m a n society.

M u c h o f his writing w a s a i m e d at convincing both J e w s and R o m a n s that t h e practice of Judaism was not i n c o m p a t i b l e with living in a R o m a n society, and it would have b e e n entirely logical for him t o p r e s e n t h i m s e l f as a "Roman of t h e Jewish faith". But did he d o s o ? T h e best e v i d e n c e for such an attitude is t o b e f o u n d in Against

Apion.

I shall argue that o n e p u r p o s e o f this treatise,

w h i c h w a s explicitly a i m e d at non-Jewish readers, w a s implicitly t o r e c o m m e n d t h e Jewish way o f life as c o m p a t i b l e with R o m a n

mores

( s e e a l s o G o o d m a n forthcoming, 1994). Against Apion

is m o r e usually interpreted either as an e x a m p l e o f an

a l l e g e d l y c o m m o n g e n r e of Jewish-Greek a p o l o g e t i c (e.g. Schiirer 1973-87: 3. 6 0 9 - 1 6 ) , or associated with t h e struggle b e t w e e n J e w s and G r e e k s in first-century Alexandria which had p r o v o k e d t h e original treatise by A p i o n l o which J o s e p h u s replied (e.g. S. Schwartz 1990: 2 1 , 2 3 ) . H o w e v e r , there is little e v i d e n c e that o t h e r writings existed in antiquity which might h a v e b e l o n g e d to the g e n r e o f Jewish a p o l o g e t i c into w h i c h Against Apion

allegedly might have fitted, and t h e attack o n

A p i o n , which o c c u p i e s only a section o f t h e t w o b o o k s , may h a v e b e e n just a literary d e v i c e for a m o r e general assault o n G r e e k culture, and a m e a n s t o select t h o s e aspects o f Judaism most easily d e f e n d e d to a g e n t i l e readership. T h e r e is much in favour o f viewing t h e work as a product o f t h e t i m e and place w h e n it was written, probably in t h e city o f R o m e e i t h e r in t h e last days of D o m i t i a n or in t h e principate o f N e r v a or Trajan ( K e e b l e 1991). In that context, it is striking that, in his attack o n t h e G r e e k s , J o s e p h u s c h o s e not s o much t o describe Judaism as compatible

with,

or e v e n related t o G r e e k culture, as previous Jewish writers had d o n e , as t o claim that t h e Jewish way of life w a s d e m o n s t r a b l y superior

to

H e l l e n i s m . A n d what is most relevant to t h e p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t , t h e

JOSEPHUS AS ROMAN CITIZEN

335

qualities in Judaism which h e picked o u t t o m a k e his p o i n t were strikingly similar t o t h o s e aspects o f R o m a n mos that Latin authors t r u m p e t e d w h e n they t o o w a n t e d t o c o m p a r e t h e m s e l v e s favourably t o Greeks. T h u s , a c c o r d i n g t o Josephus, Jews o p p o s e innovation {AgAp 2 § § 182-3) a n d e n c o u r a g e sobriety ( 2 §§ 204). T h e y stress t h e v a l u e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y a b o v e t h e individual ( § 196), o p p o s e h o m o s e x u a l i t y ( § 199), k e e p their w o m e n submissive (§ 2 0 1 ) , and h o n o u r their parents (§ 2 0 6 ) . T h e y t a k e seriously their duties towards their friends (§ 207). T h e y l o v e justice, w e l c o m e hard work, avoid extravagance and s h o w c o u r a g e in d e f e n s i v e war {§§ 291-2). T h e y occupy t h e m s e l v e s in crafts or agriculture ( § 2 9 4 ) . T h e i r w i s d o m is practical as well as theoretical ( § § 173-4), a n d they h a v e a serious attitude t o life, as they d e m o n ­ strate by their willingness t o d i e for t h e sake o f their laws ( § § 271-2). S o m e o f this platitudinous moralising might also b e found in any n o n Jewish G r e e k author, but what I want t o stress here is that such qualities are t h e reverse o f those e s p o u s e d by fickle G r e e k s in R o m e as d e s c r i b e d by Latin writers in t h e city during the late R e p u b l i c and t h e early e m p i r e (cf. Petrochilos 1974: 35-62). M o r e positively, J o s e p h u s d i d not include R o m e in t h e list o f nations w h o s e c u s t o m s c o m p a r e d s o poorly with t h e e x c e l l e n c e o f Judaism a c c o r d i n g t o

AgAp 2 §§ 237-86.

This may have b e e n n o t just

out o f tact but from a desire t o show, by careful s e l e c t i o n in his description o f t h e Jewish way o f life, that in m a n y important aspects J e w s and R o m a n s shared t h e s a m e ideals. T h u s J o s e p h u s might well have s e e n himself a s in s o m e Roman

sense

a s well as Jewish white h e w a s writing his histories and

a p o l o g e t i c works. If s o , did his R o m a n identity affect the way in which he w r o t e a b o u t t h e past? P e r h a p s , at least s o m e t i m e s . T h e R o m a n p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e title o f the Jewish

War

rather than

Jewish

h a s long b e e n n o t e d by

scholars (Stern 1987a: 47; cf. Bilde 1988: 71-3). J o s e p h u s himself wrote that h i s history w a s Tcepi TOU 'louSatKoij noXefxou (Life § 2 7 ) . It h a s also l o n g b e e n remarked that J o s e p h u s e x t o l l e d t h e R o m a n state t h r o u g h o u t his writings. G o d was o n t h e R o m a n s i d e {JW 5 § § 367-8, 4 1 2 ) , h e n c e they held t h e w h o l e worid in thrall {JW 5 § § 3 6 6 ) . T h e gloating d e s c r i p t i o n o f Titus' triumph in JW 7 §§ 123-57, uncomfort­ a b l e material for m o d e r n readers, may perhaps b e best u n d e r s t o o d as e x p r e s s i o n o f this ambivalence. It was t h e divine will that t h e T e m p l e ' s

336

MARTIN GOODMAN

t r e a s u r e s s h o u l d b e brought t o R o m e . Thus, in identifying with t h e victor, J o s e p h u s could claim that h e w a s b e i n g a g o o d Jew. In any c a s e , in t h e c o n q u e s t o f Jerusalem h e w a s p r o u d t o h a v e b e e n o n t h e R o m a n s i d e . A t least o n e o t h e r Jewish participant in t h e war may h a v e s h a r e d h i s viewpoint — Agrippa II, another J e w w h o had o n c e b e e n p i o u s e n o u g h t o act as guardian o f t h e T e m p l e , but w h o w a s a l s o a R o m a n citizen a n d a c o m p a n i o n o f Titus w h e n t h e T e m p l e w a s destroyed. But J o s e p h u s ' identification with R o m e w e n t only a certain way, for, in his o w n e s t i m a t i o n , J o s e p h u s w a s irremediably &,X>6(puXo(; w h e n h e w r o t e for G r e e k s and R o m a n s (JW 1 § 16). H e wrote in t h e introduc­ t i o n t o the

Antiquities

that the

Jewish War

had b e e n an a c c o u n t o f t h e

w a r f o u g h t "by u s Jews against t h e R o m a n s " (Ant 1 § 4 ) ; h e c o n t r a s t e d t h e s a l e o f his b o o k s t o "many R o m a n s " o n t h e o n e hand t o h i s s a l e o f b o o k s t o "many o f o u r people" o n t h e o t h e r (AgAp 1 § 5 1 ) . Jews, like E g y p t i a n s , w e r e slaves t o t h e R o m a n s (AgAp 2 § 125). J o s e p h u s p r a i s e d R o m a n s for n o t c o m p e l l i n g

subiecti

t o break their ancestral

laws (AgAp 2 § 73), implying that Jews are subjects o f R o m e ; it w a s a n o d d virtue t o praise w h e n R o m e h a d destroyed t h e T e m p l e w h e r e a l o n e , a s J o s e p h u s recognised, Jews w e r e permitted t o w o r s h i p w h h

sacrifices (AgAp 2 § 193). It s e e m s that, d e s p i t e his R o m a n status, J o s e p h u s did not talk a b o u t h i m s e l f a s R o m a n and d i d n o t in t h e final analysis interpret t h e past as a n a t i v e R o m a n w o u l d . In his self-description at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the

Life

( § § 1-12), h e d i d n o t e v e n m e n t i o n h i s R o m a n n a m e o r

c i t i z e n s h i p . T o Agrippa, w h o wrote t o h i m in G r e e k , h e w a s simply "dearest J o s e p h u s " (Life § § 365-6), without title. T h e earHest e x t a n t u s e o f t h e n a m e "Fiavius Josephus" s e e m s t o b e in t h e manuscripts o f the

Jewish War,

w h e r e it is found in t h e title o f t h e work In C o d e x

Parisinus 1425 (Schiirer 1973-87: 1. 4 7 , n o t e 4). It is unlikely that t h e title in t h e manuscripts originated with J o s e p h u s . T h u s R o m e in J o s e p h u s ' histories is always a distant Italian p o w e r , an alien state with which Jews, like o t h e r provincials, must d o business, rather t h a n an e m p i r e t o which its inhabitants c a n feel p r o u d t o b e l o n g (cf. Stern 1987a: 50; 1987b: 7 6 ) . T h e w o r d ^ o f x a i a T i in Ant 1 4 § 1 9 1 , w h e r e it occurs within t h e text o f a d e c r e e sent by Julius C a e s a r t o t h e p e o p l e o f S i d o n , m e a n s writing in I^^tin, specifically c o n t r a s t e d t o writing

i'Xkriviaxi, e v e n

t h o u g h most imperial business in J u d a e a will

h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d in G r e e k . 'Hie expression ^w|>iai^eiv {JW2 § 5 6 2 )

JOSnPHUS AS ROMAN CITIZEN

337

is a political term which m e a n s "to favour t h e R o m a n side" during t h e conflict in A . D . 66, rather than "to act like a R o m a n " o n t h e analogy o f i o u S a f o e i v (which at least at JW 2 § 454 probably m e a n s "to act as a Jew") and feXXrjviCetv. T h e only passage in which Jews are described as acting in R o m a n fashion concerns the organization o f t h e rebel army in G a l i l e e : at JW 2 § 577, J o s e p h u s claims that he d i v i d e d his army ^ w f x a t K w r e p o v , "more along R o m a n lines". But t h e w h o l e point o f e v e n this p a s s a g e is that R o m a n s are the o t h e r side, t h e e n e m y , w h o m it might b e prudent to imitate, but into w h o s e ranks it was p r e s u m e d i n c o n c e i v a b l e that Jews might enter. T h e b l o c k a g e which p r e v e n t e d a J e w like J o s e p h u s imagining himself as ever b e i n g fully part o f R o m a n society lay as much in his mentality as in any prejudice or institutional hindrance within t h e R o m a n system. F o r such r e t i c e n c e about his R o m a n identity o n e might p e r h a p s s u g g e s t s o m e personal reasons. J o s e p h u s wrote a little about his four wives, o n e from Jerusalem, o n e from Caesarea, o n e from Alexandria and o n e from C r e t e , and h e gave t h e n a m e s o f his s o n s by t h e last two wives. T h e n a m e s are standard Jewish n a m e s o f t h e period: by his first wife, Hyrcanus; by his Cretan wife, Justus and a S i m o n i d e s Agrippa (Life §§ 5, 4 2 6 - 7 ) . T h e r e is n o indication that t h e wives w e r e R o m a n citizens, and i n d e e d such a status would be rather implausible for a Jewish w o m a n from Crete, e v e n if s h e may have originated from J u d a e a and e v e n if s h e w a s of distinguished parentage, as J o s e p h u s c l a i m e d (Life

§ 4 2 7 ) . In that case, Josephus'/amiVj' w o u l d not have

e n j o y e d R o m a n citizenship, e v e n t h o u g h he did, for the status c o u l d o n l y h a v e b e e n p a s s e d o n if b o t h parents w e r e citizens or if J o s e p h u s had b e e n granted not just citizenship but also conubium,

with foreign

wives, a n o t a b l e privilege of which, if he had it, he might h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d t o boast (cf. S h e r w i n - W h i t e 1973: 268). Perhaps J o s e p h u s treated his citizenship as simply an extra h o n o u r from t h e e m p e r o r , o n a par with t h e grant o f land near Jerusalem, which is t h e context in w h i c h h e referred t o it in the Life (§§ 422-3). But o n e may further add possible, m o r e structural, r e a s o n s why J o s e p h u s w a s a Jewish m o r e than a R o m a n author. T h e e s s e n c e o f Flavian p r o p a g a n d a after 7 0 CK w a s not just to revel in t h e J u d a e a n victory as justification for Vespasian's seizure of t h e purple, but t o claim precisely that Judaism and R o m a n p o w e r were not c o m p a t i b l e ; since J o s e p h u s ' m a i n line of argument in the Jewbh

War w a s t h e

p r e c i s e o p p o s i t e , t h e view, c o m m o n in past g e n e r a t i o n s , that what h e

338

MARTIN GOODMAN

w r o t e w a s Flavian p r o p a g a n d a is thus rather bizarre. T h e p a r a d e o f t h e m o s t sacred relics o f a c o n q u e r e d nation w a s not normal in a R o m a n t r i u m p h . T h e r e is n o parallel, as far a s I know, t o t h e

fiscus Judaicus

as a s y m b o l i c p a y m e n t t o a R o m a n cult by t h e d e v o t e e s o f a discredit­ e d f o r e i g n superstition. R o m a n Jews w h o c o n t i n u e d t o f o l l o w Jewish practices after 7 0 C E c o u l d well b e s e e n by non-Jewish R o m a n s a s o u t s i d e t h e p a l e o f a c c e p t a b l e R o m a n society. Prejudice a t t a c h e d e v e n t o t h e m o s t e m i n e n t . A g r i p p a 11 a n d his sister B e r e n i c e w e r e , a s d e s c e n d a n t s o f H e r o d , from t h e fifth generation o f their family t o h o l d R o m a n citizenship. T h e i r political sympathies with R o m e w e r e blatant t h r o u g h o u t their careers: Agrippa had b e e n o n Titus' staff

when

omamenta praetoria (Cassius (Satires 6. 158), h e w a s a barhams, and

J e r u s a l e m w a s sacked, and h e held t h e D i o 6 6 . 15. 4 ) But t o Juvenal

w h e n r u m o u r h a d it that Titus w a n t e d t o marry B e r e n i c e , p o p u l a r R o m a n f e e l i n g c o m p e l l e d h i m t o s e n d her away (Cassius D i o , ibid; S u e t . Tit. 7. 1-2). W h a t I a m suggesting is that J o s e p h u s s h o u l d b e given credit for extraordinary bravery in standing u p for t h e right o f R o m a n J e w s t o c o n t i n u e t o practise their religion e v e n in a d e e p l y h o s t i l e e n v i r o n ­ m e n t . In all t h e discussions o f J o s e p h u s ' tortuous a t t e m p t s t o justify his past t o r t u o u s career, m o d e r n scholars t o o infrequently recall that h e did n o t h a v e t o write anything at all. U n l i k e m o d e r n

academics,

J o s e p h u s , with his e s t a t e in J u d a e a kindly granted by V e s p a s i a n (Life § 4 2 5 ) , w a s u n d e r n o c o m p u l s i o n t o publish. H e did s o , v o l u m i n o u s l y , n o t primarily t o protect his social status by winning t h e p a t r o n a g e o f rich R o m a n s - o n e m a y d o u b t h o w useful an ally E p a p h r o d i t u s w a s in R o m a n society

n o r t o d e f e n d his o w n reputation — t h e a u t o b i o ­

graphical parts o f his o u t p u t c o m p r i s e only a small fraction o f t h e total - b u t t o d e f e n d Judaism at a t i m e w h e n it w a s u n d e r e x c e p t i o n a l p r e s s u r e . T h e s h e e r length a n d t h o r o u g h n e s s o f t h e

Antiquities are

t e s t i m o n y t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s with which h e u n d e r t o o k his c h o s e n r o l e . If t h e J e w s o f R o m e w e r e a s grateful for his efforts a s t h e y s h o u l d h a v e b e e n , J o s e p h u s in his o l d a g e will not h a v e b e e n a l o n e l y m a n .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AB

Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.

ABD 1992

Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.

Abel, F.-M. 1933-38 GSographie de la Palestine. 2 vols. Paris: I^coffre-Gabalda. 1946 Simon de la tribu de Bilga. Pp. 52-58 in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati. Testi e studi 121. CittS del Vaticano. 1949 Les Livres des Maccahies. Paris: Gabalda. Abel, F.-M. and Starcky, J. 1961 Les Livres des Maccabees, 3rd ed. Paris: Cerf. Adam, A. 1972 Antike Berichte Uber die Essener. Kleine Texte fur Vorlesungen und ijbungen 182. 2nd edition. Berlin: de Gruyter. Albert, K. 1902 Strabo als Quelle des Josephus. Diss. Wiirzburg. Aschaffenburg; Schnipperschen. Alon, G. 1977 Jews arui Judaism in the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes. 1980 77ie Jews in ITieir Land in the Talmudic Age. Jerusalem: Magnes. Applebaum, S. 1980 A Fragment of a New Hellenistic Inscription from the Old City of Jerusalem. Pp. 47-60 (Hebrew and Greek; English summary p. Ill) in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, ed. A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stem. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. 1989 Josephus and the Economic Causes of the Jewish War. Pp. 237-64 in Feldman and Hata 1989. Ariel, D. T. 1990 Excavations al the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by YigalShiloh. Vol. 2: Imported Stamped Amphora Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory and Glass. Qedem 30. Jerusalem: 'Hie Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University. Attridge, H. W. 1976 ITie Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. Missoula MO: Scholars. 1984 Josephus and his Works. Pp. 185-232 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. M. Stone. Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress.

340

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avi-Yonah, M. 1956 The Second Temple. Sepher Yenishalayim, lem: Bialik (Hebrew). 1966

ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Jerusa­

77ie Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests

640). A Historical Geo^aphy. MI: Baker Book House.

(536 B.C.

toA.D.

(Hebr. 1951, 3rd Eng. ed.) Grand Rapids

Axelsson L. E. 1987

The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History and Tradition of the

Negev and Southern Judah. Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 25. Stockholm: AJmquist & Wiksell. Baethgen, V. 1886-87 Siebzehn makkabaeische Psalmen nach Theodor von Mopsuestia. Zeitschrift fitr die altlestamentlkhe

Wissenschaft 6: 261-88; 7: 1-60.

Bardtke, H. 1973

Zusatze zu Esther, in Jiidische Schnften aus Hellenistisch-rdmischer

Zeit

I/l. Gutersloh: Mohn. Bar-Kochva, B. 1973 The Status and Origin of the Garrison at the Akra on the Eve of the Religious Persecutions. Zion 38: 32-47 (Hebrew). 1989

Judas MaccabaeiLs: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Cambridge:

Cambridge Univ. Baron, S. 1948 The Jewish Community.

Vol.2. Philadelphia: JPS.

Barth(51emy, D. and Milik, J.T. 1955 Qumran Cave I. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon. Bartlett J. R. 1982 Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 114: 13-24. 1989 Edom and the Edomites. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 77. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Baruq, A. 1957

Lcontopolis. Pp. 359-372 in Dictionnaire

de la Bible Suppl

5.

Bauer, W. 1924

Essener. Pp. 386-430 in RE Supplement 4.

Bauer, W. 1958

Wdnerbuch

zum Neuen Testament,

5th ed. Berlin: Topelmann.

Baumgarten, J. 1982 Exclusions from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 215-25.

Beale. G. K. 1980 The Danielic Background for Revelation 13:18 and 17:9. Bulletin 31: 163-70. 1984

The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic

of St. John.

Literature and in the

Lanham MD: University Press of America.

Tyndale Revelation

BIBHOORAPHY

341

Beall, T. S. 1988 Josephus' Description of the K^senes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Society for N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies Monograph Series 58. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University. Beckwith, R. T 1979-81 Daniel 9 and the D a t e of Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Z e a l o t and Early Christian Computation. Revue de Qumran 10: 167-202. Beek, M. A . 1943 Relations entre J e r u s a l e m et la Diaspora ^gyptienne au IP sificle av. J.C. OudtesLStudien 2: \\9-m. Beit-Arieh I. 1989 N e w D a t e s on t h e Relationship Between Judah and E d o m toward the E n d of the Iron Age, Pp. 125-32 in: S. Giiin et al. (eds.), Recent Excavations in Israel, W i n o n a Lake; Eisenbrauns. Ben-Dov, M. 1980 T h e Seleucid A k r a - South of the T e m p l e . Cathedra brew). 1982 In the Shadow of the Temple. Jerusalem: Keter.

18: 22-35 ( H e ­

Ben-Dov, M., et al. 1983 The Western Wall. Jerusalem; Ministry of Defence. Bengtson, H . 1937-52 Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staats­ recht (Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechts­ geschichte 27, 32, 36). 3 vols. Benzinger 1901 D a p h n e (3). RE 4.2136-2138. Bertholdt L 1806-8 Daniel aus dem E r l a n g e n : Palm.

Hebraisch-Aramaischen

neu iibersetzt

und

crkliirt.

Bevan, A. A. 1892

A Short Commentary

on the Book of Daniel. C a m b r i d g e : University.

Beyer, K. 1984 Die aramaischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Gottingen; V a n d e n h o e c k and Ruprecht. B i ( c ) k e r m a n ( n ) , E . (J.) 1933 Ein judischer Festbrief vom J a h r e 124 v.Chr. (2 Makk l:\-9). Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 32: 233-54 = 1980: 136-58. 1934 Leontopolis. Encyclopaedia Judaica 5.796-97. 1935 L a charte s^leucide d e Jerusalem. Revue des Etudes Juives 100: 4-35 = 1980: 44-85. 1937 Der Gott der Makkabaer. Berlin: Schocken. 1938 Institutions des Seleucides. Paris; G e u t h n e r . 1939-44 H ^ l i o d o r e au T e m p l e d e Jerusalem. Annuaire de I'Istitut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 7: 5-40 = 1980: 159-91.

342

BIBLIOORAPHY

1946

T h e I'dicl of Cyrus in E z r a 1. Journal of Biblical Literature 65: 249-75 = 1976: 72-108. 1946-47 T h e W a r n i n g Inscription of H e r o d ' s T e m p l e . Jewish Quarterly Review 37: 387-405 = 1980: 210-24. 1958 T h e Altars of Gentiles. A Note on the Jewish "lus sacrum." Revue iniemationale des droits de t'anliquite 3 / 5 : 137-64 = 1980: 324-46. 1976 Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Part 1. Leiden: Brill. 1980 Studies im Jewish and Christian History. Part 2. Leiden: Brill. Bienkowski P. 1992 Early Edom and Moab. The Beginning of the Iron Age in Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Bilde, P. 1979 1983

1988

Southern

T h e Causes of the Jewish W a r According to J o s e p h u s . Journal for the Study of Judaism 10: 179-202. Josefiis som h'tstorieskriver. En unders0gelse af Josefus' fremstilling af Gaius Caligulas konflikt med j0deme i Palxstina (Bell 2, 184-203 ogAnt 18, 261-309) med sserligt henblik p3 forfatterens tendens og historiske p&Udelighed. K e b e n h a v n : G a d . Fiavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and their Importance.

Sheffield: J S O T .

B l e n k i n s o p p , J. 1974 Prophecy and Priesthood in J o s e p h u s . Journal of Jewish Studies 2 5 : 239-62. Bloch. H. 1879 Die Quellen des Fiavius Josephus in seiner Archdolo^e. Leipzig: Teubner. Blok, A. 1972

T h e P e a s a n t and the Brigand: Social Banditry R e c o n s i d e r e d . tive Studies in Society and History 14: 494-503.

Boecker, H . J. 1964 Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. zum A T 14. Neukirchen-VIuyn: Neukirchener.

Compara­

Wiss. M o n o g r a p h i e n

Boettger, G. 1879 Topogra/isch-historisches l^ikon zu den Schriften des Fiavius I-eipzig (rp. A m s t e r d a m : H a k k e r l 1966).

Josephus.

Bonfil, R. 1972 J u d a h and J e r u s a l e m in the Letter of Aristeas. Bet Mikra 17: 131-42 (Hebrew). Boschi B. G. 1067 Tradizioni del P e n l a t e u c o su E d o m . Rivista Biblica

15: 369-383.

BouchC-Lectercq, A 1903-7 Ilisloire des Lagules 1-4. Paris: Leroux. 1913-14 Histoire des Seleucides 323-64 (avant J.C.). Paris: Leroux. Bousset, W . 1903 Die Religion des Judentums R e u t h e r & Reichard.

im neutestamentlichen

Zeitalter.

Berlin:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1926

343

Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter. rev. Hugo G r e s s m a n . 3rd ed. Tiibingen: Mohr.

Bowersock, G . 1973

Syria u n d e r Vespasian. Journal of Roman Studies 63: 133-40.

Brand, J. 1960 C o n c e r n i n g an Article o n the Second T e m p l e . Tarbiz 29: 210-214 (Hebrew). Braund, D .

1984

Rome and the Friendly King. London: Croom H e l m .

Briant, P.

1982

Rois, tribuls ei paysans: Etudes sur les formations tributaires du Moyen Orient ancien. A n n a l e s litteraires de I'Universite d e Besangon 269; C e n t r e de R e c h e r c h e s d'Hi.stoire Ancienne vol. 4 3 . Paris: I,es Belles Lctires.

Broshi, M. 1979 T h e Population of W e s t e r n Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period.

1982

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 236: 1-10. T h e Credibility of Josephus. Journal of Jewish Studies 3 3 : 379-84.

Brown, C. A .

1992

No Longer be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women. Studies in Pseudo-Philo's 'Biblical Antiquilies" and Josephus's 'Jewish Antiquities'. G e n d e r a n d the Biblical Tradition. W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n Knox.

Ixjuisville, K Y :

Bruce, F. F . 1951 The Acts of the Apostles. lx)ndon. 3rd rev. ed. G r a n d Rapids: F.erdmans, 1990. 1959 T h e Interpretation of Daniel. P p . 59-65 in his Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. G r a n d R a p i d s : l i e r d m a n s .

1965 1969

J o s e p h u s and Daniel. Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4: 148-62. T h e Book of Daniel and the O u m r a n Community. P p . 221-235 in Neotestamenlica et Semitica, ed. F . F . Ellis and M. Wilcox. E d i n b u r g h : Clark.

B r u n e i d e Presle, W.

1865

Notice et textes des papyrus grecs du Musee du Louvre el de la Biblioth^que Imperiale. Vol. 18 of Notices el extrails des Manuscrits de la Biblioth^qiie Imperiale. Paris: Imprimerie impdriale.

Bruyne, D . D e

1932

Les anciennes traductions latinesdes Machabees. Anecdoia M a r e d s o l a n a 4. A b b a y e d e M a r e d s o u s .

Buchler, A. 1896-97 I.es sources d e Flavius Josfiphe dans le Antiquit6s (X1I,5-XIII,1)./?pv»e

des Etudes Juives 32: 176-199; 34; 69-93. 1897a

T h e sources of J o s e p h u s for the History of Syria (In ' A n t i q u i t a t e s "

XlI,3-XJn,14). Jewish Quarterly Review 9: 311-349.

344

1898 1899 1899a 1926-27 1956

BIBi.LOGRAPHY

T h e Fore-court of W o m e n and the Brass G a t e in t h e T e m p l e of J e r u s a l e m Jewish Quarterly Review 10: 678-7)8. ITie N i c a n o r G a t e and the Brass G a t e . Jewish Quarterly Review 11: 46-63. Die Tobiaden und Oniaden im II. Makkabderbuch und in der verwandten jUdisch-hellenist'ischen Liieratw. Wien: H o l d e r . T h e Levitical Impurity of the Gentile in Palestine before the Y e a r 70. Jewish Quarterly Review 17: 7-15. Studies in Jewish History. Ixjndon: Oxford University.

Buhl, D. F. 1896

Geographie

des alten Palastina.

Freiburg i. B. und Leipzig: M o h r .

Burchard, C. 1977

Die lissener bei Hippolyt. Journal for the Study of Judaism 8: 1-41.

Busink. T . 1978-80 Der Tempel von Jerusalem: von Salomo bis Herodcs. Brill. Cadbury, H. J. 1927 The Making of Luke-Acts. New York: Macmillan.

2 vols. I x i d e n :

C a d o u x , C. J. 1937 A T e n t a t i v e Synthetic Chronology of the Apostolic Age. Journal Biblical Literature 56: 177-91. C a l d e r HI, William M. 1992 M o r t o n Smith. Gnomon

of

64: 382-384.

Calmet, A. 1726 Commentaire litteral sur tous le Livres de I'Ancien et du Testament. T o m e sixifeme. Paris: Emery-Sangrain-Martin.

Nouveau

C a r m i g n a c J., and G u i l b e r l P. 1961 I^s textes de Qumran, vol. I. Paris: Letouz^t & A n d . C a s e , S. J. 1925 J o s e p h u s ' Anticipation of a Domilianic Persecution, Journal of Biblical Literature 44: 10-20. C h a m o n a r d , J. 1904 see R e i n a c h 1900-1932 Charles, R. H . 1929 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary Introduction. Oxford: University. C h a r l e s w o r t h J. H . 1983 The Old Testament Doubleday & Co.

Pseudepigraplta,

on the Book

of Daniel

with

vol 1, G a r d e n C i t y / N e w Y o r k :

CIJ 1936-52 Corpus Inscriptionum ludaicarum, ed. J.-B. I'rey. 2 vols. R o m e : Ponlificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana. C o h e n , G. M. 1978 The Seleucid Colonies: Studies in Founding, Administration zation. H i s l o r i a Einzelschriften 30. W i e s b a d e n : Sleiner.

and Organi­

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

C o h e n , S. J. D . 1979 Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. C o l u m b i a Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. I^eiden: Brill. 1983 Conversion to Judaism in historical perspective: from biblical Israel to post-biblical J u d a i s m . Conservative Judaism 36.4: 31-45. 1984 l l i e Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the E n d of Jewish Sectarianism. Hebrew Union College Annual 55: 27-53. 1986 Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature. P p . 7-14 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Vol. B / 1 . J e r u s a l e m : Worid Union of Jewish Studies. 1987 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1989 Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew. Harvard Theological Review 82: 13-33. 1990 Religion, Ethnicity, and 'Hellenism' in the E m e r g e n c e of Jewish Identity in M a c c a b e a n Palestine. Pp. 204-223 in Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom, ed. Per Bilde et al. A a r h u s : A a r h u s University. Collins, J. J. 1974 The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. Society of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e Dissertation Series 93. Missoula. 1977 77ie Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Missoula: Scholars. Corbishley, T. 1935 T h e Chronology of the Reign of H e r o d the Great. Journal of Theologi­ cal Studies 36: 22-32.

CPJ 1957-64 Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, eds. V. A. Tcherikover, A. Puks, and M. Stern. 3 vols. C a m b r i d g e M A : Harvard University; J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s . Cresson B. C. 1972 T h e C o n d e m n a t i o n of E d o m in Post-Exilic Judaism. P p . 125-148 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Studies in honor of W. F. Stinespring, ed. J. M. Efird. D u r h a m : D u k e University. C\iq. E. 1927

La condition juridique de la Co61e-Syrie au temps d e Plolfimfie V E p i p h a n e . Syria 8: 143-62.

Dancy, J. C. 1954

A Commentary

on I Maccabees.

Oxford: Blackwell.

D a u b e D. 1977 Typologie im Werk des Flavius Josephus. Sitzungsberichte d e r Bayeri­ schen A k a d e m i e d e r Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist.Klasse 1977, Heft 6. Munchen. 1977a T h r e e Legal Notes on Josephus after His Surrender. Law Quarterly Review 93: 191-94. D e c o s t e r , K. 1989 Flavius J o s e p h u s and the Seleucid Acra in J e r u s a l e m . Zeitschrift Deutschen Paliistina-Vereins 105: 70-84.

des

346

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Del M e d i c o . H . E. 1952

l ^ s Essdniens d a n s I'oeuvre d e Fiavius Josfephe. Byzantinoslavica 1-45; 189-226.

13:

Delcor, M. 1968 T e m p l e d'Onias en Fgypte. R e e x a m e n d'un vieux p r o b l S m e . Revue Biblique 15: 188-203. Delia, D . 1991 Alexandrian Citizenship During the Roman Principate. cal Studies 23. Atlanta: Scholars.

A m e r i c a n Classi­

D e q u e k e r , I.. 1985 T h e City of David a n d the Seleucid Acra in J e r u s a l e m . Pp. 193-210 in The Land of hrael: Cross-Roads of Civilizations, ed. E. I.ipinsky. O r i e n t a l i a I,ovaniensia Analecta 19. Leuven: P e e t e r s . D e r e n b o u r g , J. 1867

Essai su I'histoire et lagiographie de la Palestine d'apres les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. P r e m i e r e parlie Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cynis jusqu'a Adrien. Paris: I m p r i m e r i e I m p 6 r i a l e .

Dessau. H. 1892-1916 Inscriptiones

Latinac Selectae.

3 vols. Berlin: W e i d m a n n .

D e s t i n o n , J. von 1882 Die Quellen des Flmius Josephus. I Die Quellen der Archaologie XIJ-XV/I; Jik!.Krieg B. L Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer.

Buch

D h o r m e , P. 1926

Le livre de Job. Dcuxifime ed. Paris: G a b a l d a .

Dicou, B. 1990 Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom. V o o r b u r g : Publivorm. D i e b n e r , B., and Schult, H. 1975 F.dom in alttestamentlichen T e x t e n der M a k k a b a e r z e i t , Blatter zum Alten Testament 8: 11-17.

Dielheimer

Dillman, A. 1853 Das Buch Henoch Ubersetzt und crklHrt. l ^ i p z i g : Vogel. D i m a n t , D., a n d R a p p a p o r t , U. (eds.) 1992 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. L e i d e n : Brill; J e r u s a l e m : Magnes. D i t t e n b e r g e r , W. 1903

(Mentis

Graeci Insrriptionie

Selectae I. I.eipzig: Hirzel =

OGIS.

D o r a n , R. 1990 J a s o n ' s G y m n a s i u m . Pp. 99-109 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: FS John Strugncll, cd 11. Attridge et al. L,anham, N Y : University Press of America. Drexler, M. 1925

Untersuchu[]gen zu J o s e p h u s und zur Geschichte des judischen standes 66-70, Klio 19 : 277-312.

Auf-

BIBLIO(;RAPIIY

347

Driver, R. S. 1900 The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University. Driiner, H . 1896 Untersuchungen

Uber Josephus. P h . D . Dissertation, M a r b u r g ,

D u p o n t - S o m m e r , A. 1960 The Essene Writings from Oxford: Blackwell. Hfron, J. 1987

Studies on the Hasmonean L e i d e n : Brill.

Qumran.

2nd edition. T r a n s . G . V e r m e s .

I'eriod. St. in Judaism in L a t e Antiquity 39.

Egger, R. 1986 Josephus Flavius und die Samaritaner: Eine lerminologiscbe Untersuchung zur Identitatskldrung der Samaritaner. N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m et O r b i s A n t i q u u s 4. F r e i b u r g (Switzerland) and G o t t i n g e n : Universitatsverlag a n d V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht. Epstein, J. 1964 Introduction (Hebrew).

to the Text of the Mishna. 2d ed. 2 vols. J e r u s a l e m : M a g n e s

F-hrenberg, V. 1947 Polypragmosyne: A Study in G r e e k Politics. Journal of Hellenic

Studies

67: 46-67. Ettelson, H . W . 1925 'Hie Integrity of I M a c c a b a e e s . Transactions of the Connecticut of Arts and Sciences 27: 249-384.

Acadetny

Ewald, C. H. A. 1864 Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vierter Band. Geschichte Ezra's und der Heiligherrschafi in Israel bis Christus. 3rd ed. G o t t i n g e n : Dieterich. 1868 Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. Dritter Band. Die jiingsten Propheten des Alten Bundes mil den Biichem Barukh und Daniel. 2nd ed. G o t t i n ­ gen: V a n d e n h o e k & Ruprecht. F a r m e r , W, R. 1956 Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism the Grcco-Roman Period. New York: C o l u m b i a University. Farris, M. H . 1990 T h e F o r m a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e Seventy W e e k s of Dis,sertation: University of T o r o n t o .

in

Daruel.

F e l d m a n , I.. H . 1962 T h e Sources of J o s e p h u s ' / l « ( / ^ ( V i e i 19. Latomus 2 1 : 320-333. 1965 s e e T h a c k e r a y el al. 1926-65 (LCL). 1968a A b r a h a m t h e G r e e k Philosopher in J o s e p h u s . Transactions of the American Philological Association 99: 143-56. 1968b H e l l e n i z a t i o n s in J o s e p h u s ' Account of M a n ' s D e c l i n e . Pp. 336-53 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. J. N e u s n e r . Studies in the History of Religions 14. I.eiden: Brill.

348

1970 1976

1982 1984 1984a

!984b

1984-85 1986

1987-88 1988a

1988b 1988c

1988-89 1989a 1989b 1990 1991-92 1992a 1992b 1992c 1992d 1992e 1992f 1992g 1992h

BIBLFOGRAPHy

Hellenizatioiis in J o s e p h u s ' Version of Ksiher. Transactions of the American Philological Association 101: 143-70. J o s e p h u s as an Apologist to the G r e c o - R o m a n W o r l d : His Portrait of S o l o m o n . Pp. 69-98 in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. li. S. f-iorenza. N o t r e D a m e : University of N o t r e Dame. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Saul. Hebrew Union College Annual 5 3 : 45-99. Josephus and Modem Scholarship (1937-1980). Berlin; N e w York: d e Gruyter. A b r a h a m the G e n e r a l in Josephus. Pp. 43-49 in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, eds. F. E. G r e e n s p a h n , H. Hilgert, and B. L. Mack. C^hico: Scholars. Fiavius J o s e p h u s Revisited: T h e Man, his Writings, and his Signifi­ cance. P p . 763-862 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Well 11.21.2. B e r l i n / N e w York: d e Gruyter. J o s e p h u s as a Biblica! Interpreter: Ihe 'Aqedaii. Jewish Quarterly Review 75: 212-52. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of D e b o r a h . Pp. 115-28 in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowelzky, eds. A. C a q u o t , M. I l a d a s - L e b e l , and J. R i a u d . Leuven-Paris: Editions Peeters. Pro-Jewish Intimations in Anti-Jevrish R e m a r k s Cited in J o s e p h u s ' Against Apion. Jewish Quarterly Review 78: 187-251. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of N o a h and Its Parallels in Philo, P s e u d o - Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim. Proceedings of the Ameri­ can Academy for Jewish Research 55: 3 1 - 57. J o s e p h u s ' Version of Samson. Journal for the Study of Judaism 19: 171-214. Use, Authority, and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of J o s e p h u s . P p . 455-518 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, eds. M. J. M u l d e r and H. Sysling. C o m p e n d i a R e r u m l u d a i c a r u m ad N o v u m T e s t a m e n l u m , sect. 2, vol. 1. Assen: V a n G o r c u m . J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of J a c o b . Jewbh Quarterly Review 79: 101-51. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of David. Hebrew Union College Annual 60: 129-74. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Joshua. Harvard Theological Review 82: 351-76. P r o p h e t s and Prophecy in J o s e p h u s . Journal of Theological Studies 4 1 : 400-407. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Moses. Jewish Quarterly Review 82: 285- 328. J o s e p h u s ' Interpretation of J o n a h . Association for Jewish Studies Review 17: 1-29. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of A h a b . Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 68: 368-84. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Daniel. Henoch 14: 37-96. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Hezekiah. Journal of Biblical Literature 111: .597-610. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Joseph. Revue Biblique 99: 379-417, 504- 28. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of N e h e m i a h . Journal of Jewish Studies 4 3 : 187-202. J o s e p h u s ' Portrait of Samuel./t/;r-A'a/i»-o(>i 30: 103-45. Review of Mason 1991 Journal for the Study of Judaism 23:122-5.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

1993

349

Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Atliliides and Interactions Alexander to Justinian. Princeton: Princeton University.

from

P e t d m a n , L. H., and H a t a , G. (eds.) 1987 ^osephus, Judaism and Christianity. Leiden: Brill. 1989 Josephus, the Bible and History. Detroit: Wayne State University. Field, Fr. 1875 Origenis Exaplorum

quae supersunt 2. Oxford: (!!!arendon.

Finkelstein, I. 1992

E d o m in Iron Age L Eretz Israel 23: 216-23.

Fischer, T. 1975 Z u m judischen Verfassungsslreit von P o m p e i u s ( D i o d o r 40,2). Zeit­ schrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins 9 1 : 46-49. 1980 Seleukiden und Makkabaer. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Flusser, D . 1972 T h e F o u r E m p i r e s in the Fourth Sibyl and the Book of D a n i e l . Israel Oriental Studies 2: 148-75. Fraidl, F. 1883 Die Exegese der Siebzig Wochen Daniels in der Alten urtd Mitlleren G r a z : V o n Leuschner & Lubensky. Frankel, Z. 1852 Einiges zur Forschung uber d e n O n i a s t e m p e l . Monatsschrift schichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

Zeit.

fiir

Ge­

\: 273-277.

Franxman, T. W. 1979 Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus. O r i e n t a l i a 3 5 . R o m e : Biblical Institute. Frey, J. B. s e e CIJ

Biblica et

F r e y n e , S. 1980 T h e G a l i l e a n s in the Light of J o s e p h u s ' Vita, New Testament 26: 397-413.

Studies

Fuks, G . 1990

J o s e p h u s and the H a s m o n e a n s . yoHma/o/Jeiv/j/i Studies 41:166-176.

Gabba, E. 1958 Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia. T o r i n o : Marietti. 1990 T h e F i n a n c e s of King H e r o d . In Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel, ed. A. K a s h e r et al. J e r u s a l e m : Yad Ben-Zvi. Gafni, I. M . 1980 O n the U s e of I M a c c a b e e s by Josephus Flavius [in H e b r e w ] . Zion 45: 81-95. Rev. English trans. 1989. 1989 J o s e p h u s and 1 M a c c a b e e s . Pp. 116-31 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989. G a r n s e y , P. 1988 Famine and Food Supply C a m b r i d g e University.

in the Graeco-Roman

World.

Cambridge:

Garnsey, P. and Woolf, G. 1989 P a t r o n a g e of the R u r a l Poor in the R o m a n World. In Wallace-Hadrill 1989.

350

BIBLIOGRAPHY

G a s t o n , Lloyd 1970

No Stone on Another: Studies in Ihe Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. Novum T e s t a m e n l u m Suppl. 23. L e i d e n : Brill. CJeffcken, J. 1902 Komposilion und fintstehungzeit der Oracula Sibyllina. T e x t e u n d U n t e r s u f h u n g e n , ed. A. von H a r n a c k N F 8. Leipzig; Hinrichs. G e n s , C. H . J. d e 1978/80 I d u m a e a . Jaarberichten van hel Vooraiiatisch-Egypihch genootschap. Ex O r i e n l e Lux 26: 53-74. Gitboa, A. 1979-80 T h e Intervention of Sextus Julius Caesar, G o v e r n o r of Syria, in the Affair of H e r o d ' s Trial. Scripta Classica Israelica 5: 185-194. G l a d i g o w . B. 1989 A e t a s . a c v u m und saeclorum ordo: Z u r Siruktur zeitlicher D e u t u n g s sy.sieme. P p . 255-271 in Hellholm 1989. Goldingay, J. E. 1989 Daniel. Word Biblical C o m m e n t a r y . Dallas: Word Books. Goldstein, 1976 1983 1989

J. A. I Maccabees. A B 4 1 . / / Maccabees. A B 41A. T h e H a s m o n e a n Revolt and the H a s m o n e a n Dynasty. P p . 292-351 in vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Judaism, eds. W. D . Davies and L. I'inkelstein. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University.

G o o d m a n . M. ( D . ) 1987 The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University. 1989 Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish identity. Journal of Roman Studies 79: 40-44. 1992 Jewish Proselytizing in the First Century. P p . 53-78 in The Jews Among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire, eds. J. Lieu, J. N o r t h , a n d T. Rajak, L o n d o n - N e w York: R o u l l e d g e . I'orth- T h e R o m a n identity of R o m a n Jews. In Menahem Stem Memorial Voc o m i n g tume, eds. 1. M. Gafni, A. O p p e n h e i m e r and D . R. Schwartz. J e r u s a ­ lem: Z . S h a z a r C e n t e r . G r a i n g e r , J. 1990

The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: C l a r e n d o n .

G r a y , R. 1993

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: the from Josephus. Oxford: Oxford University. Griffiths, J. G. 1989

Evidence

Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Era. P p . 273-293 in H e l l h o l m 1989.

G r i m m , C. L. W . 1853 Das erste Buch der Maccabder. Dritte I.ieferung of Kurzgefasstes sches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des AT. Leipzig: Hirzel.

exegeti-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Habicht, C. 1976 2. Makkabaerbuch. Mohn.

351

Jiid, Schriften aus hell.-rom. Zeit 1/3. G u t e r s l o h :

H a d a s - I , e b e l . M. 1986 R o m e "Qualri^me e m p i r e ' et le symbole du pore, P p . 297-312 Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a V. Nikiprowetzky, ed. A. Caquot et P a r i s / L ^ u v e n : Peeters. 1987 L'6volution d e I'image de R o m e aupr^s des juifs en deux s l i d e s r e l a t i o n s j u d e o - r o m a i n s -164 t + 7 0 . P p . 715-856 in vol 2.20.2 Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Berlin: D e G r u y t e r . 1989 Flavius Josephe. Paris: I'ayard. 1991 Jerusalem contre Rome, Paris: Cerf.

in: al. de of

Hamel, G. 1990

Poverty and Charily in Roman Palestine. Berkeley: Univ. of California.

H a n h a r t , R. 1964 Z u r Z e i t r e c h n u n g des I. M a k k a b a e r b u c h e s . Pp. 49-96 in A. J e p s e n and R. H a n h a r t , Untersuchungen zur jiidischen Chronologie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88. Berlin: T o p e l mann. H a r d o u i n , J. 1699 Chronologia Velens Teslamenti ad Vulgatam editionem exacta et nummis antiquis dlustraia. Paris: J. Boudot. 1709 De IJOC. Hebdomadihus Danielis, pro R. P. Joanne llarduino... adversus R. P. Bemardum Lamy... defensio. Pp. 881-903 in / . Harduini... opera selecta, lum quae jam pridem Parisiis edila nunc emendatiora et mullo aucliora prodeunt, turn quae nunc primum edita. A m s t e r d a m : J.I.. D e Ijjrme. H a r t b e r g e r , B. 1986 'An den Wassem von Babylon . . .'. Ps U7 auf dem Hintergrund von Jer 5 / , der biblischen F.dom-Traditioncn und babylonischer Originalquellen. B o n n e r Biblische Beitrage 63. F r a n k f u r l / M . : P. Lang. H a r t m a n , L. F., and D i Leila, A. A. 1978 The Book of Daniel. A B 23. Hasel, G . F . 1984

0 1 3 . Theologisches

Worterbuch zum Allen Testament

4.355-67.

H a t a , G. 1975

Is the G r e e k Version of J o s e p h u s ' Jewish W a r a Translation or Rewriting of the First Version? Jewish Quarterly Review 66: 89-108. see also F e l d m a n , L. H., and H a t a , G. (eds.) H a t c h , E., a n d R e d p a t h , H. A. 1897-1906 A Concordance lo the Sepmagint. 3 vols. Oxford: C l a r e n d o n . H a y a r d , R. 1982 T h e Jewish T e m p l e at Leontopolis. A Reconsideration. Journal Jewish Studies 3 3 : 425-443.

of

352

BIBLIOGRAPHY

H e l l h o l m , D . (ed.) 1989 Apocafypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceed­ ings of the International Colloquium on Apocafypticism, Uppsala, August 12-17, 1979. 2nd ed. T u b i n g e n : Mohr (1st ed. 1983). H e l m , R. 1921 Revnew of U q u e u r 1920. Philologische 505-516.

Wochenschrift 4 1 : cols. 481-493,

Hengel, M. 1961 Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur jiidischen Freiheitsbewegimg in der Zeit von Herodes I bn 70 n.Clir. Leiden: Brill (rev. Engl, transl. 1989). 1966 Die Synagogeninschrift von Slobi. Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 57: 145-83. 1969 Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung Paldstinas his zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v.Chr. Wissensch. U n t e r s . z. N T 10. Tiibingen: M o h r . 1974 Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encouruer in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2nd ed. T r a n s . J. Bowden. L o n d o n : SC'M (trans. of 1969). 1989 The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. T r a n s . D . Smith (cf. 1961 a b o v e ) E d i n b u r g h : Clark. Herzfeld, L. 1863 Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael von Vollendung des zweiten Tempels bis zur Einselzung des Mackabders Schimon zum Hohen Priester und Fursten. 2nd ed. vol. 2. I,eipzig: Witfferodl. H i l d e s h e i m e r , I. 1876-77 Die Beschreibung des herodianischen T e m p e l s im T r a c t a t e M i d d o t h und bei Fiavius J o s e p h u s . P p . 1-32 in Jahresbericht des RabbinerSeminars fUr das orthodoxe Judenthum. Berlin. Hinton, W. 1966 Fanshen: A Documentary Monthly Review Press.

of Revolution in a Chinese Village. N e w Y o r k :

Hirsch, S. A. 1906 T h e T e m p l e of Onias. Pp. 39-80 L o n d o n : I^izac.

in Jews' College Jubilee

Volume.

Hitzig, F. 1838 Das Buch Daniel erkliirt. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches H a n d b u c h z u m Alten T e s t a m e n t . Leipzig: W e i d m a n n (2nd ed. 1850). Hobsbawm, E. 1959 Primitive Rebels. Manchester: M a n c h e s t e r University. 1969 Bandits. L o n d o n : Weidenfeld and Nicolson. H o e n i g , S. 1970

Oil and Pagan Defilement. Jewish Quarterly Review 6 1 : 63-75.

H o f m a n n , J. C. K. 1836 Die siebenzig Jahre des Jeremias Daniels. Niirnberg: O t t o .

und die siebemig

Jahrwochen

des

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

Hoileaux, M. 1899 Sur u n passage de Flavius Josephe ( A n t J i i d . XII 4 § 155). Revue des Etudes Juives 39: 161-174. Holscher, G. 1904 Die Quellen des Josephus fur die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jiidischen Leipzig: T e u b n e r . 1916 J o s e p h u s . RE 9.1934-2000.

Kriege.

Hollis, F. J. 1934

The Archaeology

of Herod's Temple. L o n d o n : Dent.

Holtzmann, O. 1913 Middot: Von den Massen des Tempels. Text, U b e r s e t z u n g u. F-rklarung. Die Mischna, eds. G. Beer and O. H o l t z m a n n , vol. 5.10. Giessen: Tdpelmann. H o p w o o d , K. 1989

Bandits, Hiites a n d Rural O r d e r . P p . 171-85 in Wallace-Hadrill 1989.

Horbury, W. 1991 H e r o d ' s T e m p l e a n d ' H e r o d ' s Days'. Pp. 108-115 in Templum tiae: Essays on ihe Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel. H o r b u r y . Sheffield: J S O T . Horsley, R. 1979 J o s e p h u s and the Bandits. Journal for the Study of Judaism 10: 1981 Ancient Jev/ish Banditry and the Revolt Against R o m e . Biblical Quarterly 4 3 : 409-32.

Amici­ ed. W .

37-63. Catholic

Horst, P, W. van d e r 1984 Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher. The Fragments collected and trans, with explanatory notes. E t u d e s preliminaires aux religions orientales d a n s I'Empire R o m a i n 101. I^eiden: Brill. Isaac, B. 1984 1992

Bandits in J u d a e a a n d Arabia. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 88:171-203. 77ie Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Isaac, B., a n d Roll, I. 1982 Roman Roads in Judaea I: The Legio-Scythopolis tional Series 141. Oxford; B.A.R.

Road. B.A.R. Interna­

Jastrow, M . 1872 Einiges iiber d e n Hohenpriester Onias IV. in Aegypten und die G r i i n d u n g des T e m p e l s zu Heliopolis. Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 2 1 ; 150-55. J e r e m i a s , J. 1962 Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu. Kullurgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutesta­ mentlichen Zeitgeschichte, 3rd ed. G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t (rev. Engl. ed. 1969) 1969 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. I,ondon: S C M (rev. trans, of 1962). J o h n s o n , T., a n d D a n d e k e r , C. 1989 P a t r o n a g e : Relation and System. In Wallace-Hadrill 1989.

354

BIBI.IOGRAPHY

J o n e s , A. H . M. 1971 Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. rev. by M . Avi- Y o n a h et aL Oxford: C l a r e n d o n (1st ed. 1937). J o n g e , M. d e 1978 Vie Testaments of ihe Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Leiden: Brill. Jossa, G . 1980 1992

Gesa e i movimenti di liberazione delta Palestina. Brescia: Paideia. Flavio Giuseppe, Autohiografia. Studi sul giudaismo e sul cristianesimo antico 3. Napoli: D'Auria.

JPS Juster, J. 1914

T h e Jewish Publication Society of A m e r i c a Les Juifs dans I'empire romain. Leur condition juridique, sociale. 2 vols. Paris: G e u t h n e r .

economique

et

Justus, B. 1973

Z u r Erzahlkunst des Fiavius J o s e p h u s . Theokratia

2: 107-36.

K a n e , J. P, 1978

Ossuary Inscriptions ofJerusalem.7o«/7ja/o/5cm(/icSrurf/es

2 3 ; 268-82.

K a s h e r , A. 1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt.The Struggle for Equal Rights, Tubingen: Mohr. 1988 Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 B.C.E. - 70 CE.). Texte und Studien zum a n t i k e n J u d e n t u m 18. T u b i n g e n : Mohr. 1990 Jews in Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel: Relations of the Jews in EretzIsrael with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE). T u b i n g e n : M o h r . K a u f m a n , A. S. 1977 New Light u p o n Zion: T h e Plan and Precise Location of the S e c o n d T e m p l e . Ariel 4 3 : Kaufmann, Y. 1977 History of the Religion of Israel, vol. 4. From the Babylonian Captivity the End of Prophecy. New York: Ktav (trans, from H e b r e w ) . K e e b l e . K. 1991 A critical study of J o s e p h u s , Contra Apionem. Dissertation, University of Oxford. Klein, S. 1939 1967

to

U n p u b l i s h e d M.Phil.

Land of Judea. Tel-Aviv: [>vir ( H e b r e w ) . Land of Galilee. J e r u s a l e m : Mosad H a r a v Kook ( H e b r e w ) .

K l o s t e r m a n n , E. (ed.) 1904 Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Eusebius Werke. V o l . 3. G r i e c h i s c h e christliche Schriftstellcr. Leipzig: Hinrichs ( R p . H i l d e s heim: O l m s , 1966).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

K n o h l , !. 1991

355

Participation of the People in the T e m p l e Worship - Second T e m p l e Sectarian Conflict and the Biblical Tradition. Tarbiz 60: 139-46 ( H e ­ brew).

Koehler, L.; B a u m g a r t n e r , W.; ei al. 1967-90 /febrdisches und Aramdisches Brill.

Lexikon zum Alten

Testament.

Leiden:

Kooij, A. v a n d e r 1986 A Case of R e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in the Old G r e e k of Daniel 11. Pp. 72-80 in Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Litera­ ture. Festschrift for J. C. H. Lebram, ed. J. W . van H e n t e n et al. SPB 36. Leiden: Brill. K o p p , C. 1959

Die heiligen Statten der Evangelien.

Regensburg: Pustet.

Kottek, S. S. 1994 Medicine and Hygiene in the Works of Elavius Josephus. Studies in Ancient Medicine 9. Leiden: Brill. K r a e m e r , R. S. 1989 O n the M e a n i n g of the T e r m 'Jew' in G r e c o - R o m a n Inscriptions. Harvard Theological Review 82: 35-53. Kraft, H . 1981

F u s e b i u s von C a e s a r e a , Kirchengeschichte. Wissensch. Buchgesellschaft.

Kreissig, H . 1970 Die sozialen Zusammenhange Verlag. 1977 K u h n . P. 1989

des judaischen

2nd

ed.

Darmstadt:

Krieges. Berlin: A k a d e m i e

L a n d e d P r o p e r t y in the "Hellenistic" O r i e n t . Eirene 15: 5-26. Offenbarungsstimmen im Antiken Judentum. Untersuchungen und verwandten HimmeLsstimmen. T u b i n g e n : Mohr.

zurBalQol

Lagrange, M.-J. 1892 T o p o g r a p h i c de J e r u s a l e m . Revue Biblique 1: 17-38. Lamy, B. 1699 Apparatus chronologicus et geographicus ad commentanum in Harmoniam sive concordiam quatuor Evangelisiarum. Paris: Anisson. l-andau, Y. H. 1966 A G r e e k Inscription F o u n d Near Hefzibah. Israel Exploration 16: 54-70. l i q u e u r , R. 1920 Der jiidische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer neuer qucllenkritischer Grundlage. Giessen 1920 (rp. Wissensch. Buchgesellschaft, 1970).

Journal

Versuch auf Darmstadt:

Launey, M. 1949-50 Recherches sur les armies hellenistiques, Bibliothfeque des Ecoles Franijaises d'AthSnes et d e R o m e 169. 2 vols. Paris: Boccard.

356

LCL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

L o e b Classical Library

L e b r a m , J. 1974 D e r Idealstaat d e r J u d e n . Pp.233-253 in Josepfius-Stiulien. Festschrift ftir O t t o Michel, ed. O. Betz. Gottingen: V a n d e n h o e c k u. R u p r e c h t . 1989

T h e Piety of the Jewish Apocalypticists. P p . 171-210 in H e l l h o l m 1989.

Le G l a z , M. 1991 in M. Lc G l a z , J. L. Voisin, and Y. Le B o h e c Roman PUF.

History,

Paris,

L e n g e r k e , C. von 1835

Das Buch Daniel. Verdeutsclu und ausgelegt. Konigsberg: B o r n t r a g e r .

U o n , H . J. I960

The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: JPS.

Levenson, E. R. 1966 New Tendentious Motifs in Antiquities: A Study of Development in Josephus'Historical Thought. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, C o l u m b i a University. Levine, L. L 1991 F r o m Conmiunity C e n t e r to ' l e s s e r Sanctuary': T h e Furnishings and Interior of the Ancient Synagogue. Cathedra 60: 36-84 ( H e b r e w ) . F o r t h - Archeology and the Religious Ethos of Pre-70 Palestine. In Hillel and c o m i n g Jesus, ed. J. Charlesworth. Minneapolis: Fortress. I.evy, J. 1939

T h e Feast of the 14th day of Adar. Hebrew Union College Annual 127-151.

14:

L i e b e r m a n , S. 1950 H e l l e n i s m in Jewish Palestine. Texts and Studies. New York: J T S . 1955-88 Tosefta Ki-Kshutah. 10 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary. Lindner, H . 1972 Die Gcschichlsauffassung des Fiavius Josephus im Bellum Cleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellenfrage, Leiden: Brill.

Judaicum.

Ix)we, M. 1976 W h o w e r e the ' l o u S a i o t ? Novum Testamentum 18: 101-130. 1981 ' l o u S a i o i of the Apocrypha. Novum Testamentum 23: 56-90. Lucas, E. C . 1989 T h e Origin of Daniel's Four E m p i r e s Scheme R e e x a m i n e d . Bulletin 40: 185-202.

Tyndale

Luria, B. / , . 1968 T h e T e m p l e M o u n t Precincts. Beth Mikra 13: 3-15 ( H e b r e w ) . 1981 T h e Ix>cation of the Akra at the N o r t h e r n Part of the T e m p l e M o u n t . Cathedra 2 1 : 31-40 ( H e b r e w ) . Magen, Y. 1980 ' H i e G a t e s of the T e m p l e Mount according to J o s e p h u s and the M i s h n a h . Cathedra 14: 47-53 ( H e b r e w ) , 1986 A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on M o u n t G a r i z i m . Qadmoniot 19: 91-101.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

Maier, J. 1990 Zwischen den Teslainenten: Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Die n e u e Echter Bibel, Erganzungsbd.3. Wiirzburg: Echter. 1993 Israel und " E d o m " in d e n Ausdeutungen zu D e u t 2,1-8. P p . 135-84 in Judentum: Aus-biicke und Einsichten. Festgahe zum 70. Geburtstag von Kurt Schubert, eds. C. T h o m a , G. Stemberger, and J. Maier, J u d e n t u m und Umwelt 4 3 . Frankfurt a. M.; P. I^ang. Mantel, II. 1965

Studies on the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, M A : H a r v a r d .

Marcus, R. see 'Hiackeray et al. 1926-65 M a r s h a m , J. 1682 Chronicus Canon Aegyptiacus, Hebraicus, Graecus et Disquisitiones. I.ondon: Roycroft. Marti, K. 1901 Das Buch Daniel erklart. Kurzer H a n d - C o m m e n t a r zum Alten Testa­ m e n t 18. Tiibingen Mohr. Marti, K., and Beer, G. 1927 'Abot: Vater. Text, Obers. und Erklarung. Die Mischna. Vol. 4.9. Cjiessen: Topelmann. M a s o n , S. 1991 Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Studia Post-Biblica 39. Leiden: Brill. 1992 Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Mattingly, H., a n d Carson, R. A. G. 1923-75 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. British M u s e u m .

9 vols. L o n d o n :

Mayer, G. 1974

Index Philoneus,

Berlin-New York: D e Gruyter.

Mazar, B. 1989 J o s e p h u s Flavius and the Archaeological Excavations in J e r u s a l e m . P p . 325-329 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989. M e l a m e d , E. Z . 1951 J o s e p h u s a n d Maccabees I: A Comparison ( H e b r e w ) . Erez-Israel 1: 122-30. M e r t e n s , A. 1971 Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer. Bibhsche M o n o g r a p h i e n 12. Wiirzburg: Echter Verlag.

Stuttgarter

M e s h o r e r , Y. 1979 S e p p h o r i s and R o m e . Pp. 159-71 m Greek Numismatic and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of M. Thompson, eds. O. M o r k h o l m and N. M. Wag­ goner. W e t t e r n : Mesnil du Buisson, R. D u 1935

L e T e m p l e d ' O n i a s et le c a m p Hyks6s ^ Teli ei Yahoudiye. Bulletin de rinstitut frangaise d'archeologie orientate 35: 59-71.

358

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Michel, ( ) . 1967-68 Studien zu J o s e p h u s . Simon bar CJiora, New Testament 402-8.

Studies

14:

M o e h r i n g , H. R. 1957 Novelistic E l e m e n t s in the Writings of Fiavius J o s e p h u s . Diss.: Univ. of C^hicago. 1959 'Ilie Persecution of the Jews and the A d h e r e n t s of the Isis Cult at R o m e A . D . 19. Novum Testamentum 3 : 293-304. Moller, C , and Schmitt, G. 1976 Siedlungen Paldstinas nach Flavins Josephus.

Wiesbaden: Reicherl.

Momigliano, A. D . 1930 Primee l.inee di Storia della Tradizione Maccabaica. R o m a : Society editrice del F o r o Italico (rp. A m s t e r d a m : H a k k e r t , 1968). 1975 Alien Wisdom: the Limits of IJellenization. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University. 1980 C i 6 che Flavio G i u s e p p e non vide. Introduction to Italian trans., // huon uso del tradimento, of P. Vidal N a q u e t , Fiavius Josephe ou du bon usage de la trahison. R o m e : Editori Riuniti = Pp. 305-17 in Settimo contribulo alia storia degli studi clamci e del moruio antico. 1984. R o m e . 1987 W h a t J o s e p h u s did not see. Pp. 108-119 in On Pagans, Jews and Christians. Middietown, C T : Weslcyan University. = trans, of M o m i ­ gliano 1980 by J. Weinberg. M o m m s e n , T. 1870 C^ornelius Tacitus and C;iuvius Rufus. Hermes 4: 320-22 = Ges. Schr. 7, 1909: 248. M o n t g o m e r y , J. A. 1927 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to the Book of Daniel. tional Critical C o m m e n t a r y . New York: Schribner's Sons.

Interna­

M o o r e , G. F. 1927 Simon the Righteous. Pp. 348-364 m Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion. 1929 F a t e and F r e e Will in t h e Jewish Philosophies According to J o s e p h u s . Han'ard Theoloffcal Review 22: 371-389. Morkholm. O. 1960 A p o s t h u m o u s issue of Antiochus IV of Syria. Numismatic Chronicle 50: 25-30. 1961 Eulaios and Lenaios. Classica et Mediaevalia 22: 32-43. 1963 Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria. Hist.-filos. M e d d . Kgl. D a n . Vid. Selsk. 40 no, 3. 1964 T h e Accession of Antiochus IV of Syria. The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 11: 63-76. 1966 M o r r , J. 1926

Antiochus

of Syria. Classica et medievalia. C o p e n h a g e n : G y l d e n d a l .

Die I-andeskunde von Palastina bei Strabon und J o s e p h u s 8 1 : 256-79.

Philologus

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

M o t z o , R. B. 1924 U n a fonte s a c e r d o t a l e antisamaritana in G i u s e p p e . P p . 180-206 oiSaggf di storia e letieratura giudaico-ellenistica. Firenze: I-e Monnier. 1924a G i u s e p p e e ii 1 Maccabei. Pp. 207-214 of Saggi di storia e letieratura giudaico-ellenistica. Firenze; Le Monnier. 1927 I r c a n o II nella tradizione storica. Saggi cagliarilani di storia e filologia 1: 1-18. R p . with original pagination shown, in idem, Ricerche sulla letieratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica, ed. F. P a r e n t e . R o m a : C e n t r o liditoriale Internazionale, 1977; 719-36. Moulton, J. H., a n d Milligan, G. 1930 The Vocabulary of the Creek Testament. Illustrated from the Papyri and the Other Non-Literary Sources. London. Nadel, B. 1966 J6zef Flawiusz a terminologia rzymskiej inweklywy polityczej [in Polish]: J o s e p h u s Flavius and the Terminology of R o m a n Political Invective). Eos 56: 256-72. Naville, B. 1890 The Mound of the Jews and the City of Onias. M e m o r i e s of the Egyptian Exploration F u n d 7. L o n d o n : K. Paul, T r e n c h , Triibner. 1891 Bubaslis (1887-1889). Eighth Memoir of the Egyptian Exploration F u n d . 2nd ed. L o n d o n : K. Paul, Trench, Triibner. Nestle, E. 1884 Z u D a n i e l . 1) Dan 9,26. Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche 4: 247.

Wisserucliaft

Nestle, W. 1926

Apragmosyne

{Zu Thukydtdes 11 63.}. Philologus 8 1 : 129-140.

Neusner, J. 1972 J o s e p h u s ' Pharisees. P p . 224-44 in Fjc Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo IVidengren Oblata, eds. C J. Bleeker, S. G. F. B r a n d o n , and M. Simon. S u p p l e m e n t s to N u m e n = Studies in the History of Religions 21-2. I-eiden: Brill. 1987 J o s e p h u s ' Pharisees: A C o m p l e t e R e p e r t o i r e . P p . 274-92 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1987. Nicols, J. 1978

Vespasian and the Panes Flavianae.

Wie.sbaden; Steiner.

Niese, B. 1903 Geschichte der griechischen und makedon'ischen Staaten seit der Schlacht von Chaeronea 111. Von 188 bis 120 v.Chr. G o t h a : P e r t h e s . 1914 J o s e p h u s . P p . 569-79 in vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings. E d i n b u r g h : Clark. Noldeke T. 1864 Uber die Amalekiter und einige andre Nachbarvolker der Israeliten, G o t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht. NRSV

New Revised Standard

Version

Obst, E. 1924

J o h a n n e s Hyrkan II. Cols. 788-791 in RE Suppl. 4.

360

BIBLIOGRAPFIY

Oepke, A. 1967 ovotp. Theological OGIS

see Dittenberger,

Dictionary of the New Testament

5.220-38.

W.

P a g a n o n i , M. 1986 Dimenticare Amaiek. Firenze: Giuntina. P a r e n t e , V. 1994 Tout; 'iepoaoX6|ioi(; 'Avxioxeft; avayponpai {// Mace IV,9): G e r u s a ienime 6 mai stata u n a no^icl Rivista di Storia e l^tteralura Religiosa 30: 3-38. Paret, H . 1856 Ober d e n Pharisaismus d e s Josephus. Theologische Studien und Kritlken 29: 836-37. P a r k e r S. T. (cd.) 1987 The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project. 1980-1985, vol. i-2. B A R I n t e r n a t i o n a l Series 340. Oxford: B.A.R. Paul, A. 1992

Fiavius J o s e p h e et les Ess^niens. Pp. 126-38 in D i m a n t a n d R a p p a p o r t 1992.

Petletier, A. 1962 Fiavius Josephe, mlaplateur de la Lettre d'Arislee. Une reaction atticisante contre la koin&. t t u d e s et C o m m e n t a i r e s 45. Paris: Klincksieck. Perles, F . 1921 Notes sur les Apocryphes et Pseudfepigraphes. Revue des Etudes juives 73: 179. Petit. M. 1992

Les Ess6ens d e Phiion d'Alexandrie et les Esseniens. Pp. 139-55 in Dimant a n d R a p p a p o r t 1992.

P e t r i e , W . M. F. 1906 llyksos and the Israelite Cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt. lx>ndon. Petrochilos, N. K. 1974 Roman Attitudes Price. J. 1991 1992

to the Greeks. Athens.

n i e E n i g m a of Philip b e n Jakimos. Historia 40: 75-94. Jerusalem under Siege. I-.eiden: Brill.

Purvis. J. D . 1988

Jerusalem,

The Holy City • A Bibliography.

M e t u c h e n , N J : Scarecrow.

Puscy. F . B. 1876 T h e prophecy of t h e 70 W e e k s and of t h e D e a t h of t h e Messiah, a n d the A t t e m p t s to M a k e t h e 70 W e e k s E n d with Antiochus E p i p h a n e s . Pp. 164-233 of E.B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. 3rd ed. l , o n d o n : P a r k e r (Isl ed. 1864).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

R a b e l l o , A.M. 1980 T h e I^ega! Condition of the Jews in the R o m a n Empire. Pp. 662-762 in vol. 2.13 of Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Rajak, T. 1973 Justus of 1978 M o s e s in 111-22. 1983 Josephus: 1987 Josephus

Tiberia.s, Classical Quarterly 23:345-368. Ethiopia: Legend and Literature. Journal of Jewish Studies 29: Ihe Historian and flis Society, l ^ n d o n : Duckworth. and Justus of Tiberias. Pp. 81-94 in Feldman and I l a t a 1987.

Ranovich. A . B. 1950 Ellenizm i ego istoricheskii roV. Moscow; Izdatelstvo Akademija Nauk. T r a n s , into G e r m a n by K. Diesing and O. Roth, Der Hellenismus und seine geschichtliche Rolle. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958. R a p p a p o r t , U. 1969 l £ S Idumdens en Egypt. Revue de Philologie 43: 73-82. 1972 I.eontopolis. Encyclopaedia Judaica 1 1 : 3 1 . 1977 J o s e p h u s flavius: Notes on his Personality and his Work. flaUmma 15:89-95 ( H e b r e w ) . 1982 J o h n of Gischala: F r o m Galilee to icivs,i\em. Journal of Jewish Studies 33: 479-93. 1983a Judea and Rome: The Jewish Revolts. T h e World History of the Jewish P e o p l e 11. J e r u s a l e m ( H e b r e w ) . 1983b J o h n of CJischala in Galilee. 'The Jemsalem Cathedra 3: 46-57. 1983c J o h n of Gischala in Jerusalem. Pp. 97-115 in The People and Its History, ed. M. Stern ( H e b r e w ) . 1992 'Hie Jewish l.eadership in J e r u s a l e m in the First Half of t h e G r e a t Revolt. Pp. 133-42 in Leaders and Leadership, eds. I. Makkin a n d Z . T z a h o r . J e r u s a l e m : Z . Shazar Center, (Hebrew). RE

A. Pauly, G . Wissowa, and W. Kroll, Realencyclopadie Altertumswissenschaft. 1893-1978.

der

klassischen

R e i n a c h , T. 1900 U n pr^fet juif il y a deux mille ans. Rei/ue des Etudes Juives 40: 50-54. 1930 Flavius Josephe. Contra Apionem. Texte eiabli et annate. Paris. (.Collec­ tion G. B u d e . Reinach, T , C h a m o n a r d , J. et al 1900-32 Oeuvres completes de Flavius Josephe. 7 vols. Paris: Leroux. Rengstorf, K. H . 1964 D i e Stadt der M o r d e r (Mt. 22.7). Pp. 106-29 in Judentum, Urchristen­ tum, Kirche: Festschrift fur Joachim Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester. Beihefte zur 7-eitschrifl fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 26. 2nd ed., Berlin: T d p e l m a n n . 1967 XnoTii<;. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 4.257-62. Rengstorf, K. H . et al 1973-83 A Complete Concordance

to Flavius Josephus. 4 vols. I.eidcn: Brill.

362

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rey-Coquais, J.-P. 1978 Syrie r o m a i n e d e P o m p 6 e A Diocletien. Journal of Roman Studies 68: 44-77. R h o a d s . D . M. 1976 hrael in Revolution: 6-74 CE. A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus. Philadelphia: Fortress. RIC II 1926

The Roman Imperial Coinage II, ed, II. Mattingly et al. L o n d o n : Spink.

Riceiotti, G . 1937

Flavio Giuseppe,

La guerra giudaica.

3 vols. T o r i n o : SF,I.

R o b e r t , J. and L. 1968 Bulletin epigraphique. Revue des Etudes Grecques. 8 1 : 478-79 n o . 325. 1970 Bulletin epigraphique. Revue des Etudes Grecques. 83: 469-73 n o . 627. 1974 Bulletin epigraphique. Revue des Etudes Grecques. 87: 279 n o . 500. 1977 Bulletin epigraphique. Revue des Etudes Grecques. 90: 403 n o . 434. R o b e r t , L. 1927 Sur le t r a i t s d'isopolitie enlre P e r g a m e et T e m n o s . Revue des Etudes Grecques 40: 214-19 = 1969. 1964 Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes. Paris: Maisonneuve. 1969 Sur le t r a i t s d'isopolitie e n t r e P e r g a m e et T e m n o s . Pp. 214-23 of Opera Minora Selecta, vol. 1. A m s t e r d a m : H a k k e r l = 1927. Rosch, M. 1834 D i e 70 W o c h e n des Buches Daniel genau chronologisch nachgewiesen. Theologische Studien und Kritiken 7: 276-303. Ro.stovtzeff. Ivt. I. 1957 Social and Economic Clarendon.

History of the Roman

Empire.

2nd ed. Oxford:

Rowley, H . H. 1959 Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Danlek A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories. Cardiff: University of W a l e s . Safrai. S. 1963 1965

W a s T h e r e a W o m e n ' s Gallery in the Ancient Synagogue? Tarbiz 32: 329-38 ( H e b r e w ) . Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple. Tel-Aviv: A m H a s e f e r (Hebrew).

Safrai, S.; Stern M.; et al. (eds.) 1974-76 The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 1-2. A s s e n / A m s l e r d a m : V a n Gorcum. Safrai. Z . 1989 D u k h a n , A r o n and Teva; H o w W a s the Ancient Synagogue F u r n i s h e d ? Pp. 69-84 in Ancient Synagogues in Israel: Third-Seventh Century C.E., ed. R. Hachlili. B A R International Series 499. Oxford: B.A.R. 1989a T h e Description of ihe Land of Israel in J o s e p h u s ' W o r k s . P p . 295-324 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sailer. R. P. 1982 Personal Patronage University.

under the Early Empire.

Salvador, J. 1847 Histoire de la domination Scribe.

romaine

en Judee.

363

C a m b r i d g e : C'ambridge

2 vols. Paris: Guyot et

Sanders, E. P. 1992 Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE • 66 CE. L o n d o n : S C M ; Philadel­ phia: Trinity. Sartre, M. 1991 L'Orient romain. Provinces el societh provinciates orientale d'Auguste aux Severes. Paris: Seuil.

en

Mediterranee

Satran, D . 1980 D a n i e l : Seer, Prophet, Holy Man. Pp. 33-48 in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, eds. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Chico: Scholars. Saulnier, C. Forth- IM. cit6 hell6nistique d e J e r u s a l e m A I'epoque du grand prSire Jason, coming Transeuphratene 6-7. Sawyer J. F. A. - Clines D . J. A. (eds.) 1987 Midian, Moab and Edom. The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan afid North-west Arabia. Journal for the Study of the Old T e s t a m e n t S u p p l e m e n t Series 24. Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c . Schafer, P. 1977 T h e Hellenistic and M a c c a b a e a n Periods. Pp.539-604 in Israelite and Judaean History, eds. J. H . Hayes and J. M. Miller. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1991 D e r vorrabbinische Pharisaismus. Pp.125-175 in Paulus und das antike Judentum, eds. M. Hengel and U. Heckel. Tiibingen; Mohr. Schalit, A. 1938-39 H a s H y r c a n u s b e e n appointed "Brother of the King?". Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 6: 145-48 ( H e b r e w ) . 1960 King Herod. J e r u s a l e m ; Bialik ( H e b r e w ; rev. G e r m a n ed. 1969). 1962 Die friihchristliche Uberlieferung iiber die Herkunft d e r Familie des H e r o d e s . Ein Beitrag Geschichte der politischen Invektive in J u d a a . Annals of the Swedish Theological Institute 1; 109-160. 1968 Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus. A C'omplete C^oncordance to J o s e p h u s Flavius, Supp. 1, ed. K. H. Rengstorf. Leiden: Brill. 1969 Konig Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk. Studia Judaica 4. Berlin: de G r u y t e r (rev. G e r m a n ed. of 1960). Schlatter, A. 1893 Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palastinas. Stuttgart: V e r e i n s b u c h h . 1913 D i e h e b r a i s c h e n N a m e n bei Josephus. Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologe 17. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann (rp. 1970; 143-263). 1923 D e r Bericht iiber d a s E n d e Jerusalems: Ein Dialog mit Wilhelm W e b e r . Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie 28. G u t e r s l o h : B e r t e l s m a n n (rp. 1970: 1-68).

364 1970

BIBUOCJRAPHY Kleinere Schriften zu Plavius Josephus, ed. K. H. Rengstorf. D a r m s t a d t : Wissensch. Buchgesellschaft.

Schreckenberg, H . 1968 Bibliographie zu Fiavius Josephus. I.eiden: Brill. 1979 Bihliographie zu Fiavius Josephus. Supplementband l £ i d e n : Brill.

init

Gesamtregister.

Schreiner S. 1979 Mischehen - F.hebruch - F.hescheidung. Betrachlungen zu Mai 2,10-16. Zeitschriff filr die altieslamentliche Wissenschaft 9 1 : 207-28. Schiirer, H. 1901-11 Geschichte des jikiischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. .3rd a n d 4th ed. vol. 1-4. Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1973-87 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Je^us Christ (175 B.C. • A.D. rev. and cd. G . V e r m e s et al. 3 vols, in 4. Hdinburgh: Clark. Schwabe, M., a n d Me lamed, B. 1928 Z u m Text d e r Scronepisode in I Mace, und bei J o s e p h u s . Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 72: 202-4. Schwartz, D . R. 1981 Priesthood a n d Priestly Descent: Josephus, >ln((^(/(e5 10.80. y o u m a / of Theological Studies 32; 129-35. 1983 J o s e p h u s a n d Nicolaus on the Pharisees. Journal for the Study of Judaism 14:157-171. 1983-84 J o s e p h u s on t h e Jewish Constitutions and Community. Scripta Classica Lsraelica 7: 30-52. 1987 Wilderness and T e m p l e : on Religion a n d State in J u d a e a in t h e Second T e m p l e Period. P p . 61-78 in Priesthood and Kingship. J e r u s a l e m : Z a i m a n Shazar C e n t e r ( H e b r e w ) . 1987a Agrippa I, The iMSt King of Judaea. Jerusalem: Z a i m a n Shazar C e n t e r ( H e b r e w ; English trans. 1990). 1987b O n A b r a h a m Schalit, H e r o d , Josephus, the Holocaust, Horst R. Moehring, and the Study of Ancient Jewish History. Jewish History 2/2:9-28. 1989-90 O n D r a m a and Authenticity in Philo and J o s e p h u s . Scripta Classica Israelica 10: 113-129. 1990 Affippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tubingen: M o h r ( = rev. Engl, trans, of 1987a). 1992 Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Wissenschaftliche U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m N e u e n T e s t a m e n t 60. Tubingen: M o h r (Siebeck). Schwartz, J. 1985 B e ' e r H a - Q a r , B 6 r Hecjer a n d the Seleucid A i r a . Cathedra 3 7 ; 3-16 (Hebrew). 1991 O n c e M o r e on t h e Nicanor G a t e . Hebrew Union College Annual 62: 245-283. Schwartz, S. 1990 Josephus arid Judaean Politics. Leiden; Brill. 1993 A N o t e on t h e Social Type and Political Ideology of t h e H a s m o n e a n Family. Journal of Biblical Literature 112: 305-9.

BIBJ.IOGRAPHY

Scott. J. 1977

365

P a t r o n a g e or Exploitation. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, ed. E. Gellner and J. Waterbury. L o n d o n : Duckworth.

Seeligmann, I. L. 1948 The Septtiaginl Version of Isaiah. A Discussion of its Problems. M e d e d e lingen en V e r h a n d e l i n g e n n. 9 van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch g e n o o t s c h a p "Ex O r i e n t e Lux". Leiden: Brill. SEG

Supplementum

Elpigraphicum

Graecum

Seyrig, H . 1950 Irenopolis - Neronias - Sepphoris. Numismatic Chronicle 10: 284-89 rp. in \\\s Scripta Numismalica, Paris 1986, 461-66). 1955 Irenopolis - Neronias - Sepphoris: An Additional Note. Numismatic Chronicle 15: 157-59 (rp. in his Scripta Numismalica, Paris 1986. 467-69). Shaw, B. 1984

Bandits in the R o m a n E m p i r e . Past anti Preseiu 105: 3-52.

S h e r w i n - W h i t e , A. N. 1973 TVte Roman Citizenship.

2nd ed. (1st edn., 1939). Oxford: C l a r e n d o n .

Shutt, R. J. 1961 Studies in Josephus. London: SPCK. Sievers, J. 1989 ITie Role of W o m e n in the H a s m o n e a n Dynasty. Pp. 132-46 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1989. 1990 The Hasmoneans arul Their Supporters; From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I. U S F Studies in the History of Judaism 6. A t l a n t a : Scholars. Silverman, S. 1977 P a t r o n a g e as Myth. In Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean ed. E. G e l l n e r and J. Waterbury, London: Duckworth. Simons, J. 1952 Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill. 1959 The Geographical and Topo^aphical Texts of the Old Testament. Brill. Sixtus Senensis 1566 Bibliotheca

Societies,

Leiden:

Sancta. Venice: Gryphius.

Smallwood, E. M. 1956 D o m i t i a n ' s Attitude Toward the Jews and Judaism. Classical Philology 5 1 : 1-13. 1970 Philonis Alexandnni Legatio ad Gaium, Leiden: Brill. 1976 The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: Brill (corr. rp. 1981). Smith, G . A. 1894 The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. L o n d o n : H o d d e r Stoughton (rp. L o n d o n and Glasgow: Collins 1973).

&

366

B ! B L I O ( ; R A P H Y

Smith, J. 7,. 1985 Wliat a Difference a Difference Makes. P p . 3-48 in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity, eds. J. N e u s n e r and H. S. Frerichs. Scholars Press Studies in the H u m a n i t i e s . Chico, C A : Scholars. Smith, Morton 1951a Tannailic Parallels to the Gospels. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature. 1951b T h e So-called Biography of David in the books of S a m u e l a n d Kings. Harvard Theological Review 44: 167-69. 1952 T h e C o m m o n Ilieology of the Ancient N e a r East. Journal of Biblical Literature 7 1 : 135-147. 1954 T h e Manuscript Tradition of Kidore of Pelusium. Harvard Theological Review 47: 205-210. 1956 Palestinian J u d a i s m in the First Century. P p . 67-81 in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, cd. M o s h e Davis. New York: Jewish 'Hieological Semi­ nary/Harper. 1958a An U n p u b l i s h e d Life of St. Isidore of Pelusium, edited from m a n u ­ scripts in A t h e n s and Mt. Athos. Eucharisierion: Timetikos Tomos Hainiika S. Alivizntoa. ed. G. Kondiares. 429-38. A t h e n s . 1958b T h e image of G o d : Notes on the Hellenization of J u d a i s m . Bulletin of the John Rytands Library. 40: 473-512. 1958c 'Hie Description of the Essenes in J o s e p h u s and the P h i l o s o p h o u m e n a . Hebrew Union College Annual 29: 273-313. 1960-61 T h e D e a d S e a Sect in Relation to Ancient J u d a i s m . New Testament Studies 7: 347-60. 1965 Heroes and Gods (vnlh Moses H a d a s ) . New Y o r k : H a r p e r & R o w . 1967 G o o d e n o u g h ' s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect. Journal of Biblical Litera­ ture 88: 53-66. 1968 Htstorical M e t h o d in the Study of Religion. History and Theory. Beihefl 8: 8-16. 1971a Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. New York: C o l u m b i a Unversity. 1971b P r o l e g o m e n a to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine M e n , t h e G o s p e l s , and Jesus. Journal of Biblical Literature. 90: 174-99. 1971c Z e a l o t s and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations. Harvard Theological Review 64: 1-19. 1975 O n th Wine CJod in Palestine. P p . 815-29 in Salo Baron Jubilee Volume, cd. S. L i e b e r m a n . New Y o r i i / J e r u s a l e m : A m e r i c a n A c a d e m y for Jewish R e s e a r c h . 1977 Messiahs: R o b b e r s , Jurists, Prophets, and Magicians. Proceedings of the Amencan Academy for Jewish Research 44: 185-195. 1978a Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: H a r p e r & R o w . 1978b O n the History of the 'Divine Man.' Pp. 335-45 in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon. Parts: De Boccard. 1980 Pauline Worship as Seen by Pagans. Harvard Theological Review 7 3 : 241-250. 1981 T h e History of the T e r m 'Gnostikos.'Pp. 796-807 in vol. 2 of The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, ed. B. Layton. I ^ i d c n : Brill.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

367

1982 1983a

Helios in Palestine. Eretz Israel 16: 199-214 (English section). O n the History of AtlOKAAYnm and AUOKAAYriE. Pp. 9-20 in H e l l h o l m 1989. 1983b Terminological Boobytraps and Real Problems in Second T e m p l e Judaeo-Christian Studies. Pp. 295-306 in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions. 1984 Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period. Pp.219-78 in Cambridge History of Judaism, vol I: The Persian Period, ed. W. D . Davies. C a m ­ bridge: C a m b r i d g e University. 1987 A Note on S o m e Jewish Assimilationists: the Angels. Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 16-17: 207-212. Forthcoming: T h e Gentiles in Judaism. Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3. Solin, H . 1983

J u d e n und Syrer im westtichen Teil der romischen Welt. Pp. 587-789 in vol. 2.29.2 of Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen WeU.

Sparks, H. F. D . 1984 The Apocryphal

Old Testament.

Oxford: C l a r e n d o n .

Strack, L. M. 1902-3 Inschriften aus der Ptolemaerzeit II. Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung 537-561.

1:

Steckholl, S. H. 1967 T h e Q u m r a n Sect in Relation to the T e m p l e of Leontopolis. Revue de Qumran 2 1 : 55-69. Stegemann, H . 1989 Die B e d e u t u n g der Q u m r a n f u n d e fiir die Erforschung der Apokalyptic. Pp. 495-530 Hellholm 1989. Stein, M. 1959 J o s e p h u s Flavius, IJfe (translated into Hebrew), Tel-Aviv. Sterling, G. E. 1992 Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Novum T e s t a m e n t u m Suppl. 64. I ^ i d e n : Brill. Stern, M. 1960 T h e D e a t h of Onias III (2 Mace 4.30-38). Zion 25: 1-16 ( H e b r e w ) . 1965 T h e Books of M a c c a b e e s and 'Jewish Antiquities' as Sources for the H a s m o n e a n Revolt and the H a s m o n e a n State ( H e b r e w ) . Pp. 7-11 in his 77ie Documents on the History of the Hasmonean Revok. Tel- Aviv: H a k i b b u t z H a m e u h a d . R p . as pp. 37-48 in The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt, ed. B. Bar-Kochva. Tel-Aviv: H a k i b b u t z H a m e u h a d , 1980. 1973 7..t2\o\%. Encyclopaedia Judaica, ^czT^ooV 1973: 135-52. 1974-84 Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y of Sciences and Humanities. 1983 T h e Sources for the G r e a t Revolt. Pp. 89-112 in R a p p a p o r t 1983a. 1987 J o s e p h u s and the R o m a n E m p i r e as Reflected in "ITie Jewish War." Pp. 71-80 in F e l d m a n and H a t a 1987.

368

1987a

1991 1992 1992a

BIBLIOGRAPHY

J o s e p h u s the Historian of the Jewish War. Pp. 41-57 in Studies in Historiography,, ed. J. Salmon, M. Stern, and M. Z i m m e r m a r m . J e r u s a ­ lem: Z a i m a n Shazar C e n t e r for Jewish History ( H e b r e w ) . Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period, eds. M . Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. H e r r . Jerusalem: Y a d Izhak Ben-Zvi ( H e b r e w ) . The fCingdom of Herod. Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defence ( H e b r e w ) . 'Antioch in Jerusalem"; T h e Gymnasium, the Polis and the Rise of M e n e l a u s . Zion 57: 233-46 ( H e b r e w ) .

Stillwell, R. (ed.) 1938 Antioch on-the-Orontes //. The Excavations 1933-1936. Princeton; Princeton Univ. Strange, J. 1991 J e r u s a l e m s topografi i h a s m o n s i s k tid. A k r a - p r o b l e m e t . Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 54: 81-94. Strauss, H . I960 T h e F a t e and F o r m of the M e n o r a h of the M a c c a b e e s . Eretz-Israel 122-29 ( H e b r e w ) . Swain. J. 1940

6;

T h e T h e o r y of the Four Monarchies: opposition history u n d e r the R o m a n l i m p i r e . Classical Philology 35: 1-21.

Taylor, J. E . 1980 Seleucid Rule in Palestine ( D u k e Univ. diss., 1979). Ann A r b o r : Univ. Microfilms. T c h e r i k o v e r , V. 1937 Palestine under the Ptolemies. Mizraim 4 / 5 ; 7-90. 1959 Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Trans, from H e b r e w by S. A p p l e ­ b a u m . Philadelphia: JPS. T c h e r i k o v e r V. A.; Fuks, A.; Stern, M. see CPJ Tchernowitz, H. 1946 'ITie Pairs and the House of O n i a s . P p . 232-47 in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume. New York: A m . Acad, for Jewish R e s e a r c h ( H e b r e w ) . T h a c k e r a y , H. St. J. 1904 J o s e p h u s . Pp. 461-473 mA Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings. Extra V o l u m e (5). Edinburgh: Clark. 1929 Josephus: The Man and the Historian. N.Y.: J I R ( R p . N e w York: Ktav 1967). T h a c k e r a y , H. St. J.; Marcus, R.; Wikgren. A.; and F e l d m a n , L. H . 1926-65 Josephus with an English Translation in 9 (10) vols; LCX. d o n - C a m b r i d g e , M A : H e i n e m a n n - H a r v a r d University. T h o m a s , J. 1895 A m a l e c , AmalCcite. Cols. 426-32 in Dictionnaire Paris: I x t o u z e y .

de la Bible.

T o m s o n . P . J. 1986 Tlie N a m e s Israel and Jew in Ancient J u d a i s m . Bijdragen: voor fdosofie en theologie 47: 120-40.

Lon­

Vol. 1,

Tijdschrift

BrBLIOGRAPHY

369

Trebilco, P. 1991 Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Society for New T e s t a m e n t Studies, M o n o g r a p h Series 69. Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University. Trever, J. C. 1985 T h e B o o k of Daniel and the Origin of the Q u m r a n C o m m u n i t y . Biblical Archaeologist 48: 89-102. Triidinger, K. 1918 Studien Basel.

zur Geschichte

der gnechisch-rbmischen

Ethnographie.

Diss.

T r u m a n , H. S. 1960 Mr. Citizen. New York: R a n d o m H o u s e . Tsafrir, Y. 1975 T h e Ix)cation of the Seleucid Akra in J e r u s a l e m . Revue Biblique 82: 501-21. 1980 T h e Site of the Seleucid Akra in J e r u s a l e m . Cathedra 14: 17-40 (Hebrew). Unnik, W. C. van 1978 Varneda

Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller.

V a t a b l e . F. 1745 Biblia Sacra cum universis Franc. Vatabli, annotationibus. liditio postrema. Paris. Vaux, R. d e 1936

Heidelberg: Schneider.

see Villalba i V a r n e d a , P.

Binjamin-Minjamin.

et vanonim

interpretum

Revue Biblique 45: 400-402.

Vermes, G. 1981 T h e F s s e n e s and History. Journal of Jewish Studies 32,1: 18-31. 1982 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. Revised edition. L o n d o n : Collins. 1987 The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 3rd ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. V e r m e s , G., and G o o d m a n , M. D., eds. 1989 The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Oxford C e n t r e T e x t b o o k s 1. Sheffield: J S O T . V e r m e s , G. and Millar, F. et al (eds.) see Schurer 1973-87. Villalba i V a r n e d a , P. 1986 The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Leiden: Brill. Vincent. A. 1937

La religion des judeo-arameens

d'Elephantine.

Paris: G e u t h n e r .

Vincent, L. H . 1908-09 J e r u s a l e m d ' a p r e s la lettre d'Aristee. Revue Biblique 17: 520-532; 18: 555-575. Vincent, L. H., and Stfive, M. A. 1954-56 Jirusalem de VAncien Testament. 2 vols. Paris: G a b a l d a .

370

BIBUOGRAPHY

W a c h o l d e r , B. Z . 1979 MessimLsm

and Mishiali:

Time and Place

in the Early

Halakhah.

Cincinnati: H e b r e w U n i o n College. W a c h o l d e r B. Z.. and Abegg M. G. 1992 A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. The Hebrew and Aramaic Texts from Coi'e Four. Fascicle 2. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society. WSchter, I.. 1969 D i e unterschiedliche H a l t u n g der Pharisaer, S a d d u z a e r und lissener zur Heimarmene nach d e m Bericht des J o s e p h u s . Zeitschrift fiir Religionsund Geislesgeschichte 2 1 : 97-114. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989

Patronage

in Ancient Society, L o n d o n - N e w York: R o u t l e d g e .

Weber, W. 1921 Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem Jiidischen K/ieg des Fiavius Josephus. Berlin: K o h l h a m m e r (rp. H i l d e s h e i m : OUns 1973). W e i p p e r t , M. 1982

E d o m und I s r a e l Theologische

Realeniyklopddie

9: 291-99.

Weiss, H . - F . 1979 Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: zur Darstellung des J u d e n t u m s im ( T c s c h i c h t s w e r k des judischen Historikers Fiavius J o s e p h u s . Orientaiistiiche Literaturzeitung 74: 4 2 1 - 4 3 3 . W e l l h a u s e n , J. 1905 U e b e r den geschichtlichen W e n des zweiten M a k k a b a e r b u c h s im V e r h a l t o i s zum ersten. Nachrichten von der kdniglichen GeselLschaft der Wisssenschaften zu Gottingen. Philol.-hist. Klasse 117-63. Whiston, W. 1987 The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Edition. P e a b o d y M A : H e n d r i c k s o n Publishers (Original e d . 1737]. W h i t t a k e r , M. 1984 Jews and Christians: University.

Graeco-Roman

Views. C a m b r i d g e ;

Cambridge

Wieseler, C. 1839 Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel erortert und erliiuiert. Gottingen: V a n d e n h o e k & Ruprecht. W i g h t m a n , G. J. 1989-90 T e m p l e Fortresses in J e r u s a l e m , Part I; 'Hie P t o l e m a i c a n d Seleucid Akras. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel

Archaeological

Wilcken, U . 1927 Urkunden der Plolemderzeit (Altere Funde). UnterHgypten. Berlin-Leipzig:

Society 9: 29-40.

Erster Band. Papyri

aus

Will, E., a n d U r c h e , F 1991 Iraq el Amir. Le chateau du Tobiade Hyrcan. Institut Fran^ais d ' A r c h 6 o logie et du Proche O r i e n t . Bei r u t - D a m a s c u s - A m m a n .

BrBLIOCiRAPHY

371

Williams, M. H . 1990

D o m i t i a n , the Jews, and the 'Judaizers'. Historia 39: 196-211.

Willrich, I I . 1895 Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabdischen Erhebung. Gottingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. 1901 D e r Chelkiasstein. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte d e r J u d e n in Aegypten. Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung 1: 48-56. Wills, L. M. 1990 The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court M i n n e a p o l i s : Fortress.

Legends.

Yadin, Y. 1977-83 The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Yavetz, Z . 1975 Reflections on Titus and Josephus. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 16; 411-32. Zeitlin, S. 1947-48 T h e W a r n i n g Inscriptions of the T e m p l e . Jewish Quarterly Review 38: 111-16. 1950 Introduction. The First Book of Maccabees. New York: H a r p e r . 1962-78 77ie Rise and Fall of the Judean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Secorui Commonwealth. Vol. 1-3. Philadelphia: J P S . Z i m m e r l i , W. 1954 D i e Eigenart d e r prophetischen R e d e des Ezechiel: Ein Beitrag zum P r o b l e m an H a n d von Ez. 14,1-11. Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wisssenschafi 66: 1-26. Z o r e l l , F. 1911 Novi Testamend Lexicon Graecum. Paris.

JNDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

1. JOSEPHUS Against

Apion

I § ( ( §29 1 5 36 1 §41 1 §47 1 §§ 47-56 1 §48 ! §50 1 §51 1 §54 1 §55 I §56 1 §§ 60-68 1 §73 1 § 129 1 §§ 178-79 1 § 189 I § § 197-99 1 § 207 1 § 209 1 §211 1 § 250 1 §252 I §275 J §294 1 § 298 1 §312 1 § 317 2§8 2 §28 2 §35 2 §39 2 §40 2 §§ 49-51 2 §49 2 §65 2 §68 2 § 73 2 § 125

102, 259 259 43 58 259 288 288, 322 41 336 30. 187 287 248 256, 260. 261 29 29 25, 36 19 234 170 234 170 30, 31 29 29 170 29, 170 170 29 29 29 13 13, 20 333 80 80 21 50 336 336

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

§ 135 § 138 §§ 173-4 §§ 182-3 § 185 § 193 § 196 § m § 20] § 204 § 206 § 207 §§ 237-86 § 237 §§271-2 § 272 §§ 291-2 § 294

43 29 335 335 57 336 335 335 335 335 335 335 335 65 335 49 335 335

Antiquilies 1 § 4 1 §§ 6-7 1 § 6 I § 8 1 § 11 1 §§ 14, IS, 20 1 § 21 1 §§ 24-25, 45 1 § § 4 6 - 5 1 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 72 1 § 92 1 § 108 1 § 117 1 §§ 135, 137, 142 1 § 150 I § 154 I § 167 1 §§ 171-75 1 § 174

167, 336 183 168 102 70 168 20, 168 168 169 257, 260 328 50 259 260 57 57 117 115, 116

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES (Antiquities) 1 § 176 65 1 § 187 29 1 §§ 194-95 169 1 § 220 29 1 § 226 168 1 §§ 228-31 63 1 § 244 252, 260 1 § 336 117 1 §§ 18-20 168 2 §§ 1-5 117 2 §§ 5-6 116 2 § 18 250. 260 2 §§41-59 63 2 §§ 94, 101 65 2 §§ 238-53 155. 251 2 §238 316 2 §§ 244-47 250 2 §§ 249-50 256. 259 2 §§ 264-65 256. 260 2 §290 45 3 §§ 1-2 256, 260 3 § 12 323 3 § 13 57 3 §§ 19-2! 323 3 § 19 45 3 §§ 39ff 120 3 §§ 39-62 118 3 §40 117 3 §81 328 3 §§ 158, 187 259 3 §§214-18 129-30 3 §257 259 3 §268 328 3 §§ 304-5, 311-14 119 3 § 322 12, 21 3 § 323 328 119 4 §§ 1-8 323 4 §§ 11 4 § 12 50 4 §22 323 4 §§ 45-53 169 4 §§ 83-89 119 4 §§ 85, 95 256, 259, 260 4 § 100 252-53. 255, 257. 260 4 § § 102-24 119 4 § 125 172 4 § 140 50 4 §§ 154-55 169

373

328 4 § 158 4 § 190 323 4 §§ 198-302 11 4 § 204 12 4 §207 65 11 4 § 223 4 §303 171 4 § 304 120 4 § 304 118 4 § 308 259 4 §§ 312-314 169 171, 175 4 §313 4 § 314 176 57 4 § 328 4 § 331 259 256. 260 5 §§ 77-78 169 5 §§ 107-9 5 § 174 259 5 §§ 186. 210-29, 255-56, 274 120 63 5 §§ 318-36 5 § 532 31 234 5 §§ 622-23 169 6 §§ 3-7 6 §20 323 6 §54 31 121 6 §§ 129, 131-55, 132-33 6 §§ 133 120 121 6 §§ 136-40 6 §§ 147-51 169 6 § 155 122 6 § 244 29 6 §§ 285-89 326 122 6 §§ 323, 336 6 §350 259 6 §§ 356-67 112. 122 6 §§ 360-61 29 6 §371 122 122 7 §§ 1-6 7§6 29 7 § § 38 259 7 §47 30 7 §61 29 317 7 §§ 74-5 7 §83 30 122 7 §§ 108-9 7 §207 323 7 §315 29-30 7 §330 29 7 §§ 390-91 58

374

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Antiquilies) 1 § 393 7 § 394 8 § 76 8 §§ 95-98 8 §§ 116-17 8 §§ 127-29 8 § 174 8 §§ 190-98 8 §200 8 § 262 8 § 265. 284 8 §§ 296-97 8 §§ 313-14 8 § 343 8 § 350, 352 8 §§ 4 1 8 - 2 0 9 § 7 9 §58 9 §§ 103-4 9 § 186 9 § 188 9 §§ 188-98 9 § 211 9 § 216 9 § 245 10 §§ 9-10 10 § 3 3 10 § 3 5 10 §§ 37-39 10 §§ 40. 6 0 10 § 80 10 §§ 8 9 - 9 0 10 §§ 114, 119 10 § 122 10 § 139 10 § 143 10 §§ 185-276 10 §§ 185-281 10 § 188 10 § 189 I 0 § 190 10 § 194 10 § 195 10 § 198 10 §§ 203-15 10 § 204 10 § 207 10 §§ 208-9

204 259 29-30 234 65 323 260 169 29 328 169 323 169 47 48 171 252, 260 322 169 30 117, 123 123 29 30 112 323 175 171 169 175 30. 176 175-76 176 29 175-76 328 311 168 327 31] 169.311 169, 176, 177, 311 183 185 136 318 172 171

10 § 210 10 § 211 10 § 212 10 §§ 2 1 4 - 1 5 10 § 214 10 § 215 10 §§ 218-32 10 § 237 10 §§ 246, 248 10 §§ 250-52 10 § 250 10 §§ 2 5 7 - 5 8 10 § 262 10 §§ 264-65 10 § 266 10 § 267 10 § 268 10 §§ 269-76 10 § 275 10 § 276 10 §§ 2 7 7 - 8 0 10 § 281 11 §§ 3 - 5 11 §§ 11-22 11 § 61 11 § 111 M § 198 11 § 207 11 § 209 11 § 2 1 1 11 § 2 7 7 11 § 2 9 6 11 §§ 297, 301 H § 302 11 § 3 3 4 , 337 11 § 3 4 7 12 § 4 3 12 § 4 4 12 § 108 12 § 119 12 §§ 125-27 12 §§ 133, 138 12 § 154 12 §§ 156-59 12 § 157 12 § 160 12 §§ 169, 175-85 12§2J2

136, 172 183 170. 177 169 176 177 170 31 170 326 177 170 169 260 170 171, 185 171 173 168 168, 172, 174 168 328 174 147 27 57 37 24, 34 2 9 . 124 124 29, 32, 124 201 205 29 174 69 69 70, 84 11 13 12 195, 197 71 83 69, 70. 84 84 203 313

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Antiquities) 12 § 224 12 § 236 12 §§ 237-56 12 §§ 237-39 12 § 2 5 1 12 § 252 12 §§ 257-64 12 § 261 12 § 267 12 § 2 6 8 12 § 269 12 §§ 270-71 12 § 270 12 § 271 12 § 272 12 §§ 275-84 12 §§ 280-82 12 § 280 12 § 283 12 §§ 284, 286 12 §§ 287, 288 12 §§ 290-91 12 § 292 12 § 293 12 § 300 12 §§ 302-3 12 §§ 302-4 12 § 302 12 § 304 12 § 306 12 § 307 12 § 308 12 § 312 12 § 314 12 § 315 12 § 316 12 § 3 1 7 12 § 3 1 8 12 § 320 12 § 321 12 § 322 12 § 327 12 §§ 327-28 12 §§ 327-29 12 § 330 12 § 332 12 § 333 12 §§ 337, 339

70, 83 72 43 77-79. 95, 97 205 199 42 70 45 50 51 48 42 45 84 44 46 49 50 49 51 64, 65 51,57 65 53 46 64 65 47 51 64, 66 52 46, 58 58, 64 47 53 64 52 66 64 174 54, 66 27 54, 66 53 52 66 55

12 § 343 12 § 344 12 § 352 12 § 353 12 § 362 12 §§ 362-65 12 §§ 371, 372 12 §§ 375-82 12 § 382 12 §§ 383-88 12 §§ 387-88 12 § 388 12 § 392 12 § 393 12 § 395 12 § 4 0 1 12 § 402 12 § 403 12 § 405 12 § 4 0 6 12 §§ 408-9 12 § 408 12 §§ 409-10 12 §§ 410-411 12 § 4 1 1 12 §§ 414, 419 12 § 422 12 §§ 423-25 12 § 424 12 § 4 2 5 12 §§ 430-31 12 § 433 13 §§ 5-6 13 § 5 13 §§ 14, 21 13 §§ 25, 28 13 § 29 13 §§ 33. 38 13 § 4 2 13 § 4 3 13 § 4 8 13 § 5 0 13 § 5 5 13 § 61 13 §§ 62-68 13 § 6 2 13 §§ 62-73 13 §§ 62-63 13 §§ 63ff

375

52, 66 52 54, 59 27, 66 199 195 55, 56 56 56, 78 78, 97 79 316 205 56 50 52 53 54 42 53 64 42 53 66 42 57 42, 47. 55 55, 56 58 47 56 47 47 47. 58 42 59 62 59 206 59, 69 59 26 60. 204 43, 79 81 79 79. 85 80 316

376

TNDF.X OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Antiquities) 13 §§ 64-71 13 § 68 13 §§ 70, 71 13 §§ 80-108 13 §§ 83 13 § 85 13 §§ 8 8 13 §§ 94, 9 5 13 §§ 97, 9 8 13 § 99 13 § 102 13 §§ 121-34 13 § 121 13 § 122 13 § 131 13 § 133 13 §§ 145-70 13 § 146 13 §§ 148, 149 13 § 154 13 § 156 13 § 161 13 § 163 13 § 169 13 §§ 171-73 13 § 172 13 §§ 174-214 13 §§ 176, 177 13 § 181 13 § 182 13 § 195 13 § 198 13 §§ 2 0 1 , 205-206 13 § 212 13 §§ 213, 214 13 §§ 215-217 13 § 223 13 §§ 228-35 13 §§ 231-33 13 §§ 231-35 13 §§ 236-48 13 § 245 13 § 247 13 §§ 251-59 13 § 255 13 §§ 255-58 13 § 256 13 §§ 257-58

80 79 81 43 61 62 207 60 62 60 60, 207 43 61, 195 60 30 6 1 . 199 43 62 60 27 62 42 42. 61 61 168 30 43 61 62 61, 195 61 62 63 61 63 201-2 201 131-2 324 135 132 203 195, 204 132 29 133 132 113

13 §§ 260-66 13 §§ 282-88 13 § 285 13 § 287 13 §§ 288-300 13 §§ 288-298 13 §§ 291 13 § 2 9 2 13 § 297 13 §§ 299-300 13 § 3 0 2 13 § § 3 1 1 - 1 2 13 § 311 13 § 3 2 1 13 § 322 13 § 3 2 3 13 § 324 13 §§ 379-83 13 §§ 383-88 13 §§ 407-8 13 § 407 13 § 408 13 § 411 13 § 417 13 §§ 422ff 13 §§ 422-23 13 § 424 13 §§ 430-31 14 §§ 4-7 14 § 6 14 § 7 14 §§ 8-14 14 §§ 8-9 14 § 8 14 § 9 14 § 13 14 § 18 14 §§ 19-33 14 §§ 21-25 14 § 28 14 §§ 30-31 14 § 3 1 14 §§ 34-36 14 § 4 1 14 § 43 14 § 44 14 § 5 8 14 § 6 8 14 § 7 1

133 128, 129 85, 316 85 134 230 129 135 30 127, 128, 131, 136 216 177 30 221 129 216, 2 2 1 , 224 221 216 95 216, 222 210, 228 221 220 219, 220 222 223 210 219-20, 223, 226 226 221, 224 213, 218 220, 228-29 213 32, 218 32 210, 2 2 1 , 228 226 213-14 225-26 260 226 214 226 129. 225-26 225 210, 223 226 45 221

INDEX OF ANCIEMT SOURCES

(Antiquities) 14 §§ 74-76 14 §§ 77-78 J 4 § 77 14 § 79 14 § 8 2 14 § 127 14 § 137 14 §§ (38-39 14 § 140 14 §§ 144, 156 14 §§ 157-58 14 § 163 H § § I63ff 14 § 165 14 §§ 167, 177 14 § 179 14 § 181 14 § 188 14 § 191 14 §§ 192, 200 14 § 226 14 § 228 14 § 235 14 §§ 259-60 14 § 2 8 3 14 §§ 325-26 14 § 403 14 § 422 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

217, 218 217, 218, 220 220, 226 218 226 211 211, 327 212 224 211 210, 229 231 220 226 231 210, 226, 228 231 B 336 211 18 14 1 4 , 18 18 213 227 27 256, 259 220 M 490-91 §20 220 § 96 253, 257, 260 §§ 165-78 231 § 165 210 23] § 174 § 177 210 § 182 210, 220 29, 32 §§ 253-55 § 257 26 § § 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 299-316 260 U 319-22 32 §§ 331-41 260 § 333 2 5 3 , 254, 257 § 364 253, 254, 257, 259 §§ 371-79 145, 146, 169. 177 §§ 380-425 234 § 39J 235, 239 §400 234 §409 35

15 § 4 1 0 15 §§ 418-19 16 §§ 142-43 16 § 145 16 § 160 16 § 187 16 §§ 271-73 16 §§ 3 9 5 - 9 8 16 § 398 17 § 7 8 17 § 141 17 §§ 168-71 17 § 254 17 § § 300-301 17 §§ 318-19 17 § 324 17 § 340 17 § 346 18 §§ 7-9 18 n~25 18^19 18 § 20 18 § 21 18 § 2 2 18 § 2 3 18 5 27 18 § 3 1 18 §§ 37-38 18 § 3 7 18 § 3 8 18 §§ 55-90 18 §§ 65-80 18 §§ 81-4 18 §§ 90-94 18 § 103 18 § § 127-255 !8 S§ 166-68 18 § 167 18 §§ 170-78 18 §§ 179, 181-84 18 §§ 193-94 18 §§ 195-204 IS § 19^ 18 § 205 18 § 249 18 § 259 18 §§ 272-74, 283-88 18 § § 310-79 18 § 314

377

242 235 250, 260 260 13 215 260 175 173 30-32 24, 34 169 26 330 26 2 4 . 34 260 30 116 168 147 147, 177 147 148, 155 46 301 260 301 304 27 258 102, 251 330 251 24, 34 251 333 30 314 102-3

m3 323 24, 34 103 257, 259 239 260 251 30-31

378

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Antiquities) 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

§ 17 §§ 17-273 § 54 §§ 64-69 § 91 §§ 201-11 §281 §§ 293-96 § 306 §331 §§ 332-34 §§ 335-37, 343-45 §§ 17-96 §§ 24-25 § 25 §§ 38. 39, 43 § 81 § 100 §§ 113, 118, 120 § 142 §§ 154-57 § 163 § 169 § 173 § 181 §§ 182-84 § 195 §§ 207, 214 § 215 § 218 § 219 §§ 224-51 §§ 236-37 § 237 § 252 § 259 § 263

31 251 45 103 100 169 13-14 301 14 301 244 301 251 257 260 27 29, 32 38 27 28-29 251 30,31 252 24, 34 175 14 315 175 314 175 239 70 316 57 30 183 41, 327

JewLsli War I §§ 1-2 1 § 1 1 §3 1 §5 1 §6 1 §§ 9-12 1 § 10

180 319 29, 180, 324 325 180, 324 180 180, 227

180, 336 1 § 16 I § 19 227 1 §20 227, 315 1 §22 261 1 §§ 31-33 74, 88, 95, 96 1 §32 76 1 §33 259, 316 1 §§ 34-69 181 1 §37 44 1 §39 199 42 1 §§ 41-46 1 §50 199, 201 131 1 §§ 54-55 204 1 §61 128 1 §§ 64-65 1 §67 230 127, 128, 13!, 136 I §§ 68-69 1 §71 216 1 §78 30 1 §85 216 1 §§ 107, 108 222 1 § 109 210, 216, 222, 228, 229 1 § 117 222-23 226 1 § 120 1 § 122 213, 224 1 § 123 29, 31 1 § 124 228-29 213, 214 1 §§ 126-30 226 1 §§ 126, 128 252 1 § 134 1 § 138 252-60 1 § 142 226 1 §§ 154-57 218 1 § 160 226 211 1 §§ 187, 193-94 1 § 194 327 224 1 §§ 195-96 1 § 203-4 228-29 1 §§ 208-210 230-3! 1 §208 226, 230 1 §212 226-31 1 § 214 231 1 §226 228 227 1 §244 252 1 §§ 277-81 1 §283 228 1 §§ 286-87 260 1 §§ 331-332 260 1 § 403-6 253-60

INDRX OF A,NCIF,NT SOURCF.S (Jewish

War)

1 §§ 408-15 260 1 §409 253-59 I §417 250, 260 1 §418 260 1 §432 31 1 §§ 433-34 231 1 §513 29, 32 ] § 576 29, 32 1 §§ 608-13 252 2 §43 26 2 §§ 66-72 252 2 §§ 80-83 330 2 § 95-96 26 2 § 101 23, 33 2 §§ 111-13 182, 260 2 § 113 30 2 § 118 180 2 §§ 119-61 146 2 § 119 23, 30, 33, 158 2 §§ 120-61 149, 251 2 § 120 153 2 §§ 123, 126 156 2 §§ 135-36, 142, 150 158 2 § 152 146-48 2 § 158 177 2 § 160 30 2 § 161 157, 258 2 § 166 33, 258 2 §§ 188-91 249. 253, 258-60 2 §200 260 2 § 220 323 2 §232 27 2 §247 26 2 § 266 35 2 § 284 315 2 §308 23, 33 2 §§ 345-404 180, 251 2 §345 180 2 §352 182 2 §360 181 2 §§ 365-87 251 2 §373 181 2 § 388 325 2 §390 181 2 §§ 409-17 316 2 § 414 180 2 §427 260 2 §§ 443-48 271

2 § 454 2 §§ 477-98 2 §487 2 §§ 499-516 2 §499 2 §§ 510-12 2 §510 2 § 517 2 §520 2 § 521-41 2 §537 2 §§ 562-69 2 § 562 2 § 563 2 § 564 2 § 565 2 § 566 2 §567 2 §568 2 §570 2 §§ 573-75 2 §574 2 §576 2 §§ 577-82 2 §577 2 §§ 583-84 2 §583 2 §§ 585-87 2 § 592 2 § 594 2 § 599 2 § 619 2 §§ 624-25 2 § 628 2 §§ 645-46 2 §647 2 §651 2 §§ 652-54 2 §654 3 §§ 7. 8 3§9 3 §29 3 §34 3 §§ 35-58 3 §39 3 §§ 41-43 3 §§ 42-44, 50 3 §58 3 §§ 59-63

379

337 331 13 252. 317 258 298 26 268 325 268-69 251 280. 317 267. 269. 336 271, 284. 318 269. 270 270 31, 271-72 272 267, 270, 272 295 250 285 284, 318 319 337 298 284 296 260 284 274 321 299 271 282-83 284 272 269-71 259 319 317 253 252 26, 249, 251 259 297 260 258 284

380

(Jewish

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Way)

3 §§ 65-69 251, 320 3 §§ 70-109 250, 259, 319 3 § 108 325 3 § no 27 3 § 137 284 3 § 141 306 3 § 142 320 3 §§ 158-60 253, 259 3 §§ 168. 211, 262 124 3 §§ 214-16 251 3 § 229 27 3 §262 124 3 §312 260 3 §339 320 3 §§ 341-42 321 3 §§ 351-53 187 3 § 352 130, 177, 178 3 §§ 353-54 321 3 §354 130 3 § 360 321 3 §§ 362-91 321 3 § 368 181 3 § 396 173 3 §§ 398-402 187, 322 3 §§ 400-8 130 3 §408 322 3 §413 254, 260 3 §§ 419-22 249-57 3 §438 322 3 §442 259 3 §§ 506-21 249, 253-54, 257-60 4 §§ 2-10 249 4 §§ 2-8 254 4 §§ 4-8 259 4 §§ 54-56 254, 259 4 § 84 260 4 §§ 104-5 27, 252 4 § 106 296 4 §§ 150, 157 179 4 § 159 271 4 § 160 272 4 §§ 202-4 243 4 §225 30 4 §§ 243. 272 27 4 § 316 272 4 § 318 179 4 § 358 33, 271 4 §388 179

4 §414 289 4 §§441-50 252 4 § § 451-85 249 4 §§ 452-75 249, 253, 255, 257, 259, 260 4 §§ 476-85 260 4 § 503 30 4 §§ 503-8 270 4 §§ 558-63 278 4 §587 259 4 §§ 601-4 323 4 §603 321 4 § 605 255 4 §§ 607-15 249, 259-60 4 §§ 616-20 104 4 §§ 617-19 323 4 §§ 622-29 131 4 §629 322 4 §656 323 4 §§ 659-63 252 5 §§ 5-8 270 5 §36 239 5 §§ 50-53 252 5 §65 267 5 §70 252 5 §§ 136-247 249, 25] 5 § 139 199 5 §§ 184-247 234 5 § 190 267 5 § 192 234, 239. 241 5 §§ 193-97 236, 240-41 5 §§ 198-99 235, 240-42 5 § 201 240-241 5 § 202 235, 241 5 §§ 206-7 235, 239-41 5 §211 241 5 §§ 216-26 240 5 §290 124 5 §341 267 5 §§ 360-419 180-81, 323 5 § 364 259 5 §§ 366-68 335 5 §§ 367, 390 181 5 §§ 392-93 130 5 §393 178, 267 5 §394 iSl 5 §402 178, 183 5§411 178 5 §4!2 335

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Jewish 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

War)

324 § 418 326 § 419? § 474 325 §§ 502-9 251 §533 290, 324 §§ 538, 541 323 § 544 324 § 548 323 §§ 551-58 124 §54 35 §94 179 §§ 94-117 323 179 § 109 § 129 323 § 148 27 § 192 259 324 § 250 §§ 288-309 251, 260 §§ 2 8 8 - 3 0 0 188 179 §311 §§312-15 184 §312 58, 179, 187 185 § 313 § 316 179 §§ 343, 357 325 § 365 323 324 § 407 §411 180 §§ 420, 425, 429 319 324 §§ 430-35 §§ 20, 2 3 , 36-9, 96, 105-16 324 §§ 117, 121-62 325 §§ 123-57 335 §§ 123-62 251 §§ 148-52 331 § 152 326 §§ 164-89 249, 255, 259-60 § 199 29, 32 §§216-18 260 § 218 332 §256 183 § 268 30 §§ 280-303 249-50 §§ 323-88 180 §§ 331-32, 359-60 182 §§ 420-436 75, 95-96 §§ 42Iff 316 §§ 433-436 76 §§ 437-53 327

381

Life §§ 1-12 336 §§ 1-6 272, 310-11 §5 326, 337 §6 173 §§ 7-12 272 §§ 7-9 290 §§ 8-12 310-11 §§ 8-10 176 § 10 259 § U 144 § 12 312, 327 §§ 13-16 272 § 13 309, 312, 314, 318 § 15 312 § 16 24, 35, 102, 313, 315, 333 §§ 17-19 285 §17 316,318 §§ 20-23 285 §§ 20, 24-25 317 § 27 335 §§ 28-29 267 § 28 277 § 29 280, 318 §§ 30-53 273 §§30-31 285,298 § 30 302 §31 292 §§ 32-36 273 §§ 32-33 301 § 33 293 § 63 298 §§ 64-68 275 § 66 304 § 68 274 § 74 27, 296 § 76 296 §§ 77-79 275, 277, 292, 293, 295 § 77 285 §§ 80-84 292 § 87 276 §§ 90-92 298 § 96 301 § 99 275 § 100 227 § 102 275 §§ 104-11 292 § 106 285 § 107 275

382

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

(Life) § § 112-13 § 113 §§ 118-19 § 119 § 123 § 124 §§ 126-28 § 126 § 128 §§ 132-35 § 144 § 145 §§ 147. 153 §§ 171-73 § 175 § 177 §§ 185-88 § 186 §§ 187-88 §§ 190-198 § 197 § 204 §206 §207 §212 §213 §220 §221 §228 §§ 230-33 §242 §246 §252

293.

30-31, 285.

285.

283. 293.

277, 293,

275, 275,

294,

274 293 260 303 276 304 274 299 285 274 292 299 293 293 285 302 295 275 250 276 271 272 285 295 275 299 292 27 292 252 275 304 275

§256 §268 §§ 305-6 §332 §§ 336-39 §§ 336ff §§ 338-39 §§ 338-341 §339 §340 §342 §346 §349 §357 §358 §§ 361-67 §§ 365-66 §366 §368 §§ 370-71 §§ 381-89 §382 §§ 384, 392 §412 §§ 413-15 §§418-19 §§ 422-23 §422 §§ 423-24 §425 §427 §429 §430

318 275 292, 295 299 251 327 284 286 287 282 248 27 27, 286 287 248 287, 332 336 102 292 299 282 24, 3 5 302 287-88 322-23 324 337 290, 325 326-27, 3 3 3 326, 3 3 8 25, 36, 337 281, 327 102, 328

2. BIBLICAL LITERATURE Gen

14:5-10 17:14 34 36 36:12, 2 2 41:2-4

Exod 3:1 6:12 15:22 16:1-2 17:8-16

114-16 89 137 115-117 109 183 256 57 256 256 109, 111, 118, 121

Exod Lev

Num

17:17-19 22:28 L X X 7:20-27, 36 21:12-15 22:19-24 9:13 13:28-29 14:25 14:40-45 14:43-45 21:1-9

109 65 89 135 134 89 111, 119 109, 119 111 119 119

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES N u m 24:7 119 24:14 116 24:17-19 114 24:20-21 119 24:20 111 25:11 49 D e u t 1:44 111 2:19 109 112 2:22-25 12:11 80 13:14 (13) 198 20:10 125 122 20:16-18 25:11-12 302 25:17-19 109, 118-19, 121-22 25:19 116 26:3-10 133 J u d g 1:16 111 3:13-12:15 120 5:14 110, 120 7:1 110 . 14:47-48 121 15:2-3 121 111 15:4-6 15:4, 7 cf. L X X 122 15:7 111 15:13 L X X 110 15:33 122 19:5 58 111, 122 27:8-10 28:18 122 31:13 L X X 110 1:1 L X X 110 122 1:6-10 5:23-25 52 8:12 122 10:6 L X X 110 23:10. 12 58 15:2-3 109 112 16:6 18:40 47 48 19:9-10, 14 14:7 123 77 23:9 64 9:35 4:41-43 111 11:14 58 14:14-16 52 18:11 122

1 C h r 24:9, 14 25:11-12 2 C h r 13:7 25:5-6 25:12-18 28:4-5 Ezra 5:2 8:2 N o e h 8:4,7 10:6,23 12:5-22 Esth 3:1 L X X 3:10 8:3, 5 9:24 Job 9:7 Ps 44:24 83:7-9 121:4 Prov 11:9 L X X 24:43|28] L X X Isa 19:1-25 19:18-19 19:19 44:28 45:1 Jer 7:9 7:10-11 25:11-14 25:11-12 29:7 29:10 36[291:23 L X X 38[31]:34 L X X E z e k 14:14 27:9 28:3 Dan 1:1 1:3, 4 1:5-16 1:5 1:8, 12 1:17, 20 2:21 2:30, 34 2:44-45 2:45, 47, 48 2:59-68 3:12, 30

383 70 123 198 123 123 112 93 162 162 162 69-70 123 123 123 124 80 134 114-15 134 20 20 80 75 77, 80, 97 174 88 178, 183 183-84 88 165 177 165 20 20 162 115 162 163 311 164 311 169 164 163 136, 164 136, 163, 164 164 167 164

384 Dan

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

4:14,22,29 163 4:58 167 5:6 163 5:11-12 164 5:21 163 6:1 163 6:11 164 6:27 163 163-64 6:29 7-12 163-64, 173-74 7 185, 187, 189 7:1 163 7:3-8 185, 190 7:7, 23 165 164, 185 7:13 7:14 185 7:23 165 8 164, 173 8:14 164, 165 8:25 164 9:1-2 88 9:1 163 9:2 165 9:21-22 88 9:24-27 165 9:24-26 88 9:24 165 9:25 93, 179 9:26 88, 90-94, 96, 179, 184 9:27 94, 167 10:1 163 11:14 164, 184 11:20-21 93-94 11:22 88 11:28 175 11:30-32 179 11:30-31 175 11:33-35 164, 185 11:39 205 164 11:40-12:3 12:11-12 165, 166 Hag 1:1 88, 93 1:14 88 Z e c h 3:1 88 3-4 137 Sir 50:1-6 69 1 M a c e 1-13 43, 201 1:11 198 1:13-15 71

1 Mace 1:20-64 1:33 1:34 1:38 1:41-54 1:42 1:54 2:13 2:17 2:18 2:24 2:25 2:26 2:27 2:40-41 2:42 2:46-48 2:49-68 2:50, 54 2:64-66 3:3 3:8 3:11-13 3:19 3:23 3:24 3:25-26 3:25 3:36 3:42 3:43 3:45 3:49 3:58-60 3:58 3:59 3:60 4:2 4:10 4:12-14 4:14 4:25 4:30-33 4:30 4:35 4:36 4:39-40 4:42-51 4:45

174 197 198 205 167 94 182 45 44, 51 51 48 42 48 45 44 49 44 44, 46 49 50 56 49 51 64 57 51 58 65 205 53 58 198 65 46 65 47 64 199 64-65 52 66 46, 58 64 58 47 53 64 52 66

INDEX O F ANCIENT S0URCF:S

1 M a c e 4:46 4:52 4:54 4:55 4:58, 60 4:61 5:1-5 5:5 5:10 5:16 5:19 5:29 5:43 5:44 5:61 5:62 5:68 6:18-21 6:24 6:37 6:42 6:47 6:48ff 6:49-62 6:50-54, 62 7:1 7:6 7:9 7:12-13 7:13 7:24 7:25 7:26 7:26-32 7:27-28 7:31-32 7:32 7:35 7:40 7:41-42 7:43, 45 7:46 7:47 8:17 9:5 9:7-10 9:17-18 9:21 9:27

58 80, 182 66 64 66 205 54 66 53 52 66 54 52. 66 52 53 54 66 195, 199 205 56 55 56 78 56 78 79 205 56, 79 94 49-50 206 52 53 73 54 42 198 53 42 64 53 42 66 131 42, 55 55 56 47 58

385

42 1 Mace 9:40 42 9:49 9:54-57 57 9:60 59 62 9:68-69 9:70-71 59 206 10:6 10:14 205-6 59 10:16 10:18-21 206 59 10:25 10:32 207 59 10:40 204 10:42 79 10:48 10:59 61 198 10:61 62. 207 10:65 207 10:69 60 10:80 10:82 62 10:83, 88 60 61, 195. 207 11:20 11:21 60, 198-99 57 11:23 11:41 61, 199 60 11:60 62 11:63 42 11:69 11:74 42, 61 12:1 61 12:6 57 12:15, 23, 27, 28 61 57, 61 12:35 195. 203 12:36 12:37 61 12:48 95 13:2-3 61-63 13:7 62 13:17 63 13:33 63 13:36 57 13:41 167 13:42 63 13:45-48 204 13:49 203. 206 204 13:50 13:51 208 14:20. 28 57

386

1 Mace 14:36 14:37 15-16 15:28-31 15:28 15:30-31 16:11-24 16:22-23 2 M a c e 1:1-9 3:1 3:1-2 3:4 3:7-40 3:33 4:1-38 4:1-6 4:6-7 4:6 4:7-8 4:7-9 4:9 4:11 4:12 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:26 4:27-29 4:28 4:29 4:30-38 4:30-31 4:31-33 4:32-38 4:32-35 4:33-38

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

198 199, 201 201 195 204 204 131 134 134 73 69 70, 72 70 73 94 70-73 96 82, 98 205 71 7 1 . 202 131 196, 202 72 72, 78, 95 205 72, 95 72 72, 196-97, 203 202 82 72 95-96 73 88 74

2 Mace 4:43-50 5:5 5:23 6:1 8:5 8:22 9:17-19 9; 17 10:21 11:3 11:25 12:27 13:3-4 13:15 14:17 15:1-16 15:12-14 15:13 Mark 7:26 13:14 13:26 14:62 Luke 15:15 John 2:20 9:22 Acls 21:27-36 21:37-39 23:1-2 27:1.3-44 Col 1:21 2:9 Phil 1:27; 3:20 2 Thess 2:3-4 Heb 8:11 11:33-34 Rev 13:1

94 82, 195-97 21 82 51 54 18 27 51 205 203 303 78, 95 51 51 73 98 82 28 166, 179 166 166 18 238 199 245 20 19 313 19 127 21 166 20 165 166, 186

3. O U M R A N AND PSEUDEPIORAPHA IQIs' l O a p G e n 21-22 l O a p G e n 21.23 I Q I ? 4.16 I Q M 1.1-2 I Q M 15.2-3 I Q M 18.1-2 l O p I I a b 8.8; 9.9; 11.4 I Q S 5.15-16 1Q21/3

80 115 114 140 114, 198 198 198 140 156 139

4 Q 213,214 4QpsDan C D 11.12; 12.10 1 Enoch 85-90 90:7 90:8-12 90:8 Ep. Arist. 3 83-99 310

139 162 147 95 94 139 88, 94 18 234 11

387

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

4 Ezra 1 1 - 1 2 Jub 4.20 24:27-32 13 3 Mace 1:3 3:4 6:7 4 Mace 4:20 5:16 8:7 16:21 17:9 Sibyli Or. 3 5.12-15 5.492-511 5.501-6 TestLev 6:1-7:3 8 8:17 8:14 TestSim 6:3

166, 186 162 114 115 19, 38 16 165 202 17 17 165 17 87 186 86 87 137 137 138 139 114

4. PHILO Legum

all. 3.186-87

3.2 Conf. ling. 2-4 De congr. 45-62 De somn, 1.39 1.48 De Decal 15 S p e c leg. 3.3-6 4.219 Virtut. 161 Praem. 4 Quod omnis 12 75-91 De vita contemplativa

115 19 16 115 18 19 19 16, 19 19 19 19

153 1 4 6 4 8 , 153, 157 64-89 151 80ff 158 Legatio 13-18 In Flaccum 47, 53 13, 15 Hypothet. in E u s e b i u s Praep. ev. 8.11.6 153

5. RABBINIC LITERATURE m. Maaser Sheni 5:15 m. Bikkurim 1:4

133-35 244

m. Sheqalim 6:2 m. Yoma 3:10 m. Nazir 2:5 3:5 5:5 6:11 m. Abot 1:2 m. Menahot 13:10 m. Ker. 1:7 m. Mid 1-5 1:3 1:1-5 2:3 2:6 5:3-4 1. Shabbat 13:2 /. Yoma 2:4-5 (. Nazir 4:10 (. Sota 13:5-6 13:10 y. Shabbat 1.4.3c y. Yoma 3.10.41a 6.3 y. Sota 9.24b b. Yoma 19a 38a 39a-b b. Rosh iiashanah 24b b. Moed Qatan U a b. Sota 33a 48a b. Qiddushin 66a b. Sanhedrin 19a b. Avodah Zarah 43b h. Menahot 109b h. Tamid 27a Mekliiltaon Exod 8-12 12:49 Sifre Deut 354

235 239 81 243 243 243 69 77, 81 243 240-41 243 235 240, 243 235 235 238 239 243 128 134 244

6. CLASSICAL GREEK A N D AUTHORS Cassius D i o 37.15.2 65.2.3 65 9.3-5 65.4 65.12

239 77 128 235 239 69 52 134 128 133, 134 135 231 52 77, 96 235 110 244 243

LATIN

226 186 186 187 326

388

INDLX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

Cassius D i o 66.7.2 332 66.15.4 338 Cicero, De lege Ma/iilia 16.47 55 De legibiis 2.7-22 12 F/ac. 28 166] 330 C o l u m e l l a 3.8.2 34 Diodorus 5 3 1 148 20.107.5 207 .30.18.2 72 30. 7.2-3 74 34/35.1.5 204 40.2 224 40.3.4 ( H e c a t a e u s ) 65 E o n i u s , Annals 5.156[500] 46, 67 H e c a t a e u s a p . Diodorus 40.3.4 65 H o m e r , Iliad 14.90-91 100 J u v e n a l , Satires 3.13-14 332 6.158 .338 6.542-47 332 Livy 12.53 45 38.38 70 42.6.6-8 71 Pliny, Nat. hist. 5.17 143 5.69 146 5.^1 30 5.79 73 Pliny, EpLst. 9.19.5 100 P l u t a r c h , De tribus rei pub. gen. 2.826C-D 11, 17 / y / i . Or. 9 169 Quaest. Kam. 107 100 Antony 6 1 3 ; 71.1 35 Demetrius 3.4 216 Ps.-P]ufarch, Regum et Jmperatontm Apophthegmata 184E-F 204 Polybius 3 . 5 3 79 5.48.14 207 26.1a 71 27.19-20 72 28.20.9 71 3 1 . 13 [211.3 70 31.40-43 70 38.22.3 173 S t r a b o 16.2.4 [719] 73 S u e t o n i u s , lulius Caesar 84.5 330 Augustus 32-34 314 Tiberius 36 332 61100, 313 Claudius 25 327 41 101 Ncra 19 319

Suetonius, Vespasian

4.5 5.6.4 6 7. 1-2 1-2 2 12.2

58 187, 189 105,323 Titus 338 Domitian 186 326 332 Tacixus, Annals 5-10 103-4 13.20; 14.2 100 15.28.3 332 Histories 2.81 105 5.13 58, 188 Tliucydides 2.60 56 3.82-84 50 7.80,3 52 Virgil Aen. 12.435-440 44

7. aiRisTiAN AUTHORS Ps.-Clementine

Homily

1.1.1 L6.2

14 19 Diognetus 5 21 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.3 127 1.6.11 89 3.9.1 29 3.9.2 332 Chr 136.26-137.2(JJe]m)71 Eel. proph. 3.26 89 Dem. Evang. 8.2.55-129 89 Praep. ev. 8.6-12 146-47, 153 Hippolytus, Ref. All Her. 9.18-29 152 Tertullian, Adv. ludaeos 8:6 89 T h e o d o r e of M o p s u e s t i a on Ps 54 76

8. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI A p p l e b a u m 1980 Brunet d e Presle 1865 C U 1 n o . 694 CIJ nos. 7 0 9 , 7 1 0 C P J 1: 116; 119 C P J 2 n o . 153.90-91 C P J 3 n o . 508 C P J 3 n o . 511 Dessau 1892-1916: nos. 264-5 L a n d a u 1966

202 84 17 37 72 20 38 38 331 207

I N D E X O F SUBJECT'S

A b s a l o m 4 3 , 224, 226 A c r a b a t e n e 267. 269. 270 A d i a b e n e 27, 32, 2 5 1 , 257, 319, 324. 325 Agag 110, 121, 122 Agrippa I 101-104, 244, 251, 259, 300. 3 0 1 . 323, 3 3 3 Agrippa 11 101-104, 180, 239, 2 5 1 , 279. 2 8 1 , 283, 289, 296, 332, 336, 338 A h i k a r 162 A k r a 195-209 akropolis 196, 197, 202, 203, 208 Alcimus 52, 57, 58, 79, 94. 205. 206 A l e x a n d e r Balas 59, 60, 62. 79. 206-208 A l e x a n d e r J a n n ( a ) c u s 129, 130. 135, 215. 216. 221 Alexandria 11, 13, 15, 16, 18. 22, 50, 72, 77, 79. 82-85, 95, 255, 309, 316, 317. 319, 323, 325, 334 Aliturus/Alityrus 24, 3 5 . 37, 102. 313. 333 A m a i e k 109-117,119-121.123-126 A m a l e k i t e s 109-113, 115-125 A m o r i t e s 115, 116, 119. 256 A n a n i a s son of O n i a s 85, 86 A n a n u s . high priest 179. 269-272, 275-277. 284, 287. 299 A n t i o c h - o n - t h e - O r o n t e s 13-15,70-73, 88, 9 1 , Antiochus H 12, 164 Antiochus III 69, 197, 203 A n t i o c h u s IV 16, 17, 19, 27, 42, 49, 5 1 , 71-79, 82, 84, 88, 9 1 , 93-98, 135, 164, 165, 168, 174. 175, 181. 203, 205 Antiochus V 56, 78-79, 95, 203 Antiochus VI 60 A n t i o c h u s VII 132, 195, 204 A n t i o c h u s IX 128 A n t i p a s 273, 2 9 1 , 3 0 1 , 304 Antipater 3 1 , 3 2 , 2 1 1 - 2 1 4 , 2 1 8 , 2 2 0 ,

221, 224-229, 231, 232, 252, Apion 13. 2 1 . 29, 50, 84, 148, 316, 326, 333, 334 apocalypticism 4, 5, 7, 94, 144, 161-162, 165-167. 173, 190 A r a b a h 111. 115, 116. 122, 123 Arislem, Letter of\\, 4 1 , 43, 70. 234, 247 Aristobulus I 128-30, 215-17 Aristobulus II 32. 213-232 Aristobulus III 216 Arnon 256

327 290, 158,

201,

Bacchides 47. 49, 50. 55, 56, 59. 62 Baiae 257 B a n n u s 310-312 Barclay's G a l e 237 Berenice 103, 104. 293. 303, 338 Beth Shearim 293. 303 Beth-Zur 47, 53, 58. 62, 64, 78. 206 brigandage 270, 2 7 1 , 295, 298, 299, 304, 306 Caesar, Julius 13, 186, 2 1 1 , 212. 224. 327. 330, 336 C a e s a r e a 14, 24, 27, 34. 35. 127, 217, 244, 252-254, 257, 296, 297, 312, 323. 337 C'aesennius G a l l u s 298 Caligula, G a i u s 13, 15. 16, 18, 22, 45, 99-104, 2 5 1 . 259. 260. 310, 333 Calmet, A. 92 C a n a a n 109, 111, 119, 125, 256 C a r r o n 257 Cassius D i o 334 Cestius Gallus 252, 267-272, 285, 298, 317 Chelkias 8 5 , 8 6 Claudius 13-15, 20, 101, 103, 104, 329 climatology 252, 254, 255, 260, 262 Crispus of Tiberias 24. 35, 293 Dabaritta 274. 285. 299

390

INDHX OF SUBJECTS

Daniel 88-94, HO, 126, 161-91, 260, 326, 3 2 7 D a p h n e 7 3 , 9 5 , 254 David 52, 58, 65, 67, 109. 118. 122, 323, 3 2 6 D e a d Sea see I-ake Asphallilis D e m e t r i u s I 56, 59, 73, 79, 206, 207 D e m e t r i u s M 27. 53. 60-61. 207 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 13, 101 D o m i t i a n 99, 100, 186, 1 9 0 , 2 8 1 , 3 2 6 . 327, 332, 334 Dora 253. 257 D o s i t h e u s 38, 80, 84, 85 E d o m 110-114, 121, 123, 126 E ^ l 19, 69-98, 114, 134, 225, 249, 255, 316, 323 Eleazar, critic of Hyrcanus 134-35 Eleazar, M a s a d a leader 119, 180, 182 E l e a z a r , O n i a d high priest 69, 70, 84 Fileazar s o n of Ananias 268-272 E l e a z a r son of Neus 2 7 ! E l e a z a r son of Simon 269, 270 Elijah 4 3 , 47, 4 8 E n o c h 94-95 l i s a u / E d o m 109-26 E s s e n e s 141-59 e t h n o g r a p h y 124, 142-59 E u p o l e m u s 131 Ewald, H . 7 5 , 93. 94 fisciis jitdaicus

331, 332,'338

G a b a r a 276, 294, 303, 304, 306 G a d a r a 217, 289 Galileans 27, 3 5 , 266-78, 283-85, 292-93. 295, 302, 304, 305 Galilee 249-252, 265-269, 273-78. 278-88, 290-306, 317-20, 337 G a m a l a 146, 249, 252, 254, 267, 273, 275, 295, 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 G a m a l i e l I 238 G a r i z i m 132, 133, 137 Ciaulanitis 250. 254 G e n n e s a r 249, 254 gymnasium 7 1 , 76, 95, 202, 203 H a m a n 32, 123, 124 H a n a n b e n H a n a n see Ananus, high priest H a r d o u i n , J. 91

H a s i d i m 49-51, 67, 94 H e c a t a e u s 19, 65 Heliodorus 70, 7 1 , 73, 76, 93, 96 Heliopolis 7 5 . 79, 80, 82, 84-86, 97, 316 H e r o d I 27, 3 5 , 131, 2 1 1 , 213, 216, 217, 220, 226-232, 237-239, 256, 257. 260 Hippolytus 141. 152-53, 166 Hyrcanus I, J o h n 8 5 , 112, 113, 127-40. 166 Hyrcanus If 18, 32, 90, 133, 210-232 Idum(a)ea, I d u m ( a ) e a n s 26, 27, 32, 35, 112, U 7 , 121, 124, 132-33, 269-72, 290, 303 Isidore of Sevilla 90 Jason, high priest 71-73, 76, 78, 82. 95. 97, 195, 197, 202, 203 Jason of C V e n e 19, 2 1 , 82, 97-98 J e r i c h o 26, 131, 249, 252, 253, 255, 257, 260 Jerusalem 56, 71-73, 131-32, 146, 168, 174. 195-209, 217, 225-26, 230-31, 233-246, 269, 316; see also Akra, gymnasium, T e m p l e of Jerusalem Jesus son of A n a n i a s 188 Jesus son of S a p p h ( i ) a s ( ? ) 272-75, 285, 304 Jezreei Valley 294, 303 J o h n of Gischala 269, 274, 276, 2 7 8 , 285, 288, 294. 296, 298-99, 3 0 3 , 304 J o n a t h a n , H a s m o n e a n 27, 47, 59-63, 67, 95, 195, 205-209 J o p p a 7 1 , 204, 249, 2 5 3 , 254, 257 J o r d a n 26, 3 1 , 132, 253-256, 293 J o s e p h son of G o r i o n 270-71 Jotapata 104-05, 177, 252-53, 259, 277, 284. 287-88, 306, 320-21 Judah/Judas Maccabee 42, 46-47, 49-59, 61-67, 73, 82, 9 3 , 98, 135, 139, 205, 208. J u d a s t h e G a l i l e a n 266-268, 271 Justus of Tiberias 2 5 1 , 2 6 8 , 273, 2 7 5 , 279-289, 2 9 3 , 302, 327 Lake Asphaltitis ( D e a d S e a ) 254, 255 Lake Semechonitis 254

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Lamy. B. 92 U q u e u r , R. 178, 232. 247. 268, liberty as an ideal Lysias 47, 55, 78,

212-215. 224, 230273, 276. 277 45-47, 62, 64, 67 203

M a c h a e r u s 249, 252, 255 M a n e t h o 30, 31 M a r c u s Cluvius Rufus 100 M a r s h a m , J. 91 m a r t y r d o m 47, 62 M a t t a t h i a s 42, 44-46, 48-51, 57, 59, 62, 67, 94, 135, 167 M a t t a t h i a s Antigonus 215, 220 M e n a h e m , E s s e n e 145 M e n a h e m , revolutionary leader 265, 268, 269, 271 M e n e l a u s . high priest 72, 73, 78, 79, 95, 96, 195, 197, 202. 205 messianism 58. 59, 67, 87, 94. 118, 127, 136-40. 186 M o m i g l i a n o , A. D . 144. 160 M o t z o . B. R. 69, 74, 83, 210-212, 217, 227 M o u n t A r b e l a 256 M o u n t Sinai 256 M o u n t T a b o r / l t a b y r i o n 254 Nero 87.309-333 N i c a n o r 42, 53-54, 58, 64, 66 Nieanor's G a t e 234, 235, 239, 240 Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s 4 1 , 43, 44, 130, 131, 155, 1 8 4 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 1 O n i a d s 4 3 , 69-88, 91-98, 316 O n i a s III 69-98 Om'as the r a i n m a k e r 214, 225 pacifism 164, 167, 175-177. 180-182. 190-91 Paneion 7 1 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 7 patronage 158. 290-297, 3 0 1 , 304. 332-33. 338 P e t e r D a m i a n 90 Pharisees 4-5, 49, 129, 134-35, 138. 141, 146, 148, 153, 223, 281, 290, 310-12 Philippus b e n J a k i m o s 289 Philo of Alexandria 11-22, 145-149. 151, 153-155, 157-60 Phinehas 4 8 . 4 9 , 6 7

391

Pompey 55, 213, 217-219, 223-227 P o p p a e a Sabina 141, 313, 315 Posidonius 4 3 . 148, 151. 155 prophecy 48, 58-59, 75. 80-81. 12740, 145. 170-74, 177, 179. 186-89. 322 proselytes 244. 331 providence 6 1 , 101, 147, 168, 169, 177, 1 9 0 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 3 Ptolemaios, slrategos 207 Ptolemais 95, 249, 253, 297, 299, 319 Ptolemy I 19 Ptolemy II 84 Ptolemy IV 164 Ptolemy V 7 1 , 83-84 Ptolemy VI 71-72, 75, 79-80, 82, 8487, 97 Ptolemy V n 85 Ptolemy N e o s Philopator 85 Ptolemy IX 85 Ptolemy, Agrippa It's o v e r s e e r 274, 277, 285 Ptolemy, son-in-law of Simon 131-32, 324 Pythagoreans 145, 169 O u m r a n 80, 114-16. 138-45, 147-49, 154, 156-160, 162, 198 Robinson's Arch 237 R o m a n citizenship 99, 314, 326-27, 329-33, 336-38 R o m e 99, 102-6, 113, 117, 124, 16567, 173-77, 181-82, 186-89, 27981, 309-18, 321-23, 325-38 Saba 3 , 2 5 6 Sadducees 310, 312 Salome Alexandra 130, 215-16, 219221, 232 Samaria 26, 85, 128-29, 133, 2 3 1 , 249, 251-52, 260 Samuel M a r o c h i a n u s 90 Saul 4 3 , 44, 58, 109, 116, 121-23, 323, 326 Scaurus, Aemilius 213, 214 Scythopolis ( B e t h - S h e a n ) 254 Seleucia 254 Sepphoris 27, 252, 273, 276, 282-83, 285-86, 293, 297-99, 3 0 1 , 305 shipwreck stories 312-13

392

I N D K X

O F

Sibylline O r a c l e s 86-87 Sicarii 8, 152, 265, 278, 285 Simeon b e n Gamaliel 281, 289 Simon b a r G i o r a 265, 268-72, 278, 324 S i m o n of Bilga "iribe" 70 Simon, E s s e n e 182 Simon, H a s m o n e a n 62-63, 195, 199201, 206-8 S i m o n t h e Just 69-70 Sinai D e s e r t 256 Smith, M o r t o n IX-X, 1-8, 141, 195 S o g a n e 254 Stobi, synagogue of 17 S t r a b o 8 5 , 212 Suetonius 99-102, 104 T a c i t u s 99-100, 102-105, 146, 157, 188-89 taxes 203-5, 298-306. 332 T e m p l e of J e r u s a l e m 46, 52, 195-96, 204-5, 233-246, 316, 317, 324; see also Barclay's G a t e , Nicanor's G a t e , R o b i n s o n ' s Arch, W a r r e n ' s G a t e , W o m e n ' s Court t e m p l e of l e o n t o p o l i s 69, 74-88, 95-98, 316

O R E E K

W O R D S

T h a u m a s t u s 102-3 T h e o d o r e of Mopsuestia 76, 95-97 T h e o d o t i o n 3 1 , 89, 162, 167, 170, 183-185 Tiberias 27, 2 5 1 , 268, 273-83, 286-87, 293-94, 297-98, 301-5, 327 Tiberius, E m p e r o r 99-100, 102-105 Tiberius Julius Alexander 38, 105, 239, 323, 324, 332 Titus 9 1 , 106, 186-89, 322-326, 3 3 1 32, 335-36, 338 T o b i a d s 72, 7 5 , 77-78, 83, 84, 3 0 3 triumph, R o m a n 268, 278, 335, 338 urbanization 290, 2 9 1 , 297, 305 Vespasian 130, 146, 184-190,287-88, 305 , 316, 319, 321-323, 325-28, 331-33, 337-38 W a r r e n ' s G a l e 237 Wellhausen, J. 74, 94, 97 Wilson's Arch 237 W o m e n ' s C o u r t 234, 240-242 Z e a l o t s 47, 48, 67, 119, 133, 134, 269

INDEX O F G R E E K WORDS

a x p a 195, 197-200, 202 iicp6no)it<; 195, 197, 200, 202 a u r n 129, 130 al'peai.; 2 1 , 168 yevot; 23-25, 28-38, 158, 223 ^3i6u9epia 45-47, 62-64 'louSafot; 7, 23-38 Caovo(iLa

13

taoTcoXtxeia 13-15, 20 xoivov 2 6 7 , 317 Xnarric; 183, 184, 265, 266, 285, 298, 299

veuTepi^w 265, 266, 273 Ko^-K 11, 14, 20, 195 TtoXtTEia 11-22,46 noAr-nit; 11, 13, 14, 17-21 novT)p6^ 200, 267, 274

itpovoia

6 1 , 168, 169, 313

OTaoi,; 50, 217-220, 225-228, 232, 298 oTpa-rriYo^ 53, 84, 86, 97, 267, 269, 272, 280, 281, 283, 284