From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew: On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism 3161523865, 9783161523861

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

357

Michael Tuval

From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew On Josephus and the Paradigms of Ancient Judaism

Mohr Siebeck

Michael Tuval, born 1971; 1998 BA; 2003 MA; 2012 PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; has lectured for several years on Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; at present a postdoctoral researcher in Munich.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152495-0 ISBN 978-3-16-152386-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface This monograph is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, which was approved by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in March 2012. It is an honor and pleasure to acknowledge people and institutions without whose inspiration and support this study would hardly have been possible. First, I consider myself fortunate to have had an opportunity to study at the Hebrew University. Second, I thank my Doktorvater, Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz, who since my first day at Hebrew U. has not only been a committed teacher, supervisor, and friend, but also an example of what it means to be a scholar, and a Mensch. My debt to him is greater than words can express, and I deem it an honor to count myself among his students. Anybody familiar with Danny’s scholarship will not fail to realize that, to some extent, this study develops work he began many years ago. I am grateful to the readers of my dissertation, Prof. John J. Collins, and Prof. Doron Mendels, for their feedback and very useful advice. Some of their criticism I have (as yet) ignored at my own peril. I thank the editor of WUNT II, Prof. Jörg Frey, for accepting this thesis for publication, and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and Mr. Matthias Spitzner of Mohr Siebeck, who helped prepare the manuscript for publication. Many other scholars have helped me along the way in numerous ways, and turned my learning experience into an intellectual extreme adventure. Especially I would like to thank Prof. Michael E. Stone, who was a member of my dissertation committee, and about whom it is said that “at that time there were giants in the land.” Prof. Stone likes to say that in our world scholarship is perhaps the last profession which one learns by apprenticeship. Whether or not there are still other such professions around, I am proud to have been among his apprentices, and friends. I thank two other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. David Satran and Dr. Jackie Feldman, not least for their suggestion to limit the scope of this study (although I did not really listen to them – Chapter 1 is more or less what I suggested as the whole study). And I particularly want to express my gratitude to Prof. Alexander Kulik, without whose help and support I would not have completed this study, and from whom I learnt quite a lot. I also owe a debt to the following scholars: Dr. Gideon Aran, Prof. Cyril Aslanov, Dr. Esther Chazon, Dr. Ruth Clements, Prof. Isaiah M. Gafni, Prof. Deborah Gera, Dr. Semion Goldin, Prof. Erich S. Gruen, Dr. Noah

VI

Preface

Hacham, Prof. Moshe D. Herr, Prof. Oded Irshai, Prof. Menahem Kister, Prof. Max Küchler, Prof. Andrei Orlov, Dr. Serge Ruzer, Prof. Daniel Stoekl Ben Ezra, Prof. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Prof. Zeev Weiss, and Prof. Israel J. Yuval. I am very grateful to Markus Lau, the academic assistant of Prof. Max Küchler (University of Fribourg, Switzerland), who patiently helped me to prepare a camera-ready copy of this study. Needless to say, the responsibility for any and all errors is mine alone. This book could not have been written without the generous financial support I received from numerous sources over the years. Since the beginning of my MA studies in 2000 and until 2006 I benefited from an annual scholarship in Jewish History from Hebrew University’s Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies. Between 2006 and 2009 I was lucky to enjoy a research scholarship at HU’s Scholion Interdisciplinary Research Center in Jewish Studies; much of the original dissertation was written during the period I was part of the Scholion group on “From Religion of Place to Religion of Community.” In 2008–9 I benefited from a research scholarship in the project “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Cross-Cultural Transmission” (supported by the Israel Science Foundation). I express my gratitude to HU’s Dept. of Jewish History and the Kaye family for the Lilian Mendoza Prize in Jewish History which I was awarded in 2009. In 2011–12 I received a research scholarship in the project “Jews and Slavs in the Middle Ages: Interaction and Cross-Fertilization” at HU, which is supported by the European Research Council, and in 2011 I received a research grant from HU’s Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. During the first semester of 2012–13 the Jean Nordmann Foundation enabled me to spend three months at the University of Fribourg, and since April 2013 I am a Minerva-Stiftung postdoctoral fellow at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich, where I have the privilege of being hosted by Prof. Loren T. Stuckenbruck. I am very grateful for all the generous support I have received over the years, and hope that this book shows that it was well-placed. Earlier versions of Chapters 1 and 4 appeared in collections of articles published by E. J. Brill, as noted at the outset of each chapter. I am grateful to Brill for permission to include revised versions in the present volume. I thank my children, Dvir, Moriah, and Tzur, for being the best children for which one could possibly hope. I want you to know that I am proud of you. Most of all, I want to thank my mother, Irina, for her inspiring courage and defiant optimism, for it was she who resolutely decided to leave far-away Diaspora behind and move to Israel. Having spent two decades in Israel, I realize that this was the most important decision in my life, a decision I have never had any reason to regret. I dedicate this study to her. Michael Tuval

Tel-Aviv – Munich, Erev Rosh Hashana 5774

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................... V

Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 1. The Aims of This Study ........................................................................ 1 2. Josephus and Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism ................................... 3 3. Temple and Torah in Judea, Diaspora, and Josephus ............................. 8 4. Josephus: Some Introductory Remarks on Methodology ..................... 12 5. Josephus’ Biography and the General Context of His Writings ........... 19 6. The Plan and Purpose of This Study .................................................... 24

Chapter 1: Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora ............................................... 29 1.1. How Can a Diaspora Jew Worship a God Whose Temple Is Far Away? ............................................................. 29 1.2. Previous Studies of Diaspora Jewish Religion ................................. 36 1.3. The Literary Corpus to Be Considered ............................................ 40 1.4. Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors ......................................... 41 1.5. “Mysteries and Revelations” ........................................................... 44 1.5.1. Joseph and Aseneth, The Prayer of Joseph, and 2 Enoch ........ 44 1.5.2. Joseph and Aseneth ................................................................ 44 1.5.3. The Prayer of Joseph .............................................................. 45 1.5.4. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch ................................................................. 46 1.6. Prayer as Sacrifice............................................................................ 51 1.6.1. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers ............................................... 51

VIII

Table of Contents

1.6.2. The Wisdom of Solomon .......................................................... 53 1.7. Martyrs vs. Freedom-Fighters, Holy People vs. Holy Place ............. 55 1.7.1. 2 Maccabees as Compared to 1 Maccabees ............................. 55 1.7.2. 4 Maccabees ........................................................................... 57 1.7.3. 3 Maccabees .......................................................................... 59 1.8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously” ............................. 60 1.8.1. The Testament of Job .............................................................. 60 1.8.2. The Testament of Abraham ..................................................... 63 1.8.3. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides ...................................... 64 1.8.4. Sibylline Oracles 1 and 2 ........................................................ 66 1.9. Diaspora Radicals ........................................................................... 68 1.9.1. Sibylline Oracles 4 ................................................................. 68 1.9.2. Stephen’s Speech in Acts 7 ...................................................... 70 1.10. Philo of Alexandria ....................................................................... 71 1.11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions .................................. 78 1.11.1. The Letter of Aristeas ........................................................... 78 1.11.2. Sibylline Oracles 3 ............................................................... 81 1.11.3. Sibylline Oracles 5 ............................................................... 84 1.12. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................ 87

Chapter 2: Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War .... 90 2.1. Introduction .................................................................................... 90 2.2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims ....................................... 91 2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War ..................... 99 2.4. Revolutionaries’ Sins ..................................................................... 110 2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War .................... 115 2.6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................ 128

Chapter 3: The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities .. 129

Table of Contents

IX

3.1. Introduction .................................................................................. 129 3.2. Some Recent Studies on the Judean Antiquities ............................. 130 3.3. The Structure of Antiquities and Its Sources .................................. 134 3.4. Josephus on the Character and Purpose of AJ ................................ 137 3.5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ ........... 141 3.6. The Aims of This Investigation ..................................................... 148 3.7. Whence Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in AJ? ......................... 151 3.8. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible: Patriarchs ................................ 154 3.9. Josephus on Moses and His Constitution ....................................... 159 3.10. AJ Version of Joshua and Judges ................................................. 167 3.11. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Books of Samuel .............................. 170 3.12. David and Solomon ..................................................................... 172 3.13. The Period of the Monarchy ........................................................ 177 3.14. On the Road to Destruction .......................................................... 186 3.15. Josephus on Daniel, Prophecy, and Eschatology .......................... 188 3.16. AJ Version of the Restoration and the Book of Esther .................. 190 3.17. The Greek Torah and Gentile Respect .......................................... 192 3.18. Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Maccabees ........................................... 194 3.19. The Reign of John Hyrcanus the Prophet ..................................... 201 3.20. Josephus on the Late Hasmonean Period ..................................... 203 3.21. The Transition to Roman Rule ..................................................... 207 3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked .................................................. 211 3.23. Archelaus and the “Sects Passage” .............................................. 220 3.24. The Pilate Episode ....................................................................... 225 3.25. Josephus on Gaius Caligula, Part One ......................................... 228 3.26. Jewish Scoundrels and Herod’s Descendants ............................... 231 3.27. Josephus on Jewish Chieftains in Parthian Babylonia .................. 232 3.28. Josephus on Caligula, Part Two, and Claudius ............................. 235

X

Table of Contents

3.29. “The Edifying Story” of Agrippa I ............................................... 238 3.30. The Conversion of Adiabene ............................................................. 242 3.31. “Turbulent Times” ....................................................................... 246 3.32. The High-Priestly Succession ...................................................... 256 3.33. Summary and Conclusions .......................................................... 257

Chapter 4: A Jewish Priest in Rome ............................................. 260 4.1. Introduction: Josephus’ Priestly Identity ........................................ 260 4.2. Josephus the Priest in First Century Judaism ................................. 263 4.2.1. Priesthood Equals Nobility ................................................... 263 4.2.2. Priests as Leaders of Diaspora Communities ........................ 265 4.2.3. Priests as Jewish Sages ......................................................... 267 4.3. Roman Priests in Roman Society ................................................... 270 4.4. Josephus an Oriental Priest in Rome .............................................. 272 4.5. Conclusions .................................................................................. 274

Summary and Conclusions: The Torah Shall Come Forth from Rome ........................................................................................ 275 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 289 Index of Ancient Sources ..................................................................... 313 Index of Modern Authors ..................................................................... 327 Index of Names, Subjects, Terms, and Toponyms ................................. 333

Introduction 1. The Aims of This Study The writings of Flavius Josephus are our main historical source for Judean history of the Second Temple period, in general, and for the history of Jerusalem Temple, its cult, and its priesthood, in particular. However, in this study I am neither primarily interested in the political history of Judeans, nor in the history of Judean cultic institutions. Rather, I attempt to analyze Josephus’ changing perceptions of the Jewish religion between his two major historiographical works, Judean War (BJ), and Judean Antiquities (AJ).1 Thus, this is a study of Josephus’ own versions of Judaism. Although he never uses the term “Judaism,” hardly any scholar today would contest the fact that throughout his career he chose to remain a believing and practicing Jew – or, at least, chose to present himself as such.2 Yes, he did surren

1 In the present study, I decided to concentrate on BJ and AJ, and to confine my discussion of Josephus’ Autobiography (Vita) and Against Apion (CA) to a limited number of pertinent points. The reasons for this choice are as follows: first, since BJ and AJ are works of historiography and often cover parallel ground, they offer themselves for a comparison more easily than Josephus’ other works (esp., CA). Second, both BJ and AJ are precisely dated, and we know that most of the first was published in late 70s, and the second was completed in the 90s of the first century C.E. In case of Vita, there is a longtime debate what in this short book is early, and what is late; see S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden, 1979); D. R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, Vita: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem, 2007) (in Hebrew), 3–5. As far as CA is concerned, there are several problems: firstly, it is an openly polemical apologetic work, written to defend Judaism from fierce anti-Jewish attacks; secondly, its second part has been shown to a large extent to be based on a previous Alexandrian Jewish source (or sources), see S. Belkin, “The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem II,” JQR 27 (1936), 1–32; J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary 10. Against Apion (Leiden, 2007), 353–61. Therefore, it is more difficult to know, where in CA one hears Josephus’ own voice. The last, but not least, consideration is the sheer question of space. All this is not to say that I do not believe that both Vita and CA can be used as witnesses to “later Josephus.” I plan to return to the subject in future studies. 2 “Judaism” is not a broadly attested term in Second Temple Jewish literature. The first occurrences in Greek are in 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38, then in 4 Macc 4:26, and in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians 1:13–14. In Hebrew it is first attested in the eleventh cen-

2

Introduction

der to the Romans after the fall of Yodfat,3 instead of committing suicide with his soldiers. However, he claimed that he did this because of a previous divine revelation, and as a minister and messenger of God, who had appointed him to be a harbinger of future greatness to Vespasian and a prophet of doom to the Judean rebels.4 The factual veracity of this story – and similar ones, like that concerning R. Yohannan ben Zakkai – is not my concern here.5 As will become clear from my analysis of Josephus’ writings below, I am frequently rather skeptical concerning many of the autobiographical claims he makes. However, the indisputable fact is that he did not comfortably become another renegade Tiberius Julius Alexander, but rather dedicated his energies to producing twenty volumes of writings, most of which aimed at the defense of Jews and Judaism.6 Whatever his circumstances were, he continued to identify himself with both. So, this is a study of the dynamics of Josephus’ Judaism. To put it bluntly at the outset, I claim that Joseph ben Matthias, who had been a native of Jerusalem, the capital of Judea, not only moved to Rome, the capital of the  tury C.E.; see J. Pasto, “The Origin, Expansion and Impact of the Hasmoneans in Light of Comparative Ethnographic Studies (and Outside of its Nineteenth-Century Context),” in P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies II. Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture (Sheffield, 2002), 172, n. 2; J. D. G. Dunn, “Judaism in the Land of Israel in the First Century,” in J. Neusner (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 2: Historical Syntheses (Leiden, 1995), 232–6. For a recent discussion of the use of Judaism-terminology, see S. Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007), 1–56. 3 In the spelling of Palestinian toponyms, I follow E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 Vols. (Jerusalem, 1993); idem (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 5. Supplementary Volume (Jerusalem, 2008). 4 BJ III 350–4; the passage is quoted on p. 21 below. On Josephus’ “prophetic” selfconsciousness and presentation, see R. Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford, 1993), 35–79. 5 For the analysis of traditions dealing with R. Yohannan b. Zakkai’s surrender to the Romans, see G. Alon, “Rabban Johannan B. Zakkai’s Removal to Jabneh,” in idem, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem, 1977), 269–313; J. Neusner, Development of a Legend. Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden, 1970); A. Saldarini, “Johanan ben Zakkai’s Escape from Jerusalem: Origin and Development of a Rabbinic Story,” JSJ 6 (1975), 189–204; P. Schäfer, “Die Flucht Joতanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Gründung des ‘Lehrhauses’ in Jabne,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 19.2 (Berlin-New York, 1979), 43–104. For some interesting ideas concerning the relationship between the stories of Josephus’ and R. Yohannan b. Zakkai’s surrender, see E. Nodet, “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism from Rome,” in Z. Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden, 2007),103–22. I return to this last study several times below. 6 Tiberius Julius Alexander is discussed in chapter 3 below.

2. Josephus and Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism

3

Roman Empire, and became a Roman citizen, Titus Flavius Josephus,7 but also that he gradually became a different person, and that this has very much to do with his Judaism. That is, at the beginning he was a Jerusalem priest, but in the course of time became a sophisticated intellectual Diaspora Jew. I also claim that at the outset of his career, and even shortly after his arrival in Rome, Josephus adhered to the typical priestly, Temple-andcult-centered, version of Palestinian Judaism, as is evident from BJ, most of which was completed sometime before 79 C.E.8 On the other hand, in my view, it is just as evident from his next major composition, AJ, that by the early nineties of the same century, Josephus’ religious views and values had undergone dramatic changes – he became a Diaspora Jew. In this study, I attempt to explain what I mean by “Diaspora Judaism,” and to document the individual transformation of Josephus. However, even in his latter works Josephus continued to present himself as a Jewish priest. Since he evidently lost interest in the Temple and cult as time went on, it is intriguing to ask why he continued to value his priestly origins and status. That is, some things in Josephus’ understanding of Judaism seem to have drastically changed, but others apparently remained constant. Therefore, I would like to analyze and try to explain both those that changed and those that did not.

2. Josephus and Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism The natural question that should arise at this point is “What is meant here by ancient Diaspora Judaism and in what ways is it different from Palestinian Judaism?” Earlier scholars claimed, or assumed, that this difference was a linguistic and cultural matter: Jews of the Greco-Roman Diaspora spoke Greek and were Hellenized; Palestinian Jews spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic, and were “orthodox”/“rabbinic”/non-Hellenized.9 Both Christian and Jewish scholars employed this dichotomy to further their interpreta

7 On Josephus’ Roman name, see W. Eck, “Flavius Iosephus, nicht Iosephus Flavius,” SCI 19 (2000), 281–3; S. Mason, “Flavian Josephus in Flavian Rome: Reading on and between the Lines,” in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden, 2003), 559, n. 1. 8 Josephus claims that he presented the work to both Vespasian and Titus for approval (Vita 361–363). Vespasian died in 79 C.E. Some contemporary scholars think that BJ VII was written later than the first six books. For more information on the composition, date, audience, and aims of BJ, see in chapter 2 below. 9 A great deal has been recently written on the subject of Judaism and Hellenism; see, e.g., D. B. Martin, “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Towards a Social History of the Question,” in T. Engeberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (Louisville, 2001), 29–61.

4

Introduction

tions of the origins of Christianity, the formation of Rabbinic Judaism, and the differences between these two. Thus, by claiming that Palestinian Jews were more “orthodox” than their coreligionists in the Western Diaspora, Jewish scholars of previous generations usually implied that they were essentially non-Hellenized, and more “authentic” in the sense that they formed an organic link in the unbroken and natural continuum from the Hebrew Bible to the Mishnah and Talmud, and beyond – to mediaeval and even modern Judaism. Christian scholars believed as much, claiming that Jesus and, especially, Paul, broke out of this particularistic Judean cult in order to create a higher religion of spiritualism and ethics, Christianity. In contrast to Palestinian Judaism, Hellenistic Diaspora Jews, who expressed themselves in terms of Greek language and culture, were perceived by them as a halfway house in the process of this epochal transformation.10 Now these views are mostly a legacy of the past;11 the majority of scholars admit that both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews (including the rabbinic Sages) were Hellenized, and the question is only in which ways and to what degree.12 It is even clear that it is not always the case that the for

10 For a very brief overview, see W. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” in Engeberg-Pedersen, Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, 17–27. 11 For an exception, see L. H. Feldman, “How Much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?” HUCA 57 (1986), 83–111; idem, “How Much Hellenism in the Land of Israel?” JSJ 33 (2002), 290–313; idem, “The Influence of Hellenism on Jews in Palestine in the Hellenistic Period,” in idem, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden, 2006), 1–34. A similar position was espoused by A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen, 1985), who claimed that even Diaspora Jews were essentially non-Hellenized and “orthodox.” Needless to say, the Judaism/Hellenism dichotomy served well both Christian and Jewish apologetic agenda: Christian scholars claimed that the “enlightened” and “progressive” Hellenistic Jews were more prone to recognize the superiority of “universalist” Christianity over “parochial” and “particularistic” Judaism. See F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre: Ein Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte des Urchristenthums (2. Aufl.; Leipzig, 1866); A. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (2. Aufl.; Leipzig, 1906). At the same time Jewish scholars contrasted the warm concept of God of the Hebrew Bible and the “joy of the Law,” preserved in the Judaism of the Land of Israel, with the remoteness of God and sophisticated philosophical concepts of Diaspora authors in order to explain Paul’s misrepresentation of and estrangement from the faith of his fathers. For the criticism of early twentieth-century Christian scholarship on Judaism, see G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921), 197–254 (cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism [Minneapolis, 1977], 1–12, who lamented that not much had changed since Moore wrote and until his day). For an example of a Jewish position sketched above, see C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St Paul: Two Essays (London, 1914). For criticism of Montefiore, see W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London, 1948; frequently reprinted), 1–16. 12 For early statements on the subject, see M. Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in M. Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York, 1956), 67–81,

2. Josephus and Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism

5

mer were necessarily more Hellenized than the latter. 13 Moreover, scholars have come to recognize the vast diversity of opinion and practice both among the Jews in the Land of Israel, and those of the Diaspora, to the degree that some prefer to speak of “Judaisms” or “Judaic systems,” rather than of one singular “Judaism,” – without any connection to the Judaism/Hellenism debate.14 I would argue that these two approaches, “Judaism” vs. “Judaisms,” are not necessarily contradictory, or mutually exclusive. Thus, I see much value in trying to isolate what was common to all, or most of the Judaic systems flourishing in the period under review, that is, in the attempts to describe and analyze what some scholars now call “common Judaism.”15  repr. in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. 2 Vols. (ed. by S. J. D. Cohen; Leiden, 1996), 1:104–15; idem, “Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect,” JBL 86 (1967), 53–68, repr. in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, 1:184-200. The standard, although on many points problematic, treatment is M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh.s v.Chr. (Tübingen, 1973) (ET: Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 Vols. [Philadelphia, 1974]). It is generally recognized that Hengel exaggerated the extent of Hellenization in Palestine as early as in the third – beginning of the second centuries B.C.E., but since the publication of his study most scholars became convinced that, in broad terms, he was right. For the recent reevaluation of the thesis and the restatement of the issues, see the articles in J. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling (eds.), Hellenism in the Land of Israel (Notre Dame, 2001), and Engeberg-Pedersen, Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. 13 None of the known Diaspora Jewish authors wrote stories about Greek philosophers, like the anecdote about Plato attributed by Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, II, 41, to the Palestinian contemporary of Josephus, Justus of Tiberias. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume Two. From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), 333–334, #398. On the influence of Greek and Hellenism on the rabbis, see S. Lieberman, Greek and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (Jerusalem, 1962); D. Sperber, Greek in Talmudic Palestine (Ramat Gan, 2012); H. A. Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy. A Study of Epicurea and Rhetorica in Early Midrashic Writings (Leiden, 1973); J. Neusner, Jerusalem and Athens: The Congruity of Talmudic and Classical Philosophy (Leiden, 1997). 14 See, e.g., J. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. Frerichs (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge, 1987); A. Segal, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Atlanta, 1987). For criticism, see S. Schwartz, “How Many Judaisms Were There? A Critique of Neusner and Smith on Definition and Mason and Boyarin on Categorization,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011), 208–238. 15 The term was coined by E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London–Philadelphia, 1992). Another useful related term, which he invented earlier (idem, Paul and Palestinian Judaism), is “covenantal nomism.” The topic of “common Judaism” is further investigated in W. O. McCready and A. Reinhartz (eds.), Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism (Minneapolis, 2008), and F. E. Udoh et al. (eds.), Redefining First Century Jewish and Christian Identities. Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (Notre Dame, 2008).

6

Introduction

However, I also think that apart from common features and even apart from many shared systemic characteristics, the differences in Judaic thought and practice evident from contemporary literature and archaeological remains sometimes justify fragmentation of Judaism and, indeed, recommend that we speak of “Judaisms” or “Judaic systems.”16 In this study, I suggest that the essential difference between the Second Temple Judaism of the Land of Israel and that of the Diaspora, as more-orless coherent systems of belief and practice, concerns the role of the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial cult.17 Schematically speaking, for the common, non-sectarian Judaism of the Land of Israel they were paramount; for the Judaism of the Diaspora – dispensable, not to say negligible. For the first, the Temple was God’s house, the sacrificial cult was the main form of divine worship, and the priests were His divinely appointed ministers; for the second – the praying congregation, holy martyrs, or heavenly semi-divine biblical heroes18 were better intercessors with God and mediators of divine pardon and boons than the contemporary fleshand-blood priests in Jerusalem. That is, they were “better,” if only because they were more available in Diaspora context. The “common Judaism” of an average Judean in the Land of Israel was constituted around the Temple of Jerusalem and its cult; to be a Judean was – more than anything else – to worship at the Temple of Jerusalem.19 That of a Diaspora Jew was defined  16

It seems that much of the confusion relating to these two approaches arises out of different aims of scholars who espouse them, not to say personal polemics. For prominent examples, see the criticism of Sanders’ work in, e.g., J. Neusner, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System (Minneapolis, 1995), 7–13; 20–3. However, I think that both Sanders and Neusner have emphasized some very important methodological points. 17 Here I follow in the steps of J. N. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine among the Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (2 nd ed.; New York, 2006 [1 st ed., 1984]). Lightstone’s book is discussed in chapter 1; I also return to it in chapter 4. 18 The list of Diaspora avenues of access to the divine could be easily expanded by adding miracle-men, Torah-scrolls, miraculous amulets, martyrs’ graves and bones, and relics of diverse kinds; see below in chapter 1, and Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred. 19 Notice John 4:20, where the difference between the Judeans and the Samaritans is summarized in terms of where geographically one worships God – on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, or on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria. Cf. M. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London, 2007), 175–6: “First-century Judaism was thus very varied, but one assumption shared by all types of Jew was that Jerusalem was the ideal sanctuary for the worship of God. It was denial of this one tenet that ensured that Samaritans were not Jews. On the Samaritan side, the issue was simple. They never called themselves Jews (ioudaioi in Greek, yehudim in Hebrew). They were the ‘Israelites who worship God on Mount Gerizim’. For them, yehudi meant ‘Judean’, and denoted someone from the province of Judaea, Yehud, which was distinct in the Persian and Hellenistic periods from Samaria to the north. But for Jews, it was their devotion to their

2. Josephus and Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism

7

and framed by the Torah; to be a Jew in the Diaspora was to obey the commandments of Moses, the Lawgiver, which had been revealed to him by God20 – or, at least, to learn the book and think about its contents.21 In the context of this study, I dedicate a chapter to the description and analysis of the alternative Judaic paradigms in Diaspora literature. I do not claim that most Diaspora authors vigorously polemicized against the Temple-centered views of their Judean brethren. They felt no pressing need to do so and, after all, the Judeans’ views were well-founded in the Torah, which was accepted by Diaspora Jews as well. However, I do suggest that because of the unavailability of the Temple and its cult in the Diaspora, for all practical purposes, the Jews who resided there tended, gradually, to replace them with other (Jewish) things. I suppose they had no other choice. However, most of the extant Diaspora literature is static – its authors left us stills, not movies. Even in the case of Philo, whose literary output is vast – which of his tractates is early and which is late is a matter of scholarly analysis and arguments.22 It is a challenging – not to say speculative – task to trace the evolution of Philonic views on most subjects.23 Emphatically, however, this is not the case with Josephus. We know where he came from originally, and where he stayed later, and we know (at least, in broad  rival sanctuary on Mount Gerizim in Samaria that put Samaritans beyond the pale.” For a convincing common-sense reconstruction and description of Judean “common Judaism” (as well as for the discussion of the central role of the Temple in it), see Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. For a challenge to Sanders’ “common Judaism” approach, see B. Chilton and J. Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs (London, 1995). 20 E.g., Aristobulus, Philo, 4 Maccabees. 21 E.g., Artapanus and Ezekiel the Tragedian.All these are discussed in chapter 1 below. It is needless to say that I do not imply that Second Temple Palestinian Jews did not study Torah, that it did not play an important role in their lives, or that they did not observe it. What I am trying to say is that while in the Land of Israel Jews had both Temple and Torah, in the Diaspora they only had Torah, which fact made it, by default, much more central and important. 22 Apart from Flacc. and Legat., which deal with dated historical events, and were written by Philo late in his life. See next note. The evolution of Paul’s thought (whom I consider to be mainly a Diaspora author) has been studied before. See, e.g., W. D. Davies, “Paul: from the Jewish Point of View,” in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Three: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge, 1999), 678–730. I plan to discuss Paul in future studies. 23 For attempts to reconstruct a chronology of Philo’s writings, see, e.g., A. Terian, “The Priority of the Quaestiones among Philo’s Exegetical Commentaries,” in D. M. Hay (ed.), Both Literal and Allegorical. Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus (Atlanta, 1991), 29–46; G. E. Sterling, “Philo’s Quaestiones: Prolegomena or Afterthought?” in Hay, Both Literal and Allegorical, 99– 123; J. R. Royse (with the collaboration of A. Kamesar), “The Works of Philo,” in A. Kamesar (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge, 2009), 59–62.

8

Introduction

terms) when he completed his several compositions.24 Thus, BJ and AJ often cover parallel ground or deal with similar subjects, and so we can readily compare what Josephus said concerning them, and when; and even when they do not discuss the same topics it is possible to identify their leading ideas, and thus identify Josephus’ “religious” outlooks at the time of their composition. In this study, I suggest that BJ was written by Josephus the newcomer from the Temple-city of Jerusalem, the proud priest, and an adherent of the Jerusalem Temple-and-cult priestly version of Judaism – the one with which he was chiefly and intimately acquainted at that time. The latter compositions, namely, AJ with its appendix Vita, and CA, were written by Josephus the Torah-centered Diaspora Jew, who knew, on the one hand, that the Temple and its cult were no more (while the priests had to be looking for a new definition), but, on the other hand, that Judaism persists and Jews have to, and can, go on. So, in his later work he suggests how this could and should be done. As I demonstrate in this study, Josephus already dealt with the question of how Jews and Romans could coexist in the aftermath of the Revolt in his earliest composition, BJ. However, his treatment of this question was vastly different there: while the Law of Moses was not part of his earlier solution, in AJ it is the key. In the context of the study of Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism of the Second Temple period, I think that Josephus is a unique and priceless human test-case. It has been said of another first-century Jewish thinker and author that he “bestrode Judaism and Christianity like a colossus;”25 mutatis mutandis, I would like to claim, in a similar vein, that Josephus bestrode Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism of his time.26 And just as in Paul’s case “Judaism” and “Christianity” are no longer perceived by scholars as monolithic and as clearly distinct from each other, I also agree that the dividing lines between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism are messy, especially in Josephus. They are messy indeed, but nonetheless they are there, and observable.

3. Temple and Torah in Judea, Diaspora, and Josephus Lest my position be interpreted as an attempt to replace the Judaism/Hellenism dichotomy in the study of ancient Judaism with another  24

On the dating of Vita, see n. 1 above. On the date of BJ VII, see chapter 2. Davies, “Paul: from the Jewish Point of View,” 730. 26 I am not qualified to ask whether Josephus underwent any kind of “conversion experience” similar to Paul’s. However, the story of divine revelation at Yodfat in BJ III 350–4 (quoted below) is still in need of a serious psychological study. 25

3. Temple and Torah in Judea, Diaspora, and Josephus

9

artificial dichotomy between the Temple cult and the Torah, I would like to clarify my view of their interrelationship a bit further. As I demonstrate in chapter 1, the Temple, its cult, and its priesthood were important, indeed most important, constituents of the Judean religion in the Land of Israel in the Second Temple period. Most non-sectarian Judeans seem to have understood the Jerusalem Temple-cult as the main expression of divine worship and the chief avenue of their communication with the Deity; for them, divine worship meant Temple worship. At the same time, I also assume that most Jews living in the Land of Israel tried to observe the laws of the Torah as well as they could or saw fit. The Torah was the law of the Land, and most Judeans obeyed it – after all, this was the way they grew up, and what they saw their mothers and fathers doing. Schematically speaking, however, when compared to Diaspora literature, most non-sectarian works produced in the Land of Israel in this period do not witness to much systematic reflection on the role of the Mosaic legislative system as the “constitution” of the Jewish people as an entity, let alone its role for all humanity.27 The laws of the Torah seem mostly to have been perceived as a given, as national customs, and were seen as only one of the components which defined who was a `ÇÍ»¸ėÇË/ʩʣʥʤʩ, along with the territory of Judea and worship at the Temple of Jerusalem.28 Thus, for example, such an understanding is reflected in BJ, when Josephus defined certain things as “improper” or “not to be done,” but not as “unlawful” because forbidden by the Law.29 One does not need to consult a book of law in order to determine what is not done normally; one knows it from experience. The lack of systematic interest in and deep reflection on the contents, structure, and meaning of the Mosaic Law is clearly illustrated by Josephus’ narrative in BJ, and for this reason I dedicate a large section of chapter 2 to the examination of Josephus’ knowledge and interpretation of the biblical materials in his earliest work, in addition to the analysis of what he considered to be right or wrong from the “religious” point of view. However, when we turn to the Diaspora literature (including Josephus’ later writings), we discover a different picture. Diaspora Jews realized very  27

This does not mean that I do not agree with the view which sees the Torah as one of the three or four main pillars of Second Temple Judaism, in general; e.g., see S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton, 2001), 49– 99; J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (2 nd ed.; London, 2006). 28 Thus, as has already been pointed above in n. 19 above, the Samaritans were not Jews, since their cultic center was on a different mountain, although they believed in the same God and observed more or less the same Torah of Moses. 29 BJ I 650. In AJ XVII 151 he emphatically chooses the second option. Cf. BJ IV 561–2. These passages are discussed below.

10

Introduction

well that the Law of Moses was not the law of the land, since in the lands where they lived other laws were operative. A Jew in the Diaspora had to choose to remain a Jew, and the only way he could do this was by following the Jewish Law. In other words, for them the Mosaic Law became both the center and the framework of Jewish identity, and therefore generated animated reflection on its meaning, structure, character, as well as its role in their lives. The observance of the Law and its study also gradually came to be perceived as acts of divine worship, indeed the main such acts. In Second Temple Judea the Temple cult clearly was defined and perceived as the main worship activity, and halakhic observance does not seem to have been predominantly defined in such terms. However, in the Diaspora, where no Temple was available for worship, we witness a shift towards a different understanding of the meaning of Torah-observance. Beyond the borders of the Land of Israel (just as within them, after the destruction of the Temple), the Law became the main basis for the definition of what it meant to be a Jew, and observance of its commandments came to be interpreted as divine worship.30 In such circumstances the absence of the Temple and its sacrificial cult was not seen as an obstacle as far as communication with the Deity was concerned, but rather another item on the list of things no longer relevant or applicable in Diaspora conditions – such as tithes or other commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel and relevant only there. Mutatis mutandis, the Temple and its cult are part of the Torah just as the laws regarding leprosy are, and the former can be perceived as irrelevant parts of Jewish Law by one who has no access to them in a similar way to how the latter are viewed by a healthy person. So, albeit somewhat anachronistically, as far as the perception and the role of the Torah were concerned, the move from Palestinian to Diaspora existence could be described as a move from traditionalism to “orthodoxy.”31 One could object to my view of Josephus’ religious change by pointing out that although he indisputably wrote his books in the Diaspora, as far as the Jerusalem Temple was concerned he was in a different situation from most of the other Diaspora writers, namely – in contrast to them, he was writing after the Temple was destroyed. This fact, one might think, could account for a very different perspective – after all, the rabbis in the Land of Israel faced the same problem and arrived at some conclusions, in many ways similar to those which in my view were mainly distinctive of Diaspo 30

Cf. Acts 15:21, on the (Diaspora) synagogue preaching/proclaiming “of Moses.” For the application of this paradigm to the history of modern Judaism, see J. Katz, “Orthodoxy in Historical Perspective,” in P. Y. Medding (ed.), Studies in Contemporary Jewry II (Bloomington, 1986), 3–17; M. Samet, “The Beginnings of Orthodoxy,” Modern Judaism 8 (1988), 249–269. 31

3. Temple and Torah in Judea, Diaspora, and Josephus

11

ra Judaism. However, I would agree with the assessment but deny that it conflicts with my analysis. Namely, it seems that Diaspora-wise there was no fundamental difference between the Second Temple period and the postDestruction era – whether the Temple existed or not, the Jews of the Diaspora lived most of their lives without any kind of active participation in its cultic life. Their life was centered on the Diaspora communal institutions and various and diffused loci of the sacred, such as synagogues and other congregational meeting places (such as those of Philo’s Therapeutae), and on the alternative means of mediation of divine powers, such as prayers, Torah-scrolls and Torah-study, martyrs’ graves, holy men and heavenly beings, to give just a few examples.32 And as far as the early rabbis are concerned, I also take them to be representatives of a Diaspora Judaism of a kind, since after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, for all practical purposes, there was no cardinal difference between the Jews in Judea or Galilee, or in North Africa, Syria, Mediterranean islands, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Bosporus, or Spain.33 However, I would not want to claim there were no differences in this respect between Josephus, the immigrant from Judea, and native Diaspora authors. The latter were born, grew up, and spent their lives in a Templeless context, while Josephus was an upper-class Jerusalem priest whose youth and early adulthood were spent in the shadow of the Temple, and who, most likely, actively officiated in its cult as a priest. From BJ we know that he witnessed its destruction, and agonized over acute theological questions generated by its overthrow.34 In his writings, he had to deal with  32

On these, see Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred, and chapter 1 below. The same applies to the people behind the Dead Sea Scrolls. They clearly say of themselves that they had chosen voluntary exile: “The well is the Law. And those who dug it are the converts of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus” (CD-A VI 4–5 = 4Q266 3 II 12). In other places they designate themselves as “the exiled of the desert” (ʸʡʣʮʤ ʺʬʥʢ): 1Q33 (1QM) I 2, and “exiled sons of light” ( ʺʬʥʢ ʸʥʠ ʩʰʡ): 1Q33 (1QM) I 3. Cf. the description of the location of the Teacher of Righteousness as “house of his exile” (ʥʺʥʬʢ ʺʩʡʠ), 1QpHab XI 6. It does not really matter whether the place of their exile was only some 25 km away from Jerusalem, or, indeed, whether “the exile” was only in their mental self-perception. On Qumran, as well as Rabbinic Judaism from this perspective, see N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in E. Chazon and B. Halpern-Amaru (eds.), New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of the Orion Center for the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005 (Leiden, 2010), 3–21; idem, “Where Does the Shekhina Dwell? Between Dead Sea Sect, Diaspora Judaism and Rabbinic Literature,” A. Lange, E. Tov, M. Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Vol. 1 (Leiden, 2011), 399–412. 34 On this, see now J. Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2012), 180–209. 33

12

Introduction

his memories and to come to terms with a new situation in which the Temple and its cult were no more. His memories and struggles are evident throughout his early and late compositions, but it is also clear that, by the time he produced AJ, he wanted to convey to his readers that the Temple was a memory and Torah was his present life.35

4. Josephus: Some Introductory Remarks on Methodology It is a well-known fact that Josephus’ writings provide the basis for any reconstruction of Judean history in the Second Temple period. Since I discuss and analyze BJ and AJ in much detail in chapters 2 and 3 below, here I will only express some thoughts on Josephus’ autobiographical materials and the ways they have been treated in some previous studies.36 I will also outline my overall thesis concerning his religious development, clarify my methodological presuppositions, present a biographical sketch, and attempt to place my study in the context of previous and contemporary research on early Judaism, in general, and on Josephus, in particular. First of all, it must be said that most of what we know about Josephus is based on his own written statements, which means that we know it because he wanted us to, or because certain things about him were so well-known that he could not have hidden them.37 And he mainly wanted us to know  35

For a full-length study of the Temple and priestly themes in Josephus, see now O. Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus (Tübingen, 2008). This study is useful as a compendium on these subjects in Josephus, and contains a number of important observations on the role of Josephus’ priestly self-understanding in his presentation of Jewish history. However, it frequently fails to distinguish between “early” and “late” Josephus. This might be due to the fact that, as I show in chapter 4, in contrast to other themes, the priestly status and identity retained their importance for Josephus throughout his literary career. 36 Summaries of earlier Josephan scholarship are provided in H. Schreckenberg, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968); idem, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus: Supplementband mit Gesamtregister (Leiden, 1979); L. H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937–1980 (Berlin-New York, 1984); idem, Josephus: A Supplementary Bibliography (New York, 1986); idem, “Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, His Writings, and His Significance,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 21.2 (Berlin-New York, 1984), 763–862. I discuss many important recent works below. 37 Josephus’ falling into captivity and his prophecy of Vespasian’s future greatness and of his own future release from slavery to Vespasian are mentioned by Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus, 5:6 (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, Vol. 2, 122–123, #313), Appian of Alexandria (apud. Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum, XI, 16; Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, Vol. 2, 185, #347), and Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 66.1.1–4 (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, Vol. 2, 371, #429). However, it is very likely that these authors obtained this information from BJ. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclessiastica 3.9.2, says that

4. Josephus: Some Introductory Remarks on Methodology

13

good things about him and to think that, among very many other wonderful things, he was a noble, honest and lovable individual, an educated priest, a brilliant general, an outstanding historian and an exemplary Jew. However, as I hope to demonstrate in this study, despite Josephus’ claims, certain things about him can be known to have been different from what he claimed them to be. This is important for the present study, since in contrast to some scholars, I think that contrary to Josephus’ repeated claim, he – for one example among many – was not thoroughly familiar with the Bible not only in his youth, but even at the time of writing BJ. I would like to make it clear at the beginning of this study that I do not believe that very much of what he actually claims to have been or to have done can be trusted by a critical and responsible historian. My approach has nothing to do with a preconceived judgment on Josephus’ character and personality, as I hope will become clear in the course of this study. Rather, it stems from the impression received from reading critically Josephus’ autobiographical narratives and his statements concerning himself. It seems that he was absolutely convinced that he was an extraordinary genius, a moral giant, and one of the few most wonderful people who had ever trodden this earth; he wanted his readers to believe these things, too. I can understand why Josephus wanted to present himself in such a way, but it is rather difficult, in my view, to accept this picture as reflecting “historical Josephus.” Being sympathetic to an author does not mean one has to be gullible. True, some scholars still write introductions to Josephus or outlines of his career by just paraphrasing what he said about himself.38 Thus, various scholars repeat as “facts” Josephus’ claims to have been a precocious child, a top member of the first priestly course, a Hasmonean, an outstanding expert on biblical traditions (due to the excellent education he received in Jerusalem as a child), a teenager who, beginning at the age of sixteen managed to pass through the sects of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, then spent three more years with a desert ascetic, and came back to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen (!) to be engaged in public life.39  Josephus was honored with the erection of a statue in Rome. His source for this tradition is unknown, and its value is difficult to assess. 38 It is nowadays considered as real scholarly progress to be freed from the “classical conception of Josephus,” which was over-critical towards his personality and suspected him of self-gratification and ulterior motives. See P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield, 1988), 141– 171. 39 Vita 1–12. E.g., T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (2nd ed.; London, 2002), 11–45. My thoughts on the passage dealing with Josephus’ spiritual quest (Vita 10–2) are similar to those of Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 107: “The impossible chronology of this section may be a sign not of textual corruption but of men-

14

Introduction

I find it extremely difficult to trust Josephus on any of the above (as well as on many other points), and will illustrate the reasons for my hesitation with just a few examples, emphasizing different aspects of the problem. Previous scholars have pointed out a number of times that the beginning paragraphs of Vita are overloaded with difficulties of chronological character. One of these is illustrated a couple of sentences above: in three years Josephus managed to pass through the sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes, and afterwards to spend three years in the desert. Another problem is immediately faced by anybody who wants to reconstruct Josephus’ genealogy on the basis of the data he provides at the beginning of Vita.40 I do not think Josephus did not know how to count, but it does seem that he did not do any serious research before he threw in the numbers and it might even be suspected that he made them up ad hoc – which, in my view makes it risky to rely on them or to trust the story in which they appear.41 Thus, the examples that illustrate why I think it is extremely hazardous to trust Josephus’ statements concerning him are as follows. The first one concerns the basic question of Josephus’ general trustfulness when it comes to describing personal matters or events in which he was involved. Fortunately for us, he described many of the same events in which he personally participated during his generalship of the Galilee in both BJ and Vita. Earlier scholars have analyzed the patterns of relationships between these two works, and even produced synopses of the parallels.42 However, the task of reconciling the contradictory accounts of the same events involving Josephus in BJ and Vita is not much easier than harmonizing the Synoptics with the Gospel of John. Scholars generally have to admit that Josephus was lying – the question is only: where – in BJ or in Vita? Or, perhaps, he was lying in both?43 In other words, it should not be a surprise to anybody that he was capable of inventing stories about himself and playing with “historical facts” to suit his purposes.  dacity: Josephus had three years to study with Bannus because his tour of the academies was imaginary.” I would add that both his quest of the sects, and his three-year tutorship under Bannus, may have been imaginary by the same token. 40 Vita 3–5. 41 Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, Vita, 158–161 tries to solve the chronological problems inherent in Josephus’ genealogy in several different ways, but eventually admits that none of them is satisfactory. 42 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 3–7; S. Mason, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, 9. Life of Josephus (Leiden, 2001), 213–22. 43 U. Rappaport, “Where Was Josephus Lying – In His Life or in the War?” in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden, 1994), 279–89.

4. Josephus: Some Introductory Remarks on Methodology

15

The second example concerns Josephus’ claims concerning his genealogy and was already pointed out by M. Smith: there is no evidence, before the sixteenth book of AJ, that Josephus knew that he was related to the Hasmoneans.44 In the ironical words of Smith, “The knowledge of it grew in him with time.”45 As Smith points out, in BJ he merely claimed to be a Jerusalem priest; by the time he was well through the composition of most of AJ he discovered his royal connection; and when he began writing Vita he already figured out the whole pedigree (which, as noted, is notorious for its chronological problems). This evolutionary process of discovering one’s royal and high-priestly identity and status looks suspect, to say the least.46 My third example is meant to illustrate, in comparative perspective, what kind of self-glorification fables Josephus was prepared to create and to tell his audience. The story is given by him in Vita 9: “While still a boy, really, about fourteen years old, I used to be praised by everyone because [I was] book-loving: the chief priests and principal men of the city would often meet to understand the legal matters more precisely with my assistance.”47 The story is a topos, and makes much sense if Josephus wanted to present himself to his contemporaries as a kind of “second Moses” or as a potential leader of world Jewry.48 The closest parallel to this account in  44

AJ XVI 187. M. Smith, “The Gentiles in Judaism 125 BCE–CE 66,” in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Three: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge, 1999), 225. 46 Contra Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 16, who writes concerning his genealogy the following: “For while there are some features which are improbable, there are none which are impossible; and, as long as what Josephus tells us is possible, we have no right to correct it” (emphasis in the original). 47 Translation follows Mason, Life of Josephus, 12–14. Quotations from Josephus’ works are taken from S. Mason (ed.), Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary Series (Leiden, 2000–), where available. Since this series is not complete at the time of writing, in many places I quoted from H. St. J. Thackeray, et al., Josephus. 10 Vols. (LCL; Cambridge, MA & London, 1926–1965). All quotations are acknowledged, and my emendations are indicated. On this passage Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 28, who compares Josephus to the Gaon of Vilna (!), writes: “But when Josephus, at the age of fourteen, solved problems for the high priests and the city leaders, he had obviously gone beyond the stage of mere memorising, and was able to apply the intelligence which was his second main asset to the analysis of complex problems.” Both Rajak and A. Schalit (trans. and ed.), Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae. Vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1944), XLI, n. 47, take the story as a “fact.” Cf. L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 Vols. (Minneapolis, 1992), 1:5, who writes on this passage that it is “a statement, exceeded in its incredibility only by its frequent quotation by modern scholars without comment, as if to take it at face value.” 48 On the parallels, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 105–106; F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, M. Vogel, Flavius Josephus. Aus meinem Leben (Vita). Kritische 45

16

Introduction

terms of time, place and content comes from the Gospel of Luke 2:46–7: “After three days they found him [Jesus] in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.”49 Nowadays it would be extremely difficult to find a New Testament scholar claiming, in an academic context, that this tradition concerning the Wunderkind Jesus in Luke’s Gospel, whose author believed that his hero was a divine agent of God’s salvation who had been born from a virgin, risen from the dead and ascended to sit at the right hand of Power, was based on “real events.” Rather, such gullibility would be branded as fundamentalism, and laughed out of scholarly company. However, very few scholars seem to be amazed at the robust psychology of Josephus, who shamelessly made an even bolder claim about himself (although, admittedly, he did not suggest that he had been divinely fathered or virginally conceived). Ironically, even the historicity of Rabbinic stories in Mishnah Yoma (1:3–7) dealing with the supposed patronizing of the incompetent and half-literate high priests by the Sages is not taken seriously by scholars anymore, although the Mishnaic Sages claimed much less for themselves than did Josephus.50 In a similar way, Josephus is often trusted as far as his statements about his honesty, truthfulness, unselfishness, and education are concerned. Some even seem to think that he actually was too humble, even less selfseeking, and much better educated than he claimed. Thus, sometimes one encounters claims that BJ is not pro-Roman propaganda at all, and that Josephus did not really get that much from Vespasian and Titus in terms of privileges and money, especially when compared to some other people.51  Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Tübingen, 2001), 25, n. 14 (bibliography), and Mason, Life of Josephus, 14, n. 66, who also compares the passage with Josephus’ treatment of Moses. That Josephus at least hinted at his own comparability to Moses follows from AJ XX 264–6: he is one of the two or three Jews, who succeeded in achieving an “exact knowledge of the law” and therefore became “capable of interpreting the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.” Moses must be the other one, or one of the other two. On the precociousness of biblical heroes as a motif in Josephus, see L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, 1998), 90–91. On Josephus as a potential leader of Judaism, see B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, 1992), 69–87, and Nodet, “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism from Rome.” For my view of Josephus’ ambitions, see below. 49 Following NRSV. 50 Sanders, Judaism, 396, writes on m. Yoma 1:3–7: “Which of the high priests allowed himself to be treated in such a way, as if he were a complete incompetent? Annas? Ananus? Caiaphas? Certainly not. These men were tough, shrewd and competent – and very likely arrogant. ‘Sages’ did not lead them around by their noses.” 51 S. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1. 25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’ Judean Antiquities/Life,” in idem (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Sheffield, 1998), 72–9.

4. Josephus: Some Introductory Remarks on Methodology

17

As far as his education is concerned, he is variously presented in scholarly literature as an exceptionally broadly educated Second-Temple Jewish scholar and even a phenomenal repository of rabbinic learning (he is presumed to have been familiar with or at least reflecting not only Talmudic and Midrashic traditions, but even some out-of-the-way mediaeval lore, say, Yalkut Shimoni),52 or, alternatively, to have mastered most of Greek and Roman pagan literature – since he seems to reflect various motifs current in the Greco-Roman authors and to engage in dialogue with them – even at the time of writing BJ!53 It goes without saying that in this sympathetic context young Josephus is routinely supposed to have attended a typical rabbinic beth-midrash, of which, according to the later Talmudic and Midrashic literature, Second Temple Jerusalem was full.54 Josephus himself does not say anything concerning Judean educational institutions, in which he acquired his presumed expertise in the biblical laws and prophetic traditions, but this does not prevent scholars from easily projecting much later rabbinic constructs back to the first-century C.E. Jerusalem. The logic is simple: if he says he studied Torah, we must assume he studied it where the Jews usually studied Torah – and that is, of course, at a beth-midrash. However, no contemporary literary or archaeological source bears witness to the existence of such “houses of study” in Josephus’ Jerusalem.55 Moreover, he never claims to  52

L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation; idem Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden, 1998); idem, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary, Volume 3: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden, 2000), passim; idem, “Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus,” Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997), 47–87. 53 Mason, “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome;” idem, “Should Any Wish to Enquire.” Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, believes Josephus to have been thoroughly familiar with both rabbinic traditions and Greco-Roman thought. It is clear from AJ that by the nineties Josephus had read extensively in Greco-Roman authors. However, it is virtually inconceivable that a Palestinian Jew who had spent less than a decade in the Diaspora (as Josephus by the time of composing BJ) would have been able to become widely-read in pagan historiography. See S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (CSCT 18; Leiden, 1990), for a critical analysis of what can be safely concluded concerning Josephus’ erudition in BJ and AJ. 54 On Josephus as a Jerusalem beth-midrash student, see Schalit, Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae, XXXIX. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 26–30, does not use the concept of “beth-midrash,” but her reconstruction of Josephus’ education is also wholly retrojected from later rabbinic sources. 55 ʩʹʸʣʮ ʺʩʡ in the Geniza text of Ben-Sira 51:23 is a translation from Syriac; see M. Kister, “A Contribution to the Interpretation of Ben Sira,” Tarbiz 59 (1990), 304, n. 2 (in Hebrew). The only piece of archaeological evidence which comes close is the Jerusalem synagogue inscription of Theodotus, son of Vettenus (CIJ 2.1404 [SEG 8.170]). It is most likely that his family came to Jerusalem from the Diaspora. Moreover, Josephus never claims to have attended synagogues in Jerusalem. For the text and discussion of the inscription, see L. Roth-Gerson, The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-

18

Introduction

have attended a rabbinic-like school, but rather declares that his expertise stems from his having been born and raised as a priest. So, it seems safer to suppose that whatever knowledge he acquired in his early years, was at the Temple and in the priestly circles. Apart from Josephus’ general proclamations concerning his superb education, we do not find any hard evidence that could corroborate his statements that by the time he was writing BJ he had a thorough knowledge of the Bible.56 The biblical traditions quoted in BJ are extremely strange and garbled, and if anything, they represent the exact kind of stuff that might be expected from a proud Jerusalem priest – namely, obsession with the Temple.57 It is rather obvious that the impression many scholars have concerning Josephus’ early education stems from the fact that his late writings, especially AJ and CA, do witness to his fairly exhaustive knowledge of the Bible, familiarity with extra-biblical Jewish traditions and writings, and with quite a few of the Greco-Roman authors. Then, if all of Josephus’ writings are read as if they were governed by the rabbinic principle “there is no early and late in the Torah,” and his proclamations concerning his superb education are also taken at their face value, this late knowledge is easily traced back to his early years and into BJ.58 I would think it safer to assume that the kind of Jewish education Josephus received in Jerusalem would have been of a practical and pragmatic nature, namely, what he needed to know as a priest: he must have been familiar with the biblical laws regulating proper slaughter of sacrificial animals, laws dealing with blemishes and “leprosy,” as well as rules of ritual purity and impurity, which were relevant to the Temple.59 In addition to this, he would also have been familiar with general Jewish practice. As will be discussed below, BJ provides no evidence that he had previously been engaged in seri Israel (Jerusalem, 1987), 76–86 (in Hebrew); A. Runesson, D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E. A Sourcebook (Leiden, 2008), 52–4; H. M. Cotton et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae. Volume I: Jerusalem. Part 1: 1–704 (Berlin, 2010), 53–6. I return to this inscription below. A. Momigliano, “Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe non vide,” in Settimo Contributo alla Storia Degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome, 1984), 305–17; ET: “What Josephus Did Not See,” in idem, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Middletown, 1987), 108–19, considers the synagogue as one of the main things that Josephus “did not see.” 56 Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 23–45 has analyzed “Josephus’ intellectual development” as witnessed by BJ. I discuss his knowledge of the Bible in BJ in chapter 2 below. 57 See the discussion in chapter 2 (pp. 115–28). 58 Thus, despite all his critical acumen, S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 92, is typical: “He [Josephus] was raised first on traditional Judean-Jewish texts, the (Hebrew) Bible above all.” The statement appears in the context of his discussion of BJ. 59 Cf. the discussion of Josephus’ familiarity with Passover proceedings, discussed in chapter 2 below (pp. 125–6).

5. Josephus’ Biography and the General Context of His Writings

19

ous Torah-study for the sake of learning and interpretation of the whole corpus of Jewish legal, prophetic and sapiential traditions. However, by the time he wrote AJ, the picture had completely changed. Now, in the Diaspora context and far away from the ruined Temple, the Torah with its laws – “the Mosaic constitution” – became for him the only framework, inside and around which the Jews were able to consolidate their identity and their very existence as a separate national and religious entity. I claim that this transformation of Josephus’ religious outlook and emphases was occasioned by his geographical and temporal move from the Temple-state of Judea to the Temple-less and culturally challenging Diaspora. In my investigation of Josephus’ religious evolution I am not really dependent on the veracity of his claims concerning himself. Rather, his works provide the raw material for the comparison and analysis. Thus, as has been pointed out above and will be illustrated below, although he claims to have been a biblical expert at an early age, his claims can be checked against the materials in his early writing, and results of this comparison will determine the verdict. In a similar way, without even concentrating on the autobiographical materials in his later compositions, it is possible to assess what was important to him, and what he considered central to his religious worldview, because he continually dwelled on certain subjects, issues and paradigms. And if, as is often the case, we do not find these topics in his earlier writing, but instead of them find something else, then we are entitled to suppose that his views changed over the years – especially, as I claim, if there is some logic that could explain such a change. In this study I will endeavor to document, analyze, and explain the transformation.

5. Josephus’ Biography and the General Context of His Writings If we leave aside the problematic autobiographical materials discussed above, we still can know something about Josephus. He dates his birth, twice, to the first year of Gaius’ Caligula imperium, that is 37 C.E.60 It is reasonable to suppose that he indeed was born, as he claims a few times, into a priestly family of considerable status and means. This is confirmed by the later events of his life, such as his having been a member of a delegation to Rome and his subsequent appointment as the rebel commander of Galilee. It would be unreasonable to suppose that a person without any social standing would have been chosen for tasks such as these.  60 Vita 5, AJ XX 268. 

20

Introduction

Josephus claimed that at the age of nineteen, after having gone through the three legitimate Jewish schools of thought and spending three years with an ascetic in the desert (presumably, the Judean desert),61 he returned to Jerusalem and “began to involve [himself] in public life, deferring to the philosophical school of the Pharisees.”62 At the age of twenty-six, that is, in 63/64 C.E., he traveled to Rome as a member of a delegation, whose aim was to plead on behalf of some priests who had been sent to Rome “on a minor and incidental charge.”63 Whatever we may think of Josephus’ claim to have been divinely saved from a shipwreck on the way to Rome, perhaps we may believe his report that he successfully accomplished his mission and helped to obtain the release of the priests. The details of the story are another matter.64 After his return to Judea he claimed to have found the revolt against Rome already under way. According to the version of the events presented in Vita, he initially tried to restrain the insurgents, but when he realized that things had progressed too far, he decided to change his tactics: after the defeat of Cestius Gallus at the end of 66 C.E. he went to the Galilee ostensibly as a rebel commander, but in reality to subvert the revolution from within.65 There is nothing like this in BJ, according to which he was appointed as the general of Galilee by the Jewish rebel government in Jerusalem and conscientiously adhered to his revolutionary mission of organizing and consolidating the anti-Roman war effort until the arrival of Vespasian.66 At this point Josephus took his stand at the fortress of Yodfat, which was eventually taken on July 20/the 1st of Tammuz, 67 C.E., after a siege 

61 As has been pointed out above, the story of his “spiritual quest” is problematic from the chronological point of view. 62 Vita 12 (translation follows Mason, Life of Josephus, 20–21). On the translation and interpretation of this notorious passage, see idem, Josephus on the Pharisees, 325–56. 63 Vita 13. 64 S. Mason, “Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus,” in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford, 2005), 285–8, suggests that Josephus might have invented the Jewish mime-actor Aliturus (Vita 16). 65 Vita 29: “So they sent me and two other gentlemen who were priests, Ioazar and Iudas, to persuade the wretches to put down their weapons and to instruct them that it was preferable to reserve these for the nation’s élite” (translation follows Mason, Life of Josephus, 36–37). 66 On Josephus’ appointment as the general of the Galilee according to BJ, see II 562– 68. For the comparative table of events during Josephus’ generalship of Galilee, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 3–7 and Mason, Life of Josephus, 213–222. Cohen, op. cit., 181–231 is a critical attempt of historical reconstruction of this period of his life. Another such an attempt is M. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” in Horbury et al., The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Three: The Early Roman Period, 526–35.

5. Josephus’ Biography and the General Context of His Writings

21

of forty-seven days.67 Josephus’ soldiers exhorted him to join them in a mass suicide; however, he managed to outwit them and after all of them killed themselves he gave himself over to the Romans. Josephus claims that on the eve of these tragic events he received a divine revelation, which clarified to him God’s plan of history and his own prophetic mission. The passage justifies its quotation in full: BJ III 351b [S]uddenly there came back into his mind those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sovereigns. 352 He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books. 353 At that hour he was inspired to read their meaning, and recalling the dreadful images of his recent dreams, he offered a silent prayer to God. 354 “Since it pleases thee,” so it ran, “who didst create the Jewish nation, to break thy work, since fortune has wholly passed to the Romans, and since thou hast made choice of my spirit to announce the things that are to come, I willingly surrender to the Romans and consent to live; but I take thee to witness that I go, not as a traitor, but as thy minister.”68

After being entrusted with such a mission, Josephus, of course, could not have accepted his soldiers’ counsel to kill himself. How exactly he managed to avoid it is unclear. He claims that either fortune or God’s providence intervened in the drawing of the lots in such a way that after everybody committed suicide, only he and one other soldier remained.69 Although the Old Russian version of BJ might not contain any original material going back to the first Aramaic edition of this work, at this point it seems to suggest a common-sense answer to the question: Josephus “counted the numbers [according to which the order or the soldiers’ death was determined] with wisdom, and thus misled them all.”70 Josephus 

67 For the analysis of archaeological evidence on Yodfat, see M. Aviam, “Yodfat,” in Stern, The New Archaeological Encyclopedia… Supplemmentary Volume, 2076–8. 68 Translation follows H. St. J. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus. The Jewish War, Books I–III (LCL; Cambridge, MA, 1927, frequently reprinted), 675–677. This passage is crucial for this study in several ways, and contains a number of extremely important elements. I return to it below. 69 BJ III 390–1. 70 BJ (Old Russian) III 390; see A. A. Pichhadze et al. (eds.), “The History of Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius. Old Russian Translation. 2 Vols. (Moscow, 2004), 224 (in Russian). For the suggestion that the Old Russian version might have been based on the first, Aramaic version of BJ, see R. Eisler,       (Heidelberg, 1929); ET: The Messiah Jesus (London, 1931), and, most recently, E. Nodet, “Jewish Features in the ‘Slavonic’ War of Josephus,” in F. Siegert and J. Kalms (eds.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium 2000 (Münster 2001), 105–131. The editors of the critical edition of the Old Russian text, in contrast, consider all passages not found in the Greek to be later interpolations. See Pichhadze, op. cit., 13–19. Cf. E. Hansack, “Zum Forschungsstand des ‘slavischen Josephus’,” in C. Böttrich und J. Herzer (Hrsg.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tübingen, 2007), 495–512.

22

Introduction

claims that after he was brought before Vespasian, he predicted his and Titus’ future elevation to the emperor’s throne.71 Whatever the details, something like this prediction must have happened, both because BJ was eventually presented to the emperors, and because of the way Vespasian treated Josephus subsequently. Although Josephus was not released from his chains until the beginning of July 69, when Vespasian was proclaimed emperor, he claims to have been treated well and even given some gifts by the Roman general.72 Vespasian even “commanded” him to marry a captive Jewish woman from Caesarea.73 After Vespasian became emperor, he commanded that Josephus’ fetters be severed – a symbolic gesture intended to demonstrate that it is as though he had never been in chains at all.74 He was a free man now, nominally, but chose to remain with Vespasian and Titus during their Judean campaign, and to serve Titus in every possible way. He accompanied Vespasian to Alexandria, where he found another wife.75 When Vespasian sailed to Rome, Josephus joined Titus who took over the command of the Roman forces in Judea. After the arrival of Titus at the walls of Jerusalem, and the beginning of the siege, Josephus was dispatched several times to plead with the besieged concerning their surrender in their native tongue – presumably, Aramaic.76 Apart from that, he admits to having interrogated the deserters,77 and I think that in view of Josephus’ thorough acquaintance with Jerusalem and its surroundings, as well as because of his military experience, it is not unreasonable to imagine that he served as Titus’ (chief?) local advisor.78 After the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the revolt, Josephus accompanied Titus to Rome, where he divorced his third wife. She had borne him three sons, of whom only one survived. In Rome, Josephus married for the  71

BJ III 399–402. BJ III 408. 73 Vita 414–5. This “command” was indeed needed since Josephus, being a priest, halakhically could not marry a captive woman. From BJ VI 419 we know that Josephus had been married before, and that his wife was among the besieged in Jerusalem. We do not know what happened to his first wife after that. Josephus says that the Caesarian wife left him after he was released and travelled with Vespasian to Alexandria. 74 BJ IV 622–9. 75 Vita 415. 76 The contents of one of these speeches (BJ V 375–419) are discussed in detail in chapter 2 (pp. 121–4). 77 CA I 49. Josephus is actually proud to have been the only translator of the information brought by the deserters (hence, it is reasonable to conclude that he interrogated all of them): “During that time none of the action escaped my knowledge: for I watched and carefully recorded what happened in the Roman camp, and I alone understood what was reported by deserters.” (Translation follows Barclay, Against Apion, 35). 78 Cf. Vita 420. 72

5. Josephus’ Biography and the General Context of His Writings

23

fourth time, now a Jewish woman from Crete. Among all of his wives, Josephus has good things to say only about her (one might suspect that the reason for this may have been that at the time of writing Vita she was still with him). This fourth wife bore him two more children.79 In Rome, Josephus was permitted by Vespasian to reside in his own previous house; Vespasian also granted him Roman citizenship, a pension and a “gift of considerable land in Judea.”80 Josephus gentilic name witnesses to the fact that the Flavians made him their client. He insists that even after Vespasian and Titus died, the next emperor did not abolish any of these privileges. On the contrary, Domitian punished Josephus’ detractors, gave him a tax exemption for his lands in Judea, and together with his wife continued to benefit him in various ways.81 It was in Rome that Josephus wrote all his extant compositions.82 In BJ I 3 he claims to have previously written an account of the Judean war in his native tongue,83 presumably Aramaic, of which BJ is a Greek translation. He says that he wrote it for the sake of the “barbarians” of the “upper countries,” usually taken to be Mesopotamian Jews. Whether any such work ever existed, is disputed; in any case, no part of the Aramaic account of the Judean War by Josephus has either survived or been attested.84 BJ was at least in some way sponsored, and definitely approved of, by Vespasian and Titus. After its completion some time before Vespasian’s death in 79 C.E., Josephus presented it to the emperors, and Titus ordered it to be copied and disseminated.85 His other books were published in the nineties, and were written under the patronage of certain Epaphroditus, who is mentioned as Josephus’ patron in AJ, in Vita, and in CA, and to whom these works are dedicated.86 As to his identity, several candidates have been proposed, all of whom remain hypothetical.87 AJ was completed in the thirteenth year of Domitian, that is 93/4 C.E.,88 and Vita probably a short time later, since it serves as an appendix to AJ. The exact date of CA is not known; that it was written after  79

Vita 426–7. Vita 423–5. 81 Vita 428–9. 82 See H. Petersen, “Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus,” AJP 79 (1958), 259–274. 83 ÌĉȸÌÉţĿÊÍÅ̊ƸËե 84 On the theory concerning the dependence of the Old Russian (“Slavonic”) translation of BJ on the first Aramaic version, see n. 70 above. 85 Vita 361–3; CA I 50–1. 86 AJ I 8, Vita 430, CA I 1, II 296. 87 The intended audience and purpose of AJ are discussed in chapter 3. 88 AJ XX 267. 80

24

Introduction

AJ follows from several references in it to that larger work.89 Although no one knows the exact date of Josephus’ death, he is usually believed to have died around 100 C.E.

6. The Plan and Purpose of This Study This study is intended as a contribution to the research on ancient Judaism in general, and to Josephan studies in particular. First, it is a contribution to the study of Diaspora Judaism in the Second Temple period. It is still routinely assumed that the main transformation in ancient Judaism occurred in the Land of Israel after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., and was initiated and carried through by the representatives of the early rabbinic movement.90 They are believed to have transformed the Judaism of Temple, sacrifices, and priests, into the Judaism of synagogue/bethmidrash, Torah-study, and lay Sages. This transformation is now considered to be part of the major paradigm shift in the religious landscape of Late Antique Mediterranean world, in the course of which “the religions of sacrifice” gave way to “the religions of community.” 91 From the point of view of the history of Judaism, this is historically true – it was the rabbinic Sages of the Land of Israel, and later, also of Babylonia, who succeeded in creating a workable Judaic system without Temple, sacrifices, priesthood, and territory, which turned out to be remarkably well suited for Diaspora Jewish existence in the subsequent two millennia. In due time, it became normative for the vast majority of the Jews, and in its various versions remains so until today. Without minimizing the great historical achievement of Rabbinic Judaism, I would like to suggest that the picture of the metamorphosis of ancient Judaism from Temple-and-sacrifice religion into the religion of prayer-house and Torah-study has to be slightly corrected. I would like to suggest that some time before the destruction of the Temple and the emergence of Palestinian rabbinic movement, the myriads of Diaspora Jews had  89

CA I 1, 2, 54, 127, II 136, 287. E.g., I. M. Gafni, “The Historical Background,” in S. Safrai (ed.), The Literature of the Sages. First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (CRINT II/3.1; Assen/Maastricht-Philadelphia, 1987), 1–34. I limit my reflections on the history of research here to a few important studies, and reserve most of them for the individual chapters of this study. 91 G. Stroumsa, La Fin du sacrifice. Les mutations religieuses de l’Antiquité tardive (Paris, 2005); ET: The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations of Late Antiquity (Chicago, 2009). 90

6. The Plan and Purpose of This Study

25

already accomplished a very similar transformation.92 The main incentive for this was not much different from that faced by the Sages after 70: long before Second Temple Diaspora Jews had to face the physical destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the cult, for all practical purposes these institutions were functionally irrelevant for them, because geographically distant and therefore inaccessible for most of their lives. They had to develop Judaic systems alternative to the one based on the Jerusalem Temple, its cult, and its priestly establishment. On the basis of the analysis of most extant Jewish literature produced in the Western Diaspora in the period under review, I believe they succeeded. Although many landmark studies dealing with Diaspora Jewish history, literature, and identity have been published in the recent decades, very few of them have posed the question in the same way. 93 Thus, the first chapter of this study is a detailed analysis of Judaic paradigms emerging from the close reading of Diaspora compositions. It is intended as a contribution both to the study of the major religious transformation of ancient Judaism, and as the frame of reference for the following analysis of the individual religious evolution of the major Second Temple Jewish author and historian, Flavius Josephus. As has been stated above, I take Josephus to be a priceless human testcase in the context of the study of the transformation of Judaism from religion of Temple to religion of Torah. Although studies dealing with Josephus’ religious views have been produced before, he is routinely considered not to have been a great theological thinker, and his works are not 

92 In a private conversation, Stroumsa agreed that Diaspora Jews were the first to effect this transformation. 93 A notable exception is Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred, whose thesis is somewhat similar to mine; cf. idem, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Oxford, 2007), 345–77. Other important contributions include E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935), a controversial, but thought-provoking study on Diaspora Jewish theology; G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden, 1992), has discussed several Diaspora authors (as well as AJ) in the context of Greco-Roman and early Christian “apologetic” historiography; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2 nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 2000), on various Diaspora Jewish identity paradigms; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (Edinburgh, 1996), on Diaspora Jewish cultural convergence and antagonism vis-à-vis GrecoRoman environment; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkley, 1998); idem, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), on robust Jewish Diaspora identities; T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford, 2009), on Diaspora identities as reflected by the main document of Alexandrian Judaism, the Septuagint. Many other studies are referred to in the following chapters.

26

Introduction

usually treated by scholars as masterpieces of theological reflection.94 Analyses of Josephus’ theological views have often been weakened by ascribing too much importance to his alleged Pharisaism;95 in addition, not a few scholars tended to be too harmonistic in the discussion of Josephus’  94

G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. 3 Vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1927–30), 1:210, is typical: “For the religion of his times Josephus is a somewhat disappointing source… [I]t is a striking fact that, if we were dependent on the works of Josephus alone, we should know very little about the religion of his contemporaries. In illustration it may be noted that of so important an institution as the synagogue there is no mention…” A notable exception is H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, 1976), which is discussed in chapters 2 and 3 below. Attridge’s study (pp. 3–27) also contains an exemplary history of previous research on the theological aspects of Josephus’ works. Older studies on Josephus’ religion are either limited in scope or methodologically outdated. See, e.g., a sympathetic but rather cursory treatment by J. A. Montgomery, “The Religion of Flavius Josephus,” JQR 11 (1921), 277–305. A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Gütersloh, 1910) is a rather short study of Josephus’ terminology for God (for a more recent treatment, cf. R. J. H. Shutt, “The Concept of God in the Works of Josephus,” JSJ 31 [1987], 171–89). Schlatter’s other contribution, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Gütersloh, 1932), which is arranged topically according to various theological themes and religious movements, is marred by the author’s view that Josephus was an adherent of Pharisaicrabbinic Judaism. S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Wien, 1930) is a study of Josephus’ interpretative techniques, with a heavy emphasis on rabbinic parallels; it has now been mostly superseded by Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation; idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible; idem, Flavius Josephus. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Momigliano, “Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe non vide,” expresses an extremely negative view on Josephus’ religiosity in general, which, in my view, is unjustified. B. Schröder, “‘Die väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (Tübingen, 1996) is a study of Josephus’ understanding and usage of one particular concept, ÈŠÌÉÀÇÀÅŦÄÇÀ, “ancestral laws.” Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis is a fulllength study of the various aspects of priestly themes in Josephus, including the analysis of how his self-identification as a priest influenced his writing; it is discussed in chapter 4 of this study. Although Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, and Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, are not chiefly concerned with Josephus’ religious views, they contain much useful information and a number of insights which have influenced my approach, as will be apparent from this study. The study by Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, was published after this study was written, and, unfortunately, it is neither sensitive to the diachronic aspects of Josephus’ writing, nor to his Diaspora context. It is mostly a selective reading of certain Josephan passages, without detailed analysis of the rest of Josephus’ vast corpus. For a detailed criticism of this study, see my “Review of Jonathan Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2012),” JSJ forthcoming. 95 For the discussion of the history of research on this topic, see S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden, 1991), 18–39. Although concentrating on the Pharisees-passages, Mason’s study represents a major break-through in the study of Josephus’ religious identity. Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, tries to resuscitate Josephus’ alleged Pharisaic identity.

6. The Plan and Purpose of This Study

27

views on Judaism. Because of his origins and the subject matter of most of his oeuvre he has also been frequently treated as a representative of Palestinian Judaism, despite the fact that he produced all his works in the Diaspora, and most of them – after living for decades in the Diaspora.96 As has been stated above, I suggest that Josephus, who began his career as an upper-class Jerusalem priest, gradually became – in the wake of his move to Rome – a Diaspora intellectual. Since his earlier composition, BJ, was composed by him in less than a decade after his move to Rome, I suggest that it might reflect “early Josephus,” mostly still a Palestinian Temple-Judean, not yet a full-fledged Diaspora Jew. Therefore, in the second chapter of this study, I investigate this composition in order to sketch a theological profile of its author. After discussing the overall character of BJ, its aims, and purposes, I concentrate on the role of the Temple, sacrificial cult, Jewish law, and biblical traditions in the worldview of Josephus. I attempt to demonstrate that while the Temple and its cult were paramount in Josephus’ theological worldview, the Torah and its commandments (both as halakhic praxis and the study of Holy Scriptures were concerned), as such, were not high on his list of priorities. The arrangement of the second chapter of this study does not follow the chronological framework of BJ; it is organized topically. In the third chapter I analyze Josephus’ major work, AJ, which was finished by him after he had spent more than two decades in Rome. After discussing the self-stated goals and tendencies of AJ, I move to a detailed discussion of this work in chronological sequence. I compare Josephus’ narrative with his extant sources: the Bible, apocryphal versions of some biblical works which Josephus used, the Letter of Aristeas, 1 Maccabees, and his own earlier version of the events in BJ. I systematically try to document and analyze the changes and modifications Josephus introduced in his latter version of Jewish history. The major themes I concentrate on are the importance of the Mosaic Law and “constitution,” the role of virtue, God’s providence, and Josephus’ understanding of the place and destiny of Judaism in the world. I also document Josephus’ consistent marginalizing of the Temple and the cult in his narrative (even as compared with his own previous version presented in BJ), and their inexorable replacement by the Torah and its commandments. Apart from the Temple-Torah exchange, I 

96 This is now changing; see M. Goodman, “Josephus as Roman Citizen,” in Parente and Sievers, Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 329–38; T. Rajak, “Josephus in the Diaspora,” in Edmondson et al., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 79–97; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” in Böttrich und Herzer, Josephus und das Neue Testament, 137–46. However, Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, treats Josephus as a Palestinian author without any meaningful reference or sensitivity to his Diaspora context.

28

Introduction

document and analyze a few other recurrent themes in latter Josephus, such as his missionary stance stemming from his understanding of the Law as universal, and his fully formed view of eschatology, which was totally missing from BJ. My conclusion is that latter Josephus fits neatly into the picture of Judaic paradigms of the Diaspora outlined in chapter 1. While in chapters 2 and 3 I attempt to trace the evolution and change of Josephus’ religious views, in chapter 4 I investigate his position on a topic which apparently remained constant throughout his entire career. In all of his works – early and late – Josephus did not tire of emphasizing his priestly origins and status. While it is perfectly clear that an upper-class Jerusalem priest would find much to be proud about his priesthood at the time of the Temple’s existence, it is not immediately so in the case of somebody who lives in Rome decades after the Temple went up in flames. Initially, it is even less comprehensible in the light of the fact that the later Josephus marginalized the role of the Temple and sacrificial cult in his presentation of Judaism. Chapter 4 is devoted to this paradox; I suggest a combination of reasons for Josephus’ enduring emphasis on his priestly origins and status. This study concludes with a summary of my view of Josephus’ religious evolution and a diachronic analysis of his understanding of God’s workings in history and his eschatological program. I conclude that, in contrast to the position that has prevailed until recently, 97 Josephus’ corpus is indeed a treasure-mine for the study of ancient Jewish theology,98 and that Josephus is a first-rate witness to the religious revolution which took place in Judaism at the turn of the Common Era. Thus, I believe, even if he was eventually (partially?) mistaken on some theological questions – such as the ultimate triumph of Judaism in the Roman world – his writings incontrovertibly demonstrate that he still had seen quite a lot.99

 97

E.g., Momigliano, “What Josephus Did Not See;” J. S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judea in the First Century CE (Sheffield, 1998), 16: “Concern over possible theological motivation is not an issue in Josephus’ narrative.” 98 On this basic issue, I do think that Klawans’ Josephus and the Theologies is an important contribution to scholarship. 99 Pace Momigliano, op. cit.

Chapter 1

Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora 1. 1. How Can a Diaspora Jew Worship a God Whose Temple Is Far Away? The question of the role of the Jerusalem Temple and its cult in Diaspora literature, and that of the attitudes of Diaspora authors towards them, cannot be explored outside of the broader contexts of Jewish religious worldviews, practices and identities in the Diaspora communities of the Greco-Roman world.1 The Diaspora Jews’ predicament vis-à-vis the Temple and its cult could be succinctly delineated as follows. According to the pentateuchal tradition, which is usually considered to have taken its final shape by the end of the Persian and the beginning of the Hellenistic periods, the Temple, its sacrificial cult and its priesthood stood at the center of the Judean religion.2 Most of the legal materials con 1

A shortened version of this chapter was published as: “Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in the Judaic Literature of the Diaspora”, in D. R. Schwartz, and Z. Weiss (eds.), Was 70 C. E. a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (Leiden, 2012), 181–239. In this chapter I mainly concentrate on Diaspora worldviews and identities. For an attempt to analyze some Diaspora halakhic practices, see E. P. Sanders, “Purity, Food, and Offerings in the Greek-Speaking Diaspora,” in idem, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (LondonPhiladelphia, 1990), 255–308. The importance of the institution of synagogue for Diaspora Judaism is discussed by M. J. Martin, “The School of Virtue and the Tent of Zion” (Ph.D. diss., University of Melbourne, 2000). I return to Martin’s study below in this chapter. Jewish Diaspora pilgrimage to sites other than the Jerusalem Temple are discussed in A. Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt,” in D. Frankfurter (ed.), Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt (Leiden, 1998), 99–225. 2 Although the pentateuchal traditions refer to the Tabernacle as the center of Israel’s sacrificial cult, it is clear that their Sitz im Leben was the Temple in Jerusalem; see H. Liss, “The Imaginary Sanctuary: The Priestly Code as an Example of Fictional Literature in the Hebrew Bible,” in O. Lipshits and M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, 2006), 663–89. On the formation of the Pentateuch see J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York, 1992). On the centrality of the Temple in ancient Jewish religious practice and thought, see M. D. Herr, “Jerusalem, the Temple and Its Cult – Reality and Concepts in

30

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

tained in the Torah of Moses, on diverse levels, in numerous ways, and in different measures are related to the Temple and the sacrificial cult carried out in it. Various sacrifices (as well as other cultic acts performed in the Temple such as, for example, libations, the burning of incense and the like) were the main rituals of Mosaic religion as conceived by the authorsredactors of the Torah, and as the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews pithily put it at the end of the Second Temple period, “without the shedding of blood there [was] no pardon.”3 The ritual purity system, which played such an important role in the Mosaic legislation, mainly answered the questions: “Who can and who cannot participate in the Temple cult, when and how?”4 Major biblical festivals were defined, basically or broadly, as those of the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the activities of the celebrants were to take place in it or in its vicinity.5 All this should not surprise us since the majority of the pentateuchal legal materials are most likely to have originated with the priestly and levitical circles based in the Temple or at least connected to it – circles which were eager to promote the Temple as the center, indeed, the embodiment, of the Judean religious expression.6 So much for the written tradition authoritative in the period under review. From the historical point of view, correspondingly, at the very beginning of the Persian period Judea was reconstituted as a “Temple-state,” at the head of which stood the high priest.7 This situation endured in the early  Second Temple Times,” in A. Oppenheimer et al. (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period (Jerusalem, 1981), 166–77 (in Hebrew). 3 Hebrews 9:22. See L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis, 1992), 2:607–8; for a more detailed discussion, see idem, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London, 2000), 129–49. 4 The theme of purity seems to enjoy much popularity in recent research on ancient Judaism. See J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York, 2000); and idem, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (New York, 2006). 5 See Leviticus 23. For the analysis of these traditions, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23– 27 (New York, 2001), ad loc. 6 On the role of the priestly circles in the creation of the Pentateuch and its establishment as “the Law of the Land,” see M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971), 170–87. Cf. L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Vol. 1: Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (London, 2004), 331–43, for an evaluation of the role of Ezra the priest in the development of “the Law” and “Scripture” in the early Persian period. Ezra’s crucial role in the promulgation of the Torah has been recognized at least since the Talmudic period; see b. Sukkah 20a. 7 On the history of the Restoration era, see S. Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology,” USQR 44/3–4 (1991), 195–251; Grabbe, History, Vol. 1; P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (Leiden, 2006). On the high priests in the first half of the Second Temple period, see M. Brutti, The Development of

1.1. How Can a Diaspora Jew Worship a God Whose Temple Is Far Away?

31

Hellenistic period, until the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, of which the apogee was the rededication of the Temple and the reinstitution of the sacrificial cult there. The Hasmoneans rose to rule over the Judeans first of all as high priests, only several decades later adding the royal diadem to the high priestly turban.8 Most of the political and religious controversies of this period seem to have centered on the issue of the Hasmonean usurpation of the high-priestly office.9 When Herod the Great was appointed to the Judean throne by the Romans, he carefully took two major steps to buttress his rule, in addition to the elimination of the Hasmonean high priests and the appointment of his own obscure but loyal candidates to the position. On the one hand, in order to show his Roman overlords that he was their faithful friend and ally, and that his kingdom was an integral part of their Empire, he built Caesarea Maritima as a major administrative center, port, and Roman religious center. On the other hand, to prove his loyalty to Judaism he magnificently rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple on an unprecedented scale.10 After the Romans abolished the client kingdom of Judea, it was again the high priests who stood at the head of as much as remained of the Judean autonomy and who represented the Judeans before the imperial authorities.11 When Gaius Caligula decided to Romanize the Jerusalem Temple by erecting his statue in it, in all probability it was only his assassination that forestalled a wholesale Judean rebellion.12 The Great Revolt against Rome took off with the termination of the customary sacrifice on behalf of the Emperor,13 and  the High Priesthood during the Pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology (Leiden, 2006). On the religious developments of the Persian period, see M. Smith, “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period,” in W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1, Introduction: The Persian Period (Cambridge, 1984), 219–78. 8 The first to proclaim himself a king was Aristobulus I (104–103 B.C.E.). On priesthood and monarchy in the Hasmonean period, see D. R. Schwartz, “Priesthood and Monarchy in the Hasmonean Period,” in I. M. Gafni (ed.), Kehal Yisrael: Jewish Self-Rule Through the Ages, I: The Ancient Period (Jerusalem, 2001), 13–25 (in Hebrew). 9 See J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters from Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta, 1990); H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids-Jerusalem, 2008); E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. (London, 1992), 13–29. Cf. A. I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Leiden, 1997). 10 On Herod’s politics, see M. Stern, “The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century (2 Vols.; Assen, 1974–1976), 1:216–307. 11 This is abundantly clear both from Josephus and the Gospels. 12 P. Bilde, “The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem,” Studia Theologica 32 (1978), 67–93. 13 BJ II 409.

32

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

crashed with the destruction of the Temple and the concomitant cessation of the sacrificial cult. Such examples of the centrality of the Temple in the religious and political life of Judea could easily be multiplied, but these should suffice to illustrate that this institution, its rituals and personnel were paramount both in the religious and political history of Judea throughout the Second Temple period.14 Quite predictably, accordingly, the Jerusalem Temple, its cult, and its priesthood play central roles in Jewish literature written in the Land of Israel in the Second Temple period and in the decades immediately following it.15 On the other hand, however, one should not ignore the fact that in the Second Temple period most Jews resided outside of the Land of Israel, far away from Jerusalem and its cultic center. So far I have been describing the situation in Judea,16 but the fact is that sheer geographical remoteness prevented the Diaspora Jews, for most of their lives, from regular active participating in the life of the Temple.17 So, here are the questions: How could one meaningfully live a Jewish “religious” life in the Diaspora, if the basis and center of that life were located hundreds and thousands of miles 

14 On Temple piety as the main constituent of “common Judaism” in the Land of Israel in the early Roman Period, see Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief. On the extent of the participation of Diaspora Jews in this “common Judaism,” cf. A. Mendelson. “‘Did Philo Say the Shema?’ and Other Reflections on E. P. Sanders’ Judaism: Practice and Belief,” SPhA 6 (1994), 160–70. On the history of the high priesthood in the Second Temple period, see J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis, 2004); Brutti, The Development of the High Priesthood. 15 As conspicuous examples of Palestinian writings preoccupied with Temple-and cult-related issues and composed in the period under review, one may adduce 1 Esdras, Aramaic Levi Document (ALD), Baruch, Sirach, Daniel 7–12, Jubilees, 1 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, Testament of Moses, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Ladder of Jacob, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. 16 Although the Qumran Scrolls and early rabbinic literature, too, were primarily composed and edited in the Land of Israel, they present special cases and have to be discussed separately. On Qumran as basically an “exilic” community, see N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in E. G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, and R. A. Clements (eds.), New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005 (Leiden, 2010), 3–21; on the comparison between Diaspora, Qumranic, and rabbinic conceptions of the location of Divine presence, see idem, “Where Does the Shekhina Dwell? Between the Dead Sea Sect, Diaspora Judaism and Rabbinic Literature,” in A. Lange, E. Tov, M. Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (Leiden, 2011), 399–412. 17 Cf. E. S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, Mass., 2002), 234: “Hellenistic Jews did not have to face the eradication of the Temple. It was there – but they were not.”

1.1. How Can a Diaspora Jew Worship a God Whose Temple Is Far Away?

33

away, all but inaccessible? How could anybody maintain a vibrant Jewish identity for generations in the midst of the engulfing sea of competing cults, worldviews, and philosophies, and at the same time hold fast to the belief that the only true worship, indeed, the one revealed by God Himself to His covenant people, was being conducted in a remote place stuck away among the mountains of Judea?18 The answer that I would propose to these questions would be considered controversial by some. In my view the Jews of the Greco-Roman Diaspora did not, by and large, hold fast to that belief, but rather gradually developed coherent Judaic religious systems of belief and practice that did not require a focus on the Temple and its sacrificial cult. Indeed, one might say that if Diaspora Jews wanted to preserve and perpetuate their religious and cultural identities, they did not have any other choice.19 This is not to say that the Jews of the Diaspora generally and consistently exhibited anti-Temple, anti-cultic or anti-priestly attitudes, openly criticized the Jerusalem Temple and its cult, regularly emphasized their own estrangement from these institutions, or called for their abolishment.20 Indeed, until recently it was a common view, at least in some scholarly circles, that the attitude of Diaspora Jews towards the Temple and its sacrifices was not much different from that of their coreligionists in Judea.21 In  18

This question was already posed in D. R. Schwartz, “Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?” in M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem (Kampen, 1996), 114–27. Cf. Martin, “The School of Virtue,” discussed and quoted below. 19 Cf. J. N. Lightstone, “Roman Diaspora Judaism,” in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Oxford, 2007), 367–8: “I do not wish to understate the importance of physical distance from Jerusalem and the biblical interdiction against sacrificing elsewhere in describing transformations of biblical Judaism devised and/or adopted in the Diaspora – in particular, the emergence of the synagogue, and a cult of scriptural readings and scriptural lessons, and of prayer – as normative alternatives to the sacrificial cult in the Jerusalem Temple. Indeed, with the destruction of the Temple, and with the realization that the opportunity to reestablish that Temple was a remote eventuality (confirmed by the failure of the Bar Kochba rebellion), these normative institutions of the Diaspora became the norm for Palestinian Jews as well.” 20 Among those who did were the author of Sibylline Oracle 4 and the figure of Stephen in Acts 7. On these, see below. Cf. M. Simon, St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London, 1958); Schwartz, “Temple or City”; and M. Tuval, “The 4th Sibylline Oracle and the Popularity of Judaism among the Pagans after the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Vestnik Yevreyskogo Universiteta 10 (28) (2005), 23–54 (in Russian). 21 S. Safrai, The Pilgrimage in the Second Temple Period (Tel-Aviv, 1965) (in Hebrew); idem., “Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel,” in Safrai and Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, 1:184–215; A. Kasher, “Jerusalem as a ‘Metropolis’ in Philo’s National Consciousness,” Cathedra 11 (1980), 45–56 (in He-

34

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

fairness to the scholars who held that view it should be said that some of the writings produced in the Diaspora do witness to the respect of their authors towards the Temple, its cult, and its priests. But the question I want to ask is not about elementary respect and honor towards the institutes of divine service sanctioned by the Holy Writ.22 Rather, my question is whether the contemporary Jerusalem Temple and its cult provided – indeed, could have provided – a meaningful basis for the religious identity and practice of the myriads of North African, Egyptian, Syrian, Mesopotamian, Asian, Mediterranean and Roman Jews in the course of their lives lived in the Temple-less Diaspora; the question is about how the Temple and cult practically functioned in their Judaism. I claim that the analysis of Jewish literature produced in the Greco-Roman Diaspora shows that these institutions did not, by and large, have such a practical function, or much of one. Rather, on the basis of this analysis I argue that Diaspora Jews devised types of Judaism different from that centered on the Jerusalem Temple and its cult.23 It has been a commonplace to speak about the “loyalty” of Diaspora Judaism to the Jerusalem Temple, this “loyalty” mainly being understood as the recognition by Diaspora Jews of that institution’s centrality for Judaism, and their practices of the payment of the half-shekel tax, and pilgrimage to Jerusalem.24 However, in my view, it has also been convincingly demonstrated that this kind of terminology does not really describe or explain anything in the religious views and practices of Diaspora Jews. In comparing the relative importance of the Jerusalem Temple and Diaspora synagogue for the life of the Diaspora communities of the early Roman period, M. J. Martin wrote: Those Jews who dwelt in Jerusalem or its immediate environs and had reasonable access to the Temple may well have counted the Jerusalem and its Temple a significant part of their religious experience. But what of the Jewish communities who dwelt in the GraecoRoman Diaspora? The realities of their situation were such that, in all likelihood, very

 brew); M. Stern, “The Diaspora: General Outline,” in M. Stern and Z. Baras (eds.), The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World (Jerusalem, 1983), esp. 11–20 (in Hebrew). 22 Respect and honor might come especially easy if, among many other things, one does not have to wage bloody wars with the pagans for the Temple, to be persecuted by a Judean High Priest, to be too closely familiar with the officiating priests, or to think too much about the differences between one’s own halakhah and that of the Sadducean Temple establishment. That is, it might be easier to respect and honor the Temple and its personnel if one is not too closely involved and familiar with them – in other words, if one lives in the Diaspora. 23 See Schwartz, “Temple or City.” 24 On the relative role of the pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple for Egyptian Jewish identities, as compared to other Jewish pilgrimage practices in Hellenistic-Roman Egypt, see Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity.”

1.1. How Can a Diaspora Jew Worship a God Whose Temple Is Far Away?

35

few of these Jews ever had the opportunity to see the Temple. On the contrary, it was the institution of the synagogue which formed the fundamental focus of their religious life and experience. Whatever significance the Temple may have possessed, it must have been largely restricted to the field of the notional.25

In other words, the fact that one does not routinely find hard evidence of opposition to, or criticism and negation of, the Temple and its cult in Diaspora literature does not automatically mean that Diaspora Jews were “loyal” to the Temple in any immediate way, or that this institution was “central” to their Judaism. Even if one could say, generally, that they were “loyal,” this would convey very little about their religious worldview, practices, and identity. Such statements are essentially meaningless as far as the description and analysis of Diaspora faith and practice are concerned.26 In my view, it is not entirely surprising that several Diaspora compositions should ascribe some importance to the Temple and its cult; after all, as we have seen, they were at the center of Judaism as conceived by the Torah of Moses. Although the Diaspora Jews used Greek translations of the Torah, it is difficult to deny that they read basically the same book as the Jews in Judea, and it would be nothing short of astonishing had they decided to consign the Temple and its cult to oblivion. Rather, what is indeed remarkable about the Diaspora authors is that, despite the centrality of the Temple and its cult in the Torah and its importance in the religious and political life of Judea in the Second Temple period, so many of them did marginalize it in most of their writings. In this study, I will analyze some prominent Diaspora writings and try to describe the various components of their religious constructs, in some cases contrasting them with the Temple-centered worldviews of Judean texts. I am not just looking for the absence of the Temple and its cult. Rather, I am looking for different religious paradigms. I am looking for coherent Judaisms which do well without the Temple and sacrifices. At the outset, several caveats are in order. First, this is not a full-scale and comprehensive study of Temple, cult, and priesthood in all of Diaspora literature. That corpus is simply too vast to be exhaustively treated in one chapter. Indeed, several studies have already been written on Philo of Alexandria’s views of the Temple and Jewish worship alone.27 Neither will  25

Martin, “School of Virtue,” 25–26. Martin’s influence on my study and his analysis of Philo’s attitude to the Temple are discussed below. 27 Martin, “School of Virtue”; J. Leonhardt-Balzer, Jewish Worship in Philo of Alexandria (Tübingen, 2001). In addition to these, see E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935), 95–120; idem, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 Vols. (New York, 1953–68), Vol. 4 (on symbols from the Jewish cult); I. Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung (Breslau, 26

36

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

I attempt to comprehensively analyze and describe the various religious systems designed by Diaspora Jews, or the identity paradigms that emerge from literary and archaeological remains. Fortunately, this has also been successfully attempted a number of times in recent years.28 Rather, I will limit my treatment to the analysis of the evidence demonstrating that most Diaspora writers, in contrast to contemporary Palestinian authors, routinely and naturally transferred their emphasis from Temple-and-cult-related issues to other aspects of Jewish practice and belief. In many cases this emphasis was novel and unprecedented, or at least brought into prominence values or issues underemphasized in the literature produced in the Land of Israel.

1. 2. Previous Studies of Diaspora Jewish Religion In some respects, this study has been anticipated, and inspired, by the work of earlier scholars. Among those whose work on religious aspects of Diaspora Judaism has had much influence on my understanding of the question, I should single out J. J. Collins, D. Georgi, E. R. Goodenough, J. N. Lightstone, M. J. Martin, D. R. Schwartz, and M. Smith.29 However, for  1932), 16–82; V. Nikiprowetzky, “La spiritualisation des sacrifices et le culte sacrificiel au Temple de Jérusalem chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” Semitica 17 (1967), 97–116; J. Laporte, “Sacrifice and Forgiveness in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 1 (1989), 34–42; idem, “The High Priest in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhA 3 (1991), 71–82; A. Lieber, “Between Motherland and Fatherland: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and the Spiritualization of Sacrifice in Philo of Alexandria,” in L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber (eds.), The Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 2007), 193–210. On Philo’s Judaism in general, see A. Mendelson, Philo’s Jewish Identity (Atlanta, 1988), and E. Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Though: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes (Atlanta, 1996). 28 See Stern and Baras, The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World; P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1991); W. C. van Unnik, Das Selbverständnis der jüdischen Diaspora in der hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (Leiden, 1993); J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (Edinburgh, 1996); I. M. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (Sheffield, 1997); L. V. Rutgers, The Hidden Heritage of Diaspora Judaism (Leuven, 1998); Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity;” J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 2000); E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkley, 1998); idem, Diaspora, 2002; I. M. Gafni (ed.), Center and Diaspora: The Land of Israel and the Diaspora in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Jerusalem, 2004) (in Hebrew); T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford, 2009). 29 Goodenough, By Light, Light; idem, Jewish Symbols; M. Smith, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. 2 Vols. (ed. S. J. D. Cohen; Leiden, 1996); D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul

1.2. Previous Studies of Diaspora Jewish Religion

37

reasons of space I will concentrate here on the work of just two of them: J. N. Lightstone and M. J. Martin. Lightstone’s Commerce of the Sacred is not a full-scale textual study of the literary heritage of Diaspora Judaism(s), but many of his conclusions are similar to my own. In my view, Lightstone’s main achievement consists of his success in demonstrating that the Temple-oriented Judaism of Judea and the Temple-less Judaisms of the Diaspora basically represent different paradigms for configuring access to the sacred and the divine. He presents his provocative thesis concerning the difference between “the Judaic universe . . . centered in the Jerusalem Temple of the Second Commonwealth” and Diaspora Judaism as follows: I shall argue that Judaism of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora reflects a different configuration in appropriating and mediating the sacred, a shamanistic model in many respects. Removed first by distance (before 70 CE), and later (after 70) by the cult’s demise, from the “socio-systemic” sacred order of the Temple, the Yahwehists [sic] of the GraecoRoman world depended upon various and varied loci at which the sacred could be had – this to effect health, order and prosperity in this lower realm. 30

As is clear from this passage as well as from the subtitle of Lightstone’s book, his study is mainly concerned with the “mediation of the divine among Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora.” I agree that the question concerning the “loci at which the sacred could be had” is of paramount importance as far as the basic and paradigmatic difference between pre-70 Palestinian and Diaspora Judaisms is concerned. However, in addition to “the commerce of the sacred” I would also like to emphasize the question of coherent religious and cultural identities of Diaspora Jews – identities mainly constructed without recourse to the Temple and sacrifices, and able to provide meaning and cohesion to Jews in Diaspora conditions – both as individuals and as whole communities. I do not think that identity was at all times necessarily concerned with the “mediation of the divine.” Moreover, as will become clear from the following discussion, although I do recognize the importance of “holy men,” semidivinized patriarchs, and martyrs’ atoning deaths, for some of the Diaspora Judaic systems, I do not necessarily agree with Lightstone that all of these systems were axiomatically more “shamanistic” than those current in Palestine. We know that there were “holy men” and “magicians” in the Jerusalem Temple pre-

 in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia, 1986); J. N. Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred: Mediation of the Divine among the Jews in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora (2nd ed.; New York, 2006 [1 st ed., 1984]); idem, “Roman Diaspora Judaism;” Schwartz, “Temple or City;” Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem; Martin, “School of Virtue.” 30 Lightstone, Commerce of the Sacred, 5.

38

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

cincts.31 We will also see that the Diaspora identity paradigms reflected in the fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish authors focus on Torah-study, and those in the Testament of Abraham, Pseudo-Phocylides and the Sibylline Oracles are preoccupied with ethics.32 In other words, I take Lightstone’s “shamanistic” paradigm as only one of a whole series of multifaceted Diaspora Judaism configurations. This study has also been inspired by the doctoral dissertation of M. J. Martin, which was quoted above and which unfortunately, remains unpublished.33 As the dissertation’s subtitle states, it is “an investigation into the relationship between the institutions of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora synagogue and the Jerusalem Temple in late Second Temple Judaism: Philo of Alexandria – a case-study.” Martin sets out to thoroughly analyze the place and function of these two institutions in the worldview and practice of Philo of Alexandria. After presenting the data concerning pre-70 C.E. Diaspora synagogues, he discusses, first, the place of the Alexandrian synagogue, and then, that of the Jerusalem Temple, in the thought of Philo. Next, Martin analyzes Philo’s description of the sect of the Therapeutae, which Philo presents as the ideal Jewish community and the embodiment of the virtues taught by Moses; and finally, he treats Philo’s eschatological views. Martin argues convincingly that the Temple is conspicuously absent both from Philo’s description of the ideal Jewish community, and from his eschatological vision of the ideal future. According to Martin, the Temple was important to Philo mainly on the political and communal level. It symbolized the Roman recognition and protection of Judaism, and served as a convenient point of reference for common Jewish piety. Philo was not only an ivory tower intellectual, but also a communal leader, and he realized that not all Jews were as sophisticated and “spiritual” as himself: At one level Philo attributes to the Temple a role as guide for those Jews who lack the intellectual sophistication of men like Philo himself to apprehend the true nature of the worship of God in the Temple of the rational soul. Philo construes two types of people in the world – the sages (like himself) and the mob (ĝ ěÏÂÇË); those who love God, and those who fear Him. The Temple is for the benefit of the latter. The former have no need



31 Indeed, it seems that most of those we actually hear of were active in Palestine. See M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York, 1978); R. Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford, 1993); D. C. Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 (1975), 235–52; G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge, 2008). On an expert exorcist who is described as “a Syrian from Palestine,” see Lucian, Philopseudes, 16 (in M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1980), 222 [# 372]). 32 See the analysis below. 33 Martin, “School of Virtue.”

1.2. Previous Studies of Diaspora Jewish Religion

39

of it. Thus we find revealed an aspect of Philo as a leader of the Jewish community of Alexandria – in the guise of what we might call pastoral concerns.34

Martin goes on to explain that as a communal leader, Philo realized all too well that “if the Roman state may freely and openly attack the Temple of the Jewish metropolis, then a signal is given that any Jewish community, anywhere in the world, may be readily made the target of oppression.”35 The Temple was thus definitely important for Philo since – and insofar as – it symbolized Roman recognition and protection of Judaism. In my view, Martin’s achievement is mainly his success in explaining convincingly, on the one hand, the factors from which the positive attitude to the Temple in Philo’s thinking stemmed; and on the other, the reasons for the negligible role it played in his personal faith and practice. Martin claims that the synagogue played a much more important and immediate role than the Temple in Diaspora Judaism (as represented by Philo), to the point that Diasporan religious life can be described as “the life of the synagogue.” As will become clear from the following analysis of Diaspora writings, I accept Martin’s conclusions as valid. However, granting that “the synagogue” was the main communal institution of Diaspora Judaism, I tend to see it as only one of a whole array of new ideas and paradigms, devised by Diaspora Jews in the course of their search for suitable replacements for the “life of the Temple.”36 As has been stated above, no full-scale study and comprehensive analysis of all features of Diaspora literature will be attempted here. I will first provide some introductory material concerning the corpus of literature to be discussed. Then I will concentrate on the analysis of what these particular compositions say about the Temple and the cult, if they say anything about them at all. On the basis of this analysis I will also try to document the development of religious ideas and identity paradigms created to provide coherence outside of the system of the Temple and its cult.

 34

Ibid., 250. Ibid., 250–1. 36 Moreover, Martin makes clear in his introduction that he thinks that, in contrast to Philo, Josephus’ writings cannot be used as the basis for a comparable study. Josephus, in his view, “was not a Diaspora Jew. On the contrary, Josephus’ experience of Judaism is firmly centered in Judaea, more specifically, in Jerusalem” (p. 32). It seems to me that Martin’s characterization of Josephus’ religious experience is only valid in respect to his earliest writing, namely, BJ. As far as his later writings are concerned, I would argue that they were written from the position of a mature Diasporan intellectual. See chapters 2 and 3 below. 35

40

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

1. 3. The Literary Corpus to Be Considered The extant corpus of Diaspora Jewish literature is a heterogeneous collection of disparate compositions and fragments written by many authors over a long period, originating in various locations,37 and belonging to different genres. One thinks of the fragmentary collection of excerpts from the “Hellenistic Jewish authors” (mostly of Egyptian provenance) on the one hand, and of the voluminous works of Philo (also Egyptian) and Josephus (Roman), on the other. The writings include works of historiography, like 2 Maccabees; expansions and rewritings of biblical stories or postbiblical tales (Prayer of Joseph, Joseph and Aseneth, Tobit,38 Letter of Aristeas, 3 Maccabees); wisdom and philosophical literature (Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees, Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides); testamentary writings (Testament of Job, Testament of Abraham); apocalyptic and other revelatory literature (2 Enoch, Sibylline Oracles), exegetical works (Philo, fragments from Hellenistic Jewish authors); prayers (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Prayer of Jacob); and much more. It is extremely difficult to speak of any features common to all of these compositions. Even if one tried to do so, the results would seem artificial and forced. Therefore, instead of trying to distill from this motley collection any common denominator of attitudes towards the Temple and its cult, I will attempt to describe each text on its own terms, paying attention to a number of pertinent factors, as described below. First, I will discuss a number of Diaspora documents which in my view exhibit coherent Judaic worldviews without assigning any role to the Jerusalem Temple and its cult, or which at least downplay them. In the course of this discussion I will occasionally compare what Diaspora authors say on the Temple-and-sacrifice-related topics with parallel Palestinian material, indicating differences, novelties, and alternatives in light of what has been stated above. I will try to isolate new and religiously important ideas and phenomena that are not documented or are merely marginal in Palestinian literature but are prominent in Diaspora writings; I will then try to imagine how these ideas and phenomena functioned in the religious worldview of Diaspora Jews, and whether they provided them with working alternatives to the Temple-centered system regnant in Judea. Finally, I will try to account for the Diaspora compositions that seem to emphasize 

37 Although the vast majority of what has survived originated in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. 38 Although Tobit, with its emphasis on righteous deeds, angelic protection, exorcism, and magic, would be a good witness to Diasporan concerns, it is not discussed here. I decided to limit my discussion to the documents of Western Diaspora.

1.4. Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors

41

the importance of the Temple and its cult – whether in the here and now or in their eschatological scenarios.

1. 4. Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors One may begin the discussion with the group of writings known as “Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish authors.”39 As D. R. Schwartz noticed, the Temple and its cult are not mentioned in this corpus apart from the excerpts from the writings of Eupolemus – who was not a Diaspora Jew at all, but rather a Judean priest.40 Another exception to this rule is Ps.Hecataeus, whose fragment, preserved in Josephus’s CA I 183–204, contains an idealized description of the Temple precincts and priestly activities.41 One could of course object by saying that these “Fragments” are just that, fragments – and so it is risky to form an opinion concerning anything that is not mentioned in them, since it might have been mentioned in those parts which have not survived. Moreover, they have mostly been preserved in later Christian compositions, and may have been arbitrarily taken out of their context to prove points quite contrary to their original authors’ intentions. However, it should be said that we are dealing with more than a dozen authors, some of whom are represented in extensive excerpts. And it has actually been demonstrated that most of these excerpts, albeit fragmentary, develop coherent topics and exhibit consistent worldviews. In many cases it is possible to ascertain the authors’ overall agendas and even to describe the identity paradigms they represent.42 

39 Specifics are given below. These texts have been reedited, with introductions, translations, and commentaries, by C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 4 Vols. (Chico and Atlanta, 1983–96). See also the introductions to the annotated translations in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works (Garden City, NY, 1985), 775–918. The classic study of these authors is J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1–2: Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau, 1875). For an analysis of these fragments in their broader contexts, see P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 Vols. (Oxford, 1972), 1:687–716 (text); 2:955–1003 (notes). Cf. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem; and Y. Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature. 2 Vols. (Jerusalem, 1958) (in Hebrew). 40 Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 119. Schwartz is correct, if he considers only the “Fragmentary authors” preserved in Eusebius and Clement. 41 Part of this passage is discussed below. 42 See, above all, Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Cf. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora; Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism; idem, Diaspora, and G. E.

42

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

These identity (re-)constructions are mainly centered on the explaining, reworking, reinterpreting, reenacting, and embellishing of inherited sacred biblical traditions, mainly of the “historical” genre.43 Thus, for example, we find a preoccupation with exegesis, biblical chronology, and genealogy in Demetrius and Aristeas the Exegete. In the writings of Artapanus, Philo the Epic Poet44 and Ezekiel the Tragedian we see various creative attempts to rewrite, reinterpret, and actualize diverse biblical stories. In addition to this, Ezekiel the Tragedian, in his portrayal of Moses, seems to witness to a tradition of the apotheosis of biblical heroes, which will be discussed below.45 In the case of the fragmentary “Pseudo-Greek” authors we find attempts to ascribe biblical messages to pagan worthies and in this way to add authority to Jewish sacred tradition and Jewish values, or even to preach these traditions and values out of the mouths of pagans themselves. In these cases no biblical history is retold, since that would compromise the pseudepigrapher.46 The fragments from the writings of Aristobulus are our earliest example of the attempt to reconcile the teachings of Moses with Greek philosophical thought, and to claim primacy and superiority for the former.47  Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden, 1992), 137–225. 43 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 29–60; 224–30. On the praxis of biblical interpretation in these texts, see P. W. van der Horst, “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” in M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Assen and Philadelphia, 1988), 519–46. 44 Philo the Epic Poet wrote a work On Jerusalem, but no mention of the Temple is preserved among the surviving fragments. He seems to have been fascinated by Jerusalem’s water system, and the only mention of “high priest” is in the context of the description of various hydraulic installations. See H. W. Attridge, “Philo the Epic Poet,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2:784. 45 See now P. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (Leiden, 2006). On the traditions of Moses’ exaltation see W. Meeks, “Moses as God and King,” in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden, 1968), 354–59; B. L. Mack, “Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenistic Synagogue,” SPhilo 1 (1972), 27–55. The “divinity” of Moses has also been recently discussed by L. H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Notre Dame, 2007), 331– 57. 46 However, the authors of the Jewish Sibylline Oracles seem not to have thought that there was a tension between presenting their oracles as pagan prophecies and praising the Jewish people and their Law – and sometimes even their sacrificial cult. In addition to the texts collected in Holladay, one should add Ps.-Phocylides to this category. The Sibylline Oracles 1–5 and Ps.-Phoc. are treated below. 47 See the classic study by N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulus (Berlin, 1964); Holladay, Fragments, Volume I: Aristobulus. On Aristobulus’ interpretation of the Bible,

1.4. Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Authors

43

As noted above, the only “fragmentary” Diaspora author from whom any mention of the Jerusalem Temple survives is Ps.-Hecataeus.48 However, it should be noted that the relevant fragment seems to be more interested in the Temple as the most interesting edifice in Jerusalem than in its function.49 It is worth mentioning that Ps.-Hecataeus states that there was “not a single statue or votive offering, no trace of a plant, in the form of a sacred grove or the like” in the Temple precincts, thus contrasting the Jewish Temple with pagan shrines. This contrast seems to be an important element in this passage, since throughout his fragments the author repeatedly emphasized the Jewish abhorrence of idolatry and pagan superstitions, along with their willingness to suffer “tortures and death in its most terrible form, rather than repudiate the faith of their forefathers” (§191). As will become clear from the following discussion, the valorization of martyrdom for the sake of the Law was an important theme in Diaspora literature. In other words, the written Torah (broadly defined) with its messages, meanings and conundrums – and faithfulness to that text – is what occupies the central place in these fragmentary writings. Most of these works could be – albeit anachronistically – placed in the category described by the later rabbinic concept of “talmud Torah,” i.e., Torah study, the only activity worthy of a pious Jewish man, and the main act of worship. The profile of Judaism that can be discerned in these compositions reflects the fact that its proponents highly valued the biblical narrative, venerated their national heroes, and believed that it was extremely important to observe the commandments of the Torah, which some of them considered to be universal truths revealed by God to all humanity. However, with one exception, none of these fragments indicates that its author evinced any interest in the Jerusalem Temple, its cult, or its ritual.

 see F. Siegert, “Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style,” in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300) (Göttingen, 1996), 154–62. 48 On Ps.-Hecataeus, see especially B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, “On the Jews”: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley, 1996). 49 No sacrifices are mentioned, just a crude stone altar, and another golden altar and lampstand, upon which the light is never extinguished (§§198–199). Curiously, in his description of the priests he does not think it is important enough to discuss their main activity, sacrifices, but only to say that they “pass their nights and days performing certain rites of purification, and abstaining altogether from wine while in the Temple” (§199). Translations of Ps.-Hecataeus are taken from Holladay, Fragments, Volume I: Historians, 309–13.

44

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

1. 5. “Mysteries and Revelations” 1.5.1. Joseph and Aseneth, The Prayer of Joseph, and 2 Enoch The authors surveyed above could be said to represent text-oriented Diaspora paradigms. There were also more mystic authors. The main representative of this group, of course, is Philo of Alexandria, but since – because of their volume and scope – his writings constitute a special case, he is discussed below in a separate section. Here, I will examine three representatives of mystic Diaspora compositions – a romance (Joseph and Aseneth), an enigmatic, fragmentary Prayer of Joseph, and an apocalypse known as 2 Enoch. These compositions are notoriously difficult to date, and we can only speculate concerning their precise geographical provenance and Sitz im Leben.50 1.5.2. Joseph and Aseneth This text is a riddle, confronting its interpreters with a number of difficulties, with regard to both its exact provenance and its message.51 However, because the story is set in Egypt, deals with questions that were likely to have been faced by Egyptian Jews, and is full of criticism of Egyptian cults, the majority of scholars tend to posit an Egyptian origin.52 The romance is based on the biblical story of Joseph and his marriage to Aseneth, a daughter of a pagan Egyptian priest. At the center of the plot is the narrative of her conversion from idolatry to the worship of the one true God of the Jews. This conversion is accompanied by deep repentance and the recognition of the vapidity of idolatry, and sealed by arcane and esoteric rites, which have perplexed generations of scholars. Following her transformation, Aseneth becomes a paradigmatic convert, a city of refuge for all those who will recognize the futility of idol worship and see the true light  50

However, their general Diaspora provenance is taken for granted by most scholars. See E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield, 2000), for an introduction and further bibliography. Cf. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 103–10; 230–39. R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (New York, 1998) prefers a date in the third or fourth century C.E. and remains agnostic as far as the provenance of the work is concerned. For another introduction, along with an English translation, see C. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2:177–247. Burchard has also produced an exemplary critical edition of the Greek text: Joseph und Aseneth (Leiden, 2003). 52 An ingenious interpretation has been advanced by G. Bohak, who links this composition to the circles around the Temple of Onias in Leontopolis in Egypt; see his Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (Atlanta, 1996). This suggestion, however interesting, seems to have failed to convince the majority of scholars, and I believe this work may still be understood without linking it to Onias’ temple. 51

1.5. “Mysteries and Revelations”

45

of the one God of the Jews.53 It is important to note that the only sacrifices and temples mentioned in the story are those of the dead and dumb pagan gods (e.g., 11:8–9). In contrast to what is known about the admittedly later rabbinic conversion ceremony, Aseneth’s conversion is not accompanied by any sacrifice.54 One is led to conclude that the God of the Jews is truly and sufficiently worshipped by acts of repentance, ascetic practices, and continual supplications. Throughout the story, much importance is ascribed to the virginity and chastity of both Aseneth and Joseph, and it is clear that for the author of the romance, austere sexual morality is one of the prime virtues of Judaism. Questions of food purity are also prominent.55 Thus, the Diaspora author of Joseph and Aseneth managed to create the description of a paradigmatic conversion from idolatry to the only true divine worship without mentioning the center and content of the Jewish sacrificial cult even once. Apparently, for him real worship consisted of something totally different. 1.5.3. The Prayer of Joseph Our next example is the no less enigmatic Prayer of Joseph, which is preserved in two short but extremely fascinating fragments, and was thoroughly analyzed by J. Z. Smith in an article appropriately published in the memorial volume dedicated to E. R. Goodenough.56 As is well-known, Goodenough dedicated most of his career to the analysis of the literary and archaeological remains of what he considered to be a Hellenistic Jewish mystery religion. Leaving aside the problematic aspects of Goodenough’s overarching thesis, it is possible to concede that the Prayer of Joseph is a prime example of the kind of Hellenistic Jewish theology that he reconstructed: heavenly mediators, the patriarchs as incarnations of divine Law and as savior figures, mystical heavenly ascents and descents. The work offers a speech by the Patriarch Jacob who presents himself as “Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spirit . . . Israel, which means, a man seeing 

53 On conversion in Joseph and Aseneth, see R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield, 1995). 54 On the rabbinic conversion ritual, see S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley 1999), 198–238. 55 See R. D. Chesnutt, “Joseph and Aseneth: Food as an Identity Marker,” in A.-J. Levine et al. (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton, 2006), 357–65. 56 J. Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in J. Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (Leiden, 1968), 253–94; reprinted in idem, Map Is Not Territory (Chicago, 1978), 24–66. See also idem, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2:699–714; The document has been recently discussed in P. W. van der Horst and J. H. Newman, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek (Berlin and New York, 2008), 247–58.

46

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

God, because I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life. . . . I, Israel, the archangel of power of the Lord and the chief captain among the sons of God.” Jacob also declares that “Abraham and Isaac were created before any work,” and claims to have “descended to earth and . . . tabernacled (Á¸Ì¼ÊÁŢÅÑʸ)57 among men” (Fragment A).58 Of course, at first glance the mere fact that Temple and cult are not mentioned in this fragment does not mean much. However, if this fragment is considered in the broader context of other Hellenistic Jewish literature, primarily the materials studied by Goodenough (and later, Lightstone), it does look like a coherent piece of Hellenistic Jewish theology centered on semi-divinized biblical heroes as living incarnations of divine powers and mediators of salvation both in this world and in the hereafter. The preexistent, supernatural patriarchs were available and ever-present in every part of the oikoumenƝ, and could serve as conduits of heavenly boons and truths to anybody willing to delve into the deeper meanings of the Law. Even if this does not mean that in such a case the Temple and sacrifices necessarily became entirely irrelevant, it is very likely that in the Templeless Diaspora context the omnipresent patriarchs and other heavenly figures, who had tabernacled (!) among men, had a much better chance of being considered as first choices when a Diaspora Jew asked the question: “Via whom, where, and by what means might I find Shekhinah?”59 1.5.4. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch The apocalypse known as 2 Enoch has been preserved only in mediaeval Slavonic manuscripts; some recent preliminary reports indicate that a few



Cf. John 1:14 on the incarnation of the preexistent Logos-Jesus: ëÊÁŢÅÑʼÅëÅ÷ÄėÅ. See Goodenough, By Light, Light, 155, where he suggests that Christian copyists might have suppressed Philonic tractates On Isaac and On Jacob, precisely because of the parallels with Jesus that they may have offered. 58 Translation is taken from Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2: 713 (italics in the original). 59 ÊÁ¾ÅŦÑ, Á¸Ì¸ÊÁ¾ÅŦÑ = ʯʫʹ. The role of the patriarchs and other biblical figures as the embodiments of divine law and conduits of salvation and other heavenly gifts is discussed at length in Goodenough, By Light, Light. For another document, in which Jacob is a (terrestrial) angel (ĸËÓºº¼ÂÇÅëÈ֙ţº֚¼ÀÇÅ), see the Prayer of Jacob 18. The Greek text (with a German translation) was published by K. L. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri (2. Aufl.; Stuttgart, 1973–74) (2:148– 150=PGM XXIIb). English translation: PGM XXIIb: 1–26, “Prayer of Jacob”, translated by D. E. Aune in H. D. Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells (Chicago, 1986), 261. Translation and commentary: van der Horst and Newman, Early Jewish Prayers, 215–46. 57

1.5. “Mysteries and Revelations”

47

fragments are attested in Coptic.60 Although the text is not cited in any earlier sources, many scholars incline in favor of a Jewish original, written in Greek in the Diaspora of the Second Temple period, probably in Egypt.61 As is well known, the authors of most apocalypses, including those produced in the Land of Israel, exhibit much more interest in the heavenly Temple, its appurtenances, cult, and ministers, than in their earthly counterparts in Jerusalem. The question of the sources of and reasons for these speculations has been discussed many times in recent research, and it would be superfluous to review this discussion here.62 Suffice it to say that most scholars agree that the disproportionate interest of the writers of apocalypses in the heavenly Temple and cult, as opposed to the physical Temple on earth, reflects at least to some degree their dissatisfaction with and even estrangement from the earthly Temple, its cult, and its contemporary ministers.63 The dissatisfaction and estrangement do not necessarily need to have been based on any coherent or ideological anti-Temple views. Rather, they might have stemmed from such worldly issues as power struggles between various groups of priests. The losing and disenfranchised party would then retreat and try to find comfort in the visions and 

60 Two recensions of this apocalypse exist. See the discussions of the textual problems in F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, NY, 1983), 92–94; and C. Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch (Tübingen, 1992), 59–144. For the long recension of the Slavonic text (with Latin translation) see M. I. Sokoloff, The Slavonic Book of Enoch the Righteous (Moscow, 1910); for the short recension, see A. Vaillant, Le livre des secrets d’Hénoch (Paris, 1952). A new edition of both recensions has been published by G. Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of 2Enoch (Leiden, 2013). On the Coptic fragments, see J. L. Hagen, “No Longer Slavonic Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in A. Orlov, G. Boccaccini, J. Zurawski (eds.), New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Leiden, 2012), 7–34. Quotations are taken from Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.” 61 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 252 n. 175; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2d ed.; Minneapolis, 2005), 225; C. Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch (Gütersloh, 1996), 812. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 95–97 is more cautious concerning geographical provenance. M. Goodman, “Jewish Literature of Which the Original Language Is Uncertain,” in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3/2 (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh, 1987), 748, thinks that “it is safer to conclude that elements belonging to 2 Enoch existed both in Greek and in Hebrew.” For the bibliography on 2 Enoch, see A. Orlov, From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism (Leiden, 2007), 19–35. 62 See M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York, 1993). 63 E.g., D. W. Suter, “Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6–16,” HUCA 50 (1979), 115–35.

48

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

revelations of the true heavenly Temple, where angelic ministers bring pure offerings right before the Throne of Glory. 64 However, most apocalypses written in the Land of Israel still exhibit at least some measure of interest in and concern for the historical Jerusalem Temple, even if, like 1 Enoch, they purport to describe antediluvian antiquity. Thus, parts of 1 Enoch contain “historical” sections, in which the Jerusalem Temple plays a role,65 and such compositions as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch reflect the anguish in their authors’ souls over the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.66 Although the authors of those last two apocalypses finally find consolation through other aspects of Judaism,67 which in their view are able to compensate for the loss of the Temple, it is clear that for them the Temple’s destruction was a tragedy of monumental proportions.68 In contrast to these apocalypses, the author of 2 Enoch seems not at all to have been interested in the contemporary Jerusalem cult and its priesthood. This is especially noteworthy since he is usually considered to have been thoroughly familiar with 1 Enoch, and to have used it as a source.69 However, he omitted all the indirect references to the Temple contained in that source. True, no one would suggest that this author was not interested in “cultic” and “priestly” matters at all, since they form the subject matter of several chapters of his work.70 However, these passages are limited to the description of either the antediluvian cult, or of such non-Aaronite priests as Enoch, Methusalam, Noah’s otherwise unknown brother Nir, and especially his miraculously-born son Melchizedek (later taken to Paradise for permanent residence).71  64

The prime example of such a group is, of course, the Yahad. M. A. Knibb, “Temple and Cult in Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical Writings from Before the Common Era,” in J. Day (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (London, 2005), 404–8. 66 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 270–85; On 4 Ezra, see M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Minneapolis, 1990), 35; On 2 Baruch, see G. B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch (Atlanta, 1984); and A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:615–52. 67 Thus, for example, the author of 2 Bar 85:3 states clearly that, even without Land and Temple, the Jews still have the Torah: “Also we have left our land, and Zion has been taken away from us, and we have nothing now apart from the Mighty One and his Law” (translation follows Klijn, op. cit.). 68 On various reactions to the destruction of the Temple, see M. E. Stone, “Reactions to the Destruction of the Second Temple: Theology, Perception, Conversion,” JSJ 12 (1981), 195–204; J. Neusner, “Judaism in Time of Crisis: Four Responses to the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Judaism 21 (1972), 313–27. 69 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 221–25. 70 E.g., 2 En. 2:2 (A); 45; 59. 71 It should be noticed that “Achuzan,” where Methusalam, his brothers, and Enoch’s sons construct an altar (68:5), is routinely identified with Jerusalem; this is the spot from 65

1.5. “Mysteries and Revelations”

49

The narrative dealing with Melchizedek is repetitive and somewhat obscure, and its interpretation is even more complicated by serious textual problems. In 71:33–6 (J version) a future Melchizedek is mentioned. This figure will be considered the head of the thirteen priests who preceded him, as well as the first of the twelve priests who will serve in the future – of whom the last will be “the Word and Power of God, who will perform miracles, greater and more glorious than all the previous ones.” This story is repeated in 72:6–7 (J), where it is said that after the Deluge, Noah will find on the mountain of Ararat “another Melchizedek,” who “will be the first priest and king in the city of Salim in the style of this Melchizedek [presumably, the one who is in Eden].” After him there will be twelve priests until the “great Igumen, that is to say, Leader, will bring out everything visible and invisible.”72 The book contains no hint whatsoever of any matters related to the real Jerusalem Temple cult or its flesh-and-blood Aaronite priesthood. The sacrificial halakhah commanded by Enoch to his sons in 59:1–4 is markedly different from that commonly believed to have been in force at the Jerusalem Temple.73 Even if one could say that the author of 2 Enoch was indeed interested in antiquarian cultic and priestly matters, what can be said concerning the relevance of these antediluvian fantasies to the real Jerusalem Temple, its sacrifices, and its Aaronite priests? Would any author who was familiar with the Bible (as the author of 2 Enoch surely was), and who assigned any relevance to the present Jerusalem Temple establishment, invent stories of Enochic and Melchizedekian priesthood and then claim that these priests had been transferred to heaven forever?74 What kind of sacrificial cultic Sitz im  which Enoch had earlier been taken up into heaven. See Böttrich, Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult, 196 n. 216; A. Orlov, “Melchizedek Legend of 2 (Slavonic) Enoch,” JSJ 31 (2000), 27 n. 18. It is also mentioned in 71:35 (J) as the place where Melchizedek will serve as priest and king. This is the place of Adam’s creation and of his final grave. 72 The long (J) and the short (A) texts differ at this point. The short text at 71:33–34 says only “And Melkisedek will be the head of the priests in another generation” (speaking, presumably, only of the first, miraculously-born Melchizedek) and the parallel section dealing with this other Melchizedek in 72:6–7 is missing from J. In other words, in the longer version two Melchizedeks are envisaged, while in the shorter version, only one. 73 Cf. m. Tamid 4:1; b. Tamid 31b. For the discussion of the sectarian nature of the sacrificial halakhah in 2 Enoch, see A. Orlov, “‘Noah’s Younger Brother’: The AntiNoachic Polemics in 2 Enoch,” Henoch 22 (2000), 210–12. 74 Cf. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 96–97: “The Melchizedek legend constitutes a special problem. The fantastic details about this priest conflict . . . with the Jewish idea that the descendants of Aaron (or Zadok) are God’s sole legitimate priests on earth.”

50

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

Leben could possibly be envisaged for a community responsible for the composition of these fantastic myths? I can think of none.75 In the light of the previous discussion of glorified patriarchs, it should also be pointed out that the author of this Diaspora apocalypse continued and amplified the tradition of glorification of Enoch which was begun in 1 Enoch.76 Some scholars would even claim that in this scenario Enoch takes a place superior to Moses, and in some ways his status is similar to that of Jesus in the Christian tradition.77 Is it just a coincidence that in 2 Enoch Melchizedek, the originator of the priests, is said to have been miraculous

75 Mutatis mutandis, the emphasis of the author of 2 Enoch on the Melchizedekian priesthood and the direction of his discussion of cultic matters could be compared with another composition, whose author also dealt with some very similar subjects. As is well known, the anonymous author of the Letter to the Hebrews developed at length his own views concerning the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood and the cult of the heavenly Tabernacle over the Aaronite priesthood and the earthly Tabernacle/Temple with its cult, prescribed by the Torah. At first glance, one might imagine that since the author of Hebrews discussed these matters in such detail and with such a measure of sophistication, the Temple, its cult, and its priesthood must have been very important to him. However, virtually all scholars agree that what really mattered to the author was the metaphysical status and role of Jesus, who in his view was above angels, greater than Abraham, and more perfect than Aaron. Therefore, he appropriated Jewish cultic and priestly traditions by transferring them onto the exalted heavenly Jesus, who sat at the right hand of the Almighty in Heaven. In other words, the cult he was promoting was wholly invisible and metaphysical, while the real Temple, with its sacrificial cult and obsolete priesthood, was devoid of any meaning and useless. The author squeezed them dry of their significance in the process of creating an even higher and more exalted Christology. On the attitude of Hebrews towards the Temple and cult, see Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple. For another illuminating discussion of the place of Hebrews in the development of Christianity as something different from Judaism, see B. Chilton and J. Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs (London, 1995), 160–88. For a comparison of the function of Melchizedek in 2 Enoch and Hebrews, see A. Orlov, “The Heir of Righteousness and the King of Righteousness: The Priestly Noachic Polemics in 2 Enoch and the Letter to the Hebrews,” JTS 58 (2007), 45–65. 76 Many scholars admit that the glorification of the patriarchs and other biblical figures served as an antecedent for later developments in the glorification of Jesus, and that many of the features of these glorified figures were transferred to him by the early Christians. In this sense it seems that, just as the exalted Christ eventually became the sole conduit of divine blessings to his followers, rendering the Temple cult redundant, so similarly exalted patriarchs might have competed for the attention of the faithful in the Diaspora long before Jesus. On the exalted biblical figures in Hellenistic Judaism, see Goodenough, By Light, Light, 121–234. On the various “agents of God’s activity,” including Enoch and Melchizedek, and their adaptation in early Christianity, see G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis, 2003), 90–117. 77 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 224–25; P. S. Alexander, “From Son of Adam to Second God: Transformations of the Biblical Enoch,” in M. E. Stone et al. (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside the Bible (Harrisburg, 1998), 87–122. See 2 En. 22:8–10.

1.6. Prayer as Sacrifice

51

ly born without a human father? To summarize, it seems that for the author of 2 Enoch the traditions elevating Enoch to a semidivine status and making him into the revealer of divine lore (including cultic matters), as well as traditions of transcendental Melchizedekian priesthood formed the center of his religious outlook and interests. At the same time the Jerusalem Temple and its Aaronite priesthood did not even merit a mention.

1. 6. Prayer as Sacrifice 1.6.1. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers The “unorthodox” line of priests attested in 2 Enoch appears with some variations in one of the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers.78 In 8.5.3 it is stated that “You [God] are the one who foreordained from the beginning priests (Ď¼É¼ėË) for the oversight of your people: Abel first, Seth and Enos and Enoch and Noah and Melchizedek and Job.” In his analysis of these compositions, Goodenough claimed that these characters could have only been considered priests by initiates of the “Hellenistic-Jewish mysteries,” traces of which he strove to identify in Jewish documents and archaeological remains of the Diaspora.79 The debates concerning whether mysteries such as those reconstructed by Goodenough actually existed have continued ever since,80 but what is clear is that for the author(s) of the prayer the meaning of “priesthood” apparently was not coterminous with the Aaronite ministers of the Temple in Jerusalem. The prayers under discussion have been preserved in the Apostolic Constitutions, a Christian legal and liturgical compilation of the late fourth century. Although in their present form the prayers contain extensive Christian interpolations, since the early twentieth century most scholars have considered them originally to have been Jewish liturgical compositions which were used in Diaspora synagogue services.81 Their date and  78

For the introduction, Greek text, translation and analysis, see D. A. Fiensy, Prayers Alleged to Be Jewish. An Examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (BJS 65; Chico, Calif., 1985). Most recently, see van der Horst and Newman, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek, 1–93. Among earlier studies, see Goodenough, By Light, Light, 306–58, who considered these prayers to have been the liturgy of the “Hellenistic-Jewish Mysteries.” Quotations are taken from Fiensy, Prayers Alleged. 79 Goodenough, ibid., 331, 355. 80 G. Lease, “Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 20.2 (1987), 858–80. 81 This has been recognized since W. Bousset, “Eine jüdische Gebetssamlung im siebenten Buch der apostolische Konstitutionen,” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse (Göttingen, 1915), 438–85.

52

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

exact geographical provenance remain disputable, but their Diasporan character is taken for granted by most scholars.82 The authors of these prayers seem to have equated the sacrificial cult described in the Bible and the bloodless prayer service of their fellow congregants. Thus at 7.37.1–5, the author asks God to accept the entreaties from the lips of his people just as he accepted the “gifts (ÌÛ»ľÉ¸) of the righteous in their generations.” Then follows a long list of these righteous persons, which includes Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and others who offered sacrifices, as well as gifts of “Daniel in the den of lions, of Jonah in the whale’s belly, of the three youths in the furnace of fire, of Hannah in the tent before the ark . . ., of Mattathias and of his sons in (their) zeal, of Jael in blessings.” The prayer then concludes with the request: “And now, therefore, accept the prayers of your people which are offered (ÈÉÇÊμÉÇĚŸË) in the spirit and with knowledge to you . . .”83 In 7.33.2 the author says that “. . . in every region of the inhabited earth incense is sent up to you through prayer and words (Ìġ »ÀÛ ÈÉÇʼÍÏýË Á¸Ė ÂŦºÑÅÒŸȚÄȼ̸ţÊÇÀ¿ÍÄţ¸Ä¸).”84 In other words, for the authors of these prayers, “prayer and words” offered “in the spirit and with knowledge” could take the place of sacrifices and incense. As God accepted both bloody sacrifices and earnest prayers in the days of old, in the same way now He accepts the prayers from the lips of his people. The authors do not seem to exhibit any tension over the question of the many obvious differences between sacrifice and prayer, which seems to imply that by the time these prayers took shape, this equation had become a commonplace – at least in some Diaspora circles.85  82

Various dates have been proposed for the composition of the prayers. Thus, on the one hand, Fiensy, Prayers Alleged, writes, “We shall not date the original composition of the prayers of AC 7.33–38, since the prayers circulated orally at first” (p. 223); on the other hand, he considers them to be “post-first century A.D.” (p. 223), preferring a date around 250 C.E. (p. 227). Van der Horst, Early Jewish Prayers, 26, writes: “it is highly probable that the Greek text of the prayers was produced at some time in the third century C.E., or otherwise at any rate between 150 and 350 C.E.” 83 The words “in the spirit” are marked as a Christian interpolation in Goodenough, By Light, Light, 313. 84 Cf. Mal 1:11. 85 A striking parallel to these ideas, which is openly polemical towards the Jerusalembased sacrificial cult, is preserved in Justin Martyr’s Dialogus cum Tryphone, which was written circa 160 C.E. In chapter 117, Justin says to Trypho, “Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices” (Á¸ĖÄšÏÉÀ ÅıÅ ÎÀÂÇżÀÁÇıÅ̼Ë šº¼Ì¼բ ĞÌÀ ÌÛË ÄòÅ ëÅ d¼ÉÇÍʸÂüÄ ëÈĖ ÌľÅ ëÁ¼ė ÌŦ̼ ÇĊÁÇŧÅÌÑÅ `Êɸ¾ÂÀÌľÅÁ¸ÂÇÍÄšÅÑÅ¿ÍÊĕ¸ËÇĤÈÉÇÊ»ñϼ̸Àĝ¿¼ĠËբÌÛË»ò»ÀÛÌľÅëÅÌĉ»À¸ÊÈÇÉê ÌĠ̼

1.6. Prayer as Sacrifice

53

1.6.2. The Wisdom of Solomon Prayer as a crucial part of the divine service and as a means of expiation is also prominent in the Wisdom of Solomon, which most probably, was written in Egypt.86 The second part of this book retells the story of the Exodus and the Wilderness wanderings. When the author rewrites the episode dealing with the rebellion of Korah, and the subsequent plague with which God smote the Israelites, he changes the biblical story and adds several significant details.87 I will present the two passages synoptically: Numbers 17:11–13

Wisdom 18:20–25

11 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take the fire pan, and put on it fire from the altar. Add incense and take it quickly to the community and make expiation for them. For wrath has gone forth from the Lord: the plague has begun!” 12 Aaron took it, as Moses had ordered, and ran to the midst of the congregation, where the plague had begun among the people. He put on incense and made expiation for the people; 13 he stood between the

20 But the righteous, too, were touched by an experience of death, and a mass slaughter took place in the wilderness, though the divine wrath did not long abide. 21 For a blameless man (ÒÅüÉ ÓļÄÈÌÇË) pressed forward to fight as their champion, introducing the armor of his ministry (¼ÀÌÇÍɺţ¸Ë), prayer and atoning incense. He withstood the wrath and set a limit to the disaster, showing that it was you whom he served. 22 He overcame the divine anger not by bodily strength, nor by force of arms, but by word he subdued the chastiser, by recalling the oaths and covenants of the



»ü ěÅÌÑÅ ÒÈġ ÌÇı ºñÅÇÍË ëÁ¼ĕÅÇÍ ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÑÅ ¼ĤÏÛË ÈÉÇÊĕ¼Ê¿¸À ¸ĤÌġÅ ¼ĊɾÁñŸÀբ Á¸Ė ÌÛË ¼ĤÏÛË ¸ĤÌľÅ ¿ÍÊĕ¸Ë Á¸Â¼ėÅ). English translation follows A. Roberts (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Grand Rapids, 2001), 257. The question of Justin’s knowledge of contemporary Judaism has been discussed many times – see, e.g., E. R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena, 1923), 92–96; L. W. Barnard, “The Old Testament and Judaism in the Writings of Justin Martyr,” VT 14 (1964), 400– 406; P. Sigal, “An Inquiry into Aspects of Judaism in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho,” Abr-Nahrain 18 (1978–1979), 82–94. Cf. W. Horbury, “Jewish-Christian Relations in Barnabas and Justin Martyr,” in J. D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135 (Grand Rapids, 1999), 341: “His Palestinian and Jewish knowledge should not be exaggerated, but it is not negligible.” In the context of the materials considered above, this statement sounds like a plausible piece of radical Diaspora Jewish theology, albeit somewhat bizarre or even “heretical” by Palestinian standards. See Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 118 n. 15. 86 On this text, see D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (New York, 1979); and H. Hübner, Die Weisheit Salomons (Göttingen, 1999); both scholars argue that the book was composed in Egypt. D. Georgi, Weisheit Salomos (Gütersloh, 1980), 396, thinks that Syria is a better candidate; in my view, however, his arguments fail to demonstrate that this is a more likely place of origin than Egypt. Translations of this text are drawn from Winston, Wisdom. 87 These passages were brought to my attention by D. R. Schwartz.

54

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

dead and the living until the plague was checked.88

fathers. 23 For when the dead already lay fallen upon one another in heaps, he interposed and checked the divine anger, cutting off its line of advance toward the living. 24 On his full-length robe there was a representation of the entire cosmos, and the glories of the fathers upon his four rows of carved stones, and your splendor on the diadem upon his head. 25 To these the destroyer gave way, these he feared; for the single taste of his wrath was enough.

According to the biblical passage, God was propitiated by the cultic act of the high priest – incense placed on the fire pan was sufficient for the expiation. For the Diaspora author of Wisdom this was definitely not enough. He significantly altered the story by introducing several important elements. According to the passage in Wisdom, in contrast to the Bible, the plague was stopped, not by the burning of incense but because of the prayer of the “blameless man,” who reminded God of His oaths and covenants with the fathers. This is not surprising, since in the Diaspora context prayer should have been thought of as a more effective – because more available – means to worship and propitiate God, than incense and sacrifices.89 Another detail that should be mentioned is the representation of the highpriestly vestments as symbolizing the entire cosmos. This seems to have been an important motif in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.90 In a similar vein, real and God-pleasing sacrifice is something totally different from slaughtered and smoking bulls and goats – it is the life of a virtuous man. The author allots much space to the discussion of the sufferings of the righteous. The wicked who persecuted the righteous until death (because of his righteousness) thought that they themselves had had the upper hand. However, the souls of the righteous have survived and are with God forever, since “[a]s gold in a blast furnace he tested them, and as a whole burnt offering he accepted them (ĸË ĝÂÇÁŠÉÈÑĸ ¿ÍÊţ¸Ë  88

All quotations from the Hebrew Bible follow New Jewish Publication Society translation (NJPS). 89 Cf. Philo, De Vita Mosis 2.24, on the role of prayer in the context of the Day of Atonement. This passage is quoted below. 90 J. Daniélou, “La symbolique du temple de Jérusalem chez Philon et Josèphe,” in Le symbolisme cosmique des monuments religieux (Rome, 1957), 83–90. Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 119, writes that the author of Wisdom mentions the Temple twice: in 3:14, where he “actually emphasizes that ‘the Temple of God’ is something other and better than the Temple of Jerusalem,” and in 9:8, where he “demonstratively avoids the notion that God resides in [the Temple].”

1.7. Martyrs vs. Freedom-Fighters, Holy People vs. Holy Place

55

ÈÉÇʼ»šÆ¸ÌǸĤÌÇŧË)” (3:6). In other words, the death of a virtuous martyr is considered by the author to be a sacrifice pleasing to God.91

1. 7. Martyrs vs. Freedom-Fighters, Holy People vs. Holy Place 1.7.1. 2 Maccabees as Compared to 1 Maccabees The valorization of martyrdom as equivalent to sacrifice seems to play a prominent role in several Diaspora documents. Anyone who compares 1 Maccabees with 2 Maccabees will see that these books share much in common as far as the historical events described are concerned.92 Both narrate the history of the Hasmonean revolt, the events immediately preceding it, and the wars of Judas Maccabaeus.93 However, there also are many differences, which in my opinion stem from the fact that 1 Maccabees is a Judean composition, and 2 Maccabees is basically a product of the Diaspora.94 One of the major differences in the outlook of these two authors is in their treatment of martyrs. For the author of 1 Maccabees the faithful martyrs, who die in the wilderness because of their unwillingness to fight on the Sabbath, are misled, even if innocent and pious. Their example of noble death in the face of persecution is not to be followed: 2:39 When the news reached Mattathias and his friends, they were deeply grieved over the victims’ fate. 40 They said to one another, “If we all do as our brothers have done and do not fight against the gentiles for our lives and our laws, they will now quickly wipe us off the face of the earth.” 41 On that day they came to a decision: “If any man comes

 91

See Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism, 106–7; also 66–67 on 2 and 4 Maccabees. On 1 Maccabees, see J. C. Dancy, 1 Maccabees: A Commentary (Oxford, 1954); J. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (Garden City, NY, 1976); U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem, 2004) (in Hebrew). On 2 Maccabees, see C. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch (Gütersloh, 1976); J. Goldstein, 2 Maccabees (Garden City, NY, 1983); D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (Berlin, 2008). On both books, see F. M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris, 1949). On the centrality of the Temple and its cult in 1 Maccabees, see in chapter 3 (pp.194–201). 93 1 Maccabees continues its account through the reign of Hyrcanus I. For a synopsis of primary sources, see J. Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14 (Rome, 2001). 94 2 Macc 1:1–2:18 (the two letters to the Jews in Egypt) and 10:1–8 (the Hanukkah story) are Hasmonean additions to this Diaspora work. See Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 3– 37. On the differences in outlook between these two works, see D. R. Schwartz, “What’s the Difference Between I Maccabees and II Maccabees? or: The Challenging Hyphen in Such Combinations as ‘State-Religious,’ ‘Religious-National,’ and ‘Zionist-Religious’,” in M. Barlev (ed.), Jewish Tradition in a Changing Educational World (Jerusalem, 2005), 11–20 (in Hebrew); and idem, “On Something Biblical About 2 Maccabees,” in M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden, 1998), 223–32. 92

56

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

against us in battle on the Sabbath day, we shall fight against him and not all die as our brothers died in their hiding places.”95

And so they fought, and won religious and political freedom for their people. The author’s “theology” is plain and straightforward: the wicked Gentiles overstepped the boundaries of their authority by persecuting the Jews, and provoked God’s anger. The Hasmonean clan led the armed struggle against them for the sake of their families, the Law, and the Sanctuary; they were assisted from Heaven; and they won a glorious victory and eternal renown. In the eyes of the author of 1 Maccabees, they were “that family of men to whom it had been granted to be agents of Israel’s deliverance” (5:62).96 The author of 2 Maccabees offers a totally different interpretation: the Gentiles persecuted the Jews because the sins of the latter provoked God’s righteous anger. In his view, it was the blood of the righteous martyrs, tortured for their faithfulness to the Law – to the Judean way of life, `ÇÍ»¸ŤÊÄŦË(2:21) – which propitiated God. The deaths of the martyrs are the turning point in the story: the last of the seven martyred brothers says before his death: 7:37 As for me, just as my brothers I give up both body and soul for the ancestral laws, calling upon God that He speedily become merciful to the people; and that you, after afflictions and scourging, will therefore admit that He alone is God 38 and that, with me and my brothers, shall be stayed the anger of the All -Ruler which was justly loosed against our entire nation.97

Several verses later the author brings Judas Maccabaeus onto the scene with the following introduction: “As soon as Maccabaeus got his corps together he could not be withstood by the Gentiles, the Lord’s anger having turned into mercy” (8:5). So, it is the martyrs’ blood that expiated the sins of the nation and moved God to forgive His people, have mercy on them, and make Judas Maccabaeus invincible.98 Until recently, it was commonly held that the author of 2 Maccabees had an entirely positive attitude towards the Temple. Indeed, some scholars described the purpose and character of the book as “Temple propaganda.”99 However, a closer look at the Temple passages reveals a more com 95

Translations of 1 Maccabees follow Goldstein, 1 Maccabees. ëÁÌÇıÊÈšÉĸÌÇËÌľÅÒÅ»ÉľÅëÁ¼ţÅÑÅբÇđËë»Ŧ¿¾ÊÑ̾Éţ¸ Êɸ¾Â»ÀÛϼÀÉġ˸ĤÌľÅե 97 Translations of 2 Maccabees follow Schwartz, 2 Maccabees. 98 For the full treatment of the role of martyrdom in 2 and 4 Maccabees, see J. W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Leiden, 1997). 99 R. Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (Washington, D.C., 1981); J. Zsengellér, “Maccabees and Temple Propaganda,” in G. G. 96

1.7. Martyrs vs. Freedom-Fighters, Holy People vs. Holy Place

57

plex picture, as has been convincingly demonstrated by D. R. Schwartz. When the author of 2 Maccabees explains how it was possible for Antiochus IV to rob the Temple, he supplies a key passage: 5:18 Had it not happened that they had been caught up in many sins, he too – just as Heliodorus, who had been sent by King Seleucus to audit the treasury – immediately upon moving forward (into the Temple) would have been flogged and overturned from his insolence. 19 But God did not choose the people on account of the Place; rather, He chose the Place on account of the people. 20 Therefore the Place itself, having shared in the disasters which befell the people, later shared also in the benefactions, and that which had been abandoned in the anger of the All-Ruler was again reestablished with full honor when the great Sovereign was reconciled.

So the Holy Place is subordinate to the Holy People, and its fate is dependent on their righteous or unrighteous conduct. Schwartz adduces several instances of the author’s lack of interest in sacrifices or cultic vessels, or in Judean-Samaritan temple polemics. At the same time, he also demonstrates that the author repeatedly emphasizes the power of prayer, the transcendent and heavenly nature of God, God’s providential care for His covenant people, and the redemptive value of the martyrs’ deaths. In Schwartz’s view, these ideas are exactly what one should expect from a Diaspora writer like the author of 2 Maccabees.100 1.7.2. 4 Maccabees Even if 2 Maccabees does not stress Judas Maccabaeus’ valor and heroism as much as 1 Maccabees, he is still a major character in its plot. When we turn to 4 Maccabees, however, a book that builds upon 2 Maccabees, we discover that for its author the only real heroes and saviors are the martyrs.101 Their steadfastness in the face of torture is used to exemplify the main thesis of the author, which is that the “reason is absolute master over the passions (¸ĤÌÇÁÉŠÌÑÉëÊÌĖÅÌľÅȸ¿ľÅĝÂǺÀÊÄŦË)” (1:13).102 It is the martyrs, and not the Hasmonean freedom-fighters, who saved the Jewish  Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology (Leiden, 2007), 181–95. 100 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 45–48. 101 On 4 Maccabees, see H.-J. Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch (Gütersloh, 1989); van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs; D. A. DeSilva, 4 Maccabees (Sheffield, 2006); idem, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (Leiden, 2006). 102 ¸ĤÌÇ»šÊÈÇÌŦËëÊÌÀÅÌľÅȸ¿ľÅĝ¼Ĥʼ¹üËÂǺÀÊÄŦË in 1:1. Translations of 4 Maccabees follow H. Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2:531–64. The Temple is mentioned in chapter 4, in a paraphrase of the Heliodorus affair which originally appeared in 2 Maccabees 3; however it does not play any role in the subsequent narrative. The paraphrase serves as a background to the martyrs’ story.

58

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

people; it is their mode of piety that must be followed as an example. The author unequivocally states this in the following passage: 17:8 It would be in fact appropriate to inscribe upon their tomb itself, as a memorial to those members of our nation, the following words: 9 “Here lie buried an aged priest,103 an old woman, and her seven sons through the violence of the tyrant bent on destroying the polity of the Hebrews. 10 They vindicated (ëƼ»ţÁ¾Ê¸Å) their race, looking unto God and enduring torments even unto death.”

In another passage the atoning and purifying value of their sacrificial deaths is made even more apparent: 17:20 These then, having consecrated themselves for the sake of God, are now honored not only with this distinction but also by the fact that through them our enemies did not prevail against our nation, 21 and the tyrant was punished and our land purified (Á¸¿¸ÉÀÊ¿ýŸÀ), since they became, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation (ĹÊȼÉ ÒÅÌţÐÍÏÇÅ º¼ºÇÅŦ̸Ë ÌýË ÌÇı ì¿ÅÇÍË ÖĸÉÌţ¸Ë). 22 Through the blood of these righteous ones and through the propitiation (ϸÊ̾ÉţÇÍ) of their death the divine providence rescued Israel, which had been shamefully treated. . . . 18:1 O offspring of the seed of Abraham, children of Israel, obey this Law and be altogether true to your religion, 2 knowing that devout reason is master over the passions, and not only over pains from within, but also from outside ourselves. 3 Those men who surrendered their bodies to suffering for piety’s sake were in return not only admired by mankind but were also deemed worthy of the divine portion. 4 And it was because of them that our nation enjoyed peace – they revived the observance of the Law in their land and repulsed their enemies’ siege.104

The exact provenance and date of this Diaspora work are debatable.105 Not a few scholars tend to locate it in Syrian Antioch because of the witnesses indicating that at a later period (third century C.E.) there existed in Antioch the “Synagogue of the Maccabean Martyrs,” where their cult flourished.106 However, whether or not there was any connection between the traditions embedded in 4 Maccabees and a later “Maccabean Martyrs” cult, it is clear that the author of this work was concerned neither with the mili 103

Eleazar is not described as a priest in 2 Maccabees; this is an innovation of the author of 4 Maccabees. 104 Cf. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism, 66–67. 105 E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History: A New Edition in English, Including The God of The Maccabees. 2 Vols. (Leiden, 2007), 1:266–71, dates it “between 18 and 55 C.E., that is about 35 C.E. with a scope of fifteen years or so in either direction” (p. 271). Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs, 73–82 argues for one of the cities in Asia Minor as a probable place of composition, and a date around 100 C.E. or slightly later. 106 Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, 666–67; Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” 535. Nothing in the book requires a date later than the first century C.E.; see Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, 669; Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” 533–34. On the tradition locating the Maccabean martyrs’ grave in Antioch, see Bickerman, Studies, 465–82. For Lightstone’s integration of these data into his bold conception of the roles of saints’ tombs, martyrs’ bones, and other relics in Diaspora Judaism, see The Commerce of the Sacred, 84.

1.7. Martyrs vs. Freedom-Fighters, Holy People vs. Holy Place

59

tary exploits of the Hasmonean brothers, nor with their political-religious achievements, including the rededication of the Temple and the reinstitution of the sacrificial cult. For him, it was the martyrs who, through their sacrificial death for the laws of the Torah, had brought vindication and deliverance to the Jewish people.107 1.7.3. 3 Maccabees I will complete my discussion of the Maccabean corpus with a brief treatment of 3 Maccabees. Despite its title, this work deals neither with the Maccabean wars nor with the martyrs of the Seleucid persecutions. Rather, the events described in 3 Maccabees are set in the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–204 B.C.E.). According to the story, the king wanted to enter the Jerusalem Temple, which caused a great disturbance in the city. When he persisted in his desire, he was struck by God in answer to the high priest’s prayer, and consequently decided to take revenge on the Jews. After his return to Alexandria, he deprived the Egyptian Jews of their civil rights, forced them to participate in pagan cults, end eventually confined them in the city’s hippodrome and ordered that they be trampled to death by elephants. This plan was providentially frustrated several times, and when it was finally on the brink of being executed, a Jewish priest named Eleazar asked God to intervene. In response, God turned the elephants back upon the king and his troops. The king, who finally realized his mistakes, released the Jews and even financed, out of his own pocket, a sevenday festival instituted to commemorate the occasion. Whether any of this reflects real historical events is debatable, to say the least.108 However, as is usually the case, when there is not much history, there will be lots of theology. And according to the theology of the author of 3 Maccabees, God is no more present in the Jerusalem Temple than in the Alexandrian hippodrome. Here I will quote N. Hacham: As far as the causes of this difficult situation are concerned, it seems that from the point of view of the author of 3 Maccabees, the situation originated in the Land of Israel but was resolved in Alexandria. Therefore, the Jews of Alexandria take precedence over the Jews of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem. As for the place where God is found, the author of 3 Maccabees does not consider the Jerusalem Temple to take precedence over the

 107

D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in A. Oppenheimer (Hrsg.), Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schürer (München, 1999), 33, sees the emphasis on martyrdom as a distinctly Diasporan development: “Dying for their religion is something Jews can do anywhere; fighting is something which goes hand in hand with a Jewish state.” 108 On 3 Maccabees as basically a fiction, see S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context (Berkeley, 2004).

60

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

hippodrome in Alexandria – the opposite is the case. At the Egyptian hippodrome God revealed His holy face and fatherly attitude to His children, neither of which were revealed in Jerusalem.109

In other words, here we again witness the idea that the Holy People take precedence over the Holy Place; moreover – any place, where the Holy People are found, becomes “holy.” God is omnipresent, and wherever His people call upon Him in righteousness, He is ready to come to their help. The interesting point, however, is that in the case of 3 Maccabees the prayer offered to God by the Jews in Alexandria prompted Him to deliver them from their predicament, while the one offered by the Jews in the Temple of Jerusalem did not. So it seems that in the author’s view those who worship God at the Jerusalem Temple – indeed, the high priest himself! – are no closer to Him than those who worship Him at the Alexandrian hippodrome.

1. 8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously” 1.8.1. The Testament of Job The will to persevere and sacrifice oneself for righteousness which we encountered in 2 and 4 Maccabees is also among the main virtues emphasized in the Testament of Job.110 This text was most likely composed in Egypt, and some scholars even think it likely that it was produced in circles similar to the Jewish ascetic conclave of the Therapeutae, described by Philo in De Vita Contemplativa.111 In Testament of Job, Job is described as one of the sons of Esau (here this connection is viewed positively), is married to Jacob’s daughter Dinah,112 and is therefore fully integrated into Israel’s sacred history. The most important of Job’s virtues, which are recounted in excruciating detail, include hatred of idolatry, charity, generosity, hospitality, care for the poor and the needy, and the staunch belief in divine justice and the reality of heavenly recompense. Although the author follows the biblical account in saying that Job offered sacrifices on behalf of his children (Job 1:5; T. Job 15:4–5), the main point of the story is that he donated to the poor everything that remained after the sacrifices. Moreover, note that while according to the biblical ver 109

N. Hacham, “The Third Book of Maccabees: Literature, History and Ideology” (Ph.D. diss., Jerusalem, 2002), 101 (in Hebrew); translation my own. 110 On T. Job, see B. Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs (Gütersloh, 1979); R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:829–68; M. Knibb and P. W. van der Horst (eds.), Studies on the Testament of Job (Cambridge, 1989). For the Greek text, see S. P. Brock, Testamentum Iobi. PVTG II (Leiden, 1967), 1–60. 111 See Spittler, “Testament of Job,” 834. 112 Cf. L.A.B. 8:8.

1.8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously”

61

sion, Job offered burnt offerings on behalf of his children, thinking “Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their thoughts,” according to the Testament he distributed the sacrificial leftovers to the poor, saying: “Take these things remaining after the rites, so that you may pray on behalf of my children. Possibly, my sons may have sinned before the Lord through boasting . . .” (T. Job 15:5–6, italics mine).113 In other words, sacrifices alone are not enough to effect atonement; prayers offered by the poor are considered to be more effective than burnt offerings. It is true that in the same passage, the author adds that Job also “offered up a select calf on the altar of God, lest my sons may have thought evil things in their heart towards God” (T. Job 15:9), and later rewrites the biblical passage, in which Job’s friends were commanded by God to ask him to sacrifice on their behalf (Job 42:7–10; T. Job 42:4–8). Nevertheless, it is clear that sacrifice itself is nearly inconsequential for his view of what constitutes genuine piety. Satan’s attack on Job is precipitated by his resolute destruction of an idol’s shrine, and, in contrast to his biblical prototype, here Job perfectly realizes the reason for his sufferings, his eternal destiny, and his future (as well as present) heavenly rewards. Job, who is presented as a king who lost his earthly throne because of the Satanic assault, does not tire of emphasizing before his friends/opponents that his real throne is in heaven, and that his true life is in the unseen world: 33:3 My throne is in the upper world (ëÅ ÌŊ ĨȼÉÁÇÊÄţĿ), and its splendor and majesty come from the right hand of the Father. 4 The whole world (ĝ ÁŦÊÄÇË) shall pass away and its splendor will fade. And those who heed it shall share in its overthrow. 5 But my throne is in the holy land (ëÄÇĖ»òĝ¿ÉŦÅÇËĨÈŠÉϼÀëÅÌĉÖºţߺĉ), and its splendor is in the world of the changeless one (ëÅÌŊ¸ĊľÅţëÊÌÀÅÌÇıÒȸɸŠÁÌÇÍ).

That is, for the author of the Testament of Job (as for Paul)114 the “Holy Land” turns out to be in heaven, not in the Land of Israel. Accordingly, and similarly to 2 and 4 Maccabees, this Testament is preoccupied with eternal life and heavenly recompense for suffering, at the same time emphasizing the transience of this physical world and its circumstances.115 Another fascinating feature of this document, relevant to the present discussion, is the emphasis put on miraculous amulets. After Job distributes his estate among his seven sons, and, in contradiction to the biblical account, does not bestow any inheritance upon his three daughters, the latter wonder why. Job answers them: “I have already designated for you an inheritance better than that of your seven brothers” (T. Job 46:1–4, ital 113

Translations of T. Job are taken from Spittler, “Testament of Job.” Phil 3:20: ÷ÄľÅºÛÉÌġÈÇÂţ̼ÍĸëÅÇĤɸÅÇėËĨÈŠÉϼÀ. 115 In this sense, T. Job could have been included with the “mystical” materials discussed above. 114

62

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

ics in the translation). This better inheritance turns out to be miraculous heavenly cords, which “will lead you into the better world, to live in heavens” (T. Job 47:3). Job discloses to his daughters that the Lord bestowed these cords upon him, and that the moment he had put them on, the worms which had infested him before had disappeared from his body, as did also the plagues. “And the Lord spoke to me in power, showing me things present and things to come” (T. Job 47:4–9). When his daughters put the cords on themselves, they underwent miraculous transformation: the first one “took on another heart – no longer minded toward earthly things (ÌÛ ÌýË ºýË) – but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment” (T. Job 48). The second daughter’s heart 49:1 changed so that she no longer regarded worldly things (ÌÛ ÁÇÊÄÀÁŠ). 2 And her mouth took on the dialect of the archons and she praised God for the creation of the heights (ë»ÇÆÇÂŦº¾Ê¼Å»òÌÇıĨоÂÇıÌŦÈÇÍÌġÈÇţ¾Ä¸).116 3 Accordingly, if anyone wishes to know “The Creation of the Heavens” (ÌġÈÇţ¾Ä¸ÌľÅÇĤÉ¸ÅľÅ),117 he will be able to find it in “The Hymns of Kasia.”

The third daughter’s mouth “spoke ecstatically in the dialect of those on high, since her heart also was changed, keeping aloof from the worldly things (ÌľÅÁÇÊÄÀÁľÅ). For she spoke in the dialect of the cherubim, glorifying the Master of virtues by exhibiting their splendor” (T. Job 50:1–2). Not surprisingly, the author says that the Lord and the holy angel were present on this occasion (T. Job 51:1–2). To summarize: in this composition Job is made into the embodiment of virtues common to all humanity such as charity, generosity, and care for the poor, and is presented as a staunch believer in supernatural realities and the world to come. After his suffering and restoration, he also serves as the mediator of divine blessings and powers by bestowing miraculous amulets on his daughters. Throughout the book, the author uses his main character to emphasize the virtues of righteous conduct, mainly expressed in Job’s care for other human beings, and the importance of faith in the heavenly realities. Job lives a righteous life on earth, but his spirituality is not of this world; his “Holy Land” is in heaven – and sacrifices play a role that is marginal and relatively insignificant.  116

Schaller, Das Testament Hiobs, 370, translates this phrase as “das Werk des erhabenen Ortes” and thinks that ĝÌŦÈÇË here “serves as a circumscription of the Divine name.” In other words, in his view, the phrase refers to the heavenly cult. 117 R. Thornhill, “The Testament of Job,” in H. D. F. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, 1984), 646, translates these phrases as “heavenly sanctuary” and “the worship that goes on in heaven,” respectively.

1.8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously”

63

1.8.2. The Testament of Abraham The themes of “common piety” that we encountered in the Testament of Job are also prominent in another Diaspora work, whose author did not make any mention of the Temple and sacrifices at all: the Testament of Abraham.118 Despite its title, the Testament of Abraham is not formally a testament, since Abraham neither makes his final wishes known, nor gives an ethical accounting anywhere in the course of the narrative.119 However, similarly to other testamentary writings, the events described in the book transpire on the eve of its hero’s death. When Abraham’s appointed hour arrives, God sends the archangel Michael to tell the patriarch to make his testament, and to convey him to heaven. However, Abraham refuses to follow, and requests God to take him instead on a tour of the inhabited world. In the course of this tour Abraham witnesses all kinds of sins perpetrated on the face of the earth, and calls down lethal curses upon the people engaged in these sins. Lest he destroy all humanity, God transfers Abraham to heaven to witness the process of judgment, which is then described in detail. Abraham realizes he was too severe in his judgment, and asks God to reverse the curses he pronounced on the sinners. He is taken back to earth, but still refuses to follow Michael to heaven. Then God sends Death to Abraham, who manages to deceive him and finally takes his soul to God. At the first glance one may wonder how serious the author of Testament of Abraham really was, and whether the book is not actually a parody on the biblical patriarch.120 Although Abraham is still the paradigm of piety and virtue, he is presented as the opposite of the biblical hero, who was considered righteous because of his obedience to God, which stemmed from his absolute faith. The book abounds in satirical and humorous details, some of which verge on indecency – thus, when Archangel Michael  118

This book has been preserved in two recensions – the long (A) and the short (B). Some scholars used to assume that B went back to a Hebrew original (and thus was possibly of Palestinian provenance). However this assumption no longer holds, for the “Hebraisms” of B (which was the better candidate for a Hebrew original) have all been satisfactorily explained as attempts to imitate “biblical Greek”; therefore, in all probability, the Testament is a Diaspora composition, likely written in Egypt at the end of the first century C.E. See the discussions in E. P. Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:873–74; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 327. The fullest recent treatment is D. C. Allison, Testament of Abraham (Berlin, 2003), 12–27; 34–35, who argues for a Greek original, of Egyptian provenance. For the Greek text, see F. Schmidt, Le Testament grec d’Abraham (Tübingen, 1986). 119 Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 879. 120 See A. Y. Reed, “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham,” JSJ 40 (2009), 185–212.

64

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

disguises himself as a guest and sleeps in Abraham’s house, he goes outside “as if he needed to urinate.” In fact, he ascends to God in the twinkling of an eye for a consultation with the Creator (5:5–6). However, at a deeper level, the author seems to be trying to make several important points, of which the main one is the inevitability of death and the reality of God’s postmortem judgment. People must live their lives righteously, since their eternal destiny depends on their earthly conduct. Nevertheless, God is merciful, and His followers are exhorted to be merciful to other human beings. Although the Testament of Abraham shares many parallels with other Jewish Diaspora writings of the period,121 it is in many ways a unique and therefore extremely important piece of work. In the words of E. P. Sanders: The Torah and the covenant of Israel seem to play no role. The Testament of Abraham is one of the few witnesses, and thus a very important one, to the existence in Egypt of a form of Judaism that stressed neither the philosophical interpretation of Judaism, as did Philo, nor the need to retain strictly the commandments that set Jews apart from gentiles, as did the author of Joseph and Asenath. Judaism is depicted here as a religion of commonplace moral values, which nevertheless insists both on the strictness of God’s judgment and on his mercy and compassion.122

It is needless to elaborate on the obvious fact that in this type of Judaism, Jerusalem Temple, its sacrifices, and its laws of impurity did not play any role at all; “the only means of atonement mentioned are repentance and premature death.”123 It is also important to note that, in the matters of human righteousness and God’s judgment, the author seems to ascribe no importance to the question of descent: Jews and Gentiles alike are judged exclusively on the basis of their right or wrong behavior. This, of course, undercuts the importance of the Jewish priesthood as well. 1.8.3. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides Even if the Testament of Abraham is in many ways unique, it is not alone in presenting a Judaic worldview lacking most of the particularly Jewish traits (including a focus on the Jerusalem Temple and its cult) and putting exclusive emphasis on ethics. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides and Sibylline Oracles 1, 2 and 4 can also be placed in this category. 124 One  121

See the discussion in Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 875. Sanders, “Testament of Abraham,” 876–77 (cf. his discussion there of “Theological Importance,” 877–78). 123 Ibid., 877. 124 On Ps.-Phocylides, see most recently W. T. Wilson, The Sentences of PseudoPhocylides (Berlin, 2005); J. J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville, 1997), 158–77; J. Thomas, Der jüdische Phokylides (Freiburg-Göttingen, 1992); P. 122

1.8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously”

65

might of course claim that the author of the first of these documents was masquerading as a pagan poet-sage, and the authors of the other three, as a pagan prophetess; these poses will have prevented them from touching on the Jewish Temple and its cult. However, the authors of Sibylline Oracles 3, 4 and 5 do mention the Temple several times, the latter two even prophesying that Rome would suffer punishment for destroying it. Similarly, Sibylline Oracles 1–2 and 4 and also Ps.-Phocylides speak about resurrection from the dead and monotheism,125 which in this period were clearly Jewish ideas, foreign to the Greek mind.126 Ps.-Phocylides even paraphrases such a characteristically Jewish precept as not taking a mother bird together with her fledglings (84–5; see Deut 22:6–7). Despite the author’s pagan mask, the most convincing theory of his identity seems to be the suggestion that Ps.-Phocylides was a Jew aiming to show his fellow Jews that the best of pagan minds found Jewish ethics attractive. That is, he probably wrote his poem in order to strengthen inner Jewish morale and bolster the self-confidence of a Jewish community living in the midst of culturally and intellectually challenging pagan surroundings.127 The author could easily have said something about Jewish sacrificial worship, had he considered it an important constituent of his understanding of Judaism – after all, even some pagan authors were not  W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Leiden, 1978). On the Jewish Sibyllines see J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Missoula, Mont., 1974); idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” in OTP 1:317–472; idem, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; Assen and Philadelphia, 1984), 357–82; idem, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 20.1 (Berlin, 1987), 421–59; idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, NY, 1992), 6:2–6; idem, “The Jewish Adaptation of the Sibylline Oracles,” in idem, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic–Roman Judaism (Leiden, 1997), 181–97; idem, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 160–67; idem, “The Third Sibyl Revisited,” in E. G. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone (Leiden, 2004), 3–19; H. Merkel, Sibyllinen (Gütersloh, 1998). 125 Ps.-Phocylides 103–4 and 54, respectively. Note also 8 and 106, for other clearly biblical ideas. Monotheism in Sibylline Oracles 1–2: passim; resurrection: 1:355; 4:180– 182. When Paul proclaimed to the Athenian philosophers Jesus and “ÌüÅÒÅŠÊ̸ÊÀÅ”, they were thinking that the ÊȼÉÄÇÂŦºÇË spoke to them about “foreign divinities” (ÇĎ»ššÅÑÅ »¸ÀÄÇÅţÑÅ»ÇÁ¼ėÁ¸Ì¸ºº¼Â¼İ˼čŸÀ) (Acts 17:18). 126 Ps.-Phocylides is usually dated to the second half of the first century B.C.E.– beginning of the first century C.E. Egypt is the most probable place of composition of his work. See Wilson, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, 12–13; Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 164. 127 G. Alon, “The Halakha in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” in idem, Studies in Jewish History (Tel-Aviv, 1957), 274–94 (in Hebrew); Cf. V. A. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48 (1956), 169–93.

66

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

always unanimously critical of the Jewish Temple cult.128 However, he did not. Although his vision of Judaism was based on ethics that were more recognizably Jewish than those emphasized in the Testament of Abraham, still no mention is made of anything connected to the Jewish ritual and cult. Fittingly, Ps.-Phocylides sums up his poem by stating that “Purifications (Á¸¿¸ÉÄÇţ) are for the purity of the soul, not of the body. These are the mysteries of righteousness (»ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧžËÄÍÊÌŢÉÀ¸); living thus may you live out (your) life well to the threshold of old age” (228–230).129 It is clear that the author intends his ethical teaching, expounded in the poem, to comprise the “mysteries of righteousness.”130 Concerning “purifications,” van der Horst observes, “For Ps-Phoc. the purity of the soul expresses itself in the good deeds inculcated by him in all the previous lines of the poem.”131 An extensive portion of the text (lines 5–79) also appears as part of Sibylline Oracles 2 (lines 55–149) with some changes and additions132 – and it is to that document that we now turn. 1.8.4. Sibylline Oracles 1 and 2 In the manuscript tradition, Sibylline Oracles 2 is not separated from Sibylline Oracles 1; rather, they appear to form two parts of a single composition.133 In its present form both texts, but especially Sibylline Oracles 2, contain Christian interpolations, and they are universally held to have undergone extensive Christian redaction. However, it is also beyond doubt that most of the material in these two books comes from Jewish sources; they may have been composed in Phrygia between 30 B.C.E. and 70 

128 See Hecataeus of Abdera, Aegyptiaca, in Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 40.3 (M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 1 [Jerusalem, 1974], 26–35 [# 11]). True, this passage may be a Jewish forgery; see D. R. Schwartz, “Diodorus Siculus 40.3 – Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” in M. Mor et al. (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 2003), 181–97. But even if it is, it demonstrates that a Jew did not think it unnatural for a pagan author to say good things about the Jewish cult. 129 Translation follows P. W. van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” in Charlesworth, OTP 2:582. 130 See W. T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (Tübingen, 1994). 131 Van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, 260. 132 See ibid., 84–85. 133 On Sibylline Oracles 1–2, see J. L. Lightfoot, The Sibylline Oracles: With Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the First and Second Books (Oxford, 2007). However, Lightfoot does not seem to be very interested in separating the Jewish substratum from the Christian redaction. The Greek text of the Sibylline Oracles was published by J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, 1902). Most recently see O. Wassmuth, Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2: Studien und Kommentar (Leiden, 2011).

1.8. “You Shall Pursue the Right Cause Righteously”

67

C.E.134 It is difficult to know for sure at what stage of composition/redaction the passage from Ps.-Phocylides was inserted into the oracle, and when additional interpolations were introduced into it. In my view, there is no reason to assume that the passage was inserted into the text of Sibylline Oracles 2 only at the Christian stage of redaction. It seems to fit well with the surrounding Jewish context, and none of the additions to it contains any Christian elements. In other words, it may well have been part of the original Jewish work, taken over from the Sentences and slightly reworked.135 If this indeed is the case, then one of the Sibylline additions to the text of Ps.-Phocylides might be an important witness to the attitude of the author(s) of the Jewish substratum of these two Sibylline books to the Temple and sacrifices. After Ps.-Phocylides 22 (Sibylline Oracle 2.78) we read: 2:79 With perspiring hand give a portion of corn to one who is in need. 80 Whoever gives alms knows that he is lending to God. 81 Mercy saves from death when judgment comes. 82 God wants not sacrifice but mercy instead of sacrifice (ÇĤ ¿ÍÊţ¾Åբ ì¼ÇË »ò ¿šÂ¼À ¿¼ġË ÒÅÌĖ ¿ÍÊţ¾Ë). 83 Therefore clothe the naked. Give the hungry a share of your bread.136

The passage receives additional significance if we take into account the fact that in all of the Jewish parts of this oracle, filled as they are with ethical teaching, summonses to repentance, promises of doom for disobedience to divine will, and eschatological teaching, this is the only place in which anything related to the Temple and cult is mentioned. The message of the Jewish author(s) of Sibylline Oracles 1 and 2 is fairly straightforward: they convict sinners of such common trespasses as violence, deceit, fornication, adultery, slander, pride, insolence, idolatry, sorcery, godlessness and the like.137 The sinners are called to repentance and supplication – mainly by Noah in Sibylline Oracle 1 and by the Sibyl herself in Sibylline Oracle 2. If the sinners do not repent, they will face the terror of divine retribution – first in the Deluge, and at the end of time (which, of course, is near) in Gehenna and Tartarus. Those who did not commit such sins, but “were concerned with justice and noble deeds, and piety and most righteous thoughts – angels will lift them through the blaz 134

See Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:332; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 95–99. Phrygian provenance had already been advocated by J. Geffcken, Komposition und Enstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig, 1902), 50; cf. Wassmuth, Sibyllinische Orakel 1–2, 475–86. 135 Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:330: “Nothing in these verses is necessarily Christian.” 136 Translations of Sibylline Oracles are taken from Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP. 137 The excerpt from Ps.-Phocylides contains the most detailed list of ethical commandments – both positive and negative – in the whole of Sibylline Oracles 1–2.

68

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

ing river and bring them to light and to life without care” (2.313–6). These righteous ones will experience eternal bliss in the hereafter.

1. 9. Diaspora Radicals 1.9.1. Sibylline Oracles 4 The message of condemnation and call to repentance in Sibylline Oracles 1 and 2 is similar in many ways to that of Sibylline Oracles 4, which is arguably the most anti-Temple-and-cult composition written in the Diaspora.138 This rather short oracle is conventionally and convincingly dated to around 80 C.E., although no consensus has been reached as to its exact place of origin.139 Sibylline Oracles 4 is clearly a Jewish missionary pamphlet, and, unlike most of the other Jewish Sibyllines, it has not undergone any Christian redaction and does not contain any Christian interpolations. The author of Sibylline Oracles 4 calls upon pagans to renounce idolatry and various sins similar to those denounced in Sibylline Oracles 1 and 2, repent, and praise God. At the very beginning of the oracle they are assured that this God is different from false gods because “he does not have a house, a stone set up as a temple (Ms group ȥ: ŸġÅ Âţ¿ÇÅ Ď»ÉÍ¿šÅ̸)” (8);140 rather, His temple is in fact “one which it is not possible to see from earth nor to measure with mortal eyes, since it was not fashioned by mortal hand” (10–1). It is clear that the author’s vision of piety is absolutely irreconcilable with any kind of sacrificial worship: 24 Happy will be those of mankind on earth 25 who will love the great God, 26 blessing him before drinking and eating, putting their trust in piety. 27 They will reject all temples when they see them, 28 altars, too, useless foundations of dumb stones 29 defiled with blood of animate creatures, and sacrifices 30 of four-footed animals (ÇĐžÇİËÄòÅ×ȸÅ̸Ë ÒȸÉÅŢÊÇÅ̸À Ċ»ŦÅ̼Ë Á¸Ė ¹ÑÄÇŧËբ ¼ĊÁ¸ė¸ Âţ¿ÑÅ ÒÎÀ»Éŧĸ̸ ÁÑÎľÅբ ¸ďĸÊÀÅ ëÄÐŧÏÑÅ



138 On this, see J. J. Collins, “The Place of the Fourth Sibylline Oracle in the Development of the Jewish Sibyllina,” JJS 25 (1974), 365–80; idem, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:381–89. On Sibylline Oracle 4 in general, see H. C. O. Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 1913), 368–406; V. Nikiprowezky, “Reflexions sur quelques problemes du quatrième et du cinquième livre des Oracles Sibyllins,” HUCA 43 (1972), 29–76; Schürer, History, 3:641–43. 139 E.g., Nikiprowezky, “Reflexions sur quelques problemes,” 29–30, dates it to between 79 and 88 C.E. 140 Translations of Sibylline Oracle 4 are from Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:381–19. The text of this line is discussed in Tuval, “The 4th Sibylline Oracle,” 36–37.

1.9. Diaspora Radicals

69

ļÄÀ¸ÊĚŸÁ¸Ė¿ÍÊţþÊÀÅ̼ÌɸÈŦ»ÑÅ).141 They will look to the great glory of the one God 31 and commit no wicked murder, nor deal in 32 dishonest gain, which are most horrible things. 33 Neither have they disgraceful desire for another’s spouse 34 or for hateful and repulsive abuse of a male.

In lines 162–70, which form the climax of the composition, the author exhorts the pagans to abandon their sins, repent, and turn to God. No sacrifices are needed in order to propitiate God; words of praise will atone for “bitter impiety”: 162 Ah, wretched mortals, change these things, and do not 163 lead the great God to all sorts of anger, but abandon 164 daggers and groanings, murders and outrages, 165 and wash your whole bodies in perennial rivers. 166 Stretch out your hands to heaven and ask forgiveness 167 for your previous deeds and make propitiation 168 for bitter impiety with words of praise (Á¸Ė ¼ĤÂǺţ¸ÀË ÒÊš¹¼À¸Å ÈÀÁÉÛÅ ĎŠÊÁ¼Ê¿¼); God will grant repentance and 169 will not destroy. He will stop His wrath if you all 170 practice honorable piety in your hearts.142

True, lines 115–8 and 125–7, referring to the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, term it “great.” However, several important points should be taken into account. First, the destruction of the Temple is mentioned in the context of the vaticinium ex eventu concerning the last days. By any standard, this was a momentous event which had to be mentioned in such a context. Second, the author asserts that the Temple will be sacked “whenever they [i.e., the people of Jerusalem] put their trust in folly and cast off piety and commit repulsive murders in front of the Temple” (116– 8).143 Third, the mention of the Destruction allows the author to pour addi

141 Even scholars who think that Sibylline Oracle 4 criticizes only pagan sacrificial worship agree that its author did not have much use for the Jewish Temple either. See A. Chester, “The Sibyl and the Temple,” in W. Horbury (ed.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (Sheffield, 1991), 66: “On balance, therefore, although the main thrust of both 4–11 and 27–30 is polemic against idolatry, they allow no positive place for the form and practice of the Jerusalem Temple either.” Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:383 writes “While these passages are not specifically an attack on the Jewish Temple (which no longer existed), they undermine the very idea of temple worship and make no allowance for the possibility of an acceptable temple.” 142 ɋollins, “The Place of the Fourth Sibylline Oracle,” 377–8: “The placing of this passage [vv. 163–169] in Sib IV elevates baptism and repentance as the only key to salvation.” Cf. H. Hartman, “Teste Sibylla: Construction and Message in the Fourth Book of the Sibylline Oracles,” in idem, Text-Centered New Testament Studies: Text-Theoretical Essays on Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen, 1997), 160: “[H]ere is the heart of the text.” 143 It is intriguing to speculate on what constituted the “folly” of Jerusalemites in our author’s view. Given the author’s description of genuine piety, quoted above, would it be rash to suppose that, for him, the “folly” consisted of their excessive trust in the Temple and its sacrificial cult, which he denounced in lines 27–30?

70

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

tional abuse upon the hated Romans and to promise divine punishment. Fourth, no restoration of the Temple is envisaged in the detailed eschatological scenario presented in lines 171–192. One has to admit that it is rather striking to find such an attitude to the Temple and its cult in a Jewish writing from a mere decade after its demise. And it is, of course, even more striking when compared with the attitude of contemporary Jewish authors from the Land of Israel, such as those of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 1.9.2. Stephen’s Speech in Acts 7 The closest parallel to the anti-cultic attitude of the author of 4 Sibylline Oracle is found in what is known as “Stephen’s speech” in Acts 7.144 Although in its present context the speech is put on the lips of a Christian martyr and is supposed to convey a Christian message, most scholars tend to consider it originally to have been a Diaspora Jewish sermon.145 Although the speech is presented as the answer to the question of the high priest, it does not answer the question. Moreover, as H. Conzelmann succinctly phrased it, “this is not a martyr’s speech.”146 The speech has been frequently examined, and I will limit my treatment here to discussion of the most pertinent points. First of all, in Stephen’s retelling of biblical history, all divine epiphanies, miracles, and key events in Jewish history take place beyond the borders of the Land of Israel. Indeed, Stephen is so bold as to state that God had “exiled (ļÌňÁÀʼÅ) Abraham from Haran into this land in which you are now living” (7:4);147 and most of the heroes active in the Land of Israel, such as judges, prophets, righteous kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Simon the Just, or the Hasmoneans, are not mentioned in his narrative (excluding direct quotations from the prophets). The climax is reached with the story of the Golden Calf. The Sons of Israel spurn Moses and worship the idol (39–41), and God hands them over to idolatry (42). Stephen quotes from the prophecy of Amos, which speaks about idolatry in the wilderness (42–  144

Simon, St Stephen; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:383. See the discussion in D. R. Schwartz, “Residents and Exiles, Jerusalemites and Judaeans (Acts 7:4; 2:5, 14): On Stephen, Pentecost and the Structure of Acts,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen, 1992), 117–27; and C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Edinburgh, 1994), 1:335–40. The latter writes: “Luke gives us, in outline, a ‘Hellenist’ sermon; the sort of sermon that might be preached in a ‘Hellenist,’ Diaspora, synagogue, and could easily be taken over and used when Hellenist Jews became Hellenist Jewish Christians. . . The speech of Acts 7, which can hardly have been spoken by Stephen in the circumstances described, recovers great historical value as a document of that sector of Judaism from which Stephen and his colleagues are said to have come” (338–39). 146 H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia, 1987), 57. 147 Schwartz, “Residents and Exiles,” 117–22. 145

1.10. Philo of Alexandria

71

43; cf. Amos 5:25–7). Immediately after this he declares: “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, even as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen” (44). The tent is brought into the Promised Land, but David decides to find “a habitation” for the God of Jacob (or “House of Jacob”) (46).148 His son Solomon builds a house for Him. Here Stephen explodes: “But the Most High does not dwell in things made with hands (ÒŬ φ ÇĤÏ ĝ ĩÐÀÊÌÇË ëÅ ϼÀÉÇÈÇÀŢÌÇÀË Á¸ÌÇÀÁ¼ė)!149 As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, and what is the place of my rest?’” (48–50, quoting Isa 66:1–2). Stephen then proceeds to a verbal assault on his listeners. The parallel between the idolatrous practices in the wilderness and the “perverse cult” of Stephen’s opponents could not be emphasized more clearly. As has been noted above, the author of Acts probably utilized here a Hellenistic-Jewish source. This judgment is based on the general absence of specifically Christian material in this speech and on the use of the first person to refer to Jews and Jewish traditions until v. 51, where the specifically Christian part of the speech begins. The Diaspora Jewish homilist behind the speech apparently wanted to say that any place on earth was just as holy as the Temple. God is not limited by any territory; He manifests himself in various places, and does not dwell in any particular location.

1. 10. Philo of Alexandria At this point I should consider the most prolific Diaspora author, Philo of Alexandria.150 However, precisely because his corpus is vast and Philonic  148

See the apparatus in B. and K. Aland et al. (eds.), Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28 th ed.; Stuttgart, 2012) ad loc., and B. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2 nd ed.; Stuttgart, 1994), 308–9. 149 7:48. When ϼÀÉÇÈÇţ¾ÌÇË appears in cultic contexts in Hellenistic Jewish literature, it often has idolatrous connotations. Cf. Sib. Or. 3.606, 618, 722; Sib. Or. 4.28A. Whenever there is a Hebrew original for the LXX ϼÀÉÇÈÇţ¾ÌÇË, it is always ʬʩʬʠ. 150 Philonic bibliography is enormous. See E. R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory. With a General Bibliography of Philo by H. L. Goodhart and E. R. Goodenough (Yale, 1938), 124–348; R. Radice and D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1937–1986 (Leiden, 1988); D. R. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1987–1996 (Leiden, 2001). Annual bibliographic updates appear in D. T. Runia et al. (eds.), The Studia Philonica Annual. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Atlanta, 1989–). For general introductions to Philo, see H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 Vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1947); E. R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judaeus (2nd ed.;

72

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

studies almost represent a discipline in their own right, I will have to limit my treatment of this author in this study. Philo is different from most of the authors discussed above in several respects. First, in contrast to the latter, we are much better informed concerning his life, social position, and the general context of his writings.151 Second, the sheer volume and complexity of his compositions are incomparable to anything of what has been analyzed above. Third, Philo stemmed from an upper-class Jewish family of Roman Alexandria, obviously received very good education, had much leisure, and therefore his writings cannot automatically be considered to reflect what most Egyptian Jews thought, but rather, to a large extent, witness to his own sophistication and worldview.152 In the words of M. Smith, who refers to Goodenough’s critics, “Philo was an upper-class intellectual whose interpretations were undreamt of by the average Jew.”153 All this has both its positive and complicating aspects. On the positive side, we have many contextual Philonic statements on his thinking concerning the Temple, its cult, its personnel, and their various meanings. The great number of these statements has also resulted in several in-depth scholarly treatments of these topics among which I should especially single out the recent doctoral dissertation of M. J. Martin,154 which was mentioned above, as well as the monograph of J. Leonhardt-Balzer.155 In addition to these, there are dozens of articles on Temple, cult and priesthood in Philo, as well as several older monographs which are at least partially dealing with these topics.156 On the negative side, this same great number of statements, alongside the well-known fact that Philo was not a systematic thinker, has resulted in some diametrically opposed interpretations of his  Oxford, 1962); S. Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford, 1979); J. Morris, “The Jewish Philosopher Philo,” in Schürer, The History. Vol. 3/2, 809–89; Y. Amir, “Philo from Alexandria,” in Stern and Baras, The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World, 238–64 (in Hebrew); P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden, 1987); C. Mondésert, “Philo of Alexandria,” in W. D. Davies et al. (eds.), Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period, 877–900; A. Kamesar (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo (Cambridge, 2009). 151 Although we might wish we knew more. On what we know concerning Philo, his family and his social, economic, and religious contexts, see the treatment in D. R. Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in Kamesar, Companion to Philo, 9–31. 152 On Philo’ s education, see A. Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, 1982). 153 M. Smith, “Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect,” JBL 86 (1967), 61; repr. in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, 1:192. 154 Martin, “The School of Virtue.” Lieber, “Between Motherland and Fatherland,” comes to some very similar conclusions. 155 Leonhardt-Balzer, Jewish Worship; it was also based on the author’s doctoral thesis. 156 See n. 27 above.

1.10. Philo of Alexandria

73

positions on almost any given topic, including the one at hand. The history of Philonic studies eloquently illustrates that similarly to other prolific writers of the period, notably Paul and Josephus, Philo has proved to be “all things to all men.” Not only as far as Philo’s separate views on various subjects are concerned, but even in the question of the overall framework in which he has to be interpreted, various scholars imposed on him interpretations, which sometimes were mutually exclusive. Thus, he has been presented in turn as – primarily – an exponent of a Hellenistic-Jewish mystery religion,157 as a proto-Rabbinic sage,158 as an original and groundbreaking philosopher,159 and as an “exegete for his time.”160 The truth of the matter is that all of the above interpretations are indeed based, to some extent, on what Philo wrote in his tractates. Normally, his interpreters chose among these different aspects of Philo, and then claimed that they had identified and isolated the crucial one, which should form the right framework for the interpretation. In this some of them have been more convincing than others, but due to the sheer volume of the scholarly treatments of Philo, I will only be able to comment briefly on a small number of them. First, I tend to accept to a certain degree the picture of Philo the mystic, presented by Goodenough in his several studies. Even if one does not accept the picture of the full-blown Hellenistic-Jewish mystery religion, as reconstructed by that scholar, it is abundantly clear from Philo’s repeated emphasis on the spiritual life of the soul and its mystical union with God, as well as from his mystical terminology, that Philo’s religious life was mainly lived in the realm of his soul and mind, and that for him the real meaning of the Torah and its commandments was not to be found in the Jerusalem Temple cult, but rather in the invisible realities of the cosmos and the soul of the Sage. This Philo says time and again, and makes abundantly clear in so many words.161 The main problem which makes so many different interpretations of Philo’s attitude to the Temple possible is that he clearly does consider the Jerusalem Temple to be an important institution, dwells on the meaning of 

157 Goodenough, By Light, Light!; idem, The Politics; idem, Jewish Symbols (esp. Vol. 10, where he attempts to interpret the art of the Synagogue of Dura through Philonic exegesis); idem, Introduction to Philo. On Philo’s mystical theology, see also D. Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, 1985). 158 S. Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1940); N. Cohen, Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt am Main, 1995). 159 Wolfson, Philo. Cf. J. M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220 (rev. ed.; Ithaca, NY, 1996). 160 Borgen, An Exegete for His Time. 161 Cf. D. Winston, “Was Philo a Mystic?” in idem, The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism. Essays of David Winston (ed. G. Sterling; Providence, 2001), 151–70.

74

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

its cult in his writings, criticizes the Jews who neglect the Temple-related commandments, and is willing to defend it even to the point of sacrificing his own life.162 This has resulted in the interpretation of Philo’s understanding of the Temple as being crucial to his religious life – if he says so many good things about the Temple, describes its sacrificial cult in such detail, and thinks it must be defended even at the cost of one’s own life, then it must have been crucial to his interpretation of what Judaism was all about.163 However, this interpretation fails to give proper weight to the fact that apart from being a religious thinker, Philo also was a communal leader and – at times – a political activist, and therefore, his various statements concerning the Jerusalem Temple and its cult may have reflected these different roles.164 There is no doubt that the Temple was important to Philo at the national and political level. But was it crucial to his personal religious outlook, and was it indispensable to his Judaic system? On the basis of his own statements it seems that the physical Temple and its cult were at best secondary to his major religious concerns, as he makes abundantly clear in the many statements about the “real Temple,” which for him is either the sage’s soul, or the whole cosmos. Thus, in an often-quoted passage, he asks: Cher. 99 What house shall be prepared for God the King of Kings, the Lord of all, who in His tender mercy and loving-kindness has deigned to visit created being and come down from the boundaries of heaven to the utmost ends of earth, to show His goodness to our race? Shall it be of stone or timber? 100 Away with the thought, the very words are blasphemy. For though the whole earth should suddenly turn into gold, or something more precious than gold, though all that wealth should be expended by the builder’s skill on porches and porticos, on chambers, vestibules, and shrines, yet there would be no place where His feet could tread. One worthy house there is – the soul that is fitted to receive Him.165

In another passage discussing God’s Temple, he says the following: “For there are, as evident, two temples of God: one of them this universe, in which there is also as High Priest His First-born, the divine Word (ÂŦºÇË), and the other the rational soul, where Priest is the real Man” (Somn. 1.215, italics mine). Although Philo goes on to say that the earthly High priest is the “outward and visible image” of this “real Man,” the striking implica 162

For Philo’s willingness to intercede with Caligula on behalf of the Temple, and even to die on his mission, see Legat. 188–196. For criticism of the Jews who neglect the plain meaning of commandments, see Migr. 89–93. 163 E.g., Leonhardt-Balzer, Jewish Worship. 164 On Philo’s political views and involvement, see Goodenough, Politics. 165 All translations of Philo’s works are quoted according to F. H. Colson et al. (trans.), Philo with an English Translation. 10 Vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1929–62); emphasis mine.

1.10. Philo of Alexandria

75

tion of the passage is that Philo could speak of God’s Temple without even mentioning the physical one in Jerusalem. In yet another passage he makes the hierarchy of God’s Temples clear: Spec. 1.66 The highest, and in the truest sense the holy, temple of God is, as we must believe, the whole universe, having for its sanctuary the most sacred part of all existence, even heaven, for its votive ornaments the stars, for its priests the angels who are servitors to His powers, unbodied souls, not compounds of rational and irrational nature, as ours are, but with the irrational eliminated, all mind through and through, pure intelligences, in the likeness of the monad. 67 There is also the temple made by hands (Ìġ »ò ϼÀÉŦÁľÌÇÅ); for it was right that no check should be given to the forwardness of those who pay tribute to piety and desire by means of sacrifices either to give thanks for the blessings that befall them or ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins.

Although he does mention the physical Temple in this latter passage, and elaborates on its relative importance, one cannot escape the feeling that here again we hear Philo the communal leader – he sympathizes with the Lawgiver Moses, who has provided in his constitution for the physical shrine, since he realized that not all Jews were sophisticated enough to “pay tribute to piety” and “give thanks for the blessings… or ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins” in the invisible Temples of the cosmos and the soul. In condescension to these simple-minded Jews, Moses granted them the physical Temple as a kind of spiritual crutches. However, not only God’s Temple, but even the earthly city of Jerusalem, where it is located, is equally and identically allegorized by Philo: Somn. 2.248 For God’s city is the name in one sense for the world which has received the whole bowl, wherein the divine draught is mixed, and feasted thereon and exultingly taken for its possession the gladness which remains for all time never to be removed or quenched. In another sense he uses the name for the soul of the Sage, in which God is said to walk as in a city. For “I will walk in you,” He says, “and will be your God” (Lev. xxvi. 12) … 250 Now the city of God is called in the Hebrew Jerusalem and its name when translated is “vision of peace.” Therefore do not seek for the city of the Existent among the regions of the earth, since it is not wrought of wood or stone, but in a soul, in which there is no warring, whose sight is keen, which has set before it as its aim to live in contemplation and peace. 251 For what grander or holier house could we find for God in the whole range of existence than the vision-seeking mind, the mind which is eager to see all things and never even in its dreams has a wish for faction or turmoil?166

Lest one should think that Philo allegorized the Temple and its cult only in theory, but they still remained indispensable for him as far as his religious 

166 Cf. Schwartz “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” 21, on this passage: “When we note that Philo ends the latter discussion with the admonition that the wise man should yearn to depart from this world, just as elsewhere he says that he who would see God must depart from this world (which is why God took Abraham ‘outside’ [Gen 15:5]), we realize that no particular place could mean much for him, much less be ‘the Holy Land’.”

76

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

practice was concerned, I could cite the following passage, in which he describes what the Jews do on Yom Kippur. No mention whatsoever is made of the Temple rituals prescribed by the Torah which undoubtedly were meticulously carried out in his time in Jerusalem, but rather: Mos. 2.24 … in our fast men may not put food and drink to their lips, in order that with pure hearts, untroubled and untrammeled by any bodily passion such as is the common outcome of repletion, they may keep the holy-day, propitiating the Father of All with fitting prayers (ϸÊÁŦļÅÇÀÌġÅȸ̚ɸÌÇıȸÅÌġ˸ĊÊţÇÀ˼ĤϸėË), in which they are wont to ask that their old sins maybe forgiven and new blessings gained and enjoyed (italics mine.)

In other words, the prayers uttered by the Alexandrian Jews on Yom Kippur (presumably, in their synagogues) were powerful enough to effect expiation of their sins before God, and assure future blessings to be received and enjoyed. The Jerusalem Temple, its High priest and scapegoat do not even earn a mention. If Philo and his fellow Diaspora Jews could manage well without the Jerusalem Temple cult even on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar – the Day of Atonement – one is led to think that they could do so even better on the less holier days of the year. In my view, the tension between the positive statements of Philo concerning the value of the Jerusalem Temple and his willingness to sacrifice himself in order to save it, on the one hand, and his obvious allegorizing of it and downplaying its importance, as compared to the spiritual realities of cosmic and inner Temples, on the other, is convincingly analyzed and explained by M. J. Martin. First, he demonstrates that in Philo’s description of the Jewish sect of the Therapeutae, whom Philo considers to exemplify the life of Judaism at its best, no Temple whatsoever is mentioned, but rather “[t]he Therapeutic community… dwells within a utopian universe. God may be approached by these individuals through the agency of their lives of scriptural study and spiritual devotion. The Temple in Jerusalem and its sacrificial worship is not necessary to them; it is indeed revealed to be ultimately irrelevant.”167 In the final analysis, the Therapeutae take the place of the priests of the Jerusalem Temple, and their prayers, liturgical singing, and Torah study replace its sacrificial cult. These Jews – presented by Philo as exemplars of Judaism – are totally self-sufficient in their Alexandrian conventicle. Next, Martin analyzes Philo’s eschatological views. Here, in Philo's sublime and spiritual vision of Israel’s restoration and glorification, which even encompasses the whole world, the Temple and its cult are conspicuously absent, too.168 In my view, Martin is right to solve the apparent di 167

Martin, “The School of Virtue,” 310. Ibid., 354–5: “[The Temple’s] significance in terms of Philo’s exegetical programme – the Temple as symbolic of cosmic worship – and its significance in terms of 168

1.10. Philo of Alexandria

77

chotomy between Philo’s positive statements concerning the Temple’s importance and his defense of it, on the one hand, and his allegorizing it and transferring its symbolism into the inner or cosmic realms, on the other hand, by emphasizing the fact that Philo saw the physical Temple as playing an important role in the political fortunes of the contemporary Jewish community.169 In other words, the physical Temple was mainly important for Philo because it symbolized the Roman recognition and protection of the Jewish communities. However, as far as his religious worldview and his view of Jewish worship were concerned, these were centered on the life of Diaspora synagogue: For Philo, the Jerusalem Temple is relevant and significant only insofar as it may be seen to symbolize elements of the life of virtue embodied in the life and worship of the proseuche. On the basis of our reading of Philo, we would feel justified in claiming that Philo requires the Judaism of the Alexandrian proseuche to give meaning to the worship of the Temple. We would suggest that, when Philo traveled to Jerusalem to participate in the rites of the Temple, as we know he did on at least one occasion, his time in Jerusalem would have been spent in the context of an Alexandrian synagogue community. His worship would have remained centered in the prayer and Scriptural reading of the synagogue. The rites of the Temple would have possessed significance only insofar as they represented symbolically the worship Philo undertook in the realm of the synagogue. Without the presence of a synagogue, the worship of the Temple itself would have possessed little meaning for Philo.170

 Philo’s immediate social milieu – the Temple as symbol of Jewish corporate identity in the Graeco-Roman diaspora – are no longer necessary in the end-time. The emphasis placed upon the practice of virtue and the role of the virtuous man in Philo’s eschatological speculation is of significance inasmuch as the cultivation of virtue is revealed to be the function of the “school of virtue” – the proseuche. The virtuous man is both sage and priest, dwelling in the Holy of Holies of the spiritual Temple. The proseuche thus represents the institutional embodiment of a spiritual priesthood and the spiritual Temple in which it serves. In the eschatological age, when the Jews turn en masse to virtue, and in turn the nations follow this example, we observe, in effect, a universalization of the realm of the proseuche. … The virtuous life, the life engendered by the worship of the proseuche, may be seen to wholly replace the theological function of the Jerusalem Temple.” 169 Ibid, 363–4: “Philo’s commitment to the Jewish community is also borne out on the political level with the defense of the Temple during the crisis under Gaius. Philo apprehends the significance of the Jerusalem Temple as a political symbol of Jewish life in the Roman World at large. Philo speaks of the Jewish communities of the GraecoRoman Diaspora in the language of Classical Greek colonization: the communities of the Diaspora are colonies sent forth by the Jewish metropolis of Jerusalem. Thus, an attack upon the Temple of the Jewish metropolis effectively constitutes an attack upon the Jewish colonies wherever they may exist throughout the Roman world. Philo accurately perceives that the right to lead a Jewish life in the Roman Empire is tied to the political fate of the Jerusalem Temple.” 170 Ibid, 379.

78

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

Just as Martin built his case for the primacy of the Alexandrian proseuche over the Jerusalem Temple in Philo as a religious institution, one could focus on the spiritual and mystical aspects of Philo’s thought and make a case for the superiority of his spiritual inner life and mystical speculations and experiences over life centered around the physical Temple with its bloody and smoking sacrifices. The “spiritual” and mystical character of Philo’s Judaism was described and analyzed in great detail by Goodenough, who, in my view, convincingly demonstrated that Philo (and other Diaspora Jews like him) represented a very different Judaic paradigm from the Temple-and-sacrifice oriented one.171

1. 11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions Finally, I would like to discuss three Diaspora compositions in which, in contrast to the writings treated above, the Temple and the cult do seem to play a prominent role. These are the Letter of Aristeas and Sibylline Oracles 3 and 5, all of which are most likely to have been written in Egypt.172 The interest of these authors in the Temple, cult, and priesthood has attracted some attention in the history of research, and some even have noticed this as atypical in comparison to the other literary products of the Jewish Diaspora.173 As I will suggest in the following discussion, this interest may be ascribed to the specific political and cultural circumstances in which these compositions seem to have been produced. 1.11.1. The Letter of Aristeas The Letter of Aristeas, which is usually dated to the second half of the second century B.C.E.,174 purports to relate the story of the translation of the  171

See Goodenough, By Light, Light!; idem, Introduction; idem, Jewish Symbols, passim. The most detailed treatment of the meaning of the Jewish cult and priesthood is in Goodenough, By Light, Light!, 95–120 (“The Mystery of Aaron”). 172 See the discussion of each of these documents below. 173 E.g., Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 119 on Aristeas; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:356 on Sibylline Oracles 3; ibid., 392, on Sibylline Oracles 5. 174 Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 129–33; M. Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates (New York, 1951), 54; J. Goldstein, “The Message of Aristeas to Philocrates in the Second Century BCE: Obey the Torah, Venerate the Temple of Jerusalem, but Speak Greek, and Put Your Hopes in the Ptolemaic Dynasty,” in M. Mor (ed.), Eretz Israel, Israel and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations (London, 1991), 8–18; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 98–101; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 198. For a discussion of earlier scholarship on dating the Letter, see S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), 47–52; he dates it before 168 B.C.E. For a full list of dating proposals, see G. Dorival, “Les origins de la Septante: La traduction en grec

1.11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions

79

Torah into Greek under the auspices of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–247 B.C.E.). Although it is universally admitted that the work is a pseudepigraphon, it is not ascribed to a biblical hero but rather to a certain Aristeas, who is presented as a high-ranking pagan official at the Ptolemaic court.175 According to the story, after the translation of the Torah into Greek was proposed to the king by his librarian, he sent envoys with a letter (accompanied by generous gifts) to the Judean high priest Eleazar, requesting him to provide seventy-two translators well-suited for the work of translation. The envoys, of whom Aristeas was one, arrived in Jerusalem, and were enormously impressed by the country, the city of Jerusalem, its Temple complex, its sacrificial cult and the appearance of the high priest. Paragraphs 83–99 of the work contain detailed and laudatory descriptions of these matters.176 The description of the country of Judea and the qualities of the translators, chosen by Eleazar, is followed by an allegorical exposition in defense of the Law, delivered by the high priest. Upon their arrival in Alexandria the translators were immediately introduced to the king, who treated them to a lavish week-long symposium, in the course of which they repeatedly astonished him with their philosophical answers to his riddles. Then they were taken to the island of Pharos, where in the course of seventy-two days they completed the translation of the Torah into Greek. The translation was read first to the Jewish community, and then to the king, to the utter satisfaction of both. After the affirmation of the perfection and unalterable status of the Greek version by the Jews, and expression of compliments from the king, the translators were sent home with additional gifts. The Letter is usually considered to be one of the most universalistic compositions produced by Jews in the Greco-Roman Diaspora, in which  des cinq livres de la Torah,” in M. Harl et al. (eds.), La Bible grecque des Septante (Paris, 1994), 41–42. Most recently, see Rajak, Translation and Survival, 24–63. 175 In addition to the studies listed in the previous note, see A. Pelletier, Lettre d’ Aristée à Philocrate (Paris, 1962); Schürer, History, 3:677–87. H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Letter of Aristeas,” in H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1902), 533–606, provides an introduction to the textual history and an edition of the Greek text. 176 For a commentary on this passage, see C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple: A Non-Canonical Sourcebook (London, 1996), 26–37. J.-G. Février, La date, la composition et les sources de la Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate (Paris, 1924), 26–27, and Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 119, think that this passage might be secondary. However there seems to be no convincing proof for this. The author might have used a source here, but as it is, the passage fits neatly with the rest of the narrative. It is true that this whole section is omitted by Josephus from his fairly close paraphrase of the Letter in AJ XII 11–118, but in my view this fact does not prove that he did not find it in his source. He might have had other reasons for omitting it, which I discuss in chapter 3 below.

80

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

“[d]ifferences between Jews and Gentiles are reduced to a minimum.”177 Thus, the translation of the Torah is ordered by the Ptolemaic monarch, who manumits all Jewish slaves in his realm, sends gifts to the Jerusalem Temple, admires the wisdom of the Jewish translators-sages, and acknowledges the sublimity of Torah’s contents. It is also generally agreed that, apart from its defense of the Alexandrian translation of the Torah into Greek, the Letter also functions apologetically to present Judaism and its origins to sympathetic Gentiles in the best possible light – as well as to assure the Jews that good Gentiles are favorably impressed by Judaism. Thus, it is presented as the work of an educated pagan, who is immensely impressed by all aspects of Jewish life: the Jewish Law and theology; the Jerusalem Temple, its cult and priesthood; the country of the Jews; and Jewish philosophical wisdom. However, it is clear that the real author is an Alexandrian Jew, interested, above all, in the respectful coexistence of his own local Jewish community and the pagan rulers of the land. Therefore, the passage devoted to the Jerusalem Temple has to be interpreted in this context. It should be noticed that the descriptions of the Temple and the ministrations of its priests are highly idealized and might not be based upon the personal experience or knowledge of the author. The whole picture presented in the Letter is aimed at conveying the impression of a highly spectacular performance, astonishing the observer with its order, sublimity and “otherworldliness” (e.g., in the description of the high priest in 96– 99). The author seems to embellish the narrative even to the point of contradicting reality: thus, an oft-discussed feature of his account is the maintenance of total silence in the Temple notwithstanding the performance there of manual tasks by seven hundred priests (92–95). The main message conveyed by the author is that the Temple, the service of the priests, and the appearance of the high priest are aesthetically appealing, awe-inspiring, and dignified.178 In the words of J. J. Collins: The Letter as a whole is not characterized by any polemic against Judea, but it does not present a view of Judaism centered on Jerusalem either. It is rather a manifesto of the self-sufficiency of Diaspora Judaism, which respects Jerusalem as its source, but speaks of an idealized biblical Judea rather than of the actual state of the Hasmoneans. . . . Judaism is not defined in national terms. The law is the vehicle of a philosophy which is potentially universal.179

 177

Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 198. Cf. ibid., 196–97: “His idealized description of the country is marked by utopian elements that characterize travelogues in classical and Hellenistic literature.” See Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 48–50. 179 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 103. 178

1.11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions

81

So although the Temple, cult, and priests are seemingly prominent in the Letter, the main question concerning their role is the same one I asked earlier concerning Philo: What is the place and function of these institutions in the author’s conception of Judaism? Are they vital and indispensable foundations of Jewish life wherever Jews are found, and do they function as the primary medium of communication between the human and the divine spheres? The answer seems to be in the negative, since the overall impression, from the existential point of view, is that the Temple is even less important in the Letter than in Philo. For if Philo at least saw the Temple as the symbol of Roman recognition of Jewish political and religious rights, as well as an important physical symbol of invisible divine realities intended for the simple-minded Jews, for the author of the Letter, it functions almost exclusively as an impressive show.180 To summarize the above discussion, it should be said that the Letter is in no sense a polemic against the Jerusalem Temple and its priests. The opposite is true: they are idealized and embellished, even to the point of creating a utopian and fantastic account. However, they do not function in any immediate and profound way in the Judaism of the Letter, but rather as a nice and aesthetic decoration. The author’s real concern is with the Greek Torah, congenial relations within the pagan environment of his community, and Gentile respect for Judaism and its philosophical worldview. 1.11.2. Sibylline Oracles 3 The work I will discuss next is admittedly one of the most interesting and unusual products of Hellenistic Judaism. Sibylline Oracles 3 is considered by most scholars to be composite in nature, and was probably created over a substantial period of time. Various theories have been proposed as to its geographical provenance, but the location of the bulk of the work in Ptolemaic Egypt still seems to be the best-argued and most convincing proposal.181 According to the analysis of J. J. Collins,182 which I accept, three  180

For this point, see esp. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 195: “No mention is made of the efficacy of the sacrifices or their effect on the relations between human beings and God. The liturgy is considered a spectacle and is admired for its emotional effect on the onlookers. . . The concern is not with the mechanism of the atonement but with the public impression of Judaism that is conveyed.” Italics in the original. 181 Most recently, R. Buitenwerf has proposed Asia Minor, on the basis of the prominence of topographical references to Asian locations in the Oracle; see his Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and its Social Setting: With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden, 2003), 124–34. However, he seems to ignore the fact that it is the Egyptian (Ptolemaic) king who is referred to by the author in messianic terms. Why should an Asian Jew consider an Egyptian king a universal deliverer? Palestinian provenance for Sibylline Oracles 3 was considered an option by F. Millar, “Review of V. Nikiprowetzky, La Troisième Sibylle,” JTS 23 (1972), 223–24; however he did not prove it. V.

82

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

main parts can be discerned in the current book, reflecting various stages of composition: a) the main corpus (97–349 and 489–829); b) oracles against nations (350–488); and c) lines 1–96, which may have formed the conclusion of a different book.183 Since these segments are in turn comprised of various oracles with distinct subtopics and characteristics, no full analysis will be attempted here. Instead, I will briefly discuss the main themes and concerns of Sibylline Oracles 3, examine the possible historical context in which it was created, and address the question of the importance of the Temple in its author’s thought. Similarly to the other Sibylline Oracles, the main corpus contains a periodization of world history, condemnations of various sins, and descriptions of divine punishments. The unusual feature of the book is that the end-time deliverer, who in the Jewish writings of the period is usually a Jewish Messiah or some other supernatural agent of divine salvation like Enoch, Melchizedek, or the archangel Michael, is here none other than a (pagan) Ptolemaic king.184 He is described in messianic terms: “Every kind of deceit will be found among them until the seventh reign, when a king of Egypt, who will be of the Greeks by race, will rule. And then the people of the great God will again be strong, who will be guides in life for all mortals.”185 In verses 652–6 he is also described as the “king from the sun.” On the basis of this reference and the prominence of the Romans in verses 175–190, the main corpus of Sibylline Oracles 3 is dated by Collins to between the sixties and the forties of the second century B.C.E.186 Two other major sections of the text, verses 1–96 and 350–488, are of composite nature, and are dated to various periods. Some of the material incorporated into them may actually be pagan and stem from the early Hellenistic period; other parts were composed late in the first century B.C.E., while still others may come from the late first century C.E. Verses 1–96 contain a sublime vision of a transcendent, metaphysical, and omnipresent God, not unlike that contained in the Sibylline Oracles 4, which was discussed above. The rest of the section is a vision of history with prophecies  Nikiprowezky, La Troisième Sibylle (Paris, 1970), 206–17, argued for the unity of the work, and dated it to the first century B.C.E., in the reign of Cleopatra VII Philopator. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 269–88, sees the work as a compilation of oracles from different periods. I follow Collins, “Third Sibyl Revisited,” where he responds to these criticisms. 182 Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:354–61; reaffirmed in Collins, “Third Sibyl Revisited.” 183 Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:354. 184 This, of course, has a precedent in Isa 44:28, where Cyrus is called by God “My anointed.” 185 Sib. Or. 3.191–195. 186 Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:354–355.

1.11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions

83

of doom. In verses 350–488, as many as four distinct oracles have been identified, which almost exclusively contain prophecies of impending destruction without any ethical exhortation. However, the striking fact is that neither Temple nor sacrifices are mentioned even once in these two remaining sections of Sibylline Oracles 3.187 In this feature, they conform to other Diaspora compositions, in which the Temple plays no role. It seems that the authors-redactors of the later additions to the main corpus of the book were not interested in these matters, and therefore, I will concentrate my attention here on verses 97–349 and 489–829 and their putative Sitz im Leben. In my view, if the historical reconstruction proposed by J. J. Collins is correct, it may account for the centrality of the Temple in this core of the composition. It is obvious, and has been noted by all scholars, that the Temple and sacrifices play an important role in the outlook of the author of the main corpus of Sibylline Oracles 3, to an extent “which is unparalleled in any document from Egyptian Judaism.”188 The Temple and sacrifices to God are mentioned in 286–294, 564–579, 624–629, 657–659, and 715–718, and it is clear that they are central to the author’s view of piety and the endtime triumph of Judaism. He repeatedly exhorts the pagans to forsake idolatry and moral depravity and worship the one true God with sacrifices and offerings: “But you, devious mortal, do not tarry in hesitation but turn back, converted, and propitiate God. Sacrifice to God hundreds of bulls, and firstborn lambs, and goats at the recurring times” (624–627). The endtime Jews are described in the following terms: 573 There will again be a sacred race of pious men 574 who attend to the councils and intention of the Most High, 575 who fully honor the Temple of the great God 576 with drink offering and burnt offering and sacred hecatombs, 577 sacrifices of well-fed bulls, unblemished rams, 578 and firstborn sheep, offering as holocausts fat flocks of lambs 579 on a great altar, in holy manner.

As has been stated above, with regard to what it says about the Temple, the Sibylline Oracles 3 is an unusual Diaspora work. I have suggested that the interest exhibited by its author in cultic matters might possibly be explained on the basis of the theory proposed by Collins concerning its provenance. He thinks that the promotion of the seventh Ptolemaic king to the rank of the savior of the world should be seen as the key to the most probable context for the writing of the book. He also notices that the down-toearth fascination of the author with military and political matters is not a feature one would expect from the more spiritually-minded Jewish authors  187

If Collins (ibid., 469) is right in considering Fragments 1–3 to be part of the same work as Sib. Or. 3.1–45, then sacrifices are mentioned in Fragment 1:21. (The fragments are translated in Collins, ibid., 469–72). 188 Collins, ibid., 356.

84

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

of Alexandria, but it might rather obtain among the circles of the Jewish military colony in Leontopolis, which was known for its close connections with the Ptolemies. From Josephus we know of the very close interaction between the circles associated with Onias and his descendants and the Ptolemaic house, to the point that at a slightly later period Onias’ sons Chelkias and Ananias were in command of the entire Ptolemaic army.189 Although this conception of the community responsible for creating the bulk of Sibylline Oracles 3 must remain hypothetical, there is nothing implausible about it. On the contrary, it has the benefit of accounting for some of the unusual features of the composition, including the prominence of the Temple-and-cult related matters. Moreover, although the temple of Onias in Leontopolis is usually considered to be schismatic and even “heretical” by Deuteronomistic standards, we do not find much evidence for tension between the authorities of the Jerusalem Temple (or Alexandrian Jews) and those of the temple of Onias, or vice versa, although this Egyptian temple coexisted with its Jerusalem counterpart for more than two hundred (!) years.190 We also know from Josephus that Onias’ son Ananias played a crucial role in the preservation of the independence of Alexander Jannaeus’ kingdom at a later date.191 In other words, it would not be unnatural to expect such praise of the Jerusalem Temple as we now find in the main corpus of Sibylline Oracles 3 in a work written by a follower (or descendant?) of the Zadokite high priest, Onias. 1.11.3. Sibylline Oracles 5 The last Diaspora composition I would like to consider is Sibylline Oracles 5, which was written in Egypt in the first third of the second century C.E. The discussion of this work must take into account the great changes which took place in the position of Egyptian Jewry vis-à-vis its pagan environment early in that century. If earlier Jewish Egyptian authors of the Ptolemaic and early Roman periods had entertained various hopes for peaceful and fruitful coexistence between the Jewish community and the  189

In CA II 49–50 Onias himself is said to have been one of the two Jewish commanders of Ptolemy VI Philometor’s and Cleopatra’s II entire army. However, the reference is somewhat problematic. See J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion (Leiden, 2007), 196 n. 167; Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple, 24–25. On Chelkias and Ananias, see AJ XIII 285–287; 348–355. Cf. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple, 32–34. On the Oniads, see Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 69–78. 190 See D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” in Gafni, Center and Diaspora, 37–55 (in Hebrew; English summary: vi–vii). 191 AJ XIII 352–355.

1.11. The Temple Plays a Role: Three Exceptions

85

surrounding Gentile culture, these hopes had been brutally shattered beginning with the late thirties of the first century C.E.192 Already in Philo’s times we hear of escalating tensions between the pagans of Alexandria and their Jewish neighbors, which resulted in the desecration of synagogues and physical violence directed against the Jews.193 Both from Philo and from Josephus we know of the increase in anti-Jewish pagan propaganda, slander, and political activity aimed at dispossessing local Jewish communities from what they perceived as their inalienable rights. The situation deteriorated even more with the outbreak of the Great Revolt in Judea, resulting in Jewish disturbances in Alexandria and their subsequent suppression at the price of tens of thousands of Jewish casualties. Although the sources at our disposal that deal with the subsequent period are scanty and fragmentary,194 it seems safe to suppose that in the last third of the first century C.E. and the early years of the second, the earlier hopes of peaceful coexistence of Jews and pagans in Egypt were swiftly evaporating. This disillusionment is usually considered to be the hotbed that nurtured the seeds of the bloody, and – as it eventually turned out – catastrophic, revolt of the Diaspora late in the days of Trajan. Although here I cannot discuss that revolt in any detail, it is clear from all sources at our disposal that it was characterized by an unusually high level of hatred, ferocity and violence on both sides.195 Even if we might doubt the horrible picture of the atrocities perpetrated by the Jews on their pagan enemies as presented in the pagan sources (e.g., Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 68.32.1–3), most scholars agree that it was a fierce and brutal war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of victims. For the Jewish community of Egypt it marked a calamitous watershed.196 In the context of my discussion of Sibylline Oracles 5, I should emphasize that it seems that the most salient feature of this revolt, which is rec

192 See V. A. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” in V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 Vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1957–54), 1:55–86, on the deterioration of the relationships between the Jews and pagans in Egypt. Cf. the more recent treatment in Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 72–8; on pp. 226–8 he adduces Sibylline Oracle 5 as an extreme example of “cultural antagonism.” 193 All this is vividly described in Flacc. 194 We hear of continuing quarrels between pagans and Jews in the time of Trajan; see H. Musurillo, Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, 1954), 44–8; 161–78; Tcherikover et al., Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 2:82–7 (# 157). 195 For the most recent comprehensive treatment of the literary and archaeological evidence, as well as an interpretation, see M. Pucci-Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116–117 C.E.: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Leuven, 2005). 196 Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 93: “The tragic events of A. D. 115–17 stamp the early Roman period as having seen an almost total annihilation of Egyptian Jewry; strictly speaking, with this period the history of the Egyptian Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman age comes to an end, and the next period marks the beginning of a new development.”

86

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

ognized by most scholars, is its messianic character. Apart from the fact that the revolt was led by royal (and therefore, messianic) pretenders, we know that it was systematically directed at the total eradication of paganism. Not a few scholars consider it to have been conceived by the rebels as a kind of “new Exodus,” the final goal of which would have been the retrieval of the Land of Israel from the Romans and the creation of an independent Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital.197 If this was indeed the case, as seems very likely, one should not be surprised to find, in a document roughly contemporary with these events, the abandonment of the paradigms which had been created in a different atmosphere of peaceful coexistence between the Jews and their pagan neighbors in the Diaspora. These paradigms mostly became obsolete in the new situation, in which the Jews came to realize that peaceful coexistence was a thing of the past, and became convinced that their hopes for a happy life in the Diaspora had been shattered. In the atmosphere of the emergence of fierce anti-pagan ideology and the hope of the liberation of the Land of Israel from pagan rule, it is not surprising to find the abandonment of earlier Diasporan conceptions of Judaism, and a return to nationalistic ideologies centered on the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, and its Temple. That said, however, one should not exaggerate the centrality of the Temple and its cult in the worldview of the author of Sibylline Oracles 5. It is true that these institutions do form part of his vision for the end-time restoration. Thus, he writes that God will yet be honored with sacrifices and prayers (!) (266–268), and prophesies that the savior-figure will rebuild the Temple (420–433), even as he laments the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans (397–413). But the space devoted to the building of a temple to God in Egypt seems to be just as important, and the Ethiopians who destroyed it are singled out for severe divine punishment (501–511). In the final analysis, it seems that the main message that the author wanted to deliver was more negative than positive: it is not chiefly about the future bliss of the pious, but rather about the total annihilation of the wicked. To find such a hope in a book written shortly after the shattering of Jerusalem-centered messianic hopes and the brutal repression of the Jewish uprising is not a surprise. As J. M. G. Barclay remarks, “It is somehow fitting that the violent propaganda of this Sibylline Book concludes with the bleak prospect of a starless sky.”198

 197 198

See Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 85–93, esp. 90 n. 84. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 228.

1.12. Summary and Conclusions

87

1. 12. Summary and Conclusions As noted above, M. J. Martin’s work on Philo, which emphasized the Alexandrian’s greater attachment to the synagogue and relative lack of attachment to the Temple of Jerusalem, served as a major inspiration for this study. In the present chapter I have conducted a similar analysis of many other works of the Hellenistic and early Roman Diaspora. The literary heritage which I have surveyed here represents different genres, and witnesses to the multifaceted religious conceptions and worldviews of its authors, pointing to the extraordinary breadth and vitality of Diaspora Jewish religious expression. At the outset, I proposed that, in my view, it would be unnatural to expect ancient Diaspora Jews to see the Jerusalem Temple, its sacrificial cult, and its priests as the axis of their religious systems. Rather, I suggested that the Jews of the Diaspora, who spent most of their lives without the possibility of access to the Jerusalem Temple, had to develop alternatives to Temple-centered views of Jewish worship, as well as, more generally, different means of access to the divine. In the course of this investigation, we discovered that the vast majority of these writings indeed evinced, in comparison to contemporary Palestinian literature, much less interest in the Temple and its cult, if any. And this is not only an argument from silence (however impressive that may often be). Rather, most of these writings offer something in place of the Temple and its cult: along with not mentioning the latter, they propagate coherent Judaic worldviews and identities and deal with such essential matters as worship,199 ethics,200 atonement for sin,201 mediation of the divine powers,202 God’s presence,203 salvation,204 conversion,205 eschatology and life after death.206 In some cases we saw the emerging ideal of Torah study as central, which in later rabbinic Judaism was to achieve its full supremacy

 199

This and the following notes are not intended to provide an exhaustive list, but only to remind of some examples. Worship without the temple is illustrated in Joseph and Aseneth, Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, 4 Sibylline Oracle, 4 Maccabees, and Philo. 200 Ps.-Phocylides, Sibylline Oracles, Testament of Job, Philo. 201 2 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo. 202 Testament of Job, Prayer of Joseph, Philo. 203 3 Maccabees, Philo. 204 2 Enoch, Testament of Job, Joseph and Aseneth, 2 and 4 Maccabees, Philo. 205 Joseph and Aseneth , 4 Sibylline Oracle, Philo. 206 2 Enoch, 2 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, 1, 2, and 4 Sibylline Oracles, Testament of Job, Testament of Abraham, Philo.

88

Chapter 1. Doing without the Temple

as the focal act of divine worship.207 In others we saw that prayer (whether individual or communal) took the place of sacrifice, either being considered equal to it, or even totally replacing it.208 In several compositions we witnessed the emphasis on martyrdom for the Law as the ultimate act of piety, indeed, as the ultimate sacrifice, which atoned for the sins of the entire Jewish nation and earned their salvation.209 The notion of the Holy People as more important than the Holy Place, and the concomitant idea that it is the Holy People that makes any place “holy,” have also been documented.210 In other compositions we pointed to mystical trends, including speculations concerning the heavenly cult, exalted patriarchs and transcendental high priests, who might have seemed much closer and more available to the Diaspora Jews than the real cult and priests in Jerusalem.211 Above all, we saw an overwhelming emphasis on ethics – and even if sometimes they were presented under Gentile pseudonyms, these were always recognizably Jewish ethics, taught in the Torah of Moses.212 Apart from two radical Diaspora writings that took the lack of interest in the Temple and preference for more spiritual worship to a polemical extreme,213 we have not detected any categorical rejection of the Temple and its cult. As stated in the introduction, this is not surprising. The Jews of the Diaspora read and venerated basically the same Torah as their brethren in the Land of Israel, the Torah which held the Temple, its cult and its priests in great esteem. They had no need to argue about these things. However, I believe that the above survey has demonstrated that the Temple and the cult did not function in any immediate and meaningful way in the Judaisms of the authors who produced the literature under review. Even in the Letter of Aristeas, which treated the Temple at length and with sympathy, the Temple was shown to be secondary to the author’s view of Judaism, and its ritual mainly an impressive performance – not really the only way to God. These findings correspond, broadly, with Martin’s conclusions in regard to Philo and with Lightstone’s view that “Judaism of the Graeco-Roman Diaspora reflects a different configuration in appropriating and mediating the sacred … [from] Judaic universe that centered in the Jerusalem Temple of the Second Commonwealth.”214  207

See the section above on “Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish authors” (pp. 41–3). As I noted earlier, Philo is, of course, a prime example of this trend. Josephus’s AJ also illustrate this tendency; see chapter 3 below. 208 Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo. 209 2 Maccabees, and, esp., 4 Maccabees. 210 2 and 3 Maccabees. 211 2 Enoch, Prayer of Joseph, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Testament of Job, Philo. 212 Sibylline Oracles, Ps.-Phocylides, Testament of Job, Testament of Abraham, Philo. 213 4 Sibylline Oracle and Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. 214 Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred, 5.

1.12. Summary and Conclusions

89

In other words, even before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and the cessation of its sacrificial cult, the Jews of the Greco-Roman Diaspora had successfully created alternative Judaic systems in which the Temple did not play a crucial role. These systems provided them with meaning and order as far as they looked at the world around them, and with a coherent sense of identity and purpose as far as they looked at themselves – both individually and communally. They also provided Diaspora Jews with alternative mediums of access to the divine, apart from the Temple rituals and away from Jerusalem. Although it is reasonable to assume that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple caused a certain amount of anxiety on the part of the Diaspora Jews, especially as events in Judea gave rise to uncertainty concerning the status of Jewish communities elsewhere in the Roman Empire, it might not be too bold to suppose that for the religious life of the average Diaspora Jew, nothing much changed on the morning of the eleventh of Ab in 70 C.E.215

 215

Contrast M. Goodman, “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple,” in J. D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (Tübingen, 1992), 27, who claims that “[t]here is . . . every reason to suppose that the rasing of the Temple horrified the Diaspora Jews as much as their Judaean compatriots. Jews outside Palestine seem to have presumed the central importance of the Temple in Jewish worship despite the physical obstacles to their frequent attendance at the cult.” The only evidence he adduces to support this statement are the Letter of Aristeas, which he dates to the second century B.C.E., and which I discussed above, and Josephus’ description of the Temple cult in CA. Goodman is unwilling to seriously consider Sibylline Oracle 4, since “the complex psychology of the author of such oracles, whose success depended on his (or her?) ability to achieve the tone of a pagan prophetess, preclude use of such material as reliable evidence of Jewish self-perception in this period” (p. 29). It seems, however, that if this rule were applied to the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period generally, we would have to exclude from consideration many other compositions, not least the Letter of Aristeas, which is also placed in the mouth of a non-Jew.

Chapter 2

Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War 2. 1. Introduction In this chapter I will attempt to discuss Flavius Josephus’s religious outlooks as can be reconstructed from BJ, his earliest work. Since, as has been explained in the introduction, this study is mainly concerned with the interrelationship of Temple-oriented and Torah-oriented Judaic paradigms to which “early” and “late” Josephus, I believe, is a witness, I will concentrate my attention on the following themes. First of all, I will discuss the prominence and the role of the Temple and related issues in Josephus’ BJ narrative. This will include his treatment of the Temple, cult and priests in BJ in general, as well as their role in Josephus’ inner struggle over the questions of God’s presence and support, and in his presentation of the Temple in the context of the crimes committed by the revolutionaries, in particular. Second, the contents of Josephus’ recurring critique of these crimes will be discussed, since, in my opinion, this critique can be construed as a good indicator of what Josephus viewed as being “religiously” right and wrong, at the time of writing BJ. In other words, I believe that on the basis of these accusations we can have an idea of what in Josephus’ view, in the context of Judaism, the serious trespasses committed by the wicked rebels were. Third, I will concentrate on Josephus’ knowledge and transmission of various biblical traditions, as well as his treatment of the Jewish Law in BJ. This is especially important since throughout his works he claimed to have been a biblical expert, and because by the time he wrote AJ, he clearly had become one.1 I would like to examine whether the claim that he had been such an expert since childhood can be corroborated by the materials from his earliest composition, BJ. I would also like to evaluate the importance of Jewish Law in his religious worldview at that 

1 BJ III 352 (the passage is quoted in the introduction to this study, p. 21, and in chapter 4, p. 269); AJ XX 264–6 (where Josephus implies he is second or third to Moses, as far as his mastery of the Law is concerned); Vita 9 (discussed in the introduction, p. 15); CA I 54. On later Josephus as a Biblical expert, see L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, 1998); idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden, 1998). It should be borne in mind that Feldman harmonizes Josephus’ treatment of the Bible in BJ with AJ. Josephus’ interpretative techniques in AJ are dealt with in chapter 3.

2.2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims

91

stage of his life. Although in several instances I will compare BJ passages with their later versions in AJ, most of the parallel passages will be treated in detail in chapter 3.2 Also, albeit I will often touch on Josephus’ views on such crucial theological subjects as the basis of God’s dealings with His people, eschatology, restoration, and such like, at the time of writing BJ, I will not conduct here a detailed discussion of these. I will refrain from doing this since I believe that an analysis of theological topics both of BJ and AJ has to be offered first, in order to make a profitable comparison. Therefore, I reserve most of it for the next chapter and the concluding reflections.

2. 2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims By way of introduction, some information should be provided on the work and its main themes and purposes.3 BJ has been extensively and insightfully treated in many important scholarly studies, and I will not attempt to produce another exhaustive overview here, rather referring for specific points to fuller treatments by other scholars.4 In the introduction to BJ Jo 2

For BJ as the source of parallel passages in AJ, see K.-S. Krieger, “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117–283 and A 18–20,” in F. Siegert and J. U. Kalms (Hrsg.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001. Studies on the Antiquities of Josephus/Etudes sur les Antiquités de Josèphe (Münster, 2002), 90–100. 3 For an outline of the contents of BJ, see H. W. Attridge, “Josephus and his Works,” in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II/2; Assen and Philadelphia, 1984), 194–5. 4 See, especially, R. Laqueur, Der jüdischer Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen, 1920); W. Weber, Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem Jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Hildesheim, 1921); H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929), 23–50; H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden, 1972); S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden, 1979); M. Stern, “The Date of Composition of The Jewish War,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, II (Jerusalem, 1976) (in Hebrew), 29–34; idem, “Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War,” in L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Leiden, 1987), 71–80; T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (2nd ed.; London, 2002); P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (Sheffield, 1988), 65–79; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics (Leiden, 1990); G. Mader, Josephus and the Politics of Historiography (Leiden, 2000); S. Mason “Of Audience and Meaning: Reading Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum in the Context of a Flavian Audience,” in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Leiden, 2005), 71–100; idem, “Figured Speech and Irony in T. Flavius Josephus,” in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford, 2005), 243–88; idem, “Essenes and Lurking Spartans in Josephus’ Judean War: From Story to History,” in Z. Rogers, (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden,

92

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

sephus claims that the Greek work is a translation of an earlier composition which he had produced in his ancestral language (almost certainly Aramaic) for the “barbarians” of the East.5 Whether such a previous version ever existed is a matter of scholarly debate which is unlikely to be resolved in the absence of any fragments, quotations or attestations in the extant literature, or unless a manuscript fragment of this Aramaic BJ is discovered in some monastery, sand mound, or desert cave.6 However, even if such a fragment turns up and demonstrates that a Semitic prototype of BJ is not a chimera, it seems very likely that the Greek text we possess is not just a literal translation, but in many ways substantially a new work.7 While producing the Greek BJ, Josephus claims to have used assistants for the Greek (ÏɾʊļÅŦËÌÀÊÀÈÉġËÌüÅ?¾Åţ»¸ÎÑÅüÅÊÍżɺÇėË), and it is usually assumed that they left their imprint both in matters of style and formulation.8 Thus it is a well known fact that the Greek of BJ I–VI is better and smoother than that of Josephus’ later compositions, for which he did not employ any assistants,9 although by the time he wrote the latter, he had spent in Rome more than two decades. Whether these BJ assistants introduced into the work any peculiar ideas of their own is a moot question. In the absence of any clear criteria to decide on this last point, by default I treat BJ as a reliable witness to Josephus’ outlooks at the time of its composition.10 Josephus claims that the work was presented to Titus and Vespasian, and this means that it must have been completed before 79 C.E., the year  2007), 219–61; idem, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, I b: Judean War 2 (Leiden, 2008). Although O. Michel, and O. Bauernfeind, Flavius Josephus: De Bello Judaico, Der jüdische Krieg, griechisch und deutsch (Darmstadt, 1960–69) is primarily a translation of BJ, it contains many extensive and insightful notes on various aspects of the book, and should also be included here. 5 BJ I 3. 6 Which is a priori not impossible, witness the case with 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, discussed earlier in chapter 1 (pp. 46–7). 7 Cf. Mason, “Of Audience and Meaning,” 90, n. 55; See Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 174–84; H. Petersen, “Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus,” AJP 79 (1958), 259–74; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 Vols. (Minneapolis, 1992), 1:7. 8 For Josephus’ statement, see CA I 50. 9 Thackeray’s identification of various assistants and their styles throughout AJ (Josephus the Man and the Historian, 100–24) has been rightly criticized by R. J. H. Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London, 1961), 59–78, and Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 233–6. Cf. See J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary 10. Against Apion (Leiden, 2007), 36, n. 202; Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome, 132–4. 10 On various issues concerning the relationship between the non-extant Aramaic and the Greek BJ, see Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 174–84.

2.2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims

93

of Vespasian’s death.11 On various grounds several scholars have pointed out that there are several indications that most – or all – of the seventh book of BJ must have been composed later than BJ I–VI; 12 their arguments seem sound to me. Although Josephus does not explicitly say that BJ was ordered (or at least expected) from him by the Flavians, and despite some recent objections,13 this idea still does make sense because of the following reasons. In Rome Josephus became a Flavian client: he was granted Roman citizenship, accommodated in Vespasian’s former house, and assigned a pension.14 In other words, he was supported by the Emperors of the new dynasty, who at the same time accidentally were in a rather pressing need to legitimate their ascent to the throne; and it is well known that the suppression of the Judean Revolt was an important item in their legitimacy program.15 It would be quite naïve, I think, to suppose that they did not  11

Vita 359–61; CA I 50–1. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 84–90; S. Schwartz “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986), 373–86; T. D. Barnes, “The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus,” in Edmondson et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 129–44; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence, and the Date of the Judean War,” in J. Pastor, P. Stern and M. Mor (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Leiden, 2011), 331–52. 13 S. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1. 25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’ Judean Antiquities/Life,” in idem (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Sheffield, 1998), 72–79; idem, “Of Audience and Meaning.” It seems that arguments trying to exonerate Josephus from the charge of propaganda on behalf of the Flavians, based on premises such as “Josephus really did not get that much from the emperors when compared to some other people” are beside the point. Nobody argues there were no other people who received more or that the emperors could not have made Josephus even wealthier. However, even what he got was something not to be entirely despised. For a more sophisticated criticism of the “pro-Flavian propaganda theory,” see Mason, “Irony and Figured Speech,” where he analyzes “irony and figured speech” in Josephus’ portrayal of Titus. It does seem plausible that Josephus might have written some of the Titus passages with “tongue in cheek,” however, it seems that on any reading Titus still comes out as one of the best characters in BJ, second only to Josephus himself. Moreover, if Josephus indeed was mocking Titus, what should one do with his repeated statements that God went over to his side? Did then Josephus contradict himself by claiming that God made a wrong choice after all, or is all that just a subtle joke? 14 Vita 423. 15 Cf. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 195; B. Levick, Vespasian (London, 1999), 70–1 (cf. 53–4); M. Beard, “The Triumph of Flavius Josephus,” in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden, 2003), 543–8; F. Millar, “Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome,” in J. Edmondson et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 101–28. On the importance of the IUDAEA CAPTA coins in this propagandistic campaign, see H. St. J. Hart, “Judaea and Rome: The Official Commentary,” JTS 3 (1952), 172–98; P. F. Esler, “God’s Honour and Rome’s Triumph,” in idem (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity (London, 1995), 233– 47 (esp. 240–3); J. M. Cody, “Conquerors and Conquered on Flavian Coins,” in Boyle 12

94

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

realize the potential of using a gifted Judean general and former enemy who had crossed the lines, for producing a piece of literature describing their manifold virtues, in general, and their countless exploits on behalf of the Roman people in the course of the Judean campaign, in particular.16 Moreover, Josephus claims to have used such “classified” materials as the Emperors’ war diaries, and it is inconceivable that he had access to them without the knowledge of Titus and Vespasian.17 This seems to imply that they were well aware of the work in progress, and it would be somewhat strange to imagine that they did not encourage its author in any way. Third, Josephus boasts that after the presentation of the volumes to Titus, the latter “insisted that the knowledge of the events should be transmitted to the people from these alone, so that after he had inscribed the volumes with his own hand, he ordered them to be made public.”18 That is, according to Josephus, Titus saw BJ as the official Flavian version of the events. And even if Josephus did not exactly aim at consciously and consistently producing such an official version, he was proud of the fact that Titus did recognize it as such. In other words, Josephus’ account of the Judean War basically conformed to Titus’ view of the conflict. So, after all, for all practical purposes, it was an official version of the events.19 In addition to these arguments, it is clear from the work that Josephus was striving to present the Flavian emperors, especially Titus, in the best possible light.20 They are the embodiments of every kind of conceivable  and Dominik, Flavian Rome, 102–24. P. F. Esler, “Rome in Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature,” in J. Riches and D. C. Sim (eds.), The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context (London, 2005), 16, summarizes: “To the Flavians, the defeat of Judea was as significant as had been Octavian’s victory at Actium one hundred years earlier. They used it to legitimate their rule and to present themselves as bringing peace after a period of major disruption. They memoralized the event in numerous ways, especially by minting a series of Iudaea capta coins in some fourteen distinctive styles. Some of these refer to their having saved the citizens.” 16 The importance of the Flavian victory over the Judeans in the context of the rise of the Flavian dynasty was recently emphasized in the exhibition dedicated to Vespasian’s second thousandth birthday, which took place in Rome. In the catalogue of the exhibition, four essays are dedicated to the Judean Revolt; see F. Coarelli (ed.), Divus Vespasianus. Il bimillenario dei Flavii (Milano, 2009). 17 Vita 342, 358. 18 Vita 363. That is, he ordered the books to be copied at the imperial expense. On the term »¾ÄÇÊÀľÊ¸Àor »¾ÄÇÊÀ¼ıʸÀ, see S. Mason, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary IX: Life of Josephus (Leiden, 2001), 149, n. 1498; D. R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, Vita: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem, 2007) (in Hebrew), 128–9, n. 384. 19 Cf. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 86: “If any historian was a Flavian lackey, it was Josephus.” 20 Vespasian: BJ III 282; V 124. Titus: BJ I 10; III 324; 396–8; 485–502; V 58–66; 81–97; VI 132–3.

2.2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims

95

virtue that has ever existed under the sun: they are humane, generous, brave, fearless, intelligent, merciful, pious, honest, and noble. They – especially Titus – cherish the lives of the Jewish rebels and the Judean sancta more than the Jews do, and even try to preserve them despite the Jewish unwillingness to do so themselves.21 The war in Judea, according to Josephus, was the greatest of all wars ever fought,22 and the Flavians led it to its victorious conclusion as the greatest heroes of all times. Thus, when it comes to subduing destructive chaos and preserving lasting peace Vespasian and Titus are second to none. This is clearly one of the prominent themes of the work, and since it has been emphasized and adequately dealt with in previous research, it is redundant to discuss all of its aspects here at great length.23 In sum, I still consider BJ, to some major extent, to be a work of proFlavian propaganda, and think that the exaltation of the Flavians is one of its prominent topics. Another concomitant theme is the description of the invincible might of Rome aimed at creating an impression that anyone who would venture to challenge it is doomed from the beginning and would do well to reconsider the matter before they decide to do so.24 Having said this, I do not want to imply that Josephus was just a Flavian marionette, and apart from the fact that BJ had pro-Flavian propagandistic purposes, it pursued other, not less important goals. First of all, since it described the fateful events in which Josephus had participated personally, he had to explain his own role and conduct. Moreover, since in the course of these events he changed sides under rather questionable circumstances, he inevitably faced various suspicions and accusations. This he did not conceal. In his place, most people would probably have been satisfied with having survived, let alone coming out healthy and rich. Not so Josephus – since he seems to have had a rather robust psychology, he refused to be satisfied with sitting quiet and enjoying the benefits received from the Emperors; instead he decided to produce a monumental work describing the war in which, already at first glance, he himself played an ambivalent  21

See the examples below. BJ I 1. 23 For a discussion of the “pro-Flavian elements” in BJ, see Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Stone, Jewish Writings, 200–3. Cf. Z. Yavetz, “Reflections on Titus and Josephus,” GRBS 16 (1975), 411–32; Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 204–7; G. M. Paul, “The Presentation of Titus in the ‘Jewish War’ of Josephus: Two Aspects,” Phoenix, 47 (1993), 56–66. 24 This is the main topic of Agrippa’s speech at the beginning of the revolt (BJ II 345– 401). Cf. Josephus’ description of the Roman army in BJ III 70–109 – especially the concluding statement in BJ III 108: “[M]y intention was not so much to extol the Romans as to console those whom they have vanquished and to deter others who may be tempted to revolt.” 22

96

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

role.25 The challenge, then, was to present this role as not ambivalent at all: whatever Josephus did, he did right – even if he first did one thing, and later its exact opposite. And so, to begin with, just as Vespasian and Titus were the best generals in the greatest war ever fought in the annals of human history, so was Josephus. This he makes clear in many words and emphasizes numerous times.26 He claims that as long as he was convinced that the war he was fighting was a just war, he did his best to defend his country and people, and did it in the most sincere, professional and ingenious way. However, when the Almighty Himself revealed to him that the cause for which he had been fighting was erroneous and that the divine favor had shifted to the Roman side, Josephus decided that he was willing to pay any price to stick to this new revelation.27 The impression he wants to convey is that it would have been much easier for him to commit suicide at Yodfat with his soldiers, rather than to surrender to the Romans and to be considered a traitor to his people. But he did it resolutely since God chose him for this mission, and he was not to be deterred by the prospect of being seen as a coward and renegade.28 Once he committed himself to the mission, he faithfully carried it to the end. He dedicated his energies to trying to avert the tragedy which threatened his people and country, and did everything he could in order to dissuade the rebels from fighting for the wrong cause which was doomed from the beginning. Some scholars have emphasized the similarity of Josephus’ description of his behavior with the biblical image of Jeremiah, who on the eve of the destruction of the First Temple unsuccessfully exhorted the Judeans to desist from their rebellion against the Babylonians.29 Whether Josephus consciously modeled his depiction of himself on the biblical image of Jeremiah, is a question I will consider below. However, it is very difficult to deny that in BJ he presented himself as a faithful prophet of God, preaching words of doom to the obstinate, murderous, and blasphemous rebels, as well as holding out a promise of divine consolation and restoration to those who turn and repent.30  25

On another contemporary Jew with a “robust conscience,” see K. Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963), 199–215. 26 See the references and discussion in Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91–8. 27 BJ III 351–4; this passage is quoted above in the introduction, p. 21. 28 We know that he was considered such both by the Jews and the Romans. In Vita 416 the Roman soldiers demand ÁÇŠ½¼ÀÅļĸËÁ¸Ė¸ĤÌľÅÈÉÇ»Ŧ̾ÅÒÆÀÇŧÅÌÑÅ(see note 435 in D. R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus, Vita, 138). 29 D. Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JJS 31 (1980), 18–36. 30 On Josephus’ prophetic self-awareness and presentation, see R. Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford, 1993), 35–79. It should be noted, however, that Josephus neither applies the words “prophet” or

2.2. Judean War: Context, Features, and Aims

97

Although Josephus aimed at praising the Flavians and glorifying himself in BJ, he definitely had additional issues to handle. As I stated in the introduction, in my view, in his own eyes and in his own way he always remained a loyal Jew. But both he and a multitude of other Judeans of his time had fought against Rome. They were defeated, their country conquered, and their Temple destroyed; however a new day dawned, and both for them and for the Romans life had to go on. Explanations of this bloody episode in the history of their relationships had to be provided, and new ways of Roman-Jewish coexistence for the future had to be sought out. Moreover, and in some ways perhaps even more important, unless a Judean was prepared to conclude that the events proved that his God had been defeated or did not exist at all His role and place in this tragic story had to be plausibly figured out. Explanations of why the Jews who thought they fought for their allegedly divinely ordained cause failed, had to be provided, too.31 These are exactly the topics which Josephus set out to clarify in his work, and they are the most important for consideration in the context of the present study. Josephus’ explanation of why the Jews rebelled against the Romans is as simple as it is brilliant: the blame for the bloody conflict is squarely placed on the individual incompetent, insensitive and corrupt Roman procurators on the one hand, and on groups of tyrannical Jewish bandits, lunatics, and tyrants, who, he claims, had nothing really to do with “authentic” Judaism.32 This has been pointed in previous research.33 At the moment Josephus was writing BJ those incompetent and corrupt procurators were a thing of the past, and the deluded fanatics all perished in the revolt, bearing the just punishment they deserved. Most Jews, according to Josephus,

 “prophecy” to himself, nor uses it for any post-biblical figure, except John Hyrcanus. On this exceptional case, see in chapter 3, p. 203. 31 I do not share the pessimistic interpretation of Josephus’ program for Judaism in BJ offered in H. Eshel, “Josephus’ View on Judaism without the Temple in Light of the Discoveries at Masada and Murabba’at,” in B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Hrsg.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (Tübingen, 1999), 229–38. My view of Josephus’ goals and tendencies in BJ is similar to Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Stone, Jewish Writings, 195–210. 32 Josephus takes care to emphasize that Judas the Galilean, the founder of the “Fourth Philosophy” some sixty years before the Revolt, “was a sophist of his own peculiar school, which had nothing in common with the others” (BJ II 118). (Translation follows Mason, Judean War 2). The fratricidal and thoroughly “un-Judean” nature and conduct of the revolutionaries in BJ are discussed below. 33 See M. Hengel, The Zealots (Edinburgh, 1989), 76 ff.; Mason, Judean War 2, 83, n. 731.

98

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

were not culprits, but rather innocent victims in this conflict.34 They were drawn into the violent vortex of the revolt against their own will, and now, after the order has been restored, they could finally return to their peaceful and constructive lives. This is their only wish and their Judaism is legitimate and respectable; it has no inherent antagonism towards Rome or anybody else. Here we come to the most important point: apart from being a proRoman work and a personal and national apology, BJ is a book on Jewish theology, and its author – an important Jewish theologian, writing in a period crucial for Judaism. Unfortunately, these aspects of BJ and its author have often been overlooked;35 this I would like to correct. In my view, this is as obvious a fact as any can ever be, as I will try to demonstrate below. It seems absurd to me that some scholars have thought that Josephus was not concerned about “religious” questions and matters.36 A notable exception is Steve Mason, who writes:37 [N]othing could be clearer in Josephus’ history than his claim that Jerusalem fell not because of any foreign power but because a civil war provoked divine punishment: the Judean God’s purging of his own house to rid it of the pollution caused by ‘tyrants’ (BJ 1. 9–10). In this, the Romans were but useful pawns (cf. BJ 6. 409–13), accomplishing under divine manipulation what the nation’s leadership itself had been unable to do.38

Since this is a theological claim, together with Mason (and Attridge) I believe that Josephus was indeed interested in theological questions, and I am in turn interested in what can be known regarding Josephus’ religious outlooks and concerns on the basis of the analysis of BJ’s theological themes. So, the rest of this chapter is about Josephus’ “religious” views and concerns in BJ. 

34 See P. Bilde, “The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus,” JSJ 10 (1979), 179–202. 35 E.g., McLaren, Turbulent Times, 16: “Concern over possible theological motivation is not an issue in Josephus’ narrative.” 36 For an extreme judgment on Josephus’ religiosity in general, see A. Momigliano, “Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe non vide,” in Settimo Contributo alla Storia Degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome, 1984), 305–17; ET: “What Josephus Did Not See,” in idem, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Middletown, 1987), 108–19. 37 Mason, “Figured Speech and Irony,” 256; another one is Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 203–6. Cf. T. Rajak, “Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe Vide: Josephus and the Essenes,” in F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman World: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden, 1994), 141–60 (repr. in eadem, Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction [Leiden, 2001], 219–40). Most recently, see J. Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2012). 38 Emphasis in the original.

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

99

As has been stated at the beginning of this chapter, my analysis of Josephus’ theological outlook will concentrate on three main topics: his treatment of the Temple, cult, and high priesthood; the crimes of the revolutionaries; his knowledge of the biblical traditions and their transmission, as well as his treatment of the Judean Law. Since the Temple’s pollution and desecration are central both to Josephus’ understanding of the causes of the Judean fiasco, and to his representation of the revolutionaries’ sins, some overlapping between the first and the second topics is inevitable.

2. 3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War Anybody familiar with BJ will agree that the Temple, its cult and priests (especially, high priests) are at the center of Josephus’ narrative in this work. I will not attempt to catalogue all the passages which can illustrate this statement, but rather concentrate on the main Temple-cult-priests related themes, and discuss their centrality in Josephus’ view of Judean identity and religious life in BJ. If the seventh book of BJ is indeed a later addition to the book, as many specialists think it is – then the work begins and ends with the Temple.39 The narrative opens with the description of Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the Temple and abolishment of its cult,40 and closes with its destruction and the mention of the “Righteous King” (Melchizedek), who, according to a rather strange statement by Josephus to which we will return below, was the first to build it.41 The Temple looms large through the entire book, too.42 Its destruction is the apogee of the tragedy of the revolt,  39

On the date of BJ VII, see above. BJ I 31–32. The description of the Temple is also one of the main items in Josephus’ outline of his work in BJ I 25–26 (cf. BJ I 10). 41 BJ VI 435–442: Á¸ĖÌġĎ¼ÉġÅÈÉľÌÇË»¼ÀĊļÅÇË. 42 It is true that when Josephus speaks of “Judean philosophy,” he does not deal with the Temple cult, but rather with the “schools” of the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees (II 119–66). However, the apologetic dimensions of this passage have long been recognized, and discussed a number of times in previous scholarship. Josephus told his pagan listeners the stories of exotic Judean schools of thought they would be fascinated to hear. See, most recently, Mason, “Essenes and Lurking Spartans;” idem, Judean War 2, 84–95. Thus, although Josephus presents an admiring account of life and beliefs of the Essenes, he nowhere claims that he himself adhered to their beliefs. In a similar way, it has been convincingly demonstrated that he never was a Pharisee, but always remained an aristocratic priest (S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study [Leiden, 1991], 374). The meaning and content of what being a “priest” meant to him might have somewhat changed over time in various circumstances, and this problem is discussed in chapter 4 below. Cf. B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, 1992), 69–70: “The most important ‘sect’ of Judaism at the time was the one he [i.e., 40

100

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

and is prefigured as such throughout the narrative. In the introduction to BJ Josephus articulates his interpretation of the tragedy: I 9b In my reflections on the events I cannot conceal my private sentiments, nor refuse to give my personal sympathies scope to bewail my country’s misfortunes. 10a For … it owed its ruin to the civil strife (ÊÌŠÊÀËÇĊÁ¼ţ¸), and … it was the Jewish tyrants who drew down upon the holy temple the unwilling hands of the Romans and the conflagration.43

Josephus’ Temple-centered, priestly presentation of Judean history in BJ has been emphasized by B. Chilton. Thus, he notes that in the very first paragraphs of the work Josephus presents his priestly lineage as one of his main credentials for producing an account of the War, and then “quickly proceeds, by efficient, narrative means, to set out the claims of a priestly, national leadership.”44 Chilton offers an analysis of the priestly bias of Josephus’ BJ narrative, and suggests that he aimed to volunteer his candidature to the Romans as the best potential high priest.45 According to Josephus, the troubles began with the split between the high-priestly Oniads and the Tobiads, which lead to Antiochus’ interference with the Temple cult – this factionalism and its results, of course, prefigure the sad events of Josephus’ own day. The struggle for the restoration of the cult is led by the Hasmonean Mattathias, whose priestly identity is immediately pointed out.46 The highest point of the restoration is achieved under John Hyrcanus, who is said by Josephus to “unite in his person three of the highest privileges: the supreme command of the nation, the high priesthood, and the gift of prophecy.”47 Things begin to deteriorate with Aristobulus’ conversion of the rule into a monarchy, and Alexander Jannaeus’ tyrannical kingly conduct. Alexandra Salome’s excessive deference to the Pharisees is also frowned upon and criticized.48 When Pompey conquered Jerusalem and even entered the Temple, Josephus emphasizes that he admired the priestly work in the Temple, and took care that Temple services continue uninterrupted.49 Although Herod was not a priest, he at least respected and rebuilt the Temple  Josephus] belonged to and refused to discuss openly, the movement of priestly aristocracy, hierarchy in the strict sense of the term.” 43 It should be noticed that the Law is never mentioned in the introduction to BJ. The introduction to AJ, however, is mostly about the Law and the Lawgiver Moses; the Temple is not mentioned once. 44 Chilton, The Temple of Jesus, 70. 45 Ibid., 77. This idea has been supported by other scholars, and the present author also subscribes to it to a certain degree; see chapter 3, pp. 138–9, and Summary, pp. 285–6. 46 Ibid., 70; BJ I 36. 47 Ibid., 71; BJ I 68; translation follows H. St. J. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus. The Jewish War, Books I–III (LCL; Cambridge, MA, 1927, frequently reprinted). 48 Less in BJ, than in AJ. For the analysis, see chapter 3. 49 On this passage, see more below, both in this chapter and in chapter 3.

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

101

and recognized the inevitability of Judaeo-Roman symbiosis.50 Chilton’s view of Josephus’ understanding of how things should be in Judea is summarized thus: “Joseph’s narrative and political logic is that Rome should rule, while Jerusalem is permitted to worship.”51 It does, indeed, seem to reflect very well Josephus’ view of the ideal situation at the time of writing BJ. So, in my view, it is entirely non-surprising that the revolt against Rome, according to Josephus, begins with the resurgence of Judean factionalism in the Temple, and is marked by the decision not to accept any sacrifice or gift from a foreigner by the captain of the Temple Eleazar son of Ananias. Effectually, this meant that the practice of the customary sacrifice on behalf of the Emperor was stopped.52 According to Josephus, this move was opposed by the principal citizens, the chief priests, and the most notable Pharisees,53 although they did not manage to revoke the decision. Thus, the revolt began in the Temple, and the first act of defiance was a cultic one. Beginning from this incident, one could say that Josephus strove to emphasize that the Temple was the scene of most of the future fateful events. Thus, the violent deaths of its chief ministers, which occurred long before the destruction of the Temple, were a catastrophe of cosmic proportions, a point of no return for the nation. This is how Josephus describes what happened after the Idumaeans murdered the high priests Ananus and Jesus:54 IV 318 I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, responsible for their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem. 55 … 323 But it was, I suppose, because God had, for its pollutions, condemned the city to destruction and desired to purge the sanctuary by fire, that He thus cut off those who clung to them with such tender affection. 324 So they who but lately had worn the sacred vestments, led the cosmic worship and been rever-

 50

Chilton, The Temple of Jesus, 71. Ibid., 71. 52 BJ II 408–21. 53 BJ II 411. 54 On Josephus’ attitude to the Idumaeans, see A. Appelbaum, “‘The Idumaeans’ in Josephus’ The Jewish War,” JSJ 40 (2009), 1–22. For Josephus, Herod was “an Idumaean, that is, a half-Jew (÷ÄÀÀÇÍ»¸ţĿ)” (AJ XIV 403). 55 Italics mine. ÇĤÁÔÅÖÄŠÉÌÇÀÄÀ»Џ¼ĊÈĽÅÖÂŪʼÑËÓÉƸÀÌĉÈŦ¼ÀÌġÅÅŠÅÇÍ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅբ Á¸ĖÒÈЏëÁ¼ţžËÌýË÷ĚɸËÒŸÌɸÈýŸÀÌġ̼ėÏÇËÁ¸Ė»À¸Î¿¸ÉýŸÀÌÛÈÉŠºÄ¸Ì¸`ÇÍ»¸ţÇÀËբ ëÅ Ć ÌġÅ ÒÉÏÀ¼Éš¸ Á¸Ė ÷º¼ÄŦŸ ÌýË Ċ»ţ¸Ë ÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈĖ ĚʾË ÌýË ÈŦ¼ÑË ¼č»ÇÅ ÒȼÊθºÄšÅÇÅե 51

102

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

enced by visitors to the city from every quarter of the earth,56 were now seen cast out naked, to be devoured by dogs and beasts of prey. 325 Virtue herself, I think, groaned for these men’s fate, bewailing such utter defeat at the hands of vice.57

So, the high priest was in charge of the Jewish salvation, and the worship he performed was one of cosmic nature and proportions; once he was dead there was no hope left for the nation. Josephus states clearly that had Ananus not been murdered, he would have either come to terms with the Romans, or conducted the war skillfully, thus seriously retarding the Roman victory.58 With his death ÊÌŠÊÀË and chaos reigned triumphant. That Josephus indeed perceived the Temple cult as possessing cosmic character and significance is confirmed by several other passages, among which his description of the Temple building and its appurtenances is the most eloquent: V 212 Before [the Temple doors] hung a veil of equal length, of Babylonian tapestry, with embroidery of blue and fine linen, of scarlet also and purple, wrought with marvelous skill. Nor was this mixture of materials without its mystic meaning: it typified the universe.59 213 For the scarlet seemed emblematical of fire, the fine linen of the earth, the blue of the air, and the purple of the sea; the comparison in two cases being suggested by their colour, and in that of the fine linen and purple by their origin, as the one is produced by the earth and the other by the sea. 214 On this tapestry was portrayed a panorama of the heavens, the signs of the Zodiac excepted… 217 The seven lamps (such being the number of branches from the lampstand) represented the planets; the loaves on the table, twelve in number, the circle of the Zodiac and the year; 218 while the altar of incense, by the thirteen fragrant spices from the sea and from land, both desert and inhabited, with which it was replenished, signified that all things are of God and for God.60



56 The world-wide Gentile reverence for the Temple is also a prominent topic of BJ, as has been noticed by Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 27, who also lists the relevant passages in n. 16. 57 BJ IV 314–8; 323–5. Translation follows Thackeray, with emendations. ÒŬ Џ ÇčĸÀ Á¸Ì¸ÁÉţŸËĝ¿¼ġËĸËļÄÀ¸ÊĚžËÌýËÈŦ¼ÑËÒÈŪ¼À¸ÅÁ¸ĖÈÍÉĖ¹ÇÍÂŦļÅÇËëÁÁ¸¿¸É¿ýŸÀ ÌÛ ׺À¸ ÌÇİË ÒÅ̼ÏÇÄšÅÇÍË ¸ĤÌľÅ Á¸Ė ÎÀÂÇÊÌÇɺÇıÅ̸Ë ȼÉÀšÁÇÈ̼Åե ÇĎ »ò ÈÉġ ĚÂţºÇÍ ÌüÅ Ď¼ÉÛÅëÊ¿ý̸ȼÉÀÁ¼ţļÅÇÀÁ¸ĖÌýËÁÇÊÄÀÁý˿ɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ËÁ¸ÌŠÉÏÇÅ̼ËÈÉÇÊÁÍÅÇŧļÅÇţ̼ÌÇėË ëÁÌýËÇĊÁÇÍĚžËȸɸ¹ŠÂÂÇÍÊÀżĊËÌüÅÈŦÂÀÅբëÉÉÀÄÄšÅÇÀºÍÄÅÇĖ¹ÇÉÛÁÍÅľÅÁ¸Ė¿¾ÉţÑÅ ë¹ÂšÈÇÅÌÇե 58 BJ IV 320–1. I will deal with a vastly different presentation of Ananus in AJ in chapter 3 below. C. Thoma, “The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus,” in L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History (Leiden, 1989), 196–215, also attempts to analyze the differences. On Ananus in general, see J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis, 2004), 476–82. 59 ÇĤÁÒ¿¼ŪɾÌÇÅ»òÌýËĩ¾ËÌüÅÁÉÜÊÀÅìÏÑÅբÒŬ ЏĹÊȼɼĊÁŦŸÌľÅĞÃÑÅե 60 Cf. BJ V 231 on the symbolism of the high priest’s bells and pomegranates. Josephus returns to the cosmic meaning of the Tabernacle, Judean cult, and high-priestly attire in AJ III 179–87. Part of this passage is quoted in chapter 3, p. 164.

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

103

According to Josephus in BJ, the sacrificial Temple cult was the axis of Judean worship and piety, and the devotion of the priests to its meticulous observance and readiness to die on their cultic duty were both a source of pride for the Jews and the cause of admiration for the Gentiles. In the passage describing the capture of the Temple by Pompey in 63 B.C.E., Josephus emphasizes that I 148 While the Romans were undergoing these severe hardships, Pompey was filled with admiration for the invariable fortitude of the Jews, and in particular for the way in which they carried on their religious services uncurtailed, though enveloped in a hail of missiles. Just as if the city had been wrapt in profound peace, the daily sacrifices, the expiations and all the ceremonies of worship were scrupulously performed to the honour of God. At the very hour when the temple was taken, when they were being massacred about the altar, they never desisted from the religious rites for the day61 … 150 Then it was that many of the priests, seeing the enemy advancing sword in hand, calmly continued their sacred ministrations, and were butchered in the act of pouring libations and burning incense; putting the worship of the Deity above their own preservation.62

Both this passage and the parallel one in AJ are of crucial importance for this study. When Josephus repeated the same story some twenty years later, he reproduced the account quite closely. However, instead of concentrating on the sacrificial cult, he transferred his accent onto the observance of the commandments of the Torah by the priests. I compare the two passages in the next chapter, and analyze them in the context of other similar Josephan adaptations of his sources or of his own earlier version of the events. It should be noticed that a similar picture emerges when one compares the parallel accounts of the martyrdom of the “sophists” Judas and Matthias, who incited the pious youths to chop down the golden eagle which Herod placed over the gate of the Temple. While both the Temple and the ancestral laws are prominent and worth dying for in BJ, only the laws remain in AJ.63 In BJ I 650 Josephus explains the motivation behind the act of cutting down the eagle by saying that, “It was, in fact, not allowed (Ò¿šÄÀÌÇÅ)64 to place in the temple either images or busts or any representation whatsoever of a living creature…” In AJ XVII 151 the explanation is much more sophisticated, to the point of being almost philosophical: “Now 

ĝ ÇÄÈŢÀÇË ÌŠ ̼ Ó¸ ÌýË Á¸É̼Éţ¸Ë ÌÇİË `ÇÍ»¸ţÇÍË Òȼ¿¸ŧĸ½¼Å Á¸Ė ÄŠÂÀÊ̸ ÌÇı ľ»òÅ ȸɸÂıʸÀդ ÌýË ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë ëÅ ÄšÊÇÀË ÌÇėË ¹šÂ¼ÊÀÅ ÒżÀ¾ĚÅÇÍËդ ĹÊȼÉ ºÛÉ ¼ĊÉŢžË ¹¸¿¼ţ¸ËÁ¸Ì¼ÏÇŧʾËÌüÅÈŦÂÀŸď̼¿ÍÊţ¸ÀÁ¸¿Џ÷ĚɸÅÁ¸ĖÇĎ럺ÀÊÄÇĖÁ¸ĖÈÜʸ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ Á¸ÌÛ ÌÒÁÉÀ¹òË ëƼ̼¼ėÌÇ ÌŊ ¿¼Ŋբ Á¸Ė ÇĤ»ò Á¸ÌЏ ¸ĤÌüÅ ÌüÅ ×ÂÑÊÀÅ ȼÉĖ ÌŊ ¹ÑÄŊ ÎÇżÍŦļÅÇÀÌľÅÁ¸¿Џ÷ĚɸÅÅÇÄţÄÑżĊËÌüſɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ÅÒÈšÊ̾ʸÅե 62 Ò¿ÇÉŧ¹ÑË ëÈĖ Ìý˿ɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ËìļÀŸÅբ ÊȚŻÇÅ̼Ë »ò ÒȼÊΊÌÌÇÅÌÇ Á¸Ė ¿ÍÄÀľÅ̼Ë Á¸Ė ÌýËÈÉġËÌġ¿¼ėÇÅ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ËëÅ»¼ÍÌšÉĿÌüÅÊÑ̾Éţ¸ÅÌÀ¿šÄ¼ÅÇÀե 63 Cf. also BJ II 6 with AJ XVII 206. 64 Thackeray translates “unlawful,” but “not allowed” is more precise. 61

104

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

Herod had set about doing certain things that were contrary to the Law …, although the Law forbids those who deliberately choose to live in accordance with it to think of setting images or to make dedications of (likenesses of) any living creatures.”65 Thus, on the one hand, the cultic and the territorial aspects prominent in BJ are gone from the account in AJ, and, on the other hand, the Law comes in.66 In the sequel to the story, speaking of the demands voiced by the people before Archelaus after Herod’s death, in BJ II 7 Josephus says that they asked to replace the current high priest with another, who would be “more pious and pure (¼Ĥʼ¹šÊ̼ÉÇÅ զ Á¸Ė Á¸¿¸ÉŪ̼ÉÇÅ),” without explaining what would be the content of this ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸. However, in AJ XVII 207, he is explicit: the crowd demanded a high priest who would be more Lawkeeping and at the same time pure (ÅÇÄÀÄŪ̼ÉŦÅ̼×ĸÁ¸ĖÁ¸¿¸ÉŦÅ). Throughout the narrative in BJ, Josephus makes it clear many times that, in his understanding, the Temple had indeed been the House of God, and that the Divinity had really been dwelling there. Therefore it is not surprising that the question of where God was in the course of the revolt and after the Temple’s destruction was of utmost urgency to him. He returned to this dilemma so many times that it is clear that it greatly bothered him, and one could even say that it almost amounted to an obsession. Both because of these passages and the Temple-centeredness of the biblical traditions in BJ, which will be analyzed below, it seems clear that Josephus’ view that the Temple was literally God’s house on earth was among his central inherited religious convictions. Thus, in one of his speeches to the rebels he even implied that sacrifices were God’s food: VI 99 At this Josephus cried aloud: “Pure indeed have you kept it [i.e., the city] for God! The Holy Place too remains undefiled! Your looked-for Ally (ÊŧÄĸÏÇÅ) has suffered no impiety from you and still receives His customary sacrifices! 100 Most impious wretch, should anyone deprive you of your daily food (ÌüÅÁ¸¿Џ÷ĚɸÅÌÉÇÎŢÅ), you would consider him an enemy; and do you hope to have God, whom you have bereft of His everlasting worship (Ìý˸ĊÑÅţÇͿɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ËëÊ̚ɾʸË), for your Ally in this war?67



ÁÑÂŧ¼À »ò ĝ ÅŦÄÇË ¼ĊÁŦÅÑÅ ̼ ÒŸÊ̊ʼÀË ëÈÀÅǼėÅ Á¸ţ ÌÀÅÑÅ ½ňÑÅ ÒŸ¿šÊ¼ÀË ëÈÀ̾»¼ŧ¼Ê¿¸ÀÌÇė˹ÀÇıÅÁ¸ÌЏ¸ĤÌġÅÈÉÇþɾĚÅÇÀËե 66 For the discussion of Ò¿šÄÀÌÇË, see below. For the analysis of this passage in the context of Josephus’ becoming a Diaspora Jew, see D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” in C. Böttrich und J. Herzer (Hrsg.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tübingen, 2007), 139–42. 67 Josephus claims that it is the Romans who tried to force the rebels to restore the sacrifices they interrupted, BJ VI 102. In BJ VI 95 Titus called upon John of Gischala to “no longer pollute the Holy Place nor sin against God” (it is not explained what was meant by this last statement). He also permitted him resume performing “the interrupted sacrifices.” 65

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

105

Josephus was vexed by the questions of God’s presence in the Temple and the status of the latter as His chosen dwelling since the reality seemed to contradict his inherited convictions, and for this reason he was forced to return to the issue of God’s presence again and again, trying to resolve it satisfactorily. Josephus attempted to defuse the tension by claiming that the Temple had been polluted and rendered unfit for God by the rebels, and that God, who could no longer endure these crimes and pollutions, left His house, went over to the Roman side, and fought against the Jews.68 When, at an early stage of the Revolt the Roman governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, decided to discontinue the siege of Jerusalem, and left the city when it seemed that it was on the verge of capture, Josephus reflects: “Had he but persisted for a while with the siege, he would have forthwith taken the city; but God, I suppose, because of those miscreants, had already turned away even from the holy things (ÌÛ׺À¸) and ordained that that day should not see the end of the war.”69 Thus, it is God Himself who brought the Romans to destroy the Temple by fire, in this way purifying it. In an impassioned reflection over the fate of the Temple Josephus laments: V18 The dead bodies of natives and aliens, of priests and laity, were mingled in a mass, and the blood of all manner of corpses formed pools in the courts of God. 19 What misery to equal that, most wretched city, hast thou suffered at the hands of the Romans, who entered to purge with fire thy internal pollutions? For thou wert no longer God’s place (¿¼Çı ÄòÅ ºÛÉ Çĥ̼ öË ìÌÀ ÏľÉÇË), nor couldest thou survive, after becoming a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own children and converting the sanctuary (ÌġÅŸŦÅ) into a charnel-house of civil war. Yet might there be hopes for an amelioration of thy lot, if ever thou wouldst propitiate (ëÆÀŠÊþ) that God who devastated thee!

In another place Josephus begins to summarize his speech to the besieged rebels with the following words: V 412 My belief, therefore, is that the Deity has fled from the holy places and taken His stand on the side of those with whom you are now at war. 70 413 Nay, an honourable man will fly from a wanton house and abhor its inmates, and can you persuade yourselves that God still remains with his household in their iniquity – God who sees every secret thing and hears what is buried in silence? 414 And what is there veiled in silence or secrecy among you? Nay, what has not been exposed even to your foes? For you parade your enormities and daily contend who shall be the worst, making an exhibition of vice as though it were virtue. 415 Yet a way of salvation is still left you, if you will; and the Deity is easily reconciled to such as confess and repent.

 68

Josephus several times emphasizes that the Romans were divinely assisted in their war against the Jews, and that the latter, because of their sins, were supernaturally deluded. E.g., BJ II 457; V 343; 368; VI 39–42; 288 ff.; 409–13. 69 BJ II 539. 70 ĹÊ̼ëºĽȼμͺšÅ¸ÀÄòÅëÁÌľÅÖºţÑÅÇčĸÀÌġ¿¼ėÇÅբîÊ̊ŸÀ»òÈ¸ÉЏÇđËÈǼļė̼ ÅıÅե

106

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

He returns to this idea time and over again: the Temple has been defiled by the blood of innocent victims, God has forsaken it, and it is in need of fiery purification: “And is not the city, aye and the whole temple, filled with pollutions? God it is then, God Himself, who with the Romans is bringing fire to purge His temple and exterminating a city so laden with pollutions.”71 On the lips of the high priest Ananus, whose murder was mentioned above, Josephus puts the following statement: “Truly well had it been for me to have died ere I had seen the house of God laden with such abominations and its unapproachable and hallowed places crowded with the feet of murderers!”72 Josephus’ Ananus makes it clear that after having trampled the Temple, nothing greater remained for the rebels to overthrow. 73 He exhorts the people to “sacrifice our lives if not for wives and children, then for God and the Sanctuary (ĨÈòÉÌÇı¿¼ÇıÁ¸ĖÌľÅÖºţÑÅÈÉǚʿ¸À).”74 The theme of dying a martyr’s death for the Law, so prominent in Josephus’ later writings,75 is not on this list, and “dying for God and the Sanctuary” sounds almost like a hendiadys. In Josephus’ presentation, it was the Judean revolutionaries themselves who necessitated the destruction of the Temple, not the Romans at all. Describing them as the dregs of society and bastard scum, Josephus says: V 444 It was they who overthrew the city, and compelled the reluctant Romans to register so melancholy a triumph, and all but attracted to the temple the tardy flames. 445 Verily, when from the upper town they beheld it burning, they neither grieved nor shed a tear, though in the Roman ranks these signs of emotion were detected.

Josephus returns to the rebels’ responsibility for the destruction of the Temple many times. Thus, Titus is made to say to the Jews that “[a]ll offers you scorned and with your own hands set fire to the temple.”76 In another place, Josephus makes him upbraid John and his followers by asking them how dare they “defile your temple with the blood of foreigner and native” and calling upon 

71 BJ VI 110: ¿¼ġË ¸ĤÌġË ëÈŠº¼À ļÌÛ tÑĸţÑÅ ÁŠ¿¸ÉÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌŊ ÈıÉ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ÌÇÊÇŧÌÑÅ ÄÀ¸ÊÄŠÌÑźšÄÇÍʸÅÈŦÂÀÅÒŸÉÈŠ½¼Àե 72 BJ IV 163. 73 BJ IV 172. 74 BJ IV 191. 75 On this motif in Josephus, see chapter 3 below; esp. the discussion of the rewriting of 1 Macc 2:7–13 in AJ XII 267 (pp. 195–6). On the exaltation of martyrdom for the Law in Diaspora literature, see chapter 1 above (pp. 55–9). Cf. D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in A. Oppenheimer (Hrsg.), Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schürer (Munich, 1999), 29–40. 76 BJ VI 346.

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

107

VI 127 the gods of [his] fathers to witness and any deity that once watched over this place – for now I believe that there is none – I call my army, the Jews within my lines, and you yourselves to witness that it is not I who force you to pollute these precincts. 128 Exchange the arena of conflict for another and not a Roman shall approach or insult your holy places (ÌÇėËÖºţÇÀË); nay, I will preserve the temple for you, even against your will.

The Roman soldiers join Titus in their indignation “against the Jews … for profaning their own sacred places.” Josephus goes so far as to claim that “[o]f the soldiers, indeed, there was not one who did not regard the temple with reverence and pray that the brigands might relent ere it met with irretrievable calamity.” 77 Roman respect for the Temple is a prominent topic in Josephus’ narrative, and he returns to it time and again: he presents himself as imploring the rebels to spare their country and Temple, asking them “not to display towards them greater indifference than was shown by aliens [i.e., the Romans].”78 When Titus learns of the terrible deed of Mary, daughter of Eleazar, who roasted and ate her own child (which is incidentally described as “sacrifice,” BJ VI 211), he accuses the Jews of “having been the first to set fire with their own hands to the temple which he and his army were preserving for them.”79 Josephus even claims that Titus’ “paramount object had been to preserve the city for himself and the temple for the city.”80 It seems most likely that both Josephus and the besieged rebels basically shared the same theology concerning the Temple as God’s house, with the only difference that Josephus claimed that at a certain point God had abandoned it.81 In response to Titus’ call to surrender, the rebels express their staunch hope that the V 458b men so soon, as he himself said, to perish, were unconcerned for their native place, and that the world was a better temple for God than this one (Á¸Ė ŸÇı ÒļţÅÑ ÌÇŧÌÇÍÌŊ¿¼ŊÌġÅÁŦÊÄÇżčŸÀ). 459 But, they added, it would yet be saved by Him who dwelt therein (ĨÈġ ÌÇı Á¸ÌÇÀÁÇıÅÌÇË), and while they had Him for their ally (ÊŧÄĸÏÇÅ) they would deride all menaces unsupported by action; for the issue rested with God. 82

 77

BJ VI 122–3. BJ V 362. 79 BJ VI 216. 80 BJ V 334. 81 Michel and Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, II/1:264–5, n. 150 state that Josephus deliberately emphasized the centrality of the Temple in his speech (BJ V 375-93; discussed below), because it was the main tenet of the Zealot’s theology. I would rather suggest that both Josephus and the Zealots shared the same outlook. 82 Cf. BJ VI 96–8, where in response to Josephus’ plea to “spare the country, to disperse the flames that were already licking the sanctuary and to restore to God the expiatory sacrifices,” John of Gischala retorts by saying that “he ‘could never fear capture, since the city was God’s’ (¿¼ÇıºÛÉĨÈŠÉϼÀÅÌüÅÈŦÂÀÅ).” 78

108

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

This passage was discussed by H. W. Attridge in the context of his analysis of Josephus’ treatment of the topic of providence in AJ. This scholar suggested that the prominence of the doctrine of providence in AJ stemmed from Josephus’ continued reflection on the destruction of Jerusalem and his criticism of the Zealots’ theology, which held that “God, as the ally (ÊŧÄĸÏÇË) of his people, would intervene to save those faithful to Him.” After mentioning BJ VI 99–101, in which Josephus asks the rebels how God could still remain their ÊŧÄĸÏÇË after they deprived Him of His ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸, Attridge summarizes the difference between Josephus’ understanding of what makes God Israel’s ally in BJ as compared to AJ: Thus the thrust of the Bellum is to reject the position that the God of the covenant would be the unconditional ally of the Jews. The general structure of this opposition to a presumption which seems to ignore God’s justice remains the same in Antiquities. God does act as an ally, according to the biblical paraphrase, but only for those who are worthy. The major difference in the positions of the two works is the basis on which aid is given. In the Bellum it is adherence to and the maintenance of the temple cult. In the Antiquities it is virtue, which is epitomized in piety, but which is more inclusive.83

As I will try to demonstrate in chapter 3, Josephus indeed put much emphasis on virtue in that later work. And the main way to achieve virtue, as Josephus says so many times and in so many words in AJ, is to observe God’s Law. In a passage describing various omens foreshadowing the destruction of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, Josephus locates most of them in the Temple: thus, a brilliant light shone around the altar and the sanctuary (ÎľË ȼÉÀšÂ¸Äм ÌġÅ ¹ÑÄġÅ Á¸Ė ÌġÅ ŸŦÅ), a sacrificial cow unexpectedly gave birth to a lamb in the midst of the Temple (ëÅÌŊĎ¼ÉŊÄšÊĿ), and the huge Temple gate miraculously opened by itself.84 A “rude peasant” named Jesus son of Ananias began to preach in the Temple concerning its impending doom, and continued to do it for seven years and five months, until he was spectacularly struck dead by a Roman ballista stone. His last words were “Woe once more to the city and to the people and temple … and woe to me also.”85 But the most ominous, although somewhat strange in the context of Judean monotheism, was the following episode: VI 299 [A]t the feast which is called Pentecost, the priests on entering the inner court of the temple by night, as their custom was in the discharge of their ministrations, reported that they were conscious, first of a commotion and a din, and after that of a voice as of a host, “We are departing hence” (ļÌÛ»ò̸ı̸ÎÑÅýËÒ¿ÉŦ¸Ëնļ̸¹¸ţÅÇļÅëÅ̼ı¿¼Åո).

 83

H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, 1976), 150–1, emphasis mine. 84 BJ VI 288–99. 85 BJ VI 300–9.

2.3. Temple, Cult, and High Priesthood in the Judean War

109

In yet another passage, Josephus refers to a tradition, according to which “there was an ancient saying of inspired men that the city would be taken and the sanctuary burnt to the ground by right of war, whensoever it should be visited by sedition and native hands should be the first to defile God’s sacred precincts.”86 Another tradition mentioned by him predicted that the city and the sanctuary would be captured by the enemy when the Temple became square (Ìġ Ď¼ÉġÅ ºšÅ¾Ì¸À ̼ÌÉŠºÑÅÇÅ), which he claims to have happened after the demolition of the Antonia fortress.87 It is not surprising that, according to Josephus, on the very eve of its capture, the Temple continued to serve as the religious rallying-point for the rebels and their spiritual leaders: until the very end the besieged inclined to believe that God would indeed save the Temple and the people from destruction: a false prophet deluded them by ostensibly prophetic words to go up to the Temple court in order to witness ÌÛʾļė¸ÌýËÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë, and many other charismatics encouraged the people to still wait for God’s help.88 For some of the besieged, with the burning of the Temple, nothing there remained to live for. Thus, according to Josephus, two of the distinguished priests named Meirus, son of Belgas and Josephus, son of Dalaeus, “plunged themselves into the fire and were consumed with the temple.”89 Titus seems to have shared their sentiments when he decided on the fate of some priests, who surrendered to him after the destruction of the Temple: “But he told them that the time for pardon had for them gone by, that the one thing for whose sake he might with propriety have spared them was gone, and that it behoved priests to perish with their temple (ÈɚȼÀÅ »ò ÌÇėËĎ¼É¼ıÊÀÌŊŸŊÊÍŸÈÇšʿ¸À), and so ordered their execution.”90 Reflecting in retrospect on the tragic fate of the Temple, Josephus consistently attempted to rationalize the situation by justifying God and assembling “evidence” that would make his case stronger and more convincing: VI 267 Deeply as one must mourn for the most marvelous edifice which we have ever seen or heard of, whether we consider its structure, its magnitude, the richness of every detail, or the reputation of its Holy Places, yet may we draw very great consolation from the thought that there is no escape from Fate (ÌüżĎĸÉĚžÅ), for works of art and places any more than for living beings. 268 And one may marvel at the exactness of the cycle of Destiny (ÌýËȼÉÀŦ»ÇÍÌüÅÒÁÉţ¹¼À¸Å); for, as I said, she waited until the very month and the very day on which in bygone times the temple had been burnt by the Babylonians.

 86

BJ IV 388. On this, and the next tradition, see more below in this chapter (p. 126). BJ VI 311. 88 BJ VI 285–6. 89 BJ VI 280. 90 BJ VI 321–2. 87

110

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

On the basis of the preceding survey and analysis, it seems clear, that at the time of writing BJ, Josephus considered the Temple to be the locus of God’s presence among His people, and for this reason its destruction generated a thorough and rather painful reflection on his part. The high priests had been in charge of the cosmic worship, and their murder by the rebels was a point of no-return in the tragic history of the revolt. Josephus resolved the theological dilemmas generated by the downfall of the Temple, its cult and its ministers by claiming that because of the sins of the rebels and the pollution of the Temple, God no longer considered it to be His house, abandoned it, and crossed over to the Roman side. The Romans, in contrast to the Zealots, revered the Temple, admired its cult, and did all they could in order to preserve them. Appropriately, the Temple was the locus of most of the sinister omens, as well as the focus of prophetic traditions, prefiguring the destruction of the city. And, as we shall now see, it was with respect to the Temple that Josephus described the evil deeds which caused God to forsake His house and fight against His own people.

2. 4. Revolutionaries’ Sins Josephus’ criticism of the revolutionaries’ crimes in BJ has been discussed a number of times in previous research.91 As has been pointed out above, in the context of his attempt to clear the Jewish people as a whole of the responsibility for the rebellion, he consistently strove to put the blame squarely on a handful of bandits and rebel tyrants, who eventually all perished in the revolt. Their crimes are among the most frequently recurring themes in the narrative of BJ IV–VI. However, it is interesting to note that while their pollution of the Temple is mentioned many times and considered to be one of their gravest trespasses, the list of their sins hardly, if at all, includes any transgressions of particular Jewish commandments or customs. Most of them are universal crimes against humanity – such as murder, bloodshed, violence, robbery, injustice, sexual perversions and such like. Even the pollution of the Temple is conceived in general universal terms, and has nothing to do with the rules of Jewish ritual purity: the revolutionaries polluted it by unjustly shedding the blood of their compatriots and other evil deeds. S. J. D. Cohen summarizes Josephus’ treatment of the rebels’ sins thus:



91 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome; Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society; Mader, Josephus and the Politics of Historiography; M. A. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (Atlanta, 2009).

2.4. Revolutionaries’ Sins

111

BJ 4–6 frequently accuses the revolutionaries of lawless behavior (ȸɸÅÇÄţ¸) and impiety (ÒÊš¹¼À¸). Which particular crimes are intended by these words? Some of the accusations are general condemnations, but some have contexts specific enough to show that the crimes are of two sorts: capital crimes, notably murder…, and interference with the temple cult... The laws which the brigands violate and the Romans defend are the universal norms of society and cult. No reference here to Jewish Halachah, e.g. the laws of purity, food taboos, festivals, prayer, etc. The two crimes are combined when Josephus charges the revolutionaries with polluting the temple… The temple is defiled not by a violation of Halachah (ritual impurity) but by a violation of universally held principles (the crimes of murder, etc.).92

T. Rajak adds the “contravention of the Jewish dietary laws” to this list,93 but this probably refers to BJ VII 264, and as Cohen aptly notes, “[t]his Halachic formulation of the crimes of the revolutionaries is not found in BJ 4–6 but typifies the attitude of AJ.”94 As I mentioned above, BJ VII was probably composed later than the rest of the work; for Cohen, the appearance of halakhah in the last book of BJ is actually one of the main reasons why he would date it later than the rest of the work.95 The absence of any criticism of transgressions of the specifically halakhic norms is all the more prominent in the light of the fact that the Jewish polemical literature of this period is full of it. This kind of criticism is ubiquitous in the late biblical literature, in the Enochic corpus and other apocalypses, in the book of Jubilees, in the Qumran scrolls, in the Books of Maccabees, in the Gospels, and in slightly later tannaitic literature. It could, of course, be objected that those corpora were intended for more or less internal Jewish (or, in the case of the Gospels, quasi-Jewish) consumption, and dealt with “religious” matters throughout, while BJ was written mainly with a pagan audience in mind, and was basically a work of “secular” historiography. However, the fact that in his latter historiographical and apologetic compositions, which were also mainly written for Gentiles, Josephus did not hesitate to deal with halakhic issues seems to contradict this supposition. As far as its intended audience is concerned, it is quite clear that it included Jews as well as Romans, so there was intrinsically no a priori reason to shun halakhic issues. It seems that the main reason why Josephus did not criticize the rebels on halakhic grounds is that in distinction from his approach in the later writings, in BJ he did not regularly employ meticulous Torah-observance as a criterion of right or wrong

 92

Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 87–8. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 81. On the Temple, cf. ibid., p. 94. 94 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 88. 95 Ibid., 87–9. 93

112

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

behavior, as can be clearly seen, for example, from his treatment of Herod in BJ as compared to AJ.96 In a curious passage dealing with the Zealots’ crimes, along with claiming that “the murder of men and the violation of women were their sport,” Josephus accuses them of perverse sexual practices, insinuating that they indulged in pederasty: IV 561 [F]rom mere satiety [they] unscrupulously indulged in effeminate practices, plaiting their hair and attiring themselves in women’s apparel, drenching themselves with perfumes and painting their eyelids to enhance their beauty. 562 And not only did they imitate the dress, but also the passions of women, devising in their excess of lasciviousness improper (Ò¿¼ÄţÌÇÍË) pleasures and wallowing as in a brothel in the city, which they polluted from end to end with their foul deeds.97

Had Josephus wanted to say that the Zealots were transgressors by the criterion of the Judean Law, he could have easily done it – since the Law prohibits the practices described above.98 However, he chose to describe their deeds as Ò¿šÄÀÌÇÀ, that is, by a term which “refers prim[arily] not to what is forbidden by ordinance but to violation of tradition or common recognition of what is seemly or proper.”99 This term was already mentioned once in the above discussion of the golden eagle affair. By way of reminder, there Josephus stated that it was “not seemly [or proper] to place in the temple either images or busts etc.,”100 but in the parallel passage in AJ he twice emphasized that Herod’s act contravened the (Jewish) Law, which forbids those who deliberately choose to live by it to do such things.101 As far as Josephus’ terminology in BJ as compared to AJ is concerned, his usage follows a clear pattern: in BJ he often describes transgressions by  96

I will compare Josephus treatment of Herod in these two compositions in chapter 3. Cf. ibid., 236 on AJ as compared to BJ: “Herod is condemned for his crimes, notably his violations of religious law.” In BJ II 456, describing the treacherous massacre of the Roman garrison by the Jewish rebels, Josephus says: “For it happened, indeed, that the slaughter was committed on a sabbath, on which [day], for the sake of worship (»ÀÛÌüÅ ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Å), they observe a moratorium even on holy activities” (translation follows Mason, Judean War 2). Notice that Josephus does not here say “because of the Law,” but “for the sake of worship” (which is indeed likely to be the meaning of ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸ here). 97 I emended “unlawful” to “improper.” 98 E.g., Deut 22:5. 99 F. W. Danker (rev. and ed.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3 rd ed.; based on W. Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlischen Literatur, 6 th ed.; Chicago, 2000), 24. 100 BJ I 650. 101 AJ XVII 151.

2.4. Revolutionaries’ Sins

113

the word Ò¿šÄÀÌÇÀ,102 a term which never appears in AJ.103 In other words, it seems that Josephus the new immigrant from Judea who wrote BJ knew well which things were improper or unseemly, since this is the way things were done or were not done in Judea, and he did not feel a need to base his judgments on the fact that certain things were wrong since the Law-book forbade them. However, by the time he wrote AJ, he had spent a long time in a foreign land, where many things that were unseemly or improper for Judeans were perfectly fine for other people. The only reason they were wrong at all – for the Jews – was because they contravened the Jewish Law, which, as he said in AJ, they “deliberately chose” to observe.104 So, it is apparent that at the time of writing BJ, the fine points of Judean halakhah did not score high on Josephus’ scale of what was right and wrong. However, pollution of the Temple and interference with its cult certainly did. One could claim that these latter outweighed, or at least were as heavy a crime as all the other sins taken together. As I emphasized above, Josephus claimed that it was precisely because of the rebels’ sins which polluted the Temple, that God had forsaken His house and gone over to the Roman side. In other words, they were the main reason for the catastrophe suffered by the Judeans. In his passionate speech to the rebels Josephus says: V 402 Secret sins – I mean thefts, treacheries, adulteries – are not beneath your disdain, while in rapine and murder you vie with each other in opening up new and unheard of paths of vice; aye and the temple has become the receptacle for all, and native hands have polluted those divine precincts, which even Romans reverenced from afar, forgoing many customs of their own in deference to your law. 403 And after all this do you expect Him, thus outraged, to be your ally?

Similar passages appear several times in BJ, and it is superfluous to quote all of them; instead, I will summarize their main points. In BJ IV 150–7 after accusing the rebels that “they transferred their insolence to the Deity and with polluted feet invaded the sanctuary” and “converted the temple of God into their fortress… and made the Holy Place the headquarters of their tyranny,” he relates that they proceeded to the utmost mockery of the (priestly) law: summoning one of the high priestly clans, they chose by lot a village bumpkin named Phanni and appointed him to the office of the high priest. Josephus presents the fellow as a complete idiot, who did not 

102 Appears eight times; for the references, see K. H. Rengstorf (ed.), The Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Study Edition. Volume One (Leiden, 2002), 29. 103 It is used in Vita 26 and CA II 119 (in the first case, Josephus says that Jews are not allowed to wage war with other Jews; in the second he says that the huge gates of the Temple are not allowed to be left open at night. The Law, indeed, does not forbid these things.) 104 See the analysis in Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews.”

114

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

even know what the high priesthood meant. This outrage, according to Josephus, in reality was the “abrogation of established practice and a trick to make themselves supreme,” although the rebels asserted that they relied on an ancient custom.105 Those of the priests who remained sane and witnessed this ceremony, “could not restrain their tears and bemoaned the degradation of the sacred honours (ÌüÅÌľÅĎ¼ÉľÅÌÀÄľÅÁ¸ÌŠÂÍÊÀÅ).”106 At the same time, the rebels polluted the Sanctuary by shedding blood.107 In BJ IV 200 Josephus accuses the Zealots of polluting the Holy Places with their blood, and in BJ IV 241 he portrays the soon-to-be-murdered high priest Ananus as blaming the revolutionaries for polluting the sacred ground, for getting drunk in the Holy Places, and for “expending the spoils of their slaughtered victims upon their insatiable bellies” – presumably, in the Temple. The rebels are accused of polluting the Holy Place in BJ V 380, and in BJ V 402; in BJ VI 122–7 they fill the Temple with corpses virtually turning it into a cemetery – and the pagan Romans are full of indignation against the Jews for profaning their own Temple.108 As has been mentioned above, Titus is presented by Josephus as being distressed over the matter to such a degree as accusing the revolutionaries of profaning and polluting the Temple, claiming that the Deity had left the place, and even offering them to move the battlefield to another area in order not to defile it, and swearing to preserve the Temple for the Jews even against their own will.109 In BJ V 36–9 John of Gischala is accused of impiously using the sacred timber, prepared by Agrippa II for the raising of the Sanctuary, in order to construct war towers – according to Josephus, God frustrated his sinful labors. In BJ V 562–6 John is castigated for melting down the temple-offerings and temple-vessels, and using the consecrated oil and wine in order to sustain the ÈÂý¿ÇË.110 In Josephus’ view, no greater sin than this could have been perpetrated, and these crimes are equal to those of the wickedest generations who had ever lived on earth: V 566 I believe that, had the Romans delayed to punish these reprobates, either the earth would have opened and swallowed up the city, or it would have been swept away by a flood, or have tasted anew the thunderbolts of Sodom. For it produced a generation far more godless than the victims of those visitations, seeing that these men’s frenzy involved the whole people in their ruin.

 105

BJ IV 154. BJ IV 157. 107 BJ IV 159. On the appointment of Phanni, see Mader, Josephus and the Politics of Historiography, 77–82. 108 Part of this passage was quoted above, p. 107. 109 BJ VI 126–8. 110 Even if one could say that these two accusations were not concerned with “universal crimes against humanity,” it must be noticed that they focus on the Temple and its cult. 106

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

115

As has already been mentioned, in contrast to the rebels, Josephus presents the Romans as striving to preserve the Temple, and grieving over its profanation and destruction. Several of the passages illustrating the Roman resolve to preserve the Temple have already been quoted above – however, the most eloquent among them is the passage dealing with Titus’ behavior on the eve of the Temple’s destruction as well as in its course.111 As is well known, Titus is presented in this passage as resolutely rejecting the idea of destroying the Temple in theory, and later doing everything in his power to save it. Most scholars have rejected this description as Josephus’ attempt to clear Titus of the charge for the destruction, and, in my view, rightly so.112 However, what counts in my view is that Josephus, on the one hand, consistently presented the Jewish rebels as being wicked and responsible for the profanation and – ultimately – for the destruction of the Temple, and, on the other hand, he depicted the Romans as pious and showing their respect for the Jewish Temple and its cult, and striving to save it until the very end. It is also important that though Josephus strove to denigrate the revolutionaries in every possible way, he did not accuse them of any specifically halakhic infringements. Their sins were presented as crimes against humanity and God’s Temple and cult, not against the Torah.

2. 5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War At this point I would like to discuss the question of Josephus’ knowledge of Israel’s Scriptures at the time he wrote BJ. The question is crucial to our understanding of Josephus’s religious evolution and development, and since many scholars still take him at his word when he claims to have been a biblical expert since his youth, I will analyze the evidence in detail.113 My task in this respect has been made easier by the work of some previous scholars, notably S. Schwartz, who produced a comprehensive survey of “Josephus’ intellectual development” between BJ and AJ.114 After providing a list of scriptural references and allusions scattered throughout BJ, Schwartz concludes:  111

BJ VI 236–43; 249–66. G. Alon, “The Burning of the Temple,” in idem, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem, 1977), 252–68; Barnes, “The Sack of the Temple;” J. Rives, “Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,” in Edmondson et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 145–66. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 206–11, is rather exceptional among modern scholars to give credence to Josephus’ version of the events. 113 See the discussion in the introduction to this study. 114 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics. Josephus’ knowledge of the Bible in BJ is analyzed on pp. 23–35. 112

116

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

If the text of BJ did in fact show knowledge of all these passages, we could say that by 80 at latest Josephus knew the outline and some details of the main narrative of the Pentateuch and the historical books, and had some acquaintance with Jeremiah, Haggai, and Ezra. However, with a few exceptions, the BJ passages so diverge from, and even contradict, our biblical texts that it is clear that Josephus was working for the most part from memory, not from a text, and that what he remembered may often have been popular or priestly story-telling or practice. In fact, there is little evidence he knew the biblical texts at all.115

As has been often noticed above, Josephus did claim to have been a biblical expert since his early years. He usually tied this expertise to his priestly origins and status.116 I have offered some of the possible reasons for this connection in chapter 4 below. However, apart from his own claims to have been a biblical expert since his youth – unless familiarity with several priestly legends and similar ÄÍ¿¼ÍŦļŸ is considered biblical expertise – there is very little hard evidence to corroborate these assertions. In fact, there seems to be virtually none. I do not want to suggest that Josephus was totally unfamiliar with the Bible at the time of writing BJ, but rather that there is no convincing proof that he had engaged in serious study of the Scripture before that. He was definitely familiar with some biblical traditions; however, the analysis of these traditions in Josephus’ transmission shows that these were most likely oral (mainly priestly) aggadot, not solid scriptural knowledge and quotations one would expect from somebody who studied the Bible in depth. My position concerning Josephus’ claims about his inbred biblical expertise has been clarified in the introduction to this study: I am rather skeptical and suspicious concerning many of them. Throughout his career, Josephus had many good reasons to present himself as a great expert in the traditions of his people (as great as Moses, as implied in AJ XX 265), just as he had good reasons to present himself as a precocious youth, the greatest general of all times, and the most professional and trustworthy of all historians.117 In the words of S. J. D. Cohen, “[h]is vanity is notorious.”118 However, it is clear that even in Josephus’ days there were many people who held rather different opinions concerning his various credentials and characteristics.119 So it is perfectly natural to expect from him to be apolo 115

Ibid., 25. The emphasis in the last sentence is mine. As, for example, in the passage quoted in the introduction to the study, as well as in chapter 4 (BJ III 352). Cf. Vita 7–9, also discussed in the introduction and CA I 54, dealt with in chapter 4 below (p. 270). 117 Josephus’ precociousness and generalship have been referred to above. On him as a great and trustworthy historian, see BJ I 1–16; AJ XX 262; Vita 336–67; CA I 47–56. 118 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 91. 119 It is unfortunate that the work of Justus of Tiberias, who wrote a history of the revolt, criticizing Josephus’ role in it (as well as his BJ), did not survive. 116

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

117

getic as to his own credentials, character, and behavior. On the other hand, I think that no critical historian is obligated to believe all of what he said about himself, especially if even his contemporaries did not. Still, some modern scholars have read BJ with the basic assumption that Josephus’ claims concerning his education and expertise could and even should be trusted.120 Some of them, as has been stated in the introduction, go so far as to try to recreate a hypothetical historical context, in which Josephus would have obtained the kind of education he claimed to have received.121 Much later rabbinic stories prove especially useful for this purpose. Whenever Josephus refers to some strange tradition in BJ, he is presumed to be thinking in terms of the “oral law” which as such was probably nonexistent in his period,122 or to be familiar with some late rabbinic midrash. Thus, T. Rajak says that after referring to the tradition concerning the prohibition of suicide, Josephus “goes on to say, the legislator has arranged to have them [i.e., suicides] punished.”123 However, even if some nonwritten authoritative tradition did exist among certain Judaic groups of his time (which I do not doubt), there is a long way between this and the assumption that when Josephus referred to the prohibition of suicide he meant “the Oral Torah” which he must have learnt at a Jerusalem bethmidrash or some other proto-Rabbinic institution.124 In addition to the moot question of the existence of the “oral law” in the time of Josephus, in my view, it seems even more anachronistic to suggest that this “oral law” was already ascribed to Moses by that period.125 Thackeray, who also thought that Josephus referred to “some Rabbinic tradition,”126 avoided the problem of ascribing this tradition to Moses by translating the plain Greek into ambivalent English, so that in his rendering it is not quite clear to 

120 E.g., Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Her treatment of Josephus’ pedigree and education is discussed in the introduction to this study. 121 A. Schalit (trans. and ed.), Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae. Vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1944), XXXIX; Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 26–30. 122 I am not denying the existence of oral tradition in Josephus’ times, of course. What I am saying is that some scholars working on the Second Temple period are accustomed to think in terms of later Judaism. However, we have no evidence for the concept of oral tradition as “Law/Torah” in the period under review. See J. Neusner, “Torah in Judaism, the Classical Statement,” in idem et al. (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Judaism. Second Edition. 4 Vols. (Leiden, 2005), 2724–34. 123 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 169. Actually, the legislator is mentioned before in Josephus’ text. 124 BJ III 376–7. 125 For a discussion of Pharisaic oral tradition, see A. Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic Paradosis,” HTR 80 (1987), 63–77. 126 Thackeray, Josephus. The Jewish War, Books I–III, 682 ad loc, n. a.

118

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

which legislator(s) Josephus refers.127 This is a good example of what some interpreters of Josephus do when they face an admittedly strange tradition in BJ: they either harmonize it with what they know from other sources,128 or modify their translation of the original.129 In my opinion, it is safer to assume that the fact that Josephus ascribed to Moses traditions not found in the written Torah rather suggests that he was not really familiar with the text of Scripture, but based his statements on oral legends he had heard. This does not mean that at this time he clearly distinguished between the written Scripture and the “oral tradition” – rather, that the latter, that is, priestly aggadot and orally transmitted lore, were the main source of his “biblical” knowledge.130 In this context it is also important to notice, that in all of BJ, Moses is not mentioned by name even once (!).131 As far as the context in which Josephus obtained this kind of knowledge is concerned, it should be said that there is virtually no evidence that such educational institutions as described in later rabbinic literature ever existed in Josephus’ Jerusalem.132 It is even less likely that upper-class priests like Josephus ever attended them or that the “Oral Torah” ascribed to Moses, “our Rabbi,” was on the curriculum of these hypothetical houses of study. 

127 Greek: ȸÉÛ ÌŊ ÊÇÎÑÌŠÌĿ ÁÇŠ½¼Ì¸À ÅÇÄÇ¿šÌþ vs. Thackeray’s English: “is punished also by the sagest of legislators.” 128 Especially from AJ, Vita, and CA. 129 Another good example is J. N. H. Simchoni (trans.), Josephus. The Jewish War (Tel-Aviv, 1968), 318–9 (= BJ V 377, 381) (in Hebrew) who mistranslates the passages dealing with the Holy Place/Temple by introducing God, when there is none in the original. Cf. his translation of IV 463, where he replaces “heaven” (parallel to “earth”) by God. These passages are discussed below in this chapter (pp. 121–3). 130 In a private conversation, Israel J. Yuval quite appropriately defined this kind of biblical knowledge as “kindergartner’s Bible;” however, we were not discussing Josephus, but modern Israeli culture. 131 He mentions “ĝÅÇÄÇ¿šÌ¾Ë” in BJ II 145; 152; III 376; V 401. I return to the subject in chapter 3 in more detail. 132 Pace S. Safrai, “Education and the Study of the Torah,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 2 (Assen-Maastricht, 1976), 945–70. The problem is well illustrated by the fact that in the discussion of “the school” and Torah-study in “the age of Jesus Christ,” almost all the evidence in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 2 (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh, 1979), 415–22, is either rabbinic or Diasporan (Philo, AJ, and CA). The only contemporary evidence which mentions a place of Torah-study in Jerusalem is the Theodotos inscription, and it refers to a synagogue, which was probably established by a Diaspora Jew: “Theodotos, son of Vettenus, priest and ruler of the synagogue, son of a ruler of the synagogue, grandson of a ruler of the synagogue, built the synagogue for the reading of the law and the teaching of the commandments…” (Trans. follows A. Runesson, D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E. A Sourcebook [Leiden, 2008], 53.) See there for the Greek text, translation, commentary, and bibliography.

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

119

However, once Josephus’ claims about his superb education are trusted, a vicious circle results: every biblical tradition or allusion he brings, no matter how weird and garbled it is, is either harmonized with the materials in AJ or “put in context” of wider Jewish exegesis from the Second Temple period and Late Antiquity.133 I would rather suggest that Josephus obtained most of his traditional knowledge in the priestly circles of his family and the Jerusalem Temple. The Temple-and-priestly Sitz im Leben of these traditions is especially likely, since, as we will see below, the Temple/Holy Place plays a central role in most of them. The strange biblical traditions in BJ have rarely been analyzed as a group, and in their own right.134 Quite predictably, notable exceptions are M. Smith and S. Schwartz.135 The latter scholar has also noted that the unifying characteristic of many of the biblical traditions in BJ is their obsession with the Temple, indeed, their “near deification” of it.136 He also argues that the fact that in some cases Josephus’ version of the biblical story was less suited to his agenda than the actual one in the Bible, could imply that he was virtually ignorant of the latter, and therefore used the only version he was familiar with.137 In my view, it is difficult not to agree with this assessment, and as has been stated above, I tend to consider most Josephan “biblical” material in BJ as stemming from Jerusalem priestly lore, not a proto-rabbinic beth-midrash. It should be said, of course, that in distinction from the first half of AJ, BJ does not attempt to retell the biblical history, so it is not fair to expect that this work would be full of biblical materials. However, what interests me is not so much their quantity as their quality, contents, and character – as well as their possible Sitz im Leben. I think that on the basis of the analysis of what BJ does contain, one may cautiously form an opinion of what Josephus knew about the Bible at the time of writing this work. Let us begin by checking what biblical traditions concerning the Temple Josephus knew. One such tradition has already been mentioned above: in BJ VI 438 he says that “The first founder [of Jerusalem] was a dynast of the Canaanites called in his native tongue Just King (¹¸ÊÀ¼İË»ţÁ¸ÀÇË), for so he was. Therefore, he was the first to serve as priest to God and, as the first to  133

See, for example, the treatment of Elisha in Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 344 ff. The passage on Elisha is discussed below in this chapter (p. 121). 134 Thus, in his magisterial studies of Josephus’ interpretation of the Bible, Feldman does not even distinguish between the biblical traditions in BJ and AJ. 135 M. Smith, “The Occult in Josephus,” in Feldman and Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 236–56; Schwartz, Josephus and the Judean Politics. 136 Schwartz, Josephus and the Judean Politics, 28. Cf. ibid., 29, n. 21. 137 Ibid., 28–9, 31.

120

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

build the Temple, renamed the city Hierosolyma; it had previously been called Solyma.” 138 The passage appears in the survey of the history of Jerusalem, given by Josephus at the very end of BJ VI. After Melchizedek, Josephus mentions King David, who expelled the Canaanites, and settled his own people there. In other words, in Josephus’ eyes, as far as the Jerusalem Temple was concerned, not much seems to have changed between Melchizedek and David. David’s son Solomon, whom Josephus elsewhere seems to have known to have been the builder of the Temple, is not mentioned here at all!139 However, even in the passage where Solomon is mentioned as the builder of the first Temple, there is a gross mistake: the Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, is said to be rebuilt by the prophet Haggai in the second year of Cyrus.140 Although, according to the Bible, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah did encourage Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua son of Yehozadak to rebuild the Temple beginning from the second year of Darius I (not Cyrus), Haggai definitely was not the one who rebuilt it.141 Again, I think it is reasonable to assume that these traditions were based on what Josephus had heard, not on what he read in the Bible.142 Moreover, Melchizedek is never said in the Bible to have built any temple, let alone the Temple, just as he is not said to have given Jerusalem its name. The contradiction between the passages, of which one claims that Melchizedek founded the Temple, and the other – Solomon, might stem from the fact that Josephus had heard both stories, but did not care to read the biblical text. The same sloppiness might account for the omission of Solomon from the passage dealing with ¹¸ÊÀ¼İË»ţÁ¸ÀÇË – Josephus sensed 

138 Translation taken from Schwartz, Josephus and the Judean Politics, 26, who on p. 28 concludes his analysis of the passage thus: “it is clear that if Josephus knew Gen 14. 18–20, he paid little attention to it.” Apart from Genesis, Melchizedek is mentioned in Ps 110:4; however, some modern scholars think the reference is not to him, see NJPS ad loc. 139 Ibid., 27 offers an intriguing suggestion concerning the reason for Melchizedek’s prominence in this passage: “The tendency of the passage is to enhance the antiquity of the Temple and the cult, and to make the cult more universal: it was not instituted by a Jewish king, but by a Canaanite, and should therefore welcome all worshipers and survive all changes of government.” However, even if Josephus recognized the value of this tradition for his purposes, this does not mean he himself invented it. Solomon is acknowledged to have built the Temple in BJ V 137, 185, and VI 269. 140 BJ VI 269–70. 141 Haggai 1:1; Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Zech 1:1, 7; 4:8. 142 All this sharply contrasts with Josephus’ own careful interpretative techniques in AJ. Cf. Schwartz, Josephus and the Judean Politics, 26: “If these passages are derived from other chronographers, they show that Josephus was either too ignorant or too lazy to correct them; if they reflect his own memory of his biblical readings, they suggest that his reading was scanty and prove that his memory was muddled.”

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

121

the inherent contradiction, and resolved it by dropping one of the names, that of Solomon, instead of checking the Bible.143 Another curious passage presuming to transmit biblical material is found in BJ IV 460–4, where Josephus describes the spring near Jericho, which was “healed” by the prophet Elisha, the disciple and successor (»ÀŠ»ÇÏÇË) of the prophet Elijah. As S. Schwartz notes, Josephus “turned the biblical story into a display of arete (“virtue”, i.e., magical power) by a Hellenistic goes (magician).”144 The story as given by Josephus is so bizarre that it justifies its quotation in full: IV 461 Elisha, … having been hospitably received by the people at Jericho, since they treated him with particular kindness, rewarded them and the whole district with an eternal favor. 462 Going out to the [pestilential] spring and throwing into the stream a pottery vessel full of salt, then raising his righteous right hand to Heaven and pouring out on Earth propitiatory libations, he besought Earth to soften the stream and open sweeter veins [of waters], 463 Heaven to mix with the stream more fertile airs and to grant the people of the land both proper production of crops and children to success them, and [he asked that] the waters which would cause these [blessings] should never fail so long as the people remained just. 464 With these prayers, and with the performance of many additional rites [known to him] from his art, he changed the spring (̸ŧ̸ÀË ̸ėË ¼ĤϸėË ÈÇÂÂÛ ÈÉÇÊϼÀÉÇÍɺŢʸË ëÆ ëÈÀÊÌŢľË ìÌɼм ÌüÅ ȾºŢÅ), and the water which had formerly been a cause of their childlessness and famine was thenceforth made a source of healthy children and plentiful food.145

S. Schwartz thinks that this and what follows immediately after this passage in BJ might be “an excerpt from a travel book on the curiosities of the lower Jordan valley and Dead Sea region.”146 The suggestion is ingenious and attractive; however, it seems a bit modernizing, and it is equally possible to imagine that Josephus just heard this anecdote from some local story-teller when he was visiting Jericho. In any case, it is clear that he did not find it in this form in the Bible.147 The main passage containing biblical materials in BJ is V 375–93, and is presented as part of a speech, which Josephus delivered to the besieged rebels urging them to surrender. In addition to the features already familiar from the several passages discussed above, the traditions here are charac

143 On Josephus’ “sloppiness” in general, see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 276, sub voce. 144 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 33. 145 Translation quoted from Smith, “The Occult in Josephus,” 253–4. Cf. 2 Kgs 2:19– 22, where Elisha cures the water simply by throwing salt into the spring and saying: “Thus said the LORD: I heal this water; no longer shall death and bereavement come from it!” (NJPS). 146 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 33. 147 Josephus says that his authority for this story is a certain (oral) tradition: ̸ŧ̾Å ÌüÅȾºüÅÂŦºÇËìϼÀÁÌÂ, IV 460.

122

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

terized by preoccupation with the Temple.148 In this passage, Josephus attempts to convince the rebels, who assert that they fight in defense of God’s cause, that their hope is futile, since God is not on their side. The main point of the speech is that the past experiences in Judean history prove that victory over enemies was never achieved by the Jews when they relied on the force of arms, but rather when they pacifistically trusted in God and His Holy Place. Josephus begins by exhorting them to turn their eyes and see the place (i.e., the Temple), from which they rush out to fight, and accusing them of “polluting such a mighty ally (ȾÂţÁÇÅ ëÄÀŠÅ¸Ì¼ ÊŧÄĸÏÇÅ).”149 Whether the “ally” here is God Himself, or the Temple, is debatable. M. Smith’s interpretation that “[the Place] is the great ally, which they had polluted (Yahweh they could not)” does look plausible in the context of what follows in the passage. 150 As Smith aptly notices, although the passage “is the fullest treatment in Bellum of subjects from Old Testament times, … [u]nlike the Old Testament, however, its central power is not Yahweh, but this ‘holy Place’.”151 His suggestion as to the identity of the “ally” is strengthened by Josephus’ next statement: “Will you not recall your fathers’ superhuman exploits and what mighty wars this holy place (ÌġÅ׺ÀÇÅÌŦÅ»¼ÏľÉÇÅ) has quelled for us in days of old?”152 After this there follows a rather bizarre version of a biblical story, illustrating Josephus’ Temple-centered thesis: when Nechaos the Pharaoh of Egypt came down to Judea with a huge host and carried away Sarah the Queen (!), her husband Abraham – although he had three hundred and eighteen commanders at his disposal, “each in command of a boundless army” – chose not to resolve the conflict with the help of arms. Rather, 

148 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 28 writes: “Josephus has imposed a ‘quietistic’ and cultic interpretation on every story which did not have one, and, sometime quite apart from the needs of his argument, has told the stories in forms so altered that some are nearly unrecognizable.” 149 BJ V 377. 150 Smith, “The Occult in Josephus,” 243. Although I agree with Smith as to the referent of “ally” here, he seems to be wrong in claiming that Josephus could not say that the rebels were capable of “polluting” God. In IV 381–2 Josephus writes: “The Zealots… carried the barbarity so far… as though they had covenanted to annul the laws of nature along with those of the country, and to their outrages upon humanity to add pollution of the Divinity itself (ÊÍÄÄÀÜŸÀÁ¸ĖÌġ¿¼ėÇÅ), they left the dead putrefying in the sun.” This, however, opens the big question of the Sun as a divinity in several passages in BJ. On this also see ibid. 151 Ibid., 243. Cf. Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 29, n. 21: “It is a striking characteristic of the Bible stories in this speech that the savior is not God but the Holy Place.” 152 Cf. the conclusion in ibid., 30: “Josephus seems here, once again, to be following priestly legend rather than the text of Genesis.”

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

123

“uplifting pure hands towards this spot which you have now polluted [he] enlist[ed] the invincible helper on his side (Á¸¿¸ÉÛË»ЏÒŸ̼ţŸËÌÛËϼėɸË ¼ĊË ğÅ ÅıÅ ëÄÀŠÅ¸Ì¼ ÏľÉÇÅ ĨļėË ÌġÅ ÒÅţÁ¾ÌÇÅ ¸ĤÌŊ ¹Ç¾¿ġÅ ëÊÌɸÌÇÂŦº¾Ê¼Å).” Nechaos fled from Palestine “bowing down to the spot which you [i.e., the rebels] have stained with the blood of your countrymen (ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅľÅ »ò ÌġÅ ĨÎЏ ĨÄľÅ ¸ĎĸϿšÅ̸ ÏľÉÇÅ ĝÄÇÎŧÂĿ ÎŦÅĿ) and trembling at his visions of the night… bestowing silver and gold upon the Hebrews.”153 Anyone familiar with the biblical narrative will notice a number of inaccuracies and mistakes, as well as the chief role which the “Holy Place” – totally absent from the biblical narrative – plays in Josephus’ tradition. Next follows the story of the Egyptian slavery and Exodus. The fathers, says Josephus, were sent out of Egypt “under escort (ļÌÛ ÎÉÇÍÉÜË) (!), without bloodshed, without risk, God conducting them as the future guardians of his Temple (żÑÁŦÉÇÍË).”154 Such rationale, of course, does not appear anywhere in the Bible, and must be another priestly tradition which elevated the Temple. Then Josephus exemplifies the power of the Holy Place by the story of the Syrians’ (!) capture of the Ark of the Covenant. The Syrians were supernaturally smitten by terrible diseases, and restored the Ark “to the sound of cymbals and timbrels, and with all manner of expiations propitiating the Sanctuary (ÈÜÊÀ ļÀÂÀÁ̾ÉţÇÀË ϸÊÁŦļÅÇÀ Ìġ ׺ÀÇÅ).”155 The paraphrase of the story of Sennacherib’s invasion which follows is also far from the biblical source, according to which Sennahcherib did not besiege Jerusalem himself, but only sent his messenger to address Hezekiah.156 After Cyrus released the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, they again “became the Temple-guardians of their ally (ÌġÅ ¸ĨÌľÅ ÊŧÄĸÏÇÅ ëżÑÁŦÉÇÍÅ).”157 Thus, in Josephus’ version of the Sacred History in BJ, the Sanctuary has the central role – the Israelites were freed both from the Egyptian and the Babylonian captivities so that they could become the guardians of the Temple.  153

BJ V 379–81. Actually, Josephus merges two biblical stories here. The first is from Gen 12:10–20, where the incident of Sarai’s being taken by Pharaoh is told, and the second – in Gen 14, on Abraham’s rescue of Lot, where his three hundred and eighteen “retainers,” whom Josephus turns into generals, are mentioned (Gen 14:14). The first story, of course, took place in Egypt. 154 BJ V 382–3. 155 BJ V 385. Cf. 1 Sam 5–6. 156 BJ V 388; cf. 2 Kgs 18–9/2 Chr 32. According to the Bible, Sennacherib was at Lachish, and sent his messenger to Hezekiah; see 2 Kgs 18:17/2 Chr 32:9. 157 BJ V 389. For the comparison of this formulation with Josephus’ version of the Return from Babylon in AJ, see chapter 3 (pp. 190–1).

124

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

The last “biblical” passage in the speech deals with Jeremiah’s proclamations in the course of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. The passage is especially important since in it Josephus makes an explicit parallel between the prophet and himself. As has been mentioned above, some scholars suggested that Josephus modeled his presentation of himself at the walls of besieged Jerusalem on the biblical image of Jeremiah.158 However, apart from the passage in BJ V 391–3 there is not much evidence that he was well familiar with the biblical story of Jeremiah, let alone that he consciously imitated it in BJ.159 Josephus claims that the rebels of his own day were more wicked than Zedekiah and his subjects, since the latter did not put the prophet to death, while the Zealots did try to kill Josephus. As has been pointed out by S. Schwartz, Josephus ignores the fact that “important groups of Jerusalemites did try to kill Jeremiah, and even the king was afraid to spare him openly.”160 In addition to the traditions surveyed above, Josephus refers or alludes to a limited number of other biblical stories, laws or episodes. Most of these are of limited scope and their value for ascertaining Josephus’ level of familiarity with the Bible (as well as his measure of interest in its laws) is questionable since they are either too commonplace, too short, or too vague, or all of the above. Thus, for example, before Josephus tells the story about Elisha’s cure of the pestilential spring near Jericho, which was discussed above, he mentions that Jericho was the first city in the land of the Canaanites, which the Hebrew general Jesus son of Naue took by the sword.161 In a passage comparing the Zealots with the wicked generations of the past, which was quoted above, Josephus makes mention of the sinners who were swallowed by the earth which opened up for this purpose, of those who were swept away by the flood, as well as of “the thunderbolts of Sodom.”162 However, in several cases these traditions are of value, since Josephus makes clear that his source of authority is not the Bible, but rather storytellers. In BJ IV 530–1, describing Simon bar Giora’s capture of Hebron, Josephus says the following concerning this town:  158

Daube, “The Typology in Josephus;” S. J. D. Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” History and Theory 21 (1982), 366–81. 159 See the criticism of the Josephus-Jeremiah parallelism in Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus, 73, n. 2 and Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society, 170–1. 160 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 32. However, as he notes, even if Josephus had known this, he might have ignored this fact for the sake of his argument. Cf. Jer 38. 161 BJ IV 459. Cf. Josh 6. 162 BJ V 566.

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

125

IV 530 According to the statements of its inhabitants (ĸË»šθÊÀÅÇĎëÈÀÏŪÉÀÇÀ), Hebron is a town of greater antiquity not only than any other in the country, but even than Memphis in Egypt, being reckoned to be two thousand three hundred years old. 531 They further relate (ÄÍ¿¼ŧÇÍÊÀ) that it was there that Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews, took up his abode after his migration from Mesopotamia, and from here that his posterity went down into Egypt.163

As Thackeray writes in his note on this passage, it is absolutely clear that “[t]he historian… is dependent on local tradition, and ignores Biblical narrative.”164 Just as in the story about Elisha and the Jericho spring, Josephus’ authority for the tradition is local story-telling.165 In other words, he did not learn the story from the Bible, but rather from the local people, who told him their own version of the events described in the Bible in connection to their native town. Had he been familiar with the Book of Genesis, he would not have needed to rely on the knowledge of the local tourguides. The same applies to another passage, in which Josephus mentions Sodom and its destruction: again, he refers to story-tellers as his source for the tradition: “It is said (θÊţ) that, owing to the impiety of its inhabitants, it was consumed by thunderbolts; and in fact vestiges of the divine fire and faint traces of five cities are still visible… So far are the legends (ÌÛ զ ÄÍ¿¼ÍŦļŸ) about the land of Sodom borne out by ocular evidence.”166 In two other passages, where Josephus mentions a Jewish burial practice (BJ IV 317) and deals with the customs and laws concerned with Paschal sacrifice (BJ VI 423–7), it is far from clear whether his source for the information was the biblical text. As was pointed by S. Schwartz, Josephus’ terminology is not biblical, and the similarity of his tradition to the laws of Paschal sacrifice in Mishnah and Tosefta Pesahim is striking.167 In my view, instead of proving Josephus’ familiarity with the Bible, as in the previous cases this would rather suggest that his source for this information was either oral tradition, or, more likely, personal experience as a Jerusalemite: he was likely to have witnessed many times how fellow Jews buried the dead, as well as to have participated in the celebration of the Passover. Moreover, as a priest, he was likely to be familiar with the laws  163

According to Gen 23, Abraham lived in the vicinity, and purchased the Cave of Machpela in order to bury his wife, Sarah, there. It was definitely not the place where “he took his abode after his migration from Mesopotamia.” He was later buried there himself (Gen 25:9–10), as well as his son Isaac (Gen 35:27–9). The exact place from which Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt is not specified in the Bible. 164 H. St. J. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus. The Jewish War. Books IV–VII (LCL; Cambridge, MA, 1928, frequently reprinted), 158, n. b. 165 As has been pointed out above, ÂŦºÇËìϼÀ in BJ IV 460. 166 BJ IV 484–5. The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra is told in vivid detail in Gen 19. 167 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 34.

126

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

restricting partaking of the Paschal sacrifice, since it was the priests’ responsibility to oversee the proper proceedings.168 In my view, these are the types of materials to be expected from a Jerusalem priest. They do not prove that he was a biblical expert from his youth, let alone a halakhic specialist. In this context, three prophetic traditions referred to by Josephus should also be briefly discussed. The first, which has been mentioned above, stated that it was recorded in the Judean ÂǺţÇÀË that the city and the Sanctuary would be captured, when the Temple became four-square.169 Thackeray’s note on this passage – “Authority unknown” – is as true today as it was in 1928.170 It might well be that Josephus again did not distinguish between what he heard in the street, and the Bible. The second prophetic tradition said by Josephus to be “an ancient saying of inspired men,” and which was quoted above, is found in BJ IV 388.171 Although several biblical passages could be adduced to approximate it, Thackeray’s note “I can quote no ‘ancient’ authority for the saying” seems appropriate.172 The third tradition is the famous story, repeated by Tacitus and Suetonius, concerning the world-ruler from Judea.173 Josephus says that the prophecy was contained in an “ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures” (ÏɾÊÄġËÒÄÎţ¹ÇÂÇËĝÄÇţÑËëÅÌÇėËĎ¼ÉÇė˼ĨɾĚÅÇ˺ɊÄĸÊÀÅ), but fails to provide even an approximate reference. Although several biblical passages have been proposed as the source for this oracle, Josephus’ exact reference point is at this stage unknowable.174  168

I suppose it would be rather difficult to find a 21 st century Samaritan priest from Holon, who would not be an expert in the annual Passover proceedings on Mt. Gerizim. 169 BJ VI 311. 170 Thackeray, Josephus. The Jewish War. Books IV–VII (Cambridge, MA, 1928), 466, n. a. 171 It predicted that the city would be taken and the sanctuary burnt because of sedition and the Jewish defilement of God’s sacred precincts (see p. 109 above). Since Josephus refers to it as a “prophecy” (ÈÉÇξ̼ţ¸Å) in IV 387, it would be logical to conclude that he assumed it was in the Bible. With the exception of John Hyrcanus, he never credits post-biblical figures with prophecy, and never calls them “prophets.” 172 Thackeray, Josephus. The Jewish War. Books IV–VII, 114, n. a. 173 VI 312–3; Tacitus, Historiae V 13.2; Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus 4:5. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Volume Volume Two. From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), 23, 31 (#281); 119–22 (#312). 174 A. Shochat, “On the ‘Ambiguous Oracle’ in the Words of Josephus,” in M. Handel (ed.), Sefer Yosef Shiloh (Tel-Aviv, 1960) [Hebrew], 163–165; O. Michel, “Studien zu Josephus. Apokalyptische Heilsansagen im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6, 290 f., 293–95); ihre Umdeutung bei Josephus,” in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Festschrift Matthew Black (Edinburgh, 1969), 240–4; A. J. Tomasino, “Oracles of Insurrection: The Prophetic Catalyst of the Great Revolt,” JJS 59 (2008), 86–111.

2.5. Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in the Judean War

127

To summarize this part of the discussion, it should be said that the analysis of biblical materials in BJ has not yielded any solid evidence to corroborate Josephus’ claims that he had been an expert in Scriptural traditions since his youth. Rather, this analysis demonstrated two main things: most of the biblical materials in BJ come from oral traditions, which in many cases should be classified as aggadic story-telling. Second, most of the biblical materials in BJ have demonstrated prominent bias towards the Temple and its cult, and their origin should therefore be ascribed to the priestly circles. Josephus’ knowledge of the laws concerning Paschal sacrifice should also not be ascribed to his familiarity with the Bible, but rather to his priestly experience. This, in my view, is exactly the type of materials which should be expected from a Jerusalem priest. As far as Josephus’ attitude to the Law in BJ is concerned, several things have already been said above. In my discussion of the rebels’ sins, I hope to have demonstrated that he almost exclusively accused them of general crimes against humanity, without any reference to particularistic Judean laws: no mention of halakhic laws of purity, kashruth, or festival observance.175 When he castigated them for effeminate and homosexual behavior, he did not imply that he was doing so because the Law prohibited these things. Herod, too, was not criticized for his transgressions against the Law, as he would be in AJ. Unscriptural traditions are ascribed to the “wisest lawgiver,” who however, is not mentioned by name throughout the book even once. Had BJ been scrutinized by some critical scholars of the Hebrew Bible, they might have concluded that at that stage Josephus had not heard of Moses at all. It has also been mentioned above that in BJ Josephus tended to describe certain things as “improper,” “unseemly” or “not to be done” by custom, rather than forbidden by the Law. He just knew this was the way things were in his father’s house in Judea, and did not need to base his opinions on the book of the Law. In addition to the golden eagle episode, which was discussed above, one should also mention another passage, which was already pointed out by D. R. Schwartz in this context: in the story about the Roman soldier, who destroyed a scroll of the Torah, only in AJ does Josephus comments that he was executed by Cumanus since he “outraged the



175 On BJ VII 264 (John of Gischala and unlawful food) see p. 111 above. In his speech in BJ II 390–5, Agrippa II warns the rebels that “the purity of your cultic practice (ÌýË ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë) [will be] hard to manage,” and as an example speaks of the inevitable transgression of Sabbath customs during the war. If the rebels violate the service they owe to God (ÌüżĊ˸ĤÌġ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸Å), He will turn away from them. BJ II 456, which was quoted above, also mentions the Sabbath as part of ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸, not Law.

128

Chapter 2. Temple, Cult, Sins, and Bible in the Judean War

Laws.”176 Thus the picture of Josephus’ religious profile that emerges from BJ is strikingly at contrast to that which is familiar from his second composition, AJ.

2. 6. Summary and Conclusions My analysis of BJ has led to the following conclusions. The Temple, its cult, and its priests were at the center of Judean religious system and divine worship as understood by Josephus at the time of writing his earliest work. The Temple cult possessed cosmic nature and significance, and its chief ministers, the high priests, were in charge of the Jewish salvation. Their violent deaths at the hands of the rebels constituted the point of no return in the history of the revolt. The meticulous observance of the Temple cult by the priests – even at the price of their own lives – was both the source of pride for the Judeans, and the source of admiration for the Gentiles. The Temple was not only absolutely central in Josephus’ presentation of the Judean religion, but of the vicissitudes of the revolt as well. In Josephus’ treatment of the revolutionaries’ sins, two things are paramount: first of all, their main sin consisted of polluting the Temple by the blood of their fellow Judeans. This motif, which is repeated countless times, is presented by Josephus as the main single reason for the failure of the revolt and the concomitant and ensuing calamities: the pollution of the Temple and its profanation resulted in the alienation of God from His house, His abandoning of His people, and crossing over to the Roman side to fight against the Jews. Second, in Josephus’ presentation, the sins of the rebels are general and universal crimes against humanity, not specific transgressions against the particularistic Judean halakhah. If Josephus was familiar with halakhic norms or interested in them, there is virtually nothing in BJ I–VI to indicate this. Last but not least, the analysis of Biblical materials in BJ has demonstrated that Josephus’ claim to have mastered the Bible since his early years is a myth. As he himself makes clear several times, much of the biblical materials in BJ had ÌÛÄÍ¿¼ÍŦļŸ as their source. There is no indication that Josephus had engaged in serious study of the Scripture before he produced BJ. Whatever he knew of the Bible is better explained as having three main sources: familiar Judean practice, local story-telling related to various geographical locations mentioned in the Bible, and above all, priestly legends witnessing to a prominent Temple bias. Let us now turn to Josephus’ next main work, AJ.  176

Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” 140. BJ II 231; AJ XX 117. For a detailed comparison of the passages, see chapter 3 (pp. 252–3).

Chapter 3

The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities 3. 1. Introduction As has been pointed out in the introduction to this study, Josephus’ writings provide the main basis for the reconstruction of Judean history in the late Second Temple period. Among these, apart from the relatively brief episode of the Judean revolt described in much detail in BJ, AJ contains most material for such a reconstruction.1 In terms of its scope and program, AJ may be considered Josephus’ main literary and historiographical project. Although AJ is first of all a work of historiography, in line with the aims stated in the introduction, this study is mainly interested in Josephus himself: Josephus the author, Josephus the Jew, Josephus the interpreter of Judaism. Therefore, in my treatment of this vast composition, the primary goal is to analyze Josephus’ version of Judaism as can be reconstructed on the basis of AJ, and to compare it with his views in BJ. AJ could be roughly divided into two parts, albeit somewhat artificially: biblical and post-biblical.2 The division is useful to us in the sense that the sources for the “biblical” parts of AJ roughly correspond to what we call the Hebrew Bible; for “post-biblical” parts of AJ Josephus employed other sources, none of which – even if they have survived – has attained authoritative status in rabbinic Judaism, and most of which have not survived at all. I am fully aware that this division, even if helpful, is anachronistic for several reasons. First, at the time of Josephus there was no canonical Bible, accepted by all Jews; second, we do not exactly know which books Josephus himself considered to be sacred;3 and third, instead of using a biblical 1

When the narratives of BJ and AJ cover parallel events, that of AJ is usually more detailed, even if not always more trustworthy. I compare a few of these parallel sections below. 2 In my usage, “biblical” refers to the contents of the Hebrew Bible. 3 In CA I 38–41 he speaks of twenty-two books, of which five are the books of Moses, thirteen are historical books written by prophets, covering the period between Moses and Artaxerxes; and four remaining books “contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.” Scholarly debates concerning which books Josephus included in the latter two categories, and how he divided or joined them, still continue. See S. Mason with R. A. Kraft, “Josephus on Canon and Scriptures,” in M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Mid-

130

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

book in the form which was later to become part of the Hebrew Bible, Josephus occasionally relied on an “apocryphal” version of biblical history.4 However, this division may be partially justified on the basis of Josephus’ own statements in CA I 38–41, and therefore, will be used throughout the chapter to refer to the sections of AJ which cover material paralleled by the books of the Hebrew Bible.

3. 2. Some Recent Studies on the Judean Antiquities As far as the scholarly research on AJ is concerned, at the moment this may well be the most studied of Josephus’ works. The post-biblical parts of AJ have always been heavily exploited by historians and theologians (and, later, archaeologists), since, as has been said above, they comprise the most detailed account of the latter part of the Second Temple period, in some circles also known as “the age of Jesus Christ/the New Testament period.” Since the beginning of critical inquiry, books XII–XX of AJ have been mined for the information they could yield concerning the “New Testament background” or “Jewish history/archaeology between the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah.” At the same time at least three important aspects of AJ had often been ignored or overlooked: first, the declared and perceived aims of the work; second, its overall unity and consistency; and third, the personality of its author.5 Fortunately, all this has changed in the course of the last several decades. Since the number of studies on Josephus has been steadily growing, in this section I will concentrate on the major studies on AJ, and refer to the more general contributions in the footnotes. Among the most important early studies on AJ which attempted to analyze its overall themes and main ideas, one should especially mention the dle Ages (Until 1300). Part 1: Antiquity (Göttingen, 1996), 217–35; S. Mason, “Josephus and His Twenty-Two Book Canon,” in L. M. McDonald, J. A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate (Peabody, Mass., 2002), 110–127. Much has been written on the development of the canon, see M. E. Stone, “Bible and Apocrypha,” in idem, Ancient Judaism: New Visions and Views (Grand Rapids, Mass., 2011), 122–50. 4 Thus, he used 1 Esdras instead of Ezra-Nehemiah, as well as the apocryphal additions to Esther. At this point I do not discuss the question of extra-biblical traditions in AJ. 5 See the overview of earlier research on Josephus in general, and AJ in particular, in P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield, 1988), 123–71, and S. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1. 25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’ Judean Antiquities/Life,” in idem (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (Sheffield, 1998), 64–104; T. Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric, and the Herod Narratives (Leiden, 2006), 203–18. An older classical study is H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York, 1967 [1929]).

3.2. Some Recent Studies on the Judean Antiquities

131

introduction to the Hebrew translation of AJ by A. Schalit,6 the unpublished doctoral dissertation by H. R. Moehring, dealing with the “Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus,”7 and the work of H. W. Attridge on “The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus.”8 Beginning with the fifties of the previous century, L. H. Feldman embarked on a monumental project of the analysis of Josephus’ interpretation of various biblical figures and themes in AJ, which culminated in the publication of two magisterial volumes on the treatment of the biblical figures by Josephus.9 The first of these also contains a two-hundred page long introduction discussing Josephus’ exegetical methods, apologetic tactics, and his ancient Jewish interpretative contexts.10 Feldman also translated and commented upon the first four books of AJ in the “Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary” series.11 In addition to his analysis of Josephus’ biblical interpretation, he produced a great number of studies dealing with other aspects of Josephus’ oeuvre, much of it on AJ, which have been reprinted in two collections of articles.12 6 A. Schalit (trans. and ed.), Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae. Vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1944), XI-LXXXII (in Hebrew). This important study is quoted below (p. 144). 7 H. R. Moehring, “Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1957); the dissertation mainly deals with the “post-biblical” portions of AJ. Moehring demonstrated that the same “novelistic elements” which characterize Josephus’ treatment of biblical history, characterize his post-biblical narrative, too. 8 H. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, 1976). Although this monograph centers on the biblical period, Attridge singles out the ideas and tendencies common in all of AJ. Attridge’s study also contains an excellent survey of earlier scholarship on Josephus (especially, his theological profile), beginning with the 18 th century. Attridge’s interpretation of Josephus’ views of the basis of God’s alliance with the Jewish people was quoted in chapter 2 (p. 108); I return to this study a number of times below. 9 L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, 1998); idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden, 1998). 10 These topics were also covered in L. H. Feldman, “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” in M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT II/1, Assen/Maastricht – Philadelphia, 1988), 455–518. 11 L. H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. Volume 3: Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden, 2000). 12 L. H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden, 1996), 37–273; idem, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered (Leiden, 2006), 313–721. Feldman’s monumental bibliography of Josephan studies has been mentioned above: Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937–1980 (Berlin – New York, 1984). Together with Gohei Hata he edited two exemplary volumes on various aspects of Josephus: L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Leiden, 1987); L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History (Detroit, 1989).

132

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

The biblical parts of AJ have also been scrutinized by C. T. Begg, who, similarly to Feldman, published many articles on Josephus’ interpretation of the Bible, two monographs on his treatment of the Early and Late Monarchy,13 as well as two volumes on AJ V–VII and VIII–X (the second together with P. Spilsbury) in the Brill Josephus translation and commentary series.14 Earlier, P. Spilsbury produced a monograph analyzing Josephus’ treatment of some major biblical figures in AJ.15 T. H. Franxman published a full-length study dealing with the treatment of Genesis in AJ.16 The work of G. E. Sterling on apologetic historiography is among the most important studies on the character of AJ in the broader context of Hellenistic, Jewish, and early Christian historiography.17 S. J. D. Cohen’s monograph, which has been mentioned many times in the course of this study, contains a critical analysis of Josephus’ treatment of his sources,18 and that of S. Schwartz – an analysis of Josephus’ intellectual development as evident from his various works, as well as of his changing presentation of several topics between BJ and his later compositions.19 P. Bilde’s introduction to Josephus also contains much important material on AJ and the history of its research,20 similarly to S. Mason’s monograph on Josephus and the New Testament.21 This latter scholar has also produced a very important study evaluating Josephus’s treatment of the Pharisees, and comparing their presentation in BJ with the picture which emerges out of AJ/Vita,22 and wrote a number of programmatic articles on AJ and the rest of Josephus’ ouevre.23 13

C. T. Begg, Josephus’ Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (Antiquities VIII, 212–420): Rewriting the Bible (Leuven, 1993); idem, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185) (Leuven, 2000). 14 C. T. Begg, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. Volume 4: Judean Antiquities 5–7 (Leiden, 2005); C. T. Begg and P. Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. Volume 5: Judean Antiquities 8–10 (Leiden, 2005). 15 P. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew in Flavius Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible (Tübingen, 1998). 16 T. W. Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities” of Flavius Josephus (Rome, 1979). 17 G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden, 1992). This study is quoted and discussed below. 18 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (CSCT 8; Leiden, 1979). 19 S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (CSCT 18; Leiden, 1990). 20 Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome. 21 S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2 nd ed.; Peabody, Mass., 2003). 22 S. Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study (Leiden, 1991). 23 Some of the most important of them have been reprinted in S. Mason, Josephus, Judaea, and Christian Origins (Peabody, Mass., 2009).

3.2. Some Recent Studies on the Judean Antiquities

133

Among modern scholars, Mason has probably been the most articulate concerning the need for a programmatic holistic reading of the Josephan corpus, and has done very much to develop such an approach. In addition to writing several articles on the aims, purposes, structure and audience of AJ, and heading the new translation and commentary project of Josephus’ writings, he has written a ground-breaking introduction to AJ in the third volume of this series.24 His translation and commentary on Vita has already been mentioned above. As will become apparent from the following discussion, I accept most of Mason’s thesis concerning aims, context, and audience of AJ.25 After this study was completed, J. Klawans published a book wholly dedicated to “Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism.”26 Although it does contain a number of important insights, and Klawans’ emphasis on the importance of Josephus as a source for the study of ancient Jewish theologies, is something I fully embrace, in the final analysis, this study is rather disappointing. Since I analyze Klawans’ book in a forthcoming review, I will limit my discussion here to a number of critical points.27 First, Klawans does not pay enough attention to the biblical parts of AJ, which, of course, are the best material for anybody interested in Josephus’ theology. Second, Klawans’ reading of Josephus’ corpus is har24 S. Mason “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,”Judean Antiquities 1–4 (Leiden, 2000), ix–xxxvi. 25 In addition to these studies, several volumes of articles, many of which are dedicated to various topics in AJ, should be mentioned: F. Parente and J. Sievers (eds.), Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith (Leiden, 1994); J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives, J. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford, 2005); J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Leiden, 2005); Z. Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Leiden, 2007); C. Böttrich und J. Herzer (Hrsg.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tübingen, 2007); S. J. D. Cohen, and J. J. Schwartz (eds.), Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism: Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume (AJEC 67; Leiden, 2007); O. Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus (Tübingen, 2008); J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Leiden, 2011). One could also mention several monographs on specific subjects in Josephus, such as D. R. Lindsay, Josephus and Faith: ţÊÌÀË and ÀÊ̼ŧ¼ÀÅ as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament (Leiden, 1993); R. K. Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio Historical Analysis (Leiden 1996); F. M. Colautti, Passover in the Works of Josephus (Leiden, 2002); T. M. Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (AJEC 70; Leiden, 2007). P. Villaba I Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1986) (see also the review of this book by Morton Smith in The American Historical Review 93 [1988], 1305). 26 Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies. 27 M. Tuval, “Review of Jonathan Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford, 2012),” JSJ forthcoming.

134

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

monistic in the sense that he seems to be unaware that Josephus’ views changed over the years. That is, his reading is not diachronical. Third, Klawans seems to be unconscious of the fact that Josephus wrote his books in the Diaspora, or at least thinks that this fact is not relevant to his analysis of this author and his theology. Last, but not least, I should mention the work of D. R. Schwartz, whose influence on my approach to the study of ancient Judaism, in general, and of Josephus, in particular, has been extensive, and should be evident throughout this study. 28

3. 3. The Structure of Antiquities and Its Sources As far as the structure of AJ is concerned, it has already been pointed out above that the first part (first ten and a half books) covers biblical history; thus it is a paraphrase of the Pentateuch and the historical books, and a summary of some of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. In the remaining nine and a half books of AJ Josephus narrates the events of Jewish history from the late Persian period until the beginning of the Great revolt against Rome. It is a scholarly commonplace that Josephus modeled AJ on the “Roman Antiquities” of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, which was produced in 7 B.C.E. and also counted twenty books.29 Since the structure of AJ has been frequently discussed in recent research, I will not attempt another detailed discussion here.30 For most part, I find Mason’s analysis convincing, and as will become clear from the following discussion, I also agree with him as far as the aim, purposes, and audience of this work are concerned. Mason, who interprets AJ as Josephus’ account of Judean constitution in theory and practice, divides the 28 See D. R. Schwartz, Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (Tübingen, 2013). I am also grateful to him for showing me the manuscript of his forthcoming book: Judeans and Jews: Four Faces of Dichotomy in Ancient Jewish History (Toronto, forthcoming), which includes an important chapter on Josephus. 29 See Thackeray, Josephus, 56–58; Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History, 43– 57; Sterling, Historiography and Self Definition, 284–90; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 7–8, with further bibliography in n. 9. D. J. Ladouceur, “The Language of Josephus,” JSJ 14 (1983) 18–38, is critical of this hypothesis. For the discussion of parallels between AJ and Dionysius, see Mason, “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome.” 30 See Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 80–104; L. H. Feldman, “Josephus (CE 37–c. 100),” in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Three: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge, 1999), 906–13; Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” 210–27; Sterling, Apologetic Historiography, 245–52; J. S. McLaren, Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in First Century CE (Sheffield, 1998), 107–22; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 291–3.

3.3. The Structure of Antiquities and Its Sources

135

work in two comparable parts (First and Second Temple),31 subdividing each of them in turn into three sections. Thus, books I–IV of AJ describe the establishment of the Judean constitution by Moses, books V–VIII deal with “the senate, kings, and high priests of Eli’s descent,” and books IX–X narrate the Judean decline which results from the corruption of the constitution. Here ends the first half of AJ. The second part begins with the account of the Restoration, and continues with the ascent of the Hasmoneans and their eventual decline (XI–XIII). Then, in books XIV–XVII follows the account of the Herodian monarchy, and in books XVIII–XX Josephus presents the “world-wide effectiveness of the Judean constitution.”32 Although it is clear that any analysis of the structure of such a huge work as AJ should always remain provisional and simplified, it seems that this outline faithfully reflects Josephus’ purposes and main arguments in this composition. For the first part of AJ Josephus’ main source were the books that now comprise the Hebrew Bible. Much research has been done on the nature of Josephus’ biblical text, and it is generally agreed that apart from the Hebrew text, he also used the Old Greek version, as well as – possibly – some Aramaic translations.33 In any case, it seems that the texts which Josephus used were not worlds apart from the ones we possess now,34 and the divergences between the Josephan account of the biblical period in AJ and them are of such a nature as to allow us to virtually consider most major differences as Josephus’ deliberate changes – whether stemming from his desire to change the story, or from his choice to supplement it from some extrabiblical or exegetical tradition known to him.35 As has been noted above, it is usually assumed that Josephus used the apocryphal book of 1 Esdras for his account of the Restoration, instead of the proto-Masoretic version of Ezra-Nehemiah. In addition to the biblical books, at the time of writing AJ, Josephus was familiar with a few other Jewish writings from the Second 31

The division of AJ into the account of “First and Second Temples” was suggested already in Bilde, Flavius Josephus, 89–92. 32 Mason, “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,” XXII; idem, “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome,” 567–9; idem, Josephus and the New Testament, 99–100. Cf. idem, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’.” 33 Schalit, Josephus: Antiquitates Judaicae, XXVI–XLIX; Begg, Josephus’ Account; idem, Josephus’ Story; Feldman, “Mikra in the Writings of Josephus,” idem, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, 23–36. On Josephus’ use of the LXX, see T. Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford, 2009), 252– 4. 34 For a nice exception, see E. Ulrich, “Josephus’s Biblical Text for the Book of Samuel,” in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), 184–201. 35 This is especially true if Josephus consistently alters his sources in the same direction.

136

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Temple period, both Palestinian and those produced in the Diaspora. He clearly knew and utilized some of the parabiblical, historical and interpretative works dealing with biblical subjects, such as Cleodemus Malchus, Demetrius, Artapanus (the latter three possibly through the work of Alexander Polyhistor),36 probably, Philo,37 and, possibly, Jubilees.38 He was also familiar with the works of quite a few non-Jewish historians – whether at first hand, or through compilations.39 As far as Josephus’ account of the post-biblical period is concerned, the question of sources is more complicated. We do know and even possess some of these – whether Josephus refers to them or his dependence on them is clear on other grounds – and in this case we can compare Josephus’ adaptation of them with the sources themselves. This is the situation in the case with the Epistle of Aristeas, 1 Maccabees,40 and Josephus’ treatment of the events which he already covered in BJ. I do not claim that in this last case Josephus simply rewrote his own earlier account in BJ in every single instance. A cursory glance at both works will demonstrate that AJ is usually much longer and more detailed, and often contains additional material. However, in many instances the accounts are closely parallel and similar in contents, length, and frequently even in wording. Their analysis lends credit to the view that in such cases, BJ was the main source of AJ.41 36 See J. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1–2 (Breslau, 1874–75). 37 See Schalit, Josephus: Antiquitates, XXVII–XXXI; Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History, 29–38; Moehring, Novelistic Elements, 13–34; Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 51–7; Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 256–90; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 51–6; on Artapanus, see T. Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,” JJS 29 (1978), 111–22, repr. in eadem, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome (Leiden, 2001), 257–72; on Philo as a source in Josephus, see S. Belkin, “The Alexandrian Source for Contra Apionem II,” JQR 27 (1936), 1–32; D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen, 1990), 31–8. 38 On Jubilees, see B. Halpern-Amaru, “Flavius Josephus and The Book of Jubilees: A Question of Source,” HUCA 72 (2001), 15–44. 39 In general, see T. Rajak, reviser: “Josephus,” in: E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 1 (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh, 1973), 48–52. On Josephus’ knowledge and use of Hecataeus, Berossus, Manetho, and other pagan authors, see Moehring, Novelistic Elements, 16–8; Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 258–63. On Josephus’ familiarity and use of extrabiblical and non-Jewish sources in AJ, see Moehring, Novelistic Elements, 15–9, and Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 45–57. 40 Josephus’ treatment of Pseudo-Aristeas and 1 Maccabees and scholarship on the subject is discussed below in detail (pp. 192–201). 41 See K.-S. Krieger, “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117–283 and A 18–20,” in F. Siegert and J. U. Kalms (Hrsg.), Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001. Studies on the Antiquities of Josephus/Etudes sur les Antiquités de Josèphe (Münster, 2002),

3.4. Josephus on the Character and Purpose of AJ

137

Josephus’ editorial comments in AJ, which many times can easily be isolated, are of great importance for the evaluation of his own attitude and values at the time of writing AJ, especially when compared to his earlier treatment of the same topics and events in BJ. Since in this study I am mainly interested in Josephus’ understanding and interpretation of Judaism, I will often concentrate on his adaptation and tendentious reworking of sources. My working assumption is that these adaptations and reworking can be considered faithful witnesses to Josephus’ outlook and agenda at the time of writing AJ.42

3. 4. Josephus on the Character and Purpose of AJ A good place to begin the analysis of the character and aims of AJ seems to be Josephus’ own statements on the subject. Fortunately, they are fairly straightforward and, as I will attempt to demonstrate, are in total agreement with what follows in Josephus’ narrative in this work. In the introduction to AJ Josephus says that already while working on the account of the Judean war, he was contemplating the writing of a more comprehensive history of Judeans, their Lawgiver, their virtues, and wars which they fought; however, he was hesitant because of the scope of such a work in a foreign language.43 Josephus goes on to say that he finally embarked on this ambitious project thanks to the encouragement of certain Epaphroditus.44 At this point Josephus makes an important statement: when he considered whether in the past the Jews “were willing to transmit 90–100. The article also contains a useful synoptic list of the contents of BJ II 117–283 and AJ XVIII–XX. 42 Thackeray, Josephus, 107, writes: “[W]hile it was customary for ancient historians to make free and unacknowledged use of the published work of their predeccessors, without any sense of what we call ‘plagiarism,’ it was almost a point of honour with them to vary phraseology. Still more did this rule apply where the writer was twice covering the same ground: he must not ‘plagiarize’ from himself. Even a speech, delivered on a particular occasion must, if reduplicated, be reported in a different language.” It should be emphasized, that I am aware that this applies to Josephus, too. However, what I am saying is that in Josephus’ own rewriting of the material treated by him earlier, we witness conscious and consistent shifts in the same directions; it is not just a matter of different phraseology for the sake of entertainment – I claim that Josephus not only changed wording, but also pursued different aims, and therefore, often significantly altered contents. For an insightful treatment of Josephus’ redactional techniques, see F. G. Downing, “Redaction Criticism: Josephus’s Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels: Part 1: Josephus,” JSNT 8 (1980), 46–65; idem, “Redaction Criticism: Josephus’s Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels: Part 2: Luke and the Other Two Synoptists,” JSNT 9 (1980), 29–48. 43 AJ I 6–7. 44 AJ I 8. On Epaphroditus see more on pp. 141–2 below.

138

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

and whether some of the Greeks were eager to know about our affairs,” he discovered that I 10b on the one hand, the second of the Ptolemies, a king who was especially, indeed, zealous in learning and in collection of books, was particularly intent to translate our law and the constitution therein into the Greek language (ÌġÅ ÷Ě̼ÉÇÅ ÅŦÄÇÅ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ Á¸ÌЏ ¸ĤÌġÅ »ÀŠÌ¸ÆÀÅ ÌýË ÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸Ë ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ?Š»¸ ÎÑÅüÅ ļ̸¹¸Â¼ėÅ). 11 On the other hand, Eleazaros, second to none of the high priests among us, did not begrudge the aforementioned king the enjoyment of this advantage. He would by all means have declined unless it had been our tradition to hold nothing in secret of the things that are beautiful.45

Josephus goes on to say that in his present work he consciously emulates the earlier enterprise supported by the high priest, with one significant difference: while Eleazar sponsored the translation of the Law only, Josephus decided to “set forth the precise details of what is in [all] the Scriptures according to its proper order…, neither adding or omitting anything.”46 Josephus returns to the story of the translation of the Torah into Greek in AJ XII, in his paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas.47 Obviously, that project was important to him and provided an example and precedent for his own work – just as the high priest Eleazar served an example in terms of personality and as the initiator of the work of translation. However, on the basis of what was said above, it is obvious that Josephus, who, in the same work, claimed to be a descendent of the royal Hasmonean high priests,48 thought of himself as greater than Eleazar: while the latter supported the translation of the Pentateuch only, Josephus would undertake the translation of all the rest of Scripture, and provide an account of subsequent Jewish history too.49 Josephus’ high view of himself 45 Translations from AJ I–IV follow Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4. The bibliography on the Septuagint is immense. For a recent treatment of LXX in the context of the Diaspora, see Rajak, Translation and Survival. For a discussion of Josephus’ treatment of Ps.-Aristeas, see A. Pelletier, “Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Septuagint,” in Feldman and Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History, 97–115. 46 AJ I 17. It is significant that in CA I 54 Josephus claims that AJ is a faithful translation of the Jewish sacred books: ëÁÌľÅĎ¼ÉľÅºÉ¸ÄÄŠÌÑÅļ¿¼ÉÄŢżÍÁ¸. For the analysis of this particular claim of Josephus, see Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, 37–46; idem, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible, 539–43; S. Inowlocki, “‘Neither Adding nor Omitting Anything’: Josephus’ Promise not to Modify the Scriptures in Greek and Latin Context,” JJS 56 (2005), 48–65. 47 AJ XII 11–118. I discuss Josephus’ paraphrase of Ps.-Aristeas below, pp. 192–3. 48 AJ XVI 187; Vita 1–2. 49 That Josephus might have indeed seen himself as the best candidate for the renewed high-priesthood, see F. Siegert (Hrsg.), Flavius Josephus. Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apionem). Band 1 (Göttingen, 2008), 13; B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, 1992), 76–7. On Josephus’ ambitions as a prospective leader of world-wide Judaism, see E. Nodet, “Josephus’ Attempt to Reorganize Judaism from Rome,” in Rodgers, Making History, 103–22.

3.4. Josephus on the Character and Purpose of AJ

139

in this respect is also clear from the end of AJ, where he claimed that nobody had ever produced such a work for the Greek-speaking world: XX 262 And now I take heart from the consummation of my proposed work to assert that no one else, whether Jew or Gentile, would have ever been equal to the task, however willing to undertake it, of issuing so accurate a treatise as this for the Greek world. 263 For my compatriots admit that in our Jewish learning I far excel them.50

That Josephus perceived his own work as similar in character (but wider in scope) to the translation of the Torah into Greek is also clear from AJ I 5, where he announced that AJ “is going to encompass our entire ancient history and constitution of the state, translated from the Hebrew writings.”51 In AJ X 218 he repeated his claim again, saying: “I safeguarded myself against those who would criticize the content or would find fault, committing only to translate the Hebrew books into the Greek tongue and promising to explain them, neither adding to the content anything of my own nor taking away.”52 So, in Josephus’ eyes AJ was conceived as an amplification and extension of the Greek Torah. What were the aims which Josephus pursued in AJ? It turns out that he knew exactly what he wanted to accomplish in his work, and explicitly stated his goals on two occasions in the introduction. First, he claimed that I 13 Countless are the things revealed through the sacred scriptures, since, indeed, the history of 5000 years is embraced in them, and there are all sorts of unexpected reversals and many vicissitudes of wars and brave deeds of generals and changes of governments. 14 On the whole, [however,] one who would wish to read through it [i.e., AJ] would especially learn from this history that those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted (ĞÌÀ ÌÇėË ÄòÅ ¿¼Çı ºÅŪÄþ Á¸Ì¸ÁÇÂÇÍ¿ÇıÊÀ Á¸Ė ÌÛ Á¸ÂľË ÅÇÄÇ¿¼Ì¾¿šÅ̸ Äü ÌÇÂÄľÊÀ ȸɸ¹¸ţżÀÅ) succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness (¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸) lies before them as a reward from God. But to the extent that they dissociate themselves from the scrupulous observance of these laws 53 (ÒÈÇÊÌľÊÀ ÌýË ÌÇŧÌÑÅ ÒÁÉÀ¹ÇıË ëÈÀļ¼ţ¸Ë) the practicable things become impracticable, and whatever seemingly good thing they pursue with zeal turns into irremediable misfortunes.54

50

Where the new translation in the Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary series was not available at the time of writing, I quote from the Loeb translation (in this case: L. H. Feldman [trans.], Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Book XX. General Index [Cambridge, Mass., 1965]). 51 Ě¼À ºÛÉ ȼÉÀšÆ¼ÀÅ ×ȸʸÅ ÌüÅ È¸ÉЏ ÷ÄėÅ ÒÉϸÀÇÂǺţ¸Å Á¸Ė »ÀŠÌ¸ÆÀÅ ÌÇı ÈÇÂÀ̼ŧĸÌÇËëÁÌľÅ?¹É¸ŤÁľÅļ¿¾ÉľżÍĚžÅºÉ¸ÄÄŠÌÑÅե 52 ÄŦÅÇÅ̼ļ̸ÎÉŠ½¼ÀÅÌÛË?¹É¸ţÑŹţ¹ÂÇÍ˼ĊÈĽÅ¼ĊËÌüÅ?Š»¸ºÂľÌ̸ÅÁ¸Ė̸ı̸ »¾ÂŪʼÀÅÄŢ̼ÈÉÇÊÌÀ¿¼ĖËÌÇėËÈÉŠºÄ¸ÊÀŸĤÌġËĊ»ţßÄŢÌЏÒθÀÉľÅĨȼÀÊϾĚÅÇËեTranslation follows Begg and Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities 8–10. 53 ÌýËÌÇŧÌÑÅ refers back to the laws in the preceding sentence. 54 Translation follows Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, with my emendations. Josephus repeats this idea in I 20, where he says that first of all Moses took care to teach his

140

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

As becomes clear from the following narrative in AJ, Josephus faithfully pursued his stated goal: he repeatedly stressed that the observance of the divine laws resulted in happiness (¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸), while the transgression of them inevitably brought failure and humiliation. This is stressed throughout both biblical and post-biblical parts of AJ, and could, indeed, be considered the main leitmotif of this work. This theme is closely connected to the important concept of ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸, whose prominent role in Josephus’ interpretation of biblical history in AJ has been emphasized and analyzed by H. W. Attridge.55 So, according to Josephus, divine providence is a paramount factor in human history, and God watches over those who observe His Law, but visits with punishments and calamities those who transgress it. Josephus returns to the topic of divine providence in his treatment of the prophecies of Daniel, exactly in the middle of AJ, at the end of book X: X 277 That man [i.e., Daniel] wrote and left behind all these things, which God had shown to him; so that those who read and look at the things that have happened marvel at the honor Daniel had from God and discover from them that the Epicureans have been deceived. 278 They cast aside providence from life and do not think that God administers its affairs (ÇĐÌŢÅ̼ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ÅëÁ¹ŠÂÂÇÍÊÀÌÇı¹ţÇÍÁ¸Ė¿¼ġÅÇĤÁÒÆÀÇıÊÀÅëÈÀÌÉÇȼŧ¼ÀÅÌľÅ ÈɸºÄŠÌÑÅ), and hold that it is not steered by the blessed and incorruptible Being towards perseverance of the whole; but they say that the world is borne along automatically without a driver and without a care. 279 If it was without a protector (ÒÈÉÇÊ̊̾ÌÇË) in this way, then when the world was crushed by an unforeseen misfortune it would have been destroyed and ruined, in just the same way that we also see ships without helmsmen being sunk by winds or chariots being turned around when they have no one holding the reins. 280 Therefore, on the basis of the things predicted by Daniel, it seems to me that they go very much astray from the true opinion who hold the view that God exercises no providence (ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸Å) at all over human affairs; for we would not be seeing all things coming about according to his prophecy if the world went along by some automatic process.56

readers that “God, who is the Father and Lord of all and who looks upon all things, grants a happy life (¼Ĥ»¸ţÄÇŸ ¹ţÇÅ) to those who follow Him but surrounds with great misfortunes those who transgress virtue” (with my emendations). These passages clearly demonstrate that for Josephus, doing God’s will/following Him and keeping the Law of Moses were synonymous. Thus, Josephus of the 90s fits into E. P. Sanders’ pattern of “covenantal nomism,” described in his Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis, 1977), 419–28. 55 Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History. For increased emphasis on God in AJ as compared with parallel passages in BJ, see D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence, and the Date of the Judean War,” in Pastor et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus, 331–52; idem, Judeans and Jews. 56 Translation follows Begg and Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities 8–10. On Daniel in AJ, see the discussion on pp. 188–90 below. The thesis is repeated in the story of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene in AJ XX (see, esp. XX 48). The story is discussed in detail on pp. 242–6 below.

3.5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ

141

Another important idea expressed by Josephus appears in AJ I 23–4, where he exhorted his readers to consider the view of God advanced by Moses, who showed that “God possesses a virtue that is pure (ÒÁɸÀÎÅýÌüÅÒɼÌüÅ ìÏÇÅ̸), [and] thought that human beings ought to try to participate in it, and he unrelentingly punished those who do not share these thoughts or believe in them.” As a result, those who read Josephus’ work should be able to comprehend that nothing in it is “unreasonable or incongruous with the majesty and benevolence of God. For all things have their arrangement in harmony with the nature of the universe.” In other words, Josephus claims here that the Jewish Law does not in any way contradict the laws of nature; indeed, it is virtually identical with them. In his note on this passage L. H. Feldman comments: “Here Josephus is indicating that the laws of Moses are directed not merely toward the Jews but toward humankind generally.”57 In my view, Feldman is right, and I think that this is indeed Josephus’ second main purpose in AJ – to present the Judean constitution as universal and proper for all humans, and to demonstrate his thesis through his account of Judean (and, at times, even of non-Judean) history. In his comment on AJ I 20 S. Mason similarly interprets it as Josephus’ claim that “[t]hat is why Moses treated the constitution of the universe before framing his laws, just so that his laws alone would be seen to be based upon universal truths, the laws of nature. There is no limitation of these laws to Judeans.”58 In this Josephus was not exceptional – he was preceded by Philo and even earlier by Aristobulus, who held some very similar views on the universality of the Jewish ÅŦÄÇË.59

3. 5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ At this point I would like to consider the context and audience of AJ. As has been pointed out above, Josephus dedicated AJ (as well as Vita and CA) to a certain Epaphroditus, who is universally assumed to have been a Gentile. As to his exact identity, several candidates have been proposed.60 57

Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 9, n. 29. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’,” 85. Cf. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 243, who writes that according to Josephus, “Moses advocated a theory of natural law.” 59 On Philo, see J. W. Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria on the Mosaic and Greco-Roman Law (Leiden, 2003); on Aristobulus, N. Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin, 1964). 60 Josephus mentions Epaphroditus in AJ I 8–9; Vita 430; CA I 1; II 1, 296. See H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audiences: Josephus and the Roman Elites,” in Edmondson et al., Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 49–52; J. Curran, “Flavius Josephus in Rome,” in Pastor et al., Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 68–9. 58

142

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

In any case, it is highly likely that he was a representative of a circle of Roman Gentiles interested in things Judean, and that Josephus wrote his later works for him and his like-minded friends, Romans sympathetic to Jews and Judaism. Many of the earlier scholars, who tended to view early Josephus as a kind of renegade, and BJ mainly in terms of pro-Flavian propaganda, concluded that by the time Josephus decided to write AJ, he had repented and became a “religious nationalist,” and therefore produced an apology for himself as a loyal Jew.61 Moreover, several scholars suggested that by the nineties of the first century Josephus caught the air of the changing socio-religious climate in the Land of Israel, and tried to curry favor with, or for, the leaders of the nascent rabbinic movement.62 This, ostensibly, would account for his better presentation of the Pharisees in AJ as compared with BJ, as well as for the more “religious” outlook of AJ. Although I do agree that between BJ and AJ Josephus underwent a number of transformations – both as an author and as a Jew, I believe that the picture is much more subtle and complicated than this. Several facts militate against the above assumptions. First, there is no evidence that Josephus “repented” of his earlier work, or that he later was ashamed of the positions expressed in it. He refers to BJ throughout his other works without any compunction, and continues to consider it as a trustworthy account of the events.63 This does not mean that there are no differences in outlook between BJ and Josephus’ later compositions, but the reasons seem to be connected to natural developments in Josephus’ personal outlooks, rather than his penitence or blatant opportunism and pragmatic manipulations vis-à-vis changing political circumstances. Second, as far as Josephus’ religious loyalties are concerned, I hope to have demonstrated that BJ too can be read as a coherent Judaic theological statement. Josephus was interested in “religious” matters at the time of writing BJ as he was later. The differences in Josephus’ theological stances are better accounted for by the changing religious paradigms in his head, not by his being a godless Flavian propagandist at the beginning and Jewish “religious nationalist” at the end. That is, the types of Josephus’ religiosity had undergone transformation and development, as well as religious questions posed by him; however he remained “religious” throughout all of 61

Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 240, cf. 236. M. Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in M. Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York, 1956), 67–81, repr. in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (Leiden, 1996), I:104–15; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome; J. Neusner, “Josephus’ Pharisees: A Complete Repertoire,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 274–92; more cautiously Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics. For the refutation of these views, see Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. 63 E.g., AJ I 6, XX 259; Vita 357–67; CA I 47–56. 62

3.5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ

143

his works. Thus, for example, D. R. Schwartz has suggested that instead of assuming that Josephus’ comparatively positive picture of the Pharisees in AJ stemmed from his desire to flatter the rabbis at Yavneh, it is better to think that having spent more than two decades in the Diaspora, Josephus gradually came to embrace many of the Judaic values which had been characteristic of the Pharisees.64 That is, in Rome, Josephus slowly realized something which he was not fully aware of while living in Judea – for example, the unrivalled centrality of the Law in the life of a Jew.65 Therefore, if Josephus praises Jewish Law in AJ and dwells on the importance of its observance, this does not have to mean that he was only apologetic or opportunistic. I suppose he might have believed it sincerely, as I will try to demonstrate below. Third, as far as the rabbinic movement in the nineties of the first century C.E. is concerned, it has been emphasized many times in recent research that it is very risky to assume that already at this time the movement was of great prominence and influence, unless we look at it with hindsight.66 We have no evidence that Josephus had any connection with it, indeed, that he even was aware of it – much less that he consciously promoted the Palestinian rabbis, or tried to convince them of his own piety and loyalty to the Law. As I have pointed out above, in my view, later Josephus has to be interpreted primarily as a Diaspora author and thinker.67 Josephus came to Rome to stay there for good, his works were produced in the Diaspora, and there is no evidence that he ever planned to return to Judea. It has been demonstrated that in AJ Josephus consistently eliminated the “land theology” prominent in the Bible, omitted covenant scenes or reinterpreted them in such a way as to underemphasize the promise of the Land of Israel, and even to present it not as a promise, but rather as a prediction.68 Some have 64

D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” in C. Böttrich und J. Herzer (Hrsg.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tübingen, 2007), 137–46. 65 This is not to say that he was not aware of the importance of the Law in the life of Judeans, of whom he was one, but rather, of the fact that the Law is absolutely central and sufficient for Jewish identity and practice. If earlier the Law was just one component, alongside Temple-cult and territory, to name just two candidates, now it became the sole basis of Jewish identity, and its observance – the main expression of what it means to be Jewish. 66 For a skeptical view of the scope of Rabbinic influence in Late Antique Jewish society, see S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton, 2001). Cf. S. S. Miller, Sages and Commoners in Late Antique ’Ereܲ Israel: A Philological Inquiry into Local Traditions in Talmud Yerushalmi (Tübingen, 2006). 67 Cf. T. Rajak, “Josephus in the Diaspora,” in Edmondson et al. (eds.), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome, 79–97. 68 See B. Halpern-Amaru, “Land Theology in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities,” JQR 71 (1981), 201–229; P. Spilsbury, “Reading the Bible in Rome: Josephus and the Constraints of Empire,” in Sievers and Lembi, Josephus and Jewish History, 209–27. In my view,

144

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

noticed that he never expressed a hope that the Temple would be restored in any concrete terms.69 The main reason for these tendencies seems to be the fact that Josephus gradually moved away from being a territoryoriented Judean towards becoming a Torah-and-tradition-oriented Diaspora Jew. In the words of Abraham Schalit, AJ is the first post-destruction work, which envisions the future of the Jewish people in the West as a positive political program, and Joseph son of Mattathias is its author. It should be pointed out that an internal contradiction passes through both the author and his composition: he is a Jew from the Land of Israel, who once was a friend of the Zealots (if not in his heart, then at least in his actions), who turns his back to the Land of Israel and becomes an advocate of the Western exile. AJ is the work which purports to tell the Gentiles the history of the Jews in their land, which actually leads to the conclusion that the future of the Jewish people is not in the Land of Israel, but in the exile.70

Fourth, as I demonstrate in the chapter on Josephus’ view of his priestly identity, his view of the Jewish leadership is unequivocally priestlycentered. The priests, at whose head stands the high priest, are the sole guardians, interpreters, and enforcers of the Judean Law. 71 This is clearly not a view that the rabbis at Yavneh would agree with and endorse, and had Josephus wanted to promote or flatter them, he would not have expressed it. In other words, I believe that Josephus’ changes of perspective between his early and late works should rather be ascribed to his changing

Josephus’ deemphasis of the covenant idea is the logical outcome of his Gentile audience in AJ and of his desire to present the Law as universal. If one claims that the Law is for all human beings, without any concern for who they are and where they are, then ethnic and territorial covenants made by God are an impediment, not help. Cf. Josephus’ version of Balaam’s oracle in AJ IV 115–7, where he says twice that apart from the Land of Israel, the whole world lies before the Israelites as their dwelling place (quoted below, pp. 189–90). For criticism of Halpern-Amaru, see M. Avioz, “Josephus’s Land Theology – A Reappraisal,” in K. Berthelot et al. (eds.), The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in the History of Jewish Thought, from Antiquity to the Modern Period (Oxford, forthcoming). In my view, Avioz’s approach to Josephus fails to consider his elimination of Land-theology and the covenant-theme in the broader context of his aims and concerns in AJ. 69 Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis, 320–4. 70 Schalit, Josephus: Antiquitates, LXXXI, my translation. I am not sure, however, whether the stance of the author of AJ witnesses to “the deep schism in Josephus’ soul,” as Schalit goes on to speculate. Also, Schalit, writing in the forties of the previous century, used the loaded Hebrew term ʺʥʬʢ, “exile;” it seems that what he actually wanted to say is appropriately conveyed by the more neutral term ʺʥʶʥʴʺ, “dispersion,” that is, “Diaspora.” Cf. L. H. Feldman, The Importance of Jerusalem as Viewed by Josephus (Ramat-Gan, 1998), 23 (repr. in idem, Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered [Leiden, 2006], 677–93). 71 CA II 184–9. I discuss this passage in chapter 4 (pp. 268–9 below). Cf. Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis, 306–24.

3.5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ

145

contexts and personal internal developments and progress, and not to purely apologetic concerns and pragmatic political calculations. Among recent studies dealing with the genre and purposes of AJ I should again mention G. E. Sterling’s “Historiography and SelfDefinition.” This is a broad study encompassing pagan, Jewish, and early Christian historiography of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. In the context of Josephan studies the monograph is especially important since it discusses Josephus’ writings, mainly AJ, in the context of other comparable works of Oriental historiography produced in the Graeco-Roman era. AJ is discussed against the background of the fragmentary works by such pagan historians as Berossus and Manetho, Jewish authors Demetrius, Artapanus and Eupolemus, and Luke-Acts, and is treated as a major example of “apologetic historiography.” Sterling’s analysis is helpful in many ways, and his discussion of AJ in the context of these other representatives of “apologetic historiography” is illuminating. However, although Sterling does address the problem of the possible audience of AJ, the important question posed by S. Mason seems to remain unanswered here: who in Rome “would have been willing to hear Josephus through these twenty-one volumes,72 filled as they are with Semitic names and Judean arcana?”73 The question of the plausible addressees of such a work is important, and I believe Mason has offered some good candidates. He suggests that AJ should be considered as “an invitation to Judean philosophy,”74 and characterizes it as a “protreptic discourse” (ÂŦºÇË ÈÉÇÌɼÈÌÀÁŦË), that is, “a lecture or tract designed to attract converts to philosophy.”75 In other words, AJ could be characterized as a missionary work; actually, it has been recognized as such even by so staunch a critic of the “apologetic” and “missionary” character of Judeo-Hellenistic literature as V. A. Tcherikover.76 I will not here reconsider the whole question of Jewish missionary enterprise and literature in the Second Temple period, since I have offered an analysis of the evidence and expressed my thoughts on the subject elsewhere.77 As far as the missionary context of AJ specifically is concerned, it has been thoroughly and persuasively discussed by Mason, who built a plausible case by placing AJ in the context 72

Mason counts Vita as part of AJ. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’,” 65. 74 Ibid., 89. 75 Ibid., 88. 76 V. A. Tcherikover, “Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered,” Eos 48 (1956), 169–93. 77 M. Tuval, “The 4th Sibylline Oracle and the Popularity of Judaism among the Pagans after the Destruction of the Second Temple,” Vestnik Yevreyskogo Universiteta 10 (28) (2005), 23–54 (in Russian; this is a shortened version of my MA thesis with the same title [in Hebrew]). 73

146

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

of first-century Roman philosophical and political discourse, as well as by reading it as Josephus’ offer of “Judaism as an option in the philosophical/constitutional marketplace.”78 In other words, I agree with Mason both on the subject of the reality of Judean missionary activities, and on the character and purposes of AJ. As has been mentioned above, Josephus presents the Judean constitution not as a narrow system of law and practice intended solely for the Judean nation. Rather, he treats it as an ideal and comprehensive system of legislation and philosophy, totally congruent with the laws of the universe and nature, and reflecting them better than any other comparable constitutional or philosophical system. Its origin is divine, and its Lawgiver is superior to the lawgivers of other nations. Therefore, Moses began his constitution neither with unseemly myths and tales, nor with I 21 contracts and the rights of people with one another in a manner similar to others, but he led their thoughts to God and the structure of the universe. He persuaded them that we human beings are the fairest of God’s deeds upon earth. Once he succeeded in getting them to submit to a life of piety (ÈÉġËÌüżĤÊš¹¼À¸Å), he soon easily persuaded them with regard to everything else.79

This is the reason why the Laws of Moses begin with the story of creation and the structure of the universe – the God who created the world and the laws of nature which operate in it is the same God who gave His laws through Moses. Anybody who considers this fact is led to the conclusion that these laws must be the best and the most effective, since they have as their source the One who also created the whole universe, as well as humanity. It also follows from this fact that the laws of Moses are not intended only for the Judeans, but for the whole human race. They reflect universal principles, and, as has been pointed out above, Josephus challenges his readers to see whether his thesis concerning the rewards for observing them and punishments for disobeying them is convincingly demonstrated by his historical narrative. In this context, it is also important to emphasize that the sections of AJ which at first glance have no immediate relevance to Josephus’ narrative on Judean history and culture, and had usually been considered “fill-up” material, such as a long passage on Caligula in AJ XIX, make much more 78

Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’,” 87; he provided a more detailed discussion in: idem, “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,” and discussed some of the relevant topics in idem, “The Contra Apionem in Social and Literary Context: An Invitation to Judean Philosophy,” in L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison (eds.), Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden, 1996), 187–228. 79 Emended. Cf. Philo, De Opificio Mundi 1.1–2. See Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1– 4, 9, n. 26, for a discussion of this and other parallels.

3.5. Recent Research on Purpose, Context, and Audience of AJ

147

sense on such a reading. 80 Josephus actually suggests that there is no fundamental difference between Judeans and Romans as far as the Law is concerned – the same rules/laws operate in both cases, and if one follows and obeys them, he prospers; if he transgresses them, he comes to ruin. The only difference is that the Judean laws are the best. Although, as I said, I believe that AJ was produced by Josephus mainly for non-Jews, it is obvious from several passages in the book, that he also pursued some internal Jewish goals, and expected his work to be read at least by some Jews. Thus, in AJ IV 197 he says concerning his own rearrangement of the Pentateuchal materials in AJ that IV 197 The arrangement of each topic according to its class has been innovated by us. For the writings were left by him [i.e., Moses] in scattered condition, just as he ascertained each item from God. I considered it necessary to mention this beforehand, so that some blame may not be assigned to us for having erred by my fellow countrymen who encounter (ëÅÌÍÏŦÅÌÑÅ) this text.

There are also hints that Josephus used certain biblical stories in order to polemicize with some views which existed among contemporary Jews, for example his paraphrase and amplification of the story of the Moabite/Midianite women and the deed of Zambrias (Zimri) in AJ IV 127–54. In contrast to the Bible, where no speech by Zimri is reported, but only his intercourse with a Moabite woman and their murder by Phineas, Josephus puts on Zambrias’ lips a long antinomian speech, in which he accuses Moses of tyrannically imposing his evil laws on the simple-minded and gullible people. From the contents of this speech it is likely that Josephus might have heard similar views and arguments from some of his Jewish contemporaries, who chose to forsake the Law in order to integrate more fully into surrounding Greco-Roman society and culture. In other words, it seems that Josephus used this story as an opportunity to attack such assimilationists and to assert his own point of view concerning the importance of Lawobservance.81 However, apart from Josephus’ own statements concerning his intended audience, which were mentioned above, it is evident from other parts of AJ that he mainly wrote for a non-Jewish public. Thus, he expected them to be ignorant of some of the basic data concerning Judeans and Judaism, and took care to explain them.82 In this light, it seems that the suggestion of E. 80

For the analysis of the function of the stories about Caligula, see below. Cf. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 136–9; Judean Antiquities 1–4, 378, n. 393; W. C. van Unnik, “Josephus’ Account of the Story of Israel’s Sin with Alien Women in the Country of Midian (Num. 25.1 ff.),” in M. S. H. G. Heerma von Voss et al. (eds.), Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beck on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Assen, 1974), 241–61. 82 E.g., AJ I 128–9; III 317; XIV 1–3, 186–7; XVI 175; XVII 200, 213; XX 106, 216, 81

148

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Nodet that AJ was written mainly for the Jews, is off the mark.83 Nodet’s evaluation of the audience and purposes of AJ is based mainly on his onesided reading of Vita (seen by him as comprising one whole with AJ), in which, according to his view, Josephus provided “a parochial account in a remote sub-province, some twenty-five years after the events.”84 Apart from this, there is virtually nothing to support Nodet’s argument, as he himself seems to recognize. His suggestion to view Josephus’ work as an attempt to reorganize Judaism is interesting and provocative; however, some aspects of his reconstruction are speculative and are based on several improvable assumptions and conjectures, such as the awareness of Josephus’ works among the representatives of the nascent rabbinic movement, and even their conscious polemics with him.85 On the basis of the preceding analysis and discussion, in my view, Nodet’s analysis of the audience of AJ/Vita is untenable, and therefore should be rejected.86

3. 6. The Aims of This Investigation As has been pointed above, AJ is rightly seen as the main historical source for the reconstruction of the history of the Second Temple period. Both in this sense, and in another one which I will immediately discuss, it could, mutatis mutandis, be compared with the Bible, the main source for the history of the First Temple period. However, it is universally conceded that apart from being a work of historiography of sorts, even the historical books of the Hebrew Bible are primarily works on theology. The God of the Bible is active and manifests Himself in historical events and processes, so His dealings with humanity are presented as moral lessons unfolding in the course of human history. Historians and archaeologists interested in the historical events look into the Bible for historical evidence, and this procedure is, of course, legitimate and sometimes productive. However, it 262. On Josephus’ audience in AJ, see Mason, “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,” xvii–xx, idem, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’.” 83 Nodet, “Josephus’ Attempt.” 84 Ibid., 104. For a more convincing analysis of the aims and purposes of Vita, see Mason, Life of Josephus. 85 In fairness to Nodet it should be said that, in my view, his idea that the rabbinic story of R. Yohannan b. Zakkai’s surrender to Vespasian was based on Josephus’ definitely earlier version of his surrender at Yodfat, is bold, fascinating, and deserves further investigation. 86 This is not to say, as will become clear from my discussion of Josephus’ view of himself, that I do not agree with Nodet that Josephus’ might have seen himself as a natural candidate to lead world Judaism from Rome, or that he had a very high view of his Jewish credentials and his own interpretation of Judaism.

3.6. The Aims of This Investigation

149

is usually agreed that the goals of the authors-redactors of the Bible were first of all theological, and the ideological interpretative frames they imposed on the events and processes described are no less significant than the events themselves. Their redactional comments are important for the reconstruction of their view of whatever happened in the world and why, and could not be ignored by any responsible historian – even if he or she is primarily interested in “real” historical events or processes, and not in theology. I have already mentioned that in his programmatic statement in the opening paragraphs of AJ Josephus presented his work as the continuation into the rest of the Bible and the amplification of the translation of the Torah into Greek. I would not go as far as G. E. Sterling in claiming that in AJ “in nuce, what we have is a definitive translation of scripture, not replacing the Hebrew scriptures themselves but on equal footing with the LXX and actually displacing it.”87 However, it does seem clear that Josephus viewed biblical and post-biblical history as teaching the same lessons, and he announced these at the outset of his project: those who observe the Judean laws succeed and prosper; those who break them fail and meet with disaster. This is more or less what biblical scholars call “Deuteronomistic theology,” but for Josephus, this view was not limited to Deuteronomistic history or even the whole Bible. Rather, he endeavored to present the complete history of Judeans (and even some episodes from the history of other nations) as exemplifying this theological standpoint. In other words, apart from being a major historiographical work, AJ is a theological work, declared to be such by its author. As was stated in the introduction to this study, I take Josephus to be a unique test-case in the context of research into various Judaic paradigms of the Second Temple period. I interpret “early” Josephus as an adherent of the Jerusalem-based Temple-and-cult priestly Judaism, and “late” Josephus as a full-fledged Law-centered Diaspora intellectual. I do not want to imply that there is some inherent dichotomy between Temple and Torah; on the contrary, in chapter 1 above I emphasized that the Temple and its cult are at the center of the Torah of Moses, and played pivotal roles in the religious and political life of Second Temple Jews living in Judea. However, as I also tried to show in that chapter, for various reasons Diaspora Jews were motivated to develop alternative approaches to divine worship and 87 Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition, 255; emphasis in the original. I disagree with Sterling mainly because of the practical aspects of such a claim in Josephus’ context: the Greek translation of the Torah was not just a piece of literature, it was an authoritative collection of books, studied as the Holy Scripture by Jews and read as such in the liturgical services in Greek-speaking synagogues. Even if we take into account Josephus’ high view of himself and of his literary compositions, it is hard to imagine that he intended (or expected) AJ to be used in any comparable way.

150

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

identity definitions, which resulted in the creation of various novel Judaic paradigms. I think that Josephus of the nineties fits neatly into this analysis of Diaspora Judaism as compared with the “common Judaism” of the Land of Israel in the Second Temple period. As I hope to have demonstrated in the chapter 2, at the time of writing BJ his Judaic identity was centered on the Temple, its sacrificial cult and its priests qua Temple servants. The analysis of Josephus’ interpretation of Judean history in BJ has demonstrated the preeminence of Temple and cult in the religious worldview of its author. In this chapter, similar to my treatment of Josephus’ religious outlooks in BJ, I will attempt to chart Josephus’ theological profile in his major composition – AJ – and compare it to my reconstruction of his interpretation of Judaism in BJ. I hope to show that by the time Josephus wrote AJ the Jerusalem Temple and its cult had become largely peripheral to his interpretation of Judaism, and his emphasis had shifted from the centrality of the Temple and its sacrificial cult to the comprehensiveness of the Jewish system of law, ethics, and praxis – the Mosaic constitution. In other words, I suggest that between the seventies and the nineties Josephus’ understanding of Judaism and Jewish history paradigmatically changed: it had moved away from the Temple to Torah. Needless to say, AJ is a huge work, and it is impossible to deal with all the details even of its religious aspects in one chapter, let alone with many other facets of this work that might be relevant for the reconstruction of Josephus’ outlooks at the time of its composition. Moreover, a similar analysis has been attempted before, notably by H. W. Attridge, and as will become clear below, my study is much indebted to his discussion of the central religious ideas in AJ.88 Therefore, I will concentrate my attention on a limited number of issues which are especially relevant in the context of this study. The procedure I adopt here is chiefly based on a systematic and detailed book-by-book comparison of AJ and its sources – whether biblical, post-biblical, or Josephus’ own earlier BJ. As I carry out this comparison, I will attempt to do the following. First, several things have already been said concerning the place of the Law and its observance in Josephus’ interpretation of Judean (as well as non-Judean) history in AJ. In the rest of this chapter I will continue my discussion of the Law and the Judean Lawgiver Moses, in Josephus’ historical narrative in AJ. This will include the discussion of how his overall thesis is demonstrated by his subsequent narrative, as well as by his knowledge and exegesis of the Bible, and by his interpretation of historical events (both biblical and post-biblical) in the light of his Torah-centered ideology. Except in a few cases, I will not discuss the prominence of the 88

Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History. As the title suggests, Attridge limited his analysis mainly to the biblical parts of AJ.

3.7. Whence Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in AJ?

151

particular Jewish halakhah (absent from BJ) in Josephus’ worldview throughout his narrative in AJ, since large parts of AJ are nothing else but a description of Jewish Law.89 Secondly, as I proceed, I will analyze Josephus’ treatment of sources. As the question of his sources and his adaptation of them in general has been discussed a number of times, I will not attempt to produce another comprehensive treatment here, but rather concentrate on several specific aspects.90 Since my main interest lies in the interrelationship of Templecentered and Torah-centered Judaic paradigms in the Second Temple literature, particularly in Josephus, I will be looking for cases in which Josephus inserted Law where previously it had not been noticed, where he erased the Temple and/or cult from his narrative, and especially where he replaced the Temple and cult with the commandments of the Torah. As will become clear, there are quite a few examples of each of these cases throughout AJ. I will provide a detailed comparison and discussion of the relevant passages in Josephus’ sources (or of his earlier treatment of the same story in BJ) and AJ. Third, I will try to single out the elements of AJ which, according to the criteria described in the introduction to this study, and exemplified in the first chapter above, could be ascribed to the fact that by the time Josephus wrote AJ, he had become a mature Diaspora Jewish thinker and author. Among these elements I include his emphasis on the role of divine providence, prominence of prayer, tendency to emphasize the universality of the Jewish Law, interest in martyrdom, and some other recurring features and themes.

3. 7. Whence Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in AJ? It has been said above, that according to his own programmatic statements at the beginning of AJ, Josephus set out to supplement the work of the translators of the Septuagint by translating all of Judean Scriptures, and to demonstrate that the observance of Mosaic Law leads to prosperity, but its transgression results in terrible disasters. He also claimed that those who read his work without prejudice would realize that these Laws were in harmony with nature, that is, universal by implication. As we shall see, throughout AJ Josephus stayed true to his promise: he paraphrased the Bible in such a way as to make it reflect his theology, and repeatedly illus89

D. Altshuler, “On the Classification of Judaic Laws in the Antiquities of Josephus and the Temple Scroll of Qumran,” AJS Review 7 (1982), 1–14. 90 E.g., see Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 24–66. For further bibliography, see above.

152

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

trated his thesis of divine providence and retribution by examples from biblical, post-biblical, and even pagan history. In sharp contrast to BJ, there is no doubt that by the time Josephus wrote AJ he had become intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible, as well as with quite a few parabiblical and exegetical works. As I mentioned previously, on the basis of Josephus’ own statements, many scholars date his study of the Bible and its interpretative traditions to his early years. I hope that my analysis of BJ has demonstrated that this composition contains very little evidence for Josephus’ solid biblical knowledge and expertise at that stage of his life – that, in other words, there is no reason to suppose that he seriously studied, let alone mastered the Bible and its exegesis in Jerusalem. If not there and then, where else could he have acquired his biblical and exegetical knowledge which is evident in AJ? I suggest he did it in Rome. Admittedly, we do not possess any literary or archaeological evidence which would allow us to reconstruct even an approximate setting for Josephus’ study of the Bible in Rome – and he himself does not provide any. We simply do not know where he studied, with whom, for how long, and what exactly was on his curriculum. However, on the basis of the analysis of the extant Diaspora literature, some of which was discussed above, several options could be considered. We know from Philo and the New Testament that Diaspora synagogues were primary centers of Torah-study,91 and we know of the existence of several first-century synagogues in Rome.92 True, Josephus does not mention his own participation in the life of Roman synagogues; however, this does not prove that he did not visit them. Some scholars have suggested that Josephus was an outcast as far as the Jewish community of Rome was concerned,93 but this suggestion is mainly based on argumentum ex silentio, and, in my view, is speculative and not supported by any solid evidence. It is difficult to imagine that Josephus lived as a hermit in total isolation from other Jews. In the introduction and in chapter 1, I claimed that there is no evidence that he received his early education in Jerusalem batei-midrash or synagogues. However, in 91

Philo, Prob. 80–83; Mos. 2.214–16; Acts 15:21; 17:1–4; 10–12. The synagogue of Theodotus son of Vettenus in Jerusalem (who might have been a Diaspora, and even, a Roman Jew) also was a house of study; see A. Runesson, D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E. A Sourcebook (Leiden, 2008), 52–4. 92 For the sources, see, Runesson et al., The Ancient Synagogue, 230–7; for a full list, see P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis, 2003), 431–2. 93 See A. Momigliano, “Ciò che Flavio Giuseppe non vide,” in Settimo Contributo alla Storia Degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome, 1984), 305–17; ET: “What Josephus Did Not See,” in idem, On Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Middletown, 1987), 108–19, who also thinks that Josephus was a stranger to the life of the synagogue.

3.7. Whence Josephus’ Knowledge of the Bible in AJ?

153

Jerusalem there were other places where a young priest could learn the basics of Jewish practice and belief, including, of course, the Temple, which dominated the city (in several ways).94 In Rome, there were fewer alternatives. Although Josephus does not mention synagogues in Rome either, I would suggest that it is at least a possibility that they could have been the context where he acquired at least part of his biblical knowledge, as well as familiarized himself with the traditions both of Jewish Palestinian and Diaspora exegesis. But, of course, this is not necessarily so, and must remain a conjecture. There is no need to assume that Roman synagogues would have been the only place where Josephus could study the Bible. It is clear from AJ that while in Rome, he took pains to read the works of a number of pagan authors and historians,95 and it is possible – even likely – that he did it on his own. In the same way it is probable that he read the Bible and other Jewish literature on his own, especially since the biblical texts were definitely available in Rome, and he knew the languages needed to study them.96 He was certainly intellegent, and he was diligent. In addition to this, he may have employed tutors – just as we know some Church Fathers such as Origen and Jerome later did in their studies of Hebrew language and Jewish tradition.97 He was not poor, and in late first-century Rome there were plenty of captive and penniless Judeans, of whom not a few 94

Thus, we hear of Jesus, the Apostles, and R. Yohannan b. Zakkai as teaching and preaching in the Temple (e.g., John 18:20; Acts 3–5; b. Pesahim 26a). 95 AJ XX 263: “I have also labored strenuously to partake of the realm of Greek prose and poetry, after having gained a knowledge of Greek grammar.” See the discussion in Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 35–9. 96 In Vita 417–8 he says that after the destruction of Jerusalem, he was offered by Titus to take “anything that I like from the ruin of my native place.” Since he had nothing dearer to him, he asked Titus to release some of his friends and to let him take “some sacred volumes (¹À¹ÂţÑÅ Ď¼ÉľÅ).” The story concerning the importance of the biblical books has no parallel in BJ, and might be Josephus’ invention, reflecting his later interest in the Torah and aimed at demonstrating its centrality for his self-identity. This was already implied by Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 146–7, who, however, thought that in telling this story Josephus strove to present himself as pious before the rabbis in Yavneh. 97 Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah 20, 2; Commentary on Psalms 1–25 3; see N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish–Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge, 1976), 50–61, 103–32. Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 22, 17; Epistolae 73, 9; 84, 3; Commentary on Ecclesiastes 4, 14; 5, 3; Onomastica Sacra 90, 12; see A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford, 1993), 4–49, 176–91. On both, see A. Salvesen, “A Convergence of the Ways? The Judaizing of Christian Scripture by Origen and Jerome,” in A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Minneapolis, 2007), 233– 58.

154

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

would have been educated and more than happy to share their knowledge for a fee. The fact that after the end of the Great Revolt Rome was full of Palestinian Jews could also account for Josephus’ familiarity with Palestinian exegetical traditions, which has been pointed out a number of times.98 Whatever the context of Josephus’ study of the Bible in Rome may have been, it is evident from AJ that by the time he wrote this composition he had formed the view that the Law of Moses served virtually as the sole basis of Jewish life and identity. Indeed, the goal of AJ is to prove to sympathetic gentiles that the Jewish Law is the best system of law, ethics, and practice for them as well. The Mosaic Law is divine in nature, superior in character, in harmony with the universe, and is the primary criterion of right and wrong. The Law is absolutely central in AJ; it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is more central in AJ than in the Bible itself.99

3. 8. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible: Patriarchs Beginning with the stories of Genesis, Josephus exemplified his thesis with his characterization of the behavior of biblical figures as pious or wicked.100 Since the Law had not yet been given, Josephus did not describe them as keeping the Law, but rather in terms of “virtue,” “piety,” “righteousness” and similar terms. God’s ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ is never absent from the story, faithfully rewarding the virtuous and the righteous with blessings and making them prosper. In AJ I 23, which was quoted above, Josephus explained that Moses had shown that “God possesses a virtue that is pure (ÒÁɸÀÎÅý ÌüÅÒɼÌüÅìÏÇÅ̸), [and] thought that human beings ought to try to participate in it, and he unrelentingly punished those who do not share these thoughts or believe in them.” So, although the early heroes of Genesis and the Patriarchs lived before the Law was given, Josephus used them as examples par excellence of what it meant to “participate in God’s virtue.” Thus, at the beginning of his treatment of Cain and Abel, he added to the biblical story his explanation that Abel “had regard for righteousness (»ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧžËëȼļ¼ėÌÇ) and, believing that God was present in all things that were done by him, looked after virtue (ÒɼÌýËÈÉǼÅŦ¼À).” Cain, how98

See S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Wien, 1930); Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation; idem, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible; idem, Judean Antiquities 1–4, passim. 99 See below for specific examples. 100 On the treatment of Genesis in AJ, see the detailed study of T. W. Franxman, Genesis and the “Jewish Antiquities.” In my analysis of Josephus’ rewriting of the Bible I compared AJ with both the Masoretic version and LXX, although in quotations from the Bible I give English translation of the Hebrew text.

3.8. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible: Patriarchs

155

ever, “was most wicked (ÈÇžÉŦ̸ÌÇËöÅ),” and looked only for gain.101 Of course, God highly valued Abel and accepted his proper sacrifice, but rejected Cain’s offer and severely punished him for the murder of his brother.102 When Josephus introduces the story of the Flood, he begins by describing the wickedness of humanity at that time.103 While the Bible only said that “The LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time” (Gen 6:5),104 and mentioned the cohabitation of “the sons of God” with the daughters of men rather neutrally, Josephus used this opportunity to elaborate on the theme of the importance to obey the customs of the fathers. In addition, he turned Noah into a preacher of righteousness – a detail he could not have found in Genesis: I 72 And these men for seven generations continued to believe that God was Lord of the universe and to look upon all things with reference to virtue (ÈŠÅ̸ ÈÉġË ÒɼÌüÅ ÒÈǹšÈÇÅ̼Ë). Then in the course of time they changed from their ancestral habits (ëÁ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ ë¿ÀÊÄľÅ) for the worse, neither offering to God the customary honors (ÌÛË żÅÇÄÀÊĚŸË ÌÀÄŠË) nor taking into account justice (»ÀÁ¸ţÇÍ ÈÇÀÇŧļÅÇÀ ÂŦºÇÅ) toward humanity; but, through the things that they did, exhibiting double the zeal for vice (ÌýË Á¸Áţ¸Ë) that they had formerly shown for virtue (ÌýË ÒɼÌýË), they thereby incurred the enmity of God for themselves. 73 For many angels of God, consorting with women, fathered children who were insolent and despisers of every good thing because of the confidence that they had in their power. For, according to tradition, they are said to have committed outrages comparable to those said by the Greeks to have been done by giants. 74 Nochos, disgusted with their actions and being displeased with their endeavors, tried to persuade them to improve their attitude and to change their actions.105 But seeing that 101

AJ I 53. AJ I 54: “God took greater pleasure in [Abel’s] sacrifice, being honored by things that grow automatically and in accordance with nature but not by those things that grow by force of grasping man with craftiness.” Josephus does not seem to be bothered by the fact that the story of Abel and Cain is not a good illustration of his thesis – the righteous Abel is murdered, after all. 103 For Josephus’ treatment of Noah and the Flood, see L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Noah and Its Parallels in Philo, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, and Rabbinic Midrashim,” PAAJR 55 (1988), 31–57, a revised version of which was reprinted in idem, Studies in Josephus’s Rewritten Bible, 17–37. See also idem, “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, PseudoPhilo and Josephus (Detroit, 2004), 84–114, and, above all, his commentary ad loc. in idem, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 26–53. Feldman also discusses previous scholarship on Josephus’s version of Noah and the Flood. This section of the chapter is largely based on M. Tuval, “The Role of Noah and the Flood in the Judean Antiquities and Against Apion by Flavius Josephus,” in M. E. Stone et al. (eds.), Noah and His Book(s) (Atlanta, 2010), 167–81. 104 In quotations from the Hebrew Bible, I follow the NJPS translation, unless otherwise is stated. 105 See the material on Noah as a preacher in N. Sharon and M. Tishel, “Distinctive 102

156

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

they did not give way but were vehemently overpowered by the pleasure of evils, fearing lest they even slay him with his wives and children and those who were dwelling with them, he withdrew from the land.

Another interesting passage is AJ I 96–103, where Josephus put in Noah’s mouth an eloquent prayer, totally absent from the Bible; in the latter only his sacrifice is mentioned. In contrast, in AJ Noah’s prayer is much more important than the sacrifice, and God’s favorable response Ԏԉ Noah is said to be to his “supplications,” not sacrifice. This tendency seems to be in line with other passages both in the later writings of Josephus, and in other Diaspora Jewish compositions.106 In answer to Noah’s prayer, God promised not to destroy humanity again, and explained, I 99b that it was not He who had destroyed those who had perished but that they had suffered this punishment because of their own wickedness (Á¸Áţß)… 100b But these outrages that they committed against My piety and virtue (ëÆŧ¹ÉÀ½ÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ëÄüÅ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å Á¸Ė ÒɼÌŢÅ)107 forced Me to inflict this penalty upon them. 101a But I will cease in the future to punish crimes with such wrath and more especially since you call upon (ȸɸÁ¸ÂÇıÅÌÇË) Me.

In the Bible, God did not speak with Noah at all, but to “His own heart,” and His musings followed His smelling of the “pleasant odor” of Noah’s sacrifice. It does not refer to Noah’s calling upon God.108 The idea that obedience to God brings happiness, but disobedience to Him leads to calamity, is repeated immediately after the passage dealing with the Flood. Again, nothing of this is in the Bible, so it is likely to reflect Josephus’s own outlook, being in line with the main religious paradigm of AJ. Speaking of Noah’s descendants, Josephus informed his readers that I 110b When God bade them, because of their large population, to send colonies, in order that they might not engage in civil strife with one another (ÄüÊ̸ÊÀŠ½ÇÀ¼ÅÈÉġËÒÂÂŢÂÇÍË), but cultivating much of the soil they might enjoy its fruits, they did not listen to God owing to their ignorance; and therefore, falling into misfortunes, they came to realize their error. 111 For when they flourished with a multitude of young people, God again Traditions about Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Jewish Literature,” in Stone (ed.), Noah and His Book(s), 143–65. 106 Such as Wisdom of Solomon 18:20–25, and Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, treated in chapter 1. Cf., however, AJ I 140, where Noah brings a sacrifice and feasts after harvesting the vine he had planted, and making wine. No sacrifice is mentioned in the Bible. It seems that Josephus wanted to provide a more “respectable” context for Noah’s getting drunk. But see the discussion of some parallel traditions in Sharon and Tishel, “Distinctive Traditions.” Josephus might have found this sacrifice in some of his extra-biblical sources. 107 See Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History, 83–4 for the discussion of the translation and meaning of this phrase. 108 Gen 8:20–1.

3.8. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Bible: Patriarchs

157

advised them to establish a colony. But they, not realizing that their blessings were due to His favor and supposing that their own might was the reason for their prosperity, did not obey. 112 And to this disobedience to God’s will (ȸɸÁÇŧ¼ÀÅÌýËÌÇı¿¼ÇıºÅŪľË) they added the suspicion that He was encouraging them with malicious intent to emigrate in order that being scattered they might more easily be assailed.

It should also be borne in mind, that another mention of Noah by Josephus, in the speech of Moses after his descent from Mount Sinai, also appears in the context of exhortation to follow God’s laws: “God, O Hebrews, just as He also did previously, graciously received me and having prescribed a blessed life for you and a well-ordered constitution (Á¸Ė ¹ţÇÅ ̼ ĨÄėÅ ¼Ĥ»¸ţÄÇŸÁ¸ĖÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸ËÁŦÊÄÇÅĨȸºÇɼŧʸË), is also coming Himself into the camp.”109 After mentioning Noah, whom God saved from the Flood,110 Moses again encourages the Israelites to follow the God-given laws: III 88 Let them [i.e., God’s ÂŦºÇÀ] be held in reverence by you and let them be more worth fighting for than children and wives. 111 For you will lead a blessed life (¼Ĥ»¸ţÄÇŸ ºÛÉ »ÀŠÆ¼Ì¼ ¹ţÇÅ) if you follow them and, enjoying a fruitful earth and a sea that is not stormy and the birth of children begotten in accordance with nature, you will also be terrifying to your enemies.

This speech is absent from the Bible, and is wholly a Josephan composition. Josephus’ treatment of the story of Abraham has been discussed by Feldman, who demonstrated that in addition to portraying the father of the Judean nation as a general,112 he also presented him as a “Greek philosopher,” who conversed concerning philosophical matters with the Egyptians and taught them many useful sciences.113 Even before his descent to Egypt, Abraham reflected on the sublime character of the One Creator: I 155 For this reason he also began to have loftier thoughts than others with regard to virtue (ëÈЏÒɼÌĉ), and he determined to innovate and change the conception concerning God that everyone happened to have. He therefore was the first who dared to declare that God was the one craftsman of the universe (¿¼ġÅÒÈÇÎŢŸʿ¸À»¾ÄÀÇÍɺġÅÌľÅĞÂÑÅïŸ) 109

AJ III 84. “[God], on account of Whom Nochos escaped the Flood… – this is the One who graciously bestows these words upon you through me as an interpreter” (AJ III 87). 111 Contrast BJ IV 190, where the high priest Ananus exhorts the citizens to “sacrifice our lives if not for wives and children, then for God and the Sanctuary.” This passage was discussed in chapter 2 (p. 106). Cf. also AJ XII 267, where Josephus paraphrases 1 Mac 2:7–13. This passage is discussed below in this chapter (pp. 195–6). 112 L. H. Feldman, “Abraham the General in Josephus,” in F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, B. L. Mack (eds.), Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico, 1984), 43–9. 113 L. H. Feldman, “Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus,” TAPA 99 (1968), 143–56; for the latest discussions of the figure of Abraham in Josephus, see idem, Josephus’ Interpretation, 223–89, and Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 55–74. 110

158

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

and that if some other being contributes something to [man’s] happiness, each one supplies something in accordance with His command and not by virtue of his own strength.

Virtually entire Josephus’ version of Abraham’s biography is intended to demonstrate his main thesis. After Abraham achieved full happiness (¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸Å) by the will of God, he invested it all in the hope that after his death his son Isaac would remain unscathed.114 Isaac is also described as “practicing every virtue and showing attention to his ancestors and exhibiting zeal for the worship of God.”115 However, God decided to test Abraham’s piety towards Himself by asking him to offer Isaac as sacrifice. In response, Abraham judged “it just to disobey God under no circumstances and to obey everything, since all those to whom He is benevolent survive through His providence (ÈÉÇÅÇţ¸Ë).”116 When Abraham disclosed his intention to his son, Isaac received his words with joy, saying that it would not have been right for him to have been born, had he disobeyed God’s decision.117 As Feldman notes, “this glorious scene [was] wholly invented by Josephus.”118 Later, Isaac is said to have died after living virtuously for one-hundred and eighty-five years. He “was a man dear to God and deemed worthy of careful providence (ÈÉÇÅÇţ¸Ë) by Him after his father Abraham.”119 The patriarchs are presented by Josephus as exemplarily righteous persons, who were blessed by God for their piety and virtuous behavior. Thus, as Josephus puts it, in the vision at Beth-El God addressed Jacob as “the offspring of a good father and grandfather who achieved glory for his great virtue (ÒɼÌýËļºŠÂ¾Ë),”120 and later describes him as coming “to a height of happiness (¼Ċ˼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸ËÄšº¼¿ÇË) such as no other easily attained.” He was the wealthiest man in the region, and was envied and admired because of the virtues of his children (ȸţ»ÑÅ Òɼ̸ėË ½¾ÂÑÌġË Á¸Ė ȼÉţ¹Â¼ÈÌÇË öÅ).121 In retelling the story of Joseph, Josephus consistently theologized it. When Potiphar’s wife attempted to seduce Joseph, he exhorted her to remain faithful to her husband since that would afford “pleasure without 114

AJ I 223. AJ I 222: ëÈÀ̾»¼ŧÑÅÈÜʸÅÒɼÌüÅÁ¸ĖÌýË̼ÌľÅȸ̚ÉÑÅ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ËëÏŦļÅÇËÁ¸Ė ȼÉĖÌüÅÌÇı¿¼Çı¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸ÅëÊÈÇÍ»¸ÁŪËե 116 AJ I 225. 117 AJ I 232. 118 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 92, n. 720. 119 AJ I 346. For a thorough discussion of Josephus’ treatment of Isaac, see Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation, 290–303. 120 AJ I 280. 121 AJ II 7. See Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation, 304–33, and Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 76–82 for a full treatment of Jacob in AJ. 115

3.9. Josephus on Moses and his Constitution

159

danger and furthermore much self-confidence both before God and before men arising from her conscience… Indeed, it was far better to have confidence in the known deeds of a life well lived than in the wickedness (Á¸ÁÇÈɸºţß) kept secret.”122 After he was falsely accused by Potiphar’s wife, he put II 60 everything concerning himself in the hands of God, [and] did not apply himself to defending himself nor to a precise disclosure of what had happened, but in silence underwent the chains and the distress, being confident that God, knowing the reason for his misfortune and the truth, would be stronger than those who had bound him, and he straightway received proof of His providence (ÌýËÈÉÇÅÇţ¸Ë).123

To summarize Josephus’ version of the history of humanity before the giving of the Law, it should be said that he consistently and emphatically presented the Judean forefathers as pious, virtuous, righteous, and obedient to God’s commands, on the one hand, and as being rewarded by God for these qualities with happiness and prosperity, on the other.

3. 9. Josephus on Moses and his Constitution Moses, who was not mentioned in BJ by name even once,124 becomes the central character of AJ; Josephus claims that the writings left by him were so powerful that even the enemies of the Jews agreed that God established the Judean ÈÇÂÀ̼ĕ¸ “through Moses and his merit (ÌýËÒɼÌýË).”125 In the words of L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’s treatment of Moses is a veritable aretalogy such as would have been appreciated especially by a Roman so-

122

AJ II 52. On Josephus’ version of Joseph story, see M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt, 1934); M. Niehoff, The Figure of Joseph in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Leiden, 1992), 84–110; Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation, 335–73. 124 However, in BJ Josephus mentions the “lawgiver” (ÅÇÄÇ¿šÌ¾Ë) four times: twice in the passage on the Essenes, II 145, 152; in III 376 (ascribing to the “wisest of legislators” a non-biblical tradition), and in V 401. That in the Essene passage the Teacher of Righteousness, rather than Moses might have been meant is at least a possibility (cf. Ps. 9:21 LXX); see the discussion in A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Gloucester, Mass., 1973), 31 n. 3, 358 (in favor of the identification with the Teacher); T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge, 1988), 92–4 (against the identification). One could object that BJ is not a work on biblical history – therefore, Moses did not have to be mentioned. However, he is mentioned twelve times in the parallel sections in AJ, and once in Vita; see A. Schalit, Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden, 1968), 88 (s. v. ÑÍÊýË). 125 AJ III 322. 123

160

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

ciety that admired the Stoic portrait of the ideal sage.”126 Since the material concerning Moses in AJ is so vast and rich, and has been discussed many times in previous scholarship,127 I will limit my analysis to several pertinent points. It has been noted a number of times that in his presentation of Moses, especially of his birth and early career in Egypt, Josephus utilized Hellenistic Jewish sources.128 He began the account of Moses’ birth with a non-biblical story concerning his father Amram’s prayer to God for deliverance of the Hebrews from Pharaoh’s decree to kill all the male children. In this prayer, Amram implored God “to take pity at length on men who had transgressed not at all in worship of Him (ľ»òÅ ÌýË ¼ĊË ¸ĤÌġÅ ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë ȸɸ¹¼¹¾ÁŦÌÑÅ).” In response to Amram’s plea, God appeared to him in a dream and said that “He held their [i.e., the Hebrews’] piety (ÌŢÅզ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å) in His memory and would always bestow a reward for it.”129 Josephus’ thesis is illustrated once again – God does not forget those who faithfully worship Him and practice piety towards Him.130 However, if anybody disobeys Him, the

126

Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation, 377. In the next sentence he notes that the word ÒɼÌŢ is used by Josephus in respect to Moses at least twenty-one times. On “aretalogy” as a genre, see M. Smith, “Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels, and Jesus,” JBL 90 (1971), 174–99, repr. in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh, 2:3–27; J. Z. Smith, “Good News Is No News: Aretalogy and Gospel,” in J. Neusner (ed.), Judaism, Christianity, and other Graeco-Roman Cults. Part One: New Testament (Leiden, 1975), 21–38. 127 It suffices to mention that L. H. Feldman’s article on “Josephus’ Portrait of Moses,” JQR 82 (1991–2), 285–328; 83 (1992–3),7–50; 83 (1993), 301–30, is 118-pages long. For a revised version of this article, see idem, Josephus’ Interpretation, 374–442. Cf. Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 94–146, who also discusses Moses’ opponents and his behavior towards them. For another recent discussion, see F. Damgaard, “Brothers in Arms: Josephus’ Portrait of Moses in the ‘Jewish Antiquities’ in the Light of His Own Self-Portraits in the ‘Jewish War’ and the ‘Life’,” JJS 59 (2008), 218–35. Other important studies dealing with the image of Moses in early Jewish and Christian literatures (including Josephus) are W. A. Meeks, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden, 1967), 131–46 (on Josephus); idem, “Moses as God and King,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden, 1968), 354–59; B. L. Mack, “Imitatio Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenistic Synagogue,” SPhilo 1 (1972): 27–55; J. Lierman, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion (Tübingen, 2004). 128 Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,” 257–72. For a detailed comparison of AJ story of Moses’ Egyptian career with the fragments of Artapanus’ Moses romance, see Sterling, Historiography, 268–80. 129 AJ II 211–2. 130 God’s ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ is emphasized several times in the story of the Israelite deliverance from Egypt: e.g., II 279–80; 286; 302; 329–30; 332; 336; 349.

3.9. Josephus on Moses and his Constitution

161

whole universe turns against them. Thus, when Moses later goes to Pharaoh he exhorts him II 291b in no way to oppose what He wished, but to value His goodwill above all else and to permit them to leave, lest by hindering them he should unwittingly have only himself to blame for suffering what one who opposed the commands of God (¿¼Çı ÈÉÇÊÌŠºÄ¸ÊÀ) was likely to suffer. 292a For to those who arouse divine wrath against them calamities arise from all sides, and neither earth nor air is friendly to them, nor do they have births of children in accordance with nature, but all things are hostile and warlike.131

As has been pointed out above, one of the prominent motifs of BJ was the respect which the gentiles exhibited towards the Jerusalem Temple. Thus, in my discussion of BJ, I mentioned Pompey’s admiration of the Judean priests, who in the course of the siege unflinchingly continued their sacrificial duties under heavy Roman bombardment.132 I also discussed Josephus’ repeated claims that even during the final siege of Jerusalem, the Romans, and especially Titus, constantly evinced respect for the Temple and its cult, and did all they could in order to preserve them. Josephus also several times emphasized that the Temple was adorned and embellished at the expense of foreign monarchs and other donors, who willingly contributed their gifts to the Temple and financed sacrifices.133 In AJ Josephus shifts his emphasis – now it is the Jewish Law and the Lawgiver that arouse gentile admiration and respect. Thus, at the beginning of the story of Moses’ birth, Josephus says that God assured Amram that He was “looking after (ÈÉÇÅÇÇŧļÅÇÅ) the common welfare” of the Israelites and Amram’s renown. The child who would be begotten from him would be safe and II 216 he shall deliver the race of the Hebrews from their distress among the Egyptians, and he shall be remembered as long as the universe shall endure not only among Hebrew men but also among foreigners, since I bestow this favor upon you and those who will be descended from you. And he shall have such a brother as to hold my priesthood – both he and his descendants for all time (ĹÊ̼ ÌüÅ ëÄüÅ ïƼÀÅ Ď¼ÉÑÊŧžÅ ¸ĤÌŦÅ ̼ Á¸Ė ÌÇİË 뺺ŦÅÇÍ˸ĤÌÇı»ÀÛȸÅÌġËÌÇıÏÉŦÅÇÍ).134

At the very end of AJ III, after Josephus describes Moses’ speech to the disobedient Israelites in which he announced to them God’s decision to make them wander in the wilderness for forty years, he says that Moses succeeded in calming such a great multitude of people, since from the calamities which had befallen them for their failure to listen to him, they fi131

Cf. this passage with AJ III 87–8, quoted above (p. 157). See the discussion in chapter 2 (p. 103). The synopsis of the accounts in BJ and AJ and their comparative analysis are provided below in this chapter (pp. 209–10). 133 E.g., BJ II 412–3; IV 181; V 562–3. 134 Notice the emphasis on the eternity of priesthood. The passage is Josephus’ creation. 132

162

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

nally learnt that “disobedience is disadvantageous (ÒÊŧÄÎÇÉÇÅî¸ÍÌÇėËÌüÅ Òȼţ¿¼À¸Å ëÈšºÅÑʸÅ).”135 Then he goes on to dwell on the power of the Law of Moses – both among Judeans, and even among foreigners. It should be noticed that the context of the story which he uses in order to illustrate gentile admiration, is cultic; however, he does not claim that the gentiles were impressed by the Temple and sacrifices – rather, they admired and obeyed the laws and the Lawgiver: III 317 The man [Moyses] was admired for his excellence (ÌýË ÒɼÌýË) and his strength by being trusted with regard to what he said not only during the time that he lived but even now. Surely there is no one of the Hebrews who, just as if he [Moyses] were present and ready to punish him should he act in an unbecoming manner, does not obey the laws prescribed by him (ÌÇėËĨÈЏ¸ĤÌÇıÅÇÄÇ¿¼Ì¾¿¼ėÊÀ), even if he would be able to escape notice. 318 There are many other proofs of his superhuman power (ĨÈòÉ ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈŦÅ ëÊÌÀ »ÍŊļÑË ¸ĤÌÇı). Recently certain people from beyond the Euphrates, having offered sacrifices, were unable to partake of the sacrificial animals, though they had proceeded on a journey, with many dangers and expenses, for four months in order to honor our Temple,136 because Moyses forbade it in the case of one of those who are not bound by our laws nor happen to be related to ourselves through our ancestral customs (ÑÍÊšÇË ÒȾºÇɼÍÁŦÌÇËëÈţÌÀÅÀÌľÅÇĤÅÇÄÀ½ÇÄšÅÑÅÇĤ»ЏëÁÌľÅȸÌÉţÑÅ÷ÄėŸĤÌÇėËÊÍÅÌÍÏŦÅÌÑÅ). 319 Some, not sacrificing at all, and others leaving the sacrifices half-done, many being unable to enter into the Temple to begin with, departed, preferring to obey the edicts of Moyses (ÌÇėË ÑÍÊšÇË ÈÉÇÊÌŠºÄ¸ÊÀ) rather than to do things in accordance with their own will, and not fearing the one who criticized them with regard to these things but only being apprehensive about their conscience. 320a Thus the legislation regarded as God’s has made this man [Moses] to be esteemed beyond his own [human] nature (ÇĩÌÑË ÷ ÅÇÄÇ¿¼Êţ¸ÌÇı¿¼Çı»ÇÁÇıʸÌġÅÓŻɸȼÈÇţ¾Á¼Ìý˸ĤÌÇıÎŧʼÑËÁɼţÌÌÇŸÅÇÄţ½¼Ê¿¸À).

Immediately following this passage, Josephus goes on to praise the behavior of Judean priests. However, here they are not praised for their cultic activities but for their faithfulness to the Law. Both in that passage, quoted below, and in Vita 14, Josephus praises the priests for their observance of Jewish dietary laws. Several things should be pointed out in this respect. First, as I have mentioned above, Jewish dietary laws are conspicuously absent from BJ I– VI, and appear only once in BJ VII, 137 which, according to several recent studies, was composed later – perhaps, much later – than BJ I–VI. 138 Second, in the following passage the priests are singled out as those who observed the dietary laws in the time of famine. As Josephus made it clear 135

AJ III 316. Á¸ÌÛ ÌÀÄüÅ ÌÇı È¸ÉЏ ÷ÄėÅ Ď¼ÉÇı. Perhaps it is better to translate this clause as “in accordance with the honor of our Temple.” 137 BJ VII 264. 138 See S. Schwartz, “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ Bellum Iudaicum Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986), 373–86; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence” in Pastor et al., Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 331–52. 136

3.9. Josephus on Moses and his Constitution

163

that the famine was universal, why did he emphasize specifically that it was the priests who did not dare to transgress the Law? I would suggest that Josephus’ emphasis on the priests stemmed from his view that the role of the priests as the natural and legitimate leaders of the Jews endured in spite of the Temple’s demise. I will return to Josephus’ view of the role of the priests in his concept of Judaism below.139 Here is what Josephus says concerning the power of Moses and his Laws, as well as of the priestly piety: III 320b One more example: shortly before the recent war, when Claudius was ruler of the Romans and Ismaelos was high priest among us, and when famine gripped our land so that an assaron was sold for four drachmas, 321 when wheat-flour was brought in during the festival of unleavened bread, amounting to seventy kors – these are thirty-one Sicilian or forty-one Attic medimni – not one of the priests dared to eat a crumb, although such great want gripped the land, fearing the law and the anger that the Divinity always has toward those crimes not brought to light.

As was noticed by D. L. Tiede, Josephus’ idealized description of Moses finds its closest analogy in Philo’s view of the Judean lawgiver: “Both depictions aim to present the hero of Jewish tradition as surpassing the best that the cultured despisers of Judaism praised in their own heroes.”140 Moses himself is the chief example – one could say, the embodiment – of that divine virtue, in which, according to Josephus, the Lawgiver called others to participate.141 The readers of his Laws had deduced the “superlative quality of his virtue (Ìġ ȼÉÀġÅ ¸ĤÌÇı ÌýË ÒɼÌýË),”142 and when Josephus relates the story of Moses’ end, he says that he disappeared after a cloud stood over him, “[b]ut he has written of himself in the sacred books that he died because he was afraid that they might dare to say that because of the abundance of the virtue surrounding him he had gone up to the Divinity (»¼ţʸË Äü »ÀЏ ĨȼɹÇÂüÅ ÌýË ȼÉĖ ¸ĤÌġÅ ÒɼÌýË ÈÉġË Ìġ ¿¼ėÇÅ ¸ĤÌġÅ ÒŸÏÑÉýʸÀÌÇÂÄŢÊÑÊÀżĊȼėÅ).”143 139

See chapter 4. It should also be mentioned that in AJ X 190–4 Josephus paraphrases the story of Daniel and his friends, who declined to eat non-kosher food provided for them by Nebuchadnezzar, in much detail. Josephus’ biblical source for the story, the first six chapters of the Book of Daniel, is also usually assumed to be of Diaspora provenance. See J. J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis, 1993), 47–50; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 17–22. 140 D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, 1972), 237. See also G. Hata, “The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Anti-Semitism,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 180–98. On Philo’s treatment of Moses, which also takes Josephus’ views into account, see now L. H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (Notre Dame, 2007). 141 AJ I 23, quoted above (p. 154). 142 AJ IV 331; translation follows Thackeray. 143 AJ IV 326–7. See C. T. Begg, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses: Some Observations,” JBL 109 (1990), 691–3. On the basis of

164

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Thus, it is not surprising that even the cosmological and universalistic interpretation of the Tabernacle and the vestments of the high priest in AJ III 179–87 – in several respects similar to the interpretation of the Temple offered in BJ V 210–8144 – has the rehabilitation of Moses’ reputation and of his laws as its declared goal: III 179 One might wonder at the hatred of men toward us that they have continued to have on the ground that we belittle the Divinity that, indeed, they themselves have made up their minds to reverence (Êš¹¼ÀÅ ÈÉÇćɾÅ̸À). 180 For if someone should investigate the construction of the tent and should observe the clothing of the priest and the vessels that we use for the sacred service, he would find that our lawgiver was a man of God (ÌŦÅ ̼ ÅÇÄÇ¿šÌ¾Å ¼ĨÉŢʼÀ ¿¼ėÇÅ ÓŻɸ) and that the slanders that we hear from the others are unfounded. For he will find that each of these is in imitation and representation of the universe (ïÁ¸Ê̸ºÛÉÌÇŧÌÑżĊËÒÈÇÄţľÊÀÅÁ¸Ė»À¸ÌŧÈÑÊÀÅÌľÅĞÂÑÅ), if someone should be willing to consider them ungrudgingly and with understanding.145

Thus, the Judean cult instituted by Moses is universal and has as its goal the worship of the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, for the sake of the well-being of all humanity. these two paragraphs it is highly likely that Josephus was familiar with the traditions of Moses’ apotheosis and ascension, but did not want to elaborate on them. To what extent he himself believed in them is difficult to assess; however the fact that in his narrative he created a tension between what “really” happened and what Moses “wrote concerning himself” might point in the direction that he did adhere to some version of Moses’ apotheosis – or at least wanted to impress the Romans, well familiar with the emperor cult and the story of Romulus. Cf. M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York, 1965), 131, on Philo’s version of the episode in De Vita Mosis: “What appealed to Philo in the aretalogical tradition was its combination of the traits of philosopher, prophet, and wonder-worker. This enabled him to represent the prophet and wonder-worker of the Bible as a philosopher, someone socially acceptable to the Hellenized Jewish aristocracy of Alexandria. For this purpose, therefore, Philo used the haggadic-aretalogical stories of Moses’ transfiguration and ascension (II 288, 291), but he transformed the first into a philosophical allegory, and he passed over both it and the second with the briefest possible mention. Miracles were not to be denied, of course, but enough was enough.” On the parallels between Josephus description of Moses’ end and of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ account of the passing of Aeneas and Romulus, see Thackeray, Josephus the Man and the Historian, 16–7. 144 Partially quoted on p. 102 above. Moses is not even mentioned in the description of the Temple in BJ – it seems that in his earlier composition Josephus described the Temple and its appurtenances as he knew them to be; unlike Philo, he did not need Moses (or Torah) to tell him how and why they are supposed to be the way they were. On Philo’s treatment of the Temple and sacrificial laws as “bookish,” see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London-Philadelphia, 1992), 104. 145 Slightly emended, emphasis mine. Much has been written on this passage; see J. Daniélou, “La symbolique du Temple de Jerusalem chez Philon et Josephe,” in R. Bloch (ed.), Le symbolism cosmique des monuments religieux. Serie Orientale Roma 14 (Rome, 1957), 83–90; C. T. R. Hayward, The Jewish Temple. A Non-Biblical Sourcebook (London, 1996), 147–51; Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis, 340–4; 383–94.

3.9. Josephus on Moses and his Constitution

165

The role of Divine providence in Josephus’ presentation of biblical history has been thoroughly analyzed by H. W. Attridge, and his comparison of Josephus’ understandings of the conditions for God’s alliance with His people was quoted above in chapter 2. By way of reminder, Attridge pointed out that while in BJ Josephus claimed that God would be the ally of the Jews as long as they properly observed the Temple cult, in AJ he claimed that God’s providence and help were dependent on the observance of the commandments of the Law and the practice of virtue and piety. 146 There are numerous examples of this view in Josephus’ story of Moses, but it seems that it is most eloquently presented in his version of the Lawgiver’s speech in Deuteronomy (AJ IV 177–95), which, as Attridge notes, “is certainly based on the similar tone of Deuteronomy. However, in its details the speech is a rather free composition, with weak connections to the particulars of its biblical source.”147 The main idea repeated many times in the speech is that the obedience to the laws which Moses passed on to the Israelites is the key to happiness and the condition upon which God will make them prosper. In Josephus’ view these laws – on the obedience to which God’s favor depends – are not just general and universal moral standards such as we witnessed in his criticism of the rebels in BJ, but rather the whole corpus of specifically Jewish halakhah, as is made perfectly clear from his detailed summary of the Law following the speech. In other words, “virtue” and “piety” are not abstract or general concepts for Josephus in AJ, but are rather embodied in and expressed through the observance of the particulars of Jewish Law. In addressing the Israelites, Moses promises to show them the way in which they would be happy, enjoy the possession of all good things, acquire new blessings, as well as pass them on to their children: IV 181 Only obey those [rules] that God wishes you to follow, and do not value more highly another arrangement more than the present laws (ÅÇÄţÄÑÅ ÌľÅȸÉŦÅÌÑÅ), and do not scorn the piety (¼Ĥʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë) that you now have with regard to God and change it for another way. If you do this, you will be the most valiant of all in enduring battles and you will be vulnerable to none of the enemy. 182 For with God being present to you as an aid, it is reasonable to defy everyone. Great rewards of virtue (ÒɼÌýË) lie before you who have acquired them for all your life. She [virtue] is the most excellent of goods, and then she generously grants abundance of the others, 183 so that, if you practice her with one another, she will make your life blessed and more famous than other peoples and will grant you undisputed renown among future peoples. You will be able to attain them if you will listen to and guard the laws that I arranged upon God’s dictation to me, and if you will study their understanding. 146

Quoted on p. 108 above. Attridge, Interpretation of Biblical History, 149–51. Cf. P. Spilsbury, “God and Israel in Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship,” in Mason, Understanding Josephus, 172–91. 147 Ibid., 90.

166

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

However, if the Israelites fail to observe the laws and disdain virtue, they will lose God’s favor, He will become their enemy, they will lose their land, be defeated in battle, dispersed throughout the world, and “will fill both every land and sea with [their] slavery.”148 Before Moses presents the Book of the Laws and the constitution to the Israelites, he tells them that in order that your nature may not incline toward the worse because of ignorance of the better, I have compiled for you both laws and a constitution which God has dictated to me (ÊÍÅš¿¾Á¸ĨÄėÅÁ¸ĖÅŦÄÇÍËĨȸºÇɼŧʸÅÌŦËÄÇÀÌÇı¿¼ÇıÁ¸ĖÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸Å). If you guard its orderliness you will be judged the happiest of all (¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅšÊ̸ÌÇÀ).149

Moses’ exhortation to the Israelites to keep the laws and not to transgress them is repeated at the end of AJ IV, where the Lawgiver says that if even human laws are to be obeyed, how much more should be the laws whose begetter is God Himself.150 Josephus puts on the lips of Moses an eschatological prediction, similar to the one in IV 190, which was summarized above, adding that “[a]lthough the God who created you will give back to your citizens both your cities and your Temple, the loss of these will occur not once but often.”151 On the one hand this prediction might look a bit sinister, but, on the other hand, it seems to reflect a much more optimistic view than that of BJ. In his early work Josephus maintained that because of the pollution of the Temple and interference with its cult, God had passed over to the Roman side, the Temple was destroyed, and the country devastated; at that point Josephus did not envisage any coherent program of eschatological restoration, even if it is unlikely that he espoused a fatalist position on the question of Israel’s future.152 Here the catastrophe experienced by his generation seems to be placed into perspective of the previous destruction, and its gravity relativized – it is not final, and nothing has really changed. Life will yet go back to what it had been before (and might even become better). The key to the restoration is the observance of the Law. It has been pointed out by previous scholars that in AJ Josephus consistently eliminated the land-and-covenant terminology of the Bible.153 This, of course, allowed him to present the Law as more universal in nature, and not just applying to the Judeans. However, in turn, another upshot of this 148

AJ IV 190. AJ IV 193–4. 150 AJ IV 318–9: ÇĪ˸ĤÌġ˺¼ÅÅŢʸËĨÄėÅì»ÑÁ¼ե 151 AJ IV 314. 152 A fatalist interpretation of Josephus’ position in BJ was advanced by H. Eshel, “Josephus’ View on Judaism without the Temple in Light of the Discoveries at Masada and Murabba’at,” in B. Ego, A. Lange und P. Pilhofer (Hrsg.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel (Tübingen, 1999), 229–38. 153 Halpern-Amaru, “Land Theology.” 149

3.10. AJ Version of Joshua and Judges

167

stance is that the Law became even more prominent in his narrative. It is a well-known fact that in the Bible the covenant relationship between God and Israelites is usually expressed in marital terms, and Israelite idolatry is regularly described as fornication and prostitution, cheating on God.154 Just as Josephus eliminated the covenant language, so also he replaced biblical references to Israelite idolatry with transgression of the Law. 155 In AJ IV 309–10, where Josephus paraphrased Deut 29:2–33:29 and 13:7–17, these two tendencies go together. On the one hand, Josephus omitted the biblical reference to the covenant, into which the Israelites enter with God, saying instead that Moses “made them swear to keep the laws,” and, on the other hand, he replaced the commandment to punish those who entice Israel to worship other gods with Israelite promise to punish those who “undertake to confound and abolish the constitution based upon them [i.e., the laws].”156 As has been noticed by many previous scholars, Josephus also omitted the compromising story of the Golden Calf, obviously for apologetic reasons. I find interesting Feldman’s suggestion that Josephus might have omitted it because Aaron the high priest was involved in the incident, since it is well-known that the status and honor of priests – especially, high priests – was very dear in Josephus’ eyes.157

3. 10. AJ Version of Joshua and Judges The Bible describes and defines idolatry, the main Israelite sin, in cultic terms – Israelites worship gods other than Yahweh by sacrifices and related cultic acts.158 This is wrong since they should be worshipping Yahweh – presumably in a similar cultic way. Although many times the biblical authors accuse Israelites both of worshipping other gods and forsaking Yahweh’s Torah, they never say that instead of sacrificing to idols they should be keeping Sabbath, eating kosher food, or observing the laws of purity. Rather, instead of sacrificing to idols they should sacrifice to Yahweh. Josephus changes the paradigm completely: it is no longer worshipping either the right God or the wrong gods in a similar cultic way. Rather, it is either observing or transgressing the Law of the same God; to observe the 154

For some vivid examples, see Hosea 1 and Ezekiel 16. On the prominence of this tendency in Josephus’ version of the period of the Judges, see below. 156 AJ IV 310. 157 Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 72; idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 59–62. 158 Literally, “work” them. For the cultic meaning of ʣʡʲ ,ʤʣʥʡʲ, see G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H.-J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Volume X (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), 376–405. 155

168

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Law is to worship God, to break it is to forsake Him and become His enemy. Thus, the knowledge of the Law and its observance become for Josephus the chief characteristics of a good leader of the people. Therefore, when Moses appoints Joshua to be his successor, Josephus says that he “had been given a complete education, Moyses having taught him thoroughly, in the laws and divine matters.”159 In the Bible nothing was said concerning Joshua’s knowledge of the Law, but only that “he was a man, in whom was spirit.”160 Similarly, when after the successful conquest of the Promised Land Joshua assembled the Israelites in Shiloh, Josephus added to his biblical source that Joshua “said that their past successes and the deeds they had accomplished were outstanding and worthy both of the Deity who had granted them and of the excellence of the laws they observed (ÌýËÒɼÌýËÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅÇđËÁ¸Ì¸ÁÇÂÇÍ¿ÇıÊÀÅ).”161 Paraphrasing Joshua’s final address to the Israelites, which in the Bible is mainly directed against idolatry, Josephus omitted the covenant which they made with God on that occasion at Shechem, and made Joshua the spokesman for his own thesis announced at the beginning of AJ: V 115 Twenty years later, being extremely old, he summoned the notables of the cities, the rulers and the senate, and assembled to himself whoever of the crowd that might readily do so. When they arrived, he reminded them of all God’s benefits, there being many who had advanced from a humble state to one of glory and abundance. 116 He appealed to them to preserve the outlook (ÌüÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ÈÉǸţɼÊÀÅ) God had towards them, since it was by piety alone that the Deity would remain a friend to them (Ìĉ ¼Ĥʼ¹¼ţßբĆ º¼ ÄŦÅþ ÎţÂÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË »À¸ÄšÅ¼ÀÅ Ìġ¿¼ėÇÅ). For it was fitting for him who was about to depart this life to bequeath this admonition to them, and he requested them to remember his appeal.162

In his rewriting of the book of Judges, Josephus took care to stick to his program of emphasizing the centrality of the Law.163 He followed the wellknown pattern of the repeating circles of apostasy, repentance and restoration which characterized his source; however, while in the Bible the Israelite sin is consistently characterized as the worship of other gods, in Josephus’ version it is the transgression of the commandments of the Law and the corruption of the Mosaic constitution. Thus, we can compare the situa-

AJ IV 165: ĝ »ò `¾ÊÇıË ÈÜʸÅ ëȼȸţ»¼ÍÌÇ ÌüÅ ȼÉĖ ÌÇİË ÅŦÄÇÍË ȸÀ»¼ţ¸Å Á¸Ė Ìġ ¿¼ėÇÅ ÑÍÊšÇË ëÁ»À»ŠÆ¸ÅÌÇËե ӣԀ. AJ III 49; V 117. On Joshua in AJ, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 443–60 and Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 147–53. 160 Num 27:18 ʥʡ ʧʥʸ -ʸʹʠ ʹʩʠ, translated literally in the LXX. 161 AJ V 73. 162 Translation follows Begg, Judean Antiquities 5–7. 163 On the period of the Judges, see Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 153–70, and Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation, 137–202. 159

3.10. AJ Version of Joshua and Judges

169

tion in the generation following the death of Joshua in the Bible and in Josephus’ version of the same in AJ: Judg 2:10b–17, NJPS

AJ V 132–5

2:10b Another generation arose after them, which had not experienced [the deliverance of] the LORD or the deeds that He had wrought for Israel. 11 And the Israelites did what was offensive to the LORD. They worshiped the 12 Baalim and forsook the LORD, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They followed other gods, from among the gods of the peoples around them, and bowed down to them; they provoked the LORD. 13 They forsook the LORD and worshipped Baal and Ashtaroth. 14 Then the LORD was incensed at Israel and He handed them over to foes who plundered them. He surrendered them to their enemies on all sides, and they could no longer hold their own against their enemies. 15 In all their campaigns, the hand of the LORD was against them to their undoing, as the LORD had declared and as the LORD had sworn to them; and they were in great distress. 16 Then the LORD raised up chieftains who delivered them from those who plundered them. 17 But they did not heed their chieftains either; they went astray after other gods and bowed down to them. They were quick to turn aside from the way their fathers had followed in obedience to the commandments of the LORD; they did not do right.

V 132 After these things the Israelites became inactive with regard to the enemy; they devoted themselves to the land and the toils involved in this. As their wealth increased, surrendering themselves to comfort and pleasure, they thought little of the order of their constitution and no longer paid careful attention to the laws.164 133 Angered at these things, the Deity announced through an oracle that, just as they had earlier spared the Chananaians in opposition to his intent, so the latter would have the opportunity of employing much cruelty against them. 134 They, for their part, while despondent at these [messages] from God, were nonetheless indisposed for war, having taken much from the Chananaians, and being already weary of exertion due to their comforts. 135 Now it happened that the aristocratic form of government was already destroyed. They no longer appointed senates nor any other type of rulership that had been earlier been customary (ÌľÅ ÈÉŦ̼ÉÇÅżÅÇÄÀÊÄšÅÑÅ), but were on their farms, addicted to the pleasure of profitmaking. Due to their grave enervation, terrible civil strife (ÊÌŠÊÀË) came upon them once again, and they were induced to make war upon one another…

The same pattern of replacing idolatry with non-observance of the Law and corruption of the constitution may be observed in several other places. In AJ V 179–80 Josephus reworks the biblical passage describing how the Israelites worshiped Baalim and Asheroth, saying instead that they neglected Divinity by forsaking the order of their constitution, and lived in pleasure, being filled with the evil (ÒŸÈţÄȸʿ¸ÀÁ¸ÁľÅ) of the Canaanites.165 In AJ V 185 through “their failure to pay honor to God and obey the laws” they fail into anarchy which leads to calamity: Eglon, king of Moab 164 165

ÌÇıÁŦÊÄÇÍĴÂÀºŪÉÇÍÅÁ¸ĖÌýËÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸ËÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅÇĤÁšÌЏöʸÅÒÁÉÀ¹¼ėËÒÁÉǸ̸ţե Cf. Judg 3:5–7.

170

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

makes war on them because he is “contemptuous of the disorder of their constitution.”166 In AJ V 198 the Israelites “neither worship God nor obey his laws,”167 and fall under the yoke of the Canaanite king Abito. While in the Bible the Israelites simply cried to God for help, Josephus emphasizes that they first learnt that their misfortunes were due to their contempt of the laws (ȼÉÀÎÉÇÅŢʼÑËÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅ), and only then turned to Deborah the prophetess to pray to God on their behalf.168 In Judg 10:6 the Israelites are said to do evil in the eyes of the LORD by worshiping a whole pantheon of gods of the nations around them: Baalim, Ashtaroth, the gods of the Arameans, of the Sidonians, of the Moabites, of the Ammonites, and of the Philistines. They forsook the LORD and did not worship Him; consequently the LORD sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the Ammonites. Josephus, instead, writes that these nations plundered their country since they disdained the Israelites, who “degenerated into disorder and arrogance against God and his laws.”169 When they eventually realized their mistakes, they became prudent, and with prayers and sacrifices implored God to help them. 170

3. 11. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Books of Samuel At the end of the era of the Judges, in the story of Samuel and his sons, Josephus again emphasizes the importance of the Law: the Israelites turn to Samuel with the demand to appoint a king, since his sons “were committing [outrages] against their earlier form of government and constitution.”171 In the Bible it is stated that they did not go in the ways of their father, and were taking bribes and perverting justice.172 When Samuel assembled the Israelites to declare to them God’s view concerning their demand for a king, he said that “even as you enjoyed these [benefits] from

166 Contrast Judg 3:12–3: “[T]he Israelites again did what was offensive to the LORD. And because they did what was offensive to the LORD, the LORD let King Eglon of Moab prevail over Israel. [Eglon] brought the Ammonites and the Amalekites together under his command, and went and defeated Israel and occupied the city of Palms.” For an analysis of the story, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 137–52. 167 ÄŢ̼Êš¹¼ÀÅÌġÅ¿¼ġÅÄŢ¿ЏĨȸÁÇŧ¼ÀÅÌÇėËÅŦÄÇÀËե 168 AJ V 200–1. Cf. Judg 4:1–3. 169 ¼ĊËÒÁÇÊÄţ¸ÅÁ¸Ėĩ¹ÉÀÅÌÇı¿¼ÇıÁ¸ĖÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅե 170 AJ V 255–6. 171 AJ VI 35: ëÆ͹ÉÀ½ŦÅÌÑÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÈÉÇ̚ɸÅ Á¸ÌŠÊ̸ÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸Å For Josephus’ treatment of the story of Samuel, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 490–508. 172 1 Sam 8:3.

3.11. Josephus’ Paraphrase of the Books of Samuel

171

God, you neglected devotion and piety (ÌüÅ ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Å Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å).”173 At the end of his speech he exhorted them VI 93 to be just and good and always to remember both the calamities that had happened to them on account of their deviation from virtue as well as God’s signs and the legislation of Moyses, if their desire was for safety and well-being with their king.174

Not surprisingly, in both of these cases the Bible speaks about idolatry, not of the Law.175 When Samuel later castigated Saul for his failure to carry out the annihilation of the Amalekites as thoroughly as he was commanded, he told him that VI 147 the Deity was not pleased by sacrifices, but by those who are good and just. Such were those who followed his will and commands, and who thought nothing to have been done well by themselves other than what they did at God’s direction. For it is not by not sacrificing to him that one despises [God], but by seeming to disobey him. 176 148 “From those who do not obey or offer the true worship that alone is pleasing to God – even if they sacrifice many fat victims, or present magnificent dedicatory offerings made from silver and gold – he does not receive these things benevolently, but rejects them and regards them as proofs of vileness rather than of piety (»¼ţºÄ¸Ì¸ ÌýË ÈÇžÉţ¸Ë ÇĤÁ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å). 149 Rather, it is those who keep in mind only what God has uttered and directed and who choose to die rather than transgress any of these things in whom he takes pleasure.”177

After God rejected Saul and chose David, Samuel anointed him as king and exhorted him VI 165b to be just and receptive to his [God’s] orders (¼čŸÀ»ţÁ¸ÀÇÅÁ¸ĖÁ¸ÌŢÁÇÇŸĤÌÇı ÌľÅÈÉÇÊ̸ºÄŠÌÑÅ), for thus the kingship would remain his for a long time and he would have a splendid and famous house. He would also overthrow the Palestinoi and would be victorious over and prove superior in battle to whatever nations he might war against. He would acquire a fame that would be celebrated in song during his lifetime and leave this behind to those after him. 173

AJ VI 90. ÊÍż¹Çŧ¼ͼ ÄšÅÌÇÀ »ÀÁ¸ţÇÍË ¼čŸÀ Á¸Ė Òº¸¿ÇİË Á¸Ė ÄžÄÇżŧ¼ÀÅ Ò¼Ė ÌľÅ »ÀÛ ÌüÅ ȸɊ¹¸ÊÀÅ ÌýË ÒɼÌýË ¸ĤÌÇėË Á¸ÁľÅ ÊÍÄȼÊŦÅÌÑÅ Á¸Ė ÌľÅ ʾļţÑÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı Á¸Ė ÌýË ÑÍÊšÇË ÅÇÄÇ¿¼Êţ¸Ëբ ¼Ċ ÊÑ̾Éţ¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇėË Á¸Ė ÌýË ļÌÛ ÌÇı ¹¸ÊÀšÑË ¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸Ë ëÊÌĖÅ ëÈÀ¿ÍÄţ¸ե 175 1 Sam 12:6–23. 176 ĝ »ò ÈÉÇÎŢ̾Ë ÇĤÏĖ ¿ÍÊţ¸ÀË켺¼Å ø»¼Ê¿¸À Ìġ¿¼ėÇÅբ ÒÂÂÛ ÌÇėË Òº¸¿ÇėË Á¸Ė »ÀÁ¸ţÇÀËե ճÇīÌÇÀ »š ¼ĊÊÀÅ ÇĎ Ìĉ ¹ÇÍÂŢʼÀ Á¸Ė ̸ėË ëÅÌǸėË ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸Ì¸ÁÇÂÇÍ¿ÇıÅ̼Ë Á¸Ė ľ»òÅ ÓÂÂÇ ÈɸϿŢʼʿ¸À Á¸ÂľË ĨÎЏ î¸ÍÌľÅ ÅÇÄţ½ÇÅ̼Ë õ ĞÌÀ ÔÅ ÈÇÀŢÊÑÊÀ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı Á¼Á¼Â¼ÍÁŦÌÇËդ Á¸Ì¸ÎÉÇżėÊ¿¸ÀºÛÉÇĤÏĞ̸ŸĤÌŊÄü¿ŧþÌÀËբÒŬ ЏĞ̸ÅÒȼÀ¿¼ėÅ»ÇÁĉեн 177 Cf. 1 Sam 15:17–23. Notice Josephus’ non-biblical statement that God takes pleasure in those who choose to die rather than transgress His commandments, which is in line both with the prominence of martyrdom in Diaspora literature, and with Josephus’ own emphasis on it in his latter writings. 174

172

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

None of this is in the Bible, but it serves perfectly to illustrate Josephus’ proposition – whoever follows God’s Law prospers beyond any imagination. The final acts of Saul, especially his slaughter of the priests at Nob, illustrate the other side of Josephus’ theory: Saul is an example of those who after having risen to power, began to be contemptuous of things human and divine: “And now, when piety and justice (ÌýË ¼Ĥʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë զ Á¸Ė ÌýË »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧžË) are especially needed by them who are most exposed to envy with their thoughts and actions manifest to all, then it is that they – as though God no longer saw them or as if He were anxious before their authority – act without restraint.”178 Such behavior, of course, inevitably leads to their downfall.

3. 12. David and Solomon David, according to Josephus, “was a just and God-fearing man by nature, and one who strictly kept the ancestral laws,”179 but he committed adultery with Bath-Sheva.180 After he repented, God forgave him because “he was a God-fearing man and in his whole life never sinned, except in the matter of Urias’ wife,”181 but announced through the prophet that he would still experience serious troubles because of his transgression.182 When he later sinned again by conducting the census of the Israelites, and brought a plague on his people, it was only because he “ignored183 the commandments of Moyses (ÌľÅ ÑÍÊšÇË ëÅÌÇÂľÅ ëÁ¸¿ŦļÅÇË).”184 Before his death, David exhorted Solomon “to try to be worthy of his providential care by being pious, just and courageous. Keep his commandments and the laws that he gave us through Moyses, and do not allow others to transgress them.”185 He also commanded the leaders of the people to “occupy themselves with the worship (¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Å) of God. For in recompense for this they would enjoy that peace and loyalty with which God rewards pious and 178

AJ VI 265. See Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 509–36. AJ VII 130: ěÅÌÀ ÎŧʼÀ »ÀÁ¸ţĿ Á¸Ė ¿¼Çʼ¹¼ė Á¸Ė ÌÇİË ȸÌÉţÇÍË ÅŦÄÇÍË ĊÊÏÍÉľË ÎÍŠÊÊÇÅÌÀե 180 On David, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 537–69, and Spilsbury, The Image of the Jew, 175–8. 181 AJ VII 153: öźÛÉĝÄÇÂǺÇÍÄšÅÑË¿¼Çʼ¹üËÁ¸Ėľ»òÅÖĸÉÌĽÅĞÂÑËȼÉĖÌġŹţÇÅ õÌÛȼÉĖÌüÅĤÉţ¸ºÍŸėÁ¸ե 182 AJ VII 151–2. 183 Or: “forgot.” 184 AJ VII 318. 185 AJ VII 338: ÌÛË ëÅÌÇÂÛË ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸Ė ÌÇİË ÅŦÄÇÍË ÇĪË »ÀÛ ÑÍÊšÇË ì»ÑÁ¼Å ÷ÄėÅ Îŧ¸Ì̼Á¸ĖÌÇėËÓÂÂÇÀËÄüȸɸ¹¸ţżÀÅëÈţÌɼȼե 179

3.12. David and Solomon

173

just persons (ÌÇİ˼Ĥʼ¹¼ėËÁ¸Ė»ÀÁ¸ţÇÍËզÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÇÍË).”186 In AJ VII 373–4 David again exhorted Solomon to keep the laws: “These things [i. e., prosperity and peace] will be established and have a good outcome if, my son, you show yourself pious and just by keeping the ancestral laws;187 if, on the contrary, you transgress them, you may expect worse things.”188 In AJ VII 384–5, based on 1 Kgs 2:3–4, Josephus paraphrases the biblical text fairly closely; however, he adds the warning that if Solomon neglects God’s commandments and laws and transgresses them, he would lose His goodwill, and turn His ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ away. According to Josephus’ statement, which has no biblical parallel, Solomon followed the advice of his father, and “conducted affairs in great peace; nor was he impeded by his youth from justice and the observance of the laws (»ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧžÅ Á¸Ė Î͸ÁüÅ ÌľÅ ÅŦÄÑÅ) and the memory of that which his dying father had commanded him.”189 His virtue and piety are stressed throughout the narrative.190 Another motif, emphasized in the story of Solomon’s reign, is the fulfillment of David’s prophecies.191 This, of course, is in line with Josephus’ argument that God cares for the righteous and the just, and whatever He promises them, surely comes to pass. Under Solomon’s peaceful and virtuous rule the Israelites prospered – in contrast to the degenerate situation described by Josephus in his paraphrase of the Judges in AJ V 132–5, discussed above, VIII 38 The people of the Hebrews and the tribe of Iouda made remarkable progress by devoting themselves to agriculture and the care of the soil. For enjoying peace, and not being preoccupied with enemies or troubles, and likewise making full use of their longed-for freedom, each was able to enlarge his own house and make this of greater worth.

As will be remembered, in AJ V 132–5 the cultivation of the land by the Israelites did them no good; rather the opposite – it made them greedy and corrupt, and caused them to forsake the Law. Here, the same occupation, in the context of the rule by a virtuous and Law-abiding king, made them prosper in all respects. When Solomon built the Temple, he followed the Law of Moses – in a passage, which has no exact biblical parallel, Josephus says that “He made as well countless lamps,192 according to the order of Moyses. Of these, he 186

AJ VII 341. ÔżĤʼ¹ýÁ¸Ė»ţÁ¸ÀÇŸĨÌġÅÁ¸ĖÎŧ¸Á¸ÌľÅȸÌÉţÑÅȸɚÏþËÅŦÄÑÅե 188 Based on 1 Chr. 28:9. 189 AJ VIII 21. On Solomon, see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 570–628, and Spislbury, The Image of the Jew, 179–87. 190 AJ VIII 22, 49, 53. 191 AJ VIII 110. 192 Or: “ten thousand (ÄÍÉţ¸Ë);” see Begg and Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities 8–10, 25. 187

174

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

erected one in the sanctuary in order that it might give light during the day in accordance with the Law (ÒÁÇÂÇŧ¿ÑËÌŊÅŦÄĿ).”193 In another, similarly unscriptural comment, Josephus says that Solomon made “200,000 trumpets, according to the command of Moyses (Á¸ÌÛÑÍÊšÇËëÅÌÇÂŢÅ).”194 In an anachronistic description of the outer court of Solomon’s Temple, which rather corresponded to the Court of the Israelites familiar to Josephus from Herod’s Temple,195 he said that “[i]nto this precinct all the people who were distinguished by purity and their observance of the laws might enter.”196 Josephus’ Solomon is a typical theios anƝr, whom God granted esoteric knowledge for the benefit of humanity. In the story of Solomon’s judgment on the case of two mothers with a dead and a living child, Josephus concluded his paraphrase by saying that as the result of his demonstration of wisdom, the people “regarded him as one having divine understanding (ĸË ¿¼ţ¸Å ìÏÇÅÌÀ »ÀŠÅÇÀ¸Å).”197 The wisdom and understanding which God granted Solomon were, according to Josephus, unequalled by any of the ancients.198 None of the following is in the Bible, but it all fits very well with what we know from other ancient Jewish literature concerning the image of Solomon as a master of demons and a prolific author of esoteric lore.199 In the light of the discussion in the first chapter above, this type of

193

AJ VIII 90. AJ VIII 94. 195 See BJ V 193–206 and AJ XV 417–20. 196 AJ VIII 96–7, translation follows Thackeray. Cf. Josephus’ terminology in BJ II 7/AJ XVII 207, discussed above and below. In fact, it is hard to imagine how a person could be (visibly!) distinguished by purity or observance of the laws – at least in the eyes of people not closely familiar with him – and so either allowed into the Temple or debarred from it. In fact, it was not even possible to distinguish Jews from Gentiles, cf. M. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London, 2007), 172: “It is worth imagining the difficulties faced by the priests in the Temple confronted by crowds of pilgrims eager to enter the Court of Israelites. It was their duty to exclude those who were not Jews, but how were they to tell?” However, the fact that Josephus says what he says, shows that by the time he wrote AJ, purity and Law-observance became important characteristics for him. 197 AJ VIII 34. 198 AJ VIII 42–3. 199 On this, see P. A. Torijano, Solomon the Esoteric King: From King to Magus: The Development of a Tradition (Leiden, 2002); R. Deines, “Josephus, Salomo und die von Gott verliehene ̚Ϟ gegen die Dämonen,” in A. Lange et al. (Hrsg.), Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen, 2003), 365–94. For archaeological evidence, see Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 2:227–35. Also see D. C. Dulling, “The Testament of Solomon,” in Charlesworth, OTP 1:935–87. 194

3.12. David and Solomon

175

Jewish miracle-worker and exorcist would have been very popular in the Diaspora context:200 VIII 45 God also enabled him to learn the technique against demons for the benefit and healing of humans. He composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind exorcistic practices with which those binding demons expel them so that they return no more. 46a And this same form of healing remains quite strong among us until today.

Josephus goes on to exemplify Solomon’s wisdom and power against demons with a story of certain Eleazar, who cast out a demon from a demoniac with the help of a ring containing a root prescribed by Solomon, in the presence of Vespasian and his staff.201 After Solomon completed the building of the Temple, the Bible says that the glory of God filled it in the form of a cloud, which made it impossible for the priests to perform their service.202 Josephus alters the story by saying that the priests could not see each other because of the cloud, and adds that this event “conveyed to the minds of all the impression and opinion that God was descending into the sacred precinct and was willing to dwell in it.”203 This qualification sounds like Josephus himself no longer believed that God had really dwelt in the Temple, even at the time of its consecration by Solomon – the most dramatic point in its history. If so, this is a rather serious departure from his position on the question of God’s presence in the Temple in BJ. Moreover, he thoroughly spiritualized Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple. True, even in the Bible, Solomon put much emphasis on prayer directed towards the Holy Place,204 but in Josephus’ version the Temple becomes a veritable prayer-house, a kind of “great proseuchƝ.” Notice that in the following passage, prayer is more central than sacrifice: VIII 107b “We know,” he said, “O Master, that you have an everlasting house, in those things you have devised for yourself, namely the heaven, the air, the earth, and the sea; you are spread throughout all these things, but are not encompassed by them. 108 I, however, have constructed this dedicated sanctuary for you, so that from it we may send up our prayers into the air, sacrificing and singing hymns and we may constantly be convinced that you are present and not far distant. For just as you look down upon every200

Lightstone, The Commerce of the Sacred, 12–40. AJ VIII 42–5. See D. C. Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68, 3–4 (1975), 235–252; J. H. Charlesworth, “The Son of David: Solomon and Jesus,” in P. Borgen, S. Giversen (eds.), The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (Peabody, Mass., 1997), 72–87 for the idea that Jesus was acclaimed as “the son of David” not as the Messiah, but rather as Solomon redivivus, because of his magical powers. 202 1 Kgs 8:10–1. 203 AJ VIII 106. Cf. a similar sentiment expressed in AJ VIII 102. See also AJ VIII 114, quoted below on p. 176. 204 1 Kgs 8:27–53. 201

176

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

thing and hear everything, you do not, even as you dwell here – as is possible for you to do – cease to be near to everyone. Rather, to each one who consults you, you are present night and day as a helper.”205

Unfortunately, Solomon did not continue to be righteous for his entire life. The reason for this was his “abandoning the observance of the ancestral customs (Á¸Ì¸ÂÀÈĽÅ ÌüÅ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ ë¿ÀÊÄľÅ Î͸ÁŢÅ),”206 because of which he ended up in a pitiful way. I think it is very important that while, according to the Bible, Solomon’s passion for women led to his sinful idolatry, for Josephus, his neglect of the commandments led to his passion for women. This, in turn, led to the adoption of other people’s ancestral laws in place of those of Moses: VIII 191 Becoming crazy about women and in his weakness for sexual pleasure, he was not satisfied with native [women] alone but also married many foreigners, Sidonians, Tyrians, Ammanites, and Idumeans. [In doing this], he transgressed against the laws of Moyses (ȸɚ¹¾ ÄòÅ ÌÇİË ÑÊŢÇÍË ÅŦÄÇÍË), who prohibited cohabitating with noncompatriots. 192 He began to worship their gods, indulging these women and his passion for them. This was the very thing the legislator had suspected would happen when he told [the Israelites] in advance not to marry those of other countries. [He did this] in order that they not become entangled in foreign ways of life and leave the ancestral ones aside, and while worshipping those gods, fail to honor their own.207 193 Solomon, however, disregarded these things, incited by irrational pleasure… He was immediately overcome by them [the women], so that he imitated their ways. He was compelled to provide them proof of his benevolence and tenderness by living in their ancestral manner (Ìġ¹ÀÇıÅĸË ¸Ĥ̸ėËÈŠÌÉÀÇÅöÅ).

Thus, at the end of his life Solomon did not follow the example of virtue (ȸɊ»¼ÀºÄ¸ ÌýË ÒɼÌýË) which he had in his father, who was able to bequeath to him such glory because of his piety towards God (ÌüÅ ÈÉġË ÌġÅ ¿¼ġżĤÊš¹¼À¸Å), and became a transgressor liable to divine punishment.208 The punishment, of course, came soon.

205

Cf. AJ VIII 114, where Solomon entreats God to “send forth a certain spirit to the sanctuary and cause it to dwell there, so that you may appear to be with us on earth.” It should also be noticed, that in his speech Solomon exhorts the people to continue in “righteousness, worship of God and observance of the commandments which God gave them through Moses,” and so be happier and more blessed than any other nation (AJ VIII 120). Cf. AJ VIII 129. 206 AJ VIII 190. 207 ďŸ Äü ÌÇėË ÆšÅÇÀË ëÈÀȸÁšÅ̼Ë 쿼ÊÀ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ ÒÈÇÊÌľÊÀբ ľ»ò ÌÇİË ëÁ¼ţÅÑÅ Êš¹ÑÅ̸À¿¼ÇİËȸɚÅ̼ËÌÀÄÜÅÌġÅċ»ÀÇÅե 208 AJ VIII 196–8. See C. T. Begg, “Solomon’s Apostasy (1 KGS. 11, 1–13) according to Josephus,” JSJ 28 (1997), 294–313.

3.13. The Period of the Monarchy

177

3. 13. The Period of the Monarchy After the division of Solomon’s kingdom, the ruler of the northern kingdom, Jeroboam, who was afraid lest his subjects continue to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem and be impressed by the ceremonies of its Temple, erected two shrines – one in Beth-El, and another in Dan.209 He also appointed alternative priests and Levites from among the common people, led the people astray from the traditional worship, and made them transgress the laws. Not surprisingly, “[t]his was the beginning of calamities for the Hebrews, who, having been defeated in war by other peoples, fell into captivity.”210 Josephus aggravates Jeroboam’s sins by claiming that he appointed himself as the high priest of his schismatic cult, while the Bible just says that he sacrificed on the altar at Beth-El.211 All of his life Jeroboam continued to outrage God by erecting altars and appointing priests from among the common people. His impieties provoked God to visit punishment on his head and on the heads of his royal line.212 Here we come to one of the crucial passages for out study, the story of the war between the king of Judah Abijam and Jeroboam. In 1 Kings the story is short: “There was war between Abijam and Jeroboam all the days of his life.”213 Josephus chose to rely on the account in 2 Chronicles, and reformed it thoroughly.214 Since the passage is of major importance for the illustration of Josephus’ tendentious rewriting of his sources, I will present the two accounts synoptically: 2 Chr. 13:4–12, NJPS

AJ VIII 274b–81

13:4 Abijah stood on top of the mount Zemaraim in the hill country of Ephraim and said, “Listen to me, Jeroboam and all Israel. 5 Surely you know that the LORD God of Israel gave David kingship over Israel forever – to him and his sons – by a covenant of salt. 6 Jeroboam son of Nebat

VIII 274b Selecting an army from the two tribes, he met Hieroboam at a certain place called Mount Samaron…275 b Abias took his stand on a certain elevated place. Motioning with his hand, he requested the crowd and Hieroboam to first hear him quietly. 276 Once there was silence, he

209 For the story of Jeroboam, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 230–43; Begg, Josephus’ Account, 30–63. 210 AJ VIII 229. It is worth noting that here Josephus does not distinguish between the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel. The wicked deeds of Jeroboam are the beginning of calamities for “the Hebrews.” 211 AJ VIII 230/1 Kgs 12:32–13:1. Here we again witness Josephus’ (high?)-priestly concerns. 212 AJ VIII 255–6. 213 1 Kgs 15:6. 214 For a detailed discussion, see Begg, Josephus’ Account, 96–112. These passages were brought to my attention by D. R. Schwartz. See Schwartz, Reading the First Century, 162–64.

178

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

had been in the service of Solomon son of David, but he rose up and rebelled against his master. 7 Riffraff and scoundrels gathered around him and pressed hard upon Rehoboam son of Solomon. Rehoboam was inexperienced and fainthearted and could not stand up to them. 8 Now you are bent on opposing the kingdom of the LORD, which is in the charge of the sons of David, because you are a great multitude and possess the golden calves that Jeroboam made for you as gods. 9 Did you not banish the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and, like the peoples of the land, appoint your own priests? Anyone who offered himself for ordination with a young bull of the herd and seven rams became a priest of nogods! 10 As for us, the LORD is our God, and we have not forsaken Him. The priests who minister to the LORD are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites are at their tasks. 11 They offer burnt offerings in smoke each morning and each evening, and the aromatic incense, the rows of bread on the pure table; they kindle the golden lampstand with its lamps burning each evening, for we keep the charge of the LORD our God, while you have forsaken it. 12 See, God is with us as our chief, and His priests have the trumpets for sounding blasts against you. O children of Israel, do not fight the LORD God of your fathers, because you will not succeed.”

began to speak: “That God entrusted the leadership to David and his descendants for all time, not even you are unaware. I wonder, nevertheless, how it is that, revolting against my father, you went over to his slave Hieroboam. Together with him you are now present, about to make war on those who have been designated by God to rule as kings and to despoil them of the rule that was conferred on them and that Hieroboam has been unjustly holding until now. 277 But he will not, I think, enjoy it for a longer time. Rather, having paid to God the penalty for what is past, he will desist from the lawlessness and outrages with which he has not ceased to outrage him (ÌýËȸɸÅÇÄţ¸ËÁ¸ĖÌľÅĩ¹É¼ÑÅբØËÇĤ »À¸ÂšÂÇÀȼżĊ˸ĤÌġÅĨ¹Éţ½ÑÅ) and has induced you [the Israelites] to do the same. You were done no injustice by my father, but because he did not respond as you wished when present at your assembly, you, persuaded by the counsel of vile persons, abandoned him out of anger, as it seemed, whereas in truth you were separating yourselves from God and his laws (ÒÈġÌÇı¿¼Çı Á¸ĖÌľÅëÁ¼ţÅÇÍÅŦÄÑÅÒȼÊȊʸ̼). 278 And yet, it would have been a good thing for you not only to pardon the unpleasant words of a young man and one inexperienced in governing people, but also whatever unpleasantness into which his youth and ignorance of public affairs led him for the sake of his father Solomon and his benefits. For the merits of ancestors ought to be an expiation for the offenses of their descendants. 279 You, however, gave no thought to this, either then or now. Instead, you yourselves have brought so great an army against us. In what have you put your trust of victory? Is it in the golden heifers and the altars on the mountains – which are proofs of your impiety rather than of your devotion (Ø»¼ţºÄ¸Ì¸ÌýËÒʼ¹¼ţ¸ËëÊÌĖÅ ĨÄľÅÒŬ ЏÇĤÏĖÌý˿ɾÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë)? Or is it your numbers, which are superior to those of our army, that make you hopeful? 280 There is, however, no strength in an army of ten thousands that fights unjustly (Ä¼ÌЏ

3.13. The Period of the Monarchy

179

Ò»ÀÁ¾ÄŠÌÑÅ). For it is solely in justice and piety towards God (ëźÛÉÄŦÅĿÌŊ»ÀÁ¸ţĿ Á¸ĖÈÉġËÌġ¿¼ėÇżĤʼ¹¼ė) that well-founded hope of conquering opponents has been destined to lie. Such is the case with us who, from the beginning, have kept the ordinances and adored our own God (øÌÀË ëÊÌĖÈ¸ÉЏ÷ÄėÅ̼̾ɾÁŦÊÀÅÒÈЏÒÉÏýËÌÛ ÅŦÄÀĸÁ¸ĖÌġÅċ»ÀÇÅ¿¼ġÅʼ¹ÇÄšÅÇÀË) whom no hands have made from transitory matter nor did the scheme of a vile king construct [him] for the deception of the mobs. He [Judah’s God] is rather his own work and the beginning and end of all things. 281 I advise you therefore even now to change your minds, and taking thought for what is better, to cease from making war and acknowledge the ancestral [ways] (ÌÛ ÈŠÌÉÀ¸) and him who has brought you to such greatness of well-being.

The comparison of Josephus’ version of the speech with his source shows several things. First of all, the speech in AJ is much longer, which hints that Josephus deliberately used the episode as an opportunity to elaborate on the topics important to him. Second, he omitted the mention of the covenant which God made with David and his dynasty. Third, and most important, he totally deleted from the speech the mention of the Judahite Temple-cult and its legitimate priesthood, on which the authors of Chronicles based the claim of Judahite legitimacy and God-given support. Fourth, he emphatically replaced them with the assertion that this divine support was conditional on the observance of the Law, of which nothing was said in the Bible. At the same time, while in Chronicles the two sins of Jeroboam were his rebellion against David’s dynasty and his foundation of the surrogate cult, in AJ it is his and his people’s lawlessness, transgression of the Law, and hubris towards God.215 The examples of Josephus’ illustration of his main thesis in AJ are too numerous to be discussed in full; he is amazingly consistent in his rewriting of the biblical narrative. Thus, the theme of divine providence being conditional on piety, righteousness, holiness, and true worship is emphasized in AJ VIII 295–7, where he rewrites the speech of the prophet Azariah to the king Asa, and the latter’s reaction. Azariah exhorts the king and his subjects to continue to be obedient to God’s will and in response 215 Josephus’ claim that military victory is conditional on justice and piety, which stem from the observance of the Law, are a prominent topic in AJ, and will be discussed below, in the section on Josephus’ paraphrase of 1 Maccabees.

180

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

“When he heard this, the king and people rejoiced and took much care, both all in common and as individuals, for what was just (ÌÇı»ÀÁ¸ţÇÍ). The king also sent round the country those who were to have oversight of the ordinances (ÌľÅ ÅÇÄţÄÑÅ).”216 However, in Josephus’ biblical source for this story Asa is said to react to the prophet’s words by uprooting idolatry, restoring God’s altar, and sacrificing thousands of animals.217 Josephus omits the references to Asa’s abolishment of idolatry, restoration of the altar, gifts to the Temple, and sacrifices.218 The whole story of Asa’s prosperous reign – in contrast to the unhappy reigns of the kings of Israel – serves for Josephus as an illustration of his line of argument: VIII 314 From these things one may learn that the Deity has very close oversight (ëÈÀÊÌÉÇÎŢÅ) of human affairs and how he loves the good, but hates and annihilates root and branch those who are vile. For many kings of the Israelites, one after the other, were, within a short time, designated to be calamitously destroyed, along with their families, on account of their lawlessness and injustice (»ÀÛ ÌüÅȸɸÅÇÄţ¸Å Á¸Ė ÌÛË Ò»ÀÁţ¸Ë).219 Asan, the king of Hierosolyma and the two tribes, on the other hand, given his piety and justice (»ÀЏ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å Á¸Ė »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧžÅ), was led by God to a long and happy (¼ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅ) old age. He died felicitously (¼ĤÄÇţÉÑË), after ruling forty-one years.220

The contrast between the Law-abiding Judahite kings and the lawless Israelite kings is highlighted throughout Josephus’ narrative. Thus, it is prominent in the stories about Elijah, who exhorts the people to decide between the foreign divinities and their own God: “For if they thought their native God to be the true and only one, he urged them to follow him and his commandments (̸ėË ëÅÌǸėË ¸ĤÌÇı).”221 Later, after the murder of Naboth, Elijah predicts the calamitous end of Ahab “because he had dared to act so impiously and, contrary to the ancestral laws (ȸÉÛÌÇİËȸÌÉţÇÍË ÅŦÄÇÍË), had unjustly done away with a citizen.”222 In both cases, there was no mention of the commandments or the laws in the Bible.223 Ahab’s son Ahaziah, who succeeded him, was also “vile and in all respects similar to both his parents and to Hieroboam, who first acted law-

216

AJ VIII 297. 2 Chr 15. 218 Cf. AJ VIII 290. 219 Cf. Josephus’ very similar judgment on the Herodian house in AJ XVIII 128, which is treated below (pp. 231–2). 220 Josephus conveniently omits the biblical mention of Asa’s illness and his failure to seek God, 2 Chr 16:12. See Begg, Josephus’ Account, 140–50. 221 AJ VIII 337. For Elijah, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 291– 306. 222 AJ VIII 361. 223 1 Kgs 18:21, 21:20–24. On Ahab and Elijah in AJ, see Begg, Josephus’ Account, 151–235; 243–69. 217

3.13. The Period of the Monarchy

181

lessly (ÌŊ ÈÉŪÌĿ ȸɸÅÇÄŢʸÅÌÀ) and began to mislead the people.”224 In Judah, on the contrary, king Jehosaphat excelled in piety and virtue: VIII 394 he had the Deity as his benevolent cooperator since he was just and pious (»ţÁ¸ÀÇË ĶÅ Á¸Ė ¼Ĥʼ¹ŢË) and was seeking each day to do what would be pleasing and acceptable to God.225 Those around [him] honored him with kingly gifts and thus caused him to become extremely wealthy and enjoy the greatest glory.

He ordered the governors of the country and the priests to go throughout the land and teach the people the laws of Moses, and “[t]he entire crowd was so pleased by this, that there was nothing for which they were more ambitious or which they more loved than to keep the laws (ĸËľ»òÅÓÂÂÇ ÎÀÂÇÌÀļėÊ¿¸À ľ»ò Òº¸ÈÜÅ ĸË Ìġ ̾ɼėÅ ÌÛ ÅŦÄÀĸ).”226 Jehosaphat prospered in all imaginable ways, and even his enemies cherished him. After God was displeased with Jehosaphat for making an alliance with wicked Ahab, the king gave thanks to God, offered sacrifices, and “hastened to circulate throughout the entire country over which he ruled in order to teach the people the ordinances given by God through Moyses and piety towards him (ÌŠ̼ÅŦÄÀĸÌÛ»ÀÛÑÊŢÇÍËĨÈġ¿¼Çı»Ç¿šÅ̸Á¸ĖÌüÅ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å ÌüÅ ÈÉġË ¸ĤÌŦÅ).”227 The Bible only says that he “brought them back to the LORD God of their fathers,” without specifying how or mentioning the laws.228 The following account of the divinely-orchestrated victory of Jehosaphat over the Moabites and the Ammonites follows the biblical narrative closely; however, Josephus omits from Jehosaphat’s prayer his repeated claim that the Temple had been built for God’s name, and that standing and praying before the Temple the people stood before God Himself, since His name is in the Temple.229 After the victory, the king returned to Jerusalem, and feasted and offered sacrifices for many days.230 From that time on Jehosaphat “possessed a splendid reputation, on account of his justice and piety towards God (ëÈţ ̼ »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧÅþ Á¸Ė Ìĉ ÈÉġË Ìġ ¿¼ėÇÅ ¼Ĥʼ¹¼ţß).”231 However, Jehosaphat’s son Joram did not follow in the ways of his father – he was led into idolatry by his wife Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, and 224

AJ IX 18. For the later Monarchy in AJ, see Begg, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy. 225 See Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 307–21. 226 AJ VIII 395. 227 AJ IX 2. 228 2 Chr 19:4. 229 2 Chr 20:8–9/AJ IX 8–9. 230 Josephus’ mention of sacrifices is probably based on the scriptural verse, saying that the king and his people returned to the House of the LORD (2 Chr 20:28). 231 AJ IX 16.

182

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

IX 95b in no way differed from the kings of the people who first acted lawlessly against the ancestral customs of the Hebrews and the worship of God (ȸɾÅŦľʸżĊËÌÛÈŠÌÉÀ¸ ÌľÅ?¹É¸ţÑÅ쿾Á¸ĖÌüÅÌÇı¿¼Çı¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Å)… 96b [He] did not cease from daily doing something new in the way of impiety and the violation of the native observances (ÇĤ »ÀšÂ¼ÀȼÅîÁŠÊ̾Ë÷ĚɸËÁ¸ÀÅÇÍɺľÅëÈЏÒʼ¹¼ţßÁ¸ĖÂŧÄþÌľÅëÈÀÏÑÉţÑÅë¿ÀÊÄľÅ).

For this, of course, he was punished by God and met a pitiful and inglorious end.232 Another king of Judah, Uzziah, slipped into sin after his early successes: IX 222b [H]is mind was corrupted by arrogance and, puffed up with mortal prosperity, he neglected the strength that is deathless and endures for all time, namely piety towards God and the keeping of the ordinances (÷ÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤÊš¹¼À¸Á¸ĖÌġ̾ɼėÅÌÛÅŦÄÀĸ). 223 Because of his success, he slipped and fell into the offenses of his father [Amaziah] into which the splendor of good things and the greatness of his affairs had led the latter, [who was] unable to manage them rightly.

In his arrogance, Uzziah put on priestly garments and went into the Temple to burn incense (or, to offer sacrifice) to God,233 while this prerogative was reserved only for the Aaronite priests;234 thus he transgressed against God, was smitten with leprosy for his impieties and the “state of mind that went beyond the human,” and had to live outside of the city235 for the rest of his life. Josephus’ assessment of Uzziah is more negative than that of the Bible,236 which again might be attributed to his priestly bias – after all, Uzziah usurped the prerogatives which belonged to the priests only. 237 The story concerning Uzziah’s son Jotham is also used by Josephus to illustrate his view of the interconnection between being pious and observant and being successful and prosperous. In this, he is much more emphatic than the Bible:

232

AJ IX 103–4. Here some textual witnesses have “sacrifice”, others “incense”. In the Bible, it is incense (2 Chr 27:16). The high priest together with other eighty priests tried to prevent Uzziah from sacrificing by crying out “for him to go out and not act lawlessly against God,” AJ IX 224. 234 AJ IX 224: ÇĤ ºÛÉ ëÆġÅ ëÈÀ¿ŧ¼ÀÅ ¼čÈÇÅբ ÄŦÅÇÀË »Џ ëμėÊ¿¸À ÌÇıÌÇ ÈÇÀ¼ėÅ ÌÇėË ëÁ ÌÇı ¸ÉľÅÇ˺šÅÇÍËե 235 AJ IX 226–7. In the Bible he was only “cut off from the House of the LORD” (2 Chr 27:21). 236 Cf. 2 Chr 27:2, where Uzziah is said to have done what was pleasing to the LORD, apart from his entering the Temple. In 2 Kgs 15:34 he is said to have done what was pleasing to the LORD without any qualification. While Uzziah is said to have been struck by the LORD with a plague, the reason for this is not specified, and there is no mention of the Temple incident (2 Kgs 15:1–7). These statements concerning Uzziah’s righteousness were omitted by Josephus. 237 On Josephus’ priestly bias, see chapter 4 below. On Uzziah, see Begg, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy, 273–84. 233

3.13. The Period of the Monarchy

183

IX 236 This king lacked not a single virtue; he was pious towards God and just to humans (ÇĤ»¼ÄÀÜËÒɼÌýËÒȼ¼ţȼÌÇբÒŬ Џ¼Ĥʼ¹üËÄòÅÌÛÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ŦÅբ»ţÁ¸ÀÇË»òÌÛÈÉġË ÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÇÍËĨÈýÉϼÅ). … 238 He so enlarged his kingdom that it was deserving of respect by its enemies and [a source of] well-being to the natives.238

Jotham’s son Ahaz, on the contrary, was acting like crazy, for he “was impious towards God and transgressed the ancestral laws (ğËÒʼ¹šÊ̸ÌÇ˼ĊË ÌġÅ¿¼ġź¼ÅŦļÅÇËÁ¸ĖÌÇİËȸÌÉţÇÍËȸɸ¹ÛËÅŦÄÇÍË); he imitated the Israelite kings” by erecting altars throughout the country, worshipping idols, and even sacrificing his own son.239 As is not entirely surprising, Josephus’ sources said nothing about the laws, but only described Ahaz’s syncretism and idol-worship.240 In his description of the reign of Hezekiah, Josephus followed the Bible in describing him as one of the most righteous kings – “[b]y nature, he was kind, just and pious (ÎŧÊÀË»ЏöŸĤÌŊÏɾÊÌüÁ¸Ė»ÀÁ¸ţ¸Á¸Ė¼Ĥʼ¹ŢË). For when he first assumed the kingship, he supposed nothing more necessary and advantageous, both for himself and his subjects, than the worshiping of God (ÌÇı ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ŧ¼ÀÅ ÌġÅ ¿¼ŦÅ).”241 Hezekiah addressed the people, the priests and the Levites, saying to them that they experienced many misfortunes “due to the offenses of his father, who transgressed reverence and honor towards God (ȸɸ¹ŠÅÌÇËÌüÅÈÉġË¿¼ġÅĝÊţ¸ÅÁ¸ĖÌÀÄŢÅ).” Now that they have realized how terrible it was to be impious (ĸË ìÊÌÀ »¼ÀÅġÅ Ìġ Òʼ¹¼ėÅ), he encouraged them to purify themselves from the former impurities, to open the Temple (closed by Ahaz), purify it with the customary sacrifices and to “restore it to its ancient and ancestral honor.” Thus God will cease from His wrath and again be gracious towards them.242 Hezekiah also sent envoys to the Israelites, IX 264 calling on them to abandon the [mode of] life that had been theirs until now and to revert to their ancient practice and adoration of God (¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÒÉϸţ¸Å ëȸż¿¼ėÅ ÊÍÅŢ¿¼À¸ÅÁ¸ĖÊš¹¼ÀÅÌġÅ¿¼ŦÅ). … He said that he was urging this, not because he wished to make them subject to himself, but for the sake of their own advantage, for thus they would be blessed.

Some of those, who listened to the envoys, who had told them that they would suffer if they do not become pious towards God, mocked them and even killed one of the envoys. They did not cease to transgress the Law until God punished them for their impiety by subjecting them to their ene-

238

2 Kgs 15:33–38; 2 Chr 27. AJ IX 243. 240 2 Kgs 16:1–4; 2 Chr 28:1–3. 241 AJ IX 260. See Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 363–75. 242 AJ IX 261–2. 239

184

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

mies.243 Most of this is Josephus’ own addition to the biblical sources. Some of the people from the northern tribes did turn to piety as the result of the above mentioned preaching, and came to Jerusalem. There, Hezekiah made the people “return again to their ancient worship” – by following the instructions of David244 and the law (of Moses).245 When the king of Assyria came to threaten him, Hezekiah did not even pay attention to his threats, since “he was encouraged by his piety towards the Deity and by the prophet Hesaias [Isaiah], by whom he was accurately informed concerning everything that was to be.”246 In a sharp contrast to Hezekiah’s situation, the kingdom of Israel, led by the lawless imitators of Jeroboam, was destroyed by the Assyrians: IX 281 And this end came upon the Israelites for their transgressing against the laws (ȸɸ¹ŠÅ̸ËÌÇİËÅŦÄÇÍË) and disregarding the prophets who predicted this misfortune to them – unless they ceased their impieties (ÌľÅÒʼ¹¾ÄŠÌÑÅ). 282 The beginning of their calamities was the civil strife in which they rebelled (÷ ÊÌŠÊÀËբ ùÅ ëÊ̸Êţ¸Ê¸Å) against Roboam, the grandson of David, and appointed as their king his slave Hieroboam, who by offending the Deity, made him a enemy to them who imitated his lawlessness (ÄÀľʸĚÅÇÀËÌüÅëÁ¼ţÅÇÍȸɸÅÇÄţ¸Å).

Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is a special case in Josephus’ version of the Judahite monarchy.247 After his ascension to the throne, he exhibited contempt for God, killed God’s prophets and the righteous, and in general X 37b broke away from the practices of his father and turned to the opposite, manifesting every form of vileness in his manner and leaving no impiety aside. He was rather an imitator of the lawlessness of the Israelites (ÈÜżč»ÇËÈÇžÉţ¸ËëÈÀ»¼ÀƊļÅÇËëÅÌŊÌÉŦÈĿ Á¸Ė ľ»òÅ Òʼ¹òË ȸɸÂÀÈŪÅբ ÒÂÂÛ ÄÀÄÇŧļÅÇË ÌÛË ÌľÅ `Êɸ¾ÂÀÌľÅ ȸɸÅÇÄţ¸Ë), with which they offended against God and so perished. He even dared to pollute the sanctuary of God, as well as the city and the entire country.

God punished him by sending the king of Babylonia and Chaldaea, who ravished his country and took him captive. Realizing his wickedness to be the cause of these disasters, Manasseh repented and prayed to God, who listened to his prayer and restored him to his kingdom. Manasseh completely changed his behavior, and showed God his respect by sanctifying the Temple, purifying the city and making it “his only concern … to extend thanks to God for his safety and keep him benevolent for his entire life.” Moreover, he taught the people to do the same, since he had learned how close he had come to disaster by following the opposite ÈÇÂÀ̼ĕ¸.248 The 243

AJ IX 265–6. AJ IX 269. 245 AJ IX 270. 246 AJ IX 276, corrected. 247 On Manasseh, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 416–23. 248 AJ X 43. Here Josephus also says that Manasseh “offered the customary sacrifices, 244

3.13. The Period of the Monarchy

185

result, according to Josephus, was phenomenal, if not entirely surprising: “he exhibited such a change that, for as long as he continued to live, he was regarded as most blessed and enviable from [the time] when he began to show piety towards God.”249 This, of course, is Josephus’ addition to the biblical story, and is intended to serve his overarching purpose. Manasseh’s grandson Josiah was a worthy imitator of the virtues and deeds of king David.250 Although he was only twelve years old,251 he behaved like a mature man, corrected the errors of the former kings and imitated whatever he discovered to be good and proper. In doing so, he relied on his own natural wisdom and understanding, as well as on the counsel and tradition of the elders. This inevitably resulted in success: “by following the laws he was successful with regard to the order of the city and piety towards God,252 because the lawlessness of the earlier [kings] was no more but had been exterminated.”253 The Bible only says that he did what was pleasing to the LORD by following the ways of David, that he sought the LORD, and uprooted idolatry. It does not mention either the laws or the tradition of the elders.254 After the discovery of the “sacred books of Moses” in the Temple, Josiah commanded the high priest and some of his friends to go to the prophetess Huldah in order to ask her to supplicate God, since “there were grounds for anxiety, given their ancestors’ transgression of the laws of Moyses, that they were in danger of being driven from house and home, and after being banished to a foreign land and bereft of everything, of wretchedly ending their lives.”255 However, they discovered that it was too late – the prophetess told them that God had already decreed to punish the people, exile them from their country, and deprive them of every good thing “because they had transgressed the laws (ȸɸ¹ŠÅ̸Ë ÌÇİË ÅŦÄÇÍË) and not thought better of this up until this time, although the prophets had urged them to be prudent in this regard and had predicted punishment for their impieties.”256 In the latter case, the Bible speaks of idolatry and evil deeds, without mentioning the Law.257 as Moyses had prescribed.” Reference to Moses’ prescription is Josephus’ addition to the story. 249 AJ X 45. 250 For Josiah, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 424–36. 251 On this statement, see Begg and Spilsbury, Judean Antiquities 8–10, 221, n. 216. 252 Á¸Ė Ìĉ ÌľÅ ÈɼʹÍÌšÉÑÅ ȼÀ¿ŦļÅÇË ÊÍĹÇÍÂţß Á¸Ė ȸɸ»ŦʼÀդ ÌÇėË ºÛÉ ÅŦÄÇÀË Á¸Ì¸ÁÇÂÇÍ¿ľÅĸËȼÉĖÌüÅÌŠÆÀÅÌýËÈŦ¼ÑËÁ¸ĖȼÉĖÌġ¿¼ėÇżĤʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë¼ĤÇ»¼ėÅ̼ÊÍÅš¹¸Àżե 253 AJ X 51. 254 2 Chr 34:1–7. 255 AJ X 59. 256 AJ X 60. 257 2 Kgs 22:15–9; 2 Chr 34:23–5.

186

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

In the description of the assembly organized by Josiah because of all this, Josephus omitted the mention of the covenant ceremony (as well as the designation of the Torah as “the Book of the Covenant,” and the people’s oath to fulfill the terms of the covenant), stressing that they swore and pledged that “they would worship God and keep the laws of Moyses.”258 After this, the king lived peacefully and wealthily, and enjoyed good reputation. The timing and manner of his death seem to have caused perplexity in the biblical authors’ minds, and did not help Josephus to drive home his main point. He seems to have been aware of the tension, but tried to soften it by ignoring the incongruity, on the one hand,259 and blaming Destiny (ÌýËȼÈÉÑĚžË) for Josiah’s unexpected end, on the other.260

3. 14. On the Road to Destruction After Josiah’s death, the situation deteriorated quickly. His son Jehoahaz “was of impious and disreputable character,”261 and Jehoahaz’s brother Jehoiakim, who was appointed in his stead was “unjust and an evil-doer, being neither reverent towards God nor gentle with humans.”262 This latter opposed the prophetic words of Jeremiah,263 persecuted the prophet, and eventually was killed by Nebuchadnezzar who cast his corpse unburied before the city walls.264 The next king, Jehoachin, who in the Bible is described as doing what was displeasing to the LORD just like his father Jehoiakim,265 in AJ becomes “kind and just by nature (ĝ»òÎŧʼÀÏɾÊÌġË ĶÅÁ¸Ė»ţÁ¸ÀÇË)” – most likely because he chose not to endanger Jerusalem and made an agreement with Nebuchadnezzar.266 For Josephus, who appar258

AJ X 63. There is no “but” (Thackeray) or “however” (Begg-Spilsbury) in AJ X 73: “The king lived in such and such a way, dying in the following manner (Á¸ÌšÊÌɼмÌÇŧÌĿÌŊ ÌÉŦÈĿÌġŹţÇÅ)… .” 260 AJ X 76. 261 AJ X 81. 262 AJ X 83. 263 On Josephus’ treatment of Jeremiah, see C. T. Begg, “The ‘Classical Prophets’ in Josephus’ Antiquities,” Louvain Studies 13 (1988), 341–57; idem, “Jeremiah under Jehoiakim according to Josephus (Ant. 10.89–95),” Abr-Nahrain 33 (1996), 1–16. Cf. S. J. D. Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius,” History and Theory 21 (1982), 366–81. 264 Here Josephus contradicts both the account in 2 Kgs 24 (where the king is said to have been buried with his fathers), and the account in 2 Chr 36 (where he is said to have been deported to Babylon), apparently relying instead on the (unfulfilled) prophecy concerning the king in Jeremiah 36:30. Fulfillment of prophecy was an important item on Josephus’ agenda, see below (pp. 188–90). 265 2 Kgs 24:10; cf. 2 Chr 36:9. 266 AJ X 100. 259

3.14. On the Road to Destruction

187

ently at this stage consciously drew a parallel between Jeremiah and himself, the behavior of the king was an indication of his kindness and justice, and overruled the biblical judgment on him.267 The next king, Zedekiah, “scorned what was just and requisite. For his contemporaries who were around him were impious, while the entire mob had authority to commit whatever outrages they pleased.”268 When Jeremiah exhorted him “to leave behind his other impieties and lawless ways and to care for what was just” and not to believe the false prophets encouraging rebellion against the Babylonians, he was first inclined to listen to the prophet. However, due to the influence of his corrupt friends, he was led away from the right course. The false prophets and the impious men ridiculed Jeremiah, and set the king and the entire nation on the sure road to disaster.269 In AJ X 120 Josephus contradicts his earlier assessment of the king’s character, by describing him as kind and just, and consequently not willing to persecute Jeremiah. As in the case with Jehoachin, this contradiction might have arisen out of Josephus’ emotional involvement in the story – in BJ he compared himself with Jeremiah, and claimed that the rebels against Rome and their leaders were worse than Zedekiah and his people, since the latter did not seek to kill Jeremiah, while the Zealots wanted to murder Josephus.270 In other words, Josephus might have not wanted to contradict his earlier account blatantly, as it is likely that he remembered it. Zedekiah failed to listen to Jeremiah’s prophetic counsel; the city was conquered, the Temple destroyed, and he himself taken captive. When he was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian denounced him as “an impious and treacherous man,” and praised God who “hating your behavior, has made you subject to us.”271 Nebuchadnezzar spoke to him face to face, as Jeremiah predicted, and took him to Babylon, having blinded him beforehand, as was foretold by Ezekiel.272 Reading the account of the fall of the Kingdom of Judah in AJ it is easy to see that Josephus drew clear parallels between it and his earlier account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in BJ. One of the prominent features of the account in AJ – 267

For other possible reasons, and a comparison with rabbinic rehabilitation of this king, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 437–49. For a comparison with Jeremiah, see Cohen, “Josephus, Jeremiah, and Polybius.” 268 AJ X 103. On Zedekiah, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 450– 62. 269 AJ X 111–5. 270 BJ V 391–3; the passage is discussed in chapter 2 above (p. 124). On Josephus’ constructing himself as a “latter-day Jeremiah,” see D. Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JJS 31 (1981), 18–36. 271 AJ X 138–9. 272 AJ X 141.

188

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

apart from the insistence on the importance of virtue, piety and the observance of the Law – is its emphasis on the force of predictive prophecy: X 142 These things that we have stated can suitably manifest to those who do not know the nature of God that it is varied, manifold, and timely at any hour. [Our account also manifests] that what he [God] predicts has to happen, as well as the ignorance and unbelief of humans, which does not allow them to foresee what is to be. Caught off guard, they are handed over to misfortunes, so that it is impossible for them to escape experiencing these.273

It is very likely that by claiming that the destruction had been predicted by God’s prophets, and that God controls the situation, Josephus was highlighting the similarity between the first and the second destruction. The first was predicted by the priests-prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the second – by himself, also a priest, who had received a divine revelation at Yodfat.274 It is also significant that after the description of the events surrounding the destruction of the First Temple, Josephus proceeds to the story of Daniel, in which he emphasizes the prophetic prediction of the whole course of human history, and God’s providence.275

3. 15. Josephus on Daniel, Prophecy, and Eschatology In contrast to BJ, which was totally devoid of any eschatological program and did not offer any coherent scenario concerning God’s future place in the history of His erstwhile chosen people Israel, the picture which emerges from AJ is remarkably different. According to BJ with its Templecentered theology, after the Temple was gone, there was not much to do to remedy the situation. In AJ, as we have seen, the basis for God’s alliance with His people is the observance of the Mosaic Torah (which was not destroyed like the Temple, but endured). There is no hint that God had forsaken the Jews; although the notion of covenant is avoided, the repeated claim is that God protects and blesses those who keep His Law. As far as the course of Jewish history and eschatology are concerned, in AJ there is none of the dead-endedness characteristic of BJ. All of history is under God’s control and has been predicted by His prophets. Thus, the national 273

On the biblical prophets in Josephus, see Begg, “The ‘Classical Prophets’,” 341–

57. 274

Josephus was, of course, aware that both Jeremiah and Ezekiel were priests, AJ X 80. See D. R. Schwartz, “Priesthood and Priestly Descent: Josephus: Antiquities 10,80,” JTS 32 (1981), 129–35. 275 On Daniel, see G. Vermes, “Josephus’ Treatment of the Book of Daniel,” JJS 42 (1991), 149–66; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 629–57. For the interconnection of prophecy and priesthood in Josephus, see Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis, 288–305.

3.15. Josephus on Daniel, Prophecy, and Eschatology

189

catastrophes, such as the falls of the first and of the second Temples are not final, but are rather events which had been predicted by God’s prophets, and happened because of the people’s transgressions of the Law. When the Jews realize their mistakes and repent, they will yet be restored to their former favor with God, their glory and their prosperity. It seems that Josephus, who had come to realize the futility of military resistance against Rome, gradually embraced a position which was not unlike that of the slightly later rabbinic sages: the Jews have to occupy themselves with the observance of the Law and leave politics to God, who in His own good time would take care of Israel’s destiny. Similarly to the rabbis, he also believed that the Roman world domination would not last forever, and explicitly hinted, that it would fall before the final world-wide triumph of Judaism. Thus, apart from the importance of the Law in Josephus’ paraphrase of Daniel, his treatment of the story has been shown to contain unequivocal indications that he expected that Rome would eventually fall before the Jews.276 As Jeremiah and Ezekiel predicted the fall of the first Temple (as well as the following restoration), so Daniel predicted the whole course of the subsequent history, including Roman ascendancy, its eventual downfall, and the final triumph of Judaism.277 It seems that his view of this triumph was not perceived only in the narrow terms of the restoration of the Judeans in their land – rather it was to be universal – as is abundantly clear both from his interpretation of Balaam’s oracle and of the second and the seventh chapters of Daniel.278 Thus, earlier Josephus made Balaam prophesy that IV 115b [A]ll land and sea will be filled with the glory surrounding them, and there will be enough of you for the world to supply every land with inhabitants from your race. 116 Are you, therefore, amazed, O blessed army, that from a single father you have become 276

Cf. S. Mason, “Josephus, Daniel, and the Flavian House,” in Parente et al., Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 161–91; C. T. Begg, “Daniel and Josephus: Tracing Connections,” in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (BETL 106; Leuven, 1993), 539–45. 277 Thus, Josephus says in AJ X 276, that “Daniel also wrote about the empire of the Romans,” that is, he is likely to have interpreted Daniel’s visions in chapters 2 and 7 as referring to Judaism’s triumph over Rome. He avoids speaking clearly on the subject in AJ X 210: “And Daniel also explained to the king about the stone, yet it seemed to me proper not to recount this, being obligated to record past events and things that have happened but not what is about to happen. But if anyone, anxious for precision, will not be deterred from being curious to the extent of even wishing to learn about the unexplained – what is to happen – let him make the effort to read the book of Daniel. He will find this among the sacred writings.” Josephus’ reflections in AJ X 277–80 on the lessons people should learn from Daniel’s prophecy are quoted above on p. 140. 278 It is also evident from his gleeful statements on the spread of Judaism in CA II 282–4. Cf. See P. Spilsbury, “Flavius Josephus on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire,” JThS 54 (2003), 1–24.

190

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

so great? But the land of the Chananaians will hold your present army, consisting of a few, yet know that the inhabited world lies before you as a dwelling place forever (ÌüÅ»Џ ÇĊÁÇÍĚžÅÇĊÁ¾ÌŢÉÀÇÅ»ÀЏ¸ĊľÅÇËċÊ̼ÈÉÇÁ¼ÀĚžÅĨÄėÅ), and your multitude – as many as is the number of stars in heaven – will reside on islands and in the continent.279

I will return to Josephus’ views of eschatology, Jewish-Roman interrelationships, as well as his own understanding of his mission and role in AJ, in the summary and conclusions section at the very end of this study.

3. 16. AJ Version of the Restoration and the Book of Esther Josephus’ account of the Restoration continues the themes of prophetic foreknowledge of history, and the importance of the observance of the Law. Thus, at the very beginning of the account, he puts in the mouth of Cyrus an acknowledgement of Israel’s prophets and their prophecies.280 The Jews, who return to Judea, thank God because he “had brought them back to the land of their fathers and to its laws (ÈŠÂÀżĊËÌüÅÈŠÌÉÀÇźýÅ Á¸ĖÌÇİËëŸĤÌĉÅŦÄÇÍËôº¸º¼Å).”281 This formulation is significant in two respects: first, in Josephus’ source for the story, 1 Esdras, it is said that the Jews were rejoicing because God “changed the will of the king of the Assyrians concerning them, to strengthen their hands for the service of the Lord God of Israel (Á¸ÌÀÊÏıʸÀ ÌÛË ϼėɸË ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈĖ ÌÛ ìɺ¸ ÁÍÉţÇÍ ¿¼Çı `ÊɸŢÂ).”282 That is, what in Josephus’ source was God’s (Temple) service, in AJ became laws. Second, in his own earlier version of the Return in BJ V 389, the single most important thing mentioned by him was that the returnees “again became the Temple-servants of their Ally (Á¸Ė ÈŠÂÀÅ ÌġÅ ¸ĨÌľÅÊŧÄĸÏÇÅëżÑÁŦÉÇÍÅ).”283 Not only the returning Jews were Law-abiding and pious, but the Persian monarchs were, too: in a non-biblical passage Josephus claims that similarly to his father Darius, Xerxes “inherited also his piety toward God and his way of honouring Him (ÌüÅÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤÊš¹¼ÀŠÅ̼Á¸ĖÌÀÄŢÅ). 279 For Josephus’ treatment of Balaam, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 110–36. 280 AJ XI 3–4. 281 AJ XI 110. Quotations from AJ XI–XX follow H. St. J. Thackeray et al. (trans.), Josephus (LCL; Cambridge, MA & London, 1926–1965). 282 1 Esd 7:15. Ûìɺ¸equals Temple cult. The canonical book of Ezra 6:22 is even more clear: “the work of the House of God, the God of Israel,” ʩʤʬʠ ʭʩʤʬʠʤ -ʺʩʡ ʺʫʠʬʮʡ ʬʠʸʹʩ (ëÅìɺÇÀËÇċÁÇÍÌÇı¿¼Çı Êɸ¾Â). For a discussion of this passage in 1 Esd, and an attempt to reconstruct its Vorlage, see Z. Talshir, I Esdras. A Text-Critical Commentary (SCS 50; Atlanta, 2001), 383–4. 283 Smith, “The Occult in Josephus,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 243: “they again became shrine guardians of their ally.”

3.16. AJ Version of the Restoration and the Book of Esther

191

For he followed his father in all the things which he had done for His service (ÌÛ ÈÉġË ÌüÅ ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Å), and held the Jews in highest esteem.”284 Therefore, it is not surprising that he appointed the “chief priest … very learned in the Laws of Moses (ÈÉľÌÇËĎ¼É¼İËզÌľÅÑÍÊšÑËÅŦÄÑÅĎÁ¸ÅľË ìÄȼÀÉÇË)” and “[public] reader of the Laws of God” to go to Judea in order to “look after matters in Judea in accordance with the law of God.” Ezra should take care that everyone in the areas under his authority should know the Law, and therefore to have no excuse for breaking it.285 Soon after his arrival in Judea, however, Ezra discovered that the local Israelites, Levites and priests “hav[e] violated the constitution and broken the ancestral laws by marrying foreign wives and mixing the strain of the priestly families.”286 Those who complain to Ezra concerning this misdeed, ask him “to come to the aid of the laws (¹Ç¾¿ýʸÀ ÌÇėË ÅŦÄÇÀË) lest God conceive anger at all of them alike and again bring misfortune upon them.”287 Josephus’ source did not mention the Law, but only stated that the people did not “put away from themselves the alien peoples of the land and their pollutions (ÌÛË ÒÁ¸¿¸ÉÊţ¸Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ).”288 After Ezra convinced the people to send their wives and offspring away, Josephus says that they “ha[d] more regard for the observance of the laws (ÌýËÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅÎ͸ÁýË) than for the objects of their affection.”289 Josephus’ main idea is emphasized once again in the story of Ezra’s reading of the Law in an assembly. While 1 Esd 9:50 and Neh 8:9 only stated that the people were crying while listening to the Law, Josephus explains that they “were moved to tears as they bethought themselves that they would not have suffered any of the evils which they had experienced if they had observed the law.”290 After they finished the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, they “returned to their homes, singing hymns to God and expressing thanks to Ezra for rectifying the offences against the laws of the state (ȼÉĖÌġÈÇÂţ̼Íĸ ȸɸÅÇľ¿šÅÌÑÅ).”291 When Josephus goes on to tell the story of Esther and Mordecai, he emphasizes that the latter did not prostrate himself before Haman – indeed, 284

AJ XI 120. AJ XI 121–30. On Ezra in Josephus, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 473–88. 286 ȸɸ¹¼¹ŢÁ¸ÊÀÌüÅÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸ÅÁ¸Ė¼ÂŧÁ¸ÊÀÅÌÇİËȸÌÉţÇÍËÅŦÄÇÍËÒÂÂǼ¿Å¼ėËóºÄšÅÇÀ ºÍŸėÁ¸Ë Á¸Ė Ìġ Ď¼É¸ÌÀÁġÅ ºšÅÇË ÊͺÁ¼ÏŧÁ¸ÊÀÅ. The emphasis on “Ìġ Ď¼É¸ÌÀÁġÅ ºšÅÇË” is Josephan. I changed “the laws of the country” to “the ancestral laws.” 287 AJ XI 140–1. 288 1 Esd 8:66 (69); cf. Ezra 9:1–2. 289 AJ XI 152. 290 AJ XI 155. 291 AJ XI 157. 285

192

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

any man – “because of his wisdom and his native law (ÌġÅ ÇċÁÇ¿¼Å ¸ĤÌÇı ÅŦÄÇÅ).”292 The Hebrew Bible did not give any reason for Mordecai’s behavior. When, in the continuation of the story, Josephus rewrites chapters 14–5 of Greek Esther (Addition C), he makes Mordecai say in his prayer that Haman “was angered and has devised these measures against those who would not transgress Thy laws,”293 that is, against those who, like him, would not prostrate themselves before him. Esther, too, “supplicated God according to the Law of the fathers (ÌŊ ȸÌÉţĿ ÅŦÄĿ).”294 While the apocryphal additions to Esther amplified the original “God-less” account by the addition of two elaborate prayers at this point in the narrative, Josephus made a step further by introducing the Law into them.

3. 17. The Greek Torah and Gentile Respect The emphasis on the Law and the marginalization of the Temple and its cult are continued in Josephus’ post-biblical narrative. As has been discussed above, in the introduction to AJ, Josephus referred to the story of the translation of the Torah into Greek as a model for his own work, and compared himself to the high priest Eleazar, who carried out that project. Therefore, it is not surprising that Josephus paraphrases at length the story of the translation as it appears in Pseudo-Aristeas. Since Josephus’ version of the account has been thoroughly analyzed and compared with his source in the previous research, I will only mention one point relevant to this study.295 In his paraphrase, Josephus omitted two long sections which appeared in his source: paragraphs 83–171, which include the lengthy description of the Temple and its cult and Eleazar’s allegorical exposition of the laws, and the story of the symposium in 187–292. It is easy to agree with S. J. D. Cohen that Josephus’ “omissions of extraneous matter (e.g., the symposium)… are expected,”296 especially in the light of the tediousness of this 292 AJ XI 210. On Josephus’ version of Esther, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 513–38. 293 AJ XI 230. 294 AJ XI 231. 295 See J-G. Fevrier, La date, la composition et les sources de la Lettre d’Aristée a Philocrate (Bibliotheque de I’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 242; Paris, 1924); M. Hadas, (ed. and trans.), Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York, 1951), 18–21; A. Pelletier, Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate (Sources Chretiennes, 89; Paris, 1962); and esp., idem, Flavius Josèphe, Adaptateur de la Lettre d’Aristée. Une réaction atticisante contre la koinè (Etudes et Commentaires, 45; Paris, 1962). 296 Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 33.

3.17. The Greek Torah and Gentile Respect

193

section and Josephus’ own comment that “anyone who wishes to find out the details of the questions discussed at the banquet can learn them by reading the book which Aristeas composed on this account.”297 Perhaps, it is also not surprising that he omitted Eleazar’s explanation of the Jewish laws since his allegorical presentation would have been contrary to Josephus’ views. As far as can be deduced from Josephus’ own exposition of the Law, allegorical reading of the Torah was foreign to him. At the same time, it seems that there was nothing in the account of the Temple in Ps.Aristeas, with which Josephus himself could not have agreed with. In the light of his own emphasis in BJ on the gentile admiration of the Temple, it would be natural to expect from him at least to refer to Ps.-Aristeas’ admiring description of the Temple – especially as he, of course, took the author to have been a gentile. Therefore, I think that the fact that he decided to omit this section can be taken as another indication of Josephus’ loss of interest in the Temple and its cult in AJ, instead concentrating his attention on the importance of the Torah. It can be said of AJ XII generally, that the central theme of its first part is the emphasis on the respect that the foreign rulers exhibited towards the Jewish Law. It is the main point of Josephus’ paraphrase of Ps.-Aristeas, which continues with his discussion of various decrees by pagan monarchs emphasizing the rights of the Jews to live according to their laws.298 It should also be pointed out that, according to Josephus, as long as the Jews continued to live according to their ancestral customs, everything went well for them. The troubles began when some of them began to disregard and break them. After the beginning of high-priestly factionalism, the people split between the factions of Jason and Menelaus, whose side was also taken by the Tobiads. Josephus writes that “Menelaus and the Tobiads withdrew, and going to Antiochus informed him that they wished to aban297

AJ XII 100. AJ XII 119–53. This emphasis is continued into AJ XIII, both in the story concerning the building of the Temple of Onias in Egypt, where, ironically, it is the pagan king who is careful to stress that the building of the Jewish Temple should be according to the Law (Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅŦÄÇÅ: AJ XIII 71), and in the story concerning the Jewish-Samaritan quarrel in AJ XIII 74–9. In this second story, the Law of Moses is the highest authority, according to which the pagan monarch is to judge the respective claims of the Jews and the Samaritans. The Law is mentioned as such four times in the space of six paragraphs, and after the Ptolemaic king is persuaded that the Jewish claims are in accordance with the Law of Moses, the leaders of the Samaritan opponents are put to death! Similarly, in AJ XIII 242–6 Antiochus Sidetes, who is described as pious and contrasted to Antiochus Epiphanes (whose outrages against Judaism caused the Jews to rebel against him), is willing to “restore to the Jews their native form of government,” since “he believed that in all things [including their separate way of life] they had acted with piety (Á¸ÌЏ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å).” Cf. AJ XIII 251–3. 298

194

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

don their country’s laws and the way of life prescribed by these, and to follow the king’s laws and adopt the Greek way of life.”299

3. 18. Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Maccabees Josephus’ treatment of the early Hasmoneans and his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees have been treated several times in recent scholarship, notably by I. M. Gafni.300 In his article Gafni has shown that Josephus, who in his version of the Hasmonean revolt had to deal with the question why the Jewish rebels against the Seleucid Empire succeeded in their struggle, while his own contemporaries did not, emphasized that the first were pious and virtuous, and fought for a righteous cause (namely, for the freedom to live by the ancestral laws) – something which he did not find in 1 Maccabees.301 Gafni has also demonstrated that in contrast to 1 Maccabees, Josephus theologized his version of the Maccabean struggle against the Seleucids, introduced the Law in the account where there was none in his source, emphasized the value of martyrdom, and elevated the Torah at the cost of the Temple. Since Gafni’s interest in his article was limited to his comparison of 1 Maccabees with Josephus’ version of the story, he seems to have been unaware of the fact that in this particular case Josephus’ tendencies were characteristic of his general treatment of sources throughout the rest of AJ. Therefore, Gafni dedicated much space in order to demonstrate that Josephus’ changes are not due to his use of sources, different from our 1 Maccabees. In the light of my analysis of Josephus’ rewriting strategies in other parts of AJ, it is clear that his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees follows exactly the same pattern, and obviously has nothing to do with his sources, thus supporting Gafni’s analysis. Continuing his line of argument, and putting Josephus’ treatment of 1 Maccabees in a broader context, I would like to demonstrate, that while 1 Maccabees repeatedly emphasized that the 299 AJ XII 240: ÌÇİË ȸÌÉţÇÍË ÅŦÄÇÍË Á¸Ì¸ÂÀÈŦÅ̼Ë Á¸Ė ÌüÅ Á¸ÌЏ ¸ĤÌÇİË ÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸Å ïȼʿ¸ÀÌÇė˹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇėËÁ¸ĖÌüÅ?¾ÅÀÁüÅÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸ÅìϼÀÅե 300 I. M. Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History, 116–31. For other discussions, see L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees,” in Parente et al., Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 41–68, who also lists older bibliography on the subject; and Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 44–7. Cohen’s position on the AJ paraphrase of 1 Macc is that “Josephus’ treatment of 1 Macc. differs hardly at all, in principle, from his treatment of the Bible” (p. 44, n. 77). 301 Notice also his treatment of the question of the basis of God’s alliance with his people: Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 126–7, which is similar to Attridge, The Interpretation, 149–51 (see quotation and discussion on pp. 108 and 165 above).

3.18. Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Maccabees

195

Hasmonean brothers were fighting first of all for the Temple and its cult, Josephus shifted his emphasis to the struggle for the Law and the commandments. Since the relevant passages are so important and indicative of Josephus’ tendencies in his treatment of his source, I will present several of them synoptically. 302 The first passage is Josephus’ paraphrase of Mattathias’s lament over Antiochus’ outrages in Judea and Jerusalem, which was already noticed by Gafni:303 1 Maccabees 2:7b–13

AJ XII 267

7b “Woe to me, why was I born to see this, the destruction of my people and the destruction of the holy city? And they lived there when it was delivered into the hands of enemies, the holy precinct (Ìġ Öºĕ¸Êĸ)304 into the hands of foreigners. 8 And her shrine (ĝŸĠË) became as a man without honor. 9 The vessels of her glory were taken captive. Her infants were killed in her city squares, her young people by the sword of an enemy. 10 What nation did not possess her in its kingdom nor seize her spoils? 11 All her adornment was removed from being free she became a slave. 12 And look, our holy places (ÌÛ ׺À¸÷ÄľÅ), our beauty and our glory were devastated. And the nations defiled them. 13 Why is there still life in us?”305

267 Now this Mattathias lamented to his sons over the state of things, the plundering of the city and the spoiling of the temple, and the misfortunes of the people, and said it was better for them to die for their ancestral laws than to live so ingloriously (켺šÅ̼ÁɼėÌÌÇŸĤÌÇė˼čŸÀĨÈòÉÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅÅŦÄÑÅÒÈÇ¿¸Å¼ėÅõ½ýÅÇĩÌÑË Òʼ¹ľË).”306

As can easily be seen from the comparison of the two versions of the story, the Law is not mentioned at all in 1 Maccabees, and Mattathias laments over the fate of the Holy City, the Temple, its holy vessels, and its holy places. After the holy places were devastated and defiled by the pagans, he sees no further reason to live. This is in some respects similar to Josephus’ own description of the High priest’s Ananus exhortation to the Jerusalemites in BJ IV 191, where he calls upon them to sacrifice their “lives if not 302

For a full synopsis of the Greek sources, see: J. Sievers, Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period. 1–2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12–14 (Rome, 2001). 303 Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 124. 304 In LXX ÌġÖºĕ¸Êĸ is sometimes used to translate ʹʣʷʮ. 305 Translation follows G. T. Zervos (trans.), “1 Makkabees,” in A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford, 2007), 481. 306 I emended “their country’s laws” to “their ancestral laws.” Cf. AJ XII 281–2, which is also quoted and discussed by Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 124.

196

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

for wives and children, then for God and the Sanctuary.”307 In AJ Josephus changes the orientation by putting on Mattathias’ lips an expression of his willingness to die for the laws. The same tendency is evident throughout Josephus’ entire version of 1 Maccabees. This, of course, is in line with what we have witnessed previously throughout Josephus’ rewritten Bible. At the same time, he downplays the prominent role played by the Temple and sacrificial cult in 1 Maccabees. Josephus’ version of Mattathias’ testament is equally telling: while the author of 1 Maccabees does mention Mattathias’ exhortation to his sons to fight for the Law and even to be willing to die for it,308 Josephus greatly elaborates on this theme: XII 280 [Be] mindful of the purpose of him who begot you and brought you up, and to preserve our country’s customs and to restore our ancient form of government, which is in danger of passing away (쿾 ̼ ÊŪ½¼ÀÅ ÌÛ ÈŠÌÉÀ¸ Á¸Ė ÁÀÅ»ÍżŧÇÍʸÅ Çċϼʿ¸À ÌüÅ ÒÉϸţ¸Å ÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸Å ÒŸÁÌÜÊ¿¸À), and not to make common cause with those who are betraying it whether of their own will or through compulsion; 281 but since you are my sons, I wish you to remain constant as such and to be superior to all force and compulsion, being so prepared in spirit as too die for the laws (ĹÊÌЏÒÈÇ¿¸Å¼ėÅĨÈòÉÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅ), if need be, and bearing this in mind, that when the Deity sees you so disposed, He will not forget you, but in admiration of your heroism will give them back to you again, and will restore to you your liberty, in which you shall live securely and in the enjoyment of your own customs (Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸Åբ ëÅ Ć ½Ţʼʿ¼ Ä¼ÌЏ Ò»¼ţ¸Ë ÌľÅ Ċ»ţÑÅ ÒÈǸŧÇÅ̼Ë ë¿ľÅբÒÈÇÁ¸Ì¸ÊÌŢʼÀ).309

Below I will quote the most prominent examples. The first one describes the gathering of Judas and his fighters in Mizpeh: 1 Maccabees 3:42–60

AJ XII 300–304

42 And Ioudas and his brothers saw that the evils were multiplied and that the forces were camped within their borders and learned of the orders of the king, which he had commanded to do to the people for destruction and annihilation, 43 and they said, each to his neighbor, “Let us raise up the ruination of our people and make war for our people and the holy places (Á¸Ė ÈǼÄûÊÑļÅȼÉĖÌÇı¸Çı÷ÄľÅÁ¸ĖÌľÅ ÖºĕÑÅ).” 44 And the congregation gathered together to be ready for battle and to pray and to request mercy and compassion. 45 And Ierousalem was uninhabited like a

300 But when Judas caught sight of the camp and the great numbers of his adversaries, he tried to persuade his own soldiers to have courage, and exhorted them to place their hope of victory in God and to make supplication to Him dressed in sackcloth according to their ancestral custom (ÌŊ ȸÌÉţĿÅŦÄĿ), and by exhibiting to Him this form of supplication, usual in time of great danger, to constrain Him to grant them victory over their foes. 301 Then he drew them up, according to the ancient custom of their fathers (»À¸ÌŠÆ¸Ë»òÌġÅÒÉϸėÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇİËÌÉŦÈÇÅÁ¸ĖÈŠÌÉÀÇÅ), under com-

307

I discussed this passage in chapter 2 (p. 106). 1 Macc 3:49–68. 309 Cf. Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 124. 308

3.18. Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Maccabees wilderness. There was no one going in or going out of those born of her. And the holy precinct (ÌġÖºĕ¸Êĸ) was downtrodden, and sons of aliens were in the citadel, a dwelling-place for the nations. And enjoyment was taken away from Iakob, and flute and cinyra ceased. 46 And they gathered together and came to Massepha across from Ierousalem, for there was a place of prayer formerly in Massepha for Israel. 47 And they fasted on that day and wrapped themselves in sackcloth and ashes on their head and tore their clothes. 48 And they spread out the book of the law, seeking that concerning which the nations inquire of the images of their idols. 49 And they brought the garments of the priesthood, the first products and the tithes, and they aroused the Nazirites who had fulfilled their days. 50 And they cried out loudly to heaven saying, “What shall we do to these, and where shall we carry them? 51 And your holy places (ÌÛ׺ÀÚ ÊÇÍ) have been downtrodden and defiled, and your priests are in mourning and humiliation. 52 And look, the nations have gathered together against us to annihilate us. You know what they are contemplating against us. 53 How will we be able to withstand them face to face, if you do not help us?” 54 And they trumpeted with the trumpets and cried out with a great shout. 55 And after this, Ioudas established leaders of the people, officers of thousands and officers of hundreds and officers of fifties and officers of tens. 56 And he said to those who were building houses and were betrothed to women and were planting vineyards and were cowards to return each one to his home according to the law. 57 And the company departed and camped to the south of Ammaous. 58 And Ioudas said, “Gird yourselves, and become strong sons. And be ready in the morning to do battle with these nations, which have gathered together against us to annihilate us

197

manders of thousands and lower officers, and having dismissed the newly married men, and sent back those who had recently acquired property, in order that they might not, for the sake of enjoying these things, be too eager to live and so fight with too little spirit, 302 he urged his soldiers on to the contest with these words. “No time will ever be given you, my comrades, when there will be more need for courage and contempt of danger than at the present moment. For if you now fight bravely, you may recover that liberty which is loved for its own sake by all men, 303 but to you most of all happens to be desirable because it gives you the right to worship the Deity. Since, therefore, at the present moment it lies in your power either to recover this liberty and regain a happy and blessed life” – by this he meant a life in accordance with the laws and customs of their fathers311 – “or to suffer the most shameful fate and 304 to leave your race without any seed by being cowardly in battle, exert yourselves accordingly, bearing in mind that death is the portion even of those who do not fight, and holding firmly to the belief that if you die for such precious causes as liberty, country, laws and religion (ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸Ë ȸÌÉţ»ÇËÅŦÄÑżĤʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë), you will gain eternal glory. Make ready, therefore, and be prepared in spirit” so that at daybreak tomorrow you may meet the enemy.”

ĸË ÇħÅ ëÅ ÌŊ ȸÉŦÅÌÀ Á¼ÀÄšÅÑÅ ĨÄėÅ ̸ŧ̾Å ̼ ÒÈǸ¹¼ėÅ Á¸Ė ÌġÅ ¼Ĥ»¸ţÄÇŸ Á¸Ė ĸÁŠÉÀÇŹţÇÅÒŸÁÌŢʸʿ¸ÀբÇīÌÇË»ЏöÅĝÁ¸ÌÛÌÇİËÅŦÄÇÍËÁ¸ĖÌüÅÈŠÌÉÀÇÅÊÍÅŢ¿¼À¸Åե 311

198

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

and our holy places (ÌÛ׺À¸÷ÄľÅ). 59 For it is better for us to die in battle than to look upon the evils of our nation and of our holy places (ÌľÅÖºĕÑÅ). 60 But as is the will of heaven, thus shall he do.”310

As can be easily seen from this synopsis, the Temple (“Holy places”) plays the most important role for the author of 1 Macc, being mentioned in the passage at least five times. In Josephus’ paraphrase of 1 Macc, he omitted all references to the Temple, shifting the aim of the struggle to the right and freedom to live by the Law. He explicitly identified the “worship of God” with living by the Law and ancestral customs, and the goals for which the Hasmoneans fought with Torah-piety. Moreover, he twice emphasized that Judas acted according to the ancestral Law and customs.312 The next passage is just as eloquent in respect to Josephus’ emphases in AJ: 1 Maccabees 7:33–42

AJ XII 406–9

33 After these developments Nicanor went up to Mount Sion, and some of the priests from the holy places and some of the elders from the people came out to greet him peacefully and to show him the whole burnt offering that was being offered in behalf of the king. 34 But he mocked them and ridiculed them and defiled them and spoke arrogantly. 35 And he swore with anger, saying, “If Ioudas and his army do not surrender themselves into my hands now, in the future, if I return in peace, I will burn down this house.” And he went out with great anger. 36 And the priests went in and stood in front of the altar and

406 And again, as Nicanor was coming down from the Akra to the temple, he was met by some of the priests and elders, who greeted him and showed him the sacrifices which they said they were offering to God on behalf of the king. Thereupon he fell to cursing them, and threatened that, if the people did not give Judas up to him, he would pull down the temple when he returned. 407 After making these threats, he left Jerusalem, while the priests burst into tears in their distress over his words, and supplicated God to deliver them from their enemies. 408 Now after Nicanor had left Jerusalem, he came to a certain village

310

Zervos, “1 Makkabees,” 484. As Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 122, points out, “Whereas the ‘law’ (ÅŦÄÇË) and its observance are stressed in I Maccabees, the maintenance of strict Temple ritual is the main expression of religious fidelity. Josephus, however, places far greater stress on the keeping of ‘the laws,’ and even while describing the dedication of the Temple he takes care to add that the renewal of sacrificial worship was in accord with the laws.” (He goes on to quote AJ XII 316 and 1 Macc 4:36). Gafni, ibid., 123, also compares 1 Macc 3:3–9 with AJ XII 286, and concludes that Josephus introduced the Law in his summary of the poem, in which “‘the Laws of the fathers’ are not mentioned… explicitly;” however it seems that in this case he is wrong since “the lawless” (ÓÅÇÄÇÀ) are mentioned in the source twice, “lawlessness” (ÒÅÇÄţ¸), and “impious” (Òʼ¹¼ėË) once. Josephus mentions “transgressors of the laws” (ȸɸÅÇÄŢʸÅ̸Ë) once, and states that Judas “purified the land of all pollution,” but his usage is hardly more explicit than that of the author of 1 Macc. 312

3.18. Josephus’ Rewriting of 1 Maccabees the shrine and wept and said, 37 “You have selected this house for your name to be invoked in it, to be a house of prayer and supplication for your people.313 38 Execute vengeance on this man and on his army, and let them fall by the sword. Remember their blasphemies, and do not allow them to endure.” 39 And Nicanor went out of Ierousalem and camped in Baithoron, and the Syrian force met him. 40 And Ioudas camped in Adasa with three thousand men. And Ioudas prayed and said, 41 “When the men from the king blasphemed, your angel came out and killed one hundred eighty-five thousand of them. 42 In the same manner smash this army before us today, and let the rest know that he spoke wickedly against your holy places, and judge him according to his wickedness.”314

199

called Bethoron, and there encamped, being joined by another force from Syria. And Judas encamped at Adasa, another village thirty stades distant from Bethoron, with two thousand men in all. 409 These he exhorted not to be overawed by the numbers of their adversaries nor to reflect how many they were about to contend against, but to bear in mind who they were and for what prize they were facing danger, and bravely encounter the enemy; and then he led them out to battle.

Both the prayer of the priests before the altar, in which God is reminded of His choice of the Temple, and Judas’ prayer in which a parallel is drawn between the insolent behavior of Sennacherib, who threatened Jerusalem and its Temple and that of Nicanor are wholly omitted by Josephus. Instead, he puts on Judas’ lips an exhortation to his soldiers to remember “who they were and for what prize they were facing danger.” And as is abundantly clear from other parts of his paraphrase of 1 Maccabees, the utmost prize, for which the Maccabees fought, was the right to live according to the Law.315 The next example is a comparison of Simon the Hasmonean’s speech to the Jews after the capture of his brother Jonathan by the treacherous Tryphon as given in 1 Maccabees and AJ. Although the laws are mentioned in 1 Maccabees and the Temple in Josephus, it is clear that the Temple is more important for the first, and the laws for the second; moreover, in the light of AJ XII 300–4, quoted and discussed above, Josephus identified “the worship (¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸) of God,” twice mentioned in this passage, with Torah-piety rather than with the Temple-cult. The “liberty,” also mentioned here, is undoubtedly the liberty to live according to the ancestral Jewish Law:316 313 Êį ëƼÂñÆÑ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ ëÈÀÁ¾¿ýŸÀ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈφ ¸ĤÌŊ ¼čŸÀ ÇčÁÇÅ ÈÉÇʼÍÏýËÁ¸Ė»¼ûʼÑËÌŊ¸ŊÊÇÍե 314 Zervos, “1 Makkabees,” 480–90. 315 Cf. Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” 120–1. 316 See AJ XII 303, quoted and analyzed above, pp. 197–8. The “liberty” as one of the

200

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

1 Maccabees 13:1–6

AJ XIII 197–200

1 And Simon heard that Trypho gathered together a large force to come into the land of Iouda and to devastate it, 2 and he saw the people, that they were trembling and fearful, and he went up to Ierousalem and gathered the people. 3 And he encouraged them and said to them, “You yourselves know all that I and my brothers and the house of my father have done for the laws and the holy places (ȼÉĖÌľÅÅĠÄÑÅ Á¸ĖÌľÅÖºĕÑÅ), and the wars and the hardships that we have seen. 4 For this reason all my brothers have perished for the sake of Israel, and I have been left alone. 5 And now far be it from me to preserve my life in any time of affliction, for I am not greater than my brothers. 6 But I will take vengeance for my nation and for the holy places (ȼÉĖÌľÅÖºĕÑÅ) and for your women and children, for all the nations have gathered together to annihilate us out of enmity.”317

197 Thereupon Simon, seeing that the people of Jerusalem were dismayed at these happenings, and wishing by his words to make them more courageous and resolute in opposing Tryphon who was advancing against them, called the people together in the temple and there began to exhort them as follows. 198 “It was for your liberty, my countrymen, that I and my brothers together with our father have gladly dared death, as you cannot fail to know by now. And having such good examples before me, and believing that the men of my house were born to die on behalf of our laws and our religion (ĨÈòÉÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅÁ¸ĖÌýË ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë), I know not any fear great enough to drive this thought from my mind or to introduce in its place a love of life and contempt for glory. 199 Wherefore, as you are not without a leader who is able to suffer and do the greatest things on your behalf, follow me eagerly against whomsoever I may lead you. For neither am I better than my brothers, that I should spare my own life, nor am I worse, that I should flee from or reject what seemed to them the noblest thing of all, that is, to die for the laws and the worship of your God (ĨÈòÉ ÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅÁ¸ĖÌýËÌÇı¿¼Çı¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸ËĨÄľÅ). 200 But in whatever way I must show myself to be a true brother of theirs, in that way I will show it. For I am confident that I shall take the vengeance on the enemy, and that I shall deliver you all with your wives and children from their violence, and that with God’s help I shall preserve the temple inviolate; for I see that the nations hold you in contempt as being without a leader, and are eager to make war.

In order to summarize Josephus’ version of the Hasmonean Revolt, several things should be said, from the point of view of this study. Firstly, the Hasmonean ascent forms one of the highest points in the whole of Josemain goals of the Hasmonean struggle was also singled out by Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans,” 45. 317 Zervos, “1 Makkabees,” 497–8.

3.19. The Reign of John Hyrcanus the Prophet

201

phus’ narrative in AJ. He singled out the Hasmoneans in order to show how a proper, even paradigmatic, Jewish state, based on the Law and embodying the Mosaic ÈÇÂÀ̼ĕ¸, came into being. Secondly, the problems in the Jewish community which led to the revolt began because of the disorder introduced into the high-priestly succession and the transgression of the Law by some of the leading members of the community. This, in turn, led to the loss of liberty, whose chief expression lay in the right to practice the ancestral Jewish laws. Thirdly, the Hasmoneans led the struggle for the sake of the freedom to live according to the Law,318 and were willing to sacrifice their lives in this just cause. They were pious, righteous, virtuous, and exhorted their followers to do no wrong, since God’s providence and alliance are dependent on these. The reason why they were victorious in the end was obviously their Torah-centered piety and their struggle for the freedom to observe the commandments, and even willingness to die for the Law. This is, of course, very different from the position of the author of 1 Macc, who does not see the reason for the Seleucid persecution in the Jews’ own sins, for whom the struggle of the Hasmoneans does not require any justification, and in whose eyes God’s support for the elect Hasmonean family is virtually unconditional. And martyrdom is an idea which was totally foreign to the author of 1 Macc, as I emphasized in chapter 1 above. For him, the real heroes are the valiant Hasmonean fighters, definitely not the pacifistic martyrs. Ironically, although for his version of the Hasmonean revolt Josephus used 1 Macc rather than 2 Macc (of which he seems to have not been aware),319 from the conceptual point of view, his presentation of the story is more congruent with the ideological and theological positions of the Diaspora author of this latter work.320

3. 19. The Reign of John Hyrcanus the Prophet The reign of the high priest John Hyrcanus is presented by Josephus as the apogee of Second Temple Judean history. Hyrcanus is not just a pious and Law-observant ruler – he actually embodies and exemplifies Josephus’ 318

This “freedom,” which Josephus several times emphasizes in his account of Moses, is specifically identified as the goal for which the Hasmoneans fight: XII 303, 312, 315, 433, XIII 5, 198. 319 Most scholars think that Josephus was not familiar with 2 Macc. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 26 thinks that Josephus had 2 Macc at his disposal, but deliberately preferred 1 Macc: “in almost every case he chose the version of the Hasmonaean propagandist in First Maccabees over the rival account, which he regarded as unreliable.” See also Goldstein’s footnote 80 on p. 26 for his earlier views on the subject. 320 On the comparison of the theological profile of 1 and 2 Macc, see chapter 1 above (pp. 55–7).

202

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

political ideal, theocracy,321 which he later described in CA: the high priest, subjected to God who is at the top, with priests who are responsible for the preservation, interpretation, and implementation of the Law, under him.322 Thus, when Hyrcanus is besieged by Antiochus Sidetes, he asks for a truce in order to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. He does not act rashly (like Zedekiah or the leaders of the Revolt against Rome), and, recognizing the pagan king’s “piety,” is willing to sue for terms. The only thing he asks from the king is to “restore to the Jews their ancestral form of government (ÌüÅÈŠÌÉÀÇŸĤÌÇėËÈÇÂÀ̼ţ¸ÅÒÈÇ»ÇıŸÀ).”323 After the Seleucid king grants his request, Hyrcanus becomes his ally, and joins him on the campaign against the Parthians. However, even in war conditions, Hyrcanus takes care that his Jewish soldiers obey the Law: “After defeating Indates, the Parthian general, and setting up a trophy at the Lycus river, Antiochus remained there two days at the request of the Jew Hyrcanus because of a festival of his nation on which it was not lawful (ÇĤÁ öÅ ÅŦÄÀÄÇÅ) for the Jews to march out.”324 It is therefore not surprising that Hyrcanus enjoyed a special favor with God, who communicated with him in marvelous ways foretelling him the future.325 The Jews in his time were prospering (¼ĤÈɸº¼ėÅ) both in Judea and abroad.326 He was altogether righteous and virtuous in every sense – even the envy of his subjects was aroused against him on the account of his and his sons’ successes: thus, in the story about his rift with the Pharisees the scandal is precipitated by Hyrcanus’ desire to be righteous and his willingness to be corrected if he did anything wrong.327 After he quieted the 321 The term was coined by Josephus in CA II 165 to characterize the government instituted by Moses. See J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus. Translation and Commentary. X. Against Apion (Leiden, 2007), 262, n. 638. 322 CA II 184–9, quoted in chapter 4 (p. 268). In AJ Josephus’ ideal polity is described as aristocracy, in CA – theocracy, but essentially, the same thing is meant. 323 AJ XIII 245; I emended “native” to “ancestral.” 324 AJ XIII 251, quoting Nicolas of Damascus – which fact may have been important for Josephus, since this was a Gentile testimony to Hyrcanus’ Law-observance. I emended “customary” to “lawful.” 325 AJ XIII 282–3. For another instance of divine communication with Hyrcanus, see AJ XIII 322–3. 326 AJ XIII 284. If Josephus indeed wanted to present Hyrcanus’ reign as the highest point of the Hasmonean period, it might be significant that he omitted from his paraphrase the idealized description of Judean prosperity in the days of Simon the Hasmonean (1 Macc 14:4–15), which in turn seems to be modeled on the description of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 5 and 10. In this way, he emphasized that the Judeans (both in their land, and abroad) reached the peak of their ¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸ and prosperity under Hyrcanus. 327 AJ XIII 289–90. On Hyrcanus in Josephus, see C. Thoma, “John Hyrcanus 1 as

3.20. Josephus on the Late Hasmonean Period

203

resulting outbreak, he “lived happily (¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄŦÅÑË) thereafter.”328 This “happiness,” it should be remembered, was promised by Josephus at the beginning of his work to those who observe God’s Law. Josephus summarizes Hyrcanus’ reign in the most exceptional and laudatory terms: “Now he was accounted by God worthy of three of the greatest privileges, the rule of the nation, the office of the high-priest, and the gift of prophecy; and the Deity was with him and enabled him to foresee and foretell the future.”329 This is definitely the most positive description of any post-biblical Jewish ruler in AJ. It is also important to note, that this (and its parallel in BJ I 68) is the only case in the whole of Josephan corpus, where he explicitly attributes the gift of prophecy (ÈÉÇξ̼ţ¸) to a post-biblical figure.330 Clearly, Josephus strove to present Hyrcanus as a prime example of a Law-abiding ruler, who enjoyed the divine blessings reserved for those who follow and implement God’s Law whole-heartedly, and whose subjects prosper as the result. At the same time, even on the basis of Josephus’ own account of Hyrcanus’ reign in AJ it is transparent that his reign was far from being the idyll which Josephus strove to create by his encomia, comments, and editorial summaries. Thus, he again subordinated his historical narrative to the goal of demonstrating his proposition that those who keep the Law succeed and prosper beyond any imagination. So, the pious Hyrcanus followed the Law and reached the top of happiness and felicity; however, Josephus took care to emphasize that he himself “foretold that his two elder sons … would not remain the masters of the state.”331 After his death, decline set in.

3. 20. Josephus on the Late Hasmonean Period Hyrcanus’ eldest son Aristobulus was the exact opposite of his father – the first thing he did according to Josephus was to change the government into

Seen by Josephus and Other Early Jewish Sources,” in Parente et al., Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period, 127–40. For the rabbinic parallels to this story, see. J. Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden, 1987), 161–5. 328 AJ XIII 299. 329 AJ XIII 299–30: ÌÉÀľÅ ÌľÅ ļºţÊÌÑÅ ÓÆÀÇË ĨÈġ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ÁÉÀ¿¼ţËբ ÒÉÏýË ÌÇı ì¿ÅÇÍË Á¸ĖÌýËÒÉÏÀ¼É¸ÌÀÁýËÌÀÄýËÁ¸ĖÈÉÇξ̼ţ¸Ë. 330 On prophecy in Josephus, see J. Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974), 239–63; R. Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (Oxford, 1992); L. H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JThS 41 (1990), 386–422. 331 AJ XIII 300.

204

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

a kingdom, clearly a sign of degeneration.332 The gruesome story of his term of rule, beset as it was by disasters and tragedies, is a veritable antithesis to that of his exemplarily pious and abundantly blessed father. Aristobulus was wicked and murderous, and therefore was miserable throughout his short reign. He starved his mother to death, imprisoned his brothers, and the only brother he did not put behind the bars, he eventually murdered by mistake. After divine providence caused Aristobulus’ own blood to be spilled on the very spot where his brother had been murdered, the king recognized his own wickedness and God’s inevitable retribution: “I was not destined, I see, to escape the notice of God in committing such impious and unholy crimes, but swift punishment has overtaken me for the murder of my kin.”333 It is likely that Josephus again subjugated the materials at his disposal to the demonstration of his chief idea. Moreover, he did not manage to do it consistently: the quotation from Timagenes via Strabo with which he ends his account of Aristobulus’ reign clearly indicates that Josephus’ assessment of him was not the only option.334 As Josephus proceeded to the account of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, he faced some serious problems as to how to fit him into his didactic narrative, and this seems to be reflected in his presentation of this figure. On the one hand, from the point of view of international politics, and in terms of military successes resulting in a territorial expansion, this period could be considered as the heyday of the independent Jewish state in the Second Temple period. Josephus clearly realized this, and seems to have been proud of the fact.335 On the other hand, it is just as evident that Jannaeus was a highly ambivalent figure: it is not really clear from Josephus what motivated this king to wage most of his wars, and he does not provide a convincing justification for the majority of his military campaigns. It seems that what drove Jannaeus in most cases was simple ambition or lust for power and money. It is also transparent that Jannaeus was just as cruel towards his own subjects as he was towards the neighboring pagans: Josephus does not conceal the antagonism of the Jews towards this authoritarian ruler and his unrivalled savagery in relation to his internal opponents. Jannaeus did not seem to have been much concerned about the propagation of Jewish piety and Torah life-style, apart from his destruction of the Hellenistic cities conquered by him or the attempts to convert their inhabitants to Judaism by force (if that counts).336 332

AJ XIII 301. AJ XIII 317. 334 AJ XIII 319. 335 E.g., AJ XIII 393–7. There is hardly any criticism of Jannaeus’ military politics in Josephus. 336 AJ XIII 397. 333

3.20. Josephus on the Late Hasmonean Period

205

Josephus does not explain why the people pelted Jannaeus with citrons during the celebration of the festival (of Tabernacles) in the Temple; however, if we can rely on a parallel rabbinic tradition,337 we learn that the reason was Janneus’ public expression of disdain for the religious customs accepted by the majority of the people.338 Josephus’ dilemma is perhaps most evident in his moralizing at the end of the passage describing Janneus’ brutality and sheer sadism towards his Jewish enemies, eight hundred of whom he crucified, and whose wives and children he commanded to massacre before their eyes while the crucified were still alive: XIII 381 This was the revenge he took for the injuries he had suffered; but the penalty he exacted was inhuman for all that, even though he had, as was natural, gone through very great hardships in the wars he had fought against them, and had finally found himself in danger of losing both his life and his throne, for they were not satisfied to carry on the struggle by themselves 382 but brought foreigners as well, and at last reduced him to the necessity a of surrendering to the king of the Arabs the territory which he had conquered in Moab and Galaaditis and the strongholds therein, in order that he might not aid the Jews in the war against him; and they committed countless other insulting and abusive acts against him. 383 But still he seems to have done this thing unnecessarily…

From the following narrative in Josephus, as well as from the Qumran scrolls,339 it emerges that most of the crucified were Pharisees. The members of this party loom prominently at the end of Jannaeus’ story, and even more in Josephus’ account of the reign of his widow, the queen Salome Alexandra. Earlier scholars tended to interpret Josephus’ accounts of the Pharisees in AJ as positive and even flattering, and tried to base various theories concerning Josephus’ shifting alliances on the difference in his presentation of this party in BJ and AJ.340 However, as has been convincingly demonstrated recently, his attitude to them was at best ambivalent throughout; indeed it seems to be very difficult to interpret most of his AJ passages on the Pharisees as laudatory.341 Actually, it has been recently argued by D. R. Schwartz that Josephus’ shift towards Torah-oriented value system in AJ might also account for his partially more favorable presentation of the Pharisees in this work as compared to BJ. It does not have 337

b. Sukkah 48b; cf. b. Yoma 26b. Concerning the rabbinic tradition, cf. Schürer, The History, I, 223, n. 16: “Alexander’s name is not mentioned, but he may well be meant.” 339 Pesher Nahum (4Q169 II 6–10); see H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids-Jerusalem, 2008), 117–31, for the historical background and the light which the Scrolls shed on this period. 340 See below in this chapter (pp. 222–5) on the discussion of the “sects passage” in BJ II and AJ XVII. On Josephus’ alleged Pharisaic identity, see chapter 4 (268–9). 341 This is one of the main conclusions of Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. For an earlier expression of this view, see D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees,” JSJ 14 (1983), 157–71. Also see S. Mason, “Pharisees in the Narratives of Josephus,” in idem, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, 185–215. 338

206

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

anything to do with any putative attempt to ingratiate himself with the Palestinian rabbinic movement.342 At the same time, although Josephus does say some good things about the Pharisees (especially as far as their religious side is concerned), his overall assessment of their role in the politics of the Hasmonean state is negative. True, he claims that on his deathbed Jannaeus admitted that “he had come into conflict with the nation because these men [Pharisees] had been badly treated by him.”343 However, in the continuation of the story the Pharisees hardly come out as positive figures: first, they hypocritically praise their savage persecutor Jannaeus after his death as a righteous king,344 and later, propelled by Salome Alexandra, virtually take the political power in the state in their hands and unleash an arbitrary bloody persecution of their enemies and opponents. For Josephus, this is clearly a deterioration, which stemmed from Salome’s lust for absolute power without any “consideration for either decency or justice.”345 It is intriguing that in AJ Salome’s image is much less positive than Josephus’ earlier picture in BJ, where he stated that “[s]he was indeed, the very strictest observer of the national traditions and would deprive of office any offender against the sacred laws.”346 By contrast, in AJ nothing whatsoever is said concerning her faithfulness to the Law. Josephus laments the role of the Pharisees in the degeneration of the Hasmonean state, who are explicitly identified by him as the enemies of the Hasmoneans: XIII 431 At least matters turned out so unfortunately for her house that the sovereign power which it had acquired in the face of the greatest dangers and difficulties was not long afterward taken from it because of her desire for things unbecoming a woman, and because she expressed the same opinions as did those who were hostile to her family, and also because she left the kingdom without anyone who had their interests at heart. 432 And even after her death she caused the palace to be filled with misfortunes and disturbances which arose from the public measures, taken during her lifetime.

At the beginning of the account of Salome’s reign, Josephus says that she restored the regulations of the Pharisees, which her father-in-law John Hyrcanus abolished.347 It has been demonstrated above that for Josephus, Hyrcanus was the paradigm of virtue and the ideal ruler. In other words, it seems that for Josephus, whatever he did was right, and if he abolished 342

Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews.” As I argue in chapter 4, it actually seems that Josephus’ view of Judean leadership was basically irreconcilable with the emergent rabbinic views on the subject. 343 AJ XIII 402. 344 AJ XIII 406. 345 AJ XIII 431. 346 BJ I 108: óÁÉţ¹ÇͺÛÉ»üÄŠÂÀÊ̸ÌÇıÅŦÄÇÍÌÛÈŠÌÉÀ¸Á¸ĖÌÇİËȾÄļÂÇıÅ̸˼ĊË ÌÇİËĎ¼ÉÇİËÅŦÄÇÍËëÆÒÉÏýËÈÉǼ¹ŠÂ¼ÌÇ. 347 AJ XIII 408.

3.21. The Transition to Roman Rule

207

Pharisaic rules, then it was a positive thing and should have remained so. However, Salome (a woman!) interfered with Hyrcanus’ decisions – moreover, she gave political power to the Pharisees – and by doing this, she sided with the enemies of her family. In other words, Josephus, who several books later would claim to be a descendant of the Hasmoneans (on his maternal side!),348 unequivocally declared the Pharisees to be a destructive force, who in no small measure contributed to the downfall of the glorious Hasmonean house. The measures which Salome took during her life sowed the seeds of the disasters which materialized after her death, in the reigns of her sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II.

3. 21. The Transition to Roman Rule It seems that for Josephus, the keyword characterizing the period between the death of Salome Alexandra and the rise of Herod was ÊÌŠÊÀË– dissention, civil war. Much has been written on the centrality of this concept in Josephus’ oeuvre, and on his understanding of the calamitous consequences of ÊÌŠÊÀË in Jewish history – thus, he attributes to it the tragedy of the Great Revolt, and it figures prominently in his account of the opposition to Moses.349 Right at the beginning of the story, the chief villain Antipater the Idumean (Hyrcanus’ councilor and father of the future king Herod) is described as a “trouble-maker” and “rebel” (»É¸ÊÌŢÉÀÇË »ò ĶÅ ÌüÅ ÎŧÊÀÅ Á¸Ė Ê̸ÊÀ¸ÊÌŢË),350 who incited Hyrcanus against his brother, and enlisted the military help of Aretas the Nabatean against Aristobulus, which resulted in a civil war (ÌüÅÊÌŠÊÀÅ).351 The continuation of dissention (ÊÌŠÊÀË) among the followers of Aristobulus’ even after his decision to admit Pompey to Jerusalem352 resulted in the siege of the city, its conquest, and the profanation of the Temple. Josephus summarizes the rule of the two brothers and its consequences as follows: 348 AJ XVI 187. On this claim, see the sarcastic remarks in M. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Three: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge, 1999), 225. 349 E.g., Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 556. ÊÌŠÊÀËis one of the main themes of BJ (cf. BJ I 10); see Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 78–81; idem, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” in idem, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, 122–5; G. Mader, Josephus and the Politics of Historiography (Leiden, 2000), 55–103; M. A. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’s Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (Atlanta, 2009), passim. 350 AJ XIV 8. 351 AJ XIV 22. On this passage, see the next page. 352 AJ XIV 58.

208

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

XIV 77 For this misfortune which befell Jerusalem Hyrcanus and Aristobulus were responsible, because of their dissention (ÈÉġËÒÂÂŢÂÇÍËÊ̸ÊÀŠÊ¸Å̼Ë). For we lost our freedom and became subject to the Romans, and the territory which we had gained by our arms and taken from the Syrians we were compelled to give back to them, 78 and in addition the Romans exacted of us in a short space of time more than ten thousand talents; and the royal power which had formerly been bestowed on those who were high priests by birth became the privilege of commoners (Á¸Ė ÷ ¹¸ÊÀ¼ţ¸ ÈÉŦ̼ÉÇÅ ÌÇėË Á¸ÌÛ ºšÅÇË ÒÉÏÀ¼É¼ıÊÀÅ»À»ÇĚžբÌÀÄü»¾ÄÇÌÀÁľÅÒÅ»ÉľÅ뺚żÌÇ).

So, the decline which began after the reign of the ethnarch, high priest and prophet John Hyrcanus culminated in the total loss of independence under Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II. 353 The period of their rule is the lowest point in Josephus’ account of the Hasmonean state. Correspondingly, neither of the two brothers is a positive character: Hyrcanus is ineffective and weak as a ruler, and is perceived as ignoble and unmanly; Aristobulus is a man of action and alert spirit, but over-ambitious and vain.354 This unflattering description of the brothers most probably reflects Josephus’ decision to present them as disrespectful towards the Law. It seems that Josephus’ own view of Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II was expressed by the spokesmen on behalf of the nation of the Jews, who pleaded their case before Pompey in Damascus: XIV 41 Here he heard the case of the Jews and their leaders, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were quarrelling with one another, while the nation was against them both and asked not to be ruled by a king, saying that it was their ancestral custom (ÈŠÌÉÀÇźÛɼčŸÀ) to obey the priests of the God who was venerated by them, but that these two, who were descended from the priests, were seeking to change their form of government in order that they might become a nation of slaves.355

In other words, Hyranus and Aristobulus attempted to achieve the exact opposite of what was the purpose of the Judean Lawgiver Moses, who gave Torah to the people so that they might enjoy freedom, ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸. Indeed, neither of the brothers seems to have been concerned with the Law; rather it is the ordinary people who by their readiness to die in the name of piety exemplified their righteousness. Such is Onias, “a righteous man and dear to God,” who was martyred by the followers of Hyrcanus after he refused to curse Aristobulus and his men, praying instead to God to preserve both parties.356 God, of course, punished the wicked for the 353

And, eventually brought the lawless commoner and “half-Jew” Herod to the Judean throne as a tyrant. 354 AJ XIV 13; 44–5. 355 Emended. 356 AJ XIV 22–4. On Onias (Honi) in the rabbinic tradition, see W. S. Green, “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 19.2 (Berlin, 1979), 628–47; J. H. Charlesworth, “Honi,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York, 1992), 3:282.

3.21. The Transition to Roman Rule

209

murder of the righteous man by destroying the crops of the country with a violent wind.357 Apart from Onias, self-sacrificial faithfulness to the Law is exemplified by the priests of the Jerusalem Temple, who in the midst of the bombardment of the Temple by Pompey did not withdraw from their sacred duties. I already discussed the story in chapter 2, where I demonstrated that Josephus used it in order to extol the faithfulness of the priests to their cultic duties and to emphasize the Gentile admiration of the Temple ritual.358 Here I would like to present the BJ and AJ versions of the episode synoptically, in order to bring out Josephus’ shift of emphasis: BJ I 148–50

AJ XIV 65–8

148 While the Romans were undergoing these severe hardships, Pompey was filled with admiration for the invariable fortitude of the Jews, and in particular for the way in which they carried on their religious services uncurtailed (Á¸ĖÄŠÂÀÊ̸ ÌÇıľ»òÅȸɸÂıʸÀÌý˿ɾÊÁ¼ţ¸Ë), though enveloped in a hail of missiles. Just as if the city had been wrapt in profound peace, the daily sacrifices, the expiations and all the ceremonies of worship were scrupulously performed to the honour of God. At the very hour when the temple was taken, when they were being massacred about the altar, they never desisted from the religious rites for the day. 359 … 150 Then it was that many of the priests, seeing the enemy advancing sword in hand, calmly continued their sacred ministrations, and were butchered in the act of pouring libations and burning incense; putting the worship of the Deity above their own preservation.360

65 And one may get an idea of the extreme piety which we show toward God and of our strict observance of the laws (ÌüÅ ĨȼɹÇÂüÅúËìÏÇļÅȼÉĖÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë Á¸ĖÌüÅÎ͸ÁüÅÌľÅÅŦÄÑÅ) from the fact that during the siege the priests were not hindered from performing any of the sacred ceremonies through fear, but twice a day, in the morning and at the ninth hour, they performed the sacred ceremonies at the altar, and did not omit any of the sacrifices even when some difficulty arose because of the attacks. 66 And indeed when the city was taken, … and the enemy rushed in and were slaughtering the Jews in the temple, 67 those who were busied with the sacrifices none the less continued to perform the sacred ceremonies; not were they compelled, either by fear for their lives or by the great number of those already slain, to run away, but thought it better to endure whatever they might have to suffer there beside the altars than to neglect any of the ordinances (ÌÀÌľÅÅÇÄţÄÑÅ). 68 And that this is not merely a story to set forth the praises of a fictitious piety, but the truth, is attested by all those who have narrated the

357

AJ XIV 25–8. On this episode, see Schwartz, Judeans and Jews. 359 ¸ď ̼ ¿ÍÊţ¸À Á¸¿Џ ÷ĚɸÅ Á¸Ė ÇĎ 럺ÀÊÄÇĖ Á¸Ė ÈÜʸ ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ Á¸ÌÛ ÌÒÁÉÀ¹òË ëƼ̼¼ėÌÇ ÌŊ ¿¼Ŋբ Á¸Ė ÇĤ»ò Á¸ÌЏ ¸ĤÌüÅ ÌüÅ ×ÃÑÊÀÅ ȼÉĖ ÌŊ ¹ÑÄŊ ÎÇżÍŦļÅÇÀ ÌľÅ Á¸¿Џ ÷ĚɸÅÅÇÄţÄÑżĊËÌüſɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ÅÒÈšÊ̾ʸÅե 360 Ò¿ÇÉŧ¹ÑËëÈĖÌý˿ɾÊÁ¼ţ¸ËìļÀŸÅբÊȚŻÇÅ̼Ë»òÒȼÊΊÌÌÇÅÌÇÁ¸Ė¿ÍÄÀľÅ̼ËÁ¸Ė ÌýËÈÉġËÌġ¿¼ėÇÅ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ËëÅ»¼ÍÌšÉĿÌüÅÊÑ̾Éţ¸ÅÌÀ¿šÄ¼ÅÇÀե 358

210

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities exploits of Pompey, among them Strabo and Nicolas and, in addition, Titus Livius, the author of a History of Rome.

At first glance, these two passages look very similar; however, a closer look at their contents and terminology reveals different emphases: in BJ what arouses Pompey’s admiration is the fact that the priests continued to perform ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸ in the midst of fighting, and put their own safety second to ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ (both consisting of sacrifices, libations and incense). In AJ, Josephus programmatically introduced the episode by stating that from it people should get “an idea of the extreme piety which we show toward God and of our strict observance of the laws.” Neither ¿É¾ÊÁ¼ţ¸ nor ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸are used in this latter version – the Jews are ready to undergo all kinds of suffering rather than neglect any of the laws. In other words, the BJ emphasis on the Temple ritual was transferred in AJ onto the fidelity to the Law and its commandments. It is also instructive to compare the next episode in the story as it is described in BJ and AJ: Pompey’s entry into the Holy of Holies. In BJ Josephus states that “[o]f all the calamities of that time none so deeply affected the nation as the exposure to alien eyes of the Holy Place, hitherto screened from view.”361 In AJ Josephus did not claim this event to be any calamity at all, rather, it was a “no small transgression against the Law in the matter of the inaccessible sanctuary.”362 Thus, the story of Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem is another eloquent example of Josephus’ shift from Temple to Torah.363 It has been noticed many times that a large part of AJ XIV is comprised of Josephus’ citations364 of various Roman decrees on behalf of the Jews 361

BJ I 152. AJ XIV 71: ȸɾÅÇÄŢ¿¾»òÇĤÊÄÀÁÉÛȼÉĖÌġÅŸġÅÓ¹¸ÌŦÅ̼ěÅ̸ëÅÌŊÈÉĖÅÏÉŦÅĿ Á¸ĖÒŦɸÌÇÅե 363 In BJ I 152–3, Pompey did not touch any of the sacred vessels and gave orders for the purification of the Temple and the resumption of the cult; however, nothing is said about his “piety.” In AJ XIV 71–3, Josephus explains that “he touched none of these [i.e., the lampstand, the golden table, the Temple utensils, and the sacred money] because of piety, and in this respect also he acted in a manner worthy of his virtuous character (ÇĤ»¼ÅġËøиÌÇ»ÀЏ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸ÅբÒŬ ÛÁÒÅÌÇŧÌĿÒÆţÑËìÈɸƼÅÌýËȼÉĖ¸ĤÌġÅÒɼÌýË).” This tendency to see the Gentile rulers more positively, and explain their conflicts with the Jews as stemming from misunderstanding, is also a prominent feature of Diaspora Jewish literature. See the discussion in D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (Berlin, 2008), 48–54. 364 Whether they are authentic or spurious is not my concern here. On these documents, see the various assessments in H. R. Moehring, “The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. Study in Hellenistic and Modern Apologetic Historiography,” in J. Neusner (ed.), Judaism, Christianity, and other Graeco-Roman Cults. Part Three: Judaism before 70 (Leiden, 1975), 124–158; M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World (Tübingen, 1998). 362

3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked

211

resident in the various parts of the Roman Empire. One could see Josephus’ quotation from Strabo as a kind of introduction to his treatment of the Roman protection of Jewish rights.365 The point he wants to emphasize in the light of the universal mission he ascribes to the Jews and their Law is that they have filled the whole world: AJ XIV 115b This people has already made its way into every city, and it is not easy to find any place in the habitable world which has not received this nation and in which it has not made its power felt. 116 And it has come about that Cyrene, which had the same rulers as Egypt, has imitated it in many respects, particularly in notably encouraging and aiding the expansion of the organized groups of Jews, which observe the ancestral Jewish laws (ÏÉŪļŸÌÇėËȸÌÉţÇÀËÌľÅ`ÇÍ»¸ţÑÅÅŦÄÇÀË).366

Then Josephus proceeds to tell his readers of the appointment of Hyrcanus II as the high priest by Julius Caesar, and of the privileges bestowed upon him.367 In AJ XIV 185 he mentions the treaty between Caesar and Hyrcanus again, and goes on to quote the numerous Roman decrees on behalf of the Jews and their rights.368 As should be expected, the right to observe the Law is emphasized throughout.369

3. 22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked The story of Herod’s reign occupies a disproportionally large part of AJ,370 and this is likely to be credited to the fact that in this case Josephus possessed much more abundant and detailed sources than for other parts of his 365 To be sure, the immediate pretext for the quotation is the story of Crassus’ confiscation of Temple treasures and Josephus’ explanation concerning the source of this treasure, but then he immediately goes on to emphasize the Jewish observance of the Law and the Roman recognition of the right to observe it. 366 Emended. Cf. AJ XIV 117. In AJ XVI 160–73 Josephus quotes some additional documents witnessing to the Roman protection of Jewish rights. In XVI 174–7 Josephus explicitly states that “it was necessary for me to cite these decrees since this account of our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect and were not prevented by our rulers from practicing any of our ancestral customs but, on the contrary, even had their co-operation in preserving our religion and our way of honouring God. … And it is most profitable for all men, Greeks and barbarians alike, to practice justice, about which our laws are most concerned and, if we sincerely abide by them, they make us well disposed and friendly to all men.” 367 AJ XIV 143–55. 368 AJ XIV 190–287. 369 E.g., AJ XIV 194–5, 213, 216, 223, 226–7, 228, 232, 234–5, 237, 240, 242, 245–6, 257–8, 260, 263–4. 370 As well as of BJ. For a synoptic outline of BJ and AJ passages dealing with the reign of Herod, see Landau, Out-Heroding Herod, 225–43.

212

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

narrative.371 AJ Herod is a complex and tragic figure, and Josephus took care to emphasize that this king was in many ways fortunate and successful, and his reign witnessed many great accomplishments for the Judean nation. He also several times credited the king’s ability to escape from danger to God’s providential care.372 However, it is plain that for the author of AJ all this was by far outweighed by Herod’s transgressions of the Law.373 Herod’s ȸɸÅÇÄţ¸ is eventually the source of his multiform problems as well as of his miserable end. Josephus programmatically describes Herod’s position vis-à-vis the Law in the passage dealing with his appearance before the Sanhedrin to render an account of his execution of the bandit chief Ezekias together with a number of his men. At that time Herod was only a ruler of Galilee, in his mid-twenties: in the context of this episode, a member of the Sanhedrin called Samaias, “an upright man and for that reason superior to fear,” described Herod as “putting his own interests above the law (Ìġ ÅŦÄÀÄÇÅ).”374 Josephus also reiterates this theme at a later point in his narrative, when he describes Herod’s early encounter with an Essene fortune-teller ManaƝmus. This soothsayer, on the one hand, declares to Herod (then still a commoner) that “you will be king and you will rule the realm happily, for you have been found worthy of this by God,” and urges him to adopt the attitude of the love of “justice and piety towards God and mildness towards your citizens.” However, on the other hand, ManaƝmus predicts 371

On Josephus’ sources for the reign of Herod, see R. Laqueur, Der jüdischer Historiker Flavius Josephus (Giessen, 1920); Moehring, Novelistic Elements, 22–33; T. Rajak, reviser: “Josephus,” in: E. Schürer, The History, 1:50–1; M. Toher, “Herod, Augustus, and Nicolaus of Damascus,” in D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos (eds.), Herod and Augustus. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005 (Leiden, 2009), 65–81. 372 E.g., AJ XIV 391, 455, 463; XV 198. These, of course, might have been taken by Josephus from his sources. Cf. XVI 76. 373 Cf. Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Stone, Jewish Writings, 219: “The account of Herod in the Antiquities is a prime example of the combination of literary and theological interests of the historian. This account is generally recognized to be less favorable to the king than the parallel in War…” However, Attridge thinks that the main reason for this skewed treatment of Herod in AJ is either Josephus’ pro-Hasmonean bias, or his strained relations with Agrippa II. As I hope will become clear from the following treatment, the criticism of Herod’s transgression of the Law is mostly found in passages which are overtly editorial. Apart from being Law-less, in AJ Herod is also consistently presented as a tyrant; see J. W. van Henten, “Constructing Herod as a Tyrant: Assessing Parallel Passages,” in Pastor et al., Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, 193– 216. 374 AJ XIV 172–4. For an attempt to identify the persons involved in the episode, see L. H. Feldman, “The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in Josephus,” JQR 49 (1958), 53– 62.

3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked

213

that Herod would eventually “forget piety and justice. This, however, cannot escape the notice of God, and at the close of your life His wrath will show that He is mindful of these things.”375 As I have mentioned above, Herod is much less criticized for his transgressions of the Law in BJ, than in AJ.376 In this later composition Josephus specifically claims that the king’s consciously wicked behavior was the source of his troubles. Thus, in AJ XV 22 he says that Herod “practiced other wiles377 to the advantage of his rule, but the result was only dissension in his own household.” Josephus goes on to exemplify the king’s wicked deeds by saying that he interfered with the high-priestly succession, and repeats his accusation at XV 40, saying that “in this he acted unlawfully (ȸɊÅÇĸ ÈÇÀľÅ).” Slightly later, Herod “lawlessly (ÒÅŦÄÑË)” killed the high priest Aristobulus III, the brother of his wife Mariamme.378 Herod added to this crime by executing his beloved wife, too: at XV 243, after saying that a pestilential disease arose, which claimed a large number of victims, Josephus remarks that “this caused all to suspect that their misfortune had been brought upon them by God in His anger at what had lawlessly been done (Ìüź¼ÅÇĚžÅȸɸÅÇÄţ¸Å) to Mariamme.”379 In the context of the comparison of Josephus’ interpretation of Herod’s acts and the role of the Law in AJ and BJ, AJ XV 267–91 is especially important. In BJ I 401–21, Herod’s building projects are described sometimes neutrally, sometimes with a note of admiration, which is not surprising – Josephus as a proud new immigrant from Judea must have taken pride in the fact that he originated not from a “third-world country,” so to speak, but from a civilized place which could boast of quite a few big and modern 375

AJ XV 374–6. This was already noted by Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 236. Cf. Mason, “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome,” p. 571: “Whereas the War offered unstinting praise, in keeping with its presentation of Herod as a faithful Roman ally, the Antiquitates Judaicae both praises his Saul-like embodiment of manly courage (AJ 14.430, 442–4, 462–3; 15.121–54, 305) and excoriates his pride and transgression of the laws (14.403; 15.267–76; 16.1–4, 179–87; 17.151, 180–1), which propel him to a disastrous end (16.188–9, 395–404; 17.168–71).” Cf. idem, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’,” 85: “Rather than making Herod a prime example of good Judean citizenship, as in the War, Josephus now makes him an example of God’s ever-watchful care for humanity… [H]e now sprinkles his Herod story with searing indictments of the king for his transgression of those laws that are the subject of this work. All of this is background for Josephus’s repeated claim that Herod’s personal miseries and horrible death were actually divine punishment for his evil. The long narrative of Herod’s life, which otherwise appears to be a poorly considered addendum to the heart of the book, thus conspicuously illustrates Antiquities’ major theme: the effectiveness of the Judean constitution.” 377 The word is Thackeray’s addition, but is implied by the context. 378 AJ XV 59. All this is not in BJ. 379 Cf. AJ XVII 150, quoted below (p. 218). 376

214

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

cities, architectural marvels, and cultural achievements and events.380 However, twenty years later he came to realize that there were things more important than these: in AJ Herod’s building and cultural undertakings are credited to his ulterior motives, described as stemming from his sinful nature, and unlawful in character. After Herod eliminated all potential rivals, “the kingdom was wholly in [his] power, there being no one of high rank to stand in the way of his unlawful acts (ÌÇėË ȸɸÅÇÄÇÍÄšÅÇÀË).”381 It is as if Herod eliminated all the potential opposition in order to indulge in lawlessness without hindrance. Josephus continues: XV 267 For this reason Herod went still farther in departing from the native customs, and through foreign practices he gradually corrupted the ancient way of life, which hitherto been inviolable.382 As the result of this he suffered considerable harm at a later time as well, because those things were neglected which had formerly induced piety (ÌüÅ ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸Å) in the masses. 268 For in the first place he established athletic contests every fifth year in honor of Caesar, and he built a theatre in Jerusalem, and after that a very large amphitheatre in the plain, both being spectacularly lavish but foreign to Jewish custom (ÌÇı»òÁ¸ÌÛÌÇİË`ÇÍ»¸ţÇÍËì¿ÇÍËÒÂÂŦÌÉÀ¸), for the use of such buildings and the exhibition of such spectacles have not been traditional (with the Jews).

Herod instituted gladiatorial games, at which XV 274 foreigners were astonished at the expense and at the same time entertained by the dangerous spectacle, but to the natives it meant an open break with the customs held in honor by them. 275 For it seemed glaring impiety to throw men to wild beasts for the pleasure of other men as spectators, and it seemed a further impiety to change their established ways for foreign practices.383

Herod also placed trophies in the theatre which he built, and this made the Jews “exceedingly angry” since they believed these to be “images surrounded by weapons, which it was against their national custom to worship

380

Notice that in BJ I 422–9 Josephus praised Herod’s generosity to the cities outside of his realm, without a hint of criticism. In AJ this again is explained by his ulterior motives and alienation from the Jewish people and their customs; see the passages (AJ XV 329–30 and XVI 157–9), and the discussion below. 381 AJ XV 266. 382 ÀÛ ÌÇıÌÇ Á¸Ė ÄÜÂÂÇÅ ëÆš¹¸ÀżÅ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ ë¿ľÅ Á¸Ė ƼÅÀÁÇėË ëÈÀ̾»¼ŧĸÊÀÅ ĨÈÇ»ÀšÎ¿¼ÀɼÅÌüÅȊ¸ÀÁ¸ÌŠÊ̸ÊÀÅÒȸɼºÏ¼ţɾÌÇÅÇħʸÅ. 383 Òʼ¹òË ÄòÅ ºÛÉ ëÁ ÈÉÇ»ŢÂÇÍ Á¸Ì¼Î¸ţżÌÇ¿¾ÉţÇÀË ÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÇÍË ĨÈÇÉÉţÈ̼ÀÅ ëÈĖ ÌšÉмÀ ÌýË ÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÑÅ ¿š¸Ëբ Òʼ¹òË »ò ƼÅÀÁÇėË ëÈÀ̾»¼ŧĸÊÀÅ ëƸŠÌ̼ÀÅ ÌÇİË ë¿ÀÊÄÇŧËե In AJ XIX 335–7, when Josephus was describing the gladiatorial games, organized by Agrippa I in Berytus, in the course of which 1400 gladiators were utterly annihilated, he neither expressed any comparable sentiment, nor criticized him for transgressing the Law. On his tendentious presentation of Agrippa in general, as well as on this particular incident, see below (pp. 238–42).

3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked

215

(ĞÌÀÄüÈŠÌÉÀÇÅöŸĤÌÇėËÌÛÌÇÀ¸ı̸Êš¹¼ÀÅ).”384 When Herod demonstrated to the people that these trophies were no images, it did not really help: XV 281 [S]ome of them persisted in their resentment of these practices as departures from tradition, and in the belief that the violation of the customs of their country would be the beginning of great evils, they thought it a sacred duty to undertake any risk rather than seem to be indifferent to Herod’s forcible introduction of practices not in accord with custom, by which their way of life would be totally altered, and to his behaving in appearance as the king but in reality as the enemy of the whole nation.

According to this passage, what made Herod the enemy of the nation was his disregard for the Law – in Josephus’ interpretation, his interference with the laws and the introduction of foreign customs were bound to bring disaster on his people, even if outwardly the king was trying to do things which he thought were beneficial to the Jews. The people’s frustration over Herod’s behavior resulted in a plot to kill him, and after the conspirators were caught, they claimed that the plot “was formed with a noble and pious intent (ÊİżĤʼ¹¼ţß), not for the sake of gain or because of their own feelings but, what was more important, on behalf of their communal customs (ĨÈòÉÌľÅÁÇÀÅľÅë¿ľÅ), which all men had the duty either to preserve or to die for.”385 After Herod punished the conspirators and even their families, “their undaunted loyalty to their laws” frightened him to the point that he took measures for personal security – this then becomes Josephus’ explanation for Herod’s building of various fortifications.386 Josephus does not conceal the fact that Herod could be a generous ruler at times, and when his people were going through difficulties, he found ingenious ways to help them. But even this, in his view, had to be credited to his ambitious character and his desire to keep the subjects in submission.387Thus, for example, in the following passage Josephus claims that Herod remitted a third of the taxes because he was willing to pacify the people, since he was aware that XV 365 they resented his carrying out of such arrangements as seemed to them to mean the dissolution of their religion and the disappearance of their customs.388 These matters were discussed by all of them, for they were always being provoked and disturbed.

It seems that when Josephus was describing Herod’s policies in BJ, he was not aware of such sentiments. Herod’s building projects in the Gentile cities are explained in AJ as stemming from the fact that the king craved for 384

AJ XV 275–6, 278. AJ XV 284–8. 386 AJ XV 291 ff. 387 AJ XV 326. 388 Á¸ÌÛ ºÛÉ ÌüÅ ëƼɺ¸Êţ¸Å ÌľÅ ÌÇÀÇŧÌÑÅ ëÈÀ̾»¼ÍÄŠÌÑÅ ĸË ÔÅ ÂÍÇĚžË ¸ĤÌÇėË ÌýË ¼Ĥʼ¹¼ţ¸ËÁ¸Ėļ̸ÈÀÈÌŦÅÌÑÅÌľÅë¿ľÅÏ¸Â¼ÈľËìμÉÇÅ. 385

216

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

the adulation and admiration of his own person, which the Jews were unwilling to grant: XV 328 But because of his ambition in this direction and the flattering attention which he gave to Caesar and the most influential Romans, he was forced to depart from the customs (of the Jews) and to alter many of their regulations (ëÁ¹¸ţżÀÅÌľÅë¿ľÅóŸºÁŠ½¼ÌÇ Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÂÛ ÌľÅ ÅÇÄţÄÑÅ ȸɸϸɊÌ̼ÀÅ), for in his ambitious spending he founded cities and erected temples – not in Jewish territory, 329 for the Jews would not have put up with this, since we are forbidden such things, including the honouring of statues and sculpted forms in the manner of the Greeks, – but these he built in foreign and surrounding territory. 330 To the Jews he made the excuse that he was doing these things not on his own account but by command and order, while he sought to please Caesar and the Romans by saying that he was less intent upon observing the customs of his own nation than upon honouring them. 389

Trying to explain why Herod was on the one hand generous and munificent “to all men,” but vindictive and injurious towards his relatives and subjects, on the other hand (AJ XVI 150–1), Josephus reiterates this point in more detail in AJ XVI 157–9: XVI 157b [T]he very same attentions which he showed to his superiors he expected to have shown to himself by his subjects, and what he believed to be the most excellent gift that he could give another he showed a desire to obtain similarly for himself. 158 But, as it happens, the Jewish nation is by law opposed to all such things and is accustomed to admire righteousness rather than glory (ÊÍżţ¿ÀÊ̸À Ìġ »ţÁ¸ÀÇÅ ÒÅÌĖ ÌÇı ÈÉġË »ŦƸÅ óº¸È¾ÁšÅ¸À). It was therefore not in his good graces, because it found impossible to flatter the king’s ambition with statues or temples or such tokens. 159 And this seems to me to have been the reason for Herod’s bad treatment of his own people and his counsellors, and of the beneficence toward foreigners and those who were unattached to him.390

Because Herod spent huge amounts of money on all of his projects, he decided to rob King David’s tomb. Although Hyrcanus I, whom Josephus greatly admired, had done the same thing earlier, and was even much more successful than Herod (since he took three thousand talents of silver from there) Josephus did not criticize him for this act.391 However, in Herod’s case, this, says Josephus, was the reason for the deterioration of his family affairs, XVI 188 whether it was the wrath (of God) that caused just those ills from which he was already suffering to grow even worse and to develop into incurable misfortunes, or 389

See also the end of the paragraph. Cf. AJ XIX 328–31, comparing Herod’s policies with those of his grandson Agrippa I. This passage is discussed below (pp. 239–41). 390 For an examination of Herod’s economic policies towards Jews and Gentiles, see J. Pastor, “Herod, King of Jews and Gentiles: Economic Policy as a Measure of Evenhandedness,” in M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (eds.), Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah, and the Talmud (Jerusalem, 2003), 152–64. 391 BJ I 61, AJ VII 393, XIII 249.

3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked

217

whether Fortune attacked him at a time so appropriate to the occasion as to provoke no little suspicion that these misfortunes had come upon him because of his impiety (»ÀÛÌüÅ ÒÊš¹¼À¸Å).

At the very beginning of book XVI Josephus gives another reason for both human and divine wrath on Herod: the king promulgated a new law that went against the earlier tradition. In his war against crime, he legislated that housebreakers should be sold into slavery and deported from the kingdom. This policy of Herod’s was probably extremely effective; however, Josephus was not here concerned with the immediate results and crime level, but with Herod’s transgression of the Law. Josephus emphasizes this point many times: Herod “made a law in no way resembling earlier ones, and he enforced it himself,” “it… involved a violation of the laws of the country,”392 and it was “an offence against religion rather than a punishment of those who were caught.”393 Although it is most likely that in his promulgation of the new law Herod pursued the good of his subjects, Josephus claimed that they hated him for his sins – they were more interested in the defense of the law which protected the thieves than in the protection of their own property from the thieves: XVI 4 But for the punishment to be made severe and unlawful, as was then determined, seemed the part of arrogance, and his decision to impose this penalty was not the act of a king but of a tyrant and of one who held the public interests of his subjects in contempt. 5 Accordingly, this action, which was similar to the rest of his behaviour, was partly responsible for the charges made against him and the dislike felt for him.

The idea that the Jews in general are extremely faithful to their laws becomes more and more prominent in Josephus’ latter oeuvre. It is several times emphasized in the latter books of AJ that the Jews cherish the laws more than their very lives, and this idea becomes even more prominent in CA.394 In AJ XVI 43, in the context of Nicolaus’ of Damascus speech on behalf of the Jewish rights in the Diaspora, Josephus puts on his lips the following statement: XVI 43 There is nothing hostile to mankind in our customs, but they are all pious and consecrated with saving righteousness. Nor do we make a secret of the precepts that we use as guides in religion and in human relations; we give every seventh day over to the study of our customs and law, for we think it necessary to occupy ourselves, as with any other study, so with these through which we can avoid committing sins.

So, it is not surprising that people who were constantly occupied with the study and keeping of the commandments, hated Herod for his transgression of them. However, the paradox is that Josephus himself reports that it was 392

AJ XVI 1. AJ XVI 2. 394 E.g., CA I 190–3. 393

218

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Herod who appointed Nicolaus to defend the right of the Jews to live in accordance with their Law. As should be expected on the basis of Josephus’ presentation, not only Herod’s subjects were outraged by his wickedness; God was displeased, too. Much of the remaining book XVI of AJ is dedicated to the description of Herod’s misfortunes both domestic and international.395 The golden eagle episode which took place at the end of Herod’s life has already been mentioned in chapter 2.396 There I noticed the fact, that while both Temple and laws figure prominently in BJ, in AJ only the laws remain. Josephus’ terminology is also illuminating. For the sake of comparison, I will present the passages in parallel columns. BJ I 648–50

AJ XVII 149–51

I 648b There were in the capital two doctors with a reputation as profound experts in the laws of their country, who consequently enjoyed the highest esteem of the whole nation; their names were Judas, son of Sepphoraeus, and Matthias, son of Margalus. 649 Their lectures on the laws were attended by a large youthful audience, and day after day they drew together quite an army of men in their prime. Hearing now that the king was gradually sinking under despondency and disease, these doctors threw out hints to their friends that this was the fitting moment to avenge God’s honour and to pull down those structures which had been erected in defiance of their fathers’ laws. 650 It was, in fact, not allowed to place in the temple either images or busts or any representation whatsoever of a living creature;397 notwithstanding this, the king had erected over the great gate a golden eagle.398

XVII 149 Judas, son of Sariphaeus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, were most learned of the Jews and unrivalled interpreters of the ancestral laws, and men especially dear to the people because they educated the youth, for all those who made an effort to acquire virtue used to spend time with them day after day. 150 When these scholars learned that the king’s illness could not be cured, they aroused the youth by telling them that they should pull down all the works built by the king in violation of the laws of their fathers and so obtain from the Law the reward for their pious efforts. It was indeed because of his audacity in making these things in disregard of the Law’s provisions, they said, that all those misfortunes, with which he had become familiar to a degree uncommon among mankind, had happened to him, in particular his illness. 151 Now Herod had set about doing certain things that were contra-

395

The tragic destiny of Herod’s sons Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater is also explained by Josephus as the result of their sinfulness: see AJ XVI 395 ff. on the first two, and XVII 1–2 and XVII 60; 129–30, on Antipater. 396 This episode is discussed by J. W. van Henten, “Ruler or God? The Demolition of Herod’s Eagle,” in J. Fotopoulos (ed.), The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (Leiden, 2006), 257– 86, and Schwartz, Judeans and Jews. 397 Ò¿šÄÀÌÇźÛɼčŸÀÁ¸ÌÛÌġÅŸġÅõ¼ĊÁŦŸËõÈÉÇÌÇÄÛËõ½ňÇÍÌÀÅġËëÈŪÅÍÄÇÅìɺÇÅ ¼čŸÀե 398 I replaced Thackeray’s “unlawful” with “not allowed,” since it is a better translation of Ò¿šÄÀÌÇË. See Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews,” 139–42.

3.22. The Reign of Herod the Wicked

219

ry to the Law, and for these he had been reproached by Judas and Matthias and their followers. For the king had erected over the great gate of the Temple, as a votive offering and at great cost, a great golden eagle, although the Law forbids those who propose to live in accordance with it to think of setting up images or to make dedications of (the likenesses of) any living creatures.399

In the following passages, which continue the story above, it is also illuminating to compare the laconic and down-to-earth “law of our fathers” in BJ with the complex theological presentation of the laws in AJ as having been written by Moses “as God prompted and taught him,” and left behind to the Jews.400 BJ I 653

AJ XVII 158–9

653 Herod first asked them whether they had dared to cut down the golden eagle; they admitted it. “Who ordered you to do so?” he continued. “The law of our fathers.” “And why so exultant, when you will shortly be put to death?” “Because, after our death, we shall enjoy greater felicity.”

158 When they came to him, the king asked whether they had dared to pull down the offering he had set up, and they replied, “Yes, but the thoughts that we have thought and the deeds that we have done have come to the aid of a cause entrusted to us by God because he thought us worthy, 159 and of deep concern to us who obey the Law. Nor is it at all surprising if we believe that it is less important to observe your decrees than the laws that Moses wrote as God prompted and taught him, and left behind. And with pleasure we will endure death or whatever punishment you may inflict on us because we shall be conscious that death walks with us not because of any wrongdoing on our part, but because of our devotion to piety.”

The story about the golden eagle is immediately followed by the description of Herod’s fatal illness. In both AJ and BJ it is credited to his wrongdoings; however, Josephus’ phraseology is different. In BJ he says that “[Herod’s] condition led diviners to pronounce his maladies a judgment on him for the treatment of the professors (ĹÊ̼ ÌÇİË ëÈÀ¿¼ÀŠ½ÇÅ̸Ë ÈÇÀÅüÅ ¼čŸÀÌľÅÊÇÎÀÊÌľÅÌÛÅÇÊŢĸ̸šº¼ÀÅ),”401 that is, he suffered for a con399 Italics mine. Greek: ÁÑÂŧ¼À »ò ĝ ÅŦÄÇË ¼ĊÁŦÅÑÅ ̼ ÒŸÊ̊ʼÀË ëÈÀÅǼėÅ Á¸ţ ÌÀÅÑÅ ½ňÑÅÒŸ¿šÊ¼ÀËëÈÀ̾»¼ŧ¼Ê¿¸ÀÌÇė˹ÀÇıÅÁ¸ÌЏ¸ĤÌġÅÈÉÇþɾĚÅÇÀËե 400 The passage in AJ also puts an emphasis on the ideal of “virtue,” which results from observing the Law. It was absent from BJ (AJ XVII 149, 152, 153). 401 BJ I 656.

220

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

crete evil deed.402 In other words, in BJ Josephus seems to simply repeat a tradition that Herod suffered as a result of his treatment of the sophists, while in AJ he claims that the king was punished for his life-long lawlessness: XVII 168 But Herod’s illness became more and more acute, for God was inflicting just punishment upon him for his lawless deeds (»ţÁ¾Å ĻÅ ȸɸÅÇÄŢʼÀ¼Å ëÁÈɸÊÊÇÄšÅÇÍ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı)… 170 Accordingly, it was said by the men of God and by those whose special wisdom led them to proclaim their opinions on such matters that all this was the penalty that God was exacting on the king for his great impiety (ÈÇÀÅüÅÌÇıÈÇÂÂÇı»ÍÊʼ¹ÇıË̸ŧ̾Å ĝ¿¼ġ˼ĊÊÈÉŠÊʼʿ¸ÀȸÉÛÌÇı¹¸ÊÀšÑË).

The king’s disregard for virtue is emphasized by Josephus in an editorial comment in AJ XVII 181, in the context of Herod’s order to kill a multitude of prominent citizens in order to ensure a proper mourning at his own funeral – with no parallel in BJ.403

3. 23. Archelaus and the “Sects Passage” As I already mentioned in the previous chapter, when describing the people’s demands from Archelaus after Herod’s death, in BJ II 7 Josephus says that they asked to replace the current high priest with another, who would be “more pious and pure (¼Ĥʼ¹šÊ̼ÉÇÅզÁ¸ĖÁ¸¿¸ÉŪ̼ÉÇÅ),” without explaining the content of this ¼ĤÊš¹¼À¸. However, in AJ XVII 207, he is explicit: the crowd demanded a high priest who would be more Lawabiding and at the same time pure (ÅÇÄÀÄŪ̼ÉŦÅ̼×ĸÁ¸ĖÁ¸¿¸ÉŦÅ). It is interesting that in AJ account of the riotous episode, Josephus says that, on the one hand, Archelaus claimed that the death of the destroyers of the golden eagle happened “in accordance with the laws (¿ŠÅ¸ÌŦÅ ̼բ զ ļÌÛ 402

This fact strengthens the possibility that Josephus lifted the passage from some source describing Herod’s punishment of the professors and his subsequent suffering, composed in the De mortibus persecutorum genre. 403 According to AJ XVII 173–81, Herod commanded notable Jews from all over the country to come to the Jericho hippodrome. Then he entrusted his sister Salome and her husband Alexas, immediately after his death, to command the soldiers placed around the hippodrome to execute all the present nobles. This, in his view, had to be done since he expected the Jews to celebrate his death, but he, of course, preferred them to mourn – even against their own will. According to AJ XVII 193, after Herod’s death, Salome and Alexas released those who were confined in the hippodrome. The story is probably every bit as historical as the “Massacre of the Innocents” in Matt 2:1–16 (see E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian [Leiden, 1981], 103–4), even if not as entertaining as the wonderful Herodian episode told by Aelianus, De Natura Animalium, VI, 17 (M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 2 [Jerusalem, 1980], 408–9, #443).

3.23. Archelaus and the “Sects Passage”

221

ÅŦÄÑÅ º¼ºÇÅŦ̸),”404 and, on the other hand, that the rioters “regarded as lawful and just whatever might be likely to give them pleasure (ÅŦÄÀÄŦÅ̼ Á¸Ė »ţÁ¸ÀÇÅ ÷ºÇŧļÅÇÀ Ğ ÌÀ ļÂÂŢÊÇÀ ÷»ÇÅüÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ΚɼÀÅ).”405 This rival justification by the Law is absent from BJ.406 In general, after comparing the passages on the riot in the Temple and its bloody suppression, one gets the impression, that Josephus is less critical of Archelaus and more critical of the rioters in AJ, than in BJ – the ruler tried to do his best to save the situation, while the rabble thought that whatever was going to bring them enjoyment was lawful, and could not foresee the dangers their position entailed.407 This is not to say that Josephus is overall positive towards Archelaus. It is, perhaps, of note that the last things Josephus says about Archelaus in Judea in AJ are differently formulated, although they describe the same event: in BJ II 114–6 Josephus recounts the ominous dream of Archelaus’ new wife Glaphyra, who dies shortly afterwards. Nothing bad is openly said about Archelaus himself in this passage, and no connection can be traced between his marriage to Glaphyra and his subsequent destiny.408 However, in AJ XVII 341 Archelaus is accused of “transgress[ing] ancestral law (ÌÇı ȸÌÉţÇÍ ȸɊ¹¸ÊÀÅ ÈÇÀ¾ÊŠÄ¼ÅÇË)” by his marriage to Glaphyra, which was “abhorrent to the Jews (ÒÈŪÄÇÌÇÅ ĜÅ `ÇÍ»¸ţÇÀË).” In the next paragraph Archelaus is described as “savage” and “tyrannical” towards his subjects, and in general, hedonistic. After Caesar learns about this, he banishes him to Gaul. It seems that at least some connection is implied in this version of the events between Archelaus’ disrespect towards the Jewish Law and his subjects, on the one hand, and his subsequent punishment, on the other.409 404

AJ XVII 209. AJ XVII 211. 406 It should, perhaps, be noticed that in the BJ passage the martyrs are called “sophists” (II 10), while in AJ XVII 214 and 216 they are referred to as “the interpreters of the laws” and “the interpreters,” respectively. 407 AJ XVII 211. Perhaps, Josephus’ harsher assessment in BJ of Archelaus’ role in the episode is to be credited to the Temple-centered worldview of the author in this earlier composition. Thus, in BJ II 15 he says that Salome joined her brother on his voyage to Rome in order to “denounce him for his unlawful actions in the temple (ȼÉĖÌľÅÁ¸ÌÛÌġ Ď¼ÉġÅȸɸÅÇľ¿šÅÌÑÅ),” while in AJ XVII 220 he only says “ȼÉĖÌľÅȼÈɸºÄšÅÑÅëÅÌŊ Ď¼ÉŊ.” On this BJ passage, Mason, Judean War 2, 15, n. 105, writes: “Since bloodshed in the temple and the resulting pollution will be a prominent theme of War (4.151, 241–42, 323, 388; 5.397; 6.99, 110), the massacre in the temple (above) is the most likely referent here.” 408 In BJ II 111, Archelaus’ banishment is ascribed to the fact that he “treated savagely not only the Judeans but even the Samarians.” They sent embassies to the Emperor, who banished him to Gaul and confiscated his property. 409 Cf. also Josephus statement in AJ XVII 354 concerning Archelaus’ and Glaphyra’s 405

222

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

The BJ and AJ passages dealing with the Judean sects, or “philosophies,” probably, received more scholarly attention than any other parts of Josephus’ oeuvre, apart from the Testimonium Flavianum.410 I would like to bring our attention to the differences between the way Josephus presents Judas the Galilean/Gaulanite in BJ and AJ – especially to his moralizing editorial comments in the latter. While it is clear that Josephus introduced Judas in BJ in order to contrast his revolutionary and disruptive “philosophy” with the “legitimate” and traditional Judean religious schools of thought, and to hint that his ideology eventually led to the revolt against the Romans, the account is laconic and devoid of moralizing.411 In AJ we read a rather different story. While the description of the traditional Judean schools of thought is much shorter, Josephus devotes more attention to the long-term disasters which resulted from the introduction and subsequent spread of Judas’ “fourth philosophy”: XVIII 6 [T]hese men [Judas and his companion Saddok] sowed the seed of every kind of misery, which so afflicted the nation that words are inadequate… 8 They sowed the seed from which sprang strife (Ê̊ʼÀË) between factions and slaughter of fellow citizens… until at last the very temple of God was ravaged by the enemy’s fire through this revolt. 9 Here is a lesson that an innovation and reform in ancestral traditions (÷ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ Á¸ţÅÀÊÀË Á¸Ė ļ̸¹ÇÂŢ) weights heavily in the scale in leading to the destruction of the congregation of the people.

As far as the parallel passages dealing with the other Judean sects are concerned, several things should be considered. The fact that Josephus’ description of the Essenes in BJ is disproportionately longer than that of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, is well known, and has often been discussed by various scholars.412 Recently, S. Mason produced several studies dealing with the Essene passage. Thus, in his recent commentary, he says concerning the importance and function of the passage in BJ: The ethos of War has to do with Judean manliness and martial virtue: Josephus’ most explicit aim in writing (though there are many others) is to redeem his people’s reputation after their recent defeat, which has led to constant belittling and humiliation (cf. 1.1– 12, esp. 1.7). As he now comes to describe an all-male order of philosophers, which exdreams: they confirm the immortality of the soul, and divine forethought (ÌÇı ¿¼ţÇÍ ÈÉÇľ¿¼ţß) over human affairs. That is, they also support the main thesis of AJ, as stated by Josephus in the introduction to his work. See below for the story of Antipas’ marriage to Herodias, which is similar in some respects (p. 231). 410 See G. Haaland, “What Difference Does Philosophy Make? The Three Schools as a Rhetorical Device in Josephus,” in Rodgers, Making History, 262–88; Klawans, Josephus and the Theologies, 44–91. 411 BJ II 117–8. 412 Most recently, by Mason, Judean War 2. For a detailed discussion of Josephus’ Essene passages, and a comparison with Qumran material, see T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Cambridge, 1988).

3.23. Archelaus and the “Sects Passage”

223

cludes women (aside from the endnote at 2.160–61) and practices an extraordinary regimen of discipline and hard-core toughness, he takes the opportunity to press home those values. It appears that the Essenes are already known and admired (they are the only school mentioned by contemporary authors outside of Judea: Philo, Pliny, and Dio…), and Josephus will take full advantage of this reputation to enhance his image of Judeans.413

As has been mentioned above, the space devoted to the Pharisees and the Sadducees in BJ is many times less than that devoted to the Essenes.414 The Sadducees, although counted among the “legitimate” schools, are described almost as agnostics as far as their religious views are concerned, and arrogant and rude towards other people. At first sight, Josephus has only good things to say about the Pharisees, but still, if compared to the Eseenes, they do not come anywhere close in terms of piety and discipline (and fascination, of course). When we look at the “schools” passage in AJ, the picture is drastically transformed. First, while the order of the sects in BJ was Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, now it is Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. It is not incidental, in my view – the Essenes were the best – even if not the leading – sect in BJ, and the Pharisees replace them in AJ. Although the Essenes are still given more space than the two other schools, the ratio is much more proportional: Pharisees get four paragraphs, Sadducees get two, and the Essenes – five. Josephus’ attitude to the Pharisees became a rather important theme since M. Smith’s seminal article, in which he claimed that Josephus presented them in a better light in his later works because of their swift rise to prominence in post-70 Palestine.415 This particular interpretation of Josephus’ changing attitude towards Pharisees was seriously challenged by S. Mason, as well as by other scholars.416 Still, the question remains – why did Josephus reduce the amount of space allotted to the Essenes, put the Pharisees in much more favorable light, and placed them first in his later work? Let me first present the parallel passages on the Pharisees.

413

Mason, Judean War 2, 85–6. See also his earlier article, S. Mason, “Essenes and Lurking Spartans in Josephus’ Judean War: from Story to History,” in Rodgers (ed.), Making History, 219–61. A longer version of this article was published as “The Essenes of Josephus’s Judean War: From Story to History,” in idem, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, 239–79. 414 Essenes: 42 paragraphs; Pharisees: 2,5 paragraphs; Sadducees: 2,5 paragraphs. 415 M. Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in M. Davis (ed.), Israel: Its Role in Civilization (New York, 1956), 67–81. 416 Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees. First doubts were already expressed by D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees;” this article inspired Mason’s monograph. Most recently, see Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis.

224

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

BJ II 162–6

AJ XVIII 12–5

162 Now, of the former two [schools], Pharisees, who are reputed to interpret the legal matters with precision (ÇĎļÌÛ ÒÁÉÀ¹¼ţ¸Ë»ÇÁÇıÅ̼Ëëƾº¼ėÊ¿¸ÀÌÛÅŦÄÀĸ), and who constitute the first school, attribute everything to Fate and indeed to God: 163 although doing and not [doing] what is right rests mainly with the human beings, Fate also assists in each case. Although every soul is imperishable, only that of the good passes over to a different body, whereas those of the vile are punished by eternal retribution… 166 Pharisees are mutually affectionate and cultivate concord in relation to the community… 417

12 The Pharisees simplify their standard of living, making no concession to luxury. They follow the guidance of that which their doctrine has selected and transmitted as good, attaching the chief importance to the observance of the commandments which it has seen fit to dictate to them (ÌüÅ Î͸ÁüÅĻÅĨȸºÇɼŧ¼ÀÅó¿šÂ¾Ê¼Å). They show respect and deference to their elders, nor do they rashly presume to contradict their proposals. 13 Though they postulate that everything is brought about by fate, still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in man’s power, since it was God’s good pleasure that there should be a fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be admitted to the council-chamber of fate. 14 They believe that souls have power to survive death and that there are rewards and punishments under the earth for those who have led lives of virtue (ÒɼÌýË) or vice: eternal imprisonment is the lot of evil souls, while the good souls receive an easy passage to a new life. 15 Because of these views they are, as a matter of fact, extremely influential among the townsfolk; and all prayers and sacred rites of divine worship are performed according to their exposition (Á¸Ė ĝÈŦʸ¿¼ė¸¼ĤÏľÅ̼ìϼ̸ÀÁ¸ĖĎ¼ÉľÅ ÈÇÀŢʼÑËëƾºŢʼÀÌĉëÁ¼ţÅÑÅÌͺϊÅÇÍÊÀÅ ÈɸÊÊŦļŸ). This is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, by practicing the highest ideals both in their way of living and in their discourse, have paid to the excellence (ÒɼÌýË) of the Pharisees.

Although in BJ the Pharisees are said to be “reputed to interpret the legal matters with precision,” it has been pointed by Mason that the verb »ÇÁšÑ used by Josephus both here and in other passages dealing with the Pharisees, could have a negative connotation in this context: the Pharisees only seem to be precise in the matters of the interpretation of the laws, but this reputation is ungrounded.418 When we turn to the Pharisees passage in AJ XVIII 12–5, the ambiguity 417 418

Translation follows Mason, Judean War 2. Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees, 106–13, 130–1 (cf. the index for »ÇÁšÑ).

3.24. The Pilate Episode

225

is gone: the Pharisees really adhere to simplicity in their mode of living and believe in righteous retribution – therefore the city-dwellers respect them a lot, and follow their rulings in prayer and divine rites, as well as “by practicing the highest ideals both in their way of living and in their discourse.” In this way they testify to the ÒɼÌŢ of the Pharisees.419 And, of course, AJ XVIII 12, though convoluted, says one thing: the Pharisees stick to the ancestral tradition, keep and uphold it. And this, as we have witnessed a great number of times, is among the leading ideas of AJ, praised by Josephus throughout this work. As I already mentioned above, it has been recently suggested that the reason for Josephus’ better treatment of the Pharisees in AJ is likely to be sought in his own value shift between the 70s and the 90s. Although it is obvious that even in his later works he continued to view the Judean society as a hierocracy ruled by the priests with the high priest at its head,420 and did not leave much place for the lay sages like the Pharisees, as a Diaspora Jew he came to realize that they espoused the same values as gradually became dear to him – fore-mostly, the emphasis they put on the interpretation and keeping of the Law, as well as the importance they ascribed to the ancestral tradition.421 In other words, if Mason is right in his overall interpretation of the thrust of the Essene passage in BJ, one could say that Josephus’ emphasis changed from lionizing a manly ascetic sect to elevating an urban group of sages, sticking to the ancestral Law/tradition and cultivating “virtue.”422

3. 24. The Pilate Episode Josephus’ stories about Pontius Pilate have been frequently discussed by scholars, for rather obvious reasons.423 I would like to present them synoptically, and then to discuss some differences. 419

See S. Mason, “The Philosophy of Josephus’s Pharisees,” in idem, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins, 217–38. 420 CA II 184–9, discussed in chapter 4 (pp. 267–9). 421 Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews.” This is not to say that Josephus endorsed all aspects of Pharisaic ideology and politics – see above my discussion of his judgement on their role during Alexandra Salome’s reign (pp. 205–7). 422 Cf. ibid. 423 For the analysis of Josephus’ Pilate stories, and those of the Gospels, see H. K. Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Cambridge, 1998). On the Pilate episode in AJ, see D. R. Schwartz, “Composition and Sources in Antiquities 18: The Case of Pontius Pilate,” in Rodgers, Josephus and the Historical Method, 125–46. On both Pilate, and the story about Caligula’s attempt to place his statue in the Temple, see Schwartz, Judeans and Jews.

226

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

BJ II 169–74

AJ XVIII 55–9

169b Pilatus introduced into Hierosolyma – by night, concealed – the images of Caesar, which are called “standards.” 170 After daybreak this stirred up a huge disturbance among the Judeans. For those who were close to the sight were shocked at their laws’ having been trampled – for they think it fitting to place no representation in the city… 171 [The Judeans] rushed to Pilatus in Caesarea and kept begging him to take the standards out of Hierosolyma and to preserve their ancestral [customs]. But when Pilatus refused, they fell down around his residence, prone, and held out motionless for five days and nights alike… 173b After saying that he would cut them to pieces if they would not accept Caesar’s images, Pilatus nodded to the soldiers to bare their swords. 174 The Judeans, just as if by an agreed signal, fell down en masse, bent their necks to the side, and shouted that they were ready to do away with themselves rather than transgress the law. Pilatus, who was overwhelmed by the purity of their superstition (Ĩȼɿ¸ÍĊʸË»òĝ ÀÂÜÌÇËÌġÌýË»¼ÀÊÀ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸ËÓÁɸÌÇÅ), directed [his men] immediately to carry the standards out of Hierosolyma.

55 Pilate… took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish practices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images… 56b Pilate was the first to bring the images into Jerusalem and set them up, doing it without the knowledge of the people, for he entered at night. 57 But when the people discovered it, they went to Caesarea and for many days entreated him to take away the images… He refused to yield, since to do so would be an outrage to the emperor… [They] did not cease entreating him [for five days]… 58 [Pilate] threatened to punish them at once with death if they did not put an end to their tumult and return to their own places. 59 But they, casting themselves prostrate and baring their throats, declared that they had gladly welcomed death rather than make bold to transgress the wise provisions of the laws. Pilate, astonished at the strength of their devotion to the laws (Á¸ĖÀÂÜÌÇË ¿¸ÍĊʸËÌġëÏÍÉġŸĤÌľÅëÈĖÎ͸ÁĉÌľÅ ÅŦÄÑÅ), straightway removed the images from Jerusalem and brought them back to Caesarea.

Recently, these passages have been discussed by D. R. Schwartz, who pointed out a number of differences.424 In BJ Josephus claimed that the Jews were shocked because they interpreted the introduction of the images into the holy city as trampling of their laws by Pilate. In AJ he explained that they were outraged since their “law forbids the making of images.” Schwartz compares Josephus’ description of this incident in AJ with a slightly later episode of the attempt by Gaius Caligula to place his statue in the Temple, where the Jews explained to the Roman prefect Petronius, who was commanded to carry out the order, that “it is not possible for us to survive and to behold actions that are forbidden us by the decision of our lawgiver and of our forefathers who cast their votes enacting these measures as moral laws (ÒɼÌŢÅ).”425 In BJ II 195, similarly to his explanation in the BJ passage quoted above, there is a territorial aspect, absent 424 425

Schwartz, “Pharisees as Diaspora Jews;” idem, Judeans and Jews. AJ XVIII 264.

3.24. The Pilate Episode

227

from AJ: “[T]hey were putting forward the law and the ancestral custom, and how it would not be lawful to place any representation of God – let alone of a man – in the shrine itself or even in some ordinary place in the countryside.” In other words, while both the law and the Holy Land/Holy City are present in BJ, only the Law remains in AJ, and, as pointed out by Schwartz, the passages in AJ make less sense than the earlier ones – the Jews claim that they are forbidden to do what Pilate did and what Petronius was commanded to do. These Gentiles could, of course, reply that they, to whom the requirements of the Jewish law did not apply, did these things, and not the Jews. In BJ it is clear that the problem is with the fact that the law forbids the placing of idols in the Holy Land. I agree with Schwartz that this change is likely to be explained by the fact that [b]y the time he wrote Antiquities, Josephus was getting used to the rules of the game in the Diaspora, in which land and religion do not go together, and accordingly he rewrote the Jews’ claims in such a way as to eliminate or at least attenuate the notions of Holy Land and Holy City – even if this resulted in a lack of logic in his narratives.426

When we compare BJ II 174 with AJ XVIII 59, we again witness a major terminological shift. In Mason’s new translation of the passage it is especially clear: Pilate “was overwhelmed by the purity of their superstition.” The word »¼ÀÊÀ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸ is actually ambiguous and can describe fear of the divine neutrally, 427 but more frequently has a pejorative connotation, which was chosen by Mason. Josephus usually does not use it pejoratively, but in any case, it does not seem to be the best way for a sympathetic author to describe Judaism.428 Thus, Schwartz is probably right, that for this passage Josephus might have relied on Acta Pilati of some sort. However, in his later version of the story in AJ, Josephus’ phraseology is unequivocal: Pilate was “astonished at the strength of their devotion to the laws,” which, of course, is a positive characteristic, and in line with Josephus’ emphasis throughout AJ: the Jews are extremely loyal to their laws, and pagans admire this.429 As will become clear from the following discussion, the story of Gaius’ Caligula attempt to erect his image in the Temple (BJ II 184– 203/AJ XVIII 261–309) is in many respects similar.

426

Schwartz, “Composition and Sources of Antiquities 18,” 134. See C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. 3 Vols. (Peabody, Mass., 1994), 1:305–8. 428 For Josephan usage, see, for example, AJ X 42; XIV 228, 237, 240; XV 277; XIX 290. 429 See K.-S. Krieger, “A Synoptic Approach to B 2:117–283 and A 18–20,” 91–3. 427

228

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

3. 25. Josephus on Gaius Caligula, Part One Josephus’ story of Caligula’s attempt to erect his image in the Temple (AJ XVIII 261–309) teaches very much the same lessons.430 Although here I slightly break the chronological sequence, it seems that it is apposite to discuss the episode immediately after the story about Pilate. Apart from what was said above on the downplaying of the territorial aspects of Judaism in the AJ passages dealing with Pilate and Caligula, another tendency should be noticed. As in some other cases mentioned above, in AJ Josephus never misses an opportunity to elaborately discuss the Jewish views of the Law and loyalty to it. A look at the parallel passages in BJ and AJ makes it very clear: BJ II 192

AJ XVIII 266–8

192 Having mustered in the plain at Ptolemais, Judeans with women and children kept imploring Petronius, first for the sake of their ancestral laws (ĨÈòÉ ÌľÅȸÌÉţÑÅÅŦÄÑÅ) and then for their own sakes.431

266 “Equal to this determination of yours, O Petronius,” replied the Jews, “not to transgress the orders of Gaius, is our determination not to transgress the declaration of the law (ÇĤ»ЏÔŸĤÌÇĖȸɸ¹¸ţ¾Ä¼ÅÌÇı ÅŦÄÇÍÌüÅÈÉǸºŦɼÍÊÀÅ).432 We have put our trust in the goodness of God and in the labours of our forefathers and have thus hitherto remained innocent of transgression. Nor could we ever bring ourselves to go so far in wickedness as by our own act to transgress, for any fear of death, the law bidding us abstain, where He thought it conductive to our good to do so.433 267 In order to preserve our ancestral code (ëÈĖ Î͸Áĉ̼ȸÌÉţÑÅ), we shall patiently endure what may be in store for us, with the assurance that for those who are determined to take the risk there is hope even of prevailing; for God will stand by us if we welcome danger for His glory. Fortune, moreover, is wont to veer now towards one side, now towards the other in human affairs. 268 To obey you, on the other hand, would bring on us the grave reproach of cowardice, because that would be the explanation

430

It is paralleled in BJ II 184–203. This and the following translation from BJ II follow Mason, Judean War 2. 432 The passage actually begins at AJ XVIII 264, but since it was quoted above, I omit it from here. 433 ĹÊ̼ĝÈŦʸëÁ¼ţÅĿ»ŦƼÀ¼ÅÄüÈɸÊÊŦļŸÒº¸¿ÇıģÇÈüÅ÷ÄėÅΚɼÀŸĤÌÇĖȸɸ¹¸ţżÀÅ ÈÇÌЏÔÅ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅÎǹ¾¿šÅ̼Ëե 431

3.25. Josephus on Gaius Caligula, Part One

229

of our transgressing the law (ÌÇıÅÇÄţÄÇÍ), and at the same time we should incur God’s severe wrath – and He even in your eyes must be accounted a higher power than Gaius.”

So, similarly to the speech of the destroyers of the golden eagle in AJ XVII 158–9, here Josephus again took an opportunity to make a theological exposition on the topic of the reasons for which the Jews are unreservedly loyal to their Law, as well as on the subject of divine providence and retribution. As he continued the story of this potentially explosive episode, he consistently theologized it. Thus, the words he put on the lips of Petronius in AJ are much more elaborate and theological, and AJ Petronius is depicted as a veritable God-fearer: BJ II 200–1

AJ XVIII 277–82

200b [Petronius] finally assembled them, saying: 201 “It is rather for me to face the risk. Either, with the God collaborating, I shall persuade Caesar and happily be saved along with you, or, upon his becoming provoked, I shall readily give up my own life for the sake of so many.”

277 [Petronius] thought it a terrible thing to bring death upon so many tens of thousands of men in carrying out the mad orders of Gaius, and to hold them guilty for their reverence to God, and thus to spend the rest of his life in foreboding. … 278 But if, after all, Gaius should turn some of his wrath against him, a man who made virtue his goal might well die on behalf of such a multitude of men. … 279 “It is only right that one upon whom such high position had been conferred by grant of the emperor should thwart him in nothing. 280 I do not, however,” he said, “deem it right not to hazard my own safety and position in order to save you, who are so numerous, from perishing. You are carrying out the precepts of your law, which as your heritage you see fit to defend (»À¸ÁÇÅÇŧļÅÇÅÌĉÒɼÌĉÌÇı ÅŦÄÇÍբğÅÈŠÌÉÀÇÅěÅ̸ȼÉÀĊϾÌÇÅ ÷º¼ėÊ¿¼), and serving the sovereign of all, almighty God, whose temple I should not have had the heart to see fall a prey to the insolence of imperial authority. … 281 May God assist you, since His might is above any human ingenuity or strength; may He enable you to maintain and to preserve your ancestral laws (ÌüÅÌŢɾÊÀÅÌľÅȸÌÉţÑÅ) without His being deprived of His customary honours by capricious human plots. 282 If, however, Gaius is embittered and makes me the object of his inexorable wrath, I will

230

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities endure every form of danger and every form of suffering that may be inflicted upon my body and my fortune rather than behold you who are so numerous destroyed for deeds so virtuous.”

So, as compared to BJ, in AJ version of the story Josephus not only used the incident to place on the lips of the Jews a lengthy exposition of their theology of the Law and of Divine retribution, as well as to emphasize their readiness for martyrdom, but he also turned the pagan Roman official into a fire-and-brimstone preacher of Judaism, praising the Jews for their loyalty to their Law, calling them virtuous, and praying to their God to assist them in their opposition to the decree of his own master! And, of course, God did not disappoint him: “God, on His part, showed Petronius that He was with him and would lend His aid in all matters” by sending a heavy rain. As a consequence, XVIII 286 Petronius, on his part, was struck with great amazement when he saw unmistakable evidence that God’s providence was over the Jews and that He had shown His presence so abundantly434 that not even those who actually proposed to take the opposite view had any heart left to dispute the fact. 287 He included this occurrence along with the other things of which he wrote to Gaius. It was all designed to induce him and entreat him in every way not to drive so many tens of thousands of men to desperation. For if he should slay them – and they would certainly not give up their accustomed manner of worship without war – he would be deprived of their revenue and would be put under the ban of a curse for all time to come. 288 He said [to Gaius]… that the Divinity who was in charge of them had shown his power to be unimpaired and was quite unambiguous in displaying His power.

The subsequent course of events as told by Josephus in AJ clearly demonstrated both to Petronius and to any impartial observer that the Roman prefect was right in his righteous and courageous choice, on the one hand, and that God’s providence was real, on the other: XVIII 306 Indeed, God could never have been unmindful of the risks that Petronius had taken in showing favour to the Jews and honouring God. No, the removal of Gaius in displeasure at his rashness in promoting his own claim to worship was God’s payment of the debt to Petronius… 308b [Petronius] rejoiced at the coincidence that Gaius’ disaster came when it did, 309 and marveled at the providence of God (ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ÌüÅ ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸Å), who swiftly and punctually had paid him his reward for showing honour to the temple and coming to the rescue of the Jews. Thus for Petronius the menace of death was easily dispelled in a manner that could hardly have been foreseen.

None of this theologizing is to be found in the succinct version told in BJ.

Ğ ̼ ¼ÌÉŪÅÀÇË Á¸Ì¼ÈšÈ¾ÁÌÇ ļÀ½ŦÅÑË ĝÉľÅ ëŸɺľË ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÌľÅ `ÇÍ»¸ţÑÅ ÈÉÇľ¿ÇŧļÅÇÅÁ¸ĖÈÇÂÂüÅÒÈÇʾÄŢŸÅ̸ÌüÅëÈÀΊżÀ¸Åե 434

3.26. Jewish Scoundrels and Herod’s Descendants

231

3. 26. Jewish Scoundrels and Herod’s Descendants After the Pilate episode, Josephus continued his narrative by relating the various troubles which befell the followers of Isis in Rome, the Roman Jews, and the Samaritans. It is noteworthy that the Jews suffered banishment from Rome because of a Jewish scoundrel, “who had fled his own country because he was accused of transgressing certain laws and feared punishment on this account.” He was joined by three other charlatans, and together they cheated a Roman proselyte Fulvia, by pocketing the gifts she donated to the Jerusalem Temple. One is led to conclude that the whole Roman Jewish community suffered because of one Jewish scoundrel who, to begin with, had been a transgressor of the Jewish Law and fled from his native country precisely for this reason. He was not really “an interpreter of the Mosaic law and its wisdom,” he only “played the part (ÈÉÇʼÈÇÀ¼ėÌÇ).”435 The story of the defeat of Herod Antipas’ army by the Nabatean king Aretas IV in AJ XVIII 109–19 is also used by Josephus to teach moral lessons: first, Antipas transgressed the Law by marrying the wife of his halfbrother, and second – by unjustly executing John the Baptist, who “was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God.”436 Although Josephus ascribes the view that the destruction of Antipas’ army was “divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance for his treatment of John” to “some of the Jews,”437 it is reasonable to conclude both from the passage itself and in light of Josephus’ own view of Divine providence that he subscribed to this interpretation of the event. Moreover, he actually made Antipas even wickeder by emphasizing another lawless deed perpetrated by him, namely his marriage to his brother’s wife.438 In AJ XVIII 127–9 Josephus returned to the subject of Divine providence, and made his position on the question as clear as it could be. As I tried to show in the section dealing with Herod, Josephus used his charac435 AJ XVIII 81–4. For an insightful analysis of this Josephan story in its context, see Moehring, The Novelistic Elements, 35–68. 436 AJ XVIII 117: Á̼ţżÀ ºÛÉ »ü ÌÇıÌÇÅ HÉŪ»¾Ë Òº¸¿ġÅ ÓŻɸ Á¸Ė ÌÇėË `ÇÍ»¸ţÇÀË Á¼Â¼ŧÇÅ̸ÒɼÌüÅëȸÊÁÇıÊÀÅÁ¸ĖÌÛÈÉġËÒÂÂŢÂÇÍË»ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊŧÅþÁ¸ĖÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤʼ¹¼ţß ÏÉÑÄšÅÇÀ˹¸ÈÌÀÊÄŊÊÍÅÀšÅ¸Àե 437 AJ XVIII 116. 438 Notice AJ XVIII 136, where Josephus unequivocally stated that “Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of her fathers (ëÈĖ ÊͺÏŧʼÀ ÎÉÇÅŢʸʸ ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ), married Herod, her husband’s brother by the same father…” If Josephus said so much about her, this assessment should have equally applied to Antipas – cf. Josephus’ judgement on Archelaus for his marriage to Glaphyra which was “abhorrent to the Jews” (AJ XVII 341). The story was discussed above (p. 221).

232

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

ter to show that lawlessness is a bad investment; here he came back to this topic, using the tale of the fortunes of Herod’s offspring “because it affords a proof of Divine Providence, showing that neither numbers nor any other worldly advantage can avail aught without acts of piety toward the Divine Power.”439 The fact that almost all his descendants perished within a century is considered by Josephus as worthy to tell since it may “contribute to the moral instruction (ÊÑÎÉÇÅÀÊÄŊ) of humankind.”440 The story told by him is indeed sinister: it is full of premature childless deaths, executions, handicaps, and apostasy. This last could be seen as a logical outcome of Herod’s own attitudes and deeds, as interpreted by Josephus: the offspring of Herod’s descendants, who ruled Armenia, “abandoned from birth the observance of the native Jewish customs and ranged themselves with the Greek tradition.”441 In the same context, Josephus says that “[i]t may also be edifying to tell the story of Agrippa, which is in the highest degree remarkable.” This, he says, is due to the fact that from being nobody he rose to the heights of power and exaltation.442 The story of Agrippa’s I fortunes, as told by Josephus, is remarkable indeed, but since it is spread over most of AJ XVIII– XIX, I will discuss it a little later, concentrating at this point on other stories appearing in AJ XVIII.443

3. 27. Josephus on Jewish Chieftains in Parthian Babylonia Immediately after concluding the edifying and happy-ending story about the God-fearing Petronius and the Jews ready to die for their laws – both of whom were eventually vindicated – Josephus went on to tell another story, one which again demonstrated (the second half of) his thesis, stated at the very beginning of AJ, namely, that life will be very tough for those who break the Law. After summarizing the previous episode by saying that 439 AJ XVIII 127: ×ĸ»òÁ¸ĖȸɊÊ̸ÊÀÅìϼÀÅÌÇı¿¼ţÇÍբĸËÇĤ»òÅĴμ¼ėÈÂý¿ÇËÇĤ»Џ Ó¾ÌÀËÒÂÁüÌľÅëÅÒÅ¿ÉŪÈÇÀËëÈÀ̼̼ͺĚÅÑÅ»ţϸÌľÅÈÉġËÌġ¿¼ėÇżĤʼ¹¼ÀľÅե Notice how this statement is similar to Josephus’ earlier summary on the fortunes of the Kingdom of Israel in AJ IX 281–2, quoted and discussed above. 440 AJ XVIII 128. 441 AJ XVIII 141: ¼Ĥ¿İË×ĸÌŊÎÍýŸÀÌüÅ¿¼É¸È¼ţ¸ÅëÆšÂÀȼÅÌľÅ`ÇÍ»¸ţÇÀËëÈÀÏÑÉţÑÅ ļ̸̸ƊļÅÇÀ ÈÉġË ÌÛ @¾ÊÀ ÈŠÌÉÀ¸. I emended Feldman’s “the ways of the Jewish land” to “native Jewish customs.” 442 AJ XVIII 129: ×ĸ »ò Á¸Ė ÌġÅ ºÉţÈȸÅ »À¾ºŢʸʿ¸À ¿¸ŧĸÌÇË ÒÆÀŪ̸ÌÇÅ º¼º¼Å¾ÄšÅÇÅբ ğË ëÁ ÈŠÅÍ Ċ»ÀŪÌÇÍ Á¸Ė ȸÉÛ ÈÜʸÅ »ŦƸÅ ÌľÅ ¼Ċ»ŦÌÑÅ ¸ĤÌġÅ ëÈĖ ÌÇÊŦÅ»¼ ¾ĤÆŢ¿¾»ÍŊļÑËե 443 The fullest treatment of Agrippa I is D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen, 1990).

3.27. Josephus on Jewish Chieftains in Parthian Babylonia

233

the providence of God was at work in the incident, and rewarded Petronius (not to mention the Jews) for their pious behavior,444 Josephus began a story which would provide an example of the opposite: “The Jews of Mesopotamia and especially those inhabiting Babylonia now met with a terrible and unparalleled disaster and were massacred in such numbers as never before in recorded history.”445 In the next sentence Josephus promised to “[set] forth also the causes that were the occasion of their misfortune” – and the causes, quite predictably, were their transgressions against the Law.446 The story centers on the fortunes of two Jewish brothers Asinaeus and Anilaeus, the natives of the Mesopotamian city of Nearda.447 Obtaining a large quantity of arms and provisions, the brothers succeeded in gathering many young men around them, built a citadel and began to collect protection money from the surrounding herdsmen.448 They grew so strong that they managed to defeat the Parthian satrap who organized a military expedition against them, and because of this, quite unexpectedly, the Parthian king Artabanus entrusted to Asinaeus the land of Babylonia to rule, to protect, and to ensure order. Asinaeus fortified the country, became the most powerful ruler over all Mesopotamia, and for fifteen years the brothers’ prosperity and respect continued to rise.449 However, when the brothers reached the peak of success, their fortunes began to deteriorate because “they diverted [their manly qualities] to the service of lawlessness, into which they plunged in violation of the ancestral practices at the bidding of lust and self-indulgence.”450 Anilaeus fell in love with a married Parthian woman, and having arranged the death of her husband, took her as his wife. The pagan woman continued the practice of her ancestral idolatry. This came to the attention of the officials at the brothers’ court, and they complained to Anilaeus “that his actions were quite contrary to Hebraic custom and not consonant with their laws, in that he had taken a gentile wife – one who transgressed the strict rules of their 444

AJ XVIII 306–9, quoted above (p. 230). AJ XVIII 310. 446 On the episode in general, see D. Goodblatt, “Josephus on Parthian Babylonia (Antiquities XVIII, 310–379),” JAOS 107/4 (1987), 605–22; G. Herman, “Iranian Epic Motifs in Josephus’ Antiquities (XVIII, 314–370),” JJS 57 (2006), 245–68. 447 On this story, as well as on the Adiabenian episode, which is discussed below, see T. Rajak, “The Parthians in Josephus,” in eadem, The Jewish Dialogue, 273–97. 448 AJ XVIII 311–7. 449 AJ XVIII 318–39. 450 AJ XVIII 340: Áĸ½ŦÅÌÑÅ »ò ¸ĤÌÇėË ÌľÅ Òº¸¿ľÅ ÒÉÏü ¸ĤÌÇİË ëÈÀÁ¸Ì¸Â¸Ä¹ŠÅ¼À Á¸ÁľÅëÁÌÇÀÜÊ»¼¸ĊÌţ¸ËբëȼÀ»üÌüÅÒɼÌŢÅբĆÈÉÇŧÁÇиÅëÈĖÄšº¸»ÍŊļÑËբëÁÌÉšÈÇÍÊÀÅ ¼ĊË ĩ¹ÉÀÅ ëÈĖ ȸɸ¹ŠÊ¼À ÌľÅ ȸÌÉţÑÅ ĨÈġ ëÈÀ¿ÍÄÀľÅ Á¸Ė ÷»ÇÅýËե I emended Feldman’s “Jewish code” to “ancestral practices.” 445

234

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

sacrifices and rituals,”451 and warned him that he would thereby lose his authority which had been given to him by God.452 However, it is not only that Anilaeus did not heed this, but he even slaughtered a man who criticized him too much; the victim, “fixing his mind on the loyalty to the laws,” cursed Anilaeus and his company, wishing them to be killed in the same manner – “the brothers because they had been the leaders in transgressing the laws, the others because they failed to come to his rescue when they saw how he was treated for championing the Law.”453 When Anilaeus persisted in “the trampling on the Law,” even his companions could no longer bear it, and said to him that his marriage to a practicing idol-worshipper had been against their will and “was not in accordance with the laws which they were accustomed to follow, and that the worship which the woman practiced showed disrespect for the God of their religion.” When Asinaeus tried to rebuke his brother, the idolatress poisoned him.454 Having grown insolent, Anilaeus began to engage in robbery, plundered villages not under his control, and disgraced the Parthian noble Mithridates who ruled over this territory. Humiliated, Mithridates took revenge on Anilaeus, routed his forces, and put him to flight. Soon thereafter he and his men were killed by the Babylonians, who then proceeded to attacks on the local Jews. The latter were forced to leave the territory, and moved to Seleucia, where the Greeks and the Syrians made an alliance against them, which eventually led to the slaughter of some fifty thousand Jews.455 To summarize this episode, it is again transparent that Josephus used it as another illustration of his main proposition, stated at the beginning of AJ: those who follow the laws prosper; those who break them invite terrible disasters upon themselves (and those around them). The Jewish brothers, who, despite their humble origins, rose to the peak of power and prestige, suffered a terrible end because of their failure to observe the Law, and became a source of misery for the Babylonian Jewish community.

AJ XVIII 345: ĸËÇĤ»¸ÄľËÈÉŠÊÊÇÀ?¹É¸ŤÁÛÇĤ»òĝÈŦʸÅŦÄÇÀËÌÇė˸ĤÌľÅÈÉŦÊÎÇɸ ºÍŸėÁ¸óºÄšÅÇËÒÂÂŦÎÍÂÇÅÁ¸Ėȸɸ¹¸ţÅÇÍʸÅ¿ÍÊÀľÅÁ¸Ėʼ¹¸ÊÄľÅÌľÅ¸ĤÌÇė˼ĊÑ¿ŦÌÑÅ ÌüÅÒÁÉţ¹¼À¸Å. 452 AJ XVIII 342–5. 453 AJ XVIII 346–7. 454 AJ XVIII 348–52. 455 AJ XVIII 353–79. 451

3.28. Josephus on Caligula, Part Two, and Claudius

235

3. 28. Josephus on Caligula, Part Two, and Claudius Next, Josephus goes on to tell in detail the story of Gaius Caligula’s madness and assassination, and the accession of Claudius to the imperial throne. At first sight, such a detailed excurse on internal Roman matters seems to be out of place in a work on Judean history, and earlier scholars even suggested that Josephus inserted it in his composition in order to fill in some lacunae, so that Judean Antiquities would be similar to Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, counting twenty books.456 This view has been shown to be too simplistic, presupposing a rather low estimate of Josephus as an author and historian.457 I will not attempt a detailed analysis of the story, but rather try to demonstrate that it is an integral part of his narrative, that it pursues goals which are consistent with the rest of AJ, and supports his main thesis. Thus, at the beginning of AJ XIX Josephus explains why he decided to include the story in his work: XIX 15 [S]ince his [i.e., Caligula’s] death not only was of great importance in the interest of all men’s laws and the safeguarding of them (ÌÇėË ̼ ÖÈŠÅÌÑÅ ÅŦÄÇÀË Á¸Ė ÌŊ ÒÊθ¼ė), but our nation was brought to the very verge of ruin and would have been destroyed but for his sudden death, I am resolved to give an exact account of everything that happened. 16 I have another particular motive in that the story provides good evidence of God’s power (ìϼÀÈţÊÌÀÅÌÇı¿¼ÇıÌýË»ÍŊļÑË). It will comfort those who are in unhappy circumstances, and will teach a lesson in sobriety to those who think that good fortune is eternal and do not know that it ends in catastrophe unless it goes hand in hand with virtue (ÒɼÌýË).458

So, here we have several familiar Josephan ideas: first, the preeminence of the law – the ÅŦÄÇË word-group is very prominent in this story. 459 The fact that it is the Roman laws that are usually referred to, does not mean that it is irrelevant to Josephus’ thesis, as is evident from the passage quoted above and from what follows.460 Second, the story is called to illustrate 456

E.g., Thackeray, Josephus, 68–9. See Mason, “Flavius Josephus in Flavian Rome,” 581–8; S. Ben-Yishai, “Book XIX of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities in Context,” an unpublished extended seminar paper (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2010). This is, of course, not to say that most of the material was not “copy-pasted” from Josephus’ source. What interests me, however, are his editorial comments, that is, the reasons why – as Josephus saw them – he decided to “copy-paste” the story at all (even if the characterization is right). 458 Cf. this passage with Josephus’ reflexions on the fate of king Saul in AJ VI 265, which was quoted and discussed above. 459 ÅŦÄÇË:AJ XIX 15, 57, 156, 168, 172, 173, 190, 202, 230, 231; ÅŦÄÀÄÇË: AJ XIX 74, 202; ȸɸÅÇÄšÑ: AJ XIX 201. Only instances referring to the law[s] in general have been listed. 460 Notice that in AJ XV 284–8, which was quoted and discussed above (p. 215), Josephus, in the context of the plot which was formed against Herod, speaks of “communal customs, which all men had the duty either to preserve or to die for” (emphasis mine). 457

236

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

once again that God’s providence is everywhere at work. Third, it demonstrates that good fortune is only real and stable if accompanied by virtue. Fourth, although, for obvious reasons, Josephus did not state it clearly neither here, nor in other similar cases, it is likely that he intended the story as a warning: “Pay attention to what happens to those who dare to attack Jews and Judaism!”461 And I may add that it is likely that in the context of AJ the story of the demise of pagan Caligula for his hubris and placing himself above the law might well have been intended by Josephus to convey to his Roman audience the moral that it is more or less the same mechanism that operates in your (pagan) society as in ours (Jewish). Whoever sets himself above the law, will be ruined. The law is the law; the only difference is that ours is the best.462 The speech of Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus in justification of Caligula’s assassination (AJ XIX 167–84), which takes a large portion of the whole story, also reflects the main Josephan themes throughout AJ: the speaker continuously refers to freedom, virtue, and (ancestral) laws: “Indeed, for those who appreciate virtue (ÌÇėË ÒɼÌýË ¸ĊÊ¿¸ÅÇÄšÅÇÀË), it is sufficient to live but for a single hour with freedom to think as we please, in a country that is subject to its own sense of right, and that regulates itself by the constitution (ÅŦÄÑÅ) under which it once became a flourishing state.”463 Josephus’ own assessment of Gaius’ conduct and his violent end again echoes the introductory passage to the story of his assassination quoted above: XIX 202 It was his object to be and to be thought stronger than religion or the law (Á¸Ė ÌÇıÄòÅ¿¼ţÇÍÁ¸ĖÅÇÄţÄÇÍļţ½ÑÅëÊÈÇÍ»¸ÁĽË¼čŸţ̼Á¸Ė»ÇÁ¼ėÅ), but he had no strength to resist the flattering of the mob, and regarded as virtuous achievement everything that the law condemns as disgraceful and on which it imposes a penalty. … 203b Everything that went with virtue (ÈÜÅÌġÒɼÌĉÊÍżÉÏŦļÅÇÅ) he regarded as hostile…464

The second part of the story, which recounts the details of Claudius’ accession to the throne, forms a counterpart to the story of Caligula’s downfall. When Claudius feared for his life, one of the palace guards, Gratus, encouraged him: “The gods have taken [the empire] from Gaius and granted it to you for your virtue because they wished to promote the welfare of 461 There are also indications that Josephus expected this story to be read by Jews (or Greeks), as he took care to explain some matters which would obviously be familiar to Romans, AJ XIX 24. 462 AJ XIX 8–10 should be compared with the story of Petronius, discussed above, as is noted in the Feldman’s note in the Loeb edition of AJ (p. 220, note c). Pagans should not think that only the honor of the Jewish God was at stake. 463 AJ XIX 168. For the ÅŦÄÇË word group see above. ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸: AJ XIX 42, 54, 79, 100, 169, 182–4, 186; ÒɼÌŢ: AJ XIX 16, 38, 49, 57, 63, 78, 83, 113, 121–2, 128, 154–5, 164, 168, 171 (twice), 172, 174, 181, 191, 196, 202–3, 210. 464 AJ XIX 202–3.

3.28. Josephus on Caligula, Part Two, and Claudius

237

mankind.”465 A bit later, Claudius was urged to yield to the senate and to “[allow] the law to provide for the organization of the commonwealth… [H]e would obtain honours, which would be voted him by free citizens; for if he did his part in yielding to the law, he would gain plaudits for virtuous conduct whether as subject or as ruler.”466 And, as should be expected, one of the first things Claudius did after his accession was to confirm the rights of the Jews to live according to their laws undisturbed.467 That is, Claudius is a perfect counterpart to Caligula – in contrast to his predeccessor, he was both observant of the Roman laws, and protective of the Jewish rights to live according to theirs without hindrance. Josephus rounds out the story by relating the episode of placing Claudius’ image in the synagogue at Dora by some local pagans. The potentially explosive situation was resolved in a way which was the opposite of what one could expect had it happened in the days of Caligula: it is again the governor of Syria, Petronius, who interfered to defend the Jews – but in this case he referred to the edict of the emperor as the basis for his demand to punish the transgressors. The text of Petronius’ letter to the leaders of Dora reflects Josephan themes to such a degree, that I think it might be considered entirely his composition: XIX 304 Inasmuch as certain of you have had such mad audacity, notwithstanding the issuance of the edict of Claudius … pertaining to the permission granted the Jews to observe the customs of their fathers, not to obey this edict, 305 but to do the very reverse, in that you have prevented the Jews from having a synagogue by transferring to it an image of Caesar, you have thereby sinned not only against the law of the Jews, but also against the emperor, whose image was better placed in his own shrine than in that of another, especially in the synagogue; for by natural law each must be lord over his own place, in accordance with Caesar’s decree.

Now, it should be remembered that what was at stake in Gaius’ attempt to erect his statue at the Jerusalem Temple was his decision to demonstrate to the obstinate and unperceptive Jews, that there was no such a thing as “their own place,” but rather that every place in the Roman empire was “his own place.” In other words, Josephus was trying to say that only a bad and law-breaking emperor should think in such a way, but a good, reasonable, and law-obedient emperor should protect the laws of the Jews, grant them religious autonomy, and concede that there indeed were places which AJ XIX 219: ÒɼÌĉÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ÅÌýËÇĊÁÇÍ̞˸¹ŦÅ̼Ë. AJ XIX 229–32. 467 AJ XIX 280–5. On the problematic character of this document as quoted by Josephus, see V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, M. Stern (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 Vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1957–1964), Vol. 1:70, n. 45; Vol. 2:36–55 (#153). Also, see the discussion in M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (Tübingen, 1998), 295–326, who also provides further bibliography. 465 466

238

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

were “their own,” even to the degree that his images should not be honored there.468 Perhaps, it is also important to consider the differences between the Temple and the synagogues: while Caligula wanted to make a statement by Romanizing the only Jewish Temple located in Jerusalem, and thus show that even in Jerusalem the Jews had to be aware that their notions of the “Holy Land” and the “Holy City” were irrelevant and mistaken, Claudius (via veritable God-fearer Petronius) virtually conceded that any Jewish synagogue, wherever it is found, is “Jewish territory.” That is, in some sense, “holy.”

3. 29. “The Edifying Story” of Agrippa I At this point I would like to return to the story of the king Agrippa I, which, according to Josephus, “is in the highest degree remarkable… [and] edifying to tell.”469 What is so edifying about the biography of this person is stated by Josephus in the next sentence: from being a non-entity he rose to the heights of glory and power, so that his contemporaries were amazed. It is apparent that in the case of Agrippa, Josephus had a lot of materials and used several sources which D. R. Schwartz tried to identify, delineate, and analyze in his monograph on Agrippa I.470 As far as my own perceptions about Agrippa’s biography told by Josephus are concerned, I think it makes a strange reading. First, in the context of AJ, and especially after reading Josephus’ introduction quoted above, a reader would expect Josephus to present his hero as a paradigm of virtue and law-observance, on the one hand, and to emphasize Agrippa’s success as the result of Divine providence, which rewarded him for these, on the other. True, as we will shortly see, Agrippa is presented as righteous, and purposely contrasted with his grandfather, Herod the Great. However, in light of the fact that both Josephus himself and the sources he used were mainly sympathetic to Agrippa, it is an enigma why he did not come up with a more “edifying” story. Actually, Agrippa is often portrayed as a spendthrift and something of a rogue.471 Several reasons might be suggested, among them Agrippa’s failure, at the end of his life, to rebuke the people who addressed him as a god; or, maybe, Josephus’ historical hindsight 468

For the interpretation of Caligula’s motives in the decision to Romanize the Jerusalem Temple, see Schwartz, Agrippa I, 62–6; 82–3, esp. n. 59 (p. 82). Josephus continues to present Claudius as respectful towards the Jewish law in AJ XX 10–4: “I cherish religion myself and wish to see every nation maintain the religious practices that are traditional with it…” (13). 469 AJ XVIII 129. 470 Schwartz, Agrippa I. 471 This, at least partially, may be ascribed to Josephus’ desire to entertain his readers.

3.29. “The Edifying Story” of Agrippa I

239

was responsible for this – if Agrippa was all good, pious and righteous, why did things go from bad to worse after his death?472 Having said this, it should be added that although AJ Agrippa is hardly an exemplary person, Josephus considered him to have been a good Jew and a good king. He also made it clear that this was because of Agrippa’s attitude to the Law. First of all, Agrippa interceded with Caligula for the Jerusalem Temple, which is not something to be forgotten: when the emperor declared to him that he would like to reward him for his faithful service with anything that would add to his prosperity, Agrippa requested him to rescind the orders to erect the statue in the Temple. Then Josephus went on to say that Gaius “admired the character of Agrippa in that he set little store on adding to his personal authority either by increasing his revenue or by any other privileges, but had regard to the happiness of the commonwealth, by giving precedence to the law and religion (Èɼʹ¼ŧÑÅÌÇİË ÅŦÄÇÍËÁ¸ĖÌġ¿¼ėÇÅ).”473 The main passage exemplifying Agrippa’s piety and attitude to the Jewish Law is found in AJ XIX 328–34, the first part of which should be quoted for the reasons I will shortly discuss, point by point: XIX 328 Now king Agrippa was by nature generous in his gifts and made it a point of honour to be high-minded towards gentiles; and by expending massive sums he raised himself to high fame. He took pleasure in conferring favours and rejoiced in popularity, thus being in no way similar in character to Herod, who was king before him. 329 The latter had an evil nature, relentless in punishment and unsparing in action against the objects of his hatred. It was generally admitted that he was on more friendly terms with Greeks than with Jews. For instance, he adorned the cities of foreigners by giving them money, building baths and theatres, erecting temples in some and porticoes in others, whereas there was not a single city of the Jews on which he deigned to bestow even minor restoration or any gift worth mentioning. 330 Agrippa, on the contrary, had a gentle disposition and he was a benefactor to all alike. He was benevolent to those of other nations and exhibited his generosity to them also; but to his compatriots he was proportionately more generous and more compassionate. 331 He enjoyed residing in Jerusalem and did so constantly; and he scrupulously observed the traditions of his people (ÌÛ ÈŠÌÉÀ¸ Á¸¿¸ÉľËëÌŢɼÀ). He neglected no rite of purification, and no day passed for him without the prescribed sacrifice (ÌÛÅŦÄÀĸϾɼŧÇÍʸ¿ÍÊţ¸Ë).

As I will now try to demonstrate, many of Josephus’ statements in this passage are false and contradict his own accounts of Herod the Great and Agrippa in AJ. However, they are most interesting precisely because, as such, they illustrate Josephus’ own predilections. On the one hand, he decided to present Herod as lawless, therefore he was bad in everything. On the other hand, he decided to present Agrippa as Law-observant, therefore 472

I owe this second possible reason to D. R. Schwartz, oral communication. AJ XVIII 300. I changed Feldman’s order “to religion and the law” to “to the law and religion,” to reflect the Greek better. 473

240

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

he was good. Who was really more Law-observant and “good” is a big question, as we will shortly see. In AJ XIX 328 Agrippa is presented as “high-minded” towards gentiles, and said to have been generous and rejoiced in popularity, unlike Herod. Anyone familiar with Josephus’ account of Herod’s reign would know that the first two things could also be said about Agrippa’s grandfather, and that he, probably, too, would have rejoiced in popularity. Josephus says that Herod was unpopular with his Jewish subjects and therefore frustrated and mean, but this is evidently Josephus’ own assessment; in any case, it is difficult to imagine that he would not have been pleased, had he been popular. As far as Herod’s nature in XIX 329 is concerned, Josephus himself provides some examples to the contrary. If Agrippa’s character was “supremely exemplified” by the story about a certain Simon in XIX 332–4, one could think of Herod’s dealings with Samaias and the Essene prophet ManaƝmus, mentioned in the section on Herod above. Herod is said to have been friendlier to the Greeks than to the Jews.474 Well, the only friends of Agrippa we hear of were Romans. Herod spent much money on gentile cities; Agrippa did, too. Herod is accused of not bestowing a single gift or any minor restoration on any Jewish city. However, it is unlikely that Josephus forgot his own detailed account of the rebuilding of the Temple and the list of Herod’s building activities; therefore, the reasons for this statement are to be sought elsewhere. Indeed, it was not Agrippa I who transformed Jerusalem into “by far most famous city of the East and not of Judaea only.”475 Also, the statement that Agrippa was generous and compassionate to all but Herod was not is not substantiated by any examples. According to XIX 331, Agrippa enjoyed residing in Jerusalem, and did so constantly; however the impression conveyed by Josephus’ own narrative is that he spent most of his life in Rome, and did not terribly suffer from nostalgia. He was scrupulous in the observance of the ancestral traditions and rituals, Josephus says – but seems to have been rather pleased when the Caesareans addressed him as a god, as is shown by the fact that he did not rebuke them.476 It is also unclear how the fact that he had made statues of his own

474 We hear that after Augustus declined the request of (pagan) delegation from Gadara, to be freed from Herod’s rule, they committed a mass suicide (AJ XV 354). Evidently, Herod had not been very generous and kind to them. The only episode involving Jews, which could be compared to this, is the story of a Galilean rebel, who killed his family, and then committed suicide in order not to be captured by Herod; but that was in times of war. See BJ II 312–3. 475 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia, V, 70 (Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, I, p. 469, 470 [#204]). Cf. Feldman’s footnote b on p. 369 of the Loeb edition of AJ. 476 AJ XIX 343–6.

3.29. “The Edifying Story” of Agrippa I

241

living daughters squared with his Jewish piety.477 Thus far, no archaeological evidence has come to light to show that Herod had produced anything comparable in Judea, and it is also known that, in contrast to Agrippa, who issued coinage with his own portrait and that of the emperor, Herod did not.478 Josephus’ bias is most evident in his encomium of Agrippa in AJ XIX 335–7: not only did the king build an amphitheater in Berytus, but he went out of his way to entertain the people of the city in the following way: XIX 337 [I]n the amphitheatre he showed his noble generosity by the number of gladiators provided. On the latter occasion also, wishing to gratify the spectators by ranging a number of combatants against each other, he sent in seven hundred men to fight another seven hundred. All these men were malefactors set aside for this purpose, so that while they were receiving their punishment, the feats of war might be a source of entertainment in peace-time. In this way he brought about the utter annihilation of these men.

It is not specified whether the gladiators were Jewish subjects of Agrippa, or pagans purchased by him. In the first case – which is admittedly unlikely – by the standards of the Law, their brutal murder for fun would have been a crime unheard of.479 However, even if they were pagan criminals, it is not any clearer how anyone could find any justification in the Torah for annihilating fourteen hundred human beings to entertain a mob. Although Josephus clearly could not look favorably at the incident of Agrippa’s acclamation as a god, and his subsequent failure to rebuke the Caesareans, he still strived to minimize the damage to Agrippa’s image, on the one hand, and used the story to show the providential inevitability of Divine retribution, on the other. The latter is emphasized by the story of the bird, which earlier appeared to Agrippa, when he was imprisoned by Tiberius, and which then signified his release, but now his end.480 Agrippa’s basic goodness is rescued by presenting him as immediately recognizing his fatal mistake, repenting, accepting Divine verdict, and being grateful for his blissful life: XIX 347 I, a god in your eyes, am now bidden to lay down my life, for fate (ÌýË ¼ĎĸÉĚžË) brings immediate refutation of the lying words lately addressed to me. I, who 477

See footnote e by Feldman on AJ XIX 357 of the Loeb edition. Cf. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem, 85. 478 On Herod’s and Agrippa’s coins, see Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins (New York, 2001). As has been shown by the recent excavations at Herodium, some of Herod’s frescoes contained images of animals and humans, see S. Rozenberg, D. Mevorah (eds.), Herod the Great: The King’s Final Journey (Jerusalem, 2013). 479 Cf. Josephus’ harsh criticism of Herod for his institution of gladiatorial games, which are described by him as glaring impiety and imitation of pagan ways, in AJ XV 274–5, as well as for his policy towards Jewish criminals sold into slavery AJ XVI 1–4, discussed above (p. 217). 480 AJ XVIII 195–202 / XIX 346.

242

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

was called immortal by you, am now under the sentence of death. But I must accept my lot as God wills it. In fact I have lived in no ordinary fashion but in the grand style that is hailed as true bliss (ëÈĖÌýËĸÁ¸ÉÀ½Ç̞˸ÄÈÉŦ̾ÌÇË).481

Agrippa’s Jewish subjects, in turn, recognize his piety, and sitting in sackcloth, “in accordance with their ancestral custom (ÌŊ ȸÌÉţĿ ÅŦÄĿ),” implore God to save the king.482 Book XIX ends with the stories about the outrageous behavior of the Caesarean and Sebastenian soldiers, who celebrated the king’s death, and insulted both his memory and his family. As nothing is incidental in the world under the control of Divine providence, Cladius’ failure to remove the Caesarean and Sebastian soldiers from Judea later contributed to the beginning of the Great Revolt.483

3. 30. The Conversion of Adiabene AJ XX, the last book of Josephus’ opus magnum, is dominated by two parallel trends. First, Josephus seems to have intended to crown his work, addressed as it was to the sympathetic Gentiles, with some tangible hints at the impending – even, inevitable – world-wide triumph of Judaism. The story of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene, which occupies the first part of the book, is meant to convey precisely that. Second, Josephus was compelled to explain why, in spite of the fact that at this time Judaism reached its heyday, the Jewish commonwealth in Judea ended in such a terrible catastrophe – therefore, he created a picture of “turbulent times,” intensifying the tensions as the narrative proceeded.484 As the conversion of Adiabene is told at such a length by Josephus and plays a crucial part not only in book XX, but, probably, in AJ generally, I will now turn my attention to it. The story has attracted much scholarly attention both because of its inherent interest, and because of rabbinic parallels and archaeological discoveries.485 However, here I will only discuss the meaning and function of this episode in AJ. 481 This, in some respects, could be compared with Josephus’ treatment of king Manasseh’s repentance in AJ X 42–6, discussed above (pp. 184–5). Of course, in contrast to Manasseh, Agrippa was not given an opportunity to implement the lessons learnt from his humiliation. 482 AJ XIX 349. 483 AJ XIX 363–6. 484 On the second tendency, see McLaren, Turbulent Times. 485 AJ XX 17–96. For the comparison of the story in AJ with rabbinic sources, see, L. Schiffman, “The Conversion of the Royal House of Abiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources,” in Feldman and Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, 293–312. For the identification of the tomb of Queen Helena in Jerusalem, see Schürer, History. Vol. 3, 164 (esp. n. 66). Her palace might have been recently discovered in the area of the Givati

3.30. The Conversion of Adiabene

243

Divine providence is at work right from the beginning of the story: when Helena, queen of Adiabene, was pregnant with the second hero of the story, the future king Izates, her husband and brother Monobazus heard a (presumably heavenly) voice, telling him that the baby in the womb “which by the providence of God (¿¼ÇıÈÉÇÅÇţß) had a happy start… would also attend a fortunate end.”486 Monobazus took these things to heart, favored Izates, and took care to protect him from the envy of his other sons, first by sending him to Charax Spasini, and later presenting him with a district called Charon. When, after Monobazus’ death, at Helena’s suggestion, the high nobles and satraps of the kingdom agreed to accept Izates’ rule as king over them, they suggested to her to eliminate all of Izates’ brothers and kinsmen. In response, she only agreed to confine them and let Izates himself decide concerning their fate; when Izates arrived, not only did he not put them to death, but “was distressed at what had been done,” and sent them as hostages to Claudius Caesar and Artabanus the Parthian king.487 However, two very important things happened during the time of Izates’ sojourn in Charax Spasini: apparently independently of each other, both he and his mother Helena became sympathetic to the Jewish religion. Josephus says that Izates was impressed – and consequently instructed in Jewish customs – by a certain merchant Ananias, who previously taught the king’s wives “to worship God after the manner of the Jewish tradition (ë»ţ»¸ÊÁ¼Å¸ĤÌÛËÌġÅ¿¼ġÅÊš¹¼ÀÅբĸË`ÇÍ»¸ţÇÀËÈŠÌÉÀÇÅöÅ).”488 When Izates returned to Adiabene, Ananias came along. At the same time, Helena “had likewise been instructed by another Jew and had been brought over to their laws (¼ĊËÌÇİËëÁ¼ţÅÑÅļ̸Á¼ÁÇÄţÊ¿¸ÀÅŦÄÇÍË).”489 Having discovered this, Izates decided to convert to Judaism, and told his mother and Ananias that he wanted to be circumcised. Both of them dissuaded Izates from this step, which was dangerous in their eyes, and Ananias explained to him that “[t]he king could… worship God even without being circumcised if indeed he had fully decided to be a devout adherent of Judaism, for it was this that counted more than circumcision.”490 For the time being, Izates agreed, but parking lot just to the west of the City of David; see D. Ben-Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, “The Lower City of Jerusalem on the Eve of Its Destruction, 70 C.E.: A View From Hanyon Givati,” BASOR 64 (2011), 61–85. 486 AJ XX 18–9. 487 AJ XX 27–37. 488 AJ XX 34. 489 AJ XX 35. 490 AJ XX 38–41. »ÍŊļÅÇÅ»Џ¸ĤÌġÅìξÁ¸ĖÏÑÉĖËÌýËȼÉÀÌÇÄýËÌġ¿¼ėÇÅÊš¹¼ÀÅբ¼ċº¼ ÈŠÅÌÑËÁšÁÉÀÁ¼½¾ÂÇıÅÌÛÈŠÌÉÀ¸ÌľÅ`ÇÍ»¸ţÑÅդÌÇıÌЏ¼čŸÀÁÍÉÀŪ̼ÉÇÅÌÇıȼÉÀÌšÄżʿ¸Àե On this passage, see D. R. Schwartz, “God, Gentiles, and Jewish Law: on Acts 15 and Josephus’ Adiabene Narrative,” in P. Schäfer (Hrsg.), Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion.

244

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

some time later he met a Galilean Jew, Eleazar, who was stricter than Ananias, and accused the king of merely reading the Law of Moses, but not doing what it prescribed; Izates immediately got himself circumcised. When Helena and Ananias learnt of the deed, they were terrified and warned the king that his subjects would not tolerate a Jew on the Adiabenian throne. Josephus rounds up the episode by saying what the main moral of the story is: XX 48 It was God who was to prevent their fears from being realized. For although Izates himself and his children were often threatened with destruction, God preserved them, opening a path to safety from desperate straits. God thus demonstrated that those who fix their eyes on Him and trust in him alone do not lose the reward of their piety (ĝ Á¸ÉÈġËÇĤÁÒÈŦÂÂÍ̸ÀĝÌý˼Ĥʼ¹¼ţ¸Ë).

The rest of the story is a wonderful tale intended to illustrate Josephus’ thesis. Izates was admired by his subjects and by foreigners, and his kingdom was at peace because of God’s providence (»ÀÛ ÌüÅ ëÁ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸Å).491 With his financial and moral support Helena made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where she provided the famished population with a generous supply of grain and dried figs. Izates also sent large sums of money to Jerusalem.492 When the Parthian king Artabanus was forced to flee from his kingdom, Izates afforded him a hearty welcome, and later orchestrated his return to the throne. For this, Artrabanus generously rewarded him with the highest Parthian honors, and granted him a large and fruitful territory, which previously belonged to the Armenian king.493 After Artabanus’ death, when his son Vardanes contemplated an anti-Roman war, Izates declined to supply an auxiliary force, and prudently advised him to desist from this futile enterprise, vividly portraying to the Parthian the might of the Roman army. When, in response, Vardanes decided to make war on Izates, “God cut short all his expectations” – the king was murdered, and his brother Vologeses succeeded him on the throne.494 Next Josephus relates how Izates’ brother Monobazus and his relatives, having witnessed “that the king because of his pious worship of God (»ÀÛ ÌüÅÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤÊš¹¼À¸Å) had won the admiration of all men,” converted to Judaism, too.495 When the Adiabenian nobles were angry because of this and invited an Arab king to fight with Izates, the latter defeated him with God’s help. The nobles then approached Vologeses and asked him to exeFestschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Bd. I: Judentum (Tübingen, 1996), 263–82. 491 AJ XX 49. 492 AJ XX 49–53. 493 AJ XX 54–68. 494 AJ XX 69–74, the quotation is from AJ XX 72. 495 AJ XX 75.

3.30. The Conversion of Adiabene

245

cute Izates and appoint another king for them, who would be faithful to their ancestral traditions and practices. After Vologeses demanded from Izates to return the awards of honor which had been bestowed upon him by Artabanus, the king decided “to commit himself to God the protector… [r]eflecting that he had in God the greatest of allies (ÄšºÀÊÌÇÅ զ ÊŧÄĸÏÇÅ).”496 Vologeses arrived with a mighty force, and threatened Izates that even his God would not be able to rescue him; Izates responded by saying that “God is mightier than all humankind” and turned to Him in prayer. 497 God, of course, did not let him down – the Parthian, having learnt of troubles at home, turned back. On this Josephus comments: “Thus by the providence of God (Á¸ÌÛ ¿¼Çı ÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸Å) Izates escaped the threats of the Parthians.”498 Soon the “very religious (¼Ĥʼ¹¼ÊÌŠÌÇÍ)” Izates passed away, and his brother Monobazus succeeded him on the throne.499 To summarize the Adiabenian story, in addition to what has been said above, it should be noticed that in the context of Josephus’ narrative in AJ it seems to act as a kind of counterbalance to the story of Asinaeus and Anilaeus, who were also active in the region of Babylonia. As has been related earlier, these Jewish brothers reached the heights of prosperity and power, but eventually came to a wretched end and made a whole Jewish community suffer because of their ȸɸÅÇÄţ¸ե In a sharp contrast to this, the initially pagan Izates, Helena, and Monobazus, who did not fear the consequences of their conversion to the Jewish religion, against all odds were rescued from frightening circumstances by divine providence.500 Instead of being a source of trouble to other Jews, they actually contributed to their welfare and prosperity by relieving the consequences of famine, and sending money to Jerusalem. Moreover, Izates took care to give his children solid Jewish education and sent five of his sons to Jerusalem “to get a thorough knowledge of our native language and culture.”501 There hardly could be a better demonstration of Josephus’ main idea in AJ, as declared in the introduction to his composition. However this seems to be only one part of Josephus’ plot. It should be remembered that AJ is a work dedicated and addressed to pagans sympathetic to Judaism. As will be remembered, Mason suggested that AJ XVIII–XX was intended by Josephus to demonstrate the “world-wide ef-

496

AJ XX 84–5. AJ XX 89. 498 AJ XX 86–91. 499 AJ XX 92–4. 500 It should also be remembered that both Izates and his brother Monobazus were born of incest. 501 AJ XX 71. 497

246

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

fectiveness of the Judean constitution,”502 and if this is indeed so – as I also believe – then the story of the conversion of Adiabenian royal house is the climax of this demonstration. Taking into account Josephus’ understanding of Mosaic Law as a universal system perfect for all humans, and not for the Judeans only, the story serves as a vivid illustration of the author’s premise that “those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness lies before them as a reward from God.”503 And he never qualified this statement by even hinting that it applied only to those who were Jews by birth/Judeans by origin; on the contrary, the story under review is a powerful exemplification of the fact that those who put their trust in God, and choose to obey His law – be they even pagan kings – will be providentially rescued from troubles against all odds, and live a prosperous and blissful life.

3. 31. “Turbulent Times” As has been said above, the second trend that looms large throughout AJ XX is the deterioration of the Jewish-Roman relations in Judea in the last decades before the Revolt. We hear of various impostors and magicians who, enticing the mob by the promises of various signs and wonders, created popular excitement, and forced the Romans to react violently and relentlessly. 504 Several of these stories are told both in BJ and AJ, and, as in some cases discussed earlier, can be easily compared. Such a comparison, with an insightful discussion has already been undertaken by D. R. Schwartz, who isolated several recurring tendencies in Josephus’ rewriting of the episodes which appear both in BJ and AJ. Schwartz noticed that, generally, the stories are neater in BJ: they make more sense, and arouse fewer questions in the earlier version: the Jewish impostors had both religious and political aspirations, and the Romans, who also did not distinguish between religion and politics, reacted accordingly. In AJ, the political aspect is deemphasized, and the reader is forced to ask “why did the Romans react so violently to these obviously deluded but quite harmless 502

Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 100. AJ I 13–4. 504 See P. W. Barnett, “The Jewish Sign Prophets – AD 40–70: Their Intentions and Origin,” NTS 27 (1981), 679–97; R. A. Horsley, and J. S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (San Francisco, 1998); D. R. Schwartz, “Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen, 1992), 29–43; M. Smith, “The Troublemakers,” esp. 514–7. For a criticism of scholarship which accepts the picture created by Josephus, see McLaren, Turbulent Times. 503

3.31. “Turbulent Times”

247

preachers?” The answer given by Schwartz is that the accounts in BJ are probably closer to historical reality, and the Romans attacked those whom they perceived to be religiously motivated revolutionaries. In contrast, by the time Josephus was writing AJ he wanted to present Judaism as a religion without political aspirations, and therefore either presented the Judean troublemakers as religious preachers, or as political activists, but not both at the same time.505 Here is a good example: BJ II 258–65

AJ XX 167–72

258 A different band of worthless [fellows] united with these – purer in hand to be sure, but more impious in their opinions (̸ė˺ÅŪĸÀË»òÒʼ¹šÊ̼ÉÇÅ) –who themselves, no less than the butchers, spoiled the city’s prosperity (ÌüÅ ¼Ĥ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸Å).506 259 For deceitful people and rogues, in a show of divine inspiration busying themselves with revolutionary matters and upheavals, were persuading the mob to be possessed, and leading them out into the desert so that God would there show them signs of freedom.507 260 Felix, since he reckoned this to be a foundation for rebellion, sent cavalry and heavy infantry against them and destroyed a vast mob. 261 Yet it was with a worse blow than this that the Egyptian pseudoprophet damaged the Judeans. This enchanter fellow (ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇ˺Ŧ¾Ë) appeared in the countryside and, having attracted to himself a prophet’s trust, assembled around 30,000 of those who had been tricked: 262 he led them around, out from the desert up to the mountain called “of Olives.” From there he was [in a position] to enter Hierosolyma forcibly and, after overcoming the Roman garrison and the populace, to exercise tyranny, using those who had shared in the assault as his “spear-

167 With such pollutions did the deeds of the brigands infect the city. Moreover, impostors and deceivers (ÇĎ»òºŦ¾Ì¼ËÁ¸Ė Òȸ̼ľÅ¼ËÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇÀ) called upon the mob to follow them into the desert. 168 For they said that they would show them unmistakable marvels and signs that would be wrought in harmony with God’s design (ëŸɺý̚ɸ̸Á¸Ėʾļė¸Á¸ÌÛÌüÅÌÇı ¿¼ÇıÈÉŦÅÇÀ¸ÅºÀÅŦļŸ). Many were, in fact, persuaded and paid the penalty of their folly; for they were brought before Felix and he punished them (ëÁŦ¸ʼÅ). 169 At this time there came to Jerusalem from Egypt a man who declared that he was a prophet and advised the masses of the common people to go out with him to the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which lies opposite the city at a distance of five furlongs. 170 For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusalem’s walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city. 171 When Felix heard of this he ordered his soldiers to take up their arms. Setting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyptian and his followers, slaying four hundred of them and taking

505 Schwartz, Reading the First Century, 156–60; idem, Judeans and Jews. Here we witness a similar tendency as in Josephus’ elimination of the covenant theme from his biblical narrative: Judaism is a religion without political aspirations, that is, it is not concerned with a territorial state. 506 The “butchers” are the Sicarii. 507 ÈŠÅÇÀ ºÛÉ ÓÅ¿ÉÑÈÇÀ Á¸Ė Òȸ̼ľÅ¼Ë ÈÉÇÊÏŢĸÌÀ ¿¼À¸ÊÄÇı żÑ̼ÉÀÊÄÇİË Á¸Ė ļ̸¹ÇÂÛË ÈɸºÄ¸Ì¼ÍŦļÅÇÀ »¸ÀÄÇÅÜÅ Ìġ ÈÂý¿ÇË ìȼÀ¿ÇÅ Á¸Ė ÈÉÇýºÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ëɾÄţ¸Å ĸË ëÁ¼ė ÌÇı ¿¼Çı »¼ţÆÇÅÌÇ˸ĤÌÇėËʾļė¸ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸Ëե

248

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

bearers.”508 263 But Felix anticipated his attack, having gone out to meet him with Roman heavy infantry, and all the populace took part in the defense, so that after the engagement had occurred, whereas the Egyptian fled with a few men, most of those with him being destroyed or taken alive, the rest of the mob escaped notice, each having been scattered to his own place. 264 And even when these [parts] had been put in order, just as in a body that is diseased a different part again was becoming inflamed. For the enchanters and bandit-types got together and were inciting many to rebellion and cajoling them toward “freedom,”509 threatening death to those who submitted to the Roman imperium and saying that they would remove by force those “who willingly chose slavery.” 265 Dividing themselves by companies into the countryside, they both plundered the homes of the powerful – and did away with them – and set the villages ablaze, so that all Judea was being filled up with their madness. And this war was being fanned every day.

two hundred prisoners. 172 The Egyptian himself escaped from the battle and disappeared. And now the brigands (ÇĎÂþÊ̸ţ) once more incited the populace to war with Rome, telling them not to obey them. They also fired and pillaged the villages of those who refused to comply.

Several things become evident on the comparison of the passages. As can easily be seen, although the events and persons described in two accounts are the same, the presentation is strikingly different. First, in BJ Josephus says that the magicians and the bandits worked in tandem against the Roman imperium: both had shared political aspirations, and both employed violence to reach their common goals. In AJ the magicians and the brigands do not work together, no political aspirations are ascribed to the first, and only the second are described as violent. Second, in BJ Josephus makes clear that the signs and wonders which the magicians promised to Notice the characterization of the Egyptian in Acts 21:38: ĝĊºŧÈÌÀÇËĝÈÉġÌÇŧÌÑÅ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ ÒŸÊ̸ÌŪʸË Á¸Ė ëƸº¸ºĽÅ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ìɾÄÇÅ ÌÇİË ̼ÌɸÁÀÊÏÀÂţÇÍË ÓŻɸË ÌľÅ ÊÀÁ¸ÉţÑÅե Josephus claimed that the Sicarii and the magicians were two distinct groups, although, each in its particular way contributed to the deterioration of the socio-political situation. According to the statement in Acts, however, there might have been some overlapping between the two. Since the earlier Josephan accounts in BJ also corroborate this picture, it seems to be closer to the historical truth than the clear-cut distinction between them in AJ. Notice also the proximity of the description of the Sicarii and a magician, who promised “salvation” to his followers in the desert, in AJ XX 185–8. 509 ÇĎ ºÛÉ ºŦ¾Ì¼Ë Á¸Ė ÂþÊÌÉÀÁÇĖ ÊÍŸϿšÅ̼Ë ÈÇÂÂÇİË ¼ĊË ÒÈŦÊ̸ÊÀÅ ëÅýºÇÅ Á¸Ė ÈÉġË ë¼Ϳ¼Éţ¸ÅȸɼÁÉŦÌÇÍÅե 508

3.31. “Turbulent Times”

249

show to the populace, were signs of “freedom” – clearly, freedom from the Roman rule. However, in AJ, the “marvels and signs” they promise to show have nothing to do with politics – they are divine miracles for miracles’ sake without any rebellious or violent overtones. Correspondingly, in BJ, Felix recognized the magicians’ program for what it was – beginning of a rebellion – and sent armed forces against them and their followers, killing a “vast mob” (ÈÇÂİÈÂý¿ÇË). According to AJ, those who were persuaded by the charlatans, payed for their folly – “many” (ÈÇÂÂÇţ) were brought before the procurator, and he “chastised” or “punished” (!) them. The stories about the Egyptian follow the same pattern: first, in BJ he has a political-military program, and nothing is said about miracles. He is followed by thirty thousand (!) men, plans to enter Jerusalem by force, overpower the Roman garrison, and establish himself as a tyrant, employing his followers as armed bodyguards. In AJ, he is said to have addressed masses of common people (Josephus does not even say how many were persuaded) to follow him, since at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down, so that they could enter the city. Nothing is said either about the aim and purpose of this entry, or of his intention to overpower the Roman garrison. According to BJ, Felix, whose forces were joined by all the (Jewish) people, killed or imprisoned most of the Egyptian’s (thirty thousand) followers. In AJ nothing is said about the Jewish support of Felix’s action, and he is said to have killed two hundred and taken two hundred more as prisoners. That is, the proportions of the events, as well as the roles which the various segments of Judean population play in the events, are differently presented. Generally speaking, the Jews look better in the account in AJ – first, not so many are duped and subsequently killed, and second, no split in the Jewish population is acknowledged.510 Also of much interest is Josephus’ theologizing at the end of the passage describing the appearance and the deeds of the Sicarii, which precedes the section just quoted: XX 166 This is the reason why, in my opinion, even God Himself, for loathing of their impiety, turned away from our city and, because He deemed the temple to be no longer a clean dwelling place for Him, brought the Romans upon us and purification by fire upon the city, while He inflicted slavery upon us together with our wives and children; for He wished to chasten us by these calamities.511

Notice that in distinction from BJ, where the catastrophic results of the 510 Notice also the contrast between ÈÜË ĝ »ýÄÇË and ÈÂý¿ÇË in the earlier version in BJ II 263. 511 »ÀÛÌÇıÌЏÇčĸÀÁ¸ĖÌġÅ¿¼ġÅÄÀÊŢʸÅ̸ÌüÅÒÊš¹¼À¸Å¸ĤÌľÅÒÈÇÊÌɸÎýŸÀÄòÅ÷ÄľÅ ÌüÅÈŦÂÀÅբÌġ»òĎ¼ÉġÅÇĤÁšÌÀÁ¸¿¸ÉġÅÇĊÁ¾ÌŢÉÀÇŸĤÌŊÁÉţŸÅ̸tÑĸţÇÍËëȸº¸º¼ėÅ÷ÄėÅ Á¸Ė Ìĉ ÈŦ¼À Á¸¿ŠÉÊÀÇÅ ÈıÉ Á¸Ė »Çͼţ¸Å ëÈÀ¹¸Â¼ėÅ ÊİÅ ºÍŸÀÆĖÅ Á¸Ė ÌšÁÅÇÀË ÊÑÎÉÇÅţʸÀ ̸ėËÊÍÄÎÇɸė˹ÇÍÂŦļÅÇÅ÷ÄÜËե

250

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

Revolt as well as God’s turning away from the Jews are presented as final, here God’s actions are presented as “purification” (even if by fire) and “chastisement” or “recalling them to their senses.” That is, there is no sign that God has forsaken His people; He is just in His regular business of disciplining them for their own good.512 If we continue to compare the continuation of the narratives in BJ and AJ, we discover additional emphases and changes of presentation. When Josephus described the term of procuratorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander in BJ, he only summarized it by stating that he “preserved the nation in peace by disturbing nothing of the local customs.”513 In AJ, Josephus commented on the Jewish origin of Tiberius Alexander, and remarked that his father “was also superior to his son Alexander in his religious devotion, for the latter did not remain in the practices of his people.”514 Since Tiberius Alexander was Titus’ chief-of-stuff in the course of the siege of Jerusalem, where Josephus was also prominently present, it is virtually impossible to suppose that at the time of composing BJ, he was unaware both of Tiberius’ Jewish lineage and of his “advanced acculturation,” so to speak. Of course, since Tiberius Alexander continued to serve the Flavians, and even moved to Rome, Josephus could have chosen to be less outspoken on the subject while the man was still around. However he might have had other reasons and the fact that he characterized Tiberius Alexander in AJ the way he did is, in any case, an additional witness to Josephus’ emphasis on the importance of the observance of the Law in his later years.515 The comparison of the description of incidents which occurred in the procuratorship of Cumanus also reveals some interesting shifts in presentation, terminology, and emphasis. The first story describes the disturbances which resulted from an indecent act, which a Roman soldier committed around the Temple during the Passover festival:

512 See D. R. Schwartz, “From Punishment to Program, from Program to Punishment: Josephus and the Rabbis on Exile,” in M. Mor et al. (eds.), For Uriel: Studies in the History of Israel in Antiquity, Presented to Professor Uriel Rappaport (Jerusalem, 2005), 205–26. 513 BJ II 220: ÇĐ ľ»òÅ ȸɸÁÀÅÇıÅ̼Ë ÌľÅ ëÈÀÏÑÉţÑÅ ë¿ľÅ ëÅ ¼ĊÉŢÅþ Ìġ ì¿ÅÇË »À¼Îŧ¸ƸÅե 514 AJ XX 100: »ÀŢżºÁ¼Á¸ĖÌĉÈÉġËÌġÅ¿¼ġżĤʼ¹¼ţßÌÇıȸÀ»ġ˼ƊŻÉÇÍդÌÇė˺ÛÉ ȸÌÉţÇÀËÇĤÁëŚļÀżÅÇīÌÇË쿼ÊÀÅե I emended “stand” to “remain.” 515 On the question of Tiberius Alexander’s relationship to Judaism, see G. Schimanowski, “Die jüdische Integration in die Oberschicht Alexandriens und die angebliche Apostasie des Tiberius Julius Alexander,” in J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog (eds.), Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World / Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt (Leiden, 2007), 112–35.

3.31. “Turbulent Times”

251

BJ II 223b–7

AJ XX 105–12

223b Under him [Cumanus] disorders began, and again there was a [great] loss of Judeans. 224 When a mob had come together into Hierosolyma for the Festival of the Unleavened and the Roman cohort had positioned itself above the colonnade of the temple (armed men always guard the festivals closely, so that the mob that has assembled will not attempt anything subversive), one of the soldiers pulled up his clothing, stooped over disgracefully, turned his rear end away towards the Judeans, and emitted a sound in keeping with his posture. 225 At this the whole mob became indignant and kept yelling at Cumanus to punish the soldier; but those who were less sober among the youths and those of the nation who were factious by nature were advancing into a fight: they grabbed rocks and kept throwing them at the soldiers. 226 Cumanus, becoming alarmed that there might be a rush against himself by the entire citizenry, summoned more armed troops. While they were pouring onto the colonnades, an uncontrollable fear attacked the Judeans; they turned away from the temple and kept trying to escape into the city. 227 But such was the violence that occurred as they were being pressed together around the exits that, having been trampled and battered by one another, upwards of 30,000 died: the festival turned into mourning for the nation as a whole, lamentation in each household.

105 While Cumanus was administering affairs in Judaea, an uprising occurred in the city of Jerusalem, as a result of which many of the Jews lost their lives. I shall first narrate the cause that brought about this uprising. 106 When the festival called Passover was at hand, at which it is our custom to serve unleavened bread, a large multitude from all quarters assembled for it. Cumanus, fearing that their presence might afford an occasion for an uprising, ordered one company of soldiers to take up arms and stand guard on the porticoes of the temple so as to quell any uprising that might occur. 107 This had been in fact the usual practice of previous procurators of Judaea at the festivals. 108 On the fourth day of the festival, one of the soldiers uncovered his genitals and exhibited them to the multitude – an action which created anger and rage in the onlookers, who said it was not they who had been insulted, but that it was a blasphemy against God (ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅóʼ¹ýÊ¿¸À). Some of the bolder ones also reviled Cumanus, asserting that the soldier had been prompted by him. 109 Cumanus, when informed, was himself not a little provoked at the insulting remarks, but still merely admonished them to put an end to this lust for revolution and not to set disorders ablaze during the festival. 110 Failing, however, to persuade them, for they only attacked him with more scurrilities, he ordered the whole army to take full armour and come to Antonia; this was, as I have said before, a fortress, overlooking the temple. 111 The crowd, seeing the arrival of the soldiers, was frightened and started to flee. But since the exits were narrow, they, supposing that they were being pursued by the enemy, pushed together in their flight and crushed to death many of their number who were caught in the narrow passages. 112 Indeed, the number of those who perished in that disturbance was computed at twenty thousand. So there was mourning henceforth instead of feasting; and all, utterly oblivious of prayers and sacrifices,

252

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities turned to lamentation and weeping. Such were the calamities produced by the indecent behavior of a single soldier.

There are several disparities between these two accounts of what evidently was the same incident. Firstly, the Jews in BJ seem to have taken the soldier’s act as a personal insult, and they are presented as much more belligerent than in AJ: they yell at Cumanus, and some of them even throw rocks at the soldiers. In AJ the bolder ones only dare to revile the procurator and attack him verbally. In BJ they are consequently overcome with uncontrollable fear, and trample each other to death, not a very heroic sight. The number of casualties given is thirty thousand. In AJ, Josephus cares to emphasize that this happened because the Jews who fled from the soldiers were caught in the narrow passages. The number of those who died is reduced to twenty thousand. On the whole, one could say, the Jews look better in the later version. And, while no summary is given in BJ, in AJ all this terrible event is laid to the account of the soldier, who committed the indecent act.516 Secondly, and more importantly, in AJ Josephus adds that the Jews defended God’s honor, not theirs: “[they] said it was not they who had been insulted, but that it was a blasphemy against God.” The comparison of the next story, which immediately follows the previous both in BJ and in AJ, yields even more interesting results: BJ II 228–31

AJ XX 113–7

228 Another disorder, of the bandit type, compounded this calamity. For on the public highway near Bethoro bandits struck at Stephan, a certain Greek slave of Caesar, and plundered the baggage in his care. 229 Cumanus sent around [soldiers?] and directed that the detainees from the nearby villages be brought back to him; [he was] complaining that they had not pursued the bandits and arrested them. Then one of the soldiers, having found the sacred law (ÌġÅĎ¼ÉġÅ

113 Their first mourning had not yet ceased when another calamity befell them. For some of the seditious revolutionaries robbed Stephen, a slave of Caesar, as he was travelling on the public highway at a distance of about one hundred furlongs from the city, and despoiled him of all his belongings. 114 When Cumanus heard of this, he at once dispatched soldiers with orders to plunder the neighbouring villages and to bring before him their most eminent men in chains so that he might exact vengeance

516 This is in some respects similar to AJ XVIII 81–4, which was discussed above (p. 231). In this earlier passage, four Jewish villains are blamed for the banishment of all the Jews from Rome. Here, a single Roman soldier is responsible for a clash between Jews and Romans, as the result of which many Jews are killed. The Jewish scoundrels in the first episode do not represent the Jewish people in any way, they are actually outlaws. And the Roman soldier in the second account, of course, does not represent the official Roman attitude to Jews and Judaism – notice Josephus’ remark in AJ that as far as the official Roman governor Cumanus is concerned, he did not introduce any novelties, and did not proceed to harsh measures right away.

3.31. “Turbulent Times” ÅŦÄÇÅ) in a certain village, ripped up the volume and tossed it into a fire. 230 And the Judeans, as if their entire countryside had been incinerated, were devastated: as if being drawn together by some instrument (their reverence for the divine), by one proclamation, they all ran together to Cumanus in Caesarea, begging that he not leave unpunished the one who had thus committed outrage against God and their law.517 231 He [Cumanus] deemed it best, since the mob was not resting unless it found satisfaction, to bring forward the soldier. He directed that he be led off to his death through the middle of those who were laying the charges. And the Judeans withdrew.

253

for their effrontery. 115 After the sacking of the villages, one of the soldiers, who had found a copy of the laws of Moses (ÌÇİËÑÍÊšÑËÅŦÄÇÍË) that was kept in one of the villages, fetched it out where all could see and tore it in two while he uttered blasphemies and railed violently (ëÈÀ¹Â¸ÊÎ¾ÄľÅÁ¸ĖÈÇÂÂÛÁ¸Ì¸Á¼ÉÌÇÄľÅ). 116 The Jews, on learning of this, collected in large numbers, went down to Caesarea, where Cumanus happened to be, and besought him to avenge not them but God, whose laws had been subjected to outrage. For, they said, they could not endure to live, since their ancestral code was thus wantonly insulted.518 117 Cumanus, alarmed at the thought of a fresh revolution of the masses, after taking counsel with his friends, beheaded the soldier who had outraged the laws (ÌġÅ ëÅ͹ÉţʸÅ̸ÌÇėËÅŦÄÇÀË) and thus prevented the uprising when it was on the verge of breaking out a second time.

What exactly the soldier did is differently described in two versions: in BJ he tears the copy of the Law and tosses it into the fire (apparently, indiscriminately – just like any other item belonging to the enemy). In AJ he tears it, at the same time blaspheming and raging violently: that is, he knows exactly what he is doing. In BJ the laws are described as “holy” and “theirs” (i.e., of the Judeans); in AJ – as the laws of Moses and of God. Moreover, in AJ the Jews say they could not live since their ancestral (law) was insulted in such a way, unless the soldier is punished. When Cumanus decides to execute the soldier according to AJ, it is again repeated that he had “outraged the laws.” The different presentation of the pagan Caesareans’ arguments as to why their city was not Jewish according to BJ and AJ might also be significant. According to AJ XX 173, the Caesarean Jews claimed that they had the precedence in the city, since it was built by their king, Herod, who was of Jewish descent (º¼ºÇŚŸÀ Ìġ ºšÅÇË `ÇÍ»¸ėÇÅ), while the pagan Caesareans Á¸Ė Á¸¿ŠÈ¼É ĚɺŠÅĿ ÌÀÅĖ Ìĉ »¼ÀÊÀ»¸ÀÄÇÅţß ÊÍżÂÁŦļÅÇÀ ÈÉġË ðÅ ÁŢÉͺĸ ÈŠÅ̼Ë ¼ĊË

¸ÀʊɼÀ¸ÅëÈĖ ÇÍĸÅġÅ ÊÍÅš»É¸ÄÇÅ ĎÁ¼Ì¼ŧÇÅ̼ËÌġÅÇĩÌÑË ¼ĊËÌġÅ¿¼ġÅ Á¸ĖÌġÅÅŦÄÇŸĤÌľÅ ëÆ͹ÉţʸÅ̸ÄüȼÉÀÀ»¼ėÅÒÌÀÄŪɾÌÇÅե On »¼ÀÊÀ»¸ÀÄÇÅţ¸ see the discussion of BJ II 174 on p. 227 above. 518 `ÇÍ»¸ėÇÀ »ò ̸ı̸ ÒÁÇŧʸÅ̼Ë Á¸Ė ÈÇÂÂÇĖ ÊÍŻɸÄŦÅ̼Ë Á¸Ì¸¹¸ţÅÇÍÊÀÅ ¼ĊË ¸ÀʊɼÀ¸Åբ ëÁ¼ė ºÛÉ ëÌŧºÏ¸Å¼Å ĝ ÇÍĸÅġË ĵÅբ ĎÁ¼Ì¼ŧÇÅ̼Ë Äü ¸ĤÌÇİË ÒÂÂÛ ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÇīȼÉ ÇĎ ÅŦÄÇÀ Á¸¿Í¹ÉţÊ¿¾Ê¸ÅëÁ»ÀÁýʸÀդ½ýźÛÉÇĤÏĨÈÇĚżÀÅÌľÅȸÌÉţÑŸĤÌÇėËÇĩÌÑËȼÉÀ͹ÉÀÊÄšÅÑÅե 517

254

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

agreed both that Herod was Jewish and that he built Caesarea, but also asserted that there had been a previous city in this location, and at that time there were no Jews there. In BJ II 266, Josephus earlier wrote that the Jews claimed that the city was theirs because its founder, Herod, was a Jew. The Caesareans agreed concerning Herod, but argued that he intended it for the Greeks, since “he would never had erected the statues and temples which he placed there had he destined it for Jews.” There is nothing intrinsically illogical in the alternative pagan arguments as to why Caesarea was not a Jewish city, but the explanation in AJ seems to be more logical, and potentially less explosive in the eyes of a Diaspora Jew, especially in the light of the fact that in his latter works Josephus frequently stressed both the antiquity of the Jews, and their early residence in various (non-Jewish) locations, e.g., Alexandria, Antioch, or Ephesus.519 On the other hand, the fact that some gentiles could claim that the Jews were a second-class group in a certain city only because there were pagan temples and statues in it, would have been embarrassing to Diaspora Jews, as Josephus should have realized by the time of writing AJ. There are also more conspicuous alterations between the account dealing with the last decades before the Revolt in BJ and AJ. First, Josephus is much more critical of the family of Agrippa II. The story of the women in this family in AJ XX 139–47 is rather difficult to read since it is easy to get lost in the list of the names, numbers, origins, and family status of the men they married, divorced, remarried and simply cohabited with. The women of the Herodian family are characterized as “transgressors of the ancestral laws,”520 “malicious and abusive,”521 “having been reported to live in a liaison with her brother,”522 and “licentious.”523 This criticism, which is absent from BJ might also have something to do with the fact that Josephus wanted to explain the deterioration of the Judean ÈÇÂÀ̼ĕ¸ as the result of transgressions – especially when these transgressions were perpetrated by Judeans in the position of power – even more so if they happened to be female. As far as the main person in the family – Agrippa II – is concerned, Josephus presented him as responsible for at least three breeches of the tradition: first, Agrippa built a lofty chamber in his palace, from which he “used to gaze, as he reclined at meals there on everything that went on in the Temple.” He continued by saying that the eminent Jerusalemites were indignant at this since “it was contrary to tradition (ÇĤ ºÛÉ öÅ ÈŠÌÉÀÇÅ) for 519

E.g., CA II 38–9. AJ XX 143 (Drusilla). 521 AJ XX 143 (Berenice). 522 AJ XX 145 (Berenice). 523 AJ XX 146 (Berenice). 520

3.31. “Turbulent Times”

255

proceedings in the Temple – and in particular the sacrifices – to be spied on.”524 They erected a high wall in the Temple to block the king’s view; when they were commanded to pull it down, they sent an embassy to Nero, who condoned the action and decided to leave the wall in place. This, says Josephus, Nero did in order to show favor to his mistress Poppaea, “who was the worshipper of God (¿¼Çʼ¹ü˺ÛÉöÅ), and pleaded on behalf of the Jews” – that is, on behalf of the “good” Jews.525 Moreover, Josephus says that Agrippa heavily invested in the city of Berytus, adorning it with statues and replicas of ancient sculptures. In a passage strongly reminiscent of Josephus’ earlier criticism of Herod for similar deeds – but not Agrippa I – he says that the king “transferred to that place well-nigh all the ornaments of his kingdom. The hatred of his subjects for him consequently increased because he stripped them of their possessions to adorn a foreign city.”526 Agrippa was also guilty of another terrible transgression: when the Levites “urged the king to convene the Sanhedrin and get them a permission to wear linen robes on equal terms with the priests, maintaining that it was fitting that he should introduce, to mark his reign, some innovation (Á¸ÀÅÇÈÇÀ¼ėÅ) by which he would be remembered,”527 he procured for them both this prerogative, and the right to learn the hymns by heart, which was another innovation.528 Josephus summarizes: “All this was contrary to the ancestral laws, and such transgression was bound to make us liable to punishment,”529 – in other words, the calamities of the Great Revolt were the direct consequence of interference with ancestral traditions and of breaking the ancestral (priestly) Law. The alteration of priestly traditions is not a trivial matter in Josephus’ eyes; rather, as he makes clear, it is a matter of life and death. Here again we witness Josephus the proud priest – even having spent more than two decades in the Diaspora, he considered the status and prerogatives of Jewish priests as sacred and inviolable.530 In addition to the Judean royalty, the high-priestly establishment which 524

AJ XX 189–96. AJ XX 195. See M. H. Williams, “‘¼Çʼ¹ü˺ÛÉöÅ’ – The Jewish Tendencies of Poppaea Sabina,” JTS 39 (1988), 97–111; T. Grüll, L. Benke, “A Hebrew/Aramaic Graffito and Poppaea’s Alleged Jewish Sympathy,” JJS 62 (2011), 37–55. 526 AJ XX 212. 527 AJ XX 216. 528 Cf. this passage with Josephus’ description of king Joram in AJ IX 95–6, quoted above (p. 182). 529 AJ XX 217–8: ÈŠÅ̸»ЏöÅëŸÅÌţ¸̸ı̸ÌÇėËȸÌÉţÇÀËÅŦÄÇÀËբĻÅȸɸ¹¸¿šÅÌÑÅÇĤÁ ëÅýÅÄüÇĤÏĖ»ţÁ¸ËĨÈÇÊϼėÅե 530 And this is the main diference between his view of Judaism and that of contemporary and slightly later leaders of the Palestinian rabbinic movement, such as R. Yohannan b. Zakkai and R. Aqiba, for example. On Josephus’ priestly worldview, see Chapter 4. 525

256

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

was mostly presented as peaceful and constructive in BJ is repeatedly described as arrogant, unjust, violent, and rapacious in AJ XX 180–1; 199– 207, and 213–4. Notice especially Josephus’ summaries and comments in each of the three episodes: “Thus did violence of the contending factions suppress all justice;”531 “Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this;”532 “From that moment particularly, sickness fell upon our city, and everything went steadily from bad to worse.”533 As previous scholars have suggested, Josephus is likely to have suppressed the compromising material concerning the chief priests in BJ since he was close to the group, and might have expected them to come back as an important force in Jewish society when things get quiet after the end of the Revolt.534 Two decades later, when it was clear that this had not happened and was not likely to happen in the future – at least not with the same representatives of the Jewish priesthood – he did not feel compelled to suppress his feelings any longer. Apart from these considerations, and probably in tandem with them, it seems that by the time of writing AJ Josephus either came to the conclusion that the leaders of the Jews contributed their fair share of transgressions, which resulted in the subsequent catastrophe of the Revolt, or at least decided to create a more balanced picture by claiming that they, together with the revolutionaries and bandits, were also guilty – primarily because of their disregard for and outright transgression of the Jewish Law.535

3. 32. The High-Priestly Succession Josephus concludes his magnum opus with a succinct account of the highpriestly succession from Moses to the period of the Great Revolt, and with 531

AJ XX 181. AJ XX 201. Josephus’ treatment of Ananus in AJ as compared to his earlier treatment of him in BJ is a fascinating, but, seemingly, still an unresolved enigma. For an attempt to explain the shift, see C. Thoma, “The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus,” in Feldman and Hata, Josephus, the Bible, and History, 196–215. 533 AJ XX 214. 534 I suppose that the AJ description of the chief priests and their servants is somewhat closer to the historical truth, since some very similar parallels are offered by the rabbinic literature, independently of Josephus (t. Menahot 13:21; b. Pesahim 57a). See M. Stern, “Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 2 (CRINT I/2; Assen/Philadelphia, 1976), 600–12. On the persons involved, see J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis/Assen, 2004). 535 See Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 58–109. 532

3.33. Summary and Conclusions

257

some comments on his own self-perception and achievement. In my view, these two things are connected. Since I deal with Josephus’ priestly identity in the next chapter, I will not discuss the importance of priestly matters for him here in any detail. However, several things should be said. First, it seems manifest from all of Josephus’ works that he saw the priests as the natural leaders of the Jewish people; in his later works he also presented them as the appointed guardians, interpreters, and enforcers of its ancestral Law. The high priests, of course, were for him at the top of the priestly pyramid.536 In the account under review, a disproportionate place is given to the Hasmonean high priests, on the one hand, and very little is said about the high priests of the Herodian and post-Herodian age.537 The latter are introduced by the statement that Herod took the high-priesthood from the legitimate Hasmoneans and conferred it on some ignoble priests lacking high-priestly lineage. In other words, these Herodian appointees (whose descendants, as will be remembered, slightly above were described as selfish, violent, and lawless) were not the true and proper representatives of the Judean high-priesthood. This does not seem to be a mere coincidence. As Josephus goes on to present himself as one of the two or three Jews in history who excelled in the study of the Law, and begins Vita, the appendix to AJ, with the account of his Hasmonean high-priestly lineage, it is highly likely that he indeed strove to present his own person as the most suitable candidate to the position of the [high-]priestly leader of the Jewish people.538

3. 33. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter I followed Josephus’ historical narrative in AJ, concentrating my attention on three main questions: the centrality of Jewish law in Josephus’ interpretation of historical events and human destiny; his treatment of sources and his rewriting of his own earlier versions of events which witness to the major shift from being Temple-oriented to being Torah-oriented; and, finally, the presence in AJ of other Judaic paradigms characteristic of Diaspora Jewish literature. In this summary I will briefly 536

CA II 184–9. The whole passage consists of 28 paragraphs (AJ XX 224–51), 11 of which deal with the Hasmonean high priests (XX 238–48), and only 3 with high priests between Herod and the end of the Great Revolt (XX 249–51). 538 Cf. the description of the Herodian high priests in AJ XX 247: ÌÀÊÀÅ ÒÊŢÄÇÀË Á¸Ė ÄŦÅÇÅ ëÆ Ď¼ÉšÑÅ ÇħÊÀÅ with Josephus introduction of himself in the opening sentence of Vita ëÄÇĖ»òºšÅÇËëÊÌĖÅÇĤÁÓʾÄÇÅ(Vita 1), which is immediately explained as referring to his high-priestly and royal Hasmonean lineage. 537

258

Chapter 3. The Law Triumphant: Judaism in the Antiquities

review our findings, and express some thoughts on a few other changes in Josephus’ religious outlooks which occurred between the time of writing of BJ and AJ. In the course of my discussion of AJ, I tried to demonstrate that Josephus remained remarkably true to his thesis, stated at the beginning of AJ (and repeated in several other places in this work) that those who obey the Law prosper, but whoever disobeys it, is destined for terrible misfortunes. I hope to have shown that Josephus subjugated his historical narrative to this proposition both in his rewriting of the Bible – indeed, emphasizing this principle more than the biblical authors did – and, to no lesser degree, in the post-biblical portions of AJ. The necessity of living by the Mosaic Law is probably the single main idea of AJ, as, I hope, has been amply demonstrated in the course of the above treatment. The Law is also the source of Gentile admiration, as is the Jewish Lawgiver Moses. The Law is presented as universal and not particular, it is the best system for all humans, and Josephus hints that its spread throughout the Gentile world is inevitable. Second, as far as Josephus’ sources are concerned, I tried systematically to compare what he chose to change, add, or replace. This concerned both his biblical and post-biblical sources, as well as his own earlier version of events treated in BJ. The main change again concerns the heightened prominence of the Law in AJ as compared with Josephus’ sources and his earlier work. The importance of the Law is consistently emphasized where there had been no mention of it; idolatry is replaced with Law-lessness just as the Temple and its cult are replaced with the commandments of the Law and their observance. Concomitantly, certain individuals like Herod the Great and Agrippa II are increasingly criticized for their breaking of the Law, unlike in BJ. Thirdly, the appearance of quite a few Judaic Diaspora paradigms is evident throughout AJ. Apart from the centrality of the Law (and the idea that it is universal and not particular) which is the most important of them, these are Josephus’ loss of interest in the Temple and its cult, the elimination of the covenant-idea and the promise of the Land, his emphasis on Divine providence and retribution, the prominence of the idea of “virtue,” his treatment of prayer, the valorization of martyrdom, his blurring of territorial and political aspects of Judaism, and multifaceted Hellenizations of his source-material in order to produce an account of Jewish history which non-Jews would find intelligible and with which they would be able to identify. I have also considered Josephus’ view of the interrelationship of Judaism and the Roman Empire in AJ, and his understanding of his own role in this context. I have pointed out that while BJ was entirely devoid of any

3.33. Summary and Conclusions

259

eschatological program and did not provide any blueprint concerning God’s future place in the history of the Jewish people, the pattern which emerges from AJ is totally different. According to BJ, God remains Israel’s ally as long as the requirements of the Temple cult are properly observed; the future is uncertain after the Temple is gone. In AJ, however, the basis for this alliance is the observance of the Mosaic Law. As far as the course of Jewish history and eschatology are concerned, in AJ there is none of the uncertainty characteristic of Josephus’ first work. All of human history is under God’s control and has been predicted by His prophets. Thus, the destructions of the first and of the second Temples are not the end of the story, but are rather events which had been foretold by the prophets, and took place because of the people’s transgressions of the Law. When the Jews realize this, repent, and turn to the Law, they will again be restored to their proper relationship with God, and enjoy prosperous lives. Apparently, Josephus had come to realize the futility of military confrontation with Rome, and believed that Jews had to focus on the observance of the Law, leaving politics to God. According to AJ, he also believed that the Roman imperium would not last forever, and explicitly hinted, that it would collapse before the final triumph of Judaism. His view of this triumph was not perceived in the narrow terms of the restoration of the Judeans in their ancestral land – rather it was to be universal; all land was to become one day Judean, so to speak. In Josephus’ view, this process would happen by peaceful means. Thus, the rather long story of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene in AJ XX might have been intended by him to illustrate it by a rather tangible precedent. Until the entire world follows this example, the Jews have to remain faithful to the Law – and if Josephus intended himself as a model – to strive to disseminate the teachings of Moses.

Chapter 4

A Jewish Priest in Rome 4. 1. Introduction: Josephus’ Priestly Identity As has been emphasized many times in the course of this study, Josephus’ entire literary career took place in Rome, far away from the once holy city of Jerusalem and its destroyed Temple.1 On the one hand, it is evident that throughout this career, Josephus could not – in any capacity – officiate as a priest of that Temple.2 On the other hand, however, it is just as evident that throughout his writings he continued to emphasize his priestly status and descent. Moreover, he even claimed that a number of other positive characteristics and charismatic gifts – such as foreseeing the future, familiarity with the biblical traditions and his talent and credentials as an historian stemmed from his priestly origins and training.3 Indeed, Josephus’ priestly status and origins seem to have constituted the most important ingredients of his self-identity during the decades he spent in the capital of the Empire. However, while the advantages of being a priest in pre-destruction Jerusalem are obvious, those of being a priest of a ruined temple thousands of miles away from its site, and without a possibility to sacrifice, are much less so.4 The inevitable question, then, is why and in what sense Josephus’ 

1 An earlier version of this chapter was published as “A Jewish Priest in Rome,” in J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Leiden, 2011), 397–411. Unfortunately, the editors of the volume made a number of unauthorized changes in my text, and in some cases did not indent the quotations; I was not shown the proofs. 2 In the light of Josephus’ tendency to present himself as the most qualified and reliable witness, it is intriguing that he nowhere explicitly stated that he served as a priest in the Temple while it stood. Perhaps, he considered it to be self-evident. 3 See BJ I 3; III 352; AJ XVI 187; Vita 1–2; 80; CA I 54. The main relevant key passages are quoted and discussed below. For a full discussion of “the priestly in Josephus’ biography,” see now O. Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus (Tübingen, 2008), 198–265. Gussmann’s study is the most comprehensive discussion of priestly topics in Josephus. See my “Review of Oliver Gussman, Das Priesterverständnis des Flavius Josephus (TSAJ 124; Tübingen, 2008),” JSJ 42 (2011), 402–3. 4 On priestly ideologies in ancient Judaism, see D. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, 2006), 71–107; M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia, 2006). Cf. Gussmann, Das Priesterverständnis, 31–197. On the priests before 70 C.E., see M. Stern, “Aspects of

4. 1. Introduction: Josephus’ Priestly Identity

261

priestly descent and background remained so significant for him in Rome. The undiminished emphasis on his priestly identity is especially intriguing in the light of the fact that, as I hope to have demonstrated in the previous chapter, in his later writings (exemplified by AJ) he exhibited much less interest in Jerusalem Temple and its cult, than in his first work, BJ. By way of reminder, this lack of interest is especially evident in several passages of AJ, where he consistently replaced the sanctuary and the sacrificial cult, which appeared in his sources, with the “commandments of the Torah.”5 At the same time, we have seen that throughout AJ Josephus continued to emphasize the importance of Jewish priesthood, insisted that its status and privileges are eternal, and stated that any interference with them is bound to have disastrous consequences.6  Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes,” in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 2 (CRINT I/2; Assen-Maastricht, 1976), 561–96, 600–12; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London – Philadelphia, 1992), 77–102, 170–89, 317–40, index, “Priesthood and priests (Jewish), roles of.” On the priests after 70, see G. Alon, “The Patriarchate of Rabban Johanan Ben Zakkai,” in idem, Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World (Jerusalem, 1977), 314–43 (esp. 318–23); D. Ben-Haim Trifon, “Some Aspects of Internal Politics Connected with the Bar-Kokhva Revolt,” in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport (eds.), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach. (Jerusalem, 1984), 13–26 (in Hebrew; English summary on p. III); S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics (Leiden, 1990), 96–109; O. Irshai, “The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity: A Christian Model?” in C. Cluse, A. Haverkamp, I. J. Yuval (Hrsg.), Jüdische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturräumlich vergleichender Betrachtung (Hannover, 2003), 75–85; M. Goodman, “Sadducees and Essenes after 70 CE,” in S. E. Porter, P. Joyce and D. E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden, 1994), 347–56 (repr. in idem, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays [Leiden, 2007], 153–62); L. I. Levine, The Rabbinic Class of Roman Palestine in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1989), 171–6; idem, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (2nd ed., New Haven-London, 2005), 519–29; M. J. Grey, “Jewish Priests and the Social History of Post-70 Palestine” (PhD Dissertation; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2011). 5 E.g., AJ VIII 274–281 (Jeroboam’s speech to Abias) vs. 2 Chr 13:4–12; AJ XII 267; 300–4; 406–9; XIII 197–200 (Maccabean speeches) vs. 1 Macc 2:7–13; 3:58–9; 7:33–8; 13:1–6, respectively; AJ XIV 65–8 (Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem) vs. BJ I 148–50. In the last case the contrast is between Josephus’ later emphasis on the Law as opposed to his earlier emphasis on the Temple cult. The Temple is not even mentioned in Josephus’ introduction to AJ (I 1–25). 6 See L. H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, 1998), 61–2; Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 88–90. The examples of Josephus’ high view of priesthood and priestly prerogatives in AJ are too numerous to be listed in full; I will provide only a few of them. See AJ I 11–2 (the Law was translated in Greek for the first time due to the support provided by the high priest Eleazar); AJ II 216 (a non-biblical divine promise to Amram concerning the eternity of priesthood given to Aaron and his descendents); AJ III 136, IV 304 (only the priests can carry the Ark of the Covenant,

262

Chapter 4. A Jewish Priest in Rome

On the one hand, the elevation of the Torah at the expense of the Temple is a familiar tendency of Second-Temple Diaspora Judaism, and is not surprising in a Jewish intellectual who spent many years away from the Jewish cultic center.7 However, on the other hand, the great importance ascribed by Josephus to his priesthood is without good parallels in the literature produced by the Jews of Greco-Roman Diaspora. As I stated in the introduction to this study, some things in Josephus’ understanding of Judaism seem to have drastically changed, but others apparently remained constant. So, while in the two previous chapters I analyzed and tried to explain those things that changed, in this chapter I will attempt to elucidate those that did not. Anyone familiar with the way Josephus described himself in his various writings would know that he never wrote anything unflattering about himself, unless absolutely compelled to do so – whether by the exposing ac-

 rather than priests and Levites; cf. AJ IV 164; VII 395; IX 6); AJ III 320–1 (the priests are praised for their observance of the Law in times of famine; cf. Vita 14); AJ IV 224 (the king can do nothing without consulting the high priest); AJ IV 304 (Moses handed over the Law to the priests alone); Josephus omitted the Golden Calf episode from his paraphrase of the Torah, possibly because of the involvement of Aaron; AJ VII 81 (God killed Uzzah because, not being a priest, he touched the Ark); AJ VIII 229–30 (Josephus says that Jeroboam acted as high priest of his schismatic cult, while the Bible only stated that he sacrificed at Beth-El); AJ IX 222–7 (Josephus’ judgment on King Uzziah is harsher than in the Bible, since he usurped a priestly prerogative); AJ X 80 (Josephus emphasized that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both prophets and priests); AJ XI 235 (on his return, Ezra discovered that the people violated the constitution and broke the Law by “mixing the strain of the priestly families” – a non-biblical addition); AJ XIV 65–8 (the priests are praised for their observance of the Law during Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem); AJ XIV 77 (Josephus says that Hyrcanus II and Aristobuslus II are responsible for the misfortune which befell the Jews – namely, “the royal power which had formerly been bestowed on those who were high priests by birth became the privilege of commoners”); AJ XVI 187 (Josephus “discovered” his Hasmonean ancestry, therefore claiming to have “the priesthood with [other] honours”); AJ XX 216–8 (the calamities of the Great Revolt were a direct consequence of Agrippa’s II interference with priestly laws); AJ XX 224–51 (Josephus completed his magnum opus with the list of high-priestly succession). 7 See chapter 1 above. Cf. H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, 1976); B. Halpern-Amaru, “Land Theology in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities,” JQR, 71 (1981), 201–29; D. R. Schwartz, “Residents and Exiles, Jerusalemites and Judaeans (Acts 7:4; 2:5, 14): On Stephen, Pentecost and the Structure of Acts,” in idem, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tübingen, 1992), 117–127; idem, “Temple or City: What did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?” in M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (eds.), The Centrality of Jerusalem (Kampen, 1996), 114–27; idem, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” in I. M. Gafni (ed.), Center and Diaspora (Jerusalem, 2004), 37–55 (in Hebrew).

4. 2. Josephus the Priest in First Century Judaism

263

counts of his rivals, or just because the truth was too well known.8 At the same time he appears never to have missed an opportunity to praise himself and to present himself as the most gifted and qualified in every respect.9 The unavoidable conclusion then is that if he in so many words and in such various contexts repeatedly emphasized his priestly origins and status, it was a worthwhile thing for him to do. What and how was he profiting in Rome by presenting himself as a Judean priest? Why, despite the fact that he marginalized the Temple and its cult in his later works, he did continue to elevate its personnel? Although almost every study of Josephus routinely mentions his priestly origins and identity, none of them has endeavored to explain why this fact remained so meaningful to him in the course of the long years he spent in Italy. 10 The undiminished importance of Josephus’ priestly status – in spite of his change of residence and the Temple’s demise – is still taken for granted.11 While there seems to be no unequivocal answer to the questions raised above, a combination of reasons may account for the enduring importance, in Josephus’ eyes, of his priestly status and origins. In this chapter I shall try to identify some of these possible reasons by placing Josephus in his context, or better, in his contexts: that of the Greco-Roman Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism, that of traditional Roman religion, and finally, that of oriental cults in Rome. In the process of doing this I shall again touch on the perennial question of Josephus’ alleged Pharisaic identity as well as his position vis-à-vis the nascent Rabbinic movement, and attempt to clarify Josephus’ peculiar phraseology when he refers to himself as “a priest, and of a priestly origin.”

4. 2. Josephus the Priest in First Century Judaism 4.2.1. Priesthood Equals Nobility As has already been pointed above, Josephus mentioned his priestly status in different contexts, each time emphasizing one or another of its aspects. 

8 See S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden, 1979), 114–37. 9 See AJ XX 262–5, and Vita 1–16. See the introduction to this study and Cohen, ibid., index, under “vanity.” 10 See, for example, Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 61–2; idem, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (Leiden, 1998), 545–6. 11 However, see T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (2nd ed.; London, 2002), 16–21, who suggests several reasons for Josephus’ emphasis on his priestly background.

264

Chapter 4. A Jewish Priest in Rome

A natural place to start the inquiry is to look at what he said about his family origins in Vita 1–2, although this is admittedly one of his latest pieces: 1 Now in my case, my ancestry is rather distinguished, having originated with priests long ago. Just as the basis of noble birth is different among various [nations], so also among us membership in the priesthood is a certain proof of an ancestry’s brilliance. 2 Now in my case, my ancestry is not merely from priests; it is also from the first daycourse of the twenty-four – an enormous distinction, this – and indeed, from the most élite of the divisions within this [course].12

The quotation could be continued, but even this short passage makes it sufficiently clear that Josephus equated Judean nobility with Judean priesthood.13 No matter whether he addressed a Jewish or a pagan audience here, his first claim in the autobiography was: “I am a noble by virtue of being a priest.” Throughout his writings, Josephus made it clear that he considered the priests to be elevated above the rest of the Jews. In his opinion, the priests were unique. One should also keep in mind that both Jewish and Roman societies of Josephus’ time were deeply traditional, attached great value to the age-old customs and institutions, and disparaged innovation – at least, in theory.14 For the members of the upper classes like Josephus these traditional customs had obvious existential value. If things stayed more or less the way they had been, people like him were going to continue to enjoy a predicta 12

Translation follows S. Mason, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 9: Life of Josephus (Leiden, 2001), 3–5.