Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond
Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor
John J. Collins T h e Divinity S c h o o l , Y a l e University
Associate Editor
Florentino García Martínez Q u m r a n Institute, University o f G r o n i n g e n
Advisory Board J. D U H A I M E A.
A. HILHORST -
K L O S T E R G A A R D PETERSEN J.T.A.G.M.
-
V A N RUITEN E.J.C.
P . W . V A N DER HORST
M . A . KNIBB J.
SIEVERS ~
T I G C H E L A A R ~ J.
V O L U M E 104
H. G.
NAJMAN STEMBERGER
TROMP
Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond Edited by
Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi
BRILL LEIDEN • B O S T O N 2005
T h i s b o o k is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Gataloging-in-Publication Data Josephus and Jewish history in Flavian R o m e and beyond / edited by Joseph Sievers and Gaia Lembi. p. c m . — (Supplements to the Journal for the study o f Judaism, I S S N 1 3 8 4 2 1 6 1 ; v. 104) Includes bibliographical references and index. I S B N 9 0 - 0 4 - 1 4 1 7 9 - 0 (alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius—Congresses. 2 . J e w s — H i s t o r y — 5 8 6 B . C . - 7 0 A . D . Congresses. I. Sievers, Joseph. II. L e m b i , G a i a . III. Series. DS115.9J6 J64 2005 933\05—dc22 2005050145
ISSN
1384-2161
ISBN 90 04 14179 0
© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. N o part o f this publication m a y be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or b y any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to p h o t o c o p y items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to T h e Copyright Clearance Center, 2 2 2 R o s e w o o d Drive, Suite 9 1 0 , Danvers, M A 0 1 9 2 3 , U S A . Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS
CONTENTS
Preface
ix
Abbreviations
xv PART O N E
HISTORIOGRAPHY T h e Formation o f an Historical C a n o n o f the G r e c o - R o m a n Period: F r o m the Beginnings to Josephus DORON
3
MENDELS
L a genese historique des Antiquités juives
21
L u c i o TROIANI
J u d e a n Historiography in R o m e : Josephus a n d History in Contra Apionem B o o k 1 JOHN M .
G.
29
BARCLAY
T h e I m p o t e n c e o f Titus, o r J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum as an E x a m p l e o f "Pathetic" Historiography FAUSTO
45
PÁRENTE
O f A u d i e n c e a n d M e a n i n g : R e a d i n g J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum in the C o n t e x t o f a Flavian A u d i e n c e STEVE
71
MASON
T h e Provincial Historian in R o m e J O N A T H A N J.
101
PRICE
PART T W O
LITERARY QUESTIONS " B y the Waters o f B a b y l o n " : Josephus a n d G r e e k Poetry HONORA
HOWELL
....
121
CHAPMAN
T h e Hellenistic Biographical History o f K i n g Saul: Josephus, AJ.
6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 a n d 1 Samuel 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3
DETLEV
DORMEYER
147
vi
CONTENTS
P o w e r and Pity: T h e I m a g e o f H e r o d in J o s e p h u s
5
Bellum Judaicum TAMAR
159
LANDAU
C o m m o n p l a c e s in H e r o d ' s C o m m a n d e r S p e e c h in Josephus' A.J.
15.127-146
JAN
W I L L E M VAN
183 HENTEN
PART THREE
JOSEPHUS AND JUDAISM R e a d i n g the Bible in R o m e : Josephus and the Constraints o f Empire PAUL
209
SPILSBURY
J o s e p h u s ' U s e o f Prayers: Between Narrative a n d T h e o l o g y TESSEL
229
JONQUIÉRE
S o m e Observations o n Josephus' Description o f the
Essenian
M o r n i n g Prayer NICLAS
245
FÖRSTER
PART FOUR
HISTORIES AND HISTORY W e r client w e m ? D i e Darstellung des Flavischen T r i u m p h z u g e s auf d e m T i t u s b o g e n u n d bei Josephus {BJ.
7.123-162)
BARBARA
257
EBERHARDT
Josephus o n Titus: T h e V a n q u i s h e d Writing a b o u t the Victor JAMES S.
279 MCLAREN
Josephus and the Philosophers o f R o m e : D o e s Contra Apionem M i r r o r Domitian's Crushing o f the "Stoic O p p o s i t i o n " ? GUNNAR
297
HAALAND
Alexandrien als D r e h s c h e i b e zwischen Jerusalem und R o m : D i e Bedeutung der Stadt i m W e r k des Josephus GOTTFRIED
SCHIMANOWSKI
317
CONTENTS
vii
Jews, R o m a n s , and Christians: F r o m the Bellum Judaicum to the Antiquitates
331
G I O R G I O JOSSA
T h e D i v o r c e s o f the H e r o d i a n Princesses: Jewish L a w , R o m a n L a w o r Palace L a w ? BERNARD
343
S. JACKSON
PART FIVE
TRANSLATION A N D TRANSMISSION T h e Latin Translation o f J o s e p h u s ' Antiquitates GAIA
371
LEMBI
Translating B o o k 1 o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum: S o m e Critical Observations A N T H O N Y J.
383
FORTE
Josephus u n d das A l p h a b e t der R ö m e r : Ü b e r l e g u n g e n zur Schreibung Griechischer E i g e n n a m e n in Lateinischer Schrift FOLKER
405 SIEGERT
Concluding Remarks FOLKER
425
SIEGERT
List o f Contributors
431
I n d e x o f A n c i e n t Sources
433
PREFACE
T h e present v o l u m e is the fruit o f an international "Josephus b e t w e e n J e r u s a l e m
colloquium on
a n d R o m e " that w a s h e l d at
the
Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Pontifical G r e g o r i a n University in R o m e , S e p t e m b e r 2 1 - 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 . It was the seventh in a series o f annual colloquia, based o n an initiative that was l a u n c h e d in 1997 b y Prof. Folker Siegert, D i r e c t o r o f the Institutum J u d a i c u m Delitzschianum at the University o f Munster.
1
T o h o l d such a c o l l o q u i u m
within walking distance o f the A r c h o f Titus and o f J o s e p h u s ' place o f w o r k , if he actually lived o n the Quirinal Hill, p r o v i d e d a very special a m b i e n c e for the gathering o f o v e r forty specialists from four continents and ten different countries. G e o g r a p h i c proximity certainly raised the participants' sensitivity to J o s e p h u s ' context, though it did not make u p for the c h r o n o l o g i c a l and cultural distances. C o n t e x t is, o f course, o f utmost i m p o r t a n c e for understanding
a
person and his o r her w o r k , ancient o r m o d e r n . T h i s is especially true o f the w o r k o f J o s e p h b e n Matityahu, better k n o w n as Flavius Josephus, w h o was b o r n and raised in Jerusalem, but seems to have spent the s e c o n d half o f his life mainly in R o m e . T h e tensions and connections b e t w e e n his cultural a n d religious roots in Jerusalem, his role as a c o m m a n d e r in Galilee, a n d his later career as a writer in R o m e are evident in his works. T h e y have b e e n the subject o f a n u m b e r o f studies since the 1970s. Certainly his writings c a n n o t be understood without taking into a c c o u n t his precarious role as a person w h o inhabited these different worlds, sometimes simultaneously. In his works R o m e is a central force he needs to reckon with, but also o n e toward w h i c h he maintains a certain ambivalence. O n various occasions he refers to the R o m a n s ' fortune and their invincible p o w e r over J u d e a as well as o v e r other parts o f the Empire {B.J. 3 . 7 0 - 7 1 ; 5.367; 6.399; A.J. 2 0 . 7 0 and passim).
1
T h e proceedings o f the first six colloquia have been published as vols. 2 , 4 , 6, 10, 12, and 14 in the series Munsteraner Judaistische Studien (Munster: L I T Verlag, 1998— 2 0 0 3 ) . A n earlier colloquium had been organized under the auspices of the Italian Association for Jewish Studies (AISG). T h e proceedings were edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (StPB 4 1 ; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
X
PREFACE
G i v e n this assessment, J o s e p h u s is in line with c o n t e m p o r a r y writ ers. Plutarch reports that the origin o f the city's n a m e r e c e i v e d different interpretations. T h e first o n e cited is that R o m e ' s military 2
might (pcó|xt|) p r o v i d e d the city's n a m e . J o s e p h u s employs the same term at least o n c e with an ironic twist. H e reports that Gabinius was sent from R o m e (EK Tcojiriq) to Syria (57 B . C E . ) . Gabinius then rushed to J u d e a to assist H y r c a n u s II, w h o was unable to withstand the might (pco^ri) o f his n e p h e w A l e x a n d e r , the son o f his brother Aristobulus II. T h e latter, h o w e v e r , was prevented from carrying o u t his plans b y the R o m a n s (Tcojiaioi)
3
w h o w e r e beginning to m a k e
their p o w e r felt in Jerusalem. It m a y b e intentional that Josephus d o e s not clarify w h o these R o m a n s w e r e .
4
Perhaps it was e n o u g h
for h i m to s h o w that they w e r e really "the mighty." W h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g the insuperable might o f R o m e , not only in the military and political arena but in m a n y cultural spheres as well, Josephus remained c o n n e c t e d to his roots. H e d e v o t e d m a n y years a n d twenty-seven b o o k s to the writing o f the history o f his p e o p l e in his two major works, and allotted less space, but equal detenriination, to a forceful a p o l o g y o f J u d a i s m in the Contra Apionem (and to his Vita). Y e t , if scholarly communis opinio is not mistaken, he did all this in R o m e , with a n d for an audience that was at least to a large extent non-Jewish and (Greco-) R o m a n . T h e question as to h o w he kept these different realms c o n n e c t e d is tackled in this v o l u m e in various ways a n d from different angles. In the essays o f this v o l u m e it is quite evident that there are m a n y areas o f intense discussion, whether it b e a b o u t the real o r intended audience o f Josephus, his c o n n e c t i o n s with R o m e a n d Jerusalem, his reliability as a historian, a n d so forth. T h e r e is general agreement, h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s needs to b e taken seriously as an author a n d n o t simply as a quarry that m a y be used as a source o f information a b o u t the various subject matters he treated. T h e r e f o r e , the first section o f this v o l u m e centers o n questions o f historiography, putting J o s e p h u s the historian in a b r o a d e r context.
2
5iot xf]v ev xoiq onXoiq pcbuT|v oikox; ovouotcoci xfjv TI6A.IV (Plutarch, Rom. 1.1). A.J. 1 4 . 8 2 - 8 3 . T h i s triple play on the word pcburi is entirely absent in the other wise closely parallel passage in B.J. 1.160. A b r a h a m Schalit (Konig Herodes: der Mann und sein Werk [SJ 4; Berlin: D e Gruyter, 1 9 6 9 ] , 31) suggests R o m a n businessmen; see also M e n a h e m Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (in Hebrew) (ed. Daniel R . Schwartz; Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1 9 9 5 ; repr. 1999), 2 1 9 . 3
4
XI
PREFACE
T h e o p e n i n g essay b y D o r o n M e n d e l s raises important
questions
concerning the development o f canons o f historical writings. In a brief essay, L u c i o Troiani discusses the purpose a n d techniques in Josephus' c o m p o s i t i o n o f the Antiquitates. J o h n Barclay, using the Contra Apionem as his test case, applies post-colonial theory to the study o f J o s e p h u s ' strategy o f trying to p r o v e the truthfulness
o f the J u d e a n tradition.
A l m o s t as a counterpoint, Fausto Párente, o n the other hand, raises some serious questions about Josephus' reliability as a historian, focus ing o n s o m e famous incidents in the Bellum Judaicum. T h e other t w o contributions deal with the question o f J o s e p h u s ' audience. W h i l e Steve M a s o n emphasizes the R o m a n c o n t e x t in w h i c h J o s e p h u s ' works were written a n d the immediate R o m a n audience to w h i c h they were addressed, J o n a t h a n Price insists o n the "provincial" and J u d e a n character o f Josephus a n d his works. T h e s e c o n d section is d e v o t e d to literary approaches to Josephus, a relatively n e w field that in a w a y h a d b e e n o p e n e d u p with numer ous studies b y Louis Feldman o n J o s e p h u s ' rewriting o f the Bible. H e r e , instead, the focus is o n the specific techniques used b y Josephus that link h i m n o t only to G r e e k o r Hellenistic historiography and rhetoric, but also to poets such as Pindar, a link e x p l o r e d b y H o n o r a C h a p m a n . T h e rendition o f the figure o f Saul in Hellenistic g a r b is e x a m i n e d b y Detlev D o r m e y e r . T a m a r L a n d a u subjects the H e r o d narrative a n d especially the K i n g ' s i m a g e in the Bellum to a narratological analysis. J a n Willem van Henten concentrates o n o n e o f Herod's speeches in the Antiquitates, c o m p a r i n g it to c o m m a n d e r speeches in other G r e e k historians. In the third section some aspects o f the interaction between Josephus' Judaism a n d his context are e x p l o r e d . In particular, the brief essays b y Tessel J o n q u i é r e a n d Nielas Fórster deal with the issue o f prayer in a multicultural environment. Paul Spilsbury, taking his c u e in part from J o h n Barclay's post-colonial interpretation, shows h o w Josephus' reading a n d presentation o f biblical material was deeply influenced, positively as well as negatively, b y the constraints o f living at the center o f the R o m a n empire. T h e fourth section tackles a variety o f historical issues, w h e r e it is possible to bring Josephus' w o r k into fruitful c o m p a r i s o n with other c o n t e m p o r a r y o r near-contemporary literary, d o c u m e n t a r y , a n d ar chaeological sources, beginning from the testimony o f the A r c h o f Titus, e x a m i n e d b y Barbara
Eberhardt. J a m e s M c L a r e n , instead,
critically analyzes the image o f Titus that emerges from the literary
xii
PREFACE
sources. G u n n a r H a a l a n d brings us to the time o f D o m i t i a n a n d addresses the question o f the whether the crushing o f the Stoic o p p o sition b y the E m p e r o r is reflected in the Contra Apionem. Gottfried Schimanowski leads us b e y o n d R o m e to Alexandria and the latter's i m p o r t a n c e in Josephus, w h i c h is certainly inferior to R o m e but in n o w a y to b e o v e r l o o k e d . A n o t h e r perspective is o p e n e d b y Bernard J a c k s o n ' s expert discussion o f d o c u m e n t a r y a n d literary
material
c o n c e r n i n g marriage and d i v o r c e in theory a n d in practice. H e r e J o s e p h u s is an important source that needs to b e illuminated b y other sorts o f e v i d e n c e , but in turn sheds light o n several cases. Finally, in a subject area that is fraught
actual
with controversy,
namely the Testimonium Flavianum, G i o r g i o Jossa provides a n u a n c e d analysis o f what might have b e e n J o s e p h u s ' intent in introducing Jesus as a victim o f Pilate's misrule. A last section deals with several aspects o f the reception o f Josephus, in particular questions c o n c e r n i n g the translator o f Josephus, ancient and m o d e r n . G a i a L e m b i discusses several passages where the freq u e n d y neglected Latin translation m a y p r o v i d e access to early a n d important textual traditions. A n t h o n y Forte discusses s o m e o f the diffi culties encountered in faithfully rendering the Bellum into English today, a n d while appreciative o f the w o r k o f his predecessors, shows s o m e weaknesses in the highly regarded translation b y H . St. J. T h a c k e r a y . Finally, Folker Siegert discusses the difficult choices to b e m a d e in rendering G r e e k p r o p e r names in a m o d e r n G e r m a n
translation.
Prof. Siegert also offers s o m e c o n c l u d i n g remarks c o n c e r n i n g the c o l l o q u i u m as a w h o l e , pointing out s o m e o f its achievements as well as s o m e areas still o p e n to discussion. This v o l u m e a n d the c o l l o q u i u m that generated it w o u l d have b e e n impossible without various forms o f support, assistance,
and
c o o p e r a t i o n for w h i c h w e are immensely grateful. W h e n the question o f the feasibility o f such a c o l l o q u i u m in R o m e was still u n d e c i d e d , and it seemed nearly impossible to get public o r private funding for it, M s g r . D D r . R i c h a r d Mathes, then R e c t o r o f the Pontificio Istituto T e u t o n i c o di S. Maria dell'Anima offered his enthusiastic and concrete support. A generous grant from the A n i m a Foundation p r o v i d e d the basis for starting to plan in earnest. T h e D i o c e s e o f Munster p r o v i d e d additional funding. T h e c o l l o q u i u m was further
supported b y the
University o f Pavia through its Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità. Logistical support and helpful advice was unstintingly p r o v i d e d b y Professor Folker Siegert and his staff at the Institutum J u d a i c u m
PREFACE
Xlll
Delitzschianum. A special thanks goes to the Institute's D r . J. Cornelis de V o s , w h o helped edit the contributions b y colleagues D o r m e y e r , Schimanowski, and Siegert. T h e Pontifical Biblical Institute through its R e c t o r , at first the R e v . R o b e r t F. O ' T o o l e , SJ, and at a later stage the R e v . Stephen Pisano, SJ, generously p r o v i d e d the meeting facilities and other amenities for the c o l l o q u i u m . T h e Pontifical Biblical Institute also gave J o s e p h Sievers time and encouragement during the preparatory phases. Faculty and staff at the Institute, especially M r . C a r l o V a l e n t i n o a n d R e v . A n t h o n y J. Forte, SJ, w e r e most helpful in making the c o l l o q u i u m a pleasant a n d successful event. T h e Pontifical G r e g o r i a n University w e l c o m e d the c o l l o q u i u m participants for a p u b l i c session a n d m e m o r a b l e evening. T h e secretary o f its Cardinal B e a C e n t r e
a for
J u d a i c Studies, M s . Flavia Galiani, w o r k e d untiringly to take care o f m a n y o f the logistic details before, during, a n d after the c o l l o q u i u m , and helped in the preparation o f the present v o l u m e . Istina D e c o r t e o f Incontri R o m a n i t o o k care o f a c c o m m o d a t i o n s a n d tour arrange ments for the participants. R o b e r t a R o n c h i a t o , a doctoral student at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, p r o v i d e d additional
assistance.
T h e present v o l u m e is, o f course, primarily the fruit o f the labors o f e a c h contributor. Both o f us edited all the contributions in English and French. T h e articles in G e r m a n were edited b y J o s e p h Sievers, G a i a L e m b i prepared
the index. T h e w h o l e process, spread
over
different countries and continents, was certainly m a d e easier b y fast and efficient e-mail c o m m u n i c a t i o n , but it w o u l d not have b e e n p o s sible without the excellent c o o p e r a t i o n o f all involved. G A I A LEMBI
JOSEPH
Pisa and Jerusalem
SIEVERS
Rome M a r c h 14, 2 0 0 5
ABBREVIATIONS
In general, the abbreviations used are those contained in Patrick H . A l e x a n d e r et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). In addition, the following abbreviations have b e e n adopted: BJP
Brill J o s e p h u s Project: Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. E d . Steve M a s o n (Leiden-BostonK o l n : Brill, 2 0 0 0 - ) V o l . 3: Judean Antiquities 1-4; Trans, and Commentary b y Louis H . Feldman (2000) V o l . 4 : Judean Antiquities 5-7; Trans, and Commentary b y Christopher T . B e g g (2005) V o l . 5: Judean Antiquities 8-10; Trans, and Commentary b y Christopher T . B e g g a n d Paul Spilsbury (2005) V o l . 9: Life of Josephus; Translation and Commentary b y S. M a s o n (2001)
GLAJJ
M e n a h e m Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 v o l s . ; J e r u s a l e m : Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences a n d Humanities, 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 4 )
Niese
Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. Benedictus Niese (7 vols.; Berlin: W e i d m a n n , 1 8 8 5 - 1 8 9 5 ; the so-called editio maior)
Schürer, History
Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. Eng. e d . G e z a V e r m e s , Fergus Millar, et alii; 3 vols, in 4; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987)
PART ONE H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
OF
THE G R E C O - R O M A N PERIOD: F R O M T H E BEGINNINGS T O JOSEPHUS* DORON THE
MENDELS
H E B R E W UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
A S Josephus scholars w e are always a m a z e d about the fact that except for the H e b r e w Bible, most o f the sources he used for the Antiquitates and Contra Apionem, important as they might have b e e n , vanished in thin air. W e l l - k n o w n historians at their time such as Posidonius, Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , as well as the ones he used in his Contra Apionem, figures like M a n e t h o a n d Berossus, all have
disappeared.
Y e t the H e b r e w Bible that was used b y Josephus in his Antiquitates 1-12 was preserved since this was considered as a Jewish holy text. W e should then ask: W a s the disappearance o f sources, which Josephus used for his w o r k , a u n i q u e p h e n o m e n o n ? W a s it an accidental process that c a n b e p o i n t e d out only in J o s e p h u s ' case? Is it m e r e c h a n c e that Josephus was kept whereas all his sources except for the Bible vanished during later generations? Let m e then surprise y o u , o r perhaps even shock y o u : T h e case o f Josephus c o n c e r n i n g the disappearance o f his sources was not unique in antiquity, a n d should b e seen as part o f a process that has a bear ing o n Josephus studies. Since w e speak o f lost historical works as against preserved works, w e are actually o c c u p i e d with the crucial p r o b l e m o f c a n o n . C a n w e speak o f a historical c a n o n that was cre ated in antiquity? I have studied this issue for the last three years ( a m o n g other topics), a n d m y conclusions are based o n a detailed research that has a time-span o f 1000 years, namely from H e r o d o t u s to the w o r l d o f Late Antiquity. T h i s c a n n o t b e b r o u g h t forward within the time limit o f m y presentation here, but I will t o u c h here only s o m e points that m a y interest y o u . H a v i n g said that, can w e find a list o f preferred historical works at any given time in Antiquity? I k n o w only o f a very partial o n e , * A m o r e extensive version (reaching Late Antiquity) of this article can be found in m y book Memory in Jewish, Pagan and Christian Societies of the Greco-Roman World (London: Sheffield-Continuum, 2 0 0 4 ) , chapter 1.
4
DORON MENDELS
from the Hellenistic era ( S E G 2 6 . 1 1 2 3 ) . But a list o f distinguished authors is not necessarily a c a n o n ,
1
a n d scholars are u n a n i m o u s in
assuming that there n e v e r was a c a n o n o f historical writings in Antiquity. T h e r e was perhaps a list o f c a n o n i c a l literary authors, but 2
certainly not o f historians. T o m y knowledge, this question has never b e e n seriously addressed, n o t e v e n w h e r e I w o u l d recently h a v e e x p e c t e d it.
3
I w o u l d like to make an attempt in this direction.
T h e term " c a n o n " is a l o a d e d o n e .
4
T h e m a i n reason for this is
that it has b e e n very often associated with the monotheistic Scriptures. But it also received m u c h attention in the last century from literary critics a n d musicologists. W h a t is relevant for us here is that a c a n o n is f o r m e d gradually and its final shape is defined b y later generations. W h e t h e r there was o r was not a c o n c e p t o f a historical c a n o n in ancient times, what matters to us is the fact that later generations in the w o r l d o f antiquity had a well-defined c o n c e p t o f w h i c h historian was " i n " a n d w h i c h was " o u t , " w h i c h p e r i o d o f history was to b e r e m e m b e r e d and w h i c h was to b e forgotten. I c a n n o t enter here this p r o b l e m in detail, but this process b r o u g h t to a fragmentary picture o f ancient history. T h e historians w h o entered the m o d e r n era are those w e m a y call n o w c a n o n i c a l .
5
Nine factors a p p e a r to have contributed to the fragmentary nature o f o u r picture o f ancient history:
1
See recently for the literary canon A . Vardi, "Canons o f Literary Texts in R o m e " in Homer, the Bible and Beyond: Literary Canons in the Ancient World (ed. M . Finkelberg a n d G . G . Stroumsa; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 3 1 - 1 5 2 , w h o takes a list o f authors to represent a literary canon. For this problem see also R . Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship. From the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 205-9. 2
"Das K ö l n e r Philosophenmosaik." See mosaics from the Rhineland and M o s e l valleys from the second century C . E . and later which allude in several cases to "figures o f philosophers and poets, or of Muses. O n e mosaic from Trier, for instance, shows a philosopher, evidently A n a x i m a n d e r , seated beside a sundial; one from C o l o g n e has philosophers and poets identified b y n a m e , in Greek: Diogenes, K l e o boulos, Socrates, Cheilon, Sophokles . . . Others draw u p o n the amphitheatre a n d circus for their materials: charioteers are especially popular in Trier . . ." Katherine M . D . , D u n b a b i n , Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1999), 7 9 - 8 1 . 3
J. Marincola, in his recent book, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). Michel Foucault, "L'ordre du discours, 1 0 - 1 1 , " in A History of Reading in the West (ed. G . Cavallo and R . Chartier; Amherst: University of M a s s . Press, 1999), 3 4 9 - 5 2 . T h e discussion here is on a historiographical canon a n d not o n other sources such as archaeology. 4
5
5
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
1. R o l l a n d c o d e x are vulnerable. M a n y manuscripts disappeared during Antiquity and the early M i d d l e A g e s due to physical reasons such as wars, fires, earthquakes a n d
floods.
"Certainly the fact that
a w o r k o f ancient literature a c h i e v e d circulation in c o d e x f o r m was n o automatic passport to survival";
6
2. W e can assume that at certain junctures in Antiquity b o o k s w e r e b a n n e d , as w e learn from T a c i t u s c o n c e r n i n g the affair o f Cremutius C o r d u s {Ann. 4.34); 3. M a n y historical writings from Antiquity have disappeared d u e to the fact that they were heavily used b y later sources. T h a t is, w h e n a source was heavily q u o t e d b y a later source, the latter was in m a n y instances m o r e often read than its o w n sources. W e shall see that those historians w h o withstood "cannibalization" b y their users, o r c o n t i n u e d to b e read themselves, did in m a n y instances enter
the
list o f surviving works; 4. It is c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d that summaries and epitomes b r o u g h t a b o u t the elimination o f the works they e p i t o m i z e d ;
7
5. In certain cases w e c a n s h o w that w h e n a historian was harshly criticized b y others, he lost his status as an independent historian. Even w h e n a great authority praised his source, it is quite likely that the source was forgotten a n d the great authority used (or read) instead; 6. T h e C h u r c h Fathers as a rule w e r e not interested in the history o f the Gentiles (except for a limited use b y those w h o w r o t e C h r o n o graphies); this in itself is a misfortune. In their use o f historical gen tile sources they frequently caused the effect n o t e d in point 3 a b o v e ; 7. Certain historians achieved an authoritative position during their o w n lifetimes, a n d they usually retained it in ensuing generations. I f they survived cannibalization processes (not always e m e r g i n g intact), they m a n a g e d to enter the historical c a n o n . W e shall see that Polybius survived the process (at least partially); Ephorus a n d T i m a e u s did not. T h e y perished, i.e. were cannibalized. In other w o r d s , the abil ity to survive cannibalization a n d attain popularity b e c a m e m a j o r factors in the preservation o f a historical c a n o n ; 8. Public libraries w e r e created in the late R e p u b l i c a n d later in 8
several places in the E m p i r e . But they, as well as o c c a s i o n a l b o o k -
6
C . H . Roberts and T . C . Skeat, The Birth of the Codex ( L o n d o n : T h e A c a d e m y by O x f o r d University Press, 1987), 7 5 ff. 7
British
P. A . Brunt, " O n Historical Fragments and Epitomes," CQNS 3 0 (1980): 4 7 7 - 9 4 . L . D . Reynolds and N . G . W i l s o n , Scribes and Scholars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd ed., 1991), 2 3 - 2 5 and passim. 8
6
DORON MENDELS
shops, did not have an influence o n the process o f canonization. If 9
a certain b o o k was o n the shelves, as Aulus Gellius tells us, but was not r e p r o d u c e d and circulated, it was d o o m e d to disappear. R e y n o l d s and W i l s o n argue (p. 32) that "the story that the e m p e r o r Tacitus ( 2 7 5 - 6 ) o r d e r e d that the works o f his name-sake b e c o p i e d ten times a year . . . ( / / . A. 27.10.3), is almost certainly a fabrication o f the late fourth century, but the situation that it implies m a y not b e far from the truth." 9. Historical curricula m a y have b e e n formulated at schools from time to time, and those w o u l d have helped create a c a n o n o f historical books.
10
T h i s c o u l d have h a p p e n e d in the sixth century, for instance,
w h e n the c o n c e p t o f the historian w h o followed a predecessor with hardly any overlapping in the narrative, was emerging. Perhaps this c o n c e p t in itself was responsible for the view that the w h o l e o f ancient history should b e r e c o r d e d b y a succession o f historians w h o nar rate defined periods without overlapping. T h i s o f course does n o t m e a n that such a view was not apparent before the Byzantine period. A t all events, as is well k n o w n , curricula have a great influence in creating m o d e r n literary c a n o n s . It m a y b e n o t e d that curricula a n d collections o f fragments a c c o r d i n g to themes as well as codification processes were extremely p o p u l a r in the Byzantine E m p i r e .
11
O u r m e t h o d here will b e to e x a m i n e the " b i o g r a p h y " o f historical works at various junctures during antiquity. But the p r o b l e m remains that ancient historians usually d o not specify what source they are using. E v e n if they d o (or the source c a n b e inferred from their writ ings), w e c a n n o t b e sure whether the^ used the source directly o r t o o k it from an intermediate work. M o r e o v e r , a distinction has to b e m a d e between the availability o f historical texts and the i m p a c t they had o n later generations. H e n c e , what counts for m y discussion here is not whether the annalists used b y the great R o m a n historian Livy were still circulating as manuscripts here a n d there, but whether they had any farther impact o n historical writings after Livy. In this case
9
See Reynolds and W i l s o n , Scribes, 3 0 . O n the literary school curricula, see W i l a m o w i t z mentioned in Reynolds and W i l s o n , Scribes, 5 3 , and M . I. M a r r o u , A History of Education in Antiquity (London: Sheed and W a r d , 1965). 1 0
11
A b o u t curricula as canon molders see H . Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1 ( M u n i c h : C . H . Beck, 1978), and D . Mendels, "Greek and R o m a n History in the Bibliotheca of Photius," in Idem, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic History (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 0 0 - 2 1 0 .
7
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
o n e has to b e cautious since a later historian m a y have used the annalists only indirectly through a historian w h o h a d already drawn o n them, even without b e i n g aware o f d o i n g so. T h e output o f historical writing in antiquity is relatively n o t very great. Nevertheless w e c a n e x a m i n e o u r available sources a n d learn what historians used at certain junctures. In other w o r d s , w e c a n try to assess the reception o f historical works b y later historians.
For
instance, w e all k n o w that the histories o f H e r o d o t u s a n d T h u c y d i d e s had a very l o n g life, a n d that they b e c a m e m o d e l s for the writing o f history. T h e i r reception (by other historians) in antiquity was extra ordinary, n o t so m u c h because they were used as sources b y later writers, but because, like Polybius in the Hellenistic era, they were seen as m o d e l s for perfect historiography already during their o w n times. But the surprising fact is that with all the processes o f selection and elimination listed a b o v e in 1-9, a solid sequential line o f histo rians in antiquity remains, usually with o n e " m a i n " historian in each p e r i o d . T h i s is the picture w e have today a n d it was p r o b a b l y sim ilarly v i e w e d in the sixth century C.E. It is a well-known fact that s o m e o f the historians themselves thought they were continuing where a famous predecessor h a d s t o p p e d .
12
Polybius continues Aratus, and
X e n o p h o n says that he is continuing T h u c y d i d e s . Agathias claims that he is continuing Procopius o f Caesarea, and M e n a n d e r Protector continues Agathias. T h i s in itself d o e s not o f course m e a n that there was o n e historian per p e r i o d , but it d o e s indicate that there was a c o n c e p t o f a succession o f those c o n s i d e r e d to have b e e n outstand ing historians. Let m e elaborate. W h e n I say that a historical c a n o n e m e r g e d through a gradual process, I m e a n that several factors, as I have sug gested a b o v e , contributed to the inclusion a n d exclusion o f historical works. W h e n I say inclusion and exclusion, I d o not necessarily refer to a process dictated from a b o v e . But it was also not merely a m e c h a nical o r natural kind o f process. T h e selection " h a p p e n e d " during a thousand years o f the creation o f a linear c o n c e p t o f history. W h e n w e d e c i d e to use the term c a n o n in this context w e must m a k e the o b v i o u s distinction b e t w e e n a holy c a n o n a n d a secular o n e . H o l y canons are the O l d Testament, the N e w Testament a n d the Q u ' r a n .
1 2
13
Marineóla, Authority and Tradition, passim. See for instance P. B. Davies, Scribes and Schools. The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, K y . : Westminster J o h n K n o x Press, 1998), and the older bibli ography cited there. 1 3
8
DORON MENDELS
Secular c a n o n s m a y b e o f English literature o r o f m o d e r n music. A c a n o n o f the latter nature c a n b e easily assessed with hindsight, as H a r o l d B l o o m a n d others have d o n e .
1 4
T h e y w e r e never a n n o u n c e d
during the process o f creation, and w e r e not a c o n s c i o u s undertak ing. In b o t h cases distinguished figures and revolutionary ones h a d a g o o d c h a n c e to get into the p a n t h e o n o f figures that f o r m e d a c a n o n . But in the case o f ancient historians, a c a n o n - f o r m i n g process that stretched o v e r a very l o n g p e r i o d , m e c h a n i c a l and technical fac tors were m u c h m o r e dominant. W h e r e a s the c a n o n o f m o d e r n music a n d art gives us a m o r e o r less reliable representation o f what h a p p e n e d in these fields in the twentieth century, the c a n o n o f ancient history is extremely fragmentary,
and is thus an obstacle to a true
p e r c e p t i o n o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e history o f that p e r i o d . W h a t w e still have o f this history is what p e o p l e h a d in the ninth and tenth c e n turies, a picture extremely distorted because o f its b r o k e n - u p nature. But these c a n o n makings share a certain aspect. T h e g r o u p o f ancient historians that r e a c h e d the m o d e r n p e r i o d is a most distinguished o n e , an astonishing s e q u e n c e o f great historians figures
o r revolutionary
m a n y o f w h o m i n t r o d u c e d n e w historical m e t h o d s and n e w
genres. H e n c e , although so m a n y eliminatory factors w e r e at w o r k during the canonization process, it is n o accident that w e still c a n read T h u c y d i d e s , Polybius, Tacitus a n d A m m i a n u s Marcellinus. I use the expression "astonishing sequence." W h y is there a sequence a n d w h y is it so astonishing? L o o k i n g b a c k from 9 0 0 C.E. o n e seems to find s o m e sort o f rationale behind the grand narrative that e m e r g e d c o n c e r n i n g ancient history. O r is this a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the fact that w e are so used to this picture? T h i s has b e c o m e o u r o w n m e m o r y o f the period, o r rather the sole image w e have o f it. But it is remarkable that the m o r e important historical periods were those elaborated u p o n . I shall treat this aspect after a short necessary survey o f the evidence.
1 4
H . Bloom, The Western Canon: The Boob and School of the Ages ( N e w York: Harcourt Brace, 1994), and for recent discussions o f literary and musical canons see, for instance: J. G o r a k , The Making of the Modern Canon ( L o n d o n and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone, 1991); W . W e b e r , The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); F. E . Court, Institutionalizing English Literature. The Culture and Politics of Literary Study, 1750-1900 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); J. Guillory, Cultural Capital. The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press, 1993); T . Ross, The Making of the English Literary Canon. From the Middle Ages to the Late Eighteenth Century (Montreal: M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s University Press, 1998); R . Alter, Canon and Creativity. Modern Writing and the Authority of Scripture ( N e w H a v e n and L o n d o n : Y a l e University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) .
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
9
Before discussing the nature o f the historical c a n o n o f antiquity, let m e again emphasize the main factor that brought about the for mation o f this c a n o n . I f w e wish to e x a m i n e the sources used b y the surviving ancient writers o f history, w e w o u l d have great difficulty in finding most o f them. T h e y h a d already disappeared during antiq uity and certainly towards the M i d d l e A g e s . A great deal o f this u n h a p p y circumstance was brought about b y the fact that if the users o f sources h a p p e n e d to b e important historians in their o w n times o r even later, it was almost inevitable that the sources they used b e c a m e " s e c o n d a r y , " suppressed, and lost during the course o f time. N o t every figure that wrote history a n d was famous in his o w n lifetime was necessarily respected b y later generations. D i o d o r u s Siculus was not the greatest o f historians, but he was influential because he was an innovator within the genre o f universal history, and contributed to the intellectual life o f the first century B.C.E. as a collector o f sources.
15
H e is a g o o d e x a m p l e o f what I have just observed. H e d r e w o n an a m a z i n g n u m b e r o f sources in m a n y o f his predecessors for Books 1-5 o f his Bibliotheke. All these disappeared in the course o f time and it was only the Bibliotheke that was influential. H e b e c a m e as it were a substitute for Ctesias, Hecataeus o f A b d e r a , Megasthenes, Ephorus and T i m a e u s (used in his later books), a kind o f reader's digest. T h e same holds true o f the great b i o g r a p h e r Plutarch, the larger part o f w h o s e historical sources have also vanished, except for those that w e r e a l r e a d y c a n o n i c a l w h e n h e u s e d t h e m : historians
s u c h as
H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s and Polybius. T h i s p h e n o m e n o n o f a " m a i n " text using other texts that then b e c o m e secondary and disappear in the course o f time was, I believe, quite c o m m o n in antiquity. In fact this h a p p e n e d also in the case o f the H e b r e w Bible. All the written sources o f the "historical" b o o k s o f the Bible have vanished (and the oral ones have b e e n forgotten) since the Bible b e c a m e the authoritative text. A n o t h e r example c o m e s from music: J. S. B a c h d r e w o n c o m p o s i t i o n s o f his predecessors, e m b e d d i n g t h e m in his o w n music, and m a n y o f the works he used have vanished, o b s c u r e d b y his great r e n o w n .
1 5
16
E . R a w s o n , Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London: Duckworth, 1985); and K . S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990). C h . Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach. The Learned Musician (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 6
10
DORON
MENDELS
Let us n o w examine in m o r e detail h o w a historical c a n o n emerged in antiquity. Since I a m writing here for Josephus scholars, I will n o t go b e y o n d Josephus' era. Needless to say that this survey is an extremely important b a c k g r o u n d for Josephus studies since if o n e looks at the list o f historians J o s e p h u s mentions, o n e immediately figures
finds
many
that I will mention in the following. I will concentrate o n
two lines o f historiography w h i c h Josephus was aware of, the G r e e k one
and the R o m a n o n e .
The
History o f H e r o d o t u s is decidedly the first full a c c o u n t in G r e e k
from the ancient G r e e k world. His main theme is the conflict between the Persians and the Greeks during the years 5 0 0 - 4 7 9 B.C.E. Therefore it is remarkable
that H e r o d o t u s remains o u r only source for this
period, although m a n y historians, the logographoi, such as Hecataeus o f Miletus w h o m H e r o d o t u s used, but also p e o p l e like X a n t h u s a n d C h a r o n as well as Hellanicus, were already writing o n various g e o graphical and historical themes in the G r e e k East before his time and during it. N o n e o f those historical m o n o g r a p h s have survived except for references and quotations in later authors. Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s m a y have used the Lydiaca o f X a n t h u s for Lydian history, a n d Dionysius o f Halicarnassus
as well as Strabo m a y still have
k n o w n s o m e o f the logographoi ( T h u c y d . 1.21; Strabo 2.6.2.; 12.3, 21). In the sixth century C E . Stephanus o f Byzantium m a y still have used Hecataeus o f Miletus' Periodos Ges. It is h o w e v e r extremely unlikely that he saw the original, a n d it is quite clear that this w h o l e g r o u p o f local histories written before H e r o d o t u s , during his time, and later, has disappeared. If w e g o o n towards the years 4 7 9 - 4 0 4 B.C.E., w e are astonished to realize that for the very important
p e r i o d o f the Pentecontaetia
( 4 7 9 - 4 3 1 B.C.E.), the peak o f Athenian d e m o c r a c y and empire (the s o - c a l l e d Delian League), n o full and linear historiography has sur v i v e d . W e have o n l y the s o m e w h a t p r o b l e m a t i c i n t r o d u c t i o n o f 11
T h u c y d i d e s to his Peloponnesian War,
but this c o v e r a g e o f the years
4 7 9 - 4 3 1 is extremely c o n d e n s e d and concise. T h u c y d i d e s n o d o u b t used written sources for the history o f that p e r i o d but they are all lost. T h e historians called Atthidographers w h o w r o t e local histories in the fourth and third centuries B.C.E. (the Atthis) p r o b a b l y p r o v i d e d
17
E. Badian, From Plataea to Potidaea: Studies in the History and Historiography of the Pentecontaetia (Baltimore: J o h n Hopkins University Press, 1993).
THE
11
FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
information a b o u t the Pentecontaetia but they, like their 18
the logographoi,
forerunners
disappeared possibly due to heavy c o n s u m p t i o n b y
later historians. Ephorus used t h e m extensively, whereas perhaps saw s o m e o f them. H e n c e , as a result o f the
Pausanias
transmission
process, and the situation in which Herodotus and Thucydides b e c a m e so influential, very few narratives o f this crucial p e r i o d are preserved in w e s t e r n c u l t u r e . T h u c y d i d e s ' a c c o u n t in eight b o o k s o f the Peloponnesian W a r between Sparta and Athens and their allies dur ing the years 4 3 1 - 4 1 1 B.C.E. survived. T h u c y d i d e s did not c o m p l e t e his undertaking and the last years o f the war, 4 1 1 - 4 0 4 / 3 , remained u n c o v e r e d b y h i m . H e himself used mainly oral material but also written sources, s o m e a c k n o w l e d g e d (such as Hellanicus) a n d others u n a c k n o w l e d g e d ( H e r o d o t u s , A n t i o c h u s o f Syracuse, e t c . ) .
19
From
411 B.C.E. (where Thucydides stopped his account) w e have X e n o p h o n ' s Hellenica. E x c e p t for T h u c y d i d e s a n d X e n o p h o n all the sources for this w a r had disappeared. T h e popularity o f b o t h T h u c y d i d e s and X e n o p h o n never really faded. X e n o p h o n was aware that T h u c y d i d e s ' unfinished a c c o u n t o f the Peloponnesian W a r n e e d e d a c o n t i n u a t i o n .
20
His Hellenica carried the
history o n to 3 6 2 B.C.E. with a focus o n Sparta's role. X e n o p h o n remains the only source for that p e r i o d , other c o n t e m p o r a r y sources having disappeared. H o w e v e r , a fragment o f an u n k n o w n historian referring to the year 3 9 6 - 3 9 5 B.C.E. was discovered in 1906 in the sands o f O x y r h y n c h u s in Egypt. Ephorus o f C y m e ' s ( 4 0 5 - 3 3 0 B.C.E.) vast w o r k in 3 0 b o o k s was, a c c o r d i n g to Polybius, the first universal history. But it is lost. Ephorus narrated events in East and W e s t from the return o f the Heraclidai to 3 4 0 B.C.E. (the siege o f Perinthus). T h e reception o f this w o r k b y later historians in antiquity was enthusiastic and it had a great impact o n the writings o f later figures. Ephorus was used b y Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , Plutarch, Josephus and others. D i o d o r u s Siculus paraphrased h i m extensively, a n d this is w h y w e still have a g o o d narrative for fourth-century G r e e c e . A l t h o u g h Ephorus, o r quotations from him, were still quite current in Late Antiquity (Stephanus o f Byzantium, Suda), it seems that the
18
See, in general, P. Harding, Androtion and the Atthis: the Fragments Translated with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). S. Hornblower, Thucydides (London: Duckworth, 1987). Cf. Marineóla, Authority and Tradition, 2 3 7 - 3 8 , for a summary o f this well-known notion. 1 9
2 0
12
DORON MENDELS
extensive quarrying o f his w o r k b y later historians was slowing d o w n already during the first century C E . T h e bits o f Ephorus preserved in Felix J a c o b y ' s collection o f G r e e k fragments confirm this assump tion. Ephorus was thus gradually forgotten because those w h o used his work, historians such as Diodorus, Strabo o r Plutarch, were read exten sively o r exclusively b y later generations, and he sank into o b l i v i o n .
21
A n o t h e r prolific historian w h o s e loss m a y b e lamented is T h e o p o m p u s o f C h i o s . His Hellenica in twelve b o o k s and his Philippica in fifty-eight
b o o k s recounted the history o f the years 4 1 1 - 3 3 6 B.C.E.
Perhaps the fact that he "consistently falsified the e v i d e n c e a n d e n g a g e d in wholesale i n v e n t i o n , " as c l a i m e d b y s o m e s c h o l a r s ,
22
d e m o t e d h i m from the historical c a n o n . I f he was used at all exten sively, he was p r o b a b l y d e v o u r e d , like Ephorus, b y later historians, a n d was most likely already lost before the first century C E . T i m a e u s o f T a u r o m e n i u m ( 3 5 6 - 2 6 0 B.C.E.) underwent a fate sim ilar to that o f Ephorus o f C y m e . His historical accounts reached 2 6 4 B.C.E., and included R o m a n history. H e dealt with the history o f the W e s t with a focus o n Sicily. It is p r o b a b l y n o t an accident that Polybius started his history in 264 B.C.E., where Timaeus finished. H e r e again w e m a y assume that the distressing disappearance o f T i m a e u s ' history was caused inter alia b y the vast use o f it b y later historians who
were read instead. Perhaps he m a d e it into a c o n t e m p o r a r y
c a n o n , but was then lost since later accounts gradually for
substituted
the original T i m a e a n history. H e was used b y a w i d e n u m b e r
o f historians, b o t h G r e e k a n d R o m a n , such as Agatharchides, Fabius Pictor, Posidonius, Strabo a n d Plutarch. D i o d o r u s Siculus d r e w o n him
extensively c o n c e r n i n g Sicilian affairs (Books 4 - 2 1 ) , and Polybius
used h i m as well. In addition to a very extensive use o f his history (with n o a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t ) , Polybius'critical stance towards T i m a e u s p r o b a b l y took its toll and h a r m e d T i m a e u s ' stature as o n e to b e kept in the p a n t h e o n o f great historians. Let
23
us stop here for a m o m e n t and l o o k b a c k from o u r view
point in 9 0 0 C E . W h a t emerges is that the historical narrative o f
2 1
Rightly G . Schepens, "Jacoby's FGrHist," in Collecting Fragments. Fragmente Sammeln (ed. G . W . M o s t ; Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997), 145 (but Gresham's law cannot be applied here since m a n y of the better works were preserved). M . A . Flower, Theopompus of Chios—History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 1 8 4 - 2 1 0 . For this critical attitude see F. W a l b a n k , Polybius (Berkeley: T h e University of California Press, 1972). 2 2
2 3
T H E FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL
13
CANON
the time-span from the Persian wars until the rise o f A l e x a n d e r the Great was preserved in Herodotus and Thucydides o f the fifth century B.C.E., a n d D i o d o r u s Siculus o f the first. Surprisingly e n o u g h , as if s o m e o n e in Byzantium during late Antiquity had planned a historical curriculum, a m o r e o r less linear line o f history (with all its lacunae) was preserved until the present day. W a s this an accidental process? I d o u b t it. A s c o m m e m o r a t i o n was designed in the course o f a l o n g process, it presumably omitted s o m e unwanted periods. But let us return to fourth-century
G r e e c e and the histories o f
A l e x a n d e r the Great. T h e anabasis o f A l e x a n d e r was an event that c h a n g e d the w o r l d and h a d an e n o r m o u s impact during its o w n time and for m a n y generations to c o m e . But the histories written during Alexander's lifetime and s o m e decades later are all lost.
24
T h i s was
p a r d y due to the fact that this a m a z i n g chapter, revolutionary in the history o f antiquity, was "picked u p " b y later historians. A g a i n , it was D i o d o r u s Siculus in B o o k s
1 8 - 2 0 w h o used H i e r o n y m u s o f
Cardia for the account o f Alexander (and o n to 272 B.C.E.). Hieronymus was also used b y Plutarch, Arrian and Justin. Y e t H i e r o n y m u s , w h o was considered an excellent historian, was lost, and so were Ptolemy, Aristobulus a n d Cleitarchus, also important
Alexander
historians.
T h e y were extensively d r a w n u p o n b y Plutarch and still b y Arrian 150
years later. Even the Vulgate history o f A l e x a n d e r the
Great,
used b y later historians and b y Curtius Rufus w h o w r o t e in Latin in the first century C E . , sank into oblivion. In other w o r d s , w e see again that a significant p e r i o d o f ancient history c o v e r e d b y distinguished contemporaries, w h o were then used extensively b y later generations o f historians, is lost in its original form. T h e reception o f the first historians o f A l e x a n d e r was so "perfect," that their accounts were actually e m b e d d e d within later ones and thus altogether
disappeared
as independent sources. Since the later accounts almost never m e n tion their sources it is usually extremely difficult to k n o w w h e r e o n e source starts a n d where the other ends (Ptolemy a n d Aristobulus in Arrian are almost impossible to detect). Let us n o w enter the third century B.C.E., still in G r e e k history. S o m e parts o f the later "primary" D i o d o r u s Siculus have disappeared, for
2 4
instance the crucial section o n the successors o f A l e x a n d e r the
L. I. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great ( N e w York: A P A , 1 9 6 0 ; repr. C h i c o , California: Scholars Press, 1983).
14
DORON MENDELS
Great, the D i a d o c h i ( 3 2 3 - 2 8 5 B.C.E.). Unfortunately w e d o not have a linear historical narrative o f the greater part o f the third century, from 300 d o w n to 242 B.C.E. H e r e w e are in d e e p trouble. Phylarchus wrote a history starting in 272 B.C.E. (approximately where Timaeus left off) and g o i n g to 2 2 0 / 1 9 B.C.E., "continuing H i e r o n y m u s o f C a r d i a and Duns o f Samos."
25
H e r e w e can detect a fate similar to that o f
Ephorus and T i m a e u s . Phylarchus was extensively used b y Plutarch (in
his Agis and Cleomenes; Aratus and Pyrrhus) a n d b y Polybius ( w h o
as in the case o f T i m a e u s , but for different reasons, criticized h i m severely in the s e c o n d b o o k o f his Histories). In spite o f his p o p u l a r style Phylarchus was extensively used even b y the Latin P o m p e i u s T r o g u s . W e can attest that perhaps the most important sections o f the history o f Phylarchus were " d e v o u r e d " b y Plutarch. T h e "residue" o f this history, not e m p l o y e d b y later historians, was simply i g n o r e d a n d lost. I f o n e c o u l d read Plutarch w h y w o u l d he o r she n e e d Phylarchus? The
history o f the s e c o n d century B.C.E. was m u c h better preserved
by later generations than that o f the third. Polybius o f M e g a l o p o l i s wrote elaborately a b o u t the years 2 2 0 - 1 4 6 B.C.E. H e himself declares that he d e c i d e d to continue from the p o i n t w h e r e Aratus c o n c l u d e d his history o f the A c h a e a n league, in 2 2 0 B.C.E. ( 4 . 2 ) . on
26
Polybius d r e w
m a n y written sources for the third century, historians such as
D u n s o f S a m o s , Ephorus, T i m a e u s , Aratus and Phylarchus. It seems that n o n e o f these historians
" m a d e it" into a preserved c a n o n ,
f o r m e d almost b y a process o f natural selection. T h e y gradually turned into secondary sources whereas Polybius remained the m a i n a n d p r o m i n e n t source (at least in part). N o d o u b t an important rea 5
son
for Polybius entering the p a n t h e o n o f historians was that he
was
innovatory and wrote a b o u t a unique topic ( R o m a n imperial
ism,
w h i c h w o u l d b e an urgent issue for m a n y centuries to c o m e ) .
Polybius even m a n a g e d to push aside an important writer o f his g e n eration, Agatharchides o f Cnidus, w h o s e history o f the third century a n d the beginning o f the s e c o n d disappeared, p r o b a b l y at an early stage o f transmission. By the time o f Photius in the ninth century only Agatharchides' b o o k o n the R e d Sea was still p o p u l a r .
2 5
OCD,
s.v.
"Phylarchus";
E . G a b b a , "Studi
27
su Filarco," Athenaeum N . S.
35
(1957): 3 ff., 193 ff. W a l b a n k , Polybius, and Marincola, Authority and Tradition, 9 8 . For this work see S. M . Burstein, Agatharchides of Cnidus: On the Erythraean Sea (London: Hakluyt Society, 1989). 2 6
2 7
THE
15
FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
A similar fate overtook historians w h o wrote in Greek about R o m a n history o f the third century B.C.E. Polybius used Fabius, Silenus and Sosylus, as well as Cincius Alimentus and others. All o f t h e m were lost in the course o f time and did not enter the preserved c a n o n o f historians in later periods. W h e n w e reach the first century B.C.E., still in G r e e k history, w e should speak o f Posidonius o f A p a m e a w h o s e w o r k c o v e r e d the years 146-80 B.C.E.
28
His history is lost in its entirety, and only fragments
have b e e n preserved through later historians as well as other liter ary writings. Posidonius, like Ephorus and T i m a e u s , was used exten sively b y later historians such as Strabo and Flavius Josephus. M a n y o f the fragments were preserved b y the great collector Constantinus Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century. T h i s in itself is interesting. It may
b e accidental, but m a y also reveal the position Posidonius had
as a literary figure in later generations (perhaps he was less i m p o r tant in historiography p r o p e r than w e used to think).
29
But he was
extensively used (again without a c k n o w l e d g m e n t ) b y m a n y
figures
such as Athenaeus, Plutarch, Strabo and Flavius Josephus, to n a m e only a few. T h e most extensive user was Strabo. Gradually (this c o u l d have taken hundreds o f years) Posidonius turned into a secondary historian and only his users kept their canonical status. We
m a y e n d this section with Plutarch.
30
T h e story o f the emer
g e n c e o f m a i n texts o f historical narration and the loss o f any other competitive narrative is repeated here, as part o f the l o n g a n d c o m plex process that resulted in a fragmentary picture o f ancient his tory. W h e r e a s Phylarchus was forgotten as an independent historian, an
Plutarch remained as the narrative o f Agis d
Cleomenes, etc. T h e
same m a y apply to Plutarch's use o f Strabo's Histories, also lost, for his Lives of Sulla, Lucullus and Caesar. W h a t picture emerges for the R o m a n R e p u b l i c ? H e r e I will b e even briefer. It seems that the o n l y two linear historical narratives
2 8
I. G . Kidd, Posidonius (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 8 8 - 1 9 9 9 ) . O n Posidonius see recently K . Clarke, Between Geography and History. Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 1 2 9 - 9 2 , w h o c o m m e n t s that "it is clear that we are dealing with o n e of the most influential intel lectual figures o f the Hellenistic world. But there is a curious disparity between the tiny fraction of his work to survive and the great reputation which has b e c o m e attached to him." (p. 130) 2 9
3 0
T h i s aspect of Plutarch's selection methods has often been discussed. See for instance J. Geiger, "Plutarch's Parallel Lives: T h e C h o i c e of Heroes," in Essays on Plutarch's Lives (ed. B. Scardigli; O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1 6 5 - 9 0 .
16
DORON MENDELS
concerned with the Republic to survive antiquity are those o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and Livy; not accidentally, I believe, o n e is in G r e e k a n d the other in Latin. T h e t w o surviving collections o f biographies c o n c e r n e d with figures o f the R o m a n R e p u b l i c are similarly in Latin (Nepos) a n d in G r e e k (Plutarch). Livy, w h o wrote the Ab Urbe Condita starting with the foundation o f R o m e and ending with his o w n life-time in the first century B . C E . , usually followed o n e main source in each section o f the narrative. H e used m a n y o f the annalists, and in m a n y instances w e can show w h o m he used where. T h e n u m b e r o f historians he consulted is remarkable: from Valerius Antias and Licinius M a c e r through Claudius Q u a d rigarius,
Q.
Fabius Pictor, Polybius, Posidonius and m a n y others.
31
It w o u l d not b e an exaggeration to say that 9 5 % o f the sources he used were lost, s o m e still during the late R e p u b l i c and early Principate. 5
Even parts o f Polybius sections c o n c e r n i n g the East that Livy used have disappeared, though this was probably only during the Byzantine period. S o m e o f the annalists w h o were still read in Livy's lifetime did
not enter the historical p a n t h e o n and w e r e e m b e d d e d in later
authorities.
32
It is unfortunate that the important last b o o k s o f Livy's
history, c o v e r i n g the years 167 to Augustus, have vanished. Be that as it m a y , Livy's grand history o f the R o m a n R e p u b l i c b e c a m e the main and only authority in Latin that entered the M i d d l e Ages. But an alternative history o f the same p e r i o d was written in G r e e k by Dionysius o f Halicarnassus. His Roman Antiquities start with mythol ogy
and e n d with the first Punic W a r (264 B . C E . , where Polybius
continues). W e c a n say a b o u t h i m the following: 9 5 % o f the sources he used, such as m a n y o f the annalists, have disappeared altogether; the s e c o n d half o f his Roman Antiquities has vanished ( B o o k 11 is still preserved in a fragmentary
form in the excerpts o f Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus a n d in a M i l a n Epitome). Dionysius himself c o m p o s e d an e p i t o m e o f his w o r k (which Photius still saw, c o d . 84), a n d another o n e m a y also have existed.
33
T h e entire w o r k has thus suffered
a partial loss. 3 1
T h e best survey on Livy remains P. G . W a l s h , Livy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). H . W . Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (2d ed. Leipzig: Teubner, 1 9 1 4 - 1 9 1 6 ; repr. Stuttgart: B. G . Teubner, 1967), and H . Beck and U . Walter, Die frühen römischen Historiher. Bd. I: Von Fabius Pictor bis Gn. Gellius (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buch gesellschaft, 2 0 0 1 ) . U s e d by Stephanus of Byzantium: see E. Schwartz, "Dionysios", P W 5.1 (1903): col. 9 6 1 . 3 2
3 3
THE
Of
17
FORMATION OF A N HISTORICAL CANON
this particular time the historical c a n o n preserved o n l y two
monographs, Sallust's Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Jvgurthinum. Yet Sallust's grand history, w h i c h b e g a n in 78 B.C.E. a n d w h i c h he did not c o m plete, is lost. Perhaps because it was so heavily used b y later histo rians we still have m a n y fragments o f this w o r k . H e was "cited m o r e 34
often than any Latin prose author, C i c e r o alone e x c e p t e d . " H o w e v e r , he was not an innovator in the field o f historiography, and his pic ture o f the Late R e p u b l i c is quite distorted. His history did n o t make it into the preserved c a n o n o f important historical works. W e should o f course m e n t i o n Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic Wars a n d his unfinished Civil Wars, w h i c h c o v e r the years 58 to 5 2 B.C.E. It is not surprising that these accounts b y Caesar, w h o was considered a mas ter o f Latin, survived the process o f canonization. Caesar w e n t into the historical m e m o r y o f later generations as a unique e x a m p l e o f great achievement in R o m a n history during a p e r i o d o f d e c a d e n c e and fall. Before w e leave the R e p u b l i c w e should return for a m o m e n t to D i o d o r u s Siculus. H e was, together with Livy and Plutarch, o n e o f the most important " c o n s u m e r s " o f ancient sources. D i o d o r u s him self was not used so m u c h b y later historiography,
35
but was p a r d y
excerpted b y Byzantine scholars. T h e parts o f the Bibliotheke that have reached us in their entirety are B o o k s 1-5 and 1 1 - 2 0 . A n d again the same story is repeated. D i o d o r u s used an astonishing a m o u n t o f sources, most o f them n o w lost. T o n a m e only a few: Hecataeus o f A b d e r a , Ctesias (one part preserved b y D i o d o r u s a n d another b y Photius), Cleitarchus, Megasthenes, Agatharchides, Dionysius Scytob r a c h i o n a n d Matris o f T h e b e s .
3 6
H e also used E p h o r u s , D u n s ,
H i e r o n y m u s o f Cardia, Erathosthenes, Posidonius and Polybius (some o f w h i c h were used also b y Josephus). T h i s is an impressive list o f sources, and w h e n w e l o o k carefully at it w e can c o n c l u d e the fol lowing: First, almost all o f them have disappeared. T h e only sources that D i o d o r u s used and that have survived are Herodotus, T h u c y d i d e s and Polybius. S e c o n d , the b o o k s o f D i o d o r u s , o r s o m e o f them, were still available in the ninth and tenth centuries, and disappeared later.
3 4
See Cambridge History of Classical Literature vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 2 6 9 . Schwartz, "Diodorus," cols. 6 6 3 - 6 4 . Alongside an extensive use of T i m a e u s in Books 3 - 4 : see Schwartz, "Diodorus," cols. 6 7 6 ff. 3 5
3 6
18
DORON MENDELS
In certain instances, the m e t h o d s o f Byzantine excerptors m a y well have had the same effect as cannibalization. W e should also m e n tion here Velleius Paterculus w h o wrote an outline o f history, a genre discussed in m y recent b o o k m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . W h e n w e enter the era o f the R o m a n E m p i r e , and start with the first century C.E., w e find t w o Latin authors o f great stature, Tacitus a n d Suetonius. B o t h were active at the e n d o f the first century a n d the beginning o f the s e c o n d . Suetonius did not write a linear (annalistic) history, but a s e q u e n c e o f twelve biographies, starting with Caesar and ending with Domitian. Suetonius had an enormous impact o n the genre o f b i o g r a p h y in the following centuries. His innovations and high standards b r o u g h t about his inclusion in the preserved p a n theon o f great historians from antiquity. A g a i n , the sources that he drew u p o n have not reached us. T h e same can b e said about Tacitus. Both his Annals and Histories (incomplete) c o v e r the first century C.E. from Tiberius to the year 70. It is quite clear that Tacitus follows the convention o f antiquity, and usually does not mention his sources. T h e ones he notes in his a c c o u n t o f N e r o are Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder's l o n g history o f G e r m a n y , but all these are lost. In his Germania Tacitus d r e w u p o n Posidonius w h o has b e e n lost, as were the twenty b o o k s o f the Bella Germanica b y Pliny the Elder. Tacitus' Germania in fact replaced his predecessor's w o r k o n G e r m a n y . F o r o u r purposes it is important to emphasize that all three a c c o u n t s that w e still have o f the J u l i o - C l a u d i a n
dynasty,
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius D i o , d r e w o n o n e "hostile source written under C a l i g u l a . "
37
T h i s c o m m o n source has altogether dis
appeared. H e r e w e should also mention the Epitome of Roman History b y Lucius A n n a e u s Florus ( 7 5 - 1 4 0 ) w h o wrote a summary o f the history o f R o m e from the foundation o f the city d o w n to Augustus. H e used a great deal o f material, mainly Livy, but also Sallust a n d Caesar, as well as others. His w o r k gained e n o r m o u s popularity a n d served as a s c h o o l - b o o k until the seventeenth century. T h e reason for his popularity, o n e m a y guess, is that his Epitome was a sum mary, a reader's digest, that c o u l d b e read easily and d i d not p o s e a threat to the great histories he used. T h e latter had already gained canonical status.
3 7
R . Mellor, Tacitus ( N e w Y o r k and London: R o u d e d g e ,
1993), 3 3 .
THE FORMATION OF AN HISTORICAL CANON
19
T o c o n c l u d e : from the first century C.E. and the b e g i n n i n g o f the s e c o n d , w e have three Latin historical narratives, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Florus. T h e i r sources for the history o f the first century have b e e n lost. T o m y m i n d it is n o t accidental that the three are o f three different genres, history, b i o g r a p h y a n d e p i t o m e . H e n c e , w e have answered o u r question: Is the disappearance o f Josephus' sources a unique p h e n o m e n o n ? It is not. M o r e o v e r , Josephus entered the c a n o n o f historians n o t only because the C h u r c h was interested in him, but also because his status as an innovative "national" historian required a firm position within this c a n o n . It remains a fact that whereas Josephus entered the c a n o n , m o s t o f his p a g a n sources vanished for ever.
L A G E N È S E H I S T O R I Q U E D E S ANTIQUITÉS
JUIVES
L u c i o TROIANI UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI P A V I A
En 9 3 - 9 4 apr. J.-C., l'historien hiérosolymitain Flavius J o s è p h e finit d'écrire une oeuvre m o n u m e n t a l e en vingt livres, les Antiquités juives. L ' œ u v r e parcourt l'histoire j u i v e des origines du m o n d e j u s q u ' à l'empire de N é r o n . D a n s le p r o è m e , l'auteur explique qu'il a maintes fois été saisi d'hésitation et d e crainte p o u r réaliser une œ u v r e aussi importante et audacieuse. C e p e n d a n t , l'aide et l ' e n c o u r a g e m e n t de quelques personnes désireuses d e connaître l'histoire a n c i e n n e lui auraient permis de bien surmonter ces inquiétudes. J o s è p h e se dépeint c o m m e une personne étrangère à l'hellénisme et à la langue g r e c q u e , et il d e m a n d e à plusieurs reprises au lecteur d'être indulgent et c o m préhensif envers lui quant au style et à l'expression littéraire.
1
L'historien
m o d e r n e , qui s'efforce d e reconstruire le c a d r e historique dans lequel l'œuvre mûrit, s'interroge sur l'identité et sur la catégorie d e lecteurs qui pouvaient être la plus intéressée par c e qu'il définit «l'histoire a n c i e n n e » . Il se d e m a n d e o ù naissent les Antiquités juives et dans quel 2
cadre d e référence culturelle celles-ci doivent être situées. A u cours des dernières années du premier siècle apr. J.-C., selon le témoignage de Pline l'Ancien, Jérusalem n'existait tout b o n n e m e n t plus; les adulateurs d e c o u r célébraient César, régnant avec b o n h e u r , répandre avec férocité les flammes sur la ville sainte.
3
U n e guerre l o n g u e et
1
C. Ap. 1.27; B.J. 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 . Vita 4 0 . Cfr. S. M a s o n , BJP 9 , 4 5 - 4 6 ; S. J. D . C o h e n , "History and Historiography in the C o n t r a A p i o n e m o f Josephus," History and Theory 2 7 (1988): 1 - 1 1 . 2
J. M . G . Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996); S. M a s o n , " A n Essay in Character: T h e A i m and Audience of Josephus's Vita," in Internationales Josephus-Kolbquium Munster 1997 (ed. F. Siegert and J. U . K a l m s ; Munster: Lit, 1998), 3 1 - 7 7 ; M . Pucci ben Z e e v , Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (Tubingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1998); E . Schùrer, Storia del popolo giudaico al tempo di Gesù Cristo (175 a.C.-135 d.C) 3.1 (rev. ed. G . V e r m e s , F. Millar et al.; ed. ital. C . Gianotto; Brescia: Paideia, 1997); P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus Paraphrase of the Bible (Tubingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1998), L . Troiani, "Il m o dello ellenistico," Studi Ellenistici 15 (2003): 2 1 5 - 2 7 . 3
3
GLAJJ
1 : 4 6 8 - 8 1 no. 2 0 4 , esp. 4 7 1 , 4 7 7 - 7 8 = Pline l'Ancien, Nat. 5 . 7 0 ; GLAJJ
22
LUCIO TROIANI
cruelle—celle des Juifs de Palestine contre R o m e — a v a i t impressionné pendant presque une d é c e n n i e ( 6 6 - 7 4 apr. J.-C.) l ' o p i n i o n publique et Tacite exprime bien, dans l'excursus sur le Judaïsme c o n t e n u dans e
le V livre des Histoires, l'exaspération suscitée par la résistance tenace des révoltés. J o s è p h e t é m o i g n e en personne d e l'état d e prostration et d ' a b a n d o n qui circula p a r m i les vaincus, ainsi que des représailles inflexibles des légions de César contre les survivants. L a chaîne des suspicions et des rancœurs, les épurations qui y succédèrent, s'élargirent à la Diaspora; à C y r è n e , un révolté repenti, d u n o m d e J o n a t h a n , avait e x p o s é notre historien au dédain et à la suspicion des bienpensants.
4
L a récente guerre avait n é a n m o i n s suscité la curiosité
publique. Il était compréhensible que l'on entendit connaître les origines et la civilisation d'une nation qui, pendant presque une décennie, s'était trouvée sur le devant de la scène politique internationale. Ainsi q u e l'écrit T a c i t e , « l a colère était accrue par le fait q u e les Juifs étaient les seuls à ne pas c é d e r » . C e p e n d a n t , à la différence d'autres précédents auteurs indigènes d'histoires nationales, Josèphe doit exposer l'histoire, n o n pas d'une nation, mais d'une civilisation (ce qu'était le Judaïsme dans les années 9 0 d e notre ère) disséminée dans différentes nations, enracinée depuis des générations dans le tissu social et culturel des villes d'appartenance. Il ne s'agit pas d'écrire, selon les c a n o n s littéraires grecs courants, une ethnographie, c'est-à-dire une m o n o graphie sur un peuple n o n grec. Sa tâche est b e a u c o u p plus c o m plexe et articulée. Ecrire au m o n d e grec, en 9 3 - 9 4 apr. J . - C ,
une
histoire du Judaïsme depuis ses origines jusqu'à l'époque contemporaine signifie écrire une histoire c o m p o s i t e d e rencontres et de syncrétismes avec c h a c u n e des civilisations environnantes; p a r conséquent, une histoire qui implique directement c e m ê m e m o n d e grec. L'historien ne doit pas uniquement parcourir les phases marquantes du peuple délimité par la terre d e J u d a , en discutant d'us et de c o u t u m e s particulières; il doit aussi tenir c o m p t e de l'histoire séculaire de c o m munautés implantées depuis des générations sur un sol étranger, p a r
1 : 5 0 4 - 5 no. 2 2 6 = Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica, 1 . 1 2 - 1 4 . E . M . Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 3 3 1 - 8 8 ; L. H . Feldman, Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 8 4 - 1 7 2 . 4
Tacite, Hist. 5 . 1 0 . 2 ; GIAJJ 2 : 1 7 - 6 3 ; Flavius Josephe, Vita 4 2 4 - 4 2 5 : voire le commentaire de M a s o n , BJP 9 , 169; B.J. 7 . 4 3 7 - 4 5 3 ; S. A p p l e b a u m , Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 2 2 8 - 2 9 ; 2 4 2 - 6 0 .
23
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
e x e m p l e Alexandrie, R o m e , B a b y l o n e .
5
À la différence des É g y p -
tiens o u des Babyloniens, les Juifs d e l ' é p o q u e des Césars ne sont pas un p e u p l e ni, surtout, u n e culture c i r c o n s c r i t s d a n s des limites géographiques traditionnelles. Ils constituent une civilisation et une culture c o m p o s i t e , faites d e c o m m u n a u t é s implantées depuis des générations dans une z o n e qui s'étend d e l'Italie j u s q u ' a u x pays situés au-delà d e l'Euphrate. U n t é m o i n sous cet aspect impartial, tel que Porphyre de T y r , admet que la loi juive s'est étendue jusqu'aux confins de l'Italie «après Gaius César o u , d u m o i n s , durant son e m p i r e » .
6
Les Juifs c o n t e m p o r a i n s des Antiquités juives, parlent des langues différentes et o n t des us et c o u t u m e s différents. Philon d'Alexandrie, J o s è p h e de Jérusalem, L u c d ' A n t i o c h e s'accordent à penser q u e les grandes fêtes d e pèlerinage annuelles étaient une o c c a s i o n unique de 7
r e n c o n t r e et d e c o n n a i s s a n c e r é c i p r o q u e . D e s historiens anciens c o m m e T a c i t e et D i o n Cassius identifient le Judaïsme à une culture et à une civilisation internationale. Selon la vision de l'historien latin, «les pires individus», dans leurs patries respectives d'appartenance, 8
continuent de mépriser les religions natives. Selon D i o n Cassius, le terme «Juifs» s'applique «aussi aux autres h o m m e s , c e u x qui observent strictement les lois, bien qu'originaires d'autres p a y s » .
9
C'est p o u r
cette raison q u e , dans la littérature néo-testamentaire, le terme «Juif» finit p a r ne plus désigner une identité ethnique. L u c définit c o m m e étant «Juif» aussi bien A p o l l o s , né à Alexandrie, qu'Aquilas, né dans la p r o v i n c e d u P o n t .
10
Ecrire l'histoire du Judaïsme, dans les années
90 d e notre ère, signifie écrire une histoire qui touche la connaissance
5
Schürer, Storia, 3 . 1 : 7 7 - 1 0 4 ; CPJ; J. M é l è z e Modrzejewski, Les Juifs d'Egypte de Ramsès à Hadrien (Paris: A r m a n d Colin, 1997); J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1 (StPB 9; Leiden: Brill, 1965); H . I. L e o n , The Jews of Ancient Rome (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995). 6
Sed ne dicant, inquit (scil. Porphyrius), lege iudaica vetere hominum curatum genus, longo post tempore lex Iudaeorum apparuit oc viguit angusta Syriae regione, postea vero prorepsit etiam in fines ítalos, sed post Caesarem Gaium aut certe ipso imperante (Adversus Christianos = Augustinus, Epistulae 1 0 2 . 8 9 ; GLAJJ 2 : 4 8 1 , no. 4 6 5 h ) . 7
Philo Alexandrinus, Spec. 1.69; Flavius Josèphe, A.J. 4 . 2 0 4 ; A c 2 : 6 - 1 1 ; L . Troiani, "Greci ed ebrei, ebraismo ed «ellenismo»," in / Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Società (ed. S. Settis; T o r i n o : Einaudi, 2 0 0 1 ) , 3 : 2 0 3 - 3 0 . 8
Tacite, Hist. 5 . 5 . 1 : Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc congerebant. GLAJJ 2 : 1 9 , 3 9 . C e ne sont pas des gentils attirés par le Judaïsme, c o m m e veut l'opinion courante, mais (vraisemblablement) des citoyens d'origine juive. C'est n'est qu'ensuite (5.5.2) que Tacite envisage des trangressi in morem eorum. Cassius D i o , Historia Romana 3 7 . 1 6 . 5 - 1 7 . 1 ; GLAJJ 2 : 3 5 3 no. 4 0 6 . A c 18:24; 18:2; L. Troiani, Henoch 2 4 (2002): 3 5 9 - 6 5 . 9
1 0
24
LUCIO TROIANI
et le c œ u r des lecteurs depuis les confins de l'Italie j u s q u ' à la M é s o p o t a m i e ; cela signifie parcourir les phases d'une culture multilingue et aux p r o v e n a n c e s les plus variées qui accueille en son sein des traditions « b i b l i q u e s » tout autant q u e b a b y l o n i e n n e s ; r o m a i n e s tout autant qu'alexandrines; éphésiennes tout autant q u e corinthiennes. U n e histoire qui n'est pas circonscrite au cadre d e la Palestine, mais élargie à toutes les aires géographiques dans lesquelles sont présentes des c o m m u n a u t é s consistantes. L ' o n pouvait rencontrer, dans tous les recoins d e la Méditerranée, des personnages curieux d e connaître l'histoire ancienne, c o m m e par e x e m p l e , Epaphrodite, à qui sont dédiées les Antiquités juives: des personnes possédant une culture c o m posite et multiforme, des personnes bien intégrées dans la vie institutionnelle et intellectuelle des villes d ' a p p a r t e n a n c e ,
mais qui se
souviennent de leurs propres origines et de leur p r o p r e adhésion à la «citoyenneté d'Israël». Sous cet aspect, les épîtres d e Paul, en particulier
celles aux Corinthiens et aux R o m a i n s , avec le rappel à la
descendance c o m m u n e d ' A b r a h a m et à l'histoire collective telle qu'elle est fournie dans les Saintes Ecritures, pourraient constituer une m i n e d'indices p o u r reconstruire la p h y s i o n o m i e et l'articulation de c o m munautés de la Diaspora grecque.
11
Influencés c o m m e nous le sommes,
dans la caractérisation historique du Judaïsme antique, par la p h y sionomie dessinée dans le N o u v e a u Testament, d'une part, et par le témoignage de la littérature rabbinique, d'autre part (en particulier dans les traités d e la Mishna), n o u s n o u s plaisons à i m a g i n e r le Judaïsme c o n t e m p o r a i n des Antiquités juives de J o s è p h e c o m m e étant hermétique au contact extérieur, et m o n o l i t h i q u e . Il est c o m m e renfermé dans une c l o c h e d e verre, substantiellement i m p e r m é a b l e au m o n d e extérieur et inaccessible. D e s siècles de vie citadine passés en c o m m u n avec des concitoyens, par exemple d'Ephèse o u d'Alexandrie o u de R o m e , finissent par être effacés dans une perspective, p o u r ainsi dire, confessionnelle. C a r le Judaïsme antique est c o u r a m m e n t p e r ç u c o m m e un p h é n o m è n e religieux avant d'être un p h é n o m è n e historique. Sur la base d u N o u v e a u T e s t a m e n t o u , m i e u x , d ' u n e interprétation du N o u v e a u Testament et sur la suggestion de la littérature rabbinique, nous avons l'habitude d e restreindre
l'identité
j u i v e antique aux catégories d e stricte observance (nous pourrions dire, à ces groupes désignés c o m m e « o r t h o d o x e s » ) . En c o n s é q u e n c e , nous identifions avec certitude la catégorie, attestée par les sources
Par exemple, R o m 4 : 1 ; 1 C o r 1 0 : 1 - 4 .
25
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
anciennes, des «craignant D i e u » à des gentils attirés par le J u d a ï s m e .
12
Ainsi q u ' e n témoignent les restes d e la littérature j u i v e en langue grecque d e cette p é r i o d e , la culture j u i v e antique s'exprime sous des formes variées et articulées et ne refuse à priori pas des contacts et des influences avec des genres littéraires et historiographiques courant dans la patrie respective d'appartenance. Par e x e m p l e , des citoyens d'origine j u i v e d'Ephèse doivent avoir considéré Heraclite
comme
une gloire de la patrie et nous possédons des indices qui nous indiquent q u e , dans les milieux juifs d e culture g r e c q u e , une recherche d'us et traditions bibliques dans les p o è m e s homériques (que l'on peut définir c o m m e étant la Bible des grecs) a été tentée. J e pense à des grammairiens et stylisticiens c o m m e Cécile d e C a l a c t e .
13
Des
citadins implantés depuis des générations dans la cité g r e c q u e étaient éduqués tant aux lettres grecques q u ' a u x Saintes Ecritures. U n certain A l e x a n d r e , qui parle à l'assemblée extraordinaire d'Ephèse, tel qu'il est décrit par L u c dans les Actes des Apôtres, représente bien le caractère de la présence j u i v e dans la ville g r e c q u e : il vit et parle c o m m e une personne q u e l c o n q u e .
1 4
D a n s c h a q u e ville, a v e c les
«archontes de la synagogue et les archisynagogues des Juifs» pouvaient coexister des écoles plus o u m o i n s indépendantes des
institutions
publiques d e c h a q u e c o m m u n a u t é . L ' é c o l e d e T y r a n n u s à Ephèse o u la maison d e Tite, à C o r i n t h e , attestées par les Actes des Apôtres, indiquent la nature c o m p o s i t e et multiforme de la culture et d e l'intellectualité j u i v e citadine, qui ne s'était pas nécessairement identifiée à la synagogue. L ' e m p e r e u r T i b è r e , durant sa retraite temporaire à R h o d e s , d e m a n d e à être admis dans l'une d e ces écoles qui, selon le triomphalisme d e Philon, pullulaient sur le sol g r e c .
15
Il est difficile
de douter q u e la lettre de C l a u d e aux Alexandrins présuppose un haut degré d'activisme des c o m m u n a u t é s juives locales: César rappelle aux Juifs de la m é t r o p o l e q u e la ville ne leur appartient p a s .
16
1 2
G . Jossa, / gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesù (Brescia: Paideia, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 7 6 - 8 6 . A . - M . Denis, Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum hellenistarum Jragmentis (Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 7 - 6 0 ; 1 7 1 - 7 4 . L'auteur a changé opinion dans Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique (Turnhout: Brepols, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 : 9 6 6 ; 1 0 5 7 - 5 8 ; 1 2 7 7 ; Schürer, Storia, 3 . 1 : 8 9 6 - 9 0 1 . 1 3
1 4
A c 1 9 : 3 3 - 3 4 ; Philo Alexandrinus, Légat. 147; Prov. 2 . 6 6 ; Arrianus, Epict. diss. 2 . 9 . 1 9 ; GLAJJ 1 : 5 4 2 - 4 4 ; E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 3 : 3 4 2 . A c 19:9; 1 C o r 16:19; Suetonius, Tib. 3 2 . 2 ; GLAJJ 2 : 1 1 1 - 1 2 ; Philo Alexandrinus, Spec. 1 . 3 2 0 - 3 2 3 ; 2 . 6 2 - 6 3 . > CPJ 2 , no. 1 5 3 . 8 5 - 9 5 . 1 5
n
26
LUCIO TROIANI
Le Judaïsme c o s m o p o l i t e et international imaginé par les Antiquités juives vit dans le climat politique particulier des années 9 0 apr. J . - C . Selon un t é m o i g n a g e de l'auteur chrétien M i n u c i u s Félix, le m o n d e j u d a ï q u e s'interrogea, depuis l'Italie j u s q u ' à la M é s o p o t a m i e , sur les raisons d e la catastrophe d e l'an 70 apr. J . - C .
17
Et c e , d'autant plus
q u e la D i a s p o r a resta indifférente, à cette o c c a s i o n , aux raisons des rebelles d e J u d é e (BJ.
1.5). U n e histoire p o l i t i q u e d u J u d a ï s m e
d ' é p o q u e hellénistique et r o m a i n e , c o m m e le sont les Antiquités juives, ne pouvait ne pas être influencée par c e climat p s y c h o l o g i q u e qui consiste en une progressive prise de distance des autorités d e Jérusalem, après le règne d ' H é r o d e et d e ses successeurs, d e l'hellénisme et d e la collaboration q u ' u n e partie de la D i a s p o r a avait offert en son n o m . A p r è s l'activisme d ' H é r o d e le G r a n d , qui avait p r o m u d'intenses échanges avec la D i a s p o r a utilisée c o m m e base de départ d e sa politique extérieure, c e que les auteurs évangélistes définissent c o m m e étant le régime « d e s Juifs, des scribes, des Pharisiens et des G r a n d s Prêtres» avait redimensionné les ouvertures précédentes. L e Judaïsme traverse la phase d u repli sur lui-même lorsqu'il récupère une pleine identité contre la m e n a c e d e l'intégration. Ainsi q u ' u n passage d e l'Évangile d e saint J e a n semble le mentionner, le Judaïsme le plus helléniste, celui qui n'avait pas entièrement renié la réforme de l'an 167 av. J . - C , celui qui avait été si envahissant sous le règne d ' H é r o d e et qui avait c o n c o u r u à sa stabilité et à ses fastes, devint toujours plus étranger à Jérusalem et aux «Juifs» (Jean 7:35). C e n'est pas un simple hasard si, dans c e climat, J o s è p h e « l i q u i d e » toute la littérature parabiblique en grec en la considérant p e u c r é d i b l e .
18
C'est juste-
m e n t dans c e climat q u e mûrit la ré-élaboration des Antiquités juives à p r o p o s d u cadre politique d u Judaïsme d ' é p o q u e hellénistique et romaine. N o t r e historien entend s'opposer à un certain esprit c o n formiste d e présentation des é v é n e m e n t s d u passé. Il se p r o p o s e
1 7
Minucius Felix, Oct. 3 3 . 2 - 4 : sed Iudaeis nihil profuit, quod unum et ipsi deum aris atque templis maxima superstitione coluerunt: ignorantia laberis, si priorum aut oblitus aut inscius posteriorum recordaris. Nam et ipsi deum nostrum—idem enim omnium deus est—quamdiu enim eum caste innoxie religioseque coluerunt, quamdiu praeceptis salubribus obtemperaverunt, de paucis innumeri facti, de egentibus divites, de servientibus reges; modici multos, inermi armatos, dum Jugiunt insequentes, dei iussu et elementis adnitentibus obruerunt. Scripta eorum relege vel si Romanis magis gaudes—ut transeamus veteres—Flavi Iosepi vel Antoni Iuliani de Iudaeis require: iam scies nequitia sua hanc eos mentisse fortunam nec quidquam accidisse quod non sit iis, si in contumacia perseverarmi, ante praedictum. 1 8
L. Troiani, "Gli autori giudaico-ellenistici e la Settanta," Annali di Scienze Religiose 2 (1997): 1 9 7 - 2 0 7 .
27
LA GENÈSE HISTORIQUE DES ANTIQUITÉS JUIVES
ouvertement d e libérer l'histoire d u régime des hérodiens de la c h a p e conformiste et de l'oléographie des présumés «écrivains de r é g i m e » . Le traumatisme d e l'an 70 apr. J . - C . ainsi q u e les précédentes d é c e n nies agitées avaient m o n t r é q u e l'interprétation de l ' é p o q u e hérodienne fournie par les c o n t e m p o r a i n s n'était pas satisfaisante. Fort de la l e ç o n offerte par les événements successifs, J o s è p h e veut préciser à quel point l'œuvre d ' H é r o d e à fait verser de larmes et d e sang. L'imposante activité du secteur d u bâtiment, l'audience c o n c é d é e à des aventuriers d e tout b o r d p r o v e n a n t du m o n d e grec, la ténacité d é p l o y é e p o u r flatter César et les R o m a i n s et p o u r mépriser les c o u tumes nationales constituent le leitmotiv d e la narration
historique
de la p é r i o d e . J o s è p h e appartient à la classe dirigeante, identifiée par les auteurs des Evangiles dans les «scribes, Pharisiens et G r a n d s Prêtres» qui, après avoir pris ses distances vis-à-vis des concessions faites par H é r o d e à l'hellénisme, avalisa c o m m e unique et possible histoire, celle d u J u d a ï s m e unifiée par l'observance d e la « l o i de M o ï s e » . P o u r cette classe dirigeante, les j o u r s d ' H é r o d e avaient fait revivre c e u x d ' A n t i o c h e I V de Syrie, caractérisés par une dévaluation systématique des coutumes nationales. Dans les Antiquités juives, H é r o d e et ses descendants sont montrés d u doigt c o m m e un e x e m p l e de désertion des c o u t u m e s nationales: les concessions répétées faites aux m o d e s étrangères, l'avilissement d e la «constitution nationale» («qui devait rester inviolée») constituèrent le tragique p r é a m b u l e d e cette féroce o p p o s i t i o n populaire qui se d é c l e n c h a sous les procurateurs romains et qui fut à l'origine d e la tragédie d e l'an 7 0 .
1 9
L'essence du
Judaïsme, p o u r cette classe dirigeante, fut identifiée dans l'adhésion à la loi; sa survie, confiée au respect d e cette c o n d i t i o n . Seul un état théocratique pouvait garantir l'intégrité du Judaïsme, qui s'étendait
1 9
W . W . Buehler, The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate. Jewish Society in the Period 76-40 B.C. and Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of Pharisees and the Sadducees (Basel: Reinhardt, 1974); D . A . Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period. The Land is Mine (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity V o l . 2 0 ; Lewiston: Edwin M e l l e n Press, 1991); M . Hadas-Lebel, Jerusalem contre Rome (Paris: Cerf, 1991); M . H e n g e l , Gli JÇeloti. Ricerche sul movimento di liberazione giudaico dai tempi di Erode I al 70 d.C. (ed. ital. G . Firpo; Brescia: Paideia, 1996); G . J o s s a , Gesù e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina (Brescia: Paideia, 1980); B. Lifshitz, "Jérusalem sous la d o m i n a tion romaine. Histore de la ville depuis la conquête de Pompée jusqu'à Constantin (63 B . C . - A . D . 3 2 5 ) , " ANRW ILS (1977): 4 4 4 - 8 9 ; D . Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine within the Greco-Roman Period ( N e w Y o r k : D o u b l e d a y , 1992); L . Troiani, "Osservazioni sopra il quadro storico-politico del Giudaismo del I secolo d . C , " in / / Giudaismo palestinese: dal I secolo a.C. al I secolo d.C. (ed. P. Sacchi; Bologna: A I S G , 1993), 2 3 1 - 4 3 .
28
LUCIO TROIANI
d e l'Italie j u s q u ' à l'Iran, contre le d a n g e r des forces centrifuges. À l'époque de Josèphe, l'identité juive pouvait s'ajouter à un conglomérat d e cultures. Ainsi q u e l'affirmera le philosophe Epictète, l ' o n entendait des Juifs parler et se c o m p o r t e r exactement c o m m e des G r e c s .
20
Un
p o è t e satyrique latin, Perse, expose à la risée d u public les scrupules p o u r la «vie j u i v e » d'un a n o n y m e aspirant à Pédilité, p r o b a b l e m e n t d'origine j u i v e .
21
Paul semble connaître des m e m b r e s des c o m m u -
nautés juives d'Ephèse et d e Colosse qui sont devenus étrangers
à
la «citoyenneté d'Israël» ( E p h 2:12 ; C o l 1:21). Il s'agissait, par c o n séquent, d e repenser et d e p a r c o u r i r l'histoire à travers la ligne maîtresse d e l'observance d e la loi. Peut-être n'existait-il pas d'autres voies p o u r réduire à une exposition historique un p h é n o m è n e si c o m plexe et articulé tel q u e l'était le Judaïsme avant l'affirmation
d'une
identité chrétienne spécifique. Et c e n'est pas un hasard si, dans le N o u v e a u Testament, le m ê m e terme désigne n o n pas déjà une réalité ethnique, mais une sorte d e «manifeste» p o u r rappeler la nation à l'unité contre l'érosion et la dissipation d e sa p r o p r e identité.
2 0
Diodorus 4 0 . 2 ; GLAJJ 1 : 1 8 5 - 8 7 . Philo Alexandrinus, Legai. 2 7 8 . Cfr. n. 14. Persius, Sat. 5 . 1 7 6 - 1 8 4 ; GLAJJ 1 : 4 3 5 - 3 7 ; D . Gilula, "La satira degli ebrei nella letteratura latina," in Gli Ebrei nell'impero romano. Saggi vari (ed. A . Lewin; Firenze: Giuntina, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 9 5 - 2 1 5 ; L. Troiani, "Il giudaismo negli autori greci e latini dei primi secoli d . C . , " in Storiografia locale e storiografia universale ( C o m o : N e w Press, 2 0 0 1 ) , 379-91. 2 1
J U D E A N H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y IN R O M E : J O S E P H U S A N D H I S T O R Y IN CONTRA APIONEM JOHN M .
G.
BOOK 1
BARCLAY
UNIVERSITY OF D U R H A M
1.
W R I T I N G JUDEAN
H I S T O R Y IN R O M E
T o write J u d e a n history in R o m e at the e n d o f the first century C.E. was, for a J u d e a n , a fraught p r o c e d u r e . Q u i t e apart from the prac tical and literary challenge in c o m p o s i n g an extended historical p r o j e c t , a set o f c o m p l e x political hurdles faced any w o u l d - b e J u d e a n historian. T o write c o n t e m p o r a r y history, that is, the b a c k g r o u n d and course o f the J u d e a n W a r , was to enter highly sensitive terrain in w h i c h J u d e a n pride a n d imperial self-image were at stake
and
potentially in conflict: scholarship continues to examine (and variously evaluate) J o s e p h u s
5
success at negotiating the challenges o f this task,
w h i c h are evident throughout his Bellum Judaicum (explicidy in B.J. 1.1-16; C. Ap. 1.47-56; implicitly throughout).
1
T o write the early
history o f the J u d e a n p e o p l e (their "ancient l o r e , " apxouo^oyia) might appear to b e a safer a n d an easier task, but in fact it raised a set o f cultural problematics quite as awkward as the politics surround ing the Bellum. J o s e p h a n scholars have m a d e considerable inroads in analysis o f the formal and stylistic features o f the Antiquitates Judaicae, its pervasive "Hellenisation" o f J u d e a n figures and its adaptation o f the biblical story to fit the tropes, themes, narrative c o n v e n t i o n s and authorial standpoints typical o f G r a e c o - R o m a n historiography.
2
Rather
1
E.g. R . Laqueur, Der jüdischer Historiker Flavius Josephus. Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen 1 9 2 0 ; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1970); W . W eber, Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: K o h l h a m m e r , 1921); H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1972); T . Rajak, Josephus. The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983); K . - S . Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Franke, 1994). T h e most recent, and a m o n g the most perceptive, is G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography. Apologetic and Impression-Management in the Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 0 ) . r
2
}
L . H . Feldman's numerous essays on this topic are collected in his Josephus s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) and Studies in
30
JOHN M. G.
BARCLAY
less attention has b e e n paid to the p r o b l e m o f w h i c h Josephus h i m self is conscious in the preface to the Antiquitates {A.J. 1.1-17) a n d to w h i c h he returns in the o p e n i n g sections o f Contra Apionem, w h e r e he attempts to m e n d the c h i e f weakness o f the Antiquitates. T h e p r o b l e m discussed here is not h o w to write the Antiquitates, but
whether
anyone will read it and believe it, a p r o b l e m o f reception which concerns not just Josephus' auctoritas as an author but also, and m o r e
funda
mentally, the cultural p o t e n c y o f the J u d e a n tradition within the lit erate circles o f late
first-century
Rome.
T h e question w h i c h most exercises Josephus in the preface to the Antiquitates is whether a n y o n e will wish to read his work. H e is c o n vinced (he says) that the w o r k will " s e e m to all Greeks worthy o f serious attention" (arcctoi (paveiaGai xoiq "EAXnaiv d^iav O7co\)8fi<;, A.J. 1.5) and he parades first Epaphroditus and then Ptolemy II Philadelphus as examples o f interest in his J u d e a n subject matter {A.J. 1.8-12). J o s e p h u s ' explanation o f this interest is notably vague (the w o r k is "useful" a n d " n o b l e " and will appeal to "lovers o f learning,"
A.J.
1.9, 12); but his use o f the phrase "worthy o f serious attention" (oc^iocv O7io\)8fj<;) indicates his d e p e n d e n c e o n a cultural j u d g e m e n t o f " w o r t h " outwith his control. But b e y o n d the question o f interest, carefully f o r e g r o u n d e d to catch potential readers, lies the deeper p r o b l e m o f credibility. Josephus
leaves this question implicit but largely unan
swered in the preface to the Antiquitates. H e notes that the p e r i o d to b e surveyed in his w o r k is remarkably l o n g (a full 5,000 years, A.J. 1.13) and he half-recognises the critical question that this will raise: is this story really "history," o r d o its remoter periods stray into the category o f " m y t h " and "fiction," as is typical o f really lore"? A J.
3
In this context Josephus
"ancient
refers to " m y t h o l o g y " {\ivQoXoyia,
1.15; cf. 1.22) and thus indicates the proximity o f that charge,
but he is content to rebuff this with an appeal to the ethical value a n d elevated theology contained in J u d e a n historiography, the m o r a l lessons and "worthy c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d ' s nature" w h i c h it instils {A.J.
Josephus' Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Cf. P. Villalba i V a r n e d a , The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1986); P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of the Bible (Tubingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1998). 3
Josephus uity [Moses] TcAxxauaxcov)" treat "myth"
recognises that in dealing with "the long duration of time and antiq would have had a very free hand for fabricated falsehoods (\j/e\)8cov (Feldman, BJP 3 A J. 1.16 [ ]). Plutarch, Her. mal. 8 5 5 d seems to and "ancient lore" as practically synonymous.
JOSEPHUS AND
HISTORY
IN
CONTRA APIONEM BOOK
I
31
1 . 1 4 - 1 5 , 22). T h i s treats the ethical p r o b l e m o f " m y t h " but hardly the epistemological question: are there reliable sources for anything as ancient as J o s e p h u s
5
narrative? J o s e p h u s says he is simply "translat
ing" the H e b r e w writings (A.J. 1.5) a n d setting forth, without alter ation o r addition, the "precise details (та оскрфт!) in o u r writings" 4
(A.J. 1.17). But that simply pushes the question o n e step back: w h y should a n y o n e believe the H e b r e w writings o n which Josephus draws? In the first part o f his Contra Apionem J o s e p h u s responds to the (real o r imagined) failure o f the Antiquitates to c o m p e t e well in the cultural power-struggles o f c o n t e m p o r a r y R o m e . T h e o p e n i n g statement o f the n e w w o r k indicates what he h a d attempted in the Antiquitates, with emphasis o n the extreme antiquity o f the J u d e a n p e o p l e , their pristine ethnic integrity, his a c c o u n t o f their entry to the land and the 5 0 0 0 - y e a r span o f his Scripture-based narrative (С. Ap. 1.1). But he indicates immediately the d o u b l e p r o b l e m a t i c w h i c h he must n o w address: excel 5e auxvoix; орсо тац imb 5vo|ieve{a<; гжб TIVCOV егртцхеуац rcpoaexovTocq
рХаосртцишк; к а ! TOI<; rcepl xfiv apxaioA,oy{av i>rc' ецоЪ уеураццеуок; текат|рюу теrcouyuuivcnx;той vecorepov eivai то yevoq fjuxov то ц/пбеилш; я а р а тоц ejucpaveai TCOV 'EM/nvuccov iaTOpioypacpcov Ц У Г Ц П ^ f|£icoo8ai,rcepiTOVTCOV arcavTcov cpr|&nv 6eiv ypa\|/ai CUVTOJIGX; . . . OCTUOTOVVTCK;
However, since I see that a considerable number o f people pay atten tion to the slanders spread by some out o f malice, and disbelieve what I have written on ancient history, but adduce as proof that our nation is o f more recent origin that it was not considered worthy o f mention by the most renowned Greek historians, I thought it was necessary to write briefly on all these matters . . . (C. Ap. 1.2-3) Careful analysis o f this passage in the light o f the rest o f the w o r k indicates that Josephus here counters t w o equally d a m a g i n g o b j e c tions to his o w n J u d e a n historiography. O n the o n e hand, he faces "slanders" (рА,ао(ртщ1си) g r o u n d e d in malice (8i)Oneveia), terms he ?
uses repeatedly for the "Egyptian" narratives o f J u d e a n origins, in w h i c h Judeans were presented as Egyptian lepers expelled o n the o r d e r o f the G o d s . T h e s e are the tales w h i c h he spends m u c h time refuting in C. Ap. 1.219 ff., a n d w h i c h , as w e k n o w from Tacitus (Hist. 5 . 2 - 3 ) , gained w i d e a c c e p t a n c e in the R o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' day. F r o m this angle, then, Josephus' account o f Judean origins faced intense
4
See c o m m e n t a r y by Feldman, BJP 3 , ad loc.
32
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
competition from a pervasive alternative version, with Egyptian credentials. T h i s did n o t dispute J u d e a n antiquity, but offered a d e r o g a tory a c c o u n t o f the origins o f the J u d e a n nation critically different 5
5
from J o s e p h u s scriptural version. O n the other hand, as a s e c o n d 5
challenge, J o s e p h u s a c c o u n t faced critical doubts from p e o p l e w h o appealed for cultural authority to those they considered "the m o s t r e n o w n e d " G r e e k historians. In this case, the issue was not their alternative version o f J u d e a n antiquity, but the fact that they never 5
m e n t i o n e d Judeans at all. J o s e p h u s c o m m e n t that the J u d e a n nation was not considered " w o r t h y o f m e n t i o n
55
(^vf^Tiq f|^iña9ai) indicates
again that cultural j u d g e m e n t s are at stake. T h e fact that the m o s t prestigious G r e e k historians did not even m e n t i o n Judeans was taken to s h o w either that they d i d n o t exist in antiquity o r that they w e r e t o o insignificant to m e n t i o n ; in either case this j u d g e m e n t negated 5
the cultural capital w h i c h J o s e p h u s Antiquitates h a d taken so l o n g to accumulate.
6
5
Josephus fundamental p r o b l e m is thus o n e o f credibility, the m o s t basic p r o b l e m any historian c a n face. T h i s is n o t just a matter o f his personal credentials. A l t h o u g h he spends a little time in this c o n text repeating a n d defending his earlier claims to b e treated as an u n i m p e a c h a b l e authority o n b o t h J u d e a n antiquities a n d the J u d e a n W a r (C. Ap. 1.47-56), the m o r e fundamental question concerns the credentials o f his subject matter. W h i c h a c c o u n t o f ancient J u d e a n history is w o r t h y o f belief ? Josephus, as a J u d e a n historian utilising Judean sacred texts, faces a formidable challenge both from better known "Egyptian
55
accounts o f J u d e a n origins and from the presumption that
his nation can hardly have existed o r b e e n o f significance if superior cultural authorities, the " m o s t r e n o w n e d G r e e k historians,
55
failed
5
A.J. 2 . 1 7 7 and 3 . 2 6 5 - 2 6 8 indicate that Josephus knew these Egyptian stories well at the time o f writing Antiquitates) but he did not take time to confront them properly until he wrote Contra Apionem. 6
T h e r e are reasons to doubt that the criticism took exactly the form Josephus suggests. It is hard to imagine w h y anyone would object to a claim o f Judean antiquity as such (many "obscure" nations were probably ancient in origin); and Tacitus' variant versions of J u d e a n origins all portray them as ancient. But Josephus' language hints at another, related, charge: that Judeans were so culturally insignificant that no m a j o r Greek historians (who would have noticed eastern nations of importance) m a d e reference to them; see Celsus' c o m m e n t s in Origen, Cels. 4 . 3 1 , 3 6 . Since he is o n weak ground concerning the cultural impact of Judeans (cf. C. Ap. 2 . 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 , 1 8 2 - 1 8 3 ) , Josephus prefers to fight on the issue of the sheer antiquity o f his nation, for which any source reference will suffice.
33
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM BOOK I
even to register them. W h e r e v e r o n e l o o k e d for historiographical authority, to East o r West, "barbarian" o r " G r e e k , " Josephus' account was frankly unbelievable.
2.
ANALYSING JOSEPHUS'
RESPONSE
J o s e p h u s ' response to this d o u b l e challenge takes u p the first b o o k o f Contra Apionem, with the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l foundations laid in 1.6-59. T h i s passage constitutes J o s e p h u s ' fullest a n d most interesting state m e n t o n historical m e t h o d , though it has yet to receive the attention it deserves. T w o important articles, b y Tessa Rajak and Shaye C o h e n , p r o v i d e a foundation for m y observations. In her essay o n "Josephus and the ' A r c h a e o l o g y ' o f the J e w s , " Rajak assesses h o w J o s e p h u s ' project c o m p a r e s to parallel p h e n o m e n a in antiquity.
7
N o t i n g the
swirl o f debate in antiquity o n the b o u n d a r y between "history" and "myth," she righdy highlights the question o f sources and their author ity: where the Greek historiographical tradition typically sifted, criticised and c o m b i n e d historical sources, J o s e p h u s ' m e t h o d is simply to cite o r re-present the Biblical r e c o r d . T h e nearest analogies as precur sors o f his project, the native histories o f Egypt b y M a n e t h o , a n d o f Babylonia b y Berossus, were m o s d y disregarded b y J o s e p h u s ' c o n temporaries, and even they d o n o t parallel his attitude to the sanc tity o f the J u d e a n texts. A s Rajak righdy c o n c l u d e s , J o s e p h u s ' main obstacle in presenting the Antiquitates in
first-century
R o m e was not
so m u c h i g n o r a n c e as arrogance: " F o r they [pagans] s h o w e d little o r n o willingness to ascribe special value to what this contemptible litde nation thought a b o u t its o w n past; a n d indeed n o very great 8
willingness to consider what any nation thought about itself." Josephus' task is to get the Judeans' history heard, but he wishes it b e heard "essentially o n their o w n terms."
9
7
T . Rajak, "Josephus and the 'Archaeology' of the Jews," JJS 3 3 (1982): 4 6 5 - 7 7 (repr. in E a d e m , The Jewish Dialogue with Greece & Rome. Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction [Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill, 2 0 0 1 ] , 2 4 1 - 5 5 ) ; cf. her subsequent essay " T h e Sense of History in Jewish Intertestamental Writing," Oudtestamentische Studien 2 4 (1986): 1 2 4 - 4 5 (cf. E a d e m , The Jewish Dialogue, 1 1 - 3 7 ) . 8
"Josephus and the 'Archaeology' of the Jews," 4 7 5 . Rajak refers here to the rich and important article by E . Bickerman, "Origines Gentium," CPh 4 7 (1952): 6 5 - 8 1 . A s she notes wryly: "Perhaps our o w n attitudes to peoples w h o m w e regard as barbarous are not so very different: w e expect our own scholarship to produce better answers than indigenous traditions," 4 7 6 . "Josephus and the 'Archaeology' of the Jews," 4 7 6 . 9
34
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
Shaye C o h e n ' s essay o n "History and Historiography in the Against Apion o f J o s e p h u s "
10
discusses aspects o f J o s e p h u s ' strategy in C. Ap.
1.6-59. C o h e n highlights the cultural ambiguities o f this text. O n the o n e hand, it constitutes an exercise in historiographical p o l e m i c s within a l o n g - r u n n i n g a n d still-continuing G r e e k tradition, while simultaneously standing outside that tradition so as to "attack Greeks with their o w n w e a p o n s . "
11
the
O n the other hand, this text c o n
tains certain very striking peculiarities from a G r e e k perspective, espe cially in its o b l i q u e reference to divine authority b e h i n d the J u d e a n historical r e c o r d , and its striking appeal to consensus as a criterion o f truth (C. Ap. 1.26). A s C o h e n righdy suggests, b o t h o f these sug gest an understanding o f historiography as testimony to an alreadyestablished truth, not an art b y w h i c h truth is tested and discovered. Being thus b o t h " G r e e k " a n d " n o n - G r e e k " in its historical m e t h o d , J o s e p h u s ' text is
riddled
with internal contradictions a n d
remains
difficult to characterise. C o h e n c o n c l u d e s : " T h e Against Apion, then, is a c o m p l e x w o r k that faithfully mirrors the a m b i g u o u s place o f Judaism in the ancient w o r l d . "
12
I believe that the observations offered b y Rajak and C o h e n c a n b e b o t h illuminated and d e e p e n e d b y reference to postcolonial the ory. O n e b r a n c h o f this theory analyses the ways in w h i c h colonised cultures can and d o represent themselves to the colonial p o w e r , with strategic adaptations o f colonial discourse. T h i s c o n t e m p o r a r y theo retical a p p r o a c h can, I believe, b e adapted to illuminate the different, b u t n o t w h o l l y dissimilar, p o w e r d y n a m i c s o f antiquity
between
H e l l e n o - R o m a n cultural authority and the cultural traditions o f east ern (or other "barbarian") nations.
13
M a n y years a g o , in a seminal
essay o n Greek and R o m a n attitudes to the origins o f nations, Bickerm a n noted h o w "barbarian" nations e x p e r i e n c e d their native tradi tions c o m i n g under "the d o u b l e impact o f G r e e k p o w e r and o f G r e e k science,"
14
an i m p a c t w h i c h generally c o m p e l l e d them in time to
1 0
In Essays in Jewish Historiography (ed. A . Rapoport-Albert; History and T h e o r y 2 7 ; Middletown, C o n n . : W e s l e y a n University Press, 1988), 1 - 1 1 . 11
"History and Historiography," 5. "History and Historiography," 11. T h e c o m p o u n d " H e l l e n o - R o m a n " obscures, o f course, the complex power rela tions between Greeks and R o m a n s in the R o m a n empire; see S. Goldhill, ed., Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) . "Origines Gentium," 7 3 . 1 2
1 3
1 4
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM B O O K I
35
represent themselves within historiographical frameworks dictated b y Greeks. Bickerman's observation o n the relationship between " p o w e r " and " s c i e n c e " anticipates a key theme in the w o r k o f M . Foucault; it is precisely this nexus b e t w e e n " p o w e r " a n d " k n o w l e d g e , " as analysed b y Foucault, which E. Said traced in "Orientalist" discourse, and w h i c h subsequent theorists have e x p l o r e d in relation to the often c o m p l e x engagements between Western cultural p o w e r and the native traditions o f c o l o n i s e d p e o p l e s .
15
F o r instance, in an illuminating
analysis o f Western travel-narratives M a r y Louise Pratt examines the culturally l o a d e d constructions o f the "barbarian" O t h e r b y Western visitors, but also the c o m p l e x processes o f "transculturation" w h e r e b y native narratives and self-representations engage with the colonisers' terms o f representation a n d constructively appropriate Western pat terns o f discourse in interaction with their o w n .
1 6
These produce
what Pratt calls a tradition o f "autoethnography," a n d b y analogy w e m a y d u b the efforts o f J o s e p h u s and his oriental predecessors as exercises in "autohistory"—the attempt to tell their o w n histories in an i d i o m c o m p r e h e n s i b l e to the majority culture(s), but with primary 1
reference to their o w n traditions a n d on their own terms?
W h a t postcolonial theory offers is an analysis o f the c o m p l e x powerrelations involved in this cultural interaction. T h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f his tory involves m o r e than just style a n d c h o i c e o f subject-matter. In determining the scope o f history, in selecting a framework o f arrange m e n t a n d interpretation, a n d in determining the authority o f the rel evant sources, historiography both draws from, and creates, a particular regime o f truth. T h e contact and contest b e t w e e n rival truth-regimes can b e particularly intense w h e r e a rich indigenous tradition (such
1 5
E . Said, Orientalism'. Western Representations of the Orient (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1 9 8 5 [ 1 9 7 8 ] ) m a y be regarded as the fountainhead o f Western postcolonial theory. For an historical survey see R . J. C . Y o u n g , Postcolonialism. An Historical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2 0 0 1 ) . 1 6
M . L . Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation ( L o n d o n : Routledge, 1992). H e r approach successfully avoids categorising native authors according to the usual binary alternatives: either they offer "authentic" native versions of history, or they "assimilate" and thereby abandon their native identity. 1 7
G . Sterling has investigated aspects o f this tradition under the heading "apolo getic historiography" [Historiography and Self Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography, Leiden: Brill, 1992). But its power-dynamics have yet to be explored. O n historiography in postcolonial theory, note Cesaire's famous statement that "the only history is white". Cf. R . Y o u n g , White Mythologies. Writing History and the West (London: Routledge, 1990); D . Chakrabarty, "Postcoloniality a n d the Artifice of History: W h o speaks for 'Indian' Pasts?," Representations 37 (1992): 1 - 2 6 .
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
36
as that o f J u d a i s m in antiquity, o r , e.g., India today) runs u p against the c a n o n s a n d standpoints o f a m o r e powerful alternative. By focus ing o n the asymmetrical power-relations, w e c a n press b e y o n d g e n eralisations a b o u t cultural "fusions" a n d their resulting "ambiguities" to ask a b o u t the i m p a c t o f the t w o traditions o n o n e another,
and
the potential o f the " h y b r i d " p r o d u c t to unsetde the claims o f the d o m i n a n t cultural tradition. In other w o r d s , I believe c o n t e m p o r a r y theory c a n b e a d a p t e d in ways w h i c h help us p i n p o i n t m o r e p r e cisely w h e r e a n d w h y J o s e p h u s
5
e n g a g e m e n t with G r a e c o - R o m a n
historiography both b o r r o w s its cultural capital and disrupts its claims to superiority o v e r "uncivilised" nations.
3 . JOSEPHUS
5
STRATEGIES
I c a n n o t offer here a full analysis o f J o s e p h u s tural strategies in C. Ap. 1 . 6 - 5 9 .
1 8
5
rhetorical a n d cul
But b y w a y o f s u m m a r y I here
list, and offer b r i e f c o m m e n t o n , six features in the text, in the h o p e o f stimulating further discussion o f this important
text.
1. T h e first thing to notice is that Josephus discusses historical m e t h o d at all. T h a t he d o e s so at such length a n d with reference to m a n y o f the key figures in the G r e e k tradition is a sign o f his desire a n d his ability to j o i n the mainstream cultural tradition in R o m e . O n this a c c o u n t J u d e a n s are participants within the c o m m o n dis course o n history, n o t alien to its m o d e s o f reasoning a n d crite ria
o f j u d g e m e n t . I f he wants to d r a w a "just c o n c l u s i o n " (TO
Siicaiov) from "the facts themselves, n o t vain o p i n i o n s " (C. Ap. 1.6) J o s e p h u s is positioning himself within a universal field o f reason, , a n d in his critical c o m m e n t s o n G r e e k historical y o u t h in c o m parison with barbarian antiquity (C. Ap. 1 . 6 - 1 4 ) he draws o n tropes at least as o l d as H e r o d o t u s a n d Plato. J o s e p h u s ' o p e n i n g salvo is thus strategically non-specific to J u d e a n tradition; he a n n o u n c e s himself as a historian standing o n c o m m o n terrain.
1 8
See m y forthcoming BJP c o m m e n t a r y . It is hard to determine to what extent the strategies here analysed are conscious. A s rhetorically crafted arguments, with exaggerated rhetoric against "Greeks", they reflect a consciousness in art, but the extent to which the cultural strategy they represent is also conscious is not m e a surable. A post-colonial analysis which assesses the strategies o f texts does not depend o n assumptions concerning the consciousness o f particular authors.
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM BOOK I
37
2. S e c o n d l y , Josephus is well-enough informed to exploit the inter nal disputes within the G r e e k tradition in order to discredit the w h o l e . W h e r e the G r e e k competitive spirit had b e e n a d o p t e d as the signature o f every self-respecting historian, Josephus uses the resulting fissures to undermine the reputation o f t h e m all, exploit ing the paucity o f G r e e k written records and recycling prevalent R o m a n stereotypes o f G r e e k loquacity, argumentativeness and gen eral m e n d a c i t y .
19
By positioning himself initially as a historian but
a non-Greek, Josephus
thus attempts to p u n c t u r e
the
inflated
i m p o r t a n c e given to "the most r e n o w n e d G r e e k historians," with out needing to a d o p t any specifically "Judean" standpoint. 3. T h e r e is a notable silence in J o s e p h u s ' discourse: he never m e n tions R o m a n historians. Although R o m a n intellectuals had reworked the G r e e k historiographical tradition to their o w n e n d s ,
20
Josephus
never refers to R o m a n historiography in either positive o r negative terms. O n e c o u l d speculate m u c h o n the reasons for that silence, but the effect is to position himself alongside R o m a n c o m m e n t a tors o n the G r e e k tradition, if n o t explicidy among them. T h u s for R o m a n (or R o m a n i s e d ) readers, n o disjunctive is allowed to arise w h i c h might portray Josephus as at o d d s with their o w n tradi tion.
T h i s J u d e a n historian says nothing to suggest he is n o t at
h o m e in the capital o f the empire. 4. T h e o n l y explicit self-identification
in the p o l e m i c a l section o f
J o s e p h u s ' discussion o f historiography (C. Ap. 1.6-29) is in analogy to three eastern nations, the Egyptians, Chaldeans and Phoenicians; Josephus first m o d e s d y refrains from adding his o w n nation (C. Ap. 1.8), but finally claims to m a t c h and even supersede these histo riographical
giants (C. Ap. 1.29). T h e three nations here
are those f r o m w h o s e records he will d r a w in the
named
subsequent
proofs o f J u d e a n antiquity (C. Ap. 1 . 6 9 - 1 6 0 ) , but they w e r e also i m m e d i a t e l y recognisable in R o m e as eastern nations o f great antiquity. Josephus' strategy is thus to insert J u d e a n s — a w h o s e records were not k n o w n o r recognised to b e
nation
ancient—into
1 9
See, in brief, m y essay "Judaism in R o m a n Dress: Josephus' Tactics in the Contra Apionem" in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Aarhus 1999 (ed. J. U . K a l m s ; Munster: L I T , 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 3 1 - 4 5 . Further, on R o m a n attitudes to Greek historians, A . W a r d m a n , Rome's Debt to Greece (London: Elek, 1976), 7 4 - 1 1 0 . 2 0
See A . Wallace-Hadrill, 224-33.
"Greek K n o w l e d g e ,
R o m a n Power," CPh 8 3 (1988):
38
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
m o r e familiar c o m p a n y , allowing the reputation o f the g r o u p to rub o f f o n the additional m e m b e r . W h a t is m o r e , there is s o m e 5
evidence that literate circles in R o m e in J o s e p h u s day were inclin ing to give greater c r e d e n c e to alternative "eastern" accounts o f history, especially w h e r e they criticised o r superseded the G r e e k . T h u s , for instance, the alternative versions o f the T r o j a n W a r b y Dares o f Phrygia a n d Dictys o f Crete were " d i s c o v e r e d " during the reign o f N e r o a n d j u d g e d b y s o m e m o r e reliable than H o m e r , while a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus, Philo o f Byblos, seems to have persuaded s o m e readers that he h a d d i s c o v e r e d the writings o f o n e Sanchuniathon, w h o s e accurate a c c o u n t o f Phoenician history p r o v e d G r e e k historiography to b e incorrect a n d G r e e k mythol o g y derivative.
21
In such an atmosphere, J o s e p h u s might h o p e that
the ancient traditions o f the J u d e a n nation w o u l d also gain a sym pathetic
hearing.
22
H o w e v e r , the appeal in such traditions to extreme antiquity is potentially p r o b l e m a t i c . Egyptians a n d Babylonians w e r e k n o w n to make what s e e m e d to R o m a n authors, such as C i c e r o
and
Pliny, absurd claims to their antiquity, b a n d y i n g about figures such as 4 7 0 , 0 0 0 years, w h i c h w e r e c o n s i d e r e d simply fantastic.
23
Since
T h u c y d i d e s ' famous preface, to enter such realms o f "pre-history" was liable to b e c o n s i d e r e d a dangerous excursion into the terrain o f " m y t h o l o g y , " a realm w h e r e it was impossible to make o u t what was sober truth and what fable, where the boundaries between the h u m a n a n d the divine were blurred, a n d where implausible and exaggerated tales w e r e k n o w n to b l o s s o m , bringing pleasure only to the ignorant masses, to barbarians a n d to w o m e n .
2 4
Since
2 1
H . A . Attridge, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos ( W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : Catholic Biblical Association of A m e r i c a , 1981); for this p h e n o m e n o n , of growing readiness to hear and even accept the traditions of nations on the edges of empire, see G . Bowersock, Fiction as History (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1994), 43-48. 2 2
For the growing attraction o f oriental "wisdom", a n d its special authority as "revelation", we m a y c o m p a r e the popularity of doctrines attributed to H e r m e s a n d Zoroaster; see A . M o m i g l i a n o , Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1975), 1 4 1 - 4 8 . 2 3
2 4
Cicero, Div.
1 . 3 6 - 3 7 ; Pliny, Nat.
7.56; cf. Diodorus 2 . 3 1 . 9 .
See esp. Thucydides 1 . 1 - 2 2 ; Dionysius, Thuc. 5 - 7 ; Diodorus 1 . 3 - 6 ; Livy, pref ace; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 1 . 2 6 3 - 2 6 9 ; cf. Rajak, "Josephus," 4 6 5 - 7 1 . O n the relation between "myth" and "history" in the G r e e k tradition see M . Finley, " M y t h , M e m o r y and History," in Idem, The Use and Abuse of History ( L o n d o n : Chatto and W i n d u s , 1975), 1 1 - 3 3 .
39
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM BOOK I
m y t h o l o g y was difficult to c o n t r o l , e x a m i n e o r j u d g e , it threatened the (masculine) control essential to the calling o f a historian.
25
To
a m a n w h o should b e able to investigate, to adjudicate o r , as T h u c y d i d e s w o u l d say, to "torture" his historical evidence in o r d e r to m a k e it yield the truth,
26
the truly ancient lore always threat
e n e d to leave h i m at a loss a n d o p e n to the charge o f ( w o m a n ish) credulity. A s w e shall see, this i d e o l o g y o f c o n t r o l , w h i c h is so powerful in the G r e e k tradition o f "criticism," is obliquely chal lenged b y j o s e p h u s with his alternative understanding o f the acqui sition o f historical truth. 5. A t o n e p o i n t Josephus threatens to invert G r e e k cultural
arro
g a n c e completely. After offering an explanation for G r e e k silence o n Judeans, o n the grounds o f their physical remoteness (C. Ap. 1 . 6 0 - 6 8 ) , he asks: " S u p p o s e w e were to argue, in relation to the Greeks, that their nation is n o t ancient, and d e c i d e d to use as p r o o f the fact that nothing is said a b o u t them in o u r records. W o u l d they not think that utterly laughable—adducing, I imagine, the same reasons that I have just discussed?" (C. Ap. 1.69). By mirroring a n d inverting the o b j e c t i o n cited in C. Ap. 1.2, J o s e p h u s raises the prospect o f a full-frontal attack o n its Hellenocentric presumptions. H e hints here at the possibility o f affirming, with o u t a p o l o g y , a radical cultural difference: perhaps G r e e k claims for what counts as " w o r t h y o f m e n t i o n " are merely s y m p t o m s o f cultural imperialism. W h y should not the (lack o f ) J u d e a n
evi
d e n c e for G r e e k antiquity b e taken as seriously as the (lack o f ) G r e e k e v i d e n c e for J u d e a n antiquity? In fact, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s does not pursue this potentially subversive track. Despite his aware ness o f the injustice in G r e e k cultural claims, and despite his c o m p r e h e n s i v e critique o f G r e e k h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in C. Ap.
1.6-27,
2 5
T h i s ideology o f control is ubiquitous in discussions o f the historian's task in antiquity, which necessarily involves working hard, interrogating the evidence, inves tigating variant accounts, assessing plausibility, and avoiding at all costs the charge of credulity. Lucian's tractate How to write history is replete with this élite ideology of control, proportion and independence, which is explicitly gendered (e.g. Hist. Corner. 1 0 - 1 3 ) . O n ancient historiography and its rhetorics see T . P. W i s e m a n , Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature (Leicester: University o f Leicester Press, 1979); A . W o o d m a n , Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London: C r o o m H e l m , 1988); C . W . Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); J. Marineóla, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). 2 6
Uncritical people receive reports from others áPaoccvíoTüx; (Thucydides 1.20).
40
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
Josephus still wishes to cite s o m e G r e e k witnesses to J u d e a n antiquity, a n d had p r e p a r e d in the introduction (C. Ap. 1.5) for the l o n g section o f G r e e k testimony in C. Ap. 1 . 1 6 1 - 2 1 8 . J o s e p h u s ' cultural stance is thus conflicted: his critique o f the G r e e k tradition almost results in complete repudiation o f G r e e k cultural claims, but he still wants, a n d perhaps needs, the support o f G r e e k witness to b o t h the antiquity a n d the cultural attraction o f the J u d e a n p e o p l e (see C. Ap.
1.162, 166 etc.). T h e internal contradictions
in J o s e p h u s ' argumentation (e.g., the rubbishing o f H e r o d o t u s in C. Ap. 1.16, but his use as a reliable witness in C. Ap. 1.168-171) are s y m p t o m s o f this d e e p e r conflict in cultural strategy. 6. Following his critique o f the G r e e k historiographical tradition (C. Ap.
1.6-27), J o s e p h u s begins the praise o f his o w n , as guaranteed
by
high-priests a n d prophets (C. Ap. 1.29). H e emphasises first the
preservation o f priesdy lineage (C. Ap. 1 . 3 0 - 3 6 ) , and then, in a single c o n d e n s e d paragraph (C. Ap. 1.37-41), depicts the sources o f authority within the J u d e a n tradition. T w o intertwining threads run through this paragraph: first, the limitation o f authority
to
certain key figures, n a m e d "prophets," and secondly, the resulting
unanimity in agreement o n the truth. H e r e Josephus displays
the most dramatic differential in his J u d e a n understanding o f historiography. T h e difference lies not just in the c h o i c e o f term, " p r o p h e t , " but in the structures
o f authority w h i c h this t e r m
implies: " . . . it was the prophets alone w h o learned, b y inspiration from G o d , what h a d h a p p e n e d in the distant a n d ancient past, a n d r e c o r d e d clearly what took place in their o w n time just as it o c c u r r e d . . . "
2 7
T o g e t h e r , the five b o o k s o f M o s e s and the thirteen b o o k s c o m p o s e d by
"the prophets following M o s e s " make u p the bulk o f the 2 2 - b o o k
c a n o n d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s ; its limits a n d controls are
empha-
sised b y his insistence that it is not a matter o f free c h o i c e for anyto write such texts (|j,r|T£ TO \ ) 7 C O Y p a c p e i v a u x e ^ o u c n o i ) rcaoiv
one
o v x o q , C. Ap. 1.37; cf. 1.20) a n d that, since Artaxerxes, the J u d e a n historical records are not considered worthy o f like c r e d e n c e
(TUOTEGX;
8'o\>x ojioiac; f|^{coxai), since there is n o accurate line o f p r o p h e t i c succession (C. Ap. 1.41).
27
XTJV
àXXà uóvcov xcòvrcpoqynxcòvxà uèv àvcoxàxco m l 7taXaióxaxa m x à arcò
1.37).
TOX)
XTIV
èjcuivoiav
9eo\) uaGóvxcov, xcc 5è m 0 ' avxoix; ax; èyévexo aacpax; a-oyvpacpovxcov (C.
Ap.
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM B O O K I
41
T h u s J u d e a n historiography d o e s not just have different sources from those e m p l o y e d b y others, with w h i c h it can supplement the a c c o u n t o f universal h u m a n history. N o r d o e s Josephus simply claim that Judeans have particularly accurate historical records, w h i c h have b e e n p r o v e d b y investigation to b e m o r e reliable than the m y t h o l o gies p e d d l e d b y others. T h e notable feature in this a c c o u n t is that n o investigation o f these J u d e a n sources is either necessary o r desired. T h e i r authority is not just in practice unchallenged, but in princi ple unchallengeable, since their authors are themselves authorised b y their divine s o u r c e .
28
T h e point is m a d e almost in passing b y refer
ence to M o s e s ' accurate k n o w l e d g e o f 3 0 0 0 years o f h u m a n history " b y inspiration from G o d " (ката xx\\ ercircvoiav TT)V ало той беой), an authority w h i c h then leaks o v e r b y implication to all the other prophets in the accurate line o f succession.
29
It is reinforced b y the
chain o f "learning" (|iav0cxv£iv) w h i c h applies in J u d e a n historiog raphy: w e learn from the records o f the past (С. Ap. 1.23), but the prophets in turn learned from G o d (C. Ap. 1.37). Elsewhere in this discussion (e.g. C. Ap. 1.10, 14, 15), as everywhere in the G r e e k tra dition, the relationship o f learner to teacher is o n e o f subordination: to learn from another is to submit to his authority. But whereas the G r e e k historian in the critical tradition w o u l d never simply learn from his sources, but must scrutinise them, adjudicate what was plausible, "cleanse" them, and submit them to his o w n reasoning capacity, Josephus portrays (and practices) a discipline o f learning from sources, w h o s e contents are ultimately learned from G o d . T h e difference is immediately dramatised b y J o s e p h u s ' claim in C. Ap. 1.42-45 that, unlike the typical G r e e k attitudes to their his tories, Judeans will never a d d to o r subtract from their writings, but learn right from birth to regard them as 0eo\) боуцххта; they are willing to remain faithful to them, even to death (C. Ap. 1.42-43). T h i s set o f claims shows quite h o w novel an element Josephus here inserts into the tradition o f historiography in w h i c h he wishes to b e heard. O n c e again, the difference is not just in the particular sources to w h i c h Judeans appealed, but in their understanding o f those sources
2 8
T h e role o f the M u s e s in inspiring poetry, and the inspiration of the Sibylline prophets, are the closest analogies in the Greek tradition; but neither of these fit the genre of historiography. 2 9
In comparison with the later prophets, M o s e s has no eyewitness claims to accu racy, nor (despite C. Ap. 1.6 ff.) does Josephus refer to records at his disposal. T h e only way he can know about 3 0 0 0 years of history (!) is by divine inspiration.
42
JOHN M. G. BARCLAY
a n d o f themselves in relation to them. If the sources cannot b e altered b y addition o r subtraction, o n e has surrendered p o w e r to them as unquestionable a n d c o m p l e t e . I f it is necessary for Judeans to main tain a belief o n this point first instilled from birth (£\)0\)<; £K Kp6yzr\q yeveaecoq), they maintain a "child-like" v i e w o f authority and forfeit the right to practise the Xoyoq w h i c h matures in a d u l t h o o d . A n d if o n e is prepared to suffer, even die, for these "laws and the writings associated with t h e m " (C. Ap. 1.43), o n e a c c o r d s them rights even greater than o n e ' s o w n interests. It is easy to see h o w a critic in the G r e e k tradition w o u l d dismiss this attitude as a superstitious dangerous a b a n d o n m e n t o f critical reason.
30
and
T h e structures o f author
ity here a d o p t e d undercut the ideologies o f c o n t r o l o n w h i c h the G r e e k historiographical tradition is constructed. J o s e p h u s ' p r o v o c a t i v e claim is that this J u d e a n tradition stands n o t as a radical alternative to the mainstream historiographical tradition, but as a variant within it, even as its supreme e x e m p l a r o f a c c u r a c y a n d truth. H e does n o t offer the J u d e a n Scriptures as n e w material for evaluation within the established rules o f historiography, as n e w resources for a critical reconstruction o f antiquity: that w o u l d leave u n t o u c h e d the authority o f the G r e e k intellectual enterprise. N o r does he simply j u x t a p o s e J u d e a n historiography as an alternative w a y o f d o i n g history, a native tradition w h i c h operates b y different rules. His strategy is altogether m o r e d e m a n d i n g and, potentially, m o r e threatening
to the metropolitan tradition. J o s e p h u s inserts himself
a n d his J u d e a n perspective into the historiographical tradition, enter ing its debates and disputes, e c h o i n g its values o f accuracy, affirming its d o c u m e n t a r y preferences a n d its striving for "truth"; but he adds to that tradition a different historiographical logic w h i c h unsetdes its n o r m a l structures o f authority. Like Aristode's J u d e a n (as reported b y Clearchus, in C. Ap. 1.175-182), Josephus enters the intellectual conversation, and has the necessary discursive credentials to gain a hearing in the c o m p a n y o f other scholars. But he also has " s o m e thing o f his o w n " to contribute (C. Ap. 1.181) a n d in this case what he offers is not a n e w illustration o f an established c o n v e n t i o n , but an addition to the historiographical a g e n d a w h i c h disturbs the rules b y w h i c h the scholarly conversation takes place.
3 0
Cf. Agatharchides' critique of sabbauV'superstition" in C. Ap. 1 . 2 0 5 - 2 1 1 . T h e r e , as here, c o m m i t m e n t to "tradition" leads to losing one's o w n life, which for Agatharchides is self-evidently ridiculous.
43
JOSEPHUS AND HISTORY IN CONTRA APIONEM BOOK I
Josephus thus provides a perfect illustration o f that " m i r r o r - d a n c e " in w h i c h an "autohistory" transculturates elements o f the m e t r o p o l itan discourse in o r d e r to create its o w n self-affirmation, designed for reception in the metropolis (in this case imperial R o m e ) . S u c h colonial mimicry, the reflection b a c k o f the d o m i n a n t culture b y the politically subordinate, can bear subversive potential. A s H o m i Bhabha has shown, colonial "hybridity" offers m o r e than simply the fusion o f different cultural traditions, but b y creating something b o t h similar and different it threatens to destabilise the regularities w h i c h are sup posedly b e i n g r e p r o d u c e d .
31
By inserting J u d e a n historiography into
the long-running debates o f the G r a e c o - R o m a n world, Josephus does m o r e than e x p a n d its s c o p e and its range o f sources: he insinuates a different c a n o n o f authority a n d a subdy different understanding o f the task o f the historian, without fanfare o r detailed exposition but with sufficient clarity to disrupt the n o r m a l patterns o f histori cal reasoning. His o w n tradition d i d n o t perhaps carry sufficient political p o w e r for this challenge to b e effective.
32
Despite the pres
ence o f n u m e r o u s articulate Judeans in R o m e , Tacitus will describe J u d e a n antiquity without any reference to J u d e a n autohistory (Hist. 5 . 2 - 3 ) . But for early Christianity, J o s e p h u s ' tactics offered a p o w e r ful tool with w h i c h to crack o p e n the authority o f the G r a e c o - R o m a n tradition, a n d in Eusebius' hands, w h e n Christianity was gaining real political and thus cultural p o w e r , they help to effect a c h a n g e in the cultural co-ordinates o f the ancient w o r l d w h i c h was to p r o v e o f e n o r m o u s significance for Western history a n d historiography.
33
3 1
See especially the essays "Sly Civility" and "Signs T a k e n for W o n d e r s , " in H . Bhabha, The Location of Culture ( L o n d o n : R o u d e d g e , 1994). O f course, the sub versive potential m a y be neither heard nor realised. 3 2
T h e problem is not just that he appeals to the authority o f prophets, but that he appeals to Judean prophets, w h o hitherto had n o cultural authority within the Greek or R o m a n traditions (unlike, for instance, Egyptian priests). Livy's preface illustrates perfectly the importance o f political and military power in enforcing cul tural attention: he presumes that other nations will submit to the authority of R o m e ' s version of its prehistory with as m u c h grace as they submit to R o m e . See, for instance, the strategy adopted in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica. 3 3
T H E I M P O T E N C E OF TITUS, O R FLAVIUS J O S E P H U S ' S BELLUM JUDAICUM
AS A N
EXAMPLE OF "PATHETIC" HISTORIOGRAPHY FAUSTO II
PARENTE
UNIVERSITÀ DI R O M A , T O R V E R G A T A
Thus says the L O R D , the G o d o f Israel. . . . I am going to give this city into the hand of the king o f Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire Jeremiah 34:2 (NRSV) 1. T h o s e w h o attentively read Flavius J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum can not fail to notice a distinctive feature o f the work: the c o - p r e s e n c e , even o n adjacent pages, o f realistic narratives drawn from the author's recollections a n d the official R o m a n d o c u m e n t s available to h i m , o n the o n e hand, a n d o f narratives w h i c h w e m a y call outright dramatic representations with little o r n o c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to reality o n the other. In other w o r d s , from a formal p o i n t o f view, the Bellum displays an evident m i x o f different historiographical "genres": " p r a g m a t i c " historiography w h i c h seeks to present the reader with the facts as they actually h a p p e n e d and relies heavily o n d o c u m e n t s ; a n d "dramatic" o r "pathetic" historiography w h i c h seeks to present facts in tragic o r dramatic terms, even to the detriment o f their veracity, in o r d e r to impress the reader and to arouse particular psychological reactions. T h i s practice originated with Duris o f S a m o s , a pupil o f T h e o phrastus, and p r o b a b l y derived ultimately from Aristode's Poetics, and from an attempt to e n n o b l e historiography, giving it a greater resem blance to the poetry that Aristotle d e e m e d m o r e serious than his tory because it m o r e closely approached the universal. In the Hellenistic period, it exerted great influence o n historiography but was criticised b y the pragmatic Polybius, especially in B o o k 13 o f his Histories? T o gain an idea o f this c o - p r e s e n c e o f different historiographical genres in the Bellum, c o m p a r e , for e x a m p l e , Josephus's digression o n the R o m a n a r m y arrayed before Ptolemais w h e n Titus h a d j o i n e d
1
Arist. Poet. 1 6 3 1 b . K . Meister, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfingen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln: W . K o h l h a m m e r , 1990), 9 5 - 1 0 2 .
46
FAUSTO PARENTE
his father (B.J. 3 . 7 0 - 1 0 9 ) — a digression that he c o u l d only have based o n official R o m a n d o c u m e n t s — w i t h his description o f the batdefield during the c o n q u e s t o f G a m a l a in Galilee (B.J. 4.72). H e r e Josephus writes: " O n all sides was heard the never ending m o a n o f the dying and the w h o l e city was deluged with b l o o d p o u r i n g d o w n the slopes"
2
(ocneipoq 8'rjv 7cavxaxo\) (pove\)ojievcov 6 axovoq, rai TO aijia rcaoav enexXv^e ir\v noXiv Kaxa npavovq xeoj^evov). T h e image is as graphic as it is entirely unrealistic, a n d w e m a y intuit h o w Josephus was able to construct it: he must have called to m i n d the water w h i c h washed away the b l o o d o f the animals sacrificed o n the altar o f the T e m p l e and might s o m e times have given the impression o f an actual deluge o f b l o o d .
3
In his description o f the siege o f Jerusalem (B.J. 6 and 7), Josephus presents us with t w o sets o f pictures, o n e w h i c h describes events inside the city, and o n e w h i c h describes events outside it and in the R o m a n c a m p s . H e gives entirely different colourings to these pictures. T h o s e which describe the exterior o f the city are largely realistic and accurate in their details; those that describe its interior c o m p r i s e facts w h i c h are obviously distorted and w h i c h , in the majority o f cases, as w e shall see, are the fruit o f the author's imagination, and w h e r e the plethora o f details—which Josephus could not have witnessed atfirsthand— betray the fictitious character o f the description. N o w , w e must ask ourselves, for what reason did Josephus so obviously dramatize his representation o f what was o c c u r r i n g within the city? A n answer c a n o n l y b e given if w e consider the audience for whom his work was intended. 2. G i v e n that the Bellum was written in R o m e and at the court o f the Flavians, and a c c o r d i n g to W e b e r o n the basis o f the commentaria (commentaries, imojivrmaTa) kept b y the R o m a n c o m m a n d e r s dur 4
ing the c a m p a i g n (Vita 343 and 3 5 8 ) , it w o u l d seem to b e the official chronicle o f the w a r fought b y Vespasian and Titus in Galilee and
2
T h e passages from Bellum Judaicum, Contra Apionem, and ing to the translation by H . St. J. Thackeray ( L C L ) .
Vita are cited accord
3
O n washing to remove the blood o f sacrifices see Ep. Arist. 9 0 : "there are m a n y openings for water at the base [of the altar] . . . so that all the blood of the sacrifices which is collected in great quantities is washed away in the twinkling of an eye" (trans. H . Andrews in R . H . Charles, APOT), although this does not refer to Herod's temple. T h e image of "the deluge o f blood" is also used by Josephus in BJ. 6 . 2 5 9 and in 6 . 4 0 6 , where it even extinguishes the fires. For a similar representation in the Jewish literature see T. Ta'anit I V . 8 . 6 9 a . 4
W . W e b e r , Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: K o h l h a m m e r , 1921), 1 3 6 ff.; 2 0 7 ff.
47
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
Judaea—just
as De hello gallico h a d b e e n the official c h r o n i c l e o f
Caesar's c a m p a i g n s in G a u l . Titus, wrote Josephus in his Vita, had put his signature to the Bellum in o r d e r to authenticate its veracity: "indeed, so anxious was the E m p e r o r Titus that m y v o l u m e s should b e the sole authority from which the world should learn the facts, that he affixed his o w n signature to t h e m and gave o r d e r for their p u b lication" (Vita 363). C o n s e q u e n d y , the audience for w h i c h the w o r k was intended c o u l d only have b e e n the R o m a n public. H o w e v e r , it is p r o b a b l e that the official chronicle o f the w a r was another o n e . In the Octavius ( 3 3 . 2 - 4 ) , Minucius Felix has the p a g a n interlocutor o f the dialogue say that the worship o f the J e w s was directed to only o n e G o d , and that as l o n g as they practised it in purity a n d i n n o c e n c e , they w o u l d enjoy prosperity. H e continues: "scripta e o r u m relege, uel ut transeamus veteres, Flavi Iosephi uel, si R o m a n i s magis gaudes, A n t o n i Iuliani de Iudaeis require i a m scies, nequitia sua h a n c eos meruisse f o r t u n a m " ( 4 7 . 2 2 - 4 8 . 2 H a l m ) .
5
T h i s Antonius Julianus was very p r o b a b l y the M a r c u s A n t o n i u s Julianus w h o attended the council o f w a r p r e c e d i n g the final assault a n d w h o was described b y J o s e p h u s as the p r o c u r a t o r (emxporcoq) o f J u d a e a (B.J. 6.238). Because M i n u c i u s Felix talks o f the "fortuna," that is, the ruin o f the J e w s , a n d sets Antonius Julianus's w o r k o n a p a r with that b y Josephus, it seems likely that Julianus w r o t e the 6
official chronicle o f the war, d o i n g so o n the basis o f the commentaria. In the p r o l o g u e to his work, J o s e p h u s mentions other authors w h o dealt with the same matter to "extol the R o m a n p o w e r " (B.J. 1.9).
But, contrary to these authors, his intention is to e x p o u n d more accu rately the actions o f the t w o sides (aXka xa jiev epya jaex' aKpiPeiaq
5
T h e editors o f Octavius (extant in a single ms., the Parisinus lat. 1661 o f the ninth century, which also contains the work o f Arnobius) expunged "Flavi Iosephi uel." N o t only is the deletion unnecessary but it compromises the intelligibility o f the text. T h e sense o f the sentence is: "Re-read their [the Jews'] writings: if y o u leave aside the ancients (read that) o f Flavius Josephus or, if you prefer the R o m a n s , (that) o f Antonius Julianus, then you will realize that their misfortunes depend upon their wickedness". In other words, in p r o o f o f his assertion the pagan interlocutor of the dialogue cites the Bible (where statements o f this kind abound) or, besides the Bible, Josephus's Bellum. T o reinforce his argument, he affirms that, apart from that work, written b y a Jew, the same conclusions can be drawn from the writings of a pagan, Antonius Julianus, whose work is clearly set in parallel with Josephus's. O n this text see also GLAJJ 1 : 4 6 0 - 6 1 no. 2 0 1 . 6
See E . Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ( 3 d ~ 4 t h ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 1 1 ) , 1:58; idem, History, 1 : 3 3 - 3 4 , with earlier bibliog.
48
FAUSTO
PARENTE
a j K p o x e p c o v 8ie^ei|xi) in order to s h o w that "it was the Jewish tyrants who
d r e w d o w n u p o n the h o l y temple the unwilling hands o f the
R o m a n s " (B.J. 1.10). Josephus thus counterposes his o w n w o r k to another. T h e latter, he claims, had given an a c c o u n t o f the
facts
w h i c h did not sufficiendy emphasise that it was the factions within the Jewish w o r l d and their intestine struggles w h i c h had p r o v o k e d the R o m a n s a n d caused the catastrophe.
This, as w e shall see, is the
underlying thesis o f his work. If w e accept the hypothesis that Antonius Julianus wrote the official history o f the war, a n d if w e identify h i m with the M a r c u s Antonius Julianus w h o was p r o c u r a t o r
(erciTporcoq)
o f J u d a e a during the military c a m p a i g n , it is n o t difficult to under stand w h y his w o r k should extol the p o w e r o f the R o m a n s — t h a t is, describe a b o v e all their military accomplishments—while paying lit tle o r n o attention to the internecine struggles a m o n g the factions within the city before and during the siege.
7
T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , another circumstance that should b e b o r n e in m i n d . A s w e learn from the Vita, m a n y years after publication o f the Bellum, Josephus' compatriot, Justus o f Tiberias wrote a history o f the conflict which openly disputed the a c c o u n t furnished b y Josephus, who
responded b y c o n d u c t i n g a violent p o l e m i c against Justus in his 8
Vita. This Justus had been imprisoned b y Josephus because he refused to j o i n the revolt (Vita 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 ) . H e h a d left Tiberias w h e n
the
revolt broke out and, c o n d e m n e d to death b y Vespasian, was saved through Berenice's intercession with A g r i p p a II (Vita 343). O n e o f Josephus'
ripostes
c o n c e r n e d precisely his a c c o u n t o f events within
the walls o f besieged Jerusalem, against w h i c h Justus h a d his main criticisms. J o s e p h u s
directed
replied that Justus's strictures w e r e
worthless because they were m a d e b y s o m e o n e w h o had not b e e n
7
In this regard, the material in the Bellum which seems to have be drawn from official R o m a n documents m a y in fact have been taken from Julianus' work, which was certainly based on the official commentaria. This point has been made by E. Norden, "Josephus und Tacitus über Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophétie," Neue Jahrbücher fiir die Klass. Altert. 16 (1913): 6 6 4 - 6 6 and by A . Schlatter, Der Bericht über das Ende Jerusalems. Ein Dialog mit Wilhelm Weber (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932), 7 - 8 . 8
W h e n writing about Justus (Vita 4 0 ) , Josephus claims that his oratory had a rousing effect on the plebeians: Justus, "was a clever d e m a g o g u e and by a charla tan's tricks (Yonxeia) o f oratory m o r e than a match for opponents with saner coun sels". O n Justus see Schürer, History 1 : 3 4 - 3 7 (with bibliog.); T . Rajak, "Justus o f Tiberias," CQ 2 3 (1973): 3 4 5 - 6 8 : Ead., "Josephus und Justus of Tiberias," in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (eds. L. H . Feldman and G . Hata; Detroit: W a y n e State University Press, 1987), 8 1 - 9 4 .
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
49
an eye-witness to the events in question, conveniently forgetting that neither could he claim to have witnessed them at first hand: "Perhaps, h o w e v e r , y o u will say that y o u have accurately (jiexoc ocKpipeiaq) nar rated the events w h i c h t o o k place at Jerusalem. H o w , pray, c a n that b e , seeing that neither were y o u a c o m b a t a n t n o r h a d y o u perused the Commentaries o f Caesar, as is a b u n d a n d y p r o v e d b y y o u r contra dictory a c c o u n t ? " (Vita 358). A n o t h e r consideration c o n c e r n i n g the dispute b e t w e e n Josephus and Justus p r o m p t s the conclusion that there w o u l d have b e e n n o reason for the p o l e m i c — o r at least n o reason for its exceptional degree o f v i o l e n c e — h a d J o s e p h u s
5
w o r k b e e n the official history o f
the w a r written for the R o m a n s , given that Justus' w o r k was with out a s h a d o w o f a d o u b t written for Jews. T h e c o n c l u s i o n to b e d r a w n is that, although the Bellum t o o k a c c o u n t o f the R o m a n public, to w h i c h Josephus in m a n y cases evid e n d y adapted its language, the w o r k was primarily intended for those J e w s o f the D i a s p o r a w h o w e r e able to read G r e e k a n d for w h o m , like their co-religionists, the destruction o f Jerusalem a n d the T e m p l e had b e e n the greatest tragedy o f their lives. This is amply confirmed b y a careful reading o f the w o r k . O n c o n c l u d i n g a l o n g and detailed digression o n the R o m a n army (B.J. 3 . 7 0 - 1 0 9 ) , p r o b a b l y c o m p o s e d in imitation o f Polybius's simi lar digression ( 6 . 1 9 - 4 2 ) , and following the description o f the army arrayed before Ptolemais w h i c h I have already m e n t i o n e d , Josephus writes: " I f I have dwelt at s o m e length o n this topic, m y intention was not so m u c h to extol the R o m a n s as to console those w h o m they have vanquished a n d to deter others w h o m a y b e tempted to revolt" (B.J. 3.108). A s I shall seek to s h o w , this was the purpose for w h i c h Josephus wrote his work: to s h o w that Fortune was n o w firmly o n the side o f the R o m a n s ; to explain to his co-religionists h o w an event so tragic for the w h o l e o f Israel c o u l d have c o m e about; and to persuade the Jews that any repetition o f their behaviour w o u l d have n o less tragic c o n s e q u e n c e s . T h e Bellum therefore contains a message addressed to the J e w s o f the Diaspora; a n d this message consisted in explaining the causes that had given rise to such calamitous events. C o n s e q u e n d y , identifying what these causes were, a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, amounts to giving an
interpre
tation to the w o r k as a w h o l e . T h i s inquiry must b e based essen tially o n the distinction between its "pragmatic" and "pathetic" parts. T h e latter part, although it was almost entirely the fruit o f J o s e p h u s '
50
FAUSTO PARENTE
imagination, as w e shall see, should n o t b e considered negatively as a fabrication but positively as the message w h i c h J o s e p h u s intended to transmit to his co-religionists a n d w h i c h c o n s e q u e n d y confers a sense a n d a logic u p o n it.
9
3. A l t h o u g h after the e n d o f the Galilee c a m p a i g n , w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a d fought as c o m m a n d e r o f the rebels, he passed to the opposite c a m p a n d assisted Titus during the siege o f Jerusalem, he was not a 10
r e n e g a d e — a s was instead Tiberius Julius Alexander, w h o "did n o t stand b y the practices o f his p e o p l e " (A.J. 2 0 . 1 0 0 [Feldman, L C L ] ) , a n d w h o m Tacitus called "inlustris eques r o m a n u s " (Ann. 15.28.3).
11
Josephus w o u l d write his Contra Apionem to defend J u d a i s m against the c a l u m n i e s o f the p a g a n s ; using the m o d e l o f D i o n y s i u s o f Halicarnassus he p r o d u c e d a history o f his p e o p l e so that it might b e k n o w n throughout the Greek-speaking w o r l d , but he wrote the Bellum essentially to persuade his p e o p l e that the destruction o f the T e m p l e transcended the contingent events o f the w a r because it was the work o f G o d himself, w h o had used the R o m a n s as his instrument, as he h a d already used N e b u c h a d n e z z a r K i n g o f Babylon, w h o was his "servant" (Jer 25:9; 27:6; 34:2), to destroy the First T e m p l e .
1 2
In this work, J o s e p h u s left the sphere o f the divine substantially undefined: h u m a n actions are performed, c o n d i t i o n e d o r i m p e d e d b y a higher force w h i c h is given the n a m e o f " G o d " (0e6<;, with o r without the article), sometimes o f " D e i t y " (TO Geiov), sometimes o f
9
J. J. Price, Jerusalem under Siege. The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 CE. (Brill's series in Jewish Studies 3; L e i d e n - N e w Y o r k - K ò l n : Brill, 1992), 1 5 1 - 5 2 points out that "Most o f Josephus's gentile audience o f course did not know biblical history a n d had no way o f assessing the strong censure with which Josephus presents the rebels' justification (in B.J. 5 . 5 6 4 ) . " 1 0
J. A . M o n t g o m e r y , " T h e Religion o f Flavius Josephus," JQR n.s. 11 ( 1 9 2 0 - 2 1 ) : 2 9 7 , states that "Josephus was n o trimmer in religion whatever he was in politics." 11
Tiberius Julius Alexander, son o f the alabarch Alexander and nephew o f Philo (A.J. 1 8 . 2 5 9 a n d 2 0 . 1 0 0 ) was procurator of Judaea after Guspius Fadus ( 4 4 - ? ) until 4 8 . See Schurer, History 1 : 4 5 7 - 5 8 , 5 0 2 . During the war he was x©v oxpaxevuaxcov apxcov (B.J. 5 . 4 6 ) and rcàvxcov xcòv oxpaxevuàxcov ércàpxoq (B.J. 6 . 2 3 7 ) , "army chief o f staff." His complete n a m e is given in an edict issued w h e n he was praefectus o f Egypt: CIG 4 9 5 7 = OGIS 6 6 9 . See E . G . T u r n e r , "Tiberius Julius Alexander," JRS 4 4 (1954): 5 4 - 6 4 ; V . Burr, Tiberius Julius Alexander (Bonn: Habelt, 1955). 1 2
A l s o according to rabbinic tradition (as in Jer 3 4 : 2 ) it was G o d , a n d not N e b u c h a d n e z z a r or Titus, w h o destroyed the T e m p l e . See M . H a d a s Lebel, " L a tradition rabbinicjue sur la première revoke contre R o m e à la lumière du D e Bello Judaico de Flavius Josèphe," Sileno 9 (1983): 1 6 8 - 7 1 .
51
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
"Fate" (xpecov a n d ei|Aap|ievr|), but m o s d y o f " F o r t u n e " (xt)%r|).
13
In
these expressions, his co-religionists c o u l d n o t have failed to r e c o g nize the G o d o f Israel, a n d they w o u l d certainly have b e e n aston ished to learn that the Deity was n o w , in Titus's words, "cooperating" with R o m e (B.J. 6.38): an expression w h i c h must have s o u n d e d blas p h e m o u s to their ears, but w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n obliged to use for his R o m a n readers. T h e c o n c e p t that he really intended to c o n vey, in fact, was the same as that expressed b y J e r e m i a h in the pas sages just cited, and w e shall see later w h e r e it is o v e r d y stated in his w o r k . 4. T h e reader o f the Bellum will certainly b e struck b y the fact that the m e m b e r s o f the various "factions" o f J e w s actively involved first in the revolt a n d then the w a r are always and only referred to as Ar|GTa{, "bandits", with their actions being described as those o f mur derers, r o b b e r s and, with constant emphasis, sacrilegists. T h e y are depicted as in ferocious conflict with each other, at least until the R o m a n s laid siege to the city, but with no m e n t i o n ever being m a d e o f the reasons for their intestine struggles. Y e t J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n o n e o f them, indeed their leader, during the entire Galilee c a m p a i g n . S o , o n e m a y ask, c a n Josephus's description o f those internecine struggles a n d the ferocious cruelty that they p r o v o k e d b e regarded as addressed to a R o m a n a u d i e n c e ?
14
1 3
See, in general, A . Poznanski, Über die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus (Inaug. Diss. Halle, Halle a.d. Saale, 1887); A . Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Teologie, 14; Gütersloh: M o h n , 1910) = Id., Klane Schriften zu Flavius Josephus (herausg. und eingeführt v o n К . M . Rengstorf; Darmstadt: Wissensch. Buchgesellschaft, 1970), 6 5 - 1 4 2 . Id., Die Theologe des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Gütersloh: M o h n , 1932); H . G u t t m a n n , Die Darstellung der jüdischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus (Breslau: M a r c u s , 1928); G . F. M o o r e , "Fate a n d Free W i l l in the Jewish Philosophies according to Josephus," HTR 2 2 (1929): 3 4 8 - 6 4 ; G . Stählin, "Das Schicksal im N e u e n Testament u n d bei Josephus," in Josephus Studien. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (eds. O . Betz, K . Haacker, M . Hengel; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k u n d Ruprecht, 1974), 3 1 9 - 4 3 ; M . Smith, " T h e Occult in Josephus," in Feldman a n d Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 2 3 6 - 5 6 . In particular: J. H . Shutt, " T h e C o n c e p t o f G o d in the W o r k s of Flavius Josephus," JJS 31 (1980): 1 7 0 - 8 9 . 1 4
G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in Bellum Judaicum ( M n e m o s y n e suppl. 2 0 5 ; Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brül, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 2 3 - 3 3 , has analysed the reason for the d a e ß e i a o f the zealots, regarding it as the idee maitresse o f the Bellum: "Josephus ingeniously represents Zealot actions as guided not by religious motives, but as evincing the rankest forms o f impiety, making the insur gents not the upholders o f traditional religion, but its subverters a n d polluters" (130).
52
FAUSTO PARENTE
T h e o p i n i o n f o r m e d b y the R o m a n s o f the insurrection and sub sequent struggle b y the J e w s o f J u d a e a was expressed very clearly b y Tacitus: "duravit tamen patientia Iudaeis usque ad Gessium Florum p r o c u r a t o r e m " (Hist. 5.10.1). In other words, maladministration b y inept a n d rapacious procurators had p r o v o k e d the J u d e a n uprising, w h i c h R o m e had b e e n obliged to suppress like so m a n y other revolts in other parts o f the e m p i r e .
15
T h e R o m a n s w e r e essentially interested in the military operations o f their army—as Josephus admonishes against the report o n the J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , w h o s e author he does not n a m e but w h o was p r o b a b l y the already-mentioned M a r c u s Antonius Julianus—and n o t in events that w e n t o n within the walls o f the besieged city. Y e t it is the latter w h i c h J o s e p h u s places decidedly in the foreground, and the description o f t h e m is an essential part o f the b o o k . A n d this is so because the b o o k was written, as Josephus himself says, to correct a n d supplement the other a c c o u n t , w h i c h had neglected these facts. But w h y , w e must ask ourselves, does J o s e p h u s describe with the punctilious precision o f an eye-witness (which he was not) for the J e w s o f the D i a s p o r a all the h o r r o r s a n d all the sacrileges that o c c u r r e d within the besieged city? H e talks o f four "factions" o f insurgents:
16
the followers o f S i m o n
b a r G i o r a , w h o s e a r m y "was n o longer an a r m y o f m e r e serfs o r brigands, but o n e including n u m e r o u s citizen recruits, subservient to his c o m m a n d as to a king" (B.J. 4 . 5 1 0 ) ;
17
the followers o f J o h n o f
H o w e v e r , he raises n o doubts as to the reliability of the events narrated, the pur pose of which was to shock G r e c o - R o m a n readers: "But, granted that Josephus' treatment of the zealots' aae|3eia has transparendy hostile intent, it is not for that reason invalidated or even inherendy implausible, and indeed the m a n n e r in which the impieties of the a x a o i a a x a i , are dramatized is itself calculated to engage G r e c o R o m a n readers on a b r o a d front" (132). H o w e v e r , the behaviour of the "bandits", as M a d e r himself acknowledges, was a systematic violation of Jewish law (like eating m e a t with blood: BJ. 6 . 3 7 2 ) which G r e c o - R o m a n readers found of very little inter est and whose sacrilegious nature they did not even understand. See Price's c o m m e n t cited at n. 9 above. 1 5
P. A . Brunt, "Charges of Provincial Maladministration under the Early Principate," Historia 10 (1961): 1 8 9 - 2 2 7 . T h a t R o m a n misgovernment was the principal cause o f the revolt has been argued by e.g. E . M . Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 2 5 6 - 5 7 . 1 6
Tacitus, Hist 5 . 1 2 . 4 , mentions two factions "ita in duas factiones civitas discessit" when the R o m a n army drew close to the city, whereas he had previously (5.12.3) spoken o f three armies led by "tres duces": S i m o n , J o h n a n d Eleazar. S i m o n bar G i o r a (K"TT3 giyora', b. Sanh. 9 4 a , "proselyte"). Josephus always uses vibq ficopa. Bapyiopaq is in Cassius D i o 6 5 . 7 . 1 and Tacitus, Hist. 5 . 1 2 . 3 , w h o attrib1 7
53
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
Gischala, " w h o carried in his breast a dire passion for despotic p o w e r a n d h a d l o n g b e e n plotting against the state" (B.J. 4 . 2 0 8 ) ;
18
the
"zealots", w h o s e leader was a certain Eleazar, son o f S i m o n (B.J. 5.5), w h o h a d b e e n given this n a m e "as though they were zealots in the cause o f virtue a n d not for vice in its basest a n d most extravagant f o r m " (B.J. 4.161); and the sicarii w h o had o c c u p i e d the fortress o f M a s a d a since the w a r in Galilee (B.J. 4 . 4 0 0 ) .
19
A s stated a b o v e ,
utes the n a m e to John: "Ioannes q u e m et Bargioram vocabant". O n this personage see M . H e n g e l , Die ^/ofew: Untersuchungen zum jüdischen Freiheitsbewegung in der £eit von Herodes I. bis 70 n.Chr. ( A G S U 1; Leiden-Köln: Brill, 1 9 6 1 ; 2 n d ed. 1 9 7 6 ; Engl, transl. The Z^lots,
Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1989), 3 0 3 - 4 ; O . M i c h e l , "Studien
zu I o s e p h u s — S i m o n bar G i o r a , " NTS
14 ( 1 9 6 7 - 6 8 ) : 4 0 2 - 8 ; M . Stern, "Zealots,"
FJ Tear Book 1 9 7 3 : 1 4 6 - 4 7 . 1 8
O n J o h n o f Gischala see Stern, "Zealots," 1 4 7 - 4 9 ; U . Rappaport, "John o f
Gischala: from Galilee to Jerusalem," JJS
3 3 (1982): 4 7 9 - 9 3 ; S. Schwartz, Josephus
andjudaean Politics (Leiden-New Y o r k - K ö l n : Brill, 1990), 3 2 - 3 3 ; 7 6 - 7 7 ; Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 7 7 - 7 9 ; 8 7 - 8 9 ; 2 0 2 ; 2 0 5 - 6 ; M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography, 67-70; 88-92. 1 9
Historians have sought to determine the accuracy of Josephus's descriptions o f
the "so-called" (B.J. 2 . 6 5 1 ) zeolots (C^hoxai)
a n d the "so-called" (A.J. 2 0 . 1 8 6 ) sicarii
(oucdpioi). It is to be noted that Josephus never mentions the zealots b y n a m e in the Antiquitates a n d that, although the two terms appear in rabbinic literature, they are not used to refer to distinct entities. Qannaim recurs in Abot de Rabbi Natan (version A chap. 6 p. 3 2 Schechter); siqrim in Abot de Rabbi Natan (version B chap. 7 p. 2 0 Schechter) and in b. Gittin 5 6 a , where mention is m a d e o f " A b b a Siqra" as the leader of the
OOTID, who
were a m o n g the defenders of Jerusalem (B. Salomonsen,
" S o m e Remarks o n the Zealots with Special R e g a r d to the T e r m 'qannaim' in Rabbinic Literature," NTS
12 [ 1 9 6 5 - 1 9 6 6 ] : 1 6 4 - 7 6 ) . Zealots a n d sicarii have been
identified (F. J. Foakes-Jackson and K . Lake, " T h e Zealots," in their The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, 1 [ L o n d o n : M c m i l l a n 1 9 2 0 ] , 4 2 1 - 2 5 ) and sharply distinguished ( M . Smith, "Zealots and Sicarii. T h e i r Origin and Relation," HTR
6 4 [1971]: 1-19).
T h e zealots have been described as the heirs o f the M a c c a b e e s driven b y an intransigent nationalism ( W . R . Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus. An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period [ N e w York: C o l u m b i a University Press,
1956])
or as a party formed in reaction to the R o m a n s ' assumption o f direct p o w e r in Judaea in 6 B . C . E . , for reasons mainly socio-economic (S. A p p l e b a u m , " T h e Zealots: the C a s e for Revaluation," JRS
61 [ 1 9 7 1 ] : 1 5 5 - 7 0 ) or refigious, and, in this case,
with the principal purpose o f instituting divine governance, so that the revolt broke out w h e n the majority o f the population e m b r a c e d the ideas o f the zealots (Hengel, ^eloten). H o w e v e r , the existence o f a real and proper "party" o f zealots has been denied. It seemed m o r e correct to talk o f a variety o f social groups which opposed the R o m a n s in different ways because they were driven by different motives: bandits w h o had b e c o m e such for social reasons, claimants to the throne,
messianic
figures, zealots, sicarii. Consequently, the revolt o f 6 6 was a peasant rebellion fuelled by messianic-eschatological expectations ( R . H . Horsley, " T h e Zealots, their Origin, Relationship and Importance in the Jewish Revolt," NT 2 [ 1 9 8 6 ] : 1 5 9 - 9 2 ) . Overall, however, the socio-economic aspect seems to have prevailed over the religious one ( M . Smith, " T h e Troublemakers," in The Cambridge History of Judaism,
3. The Early
Roman Period [ed. W . Horbury, W . D . Davies, and J. Sturdy; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e
54
FAUSTO PARENTE
these factions are described as having b e e n c o n s t a n d y in conflict before siege was laid to Jerusalem, but J o s e p h u s remains constandy silent as to the reasons for the strife. W i t h regard to the reasons that induced them to fight against the R o m a n s , he talks o f "an unreflecting h o p e o f regaining i n d e p e n d e n c e " , w h i c h A g r i p p a II counsels against in his speech (B.J.
2.346) as irrational b e c a u s e it was nourished
against those "to w h o m Fortune has transferred her favours" (B.J. 20
2.360). T h i s , though, must have b e e n o n e reason for their struggle, given that coins minted respectively in year II (67 C E . ) and year III (68 C E . ) b o r e the inscription
nnn,
"freedom o f Z i o n " — w h i c h
was " n o t a simple inscription o r statement, but a phrase akin to a slogan", as M e s h o r e r has c o m m e n t e d . year I
(66
21
H o w e v e r , a c o i n struck in
C E . ) b o r e the inscription TWHp
uhvn* "holy
a n d o n e in year II (67 C E . ) iTOHpn D ^ I T ,
Jerusalem"
"Jerusalem the h o l y " ,
while three coins o f year I V (69 C E . ) carry the inscription ]TK
TbKb
"for the r e d e m p t i o n o f Z i o n " : it is c o n s e q u e n d y difficult to imagine that the " f r e e d o m " for w h i c h the J e w s fought was purely political in its nature.
22
A s for the internecine struggles a m o n g the various "fac-
tions", there was outright a n d sometimes b l o o d y antagonism b e t w e e n those w h o sought a c o m p r o m i s e and those w h o were determined to fight the R o m a n s until the bitter e n d (B.J.
5.316-318: m u r d e r o f
the high priest Ananus). But the struggles a m o n g the factions are w r a p p e d , as D e r e n b o u r g puts it,
23
"dans le voile d e la legende", a n d
very litde c a n b e learned from the rabbinical sources, although they contain s o m e e c h o e s o f the events w h i c h seem c o n s o n a n t with the
University Press, 1 9 9 9 ] , 5 0 1 - 6 8 ) , although it is the latter that has received closer attention in m o r e recent studies (L. L . G r a b b e , "Eschatology in Philo a n d Josephus," in Judaism in Late Antiquity [eds. A . J. A v e r y Peck and J. Neusner; Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.49.4; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 0 ] , 1 7 4 - 8 2 ) . 2 0
On Agrippa 189-94; War" in
A g r i p p a IPs speech see E . G a b b a , "L'impero r o m a n o nel discorso di II (Jos. Ä J . II, 3 4 5 - 4 0 1 ) , " Rivista di storia dell'Antichità 6 7 ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 7 7 ) : M . Stern, "Josephus a n d the R o m a n Empire as Reflected in the Jewish Feldman and H a t a , Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 7 1 - 8 0 .
2 1
Y . Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2. Herod the Great through Bar Kokhba ( N e w Y o r k : A m p h o r a Books, 1982), 1 1 0 . 2 2
According to Jews expected the o f the war [when the power of the 2 3
Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage 2: 1 2 2 , "Freedom suggests that the end of R o m a n domination by their hands. But in the fourth year the inscription ]V2S rbtäb appeared] h o p e no longer focused on people. Rather, a heavenly redemption was required."
J. Derenbourg, Essai sur l'histoire et la géographie de la Palestine: d'après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. Première partie. Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu'à Adrien (Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1867), 2 6 5 .
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
55
2
a c c o u n t o f t h e m in the Bellum. * H e r e , h o w e v e r , m y c o n c e r n is to highlight what Josephus says a b o u t these o p p o n e n t s o f the R o m a n s . T h e r e is a passage in B o o k 7 (written later than the others, w h i c h contains, as w e shall see, information that contradicts what has b e e n said previously) which seems to lift, at least briefly, the curtain b e h i n d w h i c h J o s e p h u s conceals the religious convictions o f his former c o m rades in arms.
25
It narrates the final phases o f the war conducted, after
Titus's departure for R o m e , b y Flavius Silva against the last remain ing rebels barricaded in the H e r o d i a n fortress o f M a s a d a a n d w h o , before the R o m a n s finally stormed the stronghold, w o u l d c o m m i t suicide after they had killed their wives and children (B.J. 7 . 3 8 9 - 3 9 7 ) .
26
R e f u g e h a d b e e n taken at M a s a d a b y a g r o u p o f sicarii (B.J. 4 . 3 9 9 - 4 0 4 ) previously resident in Jerusalem since the times o f N e r o (B.J. 2.254). T h e s e , t o o , J o s e p h u s describes in terms intended to assert their wickedness a n d impiety: their d e m a n d for freedom was nothing, he says, "but a pretext put forward b y them as a cloak for their cruelty a n d avarice, as was m a d e plain b y their actions" (B.J. 7.256). Later, with reference to the zealots, Josephus writes that "they took their tide from their professed zeal for virtue, either in m o c k ery o f those they w r o n g e d , so brutal was their nature, o r r e c k o n i n g the greatest o f evils g o o d " (B.J. 7.270), a d d i n g that they received just punishment b y dying under atrocious torture (B.J. 7.272). J o s e p h u s also speaks o f torture with reference to the sicarii. S o m e o f them, he writes, h a d after the fall o f M a s a d a p r o v o k e d turmoil in A l e x a n d r i a (B.J. 7.409), a n d s o m e J e w s o f that city w h o h a d given them hospitality were i n d u c e d "to assert their i n d e p e n d e n c e , to l o o k u p o n the R o m a n s as n o better than themselves and to esteem G o d alone as their L o r d " (B.J. 7 . 4 1 0 ) .
27
T h i s , therefore, was the religious
2 4
T h e episode mentioned by Josephus in B.J. 5 . 2 5 - 2 6 of the burning o f the grain stores is recounted in similar terms in Abot de Rabbi Natan (Version B) 6.1 and in b. Gittin 5 6 a . See Hadas-Lebel, "La Tradition rabbinique," 1 5 9 - 6 6 a n d A . J. Saldarini, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan Version B: Translation and Commentary (SJLA 11; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 6 5 n. 2 with other references. 2 5
S. J. D . C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 8 7 ; S. Schwartz, " T h e Composition and Publication o f j o s e p h u s ' s Bellum Judaicum Book 7," HTR 9 7 (1986): 3 7 3 - 8 6 . S. J. D . C o h e n , "Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological R e m a i n s , and the Credibility o f Josephus," JJS 3 3 (1982): 3 8 5 - 4 0 5 . W h e n discussing the "fourth philosophy", founded by J u d a h the Galilean, Josephus states that "this school agrees in all the other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, 2 6
2 7
56
FAUSTO
PARENTE
conviction o f the sicarii. A s Eleazar says in his speech exhorting the besieged Jews o f M a s a d a to c o m m i t suicide: " l o n g since . . . w e deter m i n e d neither to serve the R o m a n s n o r any other save G o d , for H e alone is man's true and
righteous
L o r d ; and n o w the time is c o m e
w h i c h bids us verify that resolution b y o u r actions" (B.J. 7.323). O n their capture by the R o m a n s , the Alexandrian Jews w h o had embraced the i d e o l o g y o f the sicarii were tortured: " n o r was there a person w h o was not a m a z e d at the endurance and—call it w h i c h y o u w i l l — desperation o r strength o f purpose, displayed b y these victims" (B.J. 7.417). Josephus
hastens to a d d that this was "madness"
(arcovoioc; n o t
"desperation" as T h a c k e r a y translates the term; see B.J. 7.67). T h e y w e r e tortured " f o r the sole o b j e c t o f m a k i n g t h e m
acknowledge
Caesar as l o r d " (B.J. 7.418); yet, a c c o r d i n g to their creed, they c o u l d o n l y r e c o g n i z e G o d as l o r d , a n d
this they affirmed
with
their
martyrdom. N o w if these m e n fought because they a c k n o w l e d g e d only G o d as their lord, if they minted coinage which proclaimed that "Jerusalem is h o l y , " is it really likely that they w o u l d profane the city b y per petrating the horrible and sacrilegious acts w h i c h Josephus attributes to them? 5. W h e n a war is under way, ritual prescriptions m a y o f course b e temporarily suspended,
28
o r they m a y b e laxly applied, but Josephus
describes situations in w h i c h all the rules were ignored. By w a y o f e x a m p l e , at the beginning o f the fifth b o o k , w h e n the R o m a n s h a d not yet laid siege to the city, he recounts h o w the followers o f Eleazar, and the followers o f J o h n o f Gischala and o f S i m o n bar G i o r a , fought fiercely within the T e m p l e c o m p l e x . S i m o n , w h o o c c u p i e d the l o w e r part (presumably the external court and the w o m e n ' s court) used ballistae to hurl projectiles against the followers o f Eleazar e n c a m p e d in the area in front o f the T e m p l e building (the courts o f the Israelites
since they are convinced that G o d alone is their leader and master" (A.J. 1 8 . 2 3 - 2 5 , Feldman, L C L ) . H o w e v e r , Josephus does not identify the "fourth philosophy" with zealotism. 2 8
T h e M a c c a b e e s fought on the sabbath (1 M a c e 2:41). Also during the battle against Cestius Gallus the Jews fought "with n o thought for the seventh day of rest, for it was the very sabbath which they regarded with special reverence" (B.J. 2 . 5 1 7 ) . See b. Sabb. 19a and /. 'Erub. 4:6; M . D . Herr, " T h e Problem of W a r on the Sabbath in the Second T e m p l e and the T a l m u d i c Periods," (Hebr.) Tarbiz 3 0 (1961): 2 4 2 - 5 6 .
57
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
and o f the priests) where the sacrificial altar was located, killing m a n y adversaries, "but also (. . .) m a n y o f the worshippers" (rcoMxnx; xcbv iepoupyotjvxcov) (B.J. 5.14). In c o n s e q u e n c e o f these clashes, "[t]he d e a d bodies o f nadves and aliens, o f priests and laity, were m i n g l e d in a mass, a n d the b l o o d o f all m a n n e r o f corpses f o r m e d p o o l s in the courts o f G o d " (B.J. 5 . 1 8 ) .
29
T h e r e was n o reverence given to
the living, n o r was trouble taken to bury the dead: the corpses were trampled underfoot, and the w o o d intended for sacrifices (to burn the victims) was taken away and used to construct machines o f war (B.J. 5 . 3 0 - 3 4 ) . H o w sacrifices c o u l d have b e e n m a d e in the pres ence o f piles o f corpses and " p o o l s " o f b l o o d is difficult to imagine. As in all sieges, f o o d shortages g r e w increasingly severe; a n d this circumstance affords Josephus the opportunity to describe atrocities which he c o u l d not possibly have witnessed. T h e "bandits," he writes, did not yet suffer hunger because they stole f o o d from the city's inhabitants, "forcing the morsels almost out o f their very j a w s " (B.J. 5.432) and inflicting atrocious torture (which he describes in detail, B.J. 5.435) u p o n those they believed were c o n c e a l i n g f o o d . T h e s e episodes are justified b y famine, and they are
30
invariably
part o f the tragic experience o f a besieged city. Others, h o w e v e r , seem so exaggerated, and a b o v e all so gratuitous, that their intro duction into the narrative c a n o n l y b e explained b y J o s e p h u s ' intent to arouse reactions in the reader o f such p r o f o u n d disgust that cred ibility w o u l d attach to his entirely denigratory depiction o f those w h o fought against the R o m a n s . This depiction c o u l d o n l y have b e e n intended for Jewish readers, w h o w o u l d thus b e persuaded that the rebels h a d fought not for ideal reasons, n o r for religious ones, but solely to plunder, kill and profane. T o provide just one example, Josephus describes a group o f Galilean zealots w h o , having m a d e J o h n o f Gischala's fortune and b r o u g h t him to p o w e r , were authorized b y h i m to d o whatever they pleased.
2 9
T h e use o f the term aXko<$\)ko\ (translated by Thackeray as "aliens") poses some difficulties. Josephus (B.J. 5 . 1 4 - 1 6 ) had written that access to the T e m p l e was still permitted to those wishing to offer up sacrifices—that is, Jews from outside Jerusalem—but aXXoyvXoq unequivocally signifies a non-Jew (A.J. 4 . 1 8 3 ) . 3 0
Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 150: "when Josephus is writing about the brutality of the Jewish rebel factions he is always to be mistrusted, and the first reaction of a skeptical reader is utterly to reject the disgusting method of torture Josephus describes in the second famine notice (B.J. 5 . 4 3 3 - 4 3 5 ) . " Price considers the possibility that this torture was an invention by Josephus, but does not ask himself what might have been the reason for such invention, concluding that "judgement must be suspended."
58
FAUSTO PARENTE
T h e scene o f the outrages they perpetrated was Jerusalem, w h e n the Galilee c a m p a i g n was b y n o w c o n c l u d e d a n d o n l y a handful o f fort resses still resisted (B.J. 4 . 5 5 0 - 5 5 1 ) . J o s e p h u s writes as follows: " W i t h an insatiable lust for loot, they ransacked the houses o f the wealthy; the m u r d e r o f m e n a n d the violation o f the w o m e n were their sport; they caroused o n their spoils, with b l o o d to wash them d o w n , a n d from m e r e satiety unscrupulously indulged in effeminate
practices,
plaiting their hair and attiring themselves in w o m e n ' s apparel, drench ing themselves with perfumes a n d painting their eyelids to e n h a n c e their beauty. A n d n o t only d i d they imitate the dress, but also the passions o f w o m e n , devising in their excess o f lasciviousness unlaw ful pleasures and w a l l o w i n g as in a brothel in the city, w h i c h they polluted from e n d to e n d with their foul d e e d s " (B.J. 4 . 5 6 0 - 5 6 2 ) . T h i s alleged o r g y within the walls o f Jerusalem is just as unreal istic as the deluge o f b l o o d that " p o u r e d d o w n the slopes" at G a m a l a (B.J. 4.72). T h a t it is a figment o f Josephus's imagination b e c o m e s o b v i o u s if w e c o m p a r e it against a genuine atrocity w h i c h o c c u r r e d in the R o m a n c a m p , a n d w h i c h J o s e p h u s actually witnessed: " F o r o n e o f the refugees in the Syrian ranks was d i s c o v e r e d picking g o l d coins from his excrements; these pieces, as w e have said (B.J. 5.421), they had swallowed before their departure, because they were all searched b y the rebels a n d g o l d was so a b u n d a n t in the t o w n that they c o u l d purchase for twelve Attic d r a c h m a s c o i n formerly w o r t h five-and-twenty. T h i s artifice being, however, detected in o n e instance, a r u m o r ran through the c a m p s that the deserters had c o m e full o f g o l d , w h e r e u p o n the A r a b rabble with the Syrians p r o c e e d e d to cut o p e n the suppliants and search their intestines. N o m o r e cruel calamity, in m y o p i n i o n , befell the J e w s than this: actually in o n e night less than t w o thousand
were
ripped
no
u p " (B.J. 5 . 5 5 0 - 5 5 2 ) . It was
easy to swallow the g o l d coins minted at the time o f N e r o because o f their very small size. J. S. M c L a r e n writes that "Josephus' picture should b e regarded as an a c c o u n t , rather than the a c c o u n t from w h i c h to construct interpretation o f the first century C E . "
3 1
bitably c o r r e c t and, I w o u l d say, especially so w h e n addressing p r o b l e m o f the authenticity
11
an
T h e observation is indu the
o f Josephus's a c c o u n t o f the actions o f
J. S. M c L a r e n , Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series 2 5 ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 178.
59
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
m e n w h o m he describes, with an insistence that should alert reader, as Xr\ciai,
the
"bandits." Brunt espouses J o s e p h u s ' thesis b y
affirming that "brigands and sicarii are the s c u m o f the earth";
32
while
Baer takes an entirely opposite v i e w b y writing that the episodes o f cruelty, hatred and ferocity w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s '
narrative
o c c u r r e d during the siege must b e dismissed as his o w n tendentious inventions—although Baer does n o t inquire as to the reason w h y Josephus thought those inventions necessary. has b e e n almost universally q u e s t i o n e d .
34
33
J o s e p h u s ' credibility
Nevertheless, an important
observation is in order here. Historians tend in general to believe that a fact narrated in the sources, h o w e v e r unlikely it seems, m a y still contain a "kernel" o f truth. In the already-cited contribution b y M . Smith to the third v o l u m e o f the Cambridge History of Judaism— where neither Josephus n o r the historians w h o dealt with his works are spared penetrating criticism—the author credits the h o m o s e x u a l orgy o f J o h n ' s followers (BJ.
4 . 5 5 8 - 5 6 3 ) with a possible historical
basis: "John's Galileans were m o s d y refugees from T y r i a n towns (BJ. 2.88)—as b o y s they m a y have h a d the benefits o f s o m e contact with G r e e k culture",
35
thus failing to perceive the purpose served b y the
crudity o f J o s e p h u s ' description: to depict J o h n ' s followers as m e n w h o had sunk to the profoundest depths o f depravity. 6. T o return to the situation within the city, certain information fur nished b y Josephus suggests that it was similar to that o f other cities under siege. Firsdy, it should b e n o t e d that coins (dated year V ) were struck even in 70, albeit in smaller amounts than in previous years.
36
Consider also the notable technical skill shown b y the besieged.
W h e n the R o m a n s had constructed massive earthworks (assembled from tree trunks) b e h i n d the A n t o n i a fortress, the J e w s d u g a tunnel
3 2
P. A . Brunt, "Josephus on Social Conflicts in R o m a n Judaea," Klio 5 9 (1977): 150.
3 3
Y . Baer, "Jerusalem in the T i m e s o f the Great Revolt: Based on the Source Criticism of Josephus and Talmudic-Midrashic Legends o f the Temple's Destruction," (Hebr.) Zion 3 6 (1971): 1 2 7 - 9 0 and 37 (1972): 120. 3 4
M . G o o d m a n writes "our best source for the origins of the revolt in 6 6 C . E . is not to be trusted on this subject" ("The Origins of the Great Revolt: A Conflict of Status Criteria," in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays [ed. A . Kasher, U . Rappaport, and G . Fuks; Jerusalem: Y a d Izhak Ben Z v i , 1 9 9 0 ] , 39). 3 5
M . Smith, Meshorer, lasted for only rare in Jewish 3 6
" T h e Troublemakers," 5 4 8 - 4 9 . Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2 : 1 2 3 : " T h e fifth year o f the war actually four months . . . Surprisingly these issues are not a m o n g the most coinage."
60
FAUSTO
PARENTE
under the fortress, set fire to the earthworks and destroyed them, so that "the R o m a n s were in consternation at this sudden catastrophe a n d dispirited b y the e n e m y ' s ingenuity" (B.J. 5 . 4 6 9 - 4 7 2 ) .
37
In B.J. 5.518, Josephus writes that "the latter [the rebels] at the outset o r d e r e d the b o d i e s to b e buried at the public expense, finding the stench intolerable; afterwards, w h e n incapable o f continuing this, they flung them from the ramparts into ravines." T h e r e must c o n sequendy have b e e n persons given the task o f burying the bodies, a n d w h o were paid with p u b l i c m o n e y . Even m o r e important testimony o f the relative "normality" o f life in the besieged city is p r o v i d e d b y the report (B.J. 6 . 9 4 - 9 5 ) that the perpetual sacrifice o f two lambs burnt as holocausts, o n e in the m o r n ing and o n e in the e v e n i n g ,
38
only ceased w h e n Titus, having d e m o l
ished the A n t o n i a fortress (B.J. 6.93), b e g a n preparations
for his
assault o n the T e m p l e . H o w e v e r , the context in w h i c h this report is m a d e raises doubts as to its authenticity. O n J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t , immediately after the A n t o n i a had b e e n razed to the g r o u n d , Titus "having learnt that o n that day—it was the seventeenth o f Panemus [mid-July]—the so-called continual sacrifice h a d for lack o f m e n ceased to b e offered to G o d and that the p e o p l e were in c o n s e q u e n c e terribly d e s p o n d e n t " (B.J. 6.94), instructed Josephus to take to J o h n o f Gischala a proposal, that h a d already b e e n m a d e previ ously (B.J. 5.334), "that if he was obsessed b y a criminal passion for batde, he was at liberty to c o m e out with as m a n y as he chose a n d fight, without involving the city and the sanctuary in his o w n ruin; but that he should n o l o n g e r pollute the H o l y Place n o r sin against G o d ; a n d that he h a d his permission to p e r f o r m the
interrupted
sacrifices with the help o f such Jews as he might select" (B.J. 6.95). Besides the absurdity o f the proposal o f an o p e n field batde, this is the same Titus w h o , according to Josephus, did not wish the T e m p l e to b e destroyed, and w h o in this report is even anxious that worship might p r o c e e d undisturbed. Josephus has thus carefully and cleverly constructed afictitiousfigurethat must n o w b e considered with atten tion, for it in fact constitutes the keystone to the entire w o r k .
3 7
Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 1 4 3 . T h e episode is confirmed by Cassius D i o 6 5 . 4 . 4 . Tamid (sc. qorban), not "continuous" or "perpetual", but "with regular occur rence" (daily). E x o d 2 9 : 3 8 - 4 2 ; N u m 2 8 : 3 - 8 ; m. Ta'an. 4:6: "on the seventeenth o f T a m m u z . . . the daily offering ceased". 3 8
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
61
7. A c c o r d i n g to Suetonius, Titus was a g o o d soldier (Suetonius, Tit. 4.3; 5.2) a n d an able c o m m a n d e r . H a v i n g served in G e r m a n y and Britain (Suetonius, Tit. 4.1), he h a d played an important part in the Galilee c a m p a i g n as c o m m a n d e r o f the (B.J. 3.8 and 6 5 ) . divinity.
40
39
15th L e g i o n (Apollinaris)
Josephus depicts h i m as a h e r o assisted b y the
" F o r lead I will," p r o c l a i m e d Titus before T a r i c h a e a e , " b e
sure o f it, a n d will charge the e n e m y at y o u r head. D o y o u then not fail m e , have confidence that G o d is o n m y side a n d supports m y a r d o u r " (B.J. 3.484). Finding himself almost alone in the fray, "he should consider what he o w e d to fortune, a n d not act the part o f a c o m m o n soldier, lord as he was alike o f the w a r a n d o f the w o r l d " {B.J. 5.88). O n c e Titus h a d laid siege to Jerusalem,
a c c o r d i n g to Josephus,
his over-riding c o n c e r n was to save the city and the T e m p l e : " F o r his p a r a m o u n t object was to preserve the city for himself a n d
the
temple for the city" (B.J. 5.334). After the fall o f the s e c o n d wall, in a speech urging the rebels to surrender w h i c h he had Josephus p r o n o u n c e to t h e m in their o w n t o n g u e , Titus a n n o u n c e d that "the R o m a n s , t h o u g h without a share in them, yet reverenced the holy places (lit. things) o f their e n e m i e s " (B.J. 5.363). After the A n t o n i a fortress had b e e n razed to the g r o u n d , w h e n yet again urging the besieged Jews to surrender through his spokesman Josephus, Titus p r o c l a i m e d : "I will preserve the T e m p l e for y o u , even against y o u r will" (B.J. 6.128). A n d these sentiments o f out right d e v o t i o n to the T e m p l e ("which even R o m a n s reverenced from afar," ov m i Tcojiaioi 7c6ppco6ev rcpooeKuvouv, said J o s e p h u s in his speech to the besieged, B.J. 5.402) w e r e shared b y the entire R o m a n army, given that " o f the soldiers, indeed, there was not o n e w h o did not regard the T e m p l e with a w e and reverence a n d pray that the brigands might relent ere it m e t with irretrievable calamity" (xSv jiev ye axpotxicoxcbv OUK eaxw ooxiq ov fxexa cppdcnq eiq xov vaov acpecopa
3 9
B. W . J o n e s , The Emperor Titus ( L o n d o n : C r o o m H e l m , 1984), 3 4 - 7 6 and "Titus in Judaea A . D . 6 7 , " Latomus 4 8 (1989): 1 2 7 - 3 4 , gready scales d o w n Titus's mili tary capabilities. 4 0
G . M . Paul, " T h e Presentation of Titus in the Jewish War o f Josephus: T w o Aspects," Phoenix 4 7 (1993): 5 6 - 6 6 . H e was able to reverse an unfavourable mili tary situation (BJ. 5 . 8 1 - 8 4 ) ; for Titus the springs flowed copiously while they dried up for his adversaries, as Josephus declared in his speech to the latter (BJ. 5 . 4 0 9 - 4 1 0 ) . Z . Y a v e t z , "Reflections on Titus and Josephus," GRBS 16 (1973): 4 1 1 - 3 2 , main tains that Titus had need o f a flattering portrayal because of rumors about the death o f his father.
62
FAUSTO PARENTE
m i 7ipoo£K\>vei xou<; 18 Xr\cxaq r\x>x^zorcpivavriKeaxou ndQovq jiexavofjaai B.J. 6.123). Consequently, it was entirely natural that, w h e n Titus held his council o f w a r to d r a w up the final plan o f attack (B.J. 6 . 2 3 6 - 2 4 3 ) , contrary to the o p i n i o n o f those w h o maintained that the law o f w a r should b e enforced with regard to the T e m p l e (B.J. 6.239), and o f those w h o argued "that if the Jews a b a n d o n e d it and p l a c e d n o w e a p o n s w h a t e v e r u p o n it, it s h o u l d b e saved, but that if they m o u n t e d it for purposes o f warfare, it should b e burnt" (B.J. 6.240), Titus declared that "even w e r e the J e w s to m o u n t it and fight there from, he w o u l d n o t wreak v e n g e a n c e o n inanimate objects instead o f m e n , n o r under any circumstances burn d o w n so magnificent a work; for the loss w o u l d affect the R o m a n , inasmuch as it w o u l d b e an o r n a m e n t to the empire if it s t o o d " (B.J. 6.241). T h e next day (10th o f L o o s : e n d o f August), the besieged
fighters
sallied forth. T h e y were a b o u t to o v e r w h e l m the R o m a n d e t a c h m e n t w h e n they were put to flight b y Titus's intervention a n d confined to the inner court o f the T e m p l e (B.J. 6.248). Titus withdrew to the A n t o n i a fortress (Josephus seems to have forgotten that it had b e e n razed to the g r o u n d : B.J. 6.93) and m a d e preparations for the next day's attack against the T e m p l e c o m p l e x . A t this point, Josephus indulges in the following reflection: "that build ing, h o w e v e r , G o d , i n d e e d l o n g since, h a d sentenced to the flames; but n o w in the revolution o f the years had arrived the fatal d a y " (B.J. 6.250). T h e n , resuming his narrative, he states that the flames " o w e d their origin and cause to G o d ' s o w n p e o p l e " (EK xcov otxeicov). After Titus had withdrawn, the rebels m o u n t e d a further attack a n d a clash ensued b e t w e e n the guards o f the sanctuary and the R o m a n soldiers e n d e a v o u r i n g to put out the flames. A t that m o m e n t , o n e o f the soldiers (a legionary: oxpocxicoxriq see B.J. 5.290; 5 5 4 etc.), with out waiting for the o r d e r to b e given (the assault was planned for the next day, B.J. 6.249) and without fear o f the c o n s e q u e n c e s (his action contravened orders expressly issued b y Titus), " m o v e d b y s o m e supernatural impulse," 8ai|xovico opjifl xivi %pco|Lievo^, seized a
brand
and, hoisted b y a c o m r a d e , threw it through o n e o f the gilded win d o w s o f the c h a m b e r s flanking the sanctuary o n the northern side {B.J. 6.252). T h e J e w s present raised cries o f anguish but did not
intervene,
while Titus, then resting in his tent, w h e n told o f the fire hurried to the T e m p l e "to arrest the conflagration" (B.J. 6.254) followed b y
63
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
the c o m m a n d e r s o f his legions and soldiers. "Caesar, both by voice and hand, signalled to the combatants to extinguish the fire; but
they
neither heard his shouts, d r o w n e d in the l o u d e r din w h i c h filled their ears, n o r h e e d e d his b e c k o n i n g hand, distracted as they were b y the fight o r their fury" (B.J. 6.256). " A s they d r e w nearer to the sanctuary they pretended not even to hear Caesar's orders and shouted to those in front o f them to throw in the
firebrands"
(B.J. 6.258).
U n a b l e to c o n t r o l the frenzy o f his soldiers, whilst the
flames
spread ever m o r e rapidly, Titus entered the building a n d b e h e l d the sanctuary
and the things contained within it, w h i c h far e x c e e d e d
their fame. H e assumed that the central b o d y o f the structure c o u l d still b e saved—because o n l y the external c h a m b e r s w e r e
burning
(B.J. 6 . 2 6 1 ) — a n d e n d e a v o u r e d to force his soldiers to extinguish the flames,
ordering the centurion Liberalius to beat with clubs any o f
them w h o disobeyed. H o w e v e r , the soldiers' o b e d i e n c e to Titus and their fear o f the centurion were o v e r c o m e b y their rage, their hatred o f the Jews, a n d their lust for b o o t y (B.J. 6 . 2 6 2 - 2 6 5 ) . O n e o f the soldiers w h o h a d penetrated the interior o f the T e m p l e while Titus sought to restrain the others "thrust a
firebrand
in the
darkness into the hinges o f the gate" (B.J. 6.266). W h e n the
flames
flared
in the interior o f the building, Titus realized that nothing
m o r e c o u l d b e d o n e and withdrew. " T h u s , against Caesar's wishes, was the temple set o n fire" (6 jiev ovv vocoq ouxcoq o t K o v x o q Kouoapoq £(i7i;{7cpaTai B.J. 6.266). T h i s description, so precise and rich in detail, and w h i c h u n d o u b t edly—although it is not explicidy stated—claims to b e an eye-witness a c c o u n t (and is repeated w o r d for w o r d b y S c h u r e r ) ,
41
is a
fabrication from beginning to end. Let us see w h y . 1. N o o n e w o u l d reasonably believe that the role o f protector o f the T e m p l e and o f Jewish worship (B.J. 6.94) attributed b y Josephus to Titus c o r r e s p o n d e d to reality. Suffice it to consider that, a m o n g the holy objects carried in j o i n t triumph b y Titus and Vespasian was, a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, a scroll o f the L a w o f the Jews, "last o f all the spoils" (B.J. 7.150), w h i c h was not p l a c e d like the others in the T e m p l e o f Peace but, together with the purple hangings o f the sanctuary, kept in the palace (B.J. 7.162).
Schürer,
Geschichte 1 : 6 3 0 - 3 1 ; History,
1:506.
64
FAUSTO
PARENTE
2. A c c o r d i n g to Cassius D i o (66.6.2), the R o m a n soldiers held b a c k from entering the interior o f the T e m p l e "because o f their superstition", and Titus forced them to enter. H e did not, as Josephus says, restrain them: "Nevertheless, the soldiers, because o f their superstition
did
not immediately rush in, but at last, under c o m p u l s i o n from Titus, they m a d e their w a y inside" (Cary, L C L ) . 3. A passage in Sulpicius Severus's Chronica (2.30.6)—for w h i c h the source was Tacitus o r , a c c o r d i n g to J a c o b Bernays, Antonius Julianus (the text m e n t i o n e d earlier)—states
that during the c o u n c i l
o f war w h i c h p r e c e d e d the final assault, Titus was o f the o p i n i o n that the T e m p l e should b e destroyed: "fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an t e m p l u m tanti operis euerteret etenim nonnullis uidebatur aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem, n o n oportere deleri . . . at contra et alii et Titus ipse euertendum in primis tem plum censebant. . .". 4. Also Orosius (Historiarum adversus paganos libri VII: 7 . 9 . 5 - 6 ) attrib utes to Titus the intention o f destroying the T e m p l e : Titus l o n g c o n sidered whether to burn the T e m p l e o r whether to conserve it as testimony to his victory, "sed Ecclesia D e i i a m per totum
Orbem
uberrime germinante, h o c tanquam effectum ac v a c u u m nullique usui b o n o c o m m o d u m arbitrio D e i auferendum fuit. Itaque Titus . . . tem p l u m in Hierosolymis incendit ac diruit." I have already discussed these passages elsewhere n o t b e appropriate instead is to furnish
42
a n d it w o u l d
to return to t h e m here, w h e r e m y
intention
further p r o o f o f the falseness o f J o s e p h u s ' s
account—proof that is forthcoming from his work itself. 5. If w e examine the passage in question, w e c a n n o t fail to notice contradictions a n d incongruities. Josephus says that the flames " o w e d their origin and cause to G o d s o w n p e o p l e " 6.251), but he immediately afterwards
(EK TCOV
oixeicov,
B.J.
states that it was a R o m a n
soldier " m o v e d b y s o m e supernatural impulse" w h o threw a b r a n d through the w i n d o w o f o n e o f the c h a m b e r s flanking the
sanctuary
(B.J. 6.252). In B.J. 6.265 he writes that o n e o f the soldiers, w h o h a d penetrated to the interior o f the T e m p l e , "thrust a
firebrand
in
the darkness, into the hinges o f the gate": apart from any other c o n sideration (what e x a c d y is meant b y "thrust a firebrand . . . into the
4 2
F. Parente, "Sulla doppia trasmissione, filosofica ed ecclesiastica, del testo di Flavio Giuseppe. U n contributo alla ricezione della sua opera nel m o n d o cristiano," Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 3 6 (2000): 3 - 5 1 , esp. 1 7 - 2 1 .
THE IMPOTENCE
OF
65
TITUS
hinges o f the gate"?), it is well-known that the inner c h a m b e r s o f the T e m p l e were divided not b y d o o r s , but b y curtains. 6. If w e believe Josephus' version, w e must also believe that the fire destroyed the ritual objects kept in the hekhal: the seven-branched candlestick, the table for the bread o f proposition, a n d the altar o f perfumes already described b y Josephus (B.J. 5.215). T h e s e w e r e still in their places w h e n Titus entered the T e m p l e before it caught fire and " b e h e l d the holy place and the sanctuary and all that it c o n tained—things far e x c e e d i n g the reports current a m o n g
foreigners
and not inferior to their p r o u d reputation a m o n g ourselves" (BJ. 6.260). Josephus
writes later that, before the assault o n the u p p e r
city
(and therefore w h e n the T e m p l e h a d already b e e n destroyed), o n e o f the priests, w h o s e life had b e e n spared, h a n d e d to Titus, " f r o m the wall o f the sanctuary", " t w o lampstands similar to those deposited in the sanctuary, along with tables, bowls, and platters, all o f solid gold and very massive" (B.J. 6 . 3 8 8 ) .
43
T h i s episode, h o w e v e r , is only a clumsy attempt b y Josephus
to
justify the R o m a n s ' possession o f objects that should have been utterly destroyed a c c o r d i n g to his version o f the facts before he wrote the seventh b o o k , in w h i c h he describes the triumph o f Vespasian
and
Titus. H o w e v e r , he does not identify the objects h a n d e d to Titus b y the priest with those contained in the hekhal but he does include a m o n g them the hangings o f the T e m p l e (B.J. 6.389). N o w in this regard, as I have said, in the seventh b o o k (B.J. 7 . 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 ) he states that the vessels o f the T e m p l e were deposited in the T e m p l e o f Peace (dedicated to Vespasian in 75), "but their L a w and the purple hangings (Kaxa7iexaa(iaxa)
o f the sanctuary he o r d e r e d to b e deposited
and
kept in the p a l a c e " . T h e T e m p l e hangings described b y Josephus were t w o in n u m b e r : o n e o f them a d o r n e d the external d o o r o f the 'ulam (B.J. 5.212) while the other divided the hekhal from the debir (B.J. 5.215). T h e y were o f considerable size (circa 25 metres X 10 metres), and it is impossible that the priest c o u l d have h a d
them
r e m o v e d w h e n all the objects contained in the temple were still in their p l a c e s .
44
4 3
Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 7 4 considers the report to be reliable: "It was at this time that various valuable objects from the T e m p l e were handed over to the R o m a n s by a priest, Jesus ben T h e b u t h i and the T e m p l e treasurer Pinhas (BJ. 6 . 3 8 7 ff.)." 4 4
O n the hangings of the T e m p l e see H . L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar
66
FAUSTO
PARENTE
M o r e o v e r , w h e n describing the triumph o f Vespasian and Titus, Josephus writes that "the spoils in general were b o r n e in p r o m i s c u ous heaps; but c o n s p i c u o u s a b o v e all stood out those captured in the T e m p l e o f Jerusalem. T h e s e consisted in a g o l d e n table, m a n y talents in weight, and a lampstand, likewise m a d e o f g o l d , but constructed o n a different pattern from those w h i c h w e use in ordinary life" (B.J. 7.148), w h i c h can still b e seen depicted o n the interior o f the A r c h o f Titus. T h e s e sentences demonstrate irrefutably that the destruction o f the T e m p l e c a m e a b o u t in a m a n n e r entirely different from J o s e p h u s
5
description o f it: the T e m p l e was first l o o t e d a n d then set o n fire, as evinced b y the detail that the hangings h a d escaped the
flames.
8. W h y did Josephus describe the destruction o f the T e m p l e in this m a n n e r ? A b o v e all, for whom did he describe it thus? Certainly not for the R o m a n s , w h o had all the d o c u m e n t a t i o n that they might require, and w h o certainly had very litde interest in the fate o f a city situated o n the periphery o f the empire, o r for that matter in the fate o f its T e m p l e , the spiritual centre o f a p e o p l e , the Jews, for w h o m they had scant s y m p a t h y .
45
T h e a c c o u n t was written for the
J e w s o f the Diaspora, the purpose being to explain to them how a n d why the T e m p l e o f Jerusalem had b e e n destroyed. T h e r e is n o d o u b t that Josephus w a n t e d to exonerate Titus from responsibility for the c r i m e . H e fails to d o so, h o w e v e r , because a passage in the T a l m u d (b. Gittin 56b) informs us that before Titus destroyed the T e m p l e he profaned it b y unrolling a scroll o f the T o r a h in the holy o f holies and possessing a prostitute u p o n it.
46
Aside from the crudity o f the image, this legend c o m e s closer to the historical truth than Josephus's description. H o w e v e r , Josephus does exculpate Titus by showing his impotence at
zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. I. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (München: Beck, 1926): 1 0 4 3 - 4 6 ; M . H a r a n , Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School ( W i n o n a Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1 9 8 5 2 d ed.), 1 5 2 - 5 5 ; 1 6 1 - 6 5 ; 1 7 8 - 7 9 ; 1 8 3 - 8 4 and passim. 4 5
O n this see: J. Levy, "Tacite et l'origine du peuple juif," Latomus 5 (1946): 3 3 1 - 4 0 ; A . N . Sherwin-White, Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (J. H . G r a y Lect. for 1 9 6 6 ; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1967); Z . Y a v e t z , "Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity: A Different Approach," JJS 4 4 (1993): 1 - 2 2 ; P. Schäfer, Judeophobüv Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997). Hadas-Lebel, "La Tradition rabbinique," 1 6 7 - 7 1 . 4 6
67
THE IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
preventing the destruction of the Temple. T h i s is the striking feature o f the passage if w e wish to treat it, not pejoratively as a fiction, but p o s itively as a message sent to his co-religionists. H e w h o at that m o m e n t and in that place was the most powerful m a n in the w o r l d was unable to halt the destructive frenzy o f soldiers w h o first
pretended
not to hear his c o m m a n d s and then openly ignored them. T h e action o f those soldiers, like that o f the m a n w h o started the fire, was evid e n d y controlled by a higher force against w h i c h Titus was utterly i m p o tent. In other w o r d s , God himself (and not Titus) had destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem. F o r what reason, h o w e v e r , did the Deity destroy his sanctuary? It was to answer this question that Josephus constructed the ideologi cal framework o f his b o o k and wrote pages laden with horrors and sacrileges which were entirely the fruit of his imagination. Josephus wanted to persuade the Jews o f the D i a s p o r a w h o read his b o o k that the destruction o f the T e m p l e c o u l d n o t have b e e n avoided, and that, therefore—to spell out the c o n c r e t e and
practi
cal implications o f his work—it should not be avenged. In other w o r d s , Josephus feared—and
his fear subsequendy p r o v e d fully justified—
that the J e w s might o n c e again rise u p against the R o m a n s
and
suffer further tragedies (as in fact they did). T o this end, as I have said, he t o o k great pains to c o n c e a l every religious implication o f the revolt:
47
he always and o n l y referred to
those w h o had fought against the R o m a n s as "bandits"; he described, in a succession o f shocking images, the wickedness that they p e r p e trated, wickedness that almost invariably t o o k the f o r m o f sacrilege. Josephus depicted the sacrificial area o f the T e m p l e as h e a p e d with bodies trampled underfoot, and as c o v e r e d with a lake o f b l o o d , not because he relished the h o r r o r o f the scene, but because he wanted the Jewish reader to believe that the T e m p l e was b y n o w irremedi ably p r o f a n e d a n d the Deity h a d definitively a b a n d o n e d it. " M y
4 7
T h e p h e n o m e n o n of propheticism must have been very widespread in the period prior to the siege. Josephus recounts the story o f Jesus son of Ananias (B.J. 6 . 3 0 0 - 3 0 9 ) , but in BJ. 6 . 2 8 6 - 2 8 7 he states that "numerous prophets, indeed, were at this period suborned by the tyrants to delude the people, by bidding them await help from G o d , in order that desertions might be checked and that those w h o were above fear and precaution might be encouraged by hope". See P. W . Barnett, " T h e Jewish Sign Prophets A . D . 6 6 - 7 0 . Their Interpretations and Origin," NTS 2 7 (1981): 6 7 9 - 9 7 ; R . G r a y , Prophetic Figures in the Later Second Temple Palestine. The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1993).
68
FAUSTO PARENTE
belief, therefore, is that the Deity (TO Geiov) has fled from the holy places and taken His stand o n the side o f those with w h o m y o u are n o w at w a r " (B.J. 5.412), he says in his allocution to the besieged. A c c o r d i n g to the last o f the prodigies (which J o s e p h u s lists for his R o m a n readers) that o c c u r r e d in J e r u s a l e m b e f o r e the T e m p l e ' s destruction, o n the d a y o f Pentecost (Shabuot) "the priests o n enter ing the inner court o f the temple b y night, as was their custom in the discharge o f their ministrations, reported that they were c o n scious, first o f a c o m m o t i o n a n d a din, a n d after, that o f a voice as o f a host, ' W e are departing h e n c e ' " (B.J. 6.299). J o s e p h u s ' source was indubitably R o m a n , a n d those w h o a b a n d o n e d the T e m p l e were therefore several divinities—a detail w h i c h his Jewish readers must have found s o m e w h a t o d d .
4 8
Josephus also talks o f a p r o p h e c y which the rebels and their behav iour h a d n o w fulfilled. " W h o knows not the records o f the ancient prophets a n d that oracle w h i c h threatens this p o o r city a n d is even n o w c o m i n g true? F o r they foretold that it w o u l d then b e taken w h e n s o e v e r o n e should begin to slaughter his o w n c o u n t r y m e n . A n d is not the city, aye a n d the w h o l e temple, filled with y o u r corpses? G o d it is then, G o d Himself w h o with the R o m a n s is bringing the fire to p u r g e His temple a n d exterminating a city so laden with p o l lutions" (B.J. 6 . 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 ) .
49
Josephus is therefore saying to his co-religionists that even t h o u g h the R o m a n s were superior in the art o f war, and even though Fortune was always o n their side, it was not for these reasons that the R o m a n s
4 8
T h i s prodigy is also described b y Tacitus, Hist 5 . 1 3 . 1 . T h e two authors must have been in contact in this instance. T h e p r o b l e m has been discussed by O . Weinreich, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt: Wissensch. Buchgesellschaft, 1968), 1 0 9 - 1 7 (originally published in 1929). A c c o r d i n g to W e i n r e i c h , Tacitus did not draw on Josephus, but both o f them relied o n a c o m m o n source which W e i n r e i c h does not identify, but which, as W e b e r also believed, was probably Antonius Julianus. T h e last prodigy (B.J. 6 . 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ) seems to have been (as W e b e r believed) an evocatio deorum reworked b y Josephus in Jewish terms o n the basis of his conception o f the a b a n d o n m e n t o f the T e m p l e b y the Deity ( H o s 5 : 1 5 ; Ezek 9:3; 11:23; Z e c h 11:1). T h i s is amply d o c u m e n t e d in rabbinic literature: Deut. Rab 1:17; b. Ros Has. 31a; b. Torna 3 9 b . See the c o m m e n t a r y on the passage o f Tacitus b y M . Stern in GLAJJ 2 : 6 0 - 6 2 . O n the evocatio deorum (Plin. Nat. 2 8 . 1 8 "evocari d e u m , cuius in tutela id o p p i d u m esset, promittique illi e u n d e m aut ampliorem apud R o m a n o s cultum"): Liv. 5 , 2 1 . 3 - 7 ; Plut. Quaest.rom. 6 1 ; Servius, Am. 2 . 3 5 1 . 4 9
Thackeray ( L C L ad. loc.) thinks that Josephus might be referring to Sib. Or. 4 . 1 0 2 - 1 5 1 , but the passage is certainly later than he believes (ca. 80) because 1 3 0 - 1 3 7 contains a reference to the eruption o f Vesuvius in 7 9 . See Parente, "Trasmissione," 3 7 n. 5 5 .
THE
had
69
IMPOTENCE OF TITUS
prevailed, a n d it was not for these reasons that they h a d set
fire to the T e m p l e , for Titus had tried to save the T e m p l e but in vain. C o n s e q u e n d y , Titus's i m p o t e n c e was n o t p r o o f that the Deity was
"allied" with the R o m a n s ; rather, it was p r o o f that, just as the
Babylonians that h a d destroyed the first temple, so the R o m a n s were "servants" and instruments o f the Deity. H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s ' J e w i s h readers w e r e n o t c o n v i n c e d b y his explanation that internecine struggles had profaned the T e m p l e and desecrated it. N o r did they believe that Titus had b e e n powerless to save it; indeed, they held the " w i c k e d " T i t u s
50
(JflZTin DICTO) respon-
sible for its desecration a n d its destruction. But they failed to c o m p r e h e n d what offence Israel had c o m m i t t e d to i n d u c e Y a h w e h to destroy his sanctuary. T h o s e w h o believed that they knew with certainty what this offence was
w e r e the Christians: the T e m p l e h a d b e e n destroyed because
the J e w s h a d killed Christ—though in reality he h a d b e e n put to death b y the R o m a n s with a R o m a n form o f execution. T h u s , o n c e again, the R o m a n s were e x o n e r a t e d and the Jews w e r e b l a m e d .
51
5 0
Rabbinic literature contains numerous accounts o f the legends concerning the profanation of the T e m p l e by Titus and his death as a consequence of his iepoouAia which, despite their numerous versions, seem to derive from a single source. In b. Gittin 5 6 b , Titus, after he had possessed a prostitute o n a scroll o f the law, ripped a T e m p l e hanging with his sword. W h e r e u p o n b l o o d spurted from the hanging so that Titus believed that he had killed the Deity himself. In Lev. Rab. 2 2 : 3 , there are two prostitutes, a n d the b l o o d spurting from the hanging is interpreted as the b l o o d o f sacrifices. In Abot de Rabbi Natan (B) 2 0 , Titus slashes the hanging, takes the prostitute in to the H o l y o f Holies a n d challenges the Deity: "This is the one w h o y o u say slaughtered Sisera and Sennacherib. H e r e I a m in his house a n d in his d o m a i n . If he has any power, let him c o m e out a n d face m e " (transl. Saldarini). Titus's death was caused by a gnat which crawled up his nose and lodged in his brain, where it grew until it reached the size o f a pigeon. According to Lev. Rab. 22:2, this signifies that even something which in nature seems entirely insignificant is part o f a providential scheme o f things (with reference to Q p h 5:8). See L . Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: T h e Jewish Publication Society o f A m e r i c a , 1925), 5 : 6 0 n. 1 9 1 . 5 1
O n the ( R o m a n ) trial o f Jesus see R . E . Brown, The Death of the Messiah ( N e w York: Doubleday, 1994), with further bibliog., esp. 3 1 5 - 2 2 , 6 6 5 - 7 1 ; on the significance of the destruction o f the T e m p l e for the Christian tradition see S. G . F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. A Study on the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of AD 70 on Christianity (London: S P C K , 1951); E . Fascher, "Jerusalems Untergang in der urchrisdichen und altkirchlichen Überlieferung," 7 Z £ 8 9 (1964): 8 1 - 9 8 ; LI. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Suppl. to NT 2 3 , Leiden: Brill, 1970).
OF AUDIENCE A N D MEANING: R E A D I N G J O S E P H U S ' BELLUM
JUDAICUM
IN T H E
C O N T E X T OF A FLAVIAN AUDIENCE STEVE M A S O N Y O R K UNIVERSITY, T O R O N T O
V i c t o r Tcherikover's 1956 essay, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature R e c o n 1
sidered," s h o w e d that Alexandrian-Jewish literature, w h i c h h a d hith erto b e e n c o n s i d e r e d a p o l o g e t i c , p o l e m i c a l , a n d missionary w o r k a i m e d at an undifferentiated gentile audience, must in fact have b e e n directed—almost entirely—at the J e w s o f Alexandria. H a v i n g estab lished this point, T c h e r i k o v e r called for a reappraisal o f this litera ture in its concrete historical environment, in light o f Egyptian papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions. Understanding a text's audience, he realized, makes all the difference to interpretation: " I f o u r o p i n i o n is right and every literary w o r k reflects the ideas o f a certain g r o u p o f p e o ple [i.e., the author and first a u d i e n c e ] , then w e have to k n o w e x a c d y where this g r o u p lived, w h e n this w o r k was written a n d u n d e r what historical conditions it was c o n c e i v e d . "
2
A u d i e n c e matters.
In the study o f Josephus, questions o f audience have not usually b e e n considered crucial for interpretation. T h e n again, interpretation itself has not b e e n a priority: w e have until r e c e n d y lacked even ele mentary attempts at sketching the structures, themes, a n d characteristic 3
language o f J o s e p h u s ' m a j o r w o r k s . T h e meaning o f the text has most often b e e n located rather in the interplay b e t w e e n o u r author and his sources: because he altered the Bible (or Nicolaus, etc.) in m a n ner X , he must have m e a n t o r thought Y .
4
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s ' use
1
V i c t o r Tcherikover, "Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered," Eos 4 8 (1956): 169-93. 2
Tcherikover, "Jewish Apologetic Literature," 1 8 6 .
3
Cf. Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: his Life, his Works and their Importance (Sheffield: J S O T , 1988), 7 1 , 9 2 [under "Literature"]. See for example L. H . Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1998); C . Begg, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8 . 2 1 2 - 4 2 0 ; . - Rewriting the Bible (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Uitgeverij Peeters, 1993); C . Begg, Josephus' Story of the Later Monarchy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) ; F. M . Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 3 - 8 3 ; D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees," JSJ 14 (1983): 1 5 7 - 7 1 ; D . R . Schwartz, Agrippa I: the Last King of Judea (Tubingen: J. C . B. M o h r , 1990) 1 - 3 8 . 4
3
72
STEVE MASON
o f sources is an indispensable avenue o f inquiry, a n d m a y reveal to scholars something o f his interests as an author, it leaves unsetded whether any particular audience w o u l d have b e e n able to follow this use o f sources: the question o f what he wished to communicate. Josephus' audience m a y have b e e n recognized b y scholars as an introductory issue for the right sort o f textbook, but since few if any studies o f Josephus c o u n t as textbooks, audience questions have m o s d y b e e n treated p i e c e m e a l a n d vaguely. O n e surprisingly durable view holds that Josephus wrote the War as R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , whether o n the basis o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e R o m a n source
5
o r translating an A r a m a i c version intended for the
Parthian empire (cf. B.J. 1.3, 6). T h e Antiquities a n d later works were, a c c o r d i n g to this view, instruments o f repentance o r at least o p p o r tunistic rehabilitation, directed at " R o m a n authorities" to win support for a putative n e w rabbinic leadership at Y a v n e h , o r perhaps at the 6
Y a v n e a n rabbis themselves. Scholars w h o have found such a radical disjunction in J o s e p h u s ' literary career unpersuasive have usually a d o p t e d the diplomatic solution that he wrote for everyone: R o m a n s 7
a n d Greeks and J e w s . But w h e r e and h o w he should have reached these vaguely c o n c e i v e d parties remains unclear. Finally, in keeping with T c h e r i k o v e r ' s question a b o u t Alexandrian-Judean
literature—
" W h a t interest, indeed, c o u l d a G r e e k reader have for the practical 8
prescriptions o f J u d a i s m ? " — s o m e scholars have insisted that only
3
W . W e b e r , Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Hildesheim: G e o r g O l m s , 1921 [1973]); cf. H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1972). 6
W i t h different emphases and nuances: R . Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Giessen: M ü n c h o w , 1 9 2 0 ; repr. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1970), 1 2 6 - 2 7 ; H . R a s p , "Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien," £NW 23 (1924): 4 6 ; H . S. J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian ( N e w York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1 9 2 9 ; repr. N e w Y o r k : K t a v Publishing H o u s e , 1 9 6 7 ) , 2 7 , 5 2 , 5 6 ; M . S m i t h , "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," in Israel: Its Role in Civilization (ed. M . Davis; N e w York: H a r p e r & Brothers, 1956), 7 2 ; J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: the Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973); S. J. D . C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 8 6 , 1 4 5 , 2 0 9 ; H . W . Attridge, "Josephus and his W o r k s , " in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M . E . Stone; Assen: V a n G o r c u m , 1984), 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 ; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 10, 1 9 9 - 2 0 1 . 7
G . E . Sterling, Historiography and Self definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2 9 7 - 3 0 8 ; Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, 1J-1&. Tcherikover, "Jewish Apologetic Literature," 178. 8
73
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
other Judeans c o u l d have b e e n m u c h interested in, o r able to c o m prehend, the writings o f this displaced compatriot, n o matter what Josephus said a b o u t his e x p e c t e d a u d i e n c e .
9
U n d e r l y i n g m y a r g u m e n t in this essay is the p r o p o s i t i o n that J o s e p h u s ' a u d i e n c e matters for interpretation.
T h u s I agree with
Tcherikover, not only in his particular conclusions about AlexandrianJ u d e a n literature, but m o r e importantly in his (largely neglected) m e t h o d a n d argument. T c h e r i k o v e r regarded a c o u p l e o f Philo's works (the Legatio and Flaccus) as exceptions to his general position, for they seemed obviously targeted at R o m a n officials; he also thought that J o s e p h u s ' later works were written for gentiles, the
10
though he left
War u n m e n t i o n e d . But if w e apply the same sort o f historical
logic to J o s e p h u s ' War, written in R o m e , that T c h e r i k o v e r used for Alexandrian-Judean
literature, w e should c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s
wrote in the first instance—without precluding secondary a n d ter tiary readerships—for sympathetic o r at least tractable audiences in his a d o p t e d h o m e city o f R o m e , w h o shared with h i m an elite edu cation and w o r l d o f discourse. T h e s e groups included s o m e fellowJ u d e a n s fIot>8aioi) in R o m e (C. Ap.
1.51), though he w r o t e with
special c o n c e r n for Greeks and R o m a n s in the capital. A l t h o u g h it w o u l d b e ideal to spell out s o m e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f this conclusion for understanding J o s e p h u s ' War, lack o f space precludes that kind o f exploration here. T h e interested reader m a y wish to consult t w o other essays o f mine o n those questions.
11
In the pre
sent study I attempt, with sharper focus than I have b e e n able to indulge elsewhere, to explore the nature o f J o s e p h u s ' e x p e c t e d audi ence; in the c o n c l u s i o n I shall merely suggest s o m e o f the conse quences e x p l o r e d in the other essays, to w h i c h this o n e is logically preparatory.
9
E . Migliario, "Per l'interpretazione dell'Autobiografia di Flavio Giuseppe," Athenaeum 5 9 (1981): 9 2 , 9 6 , 136; T . Rajak Josephus: the Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 178 (the Jewish Diaspora was Josephus' primary audience). 1 0
Tcherikover, "Jewish Apologetic Literature," 1 8 3 . S. M a s o n , "Flavius Josephus in Flavian R o m e : Reading o n and Between the Lines," in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (ed. A . J. Boyle and W . J. Dominik; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 2 ) , 5 5 9 - 8 9 (chiefly on the Antiquities, though with some attention to the War); "Figured Speech and Irony in T . Flavius Josephus," in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n , a n d J. Rives; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) , 2 4 3 - 8 8 (focused on the War and Life). 11
74
STEVE MASON
1.
A U D I E N C E M A T T E R S FOR
INTERPRETING
COMMUNICATIVE T E X T S
Because interpretation o f Josephus has usually i g n o r e d o r abstracted the question o f audience, it seems necessary to begin b y establish ing the otherwise trite premise that audience does matter for understanding a work's a i m s .
12
T h e p o i n t seems straightforwardly p r o v a b l e . If an
ancient author writes to c o m m u n i c a t e , a n d not merely for personal satisfaction, then he writes to c o m m u n i c a t e with someone. It follows that in c o m p o s i n g his w o r k he must take into a c c o u n t the existing knowledge base o f the intended recipients (e.g., linguistic, historical, g e o graphical) as well as their interests, values, and attitudes. A text is not self-interpreting: it has n o independent meaning. It is rather a m e d i u m o r " m i d d l e t e r m " b e t w e e n t w o parties, a set o f c o d e s left b y an author for a skilled readership o r — w i t h other sensory cues a d d e d — an audience to decipher. F o r e x a m p l e , a p a g e o f Aristophanes is completely unintelligible to those without k n o w l e d g e o f the script; s o m e o n e else might b e able to identify the characters as G r e e k with out b e i n g able to read them; another person might have the ability to read them syntactically but without grasping the referential sense; yet another might make d e c e n t sense o f them but, lacking a p p r o priate historical k n o w l e d g e , miss elements o f wit o r n u a n c e that an interpreter with such contextual k n o w l e d g e w o u l d notice. A n y set o f written c o d e s requires such interpretation, and a n y o n e w h o sets out to c o m m u n i c a t e verbally has n o c h o i c e but to bear in m i n d the abil ities o f the e x p e c t e d d e c o d e r s . T h i s d o e s not imply that c o m m u n i c a t i o n is ever perfect, o r even that an author/speaker intends it to b e so: w e have all used phrases, images, o r allusions because they are particularly satisfying to us,
1 2
T h e reticence about "aim-" or "intention-" language that one often meets in classical, biblical, and humanistic scholarship represents, as far as I can see, a mis application of W . K . Wimsatt's "intentional fallacy" (of 1 9 4 6 vintage), developed in relation to belletristic literature, especially poetry, and by n o means uncontested even there: see T . Eagleton, Literary Theory: an Introduction (Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1 9 9 6 ) , 3 8 - 4 6 . Eagleton apdy observes (p. 44): " M o s t literary theories, in fact, unconsciously 'foreground' a particular literary genre, and derive their general pronouncements from this." Since the author o f the War declares intentions ( 1 . 1 - 3 0 ) and writes a narrative that fulfills them, I see no problem in discussing the book's aims, or indeed Josephus' aims by implication, as long as w e bear in m i n d that our accounts can never be exhaustive and that the m a n Josephus behind the work remains unknown in most respects.
75
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
whether o r not o u r audience ever detected the significance for us. (If they d o , it is a bonus.) Still, as long as w e aim chiefly to c o m m u n i c a t e , w e c a n d o so o n l y with an assessment o f o u r audience's k n o w l e d g e and sympathies. F o r this paper, I mainly assume that Josephus wished to c o m municate. T h e question b e c o m e s , then: With whom? Let us begin with basics. T h e fact that he wrote the extant War in G r e e k requires that he c o m p o s e d for p e o p l e w h o c o u l d understand this language. M o r e than that, h o w e v e r , he wrote a particular kind o f Greek, different in pitch, tone, diction, and syntactic sophistication from the language o f Jewish G r e e k compositions o f the p r e c e d i n g centuries, from such c o n t e m p o r a r y texts as the N e w Mark, John, o r Luke-Acts, o r from Chariton's
Testament's
Chaereas and Callirhoe.
J o s e p h u s ' writing is m u c h closer to that o f c o n t e m p o r a r y a n d later statesmen-teachers: Plutarch, D i o C h r y s o s t o m , Aristides, and Lucian. Like them, he shows himself keenly sensitive to questions o f style (B.J. 1.13; 7.455; see further b e l o w ) . T h e
War's o p e n i n g sentence
comprises 2 6 4 w o r d s (on Niese's punctuation), half a d o z e n jiev . . . 8e constructions along with other binary contrasts, and a n u m b e r o f rare w o r d s o r formations.
13
T h e w o r k as a w h o l e scrupulously avoids the
clashing o f vowels ("hiatus"), a la m o d e , and particularly in the o p e n ing a n d closing sections favors old-fashioned Attic spelling. T h e s e traits d o not bespeak an easy capitulation to fashion, for they required sustained artistic effort, especially from s o m e o n e for w h o m Greek was a s e c o n d language. A s critics have long observed, however, the War is in fact a fine specimen o f the d e v e l o p i n g Atticistic G r e e k so popular a m o n g the Greek revivalists o f Josephus' time.
14
Surprisingly,
it contains the first attestation o f m a n y w o r d s and phrases that w o u l d b e c o m e popular in the authors n a m e d above, members o f the " S e c o n d Sophistic."
15
Josephus also happens to share m u c h o f their o u d o o k
o n issues o f internal state (noXxq) g o v e r n m e n t and external
relations
with R o m e , a n d like them he seems to d r a w m u c h o f this from
1 3
R a r e words: àx\)xf|uaxa, 1.12; ârcripeàÇcD, 1.13; rcpoiaxopeco, 1.15; àpxaioXoyéco, 1.17; ôie^oôiKoç, comparative of 7cpoyevr|ç at 1.18. Unusual formations (not used again in Josephus, for example: the neuter substantives TO vecoxepîÇov in 1.4, TO KeXxucov in 1.5, xà cxpaxicoxim, 1.5; xo XnaxpiKov in 1.11. 1 4
Thackeray, Josephus, 104. I refer the reader to m y introduction to the Bellum in BJP vol. la, War 1-2 (Leiden: Brill, [forthcoming]). 1 5
Thejudean
76
STEVE MASON
Polybius.
16
T h e War contains arguably the richest surviving example
o f the G r e e k historical p r o l o g u e (B.J. 1 . 1 - 3 0 ) ,
17
a n d the narrative is
conspicuously sensitive to the prescriptions o f rhetorical training: vari ation in scene a n d diction, speeches and other major digressions, colorful batde accounts. It is replete with evocations o f G r e e k epic a n d tragedy.
18
G i v e n that Josephus will n o t maintain the War's literary standards in his later compositions, falling into what seems his unaided natural 19
v o i c e b y A.J. 20-Life,
o n e must ask w h y he w e n t to all this trouble
in his definitive work, during his first d e c a d e in the capital. It w o u l d b e bizarre to imagine h i m d o i n g so for m e r e self-gratification, o r if he wrote for audiences w h o d i d not care a b o u t such things. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that he e x p e c t e d an audience w h o w o u l d appreciate o r even require these touches. In m o d e r n scholarship, classicists have shown a m o r e determined interest in the c o n c r e t e conditions o f publication, in the situations o f authors a n d audiences from Aristophanes to Virgil to Dionysius to Pliny the Y o u n g e r ,
20
than have their counterparts in biblical, post-
biblical/inter-testamental, a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t literatures—the other principal constituencies for the study o f J o s e p h u s . T h i s m a y b e because, with the notable exception o f the a p o s d e Paul (MB: the vast library o f scholarship o n his letters deals very m u c h with contexts
1 6
See A . M . Eckstein, "Josephus and Polybius: A Reconsideration," Classical Antiquity 9 ( 1 9 9 0 ) for specific parallels; A . M . Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1995) for Polybius in general. 1 7
For the standard tropes o f ancient prologues, H . Lieberich, Studien zu den Proömien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. I: Die griechischen Geschichtsschreiber (Munich: J. G . Weiss, 1899); D . C . Earl, "Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography," ANRW (1972) 1.2: 8 4 2 - 5 6 ; and, with (happily) significant atten tion to Josephus, J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997). 1 8
See H . C h a p m a n , "Spectacle and Theater in Josephus's Bellum Judaicum" ( P h . D . diss., Department o f Classics, Stanford University, 1998), 2 0 8 . 1 9
Josephus' last work, however (the Apion), returns to a highly polished rhetori cal style. 2 0
W . R . C o n n o r , Thucydides (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 12: "the study o f the audience o f ancient literature is one o f the most pressing items in the agenda o f classical studies." For convenient demonstration, one might consider the treatment o f each author in E . J. K e n n e y and W . V . Clausen et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Classical Literature (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 5 vols., 1 9 8 2 - 1 9 8 9 ) ; m o r e generally, C . Salles, Lire á Rome (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992); E . Fantham, Roman Literary Culture: from Cicero to Apuleius (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1 9 9 6 ) — a detailed survey o f literary contexts or audiences—and C . Pelling, Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London: Routledge, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 - 1 7 .
11
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
and audiences),
21
the authors and provenances o f biblical, post-biblical,
and early Christian texts are usually difficult o r impossible to k n o w . F r o m that side o f the scholarly w o r l d , o n e might object that the study o f ancient texts obviously does not require knowledge o f first audiences. But such a position w o u l d only make a virtue o f necessity. T h e fact that w e lack m u c h evidence for the authorship and context o f most biblical and post-biblical literature is lamentable. T h i s lack d o e s not stop critics in those fields from endlessly formulating hypotheses about the audiences o f the Deuteronomistic Historian, W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , 4 M a c c a b e e s , o r even Q ; — p r o o f o f the question's importance. Scholars simply lack the supporting material to make c o m p e l l i n g cases. In the case o f Josephus, h o w e v e r , the situation is m u c h m o r e akin to that o f most classical authors: w e k n o w his n a m e , r o u g h dates,
career
o u d i n e , and p l a c e o f writing. W e also have a decent picture from various sources o f the general environment in Flavian R o m e ,
2 2
and
J o s e p h u s ' writings contain significant references to conditions and even a few persons in that environment. T o neglect the
fundamental
question o f his e x p e c t e d audience w o u l d therefore b e irresponsible. Before m o v i n g to the particular evidence for J o s e p h u s ' audience, I pause to elucidate o n e further point. M y working hypothesis is that Josephus wrote to c o m m u n i c a t e , but there are m a n y levels a n d kinds o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . For the sake o f simplicity, I suggest that verbal c o m m u n i c a t i o n (on o n e plane at least) ranges between the poles o f the o b v i o u s o r basic c o n v e y a n c e o f m e a n i n g and subde, figured, o r partially h i d d e n m o d e s . O n the plain-sense extreme, w e simply try to get across an u n a m b i g u o u s message—as w h e n visiting a foreign country, w h e n o u r ability to use the c o d e s and o u r k n o w l e d g e o f audience are severely limited—without causing either mirth o r a m b i guity. In such contexts there is little r o o m for irony, h u m o r , sarcasm, o r other higher dimensions o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . In these cases o n e must spell out everything. Y e t in G r e e k and R o m a n rhetoric such o b v i o u s writing was often considered pedestrian, even d e m e a n i n g to the audience, w h o should be left to c o m p l e t e the story for themselves so as to feel respected b y
2 1
See e.g., W . A . Meeks, The First Urban Christians: the Social World of the Apostle Paul ( N e w Haven: Y a l e University Press, 1983); C . J. Roetzel, The Letters of PaulConversations in Context (Louisville: Westminster/John K n o x Press, 1991). See e.g., Boyle and Dominik, Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. 2 2
78
STEVE MASON
the author/speaker.
S o Demetrius (Eloc. 222): "It is a slur o n y o u r
hearer to tell him everything as though he were a s i m p l e t o n . "
23
One
c a n only write artfully in this way, h o w e v e r — s a y i n g things without actually saying them, leaving things for the audience to d i s c o v e r — , w h e n o n e knows the audience. In the case o f Josephus it is espe cially important to consider this higher level o f communication because it was so widely e m b r a c e d in Flavian R o m e , w h e r e it c o u l d b e dan gerous to speak frankly.
24
A l t h o u g h w e lack the space in this essay
to explore J o s e p h u s ' uses o f figured l a n g u a g e ,
25
it is important
to
r e m e m b e r these possibilities because they further illustrate the i m p o r tance o f audience for interpretation: it is only w h e n w e posit a cer tain kind o f audience k n o w l e d g e that w e can detect such plays.
2. JOSEPHUS' A U D I E N C E IN R O M E : T H E
EVIDENCE
A t least five considerations place it b e y o n d d o u b t that Josephus wrote his G r e e k War to c o m m u n i c a t e with an elite audience in the capi tal city. 1. In the ancient w o r l d , publication was normally a local and social project. T h e g r o u n d o n w h i c h T c h e r i k o v e r decisively refuted abstract assumptions about apologetic and missionary purposes in AlexandrianJ u d e a n literature has generally b e e n ignored. Against the then c o m m o n assumption (he said) that ancient authors reached their audiences m u c h as w e reach ours, T c h e r i k o v e r p o i n t e d out crucial differences 26
between ancient a n d m o d e r n p u b l i c a t i o n — o r at least the process o f making a w o r k public (below). Since all dissemination o f litera ture d e p e n d e d u p o n c o p y i n g b y hand, it was inevitably a local affair in the first instance.
27
B o o k p r o d u c t i o n was d e p e n d e n t largely o n the
2 3
Further on artful modes of discourse: Eloc. 2 8 7 - 9 8 . Cf. Quintilian (Inst. 9 . 1 . 1 4 , 2.65) on figured speech: "a hidden meaning, which is left to the hearer to discover." 2 4
See F. A h l , " T h e Art o f Safe Criticism in Greece and R o m e , " AJP 105 (1984): 1 7 4 - 2 0 8 ; V . Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero: the Price of Dissimulation (London: R o u d e d g e , 1993) and idem, Dissidence and Literature under Nero: the Price of Rhetoricization (London: Roudedge, 1997); S. Bartsch, Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994). 2 5
See m y essays "Flavius Josephus in Flavian R o m e , " in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text and "Figured Speech and Irony," in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Tcherikover, "Jewish Apologetic Literature," 1 7 1 - 7 4 . See also R . J. Starr, "The Circulation of Texts in the Ancient W o r l d , " Mnemosyne (series 4) 4 0 (1987): 2 1 3 - 2 3 . 2 6
2 7
79
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
stature o r auctoritas o f the author a n d / o r his patron: "the main c o n dition for the distribution o f a b o o k within a society was, that the author should b e r o o t e d in that s o c i e t y . "
28
T h e Jewish authors had
a u d i e n c e / r e a d e r groups a r o u n d them. This recognition b y itself obvi ated implausible notions a b o u t the Mediterranean-wide
ambitions
and reach o f J u d e a n literature from Alexandria. Q u i t e right. But then, Josephus t o o must have had a local audi ence in R o m e , and written for that audience. T o apply T c h e r i k o v e r ' s challenge to J o s e p h u s
5
works, o n e should n o t c o n c l u d e that he t o o
wrote for Judeans. O n e should rather e x a m i n e all the available evi d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g his m e t h o d o f writing a n d publication, consider 5
ing the ways in w h i c h these clues reflect Josephus context in R o m e . Since T c h e r i k o v e r ' s time an array o f studies has m a d e the point repeatedly a n d for various kinds o f literature
29
that bringing out a
b o o k was a social and local enterprise. It will b e m o s t efficient to sketch s o m e salient results o f these studies as a point o f reference for 5
better understanding Josephus remarks in the following sections o f this essay. I refer the reader to the studies themselves for full documentation. Publication as w e understand
it did not exist in antiquity. T h i s
m a y seem o b v i o u s , but it needs emphasis because most studies o f Josephus appear to assume that seven-volume c o r p o r a o n rolls, such as his War, c o u l d b e distributed to any audience he desired. Starr 5
appropriately suggests: " T h e term 'publish should not b e used because it unavoidably bears a b u r d e n o f m o d e r n implications.
5530
T e c h n o l o g y available to us, from the printing press and its digital successors to c o n v e n i e n t travel a n d electronic c o m m u n i c a t i o n , has spawned the publishing industry. In this environment, w e divide b o o k production cleanly into t w o phases: the preparation o f the work, which is o u r task as authors a n d is essentially private (the degree to w h i c h w e involve others is discretionary), and the work's publication, w h e n it goes out to the audience. C o n d i t i o n s created b y mass p r o d u c t i o n , editorial and marketing staffs, and m o d e r n delivery services dictate
2 8
Tcherikover,
"Jewish Apologetic Literature,"
173.
2 9
P. W h i t e , " T h e Friends of Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal of Patronage," HSCP 7 9 (1975): 2 9 9 ; T . P. W i s e m a n , Roman Studies: Literary and Historical (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1987), 2 5 2 - 5 6 ; Starr, " T h e Circulation of Texts"; W . V . Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989), 2 2 2 - 2 9 ; Salles, Lire a Rome, 9 4 - 1 1 0 ; Fantham, Roman Literary Culture, 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 8 3 - 2 2 1 ; D . S. Potter, Literary Texts and the Roman Historian (London; N e w Y o r k : Routledge, 1999), 2 3 - 4 4 . 3 0
Starr, " T h e Circulation of Texts," 2 1 5 n. 18.
80
STEVE MASON
that while writing, w e m e e t o u r audiences mainly in our imaginations. W e m a y try to keep them constandy in view, so that the resulting text (or codes) will m a t c h their c o m p e t e n c i e s , but it is the publisher's task to find that i m a g i n e d a u d i e n c e in reality. W e h a n d o v e r a finished
w o r k and the publisher p r o d u c e s hundreds o r thousands o f
copies, using advertising, p l a c e m e n t in appropriate sales venues, and mass-mail resources to control the distribution o f the w o r k . In prin ciple all such distribution d e p e n d s o n the publishing firm, w h i c h monitors usage for any infringement o f their c o r p o r a t e ownership (copyright) o f the w o r k . Revision o f a b o o k , should w e desire it, is a large a n d expensive u n d e r t a k i n g — i m p o s s i b l e without the p u b lisher's agreement and further investment. For us, then, book-writ ing is essentially an impersonal o r asocial exercise, w h i c h can b e initiated anywhere in the w o r l d if w e have the requisite technology. In the ancient w o r l d , the c o m p l e t e absence o f such t e c h n o l o g y meant that there was no clear line b e t w e e n writing and publication, w h i c h is w h y w e p r o b a b l y should a b a n d o n the latter term as Starr suggests. Preparing a b o o k was almost inevitably a local and social project. Evidence from a sufficient variety o f sources throughout the late republic and early empire (e.g., C i c e r o , H o r a c e , Martial, Statius, Pliny the Y o u n g e r , Tacitus, Lucian) creates a consistent picture along the following lines. A n author normally c o m p o s e d a w o r k gradually a n d b y constant revision, presenting it in stages to ever-widening concentric circles, moving from closest friends to m o r e remote associates through a c o m b i n a t i o n o f oral recitation and distribution o f partial drafts.
31
T h e cycle o f oral presentations typically b e g a n in the inti
mate setting o f a private residence, perhaps at a dinner party, a n d m o v e d to rented auditoria as the author gained confidence in the work. T h e oral dimensions o f this entire process, even with written texts, should always b e kept in m i n d . Apart from scribes and other b o o k ish types, p e o p l e did not often sit d o w n to p o r e over seven-scroll c o r p o r a such as J o s e p h u s ' , with uncial lines lacking w o r d dividers o r m u c h in the w a y o f punctuation. T h e simple act o f reading w o u l d itself normally involve a slave reciting stretches o f a text to his mas ter.
3 1
32
(Letters, p o e m s , and epigrams were another story.) T h e leisured
See Starr, " T h e Circulation o f Texts," 2 1 3 . C . W . Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1983), 3 1 ; Fantham, Roman Literary Culture, 2 0 2 - 3 , 2 1 4 - 1 6 ; Potter, Literary Texts, 1 0 6 - 1 0 . 3 2
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
81
classes c o m m o n l y attended recitals to keep themselves abreast o f current w o r k . T h i s process o f writing and testing one's w o r k was chiefly where the author met his intended audience: in the give a n d take o f presentation and circulation o f drafts a m o n g trusted acquaintances, receiving challenges from them, and o n g o i n g correction. Salles observes: " T h e success o f a literary w o r k d e p e n d e d equally o n the activity o f the coteries, the public readings, and the representations o f the author to his associates; but in all this, dissemination remained in a 'closed c i r c u i t . ' "
33
S o m e authors apparendy rested content with the narrowest circles o f such o r a l / a u r a l exposure. H o r a c e contrasts his practice to that o f the frivolous, w h o allegedly recite a n y w h e r e and to a n y o n e (Sat. 1.4.73): "I reserve the reading o f m y w o r k for m y friends a l o n e . "
34
Pliny allows that he begins with his respected friends (whose criticism he still fears), but then recites (recito, lego) a n d sends (trado) to everlarger audiences in the quest to perfect his w o r k (Ep. 7.17). H e c o n cludes: "I a m positive that any w o r k must b e revised m o r e than o n c e and read to a n u m b e r o f p e o p l e if it is intended to give perm a n e n t and universal satisfaction" (Ep. 7.17.15; see also 5.12). H e r e w e have to d o with cycles o f preparation in a social context, at any phase o f w h i c h an author c o u l d simply c h o o s e to halt the project. If he did, w e c o u l d not say that the w o r k was "unpublished," since it h a d already reached s o m e levels o f the author's society. N o r , c o n versely, c a n w e say that c o m p l e t i o n o f the w o r k w o u l d imply m u c h wider circulation. T o b e sure, there was a natural point o f c o m p l e t i o n for a b o o k in l o n g preparation,
at w h i c h it might b e appropriate to make gift
copies to the dedicatee (if there was one) and a small circle o f associates. Y e t the n e e d for manual reproduction meant that each c o p y was also in s o m e w a y a n e w w o r k ; the necessity o f correcting e a c h c o p y was well k n o w n .
35
Because finality was not possible in the w a y
it is with printed texts, h o w e v e r , deliberate revision was also relatively easy with each n e w c o p y , a c o n d i t i o n that precludes o u r c o n c e p t o f a fixed text. T h u s the "finished" c o p y was n o different in principle
3 3
Salles, Lire à Rome, 156: "La succès d'une œuvre littéraire dépend simultanément de l'activité des cénacles, des lectures publiques, des envois de l'écrivain à ses relations, mais, par ces procédés, la diffusion se fait en «circuit fermé»." 3 4
3 5
See Salles, Lire à Rome, 156. See Potter, Literary Texts, 3 3 - 7 .
82
STEVE MASON
from earlier drafts, except that the author was provisionally m o r e satisfied with it a n d so m a y have distributed it with a stronger sense o f c o m p l e t i o n . But further revision was c o m m o n , a n d it was a significant c o n c e r n to authors that an inferior version h a d a larger circulation than the better o n e .
3 6
A n y n u m b e r o f subsequent
"edi
tions" c o u l d b e created with successive copies, as a result o f further dialogue with the recipients o f gift copies. T h e r e f o r e , n o clean divi sion b e t w e e n preparation
a n d publication o f a b o o k was possible.
For present purposes, the main c o n s e q u e n c e o f this is that the entire process remained local. Even the further distribution o f b o o k s after c o m p l e t i o n o c c u r r e d mainly a m o n g close acquaintances:
"The
channels o f circulation ran from o n e friend to another, never between strangers . . . This p r o b a b l y restricted
b o t h the n u m b e r o f texts in
circulation and the n u m b e r o f p e o p l e to w h o m particular texts were accessible." An
37
illustration o f the inappropriateness
o f o u r assumptions
about
b o o k p r o d u c t i o n for understanding Josephus' w o r l d is furnished
by
the p h e n o m e n o n that most closely approximates m o d e r n publica tion: the handing o v e r o f the b o o k rolls to others—friends, a library, or even a bookseller. T h u s was the work " m a d e public." Paradoxically, h o w e v e r , whereas publication for us is the p o i n t at w h i c h w e begin to reach the audience w e envisaged while writing, via o u r publisher's controlled distribution, for the ancients this handing o v e r (EKSOGK;)
38
o f the w o r k to others was the beginning o f the author's effective loss of control o v e r audience. A n y o n e w h o wished c o u l d n o w have
the
rolls c o p i e d from exemplars, whether from friends' copies o r through custom orders from booksellers. Occasionally, to b e sure, copies o f b o o k s m a d e it to far-flung locales as gifts o r via booksellers. S u c h booksellers as there were, h o w e v e r , lacked a distribution system: it seems that they did not transport ( m u c h less import) b o o k s in bulk but had copies p r o d u c e d o n o r d e r from exemplars they either o w n e d or could secure. In a world o f widespread illiteracy and poverty, where b o o k s w e r e passed avidly a m o n g friends in elite circles, the b o o k trade seems to have b e e n "merely an ancillary system o f circulation
3 6
Potter, Literary Texts, 2 9 - 3 3 . Starr, " T h e Circulation of Texts," 2 1 6 - 1 7 . Cf. B. van Groningen, " E K D O S I S , " Mnemosyne 16 (1963): 1 - 1 7 ; Potter, Literary Texts, 3 2 . 3 7
3 8
83
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
beside the private channels . . . . "
3 9
In any case, the authors c o u l d
have had n o say about this a d d e d use, and therefore c o u l d not have c o u n t e d o n it while writing. Rather,
they met their intended audiences
while preparing their works. O n e aspect o f bringing a w o r k to the attention o f o n e ' s friends and associates, o f "publication," deserves closer attention, both because it is furthest from o u r experience in a text-conditioned w o r l d and because o f the possible light it throws o n J o s e p h u s ' situation.
The
c u s t o m o f hearing texts recited, namely, was c o n f i n e d neither
to
R o m e n o r to the m o r e entertaining genres, such as poetry. Recitation was a widespread practice in the Mediterranean and it was used also for historical works. In R o m e , the process o f disseminating n e w his tories was c o m p a r a b l e with practices for other genres because there were n o professional historians in the first century: the field was o p e n to a n y o n e w h o c o u l d make a claim to credibility. A s Tacitus' Dialogue on Oratory (Dial. 3) and the so-called p r o g y m n a s m a t a
(pre-rhetorical
handbooks) plainly show, all those with advanced education in rhetoric felt able to c o m p o s e in any genre: "training in exercises is absolutely useful not o n l y to those w h o are g o i n g to practise rhetoric but also if o n e wishes to undertake the function o f poets or historians or any other writers" (Aelius T h e o n , Prog. 70; cf. 60). Pliny t o o assumes that his tories were b e i n g recited alongside tragedy and poetry (Ep. 7.17.3). In the R o m a n p e r i o d it was widely reported that H e r o d o t u s , the father o f history a half-millennium earlier, h a d recited m u c h o f his work, w h i c h i n d e e d bears m a n y marks o f oral p e r f o r m a n c e .
40
(Even
his y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y T h u c y d i d e s , the m o d e l o f dense histori cal writing, m a y have recited s o m e o f his w o r k . )
41
A l t h o u g h it might
seem bizarre to m o d e r n s that audiences w o u l d sit through sessions l o n g e n o u g h to c o v e r m u c h historical narrative,
42
w e should r e m e m
ber that in m a n y parts o f the w o r l d even today it is c o m m o n to lis ten to political speeches o f several hours'
3 9
duration.
Starr, " T h e Circulation of Texts," 2 2 1 . R . T h o m a s , Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge, C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 4 9 - 6 9 ; L. K u r k e , "Charting the Poles o f History: Herodotos and Thoukydides," in Literature in the Greek World (ed. O . Taplin; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 1 8 - 2 2 . S. Hornblower, Thucydides (London, Duckworth, 1984), 2 9 ; M . M u n n , The School of History: Athens in the Age of Socrates (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 315-23. T o recite Herodotus' narrative would require between one and two 24-hour days (Kurke, "Charting the Poles of History," 119). 4 0
4 1
4 2
84
STEVE MASON
In Josephus' time, Tacitus portrays Maternus
(under Vespasian)
feverishly rewriting his life o f C a t o because the previous day's recita tion had generated c o n c e r n about its potentially dangerous resonances (Dial. 3). It seems likely that figurative references (jigurae) in a history b y H e r m o g e n e s o f Tarsus, w h i c h p r o m p t e d D o m i t i a n to execute h i m (Suetonius, Dom. 10.1), were also detected through oral presentation, for this victim is m e n t i o n e d a m o n g others w h o gave offense to the e m p e r o r in their performances (Suetonius, Dom. 1 0 . 3 - 4 ) . Writing in the 160s, Lucian o f Samosata frequendy observes that he has c o m e to k n o w the histories being c o m p o s e d c o n c e r n i n g the recent Parthian c a m p a i g n b y hearing authors in various G r e e k cities: " S o then, I'll relate to y o u what I recall hearing certain historians earlier in I o n i a — and, b y G o d , in A c h a e a just recendy—relate a b o u t this very w a r " (Hist, conscr. 14). H e claims to have walked out early from o n e such reading, because he c o u l d predict the cliched narrative to follow (Hist, conscr. 15). H e sarcastically describes o n e recital in w h i c h the author's grandiloquent p r o l o g u e failed to m a t c h up to the paltry narrative that followed: " T h o s e w h o have b e e n listening (oi aKovoavieq) i m m e diately call out to them ' A mountain was in labour!'" (Hist, conscr. 23). T h e situation that he describes assumes that the speaker pre sented a substantial amount: e n o u g h for the audience to c o m p l a i n a b o u t early expectations unfulfilled. In sum: making b o o k s public in the R o m a n w o r l d was a matter o f disseminating the w o r k orally and in draft copies through
ever
widening circles o f friends a n d associates: it was local a n d social. It is difficult to imagine h o w Josephus c o u l d have b e e n free o f the c o n straints and conditions o f his
time.
2. T h e specific evidence for the publication o f J o s e p h u s '
War seems
indeed to require that he followed the normal practices. This evi d e n c e falls into t w o parts: (a) references in later works to his prepa ration and dissemination o f the War and (b) clues within the p r o l o g u e a b o u t his situation while writing. (a) T w o substantial passages from J o s e p h u s ' later works deal with his writing and dissemination o f the
War. the closing sentences o f
his digression against Justus o f Tiberias in Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 6 and a p i e c e o f his digression o n J u d e a n (vis-a-vis Greek) historiography in C. Ap. 1.46-56. In the f o r m e r p l a c e , J o s e p h u s
asserts that Justus' p a t r o n
and
e m p l o y e r K i n g A g r i p p a II had b e e n in frequent contact with him self while he was writing the
War.
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
85
A n d the king, A g r i p p a , wrote sixty-two letters attesting to [my] transmission o f the truth. T w o o f these I have actually a p p e n d e d , in case y o u insist o n k n o w i n g from them what was written: King Agrippa, to dearest Josephus, Greetings! I went through the vol ume with greatest pleasure, and it really seems to me that with supe rior care you have precisely described what you have portrayed. Send me the rest also. Be well. King Agrippa, to dearest Josephus, Greetings! From what you have written, you look as though you need no instruction—[we can read you] instead o f our learning everything from the start. Whenever you next meet me, I myself will inform you of many things that are not [widely] known. [Vita 364-366) T w o points emerge here with s o m e clarity—even if Josephus invented the letters o r exaggerated the contact, since he is presumably evok ing a plausible scenario. First, Josephus circulated pieces o f the War to others, including A g r i p p a , while he was writing ("Send m e the rest also. . . ."; "I myself will inform y o u " ) , not merely o n c o m p l e t i o n . N o t i c e the single " v o l u m e " (r\ pipXoq) in Agrippa's c o m m e n t . S e c o n d , this e x c h a n g e involved at least s o m e personal contact ( " W h e n e v e r y o u next m e e t m e . . . . " ) . If these letters are indeed exemplary o f the rest, they reveal their limited function. Josephus a n d A g r i p p a were close e n o u g h geographically that they c o u l d e x c h a n g e such notes easily (presumably at least 124, counting both directions). But the notes themselves w e r e brief and pointed; serious discussion was reserved for face-to-face encounters, w h i c h must therefore also have o c c u r r e d easily e n o u g h . A l t h o u g h A g r i p p a wants to impart m o r e information to Josephus, he is content to leave the matter until whenever (oxotv) they should next meet. N o travel plans n e e d to b e discussed. In C. Ap. 1 . 4 6 - 4 9 , Josephus describes his process o f carefully gath ering information during and after the war, and then speaks o f his p e r i o d o f c o m p o s i t i o n in R o m e (notice incidentally the c o m p l e t e lack o f reference to an A r a m a i c precursor): " T h e n , taking advantage o f leisure in R o m e , with all the w o r k [Kpayfiaxeia: argument? mater ial?] n o w ready and at m y disposal, and after I h a d consulted [or: arranged,
furnished,
e n g a g e d ] certain collaborators for the
Greek
sound, thus I a c c o m p l i s h e d the transmission o f the events" (C. Ap. 1.50). In J o s e p h u s ' enlistment o f c o - w o r k e r s (cuvepyoi) o r literary friends
4 3
43
in the capital for this massive project, w e again witness a
There is no reason to imagine Thackeray's "literary assistants" or slaves (Josephus, 105) here; see Rajak, Josephus, 6 3 .
86
STEVE MASON
social affair and not the w o r k o f an isolated individual. A n o t h e r point raised b y this notice c o n c e r n s J o s e p h u s ' ability in Greek, since the collaborators helped particularly with the G r e e k sound (or possibly "language": (pcovfj), a question to w h i c h w e shall return presendy. Both passages present intriguing information a b o u t those w h o first received copies o f the
War u p o n its c o m p l e t i o n . Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 2 has
Josephus delivering (e7ci8i8co|ii) the written materials (xa PiPAia) to the imperators, Vespasian and Titus, w h e n the events h a d scarcely passed, and likewise immediately (eu0t><;) delivering (same verb) the historia to " m a n y others" (aAAoiq 8e noXXdiq). S o m e o f these latter h a d participated in the conflict, including A g r i p p a a n d certain o f the king's relatives. C. Ap. 1.51-52, h o w e v e r , notoriously describes these same transactions differendy. Josephus gives the v o l u m e s (eScom xoc p(pX-ia) first to Vespasian a n d Titus as also "to m a n y o f the R o m a n s w h o had fought alongside t h e m , " but then sells others to " m a n y " o f his o w n p e o p l e (noXkoxq 8e xcov fijiexepcov £7U7ipacKov). A m o n g these purchasers are K i n g Agrippa, the king's brother-in-law Julius Archelaus, a n d an elusive " m o s t dignified H e r o d . "
4 4
All are described as fully
trained in G r e e k w i s d o m (1.52; cf. Vita 359), a p o i n t that seems to b e offered as a reason w h y , though Judeans, they w o u l d b e interested in the Greek-language b o o k . If so, that w o u l d suggest that other Judeans w h o lacked such G r e e k culture were n o t envisaged. It is in the nature o f traditional Josephus scholarship that attention has focused largely o n the dating p r o b l e m created b y J o s e p h u s ' pre sentation o f the w o r k to Vespasian, w h o died in 79 (although B o o k 7 in its current f o r m has b e e n thought to have b e e n written that date),
45
after
and o n J o s e p h u s ' apparent m e n d a c i t y in claiming in o n e
place that he gave copies to A g r i p p a and family, in the other that he had sold these copies. But for o u r purposes there are m o r e i m p o r tant things to b e learned. N a m e l y , J o s e p h u s ' a u d i e n c e — e v e n in the sense o f the first recipients o f his finished, "final" c o p i e s — w a s local, in keeping with the n o r m a l practices considered a b o v e . His delivery o f copies to individuals w h o were resident in R o m e during m u c h o f
4 4
A s N . Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1 9 9 8 ) , 1 9 7 , observes, the n a m e Iulius suggests that Archelaus' family had b e c o m e R o m a n citizens already in the time of H e r o d . H e r o d "the most dignified" he identifies as H e r o d V I I , the last m a n known to bear the famous n a m e , son of Aristobulus III (son of H e r o d of Chalcis), a cousin of Agrippa II w h o like him grew up in R o m e (ibid., 3 1 3 ) . 4 5
C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 8 4 - 9 0 ; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics.
87
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
the 70s (Agrippa and his sister arrived in 7 5 )
46
confirms the picture
d e v e l o p e d a b o v e o f a proximate network o f interested associates. Josephus qualifies the adjective " m a n y " ( o f his fellow-Judean recip ients) with o n l y three examples, all o f w h o m were o f the
highest
rank. T h e y were fairly distinguished R o m a n citizens, they spent m u c h o f their time in the capital, a n d they w e r e fully conversant
with
G r e e k culture. W e have n o reason, then, to imagine massive sales o f the War to Judeans around the Mediterranean—a technically implau sible project in any case. T h e identity o f the " m a n y " R o m a n s w h o had fought alongside Vespasian a n d Titus w h o received copies, is similarly puzzling. T h e r e t o o , " m a n y " seems typically rhetorical (an exaggeration c o m m o n also in m o d e r n scholarship). W e should not imagine the distribution o f J o s e p h u s ' War to the legionary c a m p s in J u d e a o r elsewhere, in the vein o f T h o m a s Paine's
pamphleteering
during the A m e r i c a n revolution, but should p r o b a b l y l o o k for a few p r o m i n e n t officials worthy to b e m e n t i o n e d alongside the principes. O b v i o u s candidates are the surviving legionary legates from the war, such as: Sextus Vettulenus Cerialis (legio V Macedonica) and M . Titius Frugi (legio XV Apollinaris), the former o f w h o m Josephus h a d o n c e a c c o m p a n i e d o n a reconnaissance trip (Vita 4 2 0 ; cf. B.J. 6 . 2 3 6 - 2 3 7 ) ; the tribune N i c a n o r , w h o had reportedly b e e n a friend o f Josephus (B.J. 3 . 3 4 4 - 3 4 6 ) ; and Masada's c o n q u e r o r L. Flavius Silva N o n i u s Bassus.
47
Even if w e think o f "publication" as the dissemination o f finished copies, then, Josephus' audience seems to have b e e n limited, local, R o m a n . T h e r e is n o reason to imagine that he p r o d u c e d m o r e than perhaps a d o z e n copies for such associates—about what w e w o u l d have e x p e c t e d in light o f general conditions. Absent from Josephus is any suggestion that his w o r k was in d e m a n d through R o m a n b o o k sellers—the v e n u e for purchasing texts to w h i c h o n e had n o access via friends—, even though there is s o m e evidence that they were b e c o m i n g m o r e c o m m o n l y used in his p e r i o d .
48
T h e y still seem to
have b e e n rare in the western provinces at least: Pliny expresses (pos sibly feigned) surprise that there was a b o o k s h o p even in L y o n , center
4 6
D i o 6 6 . 1 5 . 3 - 4 ; Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, 3 2 9 . For fuller discussion see W . Eck and H . Cotton, "Josephus' R o m a n Audience: Josephus and the R o m a n Elites," in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, ed. E d m o n d s o n , M a s o n , and Rives (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press 2 0 0 5 ) , 3 7 - 5 2 . 4 7
4 8
Starr, " T h e Circulation of Texts," 2 2 2 .
88
STEVE MASON
o f the T h r e e Gauls (Ep. 9.11.2). J o s e p h u s ' audience in the War's first phases o f reception appears to have b e e n local. This picture o f dissemination through g r o w i n g c o n c e n t r i c circles o f associates does not materially c h a n g e even if w e accept J o s e p h u s ' w o r d that Titus privileged J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t , affixed his authoriza tion to the volumes, and ordered their publication (tot pipAioc Sr^oaicoaai rcpooexa^ev,
Vita 363), w h i c h m a y have meant nothing m o r e than
deposit in o n e o f the n e w imperial libraries.
49
Primary
distribution
w o u l d still have b e e n a m o n g locals w h o wished to have copies m a d e . (b) W h e n w e turn to the p r o l o g u e o f the War, the impression o f local e n g a g e m e n t is c o n f i r m e d also for the p e r i o d d u r i n g w h i c h Josephus was preparing the w o r k . E v i d e n c e here indicates that he was making the w o r k public in the familiar ways: meeting his intended audiences, circulating partial drafts, targeting those willing to hear h i m , receiving criticism along with praise; he was fully involved in the literary thrust-and-parry o f R o m a n society. C o n s i d e r carefully the language o f the o p e n i n g sentence: Whereas, with respect to the war of Judeans against Romans . . . those who did not happen to be at the events, but are collecting (ouMiyovxeq) random and incoherent tales through hearsay, are writing them up (otvaYpdcpovaiv) sophist-like, while others who were there are misrepresenting the events (Kaxav|/ei>8ovxai xcbv TtpayuoVccov), either through flattery toward the Romans or through hatred toward the Judeans—their composi tions comprise denunciation in some cases and encomium in others, but nowhere the precision o f history—; I, Josephus . . . have set myself the task o f providing a narrative in the Greek language.. . . (B.J. 1.1-3) A l t h o u g h c o m m o n l y available translations (such as W h i s t o n
and
T h a c k e r a y [ L C L ] ) represent the italicized verbs b y the English per fect, indicating completed accounts against w h i c h Josephus reacts
after
the fact, like a m o d e r n scholar, his G r e e k portrays a m u c h livelier a n d m o r e fluid situation. H e knows what other writers are currently doing. But h o w c o u l d he k n o w this, if they have n o t yet "published" b y disseminating completed works? Josephus has evidendy seen advance copies o r extracts via friends o r he has heard s o m e o f these p e o p l e recite, o r b o t h .
4 9
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3 . 9 . 1 - 2 ) , significantly calling Josephus the most renowned Judean o f his time also a m o n g the R o m a n s , w h o had a statue erected in his honor, claims that his works (Xoyoi) were included in R o m e ' s library—which ones, we are not told.
89
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
It appears, similarly, that others have heard and r e s p o n d e d to his War—before
he c o m p o s e s this p r o l o g u e . Q u i t e unexpectedly, hav
ing o u d i n e d the main themes o f his narrative ( 1 . 1 - 1 2 ) , he turns to criticize certain eloquent Greeks (1.13-16). T h e s e m e n admittedly excel in speech-craft, he says, and yet they c h o o s e for their subjects the ancient conflicts between Greeks and Persians ("Assyrians and M e d e s " — for effect): a fairly direct attack o n the tendencies o f the G r e e k revival discussed a b o v e .
5 0
O f interest here is not o n l y that Josephus
again
seems well aware o f what his contemporaries are writing, but also that they are fully apprised of his work, they have " a b u s e d " h i m for it. W h a t else are w e to make o f this lengthy a n d peculiar
paragraph?
T h e s e eloquent m e n "position themselves as j u d g e s " o v e r great recent events (sc. the J u d e a n war): " w h i c h expose the ancient wars as pal try b y comparison, while abusing those who rival them for honor—in relation to w h o m , even if they p r o v e superior in speech-craft, they are inferior in c h o i c e o f subject." O b l i q u e though this passage m a y b e , for under standable reasons in a dignified p r o l o g u e , it seems to s h o w Josephus again in vigorous debate with other writers in the capital. H e can even take advantage o f traditional R o m a n stereotypes o f the Greeks,
51
as m o n e y - g r u b b i n g windbags (1.16), to drive h o m e his attack. S o Josephus has p r o d u c e d an a c c o u n t o f the war, w h i c h eloquent Greeks have dismissed, while they o c c u p y themselves with the past glories o f Hellas. O n e o f the main issues in their abuse is J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k style a n d perhaps accent, w h i c h are matters o f continuing sensitivity for h i m (e.g., A.J. 2 0 . 2 6 3 ; Vita 4 0 ; cf. B.J. 1.16 with
CAp.
1.23-24). I f w e wished to put all the pieces together, then, it w o u l d b e easy to suppose that he secured the help o f friends with better G r e e k than his (CAp. 1.50), "for the G r e e k s o u n d , " precisely because o f such p r e - p u b l i c a t i o n criticism. T h i s a t m o s p h e r e
o f sniping
at
another's diction and style was characteristic o f the G r e e k revival and it is clearly reflected in L u c i a n .
53
52
But all o f this h a p p e n e d before
5 0
See E . L. Bowie, " T h e Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic," Past and Present 4 6 (1974): 3 - 4 1 ; S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250 (Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 1996). 5 1
See J. P. V . D . Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (Chapel Hill: University o f North Carolina Press, 1979), 3 0 - 5 4 . See Bowie, " T h e Greeks and their Past." See Lucian's Pro lapsu inter salutandum and Pseudologista; also Swain, Hellenism and Empire, 4 3 - 6 4 . 5 2
y i
90
STEVE MASON
54
Josephus c a m e to write the current prologue to the War.
W e can only
make sense o f such evidence if he and his contemporaries knew e a c h other's w o r k in progress, quite possibly through recitation, though w e c a n n o t p r o v e that. J o s e p h u s ' remark even in the version o f the p r o logue that has c o m e d o w n to us—"I shall not c o n c e a l any o f m y o w n misfortunes, since I a m about to speak to those who know [them]" (neMxov ye npbc; eiSoxotq epeiv; 1.22)—though susceptible o f other meanings, tends to confirm the oral dimension o f publication. A t the very least, it reminds us that Josephus knew his audience, and they knew h i m . Finally, the most o b v i o u s statements about intended audience in War's p r o l o g u e take nothing away f r o m the f o r e g o i n g discussion, though they are implausibly sweeping statements. In B.J. 1.3 Josephus claims to write for those u n d e r R o m a n h e g e m o n y ( т о ц ката xf^v Tcojioucov fiyejiovmv), as a counterpart to the equally vague " u p p e r barbarians" graced with his prior accounts o f the conflict in A r a m a i c .
55
A litde further a l o n g (1.6), having enumerated (and wildly exagger ated) various g r o u p s a m o n g those A r a m a i c - s p e a k i n g
recipients—
Parthians and Babylonians, etc.—he correspondingly elucidates the readership o f his current work: "Greeks and those o f the R o m a n s w h o did not take part in the fighting" (B.J. 1.6). But w e have already seen that he actually delivered c o m p l e t e d copies o f the War to those w h o had participated: Vespasian and Titus, their generals, A g r i p p a a n d his relatives (Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 3 ; С. Ap. 1.51-52). Rhetorical motives are at w o r k in b o t h passages: there to stress that his k n o w l e d g e a b l e recipients w o u l d have o b j e c t e d had he misrepresented the facts, here to emphasize his didactic p u r p o s e — s o that he n e e d not write for those w h o fought in the war. T h e n again, he has just claimed that even those w h o were present are writing their accounts from preju dice rather than fact (B.J. 1.1-2). All o f this highlights the
rhetori
cal malleability o f such p r o g r a m m a t i c statements, in contrast to the m o r e concrete e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g audience.
5 4
For other readings of B.J. 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 , some of which indeed speculate about Josephus' conditions in R o m e , see S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 7 1 - 5 . 5 5
A s I hope to show in m y forthcoming introduction to the War, the A r a m a i c precursor to the Greek War is best understood as some sort of concise c o m m u n i cation^) issued from Judea, not as a Vorlage in any proper sense—or indeed as a composition from his R o m a n period.
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
91
Still, w e n e e d not d o u b t the sincerity o f such b r o a d descriptions in general—cf. A.J. 1.5: the Antiquities is for "the whole Greek w o r l d " — as long as w e r e m e m b e r that this is not a practical goal. Every selfrespecting author, from T h u c y d i d e s (1.22.4; cf. Josephus in C. Ap. 1.53) to Pliny the Y o u n g e r (Ep. 7.17.15: quodplacere et semper et omnibus cupias), strove to write for posterity o r for the w o r l d . But they all had m o r e immediate audiences a n d aims in view. I leave it to an expert in T h u c y d i d e s — t h e p a r a d i g m o f the writer for posterity—to make the point: " T h u c y d i d e s , like H e r o d o t u s , clearly intended his w o r k to endure, like a m o n u m e n t in stone. But all m o n u m e n t s are established for an immediate p u r p o s e . "
56
J o s e p h u s ' h o p e for a hear
ing across space and time has been fulfilled b e y o n d his wildest dreams, but that d o e s not change the fact that he wrote the War with a c o n crete audience and situation in view. T h e r e m a i n i n g three lines o f e v i d e n c e that he w r o t e for (and received) a local R o m a n audience m a y b e summarily presented. 3. T h e narrative assumes i g n o r a n c e o f basic J u d e a n realia, but sub stantial k n o w l e d g e o f R o m a n history. T h e following examples are representative. T h e War's audience is a p p a r e n d y not e x p e c t e d to k n o w anything significant a b o u t even the most famous figures o f J u d e a n history in the centuries p r e c e d i n g the revolt: the H a s m o n e a n s , including J u d a h M a c c a b e e {BJ.
1.36-37), o r H e r o d the Great (1.181, 2 0 3 - 2 0 4 ) . All
these m e n receive full introductions at first mention. A s for J u d e a n culture, J o s e p h u s must explain that o n the seventh day J u d e a n s abstain from l a b o r (1.146), that Sepphoris is a city o f Galilee (1.170), that the high priesdy office requires f r e e d o m from physical defect (1.270), that J u d e a n law (not an o b s c u r e o n e , note, but the s e c o n d c o m m a n d m e n t ) forbids representation o f living creatures (1.650), that a feast called " U n l e a v e n e d , " also k n o w n as Pascha (no A r a m a i c is assumed), is a feast involving pilgrimage and m a n y sacrifices ( 2 . 1 0 - 1 1 ) , that another k n o w n as "Fiftieth" (i.e., Pentecost) takes its n a m e from the interval following Passover (2.42), that a certain (i.e., nazirite) v o w requires shaving o f the head (2.313), a n d that J u d e a n law (viz. D e u t 2 1 : 2 1 ) prescribes the i m m e d i a t e burial o f c o r p s e s ( 4 . 3 1 7 ) . A l t h o u g h the audience seems to have an idea about the coastal cities
M u n n , The School of History, 3 1 6 .
92
STEVE MASON
o f Phoenicia—Berytus (a R o m a n colony) m a y b e m e n t i o n e d along side T y r e , Sidon, Byblos, and Ptolemais without explanation ( 1 . 4 2 2 ) — they are assumed to k n o w nothing at all about J u d e a n o r Galilean geography and topography. Even Jerusalem and its temple (5.136-229) must b e described in detail, as also the t w o Galilees (1.22; 3 . 3 5 - 4 4 ) . All this is basic information. O f course, K i n g Agrippa's relatives a n d presumably even R o m a n c o m m a n d e r s from the conflict w o u l d k n o w it, but Josephus a p p a r e n d y has in view a local R o m a n audi e n c e that needs such explanations. T h e i r lack o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t matters J u d e a n is thrown into sharp relief b y what Josephus appar e n d y d o e s expect them to know—Roman history and politics. A l t h o u g h he c a n also introduce m i n o r R o m a n figures, o f a c e n tury o r m o r e past, in the w a y he introduces the major J u d e a n s (e.g., B.J.
1.205: Sextus Caesar, a relative o f the great Caesar w h o was
at that time g o v e r n o r o f Syria), the audience receives n o such help with important R o m a n personalities. T h u s , Josephus first mentions M a r c A n t o n y , Augustus, a n d M a r c u s A g r i p p a without introduction (1.118) and describes Scaurus as the general w h o had b e e n sent to Syria b y Pompeius Magnus (notice the transliteration from Latin, rather than the G r e e k equivalent Meyaq)—assuming audience with P o m p e y if n o t S c a u r u s .
57
familiarity
E v e n P o m p e y ' s father-in-law
[Q.
Caecilius Metellus Pius] Scipio, his associate in the eastern imperium, acquitted o n a charge o f ambitus, famous in R o m e and discussed b y Julius Caesar, C i c e r o , and Livy, can b e m e n t i o n e d (1.185) without introduction. Josephus likewise assumes that [P. Licinius] Crassus a n d his notorious Parthian c a m p a i g n (53 B.C.E.) are well k n o w n to the audience (1.179). A n d in 1.183 w e find the telling c h r o n o l o g i c a l pointers, " W h e n P o m p e y fled with the senate across the Ionian Sea, [Julius] Caesar n o w being master o f R o m e a n d the w o r l d , " w h i c h expect rather a lot from the audience. ( W h e n did P o m p e y flee with the senate, then?) A t 1.242 he casually mentions the "death o f Cassius at Philippi" (in 4 2 B.C.E.), again expecting audience knowledge o f a p e r i o d so famous a m o n g R o m a n s . Especially telling, it seems, are the War's first references to Q u e e n Cleopatra, for e x a m p l e (1.243): M a r c A n t o n y was " n o w a slave to his desire for Cleopatra." T h e dark portrait o f the Egyptian m o n a r c h
5 7
T h e Latin nick-name appears even more strikingly, without need of "Pompey," at 5 . 4 0 9 .
93
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
intensifies in 1 . 3 5 8 - 3 6 8 , w h e r e J o s e p h u s speaks o f A n t o n y ' s gradual destruction through enslavement to his desire for C l e o p a t r a a n d n o w also o f her "thirsting for the b l o o d o f foreigners." T h i s is o b v i o u s l y not a d e t a c h e d description, but highly tendentious rhetoric especially suited to the standard R o m a n i m a g e o f the eastern seductress, w h o had p r o v i d e d the basis for m u c h o f Octavian's anti-Antony p r o p a ganda.
58
I n d e e d , m e m o r i e s o f C l e o p a t r a m a y well have contributed
to Titus' n e e d to dismiss the J u d e a n Q u e e n Berenice f r o m his house and b e d in 79 C E . , before a c c e d i n g to the principate—not Cleopatra!
59
another
J o s e p h u s assumes here b o t h the subject k n o w l e d g e a n d
the values o f a R o m a n audience. Further examples a b o u n d . In B.J.
1.243 a n d 2 8 4 [ M . Valerius]
Messalla [ C o r v i n u s ] , the eminent R o m a n general a n d orator, liter ary patron o f O v i d and Tibullus (64 B . C E . to 8 C E . ) , is m e n t i o n e d quite incidentally as "Messala." Y e t b o t h contexts have to d o with oratory: defending H e r o d a n d Phasael before A n t o n y and speaking for H e r o d ' s kingship in the senate (40 B . C E . ) . T h e audience should presumably understand the significance o f this particular character. At
1.364 J o s e p h u s casually mentions the outbreak o f w a r at A c t i u m
(31 B . C E . ; cf. 1.398). At 1.400 Josephus remarks that, "In Caesar's affections, H e r o d stood next after A g r i p p a , in A g r i p p a ' s next after Caesar." But this assumes audience knowledge o f the very close relationship, n o w h e r e explained, b e t w e e n Augustus and his son-in-law M . Vipsanius A g r i p p a .
B.J.
2.25 is even m o r e telling. First, [P. Quinctilius] Varus, legate o f Syria in 4 B . C E . , notorious in J o s e p h u s ' R o m e for his loss o f three legions in the T e u t o b u r g forest in 9 C E . ,
6 0
is i n t r o d u c e d without elabora
tion (as in the p r o l o g u e , 1.20; see b e l o w ) . T h e n Augustus c o n v e n e s an advisory c o u n c i l , in w h i c h J o s e p h u s pointedly remarks that "for the first time he also seated Gaius, the son [he] adopted from A g r i p p a and Iulia his daughter." It is a p o i n t e d reference ("for the first
time"),
but what is the point—since neither Gaius n o r Julia will appear again in the
War? T h i s notice c o u l d o n l y have m e a n i n g for an audience
5 8
E.g., Cambridge History of Classical Literature 2.3: 3 9 , 5 7 , 9 3 , 1 0 2 . Cf. Suetonius, Tit. 1 and thereto B. W . Jones and R . Milns, Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors, A Historical Commentary (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 0 7 . 5 9
6 0
2.41,
E.g., Velleius 2 . 1 1 7 - 2 1 ; Tacitus, Germ. 3 7 . 5 ; Ann. 1.3, 4 3 , 5 5 , 5 7 - 6 2 , 6 5 , 7 1 ; 4 5 ; Cassius D i o 5 6 . 1 8 - 2 2 .
94
STEVE MASON
familiar with the sad history o f Augustus' family: the marriage o f the princeps' daughter to his loyal friend A g r i p p a , the birth o f their son Gaius and Augustus' hopeful a d o p t i o n o f h i m as successor, a n d the later tragedy o f the y o u n g man's death in 4 C E . , w h i c h so fatally shaped the subsequent imperial succession. T h a t such assumptions
a b o u t the audience's R o m a n k n o w l e d g e
d o not derive f r o m J o s e p h u s '
sources (such as Nicolaus) is clear
because they continue throughout. In B.J. 2.247 Josephus introduces the n e w g o v e r n o r o f J u d e a , Felix, as the brother of Pallas. But this identification only works if Pallas himself was already k n o w n to his audience. Marcus Antonius Pallas was indeed notorious in élite R o m a n circles as the stereotypical too-powerful freedman in Claudius' court (Suetonius, Claud. 28; Tacitus, Ann. 12.53). Similarly, in 2 . 2 5 0 - 2 5 1 Josephus prescinds from exploring the horrors o f N e r o ' s reign because they are well k n o w n to his audience. N o t i c e again b o t h the content o f the audience's assumed k n o w l e d g e and J o s e p h u s ' hostile tone c o n cerning N e r o , w h i c h matches elite R o m a n attitudes o f the late first century.
61
A c c o r d i n g to Suetonius (Ner. 57) a n d Tacitus (Hist. 1.4),
the masses rather liked N e r o and m o u r n e d his death. Josephus, h o w ever, shares the scandalized o u d o o k o f the elite authors. Finally, in 4 . 4 9 6 , he likewise avoids exploring the R o m a n civil w a r following N e r o ' s death o n the g r o u n d that these events are well k n o w n (8i' oy\ox) nàoiv éaxiv) and they have b e e n written u p b y m a n y , "Greeks as well as R o m a n s . " Both o f these appeals to audience k n o w l e d g e , from experience a n d from current b o o k s , make the best sense in the context o f his R o m a n environment. Josephus' pointed reference to works b y both G r e e k and R o m a n authors raises the important question whether his efforts at fashion able and high-level G r e e k s o m e h o w restrict his audiences to Greekrather than Latin-speaking circles in R o m e . Such an assumption w o u l d , h o w e v e r , misunderstand
R o m a n literary culture, w h i c h was fully
bilingual. T h e fact that Josephus wrote in G r e e k was simply a result o f necessity: even with a functional literacy in Latin, he w o u l d n o t have h o p e d to c o m p o s e at a level high e n o u g h for elite c o n s u m p t i o n , whereas he c o u l d (and did) manage this in Greek. But w e have m a n y solid clues that he c o u l d read Latin as n e e d e d .
(il
62
A n elite audience in
Cf. BJ. 2 . 1 8 4 on Gaius Caligula, w h o cut off the cream of nobility in his country and then extended his designs to Judea. T h e s e include not only antecedent probability (after years spent with R o m a n 6 2
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
95
R o m e , even if R o m a n b y birth, was able to function well in G r e e k . In sum: J o s e p h u s ' assumption that his a u d i e n c e is s c h o o l e d in R o m a n conditions is thrown into sharp relief b y his e x p e c t a d o n that they k n o w nothing (necessarily) a b o u t J u d e a n culture. 4. T h e prospectus o f the narrative that Josephus provides in War's p r o l o g u e ( 1 . 1 7 - 3 0 ) conspicuously reaches out to a R o m a n audience. This fact o n its o w n — t h o u g h not discussed before, to m y knowl edge—seems decisive for the question o f Josephus' expected audience. If o n e c o m p a r e s the Polybian-style table o f contents that Josephus provides with the actual narrative to follow, o n e discovers that he has consistendy shaped the prospectus to appeal to R o m a n interests, while d o w n p l a y i n g o r omitting altogether features o f the
narrative—
n o matter h o w large o r important in the narrative context itself— that will require careful introduction. T h i s is immediately apparent from the personal names given. O f the Judeans,
o n l y H e r o d son o f Antipater ( w h o was in any case
world-famous) receives m e n t i o n ( 1 . 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Even though the narra tive to follow is a b o u t the J u d e a n revolt and so deals at great length with such figures as J o h n o f Gischala, S i m o n bar G i o r a , and Eleazar son o f Yair, Josephus leaves these m e n u n n a m e d in the p r o l o g u e , referring only in a general w a y to the J u d e a n "tyrants" and their differences (1.24). By contrast, a n u m b e r o f R o m a n s receive antici patory billing: not only Vespasian a n d Titus, w h o figure repeatedly (1.21, 2 3 , 24, 2 5 , 28, 29), but also rather less important figures in J o s e p h u s ' narrative such as P o m p e y (1.19), [Gaius] Sossius (1.19), Augustus (1.20; in Latin transliteration rather than the G r e e k equiv alent lepocoxoq), Quintilius V a r u s (1.20; simply Varus at 2.25), Cestius [Gallus] (1.20), and N e r o (1.20, 21). Josephus includes names that will b e immediately meaningful to his envisaged audiences and readers,
officers and guards in captivity, then in the capital itself) but also more concrete indicators. Josephus apparently used the generals' commentarii (field notes) as sources (Vita 3 5 8 ; C. Ap. 1.56); his War shows m a n y parallels with Julius Caesar's highly esteemed Gallic War (the 7 - b o o k structure, third-person references to the author, general's ruses, and such specifics as B.J. 2 . 1 1 9 / / Bell. Gall. 1.1), with Sallust's influential Catilinarian Conspiracy (B.J. 2 . 5 8 5 - 5 8 7 / / Bell. Cat. 5 [cf. Thackeray in L C L 2.xix], and with Virgil's Aeneid [Thackeray, loc. cit.]. B y the time Josephus writes the A.J. 1 8 - 1 9 , at least, he seems to borrow heavily from Latin sources for the detailed description of Gaius' death and Claudius' accession ( T . P. W i s e m a n , Death of an Emperor: Flavius Josephus [Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1 9 9 1 ] ) , e.g., xii-xiv.
96
STEVE MASON
but omits those that will s o u n d alien o r perhaps generate
adverse
responses without careful introduction. Still m o r e important are the prospectus' lack o f p r o p o r t i o n a n d disparity o f theme vis-a-vis the narrative. F o r e x a m p l e , B.J.
1.19-20
passes o v e r most o f the l o n g and detailed B o o k 1, c o n c e r n i n g the H a s m o n e a n dynasty and H e r o d ' s colorful career, focusing only o n R o m a n involvement in the region. This R o m a n political and military emphasis continues throughout, with some astonishing results. Josephus omits from B o o k 2 the entire H e r o d i a n succession story ( 2 . 1 - 1 1 7 ) , the three philosophical schools (especially Essenes), the governors o f J u d e a , and K i n g Agrippa's strenuous efforts before the war; f r o m B o o k 3, almost everything that d o e s not relate to the activities o f Vespasian and Titus, including Josephus' o w n military career (the focus o f that b o o k ) ; from B o o k s 4 to 6 almost everything—the c a p ture o f G a m a l a , T a b o r , a n d Gischala, the g r o w t h o f serious fac tionalism
in Jerusalem, the arrival o f the Idumeans and the pivotal
m u r d e r o f A n a n u s and Jesus ( 4 . 2 3 3 - 3 3 3 ) , as well as other crimes against the sanctuary, though these are pivotal in the b o o k ' s theme a n d structure. M o s t significandy, he leaves out o f the prospectus the narrative's m a n y examples o f J u d e a n c o u r a g e , resourcefulness, a n d partial success ( 5 . 7 1 - 9 7 ,
1 0 9 - 1 3 5 , 2 5 8 - 3 3 0 ) , as also the R o m a n s '
l o n g hard struggle to take Jerusalem, w h i c h was delayed b y the tem porary victories o f the J u d e a n s ( 6 . 1 2 - 9 2 , 1 2 9 - 1 9 2 ) . H e omits refer ence to his o w n final speech ( 6 . 9 9 - 1 1 0 ) and his relay o f Titus' speech ( 6 . 1 2 4 - 1 2 8 ) , as well as the worst h o r r o r o f the famine: M a r y ' s can nibalism ( 6 . 1 9 3 - 2 1 9 ) . In their place, he highlights only a few para graphs towards the e n d o f B o o k 4 and the beginning o f B o o k 5 c o n c e r n i n g N e r o , the Roman civil war, and Vespasian, s o m e exotic information a b o u t the temple and its priests, the u n n a m e d J u d e a n tyrants and bandits, the suffering they inflicted o n the Judeans, a n d the R o m a n desire to spare his compatriots ( 1 . 2 1 - 2 8 ) . If w e h a d only this latter half o f the p r o l o g u e , w e might suppose that the War was indeed an instrument o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a o n the o l d view, but it is crucial to r e m e m b e r that this o u d i n e does n o t in fact m a t c h the c o n t e n t o f the b o o k . It seems rather carefully crafted to h o o k the audience in—a R o m a n audience—while reserving detailed reinterpretation o f the War for the appropriate time. Josephus has already signaled that he will c o u n t e r the prevailing jingoistic accounts with a b a l a n c e d viewpoint ( 1 . 2 - 3 , 6 - 1 0 ) , but the force a n d c o n s e q u e n c e o f his revisionist view must await careful articulation in the story itself.
97
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
5. Josephus uses the major theme o f his Judean War, civil war (oxdoi<; oiicda), to c o n n e c t the J u d e a n situation with the R o m a n . H e intro duces the theme o f oxaaiq in the p r o l o g u e (1.10), makes it the first w o r d o f the narrative p r o p e r (1.31), and refers to the theme often throughout. T h e War is in m a n y respects the story o f a J u d e a n civil war: aristocrats such as Josephus h a d g o n e to great lengths to sup press it, but they failed, so that b e h i n d the scenes o f an ostensible war with R o m e lay a full-scale internal conflict. M o s t scholars trace this J o s e p h a n
theme to T h u c y d i d e s ' classic
treatment o f civil war at C o r c y r a ( 3 . 8 2 - 8 4 ) ,
63
and o n e even tries to
interpret the War as an o n g o i n g intertextual play vis-a-vis T h u c y d i d e s . It takes n o t h i n g a w a y f r o m the helpfulness o f these
64
analyses—
T h u c y d i d e s does remain a fund for historians throughout this p e r i o d — to observe that Josephus as author d o e s not c o n n e c t the J u d e a n stasis with T h u c y d i d e s o r G r e e k p r o b l e m s half a millennium before his time. H e rather connects the J u d e a n seditio, and programmatically, with the m a n y Roman civil wars, especially the o n e c o n c l u d e d just before his arrival with Titus in R o m e , w h i c h was also fresh in the experience o f his R o m a n audience. A l r e a d y in the p r o l o g u e (B.J. 1.4), Josephus describes the p e r i o d o f m o m e n t o u s change (Kwr||ia) in w h i c h the J u d e a n w a r erupted as o n e in w h i c h internal R o m a n affairs were also b e c o m i n g diseased (voaeco)—a v e r b c o m m o n l y applied in G r e e k and Latin literature to the blight o f factionalism.
65
T w i c e again in the o p e n i n g prospectus
he makes the same link, b y distinguishing the R o m a n s from P o m p e y (1.19) a n d b y mentioning the upheavals (\i£xa$okai) in R o m e at the time o f the J u d e a n war (1.23). Josephus appears to suggest that the civil w a r o r sedition that afflicted the J u d e a n s and led to R o m a n intervention in their politics was a p h e n o m e n o n
fateful entirely
familiar to the R o m a n s themselves, not—as Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s (B.J. 2.92) and m a n y others w o u l d c l a i m — a distinctive ethnic trait o f the Judeans.
6 3
E.g. Rajak, Josephus, 9 1 - 9 4 ; L . H . Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 1 4 0 - 4 8 ; G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 0 ) , 5 5 - 1 0 3 ; cf. J. J. Price, Thucydides and Internal War (Cambridge; N e w Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 1 ) on the Thucydidean background. 6 4
Cf. M a d e r in the previous note. Thucydides 2 . 4 8 - 5 9 ; Plato, Resp. 5 . 4 7 0 c , Soph. 2 2 8 a ; Sallust, Bell. Cat. 3 6 . 5 ; Hist. 2 . 7 7 m ; Tacitus, Ann. 1.43.4; Hist. 1.26.1; cf. E. Keitel, "Principate and Civil W a r in the Annals of Tacitus," AJP 105 (1984): 3 2 0 and n. 3 2 . 6 5
98
STEVE MASON
In B o o k 1, these c o n n e c t i o n s are t o o frequent to itemize, as the R o m a n civil wars and their protagonists furnish the w h o l e b a c k d r o p for the later H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d and for H e r o d ' s masterfully
shifting
allegiances. A t B.J. 1 . 2 1 6 - 2 1 9 , for example, Josephus pauses the nar rative to describe the outbreak o f civil war (pokz\ioq ejicpuAaoq), inter nal factionalism (8iacrcaoia£co) and upheaval
(KWTUIOC)
in Rome, assuming
the audience's prior k n o w l e d g e o f the figures a n d events m e n t i o n e d . After B o o k
1 Josephus
takes the narrative b a c k to R o m e with
great frequency: 2 . 2 4 - 3 8 , 9 0 - 1 1 0 (Augustus p o n d e r s H e r o d ' s will), 2 . 2 0 4 - 2 1 7 (Claudius' accession and A g r i p p a I), 2 . 2 4 5 - 2 5 1 (Claudius decides the J u d e a n quarrel with Samaritans; accession o f N e r o ) , 3 . 1 - 8 ( N e r o hears o f the J u d e a n revolt and sends Vespasian), 4 . 4 4 0 (revolt o f Vindex), 4 . 4 9 1 - 5 0 2 ( R o m a n civil war after Nero's death), 4 . 5 4 5 - 5 4 9 ( R o m a n civil war again). T h e purpose o f these references b e c o m e s clear from J o s e p h u s ' language at 4 . 5 4 5 . W h i l e describing the violent conflict between S i m o n bar Gioras and J o h n o f Gischala's Zealots, he observes: " N o t o n l y in J u d e a were there civil w a r and sedition, h o w e v e r , but also across Italy"—citing the struggles o f G a l b a , O t h o , a n d Vitellius ( 4 . 5 4 5 - 5 4 9 ) . T h i s o n g o i n g c o m p a r i s o n is
strengthened
w h e n , a few paragraphs later, he turns to describe Vitellius' behavior as "a savage tyrant" (4.596) a n d the actions o f that general's
army
in the city o f R o m e : reckless looting and slaughtering o f the wealthy (4.586-587)—-just like the J u d e a n tyrants in Jerusalem. Several para graphs near the e n d o f B o o k 4 are d e v o t e d to a graphic day-by-day portrait o f the e n d to the civil war in R o m e ( 4 . 6 3 0 - 6 5 5 ) , but this o c c u r s i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e Titus is sent to e n d the civil w a r in Jerusalem ( 4 . 6 5 6 - 6 6 3 ) . Titus is reportedly quite aware, as Vespasian h a d b e e n , that the p r o b l e m in Jerusalem is essentially a civil war a m o n g J u d e a n factions ( 5 . 1 - 3 ) , not a matter o f the J u d e a n p e o p l e ' s o p p o s i n g R o m e en bloc. T h e fitting end o f the civil-war theme coincides with the close o f the main story. It is the j o i n t triumph o f Vespasian and Titus in R o m e , c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h Josephus c o m m e n t s (7.157): " F o r o n this day the city o f the R o m a n s celebrated both victory in the c a m p a i g n against her enemies [sc. the Judeans]
and the e n d o f civil disasters
[sc. a m o n g the R o m a n s ] — a n d thus the beginning o f hopes for pros perity." T h e very next paragraph, collapsing a b o u t four years, covers the dedication o f the Forum o f Peace in R o m e (7.158-162). Vespasian's triumph over internal chaos, with his sons as insurance against b l o o d y succession contests in the near future, coincides with decisive victory
99
READING JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
over foreign enemies. F r o m J o s e p h u s ' perspective, similarly, the end o f J u d e a ' s civil w a r has renewed the promise o f p e a c e . Josephus continually reverts to affairs in R o m e not only because that is the natural reference-point for his envisaged audience in the city, but also in order to make the J u d e a n conflict m o r e intelligible and less alien, b y implicit c o m p a r i s o n with the capital's o w n vividly r e m e m b e r e d struggles. Every statesman knew that civil war (oxaaiq, seditio) was a perennial threat,
66
and the J u d e a n s c o u l d hardly b e sin
gled out for o d i u m because the disease had affected their society so dramatically.
CONCLUSION
T o c o n c l u d e : the general conditions o f c o m p o s i n g and
disseminating
literature in the first century, along with explicit indicators in Josephus' writings about the
War's circumstances a n d assumptions he makes
about his audience's knowledge a n d values all point in a single direc tion. H e wrote his finest w o r k with a sophisticated R o m a n audience in view, o n e that was fully at h o m e in elite discourse about politics and constitutions, and that had a taste for fine writing. H e r e I c a n only hint at s o m e important c o n s e q u e n c e s that flow from identifying Josephus' audience. O n l y w h e n such c o n c r e t e c o n ditions are ignored, it seems to m e , can Josephus b e interpreted as a mouthpiece o f R o m a n propaganda, in the traditional way. Abstracted from such a context, for example, his flattery o f Vespasian and Titus, along with his a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f R o m a n fortune, might easily b e read as an effort to persuade fellow-Judeans around the
Mediterranean
to acquiesce under R o m a n rule. O n c e he is p l a c e d in his Flavian R o m a n context, h o w e v e r , every thing changes. W e n o longer e x p e c t h i m to spell everything
out,
since w e can see that he relies u p o n prior audience k n o w l e d g e and values. O n c e w e take o n b o a r d the nature o f Flavian
self-represen
tation in post-70 R o m e , as the c o n q u e r o r s o f a rebellious p e o p l e , as those w h o have defeated a weak race and its deity b y means o f their virtue, generalship, and support from R o m a n deities, everything in the War takes o n a completely different hue. N o w w e can b e g i n to take seriously Josephus' claim that he is writing to balance the r e c o r d
T h i s is, e.g.,
the dominant theme o f Plutarch's Praecepta gerendae reipublicae.
100
STEVE
MASON
with a fair treatment o f his p e o p l e ( 1 . 1 - 3 , 6 - 9 ) . N o w his o n g o i n g emphases o n J u d e a n valor, toughness, and c o n t e m p t for death, along with their talent for outwitting the famous legions, b e c o m e m o r e meaningful as a challenge to the d o m i n a n t portrait. N o w w e m a y see his flattery o f Vespasian and Titus, b y contrast, as n o m o r e than de rigueur, and w e m a y b e c o m e m o r e attentive to cracks in this p o r trait. T h e s e cracks are especially in the famous t h e m e
o f Titus'
c l e m e n c y , w h i c h in fact makes the y o u n g e m p e r o r out to b e rather gullible—deserving n o credit for Jerusalem's fall. A n d w e b e c o m e alive to the possibilities o f irony. W h e r e a s most scholars have treated the presentation o f the
18-year-old D o m i t i a n in B.J. 7 . 8 5 - 8 8 as obse
quious flattery, even redating B o o k 7 to D o m i t i a n ' s reign in part to a c c o u n t for this apparent groveling (it "extols D o m i t i a n ' s p r o w e s s " ) , against the b a c k g r o u n d o f a R o m a n audience's likely k n o w l e d g e
68
67
it
seems m o r e plausible that Josephus was practicing "the art o f safe criticism"
69
through an o b v i o u s and excessive flattery.
A u d i e n c e matters: the stakes are e n o r m o u s .
6 7
H a
m
C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 8 7 . Suetonius, Dom. 2; Tacitus, Hist. 4 . 7 5 - 8 5 . See A h l , " T h e Art of Safe Criticism."
T H E
PROVINCIAL
HISTORIAN
JONATHAN J . TEL AVIV
IN
R O M E
PRICE
UNIVERSITY
Josephus lived the last thirty years o f his life in R o m e , far from his native Jerusalem. T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e that he ever left the city after he was b r o u g h t there as a prisoner o f war b y Titus in 71 C E . In his foreign setting he c o m p o s e d four literary works and p l a n n e d others. G i v e n the large v o l u m e o f his writing, Josephus must have spent a considerable p o r t i o n o f his days writing (or dictating) and reading, but the contours o f his intellectual life in R o m e — h i s literary
and
cultural associations, as well as his political and social c o n n e c t i o n s — are barely k n o w n . W h i l e a wide variety o f sources p r o v i d e k n o w l e d g e about the social and cultural history o f Flavian R o m e ,
1
Josephus'
place in it c a n n o t b e surmised either from his o w n writings o r other sources. His o w n works, for s o m e o n e w h o liked to write a b o u t him self, p r o v i d e surprisingly sparse information a b o u t his intellectual life in the capital a n d n o reference to the luminous literary circles there. First-century sources contain n o reference to him whatsoever, and there are n o instructive parallels to an oriented Jewish freed slave, p r o b a b l y not a Latin speaker, writing history in the capital in an i m p e r f e c d y acquired language about a foreign p e o p l e a n d culture. Faute de mieux, his literary p r o d u c t must serve as the main d o c u m e n t o f J o s e p h u s ' relation to his cultural surroundings. A n d that d o c u m e n t reveals an historian w h o retained a p r o f o u n d l y provincial character, as reflected not only in his relative isolation in the capital, but also in the c o n tent a n d style o f his m a n y writings. In another essay in this v o l u m e , Steve M a s o n has d o n e p r o b a b l y as m u c h as a n y o n e c o u l d to extract all clues from J o s e p h u s ' writings
1
See n o w the large assortment o f articles in A . J. Boyle and W . J. D o m i n i k , eds., Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , and the excellent discussion by E . Fantham, Roman Literary Culture fiom Cicero to Apuleius (Baltimore and L o n d o n : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), esp. 1 8 3 - 2 2 1 . Also useful are L. H o m o , Vespasien, L'empereur de bon sens (69-79 ар. J.-С) (Paris: A . M i c h e l , 1949), 3 4 7 - 6 4 ; and the two articles in ANRW II 3 2 . 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , S. Franchet d'Espéry, "Vespasien, Titus et la littérature," 3 0 4 8 - 8 6 , and К . M . C o l e m a n , " T h e E m p e r o r Domitian and Literature," 3 0 8 7 - 1 1 5 .
102
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
to reconstruct J o s e p h u s ' subtle efforts to appeal to the élite in R o m e itself. T h e present p a p e r asks a different fundamental question: not w h o m Josephus wanted to read his b o o k s , but w h o actually did and w h y . I take it as fundamental that J o s e p h u s ' b o o k s address multiple audiences—the Greek-educated R o m a n upper class in R o m e and the cities o f the empire, the Greek-speaking intelligentsia o f the eastern provinces and the Greek-reading Jewish inhabitants o f the provinces.
2
eastern
I shall explore h o w Josephus, w h o was simultaneously
addressing these m a n y audiences, found his place in the foreign c a p ital o f a w o r l d empire, and the extent to w h i c h he fit (or did not fit) into the fast-paced and sometimes treacherous intellectual and cul tural life there; h o w he defined himself—religiously, culturally, intel lectually—in his foreign setting, and h o w that self-definition left an imprint o n his surviving works. R o m e in the last decades o f the first century was alive with lit erary activity. T h e Flavian emperors e n c o u r a g e d the
flourishing
of
the genres in w h i c h the R o m a n s thought they excelled and m a d e an original mark, especially Latin oratory and poetry, with an e m p h a sis o n classicism, in reaction to orientalizing tendencies under N e r o . Roma resurgens was the m o t t o advertised o n Flavian c o i n s .
4
3
Quintilian,
w h o s e ten b o o k s o n education and rhetoric well represent the intel lectual climate o f the time, was appointed b y Vespasian to the first e n d o w e d chair o f rhetoric in R o m e , and the e m p e r o r granted special 5
privileges to oratores a n d praeceptores. T a c i t u s ' Dialogus de oratoribus, w h i c h provides "perhaps the best access to the active society o f the senatorial class and to its m o r e public c o n c e r n s [and] enables his readers to eavesdrop o n a literary discussion a m o n g cultured friends,"
6
deals with the question o f whether a m a n should b e c o m e a p o e t o r an orator. In the spirit o f his father's project, D o m i t i a n f o u n d e d the Capitoline and Alban games, where Latin orators and poets c o m p e t e d . T h e poets Silius Italicus, Valerius Flaccus and Statius c o m p o s e d c o m -
2
See the interesting discussion o f Josephus' audiences (with the focus more on the Antiquitates Judaicae) by G . Sterling, History and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic History (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2 9 7 - 3 0 8 . 3
Cf. the literature listed in n. 1 above. British Museum Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire II, 8 7 no. 4 2 5 . E.g. AE 1 9 3 6 no. 1 2 8 . Quintilian was not unconnected to the Jews, for he rep resented Berenice in litigation, and was tutor to the children of Flavius Clemens, w h o was executed for atheism i.e. Judaism in 9 5 . Fantham, Roman Literary Culture, 1 9 1 . 4
5
()
103
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
plex, allusive, classicizing a n d e v e n politically fraught
Latin
epic,
while Martial excelled in witty epigram. Historiography was n o t e x c l u d e d as an o c c u p a t i o n o f a cultured Roman,
7
and while Latin was the focus o f imperial sponsorship, it
was n o t an exclusive requirement—after
all, Josephus himself was
e n c o u r a g e d to write his first w o r k , a history o f the Jewish W a r , in G r e e k — a n d certainly n o t a sine qua non for participation in the intel lectual life in the capital and b e y o n d . N o t only were educated R o m a n s completely bilingual—and in fact m o s t o f t h e m were educated from an early age b y G r e e k teachers, so that their first literary language was G r e e k — b u t they also gladly a c c e p t e d into their h o m e s a n d sup ported a c c o m p l i s h e d G r e e k cultural figures. O n e thinks already o f the provincial writers o f the late R e p u b l i c a n d Augustan p e r i o d , such as the g e o g r a p h e r Strabo from distant Pontus, the literary critic and historian Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and the historian T i m a g e n e s o f Alexandria, all o f w h o m , after arriving in R o m e , m a n a g e d to estab lish extensive c o n n e c t i o n s with the literary and political élite in the city; and o n the other e n d o f the relevant chronological scale, A p p i a n , the A n t o n i n e historian from Alexandria w h o exploited his connections in R o m e for advancement as an advocate, and Arrian, from Bithynia, 8
w h o was himself a senator. T h e careers o f b o t h A p p i a n and Arrian demonstrate the possibilities o p e n to s o m e o n e w h o gains w i d e r fame b y writing history. J o s e p h u s ' exact c o n t e m p o r a r y , the G r e e k orator and p h i l o s o p h e r D i o C h r y s o s t o m , w h o was a student o f the stoic philosopher M u s o n i u s Rufus, was active in R o m e a n d is praised b y m a n y writers o f the late first and early s e c o n d centuries, including P l i n y — D i o left the capital only under c o m p u l s i o n , w h e n he was ban ished b y D o m i t i a n for his political activities. O t h e r G r e e k intellec tuals passed t h r o u g h R o m e , w h e r e they g a v e well-attended
and
much-discussed lectures and demonstrations and even stayed there
7
8
Cf. Pliny, Ep. 5 . 8 , Juvenal, Sat. 7 . 9 8 - 1 0 4 , Quintilian, Inst. 1 0 . 1 .
Late Republic and Augustus: fuller list and discussion in G . Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), 1 2 2 - 3 9 ; see also K . Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 187 ff. T i m a g e n e s of course fell out of favor with Augustus, but he took refuge in the h o m e of Asinius Pollio; on the p h e n o m e n o n of subversive historians, see D . T i m p e , "Geschichtsschreibung und Prinizipatsopposition," in Opposition et resistances ä Vempire dAuguste ä Trajan, (Entretiens vol. 3 3 ; ed. K u r t A . Raaflaub; Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1987), 6 5 - 1 0 2 . Second century: G . Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), esp. 113: "Opportunities for historians to make their way in the world were all too numerous."
104
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
for p r o l o n g e d periods. It was under the Flavian emperors that the immensely popular Greek intellectuals o f the so-called Second Sophistic, like D i o C h r y s o s t o m himself, b e g a n traveling the circuit o f the east ern capitals and R o m e . A l t h o u g h most o f the intellectuals in the S e c o n d Sophistic were active in the century after Josephus, R o m a n audiences already w e l c o m e d m e n like Scopelian from Smyrna, w h o was a frequent and celebrated visitor in R o m e , and w h o delivered orations even before the Flavian e m p e r o r s .
9
T h e flurry o f literary activity in G r e e k and Latin meant constant literary salons and parties, frequent public readings and vigorous ex changes o f works and ideas. T h i s is charmingly apparent in m a n y o f the self-absorbed letters o f the y o u n g e r Pliny, w h o was a generation younger than Josephus. In o n e oft-quoted letter, Pliny writes a descrip tion w h i c h c o u l d well apply to J o s e p h u s ' R o m e : " D u r i n g the w h o l e m o n t h o f April, scarcely a d a y went b y w h e n s o m e o n e did not give a recitation. I ' m pleased that literary studies are flourishing and that talented m e n c o m e f o r w a r d . "
10
Literary figures o f the day, intellec
tuals, and R o m a n s o f social and political importance, knew about and read o n e another, and were often personal friends. Interlocking circles sustained and informed literary activity in the capital. Pliny mentions b y n a m e important literary contemporaries like the historian Tacitus, the p o e t Silius Italicus, the o r a t o r D i o C h r y s o s t o m a n d
others.
Quintilian, w h o was Pliny's teacher, is himself m e n t i o n e d respectfully b y Martial, Juvenal a n d m a n y others o f the y o u n g e r generation, and is implicidy answered b y Tacitus in the Dialogas de oratoribus. Martial works into his p o e m s the names o f m a n y o f the luminaries o f his d a y — a n d so o n ; a full and detailed catalogue is unnecessary here.
11
T h e absence o f J o s e p h u s ' n a m e in any surviving c o n t e m p o r a r y lit erary w o r k o f the time, and during the century after his death, is significant. His failure to write in Latin is not the reason, given the prominent place bright G r e e k stars held in the R o m a n cultural scene. Y e t his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ' silence about h i m is not the only reason to surmise J o s e p h u s ' absence from the literary parlors and events in the
9
Bowersock, Greek Sophists, 4 4 . Pliny, Ep. 1.13; it should be noted, however, that the point of the letter is to complain that such recitations are often not taken seriously enough. 1 0
" It naturally must be r e m e m b e r e d that s o m e of the literary lights in Flavian R o m e were provincial in the strict sense—Quintilian, Tacitus, Martial—but they were Latin speakers, born R o m a n citizens, raised on R o m a n education, and cen tral figures in R o m e ' s cultural life.
105
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
R o m e where he lived. It is likely that Josephus refrained from public performance entirely. H e seems to b e offering an a p o l o g y for such avoidance w h e n he confesses, near the end o f his life, to never having shed his accent in spoken G r e e k (A.J. 20.263). O f course p r o p e r dic tion and technical proficiency were essential for public oratorical per formance. Quintilian (Inst. 1.1.13) sternly disapproves even o f those R o m a n sons with a whiff o f G r e e k inflection in their Latin, the result o f their first teachers b e i n g Greek; he attributes faulty pronunciation to "distortion o f the m o u t h p r o d u c e d b y forming foreign sounds." W e can imagine the prejudice R o m a n s w o u l d have felt against A r a m a i c "distortion o f the m o u t h . " Josephus w o u l d not have embarrassed him self in a public reading, and significandy he mentions n o public recita tions. Even Vespasian and Titus, he says, read the Bellum Judaicum—he did not read his history to them, even those parts in w h i c h they personally featured, as for example Vergil read the Aeneid to Augustus. T h e r e is thus little reason to believe that Josephus, although he was living in R o m e , was routinely invited to the h o m e s o f the literati there, o r ever j o i n e d the circuit o f G r e e k lecturers w h o attracted m u c h attention a m o n g the educated public. Patronage b y powerful figures a m o n g the social a n d political élite o f the city c o u l d help a writer o f n o distinguished b a c k g r o u n d but possessing innate talent and and an attractive topic gain entry into cultural circles in R o m e . Y e t o n c e again, the sources from the p e r i o d o f J o s e p h u s ' life, w h i c h are relatively plentiful, register a stark silence regarding the Jewish historian. I shall not linger over the proofs here, since the p o i n t has b e e n demonstrated with characteristic t h o r o u g h ness b y W e r n e r Eck, in an article soon to appear in another conference v o l u m e d e v o t e d to J o s e p h u s :
12
not only is n o social o r other c o n
nection with the R o m a n élite m e n t i o n e d in any external source, but J o s e p h u s ' o w n silence o n this matter, that is, his failure to m e n t i o n personal contacts with any important figure in R o m e other than the emperors, is eloquent; surely Josephus, w h o goes to literary lengths to bolster his authority as an historian,
extraordinary 13
w o u l d have
m e n t i o n e d connections with a p r o m i n e n t R o m a n family had he b e e n
1 2
In Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, (ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n and J. Rives; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, forthcoming). O n emerging élites under Vespasian see in general R . S y m e , Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 5 9 3 - 9 7 . 1 3
G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography: Apologetic and Impression Management in the Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
106
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
able to d o so. Aside from the emperors, the o n l y other figures in R o m e with w h o m Josephus was, o n his o w n e v i d e n c e , in contact, w e r e his literary patron Epaphroditus (see b e l o w ) , a freed slave o f Caligula n a m e d T h a u m a s t u s
a n d the Jewish a c t o r Aliturus, w h o
introduced Josephus to N e r o ' s wife P o p p a e a during his visit there in 6 4 / 6 5 . N o t e x a c d y a constellation o f stars. Finally, in the absence o f c o n n e c t i o n s to powerful R o m a n fami lies, an arriviste c o u l d gain access to R o m e ' s literary and cultural life b y c o n n e c t i o n s to the imperial family. In this area, at least, there is n o d o u b t that Josephus had something to boast about, and from his first w o r k to his last he plays u p his c o n n e c t i o n s to the imperial fam ily. But J o s e p h u s ' "friendship" with the imperial family was obviously not a friendship o n equal terms: he was their freed slave, a client a n d dependent, and o n closer e x a m i n a t i o n
14
there is nothing to dis
tinguish J o s e p h u s ' status and role as an imperial client from that o f hundreds if not thousands o f other imperial clients with the n a m e Flavius. A s E c k observes, what sets Josephus apart from all these other freedmen Flavii is that he wrote a n u m b e r o f b o o k s w h i c h have survived. In any case, after writing the Bellum, Josephus appare n d y lost imperial literary patronage, for he dedicated his next three works, the Antiquitates Judaicae, the Vita a n d the Contra Apionem, to a certain Epaphroditus, w h o c a n n o t b e identified with any important figure o f that n a m e in R o m e in J o s e p h u s ' d a y .
15
In other w o r d s , b y
lavishly thanking an obscure figure o f (probably) servile birth as his patron, Josephus is inadvertendy revealing his o w n obscurity in R o m a n society o f his day. Naturally I a m not saying that w e k n o w o f n o o n e w h o read Josephus, w h o himself affirms that, in addition to the Flavian emperors, A g r i p p a II received copies o f the Bellum and c o n f i r m e d the a c c u r a c y o f the a c c o u n t {Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 6 , C Ap. 1.50-51). T h e Jewish king at least seems to have read the b o o k avidly. T w o other n a m e d m e m bers o f the H e r o d i a n family, Julius Archelaus a n d an
unidentified
H e r o d , b o u g h t copies presumably for reading (C. Ap. 1.51). S o far as the emperors are c o n c e r n e d , they c o u l d have read the presentation
1 4
Again, see Eck, in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, and also the classic article by Z . Yavetz, "Reflections on Titus and Josephus," GRBS 16 (1975): 4 1 1 - 3 2 , esp. 430-32. 1 5
In addition to Eck, in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, cf. C . P. Jones, "Towards a C h r o n o l o g y o f Josephus," SCI 21 (2002): 1 1 3 - 2 1 , esp. 1 1 4 - 1 5 .
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
107
copies, o r merely the parts c o n c e r n i n g themselves to confirm their veracity, but m a n y works were presented to them b y conscientious o r enthusiastic authors.
16
Titus for e x a m p l e received a c o p y o f the
Elder Pliny's e n c y c l o p a e d i c Natural History, a n d in his laudatory pref ace Pliny indicates that he was o n m o r e intimate relations with Titus, and hints also at a correspondence about his literary-scientific endeavor, but it is difficult to imagine that Titus actually read the w o r k very carefully if at all (and Pliny p r o v i d e d a table o f contents for each b o o k for easy reference). In addition, w e k n o w the n a m e o f o n e other reader, Justus o f Tiberias, w h o w r o t e vigorously against J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t o f the w a r but waited until after Agrippa's death to release it; Josephus answered h i m in the Vita. In addition to these n a m e d readers, Josephus also refers to a n o n y m o u s potential o r actual readers. H e says he presented his history to R o m a n s w h o t o o k part in the w a r (C. Ap. 1.50), but w h o they w e r e , and their place a n d importance in R o m a n society (even whether they were from Italy), are left o d d l y undisclosed. It is m o r e certain that the u n n a m e d J e w s to w h o m , o n J o s e p h u s ' evidence, he sold copies o f the Bellum, read it—they paid m o n e y for the b o o k , unlike the recip ients o f unsolicited copies. Finally, Josephus protests against certain "petty and nasty p e o p l e " ((pocutan) w h o criticized his writing (C. Ap. 1.53); since these critics w o u l d b e p e o p l e w h o had s o m e personal o r vested interest in the a c c o u n t o f the rebellion, they w e r e almost cer tainly from the East and p r o b a b l y s o m e o r most o f them were Jews. T h u s it turns out that all o r most o f J o s e p h u s ' k n o w n readership was in o r from the East. It is important to r e m e m b e r that his first intended audience was in the East, for his first version o f the Bellum, in A r a m a i c , was o p e n l y addressed to the " n o n - G r e e k s o f the u p c o u n t r y " (xoiq avco pappdpoiq, B.J.
1.3). T h i s initial p u r p o s e
and
intended audience left a strong imprint in the G r e e k reworking o f the original. In the present G r e e k version he still draws a contrast between himself as a foreigner (aXX6
Xoq) and his h o p e d - f o r audi ence o f "Greeks and R o m a n s " (B.J. 1.16). In preparing the G r e e k Bellum Josephus e x p a n d e d his audience, instead o f shifting to another o n e c o m p l e t e l y ; most i m p o r t a n d y , he n o w addressed the R o m a n admininistration and G r e e k and R o m a n intellectuals throughout the
1 6
A n d note Yavetz's sobering doubt whether "Titus was so anxious to see Josephus' book b e c o m e the sole authority from which the world should learn the facts about the Jewish W a r " ("Reflections," 4 3 0 ) .
108
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
empire, and this immensely c o m p l i c a t e d his task as a writer. W h e n assessing the additions clearly intended to benefit the "Greeks and R o m a n s " — s u c h as the n u m e r o u s explanations o f Jewish customs and laws and the g e o g r a p h y o f Palestine—as well as the unexplained ref erences to R o m a n history a i m e d at a R o m a n readership, it should b e r e m e m b e r e d J o s e p h u s ' " R o m a n " a u d i e n c e was w i d e and
cos
mopolitan, and he c o u l d just as easily have had in m i n d the R o m a n s in Alexandria, o r really most any eastern capital o f the E m p i r e — not just R o m a n s in R o m e itself. T h e unpopularity, o r neglect, o f J o s e p h u s ' oeuvre in R o m e did not stem from his themes—first the Jewish W a r , then Jewish antiquities in general. T h e rebellion held an extremely important place in the self-presentation o f the Flavian house: aside from the triumphal cel ebrations and the large-scale games to celebrate their victory o v e r the Jews, the Flavians erected triumphal arches throughout the empire, issued massive series o f coins with the message Iudaea Capta and spon sored other literary projects in addition to J o s e p h u s ' history. M a n y accounts o f the w a r were written in Latin and G r e e k in the 70s, a n d even though not o n e w o r d from them survives, Josephus argues a n d p o l e m i c i z e s with them, b o t h explicidy a n d implicitly, in the Bellum, accusing those other historians o f gross flattery o f the R o m a n s o r despicable slander o f the J e w s .
17
T h e J e w s themselves were a legitimate subject for ethnographic investigation, even though s o m e o f the accounts p r o d u c e d in Josephus' era were biased against their subject. N o less a historian than Tacitus w r o t e a detailed a c c o u n t o f the Jewish rebellion, p r e c e d i n g it with a set-piece o f ethnic history, in B o o k 5 o f the Histories. But neither Tacitus n o r any other writer o n the Jewish rebellion specifically o r Judaism in general—at least w h o s e works have survived—betrays any k n o w l e d g e o f J o s e p h u s ' extensive writings, e v e n t h o u g h , at least a c c o r d i n g to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius,
18
Josephus'
b o o k s were deposited in a library in R o m e . Both Tacitus and, in the third century, Cassius D i o , relied o n other sources for their accounts o f the rebellion, and in his " a r c h a e o l o g y " o f the Jews Tacitus pre-
17
GLAJJ 1 : 4 5 5 - 5 7 . Hist eccl. 3 . 9 . 2 ; Eusebius says there that Josephus was the best-known J e w o f his day, but this was written 2 0 0 years after Josephus' death, is unsupported by any contemporary evidence and probably reflects rather extrapolation o f Josephus' importance from Eusebius' own time. 18
109
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
ferred hostile sources, p r o b a b l y in Latin, for the truculent o p e n i n g chapters o f the fifth b o o k o f the Histories.™ T h e s e chapters represent the typical attitude o f the R o m a n u p p e r classes towards J u d a i s m in J o s e p h u s ' time and l o n g afterwards.
20
For m o r e than o n e h u n d r e d
years after his death, Josephus is hardly n o t i c e d b y any surviving author, aside from a passing reference in Suetonius (Vesp. 5.6), w h o mentions Josephus not as an e n e m y general but as a nobilis captivus w h o p r o p h e s i e d that Vespasian w o u l d reach the throne; the thirdcentury historian Cassius D i o (66.1.4) says the same thing a b o u t h i m , so that obviously they were b o t h relying o n s o m e external source, not o n J o s e p h u s ' writings direcdy, for they r e c o r d e d only a curious b y - w a y and missed the most important fact a b o u t h i m . In the third and fourth centuries, Christian authors, for theological reasons, read Josephus quite avidly, a n d q u o t e d h i m in their p o l e m i c s , but
the
only non-Christian author w h o gives definite signs o f having read Josephus is the third-century philosopher Porphyry ( w h o in fact did read h i m ) .
21
T h e reason that Josephus was passed o v e r b y serious historians and other intellectuals, b o t h in his o w n time and afterwards, c a n n o t be attributed to the hostile attitudes towards Jews a n d Judaism b y the R o m a n u p p e r classes, for it is impossible that a R o m a n historian like Tacitus looking for information o n Judaism o r the Jewish rebellion would deliberately pass over the eyewitness account in the Bellum merely because its author was Jewish. Rather, the reason for the neglect o f Josephus m a y b e inherent in what he w r o t e . O n o p e n i n g the first scroll o f the Bellum the R o m a n reader w o u l d e n c o u n t e r a lengthy preface studded with familiar tropes in c o m b i n a t i o n with
bizarre
departures from G r a e c o - R o m a n historiographical c o n v e n t i o n .
22
The
first sentence is a dazzling tour de force—or inordinately long, d e p e n d ing o n the reader's t a s t e — c o n t a i n i n g
m o s t o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l ,
1 9
See GLAJJ 2 : 1 7 - 6 3 , no. 2 8 1 , and the extensive bibliog. there. M . Stern, "Antisemitism in R o m e , " in Antisemitism Through the Ages (ed. S. A l m o g ; Oxford: Pergamon, 1988), 1 3 - 2 5 ; J. G a g e r , The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford and N e w York: O x f o r d University Press, 1983), 3 5 - 1 1 2 ; and n o w P. Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes towards the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1997), esp. 1 8 0 - 9 5 . 2 0
2 1
GLAJJ 2 : 4 3 5 - 4 3 , no. 4 5 5 . T h e fourth-century orator Libanius m a y also have read Josephus, although he does not say so (see Stern's comments in GLAJJ 2 : 5 8 9 , no. 4 9 5 b ) . T h e following remarks are based on m y article, "Josephus' First Sentence and the Preface to the 5.J.," forthcoming in a Festschrift volume dedicated to Uriel Rappaport. 2 2
110
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
e x p e c t e d elements o f a historical preface: the historian's n a m e and credentials, his sources o f evidence, the greatness o f his c h o s e n sub j e c t and his assurance o f strict impartiality and a d h e r e n c e to truth. T h e v o c a b u l a r y is self-consciously T h u c y d i d e a n , a mannerism w h i c h continues densely throughout the preface—e.g., the statement that the Jewish w a r was the "greatest upheaval" (TO f i e y i a T o v Kumncc), the profession o f strict a c c u r a c y (ocKpipeia) and the superiority o f c o n temporary history, an the assertion that the w o r k was n o t written "for i m m e d i a t e pleasure" (B.J.
1.30); all this is intended to lend
authority and credibility to the work. T h e T h u c y d i d e a n imitations and posturing are, again, an expected c o m p o n e n t o f a historiographical preface, as w e can j u d g e not only from surviving examples but also from Lucian's p a r o d y o f unskilled historians.
23
Y e t as the reader continues b e y o n d the grandiose first sentence, trouble arises: for in the same sentence in w h i c h Josephus, having dismissed other accounts o f the war as partisan and distorting, reit erates his rigorous accuracy, he adds that he shall not suppress his o w n emotions but rather give them free rein a n d allow himself to "lament the calamities w h i c h befell m y c o u n t r y " (B.J. 1.9). T h e dis sonance with the ostentatiously displayed literary c o n v e n t i o n , protes tations o f truth-telling
and T h u c y d i d e a n language is j a r r i n g — a n d
w o u l d have b e e n even m o r e so for an ancient reader/listener than a m o d e r n reader c a n possibly feel today. A n c i e n t historians assidu ously a v o i d e d all b i a s ,
24
and impartiality, sine ira et studio in Tacitus'
famous phrase, was o n e o f the conventional claims o f historiographical prefaces and o n e w h i c h , as w e have noted, Josephus himself used in the o p e n i n g lines o f the Bellum. Historians c o u l d and did write in an extremely partisan and biased manner, but they consistendy main tained their i n n o c e n c e o f the fault. unthinkable,
25
O p e n profession o f bias was
for it w o u l d h a v e instantly
d e s t r o y e d the
reader's
confidence and attention. But further surprises await the reader o f the Bellum w h o did not close the scroll after reading J o s e p h u s ' c o n fession: for just a few lines o n , Josephus asks the reader's forgiveness
2 3
Lucian, Hist, conscr., esp. 15; and see G . Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichts schreibung ( M e i s e n h e i m / G l a n : A n t o n H a i n , 1956), esp. 1 1 3 - 1 8 . T . J. Luce, "Ancient Views on the Causes of Bias in Historical Writing," CP 8 4 (1989): 1 6 - 3 1 . J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1 5 8 - 7 4 . 2 4
2 5
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
111
for his forceful expression o f his o w n detestation o f the Jewish extrem ists ("tyrants" is the censure he uses) and his sustained lament for his country's catastrophe, and he begs for a c o m p a s s i o n " w h i c h vio lates the law o f history" (napa xbv xr\c, iaxopiaq vójxov, B.J. 1.11). T h u s Josephus self-confessedly writes a history w h i c h invites a response violating the conventions o f that very genre, as represented a b o v e all b y J o s e p h u s ' t w o p r i m e historiographical m o d e l s , T h u c y d i d e s and Polybius.
26
K n o w i n g that such an admission might estrange his readership, Josephus tries to explain: his grief was inexorable because o f the depth o f the J e w s ' suffering following the height o f prosperity, and the reader is instructed to separate
the facts from the
historian's
o p e n l y expressed feelings—roc |iév 7cpáy|iaTa xx\ iaxopiot TtpoaKpivexco, xaq 8' óA,o(pt>paei<; xa> ypácpovxi (B.J. 1.12)—as if the historian himself is not the m e d i u m for the facts. T h i s is a creative solution to the p r o b l e m o f the historian's personal involvement in his subject: facts have lives o f their o w n , and the historian's reaction to them c a n b e peeled away from the straight factual narrative, as if o n e did not influence c h o i c e and presentation o f the other. In this w a y Josephus attempts to maintain b o t h objectivity and strong pathos, not to m e n tion the sanction for strong moral censure. But the p r o b l e m is o n e w h i c h Josephus himself creates—why bring u p his bias at all? W h y warn the reader away from something w h i c h c o u l d just as well not have b e e n written? Better to a v o i d laments and patent partisanship, better yet to a v o i d admission o f bias and the n e e d to excuse and explain it. Josephus might have b e e n experimenting with an original c o m b i n a t i o n o f genres and topoi—Greek
historiographical and tragic,
o r Jewish p r o p h e t i c — w h i c h he felt he c o u l d c o m b i n e with impunity, trying to a c c o m p l i s h t w o mutually contradictory purposes at o n c e . O n e senses here the tension w h i c h constandy beset J o s e p h u s ' n e e d to address different, and not entirely c o m p a t i b l e , audiences—as well as the tension between J o s e p h u s ' different a d o p t e d roles: G r e e k his torian, Jewish defender and polemicist, Jewish prophet. T h e p r o b l e m with J o s e p h u s ' experiment, if that i n d e e d is what it was, is that he was a n e w c o m e r , and very foreign, in R o m e . H e did not have the standing as a writer to violate a c c e p t e d standards and conventions, at
2 6
T h e parallels which Marincola, Authority and Tradition, 1 6 8 - 6 9 , cites to explain this passage are all different in tone and purpose from Josephus' partisan statements and thus cannot explain them.
112
JONATHAN J. PRICE
least if he wanted a sympathetic and respectful hearing from the lit erary and social élite. A n d thus R o m a n historians, w h o h a d n o per sonal stake in the events, i g n o r e d o r at least a v o i d e d a c k n o w l e d g i n g a n d quoting him. If a R o m a n reader persevered b e y o n d the laments and confessions o f the preface, w h i c h set J o s e p h u s apart from the historiographical tradition in w h i c h he professes to write, he w o u l d have e n c o u n t e r e d other features in the narrative signaling that the author was a provincial writer, a m o n g them the inaccuracies in t e r m i n o l o g y for the R o m a n provincial administration,
27
as well as J o s e p h u s ' outsider's impressions
o f the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t a n d army. O n e can well imagine an in dulgent smile o n the lips o f the same R o m a n reader w h o , with for b e a r a n c e o r fascination continuing into the third scroll, arrived at the detailed and enthusiastic digression o n the R o m a n army (B.J. 3.59-109). T h e digression is superfluous to the narrative o f events. O f course, J o s e p h u s ' description o f the R o m a n a r m y is m e a n t to recall the sim ilar passage in Polybius ( 6 . 1 9 - 4 2 ) , another provincial historian, w h o g a i n e d a m o n g R o m a n readers the respect a n d a c c e p t a n c e as an authority to w h i c h Josephus aspired. Polybius w r o t e digressions o n the R o m a n army, as well as o n the R e p u b l i c a n constitution, as essen tial c o m p o n e n t s in his large historical project, n a m e l y to explain the p h e n o m e n o n , u n p r e c e n d e n t e d in h u m a n history, o f R o m e ' s acquisi tion o f w o r l d empire a n d d o m i n a t i o n in the brief p e r i o d o f 53 years (e.g.
1.1-4). Polybius was p r o f o u n d l y impressed with the R o m a n
achievement, even if later in his l o n g life he d e v e l o p e d doubts a b o u t its continuation, as s o m e scholars b e l i e v e .
28
His purpose was to r e c o r d
historical facts a n d truths, a n d explain their deepest causation. H e e x p e c t e d that the general a n d statesman w o u l d derive benefit from his accurate r e c o r d o f events, but the overall p u r p o s e o f the n e w "universal history" was as m u c h philosophical as practical: R o m e ' s empire—its conquests, constitution, army, religion, m o r a l and ethi cal system—must b e e x a m i n e d and understood as a unique historical
2 7
N o t e H . M a s o n , Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974), 1 4 2 - 4 3 , on the "wide range of reference" for administrative terms employed by Josephus and Philo. 2 H
But see F. W . W a l b a n k , " T h e Idea of Decline in Polybius," in idem, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World: Essays and Reflections (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 2 ) , 1 9 3 - 2 1 1 ; also idem, "Polybius' Last T e n Books," in idem, Selected Papers: Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1985), 3 2 5 - 4 3 .
113
THE PROVINCIAL HISTORIAN IN ROME
p h e n o m e n o n ; in itself it c o u l d n o t b e presented as an e x a m p l e for imitation. By contrast,
29
Josephus a n n o u n c e s an o v e r d y practical p u r p o s e for
his digression o n the R o m a n army: "less to praise the R o m a n s than as a consolation for the c o n q u e r e d a n d a deterrence for those w h o w o u l d rebel" {B.J. 3.108). J o s e p h u s explicidy addresses the inhabi tants o f the Greek-speaking provinces. I f Polybius h a d a similar p r a c tical e n d in the service o f his R o m a n patrons, i.e. a desire to inform his fellow provincials that it was futile to rebel against the R o m a n s , it r e m a i n e d veiled. In J o s e p h u s ' statement o f p u r p o s e , he is n o t only serving the ends o f the R o m a n administration, b u t expressing a d e e p e r historical c o n c e p t i o n w h i c h emerges in other parts o f his his tory—and which would have appeared profoundly foreign to a R o m a n reader. F o r the R o m a n s a n d their a r m y are described as instruments o f a greater divine plan. In J o s e p h u s ' interpretation,
30
G o d decides
to destroy the T e m p l e in o r d e r to purify the site from the J e w s ' defilement o f it a n d to punish t h e m for their transgressions; thus the R o m a n s acted as G o d ' s unwilling ministers in punishing the rebels.
31
T h e J e w s ' first sin, for w h i c h they paid with their crushing defeat, was internal strife, w h i c h was a recurrent pattern in Jewish history and w h i c h always delayed o r c a n c e l e d G o d ' s help against their ene mies. T h e r e are s o m e unclear elements in this interpretation, most p r o m i n e n d y the precise p o i n t at w h i c h G o d d e c i d e d to a b a n d o n His T e m p l e , a n d w h e t h e r it was primarily the Jewish axdoxq
o r the
defilement o f the T e m p l e w h i c h d r o v e a w a y His favor, a n d even whether G o d h a d p r o g r a m m e d Jewish defeat from the beginning. But these issues shall n o t divert o u r focus here from the direct role
2 9
Four recent comparisons o f Polybius and Josephus offer conclusions different from the ones presented here: S. J. D . C o h e n , "Josephus, Jeremiah and Polybius," History and Theory 21 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 3 6 6 - 8 1 ; A . Eckstein, "Josephus a n d Polybius: A Reconsideration," Classical Antiquity 9 (1990): 1 7 5 - 2 0 8 ; F. W . W a l b a n k , " T r e a s o n ' and R o m a n Domination: T w o Case-studies, Polybius and Josephus," in idem, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World, 2 5 8 - 7 6 ; G . Sterling, "Explaining Defeat: Polybius and Josephus o n the W a r s with R o m e , " in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Aarhus 1999 (ed. J. K a l m s ; Münster: Lit, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 3 5 - 5 1 . 3 0
O n Josephus' theology and its place in the interpretation o f the war—relevant for w h a t follows—see T . R a j a k , Josephus: The Historian and his Society ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1983), 7 8 - 1 0 3 ; and n o w P. Spilsbury, "Josephus," in Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.; ed. D . A . C a r s o n , P. T . O'Brien a n d M . A . Seifrid; T u b i n g e n : M o h r ; G r a n d Rapids: Baker, 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 4 ) , 1 : 2 4 1 - 6 0 , with bibliog. N o t e 2 M a c e 5:19: "But the Lord did not choose the nation for the sake o f the holy place, but the place for the sake o f the nation." 3 1
114
JONATHAN J.
PRICE
o f G o d in the unfolding o f historical events, in the present and in the future, the central role o f the Jews in G o d ' s historical plan, the degree to w h i c h G o d ' s plan is discernible in past historical patterns a n d the belief o f an ultímate purpose in G o d ' s historical plan—these are characteristics o f J o s e p h u s ' view o f history, a n d mark it as distincdy Jewish. G o d ' s m a n a g e m e n t o f history informs the t w o great set speeches in the Bellum, that o f K i n g A g r i p p a II addressed to the population o f Jerusalem o n the eve o f w a r (B.J. 2 . 3 4 5 - 4 0 1 ) , and that w h i c h J o s e p h u s writes for himself, addressed to the besieged Jerusalem, specifically the extremist leaders, late in the siege o f the city (B.J. 5.362-419).
32
A g r i p p a asserts that there are practical and satisfactory
ways o f dealing with the offenses o f R o m e ' s governors, and that since all the countries o f the w o r l d have submitted to R o m a n rule, it is expedient for the J e w s to d o the same; G o d will not fight o n the Jewish side, for from the present evidence o f R o m e ' s vast and p o w erful empire, G o d has sanctioned the R o m a n subjection o f the peoples o f the w o r l d . A g r i p p a does n o t praise the R o m a n s o r their empire, o r argue that the J e w s must learn to appreciate R o m e a n d all the benefits it brings, but he merely surveys the R o m a n achievement as an impressive fact w h i c h must b e a c c e p t e d and submitted to, while a c k n o w l e d g i n g the loss o f i n d e p e n d e n c e i n v o l v e d . In his s p e e c h J o s e p h u s repeats s o m e o f A g r i p p a ' s arguments—the
loss o f inde
p e n d e n c e is bitter but t o o late to fight for, the fact o f the R o m a n empire is evidence o f G o d ' s favor and must b e a c c e p t e d — b u t the bulk o f the speech is d e v o t e d to a lengthy theological discourse o n Jewish history, demonstrating that G o d helped the Jews win w h e n they acted righteously and defeated them through an external e n e m y w h e n they sinned, particularly the sin o f internal strife, thus a fortiori H e will punish their present crimes against the p e o p l e and the holy sanctuary. T h e r e are distinct differences between these t w o speeches, partic ularly the fact that the worldly A g r i p p a II argues from general his tory and the present d e m a n d s o f Realpolitik, while the d e p o s e d priest a n d self-styled p r o p h e t Josephus argues from divine signs and reve lations in a historical sequence pertaining only to the Jews. W h i l e a
3 2
See H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavins Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 2 1 - 3 3 ; E. G a b b a , "L'impero r o m a n o nel discorso di Agrippa II," Rivista stoma dell'antichità 6 - 7 ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 7 7 ) : 1 8 9 - 9 4 .
THE PROVINCIAL
HISTORIAN
115
IN ROME
R o m a n reader c o u l d follow, with n o small measure o f self-flattery, Agrippa's historical references, Josephus
5
speech is m o r e o f an inter
nal argument, for the names and events to w h i c h he refers w e r e not c o m m o n k n o w l e d g e to an educated R o m a n . W h e n the Bellum was published, the theological implications o f the destruction o f the T e m p l e , w h i c h this speech is trying to w o r k out, were very desperately being debated in Jewish circles, and J o s e p h u s ' speech should b e consid ered in the context o f that anguished discussion. T h e underlying his torical c o n c e p t i o n s o f b o t h speeches are the same: G o d , w h o directs h u m a n history a c c o r d i n g to a just plan, has favored the R o m a n s b y bestowing empire u p o n them, and b y virtue o f this blessing will not sanction rebellion even b y His o w n p e o p l e the Jews; thus self-preser vation, especially preservation o f the Jewish T e m p l e a n d sacred rites, dictates submission to R o m a n rule, w h i c h o n balance is relatively mild and unoffensive. Neither s p e e c h expresses undiluted empire.
33
enthusiasm
for the
Roman
This contrasts with the real admiration expressed b y var
ious provincial authors, from Polybius' astonishment at the R o m a n s ' unique and stupendous a c c o m p l i s h m e n t to the e n c o m i u m o f R o m e b y Aelius Aristides, representing
a theme for sophists in J o s e p h u s '
time a n d afterwards. In the Bellum, b o t h A g r i p p a II a n d Josephus say that submission to the R o m a n empire is a necessary, and not t o o b u r d e n s o m e , fact o f life, not that such submission t o — m u c h less par ticipation in—the w o r l d empire was in itself a g o o d thing, e x c e p t to the degree to w h i c h such submission also demonstrated
submission
to G o d ' s will. O f course, realistically neither A g r i p p a II n o r Josephus, w h o in the narrative context were each trying to persuade their respec tive audiences, c o u l d have effectively praised the virtues o f R o m a n civilization and expected to retain the attention and sympathy o f their listeners, but i n a s m u c h
as the speeches are used, as typically in
ancient historiography, to convey and develop views o f the author, they hardly c o n v e y great affection o r enthusiasm
for the empire
under
w h i c h J e w s perforce lived; neither speech counsels wholehearted par ticipation
34
in the R o m a n p r o j e c t . Josephus never wrote an e n c o m i u m
3 3
T h i s point has been m a d e persuasively by M . Stern, "Joseph son of Matthias, the Historian o f the Jewish War''' and " T h e Jewish War of Joseph son o f Matthias and the R o m a n Emperors" in idem, Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. M . A m i t , I. Gafni, and M . D . Herr; Jerusalem: Y a d Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991), 3 7 8 - 9 2 and 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 (Heb.). 3 4
Contrast, e.g., Tacitus (Cerialis) and Philo on the blessings o f the R o m a n peace:
116
JONATHAN J. PRICE
R o m e ; his object o f praise was always the J e w s , their history a n d
on
their T c o A i x e i a .
35
Implicit in b o t h speeches here is also the idea that,
just as G o d has favored various ruling p o w e r s in the past, and has granted Jewish success and even sovereignty in reward for
righteous
behavior, so G o d will eventually grant the J e w s success o n c e again: such is the inevitable result o f a teleological v i e w o f history with God
and the Jews, w h o are " b e l o v e d o f G o d "
(GeocpiXeiq, B.J. 5.381),
at the center. T h i s idea is hinted at in a sentence from J o s e p h u s ' speech w h i c h w o u l d have b e e n u n d e r s t o o d differendy b y a R o m a n a n d a Jewish reader: [Josephus said that] "tyche had passed over to them from every s i d e — G o d , w h o b r o u g h t d o m i n i o n r o u n d to e a c h nation in turn, now
was o v e r Italy."
36
Both a R o m a n a n d a Jewish reader w o u l d understand the idea that political a n d e c o n o m i c success—especially such p h e n o m e n a l success as the R o m a n E m p i r e — w a s the result o f divine favor; this, as well as generally the rise a n d fall o f great empires, was a familiar c o n c e p t in e a c h tradition (e.g., Polybius 29.21). But the exact historical m e c h a n i s m assumed here is a m b i g u o u s .
37
T h a t is, the relationship
b e t w e e n TU^TI a n d G o d c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d in o n e o f t w o ways, d e p e n d i n g o n whether the KOU is read as a standard conjunction o r as a reinforcement o f the previous point in parataxis. In general, the g o d s as personalities play n o role in G r e e k h i s t o r i o g r a p h y after Herodotus,
38
but the introduction o f
xt>xn
as historical explanation
h a d a l o n g tradition, even a n d especially a m o n g the m o r e "scientific"
Tacitus, Hist. 4 . 7 3 - 7 4 ; Philo, Leg. 1 4 3 - 1 4 7 ; both aptly quoted by Stern (previous note), 3 8 5 . 3 5
See e.g. D . Balch, " T w o Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on R o m e and Josephus on the Jews," JSJ 13 (1982): 1 0 2 - 2 2 . 36
jiexapfìvai yaprcpòqaùxoix;rcàvxoGevXT^V X V X T I V , KOCÌ m i a eOvoq xòv Oeòv èujcepiàyovxa xfjv àpxTiv vvv èrci xfjq 'IxaÀ,ia<; eivai (B.J. 5 . 3 6 7 ) . Similar statements in B.J. 2 . 3 6 0 (Agrippa's speech) and B.J. 3 . 3 5 4 (Josephus as prophet); cf. Sterling, "Explaining Defeat," 1 4 5 - 4 6 . O d d l y , the present passage is not analyzed by R . Shutt, " T h e C o n c e p t of G o d in the W o r k s of Flavius Josephus," JJS 31 (1980): 1 7 1 - 8 7 , although he examines the relation between G o d and fortune in Josephus' writings. 3 7
O n the interpretation that follows, I disagree with Eckstein, "Josephus and Polybius," a n d G . Stàhlin, "Das Schicksal im N e u e n T e s t a m e n t und bei Josephus," in Josephus-Studien (ed. O . Betz, K . Haacker and M . Hengel; Gòttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1974), 3 1 9 - 4 3 ; cf. Rajak, Josephus, 1 0 1 . A . M o m i g l i a n o , "Popular Religious Beliefs and the Late R o m a n Historians," in Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico ( R o m e : Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975), 7 4 - 9 2 . 3 8
THE PROVINCIAL
historians like P o l y b i u s .
39
HISTORIAN
117
IN ROME
Polybius asserted (36.17) that xt)%r| should
b e ruled out w h e n there is a rational explanation available, but he often invokes it to explain historical events. In the present passage, an average R o m a n reader w o u l d understand it>xr| to b e the overriding agent, and G o d the immediate instrument o f what TÚ%T| determined: G o d ' s o b v i o u s favor o f the R o m a n s is a sign o f the
determination
o f TÚ%r|, w h o c o u l d act r a n d o m l y and capriciously o r purposefully, but w h o s e ways were ultimately inscrutable and unpredictable; a b o v e all, even if it>xr| intervened o n the immediate level to reward virtue o r punish crime, the goddess had n o teleological purpose, n o grand plan, but rather reacted to events a n d did not plan them. T h u s in the a b o v e sentence, the G r a e c o - R o m a n view w o u l d find n o discernible m e t h o d o r e n d in the cycle o f nations o n w h i c h G o d has b e s t o w e d d o m i n i o n . Y e t a Jewish reader, with a k n o w l e d g e e.g. o f the B o o k o f Daniel and the same sense o f history w h i c h underlies the speeches o f A g r i p p a II and Josephus in the Bellum, w o u l d understand Josephus to m e a n that G o d had purposefully favored different nations in turn with w o r l d p o w e r — t h i s b e i n g the "fortune" w h i c h the R o m a n s n o w enjoy from every quarter. Instead o f G o d b e i n g fortune's instrument, fortune is G o d ' s . History happens a c c o r d i n g to a divine direction. Periods o f suffering and slavery h a d b e e n foretold, a n d imply a cer tain future: latent in those prophecies there is the promise o f a p e r i o d o f f r e e d o m a n d sovereignty. T h i s is the d e e p e r statement in b o t h A g r i p p a IPs and J o s e p h u s ' speeches: the Jews need merely patiendy to wait out R o m a n rule (and perhaps even other unforeseen regimes), d o m i n i o n and divine favor will eventually c o m e around to them again. T h e Jewish historian
held
fast to his Jewish beliefs while in the City o f R o m e , a n d they shaped his historical o u d o o k . T h e people, events and literary activity in the R o m a n East continued to p r e o c c u p y Josephus to the e n d o f his life. H e used his purported autobiography as the platform for a l o n g p o l e m i c against Justus o f Tiberias. Even the learned defense o f J u d a i s m in the Contra Apionem takes to task m a n y oriental writers w h o were marginal in the R o m a n w o r l d (and shows n o expertise in R o m a n historiography), and refutes the standard G r e e k ethnocentric claims b y a rival Jewish ethnocentric argument, just like other works written b y Greek-speaking
3 9
oriental
O n Polybius' concept of xt>xr|, see F. W . W a l b a n k , Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), 5 8 - 6 5 .
118
JONATHAN J. PRICE
intellectuals w h o tried to elevate their people's dignity a b o v e that o f the arrogant Greeks. J o s e p h u s ' literary targets were not e x a c d y o n the main reading curriculum o f the social and literary élite in Flavian R o m e . His most ardent a n d consistent interests r e m a i n e d not those w h i c h p r e o c c u p i e d a n d fascinated the writers in R o m e , but those w h i c h continued to agitate in the East. His persistent persona and lit erary project were J e w i s h .
40
J o s e p h u s ' self-professed identity, his m a n n e r a n d style o f writing, a n d his o w n interests, kept h i m isolated at R o m e for the last thirty years o f his life.
41
T h i s was p a r d y the result o f R o m a n prejudice, as
c a n b e g a u g e d from Tacitus and Juvenal. J o s e p h u s , in his lifetime project, n o t only d i d not shed his Jewish identity but emphasized it. J o s e p h u s ' exclusion was also p a r d y self-imposed. His interests a n d literary purposes, as well as his artistic technique, r e m a i n e d p r o foundly provincial, despite his location in the capital. His enduring c o n c e r n s are what ultimately gave his writings their m a i n content a n d character. Y e t w e k n o w more about J u d a i s m because J o s e p h u s 42
did not reach for Romanitas, as did other R o m a n historians writing in Greek, like Dionysius a n d A p p i a n .
4 0
Cf. the statements at BJ. 6 . 1 0 7 , A J. 2 0 . 2 6 3 , and note W a l b a n k , " T r e a s o n ' a n d R o m a n D o m i n a t i o n , " 2 6 3 , contrasting Josephus with other Greek historians o f R o m e : "Where Josephus differs from these is in his strong and persistent identification with his native Jewish origins and with the Jewish state, to which R o m e represented a cultural as well as a political threat. H e was never a m e m b e r o f a hellenised elite; his earliest writings, even after his arrival in R o m e , were in A r a m a i c a n d his Greek h a d to be learnt." 4 1
N o t e two other investigations o f Josephus' provincial outlook: D . D a u b e , "Typology in Josephus," JJS 31 (1980): 1 8 - 3 6 , esp. 3 5 - 6 , an illuminating contrast between Dionysius and Josephus which points out that Josephus shows that the Jews had a longer history than the R o m a n s , that he sharply distinguishes R o m a n s from Jews and, in contrast to Dionysius' justification o f the R o m a n right to rule because they are stronger (but also virtuous), that he saw R o m a n s as ruling b y G o d ' s plan until Jews repent. S. J. D . C o h e n , "History and Historiography in the Against Apion of Josephus," in Essays in Jewish Historiography (ed. A . Rapoport-Albert; 1 9 8 8 , repr. Adanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 1 - 1 2 , demonstrates that Josephus' central claim in the Contra Apionem, namely that the unanimity a m o n g Jewish accounts proves their veracity whereas the myriad opinions and debates a m o n g Greek historians prove their instability as regards truth, would be "absurd" to any Greek or R o m a n intel lectual. T h e Greek notion o f disagreement being part o f the search for truth con trasts with the notion o f the undisturbed unity o f revealed truth which Josephus believed in, that is, truth delivered from a divine source instead o f through dialec tic and argumentation. 4 2
A point nicely m a d e by M . G o o d m a n , 'Josephus as a R o m a n Citizen," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 3 2 9 - 3 8 . N o t e also the classic article by Z . Yavetz, "Reflections on Titus and Josephus" cited above.
PART
LITERARY
T W O
QUESTIONS
"BY T H E W A T E R S OF BABYLON": JOSEPHUS A N D GREEK POETRY HONORA HOWELL
CHAPMAN
CALIFORNIA S T A T E UNIVERSITY,
FRESNO
INTRODUCTION
In an essay dated N o v e m b e r 12, 1956, V l a d i m i r N a b o k o v explains to the readers o f his n e w novel Lolita that he had originally c o m p o s e d "a short story s o m e thirty pages l o n g " o n roughly the same theme in his native Russian back in 1940, but after leaving Paris for America, he soon destroyed it. T h e story, he claims, continued to "plague" him, h o w e v e r , and so N a b o k o v , n o w in N e w Y o r k state, d e c i d e d to try to c o m p o s e "a n e w treatment o f the theme, this time in
English—the
language o f m y first governess in St. Petersburg, circa 1903, a Miss 1
R a c h e l H o m e . " H e concludes his essay with the following statement: None o f my American friends have read my Russian books and thus every appraisal on the strength o f my English ones is bound to be out of focus. M y private tragedy, which cannot, and indeed, should not, be anybody's concern, is that I had to abandon my natural idiom, my untrammeled, rich, and infinitely docile Russian tongue for a secondrate brand o f English, devoid o f any o f those apparatuses—the baffling mirror, the black velvet backdrop, the implied associations and tradi tions—which the native illusionist, frac-tails flying, can magically use to transcend the heritage in his own way. 2
Like the typical A m e r i c a n audience w h o has not read N a b o k o v ' s works in Russian, most o f the readers o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum Judaicum in Attic G r e e k p r o b a b l y had never seen his original first edition o f his a c c o u n t o f the war as c o m p o s e d in his "native t o n g u e . "
3
We,
like his audience living under R o m a n rule, read his extant western a c c o u n t o f the war, for w h i c h Josephus states that he "used s o m e
1
V . N a b o k o v , Lolita ( N e w Y o r k : Putnam, in appendix. 2
3
1955), essay dated N o v e m b e r 12, 1 9 5 6 ,
Ibid. B.J. 1.3. It is uncertain h o w m a n y editions of this Greek text were circulated.
122
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
assistants for the G r e e k language" (C. Ap. 1.50: x p ^ ^ e v o q n o i npbq xf|V 'EAAmnSoc (pcovriv auvepyoiq). D i d Josephus e m p l o y these ovvepyoi in order to inject what N a b o k o v calls "the baffling mirror, the black velvet b a c k d r o p " into his G r e e k version o f the Bellum? Stepping aside from this bedeviled question o f the assistants for a m o m e n t , w e should concentrate o n the w o r d oeco<;"). In any case, Josephus w o u l d certainly have k n o w n from l o o k i n g at the G r e e k o n the scroll o r from listening to it b e i n g read whether it h a d the right "literary s o u n d " in trying to pitch a persuasive argument a b o u t the war to his readers. H o w so? A t the e n d o f his Antiquitates, Josephus informs his readers that he has g o n e well b e y o n d the b o u n d s o f a typical J u d e a n education b y learning G r e e k literature, b o t h prose and poetry: exco yap ouoAoyot^evovrcapaTCOV O U O E O V C O V nXzioxov autcov KCCICX xr\v ercixcbpiov m i nap' fijiiv 7cai5e(av 8ia8aca uetaaxeiv rqv ypaiiucmiaiv euTieipiav avataxpcbv, xr\v 8e Tiepl rnvrcpocpopavotKpipeiavrcdxpicx;EKCUXVGEV a\)vr|Geia For my compatriots admit that in our Jewish learning I far excel them. I have also laboured strenuously to partake o f the realm of Greek prose [or: learning] and poetry, after having gained a knowledge o f Greek grammar [or: after acquiring practice in writing], although the habitual use o f my native tongue has prevented [or: the usages o f our nation have prevented] my attaining precision in the pronunciation. 4
Niese chose not to include the underlined phrase c o n c e r n i n g poetry, whereas Feldman d o e s include it in his L o e b edition. T h e
manu
scripts here at A.J. 2 0 . 2 6 3 d o not agree: A has the entire
phrase
underlined a b o v e , E ( p i t o m e ) r e m o v e s noXXa f r o m the e n d o f the phrase, while M and W have n o phrase c o n c e r n i n g poetry. B y just looking at the c o n c l u s i o n o f the Antiquitates starting at 2 0 . 2 5 9 , o n e sees that manuscripts M and W noticeably omit material found in A :
4
5
A.J. 2 0 . 2 6 3 (trans. Feldman, L C L ) , with his alternatives in his footnotes. This is apparent in rest of Book 2 0 , also, but not at quite the same rate per sentence. 5
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
123
twice in 2 6 0 , o n c e in 2 6 1 , twice in 2 6 3 , o n c e in 2 6 4 , and o n c e in 266. Even if s o m e o n e d i d later a d d to J o s e p h u s ' original text the idea o f h i m studying also G r e e k poetry, w e c a n nevertheless see through a close examination o f the Bellum the results o f J o s e p h u s having b e c o m e acquainted with a n d then having used specific w o r d s and themes from G r e e k poetry in writing his a c c o u n t o f the war. H e should b e granted ultimate credit for this effort, since his was the only n a m e affixed to the scrolls, not that o f any J o e the cxuvepyóq. In the leisure he says he enjoyed at R o m e , the author Flavius Josephus was the mastermind o f this project o f a G r e e k version o f the Bellum, and w e c a n certainly attribute to h i m the c o m m o n sense and literary talent to w e a v e particular references to G r e e k poetry into his G r e e k text. W h e t h e r he m a d e s o m e o r all o f the p o e t i c selections himself, o r left at least part o f this task to his auvepyoi, o r hired the avvepyoi to teach h i m m o r e as they w e n t through the process o f editing the text together, d o e s not preclude the fact that poetic allusions a p p e a r in the Bellum for the audience to catch. A s a point o f c o m p a r i s o n , w e should consider J o s e p h u s ' remark a b o u t the c o n t e m p o r a r y his torian Iustus b e i n g "well trained in the G r e e k sort o f e d u c a t i o n . "
6
F r o m this w e c a n imagine that Iustus' text On the Judean Kings also provided poetic allusions, perhaps ones even m o r e clever than Josephus' o w n . Since, h o w e v e r , Iustus' w o r k is not extant, this is m e r e spec 7
ulation. Furthermore, Lisa U l l m a n n and Jonathan Price have already convincingly argued in their study o f "the dramatic technique, lan guage and even structure o f BJ's narrative o f the fatal intrigues in H e r o d ' s c o u r t " that "the dramatic structure and language o f the H e r o d i a n domestic narrative involved creative choices so far-reaching that they c o u l d only have b e e n the p r o d u c t o f J o s e p h u s ' o w n artis tic decisions a n d control o v e r the material; his notorious 'assistants' 8
are thus p u s h e d to the p e r i p h e r y . " W e should, therefore, keep o u r
6
Vita 4 0 (trans. M a s o n , BJP 9). Ibid., 4 6 , n. 2 4 8 , offers that Photius, Bibl. 3 3 , describes Iustus' text "as 'most concise' in style." A concise style, however, would not rule out allusion; see, for instance, A . Foucher, "Nature et formes de l'«histoire tragique» a R o m e , " Latomus 5 9 . 4 (2000): 7 7 3 - 8 0 1 on Tacitus' use o f Seneca. N o t e that in describing his own education in the Antiquitates Judaicae Josephus never attributes to himself Iustus' "craftiness and a kind o f guile through words," which were considered the c o m m o n tricks o f the rhetorical trade; see M a s o n ' s long note to Vita 4 5 (BJP 9) concerning complaints about sophists. L . U l l m a n n a n d J. Price, " D r a m a a n d History in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum" SCI 21 (2002): 9 7 - 1 1 1 , here 9 8 . 7
8
124
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
eye out for both p o e t i c language and structure w h e n reading
the
Bellum for allusions. W h y w o u l d Josephus engage in this kind o f literary education (and even e m p l o y others) w h e n writing the Bellum? I w o u l d respond that b e y o n d the desire for personal glory o r for setting the r e c o r d straight, Josephus went to all this trouble in o r d e r to create a text that w o u l d persuade educated readers with its refined Attic style. H e c o u l d d o this, in part, b y tapping into a w o r l d o f literary allusions available in G r e e k poetry. Allusion has the p o w e r b o t h to delight a n d to per suade an audience far m o r e than any a c c o u n t o f the bare facts c a n because allusion engages the audience's imagination in a g a m e o f making mental c o n n e c t i o n s between p e o p l e , places, events, myths, a n d ideas that otherwise might seem remote, yet their similarities resound through time and space. B e y o n d b e i n g entertaining in a n d o f itself, detecting the allusion can enrich the reader's perception a n d reception o f what the author m a y b e c o n v e y i n g through choices o f verbal phrasing, context, and overall organization. T h e audience m a y make connections unintended b y the original author, as most authors will attest h a p p e n s ,
9
but this only proves the strength o f the g a m e
inherent in all reading. J o s e p h Pucci has s h o w n quite well in his recent b o o k The FullKnowing Reader that though rhetorical treatises in the first century h a d n o specific term for "allusion" per se, since the label allusio as a lit erary term seems to b e first attested in Cassiodorus,
10
writers in R o m e
were, o f course, well aware o f b o r r o w i n g o r referring to the works o f their predecessors, especially the G r e e k poets. After detailing the evolution o f scholarship o n this topic o f allusion, Pucci offers his o w n description o f allusion: The literary allusion is the verbal moment in a subsequent text o f a specific and verifiable verbal moment in a prior text, generated through the collusion o f authorial and readerly intent, neither controlled nor limited by the language that constitutes it, in which a bundle o f poten tial meanings obtains, retrievable at any given time only in part.... When the Greeks and Romans thought about literary borrowing, for exam ple, they seem also to have framed their concept against the compe-
9
O n this issue, see U . E c o , "Between author and text," in Interpretation and Overinterpretation (ed. S Collini; Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1992), 6 7 - 8 8 . J. Pucci, The Full-Knowing Reader: Allusion and the Power of the Reader in the Western Literary Tradition ( N e w Haven: Y a l e University Press, 1998), 5 2 . 1 0
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
125
tencies o f a powerful reader, a tack inherited and vigorously devel oped by Christian litterateurs in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. 11
R e a d e r and author, therefore, b o t h take part in the " c o l l u s i o n , " the act o f playing together with the text, and with various purposes in m i n d . T h i s , h o w e v e r , is not necessarily an easy g a m e . In o r d e r to play well, the reader o f the Bellum should b e acquainted with " p r i o r " texts, whatever they m a y b e , and since w e as m o d e r n readers have access to only a small fraction o f G r e c o - R o m a n texts a n d other cul tural material, w e ' r e fairly hamstrung. Josephus claims that his most esteemed original a u d i e n c e i n c l u d e d the H e r o d i a n s , w h o he says were " m e n w h o had reached the highest degree o f Greek education."
12
T h i s education in G r e e k literature seems to b e considered a pre requisite for truly appreciating the text, catching the allusions, and making mental c o n n e c t i o n s o f o n e ' s o w n . Furthermore, for the author there is real difficulty inherent in using any other author's prior work, especially that o f a great artist. Consider the a c c o u n t in Donatus o f Vergil's witty remark o n b o r r o w i n g H o m e r : Asconius Pedianus in his book 'against Virgil's detractors', made a few objections himself, mostly relating to fact (historia) and based on his taking so much from Homer. He reports that Virgil defended himself against this charge by saying: 'And why don't they try the same thefts? They would soon understand that it's easier to pinch Hercules' club than a line from Homer.' 13
Writing a truly excellent piece o f literature like the Aeneid that stands the test o f time and earns its o w n b r a n d o f immortality
through
e n g a g e m e n t with b o t h great literature o f the past a n d audiences o f the future is certainly a labor to m a t c h Hercules' o w n . Josephus suc c e e d e d in p r o d u c i n g a prose history, the Bellum, and it has c o n t i n u e d to b e read and used throughout the centuries in large part because his a c c o u n t describes the history before and after the destruction o f Jerusalem; this turned out to b e o f tremendous interest to Christian readers, w h o then preserved the text for later interested audiences. These classically trained readers noted the "dramatic" tone o f particular
11
Ibid., 4 7 - 4 8 . Pucci combats the notion that allusion is the same as the ancient ideas o f imitatio or u(ur|ai<; on 8 6 . 12
Vita 3 5 9 , trans. M a s o n , BJP 9. Donatus, Life of Virgil 186, transl. in D . A . Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1981), 1 8 8 - 8 9 . 1 3
126
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
scenes. In this p a p e r I shall explore in m o r e detail specific allusions to different types o f G r e e k poetry p o p u l a r at the time Josephus wrote the Bellum. Historical prose and poetry were not considered as far apart in antiquity as o n e might first think. J o s e p h u s ' c o n t e m p o r a r y Quintilian describes historiography in his h a n d b o o k o n oratory in the follow ing way: Historia quoque alere oratorem quodam uberi iucundoque suco potest; verum et ipsa sic est legenda, ut sciamus, plerasque eius virtutes oratori esse vitandas. Est enim proxima poetis et quodammodo carmen solutum, et scribitur ad narrandum non ad probandum, totumque opus non ad actum rei pugnamque praesentem, sed ad memoriam posteritatis et ingenii famam componitur; ideoque et verbis remotioribus et liberioribus figuris narrandi taedium evitat. 14
In Quintilian's o p i n i o n , historiography c a n b e a quodammodo carmen solutum, a kind o f p o e t r y without the restrictions o f meter, but it p o s sesses traits that he thinks are not entirely useful o r desirable w h e n c o m p o s i n g forensic rhetoric. T h e fact that p o e t i c references
15
permeate Josephus' Bellum is indis
putable. H . St. J. T h a c k e r a y published his famous series o f lectures in w h i c h he discusses J o s e p h u s ' use o f Attic tragedians,
16
and he also
edited the L o e b version o f the Bellum with an eye towards J o s e p h u s ' literary b o r r o w i n g s .
17
T h a c k e r a y notes that his o w n analysis o f the
" d r a m a " surrounding H e r o d is inspired b y Eusebius' response to this portion o f the Bellum as xpayucri opajiaxoupyla.
18
Thackeray proceeds
to offer briefly specific examples o f b o r r o w i n g s in the Bellum from Thucydides, Herodotus, X e n o p h o n , Demosthenes, H o m e r , Sophocles,
1 4
Quintilian, Inst. 1 0 . 1 . 3 1 ; also see 1 0 . 1 . 7 3 - 7 5 on the merits of the Greek his torians, and 1 0 1 - 1 0 4 on the highlights of R o m a n historiography; Josephus appears in neither list. Antoine Foucher uses this passage as a launching point for his study o f the influence of epic poetry on Latin historiography from Sallust to A m m i a n u s Marcellinus, Historia proxima poetis (Bruxelles: Latomus, 2 0 0 0 ) . 1 5
R . T h o m a s chooses to use the term "reference" instead of "allusion" in his Reading Virgil and his Texts: Studies in Intertextuality (Ann A r b o r : University of Michigan Press, 1999). W . Petrovitz, "Towards a G r a m m a r of Allusion: A Cross-Linguistic Study o f Vergil's Seventh Bucolic" CW 9 6 . 3 (2003): 2 5 9 - 7 0 , conveniendy describes recent modern classical scholarship on allusion. Also see S. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry ( N e w Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1998). 1 6
H . St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian ( N e w Y o r k : Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929). H . St. J. Thackeray, ed. and tr., Josephus, The Jewish War, Books I-III (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), xvi-xix. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.8, in Thackeray, The Jewish War, xvi, n. b. 1 7
1 8
127
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
Vergil, and Sallust. Overall, h o w e v e r , Louis Feldman has d o n e b y far the most scholarship o n h o w J o s e p h u s ' works contain allusions to classical poetry; he has argued, for instance, that Josephus m o d e l e d his description o f the Aqedah in the Antiquitates u p o n Euripides' Iphigenia 19
at Aulis.
Feldman's most sweeping study appears in his p a p e r enti-
d e d " T h e Influence o f the G r e e k Tragedians o n J o s e p h u s , "
20
which
briefly traces general trends in rhetorical training and historiography throughout the Hellenistic p e r i o d a n d then provides an arsenal o f examples o f p o e t i c allusions from G r e e k tragedy found m o s d y in the Antiquitates. H e r e , h o w e v e r , I shall concentrate instead u p o n h o w poetic allusions from different genres function in only a few select passages o f the Bellum. F o r a h u m o r o u s but instructive l o o k at w h i c h G r e e k poets in par ticular
were highly esteemed in R o m a n e d u c a t i o n
21
only a d e c a d e
o r so before Josephus wrote his Bellum, w e can turn to Petronius' novel Satyricon. T h e fragmentary text w e have opens with the narrator Encolpius ranting about the decline o f e l o q u e n c e ever since students started declaiming about "pirates" o r "tyrants" o r "oracles advising the sacrifice o f three o r m o r e virgins during a plague": Qui inter haec nutriuntur, non magis sapere possunt quam bene olere qui in culina habitant... Nondum iuvenes declamationibus continebantur, cum Sophocles aut Euripides invenerunt verba quibus deberent loqui. Nondum umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat, cum Pindarus novemque lyrici Homericis versibus canere timuerunt. . . A d summam, quis postea Thucydidis, quis Hyperidis ad famam processit? (Sat. 2) Petronius is clearly having a great deal o f fun making a relatively low-life character c o m m e n t o n c o n t e m p o r a r y education and literature, and in this playful scene w e find the ready material for mid-firstcentury literary allusion.
22
1 9
T h e sacrifice of Isaac is found in A.J. 1 . 2 2 2 - 2 3 6 . See L. H . Feldman, "Josephus as Biblical Interpreter: T h e ' A q e d a h , " JQR 7 5 . 3 (1985): 2 1 2 - 5 2 , and also his sum mary of hellenizations in Josephus in his chapter "Mikra in the Writings of Josephus," in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M . J . M u l d e r ; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 4 8 1 - 8 5 . 2 0
L . H . Feldman, " T h e Influence of the Greek Tragedians on Josephus," in The Howard Gilman International Conferences I: Hellenic and Jewish Arts (ed. A . O v a d i a h ; T e l Aviv University: R A M O T Publishing H o u s e , 1998), 5 1 - 8 0 . For a recent study of R o m a n education, see R . Cribiore, Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 1 ) . Tacitus also highlights these particular poets w h e n his character M a t e r n u s speaks in Dialogus 1 2 . 5 , but he does not mention Pindar and replaces Thucydides with Lysias in his list of influential authors. 2 1
2 2
128
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
I w o u l d like to focus o n Encolpius' choices o f s o m e o f the m o s t eloquent poets o f G r e e c e , w h o s e works it appears Josephus had read o r possibly even heard p e r f o r m e d : Euripides.
24
23
H o m e r , Pindar, Sophocles, a n d
In d o i n g so, I shall concentrate o n examples o f possible
G r e e k texts and songs that w e can hear J o s e p h u s playing in a n e w prose tune b y the waters o f the n e w Babylon, R o m e . F o r all writ ers in the G r a e c o - R o m a n w o r l d , H o m e r ' s epics established the lit erary benchmark for expressing individual prowess while acknowledging the inevitable tragedy o f death, especially in warfare, as the e n d for all mortals. Pindar's lyric p o e t r y p r o v i d e d a m o d e l for m o m e n t a r y celebration o f h u m a n a c h i e v e m e n t . Finally, the G r e e k dramatists w e r e particularly suitable for J o s e p h u s ' literary purpose given their focus o n reversal o f fortune, loss, and destruction. T h o u g h the J u d e a n Psalms a n d o t h e r scriptures surely w e r e a repertoire familiar t o J o s e p h u s f r o m c h i l d h o o d a n d then as a priest at the t e m p l e at Jerusalem, I leave the examination o f allusions involving that mate rial in J o s e p h u s ' writings to another paper. Overall, Josephus m a y n o t have quite "attained the stature o f T h u c y d i d e s , " to b o r r o w Encolpius' phrase, but he certainly c a m e close, especially in the eyes o f later Christian readers.
HOMER
In Contra Apionem Josephus attests to H o m e r ' s oral poetry being the beginning o f G r e e k literature.
25
H o m e r ' s poetry was, in fact, the basis
o f anyone's G r e e k education in antiquity. Even a recalcitrant student like N e r o found H o m e r useful, as Suetonius relates: " A n d o n c e w h e n he was m o a n i n g to his classmates about the charioteer for the Greens w h o was d r a g g e d [by his horses], a n d his teacher scolded him, he
2 3
A s A . Ford, "From Letters to Literature: Reading the 'Song Culture' of Classical Greece," in Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (ed. H . Yunis; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 5 - 3 7 , reminds us (on 37): " M o r e generally, I urge that readers of early Greek poetry realize they are dealing with something m o r e than verbal patterning. Like all song, this song had a social life, a n d that life was its most meaningful presence, however ephemeral, variable, a n d hard to retrieve it m a y be." 2 4
0 . Andersen and V . R o b b i n s have examined these authors with respect to the gospels in "Paradigms in H o m e r , Pindar, the Tragedians, a n d the N e w Testament," Semeia 6 4 (1993): 3 - 3 1 . 2 5
C Ap.
1.12.
129
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
lied and said that he was talking a b o u t H e c t o r . "
26
This same H o m e r i c
scene involving H e c t o r will b e useful to Josephus, as w e shall s o o n see. In a 1908 publication in Latin o n J o s e p h u s ' use o f rhetoric in the Bellum, the scholar W o l f f c o m m e n t e d briefly o n t w o examples o f what he called " H o m e r i s m u s . " O n e is a short phrase from A g r i p p a ' s speech in B o o k 2 and the other is the exclamation a Seitan ( " p o o r wretches!") derived from b o t h the Iliad and the Odyssey and used in J o s e p h u s ' o w n set speech in B o o k 5 .
27
T w o decades later T h a c k e r a y
p r o v i d e d a fine, short list o f H o m e r i c w o r d s
28
in his introduction to
the Bellum. I, instead, w o u l d like to s h o w h o w allusions to H o m e r ' s poetry operate o n b o t h the small verbal level as well as the larger scene level in the Bellum. F o r a verbal e x a m p l e not p r o v i d e d b y T h a c k e r a y w e c a n turn to B o o k 2, w h e r e Josephus stages a dramatic scene at the temple with all the priests and Levites begging the people not to anger the R o m a n s to the p o i n t that they w o u l d p l u n d e r "the treasures b e l o n g i n g to 29
G o d " (xcov Geicov Kei|nn^icov). H e continues: xoxtc, 8' apxiepei<; avxoix; rjv ( S e w KaxaiLicouevo'uc u£v xfic KeyaAiic yuuvoix; 8e xa oxepva xcbv 8o9t|xcov Sieppnyiievcov (B.J. 2.322)
koviv,
This scene in a nutshell is a brief allusion to the a g o n y o f Priam at the e n d o f the Iliad. First o f all, the n o u n K£iur|A,iov is a noticeably H o m e r i c w o r d used to describe treasure, including that o f K i n g Priam, but it is found rarely in G r e e k prose, as LSJ notes, e x c e p t in the works o f J o s e p h u s — 1 5 times in the Bellum a l o n e . all manuscripts o f the Bellum agree that the v e r b
30
Furthermore,
Kaxccuixco
appears
here as a present middle participle, with the n o u n K£(pccA,f| in either the accusative (which Niese chose, following mss. P A M ) o r the genitive.
2 6
Suetonius, Nero 22. A . Wolff, De Flavii Josephi Belli Iudaici Scriptoris Studiis Rhetoricis (Halis S a x o n u m , 1908), 9 , referring to B.J. 2 . 3 4 7 and 5 . 3 7 6 . W o l f f does not provide the H o m e r i c citations, but aSeiAxn is found at / / . 1 7 . 2 0 1 and Od. 2 0 . 3 5 1 . 2 7
2 8
Thackeray, The Jewish
2 9
B.J.
3 0
War, xviii.
2.321.
A Perseus scan produces 5 7 results for the word, with the majority o f instances being in H o m e r or Josephus; otherwise, it appears in a few papyri, twice in Herodotus (3.41 a n d 6 . 6 2 , which are both colorful stories but d o not involve grieving elders), Strabo 12.3.31 on Mithridates' treasures, and Appian, Bell. civ. 3 . 2 . 1 7 , where Octavius addresses A n t o n y about Caesar's treasures, after having just quoted from Achilles in Iliad 18 on fate; this could lead one to think that there is a H o m e r i c allusion working here as well with the word choice.
130
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
T h e a p p r o x i m a t e phrase appears again at 2.601 (7tepippr|^du£vo<; jiev XTJV
£G&f|xoc, Kaxanaadjievoq 8e xr\c, Ke(pa\r\<;
KOVIV)
to describe J o s e p h u s '
o w n appearance at T a r i c h a e a e , though only manuscript L has the v e r b Kaxajidco as an aorist m i d d l e participle, whereas the rest use the same form o f Kaxarcdooco, "sprinkle." T h i s v e r b Kaxarcdaaco is, in fact, the o n e used in the Septuagint to describe situations w h e r e p e o p l e sprinkle dust u p o n themselves as an act o f great sorrow, as in J o b a n d Esther,
31
for instance. T h e v e r b Kaxajidco, h o w e v e r , is extremely rare
in extant G r e e k literature
32
a n d appears most notably only o n c e in
H o m e r , also in the middle v o i c e , to describe the c o n d i t i o n in w h i c h the messenger goddess Iris finds Priam after the death o f H e c t o r : djLicpl 8e noXkr\ KOTipo^ env Kecpq^p xe m i cruxevi xoio yepovxoq xr|v pa K\)X,iv86(ievo<; Kaxaiifioaxo xep<^ eflon. (Iliad 24.163-165) v
By c h o o s i n g this extraordinary v e r b Kaxajidco, J o s e p h u s invites the reader to r e m e m b e r the suffering o f Priam, w h o , though he has lost a son, nevertheless follows the will o f Z e u s b y pleading with his son's killer, Achilles, a n d offering c o p i o u s gifts from his palace in e x c h a n g e for H e c t o r ' s corpse. W h i l e Priam covers himself in dung, the reli gious officials in the Bellum use the dust traditional to J u d e a n p r a c tice. T h i s v e r b in c o m b i n a t i o n with the n o u n Koviq c o u l d allude to b o t h the Septuagint and H o m e r
3 3
and perhaps even to a choral o d e
in S o p h o c l e s ' Antigone, w h i c h , h o w e v e r , is a highly d e b a t e d passage.
34
[I shall discuss allusions to the Antigone later.] T h e H o m e r i c allusion with the v e r b Kaxajidco, nevertheless, is clear here in the Bellum a n d m o v e s the reader trained in H o m e r to see this dire situation pre dicting the loss o f the temple's wealth as o n e o f epic p r o p o r t i o n s . For a b r o a d e r situational allusion to H o m e r ' s Iliad, w e c a n turn to the m u r d e r o f a certain N i g e r the Peraean in B o o k 4. Josephus intro duces the death notice b y characterizing N i g e r in H o m e r i c fashion
3 1
J o b 2 : 1 2 , and possibly 1:20, and Esth 4 : 1 ; M a s o n (BJP 9), p. 8 3 , n. 6 5 9 , o n Vita 1 3 8 , refers to the biblical tradition and provides the Esther reference. 3 2
Besides the two instances in the Bellum Judaicum, LSJ cites the passage from the Iliad; Sophocles, Ant. 6 0 1 , and possibly Pherecrates 1 2 1 , where it is e m e n d e d from miaicoiuTiGovTai. Achilles leaves Hector's corpse in the dust: Iliad 2 4 . 1 8 . Sophocles m a y have changed the H o m e r i c dung to dust/ash (KOV(<;) at Ant. 6 0 2 to use with the verb K a x a u d o ) , since her use o f dust to cover the corpse o f her dead brother Polyneices is a main theme ( 2 4 7 , 2 5 6 , 4 0 9 , 429); all manuscripts o f the Antigone read Koviq, but Jortin suggested KOTU<;, which was then adopted by later editors. 3 3
3 4
131
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
as an avfip a p i a x o q
35
w h e n fighting against the R o m a n s . N i g e r then
suffers a death that shares features with H e c t o r ' s in Iliad
Book 22.
T h o u g h N i g e r is not as p r o m i n e n t a h e r o in the Bellum
as H e c t o r
is in the Iliad, the w a r ,
36
he does have s o m e fine m o m e n t s at the b e g i n n i n g o f
including an a m a z i n g reappearance from a cavern after
b e i n g p r e s u m e d d e a d for three days at A s c a l o n . J o s e p h u s allows Niger a dramatic death scene in o r d e r to highlight the wasteful cru elty o f the Zealots in killing such a valiant leader a n d in o r d e r to f o r e s h a d o w the c o m i n g destruction o f Jerusalem
in epic fashion.
Unlike H e c t o r w h o is dragged around after he dies, Niger is d r a g g e d
37
alive through the streets and then outside o f Jerusalem; b o t h m e n die
outside their respective cities. N i g e r pleads only for burial, but
his request is refused, just as happens to H e c t o r w h e n he begs Achilles for a p r o p e r funeral.
38
H e r e the allusion works m o r e o n the situational
than the verbal level. Josephus d o e s not, for instance, use H o m e r i c verbs for dragging o r b e g g i n g that appear in Iliad Hector.
39
with respect to
J o s e p h u s then conjures u p the following death curse:
avaipcujievoq 8e 6 Niyep xiuxopoix; Tcouaicnx; avxoTq ercripaaaxo AauxSv xe m i Xoijiov erci xcp TcoXejicp m i npbq obtaoi xdq aXXr\k(ov x i P £ * & 8fl navxa mxd xcov aaePcov eicvpcoaev 6 0e6<;, m i xo 8imi6xaxov, oxi yevaaaGai xfjq aX\r\kav anovoiaq eueMov OUK eiq uxxicpav axaaidaavxeq. (B.J. 4.361-362) £
Likewise, H e c t o r in his final gasps in Iliad
a
22 has w a r n e d Achilles
that his curse will b e "the cause o f the wrath o f the g o d s , " a n d that Paris a n d P h o e b u s A p o l l o will destroy Achilles at the Scaean G a t e s .
40
J o s e p h u s ' readers c o u l d certainly grasp and appreciate the clear allu sion to H e c t o r ' s death scene in H o m e r , w h i c h w o u l d bring with it
3 5
B.J. 4 . 3 5 9 . For instance, A g a m e m n o n is apiaxoq at Iliad 2 . 5 8 0 , as is T e l a m o n i a n A j a x at 2 . 7 6 8 (while Achilles is away). 3 6
A s H . St. J. Thackeray, The Jewish War, Books IV-VII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928), 1 0 5 , n. d, remarks: " H e distinguished himself in the open ing battle with Cestius, B. ii.520; was at one time governor of Idumaea, ii.566; and led two unsuccessful attacks on the R o m a n garrison at Ascalon, when he again w o n distinction and h a d a miraculous escape, iii. 1 1 - 2 8 . " 3 7
Josephus uses eovpexo (from aupco) here instead o f the H o m e r i c EXKCO. A m u c h later poet, Leontius (6th cent, C . E . ) , uses both verbs, eA,icco and avpco, to describe Hector's demise: m i naXi ^coaifip eiAxuae n p i a u i S n v 8{
B.J. 4 . 3 5 9 - 3 6 0 ; Hector begs at Iliad 2 2 . 3 3 8 - 3 4 3 . See note above on verbs of dragging. For begging, see B.J. 4 . 3 6 0 : iKexevev; cf. Iliad 2 2 . 3 3 8 A.ioaou' vnkp \|n>xfiv KXX a n d 2 2 . 3 4 5 yovvcov youva^eco. H o m e r , Iliad 2 2 . 3 5 8 - 3 6 0 . 3 9
4 0
132
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
all the associated pathos w h e n also recalling the p o i g n a n t family scene in Iliad
B o o k 6 and the quiet finality o f his funeral at the e n d
o f the p o e m . Josephus includes in the curse b o t h A,iuo<; (famine) a n d Amuoq (plague), w h i c h he has already e m p l o y e d in H e r o d ' s speech after an earthquake in B o o k l .
41
T h i s is a
time-honored
pairing in
G r e e k literature dating b a c k to H e s i o d , H e r o d o t u s , and T h u c y d i d e s , w h i c h his readers w o u l d immediately r e c o g n i z e . ple
42
In fact, the e x a m
from T h u c y d i d e s is especially relevant, because it involves the
oracle that the Athenians suddenly r e m e m b e r e d predicting plague (or alternatively, famine) w h e n w a r with the D o r i a n s c o m e s . Axnuoc; also recalls the p l a g u e beginning o f the Iliad
44
4 3
But
that strikes the G r e e k a r m y at the
after the priest Chryses prays to A p o l l o for
revenge against the Greeks. Finally, the reader o f the Bellum
c a n see that J o s e p h u s has trans
f o r m e d the H o m e r i c imagery o f eating in this death scene: H e c t o r ' s request that dogs n o t b e allowed to eat his b o d y (22.339), and then Achilles' harsh reply to H e c t o r ( w h o m he calls " d o g " in the vocative, 22.345) that he w o u l d like to hack a w a y H e c t o r ' s flesh and eat it raw (24.346 ff.), quent Bellum
45
b e c o m e s in Niger's curse a n d then in the subse
narrative a m e t a p h o r for the predatory b e h a v i o r o f the
rebels. In an episode s o o n to follow, in w h i c h the rebel leader S i m o n , out
o f anger o v e r his wife's kidnapping b y the Zealots, tortures a n d
kills p e o p l e foraging outside the walls o f Jerusalem, J o s e p h u s adds that S i m o n "because o f his excessive vexation almost e v e n ate the dead bodies."
46
A g a i n , the specific w o r d s are not necessarily H o m e r i c
vocabulary, but the anger stopping just short o f cannibalism is. A n y audience raised o n H o m e r c o u l d then associate the fall o f Jerusalem
11
BJ. 1.377. A t B.J. 4 . 1 3 7 Destinon suggests Xo\\i6c, for Xiuoq in the m a n u scripts; otherwise, Josephus will use only the adjective ^oiuco5f|<; at B.J. 6.2 a n d 6 . 4 2 1 . Famine plays a far larger role than pestilence in the Bellum Judaicum. 4 2
Hesiod, Op. 2 4 3 ; Herodotus 7 . 1 7 1 ; Thucydides 2 . 5 4 . Josephus later uses Thucydides' description o f the plague in his account of the death o f H e r o d in A.J. 1 7 . 1 6 8 , as D . Ladouceur has convincingly shown in " T h e D e a t h o f H e r o d T h e Great," CP 7 6 (1981): 2 5 - 3 4 . 4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
H o m e r , Iliad 1.43 ff., and 6 0 for A,oi|i6<;. H e c u b a wishes she could do virtually the same with Achilles at Iliad 2 4 . 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 .
B.J. 4 . 5 4 1 : 8 i ' i)7cepßoA.f|v dyavaKifiaeox; uovovouxi Kai veicpcov yeuonevoq xcov CGiuaxcov. Also, see B.J. 5 . 4 for the factions feeding on their o w n flesh, and 6 . 2 1 2 where the rebels almost literally eat h u m a n flesh. See m y remarks on M a r y in B o o k 6 below. Niger's curse combines main themes o f the Bellum Judaicum, including the madness o f the rebels and their strife.
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK
POETRY
133
that m u c h m o r e with the fall o f T r o y because o f this collection o f thematic allusions. H o w better to c o n v i n c e an audience o f the i m p o r tance o f this event than to link it with the single most m e m o r a b l e destrucdon o f a city in ancient history o r literature?
PINDAR
W h e n Josephus
studied G r e e k literature, he certainly w o u l d have
read Pindar along with H o m e r , since not only Petronius but also Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and Quintilian
47
make it very clear that
in the first century Pindar p r o v i d e d the "greatest hits" o f G r e e k lyric in his "austere" style, as Dionysius calls it.
48
A s any student will
admit, lyric poetry is not necessarily easy to read given its often c o n densed and intricate style, but at least it is m u c h shorter a n d
has
fewer w o r d s p e r line than epic. In addition, since Josephus lived at a time w h e n Pindar's songs c o u l d still b e heard p e r f o r m e d b y singers a c c o m p a n i e d b y the lyre, the lyrics w o u l d b e all the m o r e m e m o r a b l e , as are those o f songs t o d a y .
49
I w o u l d suggest, then, the possibility
that allusions to Pindar's poetry c a n b e found in the Bellum. N o t all o f Pindar, h o w e v e r , w o u l d have necessarily appealed to Josephus, considering his o w n remarks in Contra Apionem decrying myths c o n c o c t e d b y poets about the gods a n d goddesses, including their sex ual antics.
50
T h e r e f o r e , Pindar's famous Olympian I, for instance, with
its revised myth about Pelops not having b e e n served up as a meal for the g o d s but instead b e c o m i n g Poseidon's consort o n O l y m p u s where G a n y m e d e later shows u p ,
51
w o u l d , therefore, not have b e e n
a p o e t i c m o m e n t to w h i c h he w o u l d have chosen to allude w h e n celebrating J u d e a n success. Josephus might have found less " m y t h o l o g i c a l " material in Pindar m o r e appealing, instead. In the summary o f the life o f J o h n Hyrcanus in the Bellum, o n e finds a core g r o u p o f three words, euTcpayia, (p06vo<;,
4 7
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp. 2 2 , at length on Pindar; Quintilian, Inst. 8 . 6 . 7 1 : apud pricipem lyricorum Pindarum, and 1 0 . 1 . 6 1 . 4 8
Pindar was already a major source for the poets of R o m e ; see, for instance, H o r a c e , Carm. 4 . 2 : Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari. 4 9
Josephus also would have possibly had access to far more of Pindar's works than just the p o e m s that survive today, since his contemporaries quote from Pindaric works that are n o w lost. C. Ap. 2 . 2 3 9 ff., esp. 2 4 4 . Pindar, 01. 1 . 3 5 - 4 5 . 5 0
5 1
134
HONORA
HOWELL
CHAPMAN
a n d e\)8ai|Liov{a, w h i c h then appear in modified form in the paral lel passage in the Antiquitates, as well as in a description o f himself in the Vita: ripoq 8e x d q e v m p a y i a c огитог) те 'Icodvvov m i xcov яа(8соу (p96voq eyeipei a x a a i v xcov ercixcopicov, K a i noXXox к а х ' at>xcov a\)veA,06vxe<; о г ж fjpeuouv, uexpi Kai Ttpoq фауербу n6Xe\iov eKpuuo0evxe<; fixxcovxai. xo Aourov 5 ' еягрюгх; ev e u S a i u o v i a 'Icodvvr^ Kai x d к а х а тру d p x f i v к а А А л а х а 8ioiKT|oa<; ev x p i a i v oXoiq K a i x p i a K o v x a exeaiv erci ЯЕУХЕ г н о ц x e A e v x a , u a r a p i a x o s ovxcoq K a i к а х а ur|8ev e d a a q ecp' ёаг>хф uem>0rivai xfiv хг>хт|У. (B.J. 1 . 6 7 - 6 8 ) T p r a v c o 8ё ф06УОУ e K w n a e v я а р а xcov 'IovSaicov r\ e t m p a y i a , j i d X i a x a 8 ' o i Ф а р ю а и п какак; яро<; a u x o v e i x o v , а { р е о ц ovxeq uaa xcov 'IovSalcov, cbq K a i ev х о ц endvco 8е8т|Алжа|1еу. х о о а г п п у 8e excmai xfiv iaxuv я а р а хф яАт|0е1, cbq K a i к а х а paaiAecoq x i A i y o v x e q K a i к а х ' dpxiepecoq ег>0гх; яшхег>еа0а1. (Л J . 1 3 . 2 8 8 ; 2 8 9 - 2 9 8 o n H y r c a n u s a n d t h e P h a r i s e e s a n d S a d d u c e e s ) T p K a v o q 8e яаг>оа<; xfiv a x a a i v K a i цех' ax>xr\v picooaq ei)8ai|i6vcoc K a i xfiv d p x f i v S i o i K r i a d j i e v o q d p i a x o v х р б я о у e x e a i v e v i K a i x p i a K o v x a тгХета кахаАлясоу гногх; яеухе, xpicov xcov |ieyioxcov d ^ i o q hub хоЪ 0еог> кр10ец, архл<; хог> e0vo\)<; K a i тщ d p x i e p a x n c n q тщщ K a i ярофТ|хе(а<; • cruviiv y a p а й х ф x o 0eiov K a i xfiv xcov ueAAxSvxcov яроуусоочу яареТхеу аг>хф xe eiSevai K a i яроАеуе1У oifccoq, coaxe K a i яер 1 xcov 8гю xcov яреарихерсоу яаСбсоу o x i jj,f| (xevovaiv xcov ярауиахсоу K v p i o i яроегяеу. cbv xfiv к а х а а х р о ф ^ у е ц т о p.a0eiv o o o v тщ хог> яахрос; i m e p n a a v ег>хг)у{ас a ^ i o v афГ|уг|оаа0а1. (A.J. 1 3 . 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ) %
' О 5ё хоЪ A c u e i я а ц 'Icodvvnq, o v e\pa|Liev ev х о ц Г г а х а А , о ц 8 i a x p ( p e i v , яг)06и£уо<; я а у х а к а х а vovv jioi ярохсорегу, K a i 8Г e t w o i a c ; u£v e i v a i lie х о ц г ж п к б о ц , х о ц я о А е и а о ц 8ё S i ' екяА,г|£есо<;, о г ж ег> xfiv уусоцпу ехе0т|, к а х а А л х п у 8 ' аг>хф xfiv eufiv егжрауСау ферегу voui^cov е ц ф06УОУ e£a>KeiA,ev omi u i x p i o v . K a i я а г ю е г у ue х т ц e m w i a c еАлиооц, ei я а р а xcov гшпкосоу jiiaoq e ^ d y e i e v , еяег0еу х о г ц xfiv T i p e p i d S a K a x o i K o v v x a q K a i х о г ц xfiv Ieяфcopw [voui^cov] яро<; xomoiq 8e K a i xovq Г а р а р а , я б А е ц 8 ' e i a i v a i ) x a i xcov к а х а xfiv VaXiXaiav a i u e y i o x a i , xfjq npoq це ягахесос; а я о а х а у х а < ; аг)хф Яроах(0ео0а1-кре1ххоууаре^о1)ахрахлуп^£^а^^уёфааке^ (И&г 122-123) 52
Both J o s e p h Sievers and Steve M a s o n have analyzed and c o m p a r e d these passages in detail with an eye towards explaining the injection o f the story about the Pharisees and Sadducees into the A.J. 13 pas sage.
53
M a s o n , furthermore,
r e c e n d y has n o t e d the themes f o u n d
here, including G r e e k philosophical views o n envy, in his c o m m e n -
5 2
This appears again in Vita 1 2 5 . J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 1 4 6 - 5 2 ; S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 2 1 3 - 4 5 . 5 3
135
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
54
tary o n the Vita. I suggest that w e l o o k even further into the G r e e k literary b a c k g r o u n d . O n B.J. 1.67, Sievers c o m m e n t s : "It m a y sim ply
b e a topos to explain o p p o s i t i o n against a successful ruler."
55
M a s o n observes that the sentiment expressed in these passages about success breeding envy is a c o m m o n p l a c e o f Hellenistic historiography and "a characteristic J o s e p h a n t h e m e . "
56
Perhaps it is also a stock
explanation p r o v i d e d in rhetorical training, o r simply c o m m o n sense. Josephus, h o w e v e r , does noticeably strive to keep the verbal triad o f e u T c p a y i a , cpGovoq, and e\)8aiuovia in both the Bellum and the Antiquitates as descriptors for J o h n Hyrcanus, though with a c h a n g e in o r d e r and parts o f speech for the sake o f emphasis. By switching cpGovoq to b e the first item in the Antiquitates passage, he prepares the reader better for the negative material he will then insert a b o u t
conflict
involving the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In the passage
regard
ing himself in the Vita, he replaces the last element, £\)8aiuov{a, with £uxu%ia and e u v o m ; emx>%ia has already appeared as an additional element in the frame for the Antiquitates passage, a n d evvoia
only
redounds further to J o s e p h u s ' o w n character in the eyes o f others in the Vita. W h e n w e consider the larger picture o f J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k educa tion, perhaps it is not t o o far-fetched for us as readers to turn n o w also to the e p o d e o f Pindar's Pythian V I I : co MeyaKXeeq, b\iai xe m i rcpoyovcov. vecx 8' Evnpayiq xocipco xi- xo 8' axv\)|Liai, cpBovov ajLieipojievov xd KaA,d epya. <pavx( ye ^dv
oikco K E V dv8pi 7capn.ovin.av GdAAoiaav e\)8ai|Lioviav xd Kai xd cpepeaGai. ( 1 3 - 1 8 )
A p p e a r i n g here are the three terms, eurcpaym, cpGovoq, and euSctiuov(a, w h i c h Josephus has used in the same order to describe J o h n H y r c a n u s , his " h e r o "
5 7
w h o h a d p e r f o r m e d "fine d e e d s " for the
J u d e a n p e o p l e . A s stated before, Pindar m a y not b e the only source for such thoughts o r actual w o r d s , but considering his p r o m i n e n c e in R o m a n education at this time, I w o u l d argue that here the reader finds an allusive m o m e n t in the Bellum, w h i c h Josephus then reused
5 4
5 5
5 6
57
M a s o n , Life of Josephus (BJP 9), 6 6 , n. 4 3 5 , and 7 8 - 7 9 , n. 5 9 1 - 5 9 2 . Sievers, The Hasmoneans, 147. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 2 2 5 - 2 6 . Ibid., 2 2 5 .
136
HONORA H O W E L L
CHAPMAN
but altered in the Antiquitates and Vita for new effects. Pindar's Megacles is a hero at the Pythian games, c o m e s from the greatest city in Greece, Athens, and from "the widely powerful race o f the A l c m a e o n i d s . " T h e reader, after perceiving the verbal interplay between Josephus' texts and the e p o d e o f Pythian V I I , can then create associated m e a n ings with respect to J o h n Hyrcanus, as he, t o o , c o m e s from a great land with a great city, Jerusalem, and from a powerful family, the H a s m o n e a n s . M e g a c l e s was not a high priest o r a prophet, but his family certainly h a d a history o f strong influence o v e r Athens in set ting up d e m o c r a c y through the reforms o f Megacles' uncle, Cleisthenes, a n d later in p r o d u c i n g Pericles, w h o was the maternal n e p h e w o f M e g a c l e s and the greatest leader Athens ever had. I a m not neces sarily n o w suggesting that w e as Pucci's "full-knowing" readers leap to the conclusion that Josephus is inviting us to think that he him self is a latter-day Pericles because o f their shared descent from great families through their m o t h e r s ,
58
but I simply suggest that w h e n w e
read, w e have the p o w e r to create (and then even perhaps dismiss) possible meanings from the allusions in the texts. Pindar's references to M e g a c l e s ' success and g o o d fortune
make
perfect sense in the context o f Pythian V I I , as d o e s his c o m m e n t a r y o n envy, yet the source o f the envy, besides that o f being victorious, is left unstated in the p o e m . W e k n o w from elsewhere that M e g a c l e s was ostracized earlier in the same year as his chariot victory, perhaps for o p p o s i n g Themistocles' policies. In the J o s e p h a n passages, envy as a catalyst for oiacic, particularly in the Antiquitates, has p o s e d real p r o b l e m s o f narrative c o h e r e n c e ,
59
but w h e n w e consider envy as a
theme in light o f the Pindaric allusion, perhaps it b e c o m e s slighdy m o r e understandable that it is included in the J o s e p h a n passages. Furthermore, w e should note that the antistrophe ( 7 - 1 2 ) , w h i c h is the centerpiece o f Pythian V I I , mentions that the A l c m a e o n i d s had i m p r o v e d u p o n A p o l l o ' s temple at Delphi, w h i c h was the 6uxpaA,6<; o f the G r e e k world. C . M . B o w r a explains that "the
Alkmaionid
clan . . . h a d built a n e w marble p o r t i c o for the temple" and that "small pieces o f the A l k m a i o n i d p o r t i c o have b e e n f o u n d . "
60
Though
Josephus does not mention any temple-related construction projects in
5 8
5 9
m
5.62.
See Vita 2 on his connections through his mother to the H a s m o n e a n s . M a s o n , Flavins Josephus on the Pharisees, 2 1 9 . C . M . Bowra, The Odes of Pindar ( N e w York: Penguin, 1969), 3 5 , n. 9; Herodotus
137
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
the Bellum passage o n J o h n Hyrcanus, the historian d o e s s o o n m e n d o n H y r a c a n u s ' gift o f p r o p h e c y (B.J. 1 . 6 9 - 7 0 ) , w h i c h certainly resonates with the p r o m i n e n t oracular role o f A p o l l o ' s temple at Delphi. As S e n e c a the Elder says in his Suasoriae 3.7 a b o u t O v i d
using
Vergilian language, O v i d did it non subripiendi causa, sed palam mutuandi, 61
hoc animo ut vellet agnosci. Josephus m a y have d o n e the very same with Pindar's Pythian V I I . After all, as H o r a c e says (Ars 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 ) , gratia regum Pieriis temptata modis. W h a t could b e m o r e fitting an h o m a g e to his great H a s m o n e a n ancestor J o h n Hyrcanus than to d r a w from the Pindarici fontis ( H o r a c e , Ep. 1.3.10)?
SOPHOCLES
Despite H y r a c a n u s ' success, the line o f H a s m o n e a n rulers will meet with a curiously tragic e n d in the Bellum. W h e n the last H a s m o n e a n ruler Antigonus is being besieged b y H e r o d , the king leaves the Baris in o r d e r to b e g for m e r c y from the R o m a n c o m m a n d e r , Sossius, w h o has arrived from Syria with a massive army (B.J. 1.346). Josephus prefaces A n t i g o n u s ' prostration before Sossius with the c o m m e n t that Antigonus " h a d n o regard for his fortune either in the past o r n o w " (B.J. 1.353). T h i s is a m a n w h o has suffered a tragic reversal o f fortune, but pays n o h e e d to it. T h e R o m a n Sossius, though, i m m e d i ately spots the tragedy playing out at his feet: Lir\dkv ouxóv oÍKTsípaq rcpóq X T I V jieiaPo^v éneyekaGÉv xe áicpaxcd<; m i 'AvTvyóvriv eKataoev ox> \ir\v coq yuvaíicá y 0epov áq>TiK£v, áXk' b (iév 8e0ei<; ecpvtaxxxexo (B.J. 1.353) KCXKEWCX;
£
K
a
i
T h e allusion to the mythological A n t i g o n e is unmistakable. Sossius's w o r d p l a y is clever and á p r o p o s , a n d but it also reflects the tension o f gender in the extant tragedy w e k n o w b y Sophocles, where Antigone challenges C r e o n ' s p o w e r b y playing the "female" and the " m a l e " at the same time. Sossius does not have the " p r o p e r " reaction to tragedy, w h i c h is pity; instead, he laughs, as if A n t i g o n u s ' downfall were a c o m e d y . Josephus, h o w e v e r , has set this reaction u p nicely
6 1
O n this passage, see Pucci, The Full-Knowing Reader, 106; also K . Galinsky, "Greek and R o m a n D r a m a and the Aeneid" in Myth, History, and Culture in Republican Rome (ed. D . Braund and C . Gills; Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 9 1 , observes, "Again, this m a y well refer not just to verbal borrowings, but rather to the recognition, on Ovid's part, of Virgil's dramatic technique."
138
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
b y presenting Antigonus in a negative light up to this p o i n t in his a c c o u n t . T h e H a s m o n e a n king's |iexapo^r|, therefore, is n o t w o r t h y o f pity. S o o n after, Antigonus suffers a death, a c c o r d i n g to Josephus, " w o r t h y o f his base b e h a v i o r , " (afyoq {B.J.
zf\<; ayevveiaq): he is b e h e a d e d
1.357).
T h o u g h T h a c k e r a y does n o t p r o v i d e examples o f other allusions to S o p h o c l e s ' Antigone
in his introduction to the Bellum,
it seems quite
likely u p o n close examination that this particular play provides b o t h a verbal and a thematic b a c k d r o p for the history, since b o t h explore the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f civil w a r and the treatment o f corpses. Louis Feldman has discovered m a n y instances o f e c h o e s in the Bellum in the Antiquitates
o f all seven o f S o p h o c l e s ' extant tragedies,
62
w o u l d like to elaborate o n his observations c o n c e r n i n g the Beyond the verbal borrowings from this play in the Antiquitates,
and and I
Antigone. Feldman
c o r r e c d y points out with respect to the appearance o f the v e r b ui)8àco in the Bellum: in Antigone
" T h e v e r b jiuòàco, in the sense o f 'to d e c a y ' , is found
(410) with reference to the d e c a y i n g b o d y o f A n t i g o n e ' s
brother Polyneices. T h i s is the only o c c u r r e n c e in extant literature in w h i c h the verb, w h i c h usually means 'to drip', has this specific m e a n ing, other than the occurrence in Josephus (War 3.530, 4.383, 5.519)."
63
I w o u l d add to this that Josephus employs a w h o l e nexus o f words and actions from the Antigone
in his scenes from the w a r involving d e c a y -
ing corpses, thereby creating allusive m o m e n t s that invite the reader to consider the larger implications o f the pollution and overall civil strife, and w h o ' s to b l a m e for all o f it. In these passages Josephus is specifically alluding to the G u a r d ' s speech ( 4 0 7 - 4 4 0 ) to C r e o n a b o u t having just caught A n t i g o n e performing a ritual burial o f her brother. A t the beginning the guard explains almost comically: K O V I V aripavxec;, r\ K a x e i x e xòv veieuv, |LU)8CQV xe acoua yuuvcGoavxeq ei), Ka9t|Lie9' aicpcov EK nàycov i)7cr|ve[ioi,
Tcaaav
ÓGUTW
arc'
amov
|ITJ fiàXoi myevyoxeq
(Antigone
409-412)
This speech is o n e o f the m o r e m e m o r a b l e moments in Greek tragedy, a n d Josephus will use its key ideas o f d e c a y i n g corpses and their stench for tragic effect several times. First, after a terrible naval loss
Feldman, " T h e Influence of Greek Tragedians on Josephus," Ibid., 6 6 .
62-75.
139
JOSEPHUS AND GREEK POETRY
at Lake Genessar against Vespasian, J u d e a n b o d i e s wash ashore and rot o n the b e a c h : 5eivTi 5ё тосц е£л<; ЛЦ£р<*Ц rcepieixe xcopav 6b\m те ка1 буц- oi jiev yap aiyiatan vavayicov аца m i 5IOI6O\>VTCOV eye^iov асоцатсоу, еккаюцеуог 8E каг црбсоутес oi veKpol TOV aepa 5ie
Sophoclean vocabulary o f decaying bodies and
their
stench
c o m e s through quite clearly, as well as the issue o f w h o has d o n e the d e e d . [Josephus will use b o t h the Attic f o r m 6GUT| as well as the early o r later G r e e k form 65ur|, whereas he will use o n l y veicpoq, not 64
the p o e t i c veiax;, for the w o r d " c o r p s e " in the Bellum.]
As Feldman
has n o t i c e d , the v e r b руобасо appears again in B.J. 4 . 3 8 3 with respect to J u d e a n corpses, but w e should note that ocouxx a n d 6с\щ d o not; without the stench, the scene is less physically dramatic and focuses m o r e u p o n the Zealots having b r o k e n the laws o f nature, m a n , a n d G o d . T h e conflict b e t w e e n those w h o make a n d interpret these kinds o f laws is, o f course, o n e o f the m a j o r cruxes o f S o p h o c l e s '
Antigone.
Later, J o s e p h u s will return to the G u a r d ' s speech in Antigone
and
rework the scene even further w h e n the rebels o r d e r corpses to b e flung from the ramparts o f Jerusalem: oi 5e xo jievrcpcorovек той бпцоочог) Onaaupov хогх; veicpoix; Barcxew екеАягюу оацт^У ot> 5it|pK0\)v ало xcov xei^wv eppucxov ец
XTIV
ха<; (рараууок;. riepucbv 5е xamaq
о Tixoq cbq eGedaaxo пгпХцоiievaq
xcov
veKpcov ка1 pa0a)v ixcopa црбсоухсоу гжорреоуха xcov ocouaxcov, eoxeva^e xe ка1 xa<; х Ф £ cxvaxewac; кахеиархйрахо xov 0e6v, OVK evn то epyov oroxofi. (BJ. 5.518-519) е
а
A t this p o i n t in his narrative, J o s e p h u s invites his audience into an even m o r e dramatically staged scene w h e r e Titus plays A n t i g o n e , but in a positive way, unlike Antigonus earlier. T h e G u a r d in Sophocles has explained later in his speech to C r e o n that A n t i g o n e shrieked like a m o t h e r bird and wailed w h e n she saw her brother's
naked
corpse, whereas Titus here looks u p o n the Jewish corpses and groans— certainly a m o r e manly response. In the G u a r d ' s speech A n t i g o n e raised a curse against those w h o d i d the d e e d (прато xoioi xoupyov ei;£ipyaauivoi<;, line 4 2 8 ) , but Titus in his o w n form o f piety swears to G o d that he did not c o m m i t the d e e d (оик eir| то epyov аитой).
6 4
VEIOK; only found twice in Josephus at A J. 6 . 3 3 7 (Saul) and 1 7 . 2 3 4 (Antipater accusing Archelaus o f acting over the corpse o f H e r o d — v e r y fitting).
140
HONORA H O W E L L CHAPMAN
Josephus has already alluded to Antigone's ritual o f scattering o v e r Polyneices' b o d y
6 5
dust
b a c k in B o o k 4 w h e n the survivors o f those
killed b y the rebels " w o u l d at night take a little dust
66
in b o t h hands
a n d strew it o n the bodies, though s o m e reckless persons did this b y d a y " (B.J. 4.332). By noticing this g r o u p o f verbal and thematic parallels, J o s e p h u s ' reader c o u l d see the Antigone scene playing out before the mind's eye w h e n reading these passages, especially the o n e involving Titus, and with the allusions c o m p o u n d i n g o v e r the course o f the war, they might feel all the m o r e deeply the extent o f J u d e a n suffering a n d loss, a l o n g with Titus' sympathy for the gen eral J u d e a n population at the m e r c y o f the rebels. T h e s e allusions, therefore, help to create an extra dimension o f pathos as well as exoneration for Titus that otherwise might not b e possible, and they only add to the persuasive force o f the text's argument b y tapping into b o t h the audience's intellect and emotions.
EURIPIDES
D u r i n g Josephus' days in R o m e , n o G r e e k tragedian h a d m o r e o f an audience than Euripides. Josephus' contemporaries D i o Chrysostom and Quintilian considered Euripides the most useful tragedian the student o f rhetoric.
67
for
Louis Feldman has remarked in his w o r k
o n Josephus and G r e e k tragedy that "Euripides was the most p o p ular o f poets (except for H o m e r ) t h r o u g h o u t R o m a n eras,"
68
the Hellenistic
and
and Feldman then provides ample examples o f Euri-
pidean e c h o e s in the Antiquitates. I w o u l d like n o w briefly to argue that w e also b e alert for allusions to Euripides in the Bellum, espe cially to his Bacchae. T h i s particular tragedy provides an
appropriate
b a c k d r o p for understanding the J u d e a n W a r as laid out in J o s e p h u s ' narrative since it deals so powerfully with the issue o f impiety and its horrific c o n s e q u e n c e s b o t h for the family o f C a d m u s a n d the city o f T h e b e s . Edith Hall has succinctly o b s e r v e d that " D e m o c r a t i c Athens was p r o u d o f its openness ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.39), while T h e b e s in tragedy is often closed in o n itself, and its royalty susceptible to
6 5
Sophocles, Ant. 2 4 7 and 4 2 9 . See m y earlier discussion on B.J. 2 . 3 2 2 . D i o Chrysostom, Or. 1 8 . 6 - 7 and Quintilian, Inst. 1 0 . 1 . 6 8 - 7 0 . Both rhetoricians prefer Euripides over the earlier tragedians, Menander over the masters of O l d Comedy. Feldman, " T h e Influence of the Greek Tragedians on Josephus," 6 0 . 6 6
6 7
HK
141
JOSEPHUS A N D GREEK POETRY
69
internecine conflict, incest, a n d tyrannical c o n d u c t . " Josephus a n d his reading audience w o u l d certainly have p i c k e d u p o n these qual ities associated with T h e b e s w h e n reading o r watching these plays. In the Bellum, the T h e b e s o f b o t h S o p h o c l e s ' Antigone a n d Euripides' Bacchae b e c o m e s Jerusalem
at its downfall. W e have already seen
allusions to S o p h o c l e s ' Antigone in the Bellum. Euripides' Bacchae, w h i c h is also set at T h e b e s , l o o m s large as well. In the Bacchae, impiety leads to d i s m e m b e r m e n t , w h i c h , in turn, results in diaspora ordained as divine punishment. C a d m u s warns Pentheus a b o u t his cousin A c t a e o n having b e e n ripped to shreds b y his o w n carnivorous dogs for his impiety against Artemis: 6pa<; TOV 'AKiecovoq aOXiov jiopov, OV COM.OOITOI GKoXoLKEC, Otq £0pei|/(XTO 5i£G7taaavxo, K p e i o o o v ' ev icuvay{ai<;
'ApT£^ii8oq eivai
Koji7iaaavT\ ev
opyaaiv (Bacchae 337-340)
This foreshadowing, along with other references toorcocpayuoq, then b e c o m e s reified in the horrifying punishment that Pentheus
suffers
at the hands o f the B a c c h a e , including his o w n m o t h e r , A g a v e . T o w a r d s the e n d o f the play C a d m u s enters a c c o m p a n y i n g the dis m e m b e r e d corpse o f his grandson: ercecOe jxoi cpepovte<; aQXiov pdpoc; riev8eco<;, erceaGe, TtpoorcoAxn, SO^ICGV rcapoq, ov acoina JIOXBCOV |rup{oi<; tflxrwLaoiv cpepco T68\ e\)pcbv ev Ki9aipcovoq nTvxctiq 8iaq7Kxp(XKT6v (Bacchae 1216-1220) Before turning t o the Bellum passages displaying allusions t o the Bacchae, h o w e v e r , I w o u l d like briefly to s h o w h o w an ancient audi ence might read allusions to the Bacchae within a different text; I draw m y e x a m p l e from Aristophanes' Ranae, w h i c h is the natural choice since it served as a c o m i c eulogy for the recendy dead Euripides. T h e Bacchae h a d b e e n " f o u n d a m o n g his p a p e r s "
70
w h e n Euripides
died in M a c e d o n only a year before Ranae was p r o d u c e d at the Lenaia in 4 0 5 B . C E . W h e n Dionysus arrives at the d o o r o f H a d e s
6 9
E . Hall, " T h e sociology o f Athenian tragedy," in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (ed. P. Easterling; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997), 1 0 1 . Hall cites F. Zeitlin, "Thebes: theater o f self and society in Athenian drama," in Greek Tragedy and Political Theory (ed. J. P. Euben; Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1986), 101-41. 7 0
E . R . D o d d s , ed., Euripides Bacchae ( 2 n d ed; O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1960), xxxix.
142
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
dressed as his big brother Heracles, A e a c u s berates him: (b P8eA,\)pe KdvaiGX'uvxe Kai xoAjirjpe GV Kai [iiape Kai naiiiiiape Kai niapcbxaxe, . . . r\ xd cnXayxvoi
GOV
8iaq7tapd£ei, 7cXe\)^6vcov x' dvSdyexai TapxrjGia jrupaiva- x<» vecppo) 8e GOV auxoiGiv evxepoiaiv fljLLaxcojjivco 8iaa7cdaovxai ropyoveq TeiGpdaiai, £
7c68a. (Ranae 4 6 5 - 4 6 6 ,
473-478)
T h e m o c k - t r a g i c d i c t i o n o f A e a c u s , grandfather o f Achilles, n o w d o w n g r a d e d to d o o r m a n , plays o f f n u m e r o u s mythological references, but also threatens Dionysus with b o d i l y destruction
[using the t w o
verbs, 8iaorcapdaGCD a n d Siaarcdco] straight out o f the Bacchae. Even though the character A e a c u s thinks he is d e n o u n c i n g the vile deeds o f Heracles, w e c a n see that Aristophanes here is playing o f f the fate o f Pentheus as the victim o f D i o n y s i a c orcapayuoq.
71
In the Bellum, Josephus follows the Euripidean pattern o f o n e b o d y rending setting u p another far m o r e horrifying o n e involving a son. T h i s begins b a c k in B o o k 1, w h e r e he has used the v e r b o f rend ing almost c o m i c a l l y in a speech m a d e b y Archelaus to H e r o d
(BJ.
1.500), w h i c h turns out to b e a failed attempt to trick h i m into not killing his son A l e x a n d e r .
72
T h e B a c c h i c theme o f rending appears
again in B o o k 2 w h e n the Jewish delegates after the death o f H e r o d " b e g the R o m a n s to have m e r c y o n the remains o f J u d e a and not to toss a w a y what was left o f it to those w h o w e r e savagely tearing it to pieces." (BJ. 2.90). T h i s theme returns in B o o k 5 w h e n Josephus explains the overall effect o f factional infighting u p o n the p o p u l a t i o n o f Jerusalem as a w h o l e : riavxaxoGev 8e xfj<; noXzax; 7coA,eu(n)|i£vr|<; vnb xcov ercipovAxDv Kai auyKAuScov lieaoc; 6 8fj|io<; coarcEp iieya Gcoua SiearcapaGqexo (BJ. 5.27) T h o u g h the m e t a p h o r o f the b o d y politic is hardly unusual, the idea o f rending it to pieces is less c o m m o n , a n d thus works as a possible allusion to the Bacchae. In any case, the historian is foreshadowing Jerusalem's ultimate d o o m in his narrative. T h i s tragic CTcocpayuoq will return most p o i g n a n d y just before the
7 1
Euripides, Bacchae 7 3 5 , 7 3 9 , 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 5 , 1 2 2 0 for the arcapaynoq. See U l l m a n n and Price, " D r a m a and History in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum" 1 0 0 , on this scene. 7 2
JOSEPHUS A N D GREEK
143
POETRY
destruction o f the temple in B o o k 6 in the scene involving a m o t h e r n a m e d M a r y , w h o kills h e r b a b y in order t o have something to eat during the famine in Jerusalem (B.J. 6 . 1 9 9 - 2 1 9 ) . I have previously discussed this scene a n d its later Christian reception, including the readers' recognition o f the scene as "tragic,"
73
but I wish to e m p h a
size here that just as in Euripides' Bacchae with Pentheus' b o d y , in the Bellum civic disorder a n d disintegration
will find its physical
fulfillment in the baby's sliced u p b o d y . W h e n the rebels c o m e to steal h e r f o o d , M a r y invites them to eat part o f h e r "sacrifice": r\ 8' "euov," ecpn, "TOVTO TEKVOV yvr|aiov m i TO epyov euov. <pay£Te, m i yap
\ir\ yevnaBe IIT\XE p.aA,aKa>Tepoi yuvaiKo^ \IX\XE ovuTcaGeaTepoi 8' biiexq evaepeiq Kai TTJV eu-Tiv arcoaTpEcpeaOe Gvaiav, eyo) \ikv VILXV Kai TO Xoucov 8e ejLioi jLieivaxco." (BJ. 6.210-211)
eya) peppcoKa. jXTixpo^. ei PePpcoKa,
Josephus' audience c o u l d clearly read M a r y as a w o m a n from G r e e k tragedy, b o t h in p r o c l a i m i n g this murder-cannibalism
her "deed"
and b y referring explicidy to h e r status as a w o m a n a n d a m o t h e r as a challenge to the rebels. She is, in fact, a conflation o f several Euripidean
mothers: A g a v e , A n d r o m a c h e , a n d M e d e a .
Euripides'
A g a v e does n o t call h e r s o n Pentheus's brutal death a n d d i s m e m b e r m e n t a "sacrifice" in the extant portions o f the play, but she does invite the chorus to "share the b a n q u e t " (Bacchae 1184) a n d then h e r father C a d m u s to the "feast" (Bacchae 1242). C a d m u s , in response, refers to the death as " m u r d e r " a n d Pentheus' b o d y as a "sacrifice victim" (Bacchae 1 2 4 5 - 1 2 4 6 ) . In the Bellum M a r y does n o t dwell u p o n her b a b y ' s severed limbs n o r does she try to p u t h e r baby's b o d y b a c k together again as A g a v e m a y have d o n e towards the e n d o f 74
the Bacchae, b u t b o t h w o m e n a n d their p e o p l e suffer the same fate o f dispersion. In lines reconstructed
from the Christus Patiens that
appear to c o m e from Dionysus' speech in his epiphany at the e n d o f the Bacchae, the g o d m a y have p r o n o u n c e d the following sentence u p o n the T h e b a n s as punishment for their blasphemy against him:
7 3
See H . Chapman,
"Spectacle a n d T h e a t e r in Josephus' Bellum J u d a i c u m "
(Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1998), which also discusses the H e b r e w scriptural b a c k g r o u n d , a n d also " ' A M y t h
for the W o r l d ' : Early Christian R e c e p t i o n o f
C a n n i b a l i s m in Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 6 . 1 9 9 - 2 1 9 , " (Adanta: Society o f Biblical Literature, 2 0 0 0 ) : 7 4
SBL 2000
Seminar Papers
359-378.
D o d d s , Euripides Bacchae, 5 7 - 5 9 , provides several adaptations o f a n d citations
to the Bacchae in an attempt to help fill the lacuna perceived after line 1 3 2 9 , which is the second line o f Agave's speech in response to C a d m u s .
144
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
d 8' at)rcaGeiv8ei X,aov ox> Kp\)\j/co icaicd. Xinr[ noXioiia, Pappapoiq E I K C O V , ( C X K C O V ) noXziq
8 e noKkaq
eioaquKcovxai,
tpybv 70
SovXeiov (avetacovxeq) oi SuaSaVoveq.
Josephus' readers m a y very well have perceived an allusive connection between the tragic fate o f the T h e b a n s a n d their city at the e n d o f the Bacchae a n d that o f the Judeans a n d Jerusalem in the Bellum. Later Christian readers, w h o certainly knew the G r e e k tragedies as both texts and performances, read this infanticide scene in the Bellum as an episode from G r e e k tragedy a n d also as the final catalyst f o r the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m .
76
W h e n Pseudo-Hegesippus adapted the
scene for his loose Latin rendition o f the Bellum called De Excidio, h e seems to have read it at least in part as an allusion to the Bacchae, a n d then to have d o n e Josephus o n e better b y returning to a n d using m o r e literally the e n d o f the Bacchae, w h i c h w e in the m o d e r n era d o n o t have in toto. In his a c c o u n t Pseudo-Hegesippus goes so far as to have M a r y address the h a n d a n d foot o f h e r b a b y .
77
In d o i n g s o ,
he makes his M a r y even m o r e Euripidean, since w e have lines from the Christus Patiens, as well as the report o f the third-century rhetori cian Apsines, that p o i n t to A g a v e speaking to Pentheus' individual b o d y parts the w a y M a r y does in P s e u d o - H e g e s i p p u s .
78
Even setting aside Pseudo-Hegesippus' adaptation o f the Bellum, the allusions to the Bacchae are strong in the Bellum. All o f the allusions c o m b i n e d invite the reader o n o n e level to appreciate J o s e p h u s ' artistry, b u t o n another t o e x p e r i e n c e the h o r r o r a n d tragedy o f Jerusalem's fall in a far m o r e vivid a n d sympathetic w a y than, for instance, with T a c i t u s ' telegraphic a c c o u n t , albeit fragmentary, in his Historiae, B o o k 5. Perhaps Josephus was even responding to the p e r -
7 5
This is reconstructed from Christus Patiens, lines 1 6 6 8 - 1 6 6 9 a n d 1 6 7 8 - 1 6 7 9 , in D o d d s ' edition 5 8 - 5 9 , lines de Thebanis. 7 6
For authors before Pseudo-Hegesippus, World'," 3 7 0 - 7 8 .
see H . C h a p m a n , ' " A M y t h for the
7 7
Pseudo-Hegesippus, De Excidio 5 . 4 0 . 2 : "hoc est prandium meum, haec vestra portio, videte diligentius ne vos frauderim. Ecce pueri manus una, ecce pes eius, ecce dimidium reliqui corporis eius, et ne alienum putetis, filius est meus, ne alterius opus arbitremini, ego feci, ego diligenter divisi, mihi quod manducarem, vobis quod reservarem." 7 8
See D o d d s , Euripides Bacchae, 5 7 for the quote from Apsines. Notice that in Christus Patiens 1 4 7 0 , as reported in D o d d s , ibid., 5 8 , idov is used to draw attention to his head (which is covered here), a n d then lines concerning his limbs follow; in the same way, M a r y in Pseudo-Hegesippus uses ecce followed b y b o d y parts. B o d y parts are a theme throughout the Bacchae, foreshadowing Pentheus' fate.
145
JOSEPHTJS AND GREEK POETRY
sonal taste o f o n e o f the most important characters in and
readers
o f the Bellum, the future e m p e r o r Titus; w e d o have evidence that Titus himself wrote poetry, including G r e e k tragedies.
79
CONCLUSION
Josephus's use o f H o m e r , Pindar, S o p h o c l e s , and Euripides grants his history a certain grace and grandeur, and was presumably d o n e to please and impress his audience with his attempts at literary artistry and ultimately to m o v e and to c o n v i n c e them o f his point o f view c o n c e r n i n g the war. W h e t h e r Josephus personally k n e w G r e e k poetry very well, o r was still in the process o f acquiring m o r e familiarity with it at the time he was c o m p o s i n g the Bellum in the 70s, does not detract from the fact that poetic allusions, whether verbal, thematic, o r structural, d o exist in the text for his readers to appreciate. S h o u l d a n y o n e d o u b t the Jewish general's desire o r ability to read o r listen to G r e e k poetry set to music, w e should turn to the e x a m ple o f a m o d e r n Japanese general, T a d a m i c h i Kuribayashi, w h o , like Josephus with respect to R o m e , h a d seen the U n i t e d States as a deputy attache
80
before W o r l d W a r II. F r o m this e x p e r i e n c e he
declared in a letter to his wife, " T h e United States is the last c o u n try in the w o r l d J a p a n should fight."
81
W h i l e the samurai Kuribayashi
was putting u p a well-crafted but ultimately futile defense o n I w o J i m a in early 1945, he w r o t e again to his wife, "It really d o e s not matter m u c h to m e where m y grave will b e . If there really is such a thing as a soul, then it will stay with y o u and o u r c h i l d r e n . "
82
The
A m e r i c a n M a j o r General Erkine sent Japanese P O W s and Japanese Americans to try to convince Kuribayashi to surrender, but he report edly said o v e r the radio to his compatriots, " W e only laughed at
7 9
C . P. Jones, "Greek D r a m a in the R o m a n Empire," in Theater and Society in the Classical World (ed. R . Scodel; A n n Arbor: University o f Michigan, 1993), 5 1 , n. 2 9 , cites Eutrop. 7 . 2 1 . 1 , Suda T 6 9 1 , Tr GF 12 no. 1 8 3 , for evidence o f Titus as tragedian. 8 0
D . W r i g h t , Iwo Jima 1945 (Oxford: Osprey, 2 0 0 1 ) , 13. R . T h o m p s o n , Empires on the Pacific: World War II and the Struggle for the Mastery of Asia ( N e w York: Basic, 2 0 0 1 ) , 3 3 4 . O n e main message of Josephus' Bellum Judaicum is that war against the far m o r e powerful R o m a n s is futile. Ibid, 3 3 4 - 3 5 ; cf. BJ. 3 . 3 6 2 - 3 8 2 , especially 3 7 4 , for Josephus' c o m m e n t s on the soul when facing possible death by suicide. 8 1
8 2
146
HONORA HOWELL CHAPMAN
this childish trick a n d did not set ourselves against t h e m . " the v i c t o r i o u s U . S . t r o o p s , i n c l u d i n g m y father,
finally
83
When entered
Kuribayashi's headquarters, w h i c h was b u r r o w e d into a hillside near the central airfield, they discovered an elegandy w o o d - p a n e l e d office.
84
A s m y father l o o k e d though the papers o n Kuribayashi's desk, he f o u n d o n e d o c u m e n t that s t o o d out from the rest: a single p a g e showing western musical notations a n d their Japanese
counterparts.
Unlike Josephus at Jotapata, h o w e v e r , Kuribayashi had b e e n killed b y shells a n d then buried, a c c o r d i n g to his son, w h o learned this from a Japanese
sergeant. T h e U . S . M a r i n e Lieutenant
General
H o l l a n d Smith called Kuribayashi " o u r m o s t r e d o u b t a b l e adver sary."
85
H a d Kuribayashi survived the war, perhaps he w o u l d have
p e n n e d a history o f his country's defeat in English, using western literary o r even lyric expressions (given his interest in music), thereby bridging the gap b e t w e e n east and west, just as Josephus had d o n e so l o n g a g o .
8 3
W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 1 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 4 ff. on R o m a n invitations to Josephus to surrender. T h e r e is n o w a memorial stele marking the site of the Kuribayashi's cave o n I w o Jima; see W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 4 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 1 on Josephus' cave. W r i g h t , op. cit., 7 4 ; cf. B.J. 3 . 3 4 7 on Vespasian's supposed admiration for Josephus. 8 4
8 5
T H E HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL H I S T O R Y O F K I N G S A U L : J O S E P H U S , A J. 6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 A N D 1 S A M U E L 9:1-31:13 DETLEV DORMEYER UNIVERSITÄT D O R T M U N D
Josephus gave a clear center to his Antiquitates: he e n d e d B o o k 10 with the exile in B a b y l o n . B o o k s 1-10 follow the Pentateuch a n d the deuteronomistic history from J o s h u a to 2 Kings. Books 1 1 - 2 0 are less closely related to biblical b o o k s . T h e story a b o u t K i n g Saul c o m prises A J. 6 . 4 5 - 3 7 8 . Saul is n a m e d b y Josephus only in the Antiquitates: 149 times in B o o k 6; 4 0 times in B o o k 7; o n c e in B o o k 10; o n c e in B o o k 11. T h e text used b y Josephus, the H e b r e w story a b o u t K i n g Saul, has a very clear oudine: (1) 1 S a m 9 : 1 - 1 5 : 3 5 : election, c o r o n a t i o n , victories and rejection b y G o d ; (2) 1 S a m 1 6 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3 : D a v i d , Saul a n d others, Saul's death. T h e first part is stricdy concentrated o n the rise o f Saul, the s e c o n d part, e n d i n g with his death, is e x p a n d e d b y the c o u r t history with 1
m a n y important figures. Josephus took o v e r this episodic structure.
1
H . W . Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher (7th ed., A T D , 10; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1986), 1 0 3 - 1 0 6 , 1 9 7 - 2 0 0 ; Hertzberg starts with 1 S a m 7:2 ( 4 8 - 5 1 ) ; K . Baltzer, Die Biographie der Propheten (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), 7 1 - 8 3 , begins with 9:1 and names the whole story "biography of the prophet" ("Prophetenbiographie"). T h e biographical pattern normally consists of three parts: (1) ancestry, childhood and youth; (2) public life with fame; (3) old age a n d death; D . D o r m e y e r , Evangelium als literarische und theologische Gattung ( E d F , 2 6 3 ; Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1989), 5 9 - 6 0 , 1 6 0 - 1 9 4 (bibliog.); R . H . Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography ( S N T S M S , 70; Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1 9 9 2 ) , 1 4 5 - 1 4 7 ; D . Frickenschmidt, Evangelium als Biographie. Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst ( T A N Z , 2 2 ; T ü b i n g e n / B a s e l : Francke Verlag, 1997), 1 9 2 - 2 1 0 ; D . D o r m e y e r , Das Markusevangelium als Idealbiographie von Jesus Christus, dem Nazarener (2nd ed., S B B , 4 3 ; Stuttgart: V e r l a g Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2 0 0 2 ) , 8 - 9 , 2 6 8 - 8 6 ; for Josephus' Vita see S.J.D. C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian ( C S C T , 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 1 0 2 - 3 ; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSPSup, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), 107; S. M a s o n , Life of Josephus. Translation and Commentary (BJP 9; 2 0 0 1 ) , xxii-xxiii; D . D o r m e y e r , "Die V i t a des Josephus als A u t o b i o g r a p h i e eines gescheiterten Herrschers", in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (ed. J. U . K a l m s a n d F. Siegert; MJSt,
148
DETLEV DORMEYER
H e s m o o t h e d the style and a d d e d s o m e reflections. T h e result was a b i o g r a p h i c a l history very closely related to the Hellenistic b i o 2
graphical history. T h e c o n d e m n e d sinner Saul is b e i n g transformed into a bright m o d e l o f a ruler and king. H o w did J o s e p h u s achieve this c h a n g e and adaptation for the Hellenistic culture? H o w did he deal with the Saul m o d e l in the later b o o k s o f the Antiquitates? T h r e e points will b e dealt with in this essay: (1) J o s e p h u s ' retelling o f 1 Samuel 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3 (2) Saul in A J.
7; 10; and 11;
(3) T h e role o f Saul and the self-definition o f Josephus.
1. JOSEPHUS' REVISION OF 1 S A M 9 : 1 - 3 1 : 1 3
Josephus concludes the Saul story with the e n c o m i u m : T o such an end did Saul come, as Samuel had predicted, because he had disobeyed God's commandments touching the Amalekites, and because he had destroyed the family o f Abimelech the high priest and Abimelech himself and the city o f the high priests. He reigned eigh teen years during the lifetime o f Samuel and for twenty-two years more after the latter's death. Thus then did Saul depart this life. (A J. 6.378)
3
B o o k 6 closes with the term pioq. In J o s e p h u s ' time this term means at first the description o f a life; the term " b i o g r a p h y " was created in late Antiquity.
4
In this final sentence o f b o o k 6, Pioq signifies,
14; Münster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 5 - 3 4 , esp. 2 0 - 2 1 . Saul's biographical history has only part 2 and 3. T h e omission o f Part 1 (childhood a n d youth) is usual for the most ancient biographies (Frickenschmidt, Evangelium, 2 5 3 ff; J. Kügler, Pharao und Christus? ( B B B , 113; Bodenheim: Philo, 1997), 1 3 3 - 8 5 ; D o r m e y e r , Markusevangelium, 2 6 8 - 8 6 ) . T h e ancestry of Saul was told in A.J. 6 . 4 5 - 4 6 . 2
O n biographical history see T . J. Artemis & W i n k l e r V e r l a g , 1 9 9 8 ; 1 6 0 - 1 6 2 ; for some related examples, by Isocrates see Louis H . Feldman, 4 5 - 9 9 , esp. 4 6 - 4 7 . 3
Luce, Die griechischen Historiker (Düsseldorf/Zürich: Engl. L o n d o n / N e w Y o r k : R o u t l e d g e , 1 9 9 7 ) , including the encomiastic biography of Euagoras "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," HUCA 5 3 (1982):
T h e translation o f the Antiquitates is throughout this article taken from Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, (trans. H . St. J. Thackeray, R . M a r c u s , A . W i k g r e n , and L. H . Feldman; L C L ; C a m b r i d g e , M . A . : H a r v a r d University Press, 1 9 3 0 - 1 9 6 5 ) . D . W ö r d e m a n n , Der bios nach Plutarch und das Evangelium nach Markus. Eine Untersuchung zur literarischen Analogie des Charakterbildes des Helden und des Christusbildes im Evangelium Jesu Christi (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, N F 1,19; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 2 - 4 2 . 4
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
149
firstly, the story o f Saul's death in A.J. 6 . 3 6 8 - 3 7 7 ( / / 1 S a m 3 1 : 1 - 1 3 ) . Secondly, it comprises the w h o l e Saul story. But this story d o e s not 5
belong to the genre o f peripatetic b i o g r a p h y . Therefore Baltzer deter mines
rightly
6
the Saul story as " p r o p h e t i c b i o g r a p h y . " J o s e p h u s
changes the genre to b e a variant o f the Hellenistic biographical his tory. This form o f history c a m e to b e with Herodotus and X e n o p h o n . In B o o k 1 H e r o d o t u s gives a wonderful biographical picture o f the Persian king Cyrus ( H e r o d o t u s 1 . 7 1 - 2 1 4 , esp. 1 0 8 - 2 1 4 ) . X e n o p h o n wrote a l o n g w i s d o m novel w h i c h he called Cyropaedia. W i t h o u t great difficulties Josephus c o u l d rewrite the Jewish p r o p h e t i c b i o g r a p h y as Hellenistic biographical history. In order to achieve this goal he m a d e some alterations. H e recounted only t w o instances o f the disobedience o f Saul in the final e n c o m i u m : (1) the sparing o f the Amalekites, (2) the destruction o f A b i m e l e c h and his family. But 1 Samuel contains accounts o f further instances o f Saul's disobedience, w h i c h Josephus had recounted earlier. T h e first disobedience was the unauthorised sacrifice b y Saul. T h e act o f sacrifice b e l o n g e d to the ministry o f the p r o p h e t Samuel (1 S a m 13). For this disobedience, G o d revoked his promise o f an eternal rule o f the house o f Saul and a n n o u n c e d a n e w king " a c c o r d i n g the heart o f G o d " (1 S a m 1 3 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) . J o s e p h u s slighdy changes this episode. "Forever" b e c o m e s "exceedingly l o n g " (rcA-eioxov av paoiAeuoai %povov) (A.J. 6.104), and the promise o f the n e w king is omitted. T h u s the punishment o f Saul is minimised. T h e reason c o u l d b e that G r e e k and R o m a n leaders always had the right o f sacrifice and that the rivalry
b e t w e e n king and p r o p h e t c o u n t e d as a h u m a n matter and
not a divine privilege.
7
Josephus has also modified Saul's last great sin, the visit given to the witch o f E n d o r (A.J. 6 . 3 2 7 - 3 4 2 ) . T h e prosaic banishment o f witches here seems to b e arbitrary, not an act o f o b e y i n g the first
3
F. Leo, Die griechisch- römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig: Teubner, 1901); A . Diehle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie ( A A W G . P H , 3 , 3 7 ; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1956); D o r m e y e r , Evangelium, 1 6 8 - 9 0 ; Burridge, Gospels; D . D o r m e y e r , Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte. Eine Einfuhrung (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 0 5 - 2 8 ; translated b y R . K o s s o w , The New Testament among the Writings of Antiquity (Biblical Seminar, 5 5 ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 2 0 - 4 3 ; W . Eckey, Das Markus-Evangelium. Orientierung am Weg Jesu. Ein Kommentar (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), 2 4 - 2 7 . 6
7
Baltzer, Biographie, 7 1 - 8 3 . Feldman, "Saul," 8 5 .
150
DETLEV DORMEYER
c o m m a n d m e n t ( E x o d 2 0 : 3 - 6 ; D e u t 5 : 7 - 1 0 , esp. 1 8 : 1 1 - 1 4 ) . In
an
a n a l o g o u s w a y , T i b e r i u s e x p e l l e d all astrologers e x c e p t his o w n astrologer for fear o f the " b a d press" he g o t b y their art (Suetonius, Tib. 36). In Josephus the witch o f E n d o r b e c o m e s an
honourable
e x a m p l e o f her profession. Josephus c o n c l u d e s with an
impressive
e n c o m i o n o n her: Here it is but right to commend the generosity o f this woman who, though she had been prevented by the king from practising an art which would have made it easier and more comfortable for her at home, and though she had never seen Saul before, yet bore him no resentment for having condemned her profession nor turned him away as a stranger and as one with whom she had never been acquainted; but instead she gave him sympathy and consolation, exhorted him to do that which he regarded with great unwillingness, and offered him with open friendliness the one thing which in her poverty she pos sessed. And this she did, not in return for any benefit received, nor in quest o f any favour to come—for she knew that he was about to die—, whereas men are by nature wont either to emulate those who have bestowed some kindness upon them or to be beforehand in flattering those from whom they may possibly receive some benefit. It is well, then, to take this woman for an example and show kindness to all who are in need, and to regard nothing as nobler than this or more befitting the human race or more likely to make G o d gracious and ready to bestow upon us His blessings. Concerning this woman, then, let these words suffice (A.J. 6.340-342). S o , m a g i c incited o n l y Saul's "unwillingness." T h e prohibition o f m a g i c b y G o d in the T o r a h is totally forgotten. J o s e p h u s
writes
pathetic o r m i m e t i c history, w h i c h is interested in signs, predictions, invocations o f deeds and miracles.
8
H e c a n n o t a c c e p t an apodictic
p r o h i b i t i o n o f n e c r o m a n c y a n d incantations.
S o he m e r e l y gives
unclear hints to the "unwillingness" o f Saul. Josephus adds an e n c o m i u m o n Saul, w h i c h is m u c h longer than the final e n c o m i u m o n him. Saul has c o m m i t t e d only t w o sins: o n e against G o d and o n e against humankind. Nevertheless he is worthy o f a l o n g e n c o m i u m with a c o m p r e h e n s i v e a p o l o g y for his disobe-
8
E. Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller. Studien zur Apostelgeschichte ( S U N T , 9; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1972), 9 - 3 2 ; K . Meister, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus (Stuttgart: K o h l h a m m e r , 1990), 9 5 - 1 0 2 ; O . Lendle, Einführung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von Hekataios bis JTpsimos (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1992), 1 8 0 - 2 0 6 ; Eckey, Markus-Evangelium, 2 4 - 2 7 .
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
151
dience against G o d (A.J. 6 . 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 ) . T h e first sin against G o d — t h e sparing o f the Amalekites—is slighdy different from the biblical par allel. 1 S a m 15:9 reads: "But Saul a n d the a r m y spared A g a g (the Amalekite king) with the best o f the sheep. . . . " Josephus divides this action: Saul spared the K i n g , while the c r o w d spared the animals for the sacrifice: "But he also took prisoner the e n e m y ' s king, A g a g , w h o m o u t o f admiration for his beauty (mAAoq) a n d his stature (uiyeGoq) he a c c o u n t e d w o r t h y to b e saved" (A J. 6.137). Saul gave preference to the Hellenistic ideal o f kalokagathia o v e r against the will o f G o d : " F o r G o d so hated (euiorioe) the race o f the Amalaketes . . . " (6.138). But a pious J e w does not have the right to o p p o s e the explicit will o f G o d . T h e r e f o r e Saul is rejected b y G o d and destined to s o o n lose his kingship (A.J. 6.150). T h e emphasis o n the male beauty a n d stature o f A g a g c o u l d b e an allusion to the ancient friendship cult a n d c o u l d motivate Saul's 9
first sin. In J o s e p h u s ' m o d e r n v i e w Saul's sin b e c o m e s very special and strange. Like O e d i p u s he b e c o m e s guilty o f having violated an incomprehensible c o m m a n d m e n t o f an archaic
10
time.
T h e s e c o n d sin carries m o r e weight. O u t o f pure revenge Saul m u r d e r e d a clan o f priests a n d destroyed their city (A.J. 6 . 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) . C o n c e r n i n g this atrocity w e find a lengthy reflection b y J o s e p h u s o n the changes in character w h i c h w e r e caused b y Saul's accession to p o w e r (A.J. 6 . 2 6 2 - 2 6 9 ) . T h e r e is n o reflection o n the favour to king A g a g . Saul's portrait is a m b i g u o u s . T h e final e n c o m i u m recalls the t w o sins: (1) the disobedience o f an archaic divine c o m m a n d m e n t , (2) the i n h u m a n revenge that also violates the ideal o f a Hellenistic king. But the l o n g e n c o m i u m standing immediately before the a c c o u n t o f Saul's death should not b e overlooked:
9
Q u o t i n g H o m e r , Feldman explains the importance of "physical attractiveness" for Saul as well as for "his bodygards" ("Saul," 6 2 - 6 3 ) . Feldman relates this motive also to Agag: "Josephus . . . also adds an aesthetic m o t i v e , . . . the very same quali ties which . . .Josephus had stressed in Saul's choice o f his bodygards (Ant. 6 . 1 3 0 ) " ("Saul," 8 7 ) . 1 0
" N a c h den zuletzt untersuchten T e x t e n ist Saul nur auf einem Teilgebiet, als Anführer des Heerbanns, Nachfolger Samuels. D u r c h diese Teilung der Funktion ist es möglich, dass Samuel auch den Nachfolger Sauls noch einsetzt und damit legi timiert. D a Samuel nicht wirklich zurücktritt, konnte das Bild eines kontinuierlichen A m t e s unabhängig v o m K ö n i g t u m entstehen. Samuel wird z u m T r ä g e r und Garant der Legitimation des K ö n i g t u m s " (Baltzer, Biographie, 8 2 - 8 3 ) . Josephus strengthened this sharp distinction between the king and the prophet as archaic institution.
152
DETLEV DORMEYER
But now I shall touch an a subject profitable to states, peoples and nations, and o f interest to all good men—one whereby all should be induced to pursue virtue and to aspire to those things which may pro cure them glory and eternal renown, one, moreover, that should instill into the hearts o f kings o f nations and rulers o f cities a great desire and zeal for noble deeds, should stimulate them to face dangers and death for their country's sake, and teach them to despise all terrors. The occasion for this discourse I find in the person of Saul, king o f the Hebrews. For he, although he knew o f what was to come and his impending death, which the Prophet had foretold, yet determined not to flee from it or, by clinging to life, to betray his people to the enemy and dishonour the dignity o f kingship; instead, he thought it noble to expose himself, his house and his children to these perils and, along with them, to fall fighting for his subjects. He preferred to have his sons meet death as brave men rather than leave them behind, while still uncertain what kind o f men they might prove to be; for thus, as successors and posterity, he would obtain glory and an ageless name. Such a man alone, in my opinion, is just, valiant and wise, and he, if any has been or shall be such, deserves to have all men acknowl edge his virtue. For men who have gone forth to war with high hopes, thinking to conquer and return in safety, and have accomplished some brilliant feat are, to my mind, mistakenly described as valiant by the historians and other writers who have spoken o f such persons. Certainly it is just that these too receive approbation; but the terms "stout hearted," "greatly daring," "contemptuous o f danger" can jusdy be applied only to such as have emulated Saul. That men, not knowing what is to happen to them in war, should not flinch from it, but should commit themselves to an uncertain future and ride the stormy seas o f chance—all this still falls short o f magnanimity, however many the exploits they may accomplish. O n the other hand, to harbour in one's heart no hope o f success, but to know beforehand that one must die and die fighting, and then not to fear nor be appalled at this terrible fate, but to meet it with full knowledge o f what is coming—that, in my judgement, is proof o f true valour. And this Saul did, thereby showing that it behoves all men who aspire to fame after death so to act as to leave such a name after them; especially should kings do so, since the greatness o f their power forbids them not merely to be bad to their subjects, but even to be less than wholly good. I might say still more than this about Saul and his courage, for they are subjects which afford us ample material; but, lest we should appear to lack good taste in delivering this panegyric, I will return again to the point from which I made this digression. (A.J. 6.343-351) Saul is c o n n e c t e d , althought in an unspoken fashion, to the archaic G r e c o - R o m a n kings such as R o m u l u s and Theseus. Saul's virtue, wis d o m , bravery a n d n o b l e death p r o v i d e a m o d e l for h o n o r a b l e kings.
THE
HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
153
D o r o n M e n d e l s asks, " D i d any kind o f a d o p t i o n o f a dual iden tity such as Heracles-Melquart, H e r m e s - T o t h and A n a t h - A t h e n a also h a p p e n to M o s e s o r D a v i d ? It appears, that throughout the w h o l e p e r i o d w e are discussing [the R o m a n Period, D . D . ] there is n o example o f any c o n n e c t i o n , even a hidden o n e , w h i c h was m a d e b y J e w s living in Palestine b e t w e e n a Jewish h e r o o f the past a n d s o m e seemingly p a g a n c o u n t e r p a r t . "
11
M a y b e the early kings Saul a n d
David modelled b y Josephus as G r e c o - R o m a n founders, not as heroes, c o u l d constitute the c o m m o n base for the "dual identity," w h i c h D.
M e n d e l s explored in a c o n v i n c i n g w a y .
2.
S A U L IN A.J.
7,
10,
12
AND
11
B o o k 7 describes the rule o f K i n g D a v i d a n d the decline o f the house o f Saul. All male m e m b e r s are killed, only o n e survives. T h e rival king J e b o s t h o s , Saul's son, is m u r d e r e d (A.J. 7 . 4 6 ) . T h e other descendants are sacrified except J e b o s t h o s , the son o f J o n a t h a n (A.J. 7 . 2 9 4 - 2 9 6 ) . T h i s s e c o n d J e b o s t h o s was l a m e .
13
But for the sake o f
the house o f Saul he guarantees continuity through Jebosthos. T h e r e f o r e b o o k 10 puts a kings-list in the centre o f the Antiquitates. The
blinded king Sacchias is brought to Babylon; then Josephus reflects
on the inevitability o f divine p r o p h e c y and adds to the list o f kings: Thus, then, did the kings o f David's line end their lives; there were twenty-one o f them including the last king, and they reigned altogether for five hundred and fourteen years, six months and ten days; for twenty years o f which time their first king Saul held the royal power though he was not o f the same tribe (A.J. 10.143).
11
D o r o n M e n d e l s , Identity, Religion and Historiography. Studies in Hellenistic (JSPSup, 2 4 , Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 2 2 .
History
12
M e n d e l s , Identity, Religion and Historiography, 1 3 - 3 5 . Saul is a hellenistic model for kings (Feldman, "Saul," 76). A u n e concurs that "Louis H . Feldman has recendy demonstrated that Josephus, in his retelling o f the biblical narratives from Genesis to 2 K i n g s (blended with the work of the Chronicler), introduced hellenistic bio graphical concerns into the narrative. His portrait of Saul, for example, emphasizes the traditional G r e e k moral qualities of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice" (David E . A u n e , The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], 42). 13
" A n d there also met him (David) Saul's grandson M e m p h i b o s t o s . . . 'If, indeed,' he added, 'I had sound feet and had been able to use them in flight, I should not have been far behind y o u . ' " (A.J. 7.267).
154
DETLEV DORMEYER
Saul gets the same rank as D a v i d . T h e l o n g e n c o m i u m o f A.J. 6 . 3 4 3 - 3 5 1 prepared for this excellent position. In A.J. 11 Josephus retells the n e w creation o f Israel. T h e Persian k i n g C y r u s e n d s the B a b y l o n i a n c a p t i v i t y ( 1 1 . 1 - 1 2 ) . H e
sends
Z e r u b b a b e l (ZopopdpriAog in Josephus) as leader b a c k to Jerusalem (11.13): " T h e leader[s] o f the host here enumerated [was] Zorobabelos, son o f Salthielos, w h o was o f the tribe o f J u d a h , being o n e o f the descendants o f D a v i d . . . " (A.J. 11.73). Z e r u b b a b e l re-establishes for a short time the Davidic kingship. A descendant o f the lame Jebosthos from the house o f Saul c o u l d b e elected b y G o d and Cyrus for this ministry. But for G o d a n d Israel D a v i d was greater than
Saul.
T h e r e f o r e G o d elects Z e r u b b a b e l b y means o f Cyrus. In A.J.
11 Josephus names Saul in relation to the H a s m o n e a n s ,
his o w n ancestors: For the high priests were at the head o f affairs until the descendants of the Hasmonean family came to rule as kings. Before the captivity and deportation they were ruled by kings, beginning first with Saul and D a v i d . . . (A.J. 1 1 . 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ) . F r o m Saul to the H a s m o n e a n s there is a continual line o f kingship a n d rule.
14
For the H a s m o n e a n s Saul c o u l d serve as a better m o d e l
than D a v i d , because most o f the H a s m o n e a n leaders died violendy, as Saul did. Thus, the house o f Saul is a real parallel to the H a s m o n e a n dynasty. By contrast, the house o f D a v i d seems to b e the parallel to the H e r o d i a n dynasty, because b o t h led Israel to the a p e x o f p o w e r . But only the house o f D a v i d led to messianic h o p e s , while the H e r o d i a n dynasty excited fear and rebellion. It seems that after the lost revolt against the R o m a n s Josephus was n o longer interested in D a v i d i c messianic hopes. T h e r e f o r e , in his Antiquitates, the house o f Saul gets the same rank as the messianic house o f D a v i d .
1 4
For the line from the H a s m o n e a n s to Josephus see A.J. "Vita des Josephus," 1 8 - 1 9 .
11.111 and D o r m e y e r ,
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
3.
T H E R O L E OF S A U L AND JOSEPHUS'
VIEW
155
OF HIMSELF
It is o b v i o u s that A.J. 1-10 and 1 1 - 2 0 are parallel: Part I is o n the First T e m p l e ; Part II o n the S e c o n d T e m p l e .
1 5
Both parts have a
threefold o u d i n e . Part I: (1) Creation and establishment o f the c o n stitution ( 1 - 4 ) ; (2) First Phase: leaders and kings ( 5 - 8 ) ; (3) S e c o n d Phase: decline through corruption o f the constitution ( 9 - 1 0 ) . Part II: (1) N e w creation and establishment o f the constitution (11); (2) First Phase: high priests, the H a s m o n e a n dynasty, the ascent a n d splen did temple-restoration o f H e r o d ( 1 2 - 1 5 ) , (3) S e c o n d Phase: decline through corruption o f the constitution ( 1 6 - 2 0 ) . T h e Jewish revolt against the R o m a n s repeats the revolt against Babylon and results in the r e n e w e d destruction o f the s e c o n d T e m p l e (A.J. 2 0 . 2 5 7 - 2 5 8 ) . Will Israel n o w b e allowed a n e w b e g i n n i n g b y G o d , a third part o f historical time and history? Josephus skilfully guides the reader to this unstated
m a j o r question. I f the
reader
answers positively, the next p r o b l e m arises: w h o will refound the constitution? Josephus adds t w o appendices to his Antiquitates: Vita and Contra Apionem. T h e
Vita r e c o m m e n d s J o s e p h u s himself as ruler,
Apionem p r o m o t e s him as restorer o f the l a w .
17
16
Contra
N o w the reader can
c o m p l e t e the puzzle. T h e house o f Saul survived with the l a m e Jebosthos; the house o f the H a s m o n e a n s survived with the h u n c h b a c k e d (Vita 4 ) .
1 8
(leupxoq)
Matthias
A t the time o f the first T e m p l e the dynasty o f D a v i d was
m o r e h o n o u r a b l e than the dynasty o f Saul. T h e r e f o r e Z e r u b b a b e l b e c a m e the renovator o f Jerusalem and the altar after the Exile (A.J.
1 5
M a s o n , Life (BJP 9), xxiv; besides, he determines the parallelism as chiasmus (Life, xxiii-xxvii); but the chiasmus presses the books too strongly into an artificial structure. 1 6
D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 1 6 - 2 6 . Like the biblical Joseph he shares the fate o f the suffering and exalted righteous ruler. 1 7
D . D o r m e y e r , "Des Josephus zwei Suasoriae (Übungsreden) Über das Volk der Juden. D i e beiden Vorworte (Proömien) Contra Apionem 1 : 1 - 5 ; 2 : 1 , 1 - 7 und die bei den V o r w o r t e Lk 1 , 1 - 4 ; A c t a 1 , 1 - 4 " , in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquim Amsterdam 2000 (ed. J . U . K a l m s ; MJSt, 10, Münster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 4 1 - 2 6 2 . 1 8
For the family tree of Josephus see M a s o n , Life (BJP 9), 3 - 1 2 ; F. Siegert, H . Schreckenberg, and M . V o g e l , Flavius Josephus: Aus meinem Leben (Vita), hit. Ausgabe, Üb. u. Komm., (Tübingen: M o h r , 2 0 0 1 ) , 2 3 - 2 5 . 1 6 2 ; D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 14-15.
156
DETLEV DORMEYER
1 1 . 7 3 - 7 6 ) . In the time o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e the dynasty o f the H a s m o n e a n s did not cause as m u c h evil as the dynasty o f H e r o d .
1 9
Therefore, Josephus implicidy argues, a m e m b e r o f the H a s m o n e a n dynasty should b e c o m e the n e w founder o f the third, n e w phase o f Israel. Josephus is the only suitable living m e m b e r o f this house. H e gave p r o o f o f this in the Vita (8ff). T h e only respectable m e m b e r o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty, A g r i p p a II, has just died (Vita 3 5 9 ) .
20
Josephus
already gave a negative assessment o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty in A J. 18: I will now give a fuller account o f Herod and the particulars o f his line, both because the tale is pertinent to my history and because it affords a proof o f Divine Providence, showing how neither numbers nor any other worldly advantage can avail aught without acts o f piety toward the Divine Power. For within a century o f Herod's decease it came about that all but a few o f Herod's issue, and there were many, had perished. It may contribute to the moral instruction o f mankind to learn what their misfortunes were (A J. 18.127—128). 21
J o s e p h u s , b y contrast, is c a p a b l e o f leading a law reform, b e i n g qualified for this task since the age o f fourteen (Vita 9 ) .
2 2
H e also
gives evidence o f this qualification in the s e c o n d appendix, usually 23
called Contra Apionem.
Josephus can venture to claim the right origin and qualification. He
does not c o m p a r e himself to M o s e s , the founder and lawgiver.
The
early Christian c o m m u n i t y only m a d e this c o m p a r i s o n in their
message a b o u t Jesus.
24
CONCLUSION
It is unthinkable
that the strong warrior Saul w o u l d have p r o p h e
sied eternal rule o v e r Israel b y a pagan king a n d w o u l d have b e g g e d
1 9
D . Lambers-Petry, "Shelamzion ha-malka. T h e H a s m o n e a n Q u e e n and her Enigmatic Portrayal by Josephus," in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (ed. J. U . K a l m s and F. Siegert; MJSt, 14; Munster: L I T - V e r l a g , 2 0 0 3 ) , 6 5 - 7 8 . For Josephus' assessment see A J. 1 6 . 1 8 3 - 1 8 7 . 2 0
Siegert, Schreckenberg, and V o g e l , Vita 180. "It m a y also b e edifying to tell the story o f A g r i p p a , which is in the high est degree remarkable. For from a position o f no distinction at all and to the sur prise of all w h o knew o f him, he rose to his high and mighty exaltation" (A J. 1 8 . 1 2 9 ) . T h e addition o f this favorable portrait o f A g r i p p a I, h o w e v e r , c a n n o t c h a n g e the negative i m a g e o f the H e r o d i a n dynasty. D o r m e y e r , "Vita des Josephus," 1 5 - 2 3 . D o r m e y e r , "Suasoriae." D o r m e y e r , Markusevangelium, 1 4 0 - 1 4 2 . 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
THE HELLENISTIC BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY OF KING SAUL
for his life b y any and all means as Josephus did (BJ.
157
3.400-401).
Josephus seems to b e merely a miniature Saul. But Josephus was also an excellent biographical historian. H e r e d u c e d the sins o f Saul to only t w o , using them to form a n e w picture o f Saul, and a d d i n g two wonderful e n c o m i a as a platform for future J u d e a n politics. J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f Saul makes h i m an impressive character. Saul opens the gallery o f important Israelite kings. T h u s Josephus c o r rects the one-dimensional ideological picture o f the d e u t e r o n o m i s d c author. Saul receives the same rank as D a v i d . H e b e c o m e s a m i x e d tragic character a c c o r d i n g the Poetica o f A r i s t o d e . T h e history o f readers' response, especially in works o f ardsts, gives full credit to this useful re-evaluation o f Saul b y J o s e p h u s . J o s e p h u s '
hidden
identification with Saul has b e e n easily o v e r l o o k e d . Y e t , only Saul, not Josephus, remained the m o r a l m o d e l o f the king a n d fighter for G o d ' s law and k i n g d o m .
2 5
D i d therefore
25
only Luke use and emphazise
"Saul" for "Paul" in Acts?
the unknown Jewish equivalent
P O W E R A N D PITY: T H E I M A G E O F H E R O D IN J O S E P H U S ' BELLUM
JUDAICUM
T A M A R LANDAU
O X F O R D AND T E L A v r v
W h a t makes a g o o d story? M o r e o v e r , w h o makes it? A n d d o the answers to these questions differ w h e n it c o m e s to history? T h e s e questions c a m e to m y m i n d during m y examination o f J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d narratives. W h a t is it about H e r o d that keeps fascinating audi ences and writers to this day? Is it something about H e r o d , o r a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f H e r o d (as w e have n o other extant substantive portrait)? A r e these entities at all separable? T h e beauty o f these questions lies, in m y o p i n i o n , in their never-ending nature: there is n o definitive answer to them. Nevertheless, asking t h e m m a y b e important, a n d m a y shed a different and refreshing light o n o u r o w n historiographical inquiry. If w e were to lay the historian's hat aside for a m o m e n t a n d j u d g e the H e r o d narratives o f Josephus b y their literary merit, w e w o u l d realize that b o t h accounts retain an even higher dramatic than their plot initially has. Indeed, H e r o d ' s trials a n d
quality
tribulations
have a highly dramatic content. But Josephus, to b o r r o w Shakespeare's phrase, seems to have o u t - H e r o d e d H e r o d . Meticulously applying rhetorical devices, and consciously allowing the penetration o f e m o tions to his historical writing, Josephus created highly charged accounts w h o s e themes a n d rhetorical tricks often seem to transcend the par ticular story o f H e r o d to m o r e universal interests. M y initial w o r k i n g assumption is that the H e r o d narratives o f Josephus (B.J. 1 . 2 0 4 - 6 7 3 and A.J. 1 4 . 1 5 8 - 1 7 . 1 9 9 ) display the w o r k o f a conscientious and aware historian, w h o is well versed in G r e c o R o m a n historiography and literature, well attuned to his prospective audience and very well in touch with his o w n political and m o r a l agenda. It is also m y contention that in the H e r o d narratives, Josephus mainly relies u p o n the G r e c o - R o m a n rather than the Jewish histo riographical
tradition.
160
TAMAR LANDAU
J o s e p h u s ' historiographical awareness is best demonstrated b y his use o f rhetorical devices throughout the narratives. H e uses digressions, speeches, obituaries, descriptions o f natural disasters a n d
authorial
c o m m e n t s in his accounts o f the life o f H e r o d in a m a n n e r remi niscent o f G r e e k and R o m a n historians and also seems to b e quite well-versed in other literary genres: G r e e k tragedy, p h i l o s o p h y a n d epic poetry often spring to m i n d .
1
This p a p e r is just a glimpse into a b r o a d e r analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' use o f rhetorical devices in the H e r o d narratives.
2
H e r e , I shall only
examine the earlier a c c o u n t o f the Bellum, a n d will focus o n o n e aspect o f J o s e p h u s ' c o m p l e x m e t h o d o f portraying king H e r o d o f J u d e a . T h i s I will d o through an examination o f s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' authorial c o m m e n t s o n H e r o d . T h e r e are m a n y o f those through out the narrative, s o m e short, s o m e longer, but I will l o o k at three that form o n e possible axis: Josephus' first c o m m e n t o n H e r o d (1.208), the t w o c h a p t e r s
that d i v i d e the t w o s e c t i o n s o f the
narrative
( 1 . 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 ) , and H e r o d ' s obituary (1.665). T h e r e is m u c h m o r e to J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d , o f course. But those three c o m m e n t s perhaps c o n tain in a nutshell H e r o d ' s c o m p l e x i t y o f character, J o s e p h u s ' metic ulous historical m e t h o d , and the underlying themes o f the a c c o u n t . M o r e o v e r , they m a y help to explain a perplexing puzzle that springs to m i n d after a t h o r o u g h reading o f the story o f H e r o d . This p u z zle has to d o with a certain discrepancy b e t w e e n the excessively dra matic character o f the narrative and the flat emotional impact o f H e r o d ' s character. I shall elaborate o n that b e l o w , with the help o f the m o d e r n theory o f narratology. F o r the m o m e n t , suffice it to b e a r this discrepancy in m i n d .
WHY
HEROD,
THEN?
H e r o d i a n history was not J o s e p h u s ' primary subject in either o f his historical works. T h e earlier Bellum took the J u d e a n revolt o f 66 C E . as its main subject. T h e later Antiquitates, an extensive "universal his-
1
I shall not enter the long debate concerning the Assistant T h e o r y here; suffice it to say that in m y opinion, the person ultimately responsible for all of the histo riographical ornamentations and literary allusions in the text is none other than Josephus himself. T h i s assumption is a byproduct of both m y reading of Josephus and of the methodology I have been using. M o r e on that below. 2
T h e fuller and comparative analysis is in T . Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives (D.Phil, thesis, O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 ) .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
161
tory" style a c c o u n t o f the history o f the Jewish p e o p l e , does not focus o n any particular p e r i o d but emphasises the prevalence and virtuousness o f Jewish religion and law (noXmíá).
W h y H e r o d , then?
M y question, in fact, is a s e c o n d tier question. I c h o o s e not to 3
focus here o n the historical H e r o d but rather o n his historiographical i m a g e . In other w o r d s , I a m not asking "what is the i m p o r t a n c e o f the historical H e r o d ? " but " w h y has Josephus c h o s e n to dedicate ample space and attention to H e r o d , despite his otherwise different interests in b o t h the Bellum and the Antiquitates?" A n y historian, n o d o u b t , w o u l d have b e e n grateful for obtaining material such as the accounts o f H e r o d ' s life and reign. N o t only does the subject matter contain elements w o r t h y o f relating in m a n y aspects ( H e r o d ' s turbulent political career, and his even m o r e tur bulent private life), but also the a b u n d a n c e and detail o f the avail able source (the writings o f Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s , H e r o d ' s aide and court historian) suggest a temptation almost impossible to resist. B o r n a c o m m o n e r , a n d o f I d u m e a n descent, H e r o d had risen to b e J u d e a ' s king and R o m a n protege a n d reigned o v e r J u d e a for nearly 4 0 years. A perceptive and flexible politician, he wisely crafted an alliance with Augustan R o m e w h i c h , despite J o s e p h u s ' favourable contentions, p r o v e d to b e a d o u b l e e d g e d sword for Judea. It brought prosperity a n d resulted in better facilities and extensive rebuilding projects (including the major refurbishment o f the T e m p l e in Jerusalem). H o w e v e r , it also caused internal strife, distrust and tension w h i c h g r e w under H e r o d ' s increasingly tyrannical rule.
4
H e r o d ' s trouble
s o m e family affairs and his extreme paranoia resulted in the short lived a n d even m o r e tyrannical rule o f his son Archelaus w h i c h , in turn, b r o u g h t a b o u t direct R o m a n rule o v e r Judea: this effectively put an e n d to J u d e a n a u t o n o m y , a c h i e v e d b y the ( p r o - R o m a n ) H a s m o n e a n s in the s e c o n d century B.C.E. and maintained,
almost
intact, until the e n d o f Archelaus' rule in 6 C E . In relation to b o t h
3
M o d e r n scholarship has indeed tended to focus on the historical H e r o d , e.g. A . Schalit, Hordos Ha-Melekh (in H e b r e w ; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1 9 6 4 ; rev. G e r m a n ed. with introduction by D . R . Schwartz; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2 0 0 1 ) ; M . Grant, Herod the Great (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971); M . Stern, The Kingdom of Herod (in H e b r e w ; T e l Aviv: Ministry o f Defense, 1992); P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), N . Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998). T h i s view o f R o m e as bearer of both g o o d and evil is later attested in the Babylonian T a l m u d as well (b. Shabb. 3 3 b ) . 4
162
TAMAR LANDAU
J u d e a n history and m o r e abstract themes such as f r e e d o m , tyranny a n d personal weaknesses, this story was u n d o u b t e d l y w o r t h relating. But that, as most historians k n o w , is not e n o u g h . It is possible that part o f the answer has to d o with Josephus' sources. In the case o f H e r o d , source material from N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s was abundant. T h i s , c o u p l e d with the dramatic content, might have persuaded Josephus to use the material. But it seems 5
that there are other, d e e p e r reasons for J o s e p h u s decision to include the story o f H e r o d in his histories in the first p l a c e , and m o r e o v e r , to treat it with m u c h rhetorical attention. T h e s e have to d o with the thematic and symbolic relevance o f H e r o d to later Jewish his tory, whether to the understanding
o f the rise and failure o f the
revolt in 6 6 o r to the evolution and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the Jewish eOvoq. H e r o d was the last independent ruler o f Judea. His death effectively m a r k e d the e n d o f J u d e a n national i n d e p e n d e n c e in the
Greco-
R o m a n p e r i o d . J u d e a n self-rule started with the H a s m o n e a n revolt in the s e c o n d century B . C E . a n d continued with the subsequent rule o f the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled J u d e a in o n e form o r another
5
until H e r o d ' s assumption o f the throne as a client king o f R o m e in 37
B.CE.
H e r o d ' s reign was in m a n y ways the beginning o f the e n d o f the existence o f the J u d e a n state, culminating, o f course, with the defeat o f Jerusalem
and the destruction o f the S e c o n d T e m p l e . H e r o d ' s
rule, externally peaceful and prosperous as it eventually b e c a m e , was far from consensual within Judea. His un-Hasmonean (and not entirely Jewish) b a c k g r o u n d , his Hellenising tendencies, his close political alliance with R o m e and his tyrannical b e h a v i o u r all contributed to the e m e r g e n c e o f internal tension, factualism and dissent. T h o s e seeds c a m e to full and tragic fruition with the rise against R o m e , the sub j e c t matter o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum. It seems that for Josephus, the story o f H e r o d was a necessary preface, an " a r c h a e o l o g y " o f the revolt, without w h i c h it w o u l d have b e e n m u c h m o r e difficult to under stand (and empathise with) the tragic fate o f J u d e a . T h e story o f H e r o d , then, seems to have encapsulated m a n y rel evant themes and moral interests for Josephus. S o u r c e availability, thematic relevance and a very g o o d story c o m b i n e d seem to have
5
W h e t h e r as autonomous rulers of an independent state (c. 1 4 1 - 6 3 B . C E . ) or, after Pompey's conquest o f Jerusalem, as subject to the supervision o f the R o m a n governor o f Syria.
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
163
m a d e the history o f H e r o d irresistible for an eager historian. But there was still m o r e w o r k to b e d o n e : in o r d e r to m a k e the H e r o d narratives c o m p l e t e l y relevant, J o s e p h u s h a d to rewrite them so that they w o u l d read as an o r g a n i c part o f the works they were part of. In o r d e r to make m y arguments clearer I shall first address the question o f the relations b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' final products a n d the main source he used for them, namely, the works o f Nicolaus o f Damascus
6
w h i c h seem to have c o m e d o w n to Josephus in a m u c h
fuller form than w e have them t o d a y .
7
T h e r e is n o w a y to determine e x a c d y h o w m u c h o f N i c o l a u s ' vast 8
corpus was available for Josephus, but most scholars conjecture that Nicolaus was i n d e e d the source J o s e p h u s h a d used for the history 9
o f H e r o d . H o w e v e r , opinions differ c o n c e r n i n g the m a n n e r in w h i c h J o s e p h u s used Nicolaus a n d the extent to w h i c h he b o r r o w e d from him. W h e r e a s earlier scholarship tended to view Josephus as m e r e c o p i e r o r attribute the characteristics o f the H e r o d narratives
to
6
M o r e o n the life and works o f Nicolaus in B. Z . W a c h o l d e r , Nicolaus of Damascus (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o f California Press, 1962), R . J. H . Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: S P C K , 1961), 7 9 - 9 2 ; M . Stern, "Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s as a Source for Jewish History in the H a s m o n e a n and H e r o d i a n Periods," (in H e b r e w ) in The Mikra and Jewish History: Studies in Mikra and Second Temple Literature in Memory of Jacob Liver (ed. B. UfTenheimer; T e l Aviv: T e l A v i v University, 1972), 3 7 5 if.; M . T o h e r , " O n the U s e of Nicolaus' Historical Fragments," CA 8.1 (1989): 1 5 9 - 7 2 . 7
T h e most recent work to assess the relations between Nicolaus and the H e r o d narrative o f the Antiquitates is M . T o h e r , "Nicolaus a n d H e r o d in the Antiquitates Judaicae" HSCP 101 (2001): 4 2 7 - 4 8 . T o h e r detects s o m e stylistic a n d thematic affinities between Nicolaus and Josephus which are all in all convincing. H o w e v e r , his suggestion that the portraiture o f H e r o d is unique in essence (and not only m o r e extensive in scope) w h e n c o m p a r e d with biblical, H a s m o n e a n a n d R o m a n portraits in the Antiquitates m a y be slighdy modified. T h e r e are m o r e stylistic and thematic connections between the H e r o d narrative a n d the rest o f the work than he suggests. 8
T h i s issue has been investigated particularly concerning the Antiquitates narra tive. Thackeray, Historian, 6 6 , agrees that Nicolaus was the main source for the later account o f Herod's life. G . Hölscher, "Josephus," P W 9 (1916), 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 , and R . Laqueur, Der Jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen: M ü n c h o w , 1 9 2 0 ) con tended o n the contrary that the Antiquitates narrative was not dependent on Nicolaus. T h e i r arguments, however, are not consensual. 9
T h e bulk o f material for the H e r o d narratives was probably taken from Nicolaus' Universal History a n d from his autobiography, which was c o m p o s e d after the death of H e r o d . Fragments from both works are collected in F. J a c o b y , FGrH II A 9 0 . M o d e r n scholarship has acknowledged the presence o f other sources in Josephus' H e r o d narratives and in s o m e cases tended to attribute the differences between the accounts, the discrepancies and Josephus' criticism of H e r o d to those sources, rather than to Josephus' editorial hand. See e.g. Shutt's survey of earlier scholarship on A J. 1 5 - 1 7 a n d his o w n explanation (Studies, 8 8 - 9 2 ) , a n d Stern, "Nicolaus o f Damascus," 3 8 3 .
164
TAMAR LANDAU
assistants o r earlier s o u r c e s ,
10
m o r e recent research sees J o s e p h u s '
writing in a n e w light a n d credits h i m with a greater degree o f compositional authenticity a n d originality.
11
Let m e briefly explain w h y , in m y o p i n i o n , the H e r o d narratives c o u l d naturally b e attributed to n o n e other than Josephus and w h y , 5
in the end, the question o f Josephus extent o f borrowing from Nicolaus b e c o m e s redundant. Josephus' original hand seems m o r e evident from several angles. First, w e c a n n o t ignore the simple fact that the t w o H e r o d narratives are very different from each other. T h i s fact alone makes implausible the assumption that J o s e p h u s c o p i e d the H e r o d material from Nicolaus without alterations o r interventions. T h e Jewish historian must have m a d e changes at least in o n e o f the narratives.
12
Secondly, the use o f dramatic elements and literary allusions to G r e e k a n d R o m a n d r a m a a n d history are n o t exclusively confined to the H e r o d narratives but a p p e a r throughout the J o s e p h a n c o r p u s . T h e r e f o r e , there is n o reason to attribute them to N i c o l a u s .
14
13
T h i s is
the case even if w e assume that Josephus used Nicolaus as a source for other parts o f his historical works such as the biblical paraphrase o f the Antiquitates o r the a c c o u n t o f the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d , as
1 0
E.g. Thackeray, Historian (assistants), and Hölscher, "Josephus" (earlier sources). See also Shutt's criticism o f the G e r m a n predisposition towards Quellenkritik Studies, 89-90. 11
A m o n g these are T . R a j a k , Josephus: the Historian and his Society ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1 9 8 3 ; 2 d ed., 2 0 0 2 ) ; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus Between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), a n d S. Mason's introductions to the BJP volumes: Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 3: Judean Antiquities 1-4; vol. 9: Vita (ed. S. M a s o n ; Leiden: Brill 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 ) . Stern, "Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s , " suggests an affinity o f style a n d thematic concerns between Nicolaus and Josephus but agrees that Josephus treated his source accord ing to his specific needs in both works. Shutt, Studies, 8 3 - 8 4 , compares between Josephus' and Nicolaus' life circumstances. T o h e r , "Nicolaus," 1 6 2 - 6 3 , does not draw an explicit parallel between the two historians but his observations o n Nicolaus' historiographical preferences and rhetorical skill could also be applied to Josephus. 1 2
Shutt, Studies 8 7 - 8 8 , maintains that the later Antiquitates narrative is 'much m o r e close to the original work o f Nicolaus'. T h a t o f course raises the question why, if Josephus had an original version, he first chose to change it but later went back to using the original. 1 3
See Thackeray, Historian, and Shutt, Studies, and m o r e recendy L . H . Feldman, " T h e Influence o f the G r e e k Tragedians on Josephus," in Hellenic and Jewish Arts: Interaction, Tradition and Renewal (ed. A . Ovadia; T e l Aviv: R A M O T Publishing H o u s e , 1998), 5 1 - 8 0 ; J. J. Price and L . U l l m a n , " D r a m a and History in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum^ SCI 21 (2002): 9 7 - 1 1 4 ; D . R . Schwartz, " O n D r a m a and Authenticity in Philo and Josephus," SCI 10 ( 1 9 8 9 / 9 0 ) : 1 1 3 - 2 9 . 1 4
T h a t is despite his penchant for pathetic embellishment. See Toher's analysis o f Nicolaus' fragments ("Nicolaus," 1 6 4 - 7 2 ) .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BEIXUM JUDAICUM
Wacholder
15
165
does. For even if he did, it is assumed that he used
other sources as well and therefore any textual ornaments n e e d not b e attributed solely to Nicolaus. Furthermore, w e k n o w that the use o f dramatic elements was widespread a m o n g Hellenistic historians in general, so there is n o particular reason to assume those were b o r r o w e d from his source rather than c o m p o s e d i n d e p e n d e n d y b y Josephus. Thirdly, m a n y rhetorical and dramatic elements in the H e r o d nar rative, as well as the w h o l e o f the Bellum, are not unique to this w o r k but appear in the Antiquitates as well. T h e use o f speeches and G r e c o - R o m a n rhetoric, for instance, o r the use o f pathos a n d e m o tions in the portraiture o f rulers,
16
appear in the biblical paraphrase
(A.J. 1-10). T h i s means, at least, that such rhetoric c a n b e f o u n d in other sources (such as the Bible) that Josephus u s e d — o r that Josephus himself i m p l e m e n t e d such rhetorical devices throughout his works. 5
Fourthly, w e cannot ignore Josephus explicit references to his sources throughout the H e r o d narratives, and especially his sharp criticism 5
o f N i c o l a u s affinity to H e r o d a n d his historical m e t h o d o l o g y .
17
It
m a y perhaps b e o d d that a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y conscious historian like Josephus w o u l d pass such u n e q u i v o c a l criticism o n anything, while uncritically and extensively b o r r o w i n g from that very same source. A n d a final reason, o n a different level: the use o f narratology in m y analysis dictates that I focus o n the text as w e have it, a n d set aside the source question. A l t h o u g h the implementation o f narratol o g y o n historical texts requires certain modifications (upon w h i c h I shall elaborate below), it is impossible to extend the boundaries o f m e t h o d o l o g y so that earlier levels, b o t h textual and contextual, gain p r e c e d e n c e o v e r the text (and its context). M y focus is o n Josephus 5
the narrator and his o w n , rather than his predecessors , art o f nar rating. In other w o r d s , the emphasis o f m y analysis is not o n the 5
p r o v e n a n c e o f Josephus material but o n the ways in w h i c h he treated his source material and c o m p o s e d an original and independent text. Despite o u r attempt to find a neat solution for the source ques tion and attribute the dramatic creativity to Josephus exclusively, the situation might b e a little m o r e blurred. M y research leads m e to
1 5
W a c h o l d e r , Nicolaus, 5 8 ff.
1 6
T h e former is apparent in the Josephan parallel to the Joseph story in book 2 (Judah's speech in A.J. 2 . 1 4 0 - 1 5 9 ) . Josephus' portrait of king Saul also contains tragic elements. In the case o f H e r o d Josephus' use o f pathetic and tragic elements is careful and complex. See below, in the conclusion to this paper. 17
AJ
14.8-9; 16.183-186.
166
TAMAR
LANDAU
suggest that the text w e have is Josephus' original c o m p o s i t i o n , nei ther b o r r o w e d from n o r c o m p o s e d b y a n y o n e else. H o w e v e r , even if o n e arrives at the conclusion that Nicolaus' h a n d is the o n e in content and form, o n e must accept that the
final
dominant editorial
touches must have b e e n Josephus'. T h a t is to say, even if regarding H e r o d the Jewish historian a d o p t e d (or even c o p i e d ) almost every thing from Nicolaus, he still had to c o m b i n e this narrative within the wider frameworks o f the Bellum and the Antiquitates, w h i c h evid e n d y has taken s o m e editing and modifying, a n d involved making authorial c h o i c e s . In short: it w o u l d b e very difficult to rule out J o s e p h u s ' part in the c o m p o s i t i o n and editing o f the H e r o d narra tives, even if o n e assumes Nicolaus, and not Josephus, to b e m o s d y responsible for its present form. C o n c e r n i n g the portrait o f H e r o d , I shall suggest that Josephus in b o t h narratives (but especially in the earlier Bellum) shifts the focus from " H e r o d the M a n " to " H e r o d the I m a g e . " It is not so m u c h the historical H e r o d that J o s e p h u s ' accounts emphasise but rather a symbolic H e r o d : a m e t a p h o r and e x e m p l u m o f overriding personal ambition, shrewd political perception, but also o f slavery to one's passions, paranoid b e h a v i o u r and, in the Antiquitates, o f impiety and cruelty. This emphasis o n the symbolic qualities o f H e r o d is i m p o r tant, because it might b e a clue for solving the rhetorical puzzle I have hinted at a b o v e . Before examining the text, though, let us have a l o o k at the m e t h o d o l o g y .
NARRATOLOGY
M y analysis o f the H e r o d narratives relies mainly (but not exclusively) o n the m o d e r n theory o f narratology.
Narratology, as defined b y
M i e k e Bal, is "the T h e o r y o f narratives, narrative texts, images, spec tacles, events; cultural artifacts that tell a story."
18
Bal essentially modifies the m o d e l devised b y G . Genette in his Figures III ( 1 9 7 2 )
19
20
and later revised in Nouveau discours du récit.
What
1 8
M . Bai, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (2d ed.; Toronto: University o f T o r o n t o Press, 1997), 3. 1 9
G . Genette, Narrative Discourse (trans. J. E. Lewin; O x f o r d : Blackwell, 1980). G . G e n e t t e , Narrative Discourse Revisited (transl. J. E . Lewin; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988). 2 0
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
167
stands at the basis o f the analyses o f Genette, Bal and Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan
2 1
is a tripartite division o f the levels o f text, from
the basic (independent?) plot through an intermediate version w h e r e the plot is o r d e r e d , articulated a n d structured, a n d finally to the m e t h o d o f narration. Genette's tripartite division is into "story, nar rative a n d narrating"; Bal prefers "fabula, story, text."
Rimmon-
K e n a n talks a b o u t "story, text a n d narration." A n o t h e r b r a n c h o f narratology prefers a two-level reading. S. C h a t m a n ,
22
for instance,
divides b e t w e e n "story" a n d " d i s c o u r s e , " essentially f o r g o i n g
the
notion o f the initial "fabula." W h i l e the division to levels is useful as a tool within the process o f interpreting a text, it m a y b e well w o r t h r e m e m b e r i n g that the borders b e t w e e n story, text and narration
tend to blur: it is not
always clear w h e r e a textual p h e n o m e n o n belongs. T h i s is especially relevant in the analysis o f historical texts, w h e r e the n o t i o n o f "an event" in "real life" determines the character o f the text a n d the author's m e t h o d o l o g y but w h e r e , in highly elaborate works such as those o f J o s e p h u s o r T h u c y d i d e s , it is virtually impossible to distin guish the original chain o f events from its relating. F o r this reason, the twofold division into "story" a n d " d i s c o u r s e " — w h a t o n e relates, and h o w o n e does s o — s e e m s to m e to b e m o r e c o n v e n i e n t in rela tion to the analysis o f historical texts. H e n c e , I shall leave aside the questions o f historical a c c u r a c y a n d to a certain extent, the use o f sources in J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d narratives a n d concentrate here o n the two levels o f story and narration
only.
23
U s i n g narratology in the analysis o f historical texts (as o p p o s e d to fiction) poses a few p r o b l e m s and requires certain modifications.
24
A
2 1
S. R i m m o n - K e n a n , Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (2d ed.; London: Roudedge, 2002). 2 2
S. C h a t m a n , Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). 2 3
T h e decision to leave aside this question does not, however, entail any judgement on the historical accuracy o f Josephus. It is simply a methodological step, derived from the narratological perspective I have adopted throughout m y analysis. A . Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livy's History (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1998), ix-xi, takes a similar methodological step in his historiographical analysis. 2 4
Narratologists have already pointed out that the differences between fiction and non-fiction (or 'factual' narratives) raise several questions regarding the appli cation o f narratology to the latter. Both G e n e t t e , "Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative," in his Fiction & Diction (trans. C . Porter; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 5 4 - 8 4 , and also in Poetics Today 1 1 . 4 (1990): 7 5 5 - 7 4 ) and D . C o h n , "Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective," Poetics Today 11:4 (1990): 7 7 5 - 8 0 4 ,
168
TAMAR LANDAU
key issue that requires a certain degree o f c o n c e p t u a l acrobatics has to d o with the relations b e t w e e n author a n d audience (and their par allel textual p e r s o n a e , narrator
a n d narratees) in historical texts.
History, as genre, is perceived s o m e w h a t differendy from
fiction.
T.
R o o d explains that What distinguishes historical texts from fiction is the reader's assump tion that they relate "what actually happened." Works o f fiction may purport to relate that, and may call upon the discursive apparatus o f historical texts to give their claims an air o f plausibility, but these claims are seriously meant only by the narrator, not by the author, who belongs to a different diegetic world. Readers o f historical texts, by contrast, tend to identify author and narrator and to suppose an "ontological connection" between the discourse and the events it signifies. The status o f history as a discourse o f the real calls for some further refinement o f narratological models. A dichotomy o f story and dis course is no longer adequate; one must also allow for a referential level, and beyond that for the extra-textual level o f the deeds and words o f real people, even if this level is itself only accessible through other stories. 25
T h e questions concerning author and audience, narrator and narratees, a n d the relations b e t w e e n t h e m b e c o m e m o r e acute w h e n applying narratology to historical texts.
26
T h e historian a n d his readership are
i n d e e d very relevant to the discussion even if the emphasis is o n the textual characteristics o f the work. W e , as m o d e r n historians, can n o t ignore the real Flavius J o s e p h u s regardless o f whether o r not his "real" self h a d any discernible i m p a c t o n his c o n t e m p o r a r y "real" audience. W e also c a n n o t ignore J o s e p h u s ' prospective (immediate)
point out the generic difference on the one hand, and the possible flexibility o f nar ratology o n the other, a n d view fiction and non fiction as part of a continuum rather than two discrete genres. 2 5
T . C . B. R o o d , Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 10. 2 6
J. P. Sullivan points out s o m e o f the issues that arise in relation to authoraudience relationship in antiquity, as well as s o m e o f the problems entailed in the application o f m o d e r n literary theories to classical texts w h e n it c o m e s to those issues, in his introduction to I. J. F. de J o n g & J. P. Sullivan (eds.), Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1 0 - 1 1 . O n classical authors and their audiences see T . W o o d m a n a n d J. Powell, Author and Audience in Latin Literature (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1993); J. Marineóla, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1997), 1 9 - 3 3 , and M . J. W h e e l d o n , " 'True Stories': T h e Reception o f Historiography in Antiquity," in History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History (ed. A . C a m e r o n ; L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1989), 3 5 - 6 4 .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BEIJUM
JUDAICUM
169
audience, constructed o r real: an educated, Western, Greek-speak 21
ing readership for Bellum
and p r o b a b l y R o m a n aristocrats with a
p e n c h a n t for J u d a i s m ( j o i n e d , perhaps, b y Greek-speaking D i a s p o r a 28
Jews) for Antiquitates
T h e y are all part a n d parcel o f the essential
analysis o f the works o f Josephus. T h e inclusion o f the "real" author and audience in the analysis brings in turn m o r e complexity. A p a r t from discussing issues c o n cerning author a n d audience (and narrator-narratees) a n d the extent to w h i c h real-life prior knowledge m a y affect, w e also have to address the question o f the relationship between these facets, especially between author and narrator. M u c h as w e w o u l d like to believe that J o s e p h u s the m a n , the historian and the narrator are distinctively different facets w h i c h have separate roles in the understanding o f the works o f Josephus, it is not always possible to make a clear differentiation.
29
T h e three facets tend to blur, diffuse into e a c h other a n d sometimes almost disappear, most notoriously w h e n it c o m e s to the instances o f "historian" a n d "narrator." In the case o f Josephus I will suggest that these t w o entities are even m o r e closely linked. T h i s is because, in addition to the c o n ventional m e a n s o f establishing authority (outlining the historical method;
first-hand
experience), J o s e p h u s ' narrating v o i c e seems to
remain the m a i n focalizer o f the H e r o d narrative from beginning to end. T h i s has a direct i m p a c t o n the w a y H e r o d ' s character is p o r trayed a n d o n his qualities as a dramatic character.
2 7
B.J. 1.3 designates them as "subjects o f the R o m a n Empire," xoîç m x a TTIV 'Ptouaicov fiyeuoviav. 2 8
In this matter I a m convinced by S. M a s o n ' s arguments in his introductory essay to the third v o l u m e o f the BJP. O n the basis of textual references from Josephus, Tacitus and Juvenal, M a s o n conjectures that " T h e simplest solution [to the question o f Josephus' readership] is that Josephus expects gentile readers w h o are deeply interested in J u d e a n culture. . . . T h i s atmosphere o f fascination with Judaism is the context that Josephus claims for his Antiquities, a n d his claim hap pens to match conditions otherwise known." See S. M a s o n , BJP 3 , xvii-xx (here pp. x i x - x x ) , and also M a s o n , " ' S h o u l d anyone W i s h to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): T h e A i m and A u d i e n c e of Josephus' Judean Antiquities/Life" in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (ed. S. M a s o n ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 6 4 - 1 0 3 . 2 9
Marineóla, Authority, 1 3 1 - 3 3 , discusses this tendency to identify author a n d nar rator in antiquity. A s noted above, this problem appears to s o m e extent in fiction. It seems to m e that it becomes somewhat m o r e acute in historical narratives, ancient or m o d e r n .
170
TAMAR LANDAU
How
H E R O D IS P O R T R A Y E D
A s with every c o m p l e x story, the H e r o d narrative is not simply a s u m o f its elements, but something m o r e : a c o h e r e n t a c c o u n t w h i c h derives its dramatic force not only from the implementation o f rhetor ical tools within it, but also from the stance the narrator adopts, his interaction with the audience, a n d the relation b e t w e e n this partic ular a c c o u n t and the rest o f the work. J o s e p h u s retains a resonant a n d assertive narrating v o i c e throughout the H e r o d narrative. T h i s continuous retention o f focalization
30
has s o m e interesting implica
tions for the overall dramatic character o f the narrative a n d for the portraiture o f H e r o d . Already w h e n l o o k i n g at the o r d e r o f the H e r o d
narrative—the
sequence o f relating the events—it is evident that J o s e p h u s chooses to narrate the historical a c c o u n t in an unusual m a n n e r . T h e r e is a clear partition between H e r o d ' s public and domestic affairs.
31
Josephus
begins his narrative with a presentation o f H e r o d as a y o u n g m a n , already e n d o w e d with his m o s t characteristic traits (an energetic nature, ambition, a h o t temper, a n d their political c o n s e q u e n c e s , B.J. 1 . 2 0 4 - 2 2 8 ) . T h e n c o m e s an a c c o u n t o f his struggle for p o w e r , his victories a n d failures ( 1 . 2 2 9 - 3 5 3 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s relates
an
a c c o u n t o f H e r o d ' s actual reign ( 1 . 3 5 4 - 6 7 3 ) . T h e t w o parts are j u x taposed in chapters 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 , w h e r e the narrator contrasts H e r o d ' s g o o d fortune in his p u b l i c career with his grave misfortune c o n cerning his family affairs.
32
T h e a c c o u n t o f H e r o d ' s rise to p o w e r is
d o m i n a t e d b y his p u b l i c c o n d u c t ( 1 . 2 0 4 - 4 3 0 ) . T h a t o f his actual reign, in turn, emphasises his private comings and goings ( 1 . 4 3 1 - 6 7 3 ) .
3 0
T h i s is not to say that the narrative is devoid o f e m b e d d e d focalizations: these c o m e into play in speeches, letters, and certain stories. H o w e v e r , the main focaliz ing voice seems to remain that o f the narrator, Josephus, from beginning to end. 3 1
T h i s has been noted by m a n y scholars. See most recendy U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " esp. 9 8 - 9 9 , and T . Rajak, " W h o s e H e r o d ? Josephus and Nicolaus o n the Reign o f H e r o d the Great" (paper presented at the H e r o d conference o f the British M u s e u m , April 2 0 0 1 , publication forthcoming). 3 2
In B.J. 1 . 4 2 9 - 4 3 0 Josephus lists H e r o d ' s virtues—rather G r e c o - R o m a n in nature (excellent physical constitution, invincibility in batde, precision in javelinthrowing and bow-bending). T h e contrast comes in 4 3 1 : "But, in revenge for his public prosperity, fortune visited H e r o d with troubles at h o m e " (xdq ye uev imcuGpoix; evizpayia f| x\)XT| m x ' oucov aviapoTq eveueat|aev). T h e duality o f fortune is a famil iar topos in G r e c o - R o m a n historiography.
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
171
T h e t w o parts are divided b y a smaller section, H e r o d ' s building projects ( 1 . 4 0 1 - 4 3 0 ) . Let us n o w concentrate m o r e o n the portraiture o f H e r o d . T h e main emphasis in the first part o f the Bellum narrative is o n H e r o d ' s political image, as a y o u n g and powerful contestant to the J u d e a n throne. W e are told a lot a b o u t H e r o d ' s public traits: he is quick to react, energetic, confident, c u n n i n g a n d h o t - h e a d e d . H o w e v e r , Josephus does n o t tell us anything a b o u t H e r o d ' s early upbringing, education o r domestic relationships: the w a y he treats his relatives, his personal feelings, o r what i n d e e d drives h i m to take the r o a d he has taken.
33
Perhaps as a result o f that, H e r o d at this stage seems
m o r e symbolic than real. His character is almost schematic, that o f "a y o u n g , promising (but potentially problematic) politician rising to power."
34
W e d o not k n o w anything specific a b o u t his personality,
his thoughts, his wishes o r his formative past experiences. J o s e p h u s does not write a b o u t H e r o d ' s c h i l d h o o d , o r include anecdotes o f any kind.
35
H e r o d ' s existence, as it were, begins n o t with a wise o r antic
ipatory a n e c d o t e from early c h i l d h o o d as is often the case in ancient biography, but with an i m m e d i a t e a n d glorious military action: the
3 3
Ancient biography, by contrast, often tends to include accounts o f early child h o o d a n d upbringing (aycoyfi) in such accounts, whether they consist o f curious anec dotes or an oudine o f the education o f the promising y o u n g m a n w h o would b e c o m e king. Earlier examples tend to do so m u c h m o r e than later G r e c o - R o m a n , and Latin political biography tends to have very litde o f such material: Suetonius' Life of Augustus, for instance, contains an account o f Augustus' family history ( 1 - 7 ) but only a short account o f Augustus as a child prodigy (8). T h e rest o f the work is dedicated to the emperor's political career. Cf. C . B. R . Pelling, "Childhood and Personality in G r e e k Biography," in Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (ed. C . B. R . Pelling; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 2 1 3 - 4 4 . N o t e that the firstcentury B . C . E . Life of Augustus b y Nicolaus ( 1 - 1 4 and 2 5 a - b ) includes a longer and more detailed section dedicated to the life o f the "young Caesar" (Kouaapoq xov veo\), 2 5 ) , albeit in a fragmentary and pastiche-like form. 3 4
I a m borrowing C . Sourvinou-Inwood's notion o f "schemata" and their func tion in historical narrative. See her analysis o f Herodotus 3 . 4 8 , 5 0 - 5 3 in "Reading" Greek culture: Texts and Images, Rituals and Myths (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1991), 2 4 4 - 6 7 . H e r e the "schema" appears in the initial portraiture o f H e r o d , but later it will also c o m e into play in the construction o f several sub-stories within the H e r o d narrative. A m o n g those most notably (and interestingly similar to Herodotus) is Herod's relations with his sons. 3 5
Josephus only includes a reference to Herod's y o u n g age w h e n achieving his first political role, the governor o f Galilee (veov, 1.203). Cf. Nicolaus on Augustus, Vit. Caes. 3 . 4 - 5 , and also Josephus on himself as a y o u n g prodigy, Vita 8 - 9 .
172
TAMAR LANDAU
ousting o f the brigands in the Galilee ( 1 . 2 0 4 ) .
36
It is m y suggestion
that he w o u l d retain this quality and remain distant throughout the narrative, in spite of, o r perhaps due to, the rhetorical and dramatic embellishments. T h e story itself, despite the brevity o f description, already reveals that this y o u n g m a n has certain qualities that w o u l d m a k e h i m a leader. H e r o d ' s praises are immediately "sung, as the restorer o f their [i.e. the towns a n d the villages o f the Galilee] p e a c e a n d posses sions" (1.205). O n l y later o n e discovers that this fast track to fame is somewhat problematic, first—and this is Josephus' first direct autho rial c o m m e n t o n H e r o d — b e c a u s e "it is impossible in prosperity to escape e n v y " (apf|%avov 8' ev evnpayiaxq (p06vov 8ia(puyeiv,
1.208),
37
a n d secondly, because actions like these always have a price in the f o r m o f killing i n n o c e n t p e o p l e (1.209). Five chapters after H e r o d h a d b e e n introduced, w e are acquainted with his most characteris tic quality: the twofold nature o f his personality, his affiliations, a n d his c o n d u c t . In the first part o f the narrative, the overall i m a g e o f H e r o d that w e receive is o f a y o u n g a n d ambitious politician, w h o s e shrewd nature and sharp political senses have b r o u g h t h i m the tide o f king. O n e thing is clear: his w a y to p o w e r was not s m o o t h . Internal sedi tion, violence, mutual suspicion, political opportunism, all the vices that w o u l d later b e c o m e very characteristic o f his domestic life are already in play in the J u d e a n public s p h e r e .
38
H e r o d , though, d o e s not seem to b e fully a n d solely responsible for the events, as w o u l d b e the case in the later part o f the narra tive, where the focus is o n his domestic affairs. H e does n o t initiate plotting, killing o r attacking yet (except that near-attack o n Jerusalem,
3 6
T h i s m e t h o d o f presentation o f H e r o d resembles that o f ancient historical monographs concentrating on one prominent character rather than an event, such as Arrian's Anabasis. In Josephus, this could perhaps be a remnant o f Nicolaus. But even if that is the case, Josephus later moulds the literary conventions into his o w n narrative structure and adjusts them to his independent agenda. 3 7
This early c o m m e n t contains a subde hint to Herod's subsequent misfortunes. T h e construction 'prosperity-envy', which is c o m m o n in G r e c o - R o m a n historiogra phy beginning with Herodotus, appears in Josephus both in the Bellum and the Antiquitates. 3 8
A s they would be in R o m a n politics, too. Cf. Vit. Caes. 19 ( 5 8 - 6 6 ) . H o w e v e r , while Herod's tribulations c o m e at a stage in the narrative where his vices have already been hinted at, Nicolaus' biography of Augustus is considerably m o r e lauda tory; the young Octavian is portrayed as a noble, virtuous, honest y o u n g m a n .
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
173
a result o f his hot-tempered nature, w h i c h was prevented b y his father a n d brother). H e is portrayed as simply reacting to the cir cumstances. T h i s relative passiveness, h o w e v e r , is not confined to the first s e c t i o n .
39
In Josephus
5
portrait o f H e r o d , this quality o f char
acter penetrates m o r e deeply and c o m e s into play in a m o r e nega tive fashion in H e r o d ' s personal life. T o a certain extent, H e r o d ' s portrait in the s e c o n d section o f the Bellum narrative bears s o m e resemblance to that o f a tragic h e r o .
40
T h e emphasis o n personal misfortune, the self-destructive streak, the fact that he is confronting a n d s u c c u m b i n g to forces m o r e powerful than his feeble reasoning, all p o i n t in that direction. H o w e v e r , this is only an initial impression. H e r o d is in fact not a tragic character per se, but quasi-tragic. T h i s is a result o f m a n y reasons, not least generic boundaries and cultural predispositions. But tragic c h a r a c ters are not confined to tragedies, a n d there is a d e e p e r reason for H e r o d ' s incompleteness in that area. I shall return to that in the conclusion b e l o w . H e r o d o t u s ' portrait o f X e r x e s , b y c o m p a r i s o n , is also that o f an ambitious king whose weaknesses cause grave disaster. However, Xerxes "allows himself to b e persuaded" ( H e r o d o t u s 7.7), his acts have direct implications o n the fate o f an entire e m p i r e , and he is subject to divine wrath for his attempt to bridge the Hellespont. M o r e o v e r , H e r o d o t u s allows his audience m o r e than a glimpse into X e r x e s ' psyche, with the inclusion o f his dreams a n d internal scruples in the narrative a n d the c o n t i n u o u s debates with Artabanus t h r o u g h o u t
3 9
A s U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " 9 8 - 1 0 5 , convincingly demonstrate, Herod's tendency to "react, rather than control" events is prevalent in the second part of the narrative as well. 4 0
T h i s echoes earlier Greek historiographical tendencies to portray characters, h u m a n or non h u m a n , as tragic heroes. See most notably F. M . Cornford's reading of Thucydides in his Thucydides Mythistoricus (London: A r n o l d , 1907), passim. O n a smaller scale, the tendency to attribute tragic qualities to historical figures in order to enhance the dramatic effect o f the narrative is not u n c o m m o n in G r e c o - R o m a n historiography, e.g. Herodotus' Croesus in b o o k 1 and in a m o r e complicated m a n ner his portrait o f X e r x e s in books 7 - 9 . M o r e on tragedy and history in C . B. R . Pelling, ed., Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 9 7 ) and M . O s t w a l d , "Tragedians and Historians," SCI 21 (2002): 9 - 2 5 . O n Aristode's definitions of tragic characters (e.g. Poetics 13, 1 4 5 2 b 3 4 - 1 4 5 3 a l 7 ) see O s t w a l d , "Tragedians," 1 2 - 1 3 ; A . W . G o m m e , "Aristotle and the T r a g i c Character," in Idem, More Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 1 9 4 - 2 1 3 . See also P. E . Easterling, "Constructing Character in Greek T r a g e d y , " in Pelling, Greek Tragedy, 8 3 - 9 9 .
174
TAMAR LANDAU
B o o k s 7 - 9 . T h e external elements, as well as the internal glimpse, are absent from H e r o d ' s portrait and i m p e d e the tragic effect. H e r o d , h o w e v e r , is very h u m a n .
41
But later in the narrative,
as
the a c c o u n t o f his d o m e s t i c trouble unfolds, the impression is that e v e n his humanness is " i n c o m p l e t e " a n d incapable o f stirring pity, fear o r empathy in the audience. " I n c o m p l e t e , " that is, s o m e w h a t lacking in what M . O s t w a l d calls "frailty."
42
S u c h frailty m a y b e
defined, in essence, as the c o m m o n h u m a n t e n d e n c y to act first, in c o n v i n c e d belief that this w o u l d solve a p r o b l e m , and realise the futility o f the action in retrospect. T h e expectation J o s e p h u s the nar rator creates for his narratees and their readiness for e m o t i o n remain unfulfilled and h e n c e , in retrospect, retain yet d e e p e r dramatic irony. H e r o d ' s passive thread o f character i n d e e d runs throughout the w h o l e narrative. H o w e v e r , the a c c o u n t o f his c o n d u c t as K i n g o f J u d e a ( 1 . 4 3 1 - 6 7 3 ) takes a s o m e w h a t different turn. T h e s e c o n d part o f the H e r o d narrative is entirely g o v e r n e d b y the unfortunate fam ily affairs. T h o s e are o f course c o n n e c t e d to political issues, a n d J o s e p h u s includes political affairs in this part. H o w e v e r , the tone and emphasis o f the narrative is m o r e personal than political. W e read a lot a b o u t H e r o d ' s c o n t o r t e d relationship with his wife M a r i a m m e , and the painful relationship with his s o n s .
43
Antipater,
H e r o d ' s plotting son, carries out his political m a n o e u v r e s o n a per sonal basis. W h a t p r o m p t s h i m to take action is his hatred for his brothers, his feeling o f inferiority and his greed. H e does not o p e r ate o n the basis o f any political i d e o l o g y o r motivation, n o r as a result o f any n o n - h u m a n intervention as is sometimes the case in Athenian tragedies.
44
4 1
T h e emphasis on humanness, i.e. leaving the focus and responsibility of action in the h u m a n sphere, is a characteristically Greek idea (as opposed to the m o n o t h e istic tendency to view divine power as the main generator of action). See most recendy Ostwald, "Tragedians," 2 5 : " M a n is not a mere toy o f divine powers w h o use him for their own inscrutable ends. . . . T h e s e powers m a y themselves be subject to a transcendent necessity, which they m a y know and c o m m u n i c a t e , but which they cannot avert." 4 2
Ostwald, "Tragedians," 2 5 . Herod's relationships with his sons m a y be viewed not only in the personal context but also as part o f a historiographical stereotype o f the (Greek) tyrant and his questionable personal conduct, especially concerning the spouse a n d sons. See Sourvinou-Inwood, "Reading" on Herodotus' Periander. 4 3
4 4
M o r e on the possible dramatic (both Greek and R o m a n ) influences o n the H e r o d narrative in U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " esp. 1 0 3 - 9 . See also H . H . C h a p m a n , Spectacle and Theater in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum ( P h . D . diss., Stanford, 1998).
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
175
T h e i m a g e portrayed in this part is that o f a king w h o s e personal flaws are accentuated. H e r o d is n o t the successful ruler any m o r e , but an unbalanced m a n and a slave to his o w n emotions. H e torments others a n d spares n o sentiments, but he is also tormented b y his o w n weaknesses. H e kills his b e l o v e d wife a n d then laments
her
death. H e sentences his o w n children to death. H e is u n d e r constant life threats from different direction a n d he even tries to c o m m i t sui cide with a fruit-cutting knife. Y e t H e r o d d o e s not stir the readers' e m p a t h y as an ordinary tragic h e r o w o u l d d o . W h y is that? A few reasons c o m e to m i n d . First, whereas J o s e p h u s i n d e e d elab orates u p o n H e r o d ' s prowess, a n d lists s o m e virtues (bravery and political shrewdness), the general impression is that H e r o d ' s o w n sense o f propriety is s o m e w h a t flawed. H e refuses to b e subject to any restraining p o w e r s (be they m o r a l , religious, political) other than his o w n . A n d his o w n fetters, in turn, are n o t morally acceptable. His vanity, verging o n hybris but not quite reaching the full depth o f the concept, diminishes the empathy that c o u l d otherwise b e stirred in the a u d i e n c e .
45
T h e inability to stir e m p a t h y might have to d o with another fac tor. T h e impression o f an unruly tyrant, w h i c h J o s e p h u s builds grad ually into a c o m p l e x portrait, is n o t only that o f H e r o d the m a n . It also alludes to m o r e abstract discussions familiar from G r e e k histo riography,
c o n c e r n i n g the "best r e g i m e " : what are the boundaries
b e t w e e n m o n a r c h y and tyranny, w h e n does a king transgress those and b e c o m e a tyrant, what are the implications o f tyranny for society.
46
Josephus, unlike H e r o d o t u s o r Dionysius, d o e s not confine his treat m e n t o f the subject to a separate philosophical debate within the narrative but stretches the theme throughout his w h o l e work. W i t h i n the w i d e r (and essentially m o r e symbolic) s c o p e , J o s e p h u s seems to b e using the portrait o f H e r o d as an e x t e n d e d m e t a p h o r for t w o
4 5
A n interesting comparison from tragedy might be that o f X e r x e s in Aeschylus' Persae. T h e r e , too, the impression is that X e r x e s ' \S(3piq was direcdy and almost solely responsible for the Persian defeat. H o w e v e r , his unbridled ambition did stir the gods' anger and the defeat is viewed as divine punishment, not as a result of h u m a n error or vanity. Although X e r x e s ' character seems rather distant and unable to invoke pity, the divine intervention a n d h u m a n helplessness seem to balance X e r x e s ' crude vanity and make empathic reaction possible. 4 6
O t h e r examples for such debates in historiography include the Persian debate on m o n a r c h y in Herodotus 3 . 8 0 - 8 2 , a n d Dionysius o f Halicarnassus,. Ant. rom. 4 . 7 0 - 8 5 . In philosophy, the lengthy discussion in Plato, Resp. 8 - 9 .
176
TAMAR LANDAU
issues that will p r o v e to b e relevant
to the rest o f the Bellum: the
possible benefits o f a political alliance with R o m e , and the vices o f extreme and tyrannical behaviour. H e r o d ' s i m a g e and life are p r i m e examples for the temptations o f p o w e r and the thin line b e t w e e n virtuous c o n d u c t a n d tyrannical frenzy. His story is also an excel lent opportunity for J o s e p h u s his narrative.
to include and display e m o t i o n s
47
in
48
H o w e v e r : the excess o f pathos seems to create an opposite effect to the e x p e c t e d rise in pity a n d fear.
49
T h e audience's e m o t i o n a l dis
tance from H e r o d is e n h a n c e d even m o r e b y the slight passiveness o r e m o t i o n a l weakness J o s e p h u s grants h i m . It is as if H e r o d d o e s n o t make the effort to disentangle himself from the w e b s o f personal misery, paranoia a n d cruelty that he has w o v e n with his o w n hands. T o c o n c l u d e this section: in the first part o f the narrative,
the
emphasis is o n H e r o d ' s external i m a g e . His political portrait is c o n structed with the m o r e philosophical ideas in m i n d : this is a king, w h o must b e brave, and ambitious, must fight a n d win wars, depicted as a saviour o f his country (pacifies seditions, establishes close ties with R o m e , and builds cities a n d the T e m p l e ) . T h e s e c o n d part o f the narrative, h o w e v e r , is inward-looking and concentrates o n aspects o f H e r o d ' s personality and private life. T h i s time, the emphasis is entirely u p o n H e r o d ' s specific traits o f character.
T h e portrait o f
4 7
I a m well aware o f the problems concerning the definition o f emotions, a n d the probable differences in meaning between ancient and m o d e r n interpretations o f pity and fear. M o r e o n the obstacles o f cross-cultural and non-contemporary inter pretation o f emotions in D . K o n s t a n , Pity Transformed ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 - 2 5 . Nevertheless, I shall assume a basic similarity between m o d e r n and ancient understanding o f these emotions for two reasons. T h e first has to do with Aristode's concept o f "the Universal"; any attempt to understand the effect o f Josephus' dra matic constructions would be d o o m e d if we leave no c o m m o n grounds between our culture and the G r e c o - R o m a n world. T h e second reason is linked with the first: since the nature o f m y analysis is textual and rhetorical, and not anthropo logical, it is possible to leave aside wider issues concerning cultural differences a n d examine the constant element in the equation: the H e r o d narratives themselves. 4 8
See Josephus' contentions in B.J. 1 . 9 - 1 2 . T h e s e concern all the above: civil strife, tyranny, R o m e and the historian's right to include emotions (xoiq e u a m o v rcaBeci, 1.9, a n d xa<; 8'6taxp6paei<;, 1.12). Josephus' explicit appeal, in the abovementioned passage, to the inclusion o f emotions in historiography seems to m e to be a unique declaration in G r e c o - R o m a n historiography. I hope to examine it in detail in the future. T h e locus classicus is o f course Aristode, Rhet. 1 3 8 2 a 2 1 ~ 2 2 (fear, (poPoq) a n d 1 3 8 5 b 1 3 - 1 5 (pity, ekeoq). M . H e a t h , The Poetics of Greek Tragedy (London: Duckworth, 1987), 1 1 - 1 7 , provides a concise and illuminating s u m m a r y o f the place and func tion of pity and fear in tragedy. 4 9
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
177
H e r o d as a private m a n , as o p p o s e d to H e r o d the K i n g , c o n c e n trates o n the king's vices rather than o n his virtues. T h i s juxtaposi tion serves Josephus as a uniting, rather than a dividing, element. T h e partition enhances the c o m p l e x i t y a n d twofold nature o f H e r o d the m a n , the king a n d the m e t a p h o r : g o o d a n d b a d , peaceful a n d bel licose, reassuring and threatening c o u l d , in the end, dwell u n d e r the same r o o f .
50
A n o t h e r uniting element is H e r o d ' s static character.
51
It seems to
m e that the u n c h a n g i n g character o f a m a i n protagonist calls for something to fill the dramatic v a c u u m . T h e a c c o u n t contains dra matic elements in a b u n d a n c e , but in o r d e r to extract their full p o t e n tial, the narrative needs a leader. W h e r e H e r o d fails to lead the story, J o s e p h u s steps in with great conviction. His narrating v o i c e is resonant, assertive and well heard throughout the narrative. Let us n o w have a closer l o o k o n J o s e p h u s ' c o n c l u d i n g remarks o n H e r o d in his obituary o f the king: "In his life as a w h o l e he was blessed, if ever m a n was, b y fortune: a c o m m o n e r , he m o u n t e d to a throne, retained it for all those years a n d b e q u e a t h e d it to his o w n children; in his family life, o n the contrary, n o m a n was m o r e unfor tunate."
52
H e r o d , says Josephus, was b o t h blessed in his public life
a n d most unfortunate (ocTuxecTaxoq) in his domestic affairs. I n d e e d this duality o f fortune seems to b e H e r o d ' s most characteristic trait. T h i s is n o t untypical in the t w o historiographical traditions J o s e p h u s corresponds with. G r e c o - R o m a n historical accounts o f tyranny often tend to portray kings fortunate in riches a n d prowess as suffering in their personal lives.
53
personal misfortune.
5 0
5 1
Biblical portraits o f kings are also abundant in 54
Cf. Pliny's c o m m e n t s about the changing fortunes o f Augustus in Nat.
H o w e v e r c o m p l e x Herod's image is, it does not evolve tive but remains unchanged. T h i s somewhat static quality of of ancient biographies. M o r e o n the "integrated conception cially in Plutarch, in C . B . R . Pelling, " C h i l d h o o d a n d Biography," in I d e m , Characterization, 2 1 3 - 4 4 .
7.155.
throughout the narra protagonists is typical o f personality," espe Personality in G r e e k
m i m x a |iev xa aXka rcavxa xuxfl 8 e £ i a xp^aajievoq, ei * a ( ^ aXTuoq, oaxiq KaxeKXT|G(xxo PaoiXelav i5i(oxn<; ©v m i xoaot>xa> xpovcp (pvAxx^aq i8ioi<; XEKVOK; mxeXutev, ev 8e xoiq m x ' OIKOV axvxecxaxoq (B.J. 1.665). Again, Herodotus' Croesus and Pliny's Augustus (Nat. 7.155) are g o o d examples. But there, as is the case with Saul a n d David's portraits, the personal grief is often direcdy connected with committing sins (whether consciously or not), a n d sins in turn cause political trouble as well. T h e biblical scheme tends to view domestic and public as parallel rather than contradictory. 5 2
5 3
5 4
178
TAMAR
LANDAU
T h r o u g h o u t the narrative, Josephus takes us from H e r o d ' s successes as a y o u n g m a n to his emotional frenzy as an aging m o n a r c h . T h e t w o aspects o f H e r o d ' s life seep into e a c h other, and sometimes the very same traits can be perceived in different ways. W h a t at times seem like shrewd political sense in the public sphere ( H e r o d ' s fast changes o f R o m a n loyalty as s o o n as A n t o n y ' s e n d was in sight, for instance) might b e regarded as disloyalty and opportunism in the private realm (betraying a friend, and a long-standing familial commitment). H e r o d ' s i m a g e in the Bellum is first and foremost c o m p l e x , in b o t h f o r m a n d essence. But is it i n d e e d a portrait o f a tragic h e r o ? Despite the initial impression a n d the a b u n d a n c e o f dramatic embellishment, H e r o d ' s portrait lacks the essential quality o f tragic heroes, b e they o f drama, epic poetry o r historical narratives. W h a t is missing? It seems to m e that J o s e p h u s ' H e r o d fails to c o n v i n c e as a tragic h e r o not so m u c h because he lacks certain tragic charac teristics (and he does) but because he is not independent e n o u g h to d e v e l o p them in the first place. In other w o r d s , H e r o d remains
a
distant figure and fails to arouse d e e p pity o r fear because Josephus never ceases to b e the main focalizer o f the narrative. T h e discussion to b e found in Heath about " f o c u s " in tragedy m a y b e relevant h e r e .
55
Heath suggests that "intense e n g a g e m e n t with a
focal figure is a characteristic
o f tragedy," a n d explains that this
" e n g a g e m e n t " is primarily emotional. T h e focus m a y c h a n g e from o n e figure to another (e.g. A n t i g o n e to C r e o n ) , but it will continue to arouse emotions in the a u d i e n c e .
56
In the case o f H e r o d , this is
never achieved: although he remains the main protagonist in terms o f plot and historical interest, his character never manages to e m o tionally
engage the audience.
J o s e p h u s ' focus o n h u m a n c o n d u c t notwithstanding, it seems that H e r o d is portrayed not only as not engaging in initial contemplation o f his deeds but also as failing to feel and express true retrospective remorse. M o r e o v e r , H e r o d d o e s not seem to act in the best o f inten tions and to the best o f his ability, and does not seem to have a sound moral conviction, o r a higher cause, that p r o m p t s h i m to act the w a y he d o e s .
5 5
57
T h i s calling, w h o s e strength often blinds heroes in
Heath, Poetics, 9 0 - 9 8 . Heath, Poetics, 9 2 - 9 3 . Ostwald, "Tragedians," 2 5 , suggests that "the central fact of all Greek beliefs is that humans are agents w h o have to act in the belief that what they are doing 5 6
5 7
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
179
tragedy, m a y have virtuous roots (such as O e d i p u s ' wish to e n d the curse o n the city) o r rise from revenge, w h i c h c a n still b e m o r e appealing o r understandable to the audience (Euripides' H e c u b a ) o r less so (Medea). In any case, this sense o f revenge is often strong enough to o v e r c o m e reason, insight o r sensibility. In the case o f H e r o d , h o w ever, it seems that his sheer cruelty is simply a result o f his emotional weakness. H e is not driven b y any higher calling, g o o d o r b a d . A s a result, neither pity n o r fear ( o f h i m , o r for h i m )
58
are invoked.
H e r o d ' s emotional blandness a n d inability to arouse emotions is what I earlier defined as an " i n c o m p l e t e " humanness. H e r o d in the Bellum is better u n d e r s t o o d o n the m o r e distant, symbolic level. H e is n o t portrayed as being morally "like us," but as s o m e o n e w h o operates o n an almost i n h u m a n level o f e m o t i o n s — o r alternatively, with c o l d calculations in m i n d . H e r o d also fails to c o n v i n c e as "bet ter than us," neither in status (a c o m m o n e r ) n o r in m o r a l conviction (no higher cause b e h i n d his deeds). In either case, it is impossible to fully empathise with h i m , fear for h i m , o r rather hate h i m for a g o o d reason. Herod's misconduct is not a result o f an understandable, human shortcoming, n o r o f t e m p o r a r y madness driven b y higher causes. J o s e p h u s exposes his audience to H e r o d ' s acts, b u t not to what p r o m p t s t h e m from within. H e r o d ' s few demonstrations o f a p o l o g y a n d regret (grave s o r r o w after M a r i a m m e ' s execution, 1.444; the mock-sentimental speech entitling his sons with royal rights, 1.457—466; o r his attempts o f reconciliation after the m u r d e r o f A l e x a n d e r and Aristobulus where he promises to b e "a m o r e considerate grandfather," 1.556-558) are shallow, dubious a n d still within the realm o f his emotions,
59
n o t his thoughts. J o s e p h u s does not allow H e r o d to take
is done to the best o f their knowledge a n d ability; what they d o not realize until after they have acted is their o w n frailty, the fact that in acting they have encoun tered limits they cannot trespass with impunity. T h i s is the condition I should like to n a m e 'tragic'." T h i s m a y help to illuminate one aspect o f Herod's un-tragicness, namely the lack o f retrospective remorse, but O s t w a l d m a y tend to generalise here: his analysis m a y suit some tragic figures like Deianeira, but others ( M e d e a , Antigone) do not c o m e to acknowledge any "frailty," and are certainly aware o f limits before they set out to action. Still, there is no doubt concerning their ability to arouse pity and fear. 5 8
O n "fear for" tragic characters as stemming from a feeling o f equality see Arist. Poet. 1 4 5 3 a 4 - 6 and H e a t h , Poetics, 1 2 - 1 4 . Cf. U l l m a n and Price, " D r a m a , " 1 0 5 : " T h e king lacks heroic stature, and his impulsive behaviour lacks tragic greatness. H e reacts to, rather than controls, the things which are done to him, a n d his reactions are usually wrong. . . . " T h i s quo tation is concerning the Eurycles episode ( 1 . 4 4 8 - 4 4 9 ) but applies to Herod's over all portraiture in the narrative. 5 9
180
TAMAR LANDAU
the reins o f focalization in the narrative. W e never get to see the events as H e r o d sees them, o r even to share any o f his sincere thoughts o r feelings. H e is constandy kept b e h i n d J o s e p h u s ' rhetorical veil. T h i s , in turn, leaves the main protagonist o f a highly dramatic a c c o u n t distant from the audience a n d incapable o f stirring either pity o r fear. A n d H e r o d ' s distance, in turn, keeps J o s e p h u s in control as narrator a n d main focalizer throughout the
narrative.
A n d the narrator, n o d o u b t , shows great skill. Josephus writes the story o f a turbulent,
c o m p l i c a t e d a n d rather miserable life with a
careful a n d k n o w l e d g e a b l e rhetorical hand. A s w e have seen in the e x a m p l e s a b o v e , he uses c o n v e n t i o n a l rhetorical d e v i c e s such as digressions and speeches, but readjusts those to the specific a g e n d a o f his narrative a n d always retains his v o i c e , whether in actual c o m ments o r in the meticulous implementation o f other rhetorical devices. T h e H e r o d narrative contains familiar a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l rhetorical a n d dramatic devices, but their specific functions within the a c c o u n t are tailored to the historian's individual aims. F o r e x a m p l e : J o s e p h u s describes H e r o d ' s youthful p r o m i s e in a m a n n e r similar to that o f Nicolaus w h e n describing Augustus, but whereas the latter m e a n t (we assume) to praise the y o u n g Caesar, Josephus uses the audience's expectations to create irony and sur prise. O r he takes the rhetorical frame o f a political speech o f alliance ( H e r o d requests alliance from O c t a v i a n , 1 . 3 8 8 - 3 9 2 ) , but places it in an unusual context, reversing the roles o f the speakers a n d a d d i n g a twist to the usual theme (for the alliance b e t w e e n J u d e a a n d R o m e is later to b e turned into grave animosity). Obituaries, t o o , operate o n a d e e p e r level o f the narrative in that they help in highlighting the c o m p l e x c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n the individual, political and p h i l o sophical realms.
60
Often, the result o f J o s e p h u s ' continuous readjustment o f the role a n d function o f his rhetorical tools is dramatic irony: whether blunt o r subde, it is ever present in the H e r o d narrative. It is m o s d y appar ent in the interaction b e t w e e n narrator a n d narratees, a n d less so within the story frame o f the narrative. Characters are usually n o t 61
using irony themselves. J o s e p h u s exercises his p o w e r as narrator to
6 0
Detailed examinations of these examples (and more) are in Landau, Out-Heroding Herod, 1 3 0 - 5 5 . Except, perhaps, in the speeches during Antipater's trial at R o m e . But there irony again operates in a different rhetorical level, not as the characters' own, nor as the narrator's, but as part o f forensic rhetoric. b l
THE IMAGE OF HEROD IN JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
181
create dramatic irony b o t h within the narrative, and in a m o r e out ward-looking direction, towards m o r e general moral assertions.
62
On
the narrative level, irony is present in b o t h internal allusions and echoes in the narrative itself and intertextual allusions and parallels to earlier G r e c o - R o m a n narratives. O n the m o r e general level, dra matic and tragic irony is derived m o s d y from the retrospective his torical glance o f the w h o l e w o r k . In either case b o t h narrator and narratees are highly e n g a g e d in the process. T h e y are well aware o f the intertextual references and the literary b a c k g r o u n d , and are also familiar with the fatal o u t c o m e o f the revolt. H e n c e , all political suc cesses and small failures described in the narrative, all attempts to win R o m e ' s support and all internal scheming m a y seem futile, if not pathetic (in the m o d e r n sense o f the w o r d ) . T h e H e r o d narrative in the Bellum is, as it were, a chronicle o f premeditated, o r at least unsurprisingly unfortunate events. Its strength is derived not from o n e element o r the other, but from the careful c o m b i n a t i o n o f plot, characters,
a meticulous implementation o f
rhetorical tools and an assertive narrator w h o keeps the main focalization o f the narrative well in his o w n hands. M o r e o v e r , and b y w a y o f a c o n c l u d i n g thought: the meticulous and elaborate m a n n e r in w h i c h Josephus tells the story o f H e r o d premeditates the turbulent circumstances that later befell the main protagonists o f the rest o f the work: J u d e a a n d the Jewish p e o p l e . T h e story o f H e r o d m a y b e m o r e than the historical beginning o f all that. J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t m a y perhaps b e m o r e than a linear c h r o n o l o g y o f events. It is the first link in a circular, ring-like p e r c e p t i o n o f history. T h e reign o f H e r o d already contains the seeds o f the later historical o u t c o m e o f J u d e a : internal strife and an active association with R o m e . H e r o d , p r o v o k i n g internal unrest o n the o n e h a n d but strengthening the alliance with R o m e to bring relative prosperity o n the other, is the e m b o d i m e n t o f b o t h themes. It is o n l y natural, then, for a highly rhetorical narrator to make the most out o f the details.
6 2
M o r e on the two kinds of irony in Josephus in S. M a s o n , "Figured Speech a n d I r o n y in T . Flavius J o s e p h u s , " in Flavins Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n and J. Rives; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) , 243-88.
C O M M O N P L A C E S IN H E R O D ' S C O M M A N D E R
SPEECH
I N J O S E P H U S ' A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 4 6 JAN
W I L L E M VAN
UNIVERSITY
1.
HENTEN
OF AMSTERDAM
INTRODUCTION
1
T h e t w o versions o f H e r o d ' s c o m m a n d e r speech (B.J.
1.373-379;
A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 4 6 ) in Josephus' report about H e r o d ' s conflicts with the Arabs before the Batde o f A c t i u m (31 B . C E . ) differ gready. I will concentrate here o n the m o r e embellished version in the Antiquitates, w h i c h sets the speech in the p e r i o d before A c t i u m (A.J. 15.109, 121, 161) and describes h o w H e r o d h a d to fight several batdes
against
"the A r a b s , " as Josephus consistendy writes. M o s t p r o b a b l y ,
"the
A r a b s " refer to Nabataeans, as is apparent from details in the c o n text.
2
H e r o d h a d to deal also with M a r k A n t o n y a n d
Cleopatra,
lovers and key players o n the international scene. T h e y played, at least in J o s e p h u s ' presentation, a crucial role in the history that leads up to H e r o d ' s conflicts with the Arabs. Instigated b y Cleopatra, M a r k A n t o n y o r d e r e d H e r o d to attack the Arabs. T h e A r a b s were negli gent with the paying o f rent to her through H e r o d as intermediary (A.J. 15.107), but Cleopatra also h o p e d to benefit personally from a conflict between Jews and Arabs (A.J. 15.110). Josephus had reported already that Cleopatra desired to take o v e r H e r o d ' s country (A.J. 15.77). T h e first batde e n d e d successfully for H e r o d . H e triumphed o v e r the Arabs at Diospolis, w h i c h is p r o b a b l y the D e c a p o l i s city o f D i o n , east o f the Sea o f Galilee. Josephus suggests that H e r o d w o u l d have b e e n successful t o o in the s e c o n d batde at C a n a / C a n a t ( h ) a ,
3
if
1
I warmly thank Luuk Huitink (Amsterdam) for collecting references and mak ing most useful comments on draft versions of this paper, Katell Berthelot (Montpellier) and Daniel R . Schwartz (Jerusalem) for references, Jonathan Kirkpatrick (Oxford) for correcting m y English, as well as A n t o n y Forte for polishing m y translation of A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 4 6 . 2
G r a e c o - R o m a n authors applied the n a m e "Arabs" to a variety of peoples, but Josephus attaches it specifically to the Nabateans, F. Millar, "Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus and the Origins of Islam," JJS 4 4 (1993): 2 3 - 4 5 , esp. 3 3 . B.J. 1.366: Canatha. See for various readings in the M S S of the Bellum and the 3
184
JAN WILLEM VAN HENTEN
A t h e n i o n , Cleopatra's general in Coele-Syria, had not intervened. A t h e n i o n ' s attack resulted in a major defeat for H e r o d ' s soldiers (A.J. 1 5 . 1 1 6 - 1 1 9 ) . A heavy earthquake m a d e matters worse for the Jews, a n d the A r a b s felt so confident that they e v e n killed the Jewish e n v o y s , w h o h a d c o m e to t h e m to n e g o t i a t e a b o u t p e a c e (A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 1 - 1 2 4 ) . H e r o d ' s a r m y was in a deplorable c o n d i t i o n , w h i c h 4
gave the A r a b s great prospects for a definitive victory. A t this dra matic point in the narrative Josephus inserts H e r o d ' s elaborate c o m m a n d e r speech. T h e Arabs suffered a devastating defeat and m a d e H e r o d , out o f admiration for his leadership, their ruler o r patron (A.J. 1 5 . 1 4 6 - 1 5 9 ) .
5
T h e Antiquitates d o not m e n t i o n the location o f
this final battle, but B.J.
1.380 indicates that it t o o k p l a c e near
Philadelphia, a city o f the D e c a p o l i s (currendy A m m a n ) . H e r o d ' s speech in A.J.
15 reads like a masterful oration. T h e
speech's well-polished c o m p o s i t i o n and persuasive rhetoric offer
a
very positive picture o f H e r o d as s o m e o n e w h o encourages his sol diers. T h i s does n o t m a t c h the rather critical i m a g e o f H e r o d f o u n d elsewhere in J o s e p h u s .
6
Y e t , the s m o o t h transition from speech to
narrative and vice versa and the strong cohesion between the speech's content and its narrative context indicate that the speech's v o c a b u lary and argumentation are probably Josephus' o w n creation. Josephus m a y have invented H e r o d ' s speech, because H e r o d o t u s shows already that it was a well-known c o n v e n t i o n that c o m m a n d e r s gave a speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t before a major batde (section 3.1 below). T h i s m a y have triggered fictitious speeches m a d e u p b y the
historians
themselves. If, o n the other hand, H e r o d actually gave a speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t before this batde against the A r a b s , Josephus might have tried to catch the tenor o f his w o r d s , as T h u c y d i d e s tried to
Antiquitates and various identifications o f this city, A . Schalit, König Herodes: Der Mann und Sein Werk (Berlin: D e Gruyter, 2 0 0 1 ) , 6 9 7 - 9 8 . Both the Bellum and the Antiquitates indicate that the place was part of Coele-Syria. T h e most probable hypothesis is that the batde took place near the city of C a n a t h a ( = Q a n a w a t ) , west of the H a u r a n Mountains. 4
Schalit, König Herodes, 1 2 2 - 2 3 . Josephus' term Tcpoaxaxriq can m e a n , a m o n g other things, "leader," "ruler" or "protector." P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University o f South Carolina Press, 1996), 6 7 n. 5 7 , considers it unlikely that the Nabataeans appointed H e r o d as their ruler or protector because this is not confirmed elsewhere. T . Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives ( D . Phil, diss., O x f o r d , 2 0 0 3 ) . 5
()
COMMONPLACES
IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH
d o with the c o m m a n d e r speeches he reported.
7
IN A J.
185
In that case, Josephus
p r o b a b l y used a source that contained the speech, perhaps H e r o d ' s 8
memoirs, mentioned in A J. 15.174. In any case, w e d o not k n o w the content and style o f these m e m o i r s n o r any other source that transmitted the speech. W e only have the two versions o f the speech in Josephus, w h i c h differ quite strongly. T h e speech's embellishment in the Antiquitates shows that Josephus did not hesitate to adapt its v o c a b ulary, rhetorical style and c o m p o s i t i o n . A n d if Josephus polished and e x p a n d e d the speech in several ways, he m a y have a d a p t e d his source, if there ever was o n e , b y adding conventional topoi from earlier c o m m a n d e r speeches that were available to him. A c o m p a r i s o n o f H e r o d ' s speech in Josephus with c o m m a n d e r speeches in major non-Jewish histories may, therefore, b e quite useful for the speech's interpretation. In this contribution, I will first discuss the c o m p o s i t i o n a n d type o f speech o f A J.
1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 4 6 (section 2). Subsequentiy, I will offer
a survey o f motifs in H e r o d ' s speech that are m o r e o r less paralleled b y non-Jewish c o m m a n d e r speeches in Greek (section 3). T h e pièce de resistance o f this survey will b e the cluster o f helium iustum motifs put forward persuasively b y H e r o d in order to c o n v i n c e his soldiers that another batde against the A r a b s was just and necessary. the
G r e e k historians m y c o m p a r a t i v e
reading
will f o c u s
H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s , Polybius, and Dionysius o f
For upon
Halicarnassus,
w h o are all well k n o w n for their particular use o f speeches in their histories. All four o f them included c o m m a n d e r speeches. O f course, this c h o i c e implies that m y n o n J e w i s h source material is selective, w h i c h means that m y results are far from exhaustive. Y e t , the survey should allow us to d r a w c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t J o s e p h u s '
use o f
rhetorical and historiographical conventions c o n c e r n i n g c o m m a n d e r speeches transmitted b y G r e e k authors.
7
R . L e i m b a c h , Militärische Musterrhetorik: Eine Untersuchung zu den Feldherrnreden des Thukydides (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1 9 8 5 ) , 9 - 1 4 , argues that T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m mander speeches are exemplary in two ways: 1) the authentic tenor ("Gesamttendenz") shows h o w speeches typically were given, and 2) his fictitious vocabulary is paradigmatic too, indicating h o w speeches should be. 8
M . M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum: die Idee des gerechten Krieges in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bern: Peter Lang, 1990), 9 5 .
JAN WILLEM V A N HENTEN
186
2.
T Y P E OF SPEECH A N D COMPOSITION OF A.J.
2.1.
Type
of speech:
15.127-146
parakletikos l o g o s
J o s e p h u s ' speeches represent the three major types o f speech a c c o r d ing
to ancient theories o f rhetoric, b u t most o f them are delibera-
tive. D o n n a Runnalls identifies thirteen speeches in Josephus, nine o f which b e l o n g t o the category o f deliberative speech (genos sym9
bouleutikon).
A.J.
15.127-146
and
its c o u n t e r p a r t
in B.J.
1.373-379
are deliberative as well. H e r o d does his best to persuade his soldiers to fight the Arabs again with high spirits. Nevertheless, his speech also shows features that b e l o n g t o forensic s p e e c h . The
10
speech's introduction clearly indicates H e r o d ' s intention: h e
has chosen t o e n c o u r a g e his soldiers ( n a p c c K a A i G a ircpoeiAxSuTiv)a n d to instruct them, in o r d e r t o keep u p their spirits (A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 8 ) .
1 1
His
soldiers h a d lost their h o p e a n d c o u r a g e because o f the disastrous fight against A t h e n i o n (A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 5 ) , s o h e tries t o raise their spirits (avoctaxppdveiv auxcov nenxonKoxa
xa (ppovripaia) a n d e n c o u r a g e t h e m
again (rcapaGappuvaq . . . napeicdXei, A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 6 ) .
1 2
It concerns, there-
fore, a matter o f w a r a n d p e a c e , o n e o f the five subjects o f deliberative speech discussed b y A r i s t o d e .
13
T h e key w o r d rcapccKaAico in
the introduction is o n e o f the formal indications that the speech is a c o m m a n d e r ' s speech, a jcapaK^TixiKoq Xoyoq.
14
O t h e r vocabulary in
9
Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.3 1 3 5 8 b . D . R . Runnals, " T h e Rhetoric o f Josephus," in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400 (ed. S. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 7 3 7 - 5 4 , esp. 7 4 2 - 4 6 . See for this type o f speech: H . Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 3 2 - 3 3 and 9 7 - 1 0 3 . O t h e r deliberative speeches in Josephus: A.J. 4 . 1 7 7 - 1 9 3 ; B.J. 4 . 1 6 2 - 1 9 2 ; 5.376-419; 6.99-110; 7.323-388. 1 0
See the accusations against the Arabs a n d the dikaios-vocabulary. Overlaps between deliberative a n d forensic speech are c o m m o n , Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, 9 7 . 11
and
O t h e r encouragement speeches o f soldiers in Josephus: B.J. 4 . 3 9 - 4 8 (Vespasian) B.J. 7 . 3 3 - 5 3 (Titus).
12
Definition o f a c o m m a n d e r speech in L e i m b a c h , Militärische Musterrhetorik, 1 5 : "Unter Kampfparänesen sind daher hier R e d e n verstanden, die, von Feldherrn meist unmittelbar vor einer Schlacht gehalten, darauf abzielen, mangelnde Kampfbereitschaft aufzuheben, vorhandene z u verstärken oder übergrosse z u dämpfen." 1 3
Aristode, Rhet. 1 . 4 . 7 - 9 1 3 5 9 b - 1 3 6 0 a . Polybius 12.25i.3 attributes the introduction o f political, hortatory a n d a m b a s sadorial speeches to T i m a e u s (xcov G'uußo'uA,£\mKCuv Kai mpaicAiiTiKCuv, è i i ô è rcpeaßeuxiKcov À/Sycov); 2 3 . 2 . 9 ; 2 8 . 4 . 2 ; D i o n y s i u s e , rom. 4 . 2 6 ; Z e c h 1:13 L X X . Alternative Greek names for c o m m a n d e r speeches seem to b e napaKÉXevGiç, ("exhortation") and 7tapcnveaiç ("exhortation"). T h u c y d i d e s uses the verbs 7iapaK£À£\)£o9(xi o r Ttapaiveîv, 2 . 1 0 . 3 ; 2 . 8 6 . 6 ; 2 . 9 0 . 1 ; 4 . 9 . 4 ; 4 . 1 1 . 1 , Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik, 14. 1 4
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN A J.
187
the introduction, calling u p o n the soldiers' c o u r a g e , w h i c h is p a r d y repeated at the speech's end, supports this conclusion (avSpayaGta: A.J.
15.127, 140, 146; Gappeco: A.J. 15.127, 143; av8peia: A.J. 15.138;
x6A,|ia: A.J. 15.142). T h e continuation o f the narrative in 15.147 also matches this kind o f speech. T h e soldiers regained their self-confidence and triumphed o v e r the A r a b s (A.J. 1 5 . 1 4 7 - 1 6 0 ) . 2.2.
A.J.
Composition
1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 4 6 c a n b e d i v i d e d into f o u r sections, in line with
Aristode's view o f the c o m p o s i t i o n o f s p e e c h e s
15
a n d the setup o f
several other deliberative speeches in Josephus: 1) Introduction (exordium, 2) Statement (proposition
3) P r o o f (argumentation 4) C o n c l u s i o n (peroratio
127-128). 129).
130-145). with recapitulatio
and
ajfectus,
146).
16
T h e introduction includes a c o m m o n formula to call for the soldiers' attention (OUK ayvoco piv, cb dvSpeq, o n . . . , A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 7 ) ,
17
followed b y
a reference to their hard times, w h i c h is taken u p afterwards. T h e s e c o n d section, the statement (129), concisely formulates the speech's two main points (rcpcoxov pev . . . pexoc 8e), anticipating H e r o d ' s p r o o f for b o t h o f t h e m (pouAoum £7ci8ei^ai. . . pexa 8e XOUTO 8ei^ai). T h e two topics are: 1) T h e batde that has to b e fought is just
(8IKOC{CO<;
rcotapeiv) and
necessary ( f i v a y K a a p e v o i ) . 2) T h e r e is n o reason for fear and the prospects for victory are great. The
b o d y o f the speech, the proof, perfecdy matches this s u m m a r y
o f its content. Its first topic (A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 0 - 1 3 7 ) elaborates H e r o d ' s statement that the batde is just a n d necessary, obviously because o f the e n e m y ' s behavior. T h i s section includes a d o u b l e narratio in o r d e r to support H e r o d ' s point; A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 0 - 1 3 4 lists the Arabs' reprehensible
1 5
Aristotle, Rhet. 3 . 1 3 . 4 1 4 1 4 b . Also Cicero, Part. or. 2 7 . Runnals, " T h e Rhetoric o f Josephus," 7 4 6 - 4 7 ; P. Villalba i V a r n e d a , The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus ( A G J U 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 108, proposes a composition in three sections: 1) introduction (A.J. 1 5 . 1 2 7 - 1 2 9 ) , 2) corpus o f the speech ( 1 3 0 - 1 4 3 ) , and 3) conclusions ( 1 4 4 - 1 4 6 ) . B.J. 1 . 3 7 3 - 3 7 9 has a rather loose composition. 1 6
17
Cf. 2 C o r 1:8; 2 : 1 1 ; 1 Thess 4 : 1 3 .
188
JAN WILLEM VAN HENTEN
deeds and A.J. 15.136 mentions their outrageous killing o f the Jewish envoys. H e r o d ' s p r o o f calls u p o n the soldiers' o w n experiences b y making t h e m into witnesses (uapxupoc*; upon; rcoioupevoq a>v Aiyco, A.J. 15.130). His list o f the A r a b s ' wicked deeds (A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 0 - 1 3 4 ) includes references t o :
18
1) their lawlessness (rcccpavopioc; cf. 136; 140; 156); 2) their unfaithfulness (атотщ
5iaK£iuivcov; cf. 110; 130; 132; 134;
140); 3) their greed (nXeovefya; cf. K e p S o u v c o , 134); 4) their jealousy (cpGovoq); 5) their cowardly w a y o f fighting (тосц т а р а ^ а ц ecpeSpeuovxeq . . . ; cf. 140-142). A s the references in brackets indicate, m o s t o f these accusations are taken up again in the speech's narrative sections. T h e A r a b s ' recent behavior towards H e r o d and the Jews reported in the speech's nar rative context underpins several o f these accusations (i.e. their law lessness, unfaithfulness and greed). T h e first narratio (A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 1 - 1 3 4 )
19
a b o u t the lawless deeds o f the Arabs is i n t r o d u c e d b y the rhetorical formula "But w h y d o I have to say m u c h ( m o r e ) ? " (кои т а pev noKka x{ 8ei Aiyeiv;).
20
T h e formula suggests that there is n o need to say m o r e
a b o u t these wicked Arabs, but functions, in fact, as an introductory phrase for a list o f accusations. H e r o d notes his o w n benefactions toward the Arabs: they benefited from his friendship with A n t o n y (132) and his taking care o f Cleopatra's greedy attempts to take o v e r land from b o t h k i n g d o m s (133), but returned
his friendship with
treachery. T h e friendship m o t i f (cf.
1 8
T h e a p ^ o p a i 8 ' at the beginning of A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 0 ("I will start with . . .") is con ventional, projecting the beginning to the future and enhancing the audience's eager expectation in this way, I. Pfeijffer, First Person Futures in Pindar (Hermes Einzelschriften 8 1 ; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 3 3 , referring to a contemporary analogy in a song of T h e Beades: "lend m e your ears and I'll sing y o u a song and I'll try not to sing out of key." 1 9
Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 3 . 1 6 . 1 1 1 4 1 7 b about narratio in deliberative speech. Exacdy the same phrase is found in Demosthenes, Pant. 12, in a narratio. Phrases like x{ 8ei Xeyeiv can indicate a transition, see, e.g. Thucydides 1.73.2 and Dionysius, Ant. Rom. 10.6. 2 0
COMMONPLACES
pou^opevou uioeiv
XTJV
IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN A.J.
iSppiv Kai
XT^V
aSiKiav . . . ou povov 8 i m i o v aXka
m i a v a y m i o v rcoXepov, 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 ) , repeating 15.129.
21
189
the statement in
A.J.
T h e slaughtering o f the Jewish envoys, a major accusation
in H e r o d ' s speech, reported in the s e c o n d narratio (136), is highlighted as the greatest sacrilege a m o n g Greeks and non-Greeks, screaming for revenge. It leads up to an extra argument for a victorious out c o m e , G o d ' s support. It is not immediately clear w h e r e the section a b o u t H e r o d ' s sec o n d major topic starts, because there are t w o rhetorical
formulae
that c a n b e interpreted as the transition to the s e c o n d issue, the sol diers' o w n situation. This section either starts at A.J.
15.139 with
the phrase: "Let us also l o o k at o u r o w n situation." (iva 8e Kai xa Ka9' eauxouq e^exaocopev), o r at
138 with " A t this point, s o m e o n e
will perhaps say . . . " (iacoq xorvov epei xiq . . . ) .
2 2
H e r o d switches, in
fact, already in A.J. 15.138 to his s e c o n d p o i n t b y starting his c o m parison b e t w e e n his o w n soldiers a n d the e n e m y there. Divine sup port and justice o n the J e w s ' side are contrasted with the A r a b s ' c o u r a g e and multitude. H e r o d ' s arguments are basically: 1) H e and his soldiers w e r e victorious in the earlier batdes
(A.J.
1 5 . 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 ) u p to the m o m e n t A t h e n i o n entered the batdefield in a treacherous way, like the A r a b s before (rcapavopia Kai eve8pa, 140). 2) E v e n if the enemies are c o u r a g e o u s , w h i c h they are not, this should b e an extra motivation to beat them (141). 3) T h e earthquake caused less d a m a g e than the A r a b s think, w h i c h should b e taken as an advantage
(142-143).
4) G o d will b e o n their side ( 1 4 4 - 1 4 5 ) . T h e conclusion o f H e r o d ' s speech is extremely brief a n d offers hardly m o r e than a staccato summary o f the major points, starting with the last p o i n t o f the s e c o n d statement in a chiastic arrangement, G o d ' s help, emphasizing again the e n e m y ' s treachery, and noting in the end that earlier the Arabs always h a d b e e n inferior to H e r o d ' s sol diers' e x c e l l e n c e .
2 1
23
Cf. aSucoc; (AJ. 1 5 . 1 3 4 , 146), aSuce© ( 1 3 4 , ( 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 , 138 twice, 1 4 5 , 146), 8imico<; (129).
144), aSucia ( 1 3 5 ,
140), 5{KCXIO<;
2 2
T h e introduction of an a n o n y m o u s and hypothetical other speaker, a case of sermocinatio, Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, 3 6 6 - 6 9 , only supports Herod's own argument. 2 3
A c c o r d i n g to Aristode, Rhet. 3.19.1 1 4 1 9 b , a conclusion of a deliberative speech
190
JAN WILLEM VAN HENTEN
3.
C O N V E N T I O N A L ELEMENTS
In this section I intend to c o m p a r e H e r o d ' s c o m m a n d e r speech in A.J.
15 with similar speeches in H e r o d o t u s , T h u c y d i d e s , Polybius,
a n d Dionysius o f Halicarnassus, searching for conventional motifs in H e r o d ' s speech. Before engaging in this search a few introductory remarks about the four G r e e k authors and their c o m m a n d e r speeches seem helpful. 3.1. Four Possible Models H e r o d o t u s , the father o f G r e e k historiography, was fond o f using speeches to mediate various views o f the events reported. Unfortunately, Herodotus did not include m a n y c o m m a n d e r speeches in his histories. M o s t o f his speeches that c o n c e r n w a r deal with consultations o r councils o f rulers and c o m m a n d e r s as they deliberated whether march ing to w a r was appropriate o r advantageous.
24
T h e r e is o n e passage,
h o w e v e r , in w h i c h H e r o d o t u s summarizes a speech o f exhortation b y Themistocles. T h i s passage shows that a c o m m a n d e r speech was a c o n v e n t i o n already in H e r o d o t u s ' time, w h i c h is confirmed b y the rather stereotypical v o c a b u l a r y o f the speech's summary: " A t d a w n the fighting m e n w e r e assembled and Themistocles was c h o s e n to address them. T h e w h o l e b u r d e n o f what he said was a c o m p a r i s o n o f all that was best and worst in life and fortunes, and an exhorta tion (rcapcuveaocq) to the m e n to c h o o s e the better." (8.83, trans. D e Selincourt). Y e t , m a n y o f the arguments that return time and again in T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m m a n d e r s p e e c h e s c a n b e f o u n d a l r e a d y
in
Herodotus' consultations and councils. Relevant passages in Herodotus' speeches and batde reports will, therefore, b e included in m y sur v e y o f topoi in H e r o d ' s speech. T h u c y d i d e s includes twelve o r thirteen c o m m a n d e r speeches in his history o f the w a r between Athens and Sparta.
can have four functions: unfavorably toward the hearer's emotions, and 7 4 8 - 4 9 . A p a r t from the conclusion. 2 4
25
Several arguments
1) disposing the hearer favorably toward the speaker a n d opponent, 2) amplifying and depreciating, 3) exciting the 4) recapitulation. Runnals, " T h e Rhetoric o f Josephus," amplification Aristode's four functions are covered by the
E.g. Herodotus 1 . 2 0 6 - 2 0 7 ; 6 . 9 - 1 2 ; 6 . 1 0 9 ; 7 . 8 - 1 1 ; 0 . 5 7 - 6 0 ; 8 . 6 8 . O . Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden im Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Philologus S u p plementband 3 4 . 2 ; Leipzig: Dieterich, 1942); Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik. 2 5
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN A.J.
191
in these speeches return again a n d again, n o matter whether they are b r o u g h t forward b y Athenian, Spartan o r other c o m m a n d e r s . It is o b v i o u s from T h u c y d i d e s ' speeches that c o m m a n d e r s analyzed the batde's circumstances, the specifics o f its location, the e n e m y ' s capabilities a n d n u m b e r s (e.g. 2 . 1 1 . 1 - 4 ) , a n d also discussed the strategy that resulted from these analyses. Past p e r f o r m a n c e b y o n e ' s o w n army as well as b y the e n e m y ' s soldiers is also a m a j o r reason for e n c o u r a g e m e n t in these speeches (e.g. 2 . 8 9 . 2 , 5, 9; 4.95.3). It is o b v i ous that o n e has to defend oneself against an attack b y the e n e m y , especially i f the e n e m y ' s b e h a v i o r is outrageous. S u c h accusation is launched several times at the Athenians (e.g. 2 . 1 1 . 7 - 9 ; 4 . 9 2 . 1 - 2 , 7), w h o threaten the liberty o f the other G r e e k states, in short the freed o m o f all Hellas, in their striving for supremacy in the G r e e k w o r l d (e.g. 4 . 9 2 . 7 ; 5 . 9 . 1 , 9 ) .
2 6
Y e t , also m o r e elusive a n d rhetorical
argu-
ments are f o u n d in these speeches, for e x a m p l e , a great n u m b e r o f e n e m y soldiers d o e s n o t necessarily imply that they will win, because courage a n d / o r
e x p e r i e n c e c a n c o m p e n s a t e for quantity (below).
Important e c h o e s o f such T h u c y d i d e a n arguments seem to b e present in H e r o d ' s speech. Polybius' a p p r o a c h to speeches is rather different from H e r o d o t u s ' and T h u c y d i d e s ' use o f them. Polybius ( 2 0 0 - 1 1 8 B . C E . ) points o u t that h e attempted to find o u t what was actually said a n d report that in a trustworthy w a y (Polybius 3 6 . 1 . 1 - 7 ) . H i s speeches are selective and focus o n facts, besides indicating the antecedents a n d causes underlying the events.
27
Polybius k n e w very well that a c o m m a n d e r speech
was m o s t appropriate
b e f o r e a b a t d e , b e c a u s e h e refers t o such
speeches m a n y times. But h e m o s d y summarizes t h e m briefly, often in fixed a n d stereotypical ways. O n e formula especially, with slight variations, indicates briefly the content o f m a n y c o m m a n d e r speeches, adhering
to the principle that underlies T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m m a n d e r
s p e e c h e s , n a m e l y that t h e y s h o u l d a d d r e s s
the circumstances:
". . . e n c o u r a g i n g them with the appropriate w o r d s a c c o r d i n g t o the circumstances" (napccKaAiaavxeq auxoix; xarcpeTtovxaxa> m i p S ) .
2 6
2 7
2 8
Polybius,
Further references: Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik, 9 0 .
P. Pédech, La méthode historique de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964), 2 5 6 - 5 9 ; 2 7 6 - 3 0 2 ; F. W . W a l b a n k , A Historical Commentary on Polybius (3 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 9 5 7 - 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 . 1 3 - 1 4 . Polybius 1.32.8; 1.45.3; 1.60.5; 2 . 6 4 . 1 ; 3 . 7 1 . 8 ; 4 . 8 0 . 1 5 ; 5 . 5 3 . 6 ; 1 1 . 1 1 . 2 . O t h e r formulae also contain the verb 7tapamÀ,eîv to indicate the commander's purpose, e.g. 16.5.9: m i 7capaKaA.cov xoùç àvÔpaç eùoapaeiç eîvai, Ô I O T I VIKCOGI xfi vœuuaxîa 2 8
192
JAN WILLEM VAN
KENTEN
therefore, hardly offers a full report o f c o m m a n d e r speeches, but his histories d o include larger sections o f such speeches. Contrary to his o w n principles at least o n e o f these speeches was p r o b a b l y invented by Polybius,
29
and the speeches b y Publius Scipio, w h i c h parallel
those o f his adversary Hannibal, were most p r o b a b l y not created b y Scipio himself.
30
Polybius presents Scipio and Hannibal b o t h as mas
terful orators. O n e o f Hannibal's
speeches, given before the batde
at the Ticinus (218 B . C E . ) , gets a personal t o u c h with the help o f miserable prisoners b r o u g h t in front o f Hannibal's soldiers to e x e m plify what w o u l d h a p p e n if the n o b l e death adage "triumph o r die!" was not met b y his soldiers.
31
Dionysius o f Halicarnassus is another author w h o s e rhetorical c o n ventions Josephus m a y have b e e n familiar with, o r w h o m a y have influenced h i m at least indirecdy. Dionysius w r o t e the Antiquitates Romanae, a history o f R o m e from the very beginning u p to the point w h e r e Polybius started his w o r k . H e is an interesting m a t c h
for
Josephus. A l t h o u g h being a G r e e k he justified the R o m a n imperium, but sugared the pill for his Greek readers b y pointing out that R o m e ' s first leaders were G r e e k s .
32
Dionysius was first a n d foremost an ora
tor, w h o wrote many rhetorical works, including o n e about Thucydides in w h i c h he criticized the great historian. Nevertheless, he m u c h to admire
in T h u c y d i d e s ' speeches a n d m o l d e d the
speeches in his history o f R o m e b y drawing o n T h u c y d i d e s .
33
found many Many
o f Dionysius' speeches are rhetorical compositions that m a y well have b e e n published separately, like Livy's speeches. Dionysius' attitude towards the c o m p o s i t i o n o f speeches is rather similar to T h u c y d i d e s , a n d his o t h e r m a i n
m o d e l seems to h a v e b e e n
Demosthenes.
3 4
Elaborate examples o f Dionysius' c o m m a n d e r speeches are: 3.23.6-21 (Fufetius to the Albans), 6 . 6 - 9 (Publius Postumius to R o m a n troops), a n d 9.9 (Fabius to the R o m a n s ) .
(also 1.44.1; 2 . 6 7 . 1 ; 3 . 1 9 . 4 ; 3 . 4 3 . 1 1 ; 3 . 1 1 6 . 3 ; 5 . 4 . 6 ; 5 . 4 8 . 1 6 ; 5 . 6 2 . 1 ; 1 0 . 1 4 . 3 ; 1 0 . 4 9 . 7 ; 11.15.4). 2 9
Aemilius Paullus' speech before the battle at C a n n a e ( 3 . 1 0 8 . 3 - 1 0 9 . 1 2 ) , Pédech, La méthode historique de Poly be, 2 7 4 . 3 0
Pédech, La méthode historique de Polybe, 274-75. Another argument for displaying great courage in this speech is R o m e ' s wealth as the huge reward (Polybius 3 . 6 3 . 1 - 1 4 ) . E. C a r y , The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (7 vols.; L o e b Series, London: H e i n e m a n n / C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 5 0 ) , l.xiii. S. Usher, "The Style of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the 'Antiquitates Romanae'," AJVRW 2 . 3 0 . 1 : 8 1 7 - 3 8 , esp. 8 2 2 . Usher, "Style of Dionysius o f Halicarnassus," 8 3 2 - 3 3 ; cf. Dionysius, Ant. Rom., 1.6.5; 7 . 6 6 . 3 ; 1 1 . 1 . 3 . 3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S
COMMANDER SPEECH
IN A.J.
193
3.2. Analysis of the Situation In the b o d y o f H e r o d ' s speech Josephus seems to follow the i m p o r tant c o n v e n t i o n , already t o u c h e d u p o n a b o v e in c o n n e c t i o n with T h u c y d i d e s , that speeches o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t before a batde derive most o f the soldiers' motivation from a discussion o f their situation and the opportunities c o m i n g with it. This requires an analysis o f the batde's l o c a t i o n , the specifics a n d capabilities o f b o t h
armies
(number, experience, c o u r a g e and discipline), with their advantages and disadvantages, as well as a discussion o f past performances.
35
T h u c y d i d e a n c o m m a n d e r speeches s h o w this c o n v e n t i o n in and include an analysis o f the circumstances as well as the
Many detail batde's
location and the opportunities it provided. C o m m a n d e r s in Thucydides also discuss the qualities o f b o t h armies, their experience and former success, and the particularities o f the enemy's condition. T h e speeches sometimes reveal the strategy that obviously resulted from the analy sis as well, w h i c h also helped to encourage the soldiers.
36
T h e Spartan
c o m m a n d e r Brasidas observed, before his batde against the Athenian c o m m a n d e r C l e o n at A m p h i p o l i s (422 B.C.E.), that the e n e m y was treating its o p p o n e n t with c o n t e m p t , while actually n o t being p r o p erly organized ( a x d K t c o q ) itself, so that its confidence was not justified. His analysis leads to the c o n c l u s i o n that an immediate attack b y an elite g r o u p was called for before the e n e m y c o u l d line u p . This w o u l d frighten the e n e m y and e n h a n c e its disorder ( 5 . 9 . 3 ~ 6 ) .
37
T h e location
and particularities o f the armies also play a prominent role in s o m e o f T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m m a n d e r speeches. T h e Peloponnesian c o m m a n d e r s e n c o u r a g e their soldiers in 2.87 before a naval batde, after Athens' earlier triumph o v e r them in the s u m m e r o f 4 2 9 B.C.E. o n the high sea, b y listing the advantages o f these factors: " T h e r e are solid advan tages o n y o u r s i d e - y o u have the bigger fleet: y o u are fighting o f f y o u r native shores with hoplites ready to support y o u . A n d as a rule the side that wins is the side with the numbers and the equipment. T h e r e is n o single reason, therefore, w h y w e should lose." ( 2 . 8 7 . 6 - 7 )
3 5
38
Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 1.4.9. Deliberative speeches concern action in the future, but this requires relevant knowledge about matters from past and present, Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, 9 8 . 3()
3 7
3 8
Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden, 113; 117. Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik, 8 7 - 8 9 . Cf. Thucydides 4 . 1 0 . Cf. Thucydides 4 . 1 0 . 3 - 5 ; 6 . 6 8 . 3 .
194
JAN WILLEM VAN
HENTEN
Polybius' c o m m a n d e r speeches also address the specific c i r c u m stances. H e notes that m o s t o f what Publius S c i p i o h a d said to encourage his soldiers before the batde at the Ticinus against Hannibal c o n c e r n e d the glorious reputation o f the R o m a n fatherland and the d e e d s o f their ancestors, as well as their current situation (xot 8e TOU n a p e c T & z o q K o t i p o u , 3.64.2). B o o k
15 o f Polybius offers a pair o f
speeches b y Hannibal and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus, pre c e d i n g the batde at Z a m a in 2 0 2 B.C.E. ( 1 5 . 1 0 . 1 - 7 ; 1 5 . 1 1 . 6 - 1 3 ) . T h e introduction o f S c i p i o ' s exhortation ( j c a p a K a A x b v ) indicates that it addressed the circumstances (oiKetcoq 8e xfjq i m o i c e i p e v r i q Tcepiaxdaecoq, 15.10.1),
39
but the speech offers, in fact, hardly m o r e than a cluster
of commonplaces.
40
Scipio reminds his soldiers o f earlier victories,
encourages them to fight in a m a n n e r w o r t h y o f the glorious tradi tion o f their country, and points to their supremacy o v e r the rest o f the w o r l d if they w o u l d b e victorious. But he also warns them against the disgrace o f flight o r o f falling into the hands o f the
enemy
( 1 5 . 1 0 . 1 - 4 ) . H e t o o uses hackneyed rhetoric o f the n o b l e death, say ing,
that the soldiers' c h o i c e was d e a d simple, "triumph
or die"
(vucav ii 9vf|OK£iv, 15.10.5), just as Hannibal had urged before (3.63.4). T h u s , G r a e c o - R o m a n literature shows that there was an arsenal o f arguments linked to the particular military situation that a c o m m a n d e r c o u l d use in his speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t before a batde. How
d o e s H e r o d ' s speech deal with the circumstances o f the future
batde against the Arabs? H e r o d does n o t spend a w o r d o n the batde's location, w h i c h is unclear anyway in the Antiquitates, perhaps another indication o f J o s e p h u s ' invention o f the s p e e c h .
41
But in line
with the c o n v e n t i o n in G r e e k c o m m a n d e r speeches H e r o d does offer a brief c o m p a r i s o n o f b o t h armies after discussing the A r a b s ' out rageous acts against the J e w s .
42
A J.
15.138 starts this c o m p a r i s o n in
elusive and rather rhetorical phrases, w h i c h also introduce issues dis cussed later o n in the speech: " A t this point, s o m e o n e will perhaps say: 'while holiness and justice are with us, they [our e n e m i e s ] , h o w ever, h a p p e n to b e m o r e c o u r a g e o u s o r m o r e n u m e r o u s . ' But, first o f all, y o u ought not to say this. For, those w h o have justice with them (also) have G o d with them, and wherever G o d is present, there
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
Cf. 3 . 5 4 . 2 - 4 ; 3 . 1 1 1 . 1 - 1 1 . W a l b a n k , Commentary, 2 . 4 5 6 . B.J. 1.380 refers to Philadelphia (above). This argument shimmers through in the Bellum version of the speech.
COMMONPLACES
IN HEROD'S COMMANDER
are also numbers and c o u r a g e . " F r o m A J.
SPEECH IN AJ.
195
15.139 onwards the focus
is u p o n earlier encounters with the e n e m y , during w h i c h the Jews were victorious. H e r o d relativizes the recent defeat in this w a y and disqualifies the e n e m y further b y his arguments that its victories were based o n unjust acts and taking advantage o f their o p p o n e n t s ' mis fortunes (AJ.
1 5 . 1 4 0 - 1 4 4 , below). 3.3. Encouragement and Instruction
Josephus indicates that H e r o d had a double intention with his speech: "I h a v e deliberately (TKxpocKaAiaai.
. . KOCI
c h o s e n to e n c o u r a g e y o u a n d instruct y o u 8i8a£ai) at the same time h o w y o u might b e
true to y o u r p r o u d designs." (128). T h e instruction m e n t i o n e d is not a h o l l o w phrase, because H e r o d d o e s instruct his soldiers a b o u t the e n e m y and their o w n situation ( 1 3 0 - 1 4 5 ) , w h i c h supports his e x h o r tation. O t h e r c o m m a n d e r speeches s h o w that such a twofold pur pose o f a c o m m a n d e r speech is conventional. T h e Spartan c o m m a n d e r and politician Brasidas starts his speech in T h u c y d i d e s 4 . 1 2 6 with a phrase that indicates his intention to e n c o u r a g e and instruct: "Peloponnesians, I should not b e giving y o u advice as I d o n o w , but only saying a few w o r d s o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t , if it w e r e not for the fact that I imagine that y o u are
down-hearted
because o f y o u r isolated position in face o f an attack b y a barbar ian a r m y w h i c h is in great force. A s it is, what with the
desertion
o f o u r friends a n d the n u m b e r o f o u r enemies, there are a few things o f w h i c h I want to remind y o u a n d there is s o m e advice I want to offer (. . . OUK dv ojioicoq SiSaxijv duxx xr\
rcapccKetaucei
ercoioupriv) in an
attempt to satisfy y o u o n the most important p o i n t s . "
43
T h e instruc
tion in c o m m a n d e r speeches c o n c e r n s that part o f the speech that analyzes the situation, the location o f the batde, the enemy's army etc. (see 3 . 2 ) .
44
T h i s analysis allowed for the c h o i c e o f the best strat
egy in the given circumstances. T h e c o m m a n d e r ' s clarification o f sit uation a n d strategy shows his intentions (cf. T h u c y d i d e s 5.8.5). It is o b v i o u s that all this information, if presented persuasively, c o u l d b e a major g r o u n d for the soldiers'
4 3
encouragement.
45
T h e translation o f Thucydides' passages is from R . W a r n e r , Thucydides. History
of the Peloponnesian War (London: Penguin, 4 4
Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden, 7 1 - 7 2 ;
4 5
Cf. Thucydides 2 . 8 7 . 7 .
1972). 107-9.
196
JAN WILLEM VAN
HENTEN
3.4. Turning the Soldiers' Adversities into an Advantage (A.J.
15.142)
In his introductory phrase H e r o d acknowledges already his soldiers' mishaps as a w a y to sympathize with them. H e returns to their adversities in his discussion o f his s e c o n d point, using the misfortunes as a springboard for his argument u p c o m i n g batde w e r e great.
that the prospects in the
46
In T h u c y d i d e s s o m e o f the c o m m a n d e r speeches are also situated after a defeat. T h e Peloponnesian c o m m a n d e r s refer in their speech in 2.87 to the insufficient preparations, inexperience and misadventure (xoc ¿716 xfjq xuxriq OUK oXiya evavxico9fivai, 2 . 8 7 . 1 - 2 ) that led to defeat, but build o n these b y stating that inexperience is never an excuse w h e n the soldiers have p r o p e r c o u r a g e (av5pe(a) ( 2 . 8 7 . 3 - 5 ) . O n e should learn from the mistakes in the past (vuv auxoc xauxa rcpooyevopeva 8i8aoKaAaav rcape^ei, 2.87.7), w h i c h , o f course, b y w a y o f encouragement, implies that future batdes will turn out well. Aemilius Paullus addresses the soldiers' recent mishaps (xcov vecoaxi yeyovoxcov auprcxcopaxcov) in his speech before the batde at C a n n a e (216 B . C E . ) against Hannibal
(Polybius 3 . 1 0 8 . 3 - 1 0 9 . 1 3 ) . H e counters them b y
discussing their causes (ignorance, haste, b a d visibility). T h i s is the prelude to his argument that the current circumstances w e r e e x a c d y the opposite o f the soldiers' former situation ( 3 . 1 0 8 . 1 0 - 1 0 9 . 5 ) . H e r o d ' s reasoning to counter the adversities is triple. H e uses the fact that the p e o p l e w h o informed the Arabs o f the J e w s ' misfortune because o f the earthquake indulged in amplifying it, implying that the Arabs w o u l d overestimate the earthquake's impact o n H e r o d ' s soldiers, which was a relative advantage for the Jews' (A.J. 15.142-143). H e r o d ' s s e c o n d d e v i c e is purely rhetorical: it w o u l d b e illogical if the fact just stated turned the A r a b s into audacious fighters
and
H e r o d ' s soldiers into c o w a r d s (A.J. 15.142). A n d thirdly, the adversities were just co-incidental a n d were not to b e considered as p u n ishment b y G o d (A.J. 15.144, below). 3.5. Multitude (nXxfioc) and/or courage (A.J. T h e transition in A.J.
15.138)^
15.138 contrasts holiness and justice with a
great n u m b e r o f soldiers and courage: " A t this point, s o m e o n e will perhaps say: 'while holiness and justice are with us, they [our ene-
Cf. B.J. 1 . 3 7 7 - 3 7 8 . This argument is absent in B.J.
1.373-379.
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S
COMMANDER SPEECH
IN A J.
197
mies], h o w e v e r , h a p p e n to b e m o r e c o u r a g e o u s o r m o r e n u m e r o u s . ' But, first o f all, y o u ought not to say this. For, those w h o have jus tice with them (also) have G o d with them, a n d wherever G o d is pre sent, there are also numbers and c o u r a g e . " Associating great numbers with c o u r a g e , w h i c h is repeated in this passage in chiastic order, builds o n a c o m m o n p l a c e in G r e e k c o m m a n d e r speeches. H e r o d o t u s already contrasts multitude and courage with experience time and again in his report o f the events c o n n e c t e d with the batde o f T h e r m o p y l a e . In the Persian c o u n c i l M a r d o n i u s first c o n v i n c e s X e r x e s that there is n o risk in attacking G r e e c e because o f the multi tude o f the a r m y (7.9). N e x t H e r o d o t u s offers a marvelous speech b y Artabanus, w h o strongly advises X e r x e s n o t to attack the Greeks. Artabanus c o m b i n e s the importance o f divine support with the obser vation that the bigger a r m y d o e s n o t necessarily win: " Y o u k n o w , m y lord, that amongst the living creatures it is the great ones that g o d (6 0e6<;) smites with his thunder, out o f envy o f their pride . . . Often a great army is destroyed b y a little o n e (Ouxco 8e
KCCI
oxpocxcx; noXXbq
bnb oAiyou 8ia(p0e{pexai m x a xoiov8e), w h e n g o d in his envy puts fear into the m e n ' s hearts, o r sends a thunderstorm, and they are cut to pieces in a w a y they d o not deserve. Because g o d tolerates pride in n o n e but himself. Haste is the m o t h e r o f failure . . . " ( H e r o d o t u s 7.10; trans. D e Selincourt). In his discussion with Demaratus, h o w ever, X e r x e s keeps putting his trust in his army's multitude, whereas Demaratus
stresses the Spartans'
e x c e l l e n c e in battle
(Herodotus
7.101-105). T h u c y d i d e s ' speeches also raise the matter o f the n u m b e r o f e n e m y soldiers. Before the naval batde near Naupactus with the
Spartans,
the Athenian c o m m a n d e r P h o r m i o discusses the multitude o f the Peloponnesian forces (2.89; cf. 4.12), but he does not consider it a reason to b e frightened. Referring to the e n e m y ' s earlier defeats and triumphs for Athens he points out that the greater army neverthe less lost before because o f lack o f experience (arceipm) and c o u r a g e (axo^pia, 2.89.7).
48
Brasidas deals with this motif in a w a y characteristic
for ancient Spartans. H e constructs an analogy between the situation o f the batde at h a n d and Spartan oligarchic rule. T h e great n u m ber o f e n e m y soldiers should not b e frightening, because the Spartans k n o w out o f their o w n experience that it is not the multitude that
L e i m b a c h , Militarische Musterrhetorik, 5 2 .
198
JAN WILLEM VAN HENTEN
is ruling o v e r the few, but the minority o v e r the majority; and the m i n o r i t y ' s p o w e r is b a s e d o n n o t h i n g else than military success (4.126.2). Brasidas, therefore, applies the rhetorical strategy o f turn ing
real advantages o f the e n e m y into seeming advantages.
49
The
Athenian c o m m a n d e r Nicias counters the great n u m b e r o f e n e m y soldiers and their expectation to triumph with the quality and e x p e rience o f Athens' fighters ( 6 . 6 8 ) .
50
Dionysius o f Halicarnassus t o o c o n
trasts multitude and valor in o n e o f his elaborate c o m m a n d e r speeches: "all wars are w o n n o t b y the forces w h i c h are larger in numbers (oi nXeioxx; xoiq apiGpoiq), but b y those w h o are superior in valor (oi Kpeixxoix; dpexfi)" (6.8.1). Herod's speech departs from the w a y in which n u m b e r and courage are usually contrasted in c o m m a n d e r s p e e c h e s .
51
Herod combines
the t w o , arguing that G o d ' s support, w h i c h c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d in the case o f a just w a r (below), implies sufficient numbers and courage. In this case, H e r o d ' s argument links u p with the reasoning in Jewish passages from the S e c o n d T e m p l e p e r i o d that G o d ' s help and n o t the n u m b e r o f soldiers o r their p o w e r determines the v i c t o r y . 3.6.
52
The Battle is Just and Necessary
H e r o d ' s s p e e c h is the p r i m e text for the n o t i o n o f just w a r in Josephus.
53
H e r o d emphasizes time and again that the continuation o f
the war against "the A r a b s " was called for, because it was a justified war. A c o h e r e n t semantic field o f just w a r phrases indicates this: -
ou povov Sdcaiov, bXkh m i avayicaiov rc6A,epov erce^iovxcav (135)
- rcotapeiv . . . 8iKa(coq (129) -
xo pev oaiov KCCI 8{KOCI6V eaxi peO' fipcov (138)
-
peG' a>v xo 8{KOCIOV eaxi pex' eicevvcov 6 Geoq (138)
-
xov 8e 7i6A,epov . . . 8iicaiov o?8ev (145)
4 9
Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden, 5 9 ; Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik,
5 0
Cf. Thucydides 2.87.6; 7.61.3. Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden, 6 0 - 6 1 ; 133 (references). I thank Jonathan Kirkpatrick (Oxford) for pointing this out to m e .
51
79-80.
5 2
1 M a c e 3:19; Jdt 9:11 ; Josephus, A J. 8 . 2 8 0 , 2 9 5 . T h e motif occurs already in J u d g 7 about Gideon's 3 0 0 fighters defeating the Midianites with G o d ' s help. L . Sementchenko, " O n the T w o Conceptions of Just W a r in the Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus," REA 103 (2001): 4 8 5 - 9 5 , esp. 4 9 1 . In Ant. rom. 6 . 8 . 1 - 3 Dionysius also connects n u m b e r with courage. 5 3
Mantovani, Bellum iustum, 8 6 , argues that Josephus c o m b i n e d the biblical notion of holy war c o m m a n d e d by G o d with non-Jewish conceptions of just war.
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN A J.
-
199
£7C£^eX9exe SIKOUOCK; a v 8 p a y a 6 i a i < ; xoix; aSiicoix; pev npbc,
54
Ancient historians time a n d again report a b o u t just a n d unjust causes for the m a n y wars fought in antiquity, whether in their attempt to reconstruct the events as precisely as possible o r to legitimize wars afterwards. In the case o f the R o m a n s , the theory o f the "just w a r " is even used in a d v a n c e as a pretext to start a war (cf. the examples from Dionysius o f Halicarnassus b e l o w ) . F r o m T h u c y d i d e s o n w a r d s the t h e m e o f just war appears in c o m m a n d e r speeches a n d other passages with a rather fixed v o c a b u l a r y (key w o r d s : rcoXepoq a n d 8{KOCIO<;, ooioq o r iepoq; with the Latin equivalents helium iustum a n d / o r 55
pium).
A t the o u t b r e a k o f the w a r b e t w e e n the A t h e n i a n s a n d
Spartans (431 B . C E . ) , the Spartan king A r c h i d a m u s p o i n t e d o u t to his soldiers that the batde against Athens was "right" (Siicaioq) for two
reasons: 1) faithfulness to the reputation o f the Peloponnesians
and their allies' ancestors; 2) A t h e n s ' unusual (ocf|0T|<;) acts against other Greeks b y attacking their land and destroying it ( T h u c y d i d e s 2.11.2, 7 - 9 ) .
5 6
S o m e fifty years before, M a r d o n i u s u r g e d the Persian
king X e r x e s to continue his war against G r e e c e b y indicating the outrageous acts c o m m i t t e d against the Persians b y the Athenians, which called for revenge (Herodotus 7.5, 9). Dionysius o f Halicarnassus uses helium
iustum
v o c a b u l a r y time a n d again in his description o f
R o m e ' s early history. A striking e x a m p l e is Tullus' declaration o f war
o n the A l b a n s because o f breaking a treaty: "I declare against
the A l b a n s a w a r w h i c h is necessary and just (xov avocyicaiov xe m i 8ucaiov 7i6A,epov, 3.3.6)." In 8 . 2 - 5 M a r c i u s warns Tullus not to attack
5 4
O t h e r passages in Josephus also touch upon justified war, but Herod's speech is the most elaborate passage about this theme. In A.J. 8 . 2 9 5 the Israelites' victory against the Ethiopians is attributed to their being just a n d holy (Sucououq Kai ooiouq). A.J. 8 . 2 2 3 notes that G o d prevented the batde between Solomon's son R e h o b o a m and J e r o b o a m on the ground that it is not just to fight s o m e b o d y o f the same kin (oi) yap eivai ÖCKCCIOV xoix; opoqwXouq rcotapeiv). See also A.J. 1 4 . 6 3 ; Vita 2 2 ; B.J. 2 . 3 9 9 ; 2 . 5 8 2 ; ctycov Simioc; in Eleazar's speech at M a s a d a (B.J. 7.355). Sementchenko, " T w o Conceptions o f Just W a r . " 5 5
S. Albert, Bellum iustum: die Theorie des "gerechten Krieges" und ihre praktische Bedeutung fiir die auswärtigen Auseinandersetzungen Roms in republikanischer £eit (Frankfurter Althistorische Studies 10; K a l l m ü n z : M i c h e l Lassleben, 1980); S. Clavadetscher-Thürleman, P O L E MOS DIKAIOS und bellum iustum: Versuch einer Ideengeschichte (Zürich: Juris, 1985); M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum. L e i m b a c h , Militärische Musterrhetorik, 1 9 - 2 0 ; 3 3 . 5 6
200
JAN WILLEM VAN
HENTEN
R o m e immediately, but to establish deliberately a righteous and just g r o u n d for w a r ( a m a v . . . 5 e w еиагрл rcoAipou,
KOCI
8 i m i a v evaxr|aaa9ai той
8.2), because o f the gods; his advice is to let the R o m a n s
break the treaty first. In 5.5.4 Colladnus advises the consuls not to keep the possessions o f the expelled tyrants, because that c o u l d give them a just reason to begin a w a r (rcpocpocaiv rcoAipou Sucouav). C o h e r e n t theoretical reflections about just w a r started only with Cicero,
57
but he builds o n arguments brought forward already
in
earlier sources that discuss whether a w a r was just o r not. A justified cause for a w a r c o u l d b e based o n religious, philosophical o r juridical reasons. Religious grounds for launching a just w a r c o u l d consist o f insolent deeds (иррц) against deities, like the desecration o f their temples, unjust and godless acts against relatives, because they violated b l o o d ties, and internal war, violating kinship relations, alliances o r the political b o d y o f the state. A philosophical reason c o u l d b e that the strong have a right to fight inferiors like animals o r barbarians (see below). Juridical grounds were most important and include the right to defend oneself against an e n e m y attack, o r to help an ally b e i n g attacked, the right to take revenge o n the e n e m y for its out rageous deeds, as well as the right to free oneself from tyranny o r foreign oppressors.
58
Just w a r also required that a p r o p e r p r o c e d u r e was m e t before the war was declared. A c c o r d i n g to G r e e k traditions, the p r o c e d u r e included in any case a formal declaration o f war, presented b y envoys.
59
R o m a n sacral law (ius fetiale) prescribed several steps for the p r o c e dure for R o m a n s : a consultation o f the senate, a decision b y the p e o p l e and the transference
o f the decision b y priesdy e n v o y s .
60
In
the republican p e r i o d the priesdy role o f the fetiales declined already a n d was taken o v e r b y e n v o y s from the senate.
61
A n d finally, a
justified w a r had to b e fought in a just manner. Both sides had to fight
the w a r with fairness, nobleness, a v o i d a n c e o f c u n n i n g
guile, putting into action, for e x a m p l e , only trained soldiers.
5 7
Cicero, De re pubi. 2 . 1 7 . 3 1 ; 3 . 2 3 . 3 5 ; De off. 1 . 7 . 2 0 - 2 3 ; 1 . 1 1 . 3 4 - 3 6 ;
2.8.26-27.
Albert,
Bellum iustum, 2 0 - 2 5 ; E . S. R a m a g e ,
Caesar's D e bello Gallico," Athenaeum 8 9 (2001): 5 8
5 9
6 0
Albert, Bellum iustum, 1 7 - 1 8 ; M a n t o v a n i , J. Oehler,
"Keryx," PRE
"The
and
62
1.23.80-81;
Bellum Iustum
in
145-70.
Bellum iustum, 1 - 8 4 .
1 1 . 3 4 9 - 5 7 , esp. c. 3 5 5 .
Albert, Bellum iustum, 1 2 - 1 6 .
6 1
Albert, Bellum iustum, 15; M a n t o v a n i ,
6 2
Clavadetscher-Thürleman,
iustum, 7 0 - 7 9 .
Bellum iustum, 6 0 ^ 6 1 .
POLEMOS DIKAIOS,
1 0 4 - 2 6 ; 1 4 0 - 5 2 ; Mantovani, Bellum
COMMONPLACES
IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH
IN A J.
201
H e r o d also indicates that the batde against the A r a b s was neces sary (135), w h i c h seems to b e closely related to his just war argument; the Arabs had to b e punished.
63
T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m m a n d e r speeches
also refer a few d m e s to necessity (avayicri), indicating that the batde c o u l d not b e a v o i d e d in the circumstances at hand, o r that a specific strategy is forced u p o n the army because o f the circumstances (4.10.1; 6.68.4; 7.62.4; 7 . 7 7 . 5 ) .
64
3.6.1. Injustice done by the enemy ( A J . 15.131-134, Injustice
136-138)
d o n e b y the e n e m y is an important cause for a justified
war. H e r o d g o t small thanks for his pains w h e n he helped the Arabs against Cleopatra, for they d e c e i v e d h i m in return ( 1 3 1 - 1 3 4 ) . T o c a p it all they even killed the Jewish envoys ( 1 3 6 - 1 3 8 ; cf. B.J. 1.378). It is striking, that w h e n the Arabs h a d sent envoys after their defeat, H e r o d did not repeat their unjust act, although he was eager to take vengeance. T h u s , the detail o f the Arabs murdering the Jewish envoys gains significance after the speech, making H e r o d appear even m o r e favorably (A.J. 1 5 . 1 5 5 ) .
65
H e r o d o t u s already indicates that maltreat
ment o f envoys is a clear case o f a just cause for war, because envoys were protected b y law a n d had
immunity.
66
G r e e k c o m m a n d e r speeches justify war b y recalling the e n e m y ' s unjust acts. In T h u c y d i d e s , the Syracusan justifies the w a r against the Athenians
commander
Gylippus
before a naval batde (413
B.C.E.). R e v e n g e was called for because Athens attempted to enslave all Sicily, and w o u l d , if successful, c o m m i t all kinds o f outrages against the Sicilians, including wives and children ( 7 . 6 8 . 1 - 3 ) .
67
T h e Spartan
king A r c h i d a m u s ' speech also refers to the i m p r o p e r b e h a v i o r o f the Athenians (Thucydides 2 . 1 1 . 7 - 9 , above). In Polybius, Aemilius Paullus seems to hint at just w a r motifs in his speech before the b a t d e at Cannae against Hannibal ( 3 . 1 0 8 . 3 - 1 0 9 . 1 3 ) , b y imagining what terrible
6 3
Cf. necessity in Josephus' own speech (B.J. 3.361) and Eleazar's M a s a d a speeches (B.J. 7 . 3 2 3 - 3 8 8 ) , H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum ( A G J U 12; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 3 5 - 3 7 . 6 4
Luschnat, Die Feldhermreden, 3 5 - 3 6 ; 7 6 - 7 7 ; 133; Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik,
97. 6 5
A n o t h e r case o f just w a r because o f the maltreatment o f envoys in A.J. 7 . 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , where D a v i d takes revenge u p o n the A m m o n i t e s because their king shaved off half o f his envoys' beards and cut off half o f their garments. Herodotus 7 . 1 3 6 . 2 . Also 5 . 1 8 - 2 1 ; Thucydides 4 . 9 8 . 7 ; Plato, Leg. 9 4 1 a ; Livy 4 . 5 8 . 6 ; 8 . 6 . 7 ; 1 0 . 1 2 . 2 - 3 ; Albert, Bellum iustum, 18; M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, 4 4 . " Cf. Thucydides 1 . 8 6 . 2 - 3 . 6 6
7
202
JAN WILLEM VAN
HENTEN
things w o u l d h a p p e n if Hannibal were to defeat the R o m a n s . H e first encourages the soldiers to fight for themselves, their country, a n d their wives and c h i l d r e n ,
68
and next hints at the outrage
and
destruction b y the e n e m y o f all things m e n t i o n e d in case o f a defeat (Polybius 3 . 1 0 9 . 7 - 8 ) . T h e fatherland's entire existence was at stake (3.109.9), w h i c h qualified the w a r against Hannibal as a justified war o f defense.
69
Dionysius points at outrageous acts b y the e n e m y before
the war with the stock phrase r\ uppiq xcov rcoXeuicov ("the
enemy's
outrageous act") in c o n n e c t i o n with the a n n o u n c e m e n t o f war and embassies. In 5.44.2, for example, following the Sabines' unannounced incursion into R o m a n territory, Publius Postumius e n e m y ' s outrageous behavior to b e intolerable.
considers
the
70
3.6.2. Improper enemy practices in connection to warfare customs (A.J. 15.130,
1X
139-140)
H e r o d first reminds his soldiers that the Arabs w e r e c o w a r d s , waiting for the best opportunity and taking advantage o f the Jews' mishaps: ". . . they w e r e waiting to make a sudden attack in o u r confused state." (130). Further o n , he seems to b l a m e the A r a b s for starting a war unannounced,
72
shifting quickly from Cleopatra's general Athenion,
w h o took the initiative for re-opening the batde, to the Arabs and blaming them instead o f A t h e n i o n (cf. B.J. 1.375): "But even though w e were victorious, A t h e n i o n attacked us and started a w a r without declaring it. W a s this (a p r o o f o f ) their bravery o r a s e c o n d (example) o f (their) lawlessness and treachery?" (A.J. 1 5 . 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 ) . T h e r e is even a third passage in H e r o d ' s speech that suggests that the Arabs w e r e violating the laws o f war: " A n d h o w is it that w e are
terrified
b y such (men), w h o , w h e n e v e r they fight honesdy, have always b e e n defeated, and, w h e n e v e r they are believed to win, succeed b y means o f depravity?" (140). Starting a war u n a n n o u n c e d was a clear violation o f the obligation to fight a w a r in a fair w a y a c c o r d i n g to G r a e c o - R o m a n passages
6 8
Cf. Josephus, B.J. 1.379. Cf. Polybius 5 . 1 0 4 . 1 - 5 ; Herodotus 7 . 5 , 9. Cf. Dionysius 5.45.1 about a very insolent embassy, which the R o m a n s receive from the e n e m y (napòt xa>v rcoXeuacov rcpeajteia nok\x\v iSppiv ixox>cr\) and Fabius' opening words in his speech in 9 . 9 . 6 9
7 0
7 1
Cf. BJ. 1.375. Josephus refers to other unannounced wars in B.J. M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, 9 4 . 7 2
1.269; 2 . 3 0 ; C. Ap.
1.318.
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN AJ.
(above).
73
In H e r o d o t u s 5.81.2 such a war (odcfipuKTOcrcotapoç)is seen
as a c r i m e . 3 . 6 . 3 . It
203
74
is natural
to fight against
barbarians
(AJ.
75
15.130,
136)
H e r o d emphasizes the treacherous acts of the Arabs, as w e have seen. He
seems to suggest that these acts are n o surprise, because they
were c o m m i t t e d b y barbarians. In A.J.
15.130 he calls the A r a b s a
barbarian p e o p l e without notion o f G o d . T h e m e a n i n g o f pappocpo<; d e v e l o p e d from "not speaking G r e e k " into " n o n - G r e e k , " frequendy with a pejorative c o n n o t a t i o n . The
76
But H e r o d was a n o n - G r e e k t o o .
additional reference to the G o d o f the J e w s in A.J. 15.130, 136
seems to indicate a principal difference between the Jews a n d Arabs (cf. 136), implying that only barbarians without c a n n o t b e trusted (
TO
knowledge
the
of God
pdpPocpov m l avevvonrov
OEOU,
130). T h e statement seems to build o n a distinction b e t w e e n Jewish and non-Jewish barbarians. In this w a y , H e r o d c o u l d use the nega tive connotations o f the phrase "barbarian" (non-Greek = uncivi lized), while keeping out o f range himself. Implicidy H e r o d seems to c o n n e c t Greeks and Jews in A.J. 15.136 as the t w o groups w h o c o n sider envoys sacred, either out o f declaration o r because G o d ' s laws were transmitted to the J e w s b y G o d ' s messengers. I f this reading is justified, only the Arabs are really barbarians in H e r o d ' s statement, at least in J o s e p h u s ' rendering. T h e passage m a y hint, in line with this interpretation, at yet another reason for starting a just war, the philosophical argument that there is a self-evident enmity b e t w e e n o p p o n e n t s b y nature, e.g. humans versus animals, o r Greeks versus barbarians. Heraclitus d e v e l o p e d this line o f thinking a n d Plato and Aristode applied it to the antagonism between Hellenes a n d
bar
barians. T h e argument o c c u r s time and again in reports a b o u t the wars o f the Greeks against the Persians in the fifth century B . C . E .
77
Brasidas hints at it in the beginning o f his speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t in T h u c y d i d e s 4 . 1 2 6 b y calling the M a c e d o n i a n e n e m y
barbarians,
arguing that there is n o reason to fear them because they are bar barians ( 4 . 1 2 6 . 1 ) .
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7K
78
M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, 6 0 - 7 0 . Cf. B.J. 1.269; 2 . 3 0 ; C. Ap. 1.318. Such an argument is absent from Herod's speech in the Bellum. E . Levy, "Naissance du concept de barbare," Ktema 9 (1984): 5 - 1 4 . T h e locus classicus is Herodotus 8 . 1 4 2 . 5 . M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, 2 1 - 2 3 . Leimbach, Militärische Musterrhetorik, 8 0 .
204
JAN WILLEM VAN
HENTEN
3.7. The Divine Factor™ T h e H e b r e w Bible, as well as the Septuagint additions, presents wars as authorized b y G o d .
8 0
frequendy
D e u t e r o n o m y 20, o f course,
offers G o d ' s laws c o n c e r n i n g warfare. Josephus builds o n the bibli cal notion o f holy war in the section o f the Antiquitates that parallels the Bible, but he incorporates the just war v o c a b u l a r y in several pas sages where it is absent in the H e b r e w Bible a n d the
Septuagint.
81
In H e r o d ' s speech t o o , G o d ' s help is closely related to the just war theme (A.J. 1 5 . 1 4 4 - 1 4 6 ) . J o s e p h u s ' argument in this section can b e summarized in three points: 1) I f the mishaps for the J e w s had h a p p e n e d in a c c o r d a n c e with G o d ' s will, G o d ' s attitude to them h a d c h a n g e d in the time, because they were punished e n o u g h ( 1 4 4 ) . 2)
mean
82
G o d w o u l d support the J e w s this time, because G o d knew it c o n cerned a just war (145; cf. 146).
3) A clear sign o f G o d ' s c h a n g e d attitude was the fact that all sol diers were spared during the earthquake (145). T h i s argument
t o o builds o n G r e e k c o m m a n d e r speeches, w h i c h
clearly indicate that divine support was guaranteed if the war was just.
83
T h u c y d i d e s ' report o f a speech b y the Boeotian c o m m a n d e r
Pagondas points out this central notion o f just war (4.92). Pagondas elaborates the outrageous acts o f their neighbors, the Athenians, who w e r e destroying their c o u n t r y
and
o c c u p y i n g their
sanctuary
( T h u c y d i d e s 4 . 9 2 . 1 - 2 , 7). T h e r e f o r e , the deity o f the o c c u p i e d sanc tuary's support was certain in the Boeotian war o f defense against the Athenians: " W e c a n b e confident that w e shall have o n our side the g o d (TuoTeuoocvTccq 8e xS 0ecp npbq rjpcov eaeo0ai) w h o s e temple they have unlawfully fortified and now hold, confident t o o in the favor able appearance o f the victims which w e have sacrificed." (4.92.7).
7 9
Herod's speech in the Bellum Judaicum does not mention G o d ' s interference.
8 0
E.g. 1 S a m 17:47; 18:17. Mantovani, Bellum iustum, 8 6 . G o d ' s support is essential in other speeches in Josephus: B.J. 2 . 3 4 5 - 4 0 1 , esp. 3 8 8 - 3 9 1 ; 3 . 4 7 2 - 4 8 4 , esp. 4 8 4 ; 4 . 1 6 3 - 1 9 2 , esp. 8 1
1 9 0 - 1 9 1 ; 5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 , esp. 3 6 7 - 3 6 9 ; 3 7 6 - 3 7 8 ; 4 0 1 - 4 1 4 ; 7 . 3 2 3 - 3 3 6 , 3 4 1 - 3 8 8 , esp. 3 1 8 - 3 1 9 ; 3 2 7 - 3 3 2 ; 3 5 8 - 3 5 9 . Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 2 8 ; Villalba i V a r n e d a , Historical Method, 9 3 - 1 0 1 and 105. H e r o d goes to the very edge here by hinting at G o d V injustice. O n l y soldiers w h o were fighting for a just case were entitled to get divine sup port (Livy 2 1 . 1 0 . 9 ) . M a n t o v a n i , Bellum iustum, ix; 4 - 6 . 8 2
8 3
COMMONPLACES IN HEROD'S COMMANDER SPEECH IN A.J.
205
T h u c y d i d e s ' c o m m a n d e r speeches refer to fortune (xt>xn) several
times,
but in a rather loose w a y , m e a n i n g hardly m o r e than g o o d l u c k .
84
T h e Syracusan c o m m a n d e r Gylippus sneers at the Athenians, w h o trust m o r e in the help o f fortune than in the preparation o f their a r m a m e n t (7.67.4). T h u c y d i d e s ' speeches s e e m to distinguish ix>%x\, h o w e v e r , from the intervention
o f the g o d s ( T h u c y d i d e s 7 . 6 1 - 6 4 ) .
Nicias' final speech o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t attributes the Syracusan
vic-
tory to their b e i n g lucky, a p p a r e n d y with the consent o f the g o d s . Y e t , the situation will turn for the better for the Athenians, because they w e r e punished e n o u g h b y the gods: " O u r enemies h a d
good
fortune e n o u g h , and, if any o f the g o d s was angry with us for o u r setting out, b y this time w e have b e e n sufficiendy punished (KOCI ei TCp 0£COV £7U(p0OVOl £OTpGCT£UO0Cp£V, a7lO%pC0VTC0<; T]8r| i£Tipcopf|p£0a)"
(7.77.3).
85
Polybius' report o f Hannibal's
batde at C a n n a e
speech before the decisive
( 3 . 1 1 1 . 1 - 1 0 ) starts in plain language with a d o u -
ble thanksgiving, o n e to the g o d s w h o granted the earlier victories o v e r the R o m a n s , and
o n e to himself because he c o m p e l l e d the
R o m a n s to fight at C a n n a e . T h e past p e r f o r m a n c e rhetoric is c o m b i n e d with the prospect o f the u n h e a r d victory, mastering Italy, but the triumph o v e r the R o m a n s is ultimately d e p e n d e n t o n the will o f the g o d s , as the last w o r d s o f the speech indicate: " T h e r e f o r e
no
m o r e w o r d s are wanted but deeds; for if it b e the will o f the g o d s (0£cbv pou^op£vcov) I a m confident that I [ H a n n i b a l ] shall fulfill m y promises forthwith." ( 3 . 1 1 1 . 1 0 , trans. W . R . Paton).
4.
CONCLUSION
M y discussion o f the type o f speech and composition o f A.J. 15.127-146 as well as its c o n v e n t i o n a l c o m m a n d e r s p e e c h motifs shows that Josephus has n o t only i n c o r p o r a t e d rhetorical forms a n d v o c a b u l a r y , but also m a n y topoi that can b e found in earlier c o m m a n d e r speeches. T h e pertinent question seems to b e : W h a t is n o t conventional in this speech? T h e s p e e c h is clearly presented
as a c o m m a n d e r
a c c o r d i n g to the best G r e e k traditions, especially those
speech
represented
b y T h u c y d i d e s . Its c o m p o s i t i o n follows Aristotle's d e s c r i p t i o n o f
8 4
Thucydides 2 . 8 7 . 2 - 3 ; 7 . 6 7 . 4 ; 7 . 6 8 . 1 . xi>xr| occurs frequently in Polybius (e.g. 3 . 6 3 . 4 ; 15.10.5), Pédech, La méthode historique de Polybe, 2 7 8 . Luschnat, Die Feldherrnreden, 1 0 4 . 8 5
206
JAN WILLEM VAN HENTEN
deliberative speech. Even m y limited comparative search into c o n ventional motifs in G r e e k c o m m a n d e r speeches demonstrates
that
Josephus i n c o r p o r a t e d m a n y o f those and applied them to H e r o d ' s speech before his batde with the Nabataeans. His use o f helium iustum a r g u m e n t s
strikes the r e a d e r
o f earlier
Greek commander
speeches. A l t h o u g h the just w a r motifs themselves d o o c c u r individ ually in those speeches, H e r o d seems to apply the entire available arsenal to "the A r a b s , " w h o violated the rules o f warfare o n all three accounts: reason, p r o c e d u r e a n d actual c o n d u c t o f war. Even in regard to G o d ' s support in the war, H e r o d m o s d y builds o n c o n ventional G r e e k arguments a n d not o n biblical traditions,
although
what he says hardly counters Jewish religious views. H e r o d p r o b a bly spends so m a n y w o r d s in J o s e p h u s ' presentation o n legitimating the batde as a just and necessary war because it was grist to the mill o f his R o m a n audience, w h i c h was keen o n just war a n d p r o b ably also l o v e d c o m m a n d e r s w h o c o u l d argue for it in front o f their soldiers so e l o q u e n d y .
PART
THREE
JOSEPHUS A N D JUDAISM
R E A D I N G T H E BIBLE IN R O M E : JOSEPHUS A N D T H E CONSTRAINTS OF EMPIRE PAUL
SPILSBURY
A L L I A N C E UNIVERSITY
1.
If Josephus
COLLEGE,
CALGARY
INTRODUCTION
already had an inkling o f the invincibility o f R o m a n
might at the tender age o f twenty-six, as he claims in his Vita ( 1 7 - 1 9 ) , he h a d incontrovertible p r o o f o f it b y the time he returned to the city less than a d e c a d e later as a newly minted R o m a n citizen and pensioner o f Vespasian (Vita 4 2 3 ) . W h i l e w e are often r e m i n d e d that Josephus arrived in R o m e with immeasurably better prospects than m a n y o f his contemporaries, w e should not forget that J o s e p h u s ' life t o o h a d b e e n shattered b y the events o f 6 6 - 7 0 C.E. a n d that he, n o less than any other displaced J u d e a n o f his time, w o u l d walk the rest o f his days under the stars o f a hostile sky. F o r us w h o read his works—all o f them written in R o m e , all o f them written after 70—the s h a d o w o f national and personal tragedy is still to b e dis c e r n e d lying across the pages o f what he wrote, even w h e n he is not d i r e c d y describing the w a r o r aspects o f it. R e c e n t readings o f Josephus have r e c o g n i z e d this, a n d increasingly scholars p a y close attention to the apologetic and p o l e m i c a l nature o f all J o s e p h u s ' writ ing a n d to the rhetorical strategies he e m p l o y e d in the service o f his agenda. Scholarship o n Josephus thus acknowledges that he wrote to achieve m o r e o r less discernible political and social ends relating to the situation in w h i c h he found himself at various stages o f the Flavian era. But even m o r e than this, recent explorations into Josephus have highlighted the importance o f paying special h e e d to the very significant constraints Josephus l a b o u r e d under—the constraints o f empire. T h e w a y forward in this regard has b e e n most helpfully shown b y J o h n M . G . Barclay in his essay entided, " T h e Writes Back: J o s e p h a n R h e t o r i c in Flavian R o m e . "
1
1
Empire
In this study o f
J o h n M . G . Barclay, " T h e Empire Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian R o m e , " in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n and J. B. Rives; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) , 3 1 5 - 3 2 . I a m very grateful to Professor Barclay for making this paper available to m e prior to its publication.
210
PAUL SPILSBURY
Josephus
5
rhetorical strategies in Contra Apionem, Barclay invokes the
insights o f post-colonial theory to argue that Josephus is best under stood w h e n seen against the b a c k d r o p o f the unequal tions that characterized J o s e p h u s '
power-rela
historical a n d political context.
Post-colonial theory, Barclay suggests, is "particularly
well attuned
to the p h e n o m e n o n o f p o w e r and h o w subordinate groups can (or cannot) represent themselves."
2
R a t h e r than castigating those w h o
live under the y o k e o f empire for their inability to throw o f f their servitude, post-colonial theorists seek to understand the c o m p l e x ways in w h i c h "superior nations o r classes control not only the e c o n o m i c a n d material lives o f their inferiors, but also the terms in w h i c h they think and speak, even w h e n they are thinking a n d speaking about 3
themselves." G i v e n this control o r " h e g e m o n y , " there is a real ques tion as to whether m e m b e r s o f subordinate
groups o r classes are
able to speak in their o w n voices at all, o r if they are "forever c o n d e m n e d to m i m i c the authoritative discourses" o f the d o m i n a n t .
4
In
the c o n t e x t o f such considerations, post-colonial theory looks for "strategies o f resistance" (ways in w h i c h writers m a n a g e to evade, twist o r subvert the cultural authority o f the d o m i n a n t group) o n the o n e hand, and instances o f "cultural hybridity" (creative re-workings a n d adaptations o f the d o m i n a n t culture) o n the other.
5
A p p l y i n g this analysis direcdy to the writings o f Josephus, Barclay argues that w e should begin b y acknowledging the "considerable c o n straints" under w h i c h Josephus undertook his writing projects. T h e s e constraints included not only the raw fact o f the recent subjugation o f the J u d e a n revolt, but also his desire to c o m m u n i c a t e effectively with elite R o m a n society. U n d e r such circumstances it w o u l d have b e e n counter-productive, if not entirely impossible, to give voice to overt criticism o f either R o m a n policy toward the Jews or o f key R o m a n figures such as Vespasian a n d Titus. A s Barclay puts it,
"Josephus
c a n n o t afford to allow his discourse to clash with R o m a n sensibili ties in o p e n o r direct statement."
6
This insight leads to a s e c o n d ,
namely that " w e should expect Josephus' most effective a d v o c a c y for the Jews to e m e r g e not in confrontation with R o m a n cultural values,
2
3
4
5
b
Barclay, Barclay, Barclay, Barclay, Barclay,
"Empire." "Empire." "Empire." "Empire." "Empire."
211
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
but in the ways he turns a n d shapes those values to his o w n inter 7
ests." In addition to this, Barclay continues, w e might also find in 5
J o s e p h u s works "suitably c o n c e a l e d o r partial in expression . . . hints o f cultural defiance w h i c h refuse to let J u d a i s m merely mirror b a c k 8
to the R o m a n s their o w n cultural m o r e s . " R e a d i n g Josephus in this m o d e , Barclay suggests, will help us to m o v e b e y o n d the narrowly 5
personal-psychological terms in which Josephus relation to the R o m a n s has usually b e e n viewed, a n d to see h i m in a m o r e c o m p l e x and interesting light as an individual c o m i n g to terms with the political and social constraints under which he, and all those like him, worked.
2.
R E A D I N G THE BIBLE W I T H JOSEPHUS
5
O n e o f J o s e p h u s most sustained activities in R o m e was reading the Bible. T h e better part o f eleven b o o k s o f the Antiquitates Judaicae are given o v e r to a retelling o f the narrative o f the H e b r e w Scriptures, forming the historical foundation o f his portrayal o f the J e w s and 9
J u d a i s m for a R o m a n p u b l i c . His reading o f the Bible is central to his construction o f identity b o t h for himself a n d for his entire c o m munity.
10
W h i l e Josephus presents his biblical narrative as a literal
translation into G r e e k o f the H e b r e w Bible (A.J. 1.5), following the precedent set b y the translators o f the Septuagint (A.J. 1.10-13), it 5
has l o n g b e e n recognized that J o s e p h u s a c c o u n t is anything but a literal translation.
11
Josephus omits large sections o f the original and
adds material o f his o w n despite his promise to d o neither (A.J. 1.17). Further, even w h e r e he follows the biblical story fairly closely he adapts, shapes a n d colours the material in ways that have l o n g b e e n the subject o f extensive a n d detailed study.
12
Traditional exegesis and
Hellenistic sources have b e e n studied with g o o d effect to gain an
7
Barclay, "Empire."
8
Barclay, "Empire." O n the complexities of discerning Josephus' target audience, see Steve M a s o n ' s chapter in the present volume. 9
1 0
3
See Paul Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavins Josephus Paraphrase of the Bible ( T S A J 6 9 ; T u b i n g e n : M o h r Siebeck, 1998), 4 2 - 5 0 . O n this point see further Louis H . Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4: Translation and Commentary (BJP 3 , 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 n. 4 . 11
1 2
See for example the numerous studies o f L. H . Feldman and C . T . Begg. Feldman's studies are n o w conveniently collected in two volumes: Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 5 8 ; Leiden: Brill, 1998). See also Spilsbury, Image.
212
PAUL
understanding
SPILSBURY
o f J o s e p h u s ' paraphrasing presentation
o f the Bible.
W h e r e post-colonial theory might take us further, though, is in o u r understanding b o t h o f the social and political forces that influenced J o s e p h u s ' retelling o f the Bible, and in the possible o u t c o m e s that Josephus m a y have h o p e d to achieve b y presenting the Bible in the w a y that he did. Perhaps t o o , it c o u l d offer n e w light o n the sense o f self- and community-definition that emerges from the existential ambi guities that bedevil the reading o f sacred texts in less than ideal cir cumstances. H e r e as m u c h as anywhere else in Josephus w e might perhaps e x p e c t to find evidence o f the "considerable constraints" o f writing in the s h a d o w o f empire that Barclay has alluded to. Equally, it is here that w e might expect to find examples, if indeed there are examples to b e found anywhere in Josephus, o f the appropriation o f R o m a n n o r m s , values and beliefs for J o s e p h u s ' o w n political and social interests. A n d , as w e shall see, w e m a y also b e able to discern hints o f a cultural defiance that bespeak what Barclay has
referred
to as "a cross-current to his o w n public deference towards R o m e . "
1 3
The Bellum J u d a i c u m Before l o o k i n g at a n u m b e r o f key themes in J o s e p h u s ' biblical para phrase, it will b e instructive to l o o k initially at the first e x a m p l e w e have o f a sustained reading o f the Bible b y J o s e p h u s — n o t in the Antiquitates, but in the Bellum. In a notorious speech before the walls o f the besieged Jerusalem Josephus, so he tells us, r e c o u n t e d
the
lessons o f sacred history to an unwilling audience o f Jewish rebels and insurrectionists (B.J. 5 . 3 7 5 - 4 1 9 ) . In his opening comments Josephus makes it clear what m o r a l is to b e learned from his history lesson: in their rebellion against R o m e the insurrectionists are "warring not against the R o m a n s only, but also against G o d " (pri povov TCDUOUOK; noXe\io\)vxeq aXka KOCI TCO Geco B.J. 5.378 [Thackeray, L C L ] ) . This state ment, along with others o f a similar nature in the speech, including the infamous revelation o f his belief that "the Deity has fled from the holy places and taken His stand o n the side o f those with w h o m y o u are n o w at w a r " (B.J. 5.412 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) are precisely the utterances that have earned for Josephus a host o f pejorative epithets such as traitor to the Jewish cause and lackey o f the R o m a n s . O n the face o f it, therefore, it w o u l d appear that Josephus has so
1 3
Barclay,
"Empire."
213
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
subverted the traditional reading o f Scripture as to find there n o w only a message o f surrender to R o m a n h e g e m o n y . H o w e v e r , if w e take into a c c o u n t the factors discussed a b o v e , w e m a y b e able to m o v e b e y o n d such a simplistic reading o f the text. In the first place w e w o u l d d o well to recognize the considerable constraints Josephus was under. B o t h in the implied situation o f the narrative itself and in the circumstances o f the writing and publica tion o f the Bellum Josephus was in n o w a y at liberty to speak freely or to express views o v e r d y critical o f the R o m a n s . Indeed, the review o f biblical history in the speech is i n v o k e d only because a p r i o r attempt to c o n v i n c e the rebels o f R o m a n leniency h a d failed (B.J. 5.372). Josephus claims that he tried to c o n v i n c e the rebels that the R o m a n s forgive all that was past a n d that they were b y nature gende o r civilized ((puaei x e y a p . . . f ^ p e p o u q ) in v i c t o r y .
14
S u c h a descrip
tion obviously panders to R o m e ' s o w n ways o f describing itself, and as such is hardly a reflection o f the J u d e a n experience o f R o m a n aggression. T h i s immediately alerts us to the prima facie tenor o f J o s e p h u s ' argument. T h e r e is n o denying J o s e p h u s ' collusion with the Flavian p r o p a g a n d a agenda at this point. H o w e v e r , Josephus is not satisfied with mere praise o f R o m a n virtues. Instead, he insists on
a p r o f o u n d c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n what the R o m a n s find agree
able and the values that lie at the very heart o f the H e b r e w Scriptures. This, as post-colonial theorists have taught us to r e c o g n i z e , is as m u c h a statement o f cultural self-assertion o n the part o f Josephus as it is submission to imperial domination. Josephus finds in his read ing o f the Bible a call to a p e a c e a b l e , even pacifist, stance toward foreign p o w e r s . T h i s reading, n o d o u b t a surprising and irritating one
for m a n y o f his contemporaries, Josephus achieved b y careful
selection o f biblical material, and b y wholesale reshaping o f specific biblical episodes. T h u s A b r a h a m b e c o m e s a pious pacifist in response to Pharaoh N e c h o ' s abduction o f his wife described as a princess and the m o t h e r o f our p e o p l e (PocaiXiSa, xfjv p r | x e p a xou yevoix; f i p f i v B.J. 5 . 3 8 0 - 3 8 2 ) . Despite his c o m m a n d o f 3 1 8 officers, each with a boundless army under h i m ,
15
A b r a h a m resorted to prayer rather than
to military action, thus enlisting the aid o f "the invincible A l l y " (xov
14
R o m a n
214
PAUL SPILSBURY
avdcnxov . . . poT]96v) o n b e h a l f o f the "those H e b r e w s b e l o v e d b y God"
(xoix; 0eo(piA,£i<; 'Eppocioix;, T h a c k e r a y , L C L ) . T h e argument for
passivity rather than exemplifying Josephus' capitulation to the R o m a n s b e c o m e s the vehicle for an affirmation o f G o d ' s military alliance with the J e w s and for their special place in his affections. T h e episode is also an affirmation o f the dignity o f the T e m p l e because A b r a h a m ' s prayer is described as b e i n g "towards this spot w h i c h y o u [i.e. the rebels] have n o w p o l l u t e d " (B.J. 5 . 3 8 0 - 3 8 1 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) . The
s e c o n d episode in J o s e p h u s ' biblical-historical review is the
Israelites' sojourn in Egypt (B.J. 5 . 3 8 2 - 3 8 3 ) . H e r e J o s e p h u s speaks of
"the migration (pexoudav) o f o u r fathers to E g y p t " a n d o f their
oppression a n d subjugation to foreign kings (pocoitauaiv aM,o(pt>A,oi<;) for
4 0 0 years. O n c e again, the protagonists c o m m i t t e d themselves
to
G o d without resort to arms a n d violence and c o n s e q u e n d y f o u n d
themselves c o n d u c t e d b y G o d out o f Egypt, "without b l o o d s h e d , w i t h o u t risk" ( a v a i j L K X K T o u c ;
OCKWSUVOIX;
[Thackeray, LCL]). N o w
Josephus refers to t h e m as "the future guardians" o f G o d ' s shrine, again making the T e m p l e central to the story. Passing o v e r the sto ries of the c o n q u e s t o f the land in silence, and thus keeping intact his picture o f p e a c e a b l e Israelites, Josephus next invokes the story o f the capture o f the ark b y the Philistines (Josephus calls t h e m Syrians B.J. 5 . 3 8 4 - 3 8 6 ) , a n d h o w "the w h o l e nation o f those raiders" (nav TO xcbv aprcctaauivcQv eOvoq [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) c a m e to rue the d e e d . G o d ' s leadership w o n the d a y without any help from h u m a n
hand
or Israelite w e a p o n , a n d the sanctity o f the shrine was restored. T h e n again in the time o f Sennacherib (B.J. 5.388) the foreign invader was
routed b y arms raised in prayer rather than b y an army, a n d
they fled from the H e b r e w s " w h o were neither a r m e d n o r pursu ing."
Finally, Josephus recalls the submission o f the J u d e a n exiles
who
"never reared their heads for liberty" (B.J. 5.389 [ T h a c k e r a y ,
LCL])
until Cyrus, in gratitude to G o d , sent t h e m h o m e to re-estab
lish the temple-worship o f their Ally. "In short [Josephus c o n c l u d e s ] , there is n o instance o f o u r forefathers having triumphed b y arms o r failed o f success without t h e m w h e n they c o m m i t t e d their cause to God:
if they sat still they c o n q u e r e d , as it please their J u d g e , if they
fought they were invariably defeated" (B.J. 5.390 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) . W h i l e it might b e argued that such a reading o f the Bible and o f the national history is little m o r e than a capitulation to imperial aggression, it should n o t b e missed that this reading retains key ele ments o f cultural pride as well. T h e very fact that Josephus c o u c h e s
215
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
his argument in terms o f a review o f his national history reflects his continued attachment to the dignity and venerability o f that history. At the b e g i n n i n g o f b o t h the Antiquitates and Contra Apionem Josephus woul.d reaffirm the antiquity o f the Jewish p e o p l e , their history span ning n o less than five thousand years (A.J. 1.13; CAp.
1.1). M o r e
than this, the records o f Israel's ancient history are preserved in sacred b o o k s scrupulously cared f o r — a p o i n t w h i c h Josephus draws attention to again in b o t h the Antiquitates ( 1 . 5 - 1 3 ) and Contra Apionem (1.29, 3 7 - 3 8 ) . T h e s e are points w h i c h Josephus w o u l d have e x p e c t e d the R o m a n s themselves to appreciate, g i v e n their attachment
to
ancient traditions and ancestral ways. Josephus uses this confluence o f values to c o m m u n i c a t e m o r e effectively with his R o m a n audience, while at the same time trying to say something o f a political and social nature to his Jewish readers in R o m e . F o r b o t h types o f reader Josephus has a message about the essential peaceableness o f the Jews, the continuing i m p o r t a n c e o f appropriately expressed piety, a n d the centrality o f the T e m p l e not only in Jewish history but for the re building o f J u d a i s m in the future as well. B e y o n d all this, there are clear hints o f a m o r e confident cultural defiance as well. G o d is the ally o f the H e b r e w s . W h e n they entrust their cause to h i m they will o v e r c o m e their enemies. T h o s e w h o destroy the T e m p l e are nothing m o r e than a "nation o f raiders" w h o will eventually c o m e to rue their hubris. T r u l y wise foreign rulers recognise the o n e true G o d and the Jewish p e o p l e as the guardians o f his sanctuary. T h i s is b y n o means to say that J o s e p h u s ' narrative is untainted b y ambiguity, collusion o r c o n f o r m i t y to R o m a n expectations. N o r is it to imply that Josephus himself was always noble o r heroic—like s o m e kind o f literary resistance fighter. Rather, it is an attempt to take stock o f the ironies, vagaries a n d polyvalence o f J o s e p h u s ' p r o j e c t . T o state that he p a n d e r e d to the R o m a n s is in o n e sense to state the painfully obvious. T o l o o k b e y o n d the o b v i o u s to the m o r e c o m p l e x and o b l i q u e is far m o r e interesting and instructive. A n d ultimately, it renders a m o r e realistic a c c o u n t o f what Josephus m a y have h o p e d to achieve b y writing as he did. All o f this means t o o that w e must d o away with simple dismissals o f Josephus as a trai tor o r c o w a r d . T h e s e kinds o f two-dimensional representations o f the man's motives and actions d o n o t ring true either with the
com
plexities o f his situation o r with the determined efforts he m a d e to p r o v i d e such a substantial written response to R o m a n aggression.
216
PAUL
SPILSBURY
The Antiquitates Judaicae W e are n o w ready to l o o k at the m o r e extensive biblical material in the Antiquitates. O b v i o u s l y w e will not b e able to c o n d u c t a detailed o r c o m p r e h e n s i v e analysis o f the entire paraphrase o f the Bible. Instead, I p r o p o s e to analyse three important c o n c e p t s , paying spe cial attention to indications o f the constraints Josephus m a y have felt in h o w he expressed himself, evidence o f the c o - o p t i n g o f R o m a n n o r m s and values for J o s e p h u s ' o w n purposes, and, finally, hints o f cultural defiance in J o s e p h u s ' retelling o f the biblical narrative. T h e three c o n c e p t s are covenant, constitution and empire. 1
Covenant * It is a well k n o w fact that J o s e p h u s ' rewritten Bible contains n o ref erences at all to the biblical c o v e n a n t between Y H W H and the Israel ites. Indeed, J o s e p h u s ' narrative seems deliberately to a v o i d all overt references to the covenant, with the result that readers familiar with the narrative o f the H e b r e w Bible are o b l i g e d to ask themselves whether Josephus m a d e a conscious decision to suppress this bibli cal motif, and if so, w h y ? Betsy Halpern A m a r u has answered the question in the affirmative
b y arguing that J o s e p h u s rejected
the
"land" aspect o f classical c o v e n a n t theology, a n d with it the kind o f messianism that m a y have fuelled the nationalistic fanaticism o f groups such as the Z e a l o t s .
17
A c c o r d i n g to this theory, Josephus rejected the
territorial implications o f m u c h o f the biblical c o v e n a n t language, n o t least because o f their i m p o r t a n c e to certain strands o f (poten tially revolutionary) D a v i d i c messianism in his d a y .
18
This construal
o f Josephus' motives certainly fits well with the picture o f Josephus as a client o f the Flavian regime unwilling to j e o p a r d i z e his status with them b y seeming to endorse an i d e o l o g y that might sound to outsiders uncomfortably similar to the o n e p r o m u l g a t e d b y Jewish insurrectionists. In other w o r d s , Josephus m a y have felt constrained to avoid expressions o f what might b e taken for Jewish nationalism. O f further significance is Halpern Amaru's argument that, for Josephus,
1 6
For a fuller treatment of this subject see Paul Spilsbury, " G o d and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship," in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (ed. S. M a s o n ; J S P S u p 3 2 ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998), 1 7 2 - 9 1 . 1 7
Betsy Halpern A m a r u , "Land T h e o l o g y in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities," n.s. 71 ( 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 1 ) 2 0 1 - 2 9 . Halpern A m a r u , "Land T h e o l o g y , " 2 2 9 . 1 8
JQR
READING
217
THE BIBLE IN ROME
the land was in any case n o longer at the heart o f Jewishness
per
se. Instead, she argues, J u d a i s m for Josephus had b e c o m e "a religion o f law, o r virtue, o f o b e d i e n c e to G o d ' s statutes."
19
H e r point is that
in his paraphrase o f the biblical narrative Josephus
constructed
a
m o d e l o f Jewish life that fit well into a Diaspora context. For Jews in communities throughout the R o m a n Empire and elsewhere, p o s session o f the "land" was not the indispensable c o m m o d i t y that a c o v e n a n t theology might portray it to b e . W h a t is n o w m u c h m o r e important than land, is the faithful practice o f T o r a h . T h u s , while the omission o f the language o f c o v e n a n t from J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t o f the national history might seem at first to b e nothing less than a great violence c o m m i t t e d against the H e b r e w Scriptures, it turns out to b e something m u c h m o r e positive than that. In the give a n d take o f adapting his narrative to the needs o f the setting in w h i c h he writes, Josephus gives u p " c o v e n a n t " in o r d e r to affirm a f o r m o f identity not dependant u p o n w h e r e the Jews might live, o r the cur rent state o f their political fortunes in the w o r l d . Even m o r e than this, though, it w o u l d seem that Josephus is also consciously adapting his narrative to the conventions o f a R o m a n i z e d discourse in w h i c h language o f a c o v e n a n t between G o d and Israel w o u l d have s e e m e d quaint and possibly even offensive. In its place Josephus seeks to d e v e l o p a set o f terms w h o s e implications w o u l d still affirm the importance o f the Jewish p e o p l e in the divine order o f things, but w h i c h w o u l d at the same time also b e m o r e accessible to his audience in R o m e . T h u s , instead o f claims a b o u t a c o v e n a n t between G o d a n d the Jews, w e find in J o s e p h u s '
retelling o f the
Bible consistent and well d e v e l o p e d recourse to what H . W . Attridge has identified as the language
o f benefaction and alliance.
20
The
significance o f this observation is two-fold. Firsdy, benefactor termi nology has potential universal application, as o p p o s e d to the exclusivity implied b y c o v e n a n t (cf. A.J. 8 . 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 ; also 2.332), and secondly, alliance terminology does not imply "any necessary, formal, longterm o r automatic c o m m i t m e n t o n the part o f G o d to act o n behalf o f the Israelites. T e r m s such as ouppa%o<; refer primarily to G o d ' s role in times o f need, and not to a fundamental agreement which determines 21
the relationship between God and Israel."
1 9
Halpern A m a r u , "Land T h e o l o g y , " 2 2 9 . Harold W . Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus ( H D R 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 7 9 . Attridge, Interpretation, 8 2 , emphasis original. 2 0
2 1
218
PAUL SPILSBURY
Attridge's main p o i n t is that G o d ' s relationship with Israel is o n e e x a m p l e o f G o d ' s justice. " H i s special c o n c e r n for Israel is ultimately d u e to the special virtue o f the p e o p l e o r its leaders."
22
Later he asserts
again, " T h e belief in a special p r o v i d e n c e for Israel is subordinated to . . . [the] general principle [ o f p r o p e r retribution for g o o d and evil] a n d is seen to b e a particular instance o f it."
23
G o i n g even
further
than Attridge, w e might o b s e r v e that the language o f benefaction a n d alliance is a key aspect o f the patron-client system o f relations in the ancient w o r l d , a n d that it is here that w e find
important
insights into J o s e p h u s ' reshaping o f the biblical c o n c e p t o f c o v e n a n t for a R o m a n a u d i e n c e . J o s e p h u s himself h a d substantial personal experience o f the patron-client system o f relations (see, for e x a m p l e Vita 16, 4 2 2 - 4 2 9 , 4 3 0 ; A.J. 1.8; CAp. 2 . 2 9 6 ) ,
24
so that it is not sur
prising to find that J o s e p h u s a d o p t e d a n d adapted this m o d e l for his presentation o f the n o t i o n o f c o v e n a n t for a R o m a n a u d i e n c e . Far from a b a n d o n i n g the c o n v i c t i o n o f a special b o n d b e t w e e n G o d a n d the Jews, J o s e p h u s rather transposed the m o t i f o f c o v e n a n t into a R o m a n key. G o d is presented as the patron o f the Jewish p e o p l e , a n d they are his favoured client. Examples o f this transposition are scattered liberally t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' paraphrase o f the Bible, a n d only a few o f t h e m n e e d b e recited here. In D a v i d ' s prayer for S o l o m o n (A.J. 7.380) he addresses the Deity as the leader o r patron (rcpoaxaTriq), as well as the guardian (iar|8epa)v) o f the H e b r e w p e o p l e . T h e p a g a n seer B a l a a m confirms to the Israelites that G o d thinks m o r e highly o f them than for any other p e o p l e (6eou povouc; upaq avGpamoix; ecpopSvxoq A.J. 4.114); a n d o n the borders o f C a n a a n the fainthearted
Israelites are
neverthe
less described as those w h o m G o d "held in greater h o n o r than all the rest o f h u m a n k i n d "
(o ndvicov \ibXko\
avGpamcov ea%e 8 i a xipfjq
A.J. 3.313 [trans. Feldman, BJP]). T h e s e statements are supported b y m a n y others in w h i c h a special relationship is implied b y the kinds o f benefits that attend G o d ' s regard for the Israelites. M a n y o f these
2 2
Attridge, Interpretation, 8 3 . Attridge, Interpretation, 8 6 - 8 7 . See also Seth Schwartz, "Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (eds. F. Parente and J. Sievers; SPB 4 1 ; Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1994), 2 9 2 - 9 3 ; J. H . Neyrey, "Josephus' Vita and the E n c o m i u m : A Native M o d e l o f Personality," JSJ 2 5 (1994): 1 9 6 - 9 7 . M . G o o d m a n , "Josephus as a R o m a n Citizen," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 3 3 2 - 3 3 . 2 3
2 4
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
219
benefits m a y b e summarized u n d e r the heading o f G o d ' s alliance with the Israelites. G o d as their ally (aupjLiaxoq) and helper (POT]96<;) guarantees t h e m b o t h f r e e d o m from slavery and even the possession o f a favoured land (cf. A.J. 2 . 2 6 8 - 2 6 9 and 3.300; also 3.19, 4 4 - 4 6 , 64; 4.294). In the episode o f Balaam and Balak w e find an e m p h a sis o n G o d ' s assistance against the nation's enemies. Balaam's attempt to sour the relationship between G o d and the H e b r e w s reminds us o f the fact that o n e the most useful aspects o f Flavian patronage for Josephus himself was the protection it afforded h i m against the a c c u sations o f p e o p l e w h o a p p a r e n d y h o p e d to ruin his standing with the imperial house. Josephus was very p r o u d o f the fact, a n d n o doubt deeply gratified as well, that in n o case had his patrons accepted any o f the charges brought against h i m (Vita 4 2 8 - 4 2 9 ) . In the Balaam episode, Balaam is forced to admit to his o w n patron that he is unable to overturn the Divinity's g o o d w i l l t o w a r d them, o r his deter mination to bless them with a h a p p y life (A.J. 4.122). Rather than gaining the desired curse, Balaam receives an oracle implying that those w h o attempt to destroy the Israelites will themselves face destruc tion (4.125). In his parting advice to Balak, Balaam again asserts, in a passage with n o biblical precedent: [CJomplete destruction will not befall the race o f the Hebrews, nei ther in war nor in epidemic and famine and lack o f the fruits o f the earth, nor shall some other unexpected cause destroy it. For God's providence is theirs, to save them from every misfortune and to allow no such suffering to come upon them, by which all would perish. (A.J. 4.127-128 [Feldman, BJP]) W h i l e Balaam allows that misfortunes m a y befall them from time to time, these will b e only temporary setbacks, after w h i c h the H e b r e w s will "flourish a n d bring fear u p o n those w h o caused injury to t h e m " (A.J. 4.128 [Feldman, BJP]). M u c h m o r e c o u l d b e said o n this theme, but what w e have noted here is already e n o u g h to confirm that J o s e p h u s ' adaptation o f a R o m a n i z e d m o d e l for characterizing the relationship b e t w e e n G o d and the J e w s contains m o r e than a few hints o f cultural defiance. " C o v e n a n t " is g o n e , to b e sure, but in its place is a robust affirmation o f the J e w s ' place in the divine s c h e m e o f things asserted in terms easily accessible to R o m a n ears. Before leaving the subject o f the c o v e n a n t in J o s e p h u s ' Bible, I want to l o o k briefly at a key aspect o f the H e b r e w Bible's description o f c o v e n a n t , namely, its association with the practice o f circumcision. A c c o r d i n g to the b o o k o f Genesis, G o d required A b r a h a m and the
220
PAUL
SPILSBURY
male adherents o f his h o u s e h o l d to a d o p t circumcision as a sign o f the c o v e n a n t he m a d e with them ( G e n 17). Despite his omission o f explicit references to the c o v e n a n t , Josephus d o e s not e x c l u d e the institution
o f c i r c u m c i s i o n in his retelling o f this e p i s o d e (A.J.
1.191-193). V e r y significandy, the intent o f circumcision is said b y Josephus to b e that " H e wished his posterity to remain u n m i x e d with others" (A.J. 1.192 [Feldman, BJP]). W h i l e this was a p p a r e n d y n o t the only significance Josephus attached to the rite o f circumci sion,
25
it is telling that he so clearly affirms the social separateness
o f the descendents o f A b r a h a m .
26
W h i l e the accusation o f unsocia-
bleness ( a p i e c e ) is o n e that Josephus w o u l d later put o n the lips o f enemies o f the Jews such at the Midianite w o m e n (A.J. 4.137) a n d H a m a n (A.J. 11.212), Josephus a p p a r e n d y affirmed circumcision as a distinct mark o f Jewish identity. A litde later in his paraphrase o f Genesis (A.J. 1.214) Josephus states that it is n o t just the fact, but the m a n n e r in w h i c h it is d o n e that is distinctive. T h e Arabs, for instance (following Ishmael), circumcise their y o u n g males w h e n they are thirteen years o l d rather than at eight days w h i c h is the Jewish custom. Josephus is also aware that the Egyptians not o n l y practise circumcision themselves, but have taught others (e.g. the Ethiopians) to d o so as well (CAp.
27
2.141-142).
Nevertheless, he argues that the reference in H e r o d o t u s to p e o ple in Palestine w h o practice circumcision is an allusion to the Jews, because " n o others o f the Syrians in Palestine practise circumcision but ourselves" (A.J. 8.262; cf. CAp. 1.171 [Thackeray, L C L ] ) . Josephus therefore clearly felt n o embarrassment about circumcision o r indeed, a b o u t the separateness that it implied. In a passage w h e r e he o m i t ted any overt reference to the covenant, he nevertheless left the ref erence to circumcision as clear and direct as it is in the Bible. I f Josephus felt constrained in s o m e sense to modify his presentation o f the c o v e n a n t and to give it a particularly R o m a n flavour, he a p p a r e n d y felt n o reason to o m i t circumcision from his a c c o u n t as
2 5
In A.J. 1.192 Josephus states, " T h e reason for our practice of circumcision I shall expound elsewhere." This is a reference to Josephus' often mentioned but apparendy never completed work " O n Customs and Causes" (cf. A.J. 1.25, 2 1 4 ; 3 . 9 4 , 1 4 3 , 2 0 5 , 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ; 4 . 1 9 8 , 3 0 2 ; 1 5 . 3 7 1 ; 2 0 . 2 6 8 ; CAp. 1.92). 2 6
O n this understanding of the rite of circumcision a m o n g other Jews in antiq uity, see J o h n J. Collins, " A S y m b o l of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century," in "To See Ourselves as Others See Us:" Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity (eds. J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), 1 6 3 - 8 6 . See Herodotus, Hist. 2 . 1 0 4 . 2 7
221
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
a result. W e c a n n o t therefore reduce J o s e p h u s ' motives simply to the avoidance o f what m a y have s e e m e d strange o r offensive to R o m a n ears. In the case o f circumcision w e find a countercurrent in Josephus' w o r k that should cause us to credit Josephus with a m o r e c o m p l e x and nuanced project. T o b e m o r e specific, it w o u l d seem that Josephus gave u p explicit references to a c o v e n a n t in o r d e r to make space o n the margins o f R o m a n discourse for an affirmation o f G o d ' s c o m mitment to the Jews. Constitution T h e next subject that I want to consider is J o s e p h u s ' o f the laws o f M o s e s .
28
presentation
M o s e s is referred to regularly as vopo9exr|<;,
o r as the subject o f the v e r b vopoGexeo).
30
29
T h e n o u n vopoGeoia is
used in c o n n e c t i o n with M o s e s in A.J. 3.287 and 3 2 0 . T h e s e terms m a y b e taken as a measure o f the degree to w h i c h Josephus a c c o m m o d a t e d his narrative to a R o m a n i s e d a u d i e n c e . laws are still construed as a gift from G o d ,
3 2
31
has
W h i l e the
and therefore as another
measure o f the favoured status o f the Jews, they are also presented as indications o f the superior virtues o f the lawgiver (e.g. A.J. 2.229). As a child M o s e s ' p r e c o c i o u s intellectual d e v e l o p m e n t gave p r o m i s e o f the great deeds in a d u l t h o o d (A.J. 2.230). T h e culmination o f this potential was the formulation o f the laws o f the H e b r e w s , something w h i c h was based o n M o s e s ' k n o w l e d g e o f the m i n d o f G o d (A.J. 4.180). In a preface to his s u m m a r y o f the L a w in Antiquitates B o o k 4, Josephus asserts that what follows is c o n s o n a n t with M o s e s ' rep utation for virtue (apexfj, A.J. 4.196). In his final e n c o m i u m he asserts
2 8
O n this subject see further, G . V e r m e s , " A S u m m a r y of the L a w b y Flavius Josephus," NT 2 4 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 2 8 9 - 3 0 3 ; B. Schröder, Die "väterlichen Gesetze": Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer ( T S A J 5 3 ; Tübingen: M o h r Siebeck, 1996). 2 9
E.g. A.J. 1.95 [quote from Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s ] , 2 4 0 [quote from Alexander Polyhistor]; 2 . 6 , 18, 2 0 , 2 3 , 2 4 ; 3 . 1 8 0 ; 4 . 1 3 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 6 . See also CAp. 2 . 7 5 [noster legislator], 1 4 5 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 6 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 , 169, 1 7 3 , 2 0 9 , 2 5 7 , 2 8 6 . 3 0
3 1
A J.
3.266, 268, 317.
W a y n e A . Meeks, Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and thejohannine Christology ( N T S u p 14; Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1967), 132; T . Rajak, "Flavius Josephus: Jewish History and the Greek W o r l d , " (D.Phil, diss., O x f o r d University, 1974), 2: 8 8 , n. 7. E.g. A J. 3 . 2 2 3 ; 4 . 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 . In these references M o s e s is the mediator o f the laws rather than their author. T h e notion of M o s e s as mediator of the L a w is prominent in Exodus, e.g. 1 9 : 3 - 9 . O n the notion o f the L a w as the gift o f G o d during the Second T e m p l e period see W i l l i a m H o r b u r y , "Ezekiel Tragicus 106: 8copr|paxa," VT 3 6 (1986): 4 0 - 4 2 . 3 2
222
PAUL SPILSBURY
that M o s e s surpassed all others in understanding (ouveoiq) (A.J. 4.328), a n d that from his laws o n e m a y d e d u c e the superiority o f his virtue (TO Tiepiov auTou Tfjq apeTfjq, A.J. 4.331). A t the risk o f de-emphasiz ing the divine origin o f the Jewish law, therefore, Josephus M o s e s in terms reminiscent o f a G r e e k l a w g i v e r rapport with a Hellenized a u d i e n c e .
33
presents
in o r d e r to create
34
A l o n g the same lines, w e might also notice that J o s e p h u s presents 35
the L a w o f M o s e s as a political constitution, o r nota/cdoc. O n descend ing from M o u n t Sinai, M o s e s a n n o u n c e s to the p e o p l e that G o d in his grace has p r o v i d e d the p e o p l e with a "well-ordered constitution" (noXiTEiaq K o o p o v ) to live b y (A.J. 3.84 [ F e l d m a n , BJP]). In the same context M o s e s explains that the laws are tokens o f G o d ' s favour, a n d that they are m e d i a t e d to the p e o p l e through his interpretation (A.J. 3 . 8 7 - 8 8 ) . A litde later J o s e p h u s claims that the ten w o r d s o f the D e c a l o g u e w e r e spoken directly b y G o d a n d that o n l y their m e a n i n g , a n d not the w o r d s themselves, might n o w b e divulged (A.J. 3.90).
36
All o f this material indicates the extent to w h i c h J o s e p h u s
c o n t i n u e d to insist o n the centrality o f the M o s a i c L a w as constitu tive o f Jewish existence, even in R o m e .
3 3
Josephus draws direct comparisons with Lycurgus, Solon and Zaleucus o f Locri in CAp 2 . 1 5 4 , and with M i n o s in CAp. 2 . 1 6 1 . Rajak ("The Against Apion and the Continuities in Josephus's Political T h o u g h t " in Understanding Josephus, 2 3 5 ) points out further that the comparison with other lawgivers echoes the opening o f Plato's Laws. 3 4
For a fuller treatment o f Josephus' portrait o f M o s e s , see L . H . Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1998), 3 7 4 - 4 4 2 ; also idem, "Josephus' Portrait o f M o s e s , " JQR 8 2 ( 1 9 9 1 - 9 2 ) : 2 8 5 - 3 2 8 ; 83 (1992-1993): 7-50, 301-30. 3 5
O n Josephus' use o f 7toA,ixe(a, see Y . A m i r , "Theokratia as a C o n c e p t o f Political Philosophy: Josephus' Presentation o f M o s e s ' Politeia" SCI 8 - 9 ( 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 8 8 ) : 8 3 - 1 0 5 ; H . Cancik, "Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft: D i e mosaische Verfassung bei Flavius Josephus contra A p i o n e n 2 . 1 5 7 - 9 8 , " in Religionstheorie und politische Theologie. III. Theokratie (ed. J. T a u b e s ; M u n i c h : Fink, 1987) 6 5 - 7 7 ; Federico M . Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (JSJSup 7 5 ; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 2 ) , 2 2 4 - 2 9 ; S. M a s o n , "Should A n y W i s h to Enquire Further" (Ant 1.25): T h e A i m and Audience o f Josephus's "Judean Antiquities/Life" in Understanding Josephus, 8 0 - 8 7 ; T . Rajak, "Continuities in Josephus' Political T h o u g h t , " in Understanding Josephus, 2 2 2 - 4 6 ; D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus o n the Jewish Constitution and C o m m u n i t y , " SCI 1 ( 1 9 8 3 - 1 9 8 4 ) 3 0 - 5 2 ; P. Spilsbury, "Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points o f Contact," in Josephus' C o n t r a A p i o n e m : Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (eds. L . H . Feldman and J. R . Levison. A G J U 3 4 ; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 3 6 2 - 6 6 ; L . Troiani, " T h e Politeia of Israel in the G r e c o - R o m a n A g e , " in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 1 1 - 2 2 . 3(i
O n this point, see further L . H . Feldman, Judean Antiquities, 2 5 3 n. 190.
223
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
Nevertheless, w e also find in J o s e p h u s ' recasting o f the biblical narrative a n u m b e r o f very interesting concessions to a foreign audi ence that significandy influence his presentation o f the law. For e x a m ple, in his summary o f the laws, Josephus acknowledges s o m e w h a t unnecessarily that Moses left what he wrote in a "scattered condition"— an eventuality w h i c h has m a d e it necessary for Josephus to reorganize the laws o f the constitution into their several subjects (A.J. 4 . 1 9 7 ) .
37
This, Josephus insists with apologies to his Jewish readers, is the only innovation he has introduced into his presentation
o f the M o s a i c
c o d e . Further, in subsequent passages Josephus goes o n to charac terize the H e b r e w noXmia
as an "aristocracy," w h i c h he argues is
the best form o f g o v e r n m e n t to live under. F o r Josephus, aristocracy is to b e distinguished from other, inferior, forms o f g o v e r n m e n t such 38
as m o n a r c h y o r d e m o c r a c y . It must also b e n o t e d that for Josephus aristocracy is equated with the rule o f G o d . It is thus not surpris ing that in Contra Apionem Josephus uses the term "theocracy" (GeoKpaxia) for the Jewish constitution rather than aristocracy (CAp.
2.165).
39
W h a t is most significant for o u r purposes here is the p o l e m i c a l thrust o f J o s e p h u s ' terminology. J o s e p h u s ' readership w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y have b e e n familiar with philosophical discussions a b o u t the c o m p e t ing virtues o f different forms o f g o v e r n m e n t . Polybius (Hist. 6 . 3 . 1 - 9 . 1 4 ) ,
41
40
T h e discussion in
for e x a m p l e , describes h o w p o p u l a r dis
satisfaction with o n e form o f g o v e r n m e n t inevitably leads to another. M o n a r c h y leads to kingship and then to tyranny. T y r a n n y leads to aristocracy, then through oligarchy to d e m o c r a c y and m o b - r u l e , and thence b a c k to m o n a r c h y . In J o s e p h u s ' s c h e m e the aristocratic form o f g o v e r n m e n t under the Judges degenerated to a tyranny under the sons o f Eli, a n d from there to kingship under Saul. W h e n the p e o ple o f Israel c l a m o u r e d to have a king rule o v e r them in the days o f S a m u e l , G o d was o u t r a g e d , J o s e p h u s tells us, at the i m p i e t y (doePeia) and hubris o f the d e m a n d (A.J. 6 . 8 8 - 8 9 ) . T h e desire for a king constituted a betrayal o f his worship and his religion (rfiv
3 7
O n this matter, see L . H . Feldman, Judean Antiquities, 3 9 7 n. 5 7 5 .
3 8
O n this subject, see further Spilsbury, Image, 1 6 0 - 7 1 . O n the continuity between A.J. and CAp. on this point see P. Spilsbury, "Points of Contact," 3 6 2 - 6 6 . 3 9
4 0
O n current constitutional debates in R o m e at the time of Josephus' writing, see especially M a s o n , "Should any W i s h to Enquire," 8 1 - 8 4 . O n whether Josephus knew Polybius or not, see S. J. D . C o h e n , "Josephus, Jeremiah and Polybius," History and Theory 21 (1982): 3 6 6 - 8 1 . 4 1
224
PAUL
0 p r | a K e { a v Kai XTIV EX>OE$EWV A J.
SPILSBURY
6.90). W h e n J o s e p h u s c h a m p i o n s
aristocracy (i.e. the rule o f law administered b y a priesdy elite) o v e r kingship o n e c a n n o t but suspect that he was firing a few shafts at R o m a n h e g e m o n y — u n d e r w h o s e kingship he a n d the rest o f the Jews currendy lived. Thus, again w e have an example o f h o w Josephus has submitted his narration to the cultural d o m i n a n c e o f R o m e in adapting his terminology to suit a R o m a n audience. Josephus pays respect to the R o m a n love for order, a n d presents Judaism as a n o b l e constitution, i n d e e d , as the noblest o f t h e m all. Y e t w h a t emerges is n o t simply R o m a n . Rather it is a form o f R o m a n Judaism that is still J u d a i s m for all that. 2
Empire* The
final aspect o f J o s e p h u s ' reading o f the Bible that I want to
l o o k at is the matter o f empire. W e have already n o t e d in o u r brief analysis o f the passage in the Bellum that Josephus a c c o m m o d a t e d his reading o f the H e b r e w Scriptures to a view that legitimated the rule o f R o m e . G o d , Josephus argued, was o n R o m e ' s side against the J u d e a n insurrectionists. In an earlier part o f the same section o f the Bellum, n o less notorious for its apparent capitulation to R o m a n i m p e rialism, Josephus argues that Fortune (f| TU^TI) has passed o v e r to the R o m a n s and that G o d , w h o determined the rise and fall o f nations in predetermined s e q u e n c e , was presendy pleased to allow " e m p i r e " (TT]V ap%r|v) to rest with R o m e (B.J. 5.367). W h e n w e turn to the Antiquitates w e find that J o s e p h u s ' rewriting o f the Bible is similarly hospitable to foreign empires. Cyrus is described as acting under the guidance o f the Scriptures (A.J. 11.3), and A l e x a n d e r the Great is led into batde b y G o d himself (A.J. 11.334). E v e n m o r e telling than these examples is J o s e p h u s ' recasting o f the visions o f Daniel, espe cially N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s vision o f the great statue (A.J. 1 0 . 1 9 5 - 2 1 0 ; cf.
Dan 2).
4 3
In this vision successive empires are represented b y
different metals. Josephus n o t only accepts this as indicative o f G o d ' s
4 2
O n this subject, see further Paul Spilsbury, "Flavius Josephus on the Rise and Fall of the R o m a n Empire," JTS n.s. 5 4 (2003): 1 - 2 4 . 4 3
O n Josephus' treatment of the Daniel material, see especially, F. F. Bruce, "Josephus and Daniel," ASTI 4 (1965): 1 4 8 - 6 2 ; L . H . Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Daniel," Henoch 14 (1992): 3 7 - 9 6 ; S. M a s o n , "Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian H o u s e , " in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, A6\~9\; P. Spilsbury, "Rise and Fall;" G . V e r m e s , "Josephus' T r e a t m e n t of the Book of Daniel," JJS 4 2 (1991): 1 4 9 - 6 6 .
225
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
will for the w o r l d , but interprets the vision in such a w a y as to make it clear that he believed the final empire represented b y the statue to b e R o m e .
4 4
T h u s the R o m a n Empire, like the empires o f the
Babylonians, Medo-Persians, and Greeks before it, is
underwritten
b y G o d himself. In the Bellum Judaicum this perspective is attributed also to A g r i p p a II w h o opines that "without G o d ' s aid so vast an empire [as the R o m a n s ' ] c o u l d never have b e e n built u p " (B.J. 2.390 [Thackeray, L C L ] ) .
4 5
T h r e e aspects o f J o s e p h u s ' description o f this vision suggest further that Josephus wished to a v o i d overt criticism o f R o m e . T h e first is the barely noticeable omission o f the biblical statement that the sec o n d k i n g d o m was inferior to the first ( D a n 2:39). A l t h o u g h a d o w n w a r d trend is already inherent in the progression from g o l d through silver and b r o n z e to iron, Josephus apparendy wished to avoid making explicit the implication that the k i n g d o m s g r e w successively weaker, since this w o u l d imply that R o m e , the fourth k i n g d o m , was the weak est o f them all. A s e c o n d indication o f J o s e p h u s ' desire to a v o i d explicit criticism o f R o m e is his omission o f the biblical detail ( D a n 2:33, 4 2 - 4 3 ) that the fourth and final k i n g d o m was m a d e o f b o t h iron and clay a n d was therefore inherendy flawed because o f internal divisions. In J o s e p h u s ' retelling there is n o mention o f clay at all, but o n l y a reflection o n the invincibility o f iron (A.J. 10.209). Finally, the third indication o f J o s e p h u s ' reticence to criticize R o m e o p e n l y is his refusal to explain the m e a n i n g o f the stone that
ultimately
destroys the statue (A.J. 10.210). H a v i n g said this, though, it is telling that Josephus did not o m i t the a c c o u n t o f the stone altogether as he obviously c o u l d have d o n e . Instead, he includes the description o f the stone, but refers interested readers to the B o o k o f Daniel itself for the appropriate interpretation. A s w e have noted before, this def erence paid to the H e b r e w Bible is very m u c h a statement o f Josephus' enduring faith in his cultural heritage. N o r is this the only place
4 4
T h e third kingdom, which comes "from the west" (A.J. 1 0 . 2 0 8 ) is clearly that of Alexander the Great. T h e biblical author probably intended the fourth kingdom to be understood as Alexander; cf. J o h n J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 166, n. 136. In A.J. 1 0 . 2 7 6 Josephus states explicitly that Daniel predicted the R o m a n Empire. Josephus was not alone in identifying Daniel's fourth kingdom with R o m e ; see Collins, Commentary, 6 6 - 1 7 0 . 4 5
O n this important speech in the Bellum, see T . Rajak, "Friends, R o m a n s , Subjects: Agrippa IPs Speech in Josephus' Jewish W a r , " in Images of Empire (ed. L. Alexander. J S O T S u p 122; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1991), 1 2 2 - 3 4 .
226
PAUL SPILSBURY
w h e r e w e find readers referred to the Scriptures for insight a b o u t the future. In Antiquitates B o o k 4, Josephus tells us that the unfulfilled prophecies o f Balaam reveal aspects o f the future including, b y impli cation, information a b o u t the demise o f the H e b r e w s ' enemies (A.J. 4.125). In this context Josephus reads Balaam's oracles as a cele bration o f the future w o r l d w i d e D i a s p o r a o f the Jewish p e o p l e (A.J. 4 . 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 ) . W h e n read in the light o f Daniel's vision o f the R o m e destroying stone, w h i c h w o u l d yet g r o w so large that the w h o l e w o r l d w o u l d b e filled with it (A.J. 10.207), it b e c o m e s clear that w e have here m o r e than just a hint o f cultural defiance o n J o s e p h u s ' part. T h e result is that w e find in J o s e p h u s ' reading o f these biblical texts b o t h an acceptance o f the political realities o f his day (realities w h i c h he describes as G o d - o r d a i n e d ) , and an affirmation o f a form o f Jewish nationalism that held out h o p e for the eventual ascendancy o f his o w n p e o p l e , w h e n the " r o d o f e m p i r e " w o u l d rest o v e r J u d e a instead o f over R o m e .
CONCLUSION
J o s e p h u s ' reading o f the Bible was certainly deeply affected b y his situation in R o m e . H e paid attention to R o m a n categories and sen sibilities and used them for the benefit o f the Jews and Judaism. W h i l e the lengths to w h i c h Josephus went to a c c o m m o d a t e his sense o f the constraints
he was under are often observed a n d c o m m e n t e d o n ,
there has been less acknowledgement o f the positive measures Josephus t o o k either to adapt R o m a n terms and values for the benefit o f the J e w s , o r o f those places in w h i c h he gives e v i d e n c e o f a defiance a n d a resistance to R o m a n cultural h e g e m o n y . W h e n w e take these into a c c o u n t w e find in Josephus a m u c h m o r e n u a n c e d and c o m plex e x a m p l e o f an individual living under the yoke o f empire. W h e n Josephus related the closing stages o f M o s e s ' speech at the e n d o f his life, he put in the great lawgiver's m o u t h a message o f b o t h acquiescence and o f national fortitude. O n the o n e h a n d M o s e s is m a d e to tell the p e o p l e that they ought not to think that "liberty lies in resenting what y o u r rulers require y o u to d o " (A.J. 4.187). N o r are the p e o p l e to " s h o w the same anger toward [their rulers] that y o u have often ventured to display toward m e " (A.J. 4.188 [Feldman, BJP]). Indeed, M o s e s states, the path o f the future Jies along the w a y o f m o d e r a t i o n (ococppovrioeiv), and not o f violence against those in
227
READING THE BIBLE IN ROME
authority o v e r t h e m (A.J. 4.189). Later, e v e n D a v i d himself, p a r a g o n o f zealot nationalism, will say, " [ I ] t is not such a
that
terrible
thing to serve even a foreign master, if G o d so wills" (A.J. 7.373 [ T h a c k e r a y and M a r c u s , L C L ] ) . Y e t , o n the other hand, again in the context o f M o s e s ' farewell message, w e find the insistence that the J e w s ' well-being is ultimately guaranteed b y the guidance o f the laws, and the o r d e r o f the constitution (A.J. 4.184). B e y o n d this, it is G o d ' s o w n p r o v i d e n c e to w h i c h they m a y l o o k for protection so l o n g as they remain securely o n the path o f virtue. I n d e e d , if they but remain loyal to their laws, they will eventually utterly vanquish all their enemies (A.J. 4.191). T h u s w e find strains o f resistance to R o m a n h e g e m o n y being voiced b y M o s e s himself. A n d it is a resistance that relates specifically to the three inter-related subjects o f c o v e n a n t , constitution and empire. Josephus' w o r k is certainly not left untouched b y its location so close to the heart o f empire. T h e r e are times w h e n he seems to speak with the accents o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a . H o w e v e r , his o w n native v o i c e is never so utterly o v e r w h e l m e d that w e can not still hear within his speech subaltern tones quite unlike the v o i c e of Rome.
JOSEPHUS' USE O F PRAYERS: BETWEEN NARRATIVE A N D T H E O L O G Y TESSEL JONQUIERE UNIVERSITEIT
1.
UTRECHT
INTRODUCTION
Josephus is often seen as a m a n o f two worlds: brought up in Palestine, where he received a Jewish religious education, he later lived in R o m e , where he tried to adapt to the G r a e c o - R o m a n language and culture. His w o r k is said to s h o w clear signs o f this d i c h o t o m y , in that he tried to write for his G r a e c o - R o m a n public, using their language and t e r m i n o l o g y to describe Jewish issues.
1
In m y o p i n i o n , h o w e v e r , the case is s o m e w h a t different. Josephus grew u p in a Palestine that had b e e n u n d e r R o m a n d o m i n i o n for a h u n d r e d years and had i n d e e d b e e n part o f the Hellenistic w o r l d 2
for s o m e four h u n d r e d years. Josephus w o u l d have had an inter national upbringing and had most p r o b a b l y learned to read, write and speak G r e e k well before he ever set foot outside J u d a e a .
3
When
he arrived in R o m e , he c a m e into closer contact with prevailing ideas about the world and religion and such philosophical schools o f thought as Stoicism and Epicureanism. His G r e e k naturally i m p r o v e d all the time because he spoke it "in the street," a n d he will certainly have b e e n totally acculturated b y the time he started writing his Antiquitates Judaicae. I d o n o t think that w e m a y c o n c l u d e from his w o r k that he constandy adapted his language to suit his public, but that it is m o r e correct to say that he wrote in the language he used daily; he expressed himself in a v o c a b u l a r y w h i c h he had m a d e his o w n and
1
See int. al. H . W . Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus ( H D R 7; Missoula (Mont.): Scholars Press, 1976), 1 7 - 2 7 , 182, and L. H . Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 17, 1 2 9 - 3 1 . M . Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London: S C M Press Ltd, 1974), 7 7 . See int. al. T . Rajak, Josephus. The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 4 , 4 6 - 6 4 ; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: his Life, his Works and their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1988), 2 1 , 6 2 . 2
3
230
TESSEL JONQUIERE
w h i c h was also that o f the p e o p l e amongst w h o m he lived. Josephus himself w o u l d n o t have r e g a r d e d his Jewish a n d G r a e c o - R o m a n "sides" as t w o separate parts o f himself. H e was not a m a n o f t w o worlds: to h i m , there was only o n e w o r l d ; like so m a n y o f his near contemporaries, he was a historiographer w h o w o r k e d in R o m e and w r o t e in G r e e k .
4
T h e fact that Josephus wrote in G r e e k and m o d e l l e d his w o r k u p o n that o f great historiographers like T h u c y d i d e s a n d Polybius illustrates the extent to w h i c h he was a part o f his literary surroundings. T h e o n e thing, however, that marks out Josephus' w o r k in comparison with others w o r k i n g at the same time and p l a c e , like Tacitus a n d Martial, is his c h o i c e o f subject matter: whereas Tacitus described R o m a n history and Martial portrayed every-day R o m e in his satirical epigrams, Josephus d e c i d e d to describe the history a n d religion o f the Jewish people.
5
S o far as w e k n o w , he was the only o n e in R o m e at that
time w h o chose to write o n the subject, w h i c h is where his Jewish b a c k g r o u n d c o m e s in. In this context, this essay will focus o n prayer in Josephus. Prayers are an interesting object o f study, because they m a y form self-contained units within a narrative, like dreams o r speeches. W h e n Josephus is following a source text, he usually keeps the story-line m o r e o r less intact. But as s o o n as he encounters a prayer, he departs from his text and fills in whatever suits h i m best at that m o m e n t ; prayers appear to offer h i m an opportunity o f a d d i n g a personal touch: b y c h a n g i n g a prayer, he can stick to the story-line, but
nevertheless
include his o w n views a b o u t the incident in question o r the motives o f his principal actors. O n e m a y well ask, h o w e v e r , w h y a discussion o f prayers should b e fitting in a v o l u m e o n Josephus and Jewish history in Flavian R o m e . T h e answer is, because these prayers appear to encapsulate the entire subject in a m i c r o c o s m : they are Jewish elements in J o s e p h u s ' work, w h i c h are, as the rest o f his w o r k , full o f characteristically G r e e k themes a n d ideas. T h e fact that they are Jewish elements emerges clearly from a n u m b e r o f considerations: J o s e p h u s ' w o r k includes 134 prayers; in this respect, he obviously differs from
4
the great G r e e k historiographers, like T h u c y d i d e s o r
A s , for example, C h a i r e m o n the Stoic or Alexander Polyhistor. ' See the essay by Jonathan Price in this volume.
231
JOSEPHUS' USE OF PRAYERS
Polybius, o n w h o m he m o d e l l e d himself: n o t o n e o f them includes anything like this n u m b e r o f prayers. W h e n w e consider that, o f these
134 prayers, 102 are q u o t e d in the biblical section o f the
Antiquitates, w e m a y c o n c l u d e that their use has b e e n p r o m p t e d b y his biblical, thus Jewish, source. Further confirmation m a y b e found in the fact that a total o f only six prayers is ascribed to non-Jews, and n o n e o f these is m o r e than a short remark.
6
T h e prayers are
all (except these six) addressed to the Jewish G o d . T h e prayers, then, are Jewish elements in w h i c h , as has b e e n said a b o v e , G r e e k w o r d s a n d ideas are as prevalent as in the rest o f J o s e p h u s ' w o r k . Seeing that the prayers are nearly all addressed to the Jewish G o d , it is safe to assume that w h e n Josephus conveys theological issues in these short pieces o f text, they are expressions o f Jewish theology. It m a y therefore b e o f interest to take a closer look at the terminology Josephus uses in his prayers. For the rest o f this paper, I shall concentrate o n the following three points. First, I shall s h o w that prayers are i n d e e d used as self-con tained units, a device w h i c h allows J o s e p h u s to leave the story-line intact while entirely changing the content o f the prayer i n c l u d e d in o r d e r to a d d a personal t o u c h ; then I shall give an e x a m p l e o f Josephus
5
use o f G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y to express Jewish theology; and
finally, I shall give specific examples o f the w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses prayers to express his view o f G o d , making use o f G r a e c o R o m a n concepts.
2.
N A R R A T I V E AND T H E O L O G Y
2.1. Prayers as Self-contained Units O f course, stories as told b y J o s e p h u s are never e x a c d y the same as in his source texts. But there is a perceptible difference b e t w e e n the fidelity with w h i c h he tells a story a n d the liberties he takes w h e n handling a prayer incorporated in the text. Let us l o o k at a few examples.
6
Titus, BJ. 5 . 5 1 9 ; soldiers, BJ. 6 . 1 2 3 ; crowds, B.J. 7.73; Vespasian and Titus, B.J. 7 . 1 2 8 - 1 2 9 , 1 5 5 ; Tiberius A.J. 1 8 . 2 1 1 . T h e prayers of Balaam (A.J. 4 . 1 0 5 ) , N e b u c h a d n e z z a r (A.J. 1 0 . 2 1 7 ) and Darius (A.J. 11.31) need to be mentioned as well, but they are not counted as pagan prayers since the three characters are pre sented as believers w h o pray to the Jewish G o d .
232
TESSEL JONQUIERE
T h e first is the story o f the H e b r e w s standing o n the shores o f the 7
R e d Sea w h o see the Egyptian army bearing d o w n o n t h e m . A s in Exodus, the H e b r e w s in the Antiquitates panic and turn to their leader, M o s e s . In E x o d u s , M o s e s then addresses them, telling them to place their trust in the L o r d . In the Antiquitates, h o w e v e r , M o s e s starts pray ing to G o d ;
8
he asks for G o d ' s help a n d p r o p o s e s several solutions
himself, o n e o f w h i c h is to make the sea dry u p so that the p e o p l e c a n cross it. Naturally, this is what happens. A s w e see, Josephus has kept to the story-line but, b y inserting a prayer, has m a d e it appear as though it was M o s e s w h o c a m e u p with the solution, thus depicting h i m as a great leader.
9
A s e c o n d e x a m p l e again c o n c e r n s M o s e s in the desert with the Israelites. A t R e p h i d i m , the p e o p l e c o m p l a i n that they are thirsty.
10
M o s e s is alarmed at this, and, in o r d e r to avert the threat, he starts to pray. W h e n he has finished, G o d tells h i m to strike a rock with his staff, a n d water pours out. T h e story is the same in E x o d u s a n d the Antiquitates, but the content o f the t w o prayers is quite different: in E x o d u s , M o s e s cries out, " W h a t should I d o ? T h e y are ready to stone me!"; in the Antiquitates, o n the other hand, M o s e s shows n o signs o f desperation and merely asks G o d to provide water.
11
T h e story
is the same, but M o s e s ' actions appear in a totally different light because o f the content o f his prayer. O n c e again, M o s e s is the great leader w h o is n o w s h o w n to b e not only wise, but also selfless, in that he does n o t pray for his o w n safety, but for water for the people. A n o t h e r prayer that gives a different interpretation wise u n c h a n g e d story is that o f J o s h u a .
12
to an other
T h e Israelites have b e e n
gready disappointed at losing a batde under the generalship o f their n e w leader, J o s h u a . T h e y are very d e s p o n d e n t . After J o s h u a has prayed, the cause o f their defeat b e c o m e s apparent:
some people
have stolen holy things w h i c h were intended to b e destroyed in order to h o n o u r G o d ; the culprits are found a n d put to death. S o far, b o t h versions o f the story are in agreement. O n c e again, h o w e v e r , the difference lies chiefly in the prayer. In the B o o k o f Joshua, Joshua
7
8
9
A.J. 2 . 3 3 4 ; E x o d 1 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 . AJ. 2 . 3 3 5 - 3 3 7 ; E x o d 1 4 : 1 3 - 1 4 .
The work; on A.J. A.J. A.J. 10
11
12
tendency to depict M o s e s as a great leader can b e seen all over Josephus' the portrait o f M o s e s see also Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation, 3 7 4 - 4 4 2 . 3 . 3 3 - 3 8 ; Exod 17:1-6. 3 . 3 4 ; E x o d 17:4. 5 . 3 9 - 4 1 ; Josh 7 : 7 - 9 .
233
JOSEPHUS' USE OF PRAYERS
is angry with G o d : he is lying o n the g r o u n d , w e e p i n g , and in his prayer, he r e p r o a c h e s G o d : there is n o request as such. In
the
Antiquitates, h o w e v e r , J o s h u a is outspoken (nappr)oiav taxjipavei npbq xov 6e6v) and asks G o d to put the matter right and to take away the p e o p l e ' s disappointment. Josephus has c h a n g e d the r e p r o a c h into a m u c h less b o l d request; the story is n o w m u c h less negatively c h a r g e d and J o s h u a emerges from the story m u c h stronger because he has recognised the p r o b l e m a n d remains c a l m . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e is Samson's prayer:
14
13
as in Judges, S a m s o n is
misled b y the m e n o f the tribe o f J u d a h in o r d e r to deliver h i m to the Philistines. W h e n he finds out a b o u t it, he is furious and kills a thousand Philistines with an ass' j a w b o n e ; he is very p r o u d o f what he has d o n e . Afterwards, he feels thirsty a n d prays to G o d . A g a i n , h o w e v e r , it is in the text o f the prayer that the stories diverge: whereas in Judges S a m s o n reproaches G o d in his prayer, saying that he w o u l d just let h i m die o f thirst n o w , J o s e p h u s ' S a m s o n realises that he has c o m m i t t e d the sin o f pride; he h o p e s that G o d will not b e angry with h i m and will help h i m solve his p r o b l e m s . A further e x a m p l e is a prayer o f Ezra's,
15
w h i c h differs from that
given in the Bible, though the context remains u n c h a n g e d . Ezra has travelled from B a b y l o n to Jerusalem and is told b y a n u m b e r o f p e o ple that there are m e n (including s o m e priests) w h o have married non Jewish w o m e n ; they are afraid that all the people will be punished. Ezra is shocked at this news, and starts to pray. In the biblical ver sion o f the story, Ezra confesses, whereas Josephus has c h a n g e d the prayer into a request for forgiveness; m o r e o v e r , in the Bible, it sounds as though Ezra includes himself a m o n g the guilty, whereas J o s e p h u s ' Ezra asks for forgiveness for those w h o have sinned. After the prayer, they all agree that the m e n should divorce their wives. Finally, there is the story o f Esther and M o r d e c a i . Josephus retells the story o f Esther as told in the Bible, including the additions that are present in the Greek versions. These additions have both Mordecai's and Esther's prayers, which Josephus therefore also includes. H o w e v e r , although Josephus has retold the entire b o o k in most precise detail, w h e n relating these t w o prayers, he departs from his s o u r c e . In
1 3
For another approach on the presentation of Joshua in Josephus' work see also Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation, 4 4 3 - 6 0 . 14
15
A.J. A.J.
5 . 3 0 2 ; J u d g 15:18. 1 1 . 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 ; Ezra 9 : 6 - 1 5 and 1 Esd 8 : 7 1 - 8 7 .
234
TESSEL JONQUIÈRE
several places, M o r d e c a i ' s prayer is given a slighdy different twist, expressing the b o n d between G o d and the Jewish p e o p l e in a w a y different from the w a y it is presented in the biblical text, a n d stressing G o d ' s role in the present misfortune; particular has b e e n c o m p l e t e l y c h a n g e d :
17
16
but Esther's prayer in
Esther prays for herself.
She prays for beauty and the p o w e r to c o n v i n c e , so that the king will listen to her. In the biblical version, h o w e v e r , she stresses her b o n d with G o d and the Jewish p e o p l e . W i t h a few clever additions like these, Josephus succeeds in romanticising the story, and he makes use o f this prayer to highlight Esther's r o m a n c e with the king. In all the instances cited a b o v e , Josephus has given himself s o m e latitude in writing the prayer, but has left the actual story, as told in his source text, u n c h a n g e d . T h i s d o e s not m e a n that he never changes the story itself—of course he d o e s — a n d he does so regularly. But I maintain that in m a n y instances, he makes particular use o f prayers to emphasise certain points o r to make certain changes in a story. O f the 134 prayers in his work, I have e x a m i n e d and written a c o m m e n t a r y o n 3 2 ,
1 8
a n d in nearly all o f these cases, the
prayer appears to serve a particular purpose in the story. It m a y b e used for a d d e d romantic emphasis, as in the story o f Esther, o r to d r a w the reader's attention to an aspect o f especial interest, as in M o s e s ' prayer at the burning bush, in w h i c h he asks G o d to tell h i m his n a m e .
19
In E x o d 3:13, he d o e s so in a conversation with
G o d , not in a prayer. A n historical turning point m a y also sometimes b e given special emphasis b y the use o f a prayer, as in the case o f the people's prayer at M o u n t Sinai, just before they are given the l a w .
20
M o r e o v e r , s o m e prayers have b e e n used to give the story a different twist. F o r instance, w h e n telling the story o f N o a h :
2 1
after the flood,
as in Genesis, N o a h offers a sacrifice. G o d answers with a speech in w h i c h the c o v e n a n t between G o d and humanity is sealed. In the Antiquitates, h o w e v e r , N o a h also says a prayer at the sacrifice in w h i c h he asks G o d never to inflict such a catastrophe o n humankind again.
16
17
1 8
A.J. A.J.
22
b h
1 1 . 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 ; A d d Esth 4 : 1 7 . 1 1 . 2 3 1 - 2 3 3 ; A d d Esth 4 : 1 7 ^ . k
T h e s e commentaries are to be included in m y doctoral dissertation (Universiteit Utrecht), tentatively tided "Prayer in the Writings of Josephus." A.J. 2 . 2 7 5 . A.J. 3 . 7 8 . A.J. 1 . 7 7 - 1 0 3 ; G e n 6 - 8 . A.J. 1 . 9 6 - 9 8 . 19
2 0
2 1
2 2
235
JOSEPHUS' USE OF PRAYERS
G o d ' s speech is c h a n g e d into an answer to this request, thus in effect crediting N o a h instead o f G o d with the initiative for the c o v e n a n t . In most cases, h o w e v e r , Josephus makes use o f prayers for t w o reasons: firsdy, to depict a person's character, as w e saw in the case o f M o s e s ' prayers b y the shores o f the R e d Sea and at R e p h i d i m ; and, secondly, to c o n v e y theology, as was d o n e for instance in the prayers o f S o l o m o n at the dedication o f the T e m p l e , w h i c h shall b e discussed b e l o w , o r the prayer o f the Israelites at M o u n t C a r m e l after the strife between Elijah and the Baal priests:
23
they call G o d the
greatest and only true o n e , as o p p o s e d to the other gods w h o are merely names "created b y cheap and silly opinion." Josephus amplified this prayer with regard to the biblical text, where the Israelites only cry " T h e L o r d is G o d . "
2 4
T o sum u p , in retelling a story, Josephus repeatedly manages to manipulate the narrative b y altering the prayers, thus c o n v e y i n g a personal opinion about the story itself b y slighdy changing the e m p h a sis, o r a b o u t the chief protagonist b y changing his o r her prayer as given in the source text, though without departing from the main story-line. But e v e n in his treatment o f the t h e o l o g i c a l c o n t e n t , Josephus tampers with the text o f the prayers, as I shall s h o w in the next t w o paragraphs. 2.2. Greek Terminology in Jewish Contexts T h e m o m e n t w h e n Isaac was a b o u t to give his oldest son his bless ing was a crucial o n e in Jewish history. T h e son w h o obtained the blessing was to b e c o m e the father o f the Jewish p e o p l e . W e all k n o w n o w what actually h a p p e n e d : that J a c o b , the y o u n g e r brother, c o n trived to manipulate the situation in such a w a y that he received the blessing that h a d actually b e e n i n t e n d e d for Esau. J o s e p h u s w o r d e d this blessing as a p r a y e r .
25
M u c h c o u l d b e said a b o u t this
prayer, but I shall concentrate o n J o s e p h u s ' remarkable c h o i c e o f w o r d s in o n e particular part o f it.
26
In Genesis, Isaac's blessing starts with the w o r d s , " M a y G o d give y o u o f heaven's d e w and o f earth's
richness—an
a b u n d a n c e o f grain
2 3
A.J.
8 . 3 3 5 - 3 4 6 ; 1 Kgs 1 8 : 2 0 - 4 6 .
2 4
A.J.
8 . 3 4 3 ; 1 K g s 18:39.
2 5
A.J. 1 . 2 7 2 - 2 7 3 . For a full discussion of this prayer see m y forthcoming
2 6
dissertation.
236
TESSEL JONQUIÉRE
a n d n e w w i n e " ( G e n 27:28). Josephus' w o r d i n g is interesting. In his version, Isaac asks G o d for the following: "Protect m y son graciously a n d maintain him u n t o u c h e d b y every evil b y giving h i m a h a p p y life and possession o f g o o d things as m u c h as is in y o u r p o w e r to give."
27
In asking G o d to protect his son "graciously," he uses the
w o r d euu£vf|<;. T h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' work, eujxevfiq and euuiveiot are the w o r d s most c o m m o n l y used to express G o d ' s b e n e v o l e n c e and m e r c y : euu£vr|<; is used o n 53 occasions, 4 2 o f w h i c h refer to G o d . It is used 10 times in prayers, and in seven instances, G o d is requested to b e merciful. In the Septuagint, the w o r d o c c u r s only four times, but not with reference to G o d .
2 8
In classical G r e e k texts, o n
the
other hand, it is m o r e c o m m o n to use the w o r d to denote an attribute o f a g o d . F o r instance, in Aeschylus' Suppliants ( 6 8 6 - 6 8 7 ) the c h o i r sings, "and to all the y o u n g p e o p l e m a y Lyceus (i.e., A p o l l o , T.J.) b e graciously disposed." A n d in Aristophanes'
Lysistrata (204),
the
e p o n y m o u s heroine cries, " O Q u e e n Persuasion, a n d O L o v i n g C u p , accept the offerings b y these w o m e n graciously (eu|Lievf|<;)." A final e x a m p l e c o m e s from Alcestis b y Euripides (791), w h e r e Heracles says, " H o n o u r A p h r o d i t e t o o , sweetest o f the g o d s to mortals, for she is a kind (e\)|H£vf|<;) g o d d e s s . " A n o t h e r w o r d that stands out in Isaac's prayer is eu8a{|xcov: Isaac asks for a h a p p y life (pioq £u8aiuxov) for his s o n .
29
T h i s is not a b i b -
lical expression, nor is it to be found in the Septuagint. But b y Josephus' time,
it was in c o m m o n use and had b e e n for s o m e t i m e .
30
The
original meaning o f the w o r d , "he w h o has a favourable deity," stems from the idea that " h u m a n well-being and adversity are b y the g o d s . "
31
dispensed
This idea was fundamental to p o p u l a r G r e e k religion.
Plato and Aristotle wrote a great deal about it,
32
and in Hellenistic
times, philosophers searched for an answer to a question they had formulated earlier: " W h a t is happiness o r well-being and h o w does o n e achieve it?" T h e c o n c e p t o f euSociuovta is e x a m i n e d in all three
2 7
2 8
A.J.
1.273.
2 Mace (evuevcuq).
12:31 and
13:26 (£i>u€vr|<;); 2 M a c e
6:29 (eúuéveicc) a n d W i s
6:16
2 9
A.J. 1.273. For literature on the use of eúócuuovía I refer to P. B o n e d Colera, ed., Repertorio Bibliográfico de la Lexicografía griega ( M a d r i d : C o n s e j o Superior de Inverstigaciones Científicas, Instituto de Filología 1998), 2 8 7 . 3 0
3 1
A . A . L o n g , Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics (2nd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 4 2 . E.g. Plato, Resp. 6 2 1 c l - d 3 ; Pol. 3 1 1 b 7 - c 6 ; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1 0 . 6 - 8 . 3 2
JOSEPHUS'
237
USE OF PRAYERS
main branches o f Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y , Scepticism, Epicureanism and S t o i c i s m .
33
M o r e o v e r , S e n e c a w r o t e a w o r k entided De vita
beata,
the Latin equivalent o f e\)8aiuovia, and C i c e r o , t o o , w r o t e a b o u t it.
34
A n o t h e r prayer in w h i c h J o s e p h u s has c h o s e n to write a b o u t a Jewish matter using a typically G r e e k w o r d is that o f M o s e s o n the shores o f the R e d Sea, w h i c h I discussed earlier. In this prayer, w h i c h incidentally has n o parallel in biblical texts, J o s e p h u s ' M o s e s asks for G o d ' s providence, for which he uses the Greek w o r d
35
rcpovoia.
A l t h o u g h obviously the idea o f G o d caring for the Jewish p e o p l e is a Jewish belief, the w o r d Josephus uses for this c o n c e p t is interest ing: in the Septuagint, the w o r d o c c u r s only in a few b o o k s , w h i c h were originally written in G r e e k .
36
In Hellenistic Judaism, the w o r d
gained m o r e c o m m o n currency. Philo, for instance, wrote an entire w o r k entided De providential
unfortunately,
fragments o f it have survived.
h o w e v e r , only t w o large
37
H a r o l d Attridge has undertaken a detailed study o f J o s e p h u s ' fre 38
quent use o f the c o n c e p t o f 7ip6voia. Attridge omitted, h o w e v e r , to mention the important place which the c o n c e p t o c c u p i e d in Hellenistic philosophy, a n d I w o u l d like to discuss this first. Later, I shall s h o w what m e a n i n g Josephus intended the w o r d to c o n v e y . T h e c o n c e p t o f divine p r o v i d e n c e is closely linked to the process o f rationalising traditional G r e e k beliefs a n d the m a n n e r in w h i c h they w e r e expressed. T h e idea that the g o d s did not just allow things to h a p p e n , but that they had a purpose, was thereby
formalised.
This implied that b e h i n d the confusing events in the w o r l d , a c o n scious o r d e r lay h i d d e n .
39
T h i s idea c a m e to o c c u p y a central place in Stoic p h i l o s o p h y , w h e r e divine p r o v i d e n c e is seen as the g o v e r n i n g principle o f the world, equivalent to Z e u s and L o g o s ,
3 3
3 4
4 0
as m a y b e seen, for instance,
L o n g , ibid., 6. See for example Cicero, Tusc. 4 . 8 4 , 5 . 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 .
3 5
A.J. 2 . 3 3 6 . W i s 14:3; 17:2; A d d D a n 6:19; 2 M a c e 4:6; 3 M a c e 4 : 2 1 ; 5 : 3 0 ; 4 M a c e 9:24; 13:19; 17:22. Philo, De Providentia, apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 7.21 and 8 . 1 4 ; F. A . Colson, Philo ( L C L 3 6 3 , C a m b r i d g e : Harvard University Press, 1941), pp. 4 4 7 - 5 0 7 . 3 6
3 7
3 8
Attridge, Interpretation, passim. R . L . G o r d o n , "Pronoia," in: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K . van der T o o r n , B. Becking and P. W . van der Horst; 2 n d extensively revised edition; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 6 6 4 - 6 7 , esp. 6 6 4 . G o r d o n , ibid., 6 6 4 . 3 9
4 0
238
TESSEL JONQUIERE
w h e n Cleanthes writes in his Hymn to J^eus, "Nothing supervenes, L o r d , o n earth, in the divine vault o f heaven o r the sea, without y o u . "
41
T h e c o n c e p t was also used in earlier times, but then it usually had a c o s m i c , not a personal c o n n o t a t i o n . Later, h o w e v e r , the w o r d lost s o m e o f its philosophical significance, a n d c a m e into m o r e general use, even b e c o m i n g part o f the p o p u l a r v o c a b u l a r y .
42
T h e w o r d rcpovoia appears to b e central to J o s e p h u s '
thinking.
M a n y o f the main personages in the Antiquitates make use o f it, as d o e s M o s e s in his prayer b y the R e d Sea and in the speech w h i c h precedes it.
43
A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, Attridge has m a d e an extensive
study o f J o s e p h u s ' use o f the pronoia theme: he c o m b i n e s the idea that G o d exercises "providential c a r e " with a t h e o l o g y o f " G o d as ally and helper." A c c o r d i n g to Attridge, Josephus used this theology in place o f the t h e o l o g y o f the covenant; he thus m a d e the b o n d b e t w e e n G o d and humanity m o r e universal (that is, not confined to the Jewish people) a n d less o f a special pact. O f course in Josephus there is still a special b o n d between G o d and Israel, but it is not based o n a covenant, but o n the merits o f her leaders. G o d rewards the g o o d and punishes those w h o have d o n e w r o n g ; Israel's leaders have acted righteously and Israel therefore has a special relationship with G o d ; and because o f this special b o n d , G o d looks after this p e o p l e . G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e shows itself, for instance, in his p o w e r to cause great changes in the lives o f p e o p l e o r in their actions; p e o ple must therefore have confidence in G o d .
4 4
T h i s is w h y , in his prayer b y the R e d Sea, M o s e s appeals to G o d and his p r o v i d e n c e : from h i m c o m e s salvation. A s w e have seen, it is n o t un-Jewish for M o s e s to appeal to G o d for salvation, but his use at this point o f the w o r d rcpovoia (a term with such unmistak ably Hellenistic philosophical connotations), is indicative o f the fact that Josephus characterises the b o n d between G o d and the H e b r e w p e o p l e in a m a n n e r m o r e appropriate to his o w n time and G r a e c o R o m a n environment than to biblical times.
4 1
H . von A r n i m , Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols. (Leipzig: T e u b n e r 1 9 0 3 - 1 9 2 4 ) , 1:537, 1 5 - 1 6 . 4 2
A . T . Kraabel, "Pronoia at Sardis," Te'uda 12 (1996): 7 5 ^ 9 6 , esp. 8 0 - 8 2 .
4 3
AJ. 2 . 3 3 0 . Attridge, Interpretation, 7 1 - 1 0 7 .
4 4
JOSEPHUS' USE
2.3.
239
OF PRAYERS
God in Greek
As w e saw in the previous paragraph, Josephus often presents Jewish theological subjects in c o n t e m p o r a r y G r e e k terms. In the introduc tion, I indicated that nearly all the prayers in his w o r k are spoken by J e w s and are accordingly addressed to the Jewish G o d . A n u m b e r o f prayers
start with an i n v o c a t i o n to G o d , a n d
sometimes
Josephus has translated typically Jewish attributes into Greek. Examples are Pocaitaix; x&v otaov, "king o f the universe" (which is an equiva lent o f the H e b r e w o f the w h o l e w o r l d . "
"^ft) 4 6
45
o r 8eo7c6xT|<;rcocvxoqocicovoq, "master
O n closer examination, h o w e v e r , in most
cases, Josephus proves to have used G r e e k invocations rather than specifically Jewish ones. T h e clearest example is a prayer o f D a v i d ' s , w h e n he hands o v e r p o w e r to S o l o m o n and gives h i m the plans for building the temple. Everyone is glad and promises to cooperate with S o l o m o n w h e r e u p o n D a v i d thanks G o d in a prayer w h i c h actually consists mainly o f i n v o cations: " T h e r e u p o n all the p e o p l e rejoiced, and D a v i d (. . .) b e g a n to praise G o d , calling h i m with a l o u d v o i c e father and origin o f the universe a n d creator o f h u m a n and divine things with w h i c h he a d o r n e d himself; and (calling him) guardian
and protector o f the
H e b r e w nation, o f their happiness a n d o f this k i n g d o m he had given him. T h e r e u p o n he prayed for the w h o l e p e o p l e for g o o d things and for his son S o l o m o n for a m i n d sound and just, and also e m p o w ered b y the other elements o f virtue; and he c o m m a n d e d the multi tude to praise G o d " (A.J. 7 . 3 8 0 - 3 8 1 ) . A.J. 7.380 comprises the three following invocations: (a) 7caxf|px£icai yeveaiq T£»V otaov ("father and origin o f the universe"); (b) 8TUHIOUPY6<; otvGpcomvcov m i Gdcov, oiq ocuxov e K o o u r i o e ("creator o f h u m a n and divine things with w h i c h he a d o r n e d himself"); (c) 7ipooxdxr|<; xe m i KnSeuiW yevouq xcov 'Eppoucov
KOCI
jioviaq r\q xe auxcp fiaoikeiaq e'Scoicev ("guardian
xfjq xouxcov eu8ocia n d protector o f
the H e b r e w nation, o f their happiness and o f this k i n g d o m he h a d given h i m " ) . Josephus has carefully built u p the three invocations in three stages:
47
the first part presents G o d as the origin o f all things; the s e c o n d O n i a s , A.J.
14.24.
Isaac's blessing, A.J. 1.272. Josephus often presents ideas in threes, a technique that m a y be called tricolori.
240
TESSEL JONQUIERE
part is m o r e about G o d himself, and the third part is a b o u t his rela tion to the H e b r e w people: guardian o f the nation and o f the kingdom. Let us take the first invocation: father and origin o f the universe. G o d was spoken o f as "father" in the O l d Testament, though not very often. W h e r e the w o r d is used, G o d is characterised as the
father
o f Israel o r o f particular p e o p l e ; the emphasis is m o r e o n protection a n d sympathy than o n p r o c r e a t i o n .
48
T h e fact that Josephus uses the
w o r d here in conjunction with the idea o f origin o r genesis, suggests that he had a father as origin in mind, particularly in view o f the fact that the idea o f " p r o t e c t i o n " already appears in the third invocation. G o d as yeveaic;, "origin", as a kind o f source from w h i c h the uni verse c a m e into being: this w o u l d appear to p o i n t to a philosophi cal w a y o f invoking G o d . H o w e v e r , I have never seen a similar expression in either biblical o r apocryphal texts, n o r even in p a g a n literature. Josephus does n o t use the w o r d in this sense anywhere else. T h e only other remotely similar reference is a fragment o f Aristobulus, w h o says, "Just so has M o s e s called the w h o l e genesis o f the w o r l d w o r d s o f G o d in o u r L a w . F o r he continually says in each 49
case 'and God spoke and it came to pass.'"
In the s e c o n d invocation, G o d is seen as creator o f h u m a n and divine things, with w h i c h he a d o r n e d himself. 8r|Ui0'upY6<; is not c o m m o n l y used to indicate G o d . Josephus himself uses it in relation to G o d in only two other places: in o n e , he says that A b r a h a m was the first person w h o had the c o u r a g e to declare publicly that G o d , the creator (Sruiioupyoq) o f the universe, was o n e .
5 0
T h e second occa
sion is the invocation in Isaac's prayer, w h i c h was discussed earlier, a n d in w h i c h he refers to G o d as Srijiioupyoq xfjq oXr\<; ouoiocq, "cre ator o f all b e i n g . "
51
O n each o f these three occasions, G o d is thus
called the creator o f all things: o f the universe, o f all being, and n o w ,
T w o further examples, in prayers discussed above, are Isaac w h o asks for three favours in his blessing, and M o s e s by the R e d Sea, w h o suggests three solutions to the problem facing him. See also H . St. J. Thackeray, "Introduction," in Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Books I-IV ( L C L ; C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d University Press, 1930), x v - x v i , w h o ascribes the technique to the "Sophoclean assistant." 4 8
H . B. H u f f m o n , "Father," in van der T o o r n , Becking and van der Horst, Dictionary, 3 2 6 - 2 8 , esp. 3 2 7 - 2 8 . Parallels for the use of 7taxf|p in the Apocrypha: W i s 2:16; 3 M a c e 5:7; 6:4, 8; 7:6 and 4 M a c e 7:9. 4 9
Aristobulus fr. 4 , apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 1 3 . 1 2 . 3 (trans. A . Y a r b r o Collins, OTP 2:840); C . R . Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, in 4 vols., vol. 3: Aristobulus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 1 6 2 - 6 3 . 5 0
r>1
A.J. A.J.
1.155. 1.272.
JOSEPHUS' USE
OF PRAYERS
241
by D a v i d " o f all human and divine things." N o w h e r e in the Septuagint is G o d referred to in this way, and only o n c e in the N e w Testament, w h e n G o d is called the architect a n d builder (Sruiioupyoq) o f a c i t y .
52
Plato, o n the other hand, used the w o r d very often in this sense. The
clearest instance o f its use is in his Timaeus, w h e r e he writes,
"Now
to discover the M a k e r a n d Father o f this Universe w e r e a
task indeed; a n d having discovered H i m , to declare H i m unto all m e n w e r e a thing impossible. H o w e v e r , let us return and
inquire
further c o n c e r n i n g the C o s m o s . After w h i c h o f the M o d e l s d i d its Architect construct it? W a s it after that w h i c h is self-identical and uniform, o r after that w h i c h has c o m e into existence? N o w if so b e that this C o s m o s is beautiful and its Constructor g o o d , it is plain that he fixed his gaze o n the Eternal."
53
Plato uses three different
words here to refer to G o d as creator o f the universe: Koir\Tr\q (maker), TeKTawojiievoq (builder, architect) a n d 8r|jiio\)py6(;. In a similar pas sage in his Republic (530a) he states that an astronomer w h o turned his eyes u p o n the m o v e m e n t s o f the stars, w o u l d b e willing to c o n c e d e that the artisan (SruLiioupyoq) o f heaven fashioned it and all that it c o n t a i n s . And,
54
finally, there is Epictetus, a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f Josephus', w h o
wrote in his Diatribai, "but the works o f G o d are capable o f m o v e m e n t , have the breath o f life, can make use o f external impressions, and pass j u d g e m e n t u p o n them. D o y o u d i s h o n o u r the w o r k m a n s h i p o f this craftsman ship?"
55
(SrnLUODpyoq), w h e n y o u are yourself that w o r k m a n
T o m e it is clear that J o s e p h u s , in his use o f the w o r d
8T||LIIODPY6<; is close to Plato a n d Epictetus, a n d has o n c e again used a G r e e k term b y w h i c h to address G o d . It is in the third invocation that G o d is addressed m o s t intimately. Unlike the first and s e c o n d invocation, this o n e refers direcdy to the H e b r e w p e o p l e , their happiness a n d the present k i n g d o m , o f w h i c h God
is the protector. It is not at all usual to call G o d rcpooTarnq.
The
basic m e a n i n g o f the w o r d is leader o r chief. In the Septuagint,
the w o r d o c c u r s only eight times, a n d each time it refers to p e o p l e .
56
In classical G r e e k literature, o n the other hand, it is m u c h m o r e
5 2
H e b r 11:10. Plato, 77m. 2 8 c - 2 9 a (Bury, L C L ) . See also Plato, Tim. 2 8 a , 3 1 a and 4 0 c . Epictetus, Diatr. 2 . 8 . 2 1 . 1 Chron. 2 7 : 3 1 ; 29:6; 2 Chron. 8:10; 24:11 2 M a c e 3:4. 5 3
5 4
5 5
%
(2x); 1 Esd 2 : 1 2 ; Sir 4 5 : 2 4 ;
242
TESSEL JONQUIERE
c o m m o n , a n d here, again, it usually refers to p e o p l e a n d is trans lated as "leader," "ruler,"
"administrator,"
but also as " o n e w h o
stands before and protects." It is also occasionally used as an epi thet for a g o d . In S o p h o c l e s ' Trachiniae ( 2 0 5 - 2 1 0 ) , for e x a m p l e , the c h o i r sings, "let the voices o f m e n b e o n e with ours in prayer to the archer-god, A p o l l o , o u r defender ('ATIOMCD rcpooxaxav)!" This is similar to Clytaemnestra in Elektra 6 3 7 : " O P h o e b u s
57
o u r defender
(Ooipe T c p o a x a x f i p i e ) , m a y y o u n o w listen to m y prayer." T h e w o r d icnSeuxov, "protector," w h i c h occurs only o n c e in the was
Septuagint,
58
c o m m o n l y used in the Greek-speaking w o r l d . G o d is also called
" p r o t e c t o r " in the O l d Testament, but the H e b r e w
"IDE?
is generally
rendered in the Septuagint b y a form o f the v e r b
in the present passage, obviously originate in the G r e e k w o r l d
a n d were n o t inspired b y his biblical source. As
a further illustration o f the use o f G r e e k expressions to speak o f
God,
I should like to t o u c h o n the prayers o f S o l o m o n at the d e d
ication o f the T e m p l e , since the m a n n e r in w h i c h they refer to G o d is again u n c o m m o n . T h e s e prayers are o f great interest because o f the extent to w h i c h they are p e r m e a t e d with G r e e k (especially Stoic) philosophical thinking. I shall give just t w o examples, w h i c h refer specifically to G o d .
5 9
Firsdy, in b o t h prayers, Josephus hints at a pantheistic w o r l d view w h e n he puts the following w o r d s into S o l o m o n ' s m o u t h : " W e k n o w that y o u have an eternal dwelling in those things w h i c h y o u created for
yourself—in the heaven and air and earth a n d sea, all o f w h i c h
you
fill without b e i n g contained b y t h e m . "
60
In other w o r d s , G o d is
in everything. T h i s is o n e o f the principal points in Stoic philosophy, w h i c h believes in a principle that shapes and m o v e s everything and that is i m m a n e n t in everything.
61
A n o t h e r Stoic principle found in these prayers is the idea that G o d
3 7
Phoebus is one o f Apollo's epithets.
5 8
2 M a c e 4:2. For a detailed discussion of these prayers, see also T . Jonquiere, " T w o Prayers by K i n g S o l o m o n in Josephus' Antiquities 8 and the Bible," in Internationales JosephusKolloquium Paris 2001 (MJSt 12; ed. F. Siegert and J. U . K a l m s ; Munster: L I T Verlag, 2 0 0 2 ) , 7 2 - 8 9 . 5 9
6 0
(il
A J. 8 . 1 0 7 . Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 1 5 0 .
JOSEPHUS' USE OF PRAYERS
is oc7ipoo8er|<;: he does not n e e d anything.
62
243
Ever since X e n o p h a n e s ,
certain qualities were attributed to the gods, qualities that were c o n sidered w o r t h y o f a g o d ;
6 3
a c c o r d i n g to X e n o p h a n e s , a g o d was only
a true g o d if he acted in a fitting manner; such w o r d s as "eternal" and "constant" were u s e d .
64
A t a later date, a sort o f reversal took
place, and divine nature was v i e w e d from a different perspective: what qualities were unworthy o f a g o d ? Divine attributes were defined by
their opposites: gods were n o longer "eternal," but "not t e m p o
ral." T h e adjective a7cpoa8er|<; was used to signify another o n e o f these negative attributes.
3.
S U M M A R Y AND
CONCLUSION
I h o p e m y paper has shown h o w rewarding a study o f the prayers can be for a m o r e general study o f Josephus. In m a n y passages, as w e have seen, Josephus m a d e use o f prayers to introduce nuances o f his o w n in the stories, but at the same time he used the opportunity to c o n v e y his o w n ideas about the Jewish religion a n d G o d . In the history, which Josephus wished to write in Greek manner, the prayers constitute a Jewish element not only because there is n o other such accumulation o f prayers in G r e e k historiography but also, and m o r e particularly, because the prayers are put almost exclusively into the m o u t h s o f Jewish personages and addressed almost exclusively to the Jewish G o d . The
d e g r e e to w h i c h J o s e p h u s was influenced b y his G r a e c o -
R o m a n environment and b y his life in R o m e has often b e e n dis cussed. H o w e v e r , it m a y be an interesting exercise to turn the question around: w e will then see a Josephus w h o lives in R o m e w h e r e he takes an active part in Hellenistic circles; but w h e n he decides to write a b o o k a b o u t the p e o p l e to w h o m he belongs b y birth, having b e e n b o r n in Palestine, this is w h e r e he looks for his source mate rial. Like any other author, he is influenced b y his source material; but in the final analysis, J o s e p h u s ' style and language are neverthe less those o f his o w n Hellenistic culture.
6 2
T h e r e are a n u m b e r of other texts in which this word is used (Let. Aris. 211 ; 2 M a c e 14:35 and 3 M a c e 2:9); Josephus was therefore not the only Jewish writer to ascribe this quality to G o d . 6:
< Fragments o f X e n o p h a n e s : 2 1 B 1 1 - 2 1 B 1 8 , in H . Diels & W . K r a n z , eds., Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1 (6th ed.; Zürich: Hildesheim, 1951), 1 3 2 - 3 3 . Oskar Dreyer, Untersuchungen zum Begriff des Gottgeziemenden in der Antike (Olms: Hildesheim, 1970), 2 2 - 2 3 . 0 4
SOME OBSERVATIONS O N JOSEPHUS O F T H E ESSENIAN M O R N I N G
5
DESCRIPTION PRAYER
NlCLAS FôRSTER GEORG-AUGUST-UNIVERSITÀT,
GÔTTINGEN
T h i s p a p e r examines the ideal o f the praying c o m m u n i t y . I w o u l d like to s h o w that this ideal was spread across cultural and religious boundaries during G r e c o - R o m a n times. It originated in p a g a n phi l o s o p h y but was later adapted b y Hellenistic Jews for apologetic rea sons. I will scrutinize this process o f adaptation o n the e x a m p l e o f the Essenian m o r n i n g prayer depicted b y the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. F o r pagans, the regular prayer at sunrise was directed at the sun g o d . Indeed, p a g a n sources m e n t i o n this m o r n i n g prayer as a hallmark o f a pious Pythagorean's religious life. It also d e m o n strates the U t o p i a n character o f societies described b y Hellenistic authors such as in the travel accounts o f Iambulus. T h i s p r o v e s that regular prayers to the rising sun were rooted in the ideal o f Hellenistic literature and closely c o n n e c t e d with philosophical thinking. Diaspora Jews were familiar with these sources, especially since pagan authors had already described Jewish piety in a c c o r d a n c e with the ideal o f a praying c o m m u n i t y . F o r e x a m p l e , p a g a n sources characterized the particular spirituality o f Jewish religious m o v e m e n t s with respect to the aforementioned ideal. This was true, for instance, with the Essenes. T h e e x a m p l e o f the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also shows that Jews were familiar with this pagan perspective and deliberately adopted it in their writings. In this way, Josephus m o d e l e d his reports a b o u t the Essenes' m o r n i n g prayer after the Pythagorean prayer to the sun. O n e can even see h o w Josephus p a r d y obscures the Jewish character o f this Essenian prayer and in fact, his description o f the
prayer
appears almost completely influenced b y this pagan Vorlage. I will begin m y p a p e r b y discussing the shape a n d m e a n i n g o f the Pythagorean prayer at sunrise. T h e biographical literature a b o u t Pythagoras written in late antiquity informs us that the d a y o f the Pythagoreans was stricdy regulated. Prayer at sunrise was obligatory. Before defining this m o r n i n g prayer, I will briefly o u d i n e the history o f the Pythagoreans and provide a short summary o f the philosophical
246
NICLAS FÖRSTER
literature with w h i c h w e b e c o m e better i n f o r m e d about their piety a n d philosophical doctrine. T h e Pythagoreans traced back to the teachings o f the Greek philoso p h e r Pythagoras from S a m o s . A r o u n d 5 3 0 B . C E . , in the prime o f his life, Pythagoras left this island and setded in southern Italy near C r o t o n . T h e r e he established a c o m m u n i t y with a cultic basis that s o o n b e c a m e r e n o w n e d for its philosophical a n d scientific achieve ments. T h e c o m m u n i t y garnered m u c h political influence
thereby.
Adherents to the Pythagoreans lived in m a n y other cities in south ern Italy and eventually j o i n e d together in a kind o f union; allegedly, the Pythagoreans ruled a n u m b e r o f cities. T h e political convictions o f the Pythagoreans w e r e decidedly conservative. A t about 5 0 0 B . C E , Pythagoras himself was forced to leave C r o t o n because o f political opposition and m o v e d to the neighboring city o f M e t a p o n t u m . Shortly thereafter, he died. S o m e years before 4 5 0 B . C E , m a n y cities rose u p in revolt against the Pythagoreans and the ensuing conflict left meeting places destroyed; s o m e Pythagoreans w e r e also killed. O t h e r m e m b e r s o f the Pythagoreans motherland.
w e r e able to escape to the
Greek
Small groups w e r e also able to regain s o m e influence
in Italy. H o w e v e r , the Pythagoreans ceased to flourish at the e n d o f the fourth
century B . C E . a n d the m o v e m e n t gradually died out.
1
Pythagoras himself had left n o written r e c o r d o f his teaching for fur ther generations to follow and instead
his p h i l o s o p h y was merely
passed o n in his school. T h i s tradition survived the decline o f the Pythagoreans,
h o w e v e r , and was never forgotten. T h i s proves the
continuing interest in Pythagoras and his doctrine. Part o f this tra dition was also the increasingly idealized description o f his philo sophical w a y o f life which was later absorbed b y biographical literature a b o u t Pythagoras' life, written during Hellenistic times. A c c o r d i n g to this tradition, Pythagorean ethical teachings w e r e e m b o d i e d in reli g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n . A m o n g o t h e r things, followers rejected
animal
sacrifices and prayed to the rising sun every m o r n i n g . A n o t h e r aspect o f their piety, w h i c h I shall not discuss in this paper, was the singing o f hymns and c o m m u n a l meals taken together regularly. T h e m o r n ing prayer is often m e n t i o n e d in Hellenistic as well as G r e c o - R o m a n accounts about Pythagoras and his followers. T h i s literature is c o n n e c t e d with the various influences o f c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical schools such as Platonic thinking and stoic theories. F o r
1
instance,
H . Dôrrie, "Der nachklassische Pythagoreismus," P W 2 4 , cols. 2 6 8 - 7 7 , esp. 2 6 9 .
JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF T H E ESSENIAN MORNING
PRAYER
the f a m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r , m i r a c l e w o r k e r a n d w a n d e r i n g
247
teacher
Apollonius from T y a n a , w h o lived in the first century C.E., reported in a b i o g r a p h y o f Pythagoras:
2
"Pythagoreans did not rise from their
beds after the sun rose (. . .) they w o u l d watch for sunrise to pray to the sun as it rose." A p o l l o n i u s ' b i o g r a p h y is lost today a n d w e k n o w its content only through quotation b y authors o r late antiquity. T h e q u o t e d text is transmitted b y Iamblichus' b i o g r a p h y o f 3
Pythagoras, w h o used Apollonius' b o o k as his source. Apollonius himself adhered to Pythagoras' m o d e l in his daily life; this p h e n o m e n o n is d o c u m e n t e d b y A p o l l o n i u s ' b i o g r a p h y b y Philostratus, w h o m e n tioned
several times A p o l l o n i u s ' particular veneration o f the sun.
4
H o w e v e r , the prayer to the sun is not o n l y m e n t i o n e d in the b i o graphical literature o n Pythagoras. It was also m e n t i o n e d in c o m b i nation with other philosophical ideas that were not specifically related to the historical doctrine o f Pythagoras o r his adherents from the sixth to the fifth century B . C E . , but originated in Hellenistic philosophy, that d e v e l o p e d from the fourth century B . C E . A m o n g these ideas, the stoic p r o o f for the existence o f G o d should b e
stressed.
This p r o o f was based o n the contemplation o f the c o s m o s and particular
5
celestial p h e n o m e n a . T h e beauty o f celestial bodies, their reg-
ular m o v e m e n t s and a b o v e all the orbits o f sun and m o o n , allegedly p r o v i d e d p r o o f o f the divine creator. T h e r e f o r e , celestial b o d i e s were also venerated as deities. T h e e m p e r o r and Stoic philosopher M a r c u s Aurelius, m i r r o r e d these c o s m o l o g i c a l speculations in his Meditations? H e remarked
2
o n Pythagorean
famous
piety: " L o o k , said
the
VP § 2 5 6 (Jamblich, nEPI TOY n Y G A T O P E I O Y BIOY, Pythagoras: Legende—Lehre—
Lebensgestaltung [Eingel., übers, u. interpret. von M . v . Albrecht et al.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges., 2 0 0 2 ] , 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 ) : ouoiporccoç Ôè |LIT|Ô' eKxfjc KÀAVTIÇ à v i c x a a G a i \Saxepov r\ x ö v r\Xiov à v i a x e w (. . .) àXkà
x ö v u£v Tcapaxripeîv orccoç à v i o v x a
7lpOG£t>ÇcDVX0U. 3
Cf. W . Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Piaton
(Erlanger Beiträge zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 10; Nürnberg, 1962), 8 9 . 4
Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 2 . 3 8 ; 7.10; 7.31 ( L C L ) ; cf. H . Strathmann, Geschichte der
frühchristlichen Askese bis zur Entstehung des Mönchtums in religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, V o l . 1: Die Askese in der Umgebung des werdenden Christentums (Leipzig 1 9 1 4 ) , 3 0 1 ; I. Lévy, La légende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine (Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études, Sciences historiques et philologiques 2 5 0 ; Paris, 1927), 2 7 7 . 5
U.
v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der
Glaube der Hellenen (Berlin,
1932),
2:258;
W . Spoerri, Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter. Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 9; Basel, 1959), 1 6 7 - 6 8 . 6
11.27 ( L C L ) : Oi n-uGayopeioi ëcoOev e i ç x ö v o ù p a v o v à c p o p â v , iv' {mouiuvnaKcoueGa
x ô v à e i m x à x à a ù x à Kai waauxcoç x à e a v x c o v ë p y o v ô i a v v o v x c o v m l xfjç x à ^ e c o ç Kai xfîç KaGapoxTixoç Kai xf)ç
Y^JLIVÔXTIXOÇ.
248
NICLAS FÖRSTER
Pythagoreans, at the sky in the morning, that w e m a y have in r e m e m b r a n c e those hosts o f heaven that ever follow the same course a n d a c c o m p l i s h their w o r k in the same w a y , and their orderly system, a n d their purity, a n d their nakedness." In this passage, M a r c u s Aurelius stresses those characteristics o f the stars a n d heavenly b o d i e s that caused h u m a n beings to a c k n o w l e d g e their divine character a n d origin, especially because o f their unchangeableness and regular orbit. T h e Pythagoreans meditated o n just these characteristics every m o r n ing. Markus Aurelius d o e s n o t m e n t i o n prayer in this context h o w ever. Y e t the k n o w l e d g e o f g o d had its origin in the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the rising sun a n d observation o f the sun contributed a great deal to the quintessential philosophical life. F o r this reason, veneration o f the sun was not only a characteristic o f philosophical groups like the Pythagoreans during this time, but also punctuated literary descrip tion o f Utopian c o m m u n i t i e s a n d their fictitious religiousness. T h o s e 7
c o m m u n i t i e s venerated the heavenly b o d i e s . A b o v e all they p r a y e d to the sun. A famous e x a m p l e that describes such an ideal state is contained in Iambulus' writings. W e only k n o w his travel accounts through excerpts o f the G r e e k historian D i o d o r u s from Sicily, w h o lived in the middle o f the first century B . C E .
8
A l t h o u g h he wrote a
universal history in 4 0 v o l u m e s , only v o l u m e s o n e to five and 11 to 2 0 are still preserved today. W e find D i o d o r u s ' excerpt o f Iambulus' novel in his s e c o n d b o o k . A c c o r d i n g to D i o d o r u s , Iambulus described his adventures and a m o n g them, a particular j o u r n e y , u p o n w h i c h h e e m b a r k e d after his father's death. H e traveled as a m e r c h a n t to Arabia, w h e r e he was captured b y thieves and b r o u g h t unwillingly to Ethiopia. T h e Ethiopeans, h o w e v e r , sent h i m to the o p e n sea in a kind o f expiatory c e r e m o n y . Iambulus sailed southwards, where he discovered an island near the equator.
9
His description o f the island
bears similarities to C e y l o n w h i c h b e c a m e k n o w n to the Greeks after
7
G . J. D . Aalders, Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (Amsterdam,
N . Holzberg, Der antike Roman (Artemis Einführungen
1975), 6 5 ;
2 5 , M ü n c h e n , Zürich, 1986),
2 0 - 2 1 ; B. Kytzler, " Z u m utopischen R o m a n der klassischen Antike," in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel (Groningen, 8
DNP
1988), 1 : 1 2 - 1 3 .
E . Schwartz, "Diodoros," P W 5 , cols. 6 6 3 - 7 0 4 , esp. 6 7 8 ; M . Fusillo, "Jambulos," 5 , cols. 8 5 6 - 5 7 ; W . - W . Ehlers, " M i t d e m Südwestmonsun
nach Ceylon. Eine
Interpretation der Jambul-Exzerpte Diodors," Würzburger Jahrbücher fur die Altertumswissen schaft N F 11 (1985): 7 3 - 8 4 , esp. 7 3 . 9
E. R o h d e , Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (Darmstadt,
1 9 6 0 ; reprint
of
3rd ed., Leipzig 1914), 2 4 3 ; J. Ferguson, Utopias of the Classical World, Aspects of Greek and Roman Life ( L o n d o n , 1975), 1 2 5 ; Ehlers, M i t d e m Südwestmonsum,"
74-77.
JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF THE ESSENIAN MORNING PRAYER
Alexander's c a m p a i g n .
10
249
Nevertheless, Iambulus' novel includes m a n y
fantastic details. T h e island's inhabitants were taller than other k n o w n ordinary humans; the b o d i e s w e r e different with the tongues split into t w o parts.
11
Also, the inhabitants were alleged to die o n l y after
approximately 4 5 0 years. R e p o r t e d l y , Iambulus returned to G r e e c e via Persia. His novel unites geographical information, philosophical influences, Age.
1 3
12
merchants' tales a n d traces o f myth f r o m the G o l d e n
It is the philosophical influences, w h i c h are o f the most inter-
est here for Iambulus f o u n d a m o n g the island's inhabitants that veneration o f heaven a n d heavenly b o d i e s was also prevalent.
14
Diodorus
q u o t e d the following passage from Iambulus' novel: " A n d they w o r ship as gods that w h i c h encompasses all things a n d the sun, a n d , in general, all the heavenly b o d i e s . "
15
D i o d o r u s completes his excerpts
with the following notes a b o u t the inhabitants' feasts:
16
" A n d at the
festivals a n d feasts w h i c h are held a m o n g them, there are b o t h p r o n o u n c e d a n d sung in h o n o r o f the g o d s h y m n s a n d spoken laudations, a n d especially in h o n o r o f the sun, after w h o m they
name
b o t h the islands a n d themselves." A c c o r d i n g to the q u o t e d texts, Iambulus discovered an ideal c o m munity that possessed religious underpinnings
a n d orientated itself
towards the recognition o f divinity in the stars, the regularity o f the planets' m o v e m e n t s a n d , o f course, the sun. Prayer t o these heavenly deities was the focus o f the islanders' piety.
17
Neither
animal
sacrifices, n o r existence o f temples designed for worship w e r e m e n tioned b y I a m b u l u s .
1 0
W . Kroll, "Jambulos,"
Roman, 2 5 6 ; Ferguson, 11
18
P W 9 , cols.
6 8 1 - 8 3 , esp. 6 8 1 ; R o h d e , Der griechische
Utopias, 1 2 6 ; Ehlers, " M i t d e m Südwestmonsun,"
78-79.
D . M e n d e l s , "Hellenistic U t o p i a a n d the Essenes," HTR 7 2 (1979): 2 0 7 - 2 2 ,
esp. 2 1 2 . 1 2
R o h d e , Der griechische Roman, 2 5 3 ; Ferguson,
1 3
C . M o s s é , "Les utopies égalitaires à l'époque hellénistique," Revue historique 141
Utopias, 1 2 7 .
(1969): 2 9 7 - 3 0 8 , esp. 3 0 1 . 1 4
K r o l l , "Jambulos,"
6 8 3 ; R . v. P ö h l m a n n ,
Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des
Sozialismus in der antiken Welt. 3rd ed. rev. F. Oertel, M ü n c h e n 1 9 2 5 , 2:306; J. Ferguson, Utopias, 1 2 7 . 1 5
Diodorus Siculus 2 . 5 9 . 2 (Oldfather, L C L ) : ceßovxai Ôè Oeoùç x ö rcepiéxov rcàvxa
Kai r\k\o\ 1 6
K a i mGoAxn) rcàvxa x à o v p a v i a .
Diodorus Siculus 2 . 5 9 . 7 (Oldfather, L C L ) : ev xe x a î ç è o p x a î ç K a i x a î ç evcoxCaiç
XéyeoOai x e K a i a ô e a B a i rcap' a ù x o î ç eiç x o ù ç Geovç uavouç K a i éyKCûuia, u à X i a x a ôè eiç x ö v rçA.iov, à
Utopias, 1 2 7 .
1 7
Pöhlmann,
1 8
M e n d e l s , "Hellenistic Utopia," 2 1 8 .
Geschichte, 3 0 7 .
250
NICLAS FÖRSTER
This i m a g e o f Pythagorean piety and also the portrayal o f prayeroriented ideals f r o m authors such as Iambulus
indeed
influenced
Hellenistic Judaism. T h e J e w s followed pagan literary m o d e l s . T h i s can b e evidenced b y the description o f the Essenes and especially their spirituality, w h i c h is r o o t e d in pagan sources. T h e s e pagan accounts influenced the image o f the Essenes depicted b y Jewish authors like Josephus. A t this point, I w o u l d like to substantiate m y hypothesis regarding the literary influence o f pagan authors o n Josephus' description
o f the Essenes through accounts o f this Jewish g r o u p b y the
R o m a n orator D i o from Prusa and b y Pliny the Elder, b o t h o f w h o m lived during
the first c e n t u r y
C E . D i o f r o m Prusa, also c a l l e d
C h r y s o s t o m o s , m e n t i o n e d in o n e o f his speeches the noXiq eu8a{ficov o f the Essenes. H e located this "fortunate city" near the D e a d Sea. D i o ' s w o r d choice shows the influence o f Greek Utopian concepts about the ideal state. Unfortunately D i o ' s entire speech is lost and the brief note o n the Essenes is q u o t e d b y Synesius from C y r e n e , w h o wrote a b o u t D i o in late antiquity.
19
But Synesius stresses that D i o "praised"
the Essenes (ercouvei). This same admiration is noticeable in Pliny's a c c o u n t o f the Essenes. Pliny creates an image o f the Essenes that is clearly styled after the panegyrics o f classical literature. H e calls the Essenes
20
"remarkable b e y o n d all the other tribes in the w h o l e
w o r l d " . Both a u t h o r s — D i o as well as Pliny—probably based their reports o n the Essenes o n a c o m m o n pagan Vorlage, that transfigured the Essenes in the light o f ideal philosophers. It is also
remarkable
that Josephus affords the same v i e w o n the Essenes as a perfect a n d exemplary c o m m u n i t y . Josephus was a Jewish priest that, a c c o r d i n g to his autobiography, had contact with the Essenes for s o m e time during his y o u t h .
21
T h u s he was rather well-informed. But Josephus
d r e w a picture o f the Essenes that shows a n u m b e r o f remarkable similarities with the Pythagoreans. Josephus was very well-aware o f these c o n n e c t i o n s a n d stressed them in the Antiquitates. T h e r e
he
wrote a b o u t the Essenes: " T h i s is a g r o u p , w h i c h follows a w a y o f life taught to the Greeks b y Pythagoras."
22
H e r e Josephus explicidy
1 9
Cf. A . A d a m , Antike Berichte über die Essener (Kleine T e x t e für Vorlesungen und Ü b u n g e n 182; 2 n d ed. rev. C h . Burchard; Berlin, 1972), N r . 8, 3 9 , 2 3 ; on Synesius cf. Bauer, "Essener," P W Suppl. 4 : 3 8 6 - 4 3 0 , esp. 4 1 1 . 2 0
2 1
Nat.
5 . 7 3 (Rackham,
L C L ) : gens (. . .) in toto orbe praeter ceteras mira.
T . Rajak, "Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe vide: Josephus and the* Essenes," in Josephus and the History qf the Greco-Roman Period. Essays in Memory of M. Smith (ed. F. Parente a n d j . Sievers; Leiden, 1994), 1 4 1 - 6 0 , esp. 1 4 4 , 158. A.J. 15.371 (Marcus, L C L ) : yevoq 8è xovx' eoxiv Öiaixn xpcóuevov xr\ icap' "EÀÀTIGIV 2 2
JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF THE ESSENIAN MORNING PRAYER
251
equated the Essenes and the Pythagorean philosophers. In b o t h o f his main works, the Bellum and the Antiquitates, he assumed the Essenes to b e a b r a n d o f Jewish Pythagoreans. T h i s equation also shaped his description o f Essenian prayer life and it might help to understand w h y e x a c d y the Jewish historian reports in his o w n w o r d s a b o u t a "peculiar" m o r n i n g prayer o f the Essenes: " T h e i r piety towards the Deity takes a peculiar form. Before the sun is up they utter n o w o r d o n m u n d a n e matters, but offer to h i m certain prayers, w h i c h have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n from their forefathers, as though entreating h i m 23
to
rise."
In this passage, Josephus p r o b a b l y thought o f the tradi2
tional Jewish m o r n i n g prayer that c o u l d b e the Shema. * T h i s might be indicated b y the w o r d s " w h i c h have b e e n h a n d e d d o w n
from
their forefathers." H o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s describes a prayer to the sun "entreating h i m to rise." It appears that Josephus w a n t e d to bring Essenian prayer in line with p a g a n veneration o f the sun g o d . It p r o b a b l y w o u l d b e best explained b y the fact that Josephus intentionally
refers to Pythagorean prayers. It c a n also b e assumed, that
the Jewish historian used the same p a g a n source that was also read b y D i o and Pliny for m o d e l i n g his report after Pythagoreanism. F o r apologetic reasons, he wanted to characterize exemplary piety o f the Essenes and thus described them in a sense that his philosophically educated G r e e k readers w o u l d c o m p r e h e n d . In fact, he did n o t even d e v e l o p the Pythagorean f o r m o f his description. Pagans
already
c o m p l e t e d this process o f acculturation. Josephus simply a d o p t e d their results and fitted them into the frame o f his historical w o r k .
25
-07CÒ n\)0ayópo\) K(XT(xôeÔ£iY(iévTi; cf. Bauer, "Essener," 3 9 6 ; R . Bergmeier, Die EssenerBerichte des Flavius Josephus. Historiographen ( K a m p e n , 2 3
B.J.
Quellenstudien zu den Essenertexten
im
Werk des jüdischen
1993), 8 2 .
2 . 1 2 8 (Thackeray,
LCL):
npóc
ye UTJV TÒ Geîov evaeßeic iôicoç- npìv
yàp
à v a a x e î v xòv r\Xiov oùôèv (pÔéyyovxai xcov ßeßr|Xxov,rcaxpCo-ucôé xivaç eiç aùxòv eùxàç, cooTtep ÌK£xet>ovxec àvaxeîtaxi; cf. Bauer, "Essener," 4 0 0 ; E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung 3. Teil, 2. Abteilung. Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, 2. Hälfte, (Darmstadt, 1963), 3 3 4 , 3 6 8 ; Lévy, La légende, 1 3 2 , 2 7 7 ; C h . Burchard, "Die Essener bei Hippolyt. Hippolyt, Ref. DC 18, 2 - 2 8 , 2 und Josephus, Bell. 2., 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 , " JSJ
8 (1977): 1 - 4 1 , esp. 3 5 ; Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte, 8 4 - 8 5 , 9 6 ; W . Fauth,
"Salutatio Solis orientis. Z u einer Form der Heliolatrie bei Pythagoreern, Manichäer, Therapeuten
und
Essener," in
H . Cancik, H . Lichtenberger,
Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion.
FS M.
Hengel
(ed.
P. Schäfer; vol. 2 , Griechische und Römische Religion ed.
H . Cancik; Tübingen, 1996), 4 1 - 5 4 , esp. 5 2 - 5 3 ; Rajak, "Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe," 145. 2 4
T . S. Beali, Josephus' Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls
( S N T S M S 58; Cambridge, 2 5
1988), 5 2 .
G . Hölscher, 'Josephus," P W 9, cols. 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 , esp. 1991; Mendels, "Hellenistic
Utopia," 2 0 8 - 2 0 9 .
252
NICLAS FÖRSTER
Josephus p r o b a b l y had another reason for c o n n e c t i n g the Essenes with the Pythagoreans. N a m e l y , the Pythagoreans possessed a special affinity with the N e a r East. M a n y authors o f antiquity related
the
story o f Pythagoras' visit to Egypt. H e went there in order to acquaint himself with the w i s d o m o f the priests. S o m e o f these p a g a n authors also r e p o r t e d a b o u t contacts o f Pythagoras to J e w i s h wise m e n . Josephus was very well aware o f this alleged d e p e n d e n c e o f Pythagoras o n the Jews, w h i c h he found in pagan sources. H e also cleverly used its apologetic potential for his o w n purposes. T h i s is p r o v e d b y an explicit quotation in his Contra Apionem that he found in the works o f the G r e e k philosopher a n d grammarian H e r m i p p u s .
26
T h e latter
claimed that Pythagoras "was imitating and appropriating the d o c trines o f J e w s a n d T h r a c i a n s . "
27
J o s e p h u s q u o t e d this passage to
p r o v e the superiority o f the Jewish religion. It influenced the history o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y from its beginning. T h e r e f o r e he also n a m e d Pythagoras as a m a n w h o expressly a d m i r e d the J e w s .
28
Certainly it
suggested itself to Josephus, that he ought to underpin this b o l d claim b y binding the Essenes to the Pythagoreans. But Josephus smardy a v o i d e d making the Essenes Pythagoras' teachers because he did not want to b e c o m e mired in chronological contradictions. Josephus m e n tioned the Essenes for the first time in his Antiquitates during the reign o f J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n ( 1 6 1 - 1 4 3 B . C E . ) .
2 9
T h i s passage suggests
that Josephus k n e w that the Essenes originated in the s e c o n d c e n tury B . C E . Pythagoras c o u l d n o t have personally associated with the Essenes, because he lived and died in the sixth century B . C E . Therefore, Josephus left the exact form o f the mutual relation between Essenes a n d Pythagoreans very m u c h in the dark. T o c o n c l u d e m y paper, I wish to stress the following points: T h e passages o f Josephus q u o t e d a b o v e m a y suggest that a p a g a n ideal, involving a m o n g other aspects, the m o r n i n g prayer to the rising sun,
2 6
O n Hermippus cf. Heibges, "Hermippos, der Kallimacheer," P W 8, cols. 8 4 5 -
5 2 , esp. 8 4 6 - 4 7 , 8 5 1 ; D o r n e , "Der nachklassische Pythagoreismus," 2 6 9 ; F. Montanari, "Hermippos 2 7
C. Ap.
aus Smyrna," DNP 1.165 (Thackeray,
5 , cols. 4 3 9 - 4 0 , esp. 4 3 9 . L C L ) : xauxa 8e ercpaxxe K a i ekeye xaq 'IovÖalcov K a i
OpaKGw 86^a<; uxuouuevoq K a i uexa
C. Ap. 1.162 (Thackeray, L C L ) ; cf. H . H . Bietenhard, "Die Handschriftenfunde
v o m T o t e n M e e r (Hirbet Q u m r a n ) und die Essener-Frage. D i e Funde in der W ü s t e Juda," ANRWIU9A:
7 0 4 - 7 8 , esp. 7 2 9 ; M . Smith, " T h e Occult in Josephus," in
Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. L . H . Feldman 2 3 6 - 5 6 , esp. 2 4 9 . 2 9
A.J.
13.171-172.
and G . H a t a ; Leiden,
1987),
JOSEPHUS' DESCRIPTION OF THE ESSENIAN MORNING PRAYER
253
was deliberately adapted b y a Jewish author and used for an a p o l o getic description o f his o w n religion. T h i s adaptation m a y also b e an interesting indication o f the Hellenization o f a Jewish author like Josephus, w h o shaped his description o f the Essenes in a c c o r d a n c e with p a g a n literary m o d e l s . T h e possible influence o f a p a g a n liter 5
ary Vorlage o n J o s e p h u s presentation o f the Essenes a n d other Jewish groups should b e discussed b y further
research.
PART FOUR
HISTORIES AND HISTORY
WER DIENT WEM? DIE D A R S T E L L U N G DES FLAVISCHEN T R I U M P H Z U G E S A U F D E M T I T U S B O G E N U N D BEI J O S E P H U S {B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 ) BARBARA
EBERHARDT
UNIVERSITÄT E R L A N G E N
1.
EINLEITUNG
Z w e i H a u p t d o k u m e n t e gibt es, die d e n T r i u m p h z u g der Flavier anlässlich des Sieges über das j ü d i s c h e V o l k b e z e u g e n : z u m einen den literarischen Bericht des Flavius Josephus in BJ. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 , z u m anderen die bekannten Reliefs i m D u r c h g a n g des Titusbogens, die heute n o c h i m Osten des F o r u m R o m a n u m b e w u n d e r t w e r d e n k ö n 1
nen. D i e beiden Zeugnisse erzählen die Geschichte des Triumphzuges auf ganz unterschiedliche W e i s e . I m folgenden sollen die spezifischen Aussagerichtungen der Triumphzugsdarstellungen auf d e m Titusbogen und bei Josephus unter Beachtung des jeweiligen Kontexts heraus gearbeitet w e r d e n . Z u v o r gehe ich j e d o c h kurz auf d e n historischen Hintergrund d e r römischen T r i u m p h z ü g e ein.
2.
Zu
GESCHICHTE UND BEDEUTUNG
DES TRIUMPHZUGES
2.1. Geschichte D e r T r i u m p h z u g ist eine alte römische Tradition, deren A n f a n g e umstritten sind. Teilweise wird er a u f ein altes etruskisches Neujahrs und Inthronisationsfest
zurückgeführt,
2
teilweise auf ein latinisches
1
Korrekterweise sind noch die Erwähnungen des Triumphzuges bei Cassius D i o 6 6 , 1 2 u n d in den Kaiserbiografien Suetons (Vesp. 8; Tit. 6; Dom. 2) zu nennen. D a diese j e d o c h nur äußerst knapp und beiläufig sind, ist es m . E . legitim, sich auf die beiden erwähnten Zeugnisse zu beschränken. 2
V o r allem Versnel vertrat die T h e s e , dass die W u r z e l n des römischen T r i u m p h s in einem vorderasiatischen Neujahrsfest zu finden seien, in d e m der K ö n i g als Teil der Gottheit agierte. Vermittelt über die Etrusker sei das Fest bei den R ö m e r n zu einem Siegesfest entmythologisiert w o r d e n . V g l . d a z u H e n d r i k S i m o n V e r s n e l , Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 , 3 9 6 - 9 7 und pass.
258
BARBARA EBERHARDT
Ritual.
3
A l l e m A n s c h e i n nach g a b es T r i u m p h z ü g e s c h o n seit der 4
römischen K ö n i g s z e i t . D a v o n zeugen auch die so genannten fasti triumphales, steinerne Listen, die früher an d e n Hauptpfeilern des dreitorigen Augustusbogens n e b e n d e m Caesartempel angebracht waren und seit d e m 16. Jahrhundert im Conservatorenpalast auf d e m Capitol aufbewahrt w e r d e n . Sie sind eine -
teilweise fiktive - Aufzählung
5
der T r i u m p h a t o r e n v o n R o m u l u s bis Lucius Cornelius Baibus, der 19 v . C h r . für seinen Sieg in Africa mit einem T r i u m p h z u g geehrt w u r d e . A u c h w e n n viele A n g a b e n nicht historisch sind, zeugen die fasti v o n einer langen Triumphzugstradition, die zur Zeit des Augustus eine besondere Wertschätzung erfuhr.
6
W a r e n die römischen T r i u m p h z ü g e zunächst wahrscheinlich Feiern, die anlässlich eines Sieges zu Ehren Jupiters abgehalten w u r d e n , so vermischte sich i m Laufe d e r Zeit die V e r e h r u n g des r ö m i s c h e n Hauptgottes mit der V e r e h r u n g des T r i u m p h a t o r s .
7
In d e r spätre
publikanischen und kaiserlichen Zeit entwickelte sich der T r i u m p h z u g zu einer spektakulären Großveranstaltung. Er w u r d e zur Inszenierung der M a c h t des R ö m i s c h e n Weltreiches und des Imperators. I m Mittel punkt der „ S h o w " stand i m m e r m e h r die Überfülle der zur Schau 8
gestellten erbeuteten Schätze. D e r letzte T r i u m p h z u g fand 303 unter Kaiser Diocletian statt.
3
V g l . W a l t h e r Eder, „ T r i u m p h , T r i u m p h z u g , " DNP
4
Livius (1,38,3) u n d Plutarch (Rom.
Triumphzugstradition
1 2 / 1 (2002), 8 3 6 - 3 7 .
16,8) verbanden den Beginn der römischen
mit d e m fünften römischen K ö n i g Tarquinius Priscus (6. Jh.
v.Chr.); vgl. A m b r o s J. Pfiffig, „Tarquinius," Der kleine Pauly 5 (1979), 5 2 4 - 2 6 ; bes. 5 2 5 . N a c h Ernst K ü n z l (Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom. Beck,
1 9 8 8 , 9 7 ) , hat sich „die uns kenndiche Fassung des
Triumphes
München: mit
dem
T r i u m p h a t o r in der Q u a d r i g a und d e m O p f e r an Iuppiter auf d e m C a p i t o l . . . aller Wahrscheinlichkeit
nach unter den etruskischen Tarquinierkönigen
R o m s im 6. Jh.
v . C h r . herausgebildet". 5
Romulus
unternahm nach Plutarch (Rom.
1 6 , 5 - 6 ) mit seinem H e e r zu
Fuß
einen T r i u m p h m a r s c h durch die Stadt R o m und wurde so der erste T r i u m p h a t o r , auch wenn es sich noch nicht u m einen eigenüichen T r i u m p h ^ handelte. 6
Z u den Triumphalfasti
vgl. K ü n z l , Triumph, 5 8 - 6 1 ; G e o r g Schön, „Fasti," P W
6 : 2 0 1 5 - 4 6 , bes. 2 0 4 3 ff. 7
V g l . z.B. Livius, 5 , 2 3 , 5 ; Eder, „ T r i u m p h , " 8 3 7 ; K ü n z l , Triumph, 9 4 - 9 6 .
8
V g l . M a r y Beard, „ T h e T r i u m p h of Flavius Josephus," in: Flavian Rome. Culture,
Image, Text, (hg. von A . J. Boyle und W . J. Dominik), Leiden: .Brill, 2 0 0 3 , 5 4 3 - 5 8 , insbes. 5 5 1 - 5 2 ; K ü n z l , Triumph, 109.
259
WER DIENT WEM?
2.2. Quellen D i e antiken Q u e l l e n ü b e r T r i u m p h z ü g e sind nicht sehr zahlreich. M e h r m a l s berichtet Plutarch (ca. 5 0 - 1 2 0 n.Chr.) über T r i u m p h z ü g e , ebenso S u e t o n Diodor
1 1
10
9
(* ca. 70 n.Chr.). Einzelne Berichte finden sich bei
(1. J h . v.Chr.), Livius
12
(2. J h . n.Chr.) u n d Cassius D i o
(ca. 5 9 v . C h r - 1 7 n.Chr.), A p p i a n 1 4
1 3
(ca. 1 5 5 - c a . 235 n.Chr.).
D i e Schilderung des T r i u m p h z u g e s der Flavier 71 n.Chr. d u r c h Josephus ist der einzige erhaltene Bericht eines Zeitgenossen über einen Triumphzug. Allein deshalb, aber auch wegen seiner relativen Ausführ lichkeit, ist er v o n g r o ß e r Bedeutung, die oft unterschätzt w u r d e .
15
Offen bleibt allerdings die Frage, o b Josephus tatsächlich A u g e n z e u g e des T r i u m p h z u g e s w a r ,
16
u n d w e n n j a , an w e l c h e m O r t er das
Schauspiel erlebte. W a r er einfacher Z u s c h a u e r ? O d e r waren seine V e r b i n d u n g e n mit der kaiserlichen Familie bereits so weit gediehen, dass er einen Ehrenplatz zugewiesen bekam? O d e r war er, ganz anders, einer der zur Schau gestellten jüdischen Gefangenen? W i e auch i m m e r
9
Rom.
1 6 , 5 - 8 (über den sagenhaften
T r i u m p h z u g des R o m u l u s im J a h r
v . C h r . , den dieser noch zu F u ß begangen
haben soll); Marc.
753
2 2 , 1 - 4 (über einen
T r i u m p h z u g des M a r c u s Claudius Marcellus 2 1 1 v . C h r . außerhalb R o m s in Albanerbergen, sowie über einen „abgespeckten" T r i u m p h z u g in R o m , die
den soge
nannte ovatio)', Aem. 3 2 , 2 - 3 4 , 8 (über den T r i u m p h z u g des Lucius Aemilius Paullus, 167 v.Chr.); Crass. 1 1 , 7 - 8 (über die ovatio des M a r c u s Licinius Crassus 71 v.Chr.); Luc. 3 7 , 1 - 4 (über den T r i u m p h z u g des Lucius Licinius Lucullus 6 3 v.Chr.); Pomp. 45
(über den
zweitägigen
T r i u m p h z u g des P o m p e i u s
61 v . C h r . ) ; Caes. 5 5 , 1 - 4
( S u m m a r i u m über drei T r i u m p h z ü g e Caesars 4 6 v.Chr.). 1 0
Caes. 3 7 . 4 9 . 5 1 ( S u m m a r i u m über fünf T r i u m p h e des C a e s a r , sowie
Einzelheiten aus dessen T r i u m p h über die Gallier 4 5 v.Chr.); 7ib.
einige
1 7 . 2 0 (über den
T r i u m p h z u g des Tiberius 12 n.Chr.); Nero 2 5 (über den Einzug Neros in R o m , der gewisse Ähnlichkeiten mit einem T r i u m p h z u g hatte). 11
D i o d o r 3 1 , 7 , 9 - 1 2 (über den T r i u m p h z u g des Lucius Aemilius Paullus
167
v.Chr.). 1 2
Livius
Flaminius, 1 3
3 4 , 5 2 , 2 - 1 2 (über den
dreitägigen
T r i u m p h z u g des Titus
Quinctius
1 9 4 v.Chr.).
Appian, Hist. rom. 1 2 , 1 7 , 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 (über den Triumphzug des Pompeius 61 v.Chr.).
1 4
Cassius D i o 5 1 , 2 1 , 2 - 2 2 , 3 (über die T r i u m p h z ü g e des Octavian 2 9 v . C h r . ) .
1 5
V g l . dazu Beard, „ T r i u m p h , " 5 4 4 ff.
1 6
W i l h e l m W e b e r (Josephus und Vespasian. Untersuchungen zu dem Jüdischen Krieg des
Flavius Josephus,
Berlin: K o h l h a m m e r ,
T e i l n a h m e des Josephus Josephus
1921, 283-84),
beispielsweise scheint
die
am T r i u m p h z u g anzuzweifeln,
indem er den Bericht
des
über den T r i u m p h z u g als nachlässiges Abschreiben aus einer
Quelle qualifiziert.
A u c h O t t o M i c h e l und O t t o Bauernfeind
anderen
(Flavius Josephus: De
Bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg, Zweisprachige Ausgabe der sieben Bücher, B a n d Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche
Buchgesellschaft,
11,2,
1 9 6 9 , 2 4 2 [Exkurs X X ] ) , n e h m e n
an, dass Josephus beim T r i u m p h z u g nicht anwesend war, da er sonst „eine unglück liche Rolle gespielt hätte".
260
BARBARA EBERHARDT
m a n diese Fragen beantwortet, es dürfte unumstritten sein, dass Josephus bestens über die Ereignisse u m d e n T r i u m p h z u g informiert war. N e b e n d e n Berichten ü b e r T r i u m p h z ü g e in d e r Literatur finden sich auch Darstellungen in der Kunst, v o r allem in Reliefform. Es handelt sich dabei in der R e g e l u m zeitgenössische Darstellungen. V o r allem aus der Kaiserzeit stammen die erhaltenen
Darstellungen
v o n Triumphzügen sowie viele Kunstwerke mit der Triumphalsymbolik d e r V i c t o r i e n u n d T r o p h ä e n . Unter Augustus bildete sich die V o r stellung v o m Kaiser als e w i g e m T r i u m p h a t o r heraus.
17
Ebenfalls unter
Augustus w u r d e V i c t o r i a auf Statuen, Reliefs, G e m m e n u n d M ü n z e n z u m S y m b o l der Unbesiegbarkeit R o m s . D i e Identität v o n R o m u n d Sieg w u r d e so bei vielen M e n s c h e n i m Bewusstsein verankert.
18
2.3. Der Verlauf eines Triumphzuges W i e die genannten Q u e l l e n zeigen, hatten T r i u m p h z ü g e meist einen ähnlichen Verlauf. D a s H e e r übernachtete
samt d e m siegreichen
Feldherrn in Zelten oder in Gebäuden auf d e m Marsfeld, das außerhalb der römischen Stadtgrenze l a g .
19
D o r t stellte sich der Z u g a m näch
sten M o r g e n auf. D u r c h das T r i u m p h t o r w u r d e die Stadt betreten.
20
D e r W e g führte durch die G e m ü s e - und Viehmärkte a m T i b e r [forum holitorium u n d forum boarium) z u m Circus m a x i m u s , u m d e n Palatin h e r u m u n d über das F o r u m R o m a n u m bis z u m Capitol, w o v o r d e m Jupitertempel
ein abschließendes O p f e r dargebracht
wurde.
21
N a c h diesem offiziellen E n d e des Z u g e s w a r e n weitere A k t i o n e n obligatorisch. D a z u gehörte die Veranstaltung eines M a h l s für aus gewählte Gäste, sowie oft auch G e l d z u w e n d u n g e n an Soldaten u n d römische B ü r g e r .
1 7
22
D a s erste Forum, das von Triumphalsymbolik
2 v . C h r . eingeweihte Augustusforum, des Augustus in der Triumphalquadriga 1 8
1 9
das
beherrscht war, war das im Jahr
in dessen Mitte sich vermudich ein Standbild befand, ein Zeichen seines ewigen Triumphes.
V g l . K ü n z l , Triumph, pass. Für den Feldherrn stand das große G e b ä u d e der villa publica zur Heer
übernachtete w o h l in Zeltlagern,
in der Kaiserzeit auch in
Verfügung, Theatern,
Stadien und T h e r m e n , die auf d e m Marsfeld errichtet worden waren; vgl.
Künzl,
Triumph, 3 2 ff. 2 0
Der
zeitweise in der
Forschung beliebten T h e s e ,
es
handle sich bei
dem
Durchzug
durch das T r i u m p h t o r in die Stadt u m ein Reinigungsritual, ist bereits
mehrfach
widersprochen worden, da es im Prinzip keine Belege dafür gibt. V g l .
dazu K ü n z l , Triumph, 4 1 - 4 2 . 2 1
V g l . K ü n z l , Triumph, 1 6 . 8 2 ; Eder, „ T r i u m p h , T r i u m p h z u g , " 8 3 7 - 3 8 mit Karte
und Legende, 2 2
8 3 9 ff.
V g l . K ü n z l , Triumph, 8 3 - 8 4 .
261
WER DIENT WEM?
I m ersten T e i l des Z u g e s w u r d e die Beute des Feldzuges samt den G e f a n g e n e n zur S c h a u gestellt. A u c h Bilder v o m K a m p f , einige Soldaten, v o r allem verdiente Offiziere, u n d die O p f e r d e r e befanden sich in d e n verschiedenen G r u p p i e r u n g e n dieses Zugteils, der - wie K ü n z l a n n i m m t - „nicht schematisch gruppiert, sondern d u r c h das notwendige Personal, die T r ä g e r d e r Anzeigetafeln, d u r c h die einge fügten T r i u m p h a l g e m ä l d e u n d andere M o t i v e aufgelockert"
23
war.
I m zweiten T e i l folgte der T r i u m p h a t o r mit d e n Behördenvertretern, im dritten T e i l schließlich marschierten T e i l e der Lieder singenden A r m e e hinterher.
24
N e b e n d e n einfachen T r i u m p h z ü g e n , die nur einen T a g dauerten, g a b es - gerade in der Zeit der späten R e p u b l i k - auch mehrtägige.
25
D i e Z u s c h a u e r m e n g e zur Kaiserzeit wird v o n K ü n z l auf 3 0 0 0 0 0 bis 4 0 0 0 0 0 geschätzt.
26
2.4. Der Triumphzug der Flavier 71 n.Chr. In der zweiten Junihälfte des Jahres 71 n.Chr. feierte Kaiser Vespasian z u s a m m e n mit seinem S o h n Titus, der sich i m Jüdischen K r i e g als erfolgreicher Feldherr erwiesen hatte, in prunkvoller W e i s e d e n Sieg ü b e r die J u d e n . D a b e i präsentierten sich die b e i d e n siegreichen Militärführer auf den für Triumphatoren üblichen Quadrigen, während der j ü n g e r e S o h n Vespasians, D o m i t i a n , a u f einem Pferd n e b e n h e r ritt. D e r T r i u m p h z u g w a r somit nicht nur, wie sonst üblich, die Siegesfeier eines einzelnen Imperators, sondern gleichzeitig eine gut inszenierte Inthronisationsfeier der neuen flavischen Dynastie.
2 3
2 4
27
K ü n z l , Triumph, 7 9 . In
der
K a i s e r z e i t dürfte
Abordnungen
die
Armee
bestanden haben; vgl. K ü n z l ,
Triumphzugsabfolge
findet
sich bei M i c h a e l
meist n u r
aus
Truppenteilen
oder
Triumph, 8 1 . Eine etwas detailliertere Pfanner (Der Titusbogen, Beiträge
zur
Erschließung hellenistischer u n d kaiserzeidicher Skulptur und Architektur 2 , M a i n z : Philipp von Z a b e r n , den
flavischen
1 9 8 3 , 8 6 ) , der sich j e d o c h vor allem auf die D o k u m e n t e über
Triumphzug
stützt.
2 5
V g l . z.B. Livius 3 4 , 5 2 , 2 - 1 2 ; Plutarch, Aem.
2 6
V g l . K ü n z l , Triumph, 7 2 .
2 7
M a r y Beard nennt es in einem originellen Vergleich mit heutigen Z e r e m o n i e n
32,2-34,8.
„the official launch party and press night o f the Flavian dynasty" (Beard, „ T r i u m p h , " 5 4 8 ) . Z u r Bedeutung des Triumphzugs s. auch M a r i o n
Roehmer,
römischen Ehrenbögen des 1. Jhs. 28), M ü n c h e n :
für die Einführung der ur
Der Bogen als Staatsmonument. Z
flavischen
Dynastie
politischen Bedeutung der
n.Chr. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken W e l t
tuduv, 1 9 9 7 , 2 1 9 - 2 1 , 2 4 9 .
262 3.
BARBARA EBERHARDT
D I E DARSTELLUNG DES TRIUMPHZUGES AUF DEM TITUSBOGEN
D e m nur zwei J a h r e als Kaiser regierenden Vespasianssohn Titus waren in R o m mindestens zwei E h r e n b ö g e n
28
gebaut w o r d e n . Einen
d a v o n ließ Titus selbst 8 0 / 8 1 a m Südostende des Circus m a x i m u s errichten. D i e nur in einer Abschrift erhaltene Bogeninschrift verkün dete d e n Sieg des Titus ü b e r das „ V o l k der J u d e n " .
29
Berühmt ist der zweite, erhaltene Titusbogen, der heute n o c h östlich des F o r u m R o m a n u m zu sehen ist. Er w u r d e p o s t h u m für Titus errichtet, vermutlich durch seinen Bruder D o m i t i a n .
30
D i e neuere For
schung ist sich einig darüber, dass das Ziel des B o g e n s die Heraus stellung der V e r g ö t d i c h u n g des Titus ist.
31
Dies wird z u m einen durch
die Bogeninschrift d e u d i c h , die die Gottheit der b e i d e n verstorbenen Flavier unterstreicht: S E N A T U S P O P U L U S Q U E R O M A N U S D I V O TITO
DIVI VESPASIANI F VESPASIANO A U G U S T O
(Senat
u n d V o l k v o n R o m d e m g ö t d i c h e n Titus Vespasianus Augustus, d e m S o h n des g ö t d i c h e n Vespasianus). Z u m anderen ist i m Scheitelrelief des B o g e n d u r c h g a n g e s die A p o t h e o s e des Titus dargestellt. Eine d e n B o g e n passierende Person, die d e n Blick n a c h o b e n erhebt, sieht die A b b i l d u n g der Himmelfahrt des Titus a u f d e m R ü c k e n eines Adlers.
2 8
D i e Bezeichnung „ E h r e n b o g e n " eignet sich besser als der T e r m i n u s „ T r i u m p h b o g e n " zur Erhellung der Bedeutung des Bogens in der flavischen Zeit. V g l . Plinius d. Ä . , Nat. 3 4 , 2 7 : „ D e r Sinn der Säulen war es, die sterblichen M e n s c h e n über die anderen hinauszuheben, und derselbe Sinn liegt den Bögen zugrunde, die ein neuerer Entwurf sind." Z u r Bedeutung von T r i u m p h b ö g e n als offizielle politische M o n u m e n t e , die unter den verschiedenen Kaisern seit Augustus bestimmte Botschaften vermit telten vgl. R ö h m e r , Bogen, pass. 2 9
CIL V I 9 4 4 . D i e Abschrift stammt aus d e m 9. Jh. U n d lautet nach der Ü b e r setzung Künzls: Senat und Volk von Rom, dem Imperator Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, dem Sohn des vergöttlichten Vespasianus, dem höchsten Priester, zum zehnten Mal Inhaber der tribunizischen Gewalt, zum siebzehnten Mal imperator, zum achten Mal consul, dem Vater des Vaterlandes, seinem princeps: weil er nach Vorschrift und Anweisung und unter der Oberleitung seines Vaters das Volk der Juden bezwang und die auf ihn von allen Feldherrn, Königen und Völkern entweder vergeblich belagerte oder gar nicht angegriffene Stadt Hierosolyma [Jerusalem] zerstört hat. Z u Bogen und Inschrift vgl. H a n s Ulrich Institinsky, „ D e r R u h m des Titus," Phil 9 7 (1948), 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 ; K ü n z l , Triumph, 1 6 - 1 9 ; R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 3 4 - 4 3 . 3 0
Eine genaue Datierung des Bogens aufgrund äußerer Merkmale ist nicht möglich. Es ist j e d o c h wahrscheinlich, dass D o m i t i a n den Titusbogen in der Anfangszeit seiner Regierung errichten ließ, u m durch die Ehrung seines vergötdichten Bruders seine eigene Machtposition zu stärken. V g l . dazu Pfanner, Titusbogen, 9 1 - 9 2 ; Roehmer, Bogen, 2 5 7 - 2 5 9 . 3 1
V g l . Pfanner, Titusbogen, 9 8 - 9 9 ; K ü n z l , Triumph, 2 1 ; R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 5 8 ; J o h n Henderson, "Par O p e r i Sedes: M r s . Arthur Strong and Flavian Style, the A r c h o f Titus and the Cancelleria Reliefs," in: Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text (hg. von A . J. Boyle und W . J. Dominik), Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 , 2 2 9 - 5 4 , insbes. 2 3 7 .
263
WER DIENT WEM?
D i e b e i d e n Reliefs i m B o g e n d u r c h g a n g zeigen p r o g r a m m g e m ä ß ein Ereignis i m L e b e n des Titus, das seine E r h e b u n g zur Gottheit bereits ankündigt: den T r i u m p h z u g der Flavier nach d e m Krieg gegen das jüdische V o l k im Jahr 71 n . C h r . w a n d ist Titus als T r i u m p h a t o r
32
A u f der nördlichen Bogeninnen-
a u f der Q u a d r i g a zu sehen, das
Relief der südlichen B o g e n i n n e n w a n d zeigt die Präsentation der j ü d i schen Beutestücke. Beide Reliefs sollen im folgenden auf ihre Intention hin untersucht
w e r d e n . D a b e i sollen v o r allem die theologischen
Implikationen berücksichtigt w e r d e n . 3.1. Das "Triumphatorenrelief' Das Hauptthema
des „ T r i u m p h a t o r e n r e l i e f s " ist unzweifelhaft
der
Imperator Titus selbst, der auf der T r i u m p h a t o r e n q u a d r i g a steht. Er ist v o n z w ö l f L i k t o r e n
33
u m g e b e n , die an ihren mit L o r b e e r u m w u n
d e n e n R u t e n b ü n d e l n , d e n sogenannten fasces, erkennbar sind. D i e Liktoren repräsentieren d e n Magistrat, die fasces sind S y m b o l e ihrer Amtsgewalt. Ein römischer Herrscher hatte das R e c h t , v o n z w ö l f Liktoren begleitet zu werden. Dass Titus v o n dieser maximalen Anzahl v o n Liktoren u m g e b e n dargestellt wird, betont die Ehre, die i h m erwiesen wird. A u f der rechten Seite des Reliefs sind drei Personen in traditioneller T o g a abgebildet. D a b e i handelt es sich wahrscheinlich u m Vertreter der B e h ö r d e n .
34
V o r ihnen befindet sich ein Jüngling mit nacktem
Oberkörper, der den Imperator neben d e m W a g e n begleitet. Aufgrund des Kontextes u n d durch V e r g l e i c h e mit anderen Darstellungen ist seine Identifizierung mit H o n o s , d e m römischen G o t t der Ehre, nahe liegend,
35
zumal H o n o s a u c h a u f d e m wesdichen Schlussstein des
Bogens zu sehen ist.
3 2
36
D e r römische G o t t d e r Ehre ist somit a u f d e m
D e r Triumphzug ist auch T h e m a des langgezogenen Frieses über dem
Durchgang;
s. dazu Pfanner, Titusbogen, 8 2 - 9 0 ; K ü n z l , Triumph, 2 1 - 2 4 . 3 3
Liktoren nannte m a n die Amtsdiener des Magistrats, deren Aufgaben vor allem
die Begleitung der Beamten,
den Strafvollzug und den Opferdienst
umfassten; vgl.
Gerhard Schrot, „Lictor", Der kleine Pauly 3 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 6 4 5 - 4 6 . 3 4
Vgl. Künzl,
Triumph, 8 8 : D e r T r i u m p h a t o r
Prätoren, Quästoren
w u r d e meistens von
Konsuln,
Äcülen und Senatoren begleitet. Pfanner, Titusbogen, 7 1 , zieht
auch persönliche Begleiter des zukünftigen Kaisers in Betracht. 3 5
G e g e n die in der älteren Forschung verbreitet M e i n u n g , die Gestalt repräsen
tiere den
Genius Populi R o m a n i ,
argumentiert überzeugend Pfanner,
6 9 - 7 1 . I h m folgen K ü n z l , Triumph, 2 2 , und R o e h m e r , 3()
V g l . Pfanner, Titusbogen, 8 1 - 8 2 , 9 8 .
Bogen, 2 5 5 .
Titusbogen,
264
BARBARA EBERHARDT
R e l i e f als Begleiter des Titus dargestellt, allerdings eine E b e n e tiefer als d e r siegreiche I m p e r a t o r : W ä h r e n d T i t u s e r h o b e n ü b e r die M e n s c h e n ringsherum auf d e m W a g e n fahrt, läuft der Gott nebenher. D i e einzige Person, die sich mit Titus auf der Q u a d r i g a befindet, ist w i e d e r u m eine Gottheit: D i e Siegesgöttin V i c t o r i a , dargestellt mit Doppelflügeln, hält d e m T r i u m p h a t o r d e n g o l d e n e n Siegeskranz, die s o g e n a n n t e Corona
triumphalis aus Eichenblättern
mit B i n d e n
und
Edelsteinen, über d e n K o p f . D a m i t n i m m t sie eine Stelle ein, die b e i m T r i u m p h z u g normalerweise ein Staatssklave
innehatte.
37
Die
Gottheit selbst dient d e m Kaiser dabei, seine Sieghaftigkeit v o r d e m Volk
herauszustellen.
V o r der Q u a d r i g a ist eine weitere Göttin abgebildet. Als G e s p a n n führerin n i m m t auch sie d e n Platz eines Sklaven ein. D a b e i handelt es sich u m V i r t u s ,
38
die Göttin der T u g e n d , die v o r allem M u t u n d
Tapferkeit repräsentiert. Sie unterstützt Titus bei seinem T r i u m p h z u g , wie sie i h m auch bei seinem Feldzug g e g e n das j ü d i s c h e V o l k beige standen hatte. Zusammenfassend kann festgestellt w e r d e n , dass Titus a u f diesem R e l i e f als der d o m i n i e r e n d e Imperator dargestellt wird. Alle anderen Figuren - M e n s c h e n wie G ö t t e r - sind einzig dazu da, ihn zu ehren. D i e drei abgebildeten Gottheiten Victoria, Virtus u n d H o n o s u m g e b e n den späteren Kaiser u n d dienen i h m wie Sklaven ihrem Herrn. Damit ist einerseits angedeutet, dass bereits das irdische L e b e n des Titus g ö t d i c h e D i m e n s i o n e n besaß. Andererseits zeigt das Bild, dass die R ö m e r keine Scheu hatten, G ö t t e r in einer rein d i e n e n d e n Funktion darzustellen. D e r verstorbene Kaiser ist es, d e m auf diesem R e l i e f allein Ehre zuteil wird. 6
3.2. Das „Beuterelief
D a s „Beuterelief" zeigt einen Ausschnitt aus d e m T r i u m p h z u g , der in logistischer Hinsicht der i m „ T r i u m p h a t o r e n r e l i e f "
3 7
dargestellten
Dies ist auch bei anderen kaiserzeitlichen Abbildungen der Fall, so z u m Beispiel
auf einem Marmorrelief v o m
triumphierenden Kaiser M a r c Aurel, das heute im
Konservatorenpalast in R o m zu sehen ist. 3 8
D i e Identifizierung der Gottheit mit Virtus ist aufgrund der
Zusammenstellung
mit Victoria und vor allem H o n o s zwingend. G e g e n die Interpretation, es handle sich bei der Figur u m R o m a , argumentiert überzeugend Pfanner, Titusbogen, 6 7 - 6 9 . Virtus ist ebenfalls, H o n o s
korrespondierend, auf d e m
ösdichen, der Stadt
abge
wandten Schlussstein des Titusbogens abgebildet. Ernst K ü n z l interpretiert, Virtus repräsentiere „das tapfere, pflichtbewußte Verhalten . . . im Felde", H o n o s dagegen „das ehrenvolle . . . Verwalten der Stadt und der Staates" ( K ü n z l , Triumph, 22).
265
WER DIENT WEM?
Szene v o r a u s g e h t .
39
I m Mittelpunkt des Reliefs stehen die prestige
trächtigen Beutestücke aus d e m K r i e g gegen das jüdische V o l k . Sie w e r d e n a u f T r a g e b a h r e n , d e n so genannten fercula, v o n jeweils acht Trägern
40
getragen. A u f Tafeln wird angekündigt, u m welche Objekte
es sich dabei handelt.
41
Das erste, auf der rechten Bildhälfte dargestellte 42
Beutestück ist d e r S c h a u b r o t t i s c h aus d e m Jerusalemer T e m p e l , der zusammen mit zwei Bechern und zwei Posaunen d e m Publikum vorge führt wird. Als nächstes folgt der ebenfalls aus d e m T e m p e l stam 43
m e n d e siebenarmige L e u c h t e r . W e l c h e n Gegenstand das Schild a m linken R a n d des Relief ankündigt, ist unklar, da der Ausschnitt des T r i u m p h z u g s hier endet u n d die Aufschrift nicht erhalten ist. N a c h der Beschreibung des Josephus in BJ. 7 . 1 4 9 - 1 5 0 w ü r d e die T o r a fol gen. Möglicherweise fand sie i m R e l i e f keine Berücksichtigung, weil die Gesetzesrollen für nicht-jüdische Beobachter keine große Kostbarkeit darstellten.
44
3 9
Z u den verschiedenen Triumphzugsteilen s.o. 2.c).
4 0
Beim siebenarmigen Leuchter musste ein T r ä g e r auf d e m Relief ausfallen, da
eine zusätzliche Figur - nach Pfanners V e r m u t u n g ein verdienter Zenturio -
einge
fügt wurde und so für den T r ä g e r kein Platz m e h r war. Pfanner führt diesen k o m positorischen Fehler auf die mangelnde Fähigkeit der für das Relief verantwordichen Künsder zurück, vorgegebene Bildmuster den speziellen Erfordernissen g e m ä ß abzuän dern. V g l . dazu Pfanner, Titusbogen, 5 7 . 4 1
D a die Reliefs ursprünglich bemalt waren, ist davon auszugehen, dass die ersten
Betrachter die Tafelaufschriften
lesen konnten.
H e u t e sind sie wie alle
anderen
Farbspuren verschwunden. V g l . dazu Pfanner, Titusbogen, 5 6 . 7 4 . 4 2
D i e Beschreibung des Schaubrottisches
Josephus, BJ.
7 . 1 4 8 ; A.J.
in E x 2 5 , 2 3 - 3 0 ;
37,10-16
u n d bei
3 . 1 3 9 - 1 4 3 deckt sich in etwa mit der Darstellung auf
d e m Titusbogen. 4 3
I m großen u n d ganzen stimmt die biblische Beschreibung des Leuchters in E x
2 5 , 3 1 - 4 0 ; 3 7 , 1 7 - 2 4 mit der bei Josephus, BJ.
7 . 1 4 8 - 1 4 9 ; AJ.
3 , 1 4 4 - 1 4 6 u n d der
Darstellung im R e l i e f überein. Allerdings fehlt bei den g e n a n n t e n Erläuterung der Gestalt des Leuchterfußes. D e r auf d e m Titusbogen
Texten
die
dargestellte
doppelte achteckige Sockel mit Tierdarstellungen war daher in der Forschungsgeschichte Anlass für eine breite Diskussion. W ä h r e n d er von vielen Forschern als Z e i c h e n der Hellenisierung der Jerusalemer Oberschicht unter den H a s m o n ä e r n gedeutet wurde, unter denen die im Jüdischen K r i e g erbeutete M e n o r a angefertigt wurde, sahen ihn andere als freie künsderische Ä u ß e r u n g des Bildhauers, der das Relief a m Titusbogen geschaffen hatte. Pfanner schließlich argumentierte, der doppelstöckigen Kasten sei überhaupt nicht als Leuchterbasis anzusehen, sondern es handle sich dabei u m ein kunstvoll angefertigtes ferculum, da die Tragestangen durch das untere O k t a g o n hin durchgehen. Z u r Diskussion vgl. W a l t h e r Eltester, „ D e r Siebenarmige Leuchter und der Titusbogen," in: Judentum -
Urchristentum -
Kirche (hg. von W a l t h e r Eltester),
B Z N W 2 6 , Berlin: T ö p e l m a n n , 1 9 6 0 , 6 2 - 7 6 ; T h . A . Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem. 2. Band:
Von Salomo bis Herodes, Leiden: Brill
1 9 8 0 , 1 1 5 8 - 6 0 ; Pfanner, Titusbogen,
7 2 - 7 4 ; Rachel Hachlili, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum. Origin, Form and Signiftcance, JSJSup 6 8 , Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 1 , 4 9 - 5 0 ; Stefan Schreiner, „Leuchter. I. Hebräische Bibel und Judentum," RGG 5 , 4 . Auflage (2002), 2 8 8 - 8 9 (mit Lit.). 4 4
S o K ü n z l , Triumph, 2 7 ; ähnlich Hachlili, Menorah, 5 0 .
266
BARBARA EBERHARDT
D i e b e i d e n Personen i m Bild, die keine F u n k d o n als T r ä g e r der Schilder o d e r der Beutestücke haben - eine davon mit abgeschlagenem K o p f links n e b e n d e r M e n o r a , die andere stark zerstört links n e b e n d e m Schaubrotdsch -
sind wahrscheinlich bekannte Personen, die
i m K r i e g eine wichtige R o l l e gespielt hatten.
45
Erst a u f d e n z w e i t e n Blick lassen sich a u f d e m „ B e u t e r e l i e f " dargestellte Gottheiten erkennen. Sie befinden sich auf d e m B o g e n , der a m rechten R a n d des Reliefs zu sehen ist. Z u m einen ist die Göttin V i c t o r i a i m Archivoltzwickel rechts des B o g e n d u r c h g a n g s abgebildet. In der rechten H a n d hält sie d e n Siegeskranz, in der linken einen Palmzweig. Unter ihren Füßen ist die K r o n e einer Dattelpalme zu erkennen. D i e Palme ist aus M ü n z e n der flavischen Zeit als S y m b o l für den Sieg der R ö m e r in J u d ä a b e k a n n t ,
46
so dass V i c t o r i a hier
wie bereits i m „ T r i u m p h a t o r e n r e l i e f " d e n Sieg d e r Flavier über das jüdische V o l k unterstreicht. D i e zweite abgebildete Göttin befindet sich in der Figurengruppe, die d e n B o g e n bekrönt. D i e G r u p p e besteht aus zwei Q u a d r i g e n , zwischen d e n e n ein Reiter auf seinem Pferd u n d n e b e n i h m eine Frau zu F u ß abgebildet ist. D a die Konstellation d e r zwei Q u a d r i g e n mit Reiter nur aus d e m T r i u m p h z u g d e r Flavier bekannt ist,
47
g e h e n die meisten Forscher zu R e c h t d a v o n aus, dass
hier in anachronistischer Weise die kaiserlichen Farnilie b e i m T r i u m p h z u g dargestellt ist.
48
D e r Reiter kann d a n n mit D o m i t i a n identifiziert
w e r d e n . D a es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass sich b e i m T r i u m p h z u g eine Frau an zentraler Stelle zwischen den T r i u m p h a t o r e n b e w e g t e , muss die weibliche Figur n e b e n D o m i t i a n als Göttin interpretiert w e r d e n .
4 5
Gerhard Kleiner ( „ D e r T r i u m p h des Titus," in: Ahrens, Dieter (Hg.), Festschrift
M a x W e g n e r z u m sechzigsten Geburtstag, Münster: Aschendorff, tuliert, der stark beschädigte
1 9 6 2 , 43) pos
togatus links neben d e m Schaubrottisch,
stelle Kaiser
Vespasian dar. Dies ist j e d o c h unwahrscheinlich da Vespasian als T r i u m p h a t o r auf der Q u a d r i g a stand
u n d nicht bei den
Beutestücken mitlief (so a u c h
Pfanner,
Titusbogen, 75). Kleiners T h e s e , es handle sich bei der dargestellten Szene u m den bei Josephus berichteten Beginn des T r i u m p h z u g s bei der porta triumphalis, ist deshalb abzulehnen,
da der im
Triumphbogen
„Beuterelief"
identifiziert werden
abgebildeten
Bogen
eben
nicht mit
kann; s. dazu u. Z u d e m bestand
Notwendigkeit,
Vespasian auf d e m Bogen besonders herauszuheben,
eindeutig den
vergöttlichten T i t u s
ehrte
und
nicht V e s p a s i a n
auch
dem keine
da der Bogen
(gegen
Kleiner,
„Triumph," 43). 4 6
V g l . dazu Jane M . C o d y , "Conquerors and C o n q u e r e d on Flavian Coins," in:
Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text, (hg. von A . J. Boyle und W . J. Dominik), Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ,
1 0 3 - 1 2 3 , insbes.
107-8.
4 7
V g l . Josephus, B.J.
4 8
So z.B. Eltester, „Leuchter," 7 0 A . 1 6 ; Kleiner, „ T r i u m p h , " 4 2 ; Pfanner, Titusbogen,
7 . 1 5 2 ; Sueton, Dom., 2; Cassius D i o 6 5 , 1 2 .
7 2 ; R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 5 5 .
267
WER DIENT WEM?
D i e Darstellung ist allerdings nicht eindeutig genug, u m ihre Identität zu klären.
49
D i e Aussage ist j e d o c h klar: D i e flavische Familie w u r d e
bei i h r e m T r i u m p h z u g v o n Gottheiten begleitet u n d unterstützt. D i e D e u t u n g der Figurengruppe a u f der Attika als die flavischen Triumphatoren gibt Aufschluss darüber, wie der Bogen i m Hintergrund des Reliefs zu verstehen ist. D a nicht d a v o n auszugehen ist, dass i m J a h r 71 bereits ein T r i u m p h b o g e n für die Flavier errichtet w o r d e n war, e b e n s o w e n i g eine Umgestaltung der porta triumphalis d u r c h eine neue B o g e n k r ö n u n g in Betracht k o m m t , handelt es sich bei d e m B o g e n a u f d e m R e l i e f nicht u m ein real existierendes Bauwerk. Er ist vielmehr symbolisch „als ein Z e i c h e n des T r i u m p h e s zu verstehen, den die Vertreter der flavischen Dynastie gemeinsam errungen h a b e n " ,
50
u n d z w a r geht es u m einen v o n d e n Göttern unterstützten T r i u m p h . V o r diesem Hintergrund
ist a u c h das d o m i n i e r e n d e M o t i v des
Bildes, der siebenarmige Leuchter, zu interpretieren.
Die M e n o r a
aus d e m Jerusalemer T e m p e l hatte einen h o h e n W i e d e r e r k e n n u n g s wert
51
u n d w u r d e wahrscheinlich a u c h v o n vielen R ö m e r n als j ü d i
sches S y m b o l verstanden. Dass d e r Leuchter auf d e m R e l i e f d u r c h den flavischen T r i u m p h b o g e n getragen w u r d e , verdeudichte somit den Sieg der Flavier ü b e r das j ü d i s c h e V o l k .
5 2
Eine theologische
Aussage - etwa d e n Sieg der r ö m i s c h e n G ö t t e r ü b e r d e n j ü d i s c h e n G o t t beinhaltend - dürfte j e d o c h nicht intendiert gewesen sein, d a sonst die untergeordnete Darstellung der r ö m i s c h e n Gottheiten, die lediglich auf d e m abgebildeten B o g e n als D i e n e r der Flavier v o r k o m m e n , nicht erklärbar wäre.
3.3. Zusammenfassung D i e Funktion der Götter, wie sie a m T i t u s b o g e n dargestellt sind, ist, den Flaviern zu dienen. H o n o s , Virtus u n d V i c t o r i a unterstützen Titus auf der T r i u m p h a t o r e n q u a d r i g a , V i c t o r i a preist d e n flavischen
4 9
W ä h r e n d Kleiner, „ T r i u m p h , " 4 2 , und Eltester, „Leuchter," 7 0 A . 1 6 , an Virtus
denken, favorisiert Pfanner, 5 0
Titusbogen, 7 2 , Minerva.
R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 2 1 . V g l . K ü n z l , Triumph, 2 2 : „ E s handelt sich u m die für
den Titusbogen bezeichnende am Triumphwagenrelief. 5 1
M i s c h u n g v o n Realität und Ideologie, die m a n auch
. . ablesen kann".
Z u r Bedeutung der M e n o r a im Judentum zur Zeit des Josephus vgl. Erwin R .
G o o d e n o u g h , Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, Volume 4: The Problem of Method. Symbols from Jewish
Cult, Bollingen
8 2 - 8 8 ; Hachlili, Menorah, 5 2
204-9.
V g l . R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 5 5 .
Series 3 7 , N e w York: Pantheon
Books,
1954,
268
BARBARA EBERHARDT
Sieg auf d e m fiktiven B o g e n i m "Beuterelief" u n d in den Archivoltzwickeln des realen B o g e n s , die unbekannte Göttin a u f der Attikakrön u n g begleitet in untergeordneter reitenden D o m i t i a n - d e n späteren
Stellung -
zu Fuß n e b e n d e m
Kaiser.
D e r ganze B o g e n dient somit der Verherrlichung des Titus, der n a c h seinem T o d unter die Götter a u f g e n o m m e n w u r d e u n d - so k ö n n e n die Betrachter aus d e m Reliefprogramm folgern - nicht einer ihrer Geringsten ist. D u r c h die Bogeninschrift u n d d e n fiktiven B o g e n i m „Beuterelief" wird allerdings deutlich, dass Titus nicht eine singulare Erscheinung ist. Er ist Teil der flavischen Familie, v o n der der ver storbene Vespasian ebenfalls s c h o n zu d e n Göttern gehört u n d der n o c h lebende D o m i t i a n wie Titus v o n Göttern begleitet wird.
4.
D I E SCHILDERUNG DES TRIUMPHZUGES IN BJ
7.123-162
Eine Schilderung des gleichen Triumphzugs, die j e d o c h in theologischer Hinsicht v o n der Darstellung der Reliefs völlig verschieden ist, findet sich i m siebten B u c h des Bellum Judaicum bei Flavius Josephus. I m folgenden soll zunächst ein kurzer Ü b e r b l i c k ü b e r d e n T e x t g e g e b e n w e r d e n . A n s c h l i e ß e n d sollen die t h e o l o g i s c h e n Implikationen
des
Textes herausgearbeitet werden, u m dann schließlich den allgemeinen Duktus des Berichts näher beschreiben zu k ö n n e n . 4 . 1 . Auflau und Eigenart von B J .
7.123-162
D e r Abschnitt über d e n flavischen T r i u m p h z u g in B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 ist i m wesendichen ein historischer Bericht, der j e d o c h - wie in der antiken Geschichtsschreibung üblich - einerseits vorgegebene Schemata aufnimmt u n d andererseits ein Interesse verfolgt, das d e n Verfasser während des ganzen Werks leitet. D i e Auswahl, A n o r d n u n g und Aus formulierung der historischen Details lässt bei genauerer
Betrachtung
die Intention der Darstellung erkerinen. Ein Blick auf den Aufbau v o n B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 zeigt, dass sich der T e x t folgendermaßen gliedern lässt: 123-131
Vorbereitungen zum Triumphzug
132-152
Beschreibung des T r i u m p h z u g e s 132-133
L o b des zur Schau gestellten R e i c h t u m s
134-138
wertvolle Gegenstände: Geräte, Stoffe, Schmuck, Götterbilder, S c h m u c k an T i e r e n u n d an der K l e i d u n g v o n T r ä g e r n , Ehrenpersonen Gefangenen
und
269
WER DIENT WEM?
139-147
die Schaugerüste und ihre Bilder, die v o m Krieg erzählen
148-150
die Beutestücke aus d e m Jerusalemer
151
Statuen der Nike
152
Vespasian, Titus u n d D o m i t i a n
153-156
Schluss des T r i u m p h z u g e s
157
abschließendes R e s ü m e e
158-162
A n h a n g : die A u f b e w a h r u n g der erbeuteten
Tempel
Gegenstände
158-159
Bau u n d Ausstattung des Friedenstempels
160
A u f b e w a h r u n g v o n Schätzen aus aller W e l t im Friedenstempel
161-162
Aufbewahrung der v o n Vespasian wertgeschätz ten j ü d i s c h e n Ritualien i m Friedenstempel u n d in seinem Palast
Dieser Ü b e r b l i c k zeigt bereits einige Eigenheiten der Darstellung des Josephus. D i e Beschreibung des T r i u m p h z u g s wird durch dessen V o r u n d N a c h b e r e i t u n g gerahmt. D a b e i fallt unter a n d e r e m der A n h a n g ü b e r d e n B a u des F r i e d e n s t e m p e l s
und die A u f b e w a h r u n g
der
Beutestücke ( 1 5 8 - 1 6 2 ) auf. In die eigentliche Triumphzugsschilderung ist d u r c h die B e s c h r e i b u n g der a u f d e n Schaugerüsten
gezeigten
Kriegsdarstellungen ein kurzer R ü c k b l i c k a u f wesendiche Ereignisse des j ü d i s c h e n K r i e g e s integriert
( 1 4 3 - 1 4 6 ) . Es fehlt j e d o c h
die
E r w ä h n u n g der dritten Abteilung des T r i u m p h z u g s , nämlich der d e n Triumphatoren
folgenden S o l d a t e n .
53
B e v o r diese Eigenheiten
im
Bericht des Josephus interpretiert w e r d e n , sollen zunächst in e i n e m D u r c h g a n g durch den T e x t die theologisch relevanten Passagen unter sucht w e r d e n . 4.2. Kultobjekte, religiöse Handlungen und die römische Tradition in B J .
7.123-162
U m die theologischen Implikationen v o n B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 herauszuar beiten, wird der T e x t i m folgenden i m Hinblick auf religiös bedeut same Begriffe u n d Aussagen untersucht. D a b e i finden drei Kategorien besondere Beachtung: 1. Kultobjekte: D a z u zählen der Isistempel (123), b e i m T r i u m p h z u g mitgeführte
5 3
Götterstatuen
Z u m historischen Aufbau
(136), i m J ü d i s c h e n
eines T r i u m p h z u g e s s.o.
2.c.
Krieg
zerstörte
270
BARBARA EBERHARDT
Heiligtümer (144), der Jerusalemer erbeuteten
T e m p e l u n d d i e in i h m
Ritualgegenstände ( 1 4 8 - 1 5 0 ;
1 6 1 - 1 6 2 ) , Statuen d e r
Siegesgöttin (151), der T e m p e l des Jupiter Capitolinus (153) u n d der T e m p e l b e z i r k der Friedensgöttin (158) 2. religiöse H a n d l u n g e n : I m einzelnen sind dies G e b e t e der Impera toren ( 1 2 8 ; 155), O p f e r ( 1 3 1 ; 155), sowie die B e w a h r u n g des T e m p e l v o r h a n g e s u n d der T o r a durch Vespasian (162). 3. Verweise auf die römische Tradition: Sie finden sich in B e z u g auf kaiserliche G e w ä n d e r (124), G e b e t e (128; 155), das Frühstück der S o l d a t e n (129), das T r i u m p h t o r (130) u n d die E x e k u t i o n des feindlichen Feldherrn (153; 154). Das
erste Heiligtum, das in B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 erwähnt wird, ist der
Isistempel (123), in dessen N ä h e die Feldherren die N a c h t v o r d e m T r i u m p h z u g verbracht hatten.
54
M i t der N e n n u n g des T e m p e l s ist
j e d o c h keine religiöse H a n d l u n g verbunden. W i e seine G e g e n ü b e r stellung z u m o b e r e n Palast zeigt (ou xcov avco ßaaiXeicov akXä rcA,r|oiov той xfi<; "Ioi8o<; iepou) dient das Isisheiligtum als reine Ortsangabe zur Lokalisierung des historischen Ausgangspunkts des Geschehens. Die
G e b e t e des Vespasian u n d des Titus in den Hallen der Octavia
sind die ersten H a n d l u n g e n , die i m Bericht des Josephus explizit kul tischen Charakter tragen (128). D i e beiden T r i u m p h a t o r e n , die die „herkömmlichen Purpurgewänder"
(rcopqyupaq . . . кахрющ)
tragen
(124), verrichten in traditioneller Weise mit verhülltem H a u p t die „ v o r g e s c h r i e b e n e n G e b e t e " (euxotq . . . zäq vevouaau£va<;). J o s e p h u s betont somit bereits bei der ersten religiösen Aktivität d e r beiden Flavier i m Z u s a m m e n h a n g mit d e m T r i u m p h z u g , dass sie in Ü b e r einstimmung mit der religiösen Tradition der R ö m e r steht. E b e n s o geschieht das d e m G e b e t folgende Frühstück der anwesenden H e e r esteile traditionsgemäß in „ h e r k ö m m l i c h e r " W e i s e (то v e v o u i o v E v o v apioxov) (129). Beim Triumphtor, durch das - wie Josephus betont - „schon immer" (cuei) die T r i u m p h z ü g e geleitet wurden (130), b e g e h e n Vespasian u n d Titus die nächste kultische Handlung: sie opfern „ d e n Göttern, deren
)4
D e r griechische T e x t lässt offen, o b die Flavier im Isistempel selbst oder lediglich in der N ä h e des Isistempels übernachtet hatten, da sich eicei (dort) sowohl auf xov xr|<; "Iaiöo<; iepov (den T e m p e l der Isis) als auch auf nXr\oiov (nahe) beziehen lässt. D i e meisten Übersetzer entscheiden sich aus inhaldichen G r ü n d e n für die letztge nannte Möglichkeit (so z.B. Michel und Bauernfeind sowie Thackeray); vgl. auch Beard, „ T r i u m p h , " 5 5 7 A . 3 4 .
WER
271
DIENT WEM?
Standbilder n e b e n d e m T o r errichtet w a r e n " ( x o i g x e 7iocpi8p'uuivoi<; x f | nvXr\ ö u o a v x e c ; Geoiq). D a b e i erwähnt Josephus nicht die N a m e n dieser Gottheiten. W i c h t i g für ihre V e r e h r u n g ist nicht ihre konkrete Identität, s o n d e r n v i e l m e h r der Standort ihrer Statuen. Dass die O p f e r i m Bericht des Josephus keine b e s o n d e r e Beachtung erfahren, wird a u c h d u r c h deren nur sehr knappe E r w ä h n u n g d e u d i c h . Sie w e r d e n nicht ausführlich beschrieben, sondern sind vielmehr T e i l eines k o m p l e x e n Rituals, das e b e n s o das A n l e g e n der T r i u m p h a l g e w ä n d e r u n d d e n Aufbruchsbefehl umfasst. D i e O p f e r der Flavier erscheinen somit als T e i l der römischen T r i u m p h t r a d i d o n u n d nicht als eigenständige religiöse H a n d l u n g e n . In d e n folgenden Paragraphen beschreibt J o s e p h u s zunächst
aus-
fuhrlich die Pracht der b e i m T r i u m p h z u g zur Schau gestellten Schätze ( 1 3 2 - 1 3 8 ) . In 1 3 9 - 1 4 7 w e n d e t er sich d e n mehrstöckigen, Bilder trag e n d e n Schaugerüsten zu, die d e n Zuschauern b e i m T r i u m p h z u g die vergangenen Kriegshandlungen e b e n s o v o r A u g e n führten
wie
den Lesern des Josephus bei der Lektüre d e r Paragraphen 1 4 2 - 1 4 7 . Religiöse H a n d l u n g e n finden sich in diesen Abschnitten ebenso w e n i g wie B e z ü g e a u f die römische Tradition. Allerdings w e r d e n an zwei Stellen Kultobjekte erwähnt. In berichtet J o s e p h u s v o n Götterstatuen
136
(Oecov a y a X j L i a x a ) , die b e i m
T r i u m p h z u g gezeigt werden. Seine Beschreibung der Kultbilder macht d e u d i c h , wie er sie einordnet. Sie sind „ v o n erstaunlicher
Größe,
künsderisch hervorragend gearbeitet u n d alle o h n e A u s n a h m e aus kostbarem Material" (iieyeBeoi ö a u u a o x a Kai m x a x n v xe%vriv ou 7cap£pycö<; 7C£7toir||Lieva, Kai x o u x c o v ou8ev, ö x i |nf| xfj<; üA,r|<; xr\q noXmeXovq). Götterstatuen
Die
sind somit in der Darstellung des Josephus wertvolle
Kunstgegenstände, j e d o c h nicht m e h r . Eine theologische W e r t u n g erübrigt sich daher für J o s e p h u s .
55
Desweiteren sind in 144 A b b i l d u n g e n v o n i m K r i e g abgebrannten Heiligtümern (raup . . . e v i e j i e v o v i e p o i q ) erwähnt. Es ist unsicher, o b sie mit konkreten galiläischen b z w . judäischen S y n a g o g e n identifiziert werden können,
56
o d e r o b es sich u m einen v o r g e g e b e n e n Bildinhalt
handelte, der d e m römischen Publikum wie bei T r i u m p h z ü g e n allgemein üblich eine v o n mehreren Facetten des g e w o n n e n e n Krieges vor A u g e n führen sollte. In der Darstellung des Josephus sind die
5 5
5 Ü
Ähnlich M i c h e l und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 2 4 4 A . 7 0 . S o Michel und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 2 4 5 A . 7 4 .
272
BARBARA EBERHARDT
Heiligtümer auf j e d e n Fall T e i l der i m K r i e g zerstörten O r t e . Eine religiöse B e d e u t u n g tragen sie nicht. A n d e r s verhält es sich mit d e m nächsten i m T e x t
erwähnten
Heiligtum, d e m T e m p e l in Jerusalem (xcoev '1ероооАл)Ц-оц iepcp) (148). D i e darin erbeuteten
G e g e n s t ä n d e übertreffen
n a c h J o s e p h u s alle
anderen Beutestücke (бхгкргке 8e rcavxcov). I m einzelnen handelt es sich dabei u m einen g o l d e n e n T i s c h , einen g o l d e n e n Leuchter (148), sowie „ d a s G e s e t z d e r J u d e n "
(6 . . . vouoq 6 xcov 'IouSoucov) (150).
J o s e p h u s erläutert v o r allem das Aussehen des Leuchters mit Sockel, Schaft, A r m e n u n d L a m p e n u n d weist - z w a r in m o d e r a t e n W o r t e n , aber d e n n o c h unverkennbar - auf die religiöse Bedeutung der M e n o r a hin: ihre sieben A r m e symbolisieren die Ehre, die die Siebenzahl bei d e n J u d e n genoss (enxöc 8' fjaav ouxoi тщ кара х о ц 'IouSaioiq eßSouxx8oq xfrv
XUITTV
eu<pav{£ovxe<;) (149). D i e Anspielung a u f d e n Sabbat ist
hier unverkennbar u n d dürfte nicht nur v o n j ü d i s c h e n Lesern, sond e r n a u c h v o n e i n e m gebildeten p a g a n e n Publikum verstanden w o r d e n sein.
57
W e g e n der expliziten Erklärung seiner S y m b o l i k ist der
siebenarmige L e u c h t e r in der Beschreibung des J o s e p h u s aus d e r M e n g e aller anderen b e i m T r i u m p h z u g gezeigten G e g e n s t ä n d e hera u s g e h o b e n . D i e aufmerksamen Leser k ö n n e n an dieser Stelle erkennen, dass hinter d e n G e g e n s t ä n d e n aus der j ü d i s c h e n T r a d i t i o n eine tiefere Bedeutung steckt. M i t d e n Ritualgegenständen aus d e m Jerusalemer T e m p e l ist d e r 58
Die
d a n a c h e x p o n i e r t e n S t a n d b i l d e r d e r Siegesgöttin V i c t o r i a -
bei
H ö h e p u n k t der T r i u m p h z u g s e r z ä h l u n g bei J o s e p h u s erreicht.
J o s e p h u s griechisch Nike genannt - sind i m Gegensatz d a z u ähnlich wie die in 136 erwähnten Götterbilder lediglich kostbare, aus G o l d u n d Elfenbein gefertigte Statuen (151), j e d o c h o h n e j e g l i c h e religiöse Bedeutung. N a c h der erstaunlich knappen E r w ä h n u n g der Flavier, die i m Z u g d e n zur S c h a u gestellten Kostbarkeiten folgten (152), w e n d e t sich J o s e p h u s in
1 5 3 - 1 5 6 d e m Abschluss d e r Feierlichkeiten zu. D e r
T r i u m p h z u g endet a m T e m p e l des Jupiter Capitolinus (153). Es w a r alte Tradition (T|V yöcp n a k i o v rcaxpiov), dass d e r Z u g dort
5 7
anhielt
S. die vielfaltigen Erwähnungen des Sabbats bei antiken Autoren wie z.B. O v i d ,
Seneca und Plutarch; vgl. dazu M e n a h e m Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism,
3 Bände, Jerusalem:
The
Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences a n d
1 9 7 4 - 1 9 8 4 , pass. 5 8
So auch K ü n z l , Triumph,
26-27.
Humanities,
273
WER DIENT WEM?
und a u f die M e l d u n g v o n der vollstreckten Exekution des feindlichen Feldherrn wartete, der nach r ö m i s c h e m R e c h t (vouo<;8' eaxi Tcoumoic;) auf d e m Platz o b e r h a l b des F o r u m s hingerichtet w u r d e (154). N a c h d e m Erhalt d e r Nachricht u n d d e m J u b e l der Massen b e g e h e n die T r i u m p h a t o r e n das Abschlussritual, das aus O p f e r n u n d „vorgeschrie b e n e n " (voui^ouivociq) G e b e t e n besteht (155). A n s c h l i e ß e n d löst sich die Festgesellschaft in verschiedene Tafelrunden auf (156). Betrachtet m a n diesen Abschnitt v o m H ö h e p u n k t der Triumphzugs feierlichkeiten auf d e m Capitol, so fallt die nüchterne
Berichterstattung
des J o s e p h u s auf. D e r Jupitertempel dient a n a l o g d e m Isistempel zu Beginn d e r Erzählung (123) lediglich als Ortsangabe: dort angelangt, hielt m a n an (ecp'öv ekQovzeq
eornaav). Erst einige Z e i l e n später, n a c h
der Erklärung der Hinrichtung S i m o n bar Gioras als einer d u r c h das römische Gesetz v o r g e s c h r i e b e n e n H a n d l u n g , referiert J o s e p h u s die dort stattfindenden
O p f e r u n d G e b e t e ; a u c h sie sind d u r c h die
r ö m i s c h e T r a d i t i o n v o r g e g e b e n , w i e bereits die G e b e t e v o r d e m T r i u m p h z u g (128). Ä h n l i c h wie in 130 wird der g ö t d i c h e Adressat der O p f e r nicht genannt. I n d e m J o s e p h u s die
rituellen
Handlungen
nicht explizit a u f d e n Jupitertempel - u n d erst recht nicht a u f Jupiter selbst - bezieht, erscheinen sie als notwendige Bestandteile eines k o m plexen r ö m i s c h e n Rituals, das w e g e n seiner alten T r a d i t i o n u n b e stritten seine Berechtigung hat. D i e selbständige Bedeutung v o n O p f e r u n d G e b e t e n als religiösen H a n d l u n g e n , die d e n K o n t a k t mit einer bestimmten Gottheit - in diesem Fall Jupiter - bedeuten, wird j e d o c h d u r c h die Erzählweise des J o s e p h u s völlig zurückgedrängt. Vespasian und Titus w e r d e n als M e n s c h e n beschrieben, deren Frömmigkeit in der p e n i b l e n Befolgung der r ö m i s c h e n T r i u m p h z u g s t r a d i t i o n
ein
schließlich der geforderten kultischen Handlungen liegt. Eine Beziehung zu bestimmten römischen Göttern wird nicht ausgesagt, i m Gegenteil: sie wird bewusst v e r m i e d e n . A u c h w e n n a u f d e n ersten Blick v o m T e x t her völlig klar zu sein scheint, dass die O p f e r u n d G e b e t e der Flavier an Jupiter Capitolinus gerichtet waren, u n d es sich sicher historisch a u c h so verhielt, so ist an dieser Stelle d o c h das „ b e r e d t e S c h w e i g e n " des Josephus zu vermerken. D u r c h die N i c h t e r w ä h n u n g des Jupiter ermöglicht er seinem Lesepublikum, die Religionsausübung der Flavier nicht lokalspezifisch als Jupiterkult, sondern als univer sale Frömmigkeit zu
interpretieren.
M i t d e m R e s ü m e e in 157, das d e n T r i u m p h z u g als Siegeszug über die Feinde in der Vergangenheit, als Ende der inneren Wirren R o m s in d e r G e g e n w a r t u n d als B e g i n n einer glücklichen Zukunft
preist,
274
BARBARA EBERHARDT
könnte der Bericht des Josephus eigendich e n d e n . Es folgt j e d o c h ein A n h a n g , in d e m Josephus seine Leser u n d Leserinnen über V o r gänge informiert, die in seinen A u g e n zu d e m Geschehen dazugehören. D a z u gehört als erstes der Bau des Tempelbezirks für die Friedens göttin Pax (bei J o s e p h u s griechisch Eirene) ( 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 ) , der historisch immerhin erst vier Jahre nach d e m Triumphzug i m Jahr 75 fertiggestellt w u r d e . Josephus betont dabei besonders die Ausstattung des B a u k o m plexes. Kunstobjekte aus allen Zeiten (159) u n d aus allen O r t e n (160) w e r d e n dort wie in e i n e m g r o ß e n M u s e u m gesammelt. D e r Friedens tempel ist damit für Josephus S y m b o l für die einende M a c h t des römi schen Imperiums, unter dessen H e g e m o n i e die verschiedenen V ö l k e r mit ihren j e eigenen T r a d i t i o n e n leben k ö n n e n .
59
W i e das j ü d i s c h e
V o l k nach J o s e p h u s ' Ansicht seinen Platz i m r ö m i s c h e n Weltreich einnimmt, so finden auch die g o l d e n e n Geräte aus d e m Jerusalemer T e m p e l ihren Platz i m Friedenstempel in R o m (161). Zwei Gegenstände
finden
allerdings b e s o n d e r e
Aufmerksamkeit:
das jüdische Gesetz u n d der Jerusalemer T e m p e l v o r h a n g . Ü b e r ihren V e r b l e i b erzählt J o s e p h u s in 162: Ihr Gesetz aber u n d die purpur n e n V o r h ä n g e des H e i l i g t u m s befahl er, in d e n
Palastgebäuden
aufzuheben u n d zu b e w a h r e n (xöv 8e vouov auxcov Kai xa rcopcpupa xou GT|KOÜ Kaxarcexdouaxa rcpoaexa^ev ev х о ц ßaaiAeioiq алоЭецеуогх; (puAxxxxeiv). Dieser Satz, mit d e m Josephus den Triumphzugsbericht schließt, berichtet somit v o n der besonderen Ehre, die Vespasian d e m T e m p e l v o r h a n g u n d der T o r a z u k o m m e n lässt. Sie w e r d e n im kaiserlichen Palast, das heißt i m Privatbereich des Kaisers, aufgehoben u n d damit bewahrt. D i e Beschreibung des J o s e p h u s endet mit d e m griechischen V e r b (p\)A,axxeiv. Es verdient Beachtung, dass dessen hebräisches Ä q u i v a lent "1QÜ (bewahren) ein fester T e r m i n u s in B e z u g auf das j ü d i s c h e Gesetz ist. D a s Gesetz zu b e w a h r e n entspricht d e m , was in D e u t 6,3 das Gesetz selbst für seinen G e b r a u c h vorschreibt: d u sollst es h ö r e n , Israel, u n d b e w a h r e n
(ГГЮЕЛ
ЬКНЕГ
ГШОЕЛ).
Die
Septuaginta
übersetzt: к а ! акоиаоу 1оралД ка1 cputax^ai. D i e T o r a zu b e w a h r e n ist nach biblischem D e n k e n , wie auch die zitierte Bibelstelle zeigt, die Voraussetzung dafür, sie zu tun. Für die B e w a h r u n g der T o r a
5 9
Z u r Intention des Josephus in BJ.,
die Weltherrschaft der Flavier als
wollte O r d n u n g darzustellen, vgl. M i c h e l und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus,
gottge 240-41.
A . 6 6 (Exkurs X X ) ; Steve M a s o n , Flavius Josephus und das Neue Testament, Tübingen: U T B , 2000, 92-93.
WER
275
DIENT WEM?
garantiert bei Josephus der nicht-jüdische römische Kaiser Vespasian. Er sorgt sich persönlich u m d e n Fortbestand des j ü d i s c h e n Gesetzes u n d d e r T e m p e l v o r h ä n g e u n d e r m ö g l i c h t damit die Zukunft
der
j ü d i s c h e n Religionstradition. 4.3. Die Aussagerichtung des Berichts über den Triumphzug in B.J.
7.123-162
Insgesamt zeigt sich, dass der T r i u m p h z u g s b e r i c h t des Josephus an historischen Ereignissen orientiert ist. D i e A b f o l g e des T r i u m p h z u g e s v o n d e n V o r b e r e i t u n g e n i m M o r g e n g r a u e n bis zu d e n Festmählern, die d e n T a g beschließen, stimmt - nach allem, was wir heute a n h a n d der Q u e l l e n belegen u n d vermuten k ö n n e n - mit d e n historischen Ereignissen überein. A u c h die Aufzählung der mitgefuhrten Beutestücke dürfte der historischen Realität entsprechen. A u f einer zweiten E b e n e besitzt der Textabschnitt des Bellum Judaicum j e d o c h auch eine h o h e symbolische Aussagekraft. Sie erschließt sich durch die Eigenheiten der Erzählung, die i m w e s e n d i c h e n in drei Punkten z u s a m m e n g e fasst w e r d e n können. 1. In die Darstellung des T r i u m p h z u g e s ist in B.J. 7 . 1 4 3 - 1 4 5 eine Zusammenfassung ü b e r die Ereignisse des Jüdischen Krieges inte griert. Ihre Funktion ist die gleiche wie die der Bilder a u f den Schaugerüsten, über die Josephus erzählt, nämlich d e m Publikum die Kriegsereignisse in gebündelter F o r m n o c h einmal v o r A u g e n zu führen. D a b e i liegt die B e t o n u n g bei Josephus eindeutig a u f den Leiden, die die K ä m p f e u m das j ü d i s c h e L a n d mit sich brachten: Verwüstete Landschaften, T o d , b r e n n e n d e Heiligtümer -
diese
Schreckensbilder des vergangenen Krieges bilden einen eindrucks vollen Kontrast z u m prächtigen u n d w o h l g e o r d n e t e n T r i u m p h z u g zu Beginn d e r flavischen Friedenszeit (157). 2. Eine weitere Besonderheit der Triumphzugsdarstellung des Josephus ist die bereits v o n verschiedenen Forschern konstatierte auffallige H e r v o r h e b u n g der Traditionstreue der Flavier.
60
V o r allem dort,
w o Josephus religiöse H a n d l u n g e n schildert, betont er, dass alles geordnet n a c h römischer, alter Tradition v o r sich geht. G e m ä ß d e m Charakter v o n B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 als flavischem Propaganda-
6 0
V g l . M i c h e l und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 2 4 1 A . 6 6 (Exkurs X X ) ; Beard,
/Triumph," 5 5 4 .
276
BARBARA EBERHARDT
bericht
61
2
und zugleich H ö h e p u n k t des Bellum Judaicum** k ö n n e n die
G r ü n d e für diese Darstellung in zwei R i c h t u n g e n gesucht w e r d e n . Z u m einen entspricht die Traditionstreue d e m
Selbstverständnis
d e r flavischen Dynastie, die d e n A n s p r u c h e r h o b , an die alte O r d n u n g d e r julisch-claudischen Z e i t v o r N e r o
anzuknüpfen.
Josephus trug somit d u r c h die Art seiner Berichterstattung bei, d e n flavischen Kaisern S y m p a t h i e n i m
63
dazu
traditionsliebenden
r ö m i s c h e n V o l k zu sichern. A u f d e r a n d e r e n
Seite gelingt es
Josephus als j ü d i s c h e m Schriftsteller, der seine Religion nie ver leugnet hat, d u r c h seine A r t der Darstellung die p a g a n e n Rituale zu rechtfertigen, die den Triumphzug begleiten. W i e Bernd Schröder gezeigt hat, ist die T r e u e g e g e n ü b e r d e n eigenen G e b r ä u c h e n , d e n rcdxpioi vojioi, für J o s e p h u s ein G r u n d w e r t , d e n J u d e n und pagane R ö m e r teilen.
64
I n d e m J o s e p h u s i m m e r w i e d e r unter
streicht, dass die einzelnen H a n d l u n g e n w ä h r e n d des T r i u m p h zugs genau n a c h alter römischer Sitte geschehen, versucht er, eine Basis herzustellen, die i h m u n d m ö g l i c h e r w e i s e a u c h Juden
65
anderen
hilft, die mit d e m T r i u m p h verbundene Religiosität zu tole
rieren. I n d e m er die O p f e r u n d G e b e t e der Flavier b e i m T r i u m p h z u g als T e i l der r ö m i s c h e n Tradition sah, konnten sie als Akte der Frömmigkeit u n d nicht als Götzenkult gewertet w e r d e n . 3. In BJ. 7 . 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 fällt weiterhin auf, dass jüdische Ritualien sowohl in der Schilderung des T r i u m p h z u g e s selbst ( 1 4 8 - 1 5 0 ) , als auch in der R a h m e n h a n d l u n g ( 1 6 1 - 1 6 2 ) den H ö h e p u n k t der Darstellung bilden. U m die exponierte Rolle der b e i m T r i u m p h z u g mitgefühlten Gegenstände aus d e m Jerusalemer T e m p e l - d e n Schaubrottisch,
6 1
So Beard, " T r i u m p h , " 5 5 6 - 5 8 .
6 2
So M i c h e l und Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus, 2 4 0 A . 6 6 (Exkurs X X ) .
6 3
Dies zeigt sich auch an M ü n z e n
aus der frühen
flavischen
Zeit. A u f einer
Sesterzprägung des Jahres 7 1 / 7 2 hatte sich Vespasian beispielsweise als darstellen lassen. N e b e n i h m
war
die
Siegesgöttin Victoria
Opfernden
abgebildet, die
den
Siegeskranz über den Kaiser hielt, und im Hintergrund
war ein B o g e n zu sehen.
Durch
und
das O p f e r bewies Vespasian seine Frömmigkeit
damit
die
nach
den
Bürgerkriegen wiedergekehrte O r d n u n g und Stabilität des R ö m i s c h e n Reiches. V g l . dazu R o e h m e r , Bogen, 2 2 1 - 2 2 , mit Tafel 9 , 2 . 6 4
V g l . Bernd
Schröder,
Die
3
'väterlichen Gesetze .
Flavius Josephus als
Vermittler von
Halachah an Griechen und Römer, T S A J 5 3 , Tübingen: M o h r , 1 9 9 6 , pass. 6 5
D i e Frage nach den Adressaten des Bellum Judaicum ist komplex und kann an
dieser Stelle nicht eigens thematisiert werden. A u c h wenn „Josephus' erstes Publikum in R o m " eher Nicht-Juden waren (so M a s o n , Flavius Josephus,
101), dürfte
Schriftsteller gleichwohl darum b e m ü h t gewesen sein, seine Ausführungen D e n k e n gebildeter J u d e n gerecht werden zu lassen.
der
auch d e m
277
WER DIENT WEM?
die M e n o r a u n d die T o r a - zu unterstreichen, hält Josephus die Beschreibung der T r i u m p h a t o r e n sehr k n a p p u n d verzichtet ganz a u f die E r w ä h n u n g
d e r dritten Zugteiles: d e n d e r
Familie folgenden Behördenvertretern
und Soldaten.
kaiserlichen 66
A u c h die
den Bericht abschließende Notiz v o n der Aufbewahrung des Gesetzes u n d der T e m p e l v o r h ä n g e i m kaiserlichen Palast ist v o n Josephus mit Bedacht gewählt. Vespasian, der v o n G o t t eingesetzte Herrscher ü b e r R o m u n d die ganze W e l t , hat mit T o r a u n d T e m p e l v o r h a n g die S y m b o l g e g e n s t ä n d e der j ü d i s c h e n Religion in ihrer pharisäi schen und ihrer priesterlichen D i m e n s i o n unter seinen persönlichen Schutz gestellt. U n t e r d e m D a c h des römischen Kaisers kann das J u d e n t u m w o h l b e w a h r t überleben.
5.
SCHLUSS
D i e Untersuchung hat Ähnlichkeiten u n d Unterschiede der verschie d e n e n D o k u m e n t e über d e n T r i u m p h z u g des Titus gezeigt. S o w o h l die Reliefs auf d e m Titusbogen als auch die Ausfuhrungen bei Josephus stabilisieren d u r c h ihre Darstellungen die flavische Dynastie u n d sind insofern
„Herrschaftsinstrumente".
Beide Zeugnisse betonen
die
Wichtigkeit und den Symbolcharakter der jüdischen Ritualgegenstände. W ä h r e n d es den Reliefbildern dabei allerdings mehr u m das Materielle u n d Spektakuläre der Beutestücke geht, das den R u h m der Flavier steigert, hebt Josephus die Bedeutung u n d die Zukunft der s y m b o l trächtigen jüdischen Ritualien hervor. In theologischer Hinsicht wurde d e u d i c h , dass d e m T i t u s b o g e n u n d d e m Bericht bei Josephus völlig v e r s c h i e d e n e G r u n d k o n z e p t i o n e n z u g r u n d e liegen. D a s r ö m i s c h e M o n u m e n t zeigt die G ö t t e r als D i e n e r der Flavier u n d allen v o r a n des Titus, der selbst vergötdicht wird. Bei Josephus d a g e g e n sind die Flavier D i e n e r der g ö t d i c h e n M a c h t . D u r c h O p f e r u n d G e b e t e tun sie ihre religiöse Pflicht innerhalb der G r e n z e n ihrer eigenen Religion. D a r ü b e r hinaus stellt Vespasian das J u d e n t u m unter seinen Schutz und dient somit d e m einen G o t t .
Dies beobachtet auch K ü n z l , Triumph, 14.
JOSEPHUS O N TITUS: THE VANQUISHED WRITING ABOUT THE JAMES S .
VICTOR
MCLAREN
AUSTRALIAN C A T H O L I C UNIVERSITY
" W i n n e r s are grinners"—a m o t t o that sums up the w a y w e reflect o n achievements that range from the sporting arena to the desola tion o f a batdefield. T h o s e w h o triumph c a n gloat a n d write their o w n authorised version o f what h a p p e n e d . In J u d e a , in 70 C E . there was a clear winner. T h e city o f Jerusalem was largely destroyed and as victors the R o m a n s c o u l d " r e m e m b e r " the uprising in J u d e a as they saw fit. For the Flavians it p r o v i d e d a w a v e o n w h i c h they c o u l d ride all the w a y to the b e a c h . H e r e was a victory for R o m a n rule under its n e w leadership. T h e y c o u l d claim p e a c e was being restored, even while other spot fires were still flaring u p in parts o f the empire. Ironically, n o literary a c c o u n t o f substance written b y the victors has survived. Instead, w e have the a c c o u n t o f Josephus, o n e o f the vanquished Jews. T o continue the ironic dimension o f this episode in history, Josephus is generally regarded as being sympathetic
to
the R o m a n s , o p p o s i n g the w a r a n d readily accepting the patronage o f his captors. O n e o f the clearest examples o f this p r o - R o m a n stance is the supposed c o m p l i m e n t a r y portrait o f Titus. T h e eldest son o f Vespasian is given prime billing in the a c c o u n t to such an
extent
that Josephus is credited with b e i n g part o f the effort to construct a positive public image o f Titus. T h e following discussion d o e s not question the presence o f a positive dimension to the portrayal o f Titus and his family in Josephus' Bellum Judaicum. Instead, it is m y intention to question whether the portrait should b e labelled as a positive o n e . It will b e argued that Josephus c o n f o r m e d to aspects o f a c c e p t e d public speech regarding the image o f Titus, but that he was also reacting critically against that public speech, rejecting s o m e o f the b o l d claims being m a d e a b o u t Titus' supposed prowess. W e will c o m m e n c e with a brief review o f the w a y Josephus' portrait is e m p l o y e d in existing scholarship. W e will then outline R o m a n atti tudes to the issue o f what constitutes a g o o d c o m m a n d e r a n d c o m pare this outline with the depiction o f Titus in the Bellum. In
the
280
JAMES S. MCLAREN
third part w e will outline the public image o f Titus evident in R o m a n sources a n d c o m p a r e that i m a g e with J o s e p h u s ' c o m m e n t s . In the final part o f the p a p e r w e will p r o p o s e an explanation for the subd e nature o f J o s e p h u s ' critical portrait o f Titus.
1.
T H E RECEPTION OF JOSEPHUS'
PORTRAIT OF T I T U S
IN SCHOLARSHIP
Titus stands out as the central character a m o n g the m a n y R o m a n s w h o appear in the narrative. His p r o m i n e n t role is flagged from the outset in the preface {B.J. 1.10, 2 5 , 2 7 - 2 8 ) . A l t h o u g h it is not until B o o k 3 that w e are i n t r o d u c e d to Titus as a participant
in
the
conflict, he b e c o m e s the d o m i n a n t figure in the description o f the siege o f Jerusalem
from B o o k 5 onwards. T h i s p r o m i n e n c e is evi
d e n t in his role as a participant
in the actions as d e s c r i b e d b y
Josephus, in his numerous speeches and his reflections o n the progress o f the war. It is not surprising that the p r o m i n e n c e o f Titus in the narrative has often attracted the notice o f scholars. A l m o s t without e x c e p t i o n , this portrait o f Titus is d e e m e d to b e a positive o n e . It is c l a i m e d Josephus was actively trying to help to e n h a n c e the public image o f Titus.
1
W h e r e debate remains is o v e r the motivation o f this effort
to p r o m o t e a positive i m a g e o f Titus. T o s o m e the portrait is the p r o d u c t o f official Flavian p r o p a g a n d a , c o m m i s s i o n e d b y the n e w 2
regime as part o f a c o n c e r t e d effort to win public support. T o others the positive a c c o u n t is m o r e like a panegyric derived from a personal c o m m i t m e n t to repay and h o n o u r the protection afforded to Josephus b y Vespasian and Titus.
3
A l t h o u g h the nature o f J o s e p h u s ' motiva-
1
For example, see G . M a d e r , Josephus and the Politics of Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 0 ) 1 5 2 - 5 7 ; G . M . Paul, " T h e Presentation of Titus in the Jewish War o f Josephus: T w o Aspects," Phoenix 4 7 . 1 (1993): 5 6 - 6 6 ; Y . Y a v e t z , "Reflections o n Titus and Josephus," GRBS 16 (1975): 4 1 1 - 3 2 ; T . Leoni, "Tito e l'incendio del T e m p i o di Gerusalemme: repressione o clemenza disubbidita?," Ostraka 9 . 2 (2000): 4 5 5 - 7 0 ; cf. K . - S . Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Francke, 1994), 2 9 8 - 3 0 4 . 2
For example, R . Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1 9 7 0 [ = Giessen: M ü n c h o w , 1920]). See T . Rajak, Josephus: the Historian and his Society ( L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1983), 203-17. 3
281
JOSEPHUS ON TITUS
tion for p r o v i d i n g the positive portrait continues to b e debated, the net effect remains the same. Josephus is an active part o f the process o f constructing the positive i m a g e o f Titus in R o m e . H e is p r o Flavian in o u d o o k .
4
In essence, the vanquished Josephus sides with
the victors. T h r e e elements o f J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t normally feature as the evi d e n c e u p o n w h i c h the positive portrait is based. O n e is the ability o f Titus as a c o m m a n d e r . H e displays great c o u r a g e , regularly avert ing disaster b y his personal involvement in the fighting, including engaging in hand-to-hand
c o m b a t against the rebels {B.J. 5 . 5 6 - 5 9 ,
75, 8 1 , 8 6 - 8 7 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 5 ; 6.245). Titus is repeatedly cited a m o n g the feats o f individual bravery m e n t i o n e d in the Bellum, with the high light b e i n g his saving o f the 10th legion {B.J. 5.97). H e is c a l m and decisive in the face o f mortal danger. T h e s e c o n d element is the c o m p a s s i o n a n d c l e m e n c y o f Titus. T h e s e character traits are dis played consistendy in relation to the fate o f Jerusalem and the T e m p l e . Titus is depicted as taking every possible step imaginable to preserve the T e m p l e . It is his stated motivation, right from the outset in the preface {B.J.
1.10), in all his speeches {B.J. 3 . 4 7 2 - 4 8 4 , 4 9 5 - 4 9 6 ;
5 . 3 6 2 - 4 1 9 ; 6 . 3 3 - 5 3 , 9 4 - 1 1 0 , 3 2 8 - 3 5 0 ) and most significandy, in the meeting held with his staff before the final assault ( 6 . 2 3 6 - 2 4 3 ) .
5
c l e m e n c y also extended to p e o p l e , with J o s e p h u s b e i n g the
Titus' most
obvious e x a m p l e {B.J. 3 . 3 4 6 - 3 5 1 ; 4 . 6 2 7 - 6 2 9 ) . T h e third element is the reference to Titus p r o v i d i n g his approval o f the a c c o u n t {Vita 3 6 1 - 3 6 3 , C. Ap. 1.50-51). T h e s e t w o brief asides act like the seal o n an official d o c u m e n t , verifying the portrait as o n e that found favour with the e m p e r o r . Supporting these three points is an implied principle
regarding
J o s e p h u s ' w o r l d v i e w . J o s e p h u s ' natural tendency was to b e in sym pathy with Titus o n social and political grounds. A s an
aristocrat
w h o was part o f the ruling elite in J u d e a , Josephus k n e w the benefits o f R o m a n rule and the futility o f o p p o s i n g R o m e . H e had b e e n edu cated o n such c o n c e p t s and was therefore o p p o s e d to the w a r and saw Titus as helping to restore p r o p e r order.
4
See J. A n d r e w O v e r m a n , " T h e First Revolt and Flavian Politics,"' in The First Jewish Revolt (ed. A . Berlin and J. A n d r e w O v e r m a n ; L o n d o n : R o u d e d g e , 2 0 0 1 ) , esp. 214-18. 5
T h e question o f historical responsibility for the destruction o f the T e m p l e lies outside the scope o f this paper. N o t e that all existing discussion of the topic has been framed in the context that Josephus was trying to help Titus.
JAMES S. MCLAREN
282
W h a t w e are left with is a one-dimensional portrait that seeks to s h o w Titus in the best light possible, whether as a paid advertisement a n d / o r as an expression o f thanks. W h a t contours are evident relate to the exact extent that Josephus wants the narrative to b e d o m i n a t e d b y matters R o m a n as o p p o s e d to matters Jewish. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , reason to b e far m o r e cautious in h o w w e assess J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f Titus than is currendy evident. T w o m u c h neglected but i m p o r tant pieces o f evidence regarding the portrait require further assess ment. O n e is the presentation o f Titus as a c o m m a n d e r . A l t h o u g h Titus' military activity is regularly cited, this crucial aspect o f the portrait has not b e e n properly g r o u n d e d in the R o m a n setting. It is important
to determine h o w J o s e p h u s ' presentation
o f Titus as a
c o m m a n d e r interacts with existing R o m a n notions o f g o o d
com
manders. T h e second piece o f evidence is also noticeable b y its absence in the existing discussion. It is the dedication o n the triumphal arch in the Circus M a x i m u s erected during Titus' reign, boasting o f his great success o v e r the Jews. T h e existence o f the dedication makes it appropriate to reconsider whether J o s e p h u s ' portrait is simply part o f an effort to construct a favourable public i m a g e o f Titus. It is possible that Josephus was, in fact, responding to an existing public image with a counter view. A n exarnination o f the two contexts, R o m a n attitudes regarding the requirements for b e i n g a g o o d c o m m a n d e r a n d the public i m a g e o f Titus, is in o r d e r to determine the exact extent to w h i c h J o s e p h u s ' sympathy lay with the victors w h e n it c a m e to constructing his portrait o f Titus.
2 . R O M A N ATTITUDES R E G A R D I N G A G O O D C O M M A N D E R
T h e r e was n o officially sanctioned j o b description for b e i n g a gen eral in the R o m a n army. H o w e v e r , there is a substantial a m o u n t o f literature from w h i c h it is possible to identify key areas o f activity in which a g o o d c o m m a n d e r was expected to excel. T h e r e are notable examples o f R o m a n c o m m a n d e r s in action in several late R e p u b l i c a n a n d early Imperial p e r i o d texts, making reference to the activities o f such figures as P o m p e y , Julius Caesar, C o r b u l o and Agricola. T o these practical examples c a n b e a d d e d the mid-first century C E . mil itary manual, Onasander's
The General. W h i l e the examples o f the
k n o w n historical figures generally require little explanation, the inclu sion o f O n a s a n d e r warrants brief c o m m e n t . W e c a n n o t b e certain
JOSEPHUS
283
ON TITUS
o f the exact extent to w h i c h his manual related to existing practices 6
a n d / o r accepted principles. H o w e v e r , military manuals were a k n o w n entity b y the first century C E . a n d manuals o n other aspects o f life were c o m m o n . O n a s a n d e r was clearly w o r k i n g within a well-founded genre.
7
Furthermore, there is an overlap b e t w e e n the key principles
o f what constitutes a g o o d c o m m a n d e r a c c o r d i n g to O n a s a n d e r with the m a i n examples cited in the narrative texts.
8
A s such, the fol
lowing o u d i n e will use his manual as the basic guide to w h i c h rel evant examples c a n b e a d d e d . T h e r e were three main areas in which the c o m m a n d e r was expected to excel. O n e relates to the safeguarding o f the a r m y at all
times.
Attention must b e paid to the proper disposition o f the troops (Sfrategicus 1 5 - 2 2 , 2 4 , 31) o n the batdefield. T h e c o m m a n d e r must ensure the safety o f his troops while en route ( 6 - 7 ) , p r o v i d e secure fortified c a m p s while in e n e m y territory (8), p r o v i d e sufficient guards at night (10.4) a n d keep the troops in a state o f readiness through training and other activities (10.1). T h e a r m y also needs to b e protected b y undertaking a t h o r o u g h inspection o f the e n e m y c a m p (10.8), the use o f spies (10.3) and appropriate stratagems to trick the e n e m y 9
(21.9; 2 2 . 2 ) . It is also important for the c o m m a n d e r not to pursue an e n e m y without taking d u e caution (11.1) n o r for h i m to ignore any information p r o v i d e d (11.2). In relation to sieges O n a s a n d e r refers to the n e e d for the besieging a r m y to b e protected from assault ( 4 0 - 4 1 ) and the necessity o f appropriate e q u i p m e n t to successfully undertake the siege (42.3). It is notable that Tacitus places great
6
For the following discussion see also J. B. C a m p b e l l , "Teach Yourself H o w to be a General," JRS 11 (1987): 1 3 - 2 9 ; idem, The Roman Army 31 BC-AD 337 (London: R o u d e d g e , 1994) and A . K . Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War 100 BC-AD 200 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). 7
See C a m p b e l l , " T e a c h Yourself,"
18-20.
8
N o t e also that O n a s a n d e r was a near contemporary to Josephus and that in B.J. 3 the latter behaved very m u c h in the m o u l d o f the c o m m a n d e r as oudined by Onasander. See C . J. Smith, "Onasander on H o w to be a General," in Modus Operandi. Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman (ed. M . Austin, M . J. Harries and C . Smith; L o n d o n : I C S , 1998), 1 5 1 - 6 6 and D . A m b a g l i o , "II trattato 'Sul C o m a n dante' di O n a s a n d r o , " Athenaeum 5 9 (1981): 3 5 3 - 7 7 regarding Onasander's possible motivation for writing his manual. 9
Frontinus also places great emphasis o n the role o f various strategies o n the part o f a g o o d c o m m a n d e r during and after a batde (Strategemata 1 . 1 - 1 2 ; 2 . 1 - 3 , 4 - 5 , 7 - 8 , 1 1 - 1 2 ) . It is interesting that o f the few imperial period figures cited Vespasian and D o m i t i a n are n a m e d but Titus does not appear a m o n g any o f the exempla offered {Strategemata 1.1.8; 1.3.10; 2 . 3 . 2 3 ; 2 . 1 1 . 7 ; 2 . 1 1 . 1 7 ; 4.6.4).
284
JAMES S. MCLAREN
emphasis o n A g r i c o l a being successful because o f his ability to organ ise the disposition o f his troops in an effective m a n n e r (Agr. 20, 22). In his a c c o u n t o f the siege o f Bourges Julius Caesar describes h o w he e n d e a v o u r e d to protect the siege works and his troops b y j u d i cious positioning (Bell. gall. 7.22—28). T h e second main area o f activity associated with a g o o d c o m m a n d e r is the provision o f appropriate
discipline a m o n g the troops. G o o d
order is important to maintain, in terms o f appearance and formation ( 2 7 - 2 8 , 30). Stratagems can b e used to help e n c o u r a g e the troops (23) in difficult situations. It is important that the c o m m a n d e r ensures precise orders (10.9) are passed d o w n the chain o f c o m m a n d (25) to maintain o r d e r in batde. Indiscriminate pillaging and m u r d e r o f the prisoners should b e a v o i d e d (35; see also 42.8). Furthermore,
those
w h o surrender should b e treated humanely in o r d e r to a v o i d turn ing the e n e m y into desperate fighters (38.1). Tacitus is l o u d in his acclaim o f C o r b u l o and A g r i c o l a for their effective use o f firm dis cipline a m o n g the t r o o p s u n d e r their respective c o m m a n d (Ann. 1 1 . 1 8 - 2 0 ; 1 3 . 3 5 - 3 9 ; 15.26; 4gr. 20). T h e third main area o f activity is the personal c o n d u c t o f the c o m m a n d e r . In batde the general must a v o i d making rash decisions b u t b e able to think quickly o n the spot (32). H e must
display
confidence, especially w h e n the troops are fearful (13) a n d he must ensure the troops are not d o m i n a t e d b y fear n o r o v e r c o m e with a lack o f caution (14.1). H e should call u p o n his staff to offer advice (3). After a successful batde sacrifices o f thanksgiving should b e offered a n d troops should b e rewarded for their valour ( 3 4 ) .
10
Most impor
tant o f all, at n o stage should the general b e c o m e direcdy involved in the actual fighting. O n a s a n d e r claims that "the duty o f the gen eral is to ride b y the ranks o n horseback, s h o w himself to those in danger, praise the brave, threaten the cowardly, e n c o u r a g e the lazy, fill up gaps, transpose a c o m p a n y if necessary, bring aid to the w e a ried,
anticipate the crisis, the hour, a n d the o u t c o m e " (33.6).
Plutarch expresses the same basic principle a b o u t the c o m m a n d e r not b e c o m i n g involved in the fighting at the outset o f his a c c o u n t
1 0
O n a s a n d e r also c o m m e n t s on the key elements associated with selecting a g o o d general. T h e most important factor is the persons' character (Strategicus 2). T h e y must be "self-restrained, vigilant, frugal, hardened to labour, alert, free from avarice, neither too y o u n g nor too old, indeed a father of children* if possible, a ready speaker, and a m a n with a g o o d reputation" (1.1). W e a l t h and family connections are seen to be the w r o n g basis on which to appoint a general ( 1 . 1 9 - 2 5 ) .
285
JOSEPHUS ON TITUS
o f the lives o f Pelopidas and Marcellus. H e states " n o - o n e d e m a n d s that a general should risk his life in fighting like a c o m m o n soldier" (Pel. 2.4). It w o u l d appear Plutarch's decision to focus o n this theme as a flaw c o m m o n to the lives o f Pelopidas and Marcellus w o u l d strike an a c c o r d with his audience. T h e same situation applies with the examples o f actual c o m m a n d e r s — w i t h very few exceptions the c o m m a n d e r is not depicted as regularly entering the batde to
11
fight.
A g r i c o l a oversees the batde from near the front (Agr. 18). A l t h o u g h attacked b y e n e m y troops, it appears that P o m p e y c a m e under threat not because he was actually fighting but because he was positioned close to the front, the n o r m a l location for the c o m m a n d e r during batde (Plutarch,
Pomp. 19.35). Julius Caesar provides a very clear
e x a m p l e o f h o w he also stationed himself close to the front but did not actively e n g a g e in the b a t d e . Fighting against the Nervii
he
describes h o w the situation o n the right w i n g was so dire that it required his intervention. H o w e v e r , Caesar never suggests he actu ally e n g a g e d in batde. Instead, he reforms the line, rallies the troops and issues orders (Bell. gall. 2.25). T h e principle was simple, "where our m e n were in difficulties I sent u p reinforcements" (Bell. gall. 7.85). It was not the role o f the c o m m a n d e r to
12
fight.
In the light o f the preceding outline o f R o m a n expectations regard ing the b e h a v i o u r o f a g o o d c o m m a n d e r , the portrait p r o v i d e d b y Josephus Titus.
13
n o l o n g e r reads as a simple case o f h e a p i n g praise o n In all three areas o f c o m m a n d there are examples o f g o o d
and b a d b e h a v i o u r o n the part o f Titus. Significandy, what stands out most a b o u t the portrait is that the balance lies firmly o n
the
negative side o f the scale.
11
Marius (Plutarch, Mar. 20) is a possible exception to this principle while Cotta's
involvement in the fighting was by accident rather than design (Bell. gall. 5 . 3 3 ) . A . Goldsworthy, " 'Instinctive Genius': T h e Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The
War
depiction of Caesar the
Commentaries as Political Instruments (ed.
W e l c h and A . Powell; L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1998), 1 2
See
general," in K.
193-219.
N o t e also h o w Julius Caesar dealt with the trouble at the siege of Alesia, send
ing Labienus to assist rather than personally intervening (Bell. gall. 7.86). See
also
Bell. civ. 3 . 8 8 - 9 4 regarding the approach adopted at Pharsalus. 1 3
Petronius is probably the best example of a g o o d R o m a n general according
to Josephus. A . Goldsworthy, In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire (London: W e i d e n f e l d & Nicolson, 2 0 0 3 ) , 2 9 0 - 3 1 5 , outlines the activity of Titus in Judea but does so accepting the general view that Josephus was only interested in presenting a positive portrait of his R o m a n patron (213). For a counter view
see
B. Jones, " T h e Reckless Titus," in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V I (ed. C . D e r o u x ; Bruxelles: Latomus, 1992), 4 0 8 - 2 0 . Jones also presumes Josephus is only trying to provide a positive account of Titus' activity.
286
JAMES S. MCLAREN
T h e first area o f activity is the overall organisation o f the campaign to ensure the safety o f the army. O n the positive Titus consults with his staff o n several o c c a s i o n s , oversees the location o f s o m e c a m p s a n d e m p l o y s such tacdcs as the building o f a siege wall (B.J. 5.276, 4 4 6 , 4 9 1 - 4 9 6 ; 6 . 1 4 9 , 220). T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , also a n u m b e r o f ways in w h i c h Titus fails to ensure appropriate organisational deci sions. T h e positioning o f the initial c a m p s and the protection o f the siege equipment is far from effective (B.J. 5 . 6 7 - 8 4 , 2 7 5 - 2 8 7 , 2 9 1 - 2 9 5 , 4 7 9 - 4 8 5 ) . A l t h o u g h these are often used as examples o f Titus' per sonal intervention to "save the d a y " such interventions should n o t have b e e n required in the first place, n o r should it have b e e n Titus w h o intervened b y fighting. T h e initial assault o n the s e c o n d wall was unsuccessful, a p p a r e n d y because the b r e a c h in the wall was t o o small—a decision o f Titus (B.J. 5 . 3 3 1 - 3 4 1 ) . A l t h o u g h Titus rectified the situation in the preparation
for the next attack it was an inap
propriate error in the first place (B.J. 5.346). T h e r e are several examples o f Titus utilising certain
stratagems
while b e i n g in c o m m a n d . O n the positive side, the p r i m e examples o c c u r during the siege. After the failure to win an immediate victory Titus o r d e r e d all the troops to b e p a r a d e d before the walls to receive their p a y (B.J. 5 . 3 4 8 - 3 5 6 ) . O n another o c c a s i o n captured Jews w e r e crucified in view o f the defenders (B.J. 5 . 2 8 9 ) .
14
Both schemes c o u l d
b e v i e w e d as attempts to deflate the spirit o f the Jewish
defenders.
O n the negative ledger, h o w e v e r , Titus was foiled b y a ruse w h e n given his first c o m m a n d . Attacking Gischala Titus parleyed J o h n , w h o is depicted as persuading Titus to wait until the
with
Sabbath
was o v e r before accepting the surrender o f the t o w n (B.J. 4 . 9 2 - 1 1 1 ) . Titus o b l i g e d , withdrawing s o m e distance from the t o w n o n l y to find the next d a y that J o h n had escaped overnight (B.J. 4 . 1 1 2 - 1 1 6 ) . In the realm o f discipline Titus is b o t h g o o d and b a d . T h e r e are examples o f Titus punishing troops for their lack o f o r d e r and o f h i m offering warnings a b o u t falling for various ruses instigated
by
the defenders (B.J. 5 . 1 2 1 - 1 2 8 , 316; 6.155). Despite these efforts o f Titus there are also a n u m b e r o f indications that he was not in c o n trol o f the troops. T h e ruses o f the defenders repeatedly d u p e unsus pecting R o m a n troops (B.J. 5 . 1 0 9 - 1 1 4 , 3 1 8 - 3 2 9 ) . Furthermore,
1 4
at
A t the same time, this particular stratagem defied the principle of not forcing
the defenders to b e c o m e desperate because they saw no hope of escape.
JOSEPHUS ON
287
TITUS
the most important point in the assault, the capture o f the T e m p l e , the troops o p e n l y disobey the orders o f Titus o n m o r e than o n e o c c a s i o n without there b e i n g any suggestion that they were subseq u e n d y punished {B.J. 6.256, 2 6 0 - 2 6 2 ) . It is in the third aspect o f c o m m a n d , Titus' personal c o n d u c t in batde where the portrait is most damning. It is o n l y in the
final
assault o n the T e m p l e that Titus is depicted as adhering to the prin ciple o f b e i n g at h a n d but not actually e n g a g i n g in battle
{B.J.
6 . 1 3 1 - 1 3 3 ) . Elsewhere the portrait p r o v i d e d b y Josephus is the exact opposite to the r e c o m m e n d e d course o f action. Repeatedly Titus is depicted as leading the attack a n d / o r intervening to save the situa tion {B.J. 5.486; 6.68). Josephus goes so far as to state that Titus w o u l d have even led the final assault o n the T e m p l e but for the persistent advice o f his staff {B.J. 6.132). A s presented b y Josephus, Titus is a hands-on general, right in the thick o f the batde.
Such
supposed personal bravery, h o w e v e r , runs counter to the n o t i o n o f the general b e i n g near to the fighting to oversee what happens not actually direcdy engaged in batde o n a regular basis.
but
15
D r a w i n g o n the context o f R o m a n attitudes o n b e i n g a g o o d c o m m a n d e r provides an important corrective to any enthusiasm for a simple positive reading o f J o s e p h u s ' portrait o f Titus' military activ ity. T h i s point is n o m o r e o b v i o u s than in the most often cited fea ture o f the so-called positive i m a g e , Titus' bravery in his personal involvement in the
fighting.
W h a t Josephus provides is far from a
flat one-dimensional portrait o f Titus. It has nuance that requires explanation.
3.
THE
PUBLIC I M A G E OF
TITUS
It is generally agreed that the Flavian family was in need o f immediate c r e d e n c e to support its claim to act as rulers o f the R o m a n Empire. T h e y were outsiders. Writing shordy after the p e r i o d in
question
Suetonius asserts that Vespasian was well aware o f his family's lack o f pedigree {Vesp. 1.1, 2 . 1 , 4.5, 7.2). T h e authority o f the
Flavians
n e e d e d to b e asserted. T o make matters worse this h a d to b e d o n e in the immediate aftermath o f a civil w a r in w h i c h R o m a n b l o o d was spilt within the capital and this claim to authority was being
1 5
For the counter view see Jones, "Reckless Titus."
288
JAMES S. MCLAREN
m a d e primarily through p o w e r that lay in the Eastern part o f the empire. T h e o d d s w e r e stacked u p against the Flavians. T h e victory in J u d e a p r o v i d e d an excellent opportunity for political mileage. S o the decision to celebrate a j o i n t triumph and the m a n y c o i n types minted c o m m e m o r a t i n g aspects o f the victory h e l p e d to p r o m o t e an i m a g e o f the effectiveness o f the n e w family. In this setting the w a r was o f particular i m p o r t a n c e for Titus. If Vespasian was in a difficult position as the n e w e m p e r o r , his eldest son was in an even worse situation. A t least Vespasian c o u l d p o i n t to previous activities as a c o m m a n d e r a n d g o v e r n o r as an indica tion o f a track r e c o r d . Titus, h o w e v e r , c o u l d n o t p o i n t to any such experience. A n y positive i m a g e for Titus was almost entirely d e p e n dant o n what c o u l d b e c l a i m e d in relation to the war. A c c e n t u a t i n g the p r o b l e m , a c c o r d i n g to Suetonius, was Titus' lack o f popularity before he b e c a m e e m p e r o r (Tit. 6 - 7 ) .
1 6
Suetonius' subsequent descrip
tion o f Titus' actions as e m p e r o r indicate that a positive image was quickly established (Tit. 7 - 8 ) . O f particular i m p o r t a n c e here are the various indicators that the w a r was b e i n g used to construct a posi tive image o f Titus as a highly successful c o m m a n d e r . By far the most significant expression o f the p r o p a g a n d a activity relating to the w a r is the triumphal
arch that o n c e s t o o d in
the
Circus M a x i m u s . It was constructed during Titus' reign ( 8 0 - 8 1 ) a n d although the arch has l o n g since disappeared the dedication has sur vived. T h e crucial part o f the dedication reads: "with the guidance o f his father and u n d e r his auspices, he [Titus] s u b d u e d the Jewish p e o p l e a n d destroyed the city o f Jerusalem, w h i c h all generals a n d kings o f other p e o p l e before h i m had either attacked without success o r left entirely untried" (CIL V I . 9 4 4 ) .
17
T h i s dedication o n a public
m o n u m e n t points to the w a y p e o p l e w e r e m e a n t to view Titus. H e was not to b e seen as o n e a m o n g equals, let alone as a c o m m a n d e r w h o simply restored R o m a n rule but as the c o m m a n d e r w h o h a d s u c c e e d e d w h e r e all others h a d previously failed b y b e i n g the first to subdue the Jewish p e o p l e . This was a b o l d claim a n d o n e that ignored the reality o f past events. T o those with a short m e m o r y regard-
1 6
It is possible that the contrast outlined by Suetonius has been exaggerated
in
order to heighten the extent of Titus' success. 1 7
Rajak, Josephus, 2 0 3 , describes the claim in the dedication as "patendy absurd"
but does not consider its possible relevance for the a t d t u d e . o f Josephus
toward
Titus. O v e r m a n , "First Revolt," 2 1 7 , appears to link the dedication with the arch constructed by
Domitian.
289
JOSEPHUS ON TITUS
ing J u d e a o r to those with n o k n o w l e d g e o f its history the dedication m a y have read as an impressive a n d significant a c h i e v e m e n t .
18
It was, h o w e v e r , not the only indicator that extravagant claims were b e i n g m a d e b y those p r o m o t i n g Titus in the p u b l i c arena. Suetonius includes a n u m b e r o f claims a b o u t Titus' contribution to the w a r that exaggerate his role. D u r i n g the c a m p a i g n i n g in Galilee Suetonius states that Titus c o m m a n d e d a legion a n d that he sub d u e d the t w o strong cities o f T a r i c h a e a e and G a m a l a (Tit. 4). In so d o i n g Titus faced danger with his "horse killed under h i m in o n e batde and m o u n t i n g another, w h o s e rider h a d fallen fighting b y his side" (Tit. 4.3). T h e source o f Suetonius' information is u n k n o w n . It c o u l d simply b e an a n e c d o t e w h i c h reflected gossip rather than infor mation formally disseminated from the imperial household. H o w e v e r , even if an e x a m p l e o f the former it does c o n v e y a sense o f what was b e i n g b a n d i e d about regarding Titus' involvement in the war against the J e w s — n a m e l y , he c o m m a n d e d troops a n d bravely sub d u e d the e n e m y .
19
Further indicators that Titus' i m a g e was b o u n d u p with the war are less specific in terms o f actions and they pertain to the Flavians as a w h o l e . H o w e v e r , they d o help p r o v i d e o n g o i n g reminders o f the i m p o r t a n c e p l a c e d o n the victory o v e r the Jews. T h e y are all visual in nature. O n e is the m i n t i n g o f IUDAEA
CAPTA
coins.
Vespasian, Titus and D o m i t i a n all used the victory b y issuing c o i n a g e marking the event. T h e series was notable b y its length o f issue, spanning o v e r
10 years. O f particular note is the increase in the
p r o d u c t i o n o f the coins in the first year o f Titus' reign. T h e other indicators o f the o n g o i n g c o n n e c t i o n are architectural features o f the R o m a n landscape: the formal o p e n i n g o f the C o l o s s e u m b y Titus and the s e c o n d arch o f Titus constructed b y D o m i t i a n . A l t h o u g h c o m m e n c e d b y Vespasian it was Titus w h o o p e n e d the C o l o s s e u m , a v e n u e p r o b a b l y paid for out o f b o o t y from the w a r .
1 8
20
T h e building
A n important consequence of this connection is the need to reconsider
the
dating of the Bellum. T h e r e is no particular reason w h y the text needs to be dated before
the reign o f Titus. T h e dating of the text is the subject o f a forthcoming
publication by the author. 1 9
N o t e that Suetonius makes only a brief reference to the capture of Jerusalem
(Tit. 5) that places emphasis on Titus' direct involvement in the fighting. It is pos sible that Titus was willing to foster a picture of him being actively involved in the battles, believing it would add to his prestige. 2 0
See
60-61.
L. H . Feldman,
"Financing the
Colosseum,"
BAR
21A
(2001): 2 0 - 3 1 ,
290
JAMES S. MCLAREN
o f the s e c o n d arch and the p r o m i n e n c e given to Titus in the d e p i c tion o f the victory suggests that a public image o f Titus as a suc cessful c o m m a n d e r was k n o w n and that it was o f benefit for Domitian to continue to p r o m o t e such an image as he established himself as the successor o f his older brother. W h a t e v e r Titus m a y have lacked in actual experience appears to have b e e n m o r e than m a d e up for b y claiming extensive
military
prowess in his role in the war. A s such, it is important to note that the spin-doctors were hard at w o r k creating an image o f Titus that was not d e p e n d e n t
o n anything Josephus
w r o t e . T h e revolt o f a
small province o n the outer reaches o f the empire b e c a m e the occasion o f Titus being the first R o m a n to subdue the Jewish p e o p l e . Although it is possible Josephus
b e c a m e part o f this p r o p a g a n d a
effort, his
a c c o u n t was not a necessary contribution. In fact, it is m o r e plau sible to v i e w Josephus'
a c c o u n t as o n e that sought to p r o v i d e an
alternative portrait to the o n e being p r o m o t e d in Flavian circles.
21
All o f the claims about Titus' involvement in the war from extant R o m a n sources are explicidy contradicted b y Josephus. Contrary to the claim m a d e in Suetonius, Titus was not in c o m m a n d at the c a p ture o f Tarichaeae.
A c c o r d i n g to Josephus
it was Vespasian
(B.J.
3.445, 4 8 5 , 5 0 3 , 5 2 2 ) . Furthermore, Josephus describes other officers as being involved in the action at Tarichaeae a l o n g with Titus (B.J. 3.485). In relation to G a m a l a the contrast is even m o r e N o t only is Titus not in c o m m a n d but also Josephus
clear-cut.
deliberately
informs the reader that Titus was not with Vespasian at the begin ning o f the siege (B.J. 4.31). H e is there for the final assault but it is Vespasian w h o oversees the capture o f the t o w n (B.J. 4 . 7 0 - 8 2 ) . By far the most significant example o f contradiction relates to the w a y Josephus' a c c o u n t counters the claim in the dedication o n the arch o f Titus. T h e narrative o f the Bellum describes previous o c c a sions Jerusalem was c a p t u r e d — b y Antiochus I V Epiphanes, P o m p e y , the Parthians, H e r o d a n d V a r u s (B.J. 342-356; 2.66~79).
22
1.32;
138-152; 265-270;
Titus is clearly not the first to capture Jerusalem,
let alone subdue the Jews. In case a n y o n e h a d missed this point,
2 1
T h i s line of argument is in
direct contrast to
the
approach advocated
by
O v e r m a n , "First Revolt." 2 2
N o t e also the c o m m e n t s of Agrippa II in his speech about the belated timing
o f the revolt (B.J. {B.J.
1.179).
2.356-357)
and the mention of Crassus plundering the
Temple
JOSEPHUS
291
ON TITUS
Josephus makes it very clear b y stating at the m o m e n t Titus troops d o so in 70 C.E. that it was destroyed o n the anniversary
o f the
destruction at the hands o f the Babylonians (B.J. 6 . 2 6 7 - 2 7 0 ; also see B.J. 6 . 4 3 5 - 4 4 2 ) . T h e r e is n o embarrassed hiding o f h o w the T e m p l e and city w e r e o c c u p i e d o n previous occasions, it is even p r o c l a i m e d b y Josephus in o n e o f his speeches (B.J. 5 . 3 9 1 - 3 9 8 ) . It almost appears to b e a perverse strained o v e r emphasis b y Josephus o f past defeats suffered b y the J e w s .
23
T h e r e is n o effort to c o v e r u p the past. It is,
therefore, n o t simply a case o f J o s e p h u s supplementing the R o m a n efforts to p r o m o t e a positive i m a g e o f Titus. Contradictions existed between what Josephus described a n d what circulated a m o n g R o m a n circles a b o u t Titus.
4.
EXPLAINING T H E N A T U R E AND PURPOSE JOSEPHUS'
OF
PORTRAIT OF T I T U S
It is evident that the portrait o f Titus p r o v i d e d b y J o s e p h u s is any thing but one-dimensional in nature. Even though Titus is the main character in the narrative and such aspects o f his life as the
rela
tionship with Berenice are ignored, it is not a uniformly positive o n e in the light o f the p r e c e d i n g discussion. W e are left with the ques tion o f w h y n u a n c e exists in the portrait. T h e r e appear to b e t w o possible explanations. O n e has Josephus b e i n g well-meaning but not capable o f fulfilling the task, while the other has h i m as an
artful
writer deliberately setting out to u n d e r m i n e Titus. T h e first o p t i o n revolves a r o u n d the c o n c e p t that Josephus was i n c o m p e t e n t . His intention m a y have b e e n to present an
entirely
complimentary portrait o f Titus, with the hands-on a p p r o a c h o f Titus as c o m m a n d e r b e i n g an attempt to emphasize his prowess a n d brav ery. I f so, it means Josephus was either ignorant a n d / o r u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t h o w such a portrait c o u l d b e heard in a R o m a n context. A n y apparent criticism was inadvertent
at best, o r a sign o f J o s e p h u s '
i n c o m p e t e n c e at worst.
2 3
T h i s stands in direct contrast to the approach of Josephus in C. Ap. 2 . 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 , where he awkwardly glosses over the fact that the Jerusalem T e m p l e had been cap tured. See J. M . G . Barclay, " T h e E m p i r e Writes Back: Josephan Rhetoric in Flavian R o m e , " in Flavins Josephus in Flavian Rome (ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n and J. Rivers; Oxford: O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 5 ) , 3 1 5 - 3 2 . I a m grateful to Professor Barclay for providing a copy of his essay prior to publication.
292
JAMES S. MCLAREN
T h e s e c o n d basic o p t i o n is that Josephus was deliberately trying to provide a multi-dimensional portrait o f Titus. T h e tensions between what was k n o w n to b e the b e h a v i o u r o f a g o o d c o m m a n d e r and the w a y Titus b e h a v e d were intentional, as were the contradictions between the details in Josephus and the public claims b e i n g m a d e a b o u t Titus. This o p t i o n requires a radical shift in the existing frame w o r k for h o w w e understand the relationship b e t w e e n Josephus and Titus, and m o r e generally, regarding his attitude toward R o m a n rule. A n important preliminary p o i n t to the following discussion is that w e r e m e m b e r Josephus was not free to say whatever he liked, pre suming he was interested in staying alive. It was not possible for Josephus, n o r a n y o n e else for that matter, to launch blatandy into an o p e n attack o n Titus o r R o m e and expect to remain alive and well. T h e r e were constraints o n public speech, especially for those writing while residing in R o m e .
2 4
A n y desire to articulate
critical
ideas n e e d e d to b e c o u c h e d in a w a y that w o u l d not attract unwanted scrutiny. It should c o m e as n o surprise, therefore, that if Josephus was trying to express views not officially p o p u l a r that he w o u l d seek to d o so with extreme care. Sensitivity regarding passing c o m m e n t o n Titus was particularly important for Jews in R o m e . A l t h o u g h they h a d n o firsthand experience o f the revolt, w e n e e d to recognise h o w m u c h its c o n s e q u e n c e s were a reality for their everyday lives. M a n y J e w s w o u l d have either witnessed o r at least heard stories about the triumph celebrated b y the Flavians, with the parading o f captives, a l o n g with the display o f batde scenes and precious g o o d s
taken
from the T e m p l e . M o r e lasting signs o f the war were also encountered in daily existence. T h e r e was a large influx o f slaves w h o had b e e n captured during the war. T h e issue o f several c o i n types celebrating the victory were a constant r e m i n d e r o f the o u t c o m e . T h e Jiscus Iudaicus also acted as a clear reminder o f the defeat. T h e use o f the tax to help restore the T e m p l e o f Jupiter only r u b b e d salt into the w o u n d , as did the p l a c e m e n t o f precious g o o d s from the Jerusalem T e m p l e in the n e w T e m p l e o f P e a c e .
25
T h e s e reminders meant the w a r was not simply a matter o f s o m e
2 4
Josephus, therefore, did not have the freedom enjoyed by those responsible for the rabbinic sayings, w h o resided in a distant province and used a language most R o m a n officials could not understand. 2 5
R . H . Darwell-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1996), 5 5 - 6 8 regarding the T e m p l e of Peace. It is likely that placing T e m p l e vessels alongside works of art would have only m a d e matters worse.
293
JOSEPHUS ON TITUS
abstract curiosity for the Jews in R o m e , it had a direct i m p a c t o n their lives. It d o e s not take m u c h imagination to envisage questions being asked a m o n g the J e w s o f R o m e a b o u t the war. H o w d i d it h a p p e n ? W h y did it e n d in such a devastating defeat? S u c h thoughts about understanding what had passed w e r e also p r o b a b l y m a t c h e d b y c o n c e r n a b o u t the immediate future. In the past there h a d b e e n n o guarantee o f safety, recent events in R o m e and a b r o a d w o u l d have only a d d e d to a sense o f uncertainty regarding what lay ahead. Criticism c o u l d not b e v o i c e d o p e n l y without fear o f reprisal. S o m e recent developments in J o s e p h a n scholarship further clarify the sense in w h i c h a m o r e c o m p l e x reading o f his texts is required. O f particular benefit is the a p p r o a c h o f J o h n Barclay in relation to the interpretation o f Contra Apionem. Barclay draws o n aspects o f postcolonial theory as a means o f engaging with possible subdeties pre sent in J o s e p h u s ' text.
26
A n important insight from this a p p r o a c h is
that "the 'public transcript' can b e heard differendy b y different audi ences: while those in p o w e r m a y hear only c o m p l i a n c e , others w h o k n o w , o r suspect, a hidden transcript can detect the o b l i q u e a n d cir c u m s p e c t strategies b y w h i c h the subordinate maintain an alternative discourse." Barclay goes o n to p r o p o s e three key areas o f consequence for the reading o f Josephus. T h e y are: Josephus was writing under considerable constraints; he was using R o m a n cultural values for his o w n interests; and, he p r o v i d e d "hints o f a cultural d e f i a n c e . "
27
All
three are evident in the portrait o f Titus. T h e r e was an existing p u b lic i m a g e o f Titus that constrained Josephus and required a level o f c o m p l i a n c e in o r d e r for h i m to survive. A t the same time, this public image acted as an impetus for Josephus to d r a w o n existing R o m a n cultural values in the guise o f attitudes a b o u t what was e x p e c t e d o f a g o o d c o m m a n d e r for his o w n agenda. T h i s agenda was to express defiance o f Titus in his claims to greatness as a general.
28
2 6
See Barclay, " T h e Empire" as well as his essay in this volume.
2 7
Barclay, " T h e Empire," 3 2 0 - 2 1 . A further possible approach to explaining the
complexity of the portrait is the role of irony in R o m a n public life. 2 8
Although Josephus makes claims about Titus viewing the text and providing
his imprimatur
caution is warranted
as to the veracity of these claims. Josephus
only asserts such formal sanction in the context of defending the authenticity of his accounts. Given the concern to claim credence of the account in the preface o f the Bellum, it is surprising Titus' approval
is not mentioned. T h e claims to
imperial
approval only appear long after the death of Titus. It is also evident that Josephus is unclear as to whether Titus was given a copy or whether the emperor actually sanctioned the text as the official account.
294
JAMES S. MCLAREN
T h e p r e c e d i n g discussion has focused o n points o f tension n o t e d between external points o f reference and what Josephus has nar rated. T h e r e are also a n u m b e r o f internal points o f reference in the narrative o f the Bellum that affirm J o s e p h u s ' intention to critique Titus. T h r e e i m m e d i a t e l y stand o u t for c o m m e n t . First, in 3 . 7 0 - 1 0 9 Josephus presents a digression o n the R o m a n army. describing the various aspects o f R o m a n success t w o features particularly
important:
the R o m a n s are never subject to
B.J. In are
surprise
attacks, they always fortify their c a m p (B.J. 3.76); and, the importance o f discipline and their respect for generals and their resultant g o o d o r d e r in batde (B.J. 3.103, 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 ) . T h i s ideal, h o w e v e r , is far from what o c c u r s w h e n Titus attacks Jerusalem. T h e R o m a n c a m p s are subject to n u m e r o u s surprise attacks, often with substantial success. O n a n u m b e r o f separate occasions, including the firing o f the T e m p l e , the orders o f Titus are ignored b y the troops. S e c o n d , Josephus never presents Titus as the o n e w h o c o n q u e r e d the Jews. Instead, he repeat edly reminds the reader that it was factions, famine and the R o m a n s that brought about the defeat and, everything that o c c u r r e d was all d o n e at the b e c k o n i n g o f G o d (B.J. 1.27; 5 . 1 - 2 6 ; 6 . 3 9 - 4 1 , 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 , 2 1 4 - 2 1 6 ) . T h i r d , Vespasian (B.J. 4.372) and Titus (B.J. 5.316) speak o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f avoiding any rash b e h a v i o u r o r
undertaking
any unnecessary risks, as d o Titus' staff (B.J. 5 . 8 7 - 8 8 ) . H o w e v e r , this wise counsel is not reflected in the actions o f Titus, w h o continually puts himself at
29
risk.
CONCLUSION
T h e positivist readings o f the portrait o f Titus that d o m i n a t e schol arship have distorted the situation. Josephus d o e s not construct a one-dimensional picture. Rather, w e n e e d to see positive and nega tive elements in the portrait. T h e latter d o take s o m e unravelling, as they are not o p e n l y displayed. Such a situation should not c o m e as a total surprise. Paul Spilsbury has s h o w n h o w J o s e p h u s ' writing o f the Antiquitates incorporates a critique o f R o m e amidst the reality o f current circumstances.
2 9
30
T h e s e insights help p r o v i d e a framework
T h e naming of Tiberius Alexander as Titus' advisor lessens the claim of sole c o m m a n d (BJ. 5 . 4 4 - 4 6 ) . P. Spilsbury, "Flavius Josephus on the Rise and Fall o f the R o m a n Empire," JTS 54.1 (2003): 1 - 2 4 . N o t e also his contribution to this volume. 3 0
JOSEPHUS ON TITUS
in w h i c h to understand what Josephus has sought to undertake
295 in
constructing his portrait o f Titus in the Bellum. T h i s text has l o n g b e e n relegated to the realm o f pro-Flavian p r o p a g a n d a . T h e sophis tication
being linked with Josephus' later writings should also b e asso
ciated with the Bellum. Titus was the victor and had to b e publicly recognised as such in o r d e r for Josephus to survive. H o w e v e r , as o n e o f the vanquished, Josephus did n o t miss the opportunity to under mine the victor, especially as he was making oudandish claims to grandeur well b e y o n d what c o u l d b e d e e m e d as legitimate. Josephus may have been conquered but that does not mean he was submissive.
3 1
Such a reading opens up the question of whether or not Josephus was
31
also
a n t i - R o m a n before the war. It could also help offer an alternative perspective on the M a s a d a episode in B.J.
7. It m a y have been included by Josephus to provide
one final "insult" against the R o m a n s about the hollow nature o f their victory. See also the approach taken by Steve M a s o n regarding the portrait o f Titus in his essay in this volume.
JOSEPHUS A N D THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ROME: D O E S CONTRA APIONEM
MIRROR
CRUSHING OF THE "STOIC GUNNAR
DOMITIAN'S
OPPOSITION"?
HAALAND
T H E N O R W E G I A N LUTHERAN S C H O O L OF T H E O L O G Y
INTRODUCTION
Scholarship o n Josephus has had a tendency to neglect his R o m a n context, just as scholarship o n imperial R o m e has neglected Josephus.
1
T h i s is a b o u t to change. T h e focus o n J o s e p h u s ' R o m a n context has been o n e o f the most significant traits o f recent research o n Josephus.
2
T h e gathering in R o m e o f Josephus scholars from a r o u n d the w o r l d is i n d e e d a p r o p e r occasion for a further pursuit along this path. Such a pursuit is the aim o f the present article. I will first e x a m i n e a certain aspect o f R o m a n culture and politics in J o s e p h u s ' days, namely the changing fortunes o f the city's philoso phers. T h e n I will discuss J o s e p h u s against this b a c k g r o u n d . M y key proposal will b e that in Contra Apionmi there are reflections o f Domitian's crushing o f the so-called "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n " in 9 3 - 9 4 C E .
3
T H E T H I R T E E N T H Y E A R OF DOMITIAN'S R E I G N
T h e m o r e concretely w e attempt to relate Josephus to concurrent events in R o m e , the m o r e important the years 9 3 - 9 4 C E . b e c o m e . Just as
1
O n the latter point, see e.g. M . H a d a s - L e b e l , "Flavius Josephus, Historian of R o m e , " in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. F. Parente and J. Sievers; StPB 4 1 ; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 9 9 - 1 0 6 , a n d M . Beard, " T h e T r i u m p h of Flavius Josephus," in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (ed. A . J. Boyle and W . J. Dominik; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 5 4 3 - 5 8 . 2
N o t e e.g. the programmatic tide o f the Josephus conference in T o r o n t o , 2 0 0 1 : "Flavius Josephus in Flavian R o m e . " Several o f the papers from this conference are of great relevance for this article, but they have been published too late to be con sidered in this article (Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome [ed. J. E d m o n d s o n , S. M a s o n and J. Rives; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 2 0 0 5 ] ) . T h e designation "Stoic opposition" refers to a group o f senators known for their Stoic inclinations. T h i s grouping will be presented further below, as will Domitian's actions against them. 3
298
GUNNAR
HAALAND
Gallio's proconsulship in A c h a i a in 52 C.E. serves as the a n c h o r a g e 4
point for reconstructions o f Pauline c h r o n o l o g y , the dating o f the Antiquitates to "the thirteenth year o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n Caesar a n d to the fifty-sixth o f m y life" (A.J. 20.267) is a fixed point o f 5
departure for J o s e p h a n c h r o n o l o g y . D o m i t i a n b e c a m e e m p e r o r in S e p t e m b e r 8 1 , and Josephus was allegedly b o r n during the first year o f Gaius' reign (Vita 5), w h i c h started in M a r c h 37 C.E. T h e p e r i o d from S e p t e m b e r 93 to M a r c h 9 4 C.E. represents the overlap between the t w o schemes. H o w e v e r , Josephus m a y not b e counting from the date o f the e m p e r o r s ' ascent to p o w e r . H e m a y instead b e referring to the R o m a n civic years w h e n Gaius and D o m i t i a n gained p o w e r , 37 and 81 C.E. respectively. If this assumption is correct, the Antiquitates c o u l d have b e e n published at any time in 93 C . E .
6
W e m a y ask: W h a t was g o i n g o n in R o m e at that time? For any o n e interested
in J o s e p h u s a n d p h i l o s o p h y , the answer is i n d e e d
intriguing! Several leading m e m b e r s o f the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n " were executed, and m a n y philosophers were expelled from the city. T h e s e events are related in several sources, and w e m a y quote o n e o f them:
7
8
It is recorded that when Rusticus Arulenus extolled Thrasea Paetus, when Herennius Senecio extolled Helvidius Priscus, their praise became a capital offence, so that persecution fell not merely on the authors themselves but also on their books: the police, in fact, were given the task o f burning in the courtyard o f the Forum the memorials o f our noblest characters. They imagined, no doubt, that in those flames dis appeared the voice o f the people, the liberty o f the Senate, the con science o f mankind; especially as the teachers o f Philosophy also were expelled, and all decent behaviour exiled, in order that nowhere might anything o f good report present itself to men's eyes. (Tacitus, Agr. 2 ) 9
4
See e.g. J. A . Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary ( N e w York: Doubleday, 1993), 8 6 - 8 7 . 5
Ancient sources are quoted from the translations of the L o e b Classical Library, unless otherwise indicated. 6
See e.g. the discussion in S. M a s o n , Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (BJP 9; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 1 ) , x v - x v i note 1. 7
See also Agr. 4 5 ; Pliny, Ep. 1.5 and 3 . 1 1 ; Suetonius, Dom. 10; D i o Cassius 6 7 . 1 3 , and Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 1 5 . 1 1 . 4 . T h e passages from Suetonius and D i o Cassius are quoted below. T h e names of Junius Arulenus Rusticus appear in several combinations in the different sources. W e will encounter both the elder and the younger Helvidius Priscus. In this passage, Tacitus is referring to the elder. 8
9
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS
OF ROME
299
It is usually assumed that the early autumn o f 93 G.E. was the starting point o f these affairs, and that the c r a c k d o w n o n philosophers m a y have lasted well into the following y e a r .
10
T h i s means that a r o u n d
the time w h e n the Antiquitates was published, "philosophers" and "phi l o s o p h y " were significant in relation to a major political controversy in R o m e . Before w e further e x a m i n e these events, h o w e v e r , w e will have a l o o k at the b r o a d e r picture, focusing first o n Domitian's reign, and then o n the position and reputation o f philosophers a n d phi losophy in R o m e during this p e r i o d .
T H E R E I G N OF D O M I T I A N
Titus Flavius Domitianus ( 5 1 - 9 6 G.E.), the last e m p e r o r o f the Flavian dynasty, has b e e n perceived as an incarnation o f the wicked and ruth less tyrant. T h e negative evaluation b y Tacitus, the y o u n g e r Pliny,
11
Juvenal and Suetonius in the early s e c o n d century G.E. has b e e n retained until t o d a y .
12
D u r i n g the past few decades scholars have attempted to d r a w a m o r e n u a n c e d and b a l a n c e d picture o f D o m i t i a n .
13
It is first o f all
easy to see that the image o f an insane despot served to legitimize the reign o f his followers—Nerva, Trajan a n d Hadrian. T h e fact is that during the reign o f D o m i t i a n , Tacitus a n d Pliny were themselves a part o f the political system, pursuing their careers while keeping their mouths shut.
14
Secondly, several o f D o m i t i a n ' s achievements,
his administrative skills, his building projects, etc., were hardly related b y historians like Tacitus, Suetonius o r D i o Cassius. T h e i r focus was rather Domitian's troublesome relationship with the Senate. D o m i t i a n ruled as a sovereign m o n a r c h , and did not c o n c e a l it. Unlike several
1 0
See e.g. R . S y m e , "Domitian: T h e Last Years," Chiron 13 (1983): 1 2 1 - 4 6 , 1 2 3 , or the discussion in P. Southern, Domitian: Trage Tyrant (London: R o u d e d g e , 1997), 153 note 12. 11
A s only the younger Pliny, the younger Seneca, and the younger C a t o in this article, I use only their given names below. 1 2
figure
In other words: Even m o r e than Josephus, Domitian has suffered from a seri ous image problem! See e.g. B. W . Jones, Domitian and the Senatorial Order. A Prosopographical Study of Domitian's Relationship with the Senate, A.D. 81-96 ( M e m o i r s of the American Philosoph ical Society 132; Philadelphia: T h e A m e r i c a n Philosophical Society, 1979); S y m e , "Domitian"; B. W . Jones, The Emperor Domitian (London: R o u d e d g e , 1992), and Southern, Domitian. See e.g. Tacitus, Agr. 4 5 . 1 3
1 4
300
GUNNAR HAALAND
o f his predecessors, he did very little to support the quasi-republican pretence o f the Senate. H e preferred the designation dominus et dens ( " L o r d and G o d , " Suetonius, Dom. 13), rather than acting as if he was just the first a m o n g equals.
15
Tacitus and Pliny b o t h b e l o n g e d to
the senatorial aristocracy to which Domitian did not pay m u c h respect. A s w e try to picture J o s e p h u s ' environment in R o m e , D o m i t i a n ' s b a d relationship with the Senate is m o r e relevant than his adminis tration o f the larger empire. In this perspective, the fact remains that his reign g r e w significandy worse towards the e n d o f his life.
PHILOSOPHERS
16
AND PHILOSOPHY IN R O M E
Philosophy in R o m e at the time o f Josephus was a multifaceted p h e n o m e n o n , m a y b e as manifold as religion is today. It w o u l d involve the genius a n d the copyist, the rationalist and the magician, the her mit and the lobbyist, the ascetic and the rabble-rouser. Y o u w o u l d find the longhaired, b e a r d e d C y n i c preacher o n the street corner, the Pythagorean mystic at a m o r e remote location, the G r e e k teacher in the upper-class house, and the Stoic senator involved in imperial politics. T h e spectrum o f different types o f p h i l o s o p h e r s — a n d their rele v a n c e for o u r pursuit o f J o s e p h u s ' c o n t e x t — m a y appear m o r e clearly if w e introduce s o m e significant representatives. F r o m the days o f Claudius a n d onwards w e e n c o u n t e r Demetrius the C y n i c time and again—admired b y Seneca, witnessing Thrasea Paetus' forced sui cide, insulting Vespasian, etc. T h e Pythagorean Apollonius o f T y a n a — and his trial before D o m i t i a n — h a s b e e n immortalized b y Philostratus in his Vita Apollonii. A m o n g the m o r e genuine thinkers were Musonius Rufus—known as the Socrates o f R o m e — a n d his students Euphrates, Epictetus and D i o C h r y s o s t o m . Epictetus was a m o n g those w h o were expelled from R o m e b y Domitian in 9 3 - 9 4 C.E., while D i o Chrysostom was forced to leave the city already in the early 80s. Finally w e have
1 5
M a n y scholars accept Suetonius' description at this point. See e.g. Southern, Domitian, 3 6 and 4 5 . For critical views, see e.g. Jones, Emperor Domitian, 1 0 8 - 9 , and L. L . T h o m p s o n , The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire ( N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d University Press, 1990), 1 0 4 ff. 1 6
180
See e.g. S y m e , "Domitian," 1 2 1 - 2 8 ; M . G o o d m a n , The Roman World 44 (London: Routledge, 1997), 6 4 - 6 5 , and Southern, Domitian, 110 ff.
BC-AD
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ROME
301
the Stoic senators, w h o will b e o u r main focus o f attention. S e n e c a and Thrasea Paetus were leading figures during Nero's reign, and from the time o f D o m i t i a n w e have already e n c o u n t e r e d Junius Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio. W e will shordy get acquainted also with the y o u n g e r Helvidius Priscus. R o m a n s generally viewed philosophy with ambivalence, p a r d y with suspicion and p a r d y with admiration. T h i s a m b i v a l e n c e is typical o f the R o m a n attitude to everything Greek. G r e e k teachers o f philos o p h y , as well as o f rhetoric o r g r a m m a r , c o u l d make a living a m o n g the R o m a n aristocracy, but they were viewed with a certain suspicion. Philosophy was p e r c e i v e d with sympathy to the extent that it p r o v e d itself useful in everyday life—by promoting virtue, procuring refinement, and p r o v i d i n g happiness. If, o n the other hand, it appeared that phi losophy engendered arrogance and egotism, if philosophers disregarded R o m a n values o r if their students a b a n d o n e d the R o m a n w a y o f life, the sympathy w o u l d quickly disappear. T o o d e e p involvement, o r total subjection to a s c h o o l o f p h i l o s o p h y , was p r o b a b l y as sus picious as "fundamentalism"
o r "fanaticism" is t o d a y .
17
T h e R o m a n u p p e r class a p p r o a c h e d p h i l o s o p h y pragmatically and eclectically, with Stoicism as the main c o m p o n e n t .
1 8
Stoic teaching
supported their conservative values a n d p r o v i d e d a sense o f sophis tication in addition, but it could also give voice to criticism, opposition and subversion. Stoics w o u l d sometimes heavily stress that their phi l o s o p h y e n c o u r a g e d active participation
in society a n d politics—a
primary duty for the m e m b e r s o f the R o m a n upper class. Nonetheless, a quiet life o f c o n t e m p l a t i o n a n d teaching was u n d o u b t e d l y appeal ing also to Stoics. "Nature has begotten us for b o t h purposes—for c o n t e m p l a t i o n a n d for a c t i o n . "
19
Participation in p u b l i c life was not
e n c o u r a g e d if there was nothing to achieve: "Let h i m w h o w o u l d b e righteous
leave royal courts. Virtue and autocracy cannot be m i x e d . "
20
For a R o m a n senator, such withdrawal c o u l d easily b e interpreted as
1 7
See e.g. Tacitus, Agr. 4 .
1 8
See e.g. R . M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order. Treason, Unrest and Alienation
in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966), 4 9 - 5 0 , and P. A . Brunt, "Stoicism and the Principate," Papers of the British School at Rome 3 0 (1975): 7 - 3 5 , 7. 1 9
Seneca, De Otio 5. O n this Stoic ambiguity, see e.g. Brunt, "Stoicism and the
Principate," passim, and M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order, 11 and 5 0 ff. 2 0
Lucan, Pharsalia 8 . 4 9 0 , quoted from M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order, 2 5 .
Seneca's nephew
Lucan is not representative of Stoic thought in all matters.
302
GUNNAR HAALAND
treason—"for what o n e avoids, o n e c o n d e m n s . " e n d y what h a p p e n e d
21
T h a t was appar-
to T h r a s e a Paetus in the 60s, to the
elder
Helvidius Priscus in the 70s and to Herennius S e n e c i o in the 9 0 s .
DOMITIAN'S CRUSHING
OF THE " S T O I C
22
OPPOSITION"
In the days o f Josephus m a n y G r e e k philosophers resided in R o m e for longer o r shorter periods o f time, a m o n g them D i o C h r y s o s t o m a n d Epictetus. D u r i n g the same p e r i o d the n u m b e r o f senators o f G r e e k origin increased. Nonetheless, the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n " in
the
Senate o f the Flavian p e r i o d was not a G r e e k import. T h r o u g h fam ily ties, friendship and teacher-student successions, the g r o u p c o u l d trace its roots b a c k to the victims o f N e r o in the sixties—first o f all T h r a s e a Paetus, w h o suffered death together with Seneca, L u c a n , and many
others.
O n e o f the victims o f Domitian in 9 3 - 9 4 C.E., the younger Helvidius Priscus, was actually a third generation Stoic oppositionist. His father, the elder Helvidius Priscus, was in fact T h r a s e a Paetus' son-in-law. T h r a s e a Paetus had b e e n consul in 56 C.E., was a g o o d friend former student o f Seneca, and remained
loyal to N e r o for
and many
years. In the 60s, h o w e v e r , he did not fulfill his obligations as a sen ator, and was finally sentenced to death in 66 C.E. His son-in-law, the elder Helvidius Priscus, survived N e r o ' s crushing o f the Pisonian conspiracy, and was a leading critic o f Vespasian in the early 70s until he was expelled and later e x e c u t e d .
23
A n o t h e r victim o f 9 3 - 9 4 C.E., Junius Arulenus Rusticus, had b e e n personally involved in similar events in the 60s. H e was a m e m b e r o f T h r a s e a Paetus' circle, a n d as a y o u n g tribune in 6 6 C.E., he attempted to intervene in o r d e r to save T h r a s e a Paetus. F r o m these examples it is clear that the events o f 9 3 - 9 4 C.E. did not c o m e out o f a clear blue sky. T h e r e were tensions between the emperors and certain philosophical-political oppositionists for decades, a n d from time to time o p e n conflict and persecution b r o k e o u t .
2 1
24
Seneca, Ep. 14.8. See e.g. M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order, passim. O n Thrasea Paetus, see Tacitus, Ann. 1 6 . 2 1 - 2 2 . O n the elder Helvidius Priscus, see Epictetus, Diatr. 1 . 2 . 1 9 - 2 2 . O n Herennius Senecio, see D i o Cassius 6 7 . 1 3 (quoted below). 2 2
2 3
2 4
See e.g. Suetonius, Vesp. 15. O n Vespasian's expulsion of philosophers,
see e.g. D i o Cassius
66.13.
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ROME
303
T h e attachment to previous generations o f oppositionist heroes, to their philosophical o r political ideals and to their courage in confronting the ruler, c o u l d b e expressed through the c o m p o s i t i o n o f biographies o r pamphlets o f praise. Thrasea Paetus wrote a laudatory b i o g r a p h y o f C a t o , the tragic hero from the final phase o f the republic in the first century B . C E . Junius Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius S e n e c i o wrote a b o u t T h r a s e a Paetus and the elder Helvidius Priscus respec tively.
T h e quotation a b o v e from Tacitus reveals the fatal c o n s e
quences o f that literary enterprise.
25
In o r d e r to understand the picture o f D o m i t i a n a n d the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n " m o r e clearly, let us e x a m i n e the accounts o f Suetonius and D i o Cassius: He put to death . . .Junius Rusticus, because he had published eulo gies o f Paetus Thrasea and Helvidius Priscus and called them the most upright o f men; and on the occasion o f this charge he banished all the philosophers from the city and from Italy. He also executed the younger Helvidius, alleging that in a farce composed for the stage he had under the characters o f Paris and Oenone censured Domitian's divorce from his wife. (Suetonius, Dom. 10) But the deeds now to be related . . . cannot be described in similar terms. I refer to his killing o f Arulenus Rusticus because he was doing philosophy (on e(piA,6oo(pei) and because he called Thrasea holy, and to his slaying o f Herennius Senecio because in his long career he had stood for no office after his quaestorship and because he had written the biography o f Helvidius Priscus. Many others also perished as a result of this same charge o f philosophizing, and all the philosophers that were left in R o m e were banished once more. (Dio Cassius 67.13) 26
27
T h e following pretexts for persecution and punishment can be detected: the criticism o f the e m p e r o r disguised as d r a m a o r b i o g r a p h y , the lack o f participation in public life, a n d finally—as it appears from D i o Cassius—even philosophizing as such. It is easy to understand w h y D o m i t i a n preferred not to b e insulted from the stages o f his theatres o r challenged through politically charged biographies, a n d w e have seen a b o v e h o w the absence from the political stage c o u l d b e interpreted as a sign o f opposition o r subversion. H o w e v e r , it is hardly
2 5
O n literature during the Flavians, see e.g. J. W . Iddeng, Princeps et vis librorum: Literature, Liberty and the Flavian Regime (69-96 AD) (Acta H u m a n i o r a 186; Oslo: Unipub, 2004). 2 6
Suetonius—apparently by mistake—attributes both eulogies to Junius Arulenus Rusticus. T h e death of Herennius Senecio is not mentioned. M y translation. C a r y ( L C L ) translates "because he was a philosopher." 2 7
304
GUNNAR HAALAND
correct that D o m i t i a n considered the very act o f d o i n g philosophy a crime.
28
W e need, therefore, to take a closer l o o k at the i d e o l o g y
that characterized the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n . " T h e y "professed allegiance to a tradition o f liberty, o f integrity and courage,"
29
not to any detailed party p r o g r a m . A s w e have seen,
Tacitus p o m p o u s l y applies to them "the v o i c e o f the p e o p l e , the lib erty o f the Senate, the c o n s c i e n c e o f m a n k i n d . "
30
W h e n the bid for
libertas ("freedom," "liberty") was v o i c e d during the Flavian period, it s o u n d e d like e c h o e s o f the late R e p u b l i c , but was in fact far less ambitious. W h e r e C a t o , C i c e r o and Brutus wanted freedom
from
autocracy, the "Stoic opposition" o f the Flavian period could only h o p e for freedom o f speech under a de facto m o n a r c h i c rule. In other words: T h e y d e m a n d e d f r e e d o m from tyranny. Even that d e m a n d c o u l d b e dangerous e n o u g h , as it c o u l d e n c o u r a g e others to act. " T y r a n n i c i d e was esteemed in antiquity as not a crime but a n o b l e d e e d . " T h e "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n " o f the Flavian p e r i o d m a y have
31
appeared
as only shadows o f its predecessors, not only regarding the nature o f their demands. T h e i r family b a c k g r o u n d was less prestigious, and their power-base m o r e fragile. Whereas the heroes o f the late Republic were the sons o f p r o u d R o m a n families, their followers a later were often n e w c o m e r s in R o m e .
3 2
century
In o r d e r to facilitate
their
claims and to b o o s t their prestige, Stoic p h i l o s o p h y was p r o b a b l y all the m o r e important. T h e i r advertisement o f perfect virtue was often perceived as arrogant and patronizing.
33
This might explain w h y phi
losophizing or "stoicizing" could b e c o m e almost equivalent to treason.
34
T h u s far w e see that there is n o n e e d to assume that D o m i t i a n was insane o r possessed b y a hatred o f philosophers as such. T h e r e were several reasons for h i m to act.
2 8
35
See e.g. J. L. Penwill, "Expelling the M i n d : Politics and Philosophy in Flavian
R o m e , " in Flavian Rome:
Culture, Image, Text (ed. A . J. Boyle and W . J.
Dominik;
Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 3 4 5 - 6 8 , esp. 3 5 9 ff. 2 9
S y m e , "Domitian," 124.
3 0
Tacitus, Agr.
3 1
Brunt, "Stoicism and the Principate," 2 7 .
3 2
Thrasea Paetus was from Padua (Patavium) in northern Italy; the elder Helvidius
2.4.
Priscus was from C l u v i a e — a n insignificant town east of the Apennines; Herennius Senecio was from Baetica in Spain, while the origin of Junius Arulenus Rusticus is not certain. 3 3
See e.g. Tacitus, Ann.
3 4
See e.g.
MacMullen,
Enemies of the Roman Order, 4 6 and 66
3 5
See
MacMullen,
Enemies of the Roman Order, passim; Brunt, "Stoicism
e.g.
1 4 . 5 7 , and Seneca, Ep.
73.1. ff. and
the Principate"; Jones, Domitian and the Senatorial Order, 41 ff., Jones, Emperor Domitian, 119 ff. and
180 ff; Southern, Domitian, 110 ff, and Penwill, "Expelling the
Mind."
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS
305
OF ROME
In addition to the e m p e r o r , the R o m a n aristocrats c o u l d also face dangers from their colleagues. T h e fate o f Herennius S e n e c i o m a y serve as a g o o d e x a m p l e . In a separate event shordy before he was sentenced to death, Herennius
S e n e c i o was c h a r g e d with majestas
("treason") b y Baebius Massa. Just s o m e months earlier the roles had b e e n the opposite. T o g e t h e r with Pliny, Herennius S e n e c i o acted as prosecutor in a case against Baebius M a s s a .
36
" F r e e d o m to prose 1
cute was o n e o f the last vestiges o f R e p u b l i c a n libertas"*
O t h e r factors, missing from the brief accounts o f Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius and D i o Cassius, m a y also b e c o n j e c t u r e d .
38
However, my
c o n c e r n in this article is m o r e with the rhetoric surrounding the c o n frontation than with what h a p p e n e d b e h i n d the scenes. B e l o w w e will discuss h o w Josephus deals with this rhetoric. First, h o w e v e r , w e will l o o k at a scene that is an important part o f this show, namely the forced suicide o f the philosophical-political oppositionist. W e will also see what h a p p e n e d to philosophers a n d p h i l o s o p h y after
the
death o f D o m i t i a n .
T H E DEATH
OF SOCRATES AND THE " S T O I C
OPPOSITION"
W h e n Thrasea Paetus was sentenced to death, he—like so m a n y other philosopical-political oppositionists—chose suicide in imitation o f C a t o and Brutus. W e d o not k n o w h o w Junius Arulenus Rusticus described Thrasea Paetus' forced suicide, but w e m a y make a qualified guess. First o f all, w e have accounts o f his death from Tacitus a n d D i o Cassius.
39
S e c o n d l y , w e possess a great n u m b e r o f similar records o f
forced suicide—those o f C a t o , Brutus, Seneca, Lucan, Euphrates, etc. In a striking way, these texts share similar features. T h e h e r o faces death with dignity and serenity. H e comforts his friends a n d stu dents, engages them in a philosophical discussion a b o u t the afterlife o r another suitable topic, and delivers s o m e apt last w o r d s o n virtue versus tyranny, suicide as the ultimate expression o f f r e e d o m , etc., o r b y q u o t i n g o n e o f the classics. Tacitus pictures Thrasea Paetus as he is discussing "the nature o f the soul and the d i v o r c e o f spirit and
3 6
See e.g. Puny, Ep. 7 . 3 3 . S y m e , "Domitian," 124. See e.g. Penwill, "Expelling the M i n d , " 3 5 8 ff. Tacitus, Ann. 1 6 . 3 4 - 3 5 ; D i o Cassius 6 2 . 1 5 . In fact, Junius Arulenus Rusticus might well have been Tacitus' source. See Brunt, "Stoicism and the Principate," 12 note 2 2 . 3 7
3 8
3 9
306
GUNNAR
b o d y " with Demetrius the C y n i c .
HAALAND
40
C a t o quoted Phaedo, Lucan q u o t e d
his o w n Pharsalia. T h e m o d e l for these accounts is clearly the death o f Socrates, as it is for other types o f m a r t y r d o m literature. Socrates a few times in his
41
Philostratus points to
2
Vita Apollonii* a n d Epictetus d o e s it
repeatedly. In fact, Socrates is m e n t i o n e d in Epictetus' writings far m o r e frequendy than a n y o n e else, usually as a martyr executed b y the state for his beliefs.
43
S e n e c a is even said to have prepared l o n g
in advance the p o i s o n " w h i c h was used for dispatching c o n d e m n e d b y the public tribunal o f A t h e n s . "
T H E REHABILITATION
OF PHILOSOPHERS
prisoners
44
AND
PHILOSOPHY
Before w e turn to Josephus, let us have a brief l o o k at what happened after Domitian's death. Philosophers and p h i l o s o p h y w e r e quickly rehabilitated. Pliny broke the silence and v o i c e d his praise to the y o u n g e r Helvidius Priscus in the Senate already in 97 G.E. Pliny later published his eulogy, thereby adding another generation to the chain o f such e u l o g i e s .
45
Philosophers, a m o n g them Euphrates and D i o Chrysostom, returned to R o m e , and at o n e point Trajan's wife apparendy claimed to b e an Epicurean.
46
p a n i e d Trajan
Philostratus even relates that D i o Chrysostom a c c o m in a t r i u m p h .
47
Philosophers a n d p h i l o s o p h y w e r e
again politically correct. S o m e decades later, Marcus Aurelius appeared as a b e a r d e d e m p e r o r writing philosophical literature in Greek, while Christians were g o i n g out o f their w a y to present themselves as the true philosophers. T h a t is a different story, h o w e v e r . It is time to turn o u r eyes to Josephus.
4 0
Tacitus, Ann. 1 6 . 3 4 . See e.g. the extensive treatment in M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order, 6 7 ff., or the recent discussion in Penwill, "Expelling the M i n d , " 3 5 3 ff. 4 1
42
See e.g. Vit. Apoll 8.2.
4 3
C . G . Starr, "Epictetus and the Tyrant," CQ 4 4 (1949): 2 0 - 2 9 , 2 8 . Tacitus, Ann. 1 5 . 6 4 . See e.g. Ep. 9 . 1 3 . See S y m e , Tacitus, 5 3 8 . Vit. soph. 1.488.
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ROME
307
JOSEPHUS AND THE CRUSHING OF THE "STOIC OPPOSITION" W e have already seen that during Domitian's reign, Tacitus and Pliny kept their mouths shut and their pens at rest, as they promoted their own careers by serving the emperor that they would later denounce. In this light Josephus becomes an all the more intriguing figure. He did not keep quiet, but published extensively during the last years 8
of Domitian's reign: Antiquitates, Vita and possibly also Contra Apionem.* Domitian's brutal rule has for a long time served as an important interpretative context for the book of Revelation.
49
W h y not engage
Domitian in the interpretation of Josephus' writings from the same period? Since the publication of Josephus' magnum opus coincides with Domitian's crushing of the "Stoic opposition," does it in any way mirror the dramatic events in R o m e at the time? A n d what about Contra Apionem, being published somewhat later? As far as I am aware, only Steve Mason has previously addressed these issues. H e , however, has done it in several contexts—first as 50
a part of his discussion on Jewish (or Judean) philosophy, and more recendy in his treatment of the Antiquitates. In his two articles on Greco-Roman, Jewish and Christian phi losophy, Mason includes the writings of Josephus in his presentation of Jewish philosophy.
51
H e notes that the publication of the Antiquitates
coincided with Domitian's expulsion of philosophers from Rome, and indicates that the presentation of Jewish philosophy might be prob lematic against this background: " W h y would Josephus, who is now living in Rome, seek to present Judaism as a philosophy when philoso phers are in such difficult straits?" H e suggests the following solution:
4 8
W h e t h e r Contra Apionem was published before or after the death o f D o m i t i a n
is an open question. See e.g. discussion in C . Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums für Mchtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift C o n t r a A p i o n e m ( A G A J U 4 0 ; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 6 4 ff. T h e question will b e addressed below. 4 9
1-5 5 0
See e.g. T h o m p s o n , Book of Revelation, 15 ff. and 9 5 ff., and D . A u n e , Revelation ( W B C 5 2 ; Dallas: W o r d Books, 1997), lvi ff. F r o m the mid-nineties M a s o n has consistendy used the translation "Judean"
rather than "Jew" or "Jewish." I use the m o r e traditional terms, also w h e n refer ring to M a s o n ' s views. 5 1
S. M a s o n , " G r e c o - R o m a n , Jewish, a n d Christian Philosophies," in Approaches
to Ancient Judaism, New Series, Volume Four: Religious and Theological Studies (ed. J. Neusner; South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 8 1 ; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993), 1 - 2 8 , and S. M a s o n ,
"Philosophiai:
G r a e c o - R o m a n , Judean and Christian," in Voluntary
Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J. S. K l o p p e n b o r g a n d S. G . W i l s o n ; L o n d o n : Routledge, 1996),
31-58.
308
GUNNAR HAALAND
Josephus " d o e s not say that Judaism is a philosophical s c h o o l within G r e c o - R o m a n society, but rather that the Jews are a nation with their o w n philosophical s c h o o l s . "
52
In his recent essays o n the Antiquitates, M a s o n returns to the events in 9 3 - 9 4 C . E .
53
H e reads the Antiquitates n o t only as an exposition o f
Jewish history and o f the Jewish constitution, but also as a brave c o m m e n t o n R o m a n affairs—"as direcdy as any writer w o u l d dare at this p o i n t in D o m i t i a n ' s r e i g n . "
54
M a s o n argues that there might
b e a link b e t w e e n the publication o f the Antiquitates in 9 3 - 9 4 C . E . — "a dangerous m o m e n t for bold and subversive speech"—and Domitian's punishment o f Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla shortly afterwards. H e even hints that Josephus m a y have died at the hands o f Domitian, together with Flavia Domitilla, Flavius C l e m e n s , a n d his o w n patron Epaphroditus.
55
B e l o w I will argue that Josephus might have sensed the danger after the publication o f the Antiquitates, and as a consequence m a d e sure that Contra Apionem w o u l d appear s o m e w h a t less p r o v o c a t i v e in the eyes o f the e m p e r o r . M y contention is that the relationship b e t w e e n J e w s and "philosophers," b e t w e e n J u d a i s m a n d " p h i l o s o p h y , " has b e e n redefined in Contra Apionem as c o m p a r e d to J o s e p h u s ' previous writings, and that the dramatic events o f 9 3 - 9 4 C.E. might explain this shift.
5 2
M a s o n , "Philosophies," 1 7 - 1 8 .
5 3
S. M a s o n , "Introduction to the Judean Antiquities"
in Judean Antiquities
1-4:
Translation and Commentary (ed. S. M a s o n ; trans, and c o m m . L . H . Feldman; BJP 3 ; Leiden:
Brill, 2 0 0 0 ) , xiii-xxxvi, x x x i v - x x x v , and S. M a s o n , "Flavius Josephus
in
Flavian R o m e : Reading O n and Between the Lines," in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (ed. A . J. Boyle and J. D . W i l l i a m ; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 5 5 9 - 9 0 , 5 6 0 . 5 4
M a s o n , "Flavius Josephus in Flavian R o m e , " 5 8 9 .
3 5
M a s o n , "Introduction,"
xxxiv-xxxv. However,
in his earlier article on Contra
Apionem, he dates that treatise to the reign of Nerva: S. M a s o n , " T h e Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: A n Invitation to Judean Philosophy," in Josephus' C o n t r a A p i o n e m : Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing
in Greek (ed. L . H . Feldman
and J. R . Levison; A G A J U 3 4 ; Leiden:
Brill,
1996), 1 8 7 - 2 2 8 , 2 2 3 . O n the deaths of Flavia Domitilla, Flavius C l e m e s and Nero's freedman Epaphroditus, see e.g. Suetonius, Dom. 1 4 - 1 5 and D i o Cassius 6 7 . 1 4 . O n the identity of Josephus' patron Epaphroditus, see e.g. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 6 5 - 6 6 , and M a s o n , "Introduction,"
xviii-xix.
309
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ROME
CONTRA APIONEM—A
PRESENTATION OF J E W I S H PHILOSOPHY?
Until recently, scholarship o n Contra Apionem often regarded the trea tise primarily as the only extant p i e c e o f Jewish-Hellenistic apologetic literature. T h e treatise has often b e e n read against an Alexandrian background.
56
Contra Apionem has thus a p p e a r e d as a bridge b e t w e e n
Philo a n d other Jewish-Hellenistic authors o n the o n e h a n d , and Christian apologetic literature o n the o t h e r — f r o m J u d a i s m dressed as p h i l o s o p h y to Christianity dressed as philosophy. O v e r the past ten years there has b e e n a shift t o w a r d emphasiz 5
ing J o s e p h u s actual context in R o m e at the e n d o f the first century C.E.
57
In m y o p i n i o n , there are reasons n o t o n l y to r e p l a c e the
Alexandria-focused, source-critical a p p r o a c h , but also to question the perception o f Contra Apionem as a presentation o f Jewish philosophy. T h i s p e r c e p t i o n appears very frequently. A c c o r d i n g to M a s o n , Contra Apionem is "an invitation to J u d e a n p h i l o s o p h y "
58
a n d a part
o f J o s e p h u s ' "sustained e f f o r t . . . to portray Judaism for his R o m a n readers as a national 'philosophy' with its o w n philosophical s c h o o l s . "
59
Per Bilde claims that in Contra Apionem "Josephus describes J u d a i s m as the true philosophy w h i c h is testified and revered b y the best G r e e k philosophers and historians."
60
Similarly, Pieter W . v a n der
5 6
O n Josephus' use of Alexandrian sources for his Contra Apinonem, see e.g. G . P. Carras, "Dependence and C o m m o n Tradition in Philo Hypothetica V I I I 6 . 1 0 - 7 . 2 0 and Josephus Contra Apionem 2.190-219 "Studia Philonica Annual 5 (1993): 2 2 - 4 7 . For the view that Contra Apionem should be understood primarily within an Alexandrian context, see e.g. S. J. D . C o h e n , "Respect for Judaism by Gentiles A c c o r d i n g to Josephus," HTR 8 0 (1987): 4 0 9 - 3 0 , 4 2 5 , and S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics ( C o l u m b i a Studies in the Classical Tradition 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 2 1 - 2 3 . For criticism o f this approach, see e.g. M . G o o d m a n , "Josephus' Treatise Against Apion," in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (ed. M . Edwards, M . G o o d m a n a n d S. Price; O x f o r d : O x f o r d University Press, 1999), 4 5 - 5 8 . 5 7
See e.g. M . G o o d m a n , "Josephus as R o m a n Citizen," in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (ed. F. Parente a n d J. Sievers; StPB 4 1 ; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 9 9 - 1 0 6 ; R . G . Hall, "Josephus' Contra Apionem and Historical Inquiry in the R o m a n Rhetorical School," in Josephus Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context, 2 2 9 - 4 9 ; M . G o o d m a n , "Josephus' Treatise Against Apion," and J. M . G . Barclay, "Judaism in R o m a n Dress: Josephus' Tactics in the Contra Apionem," in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Aarhus 1999 (ed. J. U . K a l m s ; Miinsteraner Judaistische Studien 6; Minister: Lit, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 3 1 - 4 5 . 3
5 8
M a s o n , "Contra Apionem," passim. M a s o n , "Philosophies," 1. P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (JSPSup 2; Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1988), 1 2 0 . 5 9
6 0
310
GUNNAR HAALAND
H o r s t states that this w o r k reveals "Josephus' attempt to present J u d a i s m as the best philosophy, actually as the source o f the teaching o f many Greek philosophers,"
61
and A r y e h K a s h e r maintains that
Josephus " m a d e efforts to present it as a clear a n d true philosophy, a d m i r e d b y the greatest o f G r e e k thinkers."
62
In m y opinion the claims o f these scholars are only partly adequate. It is correct that Contra Apionem describes J u d a i s m as being testified, revered a n d imitated b y the best G r e e k philosophers. T h i s " d e p e n 63
dency theme" appears not infrequendy in Contra Apionem. Furthermore, m a n y o f the major themes in C. Ap. 2 . 1 4 5 - 2 9 6 , the final part o f the treatise, are typical o f the philosophical discourse o f antiquity: the nature o f G o d a n d virtue, the framing o f g o o d laws and the perfect constitution, martyrdom, etc. Nonetheless, I a m highly hesitant towards the use o f "Judean philosophy," "national philosophy," "the true phi l o s o p h y " o r "the best p h i l o s o p h y " as catchwords for the Jewish w a y 64
o f life as presented in Contra Apionem.
If w e e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' use o f (piXooocpeiv ("to philosophize," "to b e a philosopher"), (piXooocpia ("philosophy") a n d (pilooocpoq ("philo sophical," "philosopher") a n d related w o r d s , w e discover a striking difference between the Bellum a n d the Antiquitates o n o n e hand, a n d Contra Apionem o n the other.
6 1
65
In the Bellum and the Antiquitates Josephus
3
P. W . van der Horst, " T h e Distinctive Vocabulary of Contra Apionem" in Josephus C o n t r a A p i o n e m : Studies in its Character and Context, 8 3 - 9 5 , 8 5 . 6 2
A . Kasher, "Polemic and Apologetic M e t h o d s of W r i t i n g in Contra Apionem" in Josephus' C o n t r a A p i o n e m : Studies in its Character and Context, 1 4 3 - 8 6 , 1 5 4 . Cf. also J. W . van H e n t e n , The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 5 7 ; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 2 8 8 : Josephus "depicts them as a people of philosophers," and S. D . Breslauer, "Philosophy in Judaism: T w o Stances," in The Blackwell Companion to Judaism (ed. J. Neusner and A . J. Avery-Peck; Blackwell C o m p a n i o n s to Religion; M a i d e n : Blackwell, 2 0 0 0 ) , 1 6 2 - 8 0 , 162: Josephus "sug gests that Judaism has a 'natural philosophy' inherent in itself, that has instructed even the most advanced o f G r e e k thinkers. This point o f view identifies Judaism a n d philosophy. T r u e Judaism demonstrates its authenticity through its philosophical rigor." 6 3
See e.g. C Ap. 1.161 ff.; 2 . 1 6 8 , 2 5 7 , 2 8 1 . T h e expression "dependency theme" is adopted from D . Ridings, The Attic Moses: The Dependency Theme in some Early Christian Writers (Studia G r a e c a et Latina G o t h o b u r g e n s i a 5 9 ; G o t e b o r g : A c t a Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1995). 6 4
I have argued this case in a previous article: G . H a a l a n d , "Jewish Laws for a R o m a n Audience: T o w a r d an Understanding o f Contra Apionem," in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Briissel J 998 (ed. J . U . K a l m s a n d F. Siegert; M i i n s t e r a n e r Judaistische Studien 4; Munster: Lit, 1999), 2 8 2 - 3 0 4 . T h e argumentation below is partly a s u m m a r y o f material from that article, partly a development. It is m y inten tion to discuss these questions m o r e extensively in an u p c o m i n g study. See H a a l a n d , "Jewish Laws for a R o m a n Audience," 2 8 8 - 9 5 .
JOSEPHUS
A N D T H E PHILOSOPHERS
311
OF ROME
generally e m p l o y s these terms in references to Jewish p h i l o s o p h y . M o s t famous, o f course, are his excursuses o n the Jewish schools o f 6 6
p h i l o s o p h y {B.J. 2 . 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , A.J. 1 3 . 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 Contra
Apionem
a n d 1 8 . 1 1 - 2 5 ) . In
the picture is different. W i t h very f e w e x c e p t i o n s ,
67
" p h i l o s o p h y language" has disappeared from the descriptions o f the Jews a n d their w a y o f life.
68
T h e s e terms instead appear in refer
ences to gentile philosophy, most often G r e e k philosophy. T h e fol l o w i n g quotation is typical o f Contra
Apionem
in this respect: " O u r
earliest imitators were the G r e e k philosophers" (C. Ap. 2.281). Contra Apionem
represents a n e w picture also in several related mat
ters: T h e J u d a i s m o f Contra Apionem o r s c h o o l s as in the Bellum
is n o t divided into different sects 69
a n d in the Antiquitates.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the
treatise never presents the Jewish w a y o f life as a w a y to eu8ai|Liovia ("happiness"), upon.
71
70
a n d the question o f divine p r o v i d e n c e is only t o u c h e d 72
T h e s e latter topics are b o t h p r o m i n e n t in the
Antiquitates.
T h e s e findings m a k e perfect sense against the b a c k g r o u n d o f D o m i t i a n ' s c r a c k d o w n o n philosophers in 9 3 - 9 4 C E . W h i l e Josephus in his earlier works h a d c o n f i d e n d y a n d enthusiastically
employed
the i m a g e o f the philosopher a n d the c o n c e p t o f p h i l o s o p h y in his presentation o f the Jewish w a y o f life, in Contra Apionem
he was m u c h
m o r e restrained.
THE
DEPENDENCY
THEME
T h e quotation a b o v e from C. Ap. 2.281 is typical n o t only because o f the reference to G r e e k — n o t Jewish—philosophers, b u t also as an
6 6
In A.J. 1 3 . 1 7 1 the word aipeai<; ("school," "sect") is used, but not "philo sophical" or "philosophy." T h e same applies to Vita 9 - 1 0 . 6 7
Since C. Ap. 1 . 1 7 7 - 1 7 9 is part o f a quotation from the Greek author Clearchus of Soli, the occurrences of Jewish cpitaxroqna in C. Ap. 1.54 a n d 2 . 4 7 remain as the most significant exceptions. 6 8
A similar development can b e traced for words like софСа ("wisdom") and
T h e word ои'реац does not occur at all in Contra Apionem. T h e word is never used in Contra Apionem. M a s o n fails to note this in his argu ment for Contra Apionem as a logos protreptikos. See M a s o n , "Contra Apionem" 1 9 8 - 9 9 and 2 2 2 - 2 3 . C. Ap. 2 . 1 8 0 . O n the sparse use o f rcpovoux ("providence") a n d "fate language" in Contra Apionem, see Haaland, "Jewish Laws for a R o m a n Audience," 2 9 4 . See e.g. M a s o n , "Introduction," x x x - x x x i . 7 0
71
7 2
312
GUNNAR HAALAND
e x a m p l e o f the d e p e n d e n c y theme. W e m a y ask: H o w d o w e reconcile this absence o f explicit statements about "Jewish p h i l o s o p h y " with the occurrences o f the d e p e n d e n c y theme? W h y a v o i d references to Jewish philosophers a n d Jewish philosophy, while at same time maintaining
the
that the foremost G r e e k philosophers were
the disciples o f M o s e s ? First o f all, the " p r o o f f r o m antiquity" was very important
in
73
ancient times, and is very prorninent throughout Contra Apionem. Within such a framework, the d e p e n d e n c y theme was a card that Josephus c o u l d not afford not to play. H e introduces it carefully in the first part o f the treatise, C Ap.
1.1-218. First he points out that the
Greeks entered the stage o f civilization relatively late. T h e n he points out their dependence u p o n m o r e ancient cultures—Egyptian, M e s o p o tamian and Phoenician, a n d then he includes his o w n tradition in the family o f the most ancient cultures. T h e next step is, b y necessity, to claim that the Greeks have learned from the Jews. Secondly, he m a d e sure to use the d e p e n d e n c y theme in a way that preserved a distance from the philosophers o f his o w n time. T h e r e was a significant difference between a Stoic oppositionist senator a n d the classical figures o f G r e e k philosophy. Plato was not Helvidius Priscus, neither the elder n o r the y o u n g e r . Furthermore, M o s e s h a d not taught the Jews h o w to withdraw from public life, a n d not h o w to fight for eA,eu0£p{ot ("freedom," "liberty")
74
o r rcocppricna ("freedom
75
o f speech"). W h a t he had provided them with was a noble constitution and excellent laws. In Contra Apionem, even though he is the teacher o f philosophers, M o s e s is pictured as a legislator, as a political a n d military leader. H e is simply superior to p h i l o s o p h e r s .
76
In this w a y
Josephus is able to retain the d e p e n d e n c y theme while at the same time keeping a distance from the labels "philosopher" and "philosophy."
7 3
See e.g.
S. J. D . C o h e n ,
"History and Historiography in the Against Apion o f
Josephus," in Essays in Jewish Historiography (ed. A . Rapoport-Albert: Middletown: W e s l e y a n
Univ.,
1 9 8 8 ; repr. Studies in the
South Florida;
History of Judaism
15;
Adanta: Scholars, 1991), 1 - 1 1 , and P. Pilhofer, Presbyteron kreitton: der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte ( W U N T 2 . 3 9 ; T ü b i n g e n : M o h r , 1990), 193 ff. 7 4
T h e w o r d is used frequendy in the Bellum and in the Antiquitates, but only twice
in Contra Apionem, namely in references to Egypt's lack of liberty (C. Ap. 2 . 1 2 8 ) Sparta's loss o f liberty (C
Ap.
Apionem, w h e n the w o r d eXevGepoq is used with reference to the H a s m o n e a n (C. Ap. 7 5
era
2.134).
This w o r d is never used in Contra Apionem, while it is frequent in the Bellum
and the Antiquitates. 7
and
2 . 2 2 7 ) . Jewish liberty appears only once in Contra
" See e.g.
C. Ap. 2 . 1 5 1
ff.
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS
OF ROME
313
SOCRATES AND M A R T Y R D O M IN CONTRA APIONEM
The
death o f Socrates appears not only b e h i n d the m a r t y r d o m sto
ries o f the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n , " but also as a part o f J o s e p h u s ' argu ment in Contra Apionem: On what other ground was Socrates put to death? He never sought to betray his city to the enemy, he robbed no temple. No; because he used to swear strange oaths and give out (in jest, surely, as some say) that he received communications from a spirit, he was therefore condemned to die by drinking hemlock. His accuser brought a further charge against him o f corrupting young men, because he stimulated them to hold the constitution and laws of their country in contempt. (C. Ap. 2.263-264) Josephus apparendy finds it totally appropriate that Socrates was sen tenced to death, and adds several other examples o n h o w the Athenians punished zovq pr\\ia uovov rcccpa xouq
EKEWCOV
vououq (pGey^ajievouq 7cepi
Gecov ("any w h o uttered a single w o r d a b o u t the g o d s contrary to their laws," C. Ap. 2.262). K e e p i n g in m i n d Socrates' position as the m o d e l martyr in the eyes o f the " S t o i c o p p o s i t i o n " and m a n y others, w e m a y discover the events o f 9 3 - 9 4 C E . between the lines. N o o n e c o u l d claim that Josephus was not loyal to the e m p e r o r ' s w a y o f maintaining law and order! A t the same time, a reader with an oppositionist view w o u l d m a y b e see a carefully p o s e d i r o n y . The
77
treatment o f Jewish m a r t y r d o m in Contra Apionem is totally
consistent with the lack o f c o m p a s s i o n o n behalf o f S o c r a t e s .
78
In
fact, the reason for Jewish m a r t y r d o m is e x a c d y the opposite to that o f the Athenian victims. T h e Jews are prosecuted because they refuse to d o what Socrates did: pr\\ia (pGey^aaGai napa xov vouov ("to utter a single w o r d contrary to their L a w , " C. Ap. 2 . 2 1 9 ) .
79
Jews die o n b e h a l f o f their ancestral laws, not in o r d e r to d e m o n strate their f r e e d o m , and not in o r d e r to challenge the tyrant. T h e y d o have to face death at the hands o f tyrants, but Josephus even at one p o i n t virtually excuses the prosecutors o f the Jews (C. Ap. 2.233).
7 7
7 8
O n the subtlety of this passage, see Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums, 2 1 2 .
See C. Ap. 1.43, 1 9 0 ff., 2 1 2 ; 2 . 2 1 9 , 2 3 2 ff, 2 7 2 . V e r y similar wording also appears elsewhere in similar contexts: T h e Jews endure torture and death rather than p f j u a TtpoeaGai T i a p a xoix; vouo\)<; ("utter a sin gle word against the laws," C. Ap. 1.43). T o them the only evil is r\ npafyni x i rcapa xovq eoruicov vouoix; ii Xoyov eirceiv ("to d o any act or utter any word contrary to their laws," C. Ap. 2 . 2 3 3 ) . 7 9
314
GUNNAR HAALAND
T h e Jewish martyr in Contra Apionem is not dressed as an oppositionist philosopher as in 4 M a c c a b e e s ,
80
and he does n o t deliver lofty, philo
sophical words about "death which gives liberty to the soul" as Eleazar in the M a s a d a scene (B.J. 7.344). T h e impression w e get is that, even though Josephus might have b e e n b r a v e ,
81
he was a p p a r e n d y
n o t brave e n o u g h to brag a b o u t martyr philosophers subsequent to D o m i t i a n ' s c r a c k d o w n o n the "Stoic o p p o s i t i o n . "
DOES
CONTRA APIONEM M I R R O R DOMITIAN'S CRUSHING "STOIC
OF THE
OPPOSITION"?
Josephus ardendy employs the d e p e n d e n c y theme, and proudly points to Jewish martyrs in Contra Apionem. T h e s e themes were stock argu ments for an author w h o w a n t e d to present the Jews and their w a y o f life in a positive light. Josephus uses them, while keeping philos o p h y at arm's length at the same
time.
T h i s is the tendency throughout Contra Apionem. Josephus is n o t e m b r a c i n g philosophy, and n o t a b a n d o n i n g it. H e speaks about G o d , piety, virtue and g o o d laws in a language that resembles Stoic p o p ular philosophy. H o w e v e r , pious and virtuous heroes d o not n e e d to b e philosophers, and "virtue language" does not b e l o n g to philo sophical discourses exclusively. T h e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f virtues a n d ancestral laws is as typically R o m a n as it is typically p h i l o s o p h i c a l .
82
T h e t w o references to Jewish cpi^oaocpia (CAp. 1.54 and 2.47)—pre sented as transmission and interpretation o f the ancient Jewish scrip tures—are similarly harmless to a R o m a n m i n d . In Contra Apionem, Josephus does not present the Jewish w a y o f life as the path to happiness, n o r does he discuss divine p r o v i d e n c e . H e poses n o plea for liberty o r freedom o f speech, n o r does he include
8 0
O n the similarities between Socrates and Eleazar, the trial scene o f the Jewish martyrs as the frequent use of the (piA,oco(p-stem in the description o f the Jewish martyrs, on their contempt of death and their philosophical challenging of the tyrant, and on the motives of virtues and law-abidance in 4 Maccabees, see e.g. van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 2 7 0 ff, and M a c M u l l e n , Enemies of the Roman Order, 8 3 - 8 4 . V a n Henten righdy points out that 4 M a c c a b e e s and Contra Apionem speak very similarly about virtues and law-abidance, but he fails to note the difference when it c o m e s to the dressing of the martyrs—and Jews in general—as "philosophers." M a c M u l l e n makes no reference to Contra Apionem in his discussion of the "Stoic opposition" and other philosophical martyrs. 8 1
8 2
Cf. the quotation above from M a s o n , "Flavius Josephus in Flavian R o m e , " 5 8 9 . See e.g. Quintilian, Inst. 1 2 . 2 .
JOSEPHUS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS
315
OF ROME
(ppovr|Gi<; o r ooqua a m o n g the cardinal virtues. H e never e m p l o y s the v e r b (piXoaocpriv with reference to Jewish philosophizing, a n d he does n o t c o m p a r e Jewish groups with G r e e k schools o f p h i l o s o p h y . In fact, he presents a Jewish society without antagonism, without dis agreement, a n d without any troubling o p p o s i t i o n .
83
In o t h e r w o r d s : Contra Apionem is full o f virtues, yes, b u t
not
specifically philosophical virtues. T h e treatise presents martyrs, yes, but they are n o t dressed in a philosopher's m a n d e . T h e r e is a Jewish (piAxxjocpiot, yes, but only twice, and there are n o philosophical schools, n o philosophers, n o philosophizing, and n o retirement from public life as in the favorable descriptions o f the Essenes.
S O M E CLOSING COMMENTS ON JOSEPHAN
ISAGOGICS
In A.J. 1.25 Josephus claims that, after c o m p l e t i n g his Antiquitates, he has p l a n n e d to write a w o r k o n the philosophical nature o f Judaism. T h a t w o r k was never a c c o m p l i s h e d . T h i n g s h a p p e n e d in R o m e that m a d e "Jewish p h i l o s o p h y " a useless label. A m o r e careful adaptation to R o m a n values was n e e d e d .
84
D u e to these changing circumstances,
Contra Apionem was designed as a w o r k o n Jewish virtue, piety and law-abidance—without strong claims a b o u t Jewish p h i l o s o p h y . This reading o f the Antiquitates and Contra Apionem against the context o f R o m a n politics has a bearing o n the isagogics o f these writings. First o f all, m y reading w o u l d indicate that the Antiquitates might have b e e n c o m p l e t e d before D o m i t i a n ' s c r a c k d o w n o n the
"Stoic
opposition," m a y b e as early as the spring o r s u m m e r o f 93 C E . Furthermore, such an early dating o f the Antiquitates makes it m o r e likely that Josephus was also able to c o m p o s e Contra Apionem during the reign o f D o m i t i a n . Martin G o o d m a n has p o i n t e d out a c o u p l e o f passages that give reasons to assume that Contra Apionem was writ ten after D o m i t i a n ' s d e a t h .
85
M y reading indicates that the treatise
8 3
See e.g. C. Ap. 2 . 1 7 9 ff. O n the appropriation o f R o m a n values in Contra Apionem, see e.g. G o o d m a n , "Josephus as R o m a n Citizen," 3 3 4 - 3 5 ; G o o d m a n , "Josephus' Treatise Against Apion" 5 7 ; H a a l a n d , "Jewish Laws for a R o m a n A u d i e n c e , " and Barclay, "Judaism in R o m a n Dress." 8 4
8 5
C Ap. 2 . 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 (on the contrast between M o s e s and lawless despots) and 2 . 1 9 3 (on the temple of Jerusalem) both fit the situation after Domitian's death. G o o d m a n , "Josephus' Treatise Against Apion" 5 0 and 5 7 .
316
GUNNAR HAALAND
was written while D o m i t i a n was still in p o w e r , since w e k n o w that the y o u n g e r Helvidius Priscus was rehabilitated b y Pliny in the Senate s o o n after D o m i t i a n ' s death in 9 6 C E . O b v i o u s l y , if Contra Apionem was i n d e e d written years o f D o m i t i a n ' s reign, Epaphroditus
during the last
might b e identified with
N e r o ' s freedman. H e was apparendy involved in N e r o ' s crushing o f the Pisonian conspiracy in 6 5 C E . , as well as in N e r o ' s suicide, a n d was killed b y Domitian toward the end o f his reign. If this identification is correct, Josephus' patron w o u l d literally have had first-hand knowl e d g e o f — o r even hands-on experience from—the issues that I have b e e n struggling to get a grip on!
A L E X A N D R I E N
ALS
DREHSCHEIBE
Z W I S C H E N J E R U S A L E M U N D DIE
B E D E U T U N G DES
D E R
R O M :
S T A D T I M
W E R K
JOSEPHUS
GOTTFRIED
SCHIMANOWSKI
SAARBRÜCKEN
In d e n W e r k e n des J o s e p h u s erscheint das ägyptische Alexandrien 1
gegenüber anderen Städten mit 9 4 (+24) V o r k o m m e n nicht übermäßig 2
häufig (als V e r g l e i c h dazu Z . B . J e r u s a l e m 5 7 8 mal [ + 1 1 9 ] ; R o m 2 4 4 mal [ + 8 9 5 ] [+13];
4
3
- dann schon mit A b s t a n d Caesarea a m M e e r 8 4 mal
Samaria 8 0 mal [ + 6 7 ] ;
Tiberias 65 mal [ + 6 1 ] ; [+4],
9
7
5
A k k o [Ptolemäis] 6 9 mal
[+11];
6
8
A n t i o c h i e n 6 4 mal [ + 3 2 ] ; J e r i c h o 5 0 mal
Damaskus 47 mal [ + 2 6 ] ) ,
10
w o b e i sich natürlich die A n z a h l
durch die Erwähnungen der Einwohner erhöht. I m gesamten W e r k des Josephus besitzt v o n dieser Statistik her Palästina, v o r allem Jerusalem
1
Zuerst wird das V o r k o m m e n des Städtenamens angegeben, danach in K l a m m e r n die N e n n u n g der Einwohner: B.J. 31 m a l ( + 3 ) ; A.J. 4 3 mal ( + 1 3 ) ; C. Ap. 18 mal ( + 8 ) ; Vita 2 mal. D i e Erwähnung der Stadt ist damit etwa gleichmäßig auf alle Schriften verteilt, d e m jeweiligen U m f a n g entsprechend, mit einem etwas größeren Schwerpunkt auf d e m B.J. D i e A n z a h l richtet sich nach: K . H . Rengstorf (ed.), A Complete Concordance to Flavias Josephus, Suppl. I, v o n A . Schalk, Leiden 1 9 6 8 . D i e Vita wird durchweg als „ A u s g a b e Münster" zitiert nach F. Siegert u.a. (Hg.), Flavius Josephus. Aus meinem Leben (Vita). Kritische A u s g a b e , Übersetzung u n d K o m m e n t a r , Tübingen 2 0 0 1 . 2
A u s g e n o m m e n Contra Apionem, etwa gleichmäßig auf den U m f a n g der Schriften verteilt {B.J. 151 mal ( + 2 ) ; A.J. 3 7 1 mal ( + 9 1 ) ; Vita 3 0 mal ( + 2 3 ) [ n a c h der A u s g a b e Münster 4 6 m a l ] ; C. Ap. 2 6 m a l ( + 3 ) . 3
M i t einer ähnlichen Verteilung [B.J. 103 mal ( + 6 1 6 ) ; A.J. 1 3 4 mal ( + 2 0 2 ) ; Vita 6 mal ( + 6 1 ) [nach der A u s g a b e Münster 6 0 m a l ] ; C. Ap. 1 mal [ + 1 6 ] ) . 4
D a z u noch 19 Erwähnungen unter anderem N a m e n {B.J. 5 2 mal; A.J. 2 4 mal; Vita 8 mal [Ausgabe Münster nur 1 mal]). 5
In variierender Bezeichnung {B.J. 2 3 mal; A.J. 5 6 mal; C. Ap. 1 mal). N a c h d e m älteren N a m e n A k k o (zweimal Ant.); B.J. 2 5 mal; A.J. 3 5 mal; Vita 1 mal [Ausgabe Münster 7 m a l ] . N a c h der Vita für Josephus vor allem biographisch interessant {B.J. 2 6 mal; A.J. 9 mal; Vita 3 3 mal ( + 5 6 ) [nach der A u s g a b e Münster 8 2 mal]). B.J. 2 4 mal; A.J. 3 7 mal; C. Ap. 3 mal. B.J. 3 3 mal; A.J. 17 mal. B.J. 10 mal; A.J. 3 6 mal; Vita 1 mal. 6
7
8
9
10
318
GOTTFRIED SCHIMANOWSKI
und
seine unmittelbare U m g e b u n g geographisch die größte Bedeu u
tung - neben Rom.
T r o t z d e m weiß er aber u m die besondere Bedeu
tung Alexandriens als zweitgrößter Stadt des Mittelmeerraumes n a c h Rom.
Er kennt ihre G r ö ß e u n d ihr weltpolitisches Gewicht. D a s zeigt
sich z.B. in d e n strategischen Ü b e r l e g u n g e n u n d ersten politischen H a n d l u n g e n b e i m Regierungsantritt Vespasians, w i e sie J o s e p h u s darstellt; diese w e r d e n d u r c h die Darstellung des Tacitus u.a. weit g e h e n d bestätigt.
12
Es ist interessant, mit w e l c h e n W o r t e n J o s e p h u s die Ü b e r l e g u n g e n Vespasians, mit 128 namentlichen N e n n u n g e n eine der prominentesten Personen des Bellum Judaicum^ zur Funktion Alexandriens beschreibt. A u f die besondere B e d e u t u n g des damaligen ägyptischen Präfekten, Tiberius Julius Alexander, des J u d e n , k o m m e n wir später n o c h zu sprechen.
14
Bei d e n Ü b e r l e g u n g e n des frisch gekürten Imperators
spielt eine entscheidende R o l l e , dass d e r H a f e n Alexandriens als Umschlagsplatz d e r Getreidelieferungen aus g a n z Ä g y p t e n größte strategische B e d e u t u n g besitzt. S o bemerkt J o s e p h u s , B.J. 4.605: 13
Vespasian wollte zuerst Alexandrien in seine Hand bekommen, da er wusste, dass die Getreideversorgung aus Ägypten von größter 16
11
V o r allem im
1 2
V g l . Tacitus, Hist.
B.J. 2 . 8 2 . 3 : Titus b e k o m m t die Befehlsgewalt der T r u p p e n in
Palästina und Vespasian sichert die Schlüsselpositionen Ägyptens (Vespasianum obtinere claustra Aegypti placuit). Fast wördich auch bei Sueton,
Vesp. 7 . 1 : „ E r (Vespasian)
setzte inzwischen nach Alexandrien über, u m die Schlüsselpositionen v o n Ä g y p t e n fest im Griff zu haben (interim Alexandriam transiit, ut claustra Aegypti optineret.)" 1 3
Insgesamt 159 N e n n u n g e n {B.J.
1 2 8 mal; A.J.
6 mal; Vita 2 3 ; C. Ap. 2 mal);
D i e grundlegende Bedeutung spiegelt sich somit auch in der erheblich kürzeren Vital 1 4
Er reagierte besonders rasch u n d vertrauensvoll auf einen Brief Vespasians u n d
wurde so - wie j a später auch Josephus selbst - zu einem Mitarbeiter und Helfer (avvepyöv . . . Kai ßontov) des Imperators {B.J. 4 . 6 1 6 ; s.u.). Z u Josephus selbst vgl. die Bemerkungen bei S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus und das Neue Testament ( U T B 2 1 3 0 ) , M ü n c h e n u.a. 2 0 0 0 , S. 6 4 - 7 5 u n d die A n m e r k u n g e n in der Vita, A u s g a b e Münster s.v. Vespasian(us). 1 5
von
„ D i e Situation in B e z u g auf Alexandrien in seine H a n d b e k o m m e n " (Imperf. exo) +
mit G e n pl. Tcpayuaia mit ini).
B.J.
2.385-386
spricht v o m
Bevöl
kerungsreichtum Ägyptens, seinem Reichtum u n d seiner G r ö ß e , aber auch von der Möglichkeit des Aufstandes (ÄTCOOTOCGK;, eine in der römische Literatur verbreitete Befürchtung; z u m Begriff selbst vgl. u. A n m . 5 2 ) . K u r z darauf - nach d e m Exkurs über die Stadt - B.J. 4 . 6 1 6 sichert Josephus die Ü b e r l e g u n g noch einmal ab: „ S o war
es nur allzu verständlich, dass Vespasian zur Festigung des ganzen Reiches (eiq
ßeßaicoaw xr^q, oXr\c, fiyeuoviac;) danach strebte, diese Verhältnisse in seine H a n d zu b e k o m m e n (ecpieio . . . xcov XOLVXT] TipayuaTcov)." Ifi
M i c h e l etwas frei: „die K o r n k a m m e r Ä g y p t e n " (xf|v xov avcov xopriyiav); vgl.
2.386.
ALEXANDRIEN ALS DREHSCHEIBE ZWISCHEN JERUSALEM UND ROM
17
319
18
Bedeutung für das Reich war. Er hoffte, als Herrscher über dies Land, falls der Krieg sich länger hinzöge, den Vitellus gewaltsam stürzen zu können, da die Bevölkerung Roms den Hunger auf die Dauer nicht werde ertragen können. Außerdem wollte Vespasian die beiden in Alexandrien stehenden Legionen (5\>o . . . l a y u a i a ) auf seine Seite ziehen (7tpoo7coir|aao9ai); schließlich hatte er im Sinn, dies Land als ein Bollwerk (rcpoßÄJiuo:) gegenüber den Überraschungen des Schicksals (OCTCO xfiq TV>XTK dÖr|taov) zu benutzen. 19
20
Josephus benutzt diese G e g e b e n h e i t , u m recht ausführlich die b e s o n dere geographische u n d strategisch b e d e u t e n d e Position Alexandriens mit ihren Häfen und d e m berühmten Leuchtturm,
21
e i n e m der sieben
W e l t w u n d e r d e r Antike, zu b e s c h r e i b e n . W ä h r e n d M u c i a n u s zur Sicherung der Verhältnisse n a c h R o m geschickt wird, reist Vespasian selbst in dieser Situation nach Alexandrien.
22
S c h o n seit Augustus stand
die Stadt j a unter der b e s o n d e r e n Aufsicht des Senats. Tacitus erk lärt die a u ß e r g e w ö h n l i c h e M a ß n a h m e des Senats mit d e r Furcht der Römer
2 3
dass j e d e r , der (die Hauptstadt) einer Provinz besitzt, damit
1 7
O . M i c h e l etwas blasser: „ein besonders wichtiger Teil des Reiches" (nXeiöxov xr\<; fiyejioviaq (lepoq). D i e R e d e w e n d u n g erscheint in ähnlicher Formulierung öfter bei Josephus {B.J. 6 . 3 7 9 ; A.J. 19.233; vgl. B.J. 4.599). A u f diese W e i s e hatte Vespasian gegenüber seinem G e g n e r Vitellus die elementare Versorgung R o m s in seiner H a n d und damit die M a s s e der Bevölkerung der Hauptstadt. Ähnlich auch Cassius D i o , Hist. 6 5 . 9 . 2 . 1 8
D i e Formulierung x\q Kpatfioaq ei rcapeAxoi ist nicht zu übersetzen. D i e K o n kordanz setzt an dieser Stelle für die Übersetzung ein Fragezeichen (aufschieben?, beiseite bringen?). 1 9
Josephus lässt Agrippa II. in seiner ausführlichen R e d e B.J. 2 . 3 8 6 darauf anspie len, dass Ägypten so viel Getreide ausführt, dass R o m davon vier M o n a t e im Jahr leben kann (mit einer längeren Hinweis auf den Reichtum des Landes; weiter s.u. Anm. 62. 2 0
V g l . B.J. 5 . 4 4 , 2 8 7 , die T r u p p e des Tiberius Julius Alexander bei der Belagerung Jerusalems. Ihr Befehlshaber war Fronto Heterius nach B.J. 6 . 2 3 8 (allerdings wer den wohl kaum - wie dort vorausgesetzt - beide Legionen komplett anwesend gewe sen sein). Z u m Begriff layua, für lat. legio, vgl. H . J. M a s o n , Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, T o r o n t o 1 9 7 4 , S. 1 6 2 . 2 1
V g l . B.J. 5 . 1 6 9 (bei der Beschreibung der H e r o d e s b u r g in Jerusalem), die Beschreibung des Hafens folgt 4 . 6 1 2 - 6 1 3 ; weiter z u m T u r m u n d zu den antiken Überlieferungen der Bedeutung der Stadt s. A . Bernard, „ T e s t i m o n i a selecta de portu m a g n o et palatiis Alexandriae ad A e g y p t u m e scriporibus antiquis excerpta", in: F. G o d d i o (ed.), Alexandria. The Submerged Royal Quarter, L o n d o n 1 9 9 8 , S. 5 9 - 1 3 3 . 2 2
D i e ersten Glückwünsche und Unterstützungen für seinen Regierungsanspruch erhielt Vespasian schon in Caesarea a m M e e r , reiste dann aber zunächst nach Antiochien {B.J. 4 . 6 3 0 ) . Allerdings ist die Historizität dieser Reise umstritten; vgl. A . Henrick, „Vespasian's Visit to Alexandria", %PE 3 (1968) 5 1 - 8 0 . V g l . M . A . Levi, „L'esclusione dei senatori R o m a n i dell'Egitto Augusteo", Aegyptus 5 (1924) 2 1 3 - 2 3 5 . 2 3
320
GOTTFRIED SCHIMANOWSKI
d e n Schlüssel (des r ö m i s c h e n Reiches) zu L a n d u n d zu See in d e n H ä n d e n hält, s c h o n mit einer kleinen militärischen M a c h t , Italien d u r c h eine d r o h e n d e H u n g e r s n o t erpressen k ö n n e .
24
Solche Ü b e r l e g u n g e n bestimmen natürlich genauso Vespasian. D a s massive Interesse für die Sicherheit u n d Zukunft seiner Herrschaft lässt er sich v o n keinem anderen a b n e h m e n , d a r u m tritt er eigen ständig die R e i s e an. A b e r es stellt sich b a l d heraus, dass seine Befürchtungen unbegründet sind. Ja, hier in Alexandrien erreichen ihn s c h o n bald die positiven Signale aus R o m mit d e m T o d des Vitellus u n d v o r allem die volle Anerkennung seiner Person als Kaiser des ganzen Weltreiches. Das bringt Josephus wieder dazu, eine bewun dernde Bemerkung zur Stadt einzuflechten mit d e n W o r t e n : „ O b w o h l es nach R o m die größte Stadt ist (fieyioxri xe ouocc nexoc xr\v TCOUTJV r\ noXiq), erwies sich A l e x a n d r i e n angesichts dieser (gratulierenden) M e n s c h e n m a s s e n als zu e n g " (B.J. 4.656). J o s e p h u s verfolgt n u n nicht m e h r d e n Erzählduktus
über den
Regierungsantritt des Kaisers, sondern konzentriert sich ganz auf die Ereignisse in Palästina, w o das römische H e e r a b sofort unter d e m O b e r b e f e h l des Titus steht.
25
Z w a r w e r d e n s c h o n v o r h e r die Fäden
gesponnen, aber in Alexandrien erreichen Vespasian die Ehr- u n d T r e u e b e k u n d u n g e n aus O s t u n d West. D i e Stadt fungiert daher in aller Eindeutigkeit als D r e h - u n d Angelpunkt der römischen Weltherr schaft; dies w i r d b e i J o s e p h u s fast pathetisch
so z u m A u s d r u c k
gebracht, dass die riesige Weltstadt die M e n s c h e n m a s s e n schier nicht m e h r bewältigen konnte.
2 4
V g l . Tacitus, Ann. 2 . 5 9 : Augustus . . . seposuit Aegyptum ne fame urgeret Italiam quisquis eam provinciam claustraque terrae ac maris quamvis levi praesidio adversum ingentis exercitus insedisset. Deswegen handelte sich Germanicus eine scharfe R ü g e durch Tiberius ein, als er 19 n . C h r . ohne diese amtliche G e n e h m i g u n g Alexandrien besuchte. D e n Z u s a m m e n h a n g mit der kaiserlichen Bestimmung und die Gefahr einer Aushungerung erwähnt auch Cassius D i o , Hist. 5 1 . 1 7 . 1 . D a s macht die Anschuldigung gegenüber angesehenen Juden in Alexandrien und R o m , B.J. 7 . 4 4 7 - 4 4 8 , besonders brisant. Jedenfalls schließt sich Josephus selbst mit der jüdischen Oberschicht in Alexandrien z u s a m m e n (oder endastet er sich nur dadurch, dass auch andere verleumdet wur den?), vgl. die Korrespondenz - u n d spätere Veröffentlichung zweier seiner Briefe - mit Agrippa II. {Vita 3 6 4 ; vgl. C. Ap. 1.50). 2 5
B.J. 5 . 2 erwähnt noch die Unterstützung für seinen Vater: „er war ihm in Alexandrien bei der o r d n u n g s g e m ä ß e n Ü b e r n a h m e der ihnen soeben von G o t t anvertrauten Regierungsgewalt (TCD 7iaxpi TTIV f|yeuoviav veov onkoiq eyicexeipiauevriv i)7c6 xov 0eov a\)veßt|) behilflich." Z u r Bedeutung der Stadt für* Titus s.u. zu B.J. 7 . 1 1 7 ; ähnlich lässt Tacitus M a c h t und Einfluss des Titus in Alexandrien beginnen {Hist. 5 . 1 . 1 ; s.u.).
ALEXANDRIEN ALS DREHSCHEIBE ZWISCHEN JERUSALEM UND ROM
In A l e x a n d r i e n laufen die wichtigsten H a n d e l s w e g e
321
zusammen.
H i e r befindet sich - w e n n m a n so will seit d e m Sieg des Augustus über Antonius - die Drehscheibe politischer und wirtschaftlicher M a c h t zwischen Ost u n d W e s t . D e n G l a n z u n d die Brisanz der
Lokalität
weiß sich auch Vespasian zu Nutze zu m a c h e n . D i e besondere Bedeu tung der Stadt für das L e b e n einzelner Persönlichkeiten galt nun nicht nur für die politischen G r ö ß e n der Zeit, sondern in gewisser W e i s e nämlich biographisch - auch für Josephus selbst. D e n n mit Sicherheit war er selbst s c h o n bei all diesen Stationen Vespasians in der unmit telbaren Nähe. Immerhin ist Josephus der Überzeugung, dass Vespasian die Regierungsgewalt v o n keinem geringeren als G o t t selbst in die H ä n d e gelegt u n d anvertraut w u r d e (eyicexeipiGuivriv irnb xou 0 e o u ) .
26
1. JOSEPHUS IN A L E X A N D R I E N
D i e B e z i e h u n g zwischen J o s e p h u s
und d e m römischen
Herrscher
b e g a n n bei der Kapitulation in Galiläa; dies ist eine der bekanntesten G e s c h i c h t e n aus seinem L e b e n (B.J. 3 . 1 4 1 - 4 0 8 ) . W e i s e , in unterschiedlichen durch
In
dramatischer
Perspektiven hat Josephus seine eigene
B i o g r a p h i e d o r t in S z e n e g e s e t z t . Zusammenfassung
2 7
28
A l l e i n die dreiseitige,
Steve M a s o n
2 9
kurze
lässt n o c h etwas v o n der
Atemlosigkeit, e i n e m Thriller vergleichbar, spüren; das L e b e n des H e l d e n stand nicht nur einmal, a u c h i m w ö r d i c h e n Sinne, „ a u f des Messers S c h n e i d e " .
30
D i e Darstellung in der Vita setzt jedenfalls voraus, dass J o s e p h u s s c h o n v o r der Reise n a c h A l e x a n d r i e n in Palästina, nämlich bei d e n ersten d e u d i c h e n T r e u e b e k u n d u n g e n
für Vespasian -
die
zunächst
v o r w i e g e n d aus d e m Osten des R e i c h e s k a m e n - freigelassen w o r d e n ist.
31
D a n a c h bleibt er als hochgestellte Persönlichkeit i m m e r - zunächst
2 6
B.J. 5 . 2 beim Aufenthalt des Titus in Alexandrien. In der Vita wird auf die geschilderten Ereignisse nur kurz hingewiesen 4 1 2 ; vgl. die längere A n m e r k u n g 3 3 in der A u s g a b e Münster, S. 181). 2 7
2 8
{Vita
S. M a s o n verweist zu Recht auf die literarischen Vorbilder bei Odysseus {Odyssee 1 3 . 2 5 0 - 3 0 1 ) und Judith (s. nächste A n m e r k u n g ) . S. M a s o n , Flavias Josephus und das Neue Testament ( U T B 2 1 3 0 ) , T ü b i n g e n u.a. 2 0 0 0 , S. 6 4 - 6 7 . Z u Josephus als Kriegsgefangener des Vespasian vgl. Sueton, Vesp. 5 . 6 . Ä h n lich auch Cassius D i o , Hist. 6 5 . 1 . 4 ; 6 5 . 9 . 1 . D i e Episode der Freilassung schildert ausführlich und wiederum mit d r a m a tischer Choreographie B.J. 4 . 6 2 2 - 6 2 9 . 2 9
3 0
:il
322
GOTTFRIED SGHIMANOWSKI
als Gefangener, dann als Freier - im Urnkreis des Imperators.
32
Unab-
hängig v o n Josephus erwähnt auch Sueton die Prophetie des Josephus, eines v o r n e h m e n G e f a n g e n e n (unus ex nobilibus captiuis), die diesem die Kaiserwürde voraussagte.
33
D a s Schicksal des j ü d i s c h e n Autors
hat sich so mit d e m des r ö m i s c h e n Kaisers verflochten. A u f j e d e n Fall befindet sich Josephus selbst n a c h
Vita 215 bald
mit V e s p a s i a n bei d e n V o r f e i e r n zur E r n e n n u n g z u m K a i s e r in Alexandrien. gung -
34
Er heiratet - offensichdich mit kaiserlicher G e n e h m i -
ein drittes M a l ,
3 5
w i r d v o n d e n R ö m e r n damit nicht als
Sklave u n d ehemaliger Kriegsgefangener b e h a n d e l t .
36
Später in R o m
ließ er sich aber auch v o n dieser Frau, mit der er drei K i n d e r hatte, v o n denen aber nur eines überlebte, w i e d e r s c h e i d e n
37
u n d heiratete
schließlich eine v o r n e h m e J ü d i n aus Kreta. V o n Alexandrien b r a c h Josephus wieder z u s a m m e n mit Titus auf, u m nach Palästina zurückzukehren, diesmal zur Belagerung Jerusalems. Z u s a m m e n mit Titus scheint er dann ein weiteres M a l in Alexandrien gewesen zu sein (s.u.). Es ist offensichdich, wie e n g das Schicksal des Josephus v o r allem in d e n ersten J a h r e n seiner Freilassung mit d e m des Imperators verknüpft gewesen ist.
2.
TIBERIUS JULIUS
ALEXANDER
3 8
Eine andere Gestalt aus Alexandrien verdient in diesem Zusammenhang eine etwas ausführlichere Behandlung. S c h o n bei d e n ersten Schritten Vespasians z u m Antritt seiner Herrschaft sind wir auf seine Person gestoßen u n d die entscheidende R o l l e , die i h m für die Proklamation
3 2
D a s greift Josephus noch einmal auf in der Einleitung des ersten Buches C. Ap. 1.48; er war genötigt, i m m e r in der N ä h e von Vespasian u n d Titus zu bleiben (otei Tcpoaeôpeveiv avxoîç f | v à y K a o i v ) . 3 3
Sueton, Vesp. 5.6: Er (Josephus) versicherte zuversichdich und entschieden, als m a n ihn in Fesseln legte, dass er genau von diesem M a n n (Vespasian) in K ü r z e befreit werde, dann aber sei er bereits Kaiser. 3 4
C. Ap. 1.48. Z u r - kurzen - E h e mit einer Kriegsgefangenen (Josephus' zweite Ehe) s. die A n m . 3 4 und 3 5 in der Ausgabe Münster, S. 1 8 2 - 8 3 (vgl. u. A n m . 5 4 ) . S o D . D a u b e , „ T h r e e Legal Notes on Notes on Josephus after his Surrender", The Law Quarterly Review 9 3 (1977) 1 9 2 . Möglicherweise spielen auch halachische Bestimmungen bei der Scheidung eine Rolle; das legt zumindest Vita 4 2 6 mit Bezug auf die (jüdischen) eOn nahe; vgl. P. T o m s o n , „ L e s systèmes de halakha du Contre Apion et des Antiquités", F. Siegert u.a. (Hg.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001 (MJSt 12), Münster 2 0 0 2 , S. 1 8 9 - 2 2 0 (203). Siebzehnmal nennt Josephus ihn (13 mal im B.J.; 4 mal in A.J.). 3 5
3 6
3 7
3tt
ALEXANDRIEN ALS DREHSCHEIBE ZWISCHEN JERUSALEM UND ROM
323
Vespasians z u m Kaiser zufiel. Er, der Präfekt v o n Ä g y p t e n , w a r der erste, d e r v o n Vespasian u m Unterstützung
für seine politischen
Absichten schriftlich u m Hilfe ersucht w u r d e . Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r fackelte nicht lange: Er las seinen Solda ten das S c h r e i b e n aus Palästina v o r u n d erhielt sofort ihre volle Unterstützung. S o wurden die Legionen Alexandriens zu den entschei d e n d e n politischen W e g b e r e i t e r n des Kaisers. D e r T a g ihrer Zustim m u n g , u n d nicht j e n e r der Vespasian selbst unterstellten T r u p p e n in Palästina, w u r d e dann z u m offiziellen Regierungsantritt, 39
imperii
z u m dies
D a s ist erstaunlich; aber es gilt: j e früher, desto besser u n d
gewichtiger. D i e R o l l e des Alexanders in dieser geschichtsträchtigen Situation
findet
Anerkennung.
w o h l d a r u m bei d e n r ö m i s c h e n Historikern
volle
40
D a b e i ist aber w e n i g wahrscheinlich, dass diese sich des Judeseins des Präfekten bewusst waren. N i e wird Tiberius A l e x a n d e r bei ihnen als J u d e bezeichnet. Tacitus kennzeichnet ihn allerdings zu Beginn seiner Historien als „Ägypter",
41
eine Bezeichnung, die mit seiner Heimat
in A l e x a n d r i e n n o c h nicht einmal als g a n z falsch o d e r als Miss verständnis abzulehnen ist. D a aber in diesem Z u s a m m e n h a n g die Ägypter i m A l l g e m e i n e n völlig negativ dargestellt w e r d e n , dürfte eine Absicht dahinter stecken; d a r u m wird m a n d a v o n auszugehen haben, dass Tacitus u m die j ü d i s c h e Herkunft des Alexanders gewusst hat.
42
Bei i h m fallen die V e r a c h t u n g der Ä g y p t e r u n d die der J u d e n in eins; es handelt sich u m eine bewusste Missachtung des Selbstbewusstseins Alexanders als G r i e c h e u n d Bürger Alexandriens (s. OGIS 6 6 9 . 3 - 4 ) . W i r k ö n n e n d a v o n ausgehen, dass Josephus selbst d e m Präfekten in Alexandrien begegnet ist; d o c h schweigt er sich über solche Kontakte aus. Tiberius Julius Alexander wurde i m Bellum Judaicum schon dreimal kurz erwähnt u n d so als Statthalter Ägyptens seit 6 6 n.Chr. unter N e r o eingeführt.
3 9
43
Selbst bei e i n e m der ersten brisanten u n d blutigen
Sueton, Vesp. 6 . 3 zu diesem T a g : qui principatns dies in posterum obseruatus est.
4 0
Sueton, Vesp. 6 . 4 ; Strabon,
4 1
Tacitus, Hist.
4 2
V g l . den berüchtigten Judenexkurs in Hist. 3 . 3 .
4 3
Geogr. 1 7 . 1 . 1 3 .
1.11 zu Ägypten: regebat tum Tiberius Alexander, eiusdem nationis.
B.J. 2 . 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 als Statthalter in Palästina durch Claudius, wobei die R u h e des Landes (ev eipt|vn) herausgestellt wird; 2 . 3 0 9 mit d e m Besuch Agrippa II. zu seinem Amtsantritt. D e r Abschnitt schließt an die Bemerkung an, dass Florus völ lig ungerechtfertigt (namenlose) Juden im Ritterstand geißelte und kreuzigte, „die der A b s t a m m u n g nach Juden waren und hohe römische Ä m t e r bekleideten" ((bv ei Kai x6 yevoq 'Iovöcucov aXka yovv xö a^icofxa 'Pcojxai'icöv rjv). Als ein solch hochgestell ter J u d e im römischen Dienst wird also auch Tiberius Alexander völlig selbstver ständlich anerkannt und gewürdigt.
324
GOTTFRIED SCHIMANOWSKI
Konflikte zwischen d e r j ü d i s c h e n G e m e i n d e u n d der alexandrinisc h e n O b e r s c h i c h t zu Beginn seiner Amtszeit wird sein Verhalten als b e s o n n e n g e g e n ü b e r allen Seiten geschildert (BJ. 2.287 ff.): All d e n E m o t i o n e n u n d Aggressionen g e g e n ü b e r setzt er sich tatkräftig mit d e n römischen Soldaten d u r c h u n d sorgt für R u h e u n d O r d n u n g , nicht o h n e einen V e r s u c h , d u r c h V e r h a n d l u n g e n mit der j ü d i s c h e n Seite u n d d e r S e n d u n g h o c h angesehener M i t b ü r g e r (xouq yvcopijiouq) 44
n o c h in allerletzter Minute ein Blutvergießen zu verhindern. Alexander s t o p p t schließlich das b l i n d w ü t e n d e V o r g e h e n seiner r ö m i s c h e n 45
Soldaten „aus Erbarmen" (Kaioucceipaq), wobei m a n wohl zu ergänzen 46
hat: „ m i t seinen L a n d s l e u t e n " . Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r rückt bei dieser Beschreibung in die N ä h e des Titus (s.u.).
47
A u f j e d e n Fall
k o m m t bei Josephus in diesem Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e n des Bellum Judaicum A l e x a n d e r o h n e Einschränkung positiv w e g . Seine R o l l e u n d seine
4 4
D i e ganze Episode wird B.J. 2 . 4 8 7 als Beispiel angeführt, dass die Einwohner
Alexandriens in ständigem Streit mit den J u d e n lebten (dei uev r\v а т а о ц
лро<;
то
'Ioi)5aücöv т о ц еягхсорСок;); dies ist auch die erste E r w ä h n u n g der Stadt und seiner Einwohner in seinen W e r k e n überhaupt. Z u dieser Zeit scheint es schon anderswo (von außen bedingte?, oder verdeckt messianische
Ansätze wie in Palästina?) zu
Konflikten g e k o m m e n zu sein (Josephus bleibt etwas s c h w a m m i g und allgemein). BJ.
2 . 4 9 0 - 4 9 8 schildert die bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen; § 4 9 9 rundet den
Abschnitt ab mit der Bemerkung: „ S o trug das über die Juden Alexandriens hereinge brochene Unglück zu (TOIOUTOV uev то к а т а rqv ' A t a £ a v 5 p e i a v ла6о<; ovvTivexOri)." Josephus
richtet
danach wieder den Blick auf Palästina
(den Fortgang und die
Zuspitzung des jüdischen Krieges dort). 4 5
Ein bei Josephus selten gebrauchtes W o r t (nur hier im B.J.\ vgl. aber 5 . 3 1 8 ) ;
v o n Gottes E r b a r m e n spricht A.J. 8 . 3 2 7 (raTOiKTeipavToq, Auferweckung des Jungen durch Elia). 4 6
Etwas wird das positive Bild getrübt durch die Bemerkung, dass das aggres
sive V o r g e h e n der Soldaten (als Reaktion auf das emotional geladene V o r g e h e n der Juden, was wiederum auf den offensichtlichen Antijudaismus in Alexandrien antwortet) mit seiner Billigung geschieht
(B.J.
2 . 4 9 4 ) : „ E r gestattete
nicht nur den
unein
geschränkten Waffengebrauch (avaipeiv, besser allgemein: das T ö t e n ) , sondern auch die Plünderung des jüdischen Besitzes (xaq ктг|оек; avTwv 6iap7ta£eiv) und das in Schutt und A s c h e legen
der H ä u s e r (та<; о{к(а<; катафХеуе™)." D a s letzte
Verb
катафХеусо verbindet wie eine Kettenreaktion die verschiedenen beteiligten G r u p p e n ( 2 . 4 9 1 die Griechen; 2 . 4 9 2 die Juden; nun die römischen Soldaten). S o zu Recht auch R . A . Kraft, "Tiberius Julius Alexander and the Crisis in Alexandria According to Josephus" (FS J. Strugnell), 1 9 9 0 : "Thus T J A is described as being in control, at least o f the troops, o f acting wisely in attempting to find a peaceful solution, and o f showing compassion and thus saving some o f the Jews w h o were being slaugh tered by the tens of thousands. H e does not seem to be seen as a villain in the whole episode!" 4 7
Z u m Verhältnis zwischen Alexander und Titus vgl. A . Barzanö, „ T i t o e Tiberio
Giulio Alessandro", in: Atti del Congresso Internationale di studi Flaviani, vol. II, Rieti 1 9 8 3 , S.
195-202,
ALEXANDRIEN ALS DREHSCHEIBE ZWISCHEN JERUSALEM UND ROM
325
Beziehung zu Vespasian sind freundschaftlich und zugleich herzlich und o h n e Einschränkungen: er wird u m w o r b e n und lässt sich u m w e r als ein Mitarbeiter und Freund des Kaisers ( G u v e p y ö v ocüxöv . . . K a i
ben
ßonrov).
48
In d e r Zeit des Krieges mit d e n J u d e n scheint er i m m e r
an dessen Seite gewesen zu sein. A l e x a n d e r tut d a m i t in A l e x a n d r i e n das, was n ö t i g ist, w e n n Scharfmacher - auch in den eigenen R e i h e n - sich ans W e r k m a c h e n u n d bürgerkriegsähnliche Z u s t ä n d e herbeiführen
wollen, während
gleichzeitig in Palästina die Ereignisse sich v o n M o n a t zu M o n a t zuspitzen u n d Die
überstürzen.
etwas ausführlichere Beschreibung des A l e x a n d e r als Freund
der R ö m e r u n d insbesondere des Titus zu Beginn der letzten M o n a t e der Belagerung Jerusalems passen durchaus in diese positive T e n d e n z .
49
D e n n Titus selbst erscheint j a sogar bei der Einnahme der Stadt als ehrbarer
Heerführer,
d e r die V e r n i c h t u n g des T e m p e l s mit allen
Mitteln, eigenhändig u n d i m Einverständnis mit Tiberius A l e x a n d e r u n d zwei anderen Heerführern, zu verhindern versuchte. Dem
50
positiven Bild des Tiberius Julius A l e x a n d e r scheint nur eine
einzige Stelle aus d e n Antiquitates zu w i d e r s p r e c h e n (AJ. O h n e ausführlicher auf diesen T e x t e i n z u g e h e n ,
51
20.100).
sei zu d e m vielfach
wiederholten G e r ü c h t einer „ A p o s t a s i e " Alexanders v o m J u d e n t u m folgendes gesagt: Z u m einen ist sprachlich d e r Begriff der Apostasie für die v o n Josephus verwendete Behauptung, A l e x a n d e r „ h a b e die Traditionen der Väter verlassen" (xoiq yap Ttaxpioiq OÜK evejieivev eöeaiv) unangemessen, wäre zumindest nicht seine Sprache; „ A p o s t a s i e " wird
4 8
B.J.
4 9
B.J. 5 . 4 5 - 4 6 : „ U n t e r den Freunden (des Titus, qntaov) war derjenige mit dabei,
4.616.
der sich, was Ergebenheit/Loyalität und V e r s t a n d / U r t e i l s v e r m ö g e n anbelangt, a m besten bewährt hat
(8oKiucoxaxo<; eüvoiav
те
Kai
a u v e o i v ) . . . "; j a gegenüber Titus
wird er geschildert als „ a n Alter und Erfahrung voraus (цКхкхате npouxwv K a i кат'
euTteipiav),
als ein Berater in allen Angelegenheiten des Krieges (ot>ußoi)A^S<; ye
UTIV
т а ц той 7roÄiuo\) xpeioti«;)." 5 0
Z u r Tapferkeit der Truppen aus Alexandrien vgl. B.J. 5 . 2 8 7 ; 6 . 2 3 7 - 2 4 2 schildert
die Ü b e r l e g u n g und Beratungen des Titus In die gleiche positive Richtung weist der Erwähnung seines V a t e r mit der Spende von G o l d - und Silberverzierungen an den T e m p e l t o r e n
in Jerusalem, B.J.
5 . 2 0 5 ; 5 . 5 1 0 erwähnt noch die
Übernahme
einer N a c h t w a c h e bei der Belagerung, direkt nach Titus selbst. 51
V g l . meine ausfuhrlichere Darstellung in G . Schimanowski, Juden und Mchtjuden
in Alexandrien. Koexistenz und Konflikte bis zum Pogrom unter Trojan (117 Münster 2 0 0 5 .
n.Chr.), M J S t 16,
326
GOTTFRIED SCHIMANOWSKI
bei Josephus in erster Linie für politische Rädelsführer v e r w e n d e t .
52
Z u m anderen wäre eine Haltung i m Unterschied zu den „väterlichen G e b r ä u c h e n " für einen M a n n in d e r Position A l e x a n d e r s nichts U n g e w ö h n l i c h e s . Selbst für Josephus müsste m a n an verschiedenen Stellen ähnlich urteilen.
53
In der O b e r s c h i c h t nicht nur Alexandriens,
sondern a u c h Palästinas, h a b e n sich nur selten J u d e n geweigert, mit H e i d e n an einem T i s c h zu sitzen. M e h r als eine faire Politik u n d einen Ausgleich der Interessen wird in dieser Position v o n A l e x a n d e r keiner erwartet h a b e n .
54
M ö g l i c h e r w e i s e steht hinter einer solchen
Behauptung des Josephus schlichtweg der N e i d : W o er nur konnte, konnte A l e x a n d e r h a n d e l n .
reden
55
Bei der Darstellung des Alexander junior geht es u m die Präsentierung einer jüdischen Gestalt aus Alexandrien, in der beides, der Osten wie d e r Westen, das römische Militär u n d seine Fähigkeit mit d e n b e s o n deren Bedingungen orientalischer Hitzigkeit u m z u g e h e n , sich verei nigten. Z w a r erwähnt Josephus das Judesein Alexanders n i r g e n d w o i m Bellum Judaicum direkt; es scheint aber i m m e r wieder durch, wie bei d e m umsichtigen V o r g e h e n durch die V e r m i t d u n g angesehener Alexandriner und auch in der vorbildhaften Präsentation seines Vaters, A l e x a n d e r senior.
3.
T I T U S IN A L E X A N D R I E N
Für m e h r als einen Politiker der römischen Zeit w a r also Alexandrien eine wichtige Station.
56
Ähnliches wie bei Vespasian lässt sich auch
5 2
S o die B e d e u t u n g v o n anooxaoxq zu dieser Z e i t ü b e r h a u p t wie z . B . die Verwendung des Begriffes in den Makkabäerbüchern, vgl. ähnlich auch die Septuaginta zu N u m 14,9; Jos 2 2 , 2 2 . Z u m Begriff selbst s.o. A n m . 15. 5 3
V g l . Vita 2 1 4 , 2 2 9 zur - verbotenen Ehe - Ehe mit einer Gefangenen; vgl. o. Anm. 35. 5 4
Z u r Deutungsmöglichkeit Alexanders als eines „neuen Joseph" vgl. G . Schimanowski, a a O . Inhaltlich vgl. B.J. 2 . 8 1 , w o sich eine ganze jüdische Delegation ganz selbstverständlich in ein Apollon-Heiligtum begibt, u m politische Verhandlungen zu führen; Josephus bewertet ein solches Entgegenkommen in keiner W e i s e negativ. 5 5
Z u r Gesamtthematik vgl. S. Etienne, „Reflexion Julius Alexander", StPhA 12 (2000) 1 2 2 - 1 4 2 . 3 6
sur l'Apostasie
de
Tiberius
V g l . schon die Schilderung der Reise des Herodes nach R o m 4 0 v . C h r . , B.J. 1.279 (A.J. 1 4 . 3 7 5 ) . A u c h er macht in Alexandrien Station, wird von Kleopatra mit allen Ehren empfangen und reist dann weiter nach R o m (also zu Beginn der lan gen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Oktavian und Antonius). Z u den Reisewegen auf d e m M e e r vgl. die A n g a b e n bei N . Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, Sheffield 1 9 9 8 , S. 2 8 7 ( A n m . 8 1 ) 3 6 7 - 6 9 .
A L E X A N D R I E N ALS DREHSCHEIBE Z W I S C H E N JERUSALEM U N D R O M
327
bei seinem S o h n Titus nachzeichnen. Exemplarisch sei genannt dessen R ü c k k e h r n a c h R o m n a c h der E r o b e r u n g Jerusalems 70 n . C h r .
57
In
Alexandrien endässt er seine b e i d e n L e g i o n e n und schifft sich selbst mit ausgewählten G e f a n g e n e n n a c h R o m ein. Sueton ist an dieser Stelle ausführlicher als Josephus. W i e d e r einmal erweist sich der Besuch eines R ö m e r s in Alexandrien als brisant. Sueton berichtet v o n e i n e m V e r d a c h t er (Titus) h a b e versucht, v o m V a t e r abzufallen u n d sich die Herrschaft ü b e r d e n Orient zu verschaffen (Titus 5.3).
58
Sueton n i m m t seinen Protagonisten
in Schutz - trotz späterer gravierender Kritikpunkte - u n d erklärt die dortige Anwesenheit seiner ganzen Streitmacht mit d e n W ü n s c h e n und Bitten seiner Soldaten; d o c h m a g an d e n damaligen G e r ü c h t e n ein K ö r n c h e n W a h r h e i t gehaftet
haben.
59
In ganz ähnlicher Weise war j a auch früher s c h o n ein vergleich barer V e r d a c h t g e g e n G e r m a n i c u s bei seiner Ägyptenreise 19 v . C h r . a u f g e k o m m e n , eine Episode, die a u c h Josephus erwähnt.
60
Er hatte
die Reise o h n e die ausdrückliche G e n e h m i g u n g d u r c h d e n u n t e r n o m m e n . Touristische Attraktionen
Senat
allein w a r e n selten
aus
schlaggebend. S o werden bei Germanicus die Öffnung der staadichen Getreidespeicher,
61
der Verfall d e r Getreidepreise u n d sein w a c h
sender Einfluss b e i m V o l k erwähnt, bei J o s e p h u s zusätzlich seine Benachteiligung der J u d e n . In diesem Z u s a m m e n h a n g ist erwähnenswert, dass m a n
damals
des Öfteren prophetische W o r t e bei d e n ägyptischen W e i s e n suchte. Es war nicht v o n ungefähr, dass auch Vespasian gerade in Alexandrien eine Bestätigung seines W e g e s zur M a c h t u n d v o r allem zur D a u e r haftigkeit seiner politischen Funktion empfangen hatte.
62
Später werden
5 7
V g l . vorher schon das Rekrutieren der T r u p p e n in B.J.
M
quasi desciscere a patre Orientisque sibi regnum uindicare temptasset. D e r Verdacht wurde
3 . 8 , 6 4 und 5 . 2 .
dadurch noch vermehrt, dass Titus eine Reise nach M e m p h i s unternahm und dort der Beisetzung eines Apis-Stieres beiwohnte. D a b e i trug er ein D i a d e m , „wie es der althergebrachte Brauch einer altehrwürdigen Religion verlangte (de more quidem rituque priscae religionis)." 5 9
Immerhin
lässt auch Tacitus die M a c h t des Titus in Alexandrien beginnen
(s.o. zu Hist. 5.1.1 durch die W a h l seines Vaters, ihm die Truppen für die Belagerung Jerusalems anzuvertrauen). 6 0
Siehe C. Ap.
6 1
Z u r enormen - sozialen und politischen - Bedeutung der ägyptischen Getreidelie
2.63.
ferung s.o. A n m . 19 und vor allem G . E . Rickman, Oxford b
'
2
The Com Supply qf Ancient
Rom,
1 9 8 0 , passim.
Sueton,
5.6 auf d e m
Vesp. 7.1 mit Besuch des Sarapistempels; ähnlich schon vorher ebd. Karmel.
328
GOTTFRIED SGHIMANOWSKI
n o c h m e h r Ereignisse mit seinem Ägyptenaufenthalt v e r b u n d e n .
63
So
gesehen, ist es kein Zufall, dass Vespasian z u s a m m e n mit Titus die N a c h t v o r d e m g r o ß e n T r i u m p h z u g in R o m i m d o r d g e n Isistempel verbringt. Daraus
64
erklärt sich, dass seit d e n T a g e n des Augustus für die
römische O b e r s c h i c h t i m m e r ein H a u c h an V e r d a c h t b e i m Besuch der Stadt bestand. N e b e n anerkennenden N o t i z e n illustrierten in der R e g e l auch abschätzige Bewertungen der Ä g y p t e r , wie sie unter den römischen Geschichtsschreibern gang und gäbe waren,
65
solche Berichte.
W i r k ö n n e n d e m hier nicht weiter nachgehen. Josephus selbst führt Vespasian und Titus als die höchsten Z e u g e n an für die Zuverlässigkeit seines Bellum Judaicum. Ihnen w e r d e n als erste seine Bücher vorgelegt u n d so j e d e r V o r w u r f v o n T ä u s c h u n g , Eigeninteresse u n d A p o l o g i e seines Lebens a b g e w e h r t .
4.
66
WELTPOLITISCHE
PERSPEKTIVEN:
DER K A M P F Z W I S C H E N W E S T UND
OST
Ereignisse Alexandriens konnten, der geographischen Lage w e g e n , zu Weltereignissen stilisiert w e r d e n (vgl. Philo, Place. 45). D u r c h eine ganz andere
A r t v o n T e x t soll z u m A b s c h l u s s n o c h a u f diese
Möglichkeit hingewiesen w e r d e n . Bei der dramatischen
Schilderung
der entscheidenden Schlacht bei Actium 31 v.Chr. i m achten Buch v o n Vergils Aeneis w e r d e n die Protagonisten zu Schlüsselfiguren e r h o b e n , die gleichzeitig auch geographische Implikationen
repräsentieren.
A u f der einen Seite stehen Octavian u n d A g r i p p a , die die W e r t e d e r traditionellen
r ö m i s c h e n Gesellschaft w i d e r s p i e g e l n mit
den
6 3
V g l . Philostratos, Vita Apollonii 5 . 2 7 ff. (vgl. Tacitus, Hist. 4 . 8 1 ; Sueton, Vesp. 7 . 2 - 3 ) zur Heilung von Blinden und L a h m e n . 6 4
B.J. 7 . 1 2 3 . V g l . auch die früheren Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e mit d e m Isistempel in R o m A.J. 1 8 . 6 5 - 8 4 und der damit verbunden Ausweisung von Juden aus R o m unter Tiberius. Z u m gesamten T h e m a vgl. F. E . Brenk, " T h e Isis Campensis of Katja Lembke", in: N . Blanc, A . Buisson (ed.), Imago Antiquitatis. Religions et iconographie du monde Romain. Melanges offert ä R . T u r c a n , Paris 1 9 9 9 , S. 1 3 3 - 1 4 4 . 6 5
Sie hatten etwas Exotisches an sich, waren gleichzeitig aber verpönt (vgl. schon Strabo; Tacitus und vor allem Seneca u.a.; anders bei Plutarch). Sie finden sich genauso bei Josephus, z.B. in Contra Apionem. und vor allem bei Philo. Z u m G a n z e n s. K . Berthelot, " T h e U s e o f Greek and R o m a n Stereotypes of the Egyptians by Hellenistic Jewish Apologists, with special reference to Josephus' Against Apion", in: J. U . K a l m s ( H g . ) , Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Aarhus 1999, MJSt 6, Münster 2 0 0 0 , S. 1 8 5 - 2 2 1 . V g l . u. A n m . 6 9 . Vita 3 5 9 - 3 6 1 ; C. Ap. 1 . 5 0 - 5 1 . m
ALEXANDRIEN ALS DREHSCHEIBE ZWISCHEN JERUSALEM UND
ROM
329
„ V ä t e r n , d e m V o l k , den Hausgöttern u n d d e r gesamten Götterwelt" ( V . 6 7 9 ) , begünstigt d u r c h die Natur ( W i n d ) und die G ö t t e r (681). A u f der anderen Seite steht Antonius, einst der römische Feldherr кат' e^oxnv, n u n auf die Unterstützung einer fremden, barbarischen A r m e e angewiesen, gekennzeichnet durch unterschiedliche Rüstungen, v e r b u n d e n mit seiner - in Vergils A u g e n - verabscheuungswürdigen ägyptischen Gattin K l e o p a t r a , deren N a m e nicht einmal E r w ä h n u n g findet
( 6 8 5 - 6 8 8 ) . A u f seiner Seite k o m m e n damit die „Kräfte des
M o r g e n l a n d e s u n d Ä g y p t e n s " zu stehen (687). A u f d e m H ö h e p u n k t der Schlacht kämpfen nicht allein die Soldaten und ihre Befehlshaber, sondern das ganze römische u n d ägyptische Pantheon
miteinander.
Unter E i n b i n d u n g v o n ägyptischen religiösen Elementen k o m m t es zur E n t s c h e i d u n g s s c h l a c h t z w i s c h e n O s t u n d W e s t , O r i e n t Okzident ( V . 6 9 8 - 7 0 0 ) :
und
67
68
Mitten befiehlt die Fürstin auf heimischer Rassel den Völkern, Und doch bemerkt sie nicht die beiden Schlangen im Rücken: Mancherlei Götter von seltsamer Art und der Beller Anubis Halten gegen Neptun und gegen Minerva und Venus Waffen gezückt. . . Nicht Isis, Osiris o d e r Sarapis symbolisieren hier die ägyptische gött liche M a c h t , sondern Merkwürdigkeiten v o n Göttern, unter ihnen Anubis, dessen H u n d e k o p f auch der außerägyptischen Antike bekannt war. Es ist d e u d i c h : eine solche W e l t mit ihren
unterschiedlichen
W e r t e n u n d Empfindlichkeiten i m religiösen u n d politischen wie auch kulturellen Bereich findet in Alexandrien, der M e t r o p o l e der Kleopatra, ihre Veranschaulichung; mit ihrer Faszination u n d Anziehungskraft, aber a u c h mit ihrer A b w e h r u n d orientalischen Fremdheit. In vergleichbarer W e i s e kann a u c h Josephus auf dieser Klaviatur spielen.
69
Das w e r d e n die R ö m e r positiv registriert haben. Alexandrien
wird bei i h m m e h r und m e h r auf die Seite des ägyptischen Einflusses gerückt, auch w e n n er der dortigen jüdischen G e m e i n d e in anderen -
6 7
Z u m G a n z e n vgl. Smelik/Hemelrijk, "Egyptian A n i m a l W o r s h i p in Antiquity", ANRW II, IIA ( 1 9 8 4 ) A n f a n g S. 1 8 5 4 : omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis / contra Neptunum et Venerem contraque Minervam / tela tenent. . . 6 8
D e r T e x t nennt das sistrum aus dem Isiskult - kein militärisches Schlachtinstrument wie eine T r o m p e t e ! 6 9
Z . B . bei den Erwähnungen der ägyptischen Götter Isis (s.o.; AJ. 1 8 . 6 5 ff., 4 mal; C. Ap. 1.289, 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 zu C h a e r e m o n ) und Anubis {AJ. 1 8 . 7 2 - 7 7 , 5 mal); ähnlich in der Auseinandersetzung mit A p i o n in C. Ap. 2 . 6 6 oder aber auch schon vorher bei den Angriffen auf Kleopatra in C. Ap. 2 . 5 6 ff. V g l . o. A n m . 6 5 .
330
GOTTFRIED SCHIMANOWSKI
v o r allem rechtspolitischen - Fragen eine entscheidende A u s n a h m e 70
stellung zubilligt. Umgekehrt bestreitet er seinem literarischen G e g n e r A p i o n d e n R a n g , A l e x a n d r i n e r zu sein; er ist i h m vielmehr ein bar barischer Ä g y p t e r .
71
J o s e p h u s verfolgt p o l e m i s c h e u n d apologetische
Interessen u n d passt seine Darstellung seinem P r o g r a m m a n .
72
Das
gilt genauso für die B e d e u t u n g u n d Stilisierung d e r W e l t m e t r o p o l e n selbst, ganz gewiss für Alexandrien in (oder richtiger: „ b e i " ) Ä g y p t e n .
/ U
73
V g l . den berühmten Claudiusbrief in der Fassung des Josephus, die sich erheb
lich v o n d e m Reskript des Claudius selbst—CPJ
153—unterscheidet,
am
Ende
der Antiquitates ( 1 9 . 2 7 8 ff.), der durch den zweiten Brief an die ganze „ O e k u m e n e " Präzedenzwirkung zuerkannt wird ( 1 9 . 8 6 ff.). G a n z ähnlich verhält es sich in C. Ap. 2 . 3 2 : wenn A p i o n die Alexandriner mit S c h m ä h u n g e n überhäuft, „trifft er damit auch alle übrigen Juden" (vgl. A.J.
1 8 . 2 5 7 ) . Die kurz darauf erwähnte Inschrift wird
kaum mit Caesar, sondern erst mit Augustus zusammengebracht werden (vgl. A.J. 7 1
können
14.188).
V g l . seine K e n n z e i c h n u n g als „Ägypter" C. Ap.
2 . 2 8 - 3 1 ; die Kritik an der
Selbstbezeichnung Apions als „Alexandriner" findet sich im Folgenden C. Ap. 2 . 4 1 . 7 2
Siehe S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus und das Neue Testament, U T B 2 1 3 0 , M ü n c h e n
u.a. 2 0 0 0 , S. 4 8 - 4 9 . 7 3
Eine Untersuchung zur Bedeutung R o m s in einer solchen Perspektive ist bisher
leider ebenfalls noch ein desideratum.
JEWS, R O M A N S A N D CHRISTIANS: F R O M T H E BELLUM
JUDAICUM
T O T H E ANTIQUITA TES
G I O R G I O JOSSA UNIVERSITÀ DI N A P O L I "FEDERICO
II"
Josephus's references to the Christians have b e e n the object o f innu merable studies. In recent years, they have k n o w n a n e w w a v e o f interest. H o w e v e r , they have b e e n studied almost exclusively with 1
regard to their authenticity. O n l y r e c e n d y m o r e questions have b e e n asked a b o u t the intentions w h i c h lie b e h i n d those references, and their relationship to the overall direction o f the works o f Flavius 2
Josephus, considered as a w h o l e . M y paper, instead, takes its shape from precisely these questions. A s a matter o f fact, it aims to answer o n e specific question: w h y is it that in the Antiquitates, therefore in 9 3 - 9 4 C.E., J o s e p h u s has included in the a c c o u n t o f the years 2 6 to 66 t w o references to the Christians {A.J. 1 8 . 6 3 - 6 4 ; 20.200) w h i c h , w h e n dealing with the same p e r i o d in the earlier Bellum, written between the years 75 a n d 79, he did not i n c l u d e ?
3
A very simple
answer c o u l d b e that the d o c u m e n t a r y material o f the Antiquitates, as regards the years from the b e g i n n i n g o f the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d to the outbreak o f the war, was taken from additional sources, a n d is therefore richer than that in the Bellum. T o the o n e a n d a half b o o k s d e v o t e d to this p e r i o d in the Bellum c o r r e s p o n d nine b o o k s o f the
1
T h e latest examples are, I believe, the excellent article by J. Carleton Paget, " S o m e Observations on Josephus and Christianity", JTS 5 2 (2001): 5 3 9 - 6 2 4 , the original study by S. Bardet, Le T e s t i m o n i u m Flavianum. Examen historique, considera tions historiographiques (Paris: Cerf, 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d Alice W h e a l e y , Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy fiom Late Antiquity to Modern Times ( N e w York: Peter Lang, 2 0 0 3 ) . 2
A m o n g the scholars w h o tried to discover the intentions that lie behind the references (but in a very questionable way): E . N o d e t , "Jesus et Jean-Baptiste selon Josephe," RB 9 2 (1985): 3 2 1 - 4 8 ; 4 9 7 - 5 2 4 ; A . Paul, "Flavius Josephus' 'Antiquities of the Jews': an anti-Christian Manifesto," NTS 31 (1985): 4 7 3 - 8 0 ; and Bardet, T e s t i m o n i u m Flavianum. 3
L . H . Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited: the M a n , his Writings, a n d his Significance," ANRW 2 . 2 1 . 2 (1984): 8 2 6 , points out the silence ("rarely noticed") of the Bellum on J o h n , Jesus and James, but hardly accounts for it. Carleton Paget, "Some Observations," 6 0 8 - 6 0 9 , righdy emphasizes the different aim of the Antiquitates and o f the Bellum, but does not sufficiently develop this consideration.
332
GIORGIO JOSSA
Antiquitates. Such an answer, though, w o u l d b e insufficient. M o s t o f the n e w accounts c o n c e r n the time o f H e r o d , and they are thus related to a p e r i o d prior to the appearance o f Christianity, for w h i c h the privileged source is Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s . F o r the p e r i o d w e are c o n c e r n e d with (Books 1 8 - 2 0 ) , the n e w sources are mainly R o m a n . T h e y are not the ones to contain the references to the t w o episodes o f Christian origins in Palestine. A n d , pace N o d e t , Paul a n d Bardet, nothing lets us suppose that Josephus ever read any Christian source. As w e are about to see, there is nothing specifically "Christian" in these two references. W h y , then, did he decide to recall characters a n d events he had n o t m e n t i o n e d in the Bellurri? O f course, the question implies that those t w o references were indeed J o s e p h u s ' and were not, instead, just the result o f later inter polations. I have n o d o u b t as far as the J a m e s episode is c o n c e r n e d . Neither the overall a c c o u n t o f A n a n u s ' initiative (A.J. 2 0 . 1 9 9 - 2 0 3 ) , n o r the reference to "Jesus called Christ" (A.J. 2 0 . 2 0 0 : 'Iriaouq 6 tayojievoq Xpiaxoq) raise any perplexity. O n the contrary, they perfecdy match the interests and the style o f the author. W e shall see that the passage has n o t h i n g "Christian"
a b o u t it. Its subject is
Ananus, not J a m e s . It was not the Christians w h o included that ref 4
e r e n c e . T h e passage o n Jesus is obviously different. H e r e the inter polations are clear. Josephus c o u l d never have written o f Jesus that "he was the Christ" (6 Xpioxoq ouxoq f\v), o r that "he appeared to t h e m alive again o n the third d a y , " o r " i f i n d e e d o n e o u g h t to call h i m a m a n . " I will not attempt to reconstruct a hypothetical original text. But it is e n o u g h to think that in J o s e p h u s ' text there was a ref 5
erence to Jesus "called Christ" (and not that "he was the Christ"), and to the fact that, o n the o n e hand, p e o p l e thought o f Jesus as a wise m a n whose disciples w e r e a m o n g the best m e n in J u d e a , and, o n the
4
T . Rajak, Josephus: the Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth,
1983), 1 3 1 ;
1 5 1 , and K . A . O l s o n , "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," CBQ 61 (1999): 3 1 4 - 1 9 , believe there was an interpolation. Rajak thinks so because the j u d g m e n t on A n a n u s is too different from the one in the Bellum (although I believe that this difference can be otherwise explained).
O l s o n thinks so since the reference to the
Messiah is unique in Josephus (but O l s o n accepts Feldman's translation "Jesus w h o was called the Christ"). 5
W h e n N o d e t ("Jesus et Jean-Baptiste," 3 3 3 - 3 4 ) states that Josephus might have
written that Jesus "was the Christ", he seems to forget that in such a form, for a Jew,
the statement is the same as to say that Jesus was the Messiah; and that, if
O r i g e n had read this passage, he could not have written o f Josephus that he did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. M o d e s t Proposal,"
See also J. P. M e i e r , "Jesus in Josephus: A
CBQ 5 2 (1990): 8 2 .
JEWS, ROMANS AND CHRISTIANS
333
other, that he h a d attracted n o t o n l y J e w s but also Greeks. Since the definition o f J a m e s as "the b r o t h e r o f Jesus called Christ" presup poses a previous mention o f the latter, I believe that a reference o f 6
this sort was indeed present in J o s e p h u s ' text. W h y , then, d i d he include in the Antiquitates these t w o episodes that he d i d n o t m e n t i o n in the Bellum? I believe the answer to b e in the nature a n d in the aim o f the t w o works. Scholars agree o n the goals o f the Bellum. Josephus aims to offer his o w n interpretation o f the reasons for the revolt, contrasting it with those o f other authors, m o s d y Greek, a n d basing it o n his vantage point as an eyewitness. Jewish p e o p l e were peaceful: i f they w e n t so far as to react against the legitimate p o w e r o f the R o m a n s , it was because o f the presence o f a small g r o u p o f thugs, mainly Zealots and Sicarii, w h o m a n a g e d to drag the others into rebellion. T h e misrule o f the last R o m a n governors, w h i c h exasperated the Jews, certainly contributed to the spreading o f the rebellion. In such conditions the efforts o f the aristocracy, w h o tried every means available to avoid the war, p r o v e d to b e in vain. A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s the situation was absolutely clear. O n the o n e h a n d there was a small g r o u p o f rebels exploiting the exasperation o f the p e o p l e against the R o m a n governors. O n the other, there were the high priests a n d the Pharisees' 7
leaders w h o m a d e every effort to a v o i d the war. It is from this sim plistic formulation that the identification o f the decisive m o m e n t s o f the revolt against the R o m a n s derives. T h e beginning o f all the calamities suffered b y the J e w s is i n d e e d identified b y Josephus with the appearance o f Judas the Galilean, sixty
6
T h e hypothesis o f a total interpolation o f the text, ascribed to Eusebius o f
Caesarea, has been recently suggested b y O l s o n ("Eusebius," 3 0 5 - 2 2 ) , with inter esting arguments which were rejected, however, by Carleton Paget ("Some O b s e r vations," 5 7 7 - 7 8 ) in an extremely convincing way. N o n e of these arguments, from the passage's style (which is absolutely "Flavian") to the silence o f the Fathers (easily explainable), is actually strong. A n even m o r e recent re-assertion o f the interpolation of the whole Testimonium Flavianum, within, however, an overall interpretation o f the usage o f Josephus in the ecclesiastical tradition, can b e found also in F. Parente, "Sulla doppia trasmissione, filologica ed ecclesiastica, del testo di Flavio Giuseppe: un contribute alia storia della ricezione della sua opera nel m o n d o cristiano," Rivista di Storia e Letteratura religiosa 3 6 (2000): 9 - 2 5 . G u i d e d as it is by the persuasion of an early apologetic usage of Josephus' text by the ecclesiastical tradition, suggested by the connection o f the destruction o f Jerusalem with the death o f James, it seems hardly convincing. 7
T h e most significant passage is no doubt B.J. 2 . 4 1 1 - 4 1 7 . It describes a meet
ing o f the principal citizens with the high priests and the leaders o f the Pharisees to convince the population not to provoke the R o m a n s .
334
GIORGIO JOSSA
years before the war. His opposition to the p a y m e n t o f taxes resulted from the fact that J u d e a had b e e n turned into a R o m a n p r o v i n c e . Josephus d o e s not say m u c h a b o u t Judas in this part o f the Bellum. H e mainly points out the theological reason that served as his inspi ration, that is to say the impossibility for the J e w s to "have mortal masters besides G o d " (B.J. 2.118). A t the e n d o f the b o o k , h o w e v e r , Josephus identifies J u d a s as the very founder o f the g r o u p o f the Sicarii, led during the w a r first b y M e n a h e m , a n d then b y Eleazar. A b o u t the Sicarii, Josephus not only maintains that they "were the first to set the example o f this lawlessness and cruelty to their kinsmen, leaving n o w o r d unspoken to insult, n o d e e d untried to ruin, the victims o f their c o n s p i r a c y " (B.J. 7.262 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) , but also that they were completely alien to the Jewish tradition. Judas was in fact " d o c t o r o f a particular school w h o had nothing in c o m m o n with the others" (B.J. 2.118). Josephus identifies the beginning o f all Jewish misfortunes with the appearance o f Judas the Galilean; sim ilarly, for h i m the e n d o f all h o p e s for peaceful coexistence with the R o m a n s was determined b y the m u r d e r o f A n a n u s son o f Ananus at the hands o f the Sicarii. Josephus praises A n a n u s in the Bellum, b o t h o n the moral and political level. H e d o e s n o t simply say: " A m a n o n every g r o u n d revered and o f the highest integrity, Ananus, with all the distinction o f his birth, his rank and the honours to which he h a d attained, yet delighted to treat the very humblest as his equals"; but he also adds: " U n i q u e in his love o f liberty and
an
enthusiast for d e m o c r a c y , he o n all occasions put the public welfare a b o v e his private interests" (B.J. 4 . 3 1 9 - 3 2 0 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) . In particular, Josephus believes A n a n u s ' attempt to give the impression o f g o i n g along with the revolt, while still controlling "the so-called Z e a l o t s " (B.J. 2.651) and strongly suppressing the forces o f S i m o n bar G i o r a (B.J. 2.653), to have b e e n the only possible c h a n c e to a v o i d war. T h e r e f o r e he can c o n c l u d e : "I should not b e w r o n g in saying that the capture o f the city b e g a n with the death o f Ananus; and that the o v e r t h r o w o f the walls and the downfall o f the Jewish state dated from the day o n w h i c h the J e w s beheld their high priest, the captain o f their salvation, butchered in the heart o f Jerusalem" (B.J. 4.318 [ T h a c k e r a y , L C L ] ) . N o w a d a y s there is a tendency not to overemphasize the
contrast
8
between the Bellum and the Antiquitates, o r to see signs o f c h a n g e in B
See for example S. M a s o n , ' " S h o u l d A n y W i s h to Enquire Further' (Ant.
1.25):
335
JEWS, ROMANS AND CHRISTIANS
the global attitude o f J o s e p h u s already in the revisions o f B o o k 7 o f the Bellum? Nevertheless it must b e admitted that the goals, and thus the very nature, o f the Antiquitates (as well as o f the Vita) are different. T h e main goal o f the Antiquitates is not to explain the causes o f the Jewish w a r and to unmask the p e o p l e responsible for it, but rather to p r o v i d e the G r a e c o - R o m a n readers with an image o f the Jews that c a n legitimize t h e m as respectable m e m b e r s o f their o w n cultural world, to w h o m R o m a n authorities have always granted sup port a n d protection. H e n c e the presentation o f M o s e s as the wisest a m o n g the legislators, o f the Jewish religion as a f o r m o f philoso phy, and o f the Jewish groups as philosophical schools is m o r e e m p h a sized than in the Bellum. H e n c e the m e n t i o n o f all the measures taken b y the R o m a n authorities in favor o f the Jews. O n the other hand, c o m p a r e d to the Bellum, the Antiquitates strongly stress the m o t i f o f divine guidance in history and, in particular, o f the immediate reward for h u m a n actions b y G o d . T h e issue o f the causes o f the Jewish W a r is integrated within an overall c o n c e p t i o n o f h u m a n his tory. T h e author himself admits that he wants first o f all to under line the providential nature o f historical events, and support the idea o f a divine reward for h u m a n actions. G o d always rewards g o o d p e o p l e a n d punishes b a d ones. H u m a n happiness c a n only b e m e a sured through m o r a l criteria.
10
I have already referred to the explanations given in the Bellum for the causes o f the revolt a n d to the opinions expressed o n the char acters o f J u d a s the Galilean a n d A n a n u s son o f A n a n u s . In the Antiquitates these evaluations have deeply c h a n g e d . T h e m a i n cause
T h e A i m and A u d i e n c e of Josephus's Judean Antiquities/Life,"
in Understanding Josephus:
Seven Perspectives (ed. S. M a s o n ; J S P S u p 3 2 ; Sheffield: Sheffield A c a d e m i c Press, 1998) 64-103. 9
S. Schwartz, " T h e Composition and Publication o f Josephus's Bellum Iudaicum
Book 7," HTR 10
A J.
7 9 (1986): 3 7 3 - 8 6 .
1.14: "But, speaking generally, the main lesson to be learnt from this his
tory b y any w h o care to peruse it is that m e n w h o conform to the will o f G o d , and d o not venture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid d o w n , pros per in all things b e y o n d belief, and for their reward are offered by G o d felicity; whereas, in proportion as they depart from the strict observance o f these
laws,
things (else) practicable b e c o m e impracticable, and whatever imaginary g o o d thing they strive to d o ends in irretrievable disasters"; A J.
1.20: " G o d , as the universal
father and lord w h o beholds all things, grants to such as follow him a life o f bliss, but involves in dire calamities those w h o step outside the path o f virtue" (Thackeray, L C L ) . T h e s e statements refer to the story narrated in the Scriptures, but they m a y as well refer to the one narrated in the Antiquitates, which are, according to the author, the translation and accomplishment o f the Scriptures.
336
GIORGIO JOSSA
o f the war is still detected in the action o f extremists and, in par ticular,
in J u d a s ' followers (A.J.
1 8 . 6 - 9 ) , w h o s e thinking Josephus
d e e m s "unusual" (A.J. 18.9). But if the j u d g m e n t o n them had b e e n already slighdy softened in B o o k 7 o f the Bellum, in the Antiquitates J u d a s ' m o v e m e n t is r e c o g n i z e d not only as a aipeaiq, as a school (B.J. 2.118), but even as the "fourth philosophy" (A.J. 18.9, 23) along side the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees already m e n t i o n e d in the B.J. 2.119. T h e m o v e m e n t is thought to b e , apart from its passionate love for freedom, "in all other respects in agreement with the opinions o f the Pharisees" (A.J. 18.23), f o u n d e d as it was not o n l y b y J u d a s the Galilean, but also b y the Pharisee
S a d o q (A.J.
18.4, 9). A b o v e all, Josephus admits that "since the p o p u l a c e , w h e n they heard their appeals, r e s p o n d e d gladly, the plot to strike b o l d l y m a d e serious progress" (A.J. 18.6 [Feldman, L C L ] ) ; that is to say that it b e c a m e deeply r o o t e d within the population. T h e s e admis sions are s o m e w h a t surprising and extremely significant. J u d a s is not a d o c t o r with nothing in c o m m o n with the others, but s o m e o n e close to the Pharisees, to the school Josephus considered the most influential. T h e m o v e m e n t Judas f o u n d e d is similar to that o f the Pharisees and therefore deserves the status o f a "philosophical s c h o o l " . M o r e i m p o r tandy, it d o e s not consist o f a small g r o u p o f fanatics without any significant repercussion, but earns major success a m o n g the population. This re-evaluation o f Judas is a c c o m p a n i e d b y an even stronger shift o f j u d g m e n t o n Ananus. M a n y think that his father has b e e n the happiest
o f h u m a n beings since he saw all his
five
children
b e c o m e high priests. But a c c o r d i n g to the Antiquitates this is not so: praised in the Bellum as the only o n e w h o c o u l d have a v o i d e d the tragedy o f the nation, A n a n u s is n o w a reckless m a n w h o did not hesitate to lead an illegal trial against a g r o u p o f fellow citizens, and for this reason aroused feelings o f resentment in the hearts o f the most moderate and lawful Jews, losing his high priesthood after only three months (A.J. 2 0 . 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 ) . His m o r a l integrity is highly ques tionable. In the Vita, Josephus also recalls that the former high priest, n o w leader o f the provisional government o f Jerusalem, gave in to the pressures o f Simon son o f Gamaliel to take Galilee away from Josephus and became corrupted.
11
11
Vita 1 9 2 - 1 9 4 . I d o not Christianity," JTS 5 2 (2001): A n a n u s is not negative, and S i m o n . I think the reverse is
His political role does not appear
brilliant
see h o w J. S. M c L a r e n , "Ananus, J a m e s and early 3 - 4 , can maintain that here Josephus's j u d g m e n t on anyway more positive than the one on the Pharisee true.
337
JEWS, ROMANS AND CHRISTIANS
either. D e p r i v e d o f the high priesthood after only three months due to his actions, considered illegal b y king A g r i p p a a n d the R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r Albinus, he d i d n o t have m u c h influence o n the extrem ists w h o were increasingly taking o v e r the g o v e r n m e n t o f Jerusalem. Josephus' j u d g m e n t o n Ananus is part o f an appraisal o f the priesdy aristocracy, a n d m o r e in general o f the Jewish authorities,
during
the years p r e c e d i n g the revolt, o n e that differs from that given in the Bellum. It is well known that Josephus modified his j u d g m e n t o n Herod's family in the Antiquitates. N o t only H e r o d the Great, b u t also H e r o d Antipas is portrayed in a far less favorable light. His defeat b y Aretas is c o n n e c t e d to his unjust b e h a v i o r towards J o h n the Baptist. O n l y Agrippa I still deserves genuine praises. But it is the priesdy aristocracy w h o receives the harshest judgment. Josephus n o w recalls h o w Agrippa II unscrupulously used his prerogatives to appoint a n d dismiss high priests a n d to control the temple. H e further paints a
frightening
picture o f the priesdy caste. H e suggests that, at that time, the only w a y to b e c o m e high priest s e e m e d b y w a y o f paying great sums o f m o n e y (A J. 20.213). O f course, this e n d e d u p dividing the priesdy aristocracy, previously quite united against the l o w e r clergy, into sev eral o p p o s e d groups. Josephus says: " T h e r e n o w was enkindled mutual enmity a n d class warfare between the high priests, o n the o n e hand, and the priests a n d the leaders o f the p o p u l a c e o f Jerusalem, o n the other. E a c h o f the factions f o r m e d a n d collected for itself a b a n d o f the m o s t reckless revolutionaries a n d acted as their leader" (A.J. 2 0 . 1 8 0 [Feldman, L C L ] ) . T h e friction b e t w e e n the priesdy aristoc racy o n the o n e hand, a n d the l o w e r priesthood a n d the Levites o n the other, w o r s e n e d . Josephus reports that the high priests w o u l d e m b e z z l e the remuneration d u e to the priests a n d lead them to star vation (A.J. 2 0 . 1 8 1 , 2 0 6 - 2 0 7 ) . It w o u l d perhaps b e an exaggeration, as far as the Antiquitates are concerned, to talk about a total reversal o f the evaluation o f the causes and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the revolt given fifteen years earlier in the Bellum. Certainly, however, Josephus' evaluation has b e c o m e far m o r e nuanced and c o m p l e x . It is n o longer only a small g r o u p o f violent p e o p l e that started the rebellion. A n d there is n o longer an absolutely m o r a l and politically correct aristocracy that tried in any w a y possible to avoid the worst. Extremists were undeniably r o o t e d within the p o p ulation. A n d the m e m b e r s o f the aristocracy have b e e n utterly inca pable to carry o u t their duties. Internally
divided a n d eager for
p o w e r , they pursued only their o w n personal interests a n d incurred divine punishment.
rightly
338
GIORGIO JOSSA
I a m strongly tempted to solve in this w a y the difficult p r o b l e m o f Josephus' attitude towards the Pharisees. M . Smith and J. Neusner's old
theory, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h a radical shift in J o s e p h u s ' attitude
towards the Pharisees h a d o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n the Bellum a n d
the
Antiquitates, d u e to the supremacy o f the Pharisaic party in Israel after 70, has b e e n righdy criticized b y D . Schwartz and S. M a s o n . T h e r e is certainly n o radical c h a n g e . A n d m o r e than o n c e
the
Pharisees are o p e n l y criticized. O n the other hand, R a b b i n i s m is not to b e identified with Pharisaism, therefore it c a n n o t b e said that after 70 Pharisaic Judaism has w o n . H o w e v e r , it is clear to the reader o f the Antiquitates (and even m o r e so to o n e w h o reads the Vita) that, b e t w e e n the Sadducees and the Pharisees, Josephus n o w stands b y the latter. T h e y are the most rigorous, but also the most m o d e r a t e , interpreters o f the l a w .
12
T h e y , and not the Sadducees, are closer to
the c o m m o n p e o p l e and have the greatest influence o n them (A.J. 18.15, 17). T h e y are the leaders, even m o r e than the high priests, who
c o u l d have a v o i d e d the w a r .
13
A n d that is w h y the aristocratic
priest, u n d o u b t e d l y linked to the Sadducees b y b o t h class and m e n tality, at the end o f his training thinks it appropriate to c o m e close to the Pharisees. T h e r e is n o n e e d to think that Josephus has b e c o m e a Pharisee. I also believe that Josephus never really j o i n e d the Pharisaic g r o u p (especially before and during the war). A n d he himself states so. T h e terms used in Vita 12 (rcoAaTeueaGai, aKotan)0a>v) are different from the ones (ejmreipiav Xafieiv, 8ifjA,6ov) with w h i c h , in Vita 1 0 - 1 1 , he describes the prior experience o f the three schools. T h e s e terms d o not indicate a formal j o i n i n g . H o w e v e r , stating for the very first time in Vita 12 that, o n c e he h a d a c c o m p l i s h e d his religious training at the age o f 19, he began to "live according to the rules o f the Pharisaic s c h o o l " (rules that, I believe, are not only "political"), Josephus means that it had b e e n his c h o i c e to b e closer to the Pharisaic leaders than to the high priests. But this is unlikely, since his patron and hero was at the time the Sadducee Ananus with his colleague Jesus o f G a m a l a ,
1 2
T h e y are therefore those citizens w h o , against A n a n u s (A.J. 2 0 . 2 0 1 ) .
14
in the J a m e s episode, openly stand
1 3
In particular, in Vita 1 9 2 - 1 9 4 it is surprising to find a favorable j u d g m e n t on S i m o n of Gamaliel, that is to say on the one w h o was friend with the mortal foe o f Josephus, J o h n of Gischala, and w h o tried, through the leaders of Jerusalem, to take the c o m m a n d o f Galilee away from Josephus. 1 4
According to Vita 2 0 4 , Jesus was "friendly and on intimate terms" with Josephus.
339
JEWS, ROMANS AND CHRISTIANS
and not the Pharisee S i m o n son o f Gamaliel with w h o m , a c c o r d i n g to Vita 192, he was instead o n b a d terms during the war. T h e questionable connection with the Pharisees has a further motive that Josephus only hints at, but that is nonetheless clear. I have m e n tioned
a b o v e the efforts m a d e b y the historian to present the Jewish
religion as a p h i l o s o p h y , a n d the Jewish groups as p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools. T h e wider space given to the Essenes, especially in the Bellum, c o m p a r e d to the o n e given to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, is easily understandable
from this perspective. T h e Essenes not only
responded perfecdy to the ethnographic curiosities o f his readers, but also represent the highest m o d e l o f moral life w h i c h even a G r e e k could not but admire. In order to make such a m o d e l m o r e convincing, Josephus n o w lingers o n the philosophical aspects o f their thinking (first and foremost their opposition to slavery, A J.
18. 2 1 ; but also
the w a y they valued agriculture o v e r sacrificial rites, A J. 18.19), and remembers that the Essenes resemble in their life style the Pythagoreans (AJ.
15.371): a significant c o m p a r i s o n , since the Pythagoreans
are
b y tradition the highest reference in the evaluation o f G r e e k philo sophical thinking. It n o w b e c o m e s clearer w h y Josephus c h o o s e s to m e n t i o n in the Vita h o w he lived as a Pharisee after c o m p l e t i n g his religious training,
a n d w h y he insists o n d r a w i n g a c o m p a r i s o n
between Pharisees and Stoics. Josephus aims to b e a c c e p t e d b y the R o m a n aristocracy he wants to b e part of. Stoicism was the most p o p u l a r p h i l o s o p h y within this aristocracy. If Josephus, an
aristo
cratic priest close to the Sadducees, chose to live as the Pharisees, it is just because their b e h a v i o r is similar, in its rigor, to the Stoics'. F r o m this modified perspective the attention Josephus n o w shows towards some events and people, till n o w overlooked, b e c o m e s explain able. T h e y are events and p e o p l e that, n o matter h o w different o n e from the other, have clearly something in c o m m o n . T h e y are all p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t s and p e o p l e suppressed o r c o n d e m n e d b y the Jewish
authorities.
T h e first episode is that o f J o h n the Baptist: Josephus
portrays
J o h n as a virtuous m a n , a preacher o f repentance w h o was unjusdy murdered b y Antipas for political reasons (A J. 18.116-119). Litde does it matter here that his image seems to b e interpreted in an extremely simplistic way, devoid o f eschatological and apocalyptical connotations, and that it consequently seems less c o n v i n c i n g than the o n e w e find in the Gospels. W h a t matters to us is that J o h n the Baptist is in n o way c o n n e c t e d to Christianity. Even less is he interpreted as being
340
GIORGIO JOSSA
in contrast with Christianity. His fortunes are told merely in order to s h o w h o w H e r o d Antipas c o u l d b e as unjust as his father, and that eventually he w o u l d b e punished b y G o d . Josephus uses the Baptist episode as a further e x a m p l e to p r o v e h o w even rulers c a n n o t escape G o d ' s punishment. T h e J a m e s episode bears similar features. Josephus had written in enthusiastic terms o f Ananus in the Bellum, because o f his c o m m i t m e n t to try to prevent the revolt. H e mentions here, as w e have already noted, h o w A n a n u s ' father h a d b e e n regarded as the happiest m a n because he had seen all his five children rising to the high priesthood. But these evaluations have to b e revised. A n a n u s has d o n e s o m e thing patendy illegal, something that has put all the most
rigorous
a n d m o d e r a t e citizens against h i m , something for w h i c h he is n o longer a high priest. T h i s episode, just as the previous o n e , has noth ing specifically Christian. T h e protagonist is not J a m e s but Ananus. Josephus does not even tell us whether J a m e s was a Christian. T h e a i m o f the story is A n a n u s ' dismissal, d u e to his illegality and his clash with the Pharisees. It is possible, then, to p r o v i d e an explanation also for the episode o f Jesus. Josephus wants to underline the misrule o f Pilate. T h a t is w h y he c a n n o t portray Jesus in a negative way: Josephus means to s h o w the unjust b e h a v i o r o f Pilate a n d o f the Jewish
authorities.
Jesus has three main positive aspects. H e is defined as a wise m a n (ao(po<; ocvrip), author o f extraordinary deeds; he is teaching p e o p l e w h o accept the truth gladly (xcov fi5ovf| TocA,r|0f| 8e%o|ievcov); and he has b e e n appreciated n o t only b y the J e w s , but also b y the Greeks (TO 'EAXnvncov). I a m n o t attempting to reconstruct the original tone o f the passage w h e r e Josephus writes a b o u t Jesus. I a m persuaded that, if it c o u l d n o t possibly contain the statements defined a b o v e as "Christian", it still had to say something else a b o u t Jesus. I believe the three aspects I have just m e n t i o n e d to b e authentic. A n d they tell a lot o f J o s e p h u s ' attitude. A Christian w o u l d never have defined Jesus simply as a wise m a n , author o f extraordinary deeds, as the necessity o f the Christian interpolator to a d d " i f indeed o n e o u g h t to call h i m a m a n " shows. T h e definition must b e Josephus'. But that w h i c h a Christian w o u l d have found an utterly insufficient eval uation, is to Josephus a significant appreciation. H e locates Jesus a m o n g the wise m e n o f antiquity, from M o s e s to S o l o m o n (A.J. 8.53) to Daniel (A.J. 10.237), all o f t h e m r e m e m b e r e d for their exceptional deeds, making h i m a respectable character. T o say " a c c e p t gladly"
JEWS, ROMANS AND CHRISTIANS
341
is, o n the other hand, J o s e p h u s ' typical expression a n d has n o neg ative implication. It o c c u r s in m a n y other passages o f the Antiquitates (17.329; 18.6, 5 9 , 70, 2 3 6 , 3 3 3 ; 19.127, 185) and always in a p o s itive sense. In particular, it o c c u r s in the same w a y in the presen tation o f Judas the Galilean (18.6). A n d it is indeed only because o f this that m a n y scholars have interpreted negative n u a n c e .
15
it in o u r passage with a
I have already m e n t i o n e d that J u d a s is presented
in the Antiquitates in a less negative w a y than in the Bellum. In par ticular,
in the Antiquitates Judas's success a m o n g the population is rec
o g n i z e d . T h e passage in question is nothing but the confirmation o f this n e w admission. T h e r e is therefore n o reason to not to a c c e p t Josephus as the author o f the statement, o r to interpret in a nega tive w a y (it is the truth that is a c c e p t e d gladly) an expression that elsewhere is always favorable. T h e r e is a last element to consider: Jesus' favorable reception a m o n g the Greeks. T h i s is an element that has always b e e n o v e r l o o k e d . It is, h o w e v e r , an element o f great i m p o r t a n c e , because it contradicts, first o f all, the G o s p e l s ' presentation.
T h i s element appears to b e
almost certainly authentic and expresses J o s e p h u s ' personal evalua tion. But w h y d o e s Josephus emphasize this element? A n d h o w does it affect his evaluation o f Jesus' preaching? I d o not think there is any d o u b t a b o u t the answers. In the Antiquitates all his efforts revolve around the aim to present Judaism in a way acceptable to the Greeks. Jewish groups are considered real philosophical schools. Essenes and Pharisees are c o m p a r e d to Pythagoreans a n d Stoics. T h e reception o f Jesus's message a m o n g the Greeks is therefore a clear indication o f a positive feature that places Christians very close to the Essenes and the Pharisees. If Josephus mentions it, it is because he appreci ates Christianity's open-mindedness to those Greek values Josephus himself shared. I d o not intend to make o f Josephus a hidden Christian. But it is difficult to o v e r c o m e the impression that he, w h o s h o w e d appreciation for the lifestyle o f the Essenes, c o m p a r e d to the Pythagoreans, and w h o admitted to have chosen to live according to the rules o f the Pharisees, c o m p a r e d to the Stoics, felt close e n o u g h to the ( R o m a n ) followers o f that wise m a n received with pleasure b y the Jews and w e l c o m e d b y m a n y Greeks. R o m a n Christianity was very different from Chris tianity in Syria o r in Asia M i n o r . A text like C l e m e n t o f R o m e ' s 1 5
T h u s Carleton Paget, " S o m e Observations," 5 9 6 , in a way I d e e m unjustifiable.
342
GIORGIO JOSSA
First Letter to the Corinthians, written only a few years after the Antiquitates, shows such a level o f assimilation o f G r e e k culture a n d such a strong loyalty towards the R o m a n E m p i r e
16
that it can b e easily c o m p a r e d
to J o s e p h u s oeuvre. T h i s Jewish-Hellenistic character o f the R o m a n C h u r c h was not so different from the Hellenistic p h i l o - R o m a n Judaism o f o u r author. A t the beginning o f the 90s, J o s e p h u s , through his patron Epaphroditus, kept trying to gain credit in the literary cir cles o f the R o m a n aristocracy,
17
but D o m i t i a n ' s repressive p o l i c y
started hitting b o t h Stoics a n d p e o p l e at court w h o w o u l d sympa thize with Jews and Christians (Flavius Clemens a n d Flavia Domitilla). T h e r e f o r e , it is n o t surprising that, in his m o r e articulate evaluation o f the history o f his p e o p l e , J o s e p h u s sees in Jesus, as in J o h n the Baptist, positive characters. I f it is true that J o s e p h u s ' j u d g m e n t o f Jesus c o u l d not satisfy the Christian readers (which explains b o t h the silence o f the Fathers before Eusebius
18
a n d the intervention o f the
u n k n o w n interpolator), it also reveals in J o s e p h u s something m o r e than the m e r e neutral attitude m a n y scholars have often ascribed to him:
19
it expresses the awareness o f a solidarity between J e w s a n d
R o m a n Christians as representatives o f a wisdom alien to the tyrannical sovereign, but shared b y at least o n e part o f the R o m a n aristocracy.
1 6
G . Jossa, / cristiani e Vimpero romano. Da Tiberio a Marco Aurelio ( R o m a : Carocci,
2 0 0 0 ) , 8 2 - 8 5 . In the evaluation o f the life o f the c o m m u n i t y , one could think o f the exaltation o f ouovoia a n d o f the curt condemnation o f axaaic;. 17
Chronological reasons seem to confirm that Josephus's patron was not Nero's
libertus, whose murder was ordered by D o m i t i a n in 9 5 , but the grammarian a n d owner o f a rich library. 1 8
This is the argument most frequently used to prove the non-authenticity
of
the whole Testimonium Flavianum. W h y is it that, until Eusebius, the Fathers never referred to it, and later o n they used it so rarely? If one removes the three clearly interpolated passages, it is clear that the text could not but appear insufficient
to
a Christian reader. T h a t is why the fact that it did not earn m u c h attention is eas ily explainable. 1 9
E.g., Carleton Paget, " S o m e Observations," 6 0 9 - 1 9 .
But already P. W i n t e r
had recognized that "the impression gained from an intimate study o f this report is that he was not on the whole unsympathetic towards Jesus", but rather that his attitude towards him was "relatively friendly": see "Josephus on Jesus and James," in Schurer, History
1:440-41.
T H E D I V O R C E S O F T H E H E R O D I A N PRINCESSES: JEWISH LAW, R O M A N L A W O R PALACE LAW?* BERNARD C E N T R E FOR J E W I S H STUDIES,
1.
S. J A C K S O N UNIVERSITY OF M A N C H E S T E R
INTRODUCTION
Josephus refers briefly to the divorces o f five H e r o d i a n princesses, suggesting in s o m e cases that they were not in a c c o r d a n c e with Jewish law. T h e fullest and most explicit o f these accounts c o n c e r n s the divorce o f S a l o m e :
1
But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill o f divorce (KELLKEI . . . ашф Ypocuuaxeiov) and dissolved her marriage with him (алоАлюц^п xov Y<*MOv), though this was not according to the Jewish laws (ката toix; lovdamv voumx;); for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs (5iaxcopio9e{or|) from her husband, cannot o f herself be mar ried to another, unless her former husband put her away (ecpievxoq). However, Salome chose to follow not the law o f her country, but the law o f her authority (aXXa xov [vouov] ал' elpvaiaq etauivrj), and so renounced her wedlock; and told her brother Herod, that she left her husband out o f her good-will to him, because she perceived that he, with Antipater, and Lysimachus, and Dositheus, were raising a sedi tion against him . . } Josephus is clear here that it was S a l o m e w h o sent a divorce d o c u 3
m e n t to Costobarus, and that this violated Jewish l a w . Nevertheless, he is aware o f a form o f Jewish d i v o r c e initiated b y the wife, in the
* I a m indebted to Prof.ssa Daniela Piattelli and Prof. Alfredo M o r d e c h a i Rabello for discussion and bibliographical assistance on s o m e of the issues in this paper, especially on points on which they m a y disagree. 1
T h i s is S a l o m e , the sister of H e r o d the Great, w h o m H e r o d gave in marriage to the Idumaean Costobarus, w h o m he also m a d e governor of Idumaea. Costobarus, however, offered to transfer his loyalty (and the territory) to Cleopatra. S a l o m e interceded with H e r o d to save his life, but shortly afterwards divorced him: A.J. 1 5 . 2 5 3 - 2 5 9 . See further T . Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (Tubingen: J. C . B. M o h r , 1999), 1 1 5 - 2 5 . A.J. 1 5 . 2 5 9 (Marcus, L C L ) . D . D a u b e , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1 9 5 6 ; repr., N e w York: A r n o , 1973), 3 7 1 - 7 2 , argues that Salome's choice of terminology, 2
3
344
BERNARD S. JACKSON
sense that the wife m a y i n d e e d "depart" (8ia%copia0e{ar|) from
her
husband, with a view to marrying s o m e o n e else. But in such a case, he notes, it is still for her former husband to "put her away" (ecpievxoq).
4
It is just such a d i v o r c e — b y desertion, but here without any indi cation o f the husband's participation—which is attributed to Herodias, daughter o f Aristobulus a n d a granddaughter o f H e r o d the Great: Their sister Herodias was married to Herod, the son o f Herod the Great by Mariamme, daughter o f Simon the high priest. They had a daughter Salome, after whose birth Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way o f our fathers, married Herod, her husband's brother by the same father, who was tetrarch o f Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband (8iaaxaaa £covxo<;). 5
J o s e p h u s ' disapproval, in this case, seems directed m o r e at the sub sequent marriage with H e r o d Antipas into w h i c h H e r o d i a s entered,
6
rather than the m a n n e r o f termination o f the first marriage with H e r o d Philippos.
w h e n explaining her action to H e r o d , is designed to tone this down: "It is note worthy that, according to Josephus, when she explained her step to H e r o d , she used the expression arcooxnvai (aorist 2 o f occpioxavai), 'to part from the husband'. M a y b e Josephus thought it unlikely that she herself would draw attention to the gross illegality o f her procedure. ' T o part from a husband', being intransitive, does not necessarily imply a dissolution o f marriage b y a bill o f divorce; it m a y just sig nify a wife's running away." O n this argument, Josephus presents S a l o m e herself as conceiving o f her divorce as operating under Jewish, rather than R o m a n law; whether that is true depends u p o n the our capacity to attribute Josephus' termi nology to her, which is highly doubtful. O n the distinction between participant a n d author viewpoint, see further infra, p p . 3 6 4 - 6 6 . 4
D . Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7 in the light o f the Jewish
Greek a n d
A r a m a i c Marriage a n d Divorce Papyri," Tyndale Bulletin 5 2 (2001): 2 2 5 - 4 3 , esp. 2 3 2 (on-line version, without full footnotes,
at h t t p : / / w w w . i n s t o n e - b r e w e r . c o m /
and
h t t p : / / w w w . t y n d a l e . c a m . a c . u k / B r e w e r / M a r r i a g e P a p y r i / l C o r _ 7 a . h t m ) accepts
that
in theory only m e n could write a divorce certificate, while w o m e n h a d to d e m a n d a certificate
through a rabbinic court, but suggests that in practice w o m e n m a y
have taken the law into their o w n hands and asked a scribe or a male guardian to write it out (taking P . H e v . 13 as an example). Cf. J. D . M . Derrett, Law in the New
Testament ( L o n d o n : D a r t o n , L o n g m a n & T o d d ,
5
A.J.
6
D a u b e , New
1 9 7 0 , 3 8 7 (infra n. 97).
18.136. Testament (supra n. 6), 3 6 5 - 6 6 , comments: " M o r e o v e r , such criti
cism as has c o m e d o w n to us seems directed against her marrying her husband's brother rather than against her remarrying as such. It is, o f course, possible that the crime o f incest was considered so monstrous that little mention was m a d e o f other weak points about her second marriage; or again, her first husband m a y have divorced her when
she left him. But it remains a remarkable affair." See
also
S. Rossetti Favento, " M a t r i m o n i o e divorzio nel V a n g e l o di MaVco ( M c 1 0 . 2 - 1 2 ) , " Labeo 31 (1985): 2 6 3 - 3 0 2 , esp. 2 7 3 n. 2 2 , noting that the account in M a r k 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 has J o h n the Baptist lay the b l a m e on H e r o d Antipas: "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."
345
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
The
three other cases ( o f Drusilla, Berenice and M a r i a m m e ) all
involve great-granddaughters
7
o f H e r o d . Drusilla is enticed away from
her husband b y the p r o c u r a t o r Felix, w h o seemingly merely has to send s o m e o n e to persuade her to " l e a v e " (K(XT(XA,UTOUC(XV) Azizus: Not
long afterwards Drusilla's marriage to Azizus was dissolved oi y a u o i ) under the impact o f the following circumstances. At the time when Felix was procurator of Judaea, he beheld her; and, inasmuch as she surpassed all other women in beauty, he conceived a passion for the lady. He sent to her one o f his friends, a Cyprian Jew named Atomus, who pretended to be a magician, in an effort to per suade her to leave ( K o c T a t a r c o v a a v ) her husband and to marry Felix. Felix promised to make her supremely happy if she did not disdain him . . . She . . . was persuaded to transgress the ancestral laws and to marry Felix. (5iaA,t>ovTcxi
8
T h o u g h the dissolution o f the marriage is p r o b a b l y b y virtue sim ply o f Drusilla's desertion o f Azizus, the c o m m e n t here b y J o s e p h u s o f b r e a c h o f the laws p r o b a b l y refers to Drusilla's c h o i c e o f a R o m a n as her next husband. N e x t , Berenice, having married P o l e m o king o f Cilicia ( w h o was circumcised in order to convert) subsequendy deserted h i m (KocTataircei xov rioAiuxova): After the death o f Herod [of Chalcis], who had been her uncle and husband, Berenice [II] lived for a long time as a widow. But when a report gained currency that she had a liaison with her brother, she induced Polemo, king o f Cilicia, to be circumcised and to take her in marriage; for she thought that she would demonstrate in this way that the reports were false. Polemo was prevailed upon chiefly on account of her wealth. The marriage did not, however, last long, for Berenice, out o f licentiousness, according to report, deserted Polemo (5i' AKOtaxoiav . . . K a x a t a i T i e i xov noAijicova). And he was relieved simultaneously of his marriage and o f further adherence to the Jewish way o f life. 9
The
fifth case is that o f M a r i a m m e , w h o , Josephus tells us immediately
after recounting the marital history o f Berenice, took leave o f Archelaus and married
Demetrius, an A l e x a n d r i a n J e w : " A t the same
M a r i a m m e t o o k leave o f (mpaiTt|ocx|jivr|) Archelaus and
time
married
Demetrius, an Alexandrian J e w w h o stood a m o n g the first in birth and wealth. H e also held at that time the office o f a l a b a r c h . "
10
7
A.J. 1 8 . 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 . A J. 2 0 . 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 . A J. 2 0 . 1 4 5 - 1 4 6 . A.J. 2 0 . 1 4 7 . O n the office o f alabarch, and its tenure on occasion by Jews, Schurer, History 3 . 1 : 1 3 6 - 3 7 . 8
9
10
see
346
BERNARD S. JACKSON
S o m e have viewed these divorces as reflecting the m o r e liberal and egalitarian, regime o f the R o m a n o r Hellenistic law o f d i v o r c e .
11
Yet
unilateral divorce b y the wife o f her husband is n o t entirely u n k n o w n in the J e w i s h tradition, n o r is the R o m a n c a p a c i t y for informal divorce entirely unrestricted. It is thus n o simple matter to decide whether the H e r o d i a n princesses sought to act in a c c o r d a n c e with J e w i s h , Hellenistic o r R o m a n l a w — o r whether, rather, they saw themselves (even if they were not so regarded b y Josephus) as " a b o v e the law", implementing what w e might here call "Palace L a w " . In fact, there is reason, b o t h c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d substantive, to dis tinguish b e t w e e n the case o f S a l o m e , w h o sent her husband a Ypocuuxxxeiov, and those o f the other princesses, w h o deserted their husbands, a p p a r e n d y without any formal notification, whether oral o r written.
2.
T H E C A S E OF S A L O M E
T h e Jewish b a c k g r o u n d has b e e n well rehearsed in recent years. T h e o n e reference to divorce p r o c e d u r e in the legal sections o f the H e b r e w Bible, D e u t 2 4 : 1 , 3, presupposes the delivery o f a miT"D "ISO (sefer keritut) b y the husband to the wife, and that d o c u m e n t is m e n t i o n e d also in b o t h Isa 50:1 a n d j e r 3:8. Josephus clearly regards this p r o -
11
E.g. A . M . Rabello, "Divorce of Jews in the R o m a n Empire," JLA 4 (1981): 9 3 : "here [referring specifically to the case of H e r o d i a s ] , as in other cases connected with H e r o d and his family, one is not dealing with Jewish, but rather with Hellenistic a n d R o m a n customs, given the marked assimilation of this family." Rabello stresses that Salome a n d Herodias, as R o m a n citizens, could have divorced their husbands under R o m a n law even against the will of their husbands (op. cit., 100). Elsewhere, however, he describes S a l o m e as having followed "Hellenistic-Roman" a n d Herodias "Hellenistic" custom: see A . M . Rabello, "Divorce in Josephus," in Josephus Flavius. Historian of Eretz-Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (in H e b r e w ; ed. U . Rappaport; Jerusalem: Y a d Izhak B e n - Z v i , 1982), 1 4 9 - 6 4 , esp. 1 5 5 - 5 6 , even though he main tains that, as R o m a n citizens, they had the option to divorce according to R o m a n law (163). See also R . K a t z o f f in N . Lewis, R . Katzoff and J. C . Greenfield, "Papyrus Y a d i n 18. I. T e x t , Translation a n d Notes ( N L ) , II. Legal C o m m e n t a r y ( R K ) , III. T h e Aramaic Subscription ( J C G ) , " IEJ 3 7 (1987): 2 2 9 - 5 0 , 2 4 4 n. 4 1 ; J. A . Fitzmyer, " T h e So-Called A r a m a i c Divorce T e x t from W a d i Seiyal," Eretz-Israel 2 6 (1999): 16*—22*, 2 0 * , against B. Brooten, "Konnten Frauen im alten Judentum die Scheidung betreiben? Überlegungen zu M k 10, 1 1 - 1 2 und 1 K o r 7, 1 0 - 1 1 , " EvT 4 2 (1982): 6 5 - 8 0 , and see the subsequent debate in EvT 4 2 - 4 3 : E . Schweizer, "Scheidungsrecht der jüdischen Frau? W e i b l i c h e Jünger Jesu?" EvT 4 2 (1982): 2 9 4 - 9 7 ; H . W e d e r , "Perspektive der Frauen?" EvT 4 3 (1983): 1 7 5 - 7 8 ; B. Brooten, " Z u r Debatte über das Scheidungsrecht der jüdischen Frau," EvT 4 3 (1983): 4 6 6 - 7 8 . T h e assumption that the princesses were R o m a n citizens is not, however, unproblematic: see infra, at nn. 9 2 - 9 4 .
347
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
c e d u r e as n o r m a t i v e , as a necessary c o n d i t i o n constitutive o f the divorce, and s o , it appears, did the R a b b i s , from the very begin nings o f the halakhic tradition.
12
T h e y w e r e clear, m o r e o v e r , that a
wife was entided to seek a divorce o f her husband only w h e r e there was o n e o f a n u m b e r o f relatively narrowly defined " c a u s e s . "
13
H o w e v e r , w e e n c o u n t e r divergences from that tradition in t w o respects: first, the same capacity is sometimes a c c o r d e d the wife as the husband, unilaterally to d i v o r c e their spouse without establishing specific "cause." Secondly, w e find traces, perhaps survivals, o f different p r o c e d u r e s o f divorce, sometimes involving the p r o n u n c i a t i o n o f an oral formula rather than the delivery o f a d o c u m e n t . T h e use o f an oral formula is reflected in H o s 2:4, and the capacity o f a w o m a n to use such a f o r m u l a — t h o u g h here, apparendy, in the formal set ting o f the assembly—unilaterally to divorce her husband (i.e., with out "cause") is f o u n d in t w o marriage contracts from Elephantine. H o w e v e r , b y far the closest
15
14
parallel to the case o f S a l o m e is 16
found in the much-discussed P. H e v e r 1 3 , w h i c h (following the view
12
m. Tebam. 1 4 : 1 . O n the required formalities, taking account o f the M a s a d a bill
of divorce, see Z . W . Falk, Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 2 : 3 1 3 - 1 6 . 13
m. Ketub. 5:6, m. Ned. 11:12; cf. Falk, Introduction to Jewish Law,
1 4
T h e formula contraria is most clearly reflected in E . Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum
2:310.
Aramaic Papyri ( N e w H a v e n : Y a l e University Press, 1953), no. 7 : 2 4 - 2 5 ; see also A . E . C o w l e y , Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.
(Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press,
1923),
no. 1 5 , where the formula positiva is in line 4 and an oral declaration negating it in line 2 3 . See further M . J. Geller, " T h e Elephantine Papyri and H o s e a 2 , 3 , " JSJ 8 (1977): (2004), 1 5
1 3 9 - 4 8 ; B. S. Jackson, " H o w Jewish
is Jewish
Family L a w ? , " JJS
55
201-29.
W e d o not need to take a position, for present purposes, o n the controversy
regarding the relevance to Jewish practice o f CPJ 1 4 4 , a Greek divorce agreement of 13 B . C . E . , in which we read "Apollonia and H e r m o g e n e s agree that they have dissolved their marriage b y an agreement m a d e through the same court in the 13th year o f Caesar (Augustus)", per R . Y a r o n , "CPJud. 1 4 4 et alia," IURA
13 (1962):
1 7 0 - 7 5 , esp. 1 7 1 . In opposition to J. M . Modrzejewski, "Les Juifs et le droit hellénistque: Divorce et égalité des époux (CPJud. 144)," IURA 1 6 7 - 6 8 , Y a r o n doubts that it is a Jewish
12 (1961): 1 6 2 - 9 3 , esp.
document, arguing that, of the
names in it, only one is indicative o f Jewishness.
seven
Since it deals with a consensual
divorce, CPJ 1 4 4 is not directly relevant to the divorces o f the H e r o d i a n princesses, although it is relevant to Jewish divorce practice if it does indeed involve the ter mination o f a Jewish marriage by means o f a contract rather than delivery o f a get: cf. D . Piattelli, "Alcune osservazioni su C.P.J. 1 4 4 , " IURA
18 (1967):
121-24,
esp. 1 2 2 - 2 3 . See also Rabello, "Divorce in Josephus" (supra n. 11), 1 6 1 . 1 6
H . M . C o t t o n and E . Q i m r o n , " X H e v / S e ar 13 o f 1 3 4 or 1 3 5 C E . : A Wife's
Renunciation o f C l a i m s , " JJS
4 4 (1998): 1 0 8 - 1 8 , esp. 1 1 5 . T h i s approves in sub
stance the rendering o f Yardeni in H . M . C o t t o n and A . Y a r d e n i , Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing
348
BERNARD S. JACKSON
o f C o t t o n a n d Q i m r o n ) suggests that delivery o f a divorce d o c u m e n t b y wife t o husband m a y i n d e e d have b e e n practiced (as late as the time o f Bar K o c h b a ) in s o m e Jewish circles: I, Shlamzion daughter o f Yehosef Qbsn from Ein-Gedi, have no claim against you, Eleazar son o f Hananiah, who previously were my hus band and who had (have) a deed o f abandoning and expulsion from me. Y o u , Eleazar, owe me nothing concerning anything whatsoever. And I accept as binding on me, I, Shlamzion daughter o f Yehosef, all (the obligations) written above. It is generally n o w agreed that this is n o t itself a get, but rather an a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t b y the wife that the divorce setdement has b e e n paid. Nevertheless, it is the husband w h o is said to have received the " d e e d o f a b a n d o n i n g and expulsion" from the wife. I have argued elsewhere that this is the correct interpretation, though it has b e e n disputed o n linguistic grounds and is n o t entirely u n p r o b l e m a t i c .
17
A second p r o b a b l e reflection o f the wife's right to unilateral divorce occurs in o n e o f the Greek papyri (of the same p r o v e n a n c e ) , P. Y a d i n 18,
18
lines 5 7 - 6 0 : "Judah called C i m b e r shall r e d e e m this contract for
his wife Shelamzion, w h e n e v e r she m a y d e m a n d it o f h i m , in silver secured in due form, at his o w n expense interposing n o o b j e c t i o n . " Later rabbinic law forbade a married c o u p l e to live together with 19
out a ketubah: if s o m e such rule is read b a c k here, the wife's
right
to d e m a n d that the husband r e d e e m the contract w o u l d entail her
Alleged Qumran Texts ( D J D X X V I I ; O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1997), 6 7 (quoted also b y Cotton and Q i m r o n , op. cit. 109) while resolving some ambiguities left open b y Yardeni. 1 7
in
See further B. S. Jackson, " S o m e Reflections on Family L a w in the The Jerusalem 2002
Conference Volume (ed. H . G a m o r a n ; B i n g h a m t o n :
A c a d e m i c Publishers, 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 4 1 - 7 7 , esp. 1 8
Papyri", Global
155-57.
See Lewis, K a t z o f f and Greenfield, "Papyrus Y a d i n 18" (supra n. 11). T h e legal
commentary
o f Katzoff,
in which he argued
in some
respects for an interpretatio
hebraica, prompted a significant debate: see N . Lewis, " T h e W o r l d of Papyrus Y a d i n 18," BASP 2 8 (1991): 3 5 - 4 1 ; A . Wasserstein, " A Marriage Contract from the Province o f Arabia N o v a : Notes on Papyrus Y a d i n 18," JQR "Papyrus Y a d i n 18 again: A Rejoinder," JQR 1 9
80 (1989), 9 3 - 1 3 0 ; R .
Katzoff,
8 2 (1991), 1 7 1 - 7 6 .
Katzoff himself describes an opinion of R a v H a i G a o n , that the w o m a n could
collect her ketubah m o n e y even during the course o f the marriage, as an eccentric position, which is credible only if limited to the dowry and additions, but excludes the basic ketubah debt of 2 0 0 zuz,
since by the time of R a v H a i it was setded law
that a couple m a y not live together without this basic obligation: see R . "Donatio ante nuptias and Jewish D o w r y
Additions,"
in Papyrology (ed. N .
C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1985), 2 3 1 - 4 4 , esp. 2 4 0 .
Katzoff, Lewis;
THE
349
DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
divorcing her husband. But again, this is n o t u n p r o b l e m a t i c .
20
Nor
does i t a p p e a r t o g o as far as P. H e v e r 13. A l t h o u g h the h u s b a n d promises i n the marriage contract that he will " r e d e e m " i t " w h e n ever she m a y d e m a n d i t o f h i m " , w e are n o t told w h a t the r e m e d y w o u l d b e i f h e refuses to d o so. Indeed, i t appears to b e implied that the h u s b a n d still has to take the p r o c e d u r a l initiative. W i t h i n d e c a d e s o f these p a p y r i , Justin M a r t y r writes a b o u t a Christian w o m a n w h o "gave [her husband] what y o u call a bill o f divorce
(TO
A,£y6u£vov nap'
separated from h i m . " verb
8OUGOC
21
UJIIV
p£7tot>8iov S o u a a e%cop{o&n), a n d was
T h e terminology is interesting: he uses the
rather than the terminology w h i c h h a d previously b e e n
standard i n R o m a n sources, n a m e l y mittere o r remittere. Justin's ter 22
m i n o l o g y is here closer to the Jewish tradition: i n D e u t e r o n o m y , the husband is said to give (]P1D) the d o c u m e n t i T T 3 ; the use o f
8OUGOC
by Justin reflects b o t h the L X X o f D e u t e r o n o m y a n d M a t t 5 : 3 1 , and
this t o o is e c h o e d i n b o t h places b y J e r o m e . A s for the n o u n
penouSiov, Justin identifies i t as the t e r m i n o l o g y o f his a u d i e n c e , rather than the w o m a n . A l t h o u g h b o t h J e r o m e a n d earlier the Vetus Latina use libellus repudii, this is, as C o h e n has noted, far from a lit eral rendering o f either the sefer keritut o f D e u t e r o n o m y (or the L X X PipAaov d j c o a T a a i o u ) o r M a t t h e w ' s allusion to D e u t e r o n o m y i n the S e r m o n o n the M o u n t , where he uses a r c o o T a a i o v (Matt 5:31); rather,
2 0
Katzoff, "Papyrus Y a d i n 18" (supra n. 11) 2 4 3 , has offered an alternative expla
nation: "I suggest that this particular phrasing was chosen to provide that the hus b a n d will not have to pay out the dowry w h e n it b e c o m e s due, unless the d o c u m e n t is surrendered, and, in other words, that he will not have to make d o with a receipt. The
practice recorded in G r e e k papyri was that receipts for p a y m e n t o f private
debts were issued only in special circumstances, such as the death o f the principal creditor or debtor, loss o f the debt document, or partial or early payment. Otherwise the n o r m a l practice was to return and tear the d o c u m e n t recording the obligation." H o w e v e r , this clause o f P. Y a d . 18 speaks o f redemption of the contract (a\)Yypa(pf|v) as a whole, not simply the dowry, so that it is difficult for K a t z o f f to limit it, in the w a y he seeks, to the opinion o f R a v H a i G a o n , supra n. 19. 21
"St.
2 Apol. 2 . 6 , apparently written between Justin
Martyr,"
155 a n d 1 6 0 C . E . : see Jules Lebreton,
The Catholic Encyclopedia ( N e w Y o r k : A p p l e t o n ,
1907-1912).
Online: h t t p : / / w w w . n e w a d v e n t . o r g / c a t h e n / 0 8 5 8 0 c . h t m . T h e text was first discussed in the context o f the relationship between Jewish a n d R o m a n law by B. C o h e n , "Concerning Divorce in Jewish and R o m a n L a w , " PAAJR 21 (1952): 3 - 3 4 , reprinted in his Jewish and Roman Law ( N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f A m e r i c a , 1966), 1:384 (citing Levy, infra n. 2 7 ) , but does not appear to have been taken up in the m o r e recent discussion o f the Jewish development, p r o m p t e d b y the D e a d Sea papyri. 2 2
A s in nuntium remittere, discussed infra, text at nn.
30-32.
350
BERNARD S. JACKSON
C o h e n suggests, the t e r m i n o l o g y m a y reflect "the practice o f the R o m a n provincial law o f Palestine o f their t i m e . "
23
W h a t law, then, was this Christian w o m a n invoking, a n d what audience was Justin addressing, w h e n he wrote that she "gave [her husband] what y o u call a bill o f divorce"? T h e w o m a n ' s very recourse to the institution o f divorce w o u l d suggest that she was a J u d a e o Christian,
24
using a non-rabbinic version o f Jewish law. T h e tayojLievov
n a p ' i)|xiv seemingly implies that this was n o t the w o m a n ' s indigenous language (or terminology) but that it w o u l d b e familiar to his audience. T h e audience o f the Apobgies was pagan rather than Jewish, probably R o m a n .
2 6
25
T h o u g h the use o f such a d o c u m e n t b y a w o m a n
to divorce her h u s b a n d is, as will b e argued, unusual at this period, the term p£7cot>8iov is indeed found earlier in R o m a n sources.
2 3
C o h e n , Jewish
and Roman Law
(supra n. 2 1 ) , 1:385; Derrett, Law
Testament (supra n. 4) 3 7 3 , also regards the L X X / N T
27
in the Mew
renditions as "curious", and
takes them to imply (simply?) a cessation o f cohabitation. T h e Vetus Latina Database of the Vetus Latina Institute in Beuron (www.brepols.net) overwhelmingly supports libellum repudii for D e u t 2 4 : 1 , 3 , with just two occurrences o f librum repudii. In M a t t 5:31,
all the testimonies use either libellum repudii or simply repudium. A l t h o u g h it is
argued below (text at nn. 4 5 - 4 7 ) that divorce b y a wife performed b y sending a repudium in the R o m a n juristic sources m a y reflect Jewish
or J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n
influence, the terminology o f repudium itself is clearly R o m a n , as is indicated by the text o f Justin M a r t y r discussed above. 2 4
Perhaps, given Justin's description of the husband's behaviour, following Matthew's
porneia exception. Justin indicates in the First Apology that his native town was Flavia Neapolis in Palestinian Syria, which is close to Shechem. W e m a y note that her action is quite contrary to the approach advocated b y Paul to Christian-pagan marriages, in 1 C o r 7 : 1 4 - 1 6 , o n which see further Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" (supra n. 4), 2 3 6 - 4 2 . 2 5
T h e text occurs in. the Apology (on which see the Catholic Encyclopedia article
cited supra n. 2 1 ) , not in the Dialogue with Trypho. Justin lived for s o m e time at Ephesus, before visiting (he indicates for the second time) R o m e , where ultimately he was martyred in about 165 C . E . T h e r e is indeed a specific R o m a n addressee o f this passage: w h e n the w o m a n ' s h u s b a n d seeks to take revenge against her b y denouncing her as a Christian, Justin writes that she "presented a paper to thee (aoi), the E m p e r o r , requesting that first she be permitted to arrange her affairs . . .": 2 Apol. 2 . 8 , in A . Roberts and J. D o n a l d s o n , eds., Justin Martyr and Athanagoras (AnteNicene Christian Library 2; Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1870), 7 2 . 2 6
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4 . 1 8 , says that it was addressed to M a r c u s Aurelius.
2 7
O n Juvenal and Suetonius, see infra, nn. 3 4 , 3 9 . Nevertheless, E . Levy, Der Hergang
der römischen Ehescheidung ( W e i m a r : Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1925), 5 9 , finds this written repudium first clearly evidenced in Justin and sees it as reflective o f his Palestinian and
Hellenistic background: ". . . ein schriftliches repudium wird m. W . erstmals in
der Mitte des zweiten Jahrhunderts von d e m Märtyrer Justinus angedeutet, der, selbst aus Palästina s t a m m e n d , in hellenistischen Anschauungen aufgewachsen und g r o ß geworden war." T h e use o f percovSiov in the papyri appears to be found only in the Byzantine period, and comes to be used also o f bilateral divorce contracts. T h e earliest appears to be M . C h r . 127 ( 3 9 0 C . E . ) , on which see R . Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri 332
B.C.-640
A.D.
(2nd ed.; W a r s a w :
351
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
Support for the identification
o f Justin's Christian w o m a n as a
Judaeo-Christian m a y b e derived from a further Jewish source to w h i c h B o a z C o h e n has directed attention—a dictum attributed to the third-century Palestinian R . J o h a n a n in Genesis Rabbah 18.5: "his 28
wife divorces h i m and gives h i m a repudium". Its context appears to suggest k n o w l e d g e o f diversity o f practice amongst different groups o f N o a h i d e s (nr^D): in c o m m e n t i n g o n G e n 2:24, "cleaves to his wife," the midrash asks h o w w e k n o w that they d o n o t observe (the Jewish) rules o f divorce
(pcSnj mb y\№
]"3ftl). T h r e e
answers
are
offered, the first t w o attributed to R . J o h a n a n at s e c o n d r e m o v e , the third direcdy: (a) they have n o d i v o r c e ; (b) the two parties d i v o r c e each other; (c) "his wife divorces him and gives him a repudium"—prob ably m e a n i n g
" e v e n his wife m a y d i v o r c e h i m a n d gives h i m
a
repudium", rather than " o n l y his wife divorces him a n d gives h i m a repudium" W e m a y attribute (a) to p a g a n Christians (no divorce), (b) to Hellenistic practice (divorce b y mutual consent);
29
(c) to J u d a e o -
Christians (divorce, w h i c h m a y b e unilateral, b y delivery o f a get). In short, even the p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d b y Salome is not unique in Jewish
entirely
sources, though it appears far distant from
the
mainstream normative tradition, w h i c h Josephus reflects in his critical c o m m e n t s o n it. A n d in fact, the alternative interpretation o f her action, as in conformity with R o m a n law, is m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c than is sometimes
assumed.
In late R e p u b l i c a n R o m a n sources, w e encounter unilateral divorce p e r f o r m e d b y nuntium (re)mittere. F o r e x a m p l e , C i c e r o , Top. 4 . 1 9 , is aware o f such a possibility (si viri culpa factum est divortium, etsi mulier nuntium remisit. . .). But d o e s nuntium refer to a messenger (delivering the message orally) o r to the (written) message? T h o u g h in general Lewis and Short, s.v. nuntius, take it to b e the latter, rendering nuntium
Panstwowe W y d a w n i c t w o N a u k o w e , 1955), 122 n. 7 3 . P. O x y 3 5 8 1 . 1 5 - 1 6 (4th or 5th cent.) is a petition which mentions a p£7to\>8iov sent by a wife to her husband under R o m a n law: see further I. Arnaoutoglou, "Marital Disputes in G r e c o - R o m a n Egypt," JJP
2 5 (1995): 1 1 - 2 8 , esp. 2 2 - 2 3 . See also P. O x y 129 (6th cent.; s e e T a u b e n -
schlag, ibid., 122); P. Cairo (Masp) 6 7 1 5 4 . r , 2 , 1 3 (a divorce contract of the reign of Justinian); P. L o n d .
1 7 1 3 . 9 , 2 2 ( = P. Flor 9 3 . 5 , 1 4 , a divorce contract of 5 6 9
B G U 2 2 0 3 . 4 , 12 (571 C . E . ) ; P. Cairo (Masp) 6 7 1 2 1 . s u b s ,
C.E.);
a divorce contract o f 5 7 3
C . E . ) ; B G U 2 6 9 2 . 9 (6th cent.). See also H . I. Bell and B. R . Rees, " A R e p u d i u m from Hermopolis," Eos 4 8 (1956): 1 7 5 - 7 9 (of 5 8 6 C . E . ) , where the term is used in the context of "reciprocal agreements for separation or divorce" (between Samaritans). 2 8
C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 21), 1 : 3 8 4 - 8 5 , plausibly supporting the
emendation of the M S text from yiBl 2
" Cf. CPJ
144, supra n.
15.
to
]H1S"1.
352
BERNARD S. JACKSON
uxori remittere or mittere " t o send o n e ' s wife a letter o f d i v o r c e , "
30
R o b l e d a righdy takes C i c e r o ' s use o f the expression in De or. 1.40.183 as referring to c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the fact that a formal, albeit indirect (oral) declaration h a d (here, not) b e e n m a d e .
31
T h e evidence w o u l d 32
appear to support a development from messenger to message. Nuntius is frequendy found m e a n i n g a messenger, delivering a message (nun tium), w h e t h e r oral o r w r i t t e n .
33
T a c i t u s e v e n speaks o f an oral
34
repudium. A n d the use o f a domestic libertus to deliver the m e s s a g e ,
35
36
as also the r e q u i r e m e n t o f seven witnesses u n d e r the lex Julia strongly suggest oral rather than written delivery.
3 0
37
In fact, n o such
Citing Cicero, De or. 1 . 4 0 . 1 8 3 (on which see further infra, at n. 9 0 ) ; 1 . 5 6 . 2 3 8 ;
idem, Att.
1.13.3 (uxori Caesarem nuntium remisisse, "Caesar has divorced his wife");
idem, Top. 4 . 1 9 (of a w o m a n w h o separates from her husband); Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 ; 2 4 . 3 . 2 2 ; also o f the rejection o f the marriage contract (sponsalia) by the parents a n d guardians in Plautus, True. 4 . 3 . 7 4 . 3 1
O . R o b l e d a , "II divorzio in R o m a prima di Constantino," AMW
347-90,
esp. 3 7 4 - 7 5 ,
2:14 (1982):
relating this to a tradition o f a fixed oral formula which
Cicero, Phil. 2 . 2 8 . 6 9 , attributes to the T w e l v e Tables. O n this, see also J. F. Gardner, Women in Roman Law
and Society ( L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e ,
1990), 8 4 - 8 5 ;
R . Yaron,
"Minutiae o n R o m a n Divorce," Tijdschrifi voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 2 8 (1960): 1 - 1 2 , esp. 1 - 8 (though he interprets it as a substantive rather than a formal requirement). 3 2
T h e classical nuntium remittere did ultimately c o m e to b e identified with the send
ing o f a written repudium. By the third century C . E . the jurist Ulpian could use repudium mittere and nuntium mittere interchangeably: Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 , Ulpianus 2 6 ad sab.: Iulianus libro octavo decimo digestorum quaerit, an furiosa repudium mittere vel repudiari possit. et scribit furiosam repudiari posse, quia ignorantis loco habetur: repudiare autem non posse neque ipsam propter dementiam neque curatorem eius, patrem tamen eius nuntium mittere posse, quod non tractaret de repudio, nisi constaret retineri matrimonium: quae sententia mihi videtur vera. See also Dig. 2 4 . 3 . 2 2 . 7 , Ulpianus 3 3 a d ed. See further Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 5 5 - 5 9 , a n d his obser vation that Tertullian at the end o f the second century appears to be the first writer equally familiar with written and oral repudiations, citing (59 n. 8) Apol. 6 . 6 (writ ten); Mon 11 (written); Idol 6 (oral); Mon 10 (both oral and written). H e leaves open the question whether this reflects daily life in Tertullian's environment,
Greco-
Egyptian custom or the influence o f the Latin translation o f D e u t 2 4 . 3 3
C . T . Lewis and C . Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n , 1958), s.v.
nuntium. 3 4
Ann. 3 . 2 2 , dicere repudium, cf. Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 5 9 , citing also Juvenal,
Sat. 6 . 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 , w h o has the husband's libertus deliver a rather unkind oral mes sage: . . . dicet libertus. . . (without using the term repudium). 3 5
Presupposed even in the divorce procedure required b y the lex Iulia de adul-
teriis: see further infra, at nn. 7 5 , 7 6 . 3 6
O n which see further infra, sec. 3 .
3 7
S o m e (e.g. Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7 [supra n. 4 ] " 105 n. 8; Encyclopedia
Britannica, 7th ed., 7:454, s.v. "Divorce") have maintained that the lex Julia itself required (in the cases where it applied: see further infra, sec. 3) the sending o f a libellus repudii. But the evidence for this consists in one highly problematic text (on whether remar riage in the wake of an invalid repudium missum constitutes adultery), Dig. 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , G a i . 3 ad legem X I I T a b . : Si ex lege repudium missum non sit et idcirco mulier adhuc nupta esse videatur, tamen si quis earn uxorem duxerit adulter non erit. . ., discussed in detail b y
353
THE DIVORCES OF THE HEROD IAN PRINCESSES
written repudia have survived.
38
Treggiari has noted, m o r e o v e r , that
repudiare and repudium, found first in the comedians, b e c o m e the normal prose expressions for unilateral d i v o r c e b y the h u s b a n d rather than
E. Volterra, "Intorno a D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , " in Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi (Milan: Giuffré, 1965), 2 : 1 2 3 - 4 0 ; C . Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale e 'crimen adulterii' (Per una
riconsiderazione
di D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 [ 4 3 ] ) , " IURA
41 (1990): 2 5 - 5 1 .
Despite the fragment's inscription, it was placed b y the compilers in their treatment o f the lex Julia de adulteras, rather than the T w e l v e Tables, a n d the lex referred to is c o m m o n l y identified with the lex Julia: see Volterra, ibid., 128; J. A . C . T h o m a s , "Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis," in Etudes ofertes ajean Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence: Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques d'Aix-en-Provence, 1970), 6 3 7 - 4 4 , esp. 6 4 3 - 4 4 , w h o supplies a response to the objection o f R . Y a r o n , " D e Divortio V a r i a , " Tydschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 2 (1964): 5 3 3 - 5 7 ,
esp. 5 5 4 - 5 7
(who
nevertheless
acknowledges wide support for Volterra's view) that Volterra does not seek to explain the inscription. Both Levy, Hergang (supra n. 2 7 ) , 19 if. a n d Y a r o n , "Minutiae" (supra n. 31), h a d earlier provided arguments in favour o f viewing the text as a later account o f a (long obsolete) provision o f the T w e l v e T a b l e s (see also Venturini, ibid., 3 2 - 3 3 ,
38). A . Watson,
" T h e D i v o r c e o f Carvilius R u g a , " Tydschrift voor
Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 3 (1965): 3 8 , follows Y a r o n in taking Gaius to refer to "some provision o n the subject o f divorce in the T w e l v e Tables", and regards the tradition that Carvilius R u g a , in the third century B . C . E . , was the first R o m a n to divorce his wife as inaccurate, and to be understood as reflecting a change in the
financial
consequences of divorce in the absence o f a matrimonial offence. H o w e v e r , W a t s o n ' s arguments regarding the divorce o f Carvilius R u g a (on which see also R o b l e d a , "II divorzio in R o m a " (supra n. 31), 3 5 5 - 6 5 ; I. N u n e z Paz, "Alcunas Consideraciones en torno al 'Repudium' y al 'Divortium'," Bullettino delVIstituto di Diritto Romano "Vittorio Scialoja" 9 1 (1988): 7 1 3 - 2 4 , esp. 7 1 9 - 2 1 , c o m m e n t i n g o n M . - E . Fernández Baquero, Repudium-Divortium. Origen y Configuración Juridica hasta la Legislación Matrimonial de Augusto (Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de G r a n a d a , 1987), even if correct, d o not entail the view that the lex in Gaius is indeed the T w e l v e T a b l e s . Even if the identification with the lex Julia is correct, it needs to be established that ex lege repudium missum refers to a libellus repudii. G i v e n the evidence o f Tacitus (supra n. 34), the allusion m a y well b e to the procedure o f oral announcement referred to in Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 9 (infra n. 75): cf. Volterra, "Intorno a D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) , "
1 2 9 (who
notes also, at 1 3 8 , the Byzantine scholion to this text (Bas. 6 0 . 3 7 . 4 4 ) , interpreting the role o f the witnesses as subscribing their signatures to a p£7io\>8iov; cf. Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale," 41 n. 5 1 ; 49); Venturini, "Divorzio infórmale," 2 8 . A n d even if not, the oral procedure was clearly available as an alternative. P. E . Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), 2 3 8 , concludes that the witnesses attest the despatch of the messenger a n d would attach their seals to the written message only if there was one. See also W . W . Buckland, A Text-Book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian (2nd ed.; C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e : University Press, 1950),
1 1 7 . S. A . Treggiari, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to
the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1991), 4 5 7 , writes: " T h e attestation by seven witnesses was o f the statement of the divorcing party, not that the notice had been served o n the other partner", citing Isid., Etym. 9 . 7 . 2 4 : repudium est quod sub testimonio testium vel praesenti vel absenti mittitur. She observes (ibid.), " T h e scarcity o f sources m a y suggest that, like marriage ceremonies, a procedure was taken for granted, and that, like marriage ceremonies, it was evidential, not essential." T h e text, she notes (at 4 5 5 - 5 6 ) , renders any legal requirement of repudium a lex minus quam perfecta. 3 8
D . Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7 (supra n. 4 ) , " 113: " O n l y four Latin mar-
riage contracts have survived and no divorce deeds."
354
BERNARD S. JACKSON
the w i f e .
39
In the latter case, unilateral divorce b y wives, though p o s
sible, appears to have b e e n rare, o r behavioural messages,
41
40
a n d p e r f o r m e d b y oral declaration
rather than delivery o f a written d o c u m e n t .
Against this, w e might b e tempted to use the evidence o f J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t o f Salome's divorce o f Costobarus. N o t only does she send h i m a Ypotii|Liaxeiov; the terminology o f rceujtei. . . auto) is closer to the R o m a n nuntium remittere than to D e u t 2 4 : 1 , 3, where (as n o t e d a b o v e , in c o m p a r i n g the terminology o f Justin) the h u s b a n d "puts (]rQ) it (the sefer keritut) in her h a n d " rather than simply "sends" it. But Josephus appears elsewhere to "spin" his a c c o u n t o f Jewish insti tutions with terminology that will b e m o r e immediately accessible to a R o m a n audience: I a m thinking, in particular, o f his a c c o u n t o f 43
the lex talionis.
A case m a y thus b e m a d e for the view that S a l o m e , in sending a Ypau^ccxeiov to Costobarus, was, despite the strictures o f Josephus, following a Jewish rather than a R o m a n tradition. It is only later, in the writings o f the classical R o m a n jurists,
3 9
44
that w e first encounter
Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 3 6 - 3 7 , citing Suetonius, Tib., 1 1 . 4 and
Gaius 3 6 . 2 for its use w h e n notice o f divorce is sent in the husband's n a m e . 4 0
Treggiari, Roman Marriage, 4 4 4 , discussing the evidence particularly for the
Ciceronian period. Originally, divorce b y w o m e n appears not to have been possi ble in R o m e : Plutarch, Rom. 2 2 . 3 (on which see W a t s o n , " T h e Divorce o f Carvilius R u g a " [supra n. 3 7 ] , 4 4 - 4 5 ) , claims that in the archaic period (under the regula tions of R o m u l u s ) only m e n could divorce. M . M c D o n n e l l , "Divorce Initiated b y W o m e n in R o m e : T h e Evidence o f Plautus", American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983): 5 4 - 8 0 , reserves j u d g m e n t ( 7 0 n. 3) on whether the evidence o f Seneca and C i c e r o (though not noting Top. 4 . 1 9 ) supports the possibility o f divorce by wives independent o f paternal participation even in the late Republic, and argues, from an analysis o f the five Plautine passages, that there is no valid evidence for it dur ing the period o f the middle Republic. Cf. Treggiari, Roman Marriage, ibid., noting that divorce b y w o m e n , though mentioned as a possibility, never actually occurs in a Plautine c o m e d y . 4 1
Treggiari, Roman Marriage, ibid.: "Already Plautus could portray s o m e wives as
able to divorce. T h e y are imagined as turning their husbands out o f the matrimo nial (but dotal) h o m e or pronouncing a formula o f divorce against them", citing Mil. glor. 1 1 6 4 ff., Amph. 9 2 5 ; A . W a t s o n , The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), 4 9 - 5 2 . But see M c D o n n e l l , "Divorce Initiated by W o m e n " (supra n. 4 0 ) 5 9 - 6 6 , rejecting a R o m a n context for the divorce scene in the Miles and arguing at length that Alcumena's declaration in the Amphitruo is a deliberate gender reversal, in which "she utters words which were properly spoken only by men". 4 2
4 3
T h o u g h rabbinic law did early c o m e to recognise delivery by an agent. A.J. 4 . 2 8 0 ; see further m y Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law (Sheffield: Sheffield
A c a d e m i c Press, 2 0 0 0 ) , 2 8 1 ; also "Lex Talionis: Revisiting D a u b e ' s Classic", § 12, online: http://www.law2.byu.edu/Biblical_Law/papers/jackson_bs_lex_talionis.pdf. 4 4
Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 3 7 .
42
355
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
d i v o r c e b y a wife p e r f o r m e d b y sending a repudium. T h e earliest instance occurs in the Institutes o f G a i u s ,
45
w h o is thought to have
c o m m e n c e d his juristic career in R o m e "but then carried o n his w o r k in the Eastern p r o v i n c e s " ,
46
a
n
d to have written the Institutes
p r o b a b l y in 161 C.E., towards the e n d o f his c a r e e r .
47
Both the dating
a n d the p r o v e n a n c e suggest the possibility o f J e w i s h o r J u d a e o Christian influence. Indeed, the case recounted b y Justin Martyr (writ ten just before the Institutes o f Gaius) appears to b e the earliest source in w h i c h the term repudium, referring to a written d o c u m e n t , is used o f divorce b y a wife o f her husband. T h r e e further instances are found in the classical juristic writings, from Paul,
48
Ulpian
49
and Marcellus.
50
A n d in the late E m p i r e , w e e n c o u n t e r the terminology o f libellus 51
repudii, perhaps reflecting versions o f D e u t 2 4 ,
52
and ultimately
53
the
4 0
Inst. 1.137a, repudio misso, o f a wife in a manus (coemptio) marriage. H e discusses h o w she m a y free herself from the manus after having dissolved the marriage. 4 6
A . Borkowski, Textbook on Roman Law ( L o n d o n : Blackstone Press Ltd., 1994), 4 4 .
4 7
B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 3 6 .
4 8
Dig. 2 4 . 1 . 5 7 . p r , Paulus 7 resp: . . . quaero, an, si eadem titio marito suo repudium miserit. 4 9
Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 4 , Ulpianus 2 6 ad sab.: Iulianus libro octavo decimo digestorum quaerit, an juriosa repudium mittere vel repudiari possit. 5 0
Dig. 2 4 . 3 . 3 8 , Marcellus l.S. resp.: Lucius titius cum esset jilius familias, voluntate patris uxorem maeviam duxit et dotem pater accepit: maevia titio repudium misit: postea pater repudiati absente filio sponsalia cum ea de nomine filii sui fecit: maevia deinde repudium sponsalibus misit. 5 1
B y contrast, we d o find libellus divortii earlier, in Dig. D . 2 4 . 2 . 7 (Papinian): " W h e r e s o m e o n e w h o was given the other party written notice of divorce regrets having done this and the notice is served in ignorance o f the change o f mind, the mar riage is held to remain valid, unless the person w h o receives the notice is aware of the change o f m i n d and wants to end the marriage himself. T h e n the marriage will be dissolved b y the person w h o received the notice." Its classicity is disputed by Levy, Hergang (supra n. 27), 6 1 , but defended b y R . Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes," Tydschrifi voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 3 2 (1964), 5 4 - 6 8 , esp. 5 8 , w h o notes that Levy's analy sis itself indicates that the expression is used nowhere in the Byzantine sources, though libellus repudii is used in Cod. Justin. 5 . 1 7 . 6 (of 2 9 4 C . E . ) . W e m a y note that the case here discussed is very similar to one in the Babylonian T a l m u d , b. Gittin 3 3 a (which in fact there resulted in annulment instituted by the Rabbis, despite the fact that, like the R o m a n s , they considered the divorce to be in principle ineffective: m. Gittin 4:1). T h e dating o f this parallel might speak in favour o f Levy, against Y a r o n , but the issue hardly affects the present argument. 5 2
5 3
See text leading to n. 2 3 , supra.
Generally discounted, in this context, is Dig. 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 , on which see n. 3 7 , supra. A s late as 2 9 4 C . E . , according to a Constitution o f Diocletianus a n d M a x i m i a n u s , a marriage is dissolved even if a libellus repudii is not handed over to the other spouse: Cod. justin. 5 . 1 7 . 6 : Licet repudii libellus non fuerit traditus [prob. int.: vel cognitus] marito, dissolvitur matrimonium, o n which see further Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 6 - 5 7 , arguing that this does not m a k e a libellus mandatory: "the decision would equally apply where a messenger had to convey notice by w o r d o f m o u t h . "
356
BERNARD S. JACKSON
delivery o f such a d o c u m e n t b e c a m e m a n d a t o r y .
54
T h i s (along with
other substantial restrictions o n divorce in the late Empire) is gen erally u n d e r s t o o d to reflect Christian influence.
3.
55
T H E C A S E S OF DESERTION
H e r e , Jewish precedents for what the princesses d i d are very m u c h weaker, consisting only in a n u m b e r o f biblical narratives. Zakovitch has argued that w h e r e the wife feared that she h a d b e e n deserted b y her husband, either she o r her father might unilaterally the marriage b y returning to her original h o m e .
5 6
terminate
T h e clearest e x a m
ple is that o f S a m s o n ' s wife. H e r father, w e m a y recall, construed the situation as a divorce: "I really thought that y o u utterly hated h e r " ( J u d g 15:2, hatred sometimes b e i n g used as a technical term for d i v o r c e ) ,
57
and gave his daughter to S a m s o n ' s c o m p a n i o n , with
fatal results. A s e c o n d e x a m p l e c o n c e r n s the marriage o f D a v i d a n d M i c h a l . Despite having himself o c c a s i o n e d D a v i d ' s "desertion" o f M i c h a l , b y attempting to have h i m killed, Saul then gave " M i c h a l his daughter, D a v i d ' s wife, to Palti the son o f L a ' i s h " .
58
Moses had
apparendy (the narrative fails to tell us o f it at the time) sent Z i p p o r a h back
59
to the house o f her (Midianite) father, Jethro; w h e n she a n d
See also C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 2 1 ) , 1:385, apparently misunder stood b y D . Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. The Social and Literary Context ( G r a n d Rapids: Eerdmans, 2 0 0 2 ) , 7 3 n. 4 8 . 5 4
For sources from the Christian Empire, see Cod. theod. 3 . 1 6 . 1 (Constantine, 3 3 1 Cod. justin. 5 . 1 7 . 8 p r (Theodosius and Valentinian, 4 4 9 C . E . ) , Cod. Justin. 5 . 1 7 . 9 (Anastasius, 4 9 7 C . E . ) ; see further Rabello, "Divorce o f Jews" (supra n. 11), 8 3 - 9 0 . C l e a r evidence o f a legal requirement for a libellus repudii appears only in the late Empire: cf. J. A . C . T h o m a s , The Institutes of Justinian. Text, Translation and Commentary (Amsterdam: N o r t h - H o l l a n d Publishing C o . , 1975), 3 4 . C.E.),
5 5
Following D e u t 2 4 . Cf. Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 5 ; C o h e n , Jewish and Roman Law (supra n. 5 1 ) , 1:385, and earlier literature there cited. 5 6
Y . Zakovitch, " T h e W o m a n ' s Rights in the Biblical L a w o f Divorce", J LA 4 (1981): 2 8 - 4 6 , esp. 3 6 - 4 0 . Zakovitch, " W o m a n ' s Rights," 3 4 - 3 5 , views Htra? in the H e b r e w Bible as refer ring to a w o m a n not yet a divorcee but w h o m the husband would like to divorce, and suggests that the technical meaning (even o f the verb is first found at Ele phantine. I think this text, not least with the intensification o f the verb, nntOT fcOT, speaks against him. O n the usage elsewhere (including the ana ittisu series), see fur ther Jackson, " H o w Jewish" (supra n. 14), nn. 1 0 1 - 4 . 5 7
1 8
1 S a m 2 5 : 4 4 , o n which see also A . T o s a t o , / / Matrimonio Israelitico ( R o m e : Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 1 9 6 - 9 7 . E x o d 18:2. Zakovitch, " W o m a n ' s Rights" (supra n. 5 6 ) , 3 8 , notes the rabbinic interpretation o f this as divorce, based on the use o f the term shillah. 5 9
357
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
her children reappear o n the scene, in E x o d 18, it appears at first sight to b e for family reasons: perhaps J e t h r o is either seeking a rec onciliation o r m a i n t e n a n c e .
60
Blenkinsopp acknowledges sources which
r e c o r d that "a w o m a n w h o c o u l d afford to d o so simply left her husband," but maintains nevertheless that "it seems that only the husband c o u l d initiate d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s . "
61
O f the narratives cited
b y Z a k o v i t c h , w e m a y note that t w o involve matrilocal marriages (Samson, M o s e s ) , b o t h with non-Israelite w o m e n . A n d in the third, the marriage o f D a v i d a n d M i c h a l , the termination is very m u c h at the initiative o f the father-in-law, rather than M i c h a l herself. It is hard to imagine that normative conclusions for Jewish law w e r e ever derived from these narratives. T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , s o m e hints o f d i v o r c e b y desertion in postbiblical sources, though they hardly a m o u n t to a c o m p e l l i n g case. Philo's rather o d d version o f D e u t 2 4 : 1 - 4 contemplates termination o f the first marriage b y the wife rather than the husband, t h o u g h with implicit (moral) disapproval and without indicating any p r o c e d u r e other than separation.
6 0
62
Similarly, the N e w T e s t a m e n t controversy
It is noticeable that M o s e s receives Jethro with open arms, but there is no
mention o f his reception of his wife or children, E x o d 18:6—9: " A n d when o n e told M o s e s , ' L o , your father-in-law Jethro is c o m i n g to y o u with your wife and her two sons with her,' M o s e s went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance
and
kissed him; and they asked each other o f their welfare, and went into the
tent.
T h e n M o s e s told his father-in-law all that the L O R D
had done to Pharaoh and
to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, all the hardship that had c o m e u p o n them in the way, a n d h o w the L O R D had delivered them. A n d Jethro rejoiced for all the g o o d which the L O R D
h a d done to Israel, in that he h a d delivered them out o f the
hand o f the Egyptians." 6 1
J. Blenkinsopp, " T h e Jewish Family in First T e m p l e Israel", in Families in Ancient
Israel (L. G . Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins a n d C . M e y e r s , eds.; Louisville K y : Westminster J o h n K n o x Press, 1997), 4 8 - 1 0 3 , esp. 6 5 , citing also J u d g
19:1-2
and Jer 3 : 6 - 7 . T h e y are distinct from the three narratives cited b y Zakovitch, in that J u d g 19 concerns a 03*TS, w h o "became angry with him, a n d she went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in J u d a h , and was there s o m e four months", until the Levite went to retrieve her. T h e r e is no suggestion that this was construed b y any o f the participants as a divorce. Jer 3 : 6 - 7 uses the marriage-har lotry-adultery m e t a p h o r of Israel's relationship to G o d , but has the husband, G o d , issue a sefer keritut as a result. See further m y " T h e 'Institutions' o f Marriage, Divorce and M a t r i m o n i a l Property in the Bible," forthcoming. 6 2
"Another c o m m a n d m e n t is that if a w o m a n after parting (anaXkayzioa)
from
her husband for any cause whatever marries another and then again b e c o m e s a widow, whether this second husband is alive or dead, she must not return to her first husband but ally herself with any other rather than him, because she has broken with the rules (Oeauoix;) that b o u n d her in the past and cast them into oblivion when she chose new love-ties in preference to the old . . ." (Spec. 3 . 3 0 [Colson, L C L ] ) .
358
BERNARD S. JACKSON
with the Pharisees regarding d i v o r c e c o n c l u d e s with Jesus observing: " W h o e v e r divorces (ano\x>GJ\) his wife a n d marries another, c o m m i t s adultery against her; a n d if she divorces her husband and marries another, she c o m m i t s adultery."
63
H e confides this to his disciples, not
the Pharisees; M a r k m a y well in fact have in m i n d a gentile audience, m o r e familiar with G r e c o - R o m a n than Jewish mores as regards divorce. Similarly, D a u b e has n o t e d a difference in Paul's language to the C o r i n t h i a n s a c c o r d i n g to w h e t h e r b o t h parties o r o n l y o n e is a believer; it is in the former case that he counsels: "the wife should not
separate (%cop{^£o0ai) from her h u s b a n d " (1 C o r 7 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) , and
this, he argues, is n o t implied to b e constitutive o f divorce, in a c c o r d a n c e with the rabbinic p o s i t i o n .
64
A similar v i e w is taken b y s o m e
6 3
M a r k 1 0 : 1 1 - 1 2 . Derrett, Law in the New Testament {supra n. 23), 3 9 2 - 9 3 , inter prets the "deviant" Jewish tradition o f divorce o n the initiative o f the wife as a "non-existent conflict between Jewish law and Jewish practice" (comparable to the use o f the diatheke to avoid the law o f intestate succession), the "practice" consist ing in possible "collusion or complacent action" b y a court, w h e n asked b y a wife to c o m p e l her husband to issue a divorce, though at p. 3 8 6 he accepts that " W h a t is not available to a w o m a n is a unilateral repudiation o f her marriage such as w o u l d free both herself and her husband for a future legal marriage": for his view of the action o f S a l o m e , see infra, n. 9 7 . Aliter, Rossetti Favento, "Matrimonio e divorzio" {supra n. 6), 2 7 2 - 7 3 n. 2 2 , w h o regards Salome's divorce o f Costobarus as an example o f abuse o f the contemporary practice; she argues {passim, esp. 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 3 0 1 ) that M a r k has a unique presentation o f the (natural) parity o f m a n and w o m a n , reflected in his adoption o f the (egalitarian) P narrative o f h u m a n cre ation, in G e n 1:27, rather than the "rib" m o d e l in G e n 2 : 2 1 - 2 4 , and thus that his presentation even of the possibility o f divorce b y the wife o f her husband derives from this ideology (propounded to the disciples privately: p p . 2 8 5 - 8 6 ) , rather than G r e c o - R o m a n practice (pp. 2 8 1 - 8 2 ) ; D . Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage {supra n. 5 3 ) , ch. 6, esp. 1 4 7 - 5 2 . D a u b e , New Testament {supra n. 3), 3 6 5 , has c o m p a r e d the terminology here, using the transitive arcoAA)£iv, 'to dismiss', with Josephus' account o f Salome's divorce, though noting that the (middle, a7toAA>eo9ai) form o f the verb—arcoXDOuevn xov yauov—is not quite so strong as the M a r k a n "to dismiss the husband". H o w e v e r , he tends towards the argument, supported b y text-critical considerations, that anokuzw is not here original. See also Rossetti F a v e n t o , "Matrimonio e divorzio" {supra n. 6), 2 8 3 - 8 4 , 2 9 7 ; Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" {supra n. 4), 1 0 6 - 7 , comparing Josephus' account o f Salome's divorce with 1 C o r 7. 6 4
D a u b e , New Testament {supra n. 3), 3 6 2 - 6 3 : ". . . with reference to a marriage where both parts are believers, Paul uses the intransitive x ^ p i ^ ^ of wife w h o 'separates', but the transitive aquevoci o f the husband w h o 'dismisses' his wife. T h i s is in perfect agreement with the Jewish ideas o n the subject. In the next two verses, with reference to a marriage where only one party is a believer, he uses the transitive acpievai both o f the dissolution o f the marriage b y the husband and o f its dissolution b y the wife. T h e latter application o f acpievou is justified since the procedure he has in m i n d is a non-Jewish one, R o m a n or G r e e k . . . In confirmation of this analysis it m a y be pointed out that, in Rabbinic literature, the transitive gerash, 'to expel', is used once and once only o f the wife divorcing her husband, and that it is in a discussion o f gentile divorce." In the Jewish context, he suggests, 0 1 1
m
e
359
THE DIVORCES OF T H E HERODIAN PRINCESSES
o f the o l d
6 5
strategy o f including in the marriage contract a clause
granting the wife a right o f unilateral divorce, w h i c h is attested in R o m a n Palestine
66
a n d later in 1 Oth a n d 11 th century ketubot found
in the C a i r o G e n i z a h .
67
Even if such clauses d i d give the wife an
enforceable right to d i v o r c e ,
68
the means o f effecting it appear to have 69
b e e n through court action rather than m e r e desertion. But w e have n o information as to the marriage contracts o f the Herodian princesses. Unlike the Jewish position, d i v o r c e effected b y desertion o n the 70
part o f the wife is u n p r o b l e m a t i c in R o m a n (and Hellenistic) law. A c c o r d i n g to classical doctrine, the principal legal requirement for marriage (liberum matrimonium) is affectio maritalis, a n d a n y clear d e m o n stration b y either spouse that this intention to continue in a marital relationship was absent was capable o f effecting a d i v o r c e .
71
At
Athens, divorce b y the husband was typically described as àrcoTtepAj/iç
'to separate', "may denote the same as 'to g o away', i.e. actual departure from the c o m m o n domicile, o r merely avoidance o f intercourse" a n d m a y also b e used o f a wife w h o is entided to "institute proceedings culminating in his being compelled to divorce her. But even then it is the husband w h o dissolves the b o n d , though against his will. O f her, it would still b e said that she 'separates', 'goes away' o r 'is let g o away'." Aliter, Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" {supra n. 4), 1 0 5 - 8 , opposing the view o f J. A . Fitzmyer, " T h e M a t t h a e a n Divorce T e x t s and S o m e N e w Palestinian Evidence", TS 3 7 (1976): 1 9 7 - 2 2 6 , that x
Cf. the Elephantine contracts, supra n. 14.
6 6
R . J o s e iny. Ket. 5:9 (30b): see further Jackson, " H o w Jewish" {supra n. 14), § 5 .
6 7
M . A . Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study (Tel-Aviv: University o f T e l - A v i v , 1981), n o . 2 at 11.41, 4 4 - 4 5 ; n o . 3 at 11.55-56; see further Jackson, " H o w Jewish" {supra n. 14), § 6 . 1 . 6 8
R . Katzoff, "Papyrus Y a d i n 1 8 " {supra n. 11), 2 4 5 - 4 6 , seeks to interpret R . Jose's clause as dealing only with the financial consequences o f divorce, a n d the Genizah ketubot as still requiring compliance with the normal procedural requirements. 6 9
Cf. Friedman, Jewish Marriage {supra n. 6 7 ) , 1:346: " W e have traced the develo p m e n t o f a rare ketubba clause over a 1 5 0 0 year period. Jewish l a w certainly never e m p o w e r e d a wife to issue a bill o f divorce unilaterally and thus dissolve her marriage. H o w e v e r , it was stipulated in ketubbot, which, from talmudic times, followed the Palestinian tradition, a n d the rabbis eventually recognized this as binding law that through the wife's initiative, if she found life with her husband unbearable, the court would take action to terminate the marriage, even against the husband's will." 7 0
Taubenschlag, Law of Graeco-Roman Egypt {supra n. 2 7 ) , 1 2 2 . T a u b e n s c h l a g suggests Egyptian influence for the capacity o f either spouse to divorce the other. O n the demotic divorce documents, see infra, n. 7 3 . S e e also R a b e l l o , "Divorce in Josephus" (supra n. 11), 1 5 2 . S e e , e.g., Borkowski, Textbook (supra n. 4 6 ) , 1 1 7 . A s Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 9 , remarks: "It would certainly not suffice for the divorcing spouse to whisper his declaration into his sleeve." 7 1
360
BERNARD S. JACKSON
(cf. the use o f the biblical nbti) while d i v o r c e b y the wife was 72
a7i6A,£i\|/i<;. I n d e e d , this latter terminology, w h i c h T a u b e n s c h l a g sees as reflected in the a n a ^ a y n ,
7 3
is close to that e m p l o y e d b y Josephus
to describe the divorces o f t w o o f the y o u n g e r H e r o d i a n princesses: KaxaAircouaav o f Drusilla, KazaXeinei o f Berenice. T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , three possible objections to b e considered, before w e c o n c l u d e that these divorces were R o m a n . T h e first arises from a change in R o m a n law between Salome's divorce o f Costobarus a n d the divorces o f Herodias, Drusilla, Berenice a n d M a r i a m m e . T h e Augustan lex Julia de adulteriis o f 18 B . C E . a p p e a r s
74
to have introduced
a n e w formal requirement for R o m a n divorce: the classical jurists tell us that it n o w h a d to b e p e r f o r m e d in the presence o f seven witnesses
75
(not including the libertus o f the divorcing party—this lat
ter presumably being the nuntius w h o c o n v e y e d the message),
76
failing
7 2
See S. C . T o d d , The Shape of Athenian Law (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1993), 2 1 4 - 1 5 . H o w e v e r , there are suggestions that desertion by the wife, in Athens, had to be registered (probably not approved) by the archon. See A . R . W . Harrison, The Law of Athens. The Family and Property (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 6 8 ) , 4 0 - 4 1 ; M c D o n n e l l , "Divorce Initiated by W o m e n " (supra n. 4 0 ) , 7 2 n. 2 2 ; V . J. Rosivach, "Aphairesis and Apoleipsis. A Study o f the Sources," RIDA 31 (1984): 1 9 3 - 2 3 0 , esp. 1 9 8 - 9 9 , 2 0 1 . L . C o h n - H a f t , "Divorce in Classical Athens," JHS 1 1 5 (1995): 1 - 1 4 , argues against the traditional view that divorce in Athens was frequent, even casual. Similarly, Rosivach, "Aphairesis," 2 0 5 - 6 , indicates that a7t6A,ei\|/i<; was in practice dependent on the willingness o f the wife's male relatives to support her after the divorce. 7 3
Taubenschlag, Law of Graeco-Roman Egypt (supra n. 27), 1 2 2 . See, e.g., P. T e b t . 1.104 (of 9 2 B . C E . , a marriage contract which gives the wife the right to terminate if she "wishes o f her o w n will to separate"), P. Ryl. 1 5 4 (of 6 6 C E . ) , in InstoneBrewer, "1 Corinthians 7" (supra n. 4), 1 0 3 - 4 , 1 9 8 - 9 9 . Cf. the terminology o f Philo, supra n. 6 2 , and Josephus, Vita 4 1 5 , infra nn. 1 0 1 - 2 . O n the demotic divorce doc uments, see H . S. Smith, "Marriage a n d the Family in Ancient Egypt. 1. Marriage and Family L a w , " in Legal Documents of the Hellenistic World ( H . M a e h l e r , M . J. Geller and A . D . E . Lewis, eds.; L o n d o n : W a r b u r g Institute, University o f L o n d o n , 1995), 4 6 - 6 2 , esp. 5 4 - 5 5 , noting that either partner m a y say, "I repudiate you", but the wife alone is spoken o f as "going off o n her own". 7 4
T h e r e are n o surviving traces o f the text o f this provision o f the lex Julia: see M . H . C r a w f o r d , Roman Statutes ( L o n d o n : Institute o f Classical Studies, 1 9 9 6 ) , 1 1 . 7 8 1 - 8 6 . W e rely here o n the paraphrases, provided by the classical jurists: see nn. 7 5 , 7 7 , infra. 7 5
Dig. 2 4 . 2 . 9 (Paulus 2 de adult.): Nullum divortium ratum est nisi septem civibus romanis puberibus adhibitis praeter libertum eius qui divortium faciet. Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 5 9 , suggests that the compilers m a y have generalised the rule by sup pressing an original inter absentes: Nullum divortium ratum est nisi. . . O n the suggestion that the lex Julia required the sending o f a repudium, see n. 3 7 , supra. 7 6
Cf. J. C a r c o p i n o , Daily Life in Ancient Rome (ed. H . T . Rowell; trans. E . O . Lorimer; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962), 1 1 1 : "he conceded that the wish of the married pair should, as heretofore, suffice to dissolve the marriage, and
361
THE DIVORCES OF THE HEROD IAN PRINCESSES
w h i c h it was invalid.
77
It is p r o b a b l e , h o w e v e r , that these procedural
requirements o f the lex Julia applied only in the case o f adultery o n the part o f the w i f e ,
78
w h e r e Augustus m a d e it m a n d a t o r y for the
husband to d i v o r c e his errant s p o u s e ,
79
a n d required h i m to have
d o n e so before instituting criminal proceedings against h e r .
80
The
object o f the Augustan legislation was not to make divorce in itself m o r e difficult, but rather to deter adultery (which R o m a n law, like Jewish law, defined as involving relations with a married w o m a n ) .
81
It was therefore n o w important that divorce should b e properly evi d e n c e d ; otherwise, the h u s b a n d was n o t allowed to r e m a r r y ,
82
and
indeed might b e subject to criminal penalties: for lenocinium (being suspected o f at least tacit complicity in his wife's adultery, i f n o t
insisted only that this wish should be publicly expressed in the presence o f seven witnesses and a n n o u n c e d by a message. T h i s message was usually delivered by a freedman o f the house." C a r c o p i n o here applies the rule in the context even of divorce by mutual consent; the m o r e c o m m o n view is that it applied only to unilateral divorce b y the husband, and s o m e restrict it to such divorce w h e n occasioned by the wife's adultery: see further n. 7 8 , infra. 77
Dig. 3 8 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 (Ulpianus 4 7 a d ed.): item iulia de adulteriis, nisi certo modo divor-
tium factum sit, pro infecto habet. 7 8
S o Volterra, "Intorno a D . 4 8 . 5 . 4 4 ( 4 3 ) " (supra n. 37), 1 2 9 - 3 2 , supported by
T h o m a s , "Lex Julia" (supra n. 3 7 ) , 6 4 3 - 4 4 , and cf. Gardner, Women in Roman Law (supra n. 3 1 ) , 8 5 - 8 6 . Volterra is criticised in s o m e respects b y Venturini, "Divorzio informale" (supra n. 3 7 ) , 3 9 - 4 1 , w h o takes the less restrictive view (at 4 1 - 4 2 ) , though this does not necessarily entail interpreting repudio in the text as a written docu ment. O t h e r s , too, express residual doubts: neither Buckland, A
Text-Book (supra
n. 3 7 ) , nor Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 3 7 ) , exclude the possibility that the requirement o f seven witnesses
applied to any unilateral divorce, a n d was not
confined to divorce o n an allegation o f adultery. See also R o b l e d a , "D divorzio in R o m a " (supra n. 3 1 ) , 3 7 8 - 8 3 , reviewing the literature and noting his o w n increas ing doubts about the restrictive interpretation o f Volterra. 7 9
T h e r e is a parallel here with Athenian legislation on adultery, at least where
the husband catches his wife in flagrante. See D . C o h e n , Law, sexuality, and society. The enforcement of morals in classical Athens (Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e University Press, 1991), 110 n. 3 3 (citing Demosthenes [Neaer.] 5 9 . 8 5 - 8 ) and 1 2 4 n. 7 8 (citing Euripides, El. 9 2 0 ff.) though conceding that the latter must b e taken with considerable cau tion. T h o u g h such a mandatory divorce is not evidenced in Jewish law before the rabbinic sources (m. Sotah 5 : 1 , b. Sotah 1 8 b , 2 7 b , b. Ket. 9a), it has been plausibly argued to underlie the porneia exception in M a t t 5 : 3 1 - 2 ,
19:9: see D . R . M a c e ,
Hebrew Marriage, A Sociological Study (London: Epworth Press, 1953), 2 5 0 ; E . Lovestam, "Divorce and Remarriage in the N e w Testament," JLA 4 (1981): 4 7 - 6 5 , esp. 5 9 - 6 0 . 8 0
O n the relationship o f the legislation to the earlier system of self-help, see
T h o m a s , "Lex Julia" (supra n. 37); L . F. Raditsa, "Augustan Legislation C o n v e r n i n g M a r r i a g e , Procreation, L o v e Affairs a n d Adultery," ANRW
2.13: 2 7 8 - 3 3 9 ,
312-13. 8 1
Cf. T h o m a s , "Lex Julia" (supra n. 3 7 ) , 6 3 7 , citing C . 9 . 9 . 1 .
8 2
Cf. Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 6 0 .
esp.
362
BERNARD S. JACKSON
actual p i m p i n g ) ,
83
and b i g a m y if he remarried.
84
Indeed, Schulz main
tains that absence o f the seven witnesses rendered the husband liable to criminal penalties, but the divorce itself remained
valid.
85
O n this understanding o f the lex Julia, the requirement o f seven wit nesses w o u l d not have applied in the cases o f the H e r o d i a n princesses. In s o m e cases, indeed, there might have b e e n an obligation o n the part o f their husbands to divorce them for adultery, but the fact that they m a y have separated from their husbands in o r d e r to pursue an adulterous liaison did not entail special procedural requirements if they initiated the divorce. M o r e o v e r , even had it d o n e so, the absence o f the seven witnesses w o u l d not, o n Schulz's understanding, have rendered the divorces invalid. A second possible objection derives from the general law o f divorce, rather than specific legislation. Whatever the precise history o f nuntium 86
remittere,
w e need to k n o w whether it was m a n d a t o r y o r not. W a s
it necessary for the divorcing spouse to inform the other o f the ces sation o f affectio maritalis? T h e v i e w has, indeed, b e e n maintained that a declaration o f divorce must b e received b y the party being divorced.
87
It fits ill, h o w e v e r , with classical doctrine o n the nature o f marriage, and has b e e n rebutted in detail b y Y a r o n .
88
T h e better v i e w appears
to b e that such c o m m u n i c a t i o n to the spouse was n o m o r e than a conventional courtesy, and not a legal requirement,
at least in the
late R e p u b l i c and the classical period. C i c e r o c o m m e n t s o n the case of a R o m a n who abandoned
his pregnant wife in Spain
without
informing her that he was divorcing her (neque nuntium priori remisisset), b r o u g h t another wife with h i m to R o m e and died there intestate.
8 3
89
Here, too, there appears to be a parallel with Athenian legislation: see C o h e n ,
Law, sexuality and society (supra n. 79), 1 3 0 , w h o compares Lysias 1.4, where Euphelitus feels compelled to argue that he did not seek to derive a monetary profit from his wife's infidelity, with Dig.
4 8 . 5 . 3 0 . 3 : "anyone w h o
makes a profit from his wife's
adultery is punished, for it is no small crime to have p i m p e d for one's wife." 8 4
See further Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 5 1 ) , 6 0 ; J. A . C r o o k ,
Law
and Life of Rome (London: T h a m e s and H u d s o n , 1967), 106; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 5 5 ; Borkowski, Textbook (supra n. 4 6 ) , 8 5
Dig.
118.
F. Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), 1 3 4 - 3 5 , despite 3 8 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 , supra n. 7 7 .
8 6
Supra, text at nn.
8 7
Levy, Hergang (supra n. 27), passim. T h e central passages are cited and discussed
30-41.
by Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 51). 8 8
Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 51), 5 4 - 6 2 . Cf. Corbett, Roman
Law
(supra n. 37), 2 3 0 . 8 9
Cicero, De or. 1.40.183; Gardner,
Women in Roman Law (supra n. 31), 5 6 . W a t s o n ,
363
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
Similar is Tacitus' a c c o u n t o f a notorious later incident involving the imperial family. Messalina's desertion o f Claudius in 4 8 C.E., in favour o f her lover Silius (with w h o m she celebrated a marriage), is described without any mention o f Messalina's having sent notification to Claudius o f termination o f their marriage; i n d e e d , Claudius is later asked whether he is aware that he has been d i v o r c e d .
90
A n d a later definition
o f repudium, b y Isidore, suggests that there should b e witnesses to its despatch, whether the recipient is present (available) o r n o t .
91
T h u s , this s e c o n d possible objection to a R o m a n understanding o f the divorces b y desertion o n the part o f the H e r o d i a n princesses also fails. T h e r e appears to have b e e n n o requirement that they notify their (un)fortunate spouses at all. T h e news w o u l d reach them s o o n e n o u g h , even if they were as d o z y as Claudius. A third possible objection resides in o u r lack o f certainty as to w h e t h e r R o m a n citizenship d i d d e s c e n d to the m e m b e r s o f the H e r o d i a n family, whether b y virtue o f the initial grant to H e r o d ' s father, A n t i p a t e r ,
92
o r b y virtue o f H e r o d ' s o w n status as a rex
Law of Persons (supra n. 4 1 ) , 5 3 - 5 4 , describes this case as one where the m a n "contracted a second union without sending any kind o f repudium to his wife in Spain". In fact, the term repudium is not used, but rather: neque nuntium priori remisisset. O n l y later (see n. 3 2 , supra) were nuntium and repudium equated. 9 0
Tacitus, Ann. 1 1 . 2 6 - 2 7 , 3 0 . See further R o b l e d a , "II divorzio in R o m a " (supra n. 31), 3 8 5 - 8 6 ; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (supra n. 37), 4 5 8 , suggesting that the story must presuppose that some outward sign o f the divorce had been given, such as Messalina's leaving the palace a n d removing her personal belongings, or even leaving a written notice o n Claudius' desk while he was at Ostia. Aliter, Gardner, Women in Roman Law (supra n. 31), 6 3 n. 5 3 , 8 5 , arguing that Tacitus (supported by Suetonius and Dio) does not appear to assume the validity o f either the "divorce" or the "remarriage". 9 1
9 2
Etym. 9 . 7 . 2 4 : repudium est quod sub testimonio testium vel praesenti vel absenti mittitur.
Caesar granted citizenship to Antipater, Herod's father, for services rendered: see A J. 1 4 . 1 3 7 ; B.J. 1.194; cf. Schùrer, History, 1:271. S. A p p l e b a u m ("Herod I", Encjud 8:383) assumes that this descended to H e r o d (and, presumably, to his sister Salome). A . G i l b o a ("L'octroi de la citoyenneté romaine et de l'immunité à Antipater, père d'Hérode," Revue historique de droit français et étranger 5 0 [ 1 9 7 2 ] : 6 1 3 - 1 4 ) argues for descent to Antipater's family, in part from the parallel o f the grant by Octavian to Seleucus, but without addressing the general issue, m u c h debated by Romanists, o n which see E. Volterra, "Sulla condizione dei figli dei peregrini cui veniva concessa la cittadinanza romana," Studi in onore di A. Cicu (Milan: Giuffrè, 1951), 2 : 6 4 3 - 7 2 , repr. in his Scritti Giuridici (Napoli: Jovene, 1991), 2 : 2 2 9 - 5 6 . Following the argument o f Volterra (p. 6 5 0 / 2 3 4 , a n d see p. 6 6 1 / 2 4 5 ) , to be sure o f the citizenship o f Antipater's children, we would need to be confident that his wife had conubium, a n d that the children were born subsequendy in iustae nuptiae. In fact, H e r o d was already a young m a n when the grant was m a d e to his father (age 15 according to A.J. 1 4 . 1 5 8 , though he would have been about 2 5 according to A.J. 17.148). Volterra does not address this issue directly, but c o m m e n t s at p. 6 5 8 / 2 4 2
364
BERNARD S. JACKSON
93
socius.
H o w e v e r , d o u b t o n this issue d o e s not necessarily entail the
c o n c l u s i o n that these divorces, like that o f S a l o m e , p r o c e e d e d in a c c o r d a n c e with a n o n - R a b b i n i c version o f Jewish law. T h e y are m o r e likely to have followed general Hellenistic practice. I n d e e d , the issue o f citizenship m a y not b e crucial: there is evidence that peregrini in the provinces might o p t to avail themselves o f R o m a n jurisdiction, as indicated (at least in the s e c o n d century C E . ) b y the Babatha a r c h i v e .
94
4 . CONCLUSIONS
W h e r e , then, does all this leave us? O u r review o f the sources has, to s o m e degree, conflated three different viewpoints, w h i c h ought n o w to b e m o r e clearly distinguished: (1) participant viewpoint: what legal regime was being applied, from the viewpoint o f the participants
o n the Republican tendency to grant citizenship only to m e n , without extending it to their families; he sees the grant to Seleucus as initiating a new approach (see also his "L'Acquisto della cittadinanza r o m a n a e il matrimonio del peregrino," repr. in Scrìtti Giurìdici 2 : 2 5 7 - 7 4 , esp. 2 6 5 - 6 6 ) . H e argues (at pp. 6 6 3 - 4 / 2 4 8 ) from Gaius, Inst. 1 . 9 3 - 9 4 , that R o m a n citizenship did not extend ipso iure to children born before the grant, but there could be a special grant which included them. O f course, w e have no idea whether the grant to Antipater (despite the general tendency in the Republic) included such a clause (for examples o f which, see Volterra, Scrìtti Giurìdici 2 : 2 6 9 - 7 0 ) . See also Volterra, Lezioni di Diritto Romano. Il Matrimonio Romano ( R o m a : Edizioni "Ricerche", A n n o A c c a d e m i c o 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 4 9 - 7 1 , following a m o r e general treatment ( 2 3 0 - 4 9 ) o f the status in R o m a n law o f peregrine marriages. 9 3
Schùrer, History 1 : 3 1 6 - 1 7 , prefers to base it on the grant to Antipater: "Possession
of R o m a n citizenship, although explicitly attested only in relation to a few [reges socii\, was probably a characteristic o f them all. Herod's family obtained such citizenship through his father, Antipater." W e m a y note also Augustus' confirmation of Herod's will: A.J.
1 7 . 2 0 2 ; 1 7 . 3 1 7 - 3 2 3 . O n Herod's relationship to R o m e , see D .
Piattelli, "Ricerche intomo alle relazioni politiche tra R o m a e l'EGNOI TON IOYAAIQN dal 141 A . C . al 4 A . C . " , Bullettino dell'Istituto di Diritto Romano "Vittorio Scialoja" 7 4 (1972): 2 1 9 - 3 4 7 , esp. 3 2 3 - 3 9 ; M . R . C i m m a , Reges Sodi et Amici Populi Romani (Pubbl. dell' 1st. di Diritto R o m a n o , L; Milan: Giuffrè, 1976), 3 0 6 - 1 3 . O n his status as a rex socius, see particularly Piattelli,
"Ricerche," 3 3 5 - 3 6 .
C i m m a , Reges Sodi, 3 1 0 ,
notes that R o m a n citizenship was conferred o n s o m e such kings, and claims ( 3 1 0 n. 4 4 ) that H e r o d obtained it from A n t o n y (but without citing evidence). 9 4
See B. S. Jackson, " O n the Problem of R o m a n Influence o n the Halakah and
Normative Self-Definition in Judaism," in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (ed. E . P. Sanders, L o n d o n : S C M Press, 1981) 2 : 1 5 7 - 2 0 3 (text), 3 5 2 - 7 9 (notes), esp. 2 : 1 6 7 - 6 8 , 362.
O n the m e a n i n g o f xenokritai in the B a b a t h a archive a n d elsewhere,
D . N ò r r , " T h e XENOKRITAI
see
in Babatha's Archive (Pap. Y a d i n 2 8 - 3 0 ) " , Israel Law
Review 2 9 / 1 - 2 (1995): 8 3 - 9 4 , reviewing the earlier literature and*arguing in favour of an identification with the recuperatores (who here m a y have been R o m a n s or peregrines) of R o m a n procedure.
365
THE DIVORCES OF THE HERODIAN PRINCESSES
(Salome, etc.)? (2) author viewpoint: what legal regime was b e i n g applied, from the viewpoint o f Josephus? (3) juristic (objective?) view point: h o w w o u l d jurists in the respective systems have analysed these particular cases? W e have also strayed, slighdy, into a w i d e r issue o f legal history, o n which the formulations o f Josephus certainly ought to b e taken into account: the interaction b e t w e e n Jewish L a w and R o m a n law, as reflected in b o t h t e r m i n o l o g y and substantive rules. A s regards participant viewpoint, w e naturally lack any direct evi d e n c e . J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , seeks to give his o w n a c c o u n t o f this. F o r the m o s t part, he seeks to imply reckless indifference o n the part o f the princesses as to the legal (as well as moral) significance o f their actions:
95
this is the m o d e l I have called "Palace L a w " in the tide
o f this paper. T h e case o f S a l o m e , h o w e v e r , is s o m e w h a t distinct, given the a c c o u n t J o s e p h u s claims that she gave to H e r o d in o r d e r to d e f e n d h e r a c t i o n . H e r e , w e n o t e d D a u b e ' s o b s e r v a t i o n that J o s e p h u s attributes to her the use o f terminology m o r e consistent with (mainstream) Jewish l a w .
96
But that attempted justification (if
i n d e e d genuinely attributable to Salome) d o e s not negate the p r o b ability that her o w n viewpoint was closer to "Palace L a w . "
9 7
A s regards author viewpoint: J o s e p h u s remarks three times o n v i o lation b y the princesses o f (his understanding o f ) c o n t e m p o r a r y Jewish law—in the cases o f S a l o m e , H e r o d i a s a n d Drusilla (though in the latter t w o cases his criticism appears to b e directed primarily against the c h o i c e o f the next partner, rather than the process o f divorce). But these remarks m a y b e taken as incidental to his presentation, designed perhaps to confirm the negative impression w h i c h he seeks to c o n v e y o f their characters (and family?). In those cases w h e r e he
9 5
T h u s , S a l o m e "chose to follow not the law o f her country, but the law o f her
authority" (text at n. 2 , supra); Herodias, "taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers" married H e r o d (text at n. 5 , supra); Drusilla s u c c u m b e d to
the
promises o f Felix "to make her supremely happy if she did not disdain him. . . . She . . . was persuaded to transgress the ancestral laws and to marry Felix" (text at n. 8, supra); Berenice is reputed to have acted "out o f licentiousness" (text at n. 9, supra); M a r i a m m e ' s attitude (text at n. 10, supra) is not disclosed. 9 6
Supra, n. 3 .
9 7
Derrett, Law in the New Testament (supra n. 4), 3 8 7 , observes: ". . . there was no
practical reason w h y a Jewish w o m a n o f standing should not arrogate to herself the right to divorce her husband by mere notice or intimation, which is exactly what S a l o m e did . . . W h a t is shocking about such conduct is, as usual, the brazen assumption that what is illegal or against the theory o f the law but tolerated indirecdy could be practised openly as if it were legal." Cf. Instone-Brewer, "1 Corinthians 7" (supra n. 4).
366
BERNARD S. JACKSON
makes n o remarks a b o u t conformity with the law, w e are not to assume that he thought that they did c o n f o r m . W e m a y a d d that Josephus also had a personal axe to grind in this respect: he had himself b e e n deserted b y his o w n first w i f e .
98
A s regards the juristic viewpoint, w e have to distinguish the case o f S a l o m e from those o f the later princesses. T h e r e is reason to believe that the sending o f a d o c u m e n t o f divorce b y S a l o m e to her husband was in conformity with the understanding o f Jewish law in s o m e circles, albeit that the best evidence for this c o m e s from the s e c o n d century C E . O n the other hand, such a p r o c e d u r e does not appear to c o n f o r m to that o f c o n t e m p o r a r y R o m a n (or Hellenistic) practice, which at this period appears to have consisted o f the sending o f an oral rather than a written message. By contrast, the simple acts o f desertion b y the later princesses, though n o t entirely without p r e c e d e n t in b o t h Jewish and Christian sources, w o u l d have b e e n regarded as sufficient to manifest the intention to divorce (and thus to divorce) according to both classical R o m a n doctrine and Hellenistic practice. F o r sure, there is n o indication either o f the seven witnesses o f the Lex Julia, o r even o f receipt b y the husband o f a declaration o f d i v o r c e (whether written o r oral). H o w e v e r , o n what appears the best view o f the lex Julia, the seven witnesses w e r e not required in these situations, and, even if they had b e e n , their absence w o u l d not have rendered the divorces invalid. All this assumes that the princesses w e r e indeed R o m a n citizens. I f not, the arguments from the lex Julia d o not apply at all, but they might still have followed
Roman/
Hellenistic practice, confident that it w o u l d , if necessary, b e applied in local R o m a n courts, despite the fact that they were peregrini. But is this kind o f juristic analysis entirely appropriate? O n e m a y d o u b t to what extent marriage and divorce were, at this p e r i o d (and especially in the provinces), truly "juridical" relationships, ones in w h i c h p e o p l e e x p e c t e d to b e g u i d e d b y (positivistically-defined) legal rules, as o p p o s e d to a m o r e flexible social practice. Indeed, that very flexibility c o m e s to b e incorporated within the juristic formulations o f the rules, o n c e these are taken o v e r b y the classical R o m a n jurists. In this context, w e m a y note s o m e observations o f Y a r o n :
9 8
9 9
Vita 4 1 5 , on which see further infra, nn.
99
101-2.
Y a r o n , "Divortium inter absentes" (supra n. 51), 6 3 . Cf., for classical Athens, C o h n Haft, "Divorce in Classical Athens" (supra n. 72), 3 n. 8, stressing the private nature of the actions required to constitute both marriage and divorce (at least where ini-
367
T H E DIVORCES OF T H E H E R O D I A N PRINCESSES
A discussion o f the ways in which classical Roman marriage terminated is to some extent hampered by a surprising lack o f sources outside o f Justinian's compilation. The elementary writings o f the classical and early post-classical periods which have reached us, such as the Institutes of Gaius, Ulpian's Epitome, Paul's Sentences, do not deal with the termination o f marriage. The two first-mentioned consider marriage only obiter, in the context o f the creation o f a patria potestas, in order to elucidate the meaning o f iustum matrimonium, the prerequisites o f potestas. T h e Sentences . . . do not discuss its termination . . . O n the Jewish side, t o o , there appears to have b e e n a slow process o f "juridification" o f the marital relationship, w h i c h m a y b e seen even in the financial arrangements
a c c o m p a n y i n g marriage, such as
the e m e r g e n c e o f a clear distinction between bride price and d o w r y .
100
It m a y b e , then, that "Palace L a w " should not b e seen simply as an abuse o n the part o f the aristocracy, but rather as o n e reflection o f the still-weak institutionalisation period. Indeed, Josephus
5
o f marriage a n d d i v o r c e at this
o w n marital history m a y well reflect this
same p h e n o m e n o n . H e remarks, o f his first marriage, that "she did not remain l o n g with m e but left m e (amAAayri)".
101
D a u b e observes:
"It is clear that it was she w h o w a n t e d a n d effected the
separation;
in fact she stayed b e h i n d in Palestine w h e n he followed Vespasian to Egypt. W h e t h e r he put a formal e n d to the marriage b y giving her a bill o f d i v o r c e remains uncertain, but n o d o u b t he d i d . "
1 0 2
I
w o u l d suggest that this is optimistic.
tiated by the m a n ) . See also the remarks o f Arnaoutoglou, "Marital Disputes" (supra n. 2 7 ) , 18, on the divorce clauses in marriage contracts in G r e c o - R o m a n Egypt. T h e s e state forms o f behaviour which entide the other spouse to terminate, consequences
with
for the dowry. Arnaoutoglou writes: "Clearly they had a normative
power in the sense that they were illustrating what was expected from the spouses and they were enforced by penalties.
T h e y cannot be regarded as grounds for
divorce in a m o d e r n technical sense, but can be regarded, at least, as a kind of quasi-legal contractual norms, whose lack will render possible a n d justify a b a n d o n ment or elopement and thus the eventual breaking o f marriage." 1 0 0
B. S. Jackson, "Problems in the D e v e l o p m e n t o f the Ketubah Payment: T h e
S h i m o n ben Shetah Tradition," in Rabbinic Law in its Roman and Near Eastern Context (ed. C . Hezser; T u b i n g e n : M o h r - S i e b e c k , 2 0 0 3 ) , n. 41 and text at n. 5 1 . O n the distinction between legal and social institutions in this context, see m y "The 'Institutions' of M a r r i a g e , Divorce and Matrimonial Property in the Bible", forthcoming. 101
1 0 2
Vita 4 1 5 . See further Rabello, "Divorce in Josephus" (supra n. 11), 1 5 7 - 5 8 . D a u b e , New Testament (supra n. 3), 3 7 1 . See further Rabello, "Divorce o f Jews"
(supra n. 11), 9 3 - 9 5 , c o m m e n t i n g also o n Josephus' account o f his dissolution of a subsequent marriage (Vita 4 2 6 ) , where he indicates his disapproval o f his wife's con duct: "At this period I divorced m y wife, being displeased at her behaviour . . . " (Thackeray, L C L ) , leading some to view this as reflecting the approach of the School of S h a m m a i .
368
BERNARD S. JACKSON
Y e t even if o u r instances o f "Palace L a w " reflect a m o r e general p h e n o m e n o n o f w e a k institutionalisation, they also have a significance o f their o w n . W e are familiar today with the p h e n o m e n o n o f reac tion
in the public sphere to the well-publicised peccadilloes o f the
rich and famous. T h e divorces o f the H e r o d i a n princesses m a y b e v i e w e d in a similar light. T h e y m a y well form the b a c k g r o u n d to a tightening
o f rabbinic d i v o r c e law against the wife, o n the grounds
that the earlier law m a d e it t o o easy for her to terminate her mar riage w h e n she c h a n c e d to "to l o o k at another
1 0 3
man."
1 0 3
m. Nedarim 11:12; see Jackson, " S o m e Reflections" (supra ri. 17), 1 6 3 - 6 4 . O n the lex Julia as a response to aristocratic moral decline in R o m e , see R a b e l l o , "Divorce in Josephus" (supra n. 11), 1 5 1 - 5 2 .
PART
FIVE
TRANSLATION AND TRANSMISSION
THE
LATIN TRANSLATION O F JOSEPHUS' AMTIQUITA
GAIA
TES*
LEMBI
S C U O L A N O R M A L E SLJPERIORE, PLSA
1. INTRODUCTION
The
history o f the transmission o f J o s e p h u s ' works has fictional fea-
tures, to the p o i n t that in a recent essay, d e v o t e d to the equally c o m p l i c a t e d transmission
o f Photius' Bibliotheca,
Luciano
Canfora
c o u l d briefly retell h o w Arlenius was able t o c o p y part o f J o s e p h u s ' Antiquitates
in V e n i c e , drawing o n a c o p y o f Photius' Bibliotheca
then
1
o w n e d b y D i e g o H u r t a d o M e n d o z a . It was t o M e n d o z a , b y the way, that Arlenius d e d i c a t e d the Praefatio
a p p e n d e d to the editio princeps
the G r e e k text o f J o s e p h u s ' Antiquitates, In his Praefatio,
of
published b y F r o b e n in 1544.
2
Arlenius expressly recognizes that M e n d o z a has the
merit o f having taken care o f collecting manuscripts as p r e c i o u s as rare: dum labores rarissimos
codices
thesauros aliquos
infinitos insumeres:
ac sumptus quos
maximos
turn in Italia
eruendos, ac in tuam pulcherrimam
in exquisitissimos turn in Graecia bibliothecam
inventuque
defossos
deferendos
quasi curasti?
U p t o that time, it should n o t have b e e n so easy t o read J o s e p h u s in G r e e k , if o n l y o n e thinks that ten years before Gelenius c o u l d still c o m p l a i n o f the shortage—and thus o f the difficult availability— o f G r e e k manuscripts, a shortage that forced h i m to p r o p o s e a Latin
* I o w e thanks to Prof. Daniel R . Schwartz for having revised m y English and both to Prof. Bruno Chiesa a n d Prof. Daniel R . Schwartz for their useful c o m ments o n a draft o f this paper. 1
See L . Canfora, Convertire Casaubon (Milano: Adelphi, 2 0 0 2 ) , 3 3 : " Q u a n d o il 'Photio' fu presso di lui [scil. H u r t a d o M e n d o z a ] , il suo intraprendente Arlenio, scorrendo attentamente l'indice del manoscritto, notò che vi erano capitoli che per il suo datore di lavoro erano u n a vera benedizione del cielo: il r o m a n z o di Eliodoro e quello, b e n più audace, di Achille T a z i o , peraltro anche un p o ' di aristotelici quali Temistio e Giovanni Filopono (...). E notò anche Flavio Giuseppe, che poteva interessare lui" (Italics added). 2
A . P. A r l e n i u s , e d . , O A A B I O Y I Q I H I I O Y Io\)8atKfj<; à p x a i o X o y i a q ^óyoi Io\)5aiicn<; àtaóoecoq Xóyoi Flepì apxociornToq Io\)8a{cov m x à ATCICOVO^ Xóyoi (3. Eiq xoix; MaKKa(3a(o\)(; Xòyoq. r\ rcepì aUTOKpaxopoq A,oyiauoi) (Basileae: Froben, 1544). Arlenius, O A A B I O Y I Q I H l l O Y , 2r. K.
3
372
GAIA LEMBI
translation i m p r o v e d only through the c o m p a r i s o n o f various Latin manuscripts:
4
Igitur Antiquitatum
interpretationem
ad Vetera exemplaria
Graecorum inopiam contulimus. tassis ob argumentum prets
tanto
vulgatius)
inelegantiorem,
quam
latina duntaxat,
coeperimusque ut minus mendarum
in belli Iudaici
ut haudquaquam
historia:
credam
ab
ita stilum
sui similis sit,
quoties in opere Antiquitatum
contra in sequentis operis orationibus adsequitur, eiusque declamatoriam quisquis
2.
est,
incidunt,
miram
interpres, Rujinus
quondam facultatem
inter
eodem utrunque
latinitate donatum: vel hac coniectura, quod in concionibus, quum Iosephus balbutiem
opinor, propius
ob (for-
opus ubique
videbis: Iosephum
longe magis quam ilk alter,
5
exprimit.
M O D E R N SCHOLARSHIP ON T H E L A T I N JOSEPHUS
A similar situation c a n b e noticed, nowadays, as regards the history o f the Latin translation o f J o s e p h u s ' Antiquitates. T h e study o f the Latin translation has b e e n almost totally neglected in the last decades: suffice it to say that nearly fifty years have passed since Blatt's p u b 6
lication o f the Latin text o f the first five b o o k s o f the w o r k — p u b 7
lication that, although criticized from various points o f view, represents the last attempt to supply a critical edition o f this translation. Consulting the reference works o f J o s e p h a n studies, it is hard to understand what really h a p p e n e d along the direct as well as the indi rect tradition o f the Latin text. For instance, Schreckenberg's study o f the Latin tradition is a g o l d m i n e as regards the indirect tradition, i.e. quotations o r references to Josephus' works—mainly the Bellum, b y the w a y — f r o m the Patristic age until the e n d o f the M i d d l e A g e , but as regards the direct tradi tion his contribution is s o m e w h a t limited, w h i c h is not surprising, given the fact that very few studies have b e e n devoted to the subject.
8
4
S. Gelenius, ed., FLA VII IOSEPHI ANTIQUITATUM IUDAICARUM libri xx, ad vetera exem plaria diligenter recogniti, DE BELLO IUDAICO libri VII, ex collatione Graecorum codicum castigatiores quam unquam ante redditi, CONTRA APIONEM libri li, pro corruptis antea, iam ex Graeco itidem non solum emendati, sed etiam suppleti. DE IMPERIO RATIONIS sive DE AIACHABEIS liber unus à DES. ERASMO Roterodamo recognitus. Cum Indice copiosissimo (Basileae: Froben, 1534). 5
Gelenius, FLAVIIIOSEPHI, 2r-2v. See F. Blatt, The Latin Josephus I. Introduction and Text. The Antiquities'. Books I - V ( K o b e n h a v n : Universitetsforlaget I Aarhus, 1958). For references to reviews o f Blatt's work see L . H . Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (Berlin-New Y o r k : W . de Gruyter, 1984), 4 3 - 4 4 . H . Schreckenberg, Rezeptiongeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius 6
7
8
THE LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITATES
373
T h e most relevant piece o f information appears to b e the reference to a MS from the Phillips Collection, n o w at the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana ( C o l o g n y - G e n e v e ) , containing the Latin translation o f Books 1 to 6 o f the Antiquitates a n d dated to the s e c o n d half o f the eighth century. A s for Feldman's b i b l i o g r a p h y ,
10
9
although n o o n e c o u l d d e n y its
usefulness and completeness, it should b e p o i n t e d out—at least as a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l warning—that m u c h was written regarding this sub j e c t also before 1937. In this respect, it seems m o r e useful to turn to h a n d b o o k s that deal in primis with classical p h i l o l o g y — a field in w h i c h b y definition G r e e k and Latin walk h a n d in hand, so that a lack o f esteem for the Latin translation is not to b e e x p e c t e d . T o m e n t i o n only a few, o n e c a n read the studies o f G r a e s s e
3.
USEFULNESS
11
and O b e r t h u r .
12
OF T H E L A T I N T R A N S L A T I O N
It seems that the Latin translation has been taken into a c c o u n t mainly for its relevance as regards the history o f the Latin language in late antiquity a n d the M i d d l e Ages; the technique o f translation;
and,
last but not least—given the valuable miniatures often furnished b y its manuscripts—the history o f art. It stands to reason that a sys tematic and c o m p l e t e examination o f this translation, w h i c h should take into account—as they deserve—all the philological aspects, c o u l d shed light o n the different ways in w h i c h the Antiquitates w e r e uti lized during the M i d d l e A g e and the Renaissance, at least until the publication o f the editio princeps o f the G r e e k text. T h i s holds g o o d
Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 2 6 - 4 3 , esp. 2 7 , n. 8. Schreckenberg's treatment of the Latin translation was criticized by Flusser: apparently Schreckenberg considered them to be nothing else than Stieftöchter. Cf. D . Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus und der hebräische Josippon," in Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (ed. O . Betz, K . Haacker and M . Hengel; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1974), 1 2 2 - 3 2 : 122, n. 2 . 9
T h i s manuscript was unknown to Blatt and—it seems—to everyone else, even after Schreckenberg's notice. 1 0
Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, esp. 4 0 - 4 7 for the Latin and the Syriac versions. J. G . T . Graesse, Trésor de livres rares et précieux ou Nouveau Dictionnaire Bibliographique (Dresden: R u d o l f K u n t z e , 1862), 3 : 4 8 0 - 8 4 . F. O b e r t h ü r , " D e Flavio Iosepho," in Bibliotheca Graeca sive Notifia scriptorum veterum graecorum quorumcumque momumenta intégra aut fragmenta édita extant tum plerorumque e mss. ac deperditis (ed. J. A . Fabricius; H a m b u r g : B o h n , 1796*), 5 : 1 - 6 4 . 11
1 2
374
GAIA LEMBI
in particular for the s e c o n d half o f the w o r k , since scholars that have recently dealt—in a w a y o r a n o t h e r — w i t h the Latin
translation
focused mainly o n the biblical section, i.e. the first ten b o o k s .
13
In this c o n n e c t i o n , special attention should b e d e v o t e d to the importance o f the H e b r e w Josippon as an indirect witness to the Latin text o f Josephus' Antiquitates. Leaving aside the very complicated question o f w h e n and b y w h o m it was c o m p o s e d , it is certain that its author h a d o n his desk b o t h the Latin Vulgata (i.e. J e r o m e ' s Bible) a n d a manuscript o f the Latin Josephus containing Books 1 to 16 o f the Antiquitates a n d the Hegesippus ( c o m p o s e d m o r e o r less a r o u n d 3 7 0 C . E . b y a c o n v e r t e d J e w — a t least a c c o r d i n g to the late D . Flusser).
14
It happens that w e still have four manuscripts containing
B o o k s 1 to 16 o f the Antiquitates and the Hegesippus together—all o f t h e m written in Italy,
15
16
"the h o m e l a n d of Josippon."
A c c o r d i n g to Flusser, this particular b r a n c h o f the Latin Josephus tradition originated somewhere in Italy—perhaps in the M o n t e Cassino M o n a s t e r y — b e t w e e n the sixth century and 9 5 3 C.E., w h e n a m a n 17
uscript o f this kind r e a c h e d the author o f the Josippon.
It m a y b e
interesting to note that the original Josippon was revised first as regards style—and this revision is the basis o f the editio princeps ( M a n t u a , 1 4 8 0 ) ; it w a s , h o w e v e r , a s e c o n d , e n l a r g e d a n d l o n g e r v e r s i o n 2.
(Costantinople, 1510; repr. V e n i c e , 1540) that b e c a m e the vulgata}
In this s e c o n d version Josephus (re)appears as the real author o f the
1 3
See, for instance, É . Nodet, "Le texte des Antiquités de Josephe," RB 9 4 . 3 (1987): 3 2 3 - 7 5 , esp. 3 4 2 - 5 4 . 1 4
See Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 129: "Das W e r k [. . .] wurde bekanntlich u m das Jahr 3 7 0 verfaßt. Sein A u t o r was ein getaufter Jude. . . ." In Idem, "Josippon, a Medieval H e b r e w Version of Josephus," in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (ed. L. H . Feldman a n d G . Hata; Detroit: W a y n e State University Press, 1987), 3 8 6 - 9 7 : 3 9 2 , the date is given as circa 3 7 5 C.E. ("He [i.e. the author of the Hegesippus] h a d written his book about A . D . 375.") 1 5
Cf. Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 1 2 6 - 2 7 ; Idem, "Josippon," in Feldman a n d Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 3 9 2 . O n the history of Hegesippus" textual tradition see V . Ussani, " U n ignoto codice cassinese del così detto Egesippo e i suoi affini," in Idem, Scritti di filologia & umanità (Napoli: Ricciardi, 1942), 2 5 0 - 6 5 ; I d e m , "Su Flavio Giuseppe e i suoi traduttori," ibid., 2 6 6 - 6 9 ; C . M r a s , Hegesippi qui dicitur historiae Libri V. Pars Posterior (ed. V . Ussani; C S E L 6 6 ; W i e n : HoelderPichler-Tempsky, 1960), vii—1. 1 6
So Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 128: "der H e i m a t des Josippon." Cf. Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; Idem, "Josippon," in Feldman a n d Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 3 9 3 - 9 4 . Cf. Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 123; Idem, "Josippon," in Feldman and H a t a , Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, 3 8 7 - 8 8 . 1 7
1 8
THE
LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITATES
375
b o o k . Significantly e n o u g h , the l o n g e r Josippon o p e n s with the state ment o f J o s e p h u s about the historical m e t h o d o l o g y as given at the very beginning o f A J.
4.
A
14.
19
F E W EXAMPLES OF T H E USEFULNESS
OF T H E L A T I N
T R A N S L A T I O N FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE G R E E K T E X T OF JOSEPHUS'
ANTIQUITATES
G o i n g b a c k to the textual difficulties, there are g o o d reasons to believe that non Latin w o r d s have b e e n c o p i e d as they were from the G r e e k uncial manuscripts and afterwards read as if they were L a d n . I will present here three examples from A J.
14.33-36.
4.1. Tlanvp&va. " T h e n Scaurus again withdrew to D a m a s c u s , while Aristobulus with a large force m a r c h e d against Aretas a n d Hyrcanus, a n d o n engag ing
t h e m at a place called P a p y r o n , defeated them in batde . . . "
{AJ.
14.33 [ M a r c u s , L C L ] ) .
2 0
Schalit, noticing that this place n a m e in Josephus takes the definite article, suggested as a possible m e a n i n g "Papyrus land", but since 1) the diffusion o f such a plant is n o t otherwise attested in the area, and 2) the Latin has capiron—and w e w o u l d a d d that interestingly 2 1
e n o u g h also the Josippon has j Y T S p — , he w o n d e r s whether the orig inal reading c o u l d not have b e e n the H e b r e w
or Aramaic
22
(tfHlSD, pi. jHIDD) n a m e for the Cyprus flower, this plant b e i n g noth ing else than the henna (Lawsonia inermis), a tropical shrub m e n t i o n e d not
only b y Dioscorides ( 1 . 9 5 )
23
a n d the Anthologia Palatina (4.1.42),
1 9
Cf. Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 1 2 4 . For the text o f A.J. 1 4 . 1 - 3 as given in the Josippon see D . Flusser, ed., The Josippon [Josephus Gorionides] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978), 1 4 3 - 4 4 ( = ch. 3 5 [Л ?], 11. 1-8). 4
2 0
A.J. 1 4 . 3 3 : Kai I m f t p o q uev eiq AauaaKÖv naXw avexcopriaev 'Apiaxoßovtax; 5ё цеха коХкщ Svvaueotx; ел( те 'Apexav Kai 'YpKavöv eaxpaxeuaev Kai ouußaAxbv auxoiq Tiepi xöv KaA,ot>|ievov П а п и р о с а v i m хд ц а х р . . . . 2 1
Cf. Flusser, Josippon, 1 5 1 . Cf. M . Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Terushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature ( N e w York: Judaica Press, 1975), s.v. Qifrus in the Arabic version: cf. A . Dietrich, Dioscurides Triumphans. Ein anonymer arabischer Kommentar. . . zur Materia medica (Abhandl. der A k a d . der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse I I I / 1 7 3 ; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1988), 148. 2 2
2 3
376
GAIA LEMBI
but also in the Bible (Cant 1:14; 4:13) as well as in B.J. 4 . 4 6 9 — always in c o n n e c t i o n with the J e r i c h o area.
24
Schalit concludes that, as in m a n y other instances, also in this case the Latin appears to b e the best textual witness to J o s e p h u s ' text: "in der T a t erweist sich bei n ä h e r e m Z u s e h e n der Latinus wie in vielen anderen Fällen so auch in diesem als vorzüglicher T r a d e n t . " 4.2.
25
0aXXicov
In the same paragraph Josephus states that a m o n g the m e n w h o perished in the batde there was also Phallion, the brother of Antipater— Kai OaMicov 6 'AvTutaxpou aSetapoq.
26
As M a r c u s notices, this n a m e is not m e n t i o n e d elsewhere—except in B.J. 1.130 which reads TÖV a8eAxpöv xöv
27
'Avxucaxpou O a M i o o v a — ,
but some o f the G r e e k manuscripts a n d the Latin version o f the Antiquitates have a different reading, viz. Cephalon. Yet
it must b e p o i n t e d out that M a r c u s ' text a n d apparatus criticus
are rather confused a n d confusing: in the text the reading is given as KCUOGCMACÜV, but the lemma in the apparatus is KaiGocAAicov, which in a w a y must have b e e n the reading "unconsciously" preferred b y M a r c u s , since in n. c to the translation he remarks that in the Bellum 22,
we
have Phallion.
In fact, the reading ©ccMacov was to b e a d o p t e d b y Schalit:
29
the
n a m e , the e q u i v a l e n t o f the Latin Florus, w o u l d h a v e b e e n the Hellenistic n a m e o f the brother o f Antipater. Later o n , h o w e v e r , Schalit c h a n g e d his o p i n i o n : the reading Kai OaMacov—the o n e c h o -
2 4
Cf. A . Schalit, Namenwbrterbuch zu Flavins Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1968), s.v. Karcvpcov: " O r t bei Jericho." M . Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History [(in H e b r e w ) ed. D . R . Schwartz; Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center, 1 9 9 5 ] , 2 0 6 n. 5 , instead, suggested that Papyron appears to be an area south-east of Jericho that received its n a m e from the presence of papyrus plants. 2 5
Cf. A . Schalit, Namenwdrterbuch, s.v. Kowropcov; Idem, Kdnig Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 7 4 1 - 4 2 . 2 6
2 7
A.J.
14.33.
In Haverkamp's footnote to the passage, it is stated that a manuscript has in fact the expected xox>, but according to the same editor this (unusual) use of the definite article is typical of Josephus. Cf. S. H a v e r k a m p , ed., Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt opera omnia graece et latine, cum notis et nova versione Joannis Hudsoni. . . (Amsterdam: Wetsteim; Leiden: Luchtmans; Utrecht: Broedelet, 1726). T h e r e are no variant readings as regards the text o f the Bellum. A . Schalit, King Herod. Portrait of a Ruler (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960), 3 4 7 , n. 2 4 [in H e b r e w ] . 2 8
2 9
377
THE LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITATES
sen b y Niese a n d the other editors—will have originated from a mis reading, o n the part o f a Byzantine scribe, o f an original KEOAAAIQN as KAIOAAAIQN > KAI O A A A I Q N .
30
T h e reading KetpccMicov o f L A
2
w o u l d b e , then, the hypocoristic f o r m o f the "authentic" f o r m pre served only b y the Latin, viz. Cephalon—KeqxxAxov (cf. Pausanias, Descr. 1.3.1)—and, time and again, b y the Josippon, which has
jl^D.
3 1
It must b e a d d e d that this same r e a d i n g — i n the f o r m Caephalion— was the o n e already preferred b y N o l d i u s only in a footnote to the text.
33
32
and H u d s o n — e v e n if
Noldius p o i n t e d out also that the
mistake s e e m e d to b e very ancient since it appeared already in the M
Hegesippus ^ not to m e n t i o n the Bellum.
O n e w o n d e r s , then, i f the "mistake" shall n o t b e a s c r i b e d to Josephus himself—leaving aside that the w o r d i n g in the Bellum (xov a8eA,(pov xov 'Avxircaxpou O a M i c o v a ) excludes completely the possibil ity o f the p h e n o m e n o n w e are used to call itacism, since here there is n o KOU before the n a m e . T a k i n g into a c c o u n t the m e a n i n g o f OaMicov in Greek, i.e. cpaMxxpopoq,
35
it is n o t to b e e x c l u d e d that
the reading kefal- with all o f its variants was dictated b y the sensi tivity o f a very polite scribe. . . .
4.3. Strabo o n P o m p e i u s a n d a Fine Gift {A.J. 1 4 . 3 4 - 3 6 ) "Aristobulus sent h i m [i.e. P o m p e y ] a fine gift, a g o l d e n vine w o r t h five
h u n d r e d talents. T h i s gift is also m e n t i o n e d b y S t r a b o o f
C a p p a d o c i a in the following words: ' T h e r e also c a m e from
Egypt
3 0
Schalk, Konig Herodes, 7: « D e r byzantinische Kopist mißdeutete die vermudich in einigem A b s t a n d von O A A A I Q N befindlichen Buchstaben K E als gleichbedeutend mit K A I — d e r D i p h t o n g AI wurde E gesprochen—und schrieb m i OaAAicov». Cf. Idem, Namenwörterbuch, s.v. K^aAAicov. 3 1
Cf. Flusser, Josippon, 1 5 1 .
3 2
C . N o l d i u s , "Historia I d u m a e a e seu D e vita et gestis H e r o d u m , diatribe Accesserunt hinc inde N o t a e in J o s e p h u m ut & pro eo vindicae & responsiones contra Baronium, Serarium, Salianum, & Alios," in H a v e r k a m p , Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 1 : 3 3 3 - 4 0 1 . 3 3
Cf. H a v e r k a m p , Flavii Josephi quae reperiri potuerunt, 1:686. Noldius, "Historia Idumaeae," 3 3 9 (nr. 5): «Josepho etiam Bell. Jud. I c. 5 O a M i c o v appellatur. Pro q u o Hegesippus Excid. I c. 14 scribit Fallion. A d locum Papyronem ( H e g . 1. cit. male Paparionem) occubuit». In fact, in Ussani's edition o f the Hegesippus (22,10), we find: Aristobolus autem uix dudum idoneus propulsando periculo manum collegit, hostem insequitur et ad Papyronem, id uocabulum loco, VI milia hostium simul et fratrem Antipatris Fallionem proelio fudit. See LSJ, s.v. 3 4
3 )
378
GAIA LEMBI
an embassy and a c r o w n w o r t h four thousand pieces o f gold, a n d from J u d a e a either a vine o r garden; xeprccoAri (delight) is what they called this w o r k o f art. M o r e o v e r , w e ourselves have e x a m i n e d this gift, w h i c h has b e e n set u p in the temple o f Jupiter Capitolinus at R o m e , and has an inscription reading ' F r o m Alexander, the king o f the J e w s . . . ' " [ M a r c u s , L C L ] .
3 6
Leaving aside the m a n y questions w h i c h this passage raises,
37
we
should like to focus o u r attention o n the term xeprccoAii. The
nature o f this 8 i i | i i o u p y r | | i a is far from clear. A c c o r d i n g to
J o s e p h u s it was an a u j c e ^ o v x p u a f i v ; a c c o r d i n g to Strabo d i e aiinekoc, ei'xe Kfjrcoq, a very strange assessment o n the part o f an eyewitness! Even stranger is the addition they used to call this work of art xeprccoXri, with the n a m e o f the w o r k given in Greek. A c c o r d i n g to M a r c u s (n. a, ad loc), the H e b r e w reflected b y the e
G r e e k xep7icoA,f| w o u l d have b e e n eden a n d the artefact a plastic reproduction o f the paradise. Now,
38
not only the term xep7cco^f| does not a p p e a r elsewhere either
in Josephus o r Philo o r the Septuagint—in which w e have 7 c a p d 8 e i a o q xfjq xpucpfiq ( G e n 3:23) for ]1V p — , but what o n e w o u l d expect is an A r a m a i c o r H e b r e w n a m e , certainly not a G r e e k o n e . M o r e o v e r , it is difficult to understand its c o n n e c t i o n with the vine, even if in a late Jewish tradition the prohibited fruit o f the paradise is identified with the vine (b. Ber. 40a; Gen. Rab. 19:5).
39
Moreover, in the Septuagint a^mXoc, is the usual translation for ] 2 H ; only once does it stand for ]3 (Lam 2:6) and three times for D I D . T h e idea o f delight seems then to be excluded. 40
In an attempt to clarify the question, K . Galling suggested that what w e have here is an allusion to the so-called Adonis gardens, 'A8coviSo<;
3 6
eneuye y a p avxco jxéya Scopov 'ApiaxoßouAxx; auTteAxw xpuofjv èie rcevxaicoaicov
xataxvxcov. uéuvnxai mi
5T) X O V
8(öpoi)
K a i Ixpdßcov
ó
KannàÒo^
Xéycov ovxcoq-
r\XBev
e£ Aiyimxov rcpeoßeia K a i axecpavoq arcò xpvocov xexpaKicxiAicov K C Ù £ K xflq 'Io\)8a(a<;
ei'xe aurceXoc; ei'xe idìrcoq- xeprccoXfjv
i G X O p r i K a u e v K a i f|jj.eiq
(òvóua^ov
àvaiceiuevov èv
xò Sriuiovpyriua.
'PCOUTJ
érciypacpfiv è'xov 'A^e^àv8po\) xo\> xeov 'Ioi)8aicöv 3 7
év xeo iepcp
xov
xovxo
uévxoi xò 8a>pov
Aiòq xou KarcexcoAioi)
ßaciXeax;.
See B. Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà? A proposito di AJ X I V , 3 4 - 3 6 " [ 2 0 0 2 ] 1 - 1 3
(unpublished). 3 8
Cf. Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 2 5 4 .
3 9
See Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà?," 5 .
4 0
New
Cf. W . Bauer, W . A . Arndt, F. W . Gingrich, ed., A Greek-'English Lexicon of the Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press,
1957), s.v.
8è
THE
379
LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' AXTIQUITA TES
41
KTIKOI, the key b e i n g the very term x^Tcoq.
In particular, the gift
w o u l d have b e e n the o n e d e s c r i b e d b y Pliny, Nat. 3 7 . 1 4 , as fol l o w s : . . . montem
aureum
generis
vite
circumdata
quadratum
cum cervis
et leonibus
et pomis
omnis
aurea.
As regards the term xeprccoAri, Galling's suggestion is to interpret it as a transcription o f a Semitic w o r d ^HTICD (terpol—tarpol),
with a
final -/ functioning as diminutive, the root b e i n g *pCD, w h i c h in A r a b i c (and to
in H e b r e w ? ) means to be fresh. T o s u m u p , the reference w a s
the
fresh,
novel plantation,
constitutive o f the so-called Adonis
gardens.
Galling, h o w e v e r , d i d n o t p a y m u c h attention to the textual sit uation. T h e Latin has here terpon ( o r terpnon) id est delectabile,
reading o f the
Josippon
(]1STn o r ]12"in, a c c o r d i n g to the
J N U L 8 ° 4 1 2 8 0 , f. 3 4 v ) .
42
MS
the same
Jerusalem,
A s is apparent, the Latin translator d i d not
understand the G r e e k term a n d terpon was nothing else than a faith ful transcription o f TEPflON. Later o n , the t e r m — w h i c h does not exist in G r e e k — w a s interpreted as the G r e e k adjective xeprcvov, "delight ful."
H e n c e the variant reading a n d the gloss id est delectabile. T h e
addition is an attempt to clarify this difficult term, once read as a Greek one. In fact, thanks to the Latin w e are entided to suggest that the w o r d in question was the A r a m a i c ]D"1CD, w h i c h appears in b. Niddah 20a,
a n d means "foliage, l e a v e s . "
5.
43
T H E T R A N S L A T I O N OF JOSEPHUS' KNTIQUITATES AS P A R T OF A B R O A D E R C U L T U R A L PROGRAM
If the author o f the Latin translation
remains u n k n o w n , it seems
anyway certain that the translation was s p o n s o r e d b y C a s s i o d o r u s .
44
This translation was surely part o f a b r o a d e r agenda, in which Josephus has to function—so to say—like a trait d'union between Biblical writings and classical authors, mainly Livy. T h i s w a s in a c c o r d a n c e with a l o n g tradition that c o n s i d e r e d J o s e p h u s e x a c d y as Graecus
Livius:
we are lucky e n o u g h to have a few manuscripts w h i c h contain Livy
4 1
K . Galling, "Die Tep7icoA.r| des Alexander Jannäus," in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Festschift 0. Eissfeldt (ed. J. H e m p e l and L . Rost; Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1958), 4 9 - 6 2 . 4 2
S e e D . Flusser, Sefer Yosippon: ha-nusakh ha-meqori, tzilum ktav-yad Yerushalayim 8° 41280 im hosqfot (Jerusalem: Z a l m a n Shazar Center, 1978) [ = Josippon: The Original Version, MS Jerusalem 8° 41280 and Supplements]. 4 3
4 4
Cf. Chiesa, "Volute o voluttà?," 1 2 - 1 3 . Cf. De institutione divinarum litterarum 1.17.
380
GAIA LEMBI
45
alongside Josephus —just as, o n the other hand, it is not so aston ishing to find a w o r k ascribed to Josephus as part o f the Syriac O l d Testament.
46
T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' works w e r e utilized n o t only for a p o l o
getic purposes, but as a constitutive element o f a wide-ranging cultural project aiming at the preservation o f the cultural legacy o f the past. H o w seminal this project must have b e e n , c a n easily b e grasped from the fact that for almost a century since the invention o f print ing, the Latin text was edited several times before the publication o f the G r e e k o n e b y Arlenius.
47
Its fortune is testified to as well b y
the large n u m b e r o f manuscripts c o p i e d b e t w e e n the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries.
48
I was lucky e n o u g h to b e able to peruse three o f them, kept in the National and University Library in T u r i n .
49
In o n e case, the
manuscript (I-I-10) has huge dimensions and the b i g characters in w h i c h it was written induce o n e to think that it was not intended for private use, but for teaching and c o m m o n reading. O n the other hand, the other t w o manuscripts, o f smaller size, are carefully illu minated.
50
Curiously e n o u g h , o n e o f them (D-II-8) shares with the
largest o n e the shaping o f the initial headings, for instance the shap ing o f the o p e n i n g letter o f B o o k 15 as a snake—the n a m e in ques tion is Sossius. T h e fortune o f b o t h the Latin a n d v e r n a c u l a r translations o f Josephus was even increased in the following t w o centuries, espe cially in Italy, due to the withdrawal o f the Bible from the h a n d o f 51
the Christian c o m m u n i t i e s . Josephus b e c a m e its natural succedaneum:
4 5
See Flusser, "Der lateinische Josephus," 1 2 9 - 3 0 .
4 6
Cf. S. Castelli, "Riferimenti a Flavio Giuseppe nella letteratura siriaca," Henoch
2 3 (2001): 1 9 9 - 2 2 6 , esp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 . 4 7
Cf. Graesse,
4 8
Cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 2 5 - 1 0 0 .
4 9
I-I-10 ( = T a ; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 4 1 ; G . Pasini, Codices manuscripti bibliothe-
Trésor de livres rares; Oberthür, " D e Flavio
Iosepho."
cae regii taurinense athenaei per linguas digesti, & binas in partes distributi, in quorum prima hebraei, & graeci, in altera latini, italici, & gallici [ T o r i n o : Stamperia Reale, 1 7 4 9 ] , 125); K - I I - 2 ( = ta; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 8 5 - 8 6 ; Pasini, Codices manuscripti, 126); D - I I - 8 ( = tr; cf. Blatt, Latin Josephus, 3 9 ; Pasini, Codices manuscripti, 171). 5 0
On
the illuminated manuscripts o f Josephus' works
cf.
H.
Schreckenberg,
"Josephus in Early Christian Literature and Medieval Christian Art," in H . Schreck enberg and K . Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Christianity (Assen/Maastricht:
V a n G o r c u m ; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press,
Medieval 1991),
7 - 1 3 8 , esp. 8 7 - 1 3 0 ; U . Liebl, Die illustrierten Flaviusjosephus-Handschri^en des Hochmittelalters (Frankfurt a. M . : Peter Lang, 1997). 1 1
Cf. S. Castelli,
"Die Bibel u n d die italienischen Übersetzungen des Josephus
in der Renaissance," in An der Schwelle zur Moderne. Juden in der Renaissance (ed. G . Veltri and A . W i n k e l m a n n ; Leiden-Boston:
Brill, 2 0 0 3 ) , 9 0 - 1 0 7 .
THE
381
LATIN TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITA TES
this was perfectly in line o n o n e h a n d with the tendency to supply the Latin Bible with a full set o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s to the J o s e p h a n works
52
and, o n the other hand, with the tendency to re-order the
b o o k s o f b o t h the Antiquitates and the Bellum so as to create a his torical continuum from the creation o f the w o r l d to the destruction o f the T e m p l e . T h u s , the V a t i c a n manuscript Josephus
5
Vat. Lat. 1994 contains
b o o k s in the following order: A.J.
A.J. 1 8 - 2 0 ; B.J. 3 to 7 .
1 to 12; B.J. 1 a n d 2;
53
T o c o n c l u d e , I should like o n c e m o r e to underline the i m p o r t a n c e o f the indirect tradition with an e x a m p l e that, although not drawn from the Latin version o f Josephus, demonstrates h o w important it is to collect every piece o f information before formulating a wellg r o u n d e d philological hypothesis. It happens that an a n o n y m o u s trea tise against the Jews, dating to the sixth century, constitutes the oldest 5
post- Eusebian witness in G r e e k to the Testimonium Flavianum. * Even though the text was published in a generally available
series—the
Corpus Christianorum {Series Graeca 3 0 ) — , n o b o d y seems to have taken notice o f it, including the author o f a recent m o n o g r a p h o n the Testimonium.^ I h o p e I have m a d e a g o o d case against "the Horatius m e t h o d " , as D a v i d Flusser labelled the tendency to g o into superfluous details, instead o f seeing the c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r .
56
I m e a n that it is time
to reassess as it deserves the indirect tradition o f J o s e p h u s ' works and especially its main branch, viz. the Latin
5 2
translation.
Cf. Castelli, "Die Bibel," 9 3 .
5 3
Cf. B. Nogara, Bibliothecae Apostolicae Valkanae Codices Manu Scripti Recensiti (Codices Vaticani Latini, T o m u s III, Codices 1 4 6 1 - 2 0 5 9 ) ( R o m a : Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1912), 3 9 6 - 9 7 . 3 4
J. H . Declerk, ed., Anonymus Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994). Cf. G . L e m b i , "Il Testimonium Flavianum, Agrippa I e i fratelli Asineo e Anileo. Osservazioni sul libro X V I I I delle Antichità di Giuseppe," Materia Giudaica 6.1 (2001): 5 3 - 6 8 , esp. 5 6 - 6 0 . 5 5
Cf. A . W h e a l e y , Josephus on Jesus: The T e s t i m o n i u m Flavianum Late Antiquity to Modern Times ( N e w Y o r k : Peter Lang, 2 0 0 3 ) . 5 6
Controversy from
Cf. J. Blau, " H e b r e w versus other Languages o f the Traditional M e d i e v a l Jewish Society," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 7 (2002): 3 4 8 - 5 5 : 3 4 8 , n. 1: "one is liable to g o into superfluous details and, instead of seeing their c o m m o n denominator, to try and explain away their affinities one by one (the late D a v i d Flusser d u b b e d this 'the Horatius method', since the last surviving Horatius killed the three Curatius brothers one by one; thus a scholar w h o faces contradictory details, finds for every one separate excuses, 'killing, so to say, o n e by one')."
TRANSLATING BOOK JUDAICUM:
1 OF JOSEPHUS'
SOME CRITICAL A N T H O N Y J.
BELLUM
OBSERVATIONS
FORTE
PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE
In the p r o l o g u e to his Bellum Judaicum, Josephus declares that h e is a " H e b r e w b y birth" (yevei 'Eppcuoq) a n d claims that there was another version o f his w o r k . H e w r o t e : I have proposed to make available to those who live under Roman domi nation a history rendered into Greek ( EMa5i yhhoor\ iieiapaXcbv) from the work which I previously composed in my native tongue (xfi naxpm owxatpLq) for the barbarians in the interior (xoiq avco papPapoiq). e
1
It is generally a c c e p t e d that J o s e p h u s ' "native t o n g u e " was A r a m a i c , not H e b r e w . T h e "barbarians in the interior" o f B.J. 1.3 are defined by Josephus in BJ. 1.6 as "Parthians a n d Babylonians a n d the most remote tribes o f A r a b i a . . . b e y o n d the Euphrates a n d the inhabi 2
tants o f A d i a b e n e . " G o h e i H a t a has a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s used uexaPaMxo " t o indicate s o m e radical c h a n g e , that is, rewriting, a n d not
merely translation".
3
I f he is correct, a n d I suggest that h e is,
one must critically re-examine J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k o f the Bellum in light o f this, namely that J o s e p h u s ' text is n o t a translation, but a w o r k that has b e e n re-written a n d polished b y c o m p e t e n t G r e e k writers. The
reflections that follow are limited to the G r e e k o f the first b o o k
o f the Bellum Judaicum. Josephus states that his first version o f the Bellum was d o n e assiduously and with a c c u r a c y to acquaint his fellow J e w s with the "origin o f the w a r , the various phases o f calamity through w h i c h it passed a n d 4
its c o n c l u s i o n . " Historians have argued that Josephus d i d n o t simply
1
npoi)6euT|v eyco xoiq m x a XT^V 'Pcouaicov fiyeuoviav, 'EAAa8i yAxoaori uexapaXcov a xoiq avco pappapoiq xfi rcaxpicp O D v x a ^ a q averceuvj/a rcpoxepov (B.J. 1.3). n<xp0o\)<; uev m i Bap-utaoviovc; 'Apapcov x e xoix; rcoppcoxaxco m i xo imep E \ x p p a x T i v ouoqnAov f|uiv 'A8iapT|vo\)(;. For a discussion o f the meaning o f the verb uexotPaAAco, see G o h e i H a t a , "Is the Greek Version o f Josephus' Jewish War a Translation or a Rewriting o f the First Version?," JQfi 6 6 (1975): 8 9 - 1 0 8 . yvcovai 5 i a xflq e7ciue^e(a<; aKpi(3co<;, 60ev xe TJp^axo m i 8 i ' oacov exwpriaev rcaOcbv 6 7t6Xeuo<; m i O7tco<; mxeaxpen/ev (B.J. 1.6). 2
3
4
384
ANTHONY J. FORTE
want to p r o v i d e his fellow J e w s with information a b o u t the war, but that he rather desired to inform them o f the perils o f an uprising to avenge the R o m a n s for the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m a n d the Temple.
5
For, if J o s e p h u s ' a c c o u n t g r e w out o f an urgent desire to
give s o m e kind o f a warning to his fellow J e w s living " b e y o n d the Euphrates", it is very unlikely that the first version contained the lengthy colorful descriptions o f personages such as H e r o d the Great and his entourage that w e read in B o o k 1 o f the Bellum? Josephus' first version was probably very different from the highly conventional Hellen istic historical narrative that w e have in o u r version o f the Bellum. In the Contra Apionem, J o s e p h u s states that he h a d s o m e help in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f his G r e e k version.
7
T h i s c o m m e n t is interesting
because he does not mention a "translation", but simply some assistants for the Greek. In introducing Josephus to the readers o f his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius o f Caesarea refers to n o t only the G r e e k version o f the Bellum Judaicum that J o s e p h u s left b e h i n d , but also to the ver 8
sion in J o s e p h u s ' native l a n g u a g e . T h e r e is n o indication here that a G r e e k "translation" was m a d e o f the first version. T h e view o f this translator is that the Bellum Judaicum is a highly polished representation o f g o o d Hellenistic-Atticistic G r e e k o f the first century that was p r o b a b l y reworked, a n d not translated from
an
A r a m a i c original, b y J o s e p h u s with the aid o f native G r e e k speak ers. T h e G r e e k o f the Bellum is quite elegant a n d sophisticated at times. It is certainly n o t a literal translation from a Semitic language.
3
See S o l o m o n Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State, v. 2
T h e Jewish Publication Society o f A m e r i c a , 1969), 6
For example, see B.J.
(Philadelphia:
315-17.
1 . 3 9 6 - 3 9 7 : "For this reason, w h e n Caesar reached Egypt,
after the death o f Cleopatra and A n t o n y , not only did he confer additional
hon
ors on H e r o d , but he also annexed to his realm the land that had been appropri ated by Cleopatra; and b e y o n d it G a d a r a , H i p p o s and Samaria, plus the maritime towns o f G a z a , A n t h e d o n , J o p p a a n d Strato's T o w e r . H e also gave him 4 0 0 Gauls as a bodyguard, w h o were previously protecting Cleopatra. A n d nothing drove him so m u c h to grant these favors as the magnanimity o f their 7
^ecov xfiv rcapa8oaiv (CAp. 8
beneficiary."
f
xprjcauevoq xiai 7tp6<; rnv EAAr|v{5a (pcovrjv aovepyoic; oiSxcoq ercovnoauriv xcov л р а 1.50).
ovxoq 5fi rcaoav xfjv 'Iou5ai'icr|v a p x a i o t a y i a v iv oXoiq e i K o o i KaxaxeOeixai auy-
ypauuaow,
XTJV
5 ' iaxopiav хоЪ m x ' avxov Т ю ц а ш п ) поХг^оь
ev ёяха, a m i ob uovov
xfj 'EAAf|vcov, cxXXa m i xr\ лахрСсо (pcovri napaSoftvai avxbq eoroxcp uapxvpei (Hist. eccl. 3.9.3). " T h e n he put the whole ancient history o f the Jews in twenty volumes, a n d the history o f the R o m a n W a r in his o w n time in seven volumes; he testifies that he left behind these works not only in the language of the Greeks but also in his native language." [my translation]
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
385
It is quite different from the "Jewish G r e e k " o r Semitic phraseology that o n e encounters in the N e w T e s t a m e n t and in the
Septuagint.
T h e r e is not even o n e attestation o f m i e y e v e x o . J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k contains m a n y o f the elements that appear in any 9
g o o d G r e e k writer. For e x a m p l e , there are chiastic structures, jigurae etymologicae™ frequent word-plays, deton,
14
11
alliteration
12
and assonance,
13
asyn
etc. W h a t is most striking to this translator is the a b u n d a n c e
o f hapax legomena w h i c h often appear in clusters.
15
I will return to the
p r o b l e m o f the hapaxes b e l o w .
* * * T h e m o d e r n translator o f Josephus into English has an a b u n d a n c e o f tools that have b e e n p r o v i d e d b y scholars o f Josephus o v e r the centuries. F o r the translator o f Josephus, the 1927 English transla tion b y H . St. J. T h a c k e r a y in the L o e b series is at times o f great value. In his second volume o f this nine-volume translation o f Josephus, T h a c k e r a y m e n t i o n e d Whiston's n o w rather antiquated o f Josephus as a "pioneering v e r s i o n . " English translations o f J o s e p h u s ,
18
17
translation
16
Despite other m o r e recent
m o d e r n scholars have been inclined
to l o o k u p o n Thackeray's w o r k as the standard, if n o t the authori tative translation o f Josephus into English. Steve M a s o n m a d e ref erence to Thackeray's rendition o f the
Vita in the introduction to
his o w n translation and c o m m e n t a r y and wrote as follows: "Thackeray's translation for the Loeb was excellent, inspired in places. Sometimes, as I had struggled for the best English word or phrase, I
9
B.J. 1.400: hno uev K a i o a p o q equXeixo цех' 'Aypircnav, х>к 'Aypunta 5ё uexá Kaíoapa. 10
B.J.
1.511: 6 c o p e i x a i . . .
11
B.J. B.J.
1.377: ХощоЪ . . . Х\\лоЪ. 1.393: 5 i á 5 r | | i a Sóyuaxi 5ieaf|uaivev XT^V 8copeáv.
B.J.
1.557: хф лреаръхерср xcov áSetapcov 'AXe^ávópov rcaíócov.
12
13
бсороц.
1 4
N o t e the beginnings of B.J. 1 . 1 9 7 , 1 9 9 , 2 1 0 . T h e r e are numerous hapaxes scattered throughout Book I which appear in clusters in three rather long sections, namely, BJ 1 . 4 0 1 - 4 3 0 , BJ 1 . 4 6 7 - 4 9 7 , and BJ 1 . 5 1 3 - 5 3 3 . 1 5
1 6
William Whiston, The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian, (London: W . Bowyer, 1737). 17
See Josephus. Translated by H . St. J. Thackeray et al. 9 vols. L C L . C a m b r i d g e : Harvard University Press, 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 6 5 , vol. 2 , xxx. For a discussion of the English translations of Josephus, see Louis H . Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin: W a l t e r de Gruyter, 1984), 2 8 - 3 2 . 1 8
386
ANTHONY J.
FORTE
would finally consult Thackeray and find that his choice, nearly eight decades ago, served the purpose admirably. In general, however, Thackeray's translation is not literal, and so would have caused problems for the commentator. 19
T h i s writer agrees with M a s o n ' s evaluation that Thackeray's rendition was "inspired in places", but w o u l d argue that the
inspiration
c a m e not from a M u s e , but from the French version o f D r . T h e o d o r e Reinach,
20
w h o s e w o r k T h a c k e r a y a c k n o w l e d g e d with gratitude in
his introduction to the Bellum: The translator must finally express his grateful acknowledgement for the assistance which he has received from the labours of many previous workers . . . and last, but not least, [to] Dr. Theodore Reinach and his collaborators (for his French translation and invaluable notes . . .). Dr. Reinach has graciously permitted me to make use o f this work with its admirable commentary, and my constant indebtedness to this brilliant scholar will be evident to the reader from the references in the footnotes throughout this volume. 21
W h a t T h a c k e r a y did not state is that R e i n a c h ' s translation is freq u e n d y the source o f his c h o i c e o f words, his " m o t juste." T h e M u s e , h o w e v e r , has occasionally b e e n the source o f m a n y o f Thackeray's inaccuracies and facile solutions to s o m e difficult G r e e k passages. I will limit m y c o m m e n t s to B o o k 1 o f the Bellum, yet a rapid perusal o f R e i n a c h ' s French translation o f other parts o f the Bellum will result in s o m e very curious similarities with Thackeray's translation.
22
T h a c k e r a y frequendy presents an almost literal English translation o f R e i n a c h ' s French, and he also slavishly follows R e i n a c h ' s sentence structure and punctuation. F o r example, see B.J.
1.253.
(Niese)
(Reinach)
(Thackeray)
253 'Evotàoriç ô'
C o m m e la fête de la Pentecôte approchait, tous les lieux voisins
When the feast called Pentecost came round, the whole neighbour-
eopxfjç, r\ 7ceviTiK0OTfi KaXeîxai, xà xe rcepi xo
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
Steve M a s o n , Flavins Josephus. Life of Josephus, (BJP 9; Leiden: Brill, 2 0 0 1 ) , li. Théodore Reinach, Oeuvres Complètes de Flavius Josephe (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1912). Thackeray, Josephus, vol. 2, x x x - x x x i .
This paper has served as the point of departure for a forthcoming article to be published in SCI entitled "Caveat Lector. Notes on Thackeray's Translation of the Bellum Judaicum" by Lisa U l l m a n n and Jonathan J. Price. T h e authors have applied m y theory about Thackeray's translation to Book 2 of the Bellum.
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BEIIMM JUDAICUM
387
(cont.) (Niese) iepöv rcàvxa Kai T\ KÔXXÇ ÖXr\ nXr\Qo\)q xœv ànb xfjç Xtt>PÇ àvani\mXaTai xo nXéov OKXUCÙV. Kai Oaaàr|Xoç |ièv xo xeîxoç, 'HpcûÔTjç Ô' oi) ixexà KOXXCÙV écppovpei xà ßaa(Ä,etaa
(Reinach)
(Thackeray)
du Temple et la ville entière se remplirent d'une foule de gens de de la campagne, armés pour la plupart. Phasaël défendait les murailles; Hérode, avec peu de soldats, le palais.
hood o f the temple and the entire city were crowded with country-folk, for the most part in arms. Phasael defended the walls; Herod, with a small force, the palace.
T h a c k e r a y altered only o n e element o f R e i n a c h ' s version a b o v e b y translating the w o r d Katavccti. T h a c k e r a y renders the genitive absolute èvoxàoriç èopxfjç in exactly the same w a y as R e i n a c h a n d the p r e p o sitional phrase rcepi xo iepov is rendered loosely b y b o t h T h a c k e r a y and R e i n a c h . T h e only particle that is translated b y b o t h R e i n a c h and T h a c k e r a y is the KOU after rcàvxoc. O n e c o u l d simply argue that the particles in the a b o v e passage are i n d e e d interpreted as formal connectives a n d that they defy translation.
F o r e x a m p l e , the initial
ôé is simply a copulative 8é that marks a transition as does the
mi
before Ootoàr|À,oç. Both particles are used as connectives. In the same way,
the particles uiv a n d 8é that a c c o m p a n y Occaàr|A,oç and 'Hpcb8r|ç
are interpreted b y Reinach's semicolon w h i c h Thackeray appropriates. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f T h a c k e r a y ' s d é p e n d a n c e o n R e i n a c h ' s French translation is the following text, B.J.
(Niese) (panévoi) ôè xoî> ßaoiAicoc Ôcopov ë^Eiv nap' amov XÖV lUOV, Cl (XTl Moeiev
xov yà^iov, ovxcov jièv aùxoîç r\8r\ Kai xéicvcov, axepyofxevric 8 ' oincoç \)7l6 xot> |i£ipaK(o\) xfjç yuvaiKoç, Tiv 7capa|xé-
vovaav nèv ëaeaGai Ô\)GC07CT||ia xcov à^iapxriiiàxcov, àrcoppayeîaav Ôè aixiav xfjç eiç arcavxa ànoyvcûaecûç • nataxKco-
1.509.
(Reinach) Le roi repartit que ce serait vraiment lui rendre son fils que de consentir à ne pas rompre le mariage, d'autant qu'ils avaient déjà des enfants et que le prince aimait beaucoup sa femme : si elle reste auprès de lui, elle lui inspirera le regret de ses fautes ; si on la lui arrache, on le plongera
(Thackeray) T o this the king replied that Archelaus, by consenting not to break the marriage, would really be giving his son back to him, seeing that they already had children and that the young man was so deeply attached to his wife; if she remained with
388
ANTHONY J. FORTE
(cont.)
(Reinach)
(Niese) xépaç Y&P yiveoQoa
xoÀjiaç
Tcaöeaiv
xàç
oiiceioiç
Tcepiajccoiiévaç-
(Thackeray)
dans un désespoir prêt à tous les excès, car un caractère bouillant trouve un dérivatif dans les affections domestiques.
him, her very presence would make him ashamed o f his errors whereas, were she torn from him, he would be driven to utter desperation; for the domestic affections exercised a chastening and diverting influence on reckless characters.
T h e G r e e k o f the first and last sentences o f this paragraph is rather difficult, and b o t h R e i n a c h and T h a c k e r a y have offered an acceptable translation. T h e genitive absolute (potuivou 8e той paciAiox; seems to introduce a sentence that remains i n c o m p l e t e . T h a c k e r a y copies R e i n a c h ' s translation o f the protasis ei \щ
XVGEIEV
XOV
yajiov, namely,
R e i n a c h ' s " d e c o n s e n t i r a ne pas r o m p r e le m a r i a g e " b e c o m e s Thackeray's " b y consenting not to break the marriage." T h a c k e r a y , following R e i n a c h , then adds the adverb "really" ("vraiment") with the intention o f rendering s o m e clarity to the apodosis. T h e continua tion o f Thackeray's translation o f this paragraph is an almost literal translation o f R e i n a c h ' s French, and the adversative force o f the sec o n d jiev . . . 8e construction is lost. W h a t is most striking is Thackeray's rendering o f
KC&EGIV
оисеюц as "domestic affections", a clear borrowing
o f R e i n a c h ' s "affections domestiques". I suggest that the difficult last s e n t e n c e , цаА,аксотера<; yap yiveoOoci xaq i6X\ia<; rcaGeaiv oiKeioiq rcepiarccouivac;, is perhaps better translated as follows : " F o r reckless b e h a v i o r c o m e s a b o u t less likely if it is c h e c k e d b y family ties." This next section, B.J.
1 . 5 1 4 - 5 1 7 , is an interesting
example o f
Thackeray's d e p e n d e n c e o n R e i n a c h ' s French version. Thackeray's translation, h o w e v e r , is at times at variance with that o f R e i n a c h . F o r example, he offers an alternate translation in his footnote o f the genitive absolute at the beginning o f paragraph 5 1 7 . 2 3
23
Thackeray on Josephus, B.J. 1.517 ( L C L ) , note b: " O r possibly 'Trying in turn all the parts in the play." T h i s translation of nàvxcov 8' àrconeipaOEÌq xcòv Ttpoaamcov is very similar to that of Ricciotti, "Facendo allora tutte le parti in c o m m e d i a . " See Giuseppe Ricciotti, La Guerra Giudaica, v. 2 , (Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale, 1937), 165.
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
(Niese) Xa\inpà ô ' 'HpcoÔTi Ôcopa rcpoaeveyKcov ôéXeap (bv é&npâxo Kai Tcapa^píi^a noXXanXaoioy taxßwv oùôèv fiyeuo XTJV KaGapàv Ôooiv, ei |Lifi 8i' at'uaxoç é(i7copet)aexai X T I V ßaoitaiav.
(Reinach) Il vint, apportant à Hérode de magnifiques présents, amorce de ceux qu'il espérait en retour ; en effet, il en reçut de beaucoup plus considérables, mais ce don pur et simple lui paraissait sans valeur, s'il ne trafiquait du royaume au prix du sang.
389
(Thackeray) He brought with him magnificent presents for Herod, as a bait to secure his quarry, and instantly found them returned with interest; but he accounted a pure and simple gift as nothing, if he failed to make merchandise out of the realm at the price of blood.
515 . . . (piÂ,oç èv xoîç 515. . . . et compta rcpcoxoiç yivexai • Kai yap 6 bientôt parmi ses prinßaoiA,ei)c Ôià x^v rcaxpiÔa cipaux amis ; en effet, Kaircàvxeçoi rcepi aùxov le roi et toute la cour fiôécoçrcpoexijicovxov prenaient plaisir à Ijcapxiaxrjv. honorer particulièrement ce Spartiate, en considération de sa patrie.
515. . . . he was soon numbered among his principal friends; indeed the king and the whole court were delighted to show special honour to this Spartan, out o f regard for his country.
516 ' 0 Ô' èrcei xà aaGpà X T I Ç oiKÎaç Kaxé|ia9ev, xàç xe xcov àÔeÀ,(pcov ôiacpopàç Kai OTCÎOÇ ÔieKeixo npoç 8Kaaxov 6 rcaxr|p,. . . . èxaîpov èauxov eîvai Kai 'ApxeXáov náXai-
5 1 6 Quand il connut la pourriture de la maison royale, les différends des frères, les sentiments de leur père à l'égard de chacun d'eux, Euryclès . . . un ami éprouvé . . .
516 When he had learned everything about the rottenness that was sapping the royal house, the quarrel between the brothers and their father's disposition towards each of them, Eurycles, . . . a proved friend . . .
517 Tcàvxcov ô ' àrcoTceipaGeiç xcov rcpoacimcov aXXov àMxoç wrfjei, yivexai ôè 7cpoT|yo\)|iévcoç JXIGBCOXOÇ 'AvxutàxpOD Kai 7cpoÔoxT|ç 'Ata^ávopov, xa) ^ièv ôveiôiÇcov, ei rcpeoßvxaxoc wv rcepióyexai xoi)ç é
517 Prenant tour à tour les visages, il s'insinuait de façons diverses auprès de chacun ; mais de préférence il se fit l'espion d'Antipater et le traître d'Alexandre. Au premier il faisait honte de négliger, lui l'aîné, les intrigues de ceux qui complotaient contre ses espérances;
517 Exploiting in turn all the various personages, he insinuated himself into favour with each by a different method; but he chiefly acted as a hireling o f Antipater and a traitor to Alexander. T o the former he represented how disgraceful it was
390
ANTHONY J. FORTE
(cont.)
(Niese)
(Reinach)
O D V O I K C O V edaei ÔiaÔéXeaöai rqv àpxTiv xòv iôicoxtÔoç, Kai xavxa àcpoppiiv ëxcov 'Apxétaxov.
The ply
à Alexandre, de laisser, lui fils et époux d'une princesse royale, succéder au trône un fils de bourgeoise, alors surtout qu'il avait en Archélaùs un si solide appui.
(Thackeray) that he, the eldest son, should overlook the intrigues o f persons who had an eye upon his prospects; to Alexander, that he, the son o f one princess and husband of another, should suffer the son o f a woman o f no station to succeed to the throne, especially when he had in Archelaus such powerful support behind him.
a b o v e translation also demonstrates that T h a c k e r a y d i d not simrender R e i n a c h ' s French into English. His reference to R e i n a c h ' s
footnote at the e n d o f paragraph 5 1 5 is not p r e c i s e ,
24
but at least
here he d o e s credit the source o f his note. W h a t is alarming is that T h a c k e r a y sometimes freely appropriates R e i n a c h ' s notes a n d explanation o f his translation. F o r e x a m p l e , see BJ.
(Reinach)
(Niese) Kai ôtavvaaç ETCÌ xòv
Aißavov ÒKxaKoaiovc ^lèv xcov Ttepì xò opoç rcpoaÀ,a|ißavei ov\i\iâxov<; 'Pco^aicov ôè ëv xày|Lia xat)XTi a\)vf|\j/ev. jne0' (bv oi) rcepuieivaç fi|iépav eiç XTJV TataAmav eveßatav t
KTX.
. . .
2 4
Marchant à étapes il arriva au Liban, où il s'adjoignit comme auxiliaires huit cents montagnards et rallia une légion romaine. Puis, sans attendre le jour, il envahit la Galilée et refoula les ennemis. . . .
1.329:
(Thackeray) By forced marches he pushed on to Lebanon, where he received a reinforcement o f eight hundred o f the mountaineers and was joined by one o f the Roman legions. With these allies, without waiting for daylight, he invaded Galilee. . . .
See Reinach 1 0 4 , footnote 1: "Peut-être à cause de la prétendue parenté des Spartiates et des Juifs; cf. Ant. X I I , 2 2 6 . " Thackeray on Josephus, B.J. 1.515 ( L C L ) , note a wrote: "Perhaps, as Reinach suggests, because of the pretended relationship of Spartans and Jews, 1 M a c e . xii. 21 ; Jos. A. xii.226."
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
391
R e i n a c h ' s translation o f ou rcepiineivaq fifiepav as "sans attendre le j o u r , " is u n a c k n o w l e d g e d , n o r does T h a c k e r a y cite the French scholar as the source for his o w n translation, "without waiting for daylight." R e i n a c h ' s footnote reads as follows: La phrase oi) rcepi^eivaq fjuepav est equivoque (on pourrait entendre : sans tarder d'un jour), mais le sens resulte de Ant., § 452, ou Ton voit que la marche eut lieu de nuit. 25
T h a c k e r a y simply noted: T h e Greek might mean 'without a day's delay'; but the rendering above seems fixed by the parallel in A. xiv. 452 ( V U K X O C ; avaozaq). . . . 26
T h a c k e r a y seems to misunderstand the French o n o c c a s i o n a n d renders the French translator's d u b i o u s interpretation e v e n m o r e u n a c c e p t a b l e . F o r e x a m p l e , at B.J.
1.421, J o s e p h u s
recounts
Herod's
building o f t w o palaces called H e r o d i u m . T h e c o n t e x t is important for understanding
the first line o f BJ.
1.421. M y translation o f B.J.
1.420 is as follows: Herod surrounded the summit o f the hill with round towers, and filled the enclosure with splendid palaces, so that not only the interior o f the buildings had a magnificent appearance, but also the outer walls, the partitions, and the roofs were covered with wealth in superabundance. In addition, he brought in from a distance, and at a great expense, an abundance o f water, and provided access to the palace by a staircase o f 200 steps made o f the whitest marble; for the hill was moderately high and entirely artificial. T h e p r o b l e m a t i c translation o f b o t h R e i n a c h and T h a c k e r a y o c c u r s at the b e g i n n i n g of B.J.
(Niese)
1.421.
(Reinach)
Au pied du coteau, il bâtit un àXka ßaaiX,eia xt|v autre palais ie àrcoaKeDTiv Kai pouvant abriter xoi)ç (pitayuç Ôé^ao- un mobilier et 0ai ôuvà^eva. recevoir ses amis. KaTEGKetxxaev Ôè
Kai 7i£pi iàç piÇaç
(Thackeray) Around the base he erected other palaces for the accommodation of his furniture and his friends.
2 5
See Reinach 6 7 , footnote 1.
2 6
Thackeray on Josephus, B.J. 1.329 ( L C L ) , note a.
(Forte) At the foot o f the hill, he also built other buildings, suitable for accommodating his household and his friends.
392
ANTHONY J. FORTE
Reinach's incorrect rendering o f aitooKeufi in this passage as "mobilier" ("movable property") is in turn appropriated b y T h a c k e r a y .
27
In the
context o f the passage at hand, it is this translator's view that the w o r d " h o u s e h o l d " m o r e faithfully encompasses its G r e e k m e a n i n g a n d that the text should b e translated as follows: "other buildings, suitable for a c c o m m o d a t i n g his household and his friends." T h e entry for drcooKerjfi in this passage in the Complete Concordance renders it as " c o u r t , " yet I think that term is perhaps t o o restrictive.
28
LSJ offer
29
several interpretations. T h e entry includes a reference to the L X X a n d this gave m e the impetus t o seek another possible m e a n i n g else w h e r e in the L X X . Indeed,
OLKOOKEVX]
takes o n the following m e a n
ings: baggage, household ( N u m 16:27); a man's wife, children and other members of the household ( E x o d 10:24); all persons apart from the full-grown men o r apart from the men Jit for military service ( E x o d 12:37); impedimenta (Jdt 7:2).
30
T h e m e a n i n g in the passage from E x o d 10:24 seems t o
b e most appropriate f o r o u r text o f the Bellum. T h e r e are times, h o w e v e r , w h e n J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k is s o m e w h a t difficult a n d T h a c k e r a y seems to have realized that R e i n a c h ' s trans lation has missed the mark. W h a t I have observed is that w h e n the French translation is t o o free, often d u e t o the c o m p l e x i t y o f the G r e e k syntax, T h a c k e r a y , likewise, renders the G r e e k rather loosely.
2 7
It is true that Whiston's 1 7 3 7 English translation also renders аяоаке\)Г| as
"furniture": " H e also built other palaces about the roots o f the hill, sufficient to receive the furniture that was put into them, with his friends." T h e Oxford English Dictionary, 1 9 3 3 , v. 4 , 6 1 6 , n. 7 defines "furniture" in its "prevailing sense" as "mov able articles, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place o f business, or public building." Since there seem to be very few instances o f Thackeray's appro priation o f Whiston's translation, I suggest that Thackeray's rendering is a direct borrowing from Reinach. A . Bailly, Dictionnaire grec français, (Paris: Hachette, 1969), 2 4 2 , offers the following translations o f
алоакегуп:
bagages, mobilier, meubles. Bailly's
renderings fail to capture the m e a n i n g o f аттоаке\)Г| in the context o f B.J. 1.421. 2 8
See K . H . Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill,
1 9 7 3 - 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e entry for property—В
алооке\)Г|
reads: " A 18, 4 1 = removal—baggage, movable
1, 4 2 1 ; A 18, 3 7 7 = stores of the royal court, court, В 5 , 1 7 9 (plural) = fur
nishings, equipment / A 1 8 , 4 1 = Beseitigung—Gepäck, Troß, bewegliche Habe—В
1, 4 2 1 ;
А 18, 377 = was zur Hofhaltung gehört, Hofhaltung, В 5 , 179 (Plural) = Einrichtungsgegenstände, Ausstattung." [ N o t e that the page numbers to the Complete Concordance listed below correspond to the two v o l u m e edition published in 2 0 0 2 . ] 2 9
See LSJ, апоокгъц,
2 1 7 : "removal, riddance, i.e. assassination, J AJ 1 8 . 2 . 4 II) bag
gage in sg. a n d pl., Plb. 2 . 3 . 7 , Plu. 2 . 1 7 4 a , etc.; household stuff, L X X Ge. 3 4 . 2 9 . . . I l l ) ordure, filth, v. 1. Str. 1 4 . 1 . 3 7 . " :{0
See J . Lust, E . Eynikel, K . Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1996), 5 5 .
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BEILUM JUDAICUM
393
T h e following passage, w h i c h includes three hapax legomena in Josephan corpus,
31
the
is o n e o f m a n y examples. Thackeray's translation
o f the first sentence o f this paragraph follows the French w o r d for w o r d . W h e n the language b e c o m e s m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , Thackeray's English translation departs from R e i n a c h ' s French.
BJ. 1.405 (Niese)
(Reinach)
ëv0a Kop\)(pfi név xiç Une montagne y
dresse son sommet iSij/oç àvaxeivexai, à une immense rcapà Ôè xrçv hauteur et ouvre urcópeiov Xayòva dans la cavité G\)VT|pe(pèç àvTpov de son flanc un imavofyei, ôi' oi) antre obscur, où ßapa6pa>0r|c plonge jusqu'à une Kpt|(ivoç eiç à|iéxp- profondeur rçxov àrcoppay/a inaccessible un ßa0i> vexai 7iA,r|6ei précipice escarpé; xe iSôaxoç àaaA,e\>- une masse d'eau xoD Kal xoîç Ka8i|i- tranquille y est œaiv xi ëpei)enfermée, si vav ovÔèv énorme qu'on a jiflicoç eÇapiceî. vainement essayé par des sondages d'atteindre le fond. opovç eiç arceipov
rcpoç yfjc
(Thackeray)
At this spot a mountain rears its summit to an immense height aloft; at the base of the cliff is an opening into an overgrown cavern; within this, plunging down to an immeasurable depth, is a yawning chasm, enclosing a volume of still water, the bottom o f which no sounding-line has been found long enough to reach.
(Forte)
There, a mountain peak rises to an overwhelming height, and near the foot of the side o f the mountain a dark cave opens from below, through which a precipit o u s ' chasm plunges down into an immense depth. N o length o f rope is sufficient to reach the great quantity o f stagnant water and measure the bottom. V2
51
T h e student o f Josephus is aware that the Antiquitates often elaborate o r e x p a n d u p o n certain details o f the Bellum. For the translator the parallel texts are an invaluable source o f information. Sometimes a parallel text in the Antiquitates c a n p r o v i d e a clue as to the possible 3 1
T h i s entire section, BJ 1 . 4 0 1 - 4 3 0 , contains 19 hapaxes: rcp6o6eaiç (404); imavoiyco (405); papa9pa>ÔT|ç (405); ocoàtauxoç (405); imepeicxéco (407); Tcpoôouéco (412); âvopuaÇa) (413); v à y u a (413); KOIOOOOÇ (2X : 4 1 3 , 4 1 4 ) ; yf|A,o(pov (420); rcepurrotav (422); 5leiutt>v (422); ércexricioç (423); yuuvaoïapxia (423); (pevicxôç (425); 87C8^Ko\)(piÇco (428: an absolute hapax in all of extant Greek literature); avoxpocpoç (429); ôvaypoç (429); TtpoxépTiua (430). 3 2
33 34
irnavoiyco is a hapax in Josephus. PapaGpœÔnç is a hapax in Josephus. aaaXeuToc is a hapax in Josephus.
394
ANTHONY J. FORTE
m e a n i n g o f a w o r d in the Bellum. T h e following passage from the Bellum, seen together with its parallel text in the Antiquitates, is n o t without interest.
B.J. 1.311 (Forte)
B.J. 1.311 (Niese) xoix; yovv
H e lowered his
OXK{-
Ka0i|icbv ev
A.J. 14.423 (Niese) A,apvaKoc<; erc'
ii./. 14.423 (Forte) H e built containers
most valiant m e n auxoix; Jtri^a^evoq
and lowered them
Xapva^iv eviei
in containers and KotOtei
(the containers) on
xolq
thus gave them
aiSripaiq
access to the
chains as they were
entrances of the
£K8e8£|ieva(; 8id jiTixavfiq arco
caves.
Kop\)(pfj<; xoi)
machine from the
opoix;.
top of the hill.
[IOXX;
oTo\doiq.
xamaq
akvceoiv the
men with iron
suspended by a
35
A c c o r d i n g to the Complete Concordance, kgcGiuixco means " t o l o w e r d o w n b y means o f ropes". Liddell-Scott-Jones render the v e r b in the s a m e w a y : " t o let d o w n b y a r o p e , " citing t w o passages
from
Aristophanes,
from
Vespae 3 7 9 a n d 3 9 6 , as well as o n e passage b
Aristotle's Mechanica 8 5 7 .
3 6
T h a c k e r a y , following R e i n a c h ' s "il fit
descendre d ' e n haut a l'aide d e c o r d e s , "
37
translates the verb " b y
means o f ropes he l o w e r e d . " T h e question is: should the translator here b e influenced b y A.J. 14.423, w h e r e in the parallel there is the addition o f oi8r|pai<; aXvceoiv,
passage
"iron chains", a n d there-
fore exclude the interpretation o f KaGijiaco that entails " r o p e s " ? I suggest that in light o f A.J. 14.423, where Josephus seems to purposely attempt to make his a c c o u n t even m o r e clear, it w o u l d perhaps b e better to translate KaGijuSv simply as " h e l o w e r e d . " J o s e p h u s ' explicit reference to the "iron chains" in A.J. 14.423 excludes the need to specify " r o p e s " in o u r translation o f B.J.
1.311.
* * * 3 5
3 6
Rengstorf, 4 0 2 . H . G . Liddell - R o b e r t Scott - H . Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised
Supplement b y P . G . W . Glare (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). See also R . R e n e h a n , Greek Lexicographical Notes, A Critical Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell-Scott-Jones, in H Y P O M N E M A T A , Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben, Heft 4 5 (1975) and Heft
7 4 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . For a review o f the 1 9 6 8 Supplement, cf. J. A . L . L e e , " A
N o t e on Septuagint Material 3 7
to Liddell a n d Scott," Glotta 4 7 (1968): 2 3 4 - 2 4 2 .
Bailly, Dictionnaire 9 9 4 , translates: "faire descendre au m o y e n d'une corde; faire
descendre (en gén.)."
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
395
T h e first element o f J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k that I w o u l d like to reflect u p o n is his use o f simple and c o m p o u n d verbs. Often Josephus uses o f the same w o r d o r verbal root with different meanings in the same sentence o r p a r a g r a p h .
38
T h i s is m o s t evident in the w a y Josephus
uses simple and c o m p o u n d (or even d o u b l e c o m p o u n d ) verbs in par allel passages o f the Bellum and the Antiquitates. Sometimes the events o f the Bellum are rewritten for a particular purpose, perhaps even to refine the author's style a n d / o r diction. Josephus frequendy varies the simple and c o m p o u n d forms o f the v e r b , but their meanings are not always significantly different. T h e reader o f biblical G r e e k is a c c u s t o m e d to the frequent pairing o f simple and c o m p o u n d forms o f verbs. T h e r e is often n o difference in m e a n i n g b e t w e e n the t w o forms. F o r e x a m p l e , at 2 C o r 7:10 w e read: r\ yap KCCXCC Geov Xvnx\ ILiexavoiav eiq acoxripiav ct|xexa|ie^r|Tov epydCexai. fi 8e xou
KOOUOU XX>KJ\
39
Gdvaxov KaxepydCexai. T h e verbs epyd£o|Liai and Kocxepyd^oum, "to w o r k out, effect, p r o d u c e , " seem to b e s y n o n y m o u s in this passage. W e simply have a varietas locutionis. S o m e t i m e s w e e n c o u n t e r c o m p o u n d verbs in biblical G r e e k that w o u l d seem to have n o different meaning, had the author e m p l o y e d the simple form. F o r e x a m p l e , at E p h 1:12, w e read: eiq xo eivai fijxaq ziq e m w o v So^riq auxou xovq rcporiAjuKoxac; ev xcp X p i a x S .
40
T h e question here is whether the c o m
p o u n d form rcpoeAjti^co has the same m e a n i n g as the simple form eAju^G).
41
T h e fact is that prepositions w h i c h f u n c d o n as prefixes in
biblical G r e e k often d o litde m o r e than give emphasis to the main thought o f their v e r b .
42
3 8
For example, m 6 i o x r | u i is used by Josephus 4 times in close vicinity with different meanings. m x e a x T | o a v "appointed" {B.J. 1.202); т Э ш х а х о "organize" (B.J. 1.203); K a G i a ^ o i v "appointed" (B.J. 1.203); K a G i a x a ^ e v o q "rendered" (B.J. 1.206). 3 9
"For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death." ( R S V ) . 4 0
" W e w h o first hoped in C h r i s t . . . to live for the praise o f his glory." ( R S V ) . O t h e r examples o f c o m p o u n d verbs whose meaning seems to be no different than that o f the simple form can be found at R o m 1:2: о лроетгпууег^ахо 5ioc xcov rcpoqynxcov auxov ev у р о к р а ц а у г а ц and C o l 1:5: 8iot xfjv еАлаба XT^V arcoKeiuevt|v i)uiv ev xoiq oupavoiq, r^v ярот^коцаахе ev хф Xoyw xfjq aXv\deiaq тох> evayyeXiov. 4 1
4 2
T h e change from the simple to the c o m p o u n d form o f the verb is quite c o m m o n in the L X X . For example, see 1 Esd 4 : 1 9 , m i хсашх navxa acpevxeq eiq avxrrv еукеулуау m i уаакоухес xo oxoua Gecopouoiv ai)XT|v кхХ. This p h e n o m e n o n is most especially evident in the Lucianic Recension. See Bruce M . M e t z g e r , " T h e Lucianic Recension o f the Greek Bible," in idem, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 1 - 4 1 .
396
ANTHONY J. FORTE
T h i s same p h e n o m e n o n can b e said, t o o , o f J o s e p h u s
5
use o f m a n y
c o m p o u n d verbs. T h e following texts o f the Bellum contain
some
examples o f simple o r c o m p o u n d verbs that have parallels either in the Bellum itself o r in the Antiquitates. T h e meanings o f the verbs are often similar, yet there are occasionally s o m e striking differences.
BJ.
1 (Niese)
e
BJ. 43
292. . . . Hpco8nc eK8pa(Lio)v iiex' oAiyoi) axicpoix; xpercexai xayecoc Kal Ktaova SiaocbCei
44
1 (Forte)
292 . . . Herod, with a small band of soldiers, rushed out at them, quickly drove them back, and rescued Silo,. . .
295 Xxpaxo7te8e\)oa|ievo'u<; 8e Kaxd to npbq 8t)aiv K^ljia xox> aaxeoq oi TOCOTTI cpvtaxKeq exo^evov xe Kai efriKovxiCov amove,
295 When the troops had pitched camp on the west side o f the city, the guards stationed there attacked them with arrows and javelins,
297 . . . EniGKE\)OLGa\ievoq yap noXkovq xcbv axpaxicoxcov arcdviv ercimSelcov avapodv Kal yprinaxa eic xpocpdc drcaixew a7cdyeiv xe a<pa<; xei|X£pio\)vxa<; eiq xovq idioxtq xorcoix;, erceiSfi xd nepi xr\v KOXW r\v epr|p.a rcdvxa xcov rcepl 'Avxiyovov 7cpoaveaK£uaa|Lievcov
297 . . . For he incited a large number o f soldiers to decry the scarcity o f supplies, to demand money for provisions, and to be marched to their own winter quarters, since Antigonus' men had packed up and carried away previously
45
46
47
,
48
4 3
eic8pautt>v ( < eicxpexco = "to r u n / r u s h out, run forward; to sally forth; make raids". See B.J. 1.253 for the double c o m p o u n d form of the verb, erceicSpaucbv (< ejceKxpexo) "to rush out against, make a raid against, attack"). 4 4
8iaocb£ei K<XKG)£ d|i\)v6u£vov ( < 8iaacb£co = "to save, spare"). T h e parallel pas sage at A.J. 1 4 . 3 9 7 uses the simple form of the verb, ocb^ei. 4 5
e^t|Kovxi^ov ( < e^aKovxi^co = "to throw spears (at someone)". T h e c o m p o u n d verb is a hapax in Josephus. See B.J. 1.332, aicovxi^exai ("to hurl (a javelin), attack with javelins; to hit, wound"), for an example of the simple form. See also the par allel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 1 , T I K O V X I ^ O V . 4 6
a v a p o a v ( < ava(3odco = "to shout, call out, clamour; to cry out against, c o m plain loudly over"). T h e parallel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 6 has m x a p o a v ("to cry out, inveigh [against s o m e o n e ] , revile, abuse; to complain loudly; to d e m a n d [loudly]"). 4 7
A.J.
otrcaixeiv ( < cxTtaixeco = "to d e m a n d back, reclaim; to require"). T h e parallel in 1 4 . 4 0 6 uses the simple aixeiv.
4 8
T h e double c o m p o u n d form rcpoaveaKeDcxauivcov ( < 7CpoaveoKe\)a^op.ai = "to pick up and carry away previously") is used here, while the parallel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 6 has the c o m p o u n d ocveaKeudaOai ( < aveaice\)d£o|Liai = "to snatch up, carry off"). 4 9
6pur|aa<; (< o p u d c o = "to set out, depart for (in haste), start out* go"). T h e par allel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 8 uses the c o m p o u n d e£opuf|oa<; ( < e^opudto = "to rush, start (rapidly), march out, m o v e (out)").
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
397
(cont.)
BJ.
1 (Niese)
BJ.
. . . 2 9 9 m i |iexd TT\V der\oiv evGecoq opurioac
49
avxoc eic xfiv xcopav
xoaat)xt|v aijxoiq ercixriSeicov dcpGoviav eKo^iiaev, cb<; rcdaaq drcoKoxj/ai xdq Ktaovoq 7tpo(pdo£i<;
. . . 3 0 0 xa\)x' aKovaaq 'Avxiyovoq 50
8ie7ie(Liv|/ev nepi xfiv xcbpav el'pyeiv 51
Kal X,oyav xoi)c oixnycruc KEkexxov.
. . . 8ieKa0e^ovxo
52
8e ercl xcov
opcov 7iapa(p\)A,daaovxe<; xoix; xd
ercixrjSeia eKKo^ii^ovxaq.
301 . . . £7ci XT]V 'IepixoOvxa
rcapayivexai, Kal xf^v \iev noXiv
1 (Forte)
. . . 299 U p o n making his request, he immediately set out for the country and brought back such a super-abundance o f supplies for them so as to undercut Silo's pretexts. . . . 3 0 0 Hearing this, Antigonus had orders passed along the coun try to obstruct and lay an ambush for the supply columns. . . . They took up positions round about the hills, as they were on the lookout for the conveyers o f the supplies. 301 . . . He arrived in Jericho and found the city deserted. . . .
53
KaxaA,eA,einnivnv evpicncei . . . .
* * * T h e s e c o n d element that I w o u l d like to m e n t i o n briefly is J o s e p h u s
5
use o f particles. T h i s translator has b e e n m o s t p u z z l e d b y the ele gant e m p l o y m e n t o f particles w h i c h nicely balance J o s e p h u s '
sen
tences a n d paragraphs. E v e r y o n e in the field knows that the G r e e k particle c a n express a distinct relation b e t w e e n t w o o r m o r e ideas and that G r e e k particles, in the b r o a d sense, include s o m e sentence adverbs a n d conjunctions. S o m e t i m e s the particles tighten u p the dis course as well as artfully embellish the text. F o r e x a m p l e , the particle kcu sometimes functions as an adverb and sometimes as a conjunction.
8i£7C£|i\j/£v ("to send, make known"; 8i£7C£u\j/£v KeXexxav — "he h a d orders passed along, he issued (sent) orders") K£pi xf|V xcopav. T h e parallel passage in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 9 uses the verb d7t£7t£u\|/£v ("to send out, dispatch, forward; to send back") and Kaxd xr|v x«>pcxv. 5 0
5 1
A.J. 5 2
£ipy£iv K a i XO%OLV ("to obstruct and lay an ambush"). T h e parallel passage in 1 4 . 4 0 9 uses two participles, Eip^ovxaq K a i Xoxt|oovxaq.
8i£Ka0£^ovxo (a hapax < SiaKaBfi^ouai = "to take up positions round about"). T h e parallel passage in A.J. 1 4 . 4 0 9 has m9EoO£vx£<; ( < Ka0£^ojiai = "to sit down, settle, take a seat"). KaxaA.£A.eiu|i£vr|v ( < KaxaA.£(7ico = "to leave behind; abandon") £\)picK£i. T h e parallel in A.J. 1 4 . 4 1 0 has eKA.eA,eiuuevr|V ( < £ K A , £ { T I ( O = "to leave, abandon") raxataxPcbv ( < KaxaX.aupavco = "to c o m e upon, meet, encounter, find"). 5 3
398
ANTHONY J. FORTE
In Hellenistic G r e e k it is not u n c o m m o n to e n c o u n t e r a l o n g series o f clauses a n d sentences c o n n e c t e d b y m i (parataxis), w h e r e there seems to b e a c o n s c i o u s attempt o n the part o f the author to give emphasis o r bring an element o f liveliness to his discourse. J o s e p h u s
5
G r e e k is often m o r e polished, a n d instead o f the m o n o t o n o u s string o f кои . . . m i . . . m i , ever-present in late Greek, o n e regularly e n c o u n ters particles such as те, m i , uiv and 8e used individually, in vari ous c o m b i n a t i o n s , o r within a grammatical arrangement o f w o r d s in d e p e n d e n t o r subordinate relationships (hypotaxis). T h e postpositive particle yap, t o o , is n o t always easy to render into English. It is used to express cause, inference, continuation, a n d it also functions to explain something. Tap, like m i , is e m p l o y e d as a c o n j u n c t i o n a n d as an adverb. It c a n b e confirmatory, explanatory; it can b e used as 8e to express a continuation o r a c o n n e c t i o n . Tap c a n likewise b e adversative, resumptive, o r c a n b e e m p l o y e d as a w a y to answer questions. T h e p r o b l e m o f rendering the G r e e k particle into English is n o t unique to translating J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k , since the force o f cer tain G r e e k particles c a n n o t b e translated. W h a t is p r o b l e m a t i c for this translator is that the significance o f m a n y particles distributed throughout J o s e p h u s ' text remains elusive. S o m e o f the best translators o f Josephus simply i g n o r e the particles. It is true that a particle is often interpreted b y the w a y o n e p u n c tuates a text o r b y simply n o t translating it. J o s e p h u s ' G r e e k assis tants surely did not simply a d d the particles as fillers in his text. It has b e e n this translator's c o n c e r n to offer s o m e interpretation e a c h particle. Let us l o o k at B.J.
for
1.233: f
'Erceyetax 5^ dpa то xpe&v ссйтой т а ц eknioiv. 6 yofrv Hpco8r|<; npoi86|ievo<; amov TT|V opurjv TOV те TpKavov KOCKEIVOV EKI bzlnvov eKatai, яареатсота<; erceiTa TCOV OIKETCOV xivaq npbq ambv eioerceuvj/ev coq EKI xr\v той 8euivo\) 7tapacK£\)r|v, тф 6e OVTIrcpoeuiEivтоц х ^ о ф Х ° Ч E^EXBEIV ЕП\ TTJV eve8pav. But Fate smiled upon his hopes. At all events, Herod foresaw his motive and invited both Hyrcanus and him to dinner. Then he dis patched some o f his domestic servants to his house, seemingly to pre pare the dinner, but actually to order his captains to come out for the ambush. D o e s the particle а р а have a c o n n e c t i v e , confirmatory o r inferential m e a n i n g here? T h e particle 8e is used in the a b o v e text twice with an adversative force. T h e restrictive particle youv functions to give an explanation o f the previous clause. Instead o f using a m i . . . m i
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BEILUM JUDAICUM
399
construction to c o n n e c t ' Y p m v o v a n d eiceivov, the m o r e elegant c o m bination o f i £ a n d m i unites the t w o elements. It seems that in this passage, ctpa defies translation and its exact m e a n i n g remains elusive. In this next paragraph the author has e m p l o y e d a series o f par ticles that seem to give his text a m o r e polished tone. F o r e x a m p l e , at B.J.
1.209 w e read the following:
Aiyovxeq ox; 'Avxutdxpcp m i xoiq vioiq auxov 7tapaxcopr|aa<; xcov rcpayndxcov KaGe^oixo xoiWojia JIOVOV paoiAicoc; e'xcov epr||iov etpvoiaq. m i jxexpi xov rcA,avr)0f|aexai m8' ea-uxoi) paoitaiq ercixpecpcov; ovSe yap eipcoveveaBai xf|v e7cixp07if)v a-oxoix; exi, (pavepoix; 8e eivai 8eorc6xa<;rcapcooauevoix;eiceivov, ei' ye urixe evxoXac, 86vxo<; urixe eTnaxeitaxvxoc; avxoi) xoaovxoix;rcapdxov xcbv 'IouSaicov vouov avfipriicev 'Hpa>8rj<;- ov, ei \n\ paaitaix; eaxiv aXX' exi iSicbrnq, 8eiv EKi 8IKT|V fjiceiv drcoScooovxa AxSyov avxcp xe m i xoi<;rcaxpiou;vouxn<;, 01 Kxeiveiv dicpixoix; OX>K ecpidaiv. They said that [Hyrcanus] had ceded his power to Antipater and his sons, and ended up with only the title o f king, which was destitute o f any authority. And indeed, how long would he be misled in rearing kings to his own detriment? For they were no longer feigning to hold the office o f procurator, but were openly the masters, having pushed aside that [Hyrcanus], arguing namely that since he [Hyrcanus] had neither given written orders nor sent a messenger, Herod had killed so many people in violation o f Jewish law. If he, [Herod], were not king, but still a commoner, he ought to be brought to trial and answer to him [Hyrcanus] and to his country's laws, which did not permit the killing o f anyone who had not had the benefit o f a trial. The
particle
m i functions n o t o n l y as a c o p u l a t i v e c o n j u n c t i o n
(/AvTiTtdxpco m i TOIC uioiq auxou), but can even have an adverbial sense in c o m b i n a t i o n with ui%pi: m i ui%pi c o u l d b e rendered " a n d yet," "and h o w e v e r , " "and o f c o u r s e , " o r as "yes, o f c o u r s e . " T h e ydp (ou8e ydp eipcoveueoGoci) is m o s t likely explanatory, while 8e, marking a contrast with what p r e c e d e s , is clearly adversative. In J o s e p h u s ' elegant c o m b i n a t i o n o f ei' ye ur|Te . . . ur|Te, the intensive particle ye, b y its close p r o x i m i t y to ei, influences the entire clause with the d o u b l e ur|xe, and later picks up ei' ur| o f the next sentence. Just as the 8e a b o v e functioned as an adversative, the aXXdoi
d ^ V exi i8icbrr|<; is an adver
sative c o n j u n c t i o n , even stronger than 8e. Finally, the elegent c o m b i nation o f xe m i , as o p p o s e d to a simple m i , serves to unite the t w o complements, Hyrcanus
and
his c o u n t r y ' s laws (ocuTcp xe m i xoiq
Tcaxpioiq vouoic;).
*
* *
400
ANTHONY J. FORTE
T h e r e is also s o m e technical Latin and G r e e k administrative o r political terminology that remains p r o b l e m a t i c to the translator. Let m e simply point out o n e example found in B.J. 1.399 where w e encounter 54
the technical term eTUTporcoq.
8e OOTOV m i I v p i a q oh\^ £7UTpo7tov exei 8emxcp 7caA.1v eA.6a)v xrjv E7capxiav, ox; |ir|8ev e^eivai 8(xa tfjc; eKeivoi) cru^poi)A.ia<; xoiq ejcixpOTcoic
KaxeaTrjaev eiq
8lOlK£lV.
Then, when he came back to this province ten years later, he also made him [Herod] procurator o f all Syria, so that the other procurators were permitted to take no action without obtaining the latter's consent. Is an enizponoq, a w o r d used at least fifty times b y Josephus, a simple
rendering o f the Latin w o r d procurator? Is not the same G r e e k
w o r d used b y Josephus to describe Ramesses' brother Harmais as the praefectus o f E g y p t
55
and L. Volusius Saturninus as the legatus o f
Syria in the a b o v e passage, B.J. 1.399? D o e s not Josephus use other language w h e n referring to legati? B.J. 1.538 contains another term for
the Latin legatus, npec^vq, instead o f the m o r e frequendy attested
Kpeapeuxfiq.
7cpoKa9i£o\)oiv xe o i fiye^ovsq ypacpev a v x o i q hub K a i a a p c x ; , l a x o p v i v o q m i o i 7tepi
l l e S a v i o v Ttpeapeic,
ai>v oi<; m i
Ouotayuuvioc;
XE
£7uxp07coc.
The Roman administrators, whom Caesar had designated in writing, presided, namely Saturninus and the legates in Pedanius' party, among whom was Volumnius the procurator. The
Latin term legatus usually designates an "assistant to a R o m a n
magistrate." A precise and consistent rendering o f such terms remains problematic. In m y translation, I have attempted to offer an explanation o f the technical language in a footnote, lest the reader c o n clude that the Latin and G r e e k terms are s y n o n y m o u s .
* * * On
occasion Josephus associates a person with o n e w o r d o r idea.
8copo8oK(a, defined b y R e n g s t o r f ' s Complete Concordance as " b r i b e ,
5 4
For a discussion o f this problem of Greek and Latin technical terms, see H u g h J. M a s o n , Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, A Lexicon and Analysis (Hakkert: T o r o n t o , 1974). M a s o n discusses e7cixp07coq on pages 1 4 2 - 4 3 . See also the "contributions o f D o m i n i c R a t h b o n e and Gerhard T h ü r under enixponoq in DJVP 3 : 1 1 7 7 - 8 0 . :V
CAp. 1.98, ercixpoTcov AiyimxoD.
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS' BELLUM JUDAICUM
401
bribery, corruptibility; Bestechung, Bestechlichkeit", appears o n l y six times in the entire J o s e p h a n corpus. O f these six attestations, four appear in relation to Silo. Apart from B.J. 1.297: "EV6OC8ti m i IÍAXOV
8 c o p o 8 o K Í a v : " A t that point Silo o p e n l y displayed his c o r r u p t i o n , " see the parallel in A.J. 14.406, T o t e m i liAcov á7iem^ú\|/axo xnv ScopoSoicíav, a n d also B.J. 1.302 ércéxuxev 8e m i 'Avxíyovoq rcocpa xfiq líAxovoc 8copo8oKÍac \mo8é£ao0ai xou cxpaxou uoipav év Aú88oi<; Gepaneucov 'Avxcbviov: " B y bribing Silo, h o w e v e r , Antigonus saw to it that a unit o f his troops b e received in L y d d a as a w a y o f flattering A n t o n y . " Its parallel is at A.J. 14.412, eruxev 8e m i 'Avxíyovoq T i a p á líAxovoc ávxi xf\c; ScopoSoKÍac; cóoxe i)7co8é^aa0ai xou axpaxou uoípav év Aú88oi<; Oepaneúcov 'Avxcoviov. It is important that the translator b e aware o f such a p h e n o m e n o n so that there b e , if possible, a certain consistency and uniformity in rendering such terms into English. árcemAúijíaxo
XTJV
*
* *
It is n o t without interest that certain sections o f J o s e p h u s ' narrative are replete with hapax legomena. L e t m e briefly c o m m e n t o n BJ 1.401-430, w h e r e Josephus recounts in s o m e detail H e r o d ' s numerous
architectural projects: the reconstruction o f the T e m p l e ; the build-
ing o f A n t o n i a ' s fortress a n d the royal palace; the foundation o f Sebaste in Samaria; the construction o f the temple o f Augustus at Paneion; the structures erected to h o n o r Augustus; the description o f Caesarea a n d its harbor; the description o f the buildings called the H e r o d i u m ; the a c c o u n t o f H e r o d ' s generosity to n u m e r o u s foreign cities; H e r o d ' s e n d o w m e n t o f the O l y m p i c games and a laudatio o f H e r o d ' s o w n athletic abilities. At first, I assumed that this material c o u l d not b e original Josephus material, and m y curiosity was further p e e k e d w h e n I found s o m e of the hapaxes found in Josephus in the works o f Nicolaus o f Damascus, H e r o d ' s well-informed historian, w h o clearly k n e w the
intricacies
o f H e r o d ' s court, and s o m e o f w h o s e works, fragmenta, are preserved in the c o m p i l a t i o n o f the B y z a n t i n e e m p e r o r , C o n s t a n t i n e Porphyrogenitus.
3 6
56
VII
Nicolaus is frequendy m e n t i o n e d in the Antiquitates
T h e r e is a six volume modern edition o f the Excerpta Histórica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta, published by U . Ph. Boisserain, a n d C . de Boor, T h . BüttnerW o b s t (Berlin: W e i d m a n n , 1903). See N . G . W i l s o n , Scholars of Byzantium, (London:
402
ANTHONY J. FORTE
for having p r o v i d e d material for the Bellum ( 1 . 3 1 - 2 . 1 1 6 ) .
57
to m a n y scholars, the Historiae o f Nicolaus constitute
the
source o f the Bellum for the p e r i o d b e t w e e n Antiochus a n d the accession o f A r c h e l a u s . favorable presentation
58
According primary
Epiphanes
Scholars have argued that the very
o f H e r o d in the beginning o f the Bellum is
perhaps the prime factor for attributing Josephus' account to Nicolaus.
59
T h i s favorable bias is apparent in BJ 1 . 4 0 1 - 4 3 0 , w h e r e H e r o d ' s gen erosity and prowess are praised. D o e s the presence o f so m a n y hapaxes indicate that J o s e p h e a n authorship o f such sections should b e put into question? I think not. T h e style, w o r d order, use o f particles and conjunctions is over whelmingly J o s e p h e a n
and not that o f Nicolaus. It is the view o f
this translator that Josephus might have h a d m a n y sources for the technical information and language o f architecture and construction, but the narrative is that o f Josephus. T h i s p r o b l e m will b e the topic o f another
paper.
* * * A n o t h e r difficulty that the m o d e r n translator has to c o n f r o n t is J o s e p h u s ' descriptions o f geographical places. J o s e p h u s ' fellow Jews w e r e p r o b a b l y acquainted with Palestine thanks to their religious pil grimages to Jerusalem. T h e r e are s o m e geographical places that still remain o b s c u r e . A t B.J. 1 . 4 0 8 - 4 1 4 , the description o f Caesarea and its harbor, after having narrated the c o m p l e t i o n o f the foundation a n d the breakwater, Josephus
underwater
informs the reader that
there was a stone wall which encircled the harbor. B.J. 1.413 describes the \|/aAi8e<; that are situated within the wall that arose from
the
harbor.
Duckworth, The
1983), 1 4 0 - 1 4 5 for a discussion of the merits o f Constantine's work.
fragments of Nicolaus have been collected by Jacoby. See
Felix J a c o b y ,
Die
fragmente der Griechischen Historiher, I I - A , (Berlin: W e i d m a n n s c h e Buchhandlung, 1926), 324-430. 5 7
AJ.
5 8
M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I (Jerusalem: 1974), 2 2 9 .
5 9
See G . Hölscher, "Josephus", PWRE
14.9, 6 8 ,
104. 18 ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 1 9 3 4 - 2 0 0 0 . T h e author views
Josephus as a mere compiler, an untrustworthy narrator, w h o depended entirely on his sources.
TRANSLATING BOOK I OF JOSEPHUS'
BJ.
1.413 (Niese)
BJ.
yaAiSeq xe T T O K V O C Ircp6<;mxaycoyriv xcov evop|ii^o|ievcov, m i xorcpoauxcov rcav K V K ^ c p vdy|ia xoiq aTtopouvovaiv nkaxxx;rcepircaxoq.6 8' zicnkovq Popeioq, aiGpicbxaxoq yap ave^icov xcp xoTccp Popea<;.
^Vakiq is defined b y the Complete
ter at a h a r b o u r - b a s i n . "
BELLUM JUDAICUM
403
1.413 (Forte)
There were numerous crypts which served as landing places for those putting into harbor, while the entire circular quay in front o f the crypts formed an extensive promenade for those disembarking. T h e entrance o f the harbor is from the north, because in this region it is the north wind that is the most favorable.
Concordance
as a "vault p r o v i d i n g shel-
R e i n a c h renders
vj/aÀaSeç as
"chambres
voûtées", while T h a c k e r a y translates the w o r d as "inlets". W i t h o u t acknowledging Reinach's interpretation, Thackeray notes that \|/aAiÔ£ç c o u l d b e rendered as "vaulted c h a m b e r s " o r as "crypts." T h e point here is that the translator must actually visualize the geographical layout o f that w h i c h is b e i n g described lest the translation remain unintelligible.
60
*
* *
In c o n c l u s i o n , despite s o m e o f the criticisms m e n t i o n e d a b o v e c o n cerning Thackeray's rendition o f B o o k 1 o f the Bellum Judaicum,
espe-
cially his over-reliance o n R e i n a c h ' s French translation, the
Loeb
translation is the w o r k o f a highly c o m p e t e n t G r e e k scholar a n d is a very g o o d read. Thackeray's w o r k will continue to b e so for future generations o f readers o f Josephus. O u r m o r e literal translation, in a c c o r d a n c e with the guidelines established b y Steve M a s o n a n d the Brill Josephus Project, will, h o w e v e r , b e m o r e accurate than that o f T h a c k e r a y and will b e m o r e faithful to the Greek. T h e notes a c c o m panying o u r translation will p r o v i d e the reader with an insight into s o m e o f the complexities o f translating Josephus into Greek, a n d will allow the reader to realize that n o single translation o f Josephus will ever b e a substitute for the G r e e k original.
6 0
See A . R a b a n and J. P. O l e s o n (ed.), in The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: Results of the Caesarea Ancient Harbour Escavations Project, 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 5 ( B A R International Series 4 9 1 ; O x f o r d : B A R , 1989).
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER: ÜBERLEGUNGEN Z U R SCHREIBUNG GRIECHISCHER E I G E N N A M E N IN L A T E I N I S C H E R S C H R I F T FOLKER INSTITUTUM JUDAICUM
1.
SlEGERT
DELITZSCHIANUM,
D A S ANLIEGEN: VERMEIDUNG
VON
MÜNSTER
HYBRIDEN
D i e W e r k e des Josephus sind voll v o n N a m e n griechischer u n d nicht griechischer Herkunft. Eine griechisch-deutsche A u s g a b e , wie sie in Münster betrieben wird, hat damit nicht nur textkritische P r o b l e m e auf der griechischen Seite - , sondern auch orthographische -
auf
der deutschen - zu bewältigen. S c h o n bei der H e r a u s g a b e der
Vita) hat sich das
Münsteraner
T e a m G e d a n k e n m a c h e n müssen, wie in der beizufügenden Ü b e r setzung mit solchen ebenso traditionsreichen wie unschönen G e b i l d e n u m z u g e h e n sei wie „ I o n a t h e s " o d e r „Iotapata". Bloßes U m s c h r e i b e n griechischer Buchstaben in lateinische, wie bisher geschehen, ergibt j a n o c h keine aussprechbaren N a m e n . D i e beiden e b e n
angeführten
Beispiele, d e n e n viele zur Seite gestellt w e r d e n könnten, lassen den Leser, die Leserin völlig i m Unklaren, wie viele Silben u n d w e l c h e B e t o n u n g der betreffende N a m e h a b e n soll. Viele weitere Beispiele liefert die derzeit n o c h in Arbeit befindliche A p o l o g i e Contra Apionem. W i r h a b e n uns nun s c h o n fast g e w ö h n t an die m e h r o d e r weniger gedankenlose Hybridisierung eines semitischen W o r t s auf seinem W e g durch das griechische u n d das lateinische A l p h a b e t bis hinein in eine m o d e r n e Landessprache. J e d o c h , n a c h d e n R e g e l n w e l c h e r Sprache soll m a n das Endergebnis aussprechen? Für Philo-logen i m vollen Sinne des W o r t e s sind H y b r i d e i m m e r u n s c h ö n , u n d für Laien sind sie Anlass zu erneuten spontanen V e r b i l d u n g e n . In Fällen wie den zitierten, die aus d e m Hebräischen k o m m e n , sind wir in unserer deutschen W i e d e r g a b e stärker als bisher üblich a u f die
1
Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita). Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar von F. Siegert, H . Schreckenberg, M . V o g e l und d e m Josephus-Arbeitskreis des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, M ü n s t e r (Tübingen 2 0 0 1 ) , 1 2 - 1 4 .
406
FOLKER
SIEGERT
Originalsprache zurückgegangen. W i r haben also , Jonatan" transkribiert und, nach genaueren sprachgeschichdichen Erkundungen,
„Jotafat".
2
W i e sich diese N a m e n auf Griechisch schreiben, kann m a n j a auf der jeweils gegenüberliegenden Seite nachsehen. D i e für die Ü b e r setzung gewählten Schreibungen j e d o c h erinnern durchaus an Gehörtes u n d w e r d e n w o h l auch, analog zu bereits bekannten
hebräischen
W ö r t e r n b z w . N a m e n , nicht allzu a b w e g i g ausgesprochen w e r d e n . Sollte unser Projekt eines T a g e s auch die Antiquitates n o c h bewälti gen (wenngleich nur als Übersetzung), w e r d e n wir nun a u c h einen 'Iouöccq MocKKccßaioq nicht latinisieren - als „ J u d a s Makkabäus", o d e r wie i m m e r m a n dann halb lateinisch, halb deutsch schreibt, sondern 3
wir werden ihn hebräisch-aramäisch lassen: J e h u d a Makkabai. Histo risch gesehen, hat in diesem N a m e n Latein nichts zu suchen - außer dass wir uns des lateinischen Alphabets bedienen. D a m i t sind wir nun b e i m T h e m a .
2.
PROBLEME GRIECHISCHER N A M E N IN LATEINISCHER
SCHRIFT
Bis hierher w a r die A n w e n d u n g des lateinischen Alphabets u n p r o b lematisch. Sie wird es nun aber paradoxerweise bei der W i e d e r g a b e griechischer N a m e n . H i e r tut sich nämlich, gerade w e g e n der Ä h n lichkeit der A l p h a b e t e , eine Alternative auf zwischen zwei D i n g e n , die m a n nicht zugleich haben kann: der W i e d e r g a b e des Schriftbildes u n d der des Klanges. D i e R ö m e r h a b e n sich v o n A n f a n g an, seit ihrem ersten Kontakt mit d e n G r i e c h e n , für die W i e d e r g a b e des Klanges entschieden. Ihr A l p h a b e t , i m G e g e n s a t z etwa z u m ägyptischen, w a r
konsequent
2
S o verteidigt auf d e m Josephus-Kolloquium in Brüssel: F. Siegert, „Grundsätze zur Transkription semitischer N a m e n bei Josephus", in: J. U . K a l m s / F . Siegert ( H g . ) , Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brüssel 1998 (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 4; Münster 1999), 1 7 1 - 1 8 5 . In unserer tt'ta-Ausgabe vgl. S. 1 2 - 1 4 und 2 1 3 . - Es hat sich als nützlich erwiesen, die Grapheme ph und th für Griechisches zu reservieren. Zwischenvokalisches, nicht verstärktes p im Hebräischen ist für uns f, egal wie Josephus selbst es damals transkribierte, in seinem eigenen N a m e n etwa (s.u.). Hier n i m m t er auf griechische Euphonieregeln Rücksicht, die in der deutschen Überset zung nicht interessieren. 3
D i e heutige hebräische Vokalisierung ist „Makkabi"; die Quellen aber setzen noch die aramäische Form „ M a k k a b a i " voraus. Gleiches gilt für den Frauennamen IaA,a|x\j/ico für eine T o c h t e r des Herodes: In heutigem Hebräisch sagf m a n Selamsion; die von Josephus transkribierte beruht jedoch auf einer alten aramäischen Vokalisierung: Salamsion.
407
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
phonetischer Natur. M a n schrieb j a T e x t e z u m V o r l e s e n ; so auch Josephus.
4
Selbst unsere m o d e r n e Ü b e r s e t z u n g wird in der Arbeits
g r u p p e nicht nur auf ihre Genauigkeit u n d Richtigkeit, sondern auf ihren K l a n g geprüft. W i r m ö c h t e n in j e d e r Hinsicht Josephus gerecht werden. W i e zu erwarten, sind die römischen Transkriptionsregeln, was aus wärtige N a m e n betrifft, akustischer Natur. D i e R ö m e r g a b e n das G r i e c h i s c h w i e d e r , das sie h ö r t e n . Dieses ist nicht identisch mit späteren Stufen des Griechischen u n d auch nicht mit d e n m e h r o d e r 5
wenigen künsdichen Rekonstruktionen der Neuzeit. Ein Beispiel: Für Oei8iaq (Josephus nennt ihn in A.J. 19.8) fand m a n Phidias.
Der dem
6
Lateinischen fremde Laut (p (damals p + h ) erhielt ein D o p p e l g r a p h e m , ph.
D a s folgende i hingegen gibt einen V o k a l wieder, d e n die Lateiner
als einen d e r ihren wiedererkannten u n d s c h o n damals nicht als D i p h t h o n g h ö r t e n (so h i e ß er a u c h n u r i m H i n b l i c k a u f seine 7
Schreibweise, ei), sondern als helles | e: | , nahe bei | i | . D a s Z e i c h e n 8
ist meist z, seltener e. Diese Aussprache ist kein Latinismus,
sondern
ist griechisch, wie wir aus zahlreichen Schreibfehlern der Inschriften, auch schon aus klassischer Zeit, wissen. D a s D o p p e l g r a p h e m EI diente für
einen Laut, der zwischen e u n d i lag, so wie ou für einen Laut
zwischen o u n d u. Bei d e n R ö m e r n ist das anders. In W ö r t e r n wie Pompaus
4
o d e r deinde (bei Poeten zweisilbig) hört m a n ei als e + i.
Hinweis darauf sind in seinem T e x t die Prosarhythmen, wie in unserer
Vita-
A u s a b e S. lOf. bemerkt. 5
Z u der des Erasmus siehe W . S. Allen, Vox Graeca. the Pronunciation of Classical
Greek ( 1 9 6 8 , 3 . Aufl., C a m b r i d g e 1987) 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 0 - 5 1 ; für den T e x t des Erasmus selbst s. die zweisprachige A u s g a b e v o n K r a m e r (Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de recta Latird Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus. Desiderius Erasmus von Rotterdam, Dialog über die richtige Aussprache der lateinischen und griechischen Sprache, hg. u. übers, v. J. K r a m e r , [BKP ab.
9 8 ; Meisenheim, Glan, 1978]). I h m geht noch jedes Verständnis für Lautwandel
Als Ursache der Abflachung des Griechischen z u m sog. Itazismus gibt er die
mulierculae an, die mit halb geschlossenem Ende]). -
M u n d zu wispern pflegen (S. 117 [ 9 3 9
Solange der Begriff des „ P h o n e m s " (des distinktiven
Lautes) noch
nicht
gebildet war (den Allen natürlich zugrunde legt), wurde zumeist a n g e n o m m e n , das Alphabet einer Sprache sei identisch mit seinem V o r r a t an P h o n e m e n (anders aber Quintilian; s.u.). 6
Historisches zur Aussprache des Griechischen s. Allen, Vox Graeca, d e m ich in
allem zu folgen v e r m a g bis auf die (hier nicht relevanten) Vorschläge für englische Schulen. 7
S o auch in Allens Analysen, denen ich im W e i t e r e n folge.
8
S o haben wir noch heute neben Hera-klit einen Poly-klet (beides - K A X I T O C ; ) , ver
mutlich in Abhängigkeit von den u m g e b e n d e n V o k a l e n .
408
FOLKER SIEGERT
W e n n nun i m späten 18. Jh. bei uns in Deutschland angefangen w u r d e , „ P h e i d i a s " zu schreiben (davon unten),
9
geschah das in der
unbelegten A n n a h m e , ein D o p p e l g r a p h e m sei stets auch ein D o p p e l p h o n e m . H i e r hätte bereits Quintilian (1.4,8 f.) sie eines Besseren belehren können. Einen Laut zwischen E u n d I bemerkt Quintilian in Wörtern wie here. Umgekehrt hatte das klassisch-griechische Alphabet j a auch einfache G r a p h e m e für D o p p e l l a u t e (£, \|/, positionsbildend), deren Überflüssigkeit v o n Quintilian (a.a.O.) gleichfalls bemerkt wird. Seine Einsichten in d e n (losen) Z u s a m m e n h a n g zwi-schen A l p h a b e t u n d gesprochener Sprache gingen weiter als die d e r Philologen n o c h des 18. Jh. Inzwischen muss m a n sagen: D i e damals eingeführten „altgriechis c h e n " N e u e r u n g e n sind in vieler Hinsicht verfehlt g e w e s e n u n d zumindest inkonsequent. D e n n die Regel war offensichtlich, nur solche Laute zuzulassen, die auch das Deutsche kannte,
10
b z w . umgekehrt:
griechische G r a p h e m e einfach mit deutschen zu identifizieren. A u c h m o d e r n e Fremdsprachen hat m a n damals oft so ausgesprochen, w e n n m a n z.B. seinen „ S h a k s p e r " zitierte (vgl. unten A n m . 29). S o entstanden nunmehr, was das vorgebliche Altgriechisch betrifft, Hybriden v o n mehreren Sorten: -
Alt- und Neugriechisch w e r d e n vermischt, weil m a n d e m G r a p h e m ph keinen eigenen Laut zubilligte, es vielmehr mit lat./identifizierte (hier war das Latein nun w i e d e r recht).
-
D e r A k z e n t w u r d e seinerseits neugriechisch (s.u. 6.), w e n n m a n n u n m e h r „ P h e i d i a s " auf der Paenultima mit e i n e m Druckakzent versah. D a s sind bereits zwei neugriechische Einschläge in einem angeblich altgriechischen Klangbild.
9
Abschn. 4 . - Ältere Beispiele finden sich vereinzelt, v.a. im Einflussbereich des
Calvinismus,
der j a früh die erasmische Aussprache
in alten Calvin-Drucken
übernahm.
Ich erinnere mich,
derlei schon gesehen zu haben. D i e Plutarch-Ausgabe
des
Heidelberger Gräzisten Xylander (Frankfurt 1599) bietet in ihrer lateinischen K o l u m n e Schreibungen wie Pheidias (sie). 1 0
Z u Luther vgl. unten A n m .
26f.
M i r selbst wurde, als ich auf das humanistische G y m n a s i u m ging, beigebracht,
T| für ein ä anzusehen, a i für ai, oi für oi usw. D a s war zwar einfach und hat im Schwabenland (wo ich lebte) sogar n o c h einen minimalen Unterschied zwischen ai und ei mit sich gebracht. Bei ev aber, das unweigerlich gleichlautend wurde mit oi, habe ich einen Zwitter erlernt, der mir erst dann fraglich vorkam, als ich den
R u f der Bacchanten stieß, evoi: D e r kann d o c h wohl kaum *
| DIDI
|
auf
gelautet
haben! N o c h bei den deutschen Klassikern hingegen findet sich die von den Lateinern gelernte Transkription evoe.
409
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
-
Griechisch wird seither vermischt mit Deutsch, w e n n nun die meis ten, die so ein W o r t in Lateinschrift sehen, dabei aber deutsche Rechtschreibregeln anlegen, irgendetwas wie | faidias | lesen. Diesen N a m e n , kann m a n ehrlich sagen, hat es v o r d e m 19. Jh.
nicht
gegeben. S o ist man, unter Benützung ein u n d desselben lateinischen Alphabets, v o n der W i e d e r g a b e des Klanges, d e m antiken Prinzip, zu der des Schriftbildes übergewechselt, d e m m o d e r n e n -
mit
zweifelhaftem
Nutzen. D e n n gleichzeitig wirken landessprachliche Aussprachetradi tionen jetzt irgendwie weiter, nur e b e n unterschwellig u n d ungeregelt. R ü c k e n wir d e m K o m p l e x zu Leibe, a u c h w e n n es schwer ist, gegen etwas zu argumentieren, was n i e m a n d verteidigt, aber d o c h alle richtig finden - eine G e w o h n h e i t .
3.
E I N LÖSUNGSVORSCHLAG
-
N A T I O N A L UND
INTERNATIONAL
G i b t es ein Z u r ü c k aus diesem W i l d w u c h s ? - Voraussichdich nur u m den Preis, erneut zu entscheiden, was man denn will: den antiken Klang wiedergeben, so gut das lateinische A l p h a b e t es o h n e neue S o n d e r zeichen zulässt,
11
o d e r das griechische Schriftbild
übertragen.
D a wir - die Münsteraner Arbeitsgruppe - in unserer JosephusA u s g a b e das griechische Schriftbild auf der gegenüberliegenden Seite jeweils in extenso präsentieren,
h a b e n wir uns für die erste O p t i o n
entschieden. Sie hat z u d e m den Vorteil, die antike u n d v o n Josephus selbst befolgte zu sein. A u c h b r a u c h e n wir zwischen der W i e d e r g a b e des Semitischen u n d der des Griechischen nicht die Prinzipien zu wechseln. Das heißt, dass wir, das Alphabet der R ö m e r benützend, uns auch an deren G e h ö r halten u n d nicht beanspruchen, es besser zu m a c h e n als sie. Ein m o d e r n e s Kunstgebilde wie „ P h e i d i a s " w e r d e n wir also ver meiden. Gleichzeitig w e r d e n wir allerdings, da unsere Zielsprache Deutsch ist u n d nicht Latein, für die Endungen eigene Entscheidungen treffen - wie Josephus selbst verfahrt, w e n n er fremdsprachige N a m e n , den seinen eingeschlossen, in seinen T e x t einfugt (s.u. 5.). Bei „Phidias" - wie wir nun schreiben w e r d e n — h a t m a n kein P r o b l e m . W i e aber
11
W i r haben uns auch bei semitischen N a m e n für nur wenige Sonderzeichen entschieden (für Kehllaute), die zur N o t auch als einfache Zeichen gelesen oder ignoriert werden können, wie schon die R ö m e r taten.
410
FOLKER SIEGERT
ist zu verfahren bei rixo^eiiaioq? W i r werden hier w e d e r „ P t o l e m a i o s " schreiben, wie heutzutage häufig zu lesen ist, n o c h „ P t o l e m a e u s " (zu schweigen von dem Mehrfachhybrid
„Ptolemäus"), sondern:
„ P t o l e m a e o s " . Bei dieser, wie wir meinen, „sanften" Lösung, die hier nicht z u m ersten M a l vorgeschlagen w i r d ,
12
bleibt es j e d e m über
lassen, das ae auszusprechen n a c h seiner/ihrer A r t v o n Latein. Will m a n deutsch-griechische Sprachmischung v e r m e i d e n , ist dies die beste Lösung. Als nächstbeste Alternative k ä m e n nur die lateini schen F o r m e n in Frage, die i m m e r h i n ein kulturelles Erbe sind, ein älteres sogar, u n d die, linguistisch gesehen, auch nur
Benachbartes
u n d Zeitgenössisches miteinander mischen. W i r w e r d e n , u m dies nun a u f einen bei Josephus v o r k o m m e n d e n N a m e n a n z u w e n d e n , d e m H e r o d e s keine Frau namens
„Phaidra",
sondern eine „ P h a e d r a " zugesellen (A.J. 17.21). Ein anderes Beispiel ist der gleichfalls bei Josephus v o r k o m m e n d e N a m e Eipnvaio<; (B.J. 2 . 2 1 ; AJ.
17.226): Hierfür wäre „ E i r e n a i o s " e b e n s o anachronistisch
wie unschön, und wir werden „Irenaeos" schreiben. In den berüchtigten Itazismus w e r d e n wir deswegen nicht verfallen: D a s t| wird stets i m Bereich dessen bleiben, was lateinisches e a b d e c k t .
13
Ein i für griechisches ei ist j a schon alt, älter als die Ü b e r n a h m e des y in das lateinische Alphabet. livius Andronicus, nach Varros Nachricht der älteste lateinische D i c h t e r überhaupt,
schrieb eine Odusia. D e r
s c h o n beobachtete M a n g e l , dass der sog. D i p h t h o n g ex bei s o l c h e m G e b r a u c h der Lateinschrift mal mit i, mal mit e w i e d e r g e g e b e n wird, wiegt nicht allzu schwer angesichts einer anderen, der Antike durch aus fremden V e r w e c h s l u n g , die erst infolge der Transliterierung Deutschen passiert, nämlich derjenigen v o n ei u n d o u .
bei
14
D a s hier vorgeschlagene Verfahren ist nicht nur relativ frei v o n Hybriden (also v o n Sprachmischung), sondern auch besonders geeignet für die Schriften des Josephus, des R ö m e r s aus Jerusalem. Ein N a m e wie Aiveictq, zunächst aus der Utas bekannt (5.305 u.ö.), d a n n
aber
aus Vergil (in der Schreibweise Aeneas), k o m m t a u c h bei i h m v o r
1 2
Heinrich W i l h e l m Stoll, Altphilologe und Religionshistoriker, schreibt z.B. in seiner Anthologie griechischer Lyriker ( H a n n o v e r 1872) „Tyrtaeos", „Aeschylos" usw. 1 3
Josephus selbst hätte für r| ein helles (geschlossenes) e gesprochen. In der Josephus-Tradition lässt sich der Ü b e r g a n g des griech. r\ zu einem gesprochenen i erst in der lateinischen Übersetzung (6. Jh.) beobachten, u.z. in gewissen, noch keineswegs einheitlichen, W i e d e r g a b e n von N a m e n . 1 4
Beispiele unten bei A n m . 3 0 und 3 1 . Z u e u / o i vgl. unten Abschn. 4 und 5.
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
(BJ. 5 . 3 2 6 - 3 2 7 ; AJ.
411
14.248, für verschiedene Personen). W i r w e r d e n
„ A e n e a s " schreiben u n d uns v o n einer Geschichte des Eindeutschens abkoppeln, die auch s c h o n solche U n d i n g e wie „ Ä n e i a s " hervorge bracht hat (dazu unten 5.). J a wir m ö c h t e n sogar für d e n internationalen G e b r a u c h die F o r m „ A e n e a s " als die beste vorschlagen. D e n n in einer Zeit, w o m e h r und mehr deutsche Autoren und Autorinnen sich englisch äußern, wird man einen S c h a u d e r kriegen bei der Vorstellung, was aus d e m G r a p h e m Aineias wird, w e n n m a n es englisch ausspricht. . . E h e d a n n aber, w e n n wir „ P h a e d r a " schreiben, „ A e n e a s "
und
„ I r e n a e o s " , ein Aufschrei d u r c h die gelehrte Presse geht, wir k ö n n ten w o h l kein Griechisch o d e r zeigten es zumindest nicht g e b ü h r e n d , sei hier n o c h ein Stück weiter ausgeholt u n d an einige Grundbegriffe der Philologie erinnert.
4.
TRANSKRIPTION UND
TRANSLITERATION
Nicht j e d e r Herausgeber antiker T e x t e in (oder mit) Übersetzung pflegt sich G e d a n k e n zu m a c h e n über d e n Unterschied zwischen Transkrip tion u n d Transliteration. Erstere entspricht d e r phonetischen O p t i o n , die wir als die römische o b e n dargestellt haben, letztere der graphi schen. W e n n Josephus jetzt unter uns weilte u n d wollte unser editorisches Problem verstehen, würden wir es ihm anhand des Unterschiedes zwischen seinen beiden Sprachen, Hebräisch u n d Griechisch, ver anschaulichen. Josephus selbst wäre nie auf d e n Gedanken g e k o m m e n , den N a m e n j n r r etwa mit Jwntn w i e d e r z u g e b e n o . a . (Transliteration), sondern er schreibt 'Icovaörjq (Transkription), w o b e i er, zur Einfügung in den griechischen Kontext, das W o r t e n d e praktischerweise flektierbar macht.
15
Für seinen Z w e c k war das die beste Lösung, war a u c h die
einzige i h m v o r g e g e b e n e . In einer ähnlichen Lage wie er sind nun wir mit griechischen N a m e n i m Deutschen. Eine wissenschafdiche Transliteration - mit o d e r o h n e V o k a l e i m Hebräischen, mit o d e r o h n e Akzente u n d S o n d e r z e i c h e n im Griechischen - k o m m t aus praktischen G r ü n d e n nicht in Frage. Sie würde nicht nur die Lesbarkeit unserer deutschen Übersetzung beein trächtigen, sondern wäre für Griechisches überhaupt überflüssig, da
1 5
S o wir: „Jonatan", Genitiv „Jonatans". M i t „Ionathes" o.a. hätten wir uns, zu allem andern, unnötige U m s t ä n d e für die deutsche Syntax eingehandelt.
412
FOLKER SIEGERT
j a d e r Urtext g e g e n ü b e r steht. W i r h a b e n also s c h o n in der Vita grie chische N a m e n niemals t r a n s f e r i e r t ,
16
sondern transkribiert, u.z. in
A n l e h n u n g an das antike Latein, dessen Alphabet wir j a benützen und das mit der Phonetik des Altgriechischen durchaus besser übereinkommt als die deutsche Schulaussprache. S o gilt es s c h o n für die klassische E p o c h e (mit der die humanistischen G y m n a s i e n sich ziemlich aus schließlich zu beschäftigen pflegen); es gilt nicht m i n d e r für die hel lenistische u n d die Kaiserzeit.
17
W i r k ö n n e n schweigen v o n späteren
E p o c h e n : W e n n in der deutschsprachigen Byzantinistik N a m e n wie „ H e r a k l e i o s " geschrieben w e r d e n , ist das a m ehesten begreiflich als Imponiergeste v o n A k a d e m i k e r n , die trotz ihres unklassischen For schungsgebiets als A l t p h i l o l o g e n gelten wollen. Die, wie m a n meint, getreuere Transliterierung serviert d e n alten hinzutreten,
des Griechischen kon
N a c h t e i l , dass, s o l a n g e k e i n e S o n d e r z e i c h e n
Laute verwechselbar sind, die es i m Griechischen nie
w a r e n , z.B. e u n d r| (das alte ethos-ethos-Problem).
Zusätzlich aber
bringt sie infolge der andersartigen Ausspracheregeln im Deutschen
eine
U n z a h l v o n P s e u d o - W ö r t e r n hervor, die kein G r i e c h e zu keiner Zeit j e verstanden hätte - w e n n das ein M a ß s t a b ist, u n d wir meinen, es ist einer. D e r N a m e Zevq
z.B. wird seit d e m 19. Jh. in Deutschland
so ausgesprochen, als h a b e er mit dt. zeugen
etwas zu tun; viel eher
verwandt ist er hingegen mit lat. deus, u n d außer d e m q wird kein Laut
richtig
ausgesprochen. S o zeigt sich: W a s wir „ A l t g r i e c h i s c h "
n e n n e n , ist ein e b e n s o zufalliges w i e willkürliches G e m i s c h aus Altgriechisch, Neugriechisch (in cp, % und den Akzenten) und Deutsch j e n a c h d e m , was gerade b e q u e m e r ist.
5. GESCHICHTLICHES
Wie
kann das sein, fragt m a n sich, in Deutschland, d e m S t a m m l a n d
der historischen Philologie? - N u n , die historische Philologie, deren
1 6
Eine A u s n a h m e ist das rätselhafte Homonoia in Vita 2 8 1 , ein W o r t , das im T e x t kursiv stehen sollte (eine elektronische Panne). D i e Kursive zeigt an, dass Schreib und Sprechregeln gelten, die nur innerhalb einer bestimmten Wissenschaft gültig sind. 17
Details u n d Lit. hierzu bei F. Siegert, „Erfahrungen mit der Münsteraner Josephus-Ausgabe. Ein Werkstattbericht mit Seitenblicken auf griechische Bibelaus gaben", in: W . W e r e n u n d D . - A . K o c h (Hg.), New Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Early-Christian and Jewish Literature (Studies in T h e o l o g y , and Religion 8; Assen 2 0 0 3 ) , 1 6 7 - 1 8 7 (bes. 180f.) sowie in ders., ^wischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einßihrung in die Septuaginta (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 9; M ü n s t e r 2 0 0 1 ) 1 4 4 - 4 5 und 1 9 7 - 2 0 2 .
413
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
Leistungen hier keineswegs in Frage gestellt, sondern vorausgesetzt w e r d e n , ist leider u m einige Jahrzehnte neuer als die Einführung der sog. „erasrnischen" Aussprache in deutschen Gymnasien. J a c o b G r i m m , der verdienstvolle Entdecker der Lautwandel u n d ihrer Gesetze - im D e u t s c h e n , a b e r nicht nur d a - , hat n o c h die 1. Auflage seiner Deutschen Grammatik 1819 o h n e Phonetik ausgehen lassen, u n d in seinen T e x t e n aus der Frühzeit findet m a n „ B u c h s t a b e " u n d „ L a u t " auf Schritt u n d Tritt verwechselt.
18
Solange auch er die Lautgesetze -
hier des D e u t s c h e n - n o c h nicht kannte, w a r es allemal leichter, v o n „ B u c h s t a b e n " zu sprechen. K e i n W u n d e r , dass auch die zahlreichen E t y m o l o g i e n , mit d e n e n G r i m m die wechselseitigen Einflüsse
der
indoeuropäischen Sprachen darlegen wollte, nicht nur Verblüffung, sondern auch reichlich W i d e r s p r u c h hervorriefen.
19
S o wundert es
dann auch nicht, w e n n - u m nun w i e d e r ins Griechische zu w e c h seln - die Griechische Schul-Grammatik des verdienten Philipp Buttmann das Lautsystem des Griechischen unter der Überschrift „Eintheilung der B u c h s t a b e n " bietet,
20
so wie viele Schulgrammatiken es n o c h
heute tun. S o treffend Buttmanns Beobachtungen a m Quantitätssystem und an den Akzenten sind (S. 12~28), so fehlerhaft sind seine A n g a b e n im Bereich der eigendichen Laudehre. Als Geburtsstunde der historischen Philologie gilt überhaupt
erst 21
J a c o b G r i m m s Erklärung des deutschen e-i-Ablauts [ich gebe, du gibst),
in deren Folge die 2. Auflage seiner Deutschen Grammatik (1822) dann endlich eine Phonetik vorgeschaltet b e k a m . Seither ist Grimmas Law ein W o r t für Lautgesetze überhaupt g e w o r d e n . D a s H a u p t m o t i v , aus d e m heraus G r i m m sich zu derlei Ü b e r legungen drängen ließ, n a c h d e m er lange Zeit mit b l o ß e m Vergleichen v o n G r a p h e m e n zufrieden g e w e s e n war, ist dies, dass erst n a c h d e m Aufstellen einer für eine bestimmte Sprache zu einer g e g e b e n e n
1 8
Für Details aus dieser - bestens erforschten - Frühgeschichte der
Germanistik
und auch der Indogermanistik siehe G . Ginschel, Der junge Jacob Grimm (Deutsche A k a d . d. W i s s . zu Berlin, Veröff.
d. sprachwiss. K o m m i s s i o n
1805-1819 7; Berlin
1967), passim. 1 9
N o c h das von ihm begonnene, 1 9 8 6 erst fertig gewordene Deutsche Wörterbuch
lässt nicht erkennen, wie die m a n c h m a l schwindelerregenden Etymologien phonetisch funktionieren sollen. -
Grimm
selbst lernte, j a schrieb Spanisch, ohne j e
einen
Spanier gehört zu haben: Ginschel, Der junge Jacob Grimm, 3 8 3 . 2 0
In der 7. Auflage (Berlin 1824) S. 9.
2 1
Ginschel, Der junge Jacob Grimm, 3 6 2 : „Erst von der Entdeckung des deutschen
e-Umlauts an ist die historische Betrachtungsweise unveräußerlicher Bestandteil der Grimmschen
Sprachforschung, erst v o m
Sprachwissenschaft."
Herbst
1 8 1 6 an gibt es eine historische
414
FOLKER SIEGERT
Zeit und in g e g e b e n e r R e g i o n gültigen P h o n e d k die T e x t e korrekt ediert w e r d e n können: Erst d a n n lässt sich - n a c h d e m der Regelkreis des Lernens aus den Handschriften u n d des Korrigierens d e r H a n d schriften hinreichend oft durchlaufen ist -
unterscheiden zwischen
akzeptablen, sinnhaltigen F o r m e n u n d nicht akzeptablen, unsinnigen Verschreibungen. All dies k a m nun freilich zu spät, u m die deutsche Schulaussprache v o r d e n bereits eingeführten
Barbarismen u n d A n a c h r o n i s m e n zu
b e w a h r e n . V e r f e s t i g e n d wirkte n u n a u c h n o c h ein i d e o l o g i s c h e s M o m e n t . S c h o n lange hatten Deutschlands Intellektuelle d e n direk ten Z u g a n g zur griechischen Kultur gesucht, o h n e die lateinisch romanische V e r m i t d u n g .
22
Als m a n nun g e g e n 1800 in Deutschlands
Schulen die „ e r a s m i s c h e " Aussprache einführte, w a r z u d e m die g r o ß e Zeit des deutschen Nationalismus gerade a n g e b r o c h e n . D i e G r i e c h e n begeisterung des N e u h u m a n i s m u s erhielt zusätzlichen Aufwind durch die a u f k o m m e n d e Franzosenfeindschaft. M a n fühlte sich
nunmehr
„reichsunmittelbar" zu Griechenland hin; j a Bayern stellte sogar einen v o n dessen neuen K ö n i g e n . Dieser nationale Elan ist mit zu bedenken, w e n n m a n verstehen will, w a r u m das Griechische so gnadenlos ger manisiert wurde, dass ein W o r t wie | tsois | zustande kam. - Literarisch blieb m a n übrigens i m g a n z e n 19. Jh., was N a m e n betrifft, bei d e n lateinischen S c h r e i b u n g e n .
meist
23
A u f Erasmus kann sich die neue Praxis nur sehr ungefähr berufen. Erasmus hatte in seinem Literalismus a u c h v o n ou diphthongische Aussprache gefordert - was in deutschen G y m n a s i e n offenbar nur deshalb unterblieb, weil der germanische o u - D i p h t h o n g i m Deutschen zu au g e w o r d e n war, a u c h graphisch (und sein U m l a u t zu | o i | , geschrieben äu). M i t Erasmus, d.h. mit d e m H o l l ä n d i s c h e n , k a m dann auch | oei | , dt. | oi | , für eu in G e b r a u c h ; altgriechisch wäre | eu | , n e u g r i e c h i s c h ist es | ev | b z w .
| ef | . D a s w a r e i n e w i l l k o m m e n e
Bequemlichkeit, w o wir landessprachlich j a a u c h
| o i r o : p a | sagen.
D a s altüberlieferte ev in W ö r t e r n wie „ E v a n g e l i u m " ist d e m g e g e n ü b e r j e d o c h korrekter u n d lässt uns Josephus-Herausgeber überlegen, o b
2 2
H . Hatfield, Aesthetic Paganism in German Literature. From Winckelmann to the Death
of Goethe (Cambridge, M a s s . 1964). 2 3
Noch
E d u a r d Zellers Philosophie der Griechen schreibt bis in ihre im
2 0 . Jh.
erschienenen Auflagen hinein „Posidonius" usw., und die Patristik haf diesen Brauch weitgehend bis heute, verlässt ihn dann aber bei N a m e n , die neu ins kommen.
Gespräch
415
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
wir nicht „ E v e r g e t e s " schreiben sollen statt des künsdichen ergetes" (mit unantikem
„Eu-
Hiat).
I m Laufe des 19. Jh. verschwand aus d e m H o c h d e u t s c h e n dann auch der alte | ei | - D i p h t h o n g , i n d e m er mit ai zusammenfiel.
24
Nur
selten aber wird darüber nachgedacht, was das G r a p h e m ei in transkribierten griechischen N a m e n d a n n n o c h wert ist. Ein weiterer, ganz banaler Faktor ist seither die G e w ö h n u n g . D a s Griechische hat anscheinend kein R e c h t m e h r auf Fremdsein
und
eigene Phonetik. Inzwischen gibt es nicht wenige Leute, die glauben, ein griechischer Dichter habe | aijylos | g e h e i ß e n .
25
S o weit geht m a n
zwar i m Griechischunterricht nicht; aber w e r hat s c h o n Griechischunterricht? D i e G e w o h n h e i t ist nunmehr, dass m a n so spricht, wie eine Transliterierung in Lateinbuchstaben bei deutschen Ausspracheregeln klingen w ü r d e . - E b e n dies aber scheint uns für unseren R ö m e r aus Jerusalem nicht wünschenswert. D a s gilt nun auch für die D i p h t h o n g e eu u n d 01. U m einen Unterschied zwischen diesen D i p h t h o n g e n etwa in d e m N a m e n Oiveuq h ö r b a r zu m a c h e n , wird die Namensschreibweise „ O e n e u s " i m m e r hin geeignet sein. D a s heißt für unsere Josephus-Ausgabe, dass in A.J.
1 8 . 2 0 4 Ixoixeuq, ein Freigelassener
Agrippas, im
Deutschen
„ S t o e c h e u s " heißen wird. W e n n Martin Luther einst in seinen T i s c h g e s p r ä c h e n
26
bemerkt
hat, das Griechische sei d e m Deutschen näher als das Latein, dachte er offenbar an D i n g e wie das k v o r hellen V o k a l e n u n d an die sog. „ D i p h t h o n g e " wie ä und ö , die U m l a u t e also nach unserer T e r m i nologie - w o b e i sein ä natürlich, n a c h der damals gültigen, b y z a n tinischen
Aussprache, das oci war u n d sein ö das o i .
27
D a s £ vergleicht
er mit dt. stimmhaftem s (ganz wie Josephus u n d v o r i h m s c h o n die Septuaginta es für T n e h m e n ) u n d findet auch Laute wie % (als R e i belaut) und den Vokal u (Reuchlins Aussprache hatte hierfür
durchaus
n o c h ein ü) nur i m Deutschen wieder, nicht i m Latein.
2 4
Deutsches Wörterbuch, Bd. 3 , Sp. 73 unter E I .
2 5
In der Vita hatten wir mit „Gischala" ein analoges Problem; nach unseren Grundsätzen haben wir j e d o c h „ G i s - H a l a b " geschrieben. 2 6
N r . 3 7 4 8 und 4 0 1 8 in Luthers Werke in Auswahl, Bd. 8: Tischreden (hg. O . Berlin 1930), N u m m e r n wie in W A Tischreden. 2 7
Clemen,
Für dieses G r a p h e m hatte er offenbar die Aussprache | o | erlernt. Hellenistisch und in Reuchlins Aussprache wäre es eher y: äquivalent langem M, mit welchem dieses G r a p h e m in Manuskripten und auf Inschriften j a auch häufig verwechselt wird.
416
FOLKER SIEGERT
6.
D A S V E R M E I D E N V O N W I L D WUCHS
M a c h e n wir n o c h die G e g e n p r o b e v o n der negativen Seite her. Unser M o t i v dafür, dass wir überhaupt Grundsätze aufstellen, ist -
außer
d e m Bedürfnis der Konsistenz - der W u n s c h , Wildwuchs und Zufallser gebnisse zu v e r m e i d e n . A u c h diese h a b e n eine bis ins 18. Jh.
und
weiter zurückreichende, kaum j e m a n d e m bewusste Geschichte. J o h a n n H e i n r i c h V o ß ' Übersetzung der h o m e r i s c h e n E p e n ( 1 7 8 1 - 1 7 9 3 ) sie spätestens -
-
hat damit angefangen, d e n G e r m a n i s m u s in d e n
Schreibweisen literarisch zu m a c h e n . V o ß chische" Schreibung
28
5
B e m ü h e n u m „altgrie
ist ein Unfall v o n A n f a n g an (was nichts sagt
gegen seine poetischen Verdienste). N a c h d e m V o ß anfangs die Gleich setzung v o n r| mit d e u t s c h e m ä sogar in die S c h r e i b u n g der N a m e n ü b e r n o m m e n hatte hervorrief,
29
„Äthan" usf., w a s d e n S p o t t L i c h t e n b e r g s
hat er z w a r a n s c h l i e ß e n d m a n c h e s g e m i l d e r t , d a b e i
aber die K o n f u s i o n z u m Prinzip e r h o b e n . Bei i h m liest m a n
nun
„ P h ö b o s A p o l l o n " , d a n n aber, auf derselben Seite: „ A c h a i e r " , dann w i e d e r „ A t h e n ä a " , aber auch w i e d e r „ P e n e i o s " . D a s ist s c h o n in sich unbefriedigend, weil regellos. U n d es vermischt Transliteration
mit
Transkription. D a s Ergebnis sind neue Barbarismen, sei es in der Aussprache, sei es sogar in der Schreibung. Ein W o r t wie „ M u s e i o n " w e r d e n die meisten Leute n u n m e h r wie „ M u s a i o n " aussprechen -
bis dahin,
dass ein bekannter neuerer A u t o r über Antikes auch schon „ M u s a i o n " schreibt.
30
Es finden öffentliche Lesungen aus Piatons „Politaia" statt,
31
usw. Diese Pannen haben gelehrte Leute zu Autoren! U m s o m e h r aber sollte „ u n s e r " Josephus für j e d e r m a n n lesbar sein u n d o h n e Zusatz erklärungen d e n K l a n g antiker N a m e n einigermaßen w i e d e r g e b e n .
2 8
H o m e r , Ilias und Odyssee, in der Übertragung von Johann Heinrich Voß ( 1 7 9 3 bzw. 1 7 8 1 , M ü n c h e n 1957). Lichtenberg (nächste A n m . ) zitiert hierzu V o ß : „ I c h schreibe nach griechischer Aussprache (Gerechter H i m m e l was für Pedanterei!), u n d meine G r ü n d e hat noch niemand widerlegt." 2 9
G . C h . Lichtenberg, Schriften und Briefe, Bd. 3 (hg. W . Promies, M ü n c h e n 1972), 2 9 6 - 3 0 8 : „ Ü b e r die Pronunciation der Schöpse . . .". Lichtenberg meint, wer nun m e h r „ Ä t h a n " schreibe usw., müsse sich fragen lassen, w a r u m nicht auch „Jäsus" [und in unserem Falle: „ J o s ä p h u s " ] . Ü b e r vieles amüsiert sich Lichtenberg, der kein Philologe ist, zu Unrecht, über anderes aber durchaus zu Recht, etwa darüber, dass V o ß den engl. O r t s n a m e n „Portsmouth" als „Portsmaut" schreibt, offenbar in der A n n a h m e , er laute so. 3 0
B. Kytzler, Frauen der Antike. Von Aspasia bis ^enobia (Zürich 1994), 8 0 . Ankündigung der Katholischen A k a d e m i e Franz-Hitze-Haus, Münster, für den 2 0 . 1 . 2 0 0 3 (Prospekt wie Plakat). 3 1
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
417
Zweihundert Jahre ist es her, dass der Diphthong | e i | aus der deutschen Schriftsprache verschwunden ist; w a r u m ihn dann n o c h schreiben für eine Buchstabengruppe des Griechischen, die ihrerseits in der R e g e l kein | e i | war, u n d schon gar kein | o u | ? A u c h in rein wissenschaftlichen Publikationen verdienten solche Schreibungsfragen mitunter etwas m e h r Ü b e r l e g u n g . I m Inhaltsver zeichnis v o n M e n a h e m Sterns Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism liest m a n A u t o r e n n a m e n u n d Buchtitel meist in ihrer lateini schen F o r m , dazwischen d a n n aber einen Buchtitel „ S c h o i n o m e t r e s i s Syriae". D a hat m a n nun Fisch u n d Fleisch auf demselben T e l l e r .
32
D a s G l e i c h e , sogar n o c h inniger vermischt, b e g e g n e t in s o l c h e n 33
pseudo-antiken Buchtiteln w i e Paraleipomena Jeremiou:
D a s zweite
dieser W ö r t e r ist in sich falsch, d e n n J ist w e d e r als Buchstabe n o c h als Laut i m Altgriechischen v o r h a n d e n .
34
N i c h t besser wird es in der
jüngsten deutschen Übersetzung desselben Textes, betitelt Paralipomena 35
Jeremiou: D i e erste F o r m ist nach lateinischen, die zweite n a c h gar keinen R e g e l n transkribiert. D a s J ist nun mal nicht griechisch, u n d das o u nicht Latein. W e n wundert es da, dass selbst unser Josephus ('Icoari7to<;) s c h o n „ J o s e p h o s " genannt w o r d e n ist?
7.
DAS
VERMEIDEN NEUGRIECHISCHER
36
BETONUNG
Ein N e b e n m o t i v für unser Verfahren einer gewissen, aber überlegten A n l e h n u n g an die antike, uns lateinisch übermittelte Sprechtradition
Schreib- u n d
besteht darin, d e n Einfluss des n e u g r i e c h i s c h e n 1
Druckakzents (des stress accent, Z e i c h e n : v o r der betr. Silbe) fernzuhal ten. Dieser würde beim Wechsel v o n der Transkription zur Translitera tion das E r g e b n i s zusätzlich verfälschen. Dass d e r
Druckakzent
3 2
GLAJJ l:xi. W i r würden schreiben: Schoenometresis Syriae, in diesem Fall also ganz Latein, und uns der Kursive bedienen. Für Buchtitel ist die lateinische, auch neulateinische, Konvention bei weitem die einfachste und wird es wohl auch bleiben. 3 3
R . Kraft und A . - E . Purintun ( H g . ) , Paraleipomena Jeremiou ( S B L T T 1; Missoula, M o n t . 1972). 3 4
D a s Neugriechische hat ihn, schreibt ihn aber nach Möglichkeit yi. B. Schaller (Übers, u. K o m m . ) , Paralipomena Jeremiou ( J S H R Z , 1, 8; Gütersloh 2002). G . Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography ( N T . S , 6 4 ; Leiden 1992), im Untertitel. Schlatter hingegen meinte, „Josefas" sei zu schreiben. 3 3
3 6
418
FOLKER SIEGERT
phonetisch durchaus Zirkumflex
37
nichts z u tun
hat mit d e m Akut o d e r d e m
des klassischen o d e r hellenistischen G r i e c h i s c h , w e i ß
n a c h jahrelanger
G e w ö h n u n g an die deutsche Schulaussprache in
der Regel niemand mehr. U m s o g e e i g n e t e r ist d a n n Quantitätensystem
dieser D r u c k a k z e n t , das kunstvolle
des Altgriechischen d u r c h e i n a n d e r
M a n sagt | homi'lia | für b\iikia
zu bringen.
u n d hält das für Altgriechisch, o h n e
n o c h zu wissen o d e r w i e d e r z u g e b e n , w e l c h e r v o n diesen vier V o k a l e n kurz ist u n d welcher l a n g .
38
Dies trotz der durchaus korrekten A n g a b e
des o b e n zitierten B u t t m a n n :
39
„ J e d e s W o r t u n d j e d e F o r m hatte für
j e d e Silbe (mit w e n i g e n A u s n a h m e n ) feststehende Quantität, w e l c h e r die Aussprache des g e w ö h n l i c h e n L e b e n s folgte, u n d die m a n daher kennen muss, u m
richtig
auszusprechen."
E b e n s o k o m m t nun, was N a m e n betrifft, ein | di'onnysos | - statt griechisch Di°nysos (mit l a n g e m y
4 0
u n d e i n e m lediglich i m T o n
g e h o b e n e m o) - zustande, u n d vieles d e r g l e i c h e n . trotz Buttmann:
41
Dies w i e d e r u m
„ S o lange u n d soweit es nun d e m Studium nicht
gelingt, diesem M a n g e l abzuhelfen, u n d Quantität u n d T o n n e b e n einander hörbar zu machen, kann m a n die für uns wichtigere Quantität i m Lesen vorwalten lassen." Dies ist für antike N a m e n n a c h wie v o r eine beherzigenswerte R e g e l . In d e r A n g l o p h o n i e wird sie, bei allen sonstigen Lautwandeln, durchaus korrekt befolgt. D i e Hybridisierung des Altgriechischen mit d e m Neugriechischen bei uns D e u t s c h e n führt hingegen umgekehrt zu d e m G l a u b e n , die aus d e r Antike ü b e r das Latein Aussprache
f
| so:krates|
sei ein Latinismus -
überlieferte
w o wir d o c h wir gar
nicht wissen, o b überhaupt eine der drei Silben dieses N a m e n s i m Altgriechischen lauter g e s p r o c h e n w u r d e . W i r wissen nur, dass die
3 7
D e r Gravis, Abwesenheit eines Akuts oder, anders gesagt, Zeichen der unverän
derten Stimmlage, braucht hier nicht erwähnt zu werden. 3 8
D i e Struktur ist
D i e Betonung in dt. „ H o m i l i e " ist übrigens, wie so oft,
französisch. 3 9
Griechische Schul-Grammatik 13. Folgendes Zitat ebd. 19. - W i e sehr in der Antike
N a m e n nach Quantitäten identifiziert
und verstanden wurden, übrigens j e
nach
Bildung, zeigt das von Erasmus ( 1 3 7 [945]) schon zitierte Beispiel aus Quintilian 1 2 . 1 0 , 5 7 , w o ein italischer Bauer den N a m e n „ A m p h i o n " (mit langem i) nicht ver steht, bis m a n „ A m p i o n " | ' a m p i o n | sagt. A u c h das ph schien er nicht zu kennen. 4 0
D i e Alternativform Ai6vuaoo<; bestätigt j a nur diese Quantitätenfolge.
4 1
I m Italienischen werden die griech. Akzentsilben grundsätzlich gelängt, die von
Natur langen aber nasaliert. D a s Ergebnis ist für den Schreiber dieser Zeilen völ lige
Unverständlichkeit.
419
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
mittlere h ö h e r klang, und versuchen uns das zu merken durch unsere eigene Betonung. D i e v o m Latein h e r k o m m e n d e Traditionsaussprache f
| so:krates |
4 2
bringt die Quantitätenstruktur dieses N a m e n s durchaus f
besser z u m A u s d r u c k als das gymnasiale | so'krates | (ngr. | so kra:tis | ) o d e r , was a u c h nicht besser ist, mit g u t e m G r u n d
| soi'krattes | . W i r sagen j a
auch
|hD'me:r|, was w e d e r Latinismus ist n o c h Galli
zismus, sondern auf die altgriechische Quantitätenfolge in diesem W o r t zurückgeht. Ironischerweise sind die hier kritisierten Hybridaussprachen
mitt
lerweile geradezu ein Z e i c h e n humanistischer Bildung g e w o r d e n . D e m Schreiber dieser Seiten ist dies erstmals aufgefallen, als ein Arzt b e i m Anblick seiner Haartracht eine Calvities Hippo'cra:tis diagnostizierte, mit f
einem betonten u n d langen a (offenbar w e g e n lnnoKpdxj\q). ein ernsthafteres
Oder
Beispiel: D e r K o m p o n i s t Carl Orff, stolz a u f seine
humanistische Bildung, hat eine seiner Kompositionen Antigonae benannt (was wir v e r m u d i c h | anti'gone: | aussprechen sollen), w o r i n kein gerin gerer als Friedrich Hölderlin sein V o r g ä n g e r gewesen ist.
43
S o ein
N a m e ist, m a n verzeihe mir das W o r t , ein Barbarismus, u n d k o m m e er a u c h aus d e r besten Schule. W i e d e r u m : S o hat die G r i e c h i n 'AvTiyovri in i h r e m L a n d e , u n d a u c h bei d e n R ö m e r n , nie geheißen.
8.
GEMISCHTE N A M E N ; VERSCHIEDENES;
KOMPROMISSE
Sind nun Leidinien gefunden, die eine gewisse editorische Konsistenz a u c h a u f d e n deutschen Seiten einer künftigen J o s e p h u s - A u s g a b e gewährleisten, so sei abschließend v o n den nötigen K o m p r o m i s s e n und A u s n a h m e n gesprochen.
4 2
Lateinisch, genau g e n o m m e n , mit langem e a m Schluss. D o c h für Schlusssilben und Endungen hat j e d e Sprache eigene Regeln. So auch Josephus im U m g a n g mit nichtgriechischen N a m e n in griechischem K o n t e x t (oben A b s c h n . 1). 4 3
F. Hölderlin, Sämtliche Werke (Frankfurter Ausgabe), Bd. 16: Sophocles (hg. M . Franz, Frankfurt 1988), z.B. S. 56f. (mit Faksimile): „Antigonä". Hölderlin seinerseits folgt hierin J. G . V o ß (vgl. oben bei A n m . 29f.). D i e Verwirrung ist seither nicht m e h r aufzuhalten und ging a m weitesten in der Abgeschlossenheit der einstigen D D R . Die Übersetzung der Griechischen Anthologie, die im Aufbau-Verlag ( B e r l i n / W e i m a r 1 9 8 1 ; Übers.: D . Ebener) erschien, ist durchsetzt mit neugriechisch zu betonenden N a m e n : W o die T u s c u l u m - A u s g a b e ( M ü n c h e n 1 9 5 8 ; Übers.: H . Beckby) schreibt: „Asklepiades, trink!" (12:50), heißt es jetzt: „Trinke doch, Asklepiädes!" (sie). D a s kann nur zu d e m Barbarismus eines langen a an dieser Stelle führen. D e r engli sche Sprachraum hat sich mit der „henninischen" Aussprache (die nicht so ungeeignet ist, wie Allen sie darstellt) ein derartiges Durcheinander erspart.
420
FOLKER SIEGERT
W i r werden den Ortsnamen
„ C a e s a r e a " g e b r a u c h e n , so wie er
bekannt u n d üblich ist, o h n e K , aber auch o h n e deutsches ä. G l e i c h gebildet wäre eigentlich der N a m e „ A l e x a n d r i a " ('Ata^avÖpeia), w o b e i aber - schon i m alten R o m - nur K e n n e r des Griechischen | a k k sandri:a| g e s p r o c h e n h a b e n w e r d e n ; für die übrigen gilt vocalis ante vocalem corripitur, hier also die V e r k ü r z u n g des vorvokalischen i. Solche Unterschiede sind für unsere deutsche Übersetzung uninteressant; so w e r d e n wir, die ursprüngliche Pluralbildung n a c h a h m e n d ,
Formen
verwenden wie „ A l e x a n d r i e n " , „ S a m a r i e n " usw., die ganz nach deutschem Sprachgefühl betont w e r d e n können. Freilich w e r d e n wir nicht sagen „ S e l e u k i e n " , s o n d e r n es b e i „ S e l e u k i a " belassen, w i e i m m e r das dann betont w e r d e n wird. Bleiben n o c h einige eher u n g e w ö h n l i c h e Schwierigkeiten anzu sprechen, die sich aus d e n ganz o d e r teilweise orientalischen N a m e n bei Josephus ergeben. A n A b s c h n . 1 anknüpfend, sei ein N a m e w i e , Johannes Hyrkan" (so die traditionelle Wiedergabe) nunmehr bedacht. N a c h d e m wir in d e r Vita angefangen haben, nicht m e h r „ J o h a n n e s " zu schreiben, sondern „ J o h a n a n " , stellt sich uns n u n die Frage, wie diese F o r m sich verbinden lässt mit Tpicavoq. N a c h unseren V o r g a b e n w e r d e n wir erhalten: J o h a n a n Hyrkanos - u n d w a r u m nicht? D e r T r ä g e r dieses N a m e n s benannte sich zweisprachig u n d tat dies a u f d e n V o r d e r - u n d Rückseiten seiner M ü n z e n jeweils getrennt. J e d e r N a m e verbleibt also auch b e i uns in seiner Herkunftssprache, wie es übrigens bei Transkriptionen i m T a l m u d auch üblich ist. Bei alledem sind wir aber flexibel genug, d e n N a m e n „ J o h a n n e s " für eine Person zu reservieren, die unter diesem N a m e n allbekannt ist, nämlich für J o h a n n e s d e n Täufer. E b e n s o wird , Jesus" nur für Jesus v o n Nazareth
gesagt w e r d e n , nicht für die verschiedenen 'Irioouq
genannten Personen v o n Josua an. Diese kleine Unterecheidungshilfe für ein heutiges Publikum wird m a n sicher nicht unwissenschaftlich finden. Ein K o m p r o m i s s wird w o h l nötig sein für d e n N a m e n „ H y k s o s " (C. Ap. 1.82 ff.). Diese traditionelle Schreibweise, textkritisch bereits fraglich durch die V e r w e n d u n g v o n -KG- statt
ist d e m C o d e x
Laurentianus u n d anderen späten u n d schlechten Z e u g e n geschuldet. U n s e r kritischer T e x t wird n u n m e h r TKOUOOOK; bringen, unterstützt v o n der in orientalischen D i n g e n durchaus ernstzunehmenden armeni schen Überlieferung. W i r w e r d e n es aber w o h l , d e r Einfachheit hal ber, in d e r deutschen Übersetzung bei „ H y k s o s " belassen* m a n kennt diesen Volksstamm nicht anders. Ein zusätzliches M o t i v für uns ist, dass N a m e n , die d u r c h das Ägyptische g e g a n g e n sind, v o n nicht
421
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
reduzierbaren Varianten strotzen.
44
D a s hängt damit z u s a m m e n , dass
die ägyptische Schrift, wie eingangs s c h o n gesagt, zur Phonetik nur eine lose Beziehung unterhält, und überdies damit, dass das Ägyptische in so viele Dialekte zerfallt, dass die Schrift es gar nicht erst ver sucht, eine bestimmtes K l a n g b i l d für j e d e s W o r t festzuhalten. K e i n e Schreibregelung für so etwas K o m p l e x e s wie ein übersetz tes Geschichtswerk lässt sich mit K o n s e q u e n z durchführen. S o s c h ö n die K o n s e q u e n z wäre, weil sie die Irritation sich widersprechender Praktiken vermeidet, so sehr stößt sie sich d a n n w i e d e r an unlös baren P r o b l e m e n orientalischer P h i l o l o g i e n einerseits u n d an
der
Bekanntheit gewisser N a m e n u n d ihrer V e r b i n d u n g mit überliefer ten Schreibweisen andrerseits. I m Laufe v o n zweitausend J a h r e n hat es zu d e n verschiedensten Zeitpunkten E n d e h n u n g e n antiker N a m e n ins D e u t s c h e g e g e b e n ; das sieht m a n d e n Schreibweisen m a n c h m a l n o c h an. Für J o s e p h u s
5
eigenen N a m e n hat sich eine S c h r e i b u n g
eingebürgert, die w e d e r hebräisch ist n o c h griechisch {Josephus statt 'Icbar|7co<;), dafür aber allbekannt; sie m a c h t unseren A u t o r unver wechselbar mit seinen vielen antiken u n d m o d e r n e n H o m o n y m e n . D a s kann auch gut so bleiben. W o aber ein Entscheidungsspielraum o d e r gar - b e d a r f besteht, w e r d e n wir transkribieren
i m Sinne der
hier dargelegten, der Praxis des R ö m e r s Josephus durchaus ähnlichen Regeln.
45
4 4
D a s Beispiel „ R a m [ p ] s e s / R a m e s e s / R a m e s s e s " , das sogar „ H a r m a i s " einschließt, wird in der Einleitung unserer Contra-Apionem-Ausgabe zu diskutieren sein. 4 5
Für Kritik u n d hilfreiche Hinweise danke ich H e r r n Prof. D r . Herwig G ö r g e manns, Heidelberg, und Herrn D r . D r . Eberhard Güting, Wallenhorst.
422
FOLKER
ANHANG: D E R
SIEGERT
S T A N D DES MÜNSTERANER
JOSEPHUS-PROJEKTS
D u r c h d e n T o d eines n o c h j u n g e n Mitarbeiters, D r . Jürgen K a l m s , der die Textdatei verwaltet hatte, ist das U n t e r n e h m e n u m fast ein J a h r zurückgeworfen w o r d e n . D i e V e r ö f f e n d i c h u n g der griechisch deutschen kommentierten A u s g a b e der A p o l o g i e Über das Alter des Judentums - wie wir sie n u n m e h r nach J o s e p h u s ' e i g e n e m Willen nen nen w e r d e n
46
- ist aber gesichert und ein G a n g z u m D r u c k n o c h
i m Jahre 2 0 0 5 wahrscheinlich. W a s die Arbeit zusätzlich retardiert, ist ein eher glücklicher Umstand, nämlich die Wiederentdeckung einer Handschrift, die Niese nicht gefun d e n hatte: Es handelt sich u m d e n C o d e x Elienis (aus Ely) in der Universitätsbibliothek C a m b r i d g e . Dessen Nachkollationie-rung nach Fotos und a m Original hat Nieses T h e s e widerlegt, alle Handschriften der direkten
g r i e c h i s c h e n Contra-Apionem-Überlieferung
seien
Abkömmlinge des C o d e x L(aurentianus). C o d e x E ist es eindeutig nicht, a u c h w e n n er die g r o ß e L ü c k e (C. Ap. 2 . 5 2 - 1 1 4 ) mit der gesamten griechischen Überlieferung teilt. Er wird nun eingearbeitet, w o b e i für die durch Wasserschaden unleserlichen Partien der ihm eng verwandte, v o n Niese gleichfalls verkannte Pariser C o d e x 1815, als Mikrofilm beschafft, eintreten wird. Eine ähnliche Ü b e r r a s c h u n g hatten wir mit d e n C o d e x Schleusingensis (in Schleusingen, T h ü r i n g e n ) , der seit Deutschlands Einigung j a nun wieder p r o b l e m l o s zugänglich ist. S c h o n Niese hätte merken k ö n n e n , dass dieser die unmittelbare D r u c k v o r l a g e der editio princeps w a r und also statt dieser hätte zitiert w e r d e n müssen. Er ist nicht v o n Arlenius, deren Herausgeber, geschrieben, enthält a u c h nicht dessen Konjekture, und ist seinerseits in vielem v o n L unabhängig. - Insgesamt können wir durch das Nachkollationieren über 30 Konjekturen früherer Gelehrter jetzt als Handschriftenlesarten
ausweisen.
W a s die Antiquitates (künftig deutsch: die Alte Geschichte) des Josephus betrifft, so ist eine Übersetzung ins Deutsche a m Institutum J u d a i c u m Delitzschianum der Universität Münster b e g o n n e n w o r d e n , freilich nur dies. M e h r als eine Ü b e r s e t z u n g w i r d an d i e s e m W e r k v o n unserer Seite nicht geleistet w e r d e n k ö n n e n - keine N e u b e w e r t u n g
4 6
Flavius Josephus, Apologie (Contra Apionem). Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar von F. Siegert, H . Schreckenberg, M . V o g e l und d e m Josephus-Arbeitskreis des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, Münster.
423
JOSEPHUS UND DAS ALPHABET DER RÖMER
strittiger Lesarten u n d keine Einarbeitung d e r n o c h unerschlossenen Athos-Handschrift der Epitome
und kein deutschsprachiger K o m m e n t a r ,
auch keine Einarbeitung der seit 5 0 0 Jahren ungelesenen Handschriften v o n B u c h 6 - 2 0 in ihrer alten lateinische Übersetzung. Für solche Arbeiten wäre das Institutum J u d a i c u m Delitzschianum auf öffentliche G e l d e r angewiesen, hatte sie auch n a c h all der geleisteten V o r a r b e i t
47
erhofft - eine Bitte, die trotz ausführlicher B e g r ü n d u n g u n d trotz des Verweises auf die unentgeltliche Mitarbeit v o n D r . Heinz Schreckenberg v o n d e n zuständigen Instanzen abgewiesen w u r d e . W e l c h e r Sachver stand
d a b e i waltete, lässt sich aus d e m A b l e h n u n g s b e s c h e i d d e r
Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft v o m 11.12.2002 entnehmen, dessen Kernsatz lautet: „ E n t s c h e i d e n d hierfür war, dass bei d e r intendierten Übersetzung keine neuen Handschriften herangezogen werden sollen."
4 7
Sie ist dokumentiert in: F. Siegert, „ J o s e p h u s edieren - was alles dazugehört.
Ein vorzeitiger
Rückblick auf das Münsteraner Josephus-Projekt",
in J.
Kalms/
F. Siegert (Hg.): Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002 (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien ebd.,
14; M ü n s t e r 2 0 0 3 ) ,
195-201.
1 7 1 - 1 9 4 ; ders., „Bibliographie des
Josephus-Projekts",
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
FOLKER SlEGERT INSTITUTUM JUDAICUM DELITZSCHIANUM,
MÜNSTER
It m a y b e risky to p r o n o u n c e a c o n c l u s i o n o n the basis o f fresh impressions.
1
Personally I d o not feel o l d e n o u g h to b e something
like a senior adviser o f Josephus studies. T h e Münster Josephus p r o j e c t , h o w e v e r , with w h i c h the series o f Josephus C o l l o q u i a b e g a n in 1997, has c o m e o f age. Officially it has even died, being n o w reduced to a very m o d e s t kind o f afterlife. M a y b e this very situation entides m e to give a retrospective sine ira et studio o n what w e have e x c h a n g e d and gained in these three days.
I First a n d foremost, the Roman setting o f this c o n f e r e n c e has b r o u g h t a b o u t a particular sensitivity for Josephus as a historian, a n d m o r e precisely, as a politician. M o r e than o n e contribution to this c o l l o q u i u m has p o i n t e d out a very R o m a n feature o f Flavius Josephus, namely his pragmatism. Josephus speaks o n behalf o f Jewish inter ests, as he understands
them.
O n a m o r e intellectual level, I venture to say that in his writings there is n o " p h i l o s o p h y serving as a h a n d m a i d o f t h e o l o g y , " but the o l o g y serving as a h a n d m a i d to politics. Theologia ancilla politices. I shall return to the theological aspects o f Josephus' writings in m o r e detail at the e n d o f m y remarks. In o u r c o l l o q u i u m , other aspects c a m e to the foreground.
II W e spoke very concretely about J o s e p h u s ' art o f writing. Writing in G r e e k meant for h i m a n e w c h a n c e , but also a n e w risk. G r e e k , in 1
T h i s is a slightly revised version of the remarks delivered at the conclusion of the Josephus Colloquium. T h a n k s are due to M r C . de V o s and to the editors of this volume for additions and corrections.
426
FOLKER SIEGERT
contradistinction to A r a m a i c , was a language with an immense v o c a b ulary, part o f w h i c h was c h a r g e d with allusions to previous writings, classical and (in Josephus' day) also post-classical. It was up to Josephus to play with the possibilities o f double talk inherent in such a language. T h e s e possibilities e x c e e d e d even those o f the H e b r e w language as it was used b y the Q u m r a n covenanters because their allusions were only referring to the H o l y Writ, whereas Josephus c o u l d make allu sions to a wealth o f writings, religious (or almost so, like H o m e r ) , o r secular. S o Josephus was confronted with an opportunity as well as with a danger. H e had a c h a n c e to tell things without seeming to tell them; but he c o u l d also unintentionally tell m o r e than he wanted to. F o r e x a m p l e , Josephus c o u l d depict the dementia o f Titus in terms that were so far from any probability, that Jewish readers c o u l d smile o r even laugh at it. Psychologically speaking, this might have had a healthy effect o n the hearers o f his texts, given the fact that they w e r e n o t — o r n o l o n g e r — b o u n d to a p p r o v e o f everything Titus had d o n e . T o represent Titus as a warrior constandy fighting with his o w n w e a p o n m a y have contributed to e n h a n c e this irony—the irony o f the vanquished—to grotesque p r o p o r t i o n s .
2
O n the other hand, Josephus m a y tell us m o r e than he intended to. T o speak o f G o d ' s rcpovoiot automatically implied the assertion o f the rcpovoioc pacnAiox;, i.e. imperial politics, since there was an inti mate symbolic link between the t w o . O n e c o u l d not exist without the other, unless the c o s m o s fell into disorder. It is difficult to see h o w Josephus' allegiance to his much-cited B o o k o f Daniel can c o e x ist with his use o f rcpovoicc—a notion w h i c h forced h i m to r e n o u n c e any Jewish apocalyptic distance from the prevailing political p o w e r . T h e reason m a y b e found in J o s e p h u s ' o w n aspirations to b e called to p o w e r b y P o w e r itself, as represented b y the R o m a n s .
Ill W h a t kind o f a historian can Josephus have b e e n for his time? C a n w e tell, in ancient R o m a n terms, h o w his writings c o u l d have b e e n received and appreciated? T h i s question is all the m o r e necessary as 2
W e m a y think here o f the Gospel of John and of its ironies as another instance
of the
bitter laughter o f the
rejected. In first- and
second-century Asia
Christianity was in a minority situation, even c o m p a r e d with Judaism.
Minor,
427
CONCLUDING REMARKS
the only readers k n o w n to have appreciated Josephus
5
efforts were
the Christians. T h e imperial a p p r o b a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' Bellum did not serve as a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f his other writings. Besides a few allu sions to s o m e details o f his Bellum, there is n o m e n t i o n o r use o f his writings in p a g a n historians. O n l y s o m e half-oriental philosophers like J a m b l i c h u s s h o w s o m e readiness to appreciate h i m as an author. T h e Christians' appreciation for h i m chiefly depends, as it seems, o n his n a m i n g Jesus, J o h n the Baptist and Jesus' brother J a m e s in neutral o r even positive terms. J o s e p h u s ' references to
Christianity
seem to call u p o n the Christians as a kind of claqueurs to Judaism, just as he sometimes appeals to the God-fearers in order to give applause to the excellence o f the Jewish w a y o f life. Unfortunately for him, the Christians did not restrict themselves to play that role. J o s e p h u s ' success with the Christians d e p e n d s o n his colourful a c c o u n t o f the fall o f Jerusalem. All this is well k n o w n ; so o u r question was: H o w c o u l d a p a g a n R o m a n audience possibly have appreciated J o s e p h u s ' m a n n e r o f writing history? W e have b e e n ready to a c k n o w l e d g e that Josephus did a g o o d j o b as a historian. His Bellum, for o n e thing, seems to have satisfied the d e m a n d s b o t h o f Titus himself and o f the Jewish w o u l d - b e king A g r i p p a II, as is attested at the e n d o f the Vita. E v e n the a c c o r d o f o n e o f his accounts with the Titus arch c a n b e interpreted in terms o f dependence o f the latter o n Josephus' text. But what about Josephus' later writings, especially the Antiquitates a n d the a p o l o g y Ilepi xfjc; 'Iou8a{cov dpxaioxrixoq {Contra Apionem)? H e r e , the o n l y traces o f a reception are f o u n d with the Christians.
S o , politically speaking,
Josephus has f o u n d the w r o n g allies; he has b e e n cherished b y those from w h o m he wanted only s o m e applause, but nothing m o r e . H e might n o w personally appear a m o n g us and protest b y say ing: " T h i s was not m y fault. I w a n t e d to speak to R o m a n s , if p o s sible to aristocrats, and I did m y best to b e heard b y them!" T h i s m a y well b e ; Josephus is an awfully gifted storyteller, able to use typically G r e e k double-talk in o r d e r to have the laughers o n his o w n side; and he masters the beauties o f G r e e k prose so well that his texts can b e read as a kind o f prose p o e m , including the appropri ate G r e e k rhythms. If he failed, this is to b e c o u n t e d as an irony not o f his o w n , but o f history. J o s e p h u s ' failure to b e appreciated b y the R o m a n aristocracy m a y b e explained b y that aristocracy's unwillingness to r e c o g n i z e an indi vidual c o m i n g from the Orient as o n e o f its m e m b e r s . A n important
428
FOLKER
SIEGERT
obstacle surely was J o s e p h u s ' Jewish w a y o f life. A n o t h e r o n e was the rise o f a n e w , non-priestly aristocracy in J u d a e a . T h e v o y a g e o f the four J u d e a n R a b b i s to R o m e in the 90s o f the first century G.E.
1
m a y have b e e n destined to w a r n the R o m a n s against giving t o o m u c h influence to their resident Josephus, w h o seems to have aspired to supreme dignities as a representative o f the Jewish p e o p l e . O n c e discarded from R o m e ' s political plans o r rcpovoioc, Josephus n o longer was an interesting author o f the early imperial p e r i o d . H e w o u l d have b e e n quickly superseded b y Tacitus a n d s o m e others, h a d there not b e e n the Christians' interest. J o s e p h u s ' writings were not included in the c a n o n o f historical works to b e c o p i e d and handed d o w n in the R o m a n w o r l d .
IV Even if there is n o d o u b t a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' ability as a writer and a politician (politicians, even able ones, m a y fail), there are doubts as to his integrity as a h u m a n person acting o n b e h a l f o f a c o m m u n i t y a n d / o r a set o f philosophical and religious values. Y o u m a y agree with m e that it is difficult to feel
sympathetic
towards Flavius Josephus. For example, he has n o p r o b l e m with what J o h n Barclay has called "the politics o f c o n t e m p t , "
4
as l o n g as it is
directed against Egyptians a n d not against Jews. T o his m i n d , the Egyptians, cultivating a crude polytheism, are n o t even w o r t h y to b e called " h u m a n s " ( C Ap. 2.66). T h e explanation w e found consists in the fact that there was n o R o m a n pity for the Egyptians o r their neighbours. Josephus is even able to a p p r o v e o f Socrates' execution b y the Athenians; for there was not m u c h R o m a n sympathy for the Greeks either, and espe cially not for G r e e k philosophers in the reign o f D o m i t i a n . J o s e p h u s ' rhetoric m a y even b e c o m e self-defeating in that he has H e r o d , a semi-barbarian
king, justify the killing o f barbarians
as something
natural. T h e h u m a n e values the R a b b i s learnt from the T o r a h d o not seem to b e his.
5
y. Sank. 7:19, 2 5 d ; cf. Folker Siegert, H e i n z Schreckenberg, and M a n u e l V o g e l , Flavius Josephus: Aus meinem Leben (Vita) (Tübingen: M o h r Siebeck, 2 0 0 1 ) , 2. 4
J. M . G . Barclay, "The Politics of Contempt: Judaeans and Egyptians in Josephus' Against A p i o n , " SBLSP 3 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) , 3 2 7 - 5 8 .
429
CONCLUDING REMARKS
V As to the theological aspect o f J o s e p h u s ' writing, I think he played it d o w n in o r d e r not to repel R o m a n readers. Sure, he frequendy allows for direct divine intervention and influence o n the fate o f his p e o p l e ; and it is not Jupiter, but the u n n a m e d G o d , to w h o m this influence is attributed. Josephus m a n a g e d to formulate these confes sional elements in a w a y (I believe) quite inoffensive to R o m a n read }
ers. A s m a y b e seen in a study o f his revelation l a n g u a g e , he never uses it in a pathetic w a y ; instead, he plays the role o f a rationalis tic p h i l o s o p h e r sometimes c o m m e n t i n g o n riddles o f history. S o he maintains a Jewish stance while using 1 0 0 % Hellenistic expressions (the o n e case o f yeveau; in a n o n - G r e e k sense, w h i c h was discussed in this c o n f e r e n c e , makes for less than o n e percent). S o I agree with the majority w h o said that there is n o hybridizing o f J u d a i s m in Josephus in the sense o f a b a d c o m p r o m i s e — e x c e p t w h e r e he makes political c o n c e s s i o n s involving M o s e s a n d beliefs alike. W e already saw this in his use o f the term
pagan
rcpovoioc.
J o s e p h u s wished to partake in the p o w e r he admired. H e was an aristocrat w h o h a d lost his function and wanted to obtain a n e w one,
if not a better o n e .
T o b e sure, his aim was to re-establish the T e m p l e cult. W e should not forget that the T e m p l e ' s walls were still standing, a n d the T e m p l e vessels w e r e deposited a n d preserved in R o m e . O n l y a pragmatic attitude—he must have thought—might lead to a restoration o f what h a d b e e n d a m a g e d , but not yet lost. But alas, the same pragmatism w h i c h d o m i n a t e d his thought all the w a y prevented Josephus from The
term theocracy—probably
clearly saying what he
wanted.
c o i n e d b y Josephus himself—veils what
he wished to happen, so that not even Jewish readers might have said in what measure this was to b e b r o u g h t a b o u t a c c o r d i n g to the T o r a h , a c c o r d i n g to s o m e halakhah, hinted at in the Bellum his apology Contra Apionem,
o r in
o r according to R o m a n political conceptions.
J o s e p h u s ' unwillingness to tell his o p i n i o n o f H e r o d is symptomatic. To
his m i n d , c o m i n g b a c k to a H e r o d i a n p o l i c y might have b e e n
a g o o d o p t i o n , if ever possible. O r , to put it in Biblical terms, b y
5
See K . - P . Pridik, *Josephus' Reden von Offenbarung. Eine Übersicht," i n j . K a l m s
and F. Siegert, eds., Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002, Judaistische
Studien
14; Münster: Lit, 2 0 0 3 ) ,
151-68.
(Münsteraner
430
FOLKER SIEGERT
not c o n d e m n i n g Saul, as Samuel did, Josephus reserved for himself the o p t i o n to become a new Saul—since,
to his view, a n e w D a v i d , i.e.,
the Messiah, had not yet c o m e . S o he left further religious devel o p m e n t s to those w h o either believed to have f o u n d the M e s s i a h — o r kept waiting for h i m .
LIST O F C O N T R I B U T O R S
Prof. J O H N M . G . BARCLAY, University o f D u r h a m Prof. H O N O R A H O W E L L CHAPMAN, California State University, Fresno Prof. DETLEV DORMEYER, Universität
Dortmund
Dr.
B A R B A R A EBERHARDT, Universität
Erlangen
Dr.
N I C L A S FÖRSTER, G e o r g - A u g u s t - U n i v e r s i t ä t , G ö t t i n g e n
Prof. A N T H O N Y J. FORTE, SJ, Pontifical Biblical Institute Dr.
GUNNAR H A A L A N D , T h e N o r w e g i a n Lutheran S c h o o l o f T h e o l o g y
Prof. J A N W I L L E M VAN HENTEN, University o f A m s t e r d a m Prof. BERNARD S. JACKSON, University o f M a n c h e s t e r Drs.
TESSEL JONQUIÈRE, Universiteit
Utrecht
Prof. G I O R G I O JOSSA, Università di N a p o l i " F e d e r i c o I I " Dr.
T A M A R LANDAU, O x f o r d
Dr.
G A I A LEMBI, S c u o l a N o r m a l e Superiore, Pisa
and T e l Aviv
Prof. JAMES S. M C L A R E N , Australian C a t h o l i c University Prof. STEVE M A S O N , Y o r k University, T o r o n t o Prof. D O R O N MENDELS, H e b r e w University o f Jerusalem Prof. FAUSTO PARENTE, II Università di R o m a , T o r V e r g a t a Prof. JONATHAN J. PRICE, T e l A v i v University Dr.
G O T T F R I E D SCHIMANOWSKI,
Saarbrücken
Prof. FOLKER SIEGERT, Universität Prof. JOSEPH SIEVERS,
Münster
Pontifical Biblical Institute a n d Pontifical
G r e g o r i a n University Prof. PAUL SPILSBURY, Alliance University C o l l e g e , Calgary Prof. L u c i o TROIANI, Università degli Studi di Pavia
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
GREEK AND LATIN AUTHORS Aelius T h e o n
Aulus Gellius Noctes atticae
Progymnasmata
60
83
70
83
15.11.4
2 9 8 n. 7
Caesar Bellum civile Aeschylus
Supplices
686-687
3.88-94 236
1.1 Anthologia Palatina 4.1.42
375
7.152.5-6 Appian
131 n. 3 7
Bella civilia
3.2.17
2 5 9 n. 13
285
5.33
2 8 5 n. 11
7.22-28
284
7.85
285
7.86
2 8 5 n. 12
Cassiodorus De institutione divinarum litterarum 1.17
Aristophanes Lysistrata 204
9 5 n. 6 2
2.25
1 2 9 n. 3 0
Historia romana 12.17.116-117
2 8 5 n. 12
Bellum gallicum
3 7 9 n. 4 4
236 Cassius D i o Historia Romana
Ranae 465-466
142
37.16.6-17.1
473-478
142
51.17.1
3 2 0 n. 2 4
51.21.2-22.3
2 5 9 n. 14
Vespae
2 3 n. 9
379
394
56.18-22
396
394
62.15
3 0 5 n. 3 9
65.1.4
3 2 1 n. 3 0
65.4.4
6 0 n. 3 7
Aristotle Mechanica 857b
394
9 3 n. 6 0
65.7.1
5 2 n. 17
65.9.1
3 2 1 n. 3 0
65.9.2
3 1 9 n. 17
1452b34-1453a17
1 7 3 n. 4 0
65.12
2 6 6 n. 4 7
1453a4-6
1 7 9 n. 5 8
66.1.4
4 5 n. 1
66.6.2
Poetica
1631b
66.13
Rhetorica 1358b 1359b-1360a
1 8 6 n. 9 1 8 6 n. 13
1382a21-22
1 7 6 n. 4 9
1385M3-15
1 7 6 n. 4 9
1414b
187 n. 15
1417b
1 8 8 n. 19
1419b
1 8 9 n. 2 3
66.15.3-4 67.13
64 3 0 2 n. 2 4 8 7 n. 4 6 2 9 8 n. 7, 3 0 2 n. 2 2 , 303
67.14
3 0 8 n. 5 5
C i c e r o Epistulae ad Atticum 1.13.3
3 5 2 n. 3 0
De divinatione
Arrian Epicteti dissertationes 2.9.19
109
2 5 n. 14
1.36-37
3 8 n. 2 3
De qfficiis Augustine Epistulae 102.89
2 3 n. 6
1.7.20-23
2 0 0 n. 5 7
1.11.34-36
2 0 0 n. 5 7
434
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
1.23.80-81
2 0 0 n. 5 7
2.8.26-27
2 0 0 n. 5 7
D i o Chrysostom Orationes 18.6-7
1 4 0 n. 6 7
De oratore 1.40.183
3 5 2 , 3 5 2 n. 3 0 , 3 6 2 n. 8 3
1-5
9, 17
1.3-6
Partitiones oratoriae 27
187 n. 15
Orationes philippicae 2.28.69
3 5 2 n. 31
De república 2.17.31
2 0 0 n. 5 7
3.25.31
2 0 0 n. 5 7
3 8 n. 2 4
2.31.9
3 8 n. 2 3
2.59.2
2 4 9 n. 15
2.59.7
2 4 9 n. 16
4-21
12
11-20
17
18-20
13
31.7.9-12
Tópica 4.19
Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Histórica
3 5 1 , 3 5 2 n. 3 0 ,
2 5 9 n. 11
40.2
2 8 n. 2 0
3 5 4 n. 4 0 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates
Tusculanae disputationes 4.84
2 3 7 n. 3 4
5.119-120
2 3 7 n. 3 4
romanae 1.6.5
1 9 2 n. 3 4
3.3.6
199
3.23.6-21
Christus Patiens
192
1470
1 4 4 n. 7 8
4.26
1 8 6 n. 14
1668-1669
1 4 4 n. 7 5
4.70-85
1 7 5 n. 4 6
1678-1679
1 4 4 n. 7 5
5.5.4
200
5.45.1 6.6-9
Codex justinianus 5.17.6
2 0 2 n. 7 0
3 5 5 nn. 5 1 - 5 2
5.17.8.pr
3 5 6 n. 5 4
5.17.9
3 5 6 n. 5 4
192
6.8.1
198
6.8.1-3
1 9 8 n. 5 2
7.66.3
1 9 2 n. 3 4
8.2 3.16.1
200
8.2.5
Codex theodosianus 3 5 6 n. 5 4
9.9
199 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 n. 7 0
10.6 222 287-298
78 7 8 n. 2 3
11.1-3
16 1 9 2 n. 3 4
De compositione verborum 22
1 3 3 n. 4 7
De Thucydide
Demosthenes [In Neaeream] 59.85-88
1 8 8 n. 2 0
11
Demetrius De elocutione
3 6 1 n. 7 9
5-7
3 8 n. 2 4
Contra Pantaenetum 12
1 8 8 n. 2 0
Dioscorides Pedanius De materia medica 1.95
375
Digesta 24.1.57.pr 24.2.4
3 5 5 n. 4 8 3 5 2 n. 3 0 ,
D o n a t u s Life of Virgil 1861
2 5 n. 13
3 5 2 n. 3 2 , 3 5 5 n. 4 9 24.2.9
3 5 3 n. 3 7 , 3 6 0 n. 7 5
24.3.22
Epictetus Diatribai (Dissertationes) 1.2.19-22
3 0 2 n. 2 2
2.8.21
2 4 1 n. 5 5
3 5 2 n. 3 0
24.3.22.7
3 5 2 n. 3 2
24.3.38
3 5 5 n. 5 0
38.11.1.1
3 6 1 n. 77
48.5.30.3
3 6 2 n. 8 3
48.5.44
3 5 5 n. 5 3
48.5.44(43)
3 5 2 n. 3 7
Eurípides Alcestis 791 Bacchae 337-340 735 739
236 141 1 4 2 n. 71 1 4 2 n. 71
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
1104
1 4 2 n. 71
7.7
1127
1 4 2 n. 71
7.8-11
1135
1 4 2 n. 71
7.9
1184
143
1216-1220
141
435
173 1 9 0 n. 2 4 197, 199, 2 0 2 n. 6 9
7.10
197
7.101-105
197
1220
1 4 2 n. 71
1242
143
7.136.2
2 0 1 n. 6 6
1245-1246
143
7.171
132 n. 4 2
8.57-60
1 9 0 n. 2 4
8.68
1 9 0 n. 2 4
1329
1 4 3 n. 7 4
Electro. 920
3 6 1 n. 7 9
8.83
190
8.142.5
2 0 3 n. 7 7
Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica 1.8 3.9.1-2 3.9.2 3.9.3 4.18
1 2 6 n. 18 8 8 n. 4 9
H e s i o d Opera et dies 243
1 3 2 n. 4 2
108 3 8 4 n. 8
Historia Augusta
3 5 0 n. 2 6
27.10.3 H o m e r Iliad
6
Praeparatio evangelica 7.21
2 3 7 n. 3 7
8.14
2 3 7 n. 3 7
1.43
132 n. 4 4
13.12.3
2 4 0 n. 4 9
1.60
132 n. 4 4
2.580
131 n. 3 5
5.505
Frontinus Strategemata
410
2 8 3 n. 9
17.201
1 2 9 n. 2 7
1.1.8
2 8 3 n. 9
22.338
131 n. 3 9
1.3.10
2 8 3 n. 9
22.338-343
131 n. 3 8
2.1-3
2 8 3 n. 9
22.339
132
2.3.23
2 8 3 n. 9
22.345
131 n. 3 9 , 1 3 2
2.4-5
2 8 3 n. 9
22.358-360
131 n. 4 0
2.7-8
2 8 3 n. 9
24.18
1 3 0 n. 3 3
4.6.4
2 8 3 n. 9
24.163-165
130
24.212-213
1 3 2 n. 4 2
1.1-12
Gaius Institutiones
24.346
1.93-94
3 6 4 n. 9 2
1.137a
3 5 5 n. 4 5
132
Odyssey 13.250-301
3 2 1 n. 2 8
20.351
1 2 9 n. 2 7
Herodotus Historiae 1.71-214
149
1.108-214
149
H o r a c e Ars poetica 404-405
2.104
2 2 0 n. 2 7
3.41
1 2 9 n. 3 0
4.2
3.48
171 n. 3 4
Epistulae
3.50-53
171 n. 3 4
1.3.10
3.80-82
1 7 5 n. 4 6
Satirae
5.18-21
2 0 1 n. 6 6
1.4.7
5.62
1 3 6 n. 6 0
5.81.2
203
6.9-12
1 9 0 n. 2 4
6.62
1 2 9 n. 3 0
6.109 7.5
1 9 0 n. 2 4 1 9 9 , 2 0 2 n. 6 9
137
Carmina 133 n. 4 8 137 81
Isidore EtymologJLCum magnum 9.7.24
3 6 3 n. 9 1
Jamblichus Vita Pythagorae 256
2 4 7 n. 2
436
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Josephus Bellum Judaicum
1.146
91
384, 386, 403
1.160
x n. 3
1.1-2
90
1.170
91
1.1-3
88, 100
1.179
92, 290
1.1-12
89
1.181
91
1.1-16
29
1.183
92
1.1-30
7 4 n. 12, 7 6
1.185
92
96
1.194
3 6 3 n. 9 2
1
1.2-3
72, 9 0 , 107,
1.197
3 8 5 n. 14
121 n. 3, 3 8 3
1.199
3 8 5 n. 14
1.4
7 5 n. 13, 9 7
1.202
3 9 5 n. 3 8
1.5
2 6 , 7 5 n. 13
1.203
171 n. 3 5 ,
1.6
72, 90, 383,
1.3
3 8 3 n. 4 1.6-9 1.6-10
100
3 9 5 n. 3 8 1.203-204 1.204
91 172
96
1.204-228
170
4 7 , 110,
1.204-430
170
1 7 6 n. 4 8
1.204-673
1 7 6 n. 4 8
1.205
9 2 , 172
1.10
48, 97, 280, 281
1.206
3 9 5 n. 3 8
1.11
7 5 n. 13, 111
1.208
1 6 0 , 172
1.12
7 5 n. 13, 1 1 1 ,
1.209
172, 3 9 9
1 7 6 n. 4 8
1.210
3 8 5 n. 14
1.13
7 5 , 7 5 n. 13,
1.216-219
98
169 n. 2 7
1.229-353
170
21 n. 1, 8 9 ,
1.233
398
9 0 n. 5 4
1.242
92
1.15
7 5 n. 13
1.243
92, 93
1.16
8 9 , 107
1.253
3 8 6 , 3 9 6 n. 4 3
1.9 1.9-12
1.13-16
1.17-30 1.18
95 7 5 n. 13
1.265-270 1.269
159
290 2 0 2 n. 7 2 ,
1.19
95, 97
1.19-20
95, 96
1.270
2 0 3 n. 7 4
1.20
93, 95
1.284
93
1.21
95
1.292
396
91
96
1.295
396
1.22
90, 92
1.297
396, 401
1.23
95, 97
1.299
397
1.24
95
1.300
397
1.25
95, 280
1.301
397
1.27
294
1.302
401
1.27-28
280
1.311
394
95
1.329
3 9 0 , 3 9 1 n. 2 6
1.29
95
1.332
3 9 6 n. 4 5
1.30
110
1.31
97
1.346
137
1.31-2.116
402
1.353
137
1.32
290
1.354-673
170
1.357
138
1.21-28
1.28
1.36-37
91
1.342-356
290
1.67
135
1.358-368
1.67-68
134
1.364
93
1.69-70
137.
1.366
183 n. 3
1.373-379
93
1.118
92
1.130
376
187 n. 16,
183, 186,
1.138-152
290
1 9 6 n. 4 7
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
437
1.375
2 0 2 , 2 0 2 п. 71
2.1-117
96
1.377
132 п. 4 1 , 3 8 5 п. 11
2.10-11
91
1 9 6 п. 4 6
2.24-38
1.377-378
98
1.378
201
2.25
93, 95
1.379
2 0 2 п. 6 8
2.30
2 0 2 п. 7 2 ,
1.380
184,
1.388-392 1.393 1.396-397
180 3 8 5 п.
12
2.42
74 91
2.66-79
290
3 8 4 п. 6
2.88
59
93
2.90
142
1.398 1.399
400
1.400
9 3 , 3 8 5 п. 9
1.401-430
2 0 3 п.
194
2.90-110
98
2.92
97
1 7 1 , 3 8 5 п. 15,
2.118
334,336
3 9 3 п. 3 1 ,
2.119
9 5 п. 6 2 , 3 3 6
401,
402
2.119-166
311
1.404
3 9 3 п. 31
1.405
3 9 3 , 3 9 3 п. 31
1.407
3 9 3 п. 31
2.220
3 2 3 п. 4 3
402
2.223
3 2 3 п. 4 3
1.408-414 1.412
3 9 3 п. 31
1.413
3 9 3 п. 3 1 , 402,
403
2.184
9 4 п. 61
2.204-217
98
2.245-251
98
2.247
94
2.250-251
94 55
1.414
3 9 3 п. 31
2.254
1.420
3 9 1 , 3 9 3 п. 31
2.287
324
1.421
391
2.309
3 2 3 п. 4 3
1.422
9 2 , 3 9 3 п. 31
2.313
91
1.423
3 9 3 п. 31
2.321
1 2 9 п. 2 9
1.425
3 9 3 п. 31
2.322
1 2 9 , 1 4 0 п. 6 6
1.428
3 9 3 п. 31
2.336
1.429
3 9 3 п. 31
2.345-401
1.429-430
1 7 0 п. 3 2
2.346
54
1.430
3 9 3 п. 31
2.347
1 2 9 п. 2 7
1.430-431 1.431 1.431-673
160,
170
1 7 0 п. 3 2 170,
1.444
2.385-386 2.386
1 7 9 п. 5 9 179 3 8 5 п.
1.500 1.509 1.511
3 8 5 п.
1.513-533
3 8 5 п.
2.360
174
1.457-466 1.467-497
2.356-357
179
1.448-449
2 3 7 п. 3 5 1 1 4 , 2 0 4 п. 81
290 5 4 , 116 п. 3 6 3 1 8 п. 3 1 9 п.
2.388-391
15
3 1 8 п. 16, 19
2 0 4 п. 81
15
2.390
225
142
2.399
199 п. 5 4
386
2.411-417
3 3 3 п. 7
10
2.487
3 2 4 п. 4 4
15
2.490-498
3 2 4 п. 4 4
1.514-517
388
2.491
3 2 4 п. 4 6
1.514
389
2.492
3 2 4 п. 4 6
1.515
389, 390,
2.494
3 2 4 п. 4 6
3 9 0 п. 2 4
2.499
3 2 4 п. 4 4
1.516
389
2.517
5 6 п. 2 8
1.517
3 8 8 , 3 8 8 п. 2 3 ,
2.582
199 п. 5 4
389
2.601
130
400
2.651
5 3 п. 19, 3 3 4
179
2.653
1.538 1.556-558 1.557
3 8 5 п.
334
13
2.81
3 2 6 п. 5 4
1.650
91
2.128
2 5 1 п. 2 3
1.665
1 6 0 , 177 п. 5 2
3.1-8
98
438 3.8
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
6 1 , 3 2 7 п. 5 7
4.400
53
92
4.440
98
112
4.469
376
3.35-44 3.59-109 3.64
3 2 7 п. 5 7
3.65
61
4.496
94
ix
4.510
52 132 п. 4 6
3.70-71
4.491-502
98
46, 49, 294
4.541
3.76
294
4.545
98
3.103
294
4.545-549
98
294
4.550-551
58
113
4.558-563
59
321
4.560-562
58
3.341
146 п. 8 4
4.586-587
98
3.344
146 п. 8 3
4.596
98
87
4.599
3 1 9 п. 17
281
4.605
3.70-109
3.105-106 3.108
49,
3.141-408
3.344-346 3.346-351 3.347
146 п. 8 5
4.612-613
3.354
116 п. 3 6
4.616
3.362-382
145 п. 8 2
3.362-419
114
3.374
3 2 5 п. 4 8 4.622-629
3.400-401
157
4.627-629
3.445
290
4.630
3.484
2 0 4 п. 8 1 , 2 8 1 6 1 , 2 0 4 п. 81
3 1 8 п. 14, 3 1 8 п. 15,
145 п. 8 2
3.472-484
318 3 1 9 п. 21
4.630-655 4.656
3 2 1 п. 31 281 3 1 9 п. 2 2 98 320
3.485
290
4.656-663
98
3.495-496
281
5.1-3
98
3.503
290
5.1-26
3.522
290
5.2
3.530
138,
4.31
294 3 2 0 п. 2 5 , 3 2 1 п. 2 6 ,
139
3 2 7 п. 5 7
290
4.39-48
186 п. 11
5.4
4.70-82
290
5.5
53
5.14
57
4.72
46, 58
4.92-111
286
5.14-16
4.112-116
286
5.18
4.137
132 п. 41
4.161
53
4.162-192
186 п. 9
4.163-192
2 0 4 п. 81
4.172
5.25-26 5.27 5.30-34
132 п. 4 6
5 7 п. 2 9 57 5 5 п. 2 4 142 57
5.44
3 1 9 п. 2 0
294
5.44-46
2 9 4 п. 2 9
2 0 4 п. 81
5.45-46
3 2 5 п. 4 9
4.208
53
5.56-59
281
4.233-333
96
5.67-84
286
4.317
91
5.71-97
4.318
334
5.75
4.319-320
334
5.81
4.332
140
5.81-84
61 п. 4 0
4.359
131 п. 3 5
5.86-87
281
4.359-360
131 п. 3 8
5.87-88
294
4.360
131 п. 3 9
5.88
61
131
5.97
281
139
5.109-114
286
55
5.109-135
96
4.190-191
4.361-362 4.383 4.399-404
138,
96 281 281
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
5.446
439
5.12Ы28
286
5.136-229
92
5.469-472
60
5.169
3 1 9 п. 21
5.479-485
286
5.205
3 2 5 п. 5 0
5.486
287
5.212
65
5.491-496
5.215
65
5.510
5.258-330
96
5.518
5.275-287
286
5.518-519
5.276
286
5.519
5.287
3 1 9 п. 2 0 ,
5.550-552
286
286 3 2 5 п. 5 0 60 139 138, 2 3 1 п. 6 58
3 2 5 п. 5 0
5.554
62
5.288
281
5.564
5 0 п. 9
5.289
286
6
5.290
62
6.2
46 132 п. 41
5.291-295
286
6.12-92
96
5.295
281
6.33-53
281
5.316
286, 294
5.316-318
54
6.38 6.39-41
51 294
3 2 4 п. 4 5
6.68
287
5.318-329
286
6.93
60, 62
5.326-327
411
6.94
60, 63
5.331-341
286
6.94-95
5.318
5.334
6 0 , 61
5.346
286
6.95
5.348-356
286
6.99-110
5.361 5.362-419
2 0 1 п. 6 3 2 0 4 п. 8 1 , 2 8 1
5.363
61
5.367
116 п. 3 6 , 2 2 4
5.367-369
2 0 4 п. 81
6.94-110
6.107 6.109-110 6.123
60 281 60 9 6 , 1 8 6 п. 9 118 п. 4 0 69,294 6 2 , 2 3 1 п. 6
6.124-128
96
6.128
61
5.372
213
6.129-192
96
5.375-419
212
6.131-133
287
5.376
1 2 9 п. 2 7
6.132
287
5.376-378
2 0 4 п. 81
6.149
286
5.376-419
1 8 6 п. 9
6.155
286
5.378
212
6.193-219
96
5.380-381
214
6.199-219
143
5.380-382
213
6.210-211
5.381
116
6.212
143 1 3 2 п. 4 6
5.382-383
214
6.214-216
294
5.384-386
214
6.220
286
5.388
214
6.236-237
87
5.389
214
6.236-243
6 2 , 281
5.390
214
6.237
5.391-398
291
6.237-242
5.401-414
5 0 п. 11 3 2 5 п. 5 0
2 0 4 п. 81
6.238
5.402
61
6.239
62
5.409
9 2 п. 5 7
6.240
62
5.409-410
61 п. 4 0
6.241
62
68, 212
6.245
281
5.412
4 7 , 3 1 9 п. 2 0
5.421
58
6.248
62
5.432
57
6.249
62
5 7 п. 3 0
6.250
62
57
6.251
64
5.433-435 5.435
440
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
6.252
62, 64
7.144
2 7 0 , 271
6.254
62
7.148
6 6 , 2 6 5 п. 4 2 , 2 7 2
6.256
63, 287
7.148-149
2 6 5 п. 4 3
6.258
63
7.148-150
270, 276
6.259
4 6 п. 3
6.260
65
6.260-262
7.149 7.149-150
272 265, 269
287
7.150
63, 272
63
7.151
269, 270, 272
6.262-265
63
7.152
2 6 6 п. 4 7 ,
6.265
64
6.266
63
6.261
269, 272 7.153
270, 272
7.153-156
269, 272
6.267-270
291
6.286-287
6 7 п. 4 7
7.154
270
68
7.155
2 3 1 п. 6 ,
6.299 6.299-300
6 8 п. 4 8
6.300-309
6 7 п. 4 7
7.156
273
6.301
122
7.157
98, 269,
6.324
2 1 3 п. 14
6.328-350 6.357
281
270, 273
273, 275 7.158
270
2 1 3 п. 14
7.158-162
98, 269
6.372
5 2 п. 14
7.158-159
269, 274
6.379
3 1 9 п. 17
7.159
274
6.387
6 5 п. 4 3
7.160
269, 274
6.388
65
7.161
6.389
65
7.161-162
274 65, 269,
6.399
ix
6.406
4 6 п. 3
7.162
6.421
132 п. 4 1
7.256
55
291
7.262
334
46
7.270
55
1 8 6 п. 11
7.272
6.435-442 7 7.33-53 7.67
56
7.73
2 3 1 п. 6
7.85-88
270, 276
7.318-319 7.323
100
7.323-336
7.117
3 2 0 п. 2 5
7.323-388
7.123
269, 270, 273,
63, 270, 274
55 2 0 4 п. 8 1 56 2 0 4 п. 81 1 8 6 п. 9 , 2 0 1 п. 6 3
3 2 8 п. 6 4
7.327-332
2 0 4 п. 81
7.123-131
268
7.341-388
2 0 4 п. 8 1
7.123-162
257, 268, 269,
7.344
314
270, 275, 276
7.355
1 9 9 п. 5 4
7.124
270
7.358-359
2 0 4 п. 81
7.128
270, 273
7.389-397
55
7.128-129
2 3 1 п. 6
7.409
55
7.129
270
7.410
55
7.130
56
270, 273
7.417
7.132-133
268
7.418
7.132-138
271
7.437-453
2 2 п. 4
7.132-152
268
7.447-448
3 2 0 п. 2 4
7.134-138
268
7.455
7.136
269, 271, 272
56
75
Antiquitates Judaicae 1-12
7.139-147
269, 271
7.142-147
271
1.1-17
7.143-145
275
1.5
7.143-146
269
1.5-13
3 30 30, 3 1 , 9 1 , 211 215
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
1.8
218
441
3.143
2 2 0 п. 2 5
1.8-12
30
3.144-146
2 6 5 п. 4 3
1.9
30
3.180
2 2 1 п. 2 9
211
3.205
2 2 0 п. 2 5
30
3.218
2 2 0 п. 2 5
30, 215
1.10-13 1.12
3.223
2 2 1 п. 3 2
10
3.230
2 2 0 п. 2 5
1.14-15
31
3.257
2 2 0 п. 2 5
1.15
30
3.259
2 2 0 п. 2 5
1.13 1.14
1.17
3 3 5 п.
31,211
3.265-268
3 2 п. 5
10
3.266
2 2 1 п. 3 0
1.22
3 0 , 31
3.268
2 2 1 п. 3 0
1.25
2 2 0 п. 2 5 , 3 1 5
3.287
221
1.77-103
2 3 4 п. 21
3.300
219
1.95
2 2 1 п. 2 9
3.313
218
1.97-98
2 3 4 п. 2 2
3.317
2 2 1 п. 3 0
1.155
2 4 0 п. 5 0
3.320
1.20
3 3 5 п.
1.191-193
220
4.13
221 2 2 1 п. 2 9
1.192
2 2 0 , 2 2 0 п. 2 5
4.105
1.214
2 2 0 , 2 2 0 п. 2 5
4.114
218
4.115-116
226
1.222-236
127 п.
19
2 3 1 п. 6
1.240
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.122
219
1.272
2 3 9 п. 4 6 ,
4.125
219, 226
1.272-273 1.273
2 4 0 п. 51
4.127-128
219
2 3 5 п. 2 5
4.129
219
2 3 6 п. 2 7 ,
4.137
220
2 3 6 п. 2 9
4.150
2 2 1 п. 2 9 2 2 1 п. 2 9
1.279
3 2 6 п. 5 6
4.156
2.6
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.177-193
2.18
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.180
221
2.20
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.183
5 7 п. 2 9
2.23
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.184
227
2.24
2 2 1 п. 2 9
4.187
226
2.140-159
1 6 5 п.
16
4.188
226
2.177
3 2 п. 5
4.189
227
2.229
221
4.191
227
2.230
221
4.196
221
2.268-269
219
4.197
223 2 2 0 п. 2 5
186 п. 9
2.275
2 3 4 п.
19
4.198
2.330
2 3 8 п. 4 3
4.204
2 3 п. 7
2.332
217
4.280
3 5 4 п. 4 3
2.334
2 3 2 п. 7
4.294
219
2.335-337
2 3 2 п. 8
4.302
2 2 0 п. 2 5
219
3.19
4.316
2 2 1 п. 3 2
3.33-38
2 3 2 п.
10
4.318
2 2 1 п. 3 2
3.34
2 3 2 п. 11
4.328
222
3.44-46
219
4.331
3.64
219
5.39-41
2 3 2 п.
12
3.78
2 3 4 п. 2 0
5.302
2 3 3 п.
14
3.84
222
6.45-46
3.87-88
222
6.45-378
147
3.90
222
6.88-89
223
3.94
2 2 0 п. 2 5
6.90
224
3.139-143
2 6 5 п. 4 2
6.104
149
222
148 п. 1
442
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
6.130
151 п. 9
13.171-173
311
6.137
151
13.288
134
6.138
151
13.289-298
134
6.150
151
13.299-300
6.259-261
151
14.1-3
3 7 5 п.
19
6.262-269
151
14.8-9
165 п.
17
149
14.9
4 0 2 п. 5 7
6.327-342 6.337
134
139 п. 6 4
14.24
2 3 9 п. 4 5
150
14.33
3 7 5 , 3 7 6 п. 2 6
6.340-342
154
14.33-36
6.368-377
149
14.63
1 9 9 п. 5 4
6.378
148
14.68
4 0 2 п. 5 7
7.46
153
14.82-83
6.343-351
1 5 1 , 152,
375, 377
X п. 3
7.119-120
2 0 1 п. 6 5
14.104
4 0 2 п. 5 7
7.267
153 п.
14.137
3 6 3 п. 9 2
13
7.294-296
153
14.158-17.199
7.373
227
14.158
3 6 3 п. 9 2
7.380
218, 239
14.188
3 3 0 п.
239
14.248
7.380-381
340
14.375
3 2 6 п. 5 6
14.397
3 9 6 п. 4 4
217
14.401
3 9 6 п. 4 5
54
14.406
3 9 6 п. 4 6 ,
8.116-117 8.223
70 411
2 4 2 п. 6 0
8.53 8.107
159
199 п.
3 9 6 п. 4 7 ,
8.262
220
8.280
198 п. 5 2
8.295
198 п. 5 2 ,
14.408
199 п. 5 4
14.409
8.327
3 2 4 п. 4 5
14.410
3 9 7 п. 5 3
8.335-346
2 3 5 п. 2 3
14.412
401
8.343
2 3 5 п.
24
14.423
394
153
14.452
391
10.195-210
224
15.77
183
10.207
226
15.107
183
10.208
2 2 5 п. 4 4
15.109
10.209
225
15.110
10.210
225
15.116-119
10.217
2 3 1 п. 6
10.237
340
10.276
10.143
401 3 9 6 п. 4 9 397 пп.
50-52
183 183,
188 184
15.121
183
15.121-124
184 186
2 2 5 п. 4 4
15.125
11.1-12
154
15.126
186
11.3
224
15.127
187
11.31
2 3 1 п. 6
15.127-128
11.73
154
15.127-129
11.73-76
156
15.127-146
11.111
1 5 4 п.
11.111-112 11.143-144
14
187 187 п. 186,
187,
154 2 3 3 п.
11.212
15.128
220
15.129
2 3 4 п.
16
11.231-233
2 3 4 п.
17
11.334
205
15
11.229-230
16
183, 185,
186, 187,
195 189,
189 п. 2 1 , 15.130
224
188, 1 8 8 п. 202,
12.226
3 9 0 п.
24
15.130-134
13.171
311 п. 6 6
15.130-137
13.171-172
2 5 2 п. 2 9
15.130-143
187,
198 18, 203 188 187
187 п.
16
443
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
15.130-145
195
17.329
341
15.131-134
187,
201
18-20
332
15.132
188
18.4
336
15.133
188
18.6
3 3 6 , 341
188
18.6-9
15.133-134 15.134
188, 1 8 9 п. 21
15.134-135 15.135 15.136
189
15.138
311
18.15
338
198, 201
18.17
338
188, 1 8 9 , 2 0 3
18.19
339
201
18.21
339
1 8 9 п. 21
18.23
187,
189,
1 8 9 п. 2 1 ,
18.23-25
336 5 6 п. 2 7
18.59
341
194, 196,
198
18.63-64
189,
195
18.65
3 2 9 п. 6 9
18.65-84
3 2 8 п. 6 4
15.139 15.139-140 15.140
336
18.11-25
189 п. 2 1 ,
15.136-138 15.137
336
18.9
189, 2 0 2 187, 1 8 8 ,
189,
189 п. 2 1 , 2 0 2
331
18.70 18.72-77
15.140-142
188
18.116-119
15.140-144
195
18.127-128
15.141
189
18.129
341 3 2 9 п. 6 9 339 156 1 5 6 п. 21
15.142
187,
196
18.130-132
3 4 5 п. 7
15.142-143
189,
196
18.136
3 4 4 п. 5
15.143
187
18.204
415
15.144
1 8 9 п. 2 1 ,
18.211
2 3 1 п. 6
196, 15.144-145
204
18.236
341
189
18.257
3 3 0 п. 7 0
16, 2 0 4
18.259
15.145
1 8 9 п. 2 1 ,
18.333
15.146
1 8 7 , 1 8 9 п. 2 1 ,
15.144-146
187 п.
198,
204
5 0 п.
19.8 19.86
11 341 407
3 3 0 п. 7 0
204
19.127
15.146-159
184
19.185
15.147
187
19.233
3 1 9 п.
15.147-160
187
19.278
3 3 0 п. 7 0
15.149
199
20.70
15.155
201
20.100
15.156
188
15.161
183
20.141-142
185
20.145-146
15.174
3 4 3 п. 1
20.147
15.259
3 4 3 п. 2
20.180
2 2 0 п. 2 5 ,
20.181
2 5 0 п. 2 2 , 3 3 9
20.186
16.183-186
165 п.
16.183-187
1 5 6 п.
17.21
341 17 ix 5 0 , 5 0 п.
И, 325
15.253-259 15.371
341
17
20.199-203
19
20.200-203
3 4 5 п. 8 3 4 5 п. 9 3 4 5 п.
10 337 337
5 3 п.
19 332 336
410
20.200
17.148
3 6 3 п. 9 2
20.201
17.168
132 п. 4 3
20.206-207
337
17.202
3 6 4 п. 9 3
20.213
337
17.226
410
20.257-258
155
17.234
1 3 9 п. 6 4
20.259
122
17.317-323
3 6 4 п. 9 3
20.260
123
331, 332 3 3 8 п.
12
444
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
20.261
123
424-425
2 2 п. 4
20.263
8 9 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 8 п. 4 0 ,
428-429
219
430
218
122, 123 123
Contra Apionem
20.266
123
1.1
20.267
298
1.1-218
20.268
2 2 0 п. 2 5
20.264
Vita
31, 215 312
1.2
39
1.2-3
31 40
2
1 3 6 п. 5 8
1.5
4
155
1.6
36
8
156
1.6-14
36
171 п. 3 5
1.6-27
39, 4 0
156
1.6-29
37
3 1 1 п. 6 6
1.6-59
33, 34, 36
8-9 9 9-10 10-11
338
1.8
37
12
338
1.10
41
16
218
1.12
1 2 8 п. 2 5
17-19
209
1.14
41
22
1 9 9 п. 5 4
1.15
41
40
21 п. 1, 4 8 п. 8 ,
1.16
40
8 9 , 1 2 3 п. 6
1.20
40
1 2 3 п. 7
1.23
41
1.23-24
89
45 122-123
134
125
1 3 4 п. 5 2
1.26
34
138
1 3 0 п. 31
1.27
21 п. 1
48
1.29
37, 40, 215
175-176 180
1 5 6 п. 2 0
192
339
192-194
1.30-36 1.37
40 4 0 , 4 0 п. 2 7 , 41
3 3 6 п. 1 1 ,
1.37-38
215
3 3 8 п. 13
1.37-41
40
204
3 3 8 п. 14
1.41
40
214
3 2 6 п. 5 3
1.42-43
41
215
322
1.42-45
229
3 2 6 п. 5 3
281
4 1 2 п. 16
343
46, 48
1.46-49
358
46, 49,
1.46-56
84
9 5 п. 6 2
1.47-56
29, 32
1.43
3 1 3 п. 7 9
8 6 , 1 2 5 п. 12, 1 5 6
1.48
359-361
3 2 8 п. 6 6
1.50
361-362
86
361-363
9 0 , 281
1.50-51
361-366
8 4 , 106
1.51
359
41 4 2 , 3 1 3 п. 7 8 , 85
3 2 2 п. 3 2 , 3 2 2 п . 3 4 8 5 , 89, 107, 122, 3 2 0 п. 2 4 , 3 8 4 п. 7 7 2 , 106
363
47, 88
364
3 2 0 п. 2 4
1.52
86
85
1.53
9 1 , 107
364-366
1.51-52
1 0 6 , 2 8 1 , 3 2 8 п. 6 6 86, 90
412
3 2 1 п. 2 7
1.54
3 1 1 п. 6 7
415
3 6 0 п. 7 3 ,
1.56
9 5 п. 6 2
3 6 6 п. 9 8 ,
1.60-68
3 6 7 п. 101 420
87
39
1.69
39
1.69-160
37
422-429
218
1.82
420
423
209
1.92
2 2 0 п. 2 5
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
445
1.98
4 0 0 n. 5 5
2.227
1.161
3 1 0 n. 6 3
2.232
3 1 3 n. 7 8
40
2.233
3 1 3 , 3 1 3 n. 7 9
1.162
4 0 , 2 5 2 n. 2 8
2.239
1 3 3 n. 5 0
1.165
2 5 2 n. 2 7
2.244
1 3 3 n. 5 0
1.166
40
2.257
2 2 1 n. 2 9 ,
1.161-218
1.168-171 1.171
3 1 2 n. 7 4
3 1 0 n. 6 3
40 220
2.262
313
1.175-182
42
1.177-179
3 1 1 n. 6 7
2.272
3 1 3 n. 7 8
1.181
42
2.281
3 1 0 n. 6 3 ,
1.190
3 1 3 n. 7 8 4 2 n. 3 0
2.286
2 2 1 n. 2 9
1.212
3 1 3 n. 7 8
2.296
218
1.219
31
1.289
3 2 9 n. 6 9
1.294
3 2 9 n. 6 9
2.6
3 4 9 n. 21
1.298
3 2 9 n. 6 9
2.8
3 5 0 n. 2 5
1.318
2 0 2 n. 7 2 ,
1.205-211
2 0 3 n. 7 4
2.263-264
313
311
Justin Apologia ii
Juvenal Satirae
2.28-31
3 3 0 n. 71
6.146-148
2.32
3 3 0 n. 7 0
7.98-104
2.40
2 1 3 n. 14
3 5 2 n. 3 4 1 0 3 n. 7
Livy Ab urbe condita
2.41
3 3 0 n. 71
2.47
3 1 1 n. 6 7
praefatio
3 8 n. 2 4
2.56
3 2 9 n. 6 9
1.38.3
2 5 8 n. 4
2.63
3 2 7 n. 6 0
4.58.6
2 0 1 n. 6 7
2.66
3 2 9 n. 6 9 , 4 2 8
2.73
2 1 3 n. 14
5.23.5
2.75
2 2 1 n. 2 9
8.6.7
2 0 1 n. 6 7
2.125-134
2 9 1 n. 2 3
10.12.2-3
2 0 1 n. 6 7
2.128
3 1 2 n. 7 4
21.10.9
2.134
3 1 2 n. 7 4
34.52.2-12
2.135-136
3 2 n. 6
2.141-142
220
2.145 2.145-296
2 2 1 n. 2 9 310
5.21.3-7
6 8 n. 4 8 2 5 8 n. 7
2 0 4 n. 8 3 2 5 9 n. 12, 2 6 1 n. 2 5
Lucan Pharsalia 8.490
3 0 1 n. 2 0
2.151
3 1 2 n. 7 6
2.154
2 2 1 n. 2 9 , 2 2 2 n. 3 3
2.156
2 2 1 n. 2 9
10-13
2.158-159
3 1 5 n. 8 5
14
84
2.161
2 2 1 n. 2 9 ,
15
8 4 , 1 1 0 n. 2 3
2 2 2 n. 3 3
23
84
2.165
2 2 1 n. 2 9 , 2 2 3
2.168
3 1 0 n. 6 3
2.169
2 2 1 n. 2 9
2.173
2 2 1 n. 2 9
2.179
3 1 5 n. 8 3
2.180
3 1 1 n. 71
2.182-183
Lucian De historia conscribenda 3 9 n. 2 5
Lysias De caede Eratosthenis 4
3 6 2 n. 8 3
M a r c u s Aurelius Meditations 11.27
2 4 7 n. 6
3 2 n. 6
2.193
3 1 5 n. 8 5
2.209
2 2 1 n. 2 9
2.219
3 1 3 , 3 1 3 n. 7 8
Minucius Felix Octavius 33.2-4 47.22-48.2
2 6 n. 17, 4 7 47
446
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Pherecrates Fragmenta
Nicolaus o f D a m a s c u s Vita Caesaris 1-14
171 n. 3 3
3.4-5
171 n. 3 5
19.58-66
172 n. 3 8
25a-b
171 n. 3 3
O n a s a n d e r Strategicus
121
1 3 0 n. 3 2
Philo Legatio ad Gaium 143-147
1 1 6 n. 3 4
147
2 5 n. 14
278
2 8 n. 2 0
De Providentia
1.1
2 8 4 n. 10
1.19-25
2 8 4 n. 10
2.66
2
2 8 4 n. 10
De specialibus legibus
3
284
1.69
6-7
283
1.320-323
10.1
283
2.62-63
10.3
283
3.30
10.4
283
2 5 n. 14 2 3 n. 7 2 5 n. 15 2 5 n. 15 3 5 7 n. 6 2
Philostratus Vita Apollonii
10.8
283
10.9
284
2.38
2 4 7 n. 4
11.1
283
5.27
3 2 8 n. 6 3
11.2
283
7.10
2 4 7 n. 4
14.1
284
7.31
15-22
283
8.2
21.9
283
Vitae sophistarum
22.2
283
1.488
23
284
2 4 7 n. 4 3 0 6 n. 4 2 3 0 6 n. 4 7
Photius Bibliotheca
24
283
25
284
33
1 2 3 n. 7
27-28
284
84
16
30
284
31
283
32
284
1.35-45
33.6
284
Pythian Odes
34
284
7.7-12
136
35
284
7.13-18
135
Pindar Olympian Odes
38.1
284
40-41
283
42.3
283
941a
42.8
284
Politicus
1 3 3 n. 51
Plato Leges
311b7-c6
2 0 1 n. 6 6 2 3 6 n. 3 2
Respublica
O r i g e n Contra Celsum 4.31
3 2 n. 6
5.470c
4.36
3 2 n. 6
621cl-d3
2 3 6 n. 3 2
8-9
1 7 5 n. 4 6
Sophista
Orosius Historiarum adversus paganos
228a
libri VII 7.9.5-6
64
10.15.5 Persius Satirae 5.176-184 Petronius Satyricon 2
9 7 n. 6 5
Timaeus 28a
2 4 1 n. 5 4
28c-29a
2 4 1 n. 5 3
377
31a
2 4 1 n. 5 4
11
40c
2 4 1 n. 5 4
Pausanias Graeciae descriptio 1.3.1
9 7 n. 6 5
2 8 n. 21
127
Plautus Amphitruo 925
3 5 4 n. 41
Miles gloriosus 1164
3 5 4 n. 41
447
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Truculentus 4.3.74
3 5 2 n. 3 0
Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia
1.44.1
192 n. 2 8
1.45.3
191 n. 2 8
1.60.5
191 n. 2 8
2.64.1
191 n. 2 8
5.70
21 n. 3
2.67.1
192 n. 2 8
5.73
2 5 0 n. 2 0
3.19.4
192 n. 2 8
7.56
3 8 n. 2 3
3.43.11
192 n. 2 8
7.155
177 n. 5 0 , 177 n. 5 3
28.18
6 8 n. 4 8
34.27
2 6 2 n. 2 8
37.14
379
Pliny the Y o u n g e r Epistulae 1.5
2 9 8 n. 7
3.54.2-4
1 9 4 n. 3 9
3.63.1-14
1 9 2 n. 31
3.63.4
194, 2 0 5 n. 8 4
3.64.2
194
3.71.8
191 n. 2 8
3.108.3-109.13
196, 201
1.13
1 0 4 n. 10
3.108.3-9
3.11
2 9 8 n. 7
3.108.10-109.5
196 196
5.8
1 0 3 n. 7
3.109.7-8
202
5.12
81
3.109.9
202
7.17
81
3.111.1-10
205
83
3.111.1-11
1 9 4 n. 3 8
7.17.3 7.17.15 7.33 9.11.2 9.13
8 1 , 91
3.111.10
205
3 0 5 n. 3 6
3.116.3
1 9 2 n. 2 8
88
4.80.15
191 n. 2 8
5.4.6
192 n. 2 8
3 0 6 n. 4 5
5.44.2 Plutarch Aemilius Paullus 32.2-34.8
1 9 2 n. 2 8
2 5 9 n. 9,
5.53.6
191 n. 2 8
2 6 1 n. 2 5
5.62.1
1 9 2 n. 2 8
5.104.1-5
2 0 2 n. 6 9
Caesar 55.1-4
2 5 9 n. 9 3 0 n. 3
Lucullus 37.1-4
2 5 9 n. 9
Marcellus 22.1-4
2 5 9 n. 9
Marius 20
2 8 5 n. 11
45
285 2 5 9 n. 9 6 8 n. 4 8 x n. 2
16.5-6
2 5 8 n. 5
16.5-8
2 5 9 n. 9
16.8
2 5 8 n. 4
22.3
3 5 4 n. 4 0
Polybius Historiae 1.1-4 1.32.8
1 9 2 n. 2 8
11.11.2
191 n. 2 8
11.15.4
1 9 2 n. 2 8
12.25i.3
1 8 6 n. 14 194
15.10.1-7
194 194, 2 0 5 n. 8 4
15.11.6-13
Romulus 1.1
1 9 2 n. 2 8
10.49.7
285
Quaestiones romanae et graecae 61
10.14.3
15.10.5
Pompeus 19.35
223 4 9 , 112
15.10.1-4
Pelopidas 2.4
6.3.1-9.14 6.19-42
De Herodoti malignitate 855d
202
5.48.16
194
16.5.9
191 n. 2 8
23.2.9
1 8 6 n. 14
28.4.2
1 8 6 n. 14
29.21
116
36.1.1-7
191
36.17
117
Pseudo Hegesippus De Excidio 1.14
3 7 7 n. 3 4
5.40.2
1 4 4 n. 77
Quintilian Institutio oratoria 112 191 n. 2 8
1.1.13 1.4.8
105 408
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
448
Suetonius Divus Iulius
1.4.8-9
408
1.4.9
408
37
2 5 9 n. 10
8.6.71
133 n. 4 7
49
2 5 9 n. 10
9.1.14
7 8 n. 2 3
51
2 5 9 n. 10
9.2.65
7 8 n. 2 3
Divus Augustus 1-7
171 n. 3 3
10.1.31
1 2 6 n. 14
8
171 n. 3 3
10.1.61
1 3 3 n. 4 7
Tiberius
10.1.68-70
1 4 0 n. 6 7
11.4
3 5 4 n. 3 9
10.1.73-75
126 n. 14
17.20
2 5 9 n. 10
10.1.101-104
1 2 6 n. 14
32.2
12.2
3 1 4 n. 8 2
36
10.1
103 n. 7
2 5 n. 15 150
Gaius 36.2
Sallust Bellum Catilinae 5
9 5 n. 6 2
36.5
9 7 n. 6 5
3 5 4 n. 3 9
Claudius 28
94
Nero
Historiae 2.77m
9 7 n. 6 5
Seneca the Elder Suasoriae 3.7
137
Seneca the Y o u n g e r Epistulae morales
22
1 2 9 n. 2 6
25
2 5 9 n. 10
57
94
Vespasianus 1.1
287
2.1
287
14.8
3 0 2 n. 21
4.5
287
73.1
3 0 4 n. 3 3
5.6
1 0 9 , 3 2 1 n. 3 0 ,
3 0 1 n. 19
6.3
3 2 3 n. 3 9
6.4
3 2 3 n. 4 0
7.1
3 2 7 n. 6 2
3 2 2 n. 3 3 , 3 2 7 n. 6 2
De otio 5
Servius In Vergilii Aeneidos libros 2.351
6 8 n. 4 8
7.2 7.2-3
Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 1.263-269
3 8 n. 2 4
8 15
287 3 2 8 n. 6 3 2 5 7 n. 1 3 0 2 n. 2 3
Titus 4
Sophocles Antigone
289
247
1 3 0 n. 3 4 , 1 4 0 n. 6 5
4.1
61
256
1 3 0 n. 3 4
4.3
61, 289
407-440
138
5
2 8 9 n. 19
1 3 0 n. 3 4
5.2
61
409-412
138
5.3
327
410
138
6
428
139
6-7
429
1 3 0 n. 3 4 , 1 4 0 n. 6 5
409
7
601
1 3 0 n. 3 2
7.1
602
1 3 0 n. 3 4
7-8
242
2
288 1 0 0 n. 6 8 , 2 6 6 n. 4 7
242 10
Strabo Geographica 12.3.21 12.3.31 17.1.13
3 1 8 n. 12
2 5 7 n. 1,
Trachiniae 205-210
288 9 3 n. 5 9
Domitianus
Elektra 637
2 5 7 n. 1
10 129 n. 3 0 3 2 3 n. 4 0
2 9 8 n. 7, 3 0 3
10.1
84
10.3-4
84
13 14-15
300 3 0 8 n. 5 5
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6
64
Tacitus Agricola 2
449
5.5.1
2 3 n. 8
5.5.2
2 3 n. 8
5.10.1
52
5.10.2
2 2 n. 4
298
5.12.3
5 2 nn. 1 6 - 1 7
2.4
3 0 4 n. 3 0
5.12.4
5 2 n. 16
4
3 0 1 n. 17
5.13.1
6 8 n. 4 8
18
285
20
284
22
284
45
2 9 8 n. 7, 2 9 9 n. 14
Tertullianus Apologeticus 6.6
3 5 2 n. 3 2
De idolatria 6
3 5 2 n. 3 2
De monogamia
Annales 1.3
9 3 n. 6 0
10
3 5 2 n. 3 2
1.43
9 3 n. 6 0
11
3 5 2 n. 3 2
1.43.4
9 7 n. 6 5
1.55
9 3 n. 6 0
1.57-62
9 3 n. 6 0
1.1-22
3 8 n. 2 4
1.65
9 3 n. 6 0
1.20
3 9 n. 2 6
1.71
9 3 n. 6 0
1.21
10
2.41
9 3 n. 6 0
1.22.4
91
2.45
9 3 n. 6 0
1.73.2
1 8 8 n. 2 0
2.59
3 2 0 n. 2 4
1.86.2-3
2 0 1 n. 6 7
3.22
3 5 2 n. 3 4
2.10.3
1 8 6 n. 14
4.34
5
Thucydides Historiae
2.11.1-4
11.18-20
284
11.26-27
3 6 3 n. 9 0
2.11.7-9
11.30
3 6 3 n. 9 0
2.39
12.53
94
13.35-39
284
14.57
3 0 4 n. 3 3
15.26
284
15.28.3
2.11.2
2.48-59
191 199 191, 199, 201 140 9 7 n. 6 5
2.54
1 3 2 n. 4 2
2.86.6
1 8 6 n. 14
2.87
1 9 3 , 196
50
2.87.1-2
196
3 0 6 n. 4 4
2.87.2-3
2 0 5 n. 8 4
16.21-22
3 0 2 n. 2 2
2.87.3-5
16.34
3 0 6 n. 4 0
2.87.6
16.34-35
3 0 5 n. 3 9
2.87.6-7
15.64
Dialogus de oratoribus 3 12.5
2.87.7 83, 84 127 n. 2 2
Germania 37.5
9 3 n. 6 0
Historiae 1.4 1.11 1.26.1
94 3 2 3 n. 41 9 7 n. 6 5
196 1 9 8 n. 5 0 193 195 n. 4 5
2.89
197
2.89.2
191
2.89.5
191
2.89.7
197
2.89.9
191
2.90.1
1 8 6 n. 14
3.2 3.82-84
195 97
3.3
3 2 3 n. 4 2
4.9.4
1 8 6 n. 14 1 9 3 n. 37
2.82.3
3 1 8 n. 12
4.10
4.73-74
1 1 6 n. 3 4
4.10.1
4.75-85
1 0 0 n. 6 8
4.10.3-5
1 9 3 n. 3 8
4.81
3 2 8 n. 6 3
4.11.1
1 8 6 n. 14
5.1.1
3 2 0 n. 2 5 ,
4.12
197
3 2 7 n. 5 9
4.92
204
5.2-3
31, 43
4.92.1-2
201
191, 204
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
450 4.92.7
191, 2 0 4
7.77.3
205
4.95.3
191
7.77.5
201
4.98.7
2 0 1 n. 6 6
4.126
195, 2 0 3
4.126.1
203
4.126.2
198
Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 1.12-14
2 2 n. 3
Velleius Paterculus Historia romana
5.8.5
195
5.9.1
191
5.9.3-6
193
5.9.9
191
6.68
198
8.679
38
8.680
329
201
8.685-688
329
205
8.687
329
8.698-700
329
6.68.3
193 n.
6.68.4 7.61-64 7.61.3
198 n.
7.62.4
2.117-121
50
9 3 n.
60
Virgil Aeneid 329
201
7.67.4
2 0 5 , 2 0 5 n.
84
7.68.1
2 0 5 n.
84
7.68.1-3
Xenophanes 21B11-21B18
2 4 3 n.
63
347,
349
201
PAPYRI AND INSCRIPTIONS P.Hever
BGU 2203.4
3 5 1 n. 2 7
2203.12
3 5 1 n. 2 7
2692.9
351 n. 2 7
CIG 4 9 5 7 ( = OGIS
669)
5 0 n.
11
CIL VI 944
2 6 2 n. 2 9 , 2 8 8
13 P . L o n d o n ( = P.Flor 9 3 . 5 , 14) 713.9
3 5 1 n. 2 7
1713.22
3 5 1 n. 2 7
P.Oxyrhynchus 129
3 5 1 n. 2 7
3581.15-16
3 5 1 n. 2 7
P.Rylands 154
3 6 0 n.
73
P.Tebtunis 1.104
3 6 0 n.
73
3 4 8 , 3 4 9 n.
20
SEG 26.1123
4
CPJ 144 153.85-95
3 4 7 n.
14, 351 n.
29
2 5 n.
16
P.Cairo 67121
351 n. 2 7
6 7 1 5 4 . r , 2 , 13
351 n. 2 7
P.Yadin 18
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
451
BIBLICAL LITERATURE Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis
Judges
1:27
3 5 8 n. 6 3
15:2
2:21-24
3 5 8 n. 6 3
15:18
2 3 3 n.
351
19
3 5 7 n. 61
378
19:1-2
3 5 7 n. 61
2:24 3:23 6-8
2 3 4 n. 21
14:14
2 1 3 n. 15
356 14
1 Samuel
17
220
7:2
147 n. 1
27:28
236
9:1
147 n. 1
Exodus
9:1-15:35
147
9:1-31:13
147, 148
3:13
234
13
149
10:24 [ L X X ]
392
13:13-14
149
392
12:37 [ L X X ] 14:10-12
15:9
151
2 3 2 n. 7
16:1-31:13
147
2 3 2 n. 8
17:47
2 0 4 n. 8 0
17:1-6
2 3 2 n. 10
18:17
2 0 4 n. 8 0
17:4
2 3 2 n. 11
25:44
3 5 6 n. 5 8
18:2
3 5 6 n. 5 9
31:1-13
19:3-9
2 2 1 n. 3 2
14:13-14
20:3-6
150
149
1 Kings
25:23-30
2 6 5 n. 4 2
18:20-46
2 3 5 n. 2 3
25:31-40
2 6 5 n. 4 3
18:39
2 3 5 n. 2 4
29:38-42
6 0 n. 3 8
37:10-16
2 6 5 n. 4 2
37:17-24
2 6 5 n. 4 3
1 Chronicles 27:31
2 4 1 n. 5 6
29:6
2 4 1 n. 5 6
Numbers 14:9 [ L X X ] 16:27 [ L X X ] 28:3-8
3 2 6 n. 5 2 392 6 0 n. 3 8
5:7-10
150
6:3
274
18:11-14
150
24
91
24:3
2 4 1 n. 5 6
9:6-15
2 3 3 n. 15
Esther 4:1
1 3 0 n. 31
3 4 6 , 3 5 0 n. 2 3 , 354
24:1-4
2 4 1 n. 5 6
24:11
3 5 2 n. 3 1 , 3 5 6 n. 5 5
24:1
Chronicles 8:10
Ezra
Deuteronomy
21:21
2
357 3 4 6 , 3 5 0 n. 2 3 , 354
Job 1:20 2:12 Qphelet 5:8
Joshua 7:7-9
2 3 2 n. 12
22:22 [ L X X ]
3 2 6 n. 5 2
1 3 0 n. 31 1 3 0 n. 31
6 9 n. 5 0
Canticles 1:14
376
4:13
376
452
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Isaiah 50:1
Daniel 346
Jeremiah 3:6-7
50
27:6
50
34:2
4 5 , 5 0 , 5 0 n. 12
225
2:39
225
2:42-43
225
Hosea 2:4
347
5.15
6 8 n. 4 8
346 Zechariah
Lamentations 2:6
224
2:33
3 5 7 n. 61
25:9
3:8
2
378
1:13 [ L X X ] 11:1
1 8 6 n. 14 6 8 n. 4 8
Ezekiel 9:3
6 8 n. 4 8
New Mark 6:17-18 10:11-12
Testament 7:14-16
3 4 4 n. 6 3 5 8 n. 6 3
Matthew
3 5 0 n. 2 4
10:1-4
2 4 n. 11
16:19
2 5 n. 15
2 Corinthians 1:8
187 n. 17
5:31-32
3 6 1 n. 7 9
2:11
187 n. 17
19:9
3 6 1 n. 7 9
7:10
395
5:31
3 4 9 , 3 5 0 n. 2 3
John 7:35
Ephesians 26
Acts 2:6-11
1:12
395
2:12
28
Colossians 2 3 n. 7
18:2
2 3 n. 10
18:24
2 3 n. 10
19:9
2 5 n. 15
19:33-34
2 5 n. 14
1:5
3 9 5 n. 41
1:21
28
1 Thessalonians 4:13
187 n. 17
Romans 1:2
3 9 5 n. 41
4:1
2 4 n. 11
Hebrews 11:10
2 4 1 n. 5 2
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
358
Apocrypha Additions to Esther
Additions to Daniel 6:19
2 3 7 n. 3 6
4:17^ 4:17
k z
2 3 4 n. 16 2 3 4 n. 17
1 Esdras 2:12 4:19 8:71-87
2 4 1 n. 5 6 3 9 5 n. 4 2 2 3 3 n. 15
Judith 7:2 9:11
392 1 9 8 n. 5 2
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
5:30
1 Maccabees
453
2 3 7 n. 3 6
2:41
5 6 n. 2 8
6:4
2 4 0 n. 4 8
3:19
1 9 8 n. 5 2
6:8
2 4 0 n. 4 8
12:21
3 9 0 n. 2 4 4 Maccabees 7:9
2 4 0 n. 4 8
3:4
2 4 1 n. 5 6
9:24
2 3 7 n. 3 6
4:2
2 4 2 n. 5 8
13:19
2 3 7 n. 3 6
4:6
2 3 7 n. 3 6
17:22
2 3 7 n. 3 6
2 Maccabees
5:19
1 1 3 n. 31
6:29
2 3 6 n. 2 8
12:31
2 3 6 n. 2 8
13:26
2 3 6 n. 2 8
14:35
2 4 3 n. 6 2
Sirach 45:24
2 4 1 n. 5 6
Wisdom of Solomon
3 Maccabees
2:16
2 4 0 n. 4 8
6:16
2 3 6 n. 2 8
2:9
2 4 3 n. 6 2
14:3
2 3 7 n. 3 6
4:21
2 3 7 n. 3 6
17:2
2 3 7 n. 3 6
5:7
2 4 0 n. 4 8
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Sibylline Oracles
Letter of Aristeas 4 6 n. 3
4.102-151
6 8 n. 4 9
2 4 3 n. 6 2
4.130-137
6 8 n. 4 9
90 211
RABBINIC LITERATURE Mishnah,
Talmud, and Related Literature
b. Sanhédrin
b. Berakot 40a
25d
5 6 n. 2 8 3 5 5 n. 51
b. Gittin 33a
3 5 5 n. 51
56a
5 3 n. 19, 5 5 n. 2 4
56b
6 6 , 6 9 n. 5 0
y.
3 6 1 n. 7 9
30b
3 5 9 n. 6 6
m. Nedarim 11:12
3 6 8 n. 103
31a
3 6 1 n. 7 9
18b
3 6 1 n. 7 9
27b
3 6 1 n. 7 9 c
Ta anit 4:6
y.
6 0 n. 3 8 c
Ta anit 69a
3 4 7 n. 13,
b. Niddah 20a b. Ros Hassanah
161 n. 4
5:1
m.
9a
5 6 n. 2 8
b. Sotah
3 4 7 n. 13
Ketubbot
19a 33b m. Sotah
m. Ketubbot 5:6
4 2 8 n. 3
b. Sabbat
m. Gittin 4:1
5 2 n. 17
y. Sanhédrin
t. 'Erubin 4:6
94a
378
4 6 n. 4
m. Tebamot 14:1
3 4 7 n. 12
b. Toma 379 6 8 n. 4 8
39b
6 8 n. 4 8
454
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Other Rabbinic
Works
Leviticus Rabbah
3
Abot de Rabbi Nathan vers. A 6
5 3 n. 19
22:2
6 9 n. 5 0
vers. B 6.1
5 5 n. 2 4
22:3
6 9 n. 5 0
vers. B 7
5 3 n. 19
vers. B 2 0
6 9 n. 5 0
Genesis Rabbah 18:5
351
19:5
378
Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:17
6 8 n. 4 8
