human life.“” Josephus even goes so far as to introduce (Ant. 6:296) a reference to the philosophical school of Cynics where Nabal is described as a hard man and of bad character, who lived according to the practices of the Cynics, whereas the Hebrew original reads that ‘he was a Calebite’ and the Septuagint, understanding this word to come from the Hebrew
word for dog, kelev, read xvvLx6s(‘churlish’).
DRAMATIC MOTIFS AND LANGUAGE. Josephus, as we have noted, has Hellenized
his narrative by including many phrases from Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Eu- ripides. In addition, he also seeks to win his intellectual audience by presenting them with themes familiar to them from the tragedians. Thus we find the motif of dfigls and its consequences introduced at many points. For example, where- as the Bible (Gen 65) speaks merely of the wickedness and the evil thoughts of the sons of the angels, Josephus (Ant. 1:73) converts this into the language of Greek tragedy by remarking that they were overbearing (~@QUJV@ and disdainful (bmp%ctag) of every virtue, being over-confident of their strength.
Likewise, when the Bible (Gen 6:11-13) declares that God decided to destroy the human race because the earth was corrupt and filled with violence, Josephus
(Ant. 1:lOO) again, employing the language of tragedy, says that he did sobecause of the outrages (EQ$&ov) with which mankind met God’s reverent regard and goodness. Likewise, Josephus (Ant. 1: 113) describes the generation of the Tower of Babel in terms of the typical tragic sequence of prosperity
(m%aLpoveh), insolence (e&is) and punishment. Josephus dwells (Ant.1:llO) on the wilful blindness (hpa@lag, ‘ignorance’, ‘stupidity’) of the gener- ation of the Tower of Babel in refusing to listen to God’s advice to found colonies (an addition that the Greeks, so renowned for the foundation of colonies in the seventh and sixth centuries
B.C.E.would surely have appreciat- ed) and in failing, due to their insolent pride, to perceive (Ant. 1:lll) that their blessings were due to God’s benevolence and that their felicity was not due to their own might.
Another scene reminiscent of Greek tragedy is that in which God (Ant.
1:
164)thwarts Pharaoh’s criminal passion toward Sarah by causing an outbreak of disease, which is reminiscent of the plague inflicted upon Thebes because of Oedipus’ incest. Indeed, in order to find a remedy for the plague, Pharaoh, like Oedipus, consults priests (teeds), who declare that the calamity is due to the wrath of God because Pharaoh had wished to outrage (i&$aaQ the stranger’s wife.
The idea of fate, which is so prominent to Greek tragedy, is likewise in- troduced by Josephus in several extra-biblical additions. Thus, we read (Ant.
5:312) that it was necessary (E&L) for Samson to fall a victim to calamity.
I”
That Josephus did have regard for possible criticism by Epicureans among his readers may be seen from the fact that he has God, not Adam, name the animals, since the Epicureans had specifically declared that II was naive and ridiculous to think that one man had assigned names by his spontaneous declaration. See my ‘Joscphus’ Commentary on Genesis’. 124-25.500
Likewise, fate (xeehv) prevails and causes the false prophet Zedekiah to appear more convincing than the true prophet Micaiah to Ahab, in order to hasten Ahab’s end (Ant. 8:409). Again, after Ahab takes off his royal garments and Jehoshaphat puts on Ahab’s garments in order to escape the fate foretold by Micaiah, fate (xeehv), we are told (Ant. 8:412), was not deceived. The moral of the tale, indeed, as Josephus (Ant. 8:419) puts it, is that ‘it
behoves us to reflect on the power of fate (xeehv), and see that not even with foreknowl- edge is it possible to escape it’. Finally, Josephus (Ant. 10:76) explains the death of Josiah by remarking that it was destiny (nEne&wls) that led Josiah to ignore the request of King Necho of Egypt so as to have a pretext for destroying him.
That Josephus is, indeed, thinking in terms of tragedy may be seen by his use of the word xeoumda (‘stage-masks’), where, in commenting on Saul’s cruelty in slaughtering the priests of Nob, he reflects (Ant. 6:264) that it is characteristic of human nature when men attain to power to lay aside their moderate and just ways ‘as if they were stage masks’, and instead assume an attitude of audacity, recklessness, and contempt for things human and divine.‘@’
ROMANTIC MOTIFS.
Finally, Josephus has made his narrative more appealing to his Greek readers by introducing romantic motifs reminiscent of Homer, Herodotus’ account (Himriae 1:8-12) of Candaules’ wife and Gyges, Xe- nophon’s Cyropaediu, and Hellenistic novels. M* Thus, in an extra-biblical com- ment which has no rabbinic parallel, Josephus (Ant. 1:162) mentions the Egyptians’ frenzy for women and Abram’s fear that the Pharaoh would put him to death so that he might have her. The erotic motif is further developed in Pharaoh’s meeting with Sarah (Ant. 1:165), where, in terror, he asks who she is and who the man is who has accompanied her. The Genesis Apocryphon (col.
20), on the other hand, emphasizes not Pharaoh’s terror but Abram’s grief.
Again, there is more romance in Josephus (Ant. 1:165) than in the Bible (Gen 12: 19) in Pharaoh’s statement that he had set his affections on Sarah because he had believed that she was Abram’s sister, and he had hoped to marry her rather than to outrage (E&&luaL) her in a transport of passion (xaz’ hdhqdav
hgpqphos, i.e., ‘having rushed headlong into passion’).There is likewise an added romantic flavour in Josephus’ treatment of the episode of Eliezer’s search for a wife for Isaac. Thus, in an extra-biblical
On Josephus’ use of the language of stage production see his remark (War 1:471) that Antipater, with a careful eye to every detail in the staging of the play (6pa)raroupyciw). assumed the stage mask (n@owneiw) of a devoted brother and left that of informer to others. Again, Josephus (War 1:530) speaks of Eurycles, Antipater’s assistant in his intrigues against Alexander, as the ‘stage-manager’
(6eaparoupybv) of the whole abominable business. Likewise, he adopts the language of tragedy when, in speaking of the trial of Hero&s sons (War 1543). he says that all Syria and Jewry were in suspense anxiously awaiting the last act of the drama (for a similar phrase see Ant. 19: 199). Again, he presents (Wur 4:156) the picture of the high priest Phanni, who had been chosen by lot, as being dressed up with another’s stage-mask (npooone[q), as if on a stage (oxqvtjs).
“’ See my ‘Esther’, 143-70.
MIKRA Ih I Ht I+ RITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
touch that is reminiscent of Hellenistic
novels, Josephus
(Ant. 1:244)emphasiz- es the difficulty of his journey, in that
hemust pass through a country that is muddy in winter and parched by drought in summer and that is infested by brigands. Furthermore, when he arrives, the other maidens
(Ant.1:245), just as in Homer’s
Odyssey(6:137-41), except for Rebecca, refuse to show him hospi- tality. Likewise, Rebecca rebukes the other maidens
(Ant.1:246) in terms reminiscent of Nausicaa to her companions
(Odyssey6:198-210). Thereupon, Eliezer
(Ant.1:247), in a remark that reminds the reader of Odysseus’ reaction to Nausicaa’s hospitality, declares that the parents of such a child should be congratulated and that she deserves to be married to the son of his master.
Josephus introduces a number of other romantic elements in his accounts of Abimelech’s attempted seduction of Sarah
(Ant.1:208); Jacob’s falling in love with Rachel at first sight
(Ant.1:288) and the protracted negotiations between Jacob and Laban in order to emphasize their love
(Ant.1:298); Dinah’s seduc- tion at a festival
(Ant.1:337) and Hamor’s request that Dinah be given to Shechem
(Ant.1:338); the infatuation of Potiphar’s wife with Joseph
(Ant.2:41-59); Moses’ marriage with the Ethiopian princess Tharbis
(Ant.2:252-53, perhaps based on the Scylla legend) $a the connection with the story of Balaam of the seductive words of the Midianite women to the Israelite youths, the leit-motif being how to subvert one’s enemy by sex
(Ant.4: 129);la the failure of the Levite concubine to return the love of her husband
(Ant.5:136-37); the apology offered for the rape of the women of Shiloh by the Benjaminites, namely the failure of the people of Shiloh to protect their daughters
(Ant.5:171), and the actual seizure of the women of Shiloh by the Benjaminites in a manner reminiscent of the rape of the Sabine women by the Romans
(Ant.9:172-73); Manoah’s mad love for his wife and consequently his inordinate (&xeatGs, i.e. ‘without command over oneself or one’s passion’, ‘incontinent’,
‘immoderate’, ‘intemperate’) jealousy (~@cuxo~,
Ant.5:277); the enhance- ment
(Ant.5:287) of the romantic aspect in the episode of Samson and the Timnite woman by Josephus’ statement that it was in the course of his constant visits to her home that he performed his first great exploit, strangling the lion;
the exaggeration of the melodrama in Josephus’
version (Ant.5:292) of the scene in which Samson’s wife begs her, bursting (xeorcwltoiju?ls, ‘rushing headlong’) into tears, to reveal the answer to the riddle; the description
(Ant.5:306) of Delilah as a courtesan (&al&o@v?ls) reminiscent of those for which the Greeks were famous, rather than as a harlot (n@q), as in the Septuagint (Judg 16: 1); the dishonouring
(Ant.5:339) by the sons of Eli the high priest of the women who came to worship; the fact
(Ant.6:193) that David’s exploits are celebrated by maidens, whereas Saul’s are by older women; the fact
“’
See Braun, History and Romance, 97KIbl Van Unnik, ‘Josephus’ Account’, 243, notes the significant fact that Josephus expands at great length (Ant. 4:126-51) the story of the seduction of the Israelite youths by the Midianite
women,
whereas he deals only briefly with the Phinehas episode (Ant. 4:152-55), even though they are of approximately equal length in the Bible (Num 25:1-5 and 6-13).
502
MIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
that Saul’s daughter Michal (Ant.
6:196, 6:215)
has such a great passion for David that it betrays her; the fact that David’s love, in return, for Michal is so great (Ant.6:203) that he proceeds to fulfill Saul’s demand for six hundred Philistine heads as a dowry without stopping to consider whether the proposed enterprise was possible; the love-sickness
(Ant.7: 164) of Amnon, David’s son, because of his infatuation with his sister Tamar, whom he rapes; the amplifica- tion
(Ant.7: 130-53) of David’s affair with Bath-sheba; Ahasuerus’ world-wide search for beauties
(Ant.11:196) throughout the entire habitable (olxou$vyrl) world, in contrast to the Bible (Esther 2:2), where his resolve to find a replace- ment for the deposed queen Vashti is a political decision coming from the king’s servants who ministered to him; the fact that Josephus
(Ant.11:200) gives the exact number of maidens (400) in Ahasuerus’ harem, just as the Hellenistic novels are addicted to presenting exact data about erotic matters; the more explicit reference (in connection with Ahasuerus’ search for a replacement for Queen Vashti) to sexual intercourse
(Ant.11:201);164 Ahasuerus’ actually fall- ing in love with Esther
(Ant.11:2(n); and Josephus’ exaggeration of the beauty of a number of women: Rachel
(Ant.1:288), Samson’s mother
(Ant.5:276), Bath-sheba
(Ant.7:130), David’s daughter Tamar
(Ant. 7:162), Vashti (Ant.11:1!90),
and Esther
(Ant.11:199), though the last was, according to the rabbis, a seventy-five-year-old wornan.la
JOSEPHUS’ AIMS: THEOLOGIZING
In addition to the apologetic aim, a second major goal to explain Josephus’
modification of the Bible has been stressed by Attridge,‘& namely, to present a consistent and profoundly religious and Jewish interpretation of history. This would seem to be in line with Josephus’ own statement
(Ant.1: 14) that the main lesson to be derived from a
perusalof his history is that God rewards those who obey His laws and punishes those who do not. And yet, despite such moralizing, Josephus, in point of fact, prefers to approach the Bible as history rather than as theology, as is clear from a number of references in the
Antiquitiesthat he intends to discuss elsewhere such theological matters as the reasons for the
If Josephus omits (Ant. 11:204), as he does, the second gathering of the virgins (Esther 2:19), which does hase erotic interest, it is, it would seem, because in immediate juxtaposition is the statement that Mordecai sat in the king’s gate. To say that Mordecai had charge of the reception of the virgins woulsd be to ascribe something unbecoming to Mordecai.
lb) If Josephus, in his paraphrase of the story of Ruth (Ant. 5:318-37), compresses, rather than expands, as one might expect in view of what we have noted above, the potentially sexually charged scene at the threshing floor, this may be due not to Josephus’ failure to realize the erotic potential of this scene, but to the fact that he apologetically sought to avoid suspicion of immoral behaviour on the part of the ancestors of King David. Moreover, to have expanded on such an episode would have diverted the reader’s attention from the main historical trendof hisnarrative, since the whole story of Ruth is really semndary to Josephus’ main interest in the history of the Jewish people, and her story is told only because of the facet that she is the great-grandmother of David.
‘* Attridge, Interpretation. See also his remarks in ‘Josephus and His Works’, 218-19.
\llKK \ I‘\ I Ill \i 1~1 I I\(,4 OF .[04L.l’~11 \
commandments generally (Ant. 1:25). the reasons for the practice of circum- cision (Ant. 1: 192), the major portion of the laws (Ant. 3:94), the reason for the shewbread (Ant. 3:143), the laws concerning mutual relations (Ant. 4:198), the Jewish belief concerning God and His essence and the reasons for the com- mandments (Ant. 20:268). In other words, it is not that Josephus was un- acquainted with such matters: the projected work On Customs and Causes had apparently taken a very definite shape in Josephus’ mind, since he even in- dicates (Ant. 20:268) that it will be in four books. Rather, it is that Josephus regarded his history as an inappropriate place for such discussions, at least at any length. It is ironic that in the War, which has, especially as seen in the speeches,16’ a clear theological lesson, Josephus says nothing in his preface as to what lesson the reader is to derive, whereas in the Antiquities, where, as we shall see, the theological element is played down, Josephus proclaims his theologizing and moralizing purpose in his preface. The explanation, it would seem, is that Josephus in the Antiquities is presenting an apologetic for the Bible and consequently for God’s deeds, but that he does so not as a theologian but as a historian, noting the consequences of the actions of his most important human characters.
Thus we see that Josephus stresses Abraham’s address to Isaac (Ant. 1:228- 31) and omits any appeal to God, fraught as it is with the problem of theodicy, in contrast to the rabbinic emphasis on Abraham’s address to God, in which he contends that though he might have argued against the Divine decree he did not do so. Likewise, the fact that Abraham makes no appeal to Isaac to sacrifice himself altruistically for the sake of his descendants and for the sanctification of God’s name, such as we find in rabbinic literature, removes the theological dimension and concentrates on the character of Isaac himself. Finally, the most important difference between Josephus and the other Jewish sources with regard to the Akeda is that Josephus omits the concept that God tested both Abraham and Isaac, a motive that is crucial for the understanding of theodicy.
We may also note that Josephus (Ant. 1:305) omits Jacob’s angry exchange with Rachel (Gen 30:1-2), in which, in the biblical version, he says, ‘Am I in God’s stead, Who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?’ Josephus omits the connection of her lack of fecundity with God and instead restricts himself to the human dimension as he psychologizes in his statement that Rachel fears that her sister’s fecundity will lessen her own share in her hus- band’s affections. Again, when Rachel gives birth to Joseph, Josephus (Ant.
1:308) does not repeat the reference to God found in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint versions (Gen 30:23) that ‘God hath taken away my reproach’.
There is likewise a de-emphasis of the role of God in the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. Whereas the Bible (Gen 39:9), in response to the latter’s invitation to Joseph to have relations with her, has Joseph call out, ‘How, then, can I do this great wickedness and sin against God’, Josephus’ Joseph (unlike
“’ Set Bomstad. Governing Ideas, and ThCrond, Le dimxm.
Philo’s On Joseph, 9:48, of which Josephus seems to have been aware)‘“’ says nothing about God and only later mentions God when he appeals (Ant. 2:51-52) dramatically to her conscience.
To be sure, in his account of Moses, Josephus does not de-emphasize the role of God. Thus (Ant. 2:222-23), he comments that the miraculous way in which Moses was saved after he had been placed in the ark after birth shows plainly that human intelligence is of no worth and that God accomplished whatever He intends to do. Again, at the burning bush (Ant. 2:272) it is God who exhorts Moses to have confidence, and not, as in Artapanus (up. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9:27,22), Moses himself who took courage. Similarly, when Moses returns to Egypt from Midian, the Hebrews, we are told (Ant. 2:280), were hopeful that all would be well, ‘since God was taking forethought (neovoou-
@OV) for their safety’. Likewise, Josephus (Ant. 2:293) declares that one of the reasons why he has chosen to mention all of the plagues that afflicted the Egyptians is that one should learn thereby the lesson that those who provoke God’s wrath are punished. Again, at the Red Sea, where all hope seemed lost, Moses (Ant. 2:332) encourages the Israelites by remarking that God helps people precisely at the time when He sees that they have lost all hope. This emphasis, however, on God and on His providence is the exception in Jo- sephus’ history and may be explained by the fact that since the Greeks believed that great leaders, such as a Lycurgus, had to be divinely directed, so Josephus, for apologetic reasons, inasmuch as he knew that Moses would be compared with other lawgivers and formulators of constitutions actual or ideal,‘69 similarly emphasized that Moses had been directed by God’s providence (Ant. 2~329, 331, 335). That, indeed, Josephus is actually de-emphasizing the role of God may be seen by the fact that whereas the Dead Sea Temple Scroll, for example, excludes Moses entirely in its statement of the laws and instead ascribes them directly to God, Josephus mentions Moses by name constantly as the author of these laws, identifies the virtue of his constitution with his own virtue (Ant.
1:20), and nowhere quotes God directly in his citation of legal materials.“O Perhaps the most striking example of the diminution by Josephus in the role of God is in the Ruth pericope. Despite the fact that at the end of the narrative (Ant. 5:337) Josephus explains that he was constrained to relate it in order to demonstrate the power of God and how easy it is for Him to raise ordinary people to illustrious rank, Josephus nowhere, in the entire episode (Ant.
5:318-36) mentions God, despite the fact that the biblical account refers to the Thackeray, trans. of Josephus, 4:187, notes words and phrases in Josephus that seem to have been taken from Philo.
‘* C f e.g Strabo (Geography, 16:2,3&39,762), who makes Moses parallel to the revered Cretan. . .
king and lawgiver Minos and to the similarly revered Spartan king and lawgiver Lycurgus as a lawgiver who claimed Divine sanction for his laws. Cf. also Numenius (up. Clement of Alexandria, Srromatu 1:22, 150,4), who compares Moses with Plato: ‘For what is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic?’
‘TJ See Altshuler, ‘On the Classification’, 11.
505
htIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOStPHUS
Him seventeen times. If, then, he does mention God at the very end of the pericope, it is perhaps because he feels that he ought to connect Ruth’s descend- ant David, whom he has just mentioned (Ant.. 5:336), with the Divine will.
In the case of the Book of Esther, the reverse is the case, for in the biblical book there is not a single mention of God; and the Septuagint and Josephus, for apologetic reasons, attempt to remedy this in several places. Thus, when there is an obvious suppression of God’s name in the passage (Esther 4:14) where Mordecai tells Esther that if she does not speak to the king, deliverance will come to the Jews ‘from another place’, the Lucianic version and Josephus specify that this relief will come from God. Yet, Josephus tones down Divine intervention; for where the Apocryphal Addition (D 8) declares that God changed the spirit of Ahasuerus into mildness, Josephus (Ant. 11:237) qualifies this by the phrase ‘I believe’ (olual). Again, where the Apocryphal Addition (D 13) reports that Esther explains that she had fainted when she had seen Ahasuerus as an angel of God, Josephus (Ant. 11:240), seeking to diminish the supernatural, says that she fainted when she saw him ‘looking so great and handsome and terrible’.
Similarly, with miracles, Josephus frequently (for example, Ant. 1:108,3:81, 4: 158,10:281) employs the time-honoured formula, found not merely in Diony- sius of Halicamassus (Roman
Anriquiries1:48.1,1:48.4,2:40.3,2:74.5,3:36.5), Lucian (How ro W&e History lo), and Pliny (Hfit. Nut. 9:18), but also earlier in Herodotus and Thucydides, allowing the reader to make up his mind, which, as Delling and MacRae”l have remarked, is an expression of courtesy to his pagan readers more than a confession of his own doubt about the veracity of these accounts. Thus the prediction (Gen 18:lO) that the angel will return and that Sarah will bear a son ‘according to this season of life’, that is a year from then, is toned down in Josephus, so that we have merely the statement (Ant. 1: 197) that one of the angels will return some day in the future. Then, when the birth does occur, Josephus (Ant. 1:214) says simply that it occurred during the following year. Again, the scene of the ram being caught in a thicket by its horns (Gen 22: 13) may have seemed grotesque and too much of a miracle for a rationalizing Greek intellectual. Hence, Josephus omits it and says merely that God brought the ram from obscurity into view, implying that it had always been there.
Moreover, Josephus does not state explicitly, as does the Bible (Gen 22:13), that Abraham offered the ram in place of his son, presumably because he wished to avoid the theological implication that it was a substitute for the sins of man.
Again, Josephus, much as he might have liked to exaggerate Samson’s exploits in order to build up his stature as a hero, is careful to omit miraculous and magical elements. Thus, whereas the Bible (Judg 16:9) declares that Samson broke the bowstrings binding him, ‘as a string of tow snaps when it touches the fire’, Josephus’ Samson omits the miraculous element, and we are
“I Dclling, ‘Josephus’, 291-309; and MacRae, ‘Miracle’, 136-42.
506
MIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
left with the statement (Ant. 5:310) that he burst the shoots asunder. Again, the Bible (Judg 16:12) remarks that Samson snapped the ropes off his arms as if they were a thread, but Josephus (Ant. 5:311) states merely that Delilah’s device met with no success.
Josephus as an Interpreter of Biblical Law
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:178) would have us believe that every Jew was exceedingly well versed in the laws, so that he could ‘repeat them all more readily than his own name’. The fact that Josephus boasts (Life 9) that, while a mere lad (Ervriscars) of fourteen, the chief priests and the leading men of the great city of Jerusalem used to come to him constantly for information on particular laws shows that he regarded himself as eminently well qualified to comment on the legal code. Again, when a delegation of learned Pharisees is sent to expel Josephus from his command in Galilee they were to say, according to Josephus (Life 198), that if the Galileans’ devotion to him was due to his expert knowl- edge of the Pharisaic laws, they, too, were learned, the implication being that Josephus’ own extensive learning could not be denied. Indeed, he boasts (Ant.
20:263) that his compatriots admit that in Jewish learning- which certainly puts the stress on law - he far excelled them. Moreover, the very fact, mentioned in several places, notably at the very end of the Antiquities (20:268), that he announces his plans to write a work on the laws, obviously more extensive than his summary treatment in Books 3 and 4 of the Antiquities or his succinct resume in Against Apion (2: M-219), is further indication that he regarded himself as eminently qualified to write such a work. And yet, if Josephus’ promise
(Ant.1: 17) not to add to or to subtract from Scripture applied to aggada, his failure to comply with it did not seriously threaten the fabric of Jewish religious beliefs and practices; but if he did not abide by it when it came to halakha, his failure had truly serious consequences.
There are a number of respects (certainly no more than ten per cent of the whole) in which Josephus’ interpretation of Biblical law does not agree with that of the rabbis, who claim to be codifying the oral law as Moses received it on Sinai; and this gives rise to the question as to whether Josephus may not represent an earlier version of the oral law:
(1)
(2)
(3)
He identifies (Ant. 3:245) ‘the fruit of goodly trees’ (Lev 23:40) as the persea (x@ag), a fleshy one-seeded fruit of the laurel family, the most common member of which is the avocado, though elsewhere (Ant.
13:372) he refers to it as a citron (xbteloy), whereas the rabbis (B. T.
Sukka 35a) identify it as a citron.
He declares (Ant. 3:282) that debtors are absolved from debts in the Jubilee year, whereas the biblical text (Deut 15:1-11) speaks of the remission of debts in the seventh or sabbatical year.
Josephus (Ant. 4:175) understands the Bible (Num 36:3) literally when it declares that if a daughter marries into another tribe the inheritance
507
II ____-_^n . .._ ;,,. _ .._. -.r..,X--._ “._. _-t.“-l-.l^“_,‘.X_““X__-_I.^“.- _-..-“-.._.-“. _“._.-.^.‘.--i__l----I
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(IO)
(11)
(12)
(13)
remains in her father’s tribe, whereas the rabbis (B. T. Bava Batru 112b, Sifrei Numbers 134, p. 178ff.) declare that the inheritance is transferred.
He says (Ant. 4:207), following the Septuagint’s understanding of Exod 22:27,172 that it is forbidden to blaspheme the gods which other people revere, whereas Deut 7:25 mandates the destruction by fire of the graven images of the heathen.
Josephus (Ant. 4:209) says that the high priest is to read the laws every seven years, whereas Scripture (Deut 31:10-13) does not specify who is to read them, and the Mishna (Sofa 7:9) states that it is the king who reads the passage.
He speaks (Ant. 4:240) of a third tithe (Deut 14:28-29) for the poor, whereas the rabbis understand this as taking the place of the second tithe in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical period.
He states (Ant. 4:248) that if a man betroths a bride in the belief that she is a virgin and it turns out that she is not, she is to be stoned if not of priestly parentage but burnt alive if she is of priestly stock, whereas the Bible (Deut 22:21) prescribes stoning for all cases.
According to Josephus (Ant. 4:254) the child born of a levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10) is the heir to the estate, but the rabbis (M. Yevumot 4:7) declare that the fevir himself is the heir.
Josephus (Ant. 4:263) says that the law of the rebellious child applies to sons and daughters, and he does not mention the necessity of bringing the child to be judged by a court, as prescribed by Scripture (Deut 21:19), whereas the Bible itself (Deut 21:18) and the rabbis (M. Sunhedrin 8:l) restrict the law to sons alone.
He likewise requires (Ant. 4:264) the condemned child to be exposed for a day after he has been stoned to death, whereas there is no such statement in the Bible (Deut 21:21).
Josephus (Ant. 4:273) declares that a slave woman and her children go free with her in the Jubilee year, but the rabbis affirm that the children of a Canaanite slave woman are like herself in all respects (I?. T. Kiddushin 68b-69a) and that they are regarded as property (B. T. Megiflu 23b).
Josephus (Ant. 4:278) says that if a man kicks a woman and causes her to have a miscarriage, he is to be fined by the judge and a further sum is to be given to her husband, whereas Scripture (Exod 21:22) speaks of one fine only to be determined by the judge.
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:199) says that the sole purpose of sexual relations in marriage is to have children, whereas the rabbis permit such relations during pregnancy, for example (B. T. Yevamot 12b), and they permit (M.
Yevamot 6:6) a man to marry a woman incapable of bearing children if he has already fulfilled the commandment ‘Be fruitful and multiply’.
In So also Philo. Moses 2:26,205, and On rheSpecio1 Lows 1:7.52. Josephus himself (Ag.Ap. 2:237) gives the same reason for this tolerance, namely out of reverence for the very word ‘God’.
MIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
(14)
(15)
I
(16)
(17)
(18)
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:202) declares, without qualification, that a woman is forbidden to have an abortion, whereas the rabbis (B. T. Sunhedrin 72b) state that an abortion is permissible if the fetus is endangering the life of the mother.
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:207) indicates that for a judge to accept bribes is a capital crime, but there is no such law in the Talmud.
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:215) declares that violating an unmarried woman is a capital crime, without indicating (Deut 22:23-24) the crucial proviso that this applies only to a betrothed woman.
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:271) maintains that maltreatment (presumably cas- tration) of a brute beast is a capital crime, but there is no such penalty specified in the Bible (Lev 22:24) or in the Talmud (B. T. Hugigu 14b).
Josephus (Life 65) says that representation of animals is forbidden by Jewish law, and he declares (Ant. 8:195) that Solomon violated the Law in making images of bulls under the sea which he had set up as an offering and of lions around his own throne, but the Talmud (B. T. Avodu Zuru 43b) declares that only a human shape is halakhically forbidden.
On the other hand, there are many cases where Josephus seems to be in accordance with the oral tradition as we know it from the talmudic corpus, for example:
(1) (2)
(3)
(4) (5) I
(6)
(8) (9) (10)
‘He notes (Ant. 3:226) that a lamb that is offered for sacrifice is to be one year old, as specified also in the Mishna (Puru 5:3).
He declares (Ant. 3:261) that a menstruating woman is removed from pure things and is separated from the public on account of uncleanness, just as the rabbinic tradition states (Seder Efiyuhu Rubbu 16, pp. 75-76).
Josephus (Ant. 4:202), like the Mishna (Sanhedrin 6:4) indicates that blasphemers are stoned and hanged, whereas the Tora (Lev 24:14-16) specifies only stoning.
He, like the rabbis (B.T. Berukhot 27b), speaks (Ant. 4:212) of two statutory prayers daily.
He mentions (Ant. 4:214), as does the Talmud (B. T. Megillu 26a) that civic bodies are to have seven members.
He states (Ant. 4:219), as do the rabbis (Sifrei 190, p. 230) that the evidence of women is not acceptable.
He declares (Ant. 4:224), as does the Talmud (B. T. Sanhedrin 2a, 20b), that a king is to consult the Sanhedrin of Seventy-one before engaging
in a voluntary war.
He
reduces
(Ant. 4:238), as do the rabbis (B. T. Mukkot22a), the number of lashes inflicted in the penalty of scourging from forty to thirty-nine.Josephus (Ant. 4:253), Like the school of Hillel, which prevails in rabbinic law (B. T. Girtin 90a), permits divorce for any reason whatsoever.
The penalty of paying double in the case of theft, according to Josephus (Ant. 4:271), applies not only if one steals animals, as in the Bible (Exod
(11)
(12)
(13) (14)
(15)
(16) (17) (18)
22:3),
but also if one steals money, a provision paralleled in the Talmud
(B. T. Bava Kamma64b).
Josephus
(Ant. 4:274),like the rabbinic tradition
(T. Bava Metsia 2:19),in discussing the law of the restitution of lost property, differentiates on the basis of where the object was found, whereas the Bible (Deut 22: l-3) makes no such distinction, and likewise he mentions
(Ant.4:274) public proclamation of the place where it was found, as does the oral tradition
(Mishna, Bava Metsiu2: l), though it is only in the fourth century that we hear of a rabbi (Rava, in
B. T. Bava Metsiu22b) who holds this view.
Josephus
(Ant.4:276), as pointed out by Goldenberg, agrees with the oral tradition
(T. Bava Me&G 2:29)in placing the law of pointing out the road to one who has lost his way immediately after the law of lost objects.
Josephus
(Ant.4:277), like the rabbinic Tosefta
(Buvu Kummu 9:5-6),declares that one is not punished if the person whom he has struck remains alive several days before dying.
In his interpretation of the lex
tulionis(Exod 21:24), Josephus
(Ant.4:280) gives the victim the choice of accepting a monetary settlement, similar to the rabbis
(B. T. Buvu Kummu83b), who, to be sure, prescribe a monetary penalty and declare that the amount is to be fixed by a court.
Josephus
(Ag.Ap. 1:31),in declaring that a priest must marry a woman of his own race, that is not a proselyte, is in accord with the Mishna
(Yevumot 6:5),which equates a proselyte and a prostitute, whereas the Tora itself (Lev 21:7) says merely that a priest may not marry a prostitute.
Like the Talmud
(B.T. Moed Kutun27b,
Ketubbot8b), Josephus
(Ag.Ap. 2:205)indicates opposition to costly shrouds.
In saying that Jews do not erect conspicuous monuments to the dead, Josephus
(Ag.Ap. 2:205)is in agreement with the Palestinian Talmud
(Shekulim 2:7,47a).If the reading of Eusebius
(Pruepurutio Evangelica 8:8, 36)is correct, Josephus
(Ag.Ap. 2:205)agrees with the rabbinic tradition
(B. T. Ketub- bot17a,
Meg&29a) in declaring that all who pass by a funeral procession must join it.
How can we explain this checkered picture of Josephus’ relationship to the rabbis? To answer this, perhaps we should first ask why Josephus includes a survey of the laws, whereas other historians, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy, in their histories of Rome, do not. We may remark, in reply, that Josephus, indeed, realizes that a survey of laws does not really belong in a history. He is clearly self-conscious when introducing his survey of the regu- lations concerning purity laws. ‘I cease’, he says
(Ant. 3:223),before giving a brief survey
(Ant. 3:224-86),‘to speak about these (laws), having resolved to compose another treatise about the laws’. Moreover, when he gives his more
“’ Goldenberg. Halakhah, 118.
510
MIKRA IN TliE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
extensive survey of the laws, he is again self-conscious and offers
(Ant.4:196) two reasons for the digression:
1) it is consonant with the reputation for virtue (&oetfls) of Moses; that is, by implication at least, Josephus is presenting an apologetic work, since Moses is
thegreatest Jewish hero, and whatever redounds to his credit will redound to the credit of the Jewish people;
2) it will enable those who will read (&~~EIJ~o~I%oL~), ‘chance upon’) his book to learn what was the nature of the laws from the beginning, thus directing the digression to his non-Jewish readers, presumably for apologetic reasons.
Josephus
(Ant. 4:198)says that he will restrict himself to those laws pertaining to the Jewish polity
(nok&av),reserving for his projected treatise those pertaining to the mutual (private) relations (xgbs drll~~ous) of man and man, though he seems to include some of these in his survey as well.
What are Josephus’ sources, in addition to the Bible in the Hebrew and Septuagint versions, for his account of Jewish law? Could he have had a written source for his version of the Oral Law when the rabbinic version was not written down until the end of the second century by Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch? In the first place, we may note our suspicion, though admittedly without concrete evidence, that Josephus has a written source for his extensive digressions, such as the out-sized passages concerning the Essenes
(War2:119-61), the robber- barons Asinaeus and Anilaeus
(Ant. 18:310-70),the assassination of Caligula and the accession of Claudius
(Ant. 19:1-273),and the conversion of Izates, the king of Adiabene
(Ant. 20:17-96). The veryfact that Philo
(on the Special Laws),as well as the Dead Sea
Damascus Covenantand the
Temple Scrolland Josephus, do record the laws, including much oral law, in a systematic way should lead us to think that perhaps there was such a written compendium available to Josephus. Indeed, Hijlscher174 has theorized that Josephus not only had a written source book for his aggadic passages but that he had a Hellenistic Jewish composition, developed over the centuries from notes taken in Jewish schools, for the legal portions of his history as well; but we have not a single fragment of such a document, and it would seem strange that Josephus, a very learned Palestinian Jew, educated in halakha in Jerusalem, should have turned to Alexandrian sources for his knowledge of the Oral Law. Kohler175 postulates a priestly document, such as the
Damascus Covenantof the Dead Sea Sect; but in an age that was sensitive to charges of sectarian heresy, it would seem unlikely that Josephus, a Pharisee, would have turned to such an extremist group. In any case, we have not a single fragment of such a document.
If Josephus did have a written source, the most likely hypothesis would appear to be that he had a rabbinic document or a written targum (as Olitzki’76 has suggested). As Goldenberg”’ has noted, we do have evidence that the oral I”
Hdlscher, ‘Josephus’, 1953-67.I” Kohler, ‘Halakik Portions’, 69.
“’ Olitzki, Flavius Josephus, 27, n. 36.
In Goldenberg, Halakhah, 18.
511
\llhK.\ I\. ItIt- V.KIII\(r~Ot iO\t-PtlL’\
_
law was put into writing in the Tannaic period, roughly contemporary with Josephus; and a newly discovered manuscript of the Talmud (B. T. Avodu Zuru 8b, MS. Marx-Abramson) declares that Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, a younger contemporary of Josephus, recorded laws of fines. Indeed, Goldenberg has astutely cemented that the breakdown of each biblical law into more precisely defined cases is precisely the kind of structure which one would find in a legal code, though, of course, admittedly this might have been in an oral state at the time when Josephus studied it.
If the code was not in written form, might Josephus have remembered it several decades after he had learned it, even if memories were cultivated in those days and even if Josephus was outstanding in this regard? We must recall that writing in Rome Josephus was far removed from the Palestinian rabbis whom he might have consulted in matters of doubt. Indeed, there are those17g who say that Josephus’ deviations from rabbinic law are due precisely to the fact that he had forgotten what he had learned long before in Jerusalem.
One point that we must emphasize is that Josephus is writing a work of history and not a legal treatise. Thus, if he states a law without giving its conditions, we must remember that he is not here presenting a legal code and that he had hoped to do so in a separate treatise.
Rejecting completely the influence of oral law upon Josephus, AltshuleF’
has taken the extreme position that Josephus’ only source was the Bible, and that his deviations from Scripture, as well as his selection from and organization of the Laws may all be ascribed to his desire to defend Judaism. He notes Josephus’ frequent use, clearly for apologetic reasons, of the words ‘good’
(xa&, xahciq, Ant. 4:204,210,239,258) and ‘just’(&tabov,Ant. 3:250,4:205, 212,233,258,266) in characterizing the laws. Tachauer, Olitzki, and Riskin,18’
more plausibly in view of clear evidence of knowledge of the oral law in such biblical books as Ruth and in such works as the Septuagint, as well as in various books of the Apocrypha, argue that Josephus was acquainted with the oral law as later codified by the rabbis, but that where he deviates from it he does so for apologetic reasons.
A good example of Josephus’ recasting of biblical law for apologetic reasons is to be seen in his extension (Ant. 4:276) of the injunction against putting a stumbling block in front of the blind (Lev 19:14, Deut 27:18) into a law that one must point out the road to those who are ignorant of it. This would seem to be a direct refutation of the bitter anti-Semitic satirist Juvenal who declares (Satires 14:103) that Jews do not point out the road except to those who practice the same rites. Josephus likewises declares (Ant.4:283) that those who dig wells are required to keep them covered not in order to keep others from drawing water from them but rather to protect passers-by from falling into them. Here, too, he
“* Goldenberg, Halakhah, 206-07.
IN E.g., Revel. ‘Some Anti-Traditional Laws’, 293-301.
‘)*’ Altshuler. Descriptions.
‘“’ Tachauer, Verhdlmiss. 34-46; Olitzki, Flaviw Josephus; and Riskin, Halakhah.
512
MIKRA IN ‘I tIL WRI-IINCIS Ot .IOS~.PlII’S
seems to be answering Juvenal’s charge (Satires 14:104) that Jews conduct ‘none but the circumcised to the desired fountain’.
Sometimes Josephus seems to have reformulated the law in order to avoid embarrassment in comparison with non-Jewish law. Thus, in equating abortion with infanticide (Ag.Ap. 2:202), Josephus, as Riskinlx2 has remarked, did not want to have it appear that Jewish law was more lenient than the Noahide law that is applicable to non-Jews, inasmuch as, according to the Talmud (B. T.
Sunhedrin 57b), Noahide law forbids killing a foetus in the womb of its mother on the basis of an interpretation of Gen 9:6. Moreover, Josephus apparently felt uneasy that Jewish law on this topic was more lenient than that of Plato (up.
(Plutarch, De Plucitis Philosophorum 5:15), who declares that a foetus is a living being.
Again, as Coh#j3 has pointed out, according to the earlier Roman law (Lex Corneliu testamentaria) of 81 B.c.E., the penalty inflicted upon a judge for accepting a bribe was exile, the death penalty not being imposed until 392 c.E..
Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:207), eager that it should not appear that Jewish law was less stringent than that of the Gentiles in such a sensitive area, declares that a judge who accepts bribes suffers capital punishment. Here again, Noachian law did require a death penalty, and Josephus did not want to have it appear that he was less severe.
Moreover, Josephus’ omission of the prohibition of converting to Judaism the Ammonites and Moabites until the tenth generation (Deut 23:4) and the Edomites and the Egyptians until the third generation (Deut 23:9) seems to be actuated by the eagerness to answer the charge that the Jews are exclusivistic and haters of mankind. This apology was particularly important because the Jewish proselyting activities, so enormously successful during this period, de- pended upon making it clear to all that Jews welcomed all those who come to them in true sincerity.
Goldenberg’@ has systematically challenged the thesis that Josephus’ goal in his formulation of Jewish law was apologetic by noting, for example, that his omission of child sacrifice to Molech (Lev 18:21) was far from being due to apologetic purposes, since if Josephus was interested in showing the humanity of Judaism a prohibition against child sacrifice was certainly one law not to omit. He likewise notes’@ that if it were for apologetic reasons that Josephus omitted the prohibition of setting up an ashera tree or a pillar (Deut 16:21-22), Josephus should also have omitted the prohibition against graven images, which he does mention (Ant. 3:91; Ag.Ap. 2:191) and even emphasizes, as we shall see. Likewise, if it is for apologetic reasons that Josephus omits the reference to sacrifices to foreign gods (Exod 22:19), Josephus should not have expanded (Ant. 4:126-49) the incident of the fornication with the Midianite
‘82 Riskin, Halakhah.
I”’ Cohn, ‘Flavius Josephus’.
IRI Goldenberg, Halakhah, 218-35.
IK( Goldenberg, Halakhah, 226.
MIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
women. Similarly, the omission of the prohibition (Deut 18:10-11) against consulting a soothsayer, a sorcerer, or a necromancer is inconsistent with Josephus’ anecdote
(Ag.Ap. 1:200-04)of the Jewish soldier Mosollamus, who shot and killed a bird that a seer was observing and who sneeringly asked how any sound information could come from a creature that could not provide for its own safety. Again, the mention of the prohibition of the use of non-Jewish oil (Life 74) would seem to play into the hands of those who charged that Jews were haters of mankind. Likewise, Josephus
(Ant.4:266) has not omitted what would seem to be the embarrassing law (Deut 23:21) that one may charge interest from a non-Jew but not from a Jew, to which Josephus adds as a reason,
‘for it is not just to draw a revenue from the misfortunes of a fellow-country- man’. To these objections we may remark that the
argumenturn ex silentiois particularly dangerous, since Josephus is not presenting a systematic code of law and that he is not merely seeking to defend Jews against the charges of anti-Semites but that he is also eager to attract non-Jews to Judaism, hence the statement about interest-free loans, which might well prove to be a major attraction in winning proselytes.
If Josephus does differ in some points from the rabbinic code, we would comment, in the first place, that Josephus, who was under constant attack from his fellow Jews, would hardly have dared to present such deviations unless he had solid ground for his interpretations. We may explain his deviations by stating either that he is merely paraphrasing biblical law or that he reflects the law in force in his own day (in which case Josephus, like Philo presumably, would be very important as a stage in halakhic development prior to the codification of halakha in the Mishna), or that he reflects sectarian law, or that he is influenced by Philo or by Roman law or that he is more strict than the rabbinic law or that he is presenting merely good advice rather than legal prescriptions or that he reflects the law that he believes will take force in the Messianic future. As to the first possibility, the statement
(Ant. 4:175)that the heritage of Zelophehad’s daughters should remain in the tribe is merely a restatement of the Bible (Num 36:8), whereas the rabbis (Sifra
Emor,p. %a on Lev 22:3) declare that the law was in force only when the land was divided according to tribes.
In explaining these discrepancies, we may cite a parallel in the differences between Josephus’ description
(Ant. 15410-l1) of the Temple as against that of the Mishna in the tractate Middot, ls6 which may be explained by the hypothesis that the Mishna represents the period before, whereas Josephus depicts the period after Herod, or that the Mishna may be setting forth the ideal, if ever the Temple is to be rebuilt in the future, for surely Josephus, who himself was a priest and of the most eminent of all the priestly families (Life 2), should have had an intimate acquaintance with the Temple’s dimensions and description.
‘m
See my discussion, Josephus, 438-44.514
MIKRA IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
As to Josephus’ indication
(Ant.4:264-65) that the rebellious son is to be exposed for a day after he has been stoned to death and then is to be buried at night, this law is, indeed, unparalleled in halakha and may reflect the practice in Josephus’ own day. Again, the fact that there is no Tannaic parallel to Josephus’
statement
(Ant. 4:274)that the finder of a lost object is to proclaim the place where he found it would suggest that Josephus is reflecting contemporary practice. All attempts, such as Riskin’s and Goldenberg’s,lE7 to explain away Josephus’ divergences from the rabbinic code fail to give sufficient weight to the artistic evidence compiled by Goodenough, I88 the evidence of papyri and in- scriptions in Egypt which Ilsg have discussed, and the evidence from Philo, which even Belkin,lm with all his ingenuity, must admit disagrees in a number of instances from rabbinic law. The picture, we may suggest, that emerges is of a Judaism that is not as monolithic or as normative as Moorelgl has described, but rather of a religion where the authority of the rabbis was not as pervasive as we have been led to believe by such writers as Josephus himself
(Ant.18:15).
Kohler192 has suggested that Josephus’ source for his paraphrase of the laws was an older priestly document similar to the
Zadokite (Damascus) Documentoriginally discovered by Solomon Schechter (and later found also in the Qum- ran caves) and that Josephus’ legal material actually represents an older stage of halakha, midway between Sadduceeism and Pharisaism. As evidence he cites Josephus’ statement
(Ant. 4:248)of the law that a bride of priestly parentage is burnt alive if it turns out that she is not a virgin when her husband is led to believe that she was. Elazar ben Zadok mentions that he witnessed the burning of such a woman, and the rabbis (B.
T. Sunhedrin52b) explain that it must have been a Sadducean
beit dinthat imposed such a punishment. Josephus, however, has very negative comments about the Sadducees, namely, that in their rela- tions with their peers they are as rude as with aliens
(War2:166), that they accomplish practically nothing
(Ant.18:17), and that they are tolerated by the masses only because they submit to the formulas of the Pharisees (ibid.). It seems hard to believe, in view of the bitter antagonism between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, with whom Josephus identified himself (Life 12), that Josephus would be influenced in his interpretation of law by such a group.
Yadinlg3 has noted that there are parallels between Josephus’ classification of the laws and that of the author of the
Temple Scrollfrom Qumran and has suggested that Josephus may have been influenced by the years (Life 9-12) that he spent with the Essenes and with the hermit Bannus. Moreover, there are even parallels in points of detail: e.g., both the
Temple Scroll (63:5)and
Riskin, Halakhak; Goldenberg, Halakhah.
Goodenough, Jewish Symbols.
Feldman,
‘Orthodoxy’, 215-37.Belkin, Philo.
Moore, Judaism.
Kohler, ‘Halakik Portions’, 74.
Yadin, Temple Scroll 1. 62.93-94, 305.
515
Josephus (Ant. 4:222) state that the public officers of the nearest town are to wash their hands in holy water over the head of a heifer in expiation for an undetected murderer, whereas the Bible (Deut 21:6) states that they are to wash their hands over the heifer, without specifying the head. In addition, Ginzberg’94 has concluded from the fact that whereas according to both the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 21:13) and the Septuagint (1 Kgs 20:13) there were two false witnesses against Naboth while Josephus (Ant. 8358) speaks of three, that Josephus is following an earlier halakha, which required three witnesses (that is, one accuser and two witnesses) in cases of capital punishment, and notes that the Damascus Covenant (9: 17,22) similarly requires three witnesses in capital cases. Altshuler,195 however, has shown that the parallels in classification, purpose, program, and structure with the Temple Scroll are few and superficial, and that the differences are major. As to the procedure in the case of the undetected murderer, Josephus may simply be following the Septuagint, which reads ‘over the head’, or he may reflect the actual practice, since the Bible does not specify over which part of the heifer the elders are to wash their hands.
Finally, with regard to the number of witnesses, the Bible itself (Deut 19:15) declares that a matter shall be established through two or three witnesses; and Josephus may reflect a divergent understanding of this peculiar prescription, namely that in civil cases the murder of witnesses required is two, whereas for capital cases three witnesses are needed. Or, alternatively, Josephus may simply be describing the fact that three men rose in witness against Naboth, without any indication that evidence from three witnesses is required in such a case.
We have already noted indications, particularly in his symbolism, of JO- sephus’ probable indebtedness to Philo. Belkin’% cites support for his startling statement that Philo, an Alexandrian, knew more about Palestinian law than did Josephus, the Judean; and we may guess that Josephus, who shared Philo’s apologetic motive, was not unaware of Philo’s knowledge in this area. In particular, there are four instances where Josephus’ interpretation of law agrees with Philo’s Hypothetica: the public reading of the Tora on the Sabbath (Ag.Ap. 2:175), the death penalty for abortion (Ag.Ap. 2:202), the prohibition of concealing anything from friends (Ag.Ap. 2:207), and the prohibition to kill animals that have taken refuge in one’s home (Ag.Ap. 2:213). While it is true that these are also paralleled in rabbinic sources, the rabbinic parallels are not quite as precise as those in Philo. In particular, we may note the striking parallel in language between Philo (Hypothetica 7:9) and Josephus (Ag.Ap. 2:213) in connection with the animal that has taken refuge in one’s house as a suppliant.
To this we may add that Josephus’ statement (Ag.Ap. 2:199) that sexual intercourse is permitted only if intended for procreation may have been influen-
‘* Ginzbcrg. Legends 6, 312, n. 39.
I”’ Altshulcr. ‘On the Classification’, 1-14 I”I Bclkin. Philo, 22-23.
ted by the practice of the Essenes (War 2: 161) or by Philo’s remark (Moses 1:6, 28) that Moses had sexual relations solely in order to beget children. Moreover, while it is true that the Septuagint also interprets Exod 22:27 (28) as forbidding the blasphemy of other people’s gods, Josephus’ reason (Ag.Ap. 2:237) agrees with that of Philo (Moses 2:38,205), namely, that this is forbidden out of respect for the very name ‘God’. Moreover, Josephus’ presentation (Ant. 4:285-86) of the law of deposits has some similarities in language to that of Philo (on the Special Laws 4:7, 30-31), so that a hypothesis of borrowing or of a common source is plausible, as Ehrhardtlw has suggested.
The thesis that Josephus was influenced by Roman law has been broached by a number of scholars: Weyl, Cohen, and Jackson.198 Cohen, commenting on Josephus’ statement (Ant. 4:272) that if a thief is unable to defray the penalty imposed upon him, he is to become the slave of the aggrieved party, notes that there is no parallel in either the Bible or the Talmud but that there is in Roman law. Jackson has suggested that Josephus’ aim in accommodating Jewish to Roman law may have been to smooth his way with his Roman audience. We may reply, however, that Josephus nowhere indicates that he had studied or admired Roman law (and modesty is not one of his virtues, and he did seek to ingratiate himself with the Roman imperial family at least); and, on the con- trary, he insists on the unique excellence of Jewish law (Ant. 1:22-23; Ag.Ap.
2:163).
Josephus is at times more strict than the rabbis in his interpretation of law, as notably in the case of artistic representation, where, for example (Life 65), he indicates to the Jews of Galilee that he will lead them to destroy Herod the Tetrarch’s palace because it had been decorated with images of animals, and when he condemns (Ant. 8:195) King Solomon for breaking the Second Com- mandment in putting the images of bulls and lions in the Temple, whereas the Bible (1 Kgs 7:25, 10:20) has no such rebuke. The rabbis (B. T. Avodu Zuru 43b), in contrast, declare that all faces are permissible except that of a human.
Avi-Yonah’99 attempts to explain the discrepancy by suggesting that Josephus is reflecting the view of the Pharisees and of the masses, whereas the art that has come down to us is that of Sadducean aristocrats; but this is an unlikely hypothesis, since the Sadducees were so few in number (Ant. 18:17), were literalists in their interpretation of the Bible, and apparently disappeared with the destruction of the Temple, whereas the ‘liberal’ approach to images in art continues. A more likely explanation for the rabbis’ liberalism is that the masses of the people were liberal in matters of artistic representation despite all rulings, and that the rabbis were realistic enough to recognize this, as they were in their attitude toward magic and charms, which are clearly forbidden in the
‘97 Ehrhardt, ‘Parakatatheke’. 32-90.
‘* Weyl, liidische Strafgeseue; Cohen, ‘Civil Bondage’, 113-32; Jackson, Essays, 3-4. On the question as to whether Josephus knew enough Latin to be able to follow discussions of Roman law see above, n. 147.
Ipp Avi-Yonah, Oriental Art, 23-27.
Bible (Deut 18: 10-11) and which yet are tolerated (e.g. B. T. Sanhedrin 68a and B. T. Shabbat 62a). Josephus, on the other hand, had no ‘constituency’ and could afford to maintain an unyielding posture.
Wacholder2” has presented the revolutionary suggestion that the Mishna does not present the halakha current in the Second Temple period but rather the law that would take force when the Messiah would come and would rebuild the Temple; and we may be tempted to suggest that the same may be true of Josephus’ summary of the law. But the patently apologetic nature of the Antiquities and especially of the treatise AgainstApion, which contain compen- dia of the legal code, would militate against such a theory; for apology, we may remark, has force only when it is supported by reality.
Bibliography
For an annotated, critical bibliography see FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937-1980, pp. 121-91 and 492-527.
On Josephus’ biblical text the sole systematic work remains that of MEZ, Die Bibel, who restricts himself to Antiquities, Books 5-7, and whose work is now viewed in the light of the Dead Sea manuscript of Samuel by ULRICH, Qumrun Text.
For Josephus’ reworking of the biblical narrative see RAPPAPORT, Agadu und Exegese, who often stretches the evidence in noting parallels with rabbinic midrashim; BRAUN, History and Romance, who stresses Josephus’ use of erotic and romantic motifs; ATTRIDGE, Interpretation, who has the closest to a compre- hensive treatment of the whole subject and who emphasizes theological motifs;
and the essays on individual biblical episodes and figures by FELDMAN, who highlights Josephus’ debt to classical Greek authors and motifs. The only biblical book which has been systematically analyzed (though with a number of omissions) for its sources is in FRANXMAN, Genesis. On individual passages in Josephus, the rich notes in GINZBERG, Legends, are most useful in noting parallels with Philo, Pseudo-Philo, rabbinic midrashim, and Church Fathers.
For Josephus’ paraphrase of the legal portions of the Pentateuch and his relationship to rabbinic law the sole work which approaches comprehensive- ness is the unpublished doctoral dissertation by GOLDENBERG, Halakhah.
“r’ Wacholder. Messianism.
518
Chapter Fourteen
The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors
Pieter W. van der Horst
Introduction
In this contribution, not all minor Hellenistic Jewish authors will be dealt with.
Excluded are all pseudepigrapha because they constitute a class of their own and are discussed elsewhere in this volume, as is also Aristobulus.’ Some borderline cases, like Thallus and Theophilus, have also been omitted either because their Jewish identity is uncertain or because their tiny fragments do not yield much of importance. We have restricted ourselves to the nine authors from whom quotations or excerpts have been preserved via Alexander Polyhis- tor in the ninth book of bishop Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (henceforth PE), written in the first quarter of the fourth century C.E.’
Alexander Polyhistor3 was a prolific writer in the genre of geographical- historical periegesis. According to the Suda (s.v. ‘AhicavGeoS 6 Mthlja~os, ed. Adler 1, p. 104) he was brought as a captive from Miletus to Rome in the time of Sulla, but regained his liberty in 82 B.C.E. ; he died in Italy as an aged man somewhere after 40 B.c.E.~ Innumerable books came from his pen (owvtyeavs l3i@ovs dl@poO x&ttou<, Suda s.v.), e.g. on the history of Egypt, Babylo- nia, India, Crete, Libya, Phrygia, Lycia (Aiyunttaxdr, Xahaa’ixdr, ‘1~61x6, Ke7)t&, At$ux&, IIs@ @evyiag, IX@ A&as), etc.’ He was not an original and independent author, for most of his work seems to have consisted of
’ On Aristobulus see Borgen, ‘Philo of Alexandria’, 274-79 (Philo and His Predecessor Aristobulus).
2 Some fragments or parts of them are quoted also in Clemens Alexandrinus’ Srromoreir. The texts are most conveniently accessible in Denis, Fragmenra, 175-228 (Denis prints the text from Mras’
edition of Eusebius’ PE in GCS 43, 1, Berlin 1954, but without app. crit.). The historians can now best be consulted in Holladay, FragmenLr 1.
3 On Alexander Polyhistor see Freudenthal, HellenishcheStudien; Susemihl, Geschichre2,356-64;
Christ-Schmid-Stiihlin, Geschichte der griechirchen Litterurur 2/l, 400-01; Lesky, Geschichre, 873;
Stem, GLAJJ 1,157ff.; Der KIeine Pauly S.V. 1,252. The fragments of his historical work have been collected in Jacoby, FGH 3 A no. 273.
’ His pupil, the grammarian Hyginus, had hisfloruir during Augustus’ reign. Alexander must have lived fromca. 110/105 toca. 35/30s.c.e.. See Unger, ‘Wann schrieb Alexander Polyhistor?‘. and the same, ‘Die Bliithezeit’.
5 He also wrote some works in the field of the history of philosophy and grammar; see Christ- Schmid-Stahlin, Geschichte der griechischen Lifterafur 2/l, 401.
519
excerpts and quotations from other authors. But in this manner he became one of the most important mediators of knowledge of the history of oriental peoples to later Greek and Latin authors in the West. For us he is most interesting as the author of a work On the Jews (IIt& ‘Iow8aiwv), which is unfortunately lost, but part of which has been preserved in the quotations made from it by Eusebius of Caesarea in his PE. As in his other works, here too Alexander gives quotations (sometimes lengthy) from or summaries of the works of other authors, in this case Jewish ones.
The question of trustworthiness need not be raised when Alexander is quoting poetry; he probably does not alter metrical texts. But when he par- aphrases or summarizes prose texts, how reliable is he? The impression is that he has sometimes misunderstood his sources (so that, for example, he makes David the son of Saul), but that in general he has been quite faithful to them.6 However, it should be borne in mind that in the present case there have been at least five stages of possible corruption of the texts concerned:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The transmission of the texts between the autographs and their arrival on Alexander’s desk.
Alexander’s partial rewording or rephrasing of them.
The transmission of Alexander’s text until it arrived in Eusebius’ hands.
Eusebius’ partial rewording or rephrasing of Alexander’s text.
The transmission of Eusebius’ text through the ages during which it under- went manifold corruption.’
These factors should make us somewhat diffident and prevent us from making too apodictic or definitive statements on the material under discussion (espe- cially as to numbers and dates).
Problems of dating and provenance will not be discussed. For most of the authors concerned one could say that their dates cannot be fixed exactly. At any rate it is clear that all of them wrote before Alexander Polyhistor compiled his work On theJews and after the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek. That is to say, they worked somewhere between, say, 250 and 50 B.c.E., most of them probably in the second cent. B.C.E .* Their provenance probably was often Alexandria, sometimes Palestine, but certainty is impossible in many cases.9
’ See Freudenthal, Hellenisrische Sfudien. 16-35.
’ See for the textual history of PE the introduction to Mras’ edition, vol. 1. XIII-LIV. and Holladay, Fragmenls 1,9-13.
” See Holladay. Frugmenrs 1,4.
” On Jewish Greek literature in Palestine, see Hengel, Judenrum und Heflenismus, 161-90 (ET 1.
xx-102; 2.59-71).
520
EZEKIELTHE DRAMATIST
Ezekiel” is the only Jewish playwright known to us from antiquity. He is an important and characteristic example of what could happen when biblical tradition and Greek literary form merged: the content is scriptural story, but the genre is Hellenistic drama. ” Although he probably wrote more pieces (Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1:23, 155 calls him ‘the writer of Jewish tragedies’), portions (which total only 269 iambic trimeters) have been pre- served from only one play. It is titled Exagoge (‘Egaywyfi) and deals with the exodus story. The LXX text of Exodus 1-15 is followed fairly closely, sometimes almost literally, but there are some significant deviat
