HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

HARVARD DISSERTATIONS IN RELIGION

edited by
Caroline Bynum
and
George Rupp

Number 7
THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL
HISTORY IN THE
ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE OF FLAVIUS
JOSEPHUS

by
Harold W. Attridge

SCHOLARS PRESS
Missoula, Montana
THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THE
ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
by
Harold W. Attridge

Published by
SCHOLARS PRESS
for
Harvard Theological Review
 Distributed by
SCHOLARS PRESS
University of Montana
Missoula, Montana 59801

THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL

HISTORY IN THE ANTIQUITATES JUDAICAE
OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

by
Harold W. Attridge
Society of Fellows
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Copyright © 1976
by
The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Attridge, Harold W
The interpretation of Biblical history in the
Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus.

(Harvard dissertations in religion ; no. 7)

Originally presented as the author's thesis, Harvard.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae.
Z Judaism—Apologetic works—History. I. Title.
II. Series.
DS1I6.J743A88 1976 933 76-26597
ISBN 0-89130-081-3

Printed in the United States of America

Edwards Brothers, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations
Preface xi
Introduction 1

I. Issues in the Study of Josephus 3

II. The Character and Programmatic Aims of

the Antiquities 29
The Sources of the Antiquities 29
Techniques of Narrative Elaboration. 38
The Preface to the Antiquities : General
Considerations 41
The Historiography of the Antiquities :
Apologetic Edification 43
Excursus: Minor Parallels in Programmatic
Remarks 5 7

The Adaptive and Explanatory Function of

Apologetic 60
The Major Interpretative Themes 67

III. The Role of God in the Antiquities 71

The Pronoia Motif 71
An Example of Providence at Work 76
Providence as Alliance with Israel and as
Retributive Justice 78
The Demonstration of God's Providence 92
The Exhortation to trust in the Providen-
tial God 104
Summary 106

IV. The Moralizing of the Antiquities 109

Character Evaluation -109
The Analysis of Moral Decay 119
Passion and Tyranny: The Abandonment of
the Patrioi Nomoi 126
Excursus: "Nature" in the Moralizing of
the Antiquities 140
The Positive Ideal: Moses 143

V. Affinities and Implications of the Presen-

tation of Biblical History in the Antiquities 145
A Just Providence 145
Deliverance 151
The Historiographical Use of Pronoia Termi-
nology 154
The Patterns of Moralizing 165
Excursus: Sectarian Affiliation in the
Biblical Paraphrase 176

VI. Conclusions 181

Bibliography 185
 ABBREVIATIONS

AJPh American Journal of Philology

ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Insti-
tute
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CQ Classical Quarterly •
FGS F. Jacoby, Die Fvagmente deP Griechisehen
Historiker
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur
des Alten und Neuen Testaments
GGR M. Nilsson, Gesohiahte der Gviechisahen
Religion
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
BTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
EVLA Kungl. Huraanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i
Lund (Bulletin de la Societe Royale des
Lettres de Lund)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
Josephics Studien 0. Betz, et at. Joeephus Studien:
Festschrift 0. Michel
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JR Journal of Religion
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
MGVJ Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissen-
schaft des Judentums
NT Novum Testamentuin
NTS New Testament Studies
PAAJE Proceedings of the American Academy of
Jewish Research
PWRE Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyklopadie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RAC Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum
SB Revue Biblique
RSR Recherches de science religieuse
SVF J. Von Arnim, Stoiaor-um Veterum Fragmenta
TAP A Transactions and Proceedings of the
American Philological Association
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament
ThZ Theologische Zeitung
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritikern
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TWNT Theologisches Wdrterbuch zum Neuen
Testament
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten
und Neuen Testament
ZATW Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft
ZNTW Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissen-
schaft
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistes-
geschichte

Monographs frequently cited are referred to by author and short

title. The full title may be found in the bibliography.
 PREFACE

This small contribution to the study of Judaism in the

Greco-Roman world is especially indebted to the criticism and
encouragement of John Strugnell, as well as Dieter Georgi,
George MacRae and Zeph Stewart, of Harvard University, who re-
viewed the dissertation and made many useful suggestions for
its improvement. The work was also greatly facilitated by the
assistance of the Institutum Delitschianum at Miinster, under
the direction of Prof. K. Rengstorf and 0. Michel, who made
available the data from the Concordance to the works of Jose-
phus prior to its publication. Dr. George Nickelsburg of the
University of Iowa, who actually transcribed the information
from the Concordance, also deserves a special thanks.
The Society of Fellows of Harvard University provided m e
with support and assistance during the final stages of this
study and that is particularly appreciated.
 INTRODUCTION

Flavius Josephus is well known as one of the major sources

for Jewish history during the late'r second temple period, since
he recorded the events leading to the great revolt against
Rome in 62-73 C.E. Our study does not focus on Josephus as
historian of his own age. Instead, it seeks to clarify the
significance of his account of the earliest history of the
Jewish people. Our aim is to shed light on one aspect of Jew-
ish religion and theology in the Greco-Roman period, namely
the process of apologetic to the non-Jewish world. At the
same time our work should illuminate the personal concerns and
attitudes of this rather complex personality, who has been
evaluated in the most diverse ways.
Josephus paraphrased the historical narratives of Jewish
Scripture in the first half of his second and largest work,
the Antiquitates Judaicae, and this provides our subject mat-
ter. Initially, we shall review the major problems which vex
the study of the theological elements in the writings of Jose-
p h u s , as well as the contributions which previous scholars
have made to this study. In the second chapter w e shall have
more to say on the general character of the Antiquities and
its programmatic aims. In subsequent chapters we shall ex-
plore details of the interpretative presentation of biblical
history in the Antiquities. Finally, a comparative analysis
of the most significant interpretative elements will suggest
personal and literary factors important for shaping the theo-
logical history of the Antiquities.

1
 ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF JOSEPHUS

Josephus as Theologian

This work i s , in large part, a study of a particular

Hellenistic-Jewish theology, and our initial problem is simply
to clarify the nature of theologizing in Josephus. This prob-
lem has not been addressed, although scholars have long been
concerned to describe the theological element in our histori-
an.
The earliest example of this exercise was the work of
C. G. Bretschneider.* The approach which he used is charac-
teristic in many ways of the scholars throughout the nine-
teenth century and on into the twentieth. He concentrated on
particular terms and motifs drawn from all the works of Jose-
phus, and attempted to construct out of them a systematic
theology which would illustrate the dogmatics both of Josephus
and of contemporary Judaism. Bretschneider explained his pro-
cedure in his preface:

Itaque multa, ut vel ex hoc libello cognosci

potest, in eius scriptis habentur, quae faciunt
ad illustrandam Judaeorum illius temporis theo-
logiam. Quae a nemine theologorum collecta,
sed a quibusdam ex parte tantum commemorata
vidissem, utile mihi visum est, singula, quae
hue pertinerent, e Josepho colligere, et ad
capita quaedam revocata accuratius exponere.

The aapita utilized are Scripture and Tradition, God and His

Capita Theologiae Judaeorum dogmatieae e Flauii Josephi

scriptis (Leipzig, 1 8 1 2 ) . Some brief remarks had been made
earlier in the works of W . H. Whiston, "That Josephus the Jew
was an Ebionite" Collection of Authentic Records Belonging to
the Old and Sew Testament (London, 1728) I I . 959-60, and I. A
Ernesti, Exercitationum Flavianarum prima de fontibus Archae-
ologiae (Leipzig, 1756) , which reappears in his Opusoula
philologioa aritiaa (Leiden, 1 7 7 6 ) , but the monograph of
Bretschneider is the first full-scale study of precisely
this topic.

3
 4

w o r k s , the Holy Spirit, Angels and Demons, and M a n . Each

topic, of course, has a variety of subdivisions and the result
is a carefully developed theological system.
Many other scholars followed in Bretschneider's footsteps
and produced alternative versions of the Sunrnta of Josephus.
Rather clear examples of the same approach are the works of
A. L e w i n s k y , 1
A. P o z n a n s k i , 2
M. D i e n s t f e r t i g , 3
A. Schlatter, 4

and J. A. M o n t g o m e r y . 5
The type of analysis which they typify
is also assumed in most of the other works on Josephus which
we will have occasion to note in this chapter.
These scholars collected numerous pieces of intriguing
information. Y e t , their basic approach led to certain recur-
rent weaknesses in understanding our historian. One might
note the lack of concern for the specific interests of indi-
vidual works of Josephus and the failure to isolate problems
.which especially concerned him. Of most significance, however,
is the presupposed model of theology as a systematic enter-
prise.
Theology was not done by Josephus in a systematic or dog-
matic w a y , ^ but by a tendentious, interpretative retelling of
history. That this is true for the Bellum has recently been

Beitr'dge zur Kentniss de? religionsphilosophischen

Ansahauungen des Flavius Josephus (Breslau: Preuss, 1 8 8 7 ) .
2
Weber die religionsphilosophis ahen Ansahauungen des
Flavius Josephus (Halle, 1 8 8 7 ) .
^Die Frophetologie in der Seligionsphilosophie des evsten
nachehristlichen Jahrhunderts (Diss. Erlangen; Breslau, 1 8 9 2 ) .
Most recently cf. G. Delling, "Die biblische Prophetie bei
Josephus," Josephus Studien, Festschrift 0. Michel (ed. 0.
Betz et al., Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1 9 7 4 ) .

Spraah Josephus von Gott (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann,

1 9 1 0 ) , reprinted in Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus
(ed. K. H. Rengstorf, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1 9 7 0 ) .

" T h e Religion of Flavius Josephus," JQE 11

S
(1920/21)
277-305.

^An analysis of the nature of the theological enterprise

is necessary in dealing with many types of Jewish literature
in the second temple period. Cp. the understanding of theolo-
gy in Wisdom literature suggested by B. L. Mack ("Imitatio
Mosis: Patterns of Cosmology and Soteriology in the Hellenis-
 s

shown by H. L i n d n e r . 1
He proceeds by a careful analysis of
the three great speeches of the Bellum, one by Agrippa,^ one
•t

by Josephus himself before the walls of Jerusalem, and one by

the revolutionary leader E l e a z a r . 4
From these speeches, with
their "heilsgeschichtlich-kultische Argumentation" 5
there
emerges a general conception of history, which sees Israel as
having been judged by God to be unworthy of freedom because o f
its cultic transgressions.
In the Antiquities there is a similar theological presen-
tation of history, which Josephus achieves by reworking scrip-
ture, by transformation of key biblical motifs, and by deploy-
ment of a specially significant Greek terminology. In all of
this Josephus reflects his own experience while he makes a
case to the Greco-Roman world for the significance of Jewish
tradition. To deal with this literary enterprise seems essen-
tial to an understanding of theology in Josephus, but it has
not always been the focus of scholarly attention.

tic Synagogue" Studio. Philoniaa 1 [1972] 4 5 ) : "Theology in

the sense that the received formulations of Hebraic and Judaic
religious faith (exodus credo, covenant, kingship, etc.) are
being reflected and reformed in wisdom language m o d e s . The
'theological reflection' involved differs from rationalistic
systems of conceptual abstraction in that the language of
reflection is poetic (versification!) and employs mythological
metaphor." In Josephus, too, we shall find the tradition re-
flected and reformed, although with another set of categories,
drawn primarily from Greek historiographical literature.

^Die Gesehichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum

Judaiaum (Leiden: B r i l l, 1 9 7 2 ) . The topic had been discussed
previously by Clemens Thoma, "Die Weltanschauung des Flavius
Josephus Dargestellt an Hand seiner Schilderung des jiidischen
Aufstandes gegen Rom (66-73 n . C h r . ) " Kairos 11 (1969) 39-52,
but his treatment is not as comprehensive nor as detailed as
that.of Lindner.
2
Bell. II. 345-404.
5
Bell. V. 362-419.
4
Bell. VII. 323-388.

^Lindner has been criticized for reliance on categories

of German theology by T. Rajak (JJS 25 [1974] 3 2 7 - 2 8 ) , but his
fundamental approach is certainly sound and the case made for
a theological dimension to the Bellum is persuasive.
6

The Affiliations of Josephus

For those who have studied Josephus as a representative

of Jewish thought, a recurrent problem has been to determine
more precisely just w h a t type of Judaism he most accurately
represents. The exploration of theology in Josephus has often
been conducted in terms of this problem. The starting point
for discussion of this issue is the claim by Josephus [yit.
7-12) that he was a Pharisee, who had joined the group after
sampling w h a t all the current sects had to offer.
Many scholars have not questioned that claim, but have
tried to confirm it by adducing theologoumena which might be
identified as Pharisaic. One of the earliest examples of this
approach is F. Creuzer, who cited remarks of Josephus on the
soul and on Providence as examples of "Pharisaic fatalism." 1

One of the primary grounds for this characterization of Jose-

phus as a fatalist is his frequent use of Greek terminology
for fate and providence, which intrigued many scholars and
which loom large in our own assessment of the theological ele-
ment in the Antiquities.
The reason for designating Pharisees as fatalists is not
so clear and this weakness in Creuzer's position was noted
shortly afterward, by H. Paret, who argued that the Pharisees
are not fatalists even according to the account of their be-
liefs in Josephus. Furthermore, Paret argued that the re-
marks on Providence to which Creuzer had drawn attention are
not specific theologoumena of a particular group, but rather
expressions of a general belief of the Old Testament. It was
certainly correct to dispute the relevance of terminology for
Providence to Pharisaism, although the terminology also has
characteristics which distinguish it from related Old Testa-

F. Creuzer, "Riickblick auf Josephus: judische, christ-

liche Monumente und Personalien," TSK 26 (1853) 907-28. The
designation of Josephus as a fatalist appears on p . 907. The
comments on the soul and Providence are found in Ant. XVII.
354 and XVI. 397. For other work of Creuzer, cf. below, p . 18.

"Ueber den Pharisaismus des Josephus," TSK 29 (1856)

809-44.
3
P a r e t refers to Ant. XIII. 171-73. Cf. also Bell. II.
19 and Ant. XVIII. 11.
 7

ment motifs.
Paret also noted other difficulties for the thesis that
Josephus was a Pharisee. He assumed that the Pharisees laid
special emphasis on the belief in the resurrection of the
body, as one might assume from the New Testament. He then
found the lack of any explicit reference to this belief to be
odd. 3
He also noted differences in the description of the
religious parties, since that of the Bellum appears to favor
the Essenes more than the P h a r i s e e s . 4

Paret finally argued in favor of the Pharisaic affilia-

tion. He held that the occasionally unsympathetic portrait
of the group by Josephus does not disprove his association
with it. He also found evidence for the connection in the
extremely negative evaluation of the Sadducees and in the
general attitude of Josephus toward Jewish religion, whereby
the importance of the Law is exalted.
In his association of Josephus with Pharisaism, Paret
displayed a definite anti-Pharisaic b i a s , not uncommon in the
mid-nineteenth century. 5
The criteria for determining the
religious tendency of the historian are usually derived from
the New Testament's picture of first-century Judaism. Jose-
phus is then made into a New Testament type Pharisee, so that
his piety may be condemned.^ This rather vicious circle, or
apologetic reactions to it, characterize a good deal of

Cf. Chs. 3 and 5, especially p p . 79-80, 150-51.

2
Acts 23:8-9.

^Bretschneider (Capita 57) also worried about this issue,

especially in connection with the remarks on the fate of the
soul past mortem in the speech of Josephus given at Jotapata
{Bell. III. 3 7 4 ) .
4
Paret, "Pharisaismus" 816-23. Subsequent scholars have
attempted to explain this divergence in several ways . Cf.
below, pp. 11 and 14.
F o r a discussion of some earlier scholarship both criti-
5

cal of and apologetic for the Pharisees, cf. J. Neusner, Rab-

binic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70 [Leiden: Brill,
1971) III. 320-368.
A m o n g other things, according to Paret, Josephus lacked a
6

sense of sin ("Pharisaismus" 834) , did not understand prophecy

[834-36) and was quite as hypocritical as the Pharisees of the
New Testament (838, 842-44).
8

earlier scholarship on J o s e p h u s . 1

Most subsequent scholars operated with the assumption

that Josephus was a Pharisee, as he claimed. Among many
2
others are found the major modern figures in the study of
Josephus, H. St. J. Thackeray and A. Schlatter. Thackeray's
sober and balanced, yet popular, work remains the standard
introduction to Josephus in E n g l i s h . 2
Although it lacks any
lengthy discussion of the theological dimension of the his-
torian's writings, it noted some of the more obvious points
about his belief in God, life after death,* prophecy, etc.
Some other examples of the exceedingly hostile and often
ill-informed criticism levelled against Josephus appear in
Lewitz (De Flavii Josephi fide atque auetoritate [Konigsberg:
Programm, 1857] 1 8 - 1 9 ) . Josephus depended on Rabbinic teach-
ing: "inde igitur derivanda' indigna saepe ac reprehendenda de
Dei natura opinio, plurimum ilia a natura et simplicitate
veteris testamenti abhorrens, inde superstitiosa de daemonibus
commenta, inde mirifica ista ac paene turpis a librorum sac-
rorum auetoritate multarum rerum explicatio." Similarly un-
favorable is the opinion of Baumgartner ("Der national-jiidische
Hintergrund der neutestamentlicher Geschichte nach Josephus,"
Jahrb. fur deutsche Theologie 13 [1864] 613-48). His criticism
is levelled more on the performance of Josephus as a historian
than as a Pharisee, although historical subjectivity is linked
to the historian's "verwundertes Gewissen" [p. 6 1 6 ) , a charac-
teristic appropriate to the caricature of the Pharisees opera-
tive in Paret et at. It is hardly surprising that a more posi-
tive assessment of Josephus appears in the great Jewish his-
torian H. Graetz {Geschichte der Juden [Leipzig: Leiner, 1878]
III. 513-26 and 5 9 2 - 9 6 ) , who compares the historian, only some-
what unfavorably, to Jeremiah.
2
Lewinsky {Beitr'dge 60) addresses the issue of the lack of
3.- doctrine of resurrection, which had troubled Bretschneider
and Paret [cf. above p. 6, n. 2 ) . Lewinsky finds behind the
remarks about celestial immortality in Bell. II. 163 and Ant.
XVIII. 14 a belief in resurrection, disguised by language ap-
propriate to metempsychosis. Similarly, the remark that mar-
tyrs will "obtain a better life" in C. Ap. II. 218 is taken to
be an allusion to resurrection. Thus Josephus can be a Phari-
see. Poznanski (Anschauungen), Montgomery ["Religion"), R. B.
Sobel {Josephus ' Conception of History in Relationship to the
Pentateuch as a Source of Historical Data [Diss. Hebrew Union
College, 1 9 6 2 ] ) , and A. Pelletier (Flavius Josiphe, adapteur de
la leitre d'Aristee [Etudes et commentaires 45; Paris: Klinck-
sieck, 1962] 271-72) also maintain that Josephus was basically
a Pharisee.

Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish

Institute of Religion, 1929; reprinted, with an introduction
by S. Sandmel, New York: Ktav, 1 9 6 7 ) .
On this issue Thackeray (Josephus 9 7) argues much like
Lewinsky. Cf. n. 2 above.
 9

Thackeray also mentioned the various affiliations of Josephus,

hut believed that Pharisaism p r e d o m i n a t e s . 1

2
Schlatter's work is a much more detailed investigation
of Josephus. One recurring theme throughout his study is an
insistence on the strong "palestinian-Pharisaic" strain in
Josephus, which distinguishes him from the more deeply hellen-
ized Judaism of Philo and Alexandrian Jewry in general. This
strain appears as an aversion to mysticism, which Schlatter
finds in remarks about God's dwelling place being the world,
not the individual soul, in the lack of interest in heavenly
journeys and a s c e n s i o n s , 4
and in the lack of emphasis on the
importance of contemplation and understanding as the methods
and goal of p i e t y . 5
The Pharisaism of Josephus is further
indicated by other negative characteristics, the lack of any
aesthetic interest,^ the lack of any doctrine of intermedi-
aries, 7
the refusal, despite a new conception of nature, to
exalt nature to the position of an object of religious con-
templation and the elimination from the scriptural narrative
of incidents, like that of the golden calf, which were offen-
sive to Pharisaic sensibilities.^

Josephus 91. Thackeray (Josephus 96) also claims that

Josephus is in harmony with orthodox rabbinical Judaism, al-
though he adopts certain Greek terminology.
2
Vie Theologie des Judentums naeh dem Beriaht des Josefus
(Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932) .

Ibid. 7. Cf. Ant. V I I I . 107,

5

4
Ibid. 11. As early as Bretschneider (Capita 48) it had
been noted that Josephus does not link the departure of Moses
with any heavenly ascension. Cf. Ant. IV. 326.
Theologie 27.

Ibid. 4.
6

7
Ibid. 1. "Intermediaries" are, of course, hypostases
such as Sophia or the Philonic Logos. Some early nineteenth
century scholars had tried to find such entities alluded to
by Josephus. Cf. below p. 1 7 .
Q
Ibid. IS. Cf. the excursus on "nature" in Josephus be-
low, pp.

^Ibid. 69. Cf. Ant. III. 91-98 and Exodus 32.

10

Josephus' Pharisaism also appears, according to Schlatter,

in some positive characteristics of the historian, the equation
of law and m o r a l s , 1
the general praise of the law as God's
gift and the belief in its eternity, the evaluation of tradi-
tion as the basis of the authority of the laws, and his own
hypocritical self-exoneration and condemnation of others for
the disaster of 7 0 . 2

In the last comment Schlatter displayed the same anti-

Pharisaic b i a s , based on New Testament stereotypes, which also
characterized earlier scholars. This bias also appeared in
Schlatter's criticism of Josephus' understanding of "faith"
and in his discussion of the limitations of the Pharisaic con-
cepts of law and revelation as used by J o s e p h u s . 3

Thus Pharisaism for Schlatter is a rather ill-defined

foil to the type of Judaism represented by Philo. While it
.is fair to note the differences between Philo and Josephus,
the designation of the latter's position as Pharisaic is not
particularly illuminating. In general, the description of
Josephus as a Pharisee has often had little to do with a
direct analysis of the theological elements in his work. Fur-
thermore, to argue the case at all is problematic because of
the inadequate criteria used to define Pharisaism, such as the
tendentious picture of Pharisaism in the New Testament or the
description of the sects by Josephus himself, not to mention
the subjective biases toward Pharisaism held by modern schol-
4
ars.

Ibid. 63. Josephus is definitely concerned with the

practical moral implications of Jewish tradition, and ethics
forms a major share of his interpretative activity. Cf. Ch.
4 of this study.
2
Ibid. 136, 210. Josephus does polemicize against others
involved in the revolt. That polemic is not simply hypocriti-
cal self-exoneration. On the polemic in the Bellum, cf. Lind-
ner {Geschiehtsauffassung 49-68) and see below, p p . 149-51.
C f . Theologie
3
104 on "faith" and Ibid. 59 on law and
revelation.

*A few more recent scholars have maintained the validity

of the Pharisee label, although they recognize that it re-
quires substantial refinement. Cf. the discussion of Schlat-
ter by 0. Michel ('"Ich Komme' [Jos. Bell. III. 4 0 0 ] " ThZ 24
[1968] 123-24); 0. Bauernfeind and 0. Michel ["Die beide
 11

As we have already noted, there is some incompatibility

between the self-professed Pharisaism of Josephus and some of
his own attitudes and tendencies. This caught the attention
of several scholars and led some to argue for alternative
identifications of the historian's sectarian affiliation. The
most interesting proposal was that Josephus had in fact been
an Essene. Following a few tentative s u g g e s t i o n s 1
E. Gerlach
argued the thesis at length, utilizing the observations of
Paret about the difficulties in the Pharisaic identification.
Gerlach went on to criticize Paret for not recognizing many
apparently anti-Pharisaic remarks of J o s e p h u s . 3
Moreover, he
characterized many of the "Pharisaic" features, which Paret
finally adduced, as common features of Judaism as a w h o l e , * or
at least as common to both Pharisees and Essenes. On certain
.particular points, notably the doctrine of f a t e , 5
Gerlach saw
Josephus as in agreement with Essene beliefs and not with
Pharisaic doctrine. This leads to the conclusion that Jose-
phus was really an Essene.
The thesis of Gerlach has little to recommend it, and he
found little initial support.^ It reappeared in the evaluation

Eleazarreden in Jos . Bell. 7. 323-36 und 7. 341-88" ZNTW 58

[1967] 267-72) and Lindner (Geschiehtsauffassung 99).
'''Bretschneider (Capita 57) took remarks of Josephus on
the fate of the soul to be Essene, but he drew no general con-
sequences for the affiliation of the historian.
7
In Vie Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Sohriften
des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863) 10-11.
3
G e r l a c h uses particularly Bell. I. 571; Ant. XIII. 293-
9 8 , 372-78; XVII. 41. These references to Pharisees are hard-
ly as derogatory as Gerlach claimed.

^Gerlach (Weissagungen 11) draws attention to the basis

advanced by Josephus for his own prophecy of Vespasian's ele-
vation (Bell. III. 3 5 2 ) . Gerlach is the first to note the
importance of Josephus' priestly status as a basis for his
prophetic role.
F o r Gerlach (Weissagungen
5
16) the Essene position is
that God and fate are identical, evidence for which may be
found in the description of the sect in Ant. XIII. 172. In
discussing the issue, Gerlach relies on the terminology de-
ployed by Josephus in the Bellum. Cf. below p. 154 for a
full discussion of the issue.

^E.g. B. Pick, "A Study on Josephus with special refer-

ence to the Old Testament," Lutheran Quarterly 19 (1889) 325-
12

of Josephus by F . J. Foakes-Jackson, 1
who tried to do justice
to all the possible categories into which Josephus might fit.
Thus, the historian is a Pharisee in his belief in resurrection
and in the humane purpose of the law, yet at the same time he
is a Herodian in his antipathy to the extremists. Furthermore,
he was a priest, whose probable "ideal was that of Ezekiel: a
priestly nation under a native prince." Ultimately Foakes-
Jackson sees the personal religious attitudes of Josephus ex-
pressed in his positive assessment of the Essenes:

To him the religion of Moses was truly per-

fect when practiced by ascetics zealous for
the Law and for nothing else, men more ready
to die for their cause than to fight for it,
a remnant of righteous persons, living in the
Jewish world but not of i t , intent only on
attaining personal h o l i n e s s . 3

It is certainly true that the descriptions and evalua-

tions of historical figures play an important part in the
theologizing of Josephus and in the fourth chapter of this
study this aspect of the Antiquities will come under scrutiny.
The observations of Foakes-Jackson, however, are applicable
primarily to the favorable description of the Essenes in the
Bellum and are not adequate as a general summary of the reli-
gious ideals of Josephus. They also fail to take into account
important theological problems treated outside the framework
of an idealized description of a religious way of life.
One way of resolving the problem posed by the apparent
discrepancies in the attitudes of Josephus toward the various
Jewish sects has been to introduce a diachronic dimension and
to trace a development from the pro-Essene position of the
Bellum to the pro-Pharisee position of the Antiquities and the
Vita. This approach was originally inspired by the work of
Laqueur w h o , in his comparative analysis of overlapping parts

46 and 599-616. In general, this is a rather superficial sur-

vey of the life and works of Josephus.

^Josephus and the Jews (New. y r k :

0 Smith, 1930) .
2
Ibid. 33.

Ibid.
3
80.
 13

of the three w o r k s , noted a growing pro-Jewish sentiment in

the later compositions.
Laqueur's work was followed by a study of the reports on
the religious factions in Josephus by H. Rasp, who suggested
that the varying assessments of the three groups should be
read against the background of the personal political situa-
tion of the historian. Josephus, then, was fundamentally a
"Tagespolitiker mit selbstischen Zielen" and had originally
become a Pharisee purely for purposes of self-advancement.
While his accounts of the differences among the parties are
essentially correct, these differences are to be understood as
expressions of their political attitudes toward the Roman
authorities. The long and favorable account of the Essenes
in the Bellum, which had served as the basis for the Essene
identification of Josephus by Gerlach and others, is to be
seen as an attempt to portray at least one group of Jews as
"reliable citizens," a role which Josephus himself wanted to
play in Rome. Then the more favorable account of the Phari-
sees in the Antiquities is an attempt to adjust to the new
reality that this group was now solidly in power in Pales-
tine. 3
The thesis of a development in the attitudes of Jose-
phus toward the religious groups of his day has been accepted
in several recent discussions, by M. S m i t h , 4
J. N e u s n e r , 5
and

R. Laqueur, Der judiseher Eistoriker Flavius Josephus,

Bin biographisoher Vereuah auf neuer quetlenkritischer Grund-
lage (Giessen: Munchow, 1920).
2
"Flavius Josephus und die judischen Religionspartien,"
ZSTW 23 (1924) 27-47.
Ibid. 46.
5

4
"Palestinian Judaism in the first century," Israel: Its
Role in Civilisation (ed. M. Davis; New York: Harper, 1956)
74-75. He differs from Rasp, whom he does not cite, in his
assessment of pre-war Pharisaism. Rasp had accepted the state-
ment of Josephus that the Pharisees had been a potent force in
Jewish politics before the war (Ant. X V I I . 1 5 ) . This prompted
the initial allegiance of Josephus to the group. Later, in
the years just preceding the war, the Pharisees lost their
widespread influence, but they regained it after the destruc-
tion of the temple. Smith, on the other hand, suggests that
the Pharisees prior to the war were an influential sect.

^From Polities to Piety, The Emergence of Pharisaic Juda-

ism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1 9 7 3 ) , Traditions.
Neusner follows Smith's reconstruction of Pharisaic history.
14

J. Le Moyne. In our own investigation some development in

the thinking of Josephus will appear, although the relation-
ship of this to sectarian doctrine remains tenuous. At the
same time we shall also find important elements of continuity
between the Bellum and the Antiquities.
The biographical approach to the resolution of the ques-
tion of Josephus' religious affiliation suggested that the
praise of the Essenes or the adoption of the Pharisee label
are really irrelevant to a discussion of the theology of the
historian. 2
The variation in his attitudes even implied for
some scholars that Josephus is not a serious representative
of any religious position in first century Judaism. Such
minimizing of the importance of Josephus as a serious exemplar
of some, form of Jewish thought has been common in this cen-
tury. It appeared prominently in two major and extremely
influential reference works on the second temple period. For
Bousset-Gressman, Josephus was a "halber Renegat und ... kluges
Weltkind, fur das die Religion nicht viel b e d e u t e t . " 4
Similar-
ly, in G. F. Moore's great study of Tannaitic Judaism, it is
stated that:

It may, I think, be fairly inferred that Jose-

p h u s , like most of the aristocratic priesthood
to which he belonged, had little interest in

Their position has received some general criticism from L. H.

Feldman, Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-62) (New York:
Yeshiva, 1962) 41.

^Les Sadduceens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1 9 7 2 ) . '

L e Moyne (Sadduceens 29) differs from his predecessors

2

on this point. He specifically criticizes Rasp's characteriza-

tion of Josephus as an opportunist. In his own view, the
desert experience (Vita 11) was of fundamental importance for
Josephus. This led him to choose a. Pharisaic way of life, al-
though he remained strongly under the influence of his Saddu-
cean environment.
W e occasionally find a reluctance to classify Josephus
2

in nineteenth century discussions. E.g. J. Langen ("Theolo-

gischer Standpunkt des Flavius Josephus," Theologische Quartel-
sahrift 47 [186S] 7) maintained: "Er l'asst sich nicht von
einer bestimmten religiosen Richtung, von einem theologischen
System reden, das er angenommen hatte."

*W. Bousset and H. Gressman, Die Religion des Judentums

im spathellenistischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
1926) 39.
 IS

religion for its own sake, and that his

natural antipathy to all excess of zeal
was deepened by the catastrophe which reli-.
gious fanatics had brought upon his people.

This basic position also characterized one of the major mono-

graphs on the Antiquities, a study by H. Guttmann, w h o , like
Rasp, suggested that the religious elements of his writing
should be seen as functions of external factors, namely "von
seiner jeweiligen persbnlichen Lage und -oolitischen
2
Einstellung."
There are, to be sure, important elements of truth in
these various positions. Josephus was certainly influenced
by his personal situation and he obviously displays an "antip-
athy to excess of zeal." Such observations hardly exhau-st the
analysis of the historian's religious thought. There is a
dimension of his writing which cannot simply be reduced to
"political" needs or the requirement of personal self defense.
Pharisee, Essene, A l l , at various times, and even None.
These'are the basic alternative answers to the question of the
religious affiliation of Josephus and his theological v i e w r

point. One other social category is significant for under-

standing Josephus. In fact, the first thing which Josephus
tells about himself in his Vita is that he comes from a vener-
able priestly h o u s e . 3
Many of the scholars reviewed thus far
have at least noted this fact.* Some have made it the basis

G. F. M o o r e , Judaism in the First Centuries of the Chris-

tian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927)
I. 210.
^H. Guttmann, Die Darstellung der judische Religion bei
Flavius Josephus (Breslau: Marcus, 1928) 51. A similar evalu-
ation appears in the recent work of J. Schwark, "Matthaus der
Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der Priester: Ein Vergleich,"
Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 137-54. Cf. Ch. 2, p. 65, n. 4, for
a critique of some of Schwark's analysis.
5
Vita 1-6.
4
C r e u z e r ("Josephus" 48) noted particularly Ant. IV. 223.
Montgomery ("Religion" 280) mentioned as well C. Ap. II. 21
and Bell. III. 350-54. Cf. also Thackeray, Josephus 75; B.
Niese, "Josephus" ERE 6. 569-79; Foakes-Jackson, Josephus and
the Jews 33; and G. Delling, "Josephus und die heidnischen
Religionen" Klio 43 (1965) 263-69 (reprinted in Studien zum
ff.T. und zum hellenistisahen Judentum [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht, 1970] 3 4 - 4 2 ) .
16

for their view that Josephus was basically indifferent to

theological i s s u e s . 1
Others have suggested that a priestly
2
background heavily influenced his religious views.
Of particular relevance to this study is the relationship
of Josephus to the scriptures which is based on his status as
priest. As many scholars have n o t e d , 3
Josephus claimed to be
a particularly inspired interpreter of dreams and of ambigui-
ties in scripture at least in part because of his priestly
status. 4
Although he does not make any specific claims to
this effect in the Antiquities, it seems likely that he con-
tinued to rely on his priestly background as a guarantee of
the validity of his interpretative paraphrase of scripture.
Scholarship, thus, has long been concerned with the ques-
tion of the precise religious affiliation of Josephus. This
concern has frequently governed the consideration of his
theology. Interest in this subject is certainly understand-
able, but it has caused neglect of an analysis of the nature
of theological activity and its manifestation in individual
works. The results of that analysis may or may not prove to
be relevant to classifying Josephus. In any case, to make
such an analysis is a separate, and even prior, task.

In this category are Moore (Judaism I. 210} and Schwark

("Matthaus").
2
S. Rappaport (Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus
[Vienna: Kohut, 1930] xxiv and 45-46) and B. Heller ("Grund-
zuge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus" MGWJ SO [1936] 237-46)
noted a variety of details in the A.ntiquities which seemed to
indicate a pro-priestly bias. W e shall discuss these in Ch.
5, p . 176. W e have already noted the attitude of Le Moyne
(Sadduceene 2 9 ) .
These include Gerlach (Weissagungen 1 1 ) , D. Georgi (Die
Gegner des Vaulus im 2. Korintherbrief [WMANT 11; Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1964] 1 2 5 ) , R. Mayer ["Geschichtserfahrung
und Schriftauslegung, zur Hermeneutik des fruhen Judentums,"
Vie hermeneutisohe Frage in der Theologie [0. Loretz and W.
Strolz, editors; Freiburg: Herder, 1968] 3 2 2 - 2 7 ) , Lindner
(Gesehiehtsauffass.ung 7 0, 99) and J. Blenkinsopp ("Prophecy
and Priesthood in Josephus" JJS 25 [1974] 239-62).

T h e connection is most obviously made in Bell.

4
III. 352.
For another dream interpretation cf. Vita 208.

^e shall return to this issue in Ch. 5, pp. 176-79.

 17

Josephus as Apologist

The basic thesis of this study is that there is an impor-

tant theological dimension in the work of Josephus and that
this appears in the Antiquities in its interpretative presen-
tation of scriptural narratives. This theology is very much
an apologetic one, which reworks Jewish tradition in categories
derived from and comprehensible to a Greco-Roman public.
Josephus h a s , of course, been studied as an example of
Jewish apologetics, although the theological dimension in-
volved in the adaptive and propagandistic utilization of scrip-
ture has not been adequately understood. General studies of
Josephus as apologist have focused on the Contra Apionem and
on the defensive arguments which Josephus advances against the
slanders directed against the Jews in the late Hellenistic and
early Greco-Roman p e r i o d s . 1

Certain details of the Antiquities are especially impor-

tant for the interpretation of biblical narrative. These
include some specific vocabulary items and the structuring of
certain important scenes. Some of these features, which dis-
tinguish the Antiquities from its scriptural source, aroused
interest early in the history of modern scholarship, although
their function was often misunderstood.
A. Gfrorer and A. Dahne discovered in some details of
the scriptural paraphrase evidence that Josephus was another
hellenized religious philosopher like Philo. Gfrorer, for in-
stance, found in the accounts of the mysterious visitors to
Abraham (I. 196-98) and of Moses at the burning bush (II. 2 6 4 ) ,
the presence of a doctrine of intermediaries, like the Philonic

Cf. M. Friedlander, Gesahichte der i'udisohen Apologetik

(Zurich: Schmidt, 1903) and P. Kruger, Philo und Josephus als
Apologeten des Judentums (Leipzig: Dorr, 1 9 0 6 ) .
2
Gfrorer, Gesahiahte des Urehristentums (Stuttgart:
Schweizerbart, 1838) II. 356ff. and Philo und die judisah-
alexandrinisahe Theosaphie (Stuttgart: Schweizerbart, ^1835)
II. 356-67, and Dahne, Gesahiohtliahe Darstellung der judiseh-
alexandrinisehe. The assessment of Josephus as a hellenizer
does not equal that of A. von Dale (Dissertationes de origine
ae progressu idololatriae et superstitionum, etc. [Amsterdam,
1696] 136) that Josephus was "semi-paganus." That epithet is
unique, but many treatments of Josephus verge on it.
18

logos- In remarks about God's omnipresence (VIII. 1 0 8 , 227)

and about his inexorable will (X. 1 4 2 ) , he was able to see a
Stoic type of materialistic pantheism.
The interpretation of Josephus as a hellenistic philoso-
pher was not widely accepted. Yet in many subsequent treat-
ments of the Antiquities a similar theme appears when it is
suggested that Josephus adopted a rather rationalistic atti-
tude toward Hebrew tradition. F. Creuzer, for instance, noted
that there was a process of reconciliation of cultural tradi-
tions at work in Josephus, although he thought this was fo-
cused primarily on the reduction of elements which were miracu-
lous and hence offensive to sophisticated, cosmopolitan sensi-
bilities .

...so muss man nicht vergessen, dass Josephus

in seiner Archaologie gerade den Versuch w a g t e ,
den Weltbiirgerlichen Rdmerzeit mit dem hebra-
ischen Particularismus zu versbhnen und mithin
das Anstossige des Wunderbaren, was der Orient
mit sich brachte, moglichst zu mindern.

There is certainly a process of reconciliation at work in

Josephus, although it was not studied very closely at this
stage. The claim that Josephus tried to minimize the miracu-
lous is based in part on the formula which appears several
times in the Antiquities to the effect that the reader should
7
make up his own mind about the truth of the events recorded.
These passages certainly are involved in the frequent claim
that Josephus was a r a t i o n a l i s t , 3
or that he represented, in
Schlatter's w o r d s , a "rationalisierte und verflachte Juden-
tum," 4
However, as numerous s t u d e n t s 5
of Josephus both in the

F. Creuzer, "Josephus und seine griechischen und hel-

lenistischen Fuhrer," TSK 26 (1853) 45-86. The citation is
from p. 49.
2
E.g. Ant. I. 108; II. 348; III. 81, 322.
3
Cf. G. Tachauer, Das Verhaltnis von Flavius Josephus zur
Bibel und sue Tradition (Erlangen: Junge, 1 8 7 1 ) .
4
Schlatter, Theologie v.
T h e s e include Paret ("Pharisaismus" 826) who notes that
5

Josephus was "wenn nicht wundersuchtig doch wunderglaubig,"

Gerlach (Weissagungen 3 0 ) , and Lewinsky (Beitrage 2 2 - 2 4 ) . The
 19

last century and in this have noted, a belief in the miracu-

lous plays an important part in the Antiquities . It i s , there-
fore, misleading to characterize him as a rationalist, if that
epithet connotes a rejection of or resistance to such a b e -
lief.
Adaptation to Hellenistic categories did not m e a n a con-
sistent rationalism, nor the adoption of a philosophical sys-
tem. It did involve the use of terminology such as TOXTI
etyjapu£\iri and np6voua, which had philosophical overtones.
This terminology continually intrigued students of Josephus.
Paret, in his discussion of fatalistic Pharisaism, claimed
that by using such expressions, Josephus had in fact adopted
the viewpoint (Anschauungsweise) of his hellenic m o d e l s , such
as Herodotus, for "jene Ausdrucke klingen eher heidnisch als
judisch." 1
J. Langen, w h o had been critical of earlier at-
tempts to make Josephus a systematic philosopher, also fo-
cused on this terminology and suggested that by it a foreign
concept had been imported into Judaism. In the use of such
"philosophical" terms for providence, Josephus had committed
the error of positing an undefined divine power independent of
God. 3

same point has been made in this century by G. Belling ("Jose-

phus und das Wunderbare," ST 2 [1958] 291-309, reprinted in
his Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistisehen Juden-
tum [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970] 130-45)', by
G. W . MacRae ("Miracle in ffle Antiquities of Josephus," Mira-
cles: Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History [ed.
C. F. D. Moule; London: Mowbray, 1965] 1 2 9 - 4 7 ) , by Schalit
(Introduction lxxi) and most recently by 0. Eetz ("Das problem
des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderprob-
lem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium," Josephus
Studien [Festschrift 0. Michel, ed. 0. Betz et at.; Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1974] 2 3 - 4 4 ) .

^ a r e t , "Pharisaismus" 815.
7
Langen, "Standpunkt" 7. Cf. above p . 1 4 , n. 2 • Cf.
also his Das Judentum in Palastina zur Zeit Christi (Freiburg
im Bresgau: Herder, 1 8 6 6 ) .
L a n g e n (Judentum 222) accuses Josephus of "bei dem
3

Gebrauche der philosophischer Ausdrucke fur 'Vorsehung' den

Irrtum begangen, unter eluctpu6vn sich etwas Unbestimmtes,
neben Gott Waltendes zu denken." We find a similar evaluation
in the very negative assessment of the historian by N . Bent-
wich (Josephus [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
20

A fundamental problem with these analyses is the assump-

tion that the terminology w h i c h has been isolated is used in a
way consistent with its philosophical u s e. This erroneous
assumption was criticized by Lewinsky, who realized the apolo-
getic function of the terminology and suggested instead that
Josephus was a relatively traditional Jew who uses hellenistic
philosophical terms for the "Einkleidung judischer Gedanken."' 1

The criticism is properly m a d e . Yet this position, too, is

not entirely satisfactory, since the terminology in Josephus
is not simply cosmetic. It is used in close conformity with
certain usages in contemporary texts which are not particular-
ly philosophical, and it has a particular function within the
Antiquities . An important part of our task in this study will
be to deal with both of these issues.^
Another problem with many discussions of the interesting
expressions for divine providence has been a rather hasty link-
ing of the three major terms mentioned above. It has simply
been assumed that they are interchangeable. This assumption
was made not only in the last century, but even in recent dis-
cussion of the t o p i c . 3
In fact, the terms seem to have dif-
ferent functions in different works. One of the contributions
of Lindner's work on the theology of the Bellum is his analysis

1914] 9 9 ) , who maintained that Josephus held to a "materialis-

tic fatalism" which "lowers the God of the Bible to a Power
which materially rewards the righteous and punishes the wick-
ed." The emphasis on divine retribution is certainly an ele-
ment in Josephus, although it hardly amounts to "materialistic
fatalism."

•""Lewinsky, Beitr'dge 10. A somewhat similar attitude

seems to govern the extensive, but diffuse, compilation of
comparative material by B. Brune, Flavius Josephus und seine
Schriften in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentum, zuv g-eieahisehen-
romisehen Welt und zum Christentum (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann,
1913; reprinted Wiesbaden, 1 9 6 9 ) . Some of Schlatter's remarks
tended in the same direction, on God's will theologie 27),
providence (Ibid. 209) and conscience (Ibid- 1 4 0 ) . Thackeray
' ->hus 96) held a similar opinion.

The function of the terminology w i l l occupy our atten-

in Ch. 3; its general affinities in Ch. 5.

G. Stahlin ("Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei

Josephus," Josephus Studien 319-43) makes this assumption
while engaging in the traditional disparagement of the
inferior theology of Josephus. For further discussion of his
 21

of the T O X I terminology there. This is seen to be derived

from hellenistic historiography, but used to give expression
to a deterministic dimension to God's judgment on Israel, a
determinism which Josephus may have appropriated from an apoc-
alyptic tradition. 1
A similar study of comparable terminology
in the Antiquities is necessary.
Another aspect of the adaptation effected by Josephus ap-
pears in his attention to the ethical implications of history.
Poznanski was the first to call attention to this by claiming,
on flimsy ground, that Josephus had adopted the Socratic view
that virtue is a form of knowledge, and that the worth of vir-
tue had to be supported "auf utilistischen und eudamonistische
Griinde." Schlatter likewise claimed that Josephus introduced
a "eudaimonism" which radically transforms the perspective of
biblical m o r a l i t y . 3

It is certainly true that moralizing plays an important

part in the transformation of scripture in the Antiquities ,
but this moralizing is intimately bound up with the histori-
an's views on God's activity in the world and on man's rela-
tion to God. If there is a "utilitarian" or "eudaimonistic"
element in that moralizing, it is subordinated to a specif-
ically religious principle.
Thus far we have seen specific issues relating to the
general process of adaptation in Josephus. The general phe-
nomenon involved in this process was studied earlier in this

treatment of terminology for providence, cf. Ch. S, p . 1 5 4 , n.

2. A similar assumption about the uniformity of terminology
for providence appears in Guttmann (Darstellung 4 4 ) .

Lindner, Geschiehtsauf fas sung 58-62. The apocalyptic

elements of the Bellum are also discussed in I. Hahn, "Jose-
phus und die Eschatologie von Qumran," Qumran Probleme (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1 9 6 3 ) , F. F. Bruce, "Josephus and Daniel,"
ASTI 4 (1965) 148-62, and 0. Bocher, "Die heilige Stadt im
Volkerkrieg," Josephus Studien 55-76.
2

Poznanski, Ansehauungen 39.

^Schlatter, Theologie 5, 28.

^Guttmann (Darstellung 35) claims that Josephus developed
from being cultically oriented in the Bellum to being ethical-
ly oriented in the Antiquities . W e shall discuss this issue
in detail in Ch. 4.
22

century in two monographs. The first is the study of the

Antiquities and primarily of its biblical paraphrase by H.
Guttmann. He makes explicit the important distinction be-
tween a defensive form of apologetic which the Contra Apionem
contains and the adaptive apologetic found in the Antiquities- 1

He also approaches his task of analyzing the apologetics of

Josephus with a concern for the context in which significant
statements are made and with an appreciation for the histori-
an's literary methods. Hence he discusses at length the tech-
niques used by Josephus in his paraphrase, the types of expla-
nation and analysis of motivation which Josephus provides and
the dramatizing touches which he adds to many episodes.
Despite the promising nature of the basic approach, the
final results are disappointing. Guttmann did not apply his
basic principle on the nature of apologetic in his treatment
of significant elements of the biblical paraphrase. He thus
reduces the remarks on God's providence to apologetic in the
defensive sense, and he sees the concept of God's will being
used simply as a fatalistic excuse for the behavior of the
2
historian himself or for the Romans. He also notes other sig-
nificant features of the Antiquities without properly analyzing
them. Thus he remarks on the apparent ethical orientation of
the work, on a residuum of messianic expectation in Bk. X , and
on the belief in miracles which Josephus continues to maintain.
In general he attempts to construct the Weltanschauung of
Josephus and his contemporaries and not the process of inter-
pretation at work in the biblical paraphrase of the Antiqui-
ties .
A similar critique can be applied to the work of Schlat-
ter, which, nonetheless, suggested new insights into the pro-
cess of Hellenization in Judaism. He claims, for example,
that in Josephus there is presupposed a n e w , more Hellenic,
view of the world, different from that of the Old Testament,
wherein nature is deprived of much of the direct dependence on
God which characterized the biblical view. In maintaining

"^Guttmann, Darstellung 47.

Ibid.
2
44.

S c h l a t t e r , Theologie 13-16.
 23

this attitude toward nature, Josephus is seen to manifest his

dependence on the rationalistic tradition of Jewish apolo-
getics. 1
Similarly Josephus presupposes a new psychology
2
emphasizing the immortality and separability of the soul. We
have already noted the suggestions of Schlatter about new eth-
ical presuppositions in Josephus.
Schlatter showed that it was possible to draw from the
apologetic dimension of Josephus implications important for
the self-understanding and theological awareness of first-
century Jews. He did not, however, focus on the personal
adaptive and interpretative work of the historian. Indeed he
maintained that the goal of the literary enterprises of the
historian "liegt nicht in der Theologie; diese wird zum Mittel,
das zur Verteidigung und Verherrlichung des Juden d i e n t . " 4
In
this judgment he resembles closely Guttmann, Moore and the
other scholars of the period who minimized or overlooked an
important element in the historian. That element lies not so
much in his metaphysical and psychological presuppositions,
interesting though they may b e , but rather in his own literary
activity of retelling the sacral history of his people in a
meaningful way.

Toid. 13, 68. "Rationalism" here is not necessarily

equivalent to the suppression of the miraculous. Earlier
apologists had presented Judaism as the source of all wisdom,
superior to vain superstition, and this is no doubt what
Schlatter has in mind. For an example of this in Josephus,.
note the presentation of Abraham. Cf. below, Ch. 3, p p . 87-89.
2
According to Schlatter, Josephus actually utilized two
different psychologies. One, deriving from his days with the
ascetic Banus, is reflected in the Bellum. This is a more
dualistic conception of the soul, which emphasizes its radical
separateness from the body. In the other, more usual, psychol-
ogy, the body is taken more seriously as a constituent of the
whole human being.
3
C f . p. 1 0 , n. 3 above.

^Schlatter {Theologie 240) not only makes that general

observation, but he also discusses many of the particular
manifestations of apologetic in the narrower sense of a
defensive operation. Thus he noted {Theologie 69) a possible
apology in such details as the notice that Adam had daughters,
that the longevity of the patriarchs was possible, that Moses
prophesied his own death, etc.
24

In recent years many scholars have investigated the phe-

nomenon of adaptation and transformation of Jewish traditions
in Josephus. These studies have generally been more sensitive
to the concerns of individual works and the techniques used in
them by J o s e p h u s . 1
There have been, for example, numerous
studies of particular biblical figures in Josephus. These
have often been parts of a more general study of a theme or
2
figure in Jewish literature. These investigations have usual-
ly added a few more detailed parallels from other Jewish or
Greco-Roman literature. With some notable exceptions, they
seldom analyze parallels or explore the general thrust of
Josephus' biblical interpretation.
Several studies appeared which attempted to explore more
thoroughly the implications of the literary genre of the Antiq-
uities- A thesis by R. B. Sobel started to pursue a promising
line of investigation into the effects of hellenistic histori-
ography on the conception of history in Josephus. H e sug-
gested that "For Josephus, history is primarily the determina-
tion of divine processes operating behind the external events
of m a n " (p. 2 5 ) , and that this approach to historiography is

This awareness is based to a large extent on some of the

studies of the techniques of Josephus which we shall discuss
in the next chapter.
2
Such, for example, are S. Sandmel, Philo's Place in
Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Litera-
ture (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1956; reprinted in
augmented form, New York: Ktav, 1 9 7 1 ) . On Josephus see p p .
59-77. Cf. also L. H. Feldman, "Abraham the Greek Philosopher
in Josephus," TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56; D. Harrington, "Abraham
Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and in the 'Rewritten
Bible' of the Intertestamental period," 1972 Proceedings IOSCS
and SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar 155-64; W. M e e k s , The Prophet
Xing: Moses Traditions and the Johanine Christology (Leiden:
B r i l l , 1 9 6 7 ) ; D. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle
Worker (SBL Dissertation Series 1; Missoula, M T : Scholar's
Press, 1972) 207-240; • and K. Haacker and P. Schafer, "Nach-
biblische Traditionen vom Tod des M o s e " Josephus Studien 147-
74.
3
Josephus' Conception of History in Relationship to the
Pentateuch as a Source of Historical Data (Cincinnati: Hebrew
Union College, 1962, unpub. d i s s . ) . The bulk of this thesis
is taken up with a catalogue of divergences of the Antiquities
from the biblical text, not as complete as the work of Rappa-
p o r t , Agada.
 25

essentially that of classical models like Thucydides CO and

Polybius. Hence, Josephus "was a Pharisaic Jew conceiving of
history in terms of Greco-Roman historiography" (p. 3 1 ) . With
Sobel this assertion remains more of an hypothesis than an
assessment based on analysis of the text, and he seems to lack
any acquaintance with Greek historians and historiographical
theory apart from the major classical figures. Some other
short studies of this topic are equally disappointing. 1
A
more sophisticated treatment was that of A. Schalit, although
he is more concerned with the external classification of the
Antiquities in the categories of hellenistic historiography
than with the implications for biblical interpretation of the
2
literary genre of the Antiquities. We shall deal with this
topic in the second chapter of this study.
There have been numerous studies of particular elements
of hellenistic adaption, such as that by D. Georgi on the ide-
ology of Paul's opponents in 2 Corinthians, 3
which pursues the
analysis of apologetic literature which we already saw in
Schlatter. The study focuses on the religious self-under-
standing of the Jewish writers in the Greco-Jewish tradition.

S. Sowers, "On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History

in Hellenistic Judaism," Oikonomia, Beilsgesohiohte als Thema
der Theologie (Festschrift Cullmann, ed. F. Christ; Hamburg-
Bergstadt: Evangelischer Verlag, 1967) 18-25, and P. Collomp,
"La place de Jos&phe dans la technique de l'historiographe
hellenistique," Etudes de la Fao. des Lett, de Strasbourg
(= Publ. de la Fac. d. Lett. 106; Melanges 1945, III; Etudes
historiques, Paris, 1947) 81-92. On this work cf. Ch. 2, p.
57, n. 2. For further superficial discussion of the historio-
graphical principles of Josephus, cf. S. Zeitlin, "A Survey
of Jewish Historiography from the Biblical Books to the Sepher
ha-Kabbalah, with special emphasis on Josephus," JQR 59 (1969)
171-214. Earlier studies such as S. Dubnow ("Das Historio-
graphie des Flavius Josephus," Weltgeschiehte dee judiechen
Volkes (Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1926) III. 105-111) are also
unenlightening.

^Introduction to the Hebrew Translation of the Antiqui-

ties (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1 9 7 2 ) . Schalit also discusses
in a somewhat more general w a y the religious-theological dimen-
sion of the Antiquities (lxxii-lxxxii). He relies heavily^ on
Schlatter and tends to emphasize the apologetic concerns of
the work, although he sees these as less polemical than those
of the C.Ap. (lxxxviii).

Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (WMANT 11;

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1 9 6 4 ) .
26

Georgi notes how certain elements of Josephus are representa-

tive of that tradition, which presented itself as an "Auf-
klarungsbewegung" (p. 1 4 0 ) . Among these elements are the new
evaluation of nature over history (p. 1 4 2 ) , the importance of
prophecy and pneumatic phenomena generally (p. 1 2 2 ) , and
especially the picture of the religious hero or Seios Avtfp,
i.e. the man like Abraham or Moses who serves "als die eigent-
liche Artikulation des den Kosmos beherrschenden Gotteswillens"
(p. 1 6 0 ) . Georgi's study is suggestive, although like Schlat-
ter's, its primary purpose is not the analysis of Josephus,
but rather the general tradition which some of his writing
reflects.
Others who have made important contributions to the
understanding of particular details of hellenization in Jose-
i 2
phus have been L. Feldman and W . C. Van Unnik. Several
minor studies of particular issues relevant to the major ques-
tion were also done in this period.

Conclusion

This study suggests that in the Antiquities there is a

serious theological endeavor, which neither is simply a dis-
tillation or representative sampling of some current views,
nor is it fashioned in accord with a dogmatic system. It is a

Feldman's work on Abraham was cited above, p. 2 4 , n. 2.

Cf. also his "Hellenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's
Decline," Religions in Antiquity (Festschrift Goodenough, ed.
J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 336-53 and "Hellenizations
in Josephus' Version of Esther (Ant. Jud. 11. 185-295), " TAPA
101 (1970) 143-70.
2
"An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus,"
Romanitas et Christianitas (Festschrift Waszink, ed. W. den
Boer et at.; Amsterdam, 1973) 349-50; "Josephus account of1

the story of Israel's sin with alien women," Travels in the

World of the OT (Assen: V a n Gorcum, 1974) 241-61; and "Eine
merkwiirdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus (Jos. Ant. 8, 111-
1 1 3 ) " Josephus Studien 362-69.
3
N o t e the terminological studies by J. B. Fischer, "The
term, 6Ean6rris in Josephus," JQR 49 (1958/59) 132-38; E. Best,
"The Use and Non-Use of Pneuma by Josephus," NT 3 (1959) 218-
25; and J. Reiling, "The Use of ipeueoixpocpiTris in the Septua-
gint, Philo and Josephus," NT 13 (1971) 147-56. Note too the
rather superficial study by G. A. Williamson, The World of
Josephus (Boston: Little-Brown, 1965) .
 27

theology which in many ways is a personal creation of Josephus,

reflecting his own experience and responding to the require-
ments of his particular, situation. It is created hy the very
choice of a literary foTm, by the elaboration of the scriptur-
al narrative in clearly discernable ways and by the deployment
of a vocabulary designed to express clearly what Josephus con-
ceives of as the scriptural message. All of these factors
constitute an attempt to proclaim to the Greco-Roman world the
significance and the meaning of Judaism.
 THE CHARACTER AND PROGRAMMATIC AIMS

OF THE ANTIQUITIES

In the first chapter w e saw that an adequate evaluation

of the theology of Josephus must be informed by an understand-
ing of the way in which he operates in each of his writings.
IKe also saw that there have been relatively few attempts to
analyze the theological dimension of the Antiquities with
such an understanding. This is not to say that the techni-
cal questions of sources and narrative techniques have not
been studied. What we know from such studies has n o t , how-
ever, been applied in a systematic and comprehensive way to
the focus of our investigation. In this chapter we shall
examine the literary features of the Antiquities relevant to
an assessment of its interpretation of biblical history and
hence to the theology of Josephus. In the first two sections
we deal with issues which have been discussed at length. What
we are attempting to provide is a systematic survey of the
relevant material. In the third and fourth sections we shall
treat a subject which has not been quite as thoroughly exam-
ined as the issues of sources and techniques, namely the
literary affiliations of the first part of the Antiquities.
At that point we shall become more analytical, focusing our
attention on the structure and contents of the Proem to the
work, Ant. I. 1-26, and we shall try to show how there has
been a conscious choice of a literary form suitable for making
a case for the importance of Jewish tradition.

I. The Sources of the Antiquities^

The value of the Antiquities as a field for the explora-

tion of the theology of Josephus lies primarily in the fact

Cf. the. reviews of scholarship on the subject in Rappa-

port (Agada ix-xxxvi) and Schalit (Introduction xxvi-xlix).

29
30

that it is fairly easy to see the ways in which the biblical

narrative has been' transformed, supplemented and hence inter-
preted. It may well b e , however, that such transformations,
additions and interpretations are not the work of Josephus,
but are rather to be attributed to his sources.
Most of the discussions of the sources of the Antiquities
have not dealt with this question directly, but rather with
the issue of the original language of the scriptural text used.
A few earlier scholars maintained that Josephus used only the
Hebrew text. Some claimed that he used the LXX exclusively.
Some maintained that he used another version entirely, which
would account for at least some of the non-scriptural materi-
al. 3
Most have maintained that Josephus used a combination of
the Hebrew text, the LXX, and perhaps an Aramaic targum as
w e l l , with a different primary source in different sections of
the w o r k . 4

These are not included in the survey by Rappaport; I. A.

Brnesti, Exercitationum Flavianarum prima de fontibus Avchaeo-
logiae (Leipzig, 1756) and in his Opuscula Philologiaa Critica
(Leiden, 1776) . Also F. Tachauer, Das Verh'dltnis.
2
Earlier studies which advanced this suggestion, not men-
tioned by Rappaport, are Spittler, De usu versionis Alexan-
drinae apud Josephum (Gottingen, 1779) and Scharfenburg, De
Josephi et versionis AZexandrinae consensu (Leipzig, 1 7 8 0 ) .
The basic modern work, dealing only with the material from
Samuel and Kings, is A. M e z , Die Bibel des Josephus, unter-
sucht fur Buch 7-VII der Archaologie (Basel: Jaeger § Kober,
189 5 ) . He concluded that Josephus used the LXX in a Lucianic
form in those books.
E . g . a Samaritan version of the bible. So M . Gaster,
3

The Asatir (Publications of the Royal Asiatic Society; London:

1927) 61ff. Rappaport (Agada xi) rejects this hypothesis in
a long footnote.

A m o n g those holding this position was the author of the

4

first major source-critical study of this work, H. Bloch, Die

Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Arahaeologie (Leipzig,
1879). Important earlier scholars to hold this view were E.
Schiirer, Gesahiehte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901-07) I. 80 and A . Rahlfs,
Septuaginta-studien (G8ttingen: Vandenhoeck § Ruprecht, 1904-
11; reprinted 1965) III. 80. It was also the position of
Thackeray. He suggested (Josephus 81) that the main source
for pentateuchal material was the Hebrew Bible or a targum,
for Samuel-Kings it was a proto-Lucianic version of the LXX,
and for Joshua-Judges and Ruth it was a Semitic text, probably
a targum. On the last point he diverged from Mez (Bibel 80-
 3.1

There i s , in fact, evidence for all three sources in the

Antiquities, most of which has been summarized by Schalit.
The clearest data is that which indicates the use of the LXX.
Such use is obvious in the paraphrasing of books found only in
the Greek version, 1 Esdras and 1 M a c c a b e e s . 1
There is also
detailed evidence in abundance for the use of a Greek version
in the latter parts of the biblical paraphrase. Josephus
tells us in the preface to the Antiquities of the LXX version
of the Pentateuch and it seems quite likely that he did use it,
with supplementary material from other Greek sources which we
shall soon mention.
There has been some criticism of the hypothesis of Mez
and Thackeray that Josephus used a form of an LXX text in the
Samuel-Kings material, and in the process some evidence for
the use of a Hebrew text in these books has been adduced.
Much of this evidence is rather w e a k , 3
as are also the texts
suggesting the use of a targum, collected by Thackeray, Rappa-
port, and Schalit. Most of it indicates that Josephus spoke

81), who had found some Lucianic readings in Judges. Both

Rappaport (Agada xxi-xxiv) and Schalit (Introduction xxxi-
xxxii) followed Thackeray's suggestions about the use of a
targum.

^In Ant. XI and X I I . Although 1 Esdras and 1 Maccabees

were originally Hebrew or Aramaic, the coincidence with the
Greek shows that this was undoubtedly the source.
2
C f . Mez (Bibel 5 3 - 8 4 ) , Thackeray (Josephus 81-89) and
Schalit (Introduction xxxii-xxxv). Most of these passages are
noted in the Loeb. For the examples cited by Thackeray and
Schalit, cf. VI.- 54, 134, 186, 217, 274, 275, 280 (Here Marcus
in the Loeb and Schalit [Introduction xxxii] dispute the argu-
ments of Mez and Thackeray for a proto-Lucianic r e a d i n g . );
VIL. 48, 104, 105, 190; VIII. 13, 4 2 , 85, 189 (Here Josephus
may be combining the LXX and Hebrew texts, as W e i l l , Marcus
and Schalit note) 206. This list could easily be expanded.
3
Some of the evidence which Schalit (Introduction xxvii-
xxxi) adduces for the use of a Hebrew text consists simply of
the absence of special material from the LXX. Cf. Ant. VIII.
16, 38-41, 181-83 and the corresponding biblical passages.
The argumentum e silentio is hardly persuasive. H e also main-
tains that the names of Solomon's commanders are closer to the
MT than to the LXX. Cf. VIII. 35-38. However, the spelling
of names is chaotic and the correspondences are not very close.
Particular readings closer to the M T than to the LXX appear at
V. 128, a conflation of data from the two versions about the
cities conquered; V I . 352 'Egpcuou, M T : D'nSK, LXX: Sucmo-
32

Aramaic, and that is hardly surprising. In only a few pas-

sages is there any stronger indication that he may have had a
written Aramaic source. These matters are still under inves-
tigation, and it may ultimately appear that many of these
readings can be shown to be dependent on a Greek v e r s i o n . 3

Even if it is proven that Josephus used a targum or Greek

P£U6UEVOL; V I I . 346 cpCXoc, M T : •'Vl, LXX: Priaei; VIII. 142

XaE-oAcfiv, M T : >153, LXX: opiov. In V I I . 127 XaXaiiav, a place
name is taken for a person, a possibility in the M T , but not
in the LXX. [This suggestion comes ultimately from Rahlfs
[Septuagintastudien III. 8 8 ] ) . In V I I I . 50 Hiram sends con-
gratulations as in the M T , not to anoint Solomon king as in
the LXX. Also V I I I . 204 orcoSeSpcotdxi,, M T : 1TQ IfflS, LXX:
&otpavEES. Finally for X. 69 rots 6aai.XeuouevoLc., Schalit sug-
gests a Heb. I V D "pro for the -j>n 7ru of the M T , while Marcus
(Loeb, Vol. V I . 195) suggests, probably enough, merely "a care-
less paraphrase of 2 Kgs 23:11. Many of these correspondences
with the MT could well be explained by a Greek text which had
been revised in conformity with the M T . To demonstrate direct
usage of the Hebrew it would have to be shown that such cor-
rections were not made in, e.g., the proto-Lucianic version.

"'"The evidence for this appears in the proper names and

their etymologies. These occur frequently in the early books
of the Antiquities: I. 39, 304; II. 92, 313; III. 151, 252;
V I . 140. I. 54 Y<5Aa for i>n may be a misreading of the Heb.
A similar error occurs in the targumim. Local exegetical tra-
dition may explain the understanding of Heb. rent as innkeeper
in III. 276 and V. 7. The identification in V. 187 of "the
city of the palm trees" as JeTicho is already found in the LXX
to Deut 34:3. Again no written targum is required.
2
These passages were noted by Thackeray (Josephus 81-82) ,
Rappaport (Agada x x i - x x i v ) , and Schalit (Introduction xxxi-
xxxii) . VIII. 236 liieueoTipocpnxriS, Targ: Klpffl K>Z3, M T : K-OS;
V I I I . 362 Yuuvots rots noaC, Targ: r)rT>; M T : BK; V I I I . 414
Auccvos who is the slayer of Achab only in Targ to 2 Chr 18:33.
IX. 117 U E T ' eOraiCcis, Targ: MT: •pyatm. IX. 240
veAoAvctL Targ: X Y 7 P , M T : m « 3 , The last passage is a
paraphrase of Nah 2:8-12. It is a very free and condensed
rendition. Parallels are possible to either M T or a Targum.
The other examples are more interesting.

T h e question of the biblical text of Samuel-Kings in the

3

Antiquities is currently being reinvestigated in a Harvard

thesis by E. Ullrich. F. M. Cross ("The Evolution of a Theory
of Local Texts," 2372 Proceedings IOSCS, SBL Pseudepigrapha
Seminar [Missoula: U. Montana, 1972] 123) remarks about this
thesis that, "It shows clearly, I believe, that there is no
reason to suppose that Josephus made use of a Hebrew text.
Rather he simply used a Greek text of Samuel of proto-Lucianic
type." Niese ("Josephus," ESE V I . 569-79) already approached
this position.
 33

version with a certain amount of expansion, there is still

room for the editorial activity of the historian. We find in
none of these possible sources the same type of extensive
interpretative activity which w e shall see in the Antiquities.
Suggestions about the precise type of scriptural text
used by Josephus are in part attempts to account for the read-
ings in verses directly parallel to the scriptural text. In
part they begin to account for the abundance of non-scriptural
details in the Antiquities. Here other sources must be con-
sidered as well. Some of the non-scriptural details are found
in other paraphrases of scripture of the same period, which
probably have a Palestinian provenance, notably the book of
1 2
Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum.
These works share not only some of the details of scriptural
paraphrase, but also some of the major thematic emphases of
the Antiquities.
Another possible source of the non-scriptural material
is the Greco-Jewish apologetic literature which developed
during the third to the first centuries BCE. The fragments
of this corpus survive primarily in the Preparatio evangeliaa
of Eusebius, who ultimately relied on the compilation made by
the excerptor of the first century BCE, Alexander Polyhistor. 4

For a translation and general discussion, cf. R. H.

Charles, Avocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
(Oxford, 1913) II. 1-82. Rappaport (Agada xix-xx) lists
some of the correspondences. Jubilees probably dates to the
second century BCE.
2
For a survey of the literature on Ps-Philo, cf. the
prolegomena by L. H. Feldman to M. R. James, The Biblical
Antiquities of Philo (New York: Ktav, 1 9 7 1 ) . Feldman (LVIII-
LXVI) also lists parallels between Josephus and Pseudo-Philo.
The old text of the work (G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo 's Liber
Antiquitatum Bibliearum [Notre Dame, 1949]) has been replaced
by the critical edition of D. Harrington (Text and Biblical
Text in Pseudo-Philo'a Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum [Diss.
Harvard, 1969]) which is soon to appear in the Sources chreti-
ennes series. Ps-Philo probably is roughly contemporaneous
to Josephus.

T h e s e general parallels will be discussed in Ch. 5, p p .

3

147-48.

T h e most recent collection of the texts is A. M . Denis,

4

Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt Graeca (Pseudepig-

rapha veteris testamenti graece 3; Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) .
34

In his classic study of these authors, J. F r e u d e n t h a l 1

argued that Josephus probably knew them primarily, if not

exclusively, through Alexander's compilation of texts on Juda
2 ^
ism. This opinion has frequently been accepted, although
many scholars have noted certain difficulties with i t . 4
For
Josephus refers explicitly to Alexander only once, and the
material quoted there from Cleodemus Malchos might have come
not from Alexander's work on the Jews, but rather from his
Libyka. 5
Furthermore, Josephus refers in the Contra Apionem

Eellenistische Studien I-II [Breslau: Jahresbericht des

judisch-theologischen Seminars, 1 8 7 4 - 7 5 ) . For subsequent
literature on these authors, cf. G. Delling, Bibliographie zur
judisah-hellenistisohen und intertestamentarieahen Literatur:
1900-1965 (TTJ 106; Berlin: Akademie, 1 9 6 9 ) , and A . M . Denis,
Introduction aux pseudtpigraphes grees d'Anaien Testament
(Studia in Veteris Testament! Pseudepigrapha 1; Leiden:
Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) . Note also the recent discussions of P. Dalbert,
Vie Theologie der hellenistisah-judischen Missions-Literatur
unter Ausschlues von Philo und Josephus (Hamburg: Reich,
1 9 5 4 ) , Georgi (Die Gegner, passim), and P. M. Fraser (Ptolemaic
Alexandria [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 687-716)'.
2
The authors in question and the most relevant sections
of the Antiquities are: Demetrius, I I . 321; X. 185; Artapanus,
I. 161-68; I I . 232-53; Cleodemus Malchos, I. 240; the Sibyl-
lines, I. 118-19; as well as some scattered bits of chrono-
logical data parallel to Eupolemos.
3
Among source critics of the Antiquities, the most nota-
ble proponents of the theory are Bloch (Quellen 53-56) and
Rappaport (Agada xvii) . Schalit (Introduction xlv-xlix) ar-
gues at length for dependence of Josephus on Alexander, al-
though he does not discuss the issue of the different books
of Alexander which could have served as sources.
4
T h e earliest objections to Freudenthal were raised by
A. von Gutschmid in a review (Kleine Sehriften [Leipzig:
Teubner, 1880] II. 1 8 2 ) . For more recent discussion, cf. N.
Walter, Der Toraausleger Aristobulos (TU 86; Berlin: Akade-
m i e , 1964) 55, and "Zur Ueberlieferung einiger Reste friiher
judisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clemens und
Eusebius," Studia Patristica 7, 314-320 (TU 92; Berlin:
Akademie, 1 9 6 6 ) , a n d B . - Z . Wacholder, Eupolemus, A Study of
Greco-Jewish Literature (Cincinnati/New York/Los Angeles/
Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1974) 53-57.

^Ant. I. 239-241. The topic is more Jewish than African.

It might therefore be more at home in Alexander's compilation
on the Jews. The quote from the Sibylline Oracles in Ant. I.
118 also seems definitely to come from Alexander, although he
is not cited by name. This quote may have been from his
Babylonika, whence Josephus may also have derived some of his
 35

to several major Greco-Jewish authors as if they were pagan.

All of this suggests that Josephus did not make extensive use
of the compilation of Greco-Jewish literature by A l e x a n d e r . 2

Other sources, of course, were available to Josephus

which might have conveyed information about the earlier Jewish
literature in G r e e k . 3
The precise channels through which
material from that literature reached Josephus are difficult
to trace. In any case, it is highly probable that Josephus
did not make extensive first hand use of his apologetic fore-
bears, although traditions from that literature certainly
influenced the Antiquities. 4

information on Berossus. Gutschmid (Kleine Sahriften IV. 491)

and Schalit (Introduction xlv-xlix) both discuss this material
(Ant. I. 93, X. 2 3 ) .

^C. Ap. I. 218 mentions Demetrius (of P h a l e r u m ! ) , Philo

the elder and Eupolemus and admits that they achieved a close
approximation to the truth, despite the fact that they could
not correctly understand Jewish records. Of course, even if
Josephus had used Alexander, he might have considered some of
the highly syncretistic authors preserved there to have been
pagans.
Gutschmid (Kleine Sahriften I I . 182) suggests on the
basis of the C. Ap. I. 218 that Josephus did have access to
Alexander's compilation when he wrote the Contra Apionem, but
only used it in a superficial way.
2
The preface to the Antiquities conveys the impression
that Josephus is making a rather original contribution, having
been preceded only by the Septuagint. A failure to mention
Alexander more frequently might also be designed to convey
the same impression.
The hypothesis of the use by Josephus of a single major
source, Alexander's On the Jews, is neater than the hypothesis
of a use of several works of Alexander, not clearly related to
Josephus' main interests.
3
G . Holscher ("Josephus," PURE IX, 1934-2000) suggested
that Josephus relied on a compilation of Alexandrian scholas-
tic exegesis. Wacholder (Nicholas of Damascus [University of
California Publications in History 75; Berkeley/Los Angeles:
Univ. of California, 1962] 52) and Thackeray (Loeb IV. 45)
suggested that the lists of authors ending with the name of
Nicholas (Ant. I. 9 4 , 108) might be an indication of such a
dependence. Wacholder later (Eupolemus 56-57) suggested that
Josephus might have depended on his rival Justus of TibeTius
for knowledge of some of the Jewish Hellenists.
4
Artapanus especially seems to have been the ultimate
source of the novelistic material on M o s e s .
36

Philo is a rather special case of an earlier hellenistic

Jewish author. Scholarly opinion has been equally divided on
whether Josephus used him or not. Those who support the con-
nection point to the large number of exegetical details which
the two s h a r e , 2
or to the common use of allegorical interpreta-
tion. Those who dispute the connection argue that most of
the details could easily depend on common Hellenistic-Jewish
exegesis* and that the allegorical interpretations in particu-
lar are far too common to prove literary dependence. 5
The
wide attestation of the material involved here strongly favors
a sceptical attitude toward any suggestion of close dependence
on Philo.
Finally, it seems likely that many details of the scrip-
tural paraphrase derive from oral traditions of biblical

Rappaport (Agada xviii) provides a survey of the scholar-

ly opinions to his date. Notable among the supporters of the
connection are Freudenthal (Eellenistisahe Studien 218) and
Schiirer (Geschichte I. 8 1 ) . Earlier scholars who should be
on the list include H. W e y l , Die gudische Strafgesetze bei
Flavius Josephus in ihrem Verhaltnis zu Schvift und Ealaeha
(Berlin: 1 9 0 0 ) , and Lewinsky (Beiirage 1 0 ) ,
2
Rappaport (Agada xix) cites several such details as evi-
dence of dependence. In Ant. I. 77 it is said that the ark
had four stories, whereas in scripture only three are men-
tioned. The same number appears in Philo, Vit. Mos. II. 60.
He also notes the close verbal parallel between Ant. I. 177
and Abr. 233 and between Ant. I I . 61 and Jos. 25.
3
Both Thackeray (Josephus 94) and Schalit (Introduction
xli) accept the thesis of dependence, largely on the basis of
the parallels between the preface of the Antiquities and the
Op. Mun. and because of the similar allegorical interpretation
of vestments and the tabernacle in Ant. III. 123, 179-87 and
Vit. Mos. II. 88, 117.
*Bloch (Quellen 125-33) enumerates ten of these details
from the first four books and lists various parallels from Jew-
ish sources, as well as differences between Philo and Josephus
on specific points. Among others who dispute the dependence
are Holscher ("Josephus" 1 9 6 4 ) , S. Belkin (The Alexandrian
Halakha in Apologetic Literature of the First Century C.E.
[Philadelphia: ' Jewish Publication Society, 1936]) and Delling
("Heidnische Religionen" 4 6 ) .

0 n this issue, cf. E . R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in

5

an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965)

94ff. and the review by Z. Stewart, JTS NS 17 (1966) 164-65.
For a discussion of Jewish allegory in general in this period,
cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge: Harvard, 1947) I. 115-138
and J. Pepin, Mythe et alligorie (Paris: Aubier, 1 9 5 8 ) .
 37

exegesis, either those which Josephus knew from his youth in

Palestine, 1
or those which developed in the synagogal homi-
2
letics of the diaspora.
W e noted briefly at the beginning of this section that
the possibility of heavy dependence of Josephus on specific
written sources in his biblical paraphrase might have impor-
tant implications for our investigation. Study of scriptural
interpretation would have to be a more elaborate exploration
of the process of redaction between the biblical text and the
Antiquities. The role of Josephus himself would necessarily
be a rather limited one, which would be more difficult to
delineate with any precision. In fact, as our review of the
question of sources indicates, it is generally recognized that
Josephus was not dependent on any one specific reworking of
scripture. Holscher's thesis that he was is quite unfounded.
Instead, Josephus apparently dr.ew on a variety of traditions
and used them all with some flexibility.
Furthermore, we shall find in our subsequent investiga-
tion substantial evidence of the activity of Josephus himself.

Bloch (Quellen 52) and Schalit (Introduction xxxix-xli)

stress the probable importance of oral traditions. Schalit
even suggests a general criterion for distinguishing between
exegetxcal details derived from written sources and those
stemming from oral tradition. Details connected with specific
verses are to be seen as oral traditions. Extended blocks of
material not connected with a specific verse are probably from
written sources. One interesting example of possible Pales-
tinian oral tradition was examined by 0. Steck (Israel und das
gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten [WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1967] 81-109) who traces the motif of the
prophet who suffers for proclaiming God's will and suggests
that it has its Sitz-irn-Leben in Palestinian levitical preach-
ing. It should be noted that some scholars such as Rappaport
(Agada xv) criticized the theory of dependence on oral tradi-
tion and saw Josephus as relying on written sources exclusive-
ly. Although Josephus used such sources extensively, there
are no grounds for excluding oral tradition.

2
I . Elbogen (Der y'udische Gottesdienst in seiner
gesahichtliahen Entaicklung [Frankfurt am Main: Kauffmann,
1931] 188-80) discusses the phenomenon of synagogue homi-
letics in general. Georgi (Die Gegner, passim) discusses the
topic in connection with Greco-Jewish apologetic.
3
"Josephus" 19. According to this view Josephus is
simply a mechanical copyist.
38

This appears in a set of evaluative patterns and vocabulary

running throughout the biblical paraphrase, which manifests a
sustained reflection on the events of biblical history. These
patterns are not traceable to any of the other biblical para-
phrases which might have served as a source for Josephus. In
some cases there are important elements of continuity between
these patterns and important features of the Bellum, as well
as with remarks in the obviously editorial and programmatic
sections of the Antiquities. These facts confirm what the sur-
vey of sources indicated, namely that the paraphrase by Jose-
phus is not simply a reproduction of sources but a careful re-
working of them.

II. Techniques of Narrative Elaboration

In reworking and interweaving the variety of materials at

his disposal, Josephus displayed a familiarity with a broad
spectrum of Greek literature and With the literary fashion of
his day. His rhetorical and stylistic devices as well as his
choice of vocabulary have frequently been investigated, and we
need only summarize the major results of previous s c h o l a r s h i p . 1

On the most basic level of vocabulary and grammar, the

2
careful study by A. Pelletier of the Letter of Aristeas and
the corresponding section of the Antiquities has made quite
clear that a major concern of Josephus was to produce a liter-
ary work acceptable to first-century atticizing tastes.
The intimate acquaintance of Josephus with more signifi-
cant stylistic traits of classical Greek authors has amazed
some scholars and has produced one rather well-known theory
I n addition to the studies cited below, cf. M . Auerbach,
1

"De hiatu in Flavii Josephi scriptis obvio," Archiwum towar-

zystwa naukowego we Lwowie (=Archive of the Lemberger Union
for the furtherance of Polish Scholarship) 1 (1922) 37-58; W.
Schmidt, De Fiavii Josephi elocutions observationes critiaae
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1 8 9 3 ) ; C. Raab, De Flavii Josephi elocu-
tions quaestiones ariticae et observationes grammaticae
(Erlangen, 1 8 9 0 ) ; H. Paur, Observationes et adnotationes ad
Flavii Josephi elocutionem (Niirnberg, 1 8 9 2 ) ; W. Hornbostel,
De Flavii Josephi studiis rhetoricis quaestiones selectae
(Halle, 1912) and S. Ek, "Herodotismen in der judischen
Archaeologie des Josephos," HTLA (1945-46) 27-62.
2 x

Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee: Vne

reaction atticisante contre la Koine (Etudes et comraentaires
XLV; Paris: Klincksieck, 1 9 6 2 ) .
 39

about the composition of the Antiquities. Thackeray 1

sug-
gested that Josephus employed assistants, each of whom had a
favorite classical author. Where vocabulary or stylistic
traits of those authors appeared, the hand of the assistant
had been at work. Subsequent studies, however, have shown
that traits reminiscent of the various model authors are found
throughout the Antiquities. Hence, it is more plausible to
suppose that Josephus himself introduced into his narrative
various vocabulary items and turns of phrase which he had
gleaned from his reading of the classics.
More significant for the interpretative aspect of the
Antiquities are the narrative techniques employed. Attention
was specially focused on this issue by three studies which
3
appeared almost simultaneously forty years ago. All treated
the story of the patriarch Joseph and noted the affinities of
features of the tale in Josephus with common elements in
Greco-Roman novels. Several subsequent studies have docu-
mented similar uses of motifs from Greco-Roman literature,
A
especially erotic-romantic motifs.
In addition to the elaboration of the narrative with such
erotic, novelistic material as we find in the Joseph story and
Josephus 100-124, a theory repeated in the introduction
to the Loeb, V o l . IV. xiv-xvii.
2
E. Stein, He Woordenkeuze in het Bellum Judaicum van
Flavius Josephus (Amsterdam, 1 9 3 7 ) ; G. C. Richards and
R. J. H. Shutt, "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities,"
CQ 33 (1939) 36-40; H. Petersen, "Real and Alleged Literary
Projects of Josephus," AJPk 79 (1958) 259-74; R. J. H. Shutt,
Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1 9 6 1 ) ; and B. Justus, "Zur
Erzahlkunst des Flavius Josephus," Theokratia 2 (19 70-72) 107-
36.
3
H . Sprodowsky, Die Hellenisierung der Geschichte von
Joseph in Aegyptem bei Flavius Josephus (Greifswald, 1937) and
M. Braun, Griechisaher Roman und Rellenistische Geschichts-
schreibung (Frankfurt am M a i n , 1934) and History and Romance
in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1 9 3 8 ) .
4
H . R. Moehring, Novelistic Elements in the Writings of
Flavius Josephus (Diss. Chicago, 1957) and W. C. Van Unnik,
"Josephus' account of the story of Israel's sin with alien
women," Travels in the World of the OT (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1974) 241-61. Van Unnik's is the first study to treat in any
detail the story of the Levite of Ephraim which is important
for one dimension of the interpretative activity of Josephus.
Cf. Ch. 4, p p . 128-32.
40

in certain other pericopae, there are some literary devices

which are found more generally. 1
Many scenes are made more
dramatic than in scripture hy an elaboration of elements in
them which might appeal to the emotions and by speeches which
forcefully present the points of view of the characters in-
volved. Another important feature is the psychologizing,
i.e. the concentration on the inner experience and motivation
of the characters. Thus we often hear of the emotions which
individuals feel in particular situations and especially those
which prompt them to take a c t i o n . 3
With equal frequency we
read analyses of the conscious, rational motives which lie be-
hind men's a c t i o n s . 4

Many of these narrative devices are particularly.charac-

teristic of hellenistic historiography, 5
and we shall see more

These have been catalogued by E. Stein ("De Flavii Jose-

phi arte narrandi," Eos 33 [1930-31] 641-50); B. Heller
("GrundzCge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus," MGWJ 80 [1936]
237-46, 3 6 3 ) ; I. Heinemann ("Josephus Method in the Presenta-
1

tion of Jewish Antiquities" [Hebrew], Zion 5 [1939-40] 180-203)

and Schalit (Introduction 1-lviii) commenting on the structure
of the Antiquities as a whole and (Introduction lix-lxxii) on
the various techniques in diction, character portrayal, etc.
2
Particular examples of the dramatizing expansion are the
Aqedah (I. 2 2 2 - 3 6 ) , the Josenh story (II. 3 9 - 1 6 7 ) , the account
of the exodus (II. 3 2 0 - 3 4 9 } a n d the revolts (IV. 11-66 and
131-58). We shall be examining these sections in the subse-
quent chapters. For examples of relatively minor instances of
this dramatizing technique, cf. Ch. 4, p . 134, n. 1.
Note, for example, the prevalence of references to the
fears of the major characters: of Cain (I. 5 9 ) , of Noah (I.
74, 9 6 - 1 0 3 ) , of Lot (I. 1 7 6 ) , of Rachel (I. 3 0 5 ) , of Jacob (I.
277, 327; II. 1 8 , 1 1 9 ) , of Joseph (II. 133, 1 7 0 - 7 1 ) , of Phar-
aoh (II. 206, 255, 2 9 9 ) , of Potiphar's wife (II. 5 0 - 5 4 ) , of
Amram (II. 210, 2 1 9 ) , of Moses (II. 322, IV. 6 3 ) , of Saul (VI.
59, 205, 213, 2 5 9 ) , of Joab (VII. 31, 36; V I I I . 1 3 ) , of Jehosa-
nhat (IX. 8, 9 ) , of Nebuchadnezzar (X. 9 9 ) , and of Josiah (X.
59) .
N o t e the rationale of Isaac in becoming reconciled with
4

Abimelech (I. 2 6 4 ) , of Joseph for selling Egyptian grain to

foreigners (II. 9 4 ) , of Moses when he comes to the aid of the
daughters of Raguel (II. 2 6 0 ) , and of the Israelite tribes when
deliberating on the fate of the Benjaminites (V. 1 6 9 ) . The im-
pulse to analysis of motives carries over occasionally into the
presentation of the laws (III. 2 7 4 ) .

C f . the literature cited below on p . 45, n. 4 and p . 46,

5

n. 2. Another useful discussion of literary techniques in a

work of religious historiography is E. Pliimacher, Lukas als
 41

on that subject in the next section. In subsequent chapters

we shall often see these various techniques in operation, and
we shall frequently find that the passages which are most care-
fully developed from a literary point of view are precisely
those where the most important interpretative activity has
taken place.

III. The Preface to the Antiquities: General Considerations

In the preface to the Antiquities certain important themes

by which the Jewish past is evaluated and interpreted are first
suggested. These them-es will supply the general categories in
which our examination of the actual paraphrase will proceed in
later chapters. We shall see important continuities between
the programmatic statements and the final product, although
equally important dimensions of the interpretation will not
become evident until we have examined the narrative. The
proem to the Antiquities is important for our investigation,
not only because of the explicit assessment of the significance
of biblical history which it contains, but also because of what
it may show about the mode of this assessment. H e r e, Josephus
makes prominent use of Greek historiographical cliches. This
fact has important implications for understanding the aims and
methods of the work.
The preface to the Antiquities consists of three fairly
well-defined sections. The first, 1-9, contains various re-
marks on historiography: the motives which prompt men to write
history and how these are applicable to Josephus (1-4); the
contents of the work, defined as an "archaeology" (5-6); the
relation of the present to the previous work of the historian
(6-7); and a few kind words about the patron of Josephus,
Epaphroditus, at whose urging Josephus undertook the task of
composing the Antiquities (8-9a).
The second section (9b-17) develops further the explana-
tion of the material which Josephus is to present. Here the
historian cites a precedent for his work, namely the Septua-
gint, and he recalls details from the legend of its transla-
tion, as are found in the Letter of Aristeas (10-12). Next

hellenistiseher Schriftsteller: Studien zur Ajpostelgeschiehte

(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 19 72) .
42

Josephus offers another brief general survey of the type of

material involved in his work (13) and, for the first time,
the lesson of all this history (14). There follows an appeal
to the reader to judge whether the Jewish lawgiver has created
a work free of all "unseemly mythology" (15-17) .
The third and final section picks up the discussion of
the lawgiver to whom Josephus had alluded in the previous
section, now mentioning him by name. Josephus says that he
feels compelled to discuss him briefly lest people wonder why
a legal and historical work should begin with "physiology"
(18). The explanation given is that good laws must be based
on an understanding of nature ( 1 9 ) . Law must be made in con-
formity with nature, and it will b e , if it is recognized that
nature mirrors the divine and that the god who is father and
lord of all rewards and punishes men according to their deeds.
Piety (eua^Beia) consists in recognizing this religious
philosophy and once men are thus pious they will be ready to
obey the laws (20-21). Moses is then contrasted with inferior
lawgivers, who attribute to gods various shameful deeds, thus
furnishing the wicked with excuses for their behavior (22-23).
Then another appeal to the reader is launched, asking him to
note whether anything unreasonable or inconsistent with the
majesty of God has been included in the work of Moses ( 2 4 ) .
This is followed by a brief theory of hermeneutics, where it
is noted that the message of the scriptures is given in part
enigmatically, in part allegorically, and in part simply, a
fact which would provide material for the speculative contem-
plation (Setopia) of the philosophically-minded, which Josephus
excuses himself from furnishing at present. Then he announces
that he will begin with the account by Moses of the creation
of the world.

It would be interesting to know what sort of theological

reflection Josephus would have offered in his projected work
on "Customs and Causes". Perhaps he would have been more
speculative and systematic, but we cannot know for certain.
 43

IV. The Historiography of the Antiquities: Apologetic

Edification

In the first of these three sections, dealing with prima-

rily historiographical matters, there are some obvious paral-
lels to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the rhetor and historian
of the Augustan age, and these parallels have frequently been
recorded. 1
Both writers remark on the motivations for his-
torical writing in their prefaces and both describe the con-
tents of their works in similar terms. Josephus proclaims that
the material of his work is worthy of attention (ag£a pTtouSfis) •
It includes

our entire ancient history (apxai.oA.OYt"a)

and political constitution (Sidragts T O O
rcoA.LTei5ua.Tog) . . . who the Jews were of old,
the fortunes that befell them (rCou xpnaduevoi.
x o x a u g ) , the lawgiver under whom they were
trained in piety and the exercise of the other
virtues and all those wars waged by them through
long ages before this last (Ant. I. 5-6) .

In the preface to his Antiquitates Romanae, Dionysius also

lays claim to a worthy subject (1.1.2) and promises to speak
of "those who settled the city, who they w e r e , and the times
of their arrival and what fortunes befell them ( T L O U xuxatg
xpna&uevoi.) before they left their fatherlands (1.5.1)."
Later he details more of his subject matter:

I relate all the foreign wars that the city

waged during that period, and all the internal
seditions with which she was agitated, show-
ing from what causes they sprang and by what
methods and by what arguments they were brought
to an end. I give an account also of all the
forms of government Rome used, both during the
monarchy and after its overthrow . . . . I
describe the best customs and the most remarka-
ble laws; and, in short, I show the whole life
of the ancient Romans (Ant. Rom. 1 . 8 . 2 ) .

In addition to this definition of their subject by the two

historians, the very titles and the division into twenty books

Thackeray (Josephus 5 6 - 5 8 ) , Foakes-Jackson (Josephus and •

the Jews 2 4 7 - 4 8 ) , Schalit (Introduction x x - x x v i ) , and Shutt
(Studies 92-101) all note the connection. Shutt deals prima-
rily with questions of style in the latter half of the Antiq-
uities .
44

in each case is indicative of the influence of Dionysius on

the Jewish historian.
It is probable that this influence extended into details
of the narrative, such as certain "rationalistic" •phrases 1
and
2
the structuring of certain scenes, although evidence adduced
for this has often been weak. We shall deal with this ques-
tion in due course. What is of interest here is a slightly
more general problem. We may wonder about the significance of
these correspondences in programmatic statements. Is there
also a shared theoretical conception of history or similar
aims in composing historical literature?
It Is clear that Josephus presents this historical work
in a different way from that which he had used in the Bellum,
and it is also clear that he used Dionysius as his model for
this presentation. In part this change in programmatic state-
ment may be due simply to the change in subject matter, but in
part at least, it seems to reflect a different conception of
what historical literature could and should do. In order to
see this, it is necessary to consider some of the differences
between the programmatic statements of the Bellum and the
Antiquities, Illustrating the differences in content and aims
of the two works.
The Bellum has for its subject matter primarily contem-
porary military and political affairs. In the preface Josephus
takes pains to argue for the superiority of historical writing
which deals with such topics:
Yet I, on my side, might justly censure those
erudite Greeks w h o , living in times of such

The formulaic "rationalistic" remarks to the effect that

each reader should make his own judgment about the miraculous
(Ant. I. 108, I I . 348, III. 81) are also found in Dionysius
(Ant. Rom. 1.48.1; 2.40.5, 70.5; 3 . 3 5 . 5 ) , as is noted by
Thackeray (Josephus 57) and Schalit (Introduction x x v ) . The
expression is not confined to Dionysius, as G. Avenarius
(Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtssahreibung [Meisenheim/Glan:
H a i n , 1956] 163-65) indicates. MacRae ("Miracle" 147) also
pointed to common terminology for the miraculous. Cf. Ch. 3,
p. 95, n. 1, and p . 98, n. 1. This language, too, is more
common, as we shall see in Ch. 5.
2
Thackeray (Josephus 56-57) suggests a similarity between
the passing of Moses (Ant. IV. 326) and the passing of Aeneas
and of Romulus in Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.64.4; 2.56.2).
 45

stirring actions as by comparison reduce to

insignificance the wars of antiquity, yet
judge disparagingly-*- these current events
and revile those who make them their special
study - authors whose principles they lack,
even if they have the advantage of them in
literary skill . . . . In fact, the work of
committing to writing events which have not
previously been recorded and of commending
to posterity the history of one's own time
is one which merits praise and acknowledgement.
The industrious writer is not one who merely
remodels the scheme and arrangement of anoth-
er's work, but one who uses fresh materials
and makes up his own framework for the his-
tory. 2

Subsequently Josephus also indicates that he thinks the narra-

tion of the ancient history of the Jews (dcntoaoAoYStv . . . T&
'IouSaCcov 17) is superfluous because of previous e f f o r t s . 3

This insistence in the Bellum on contemporary affairs as

the proper subject matter for the historian is a legacy of
Thucydides (1.21). The rejection of the rewriting of history
appears explicitly in those like Polybius who maintained the
tradition of critical, contemporary, practical historiography
which Thucydides i n i t i a t e d . 4
One passage in Polybius is par-
cularly close to the program of the Bellum:

Since genealogies, myths, the planting of

colonies, the foundations of cities and
their ties of kinship have been recounted
by many writers and in many different styles,

The Loeb here translates "sit in judgment." This is

slightly misleading. The historian with antiquarian interests
does not sit in judgment on such events. He ignores them or .
judges them unworthy Of his attention.

Bell. I. 13-15. Thackeray's translation here:

2
"makes
the framework of history his own" is misleading.
3
C o n t r a s t Ant. I. 9-11.
4
0 n Polybius and his views on historiography, cf. W.
Siegfried, Studien ZUT gesehiehtlichen Anschauung des Polybios
(Diss. Heidelberg: 1 9 2 8 ) ; F . W. Walbank, "Polemic in Poly-
bius," JRS 52 (1962) 5-12; P. Pedech, La mithode historique de
Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1 9 6 4 ) ; F. W. Walbank,
Polybius (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: U. of Calif., 1972)
esp. 66-96 on Pragmatike Historia. Shutt (Studies 102-106)
gathers evidence for the use of Polybius by Josephus.
46

an author who undertakes at the present

day to deal with these matters must either
represent the work of others as being his
own, a most disgraceful proceeding, or if
he refuses to do this, must manifestly toil
to no purpose, being constrained to avow
that the matters on which he writes and to
which he devotes his attention have been
adequately narrated and handed down to pos-
terity by previous authors. So omitting
these things for the above and various other
reasons, I decided on writing a history of
contemporary e v e n t s .
1

We have already cited, at the beginning of this section, the

passages from Dionysius and Josephus in the Antiquities which
define their sphere of interests in just the terms rejected by
7
Polybius and by Josephus himself in the Bellum. The rhetori-
cal historiography of the early empire saw antiquarian research
as its proper concern and it is with this historiography that
Josephus naturally aligns himself in treating his own people's
ancient history.

Hist. 9.2.1-2. The end of the quote is a rather loose

translation of 6 6e TtpaYudTuuog TP6TCPC £veMpC9r). Also in
4.2.2-3 Polybius explains that he is dealing with recent his-
tory: "I have been present at some of the events and have the
testimony of eyewitnesses for others."
2
The deliberate rejection of contemporary political-
military history by Dionysius appears clearly in some of his
literary critical treatises. There he often criticizes
Thucydides for the inferiority of his subject matter. He
"stretched out a single w a r . He ran along without a pause
adding one battle to another, so that the attention of the
readers becomes weary . . . . Even h e , however, had some .
idea about what I am saying, namely that change and diversity
(uerapoXfl nat nomiXov') is a pleasant thing in the composition
of history (Ad Pomp. 3 . 1 2 ) . " On this and the other literary-
critical treatises of Dionysius, cf. S. F. Bonner, The Liter-
ary Treatises of Dionysius of Baliaarnassus (Cambridge, 1939)
and G. M. Grube, The Greek and Roman Critics (London: Methuen,
1965). F. Halbfas (Theorie und Praxis in der Geschiohts-
sahreibung bei Dionysius von Baliaarnassus [Munster, 1910])
provides a general discussion of historiographical theory in
Dionysius.
3
L i v y is another example of the same type of historio-
graphical orientation. Cf. E. Burck, Die Erz'dhlungskunst des
T. Livius (Problemata 11; Berlin: Wiedmann, 1934) and P. G.
Walsh, Livy, His Historical A.ims and Methods (Cambridge, 1 9 6 1 ) .
On the distinction between the two types of historical litera-
ture made here cf. A. Momigliano, "Problems of Ancient Biog-
 47

Not only in the description of the contents, but also in

his expressed aims, Josephus appears to have adopted in the
Antiquities the particular emphases of the antiquarian rhetor-
ical historiography. The preface to the Bellum has little to
say on the subject of the effects of reading history. It does
stress the need for truth and objectivity. This was hardly
something which historians rejected; 1
however, certain implica-
tions of the requirement of truthful objectivity were consist-
ently drawn only by the more critical historians. Josephus in
the Bellum expresses these implications in his rejection of
pleasure and of propaganda as legitimate goals of history.
The claim of Josephus in the Bellum that he is not writ-
ing for -the gratification of his readers reflects the frequent-
ly found judgment that history constitutes an integral literary
genre, not to be assimilated to, or confused with poetry or
2
tragedy, the goals and methods of which are quite different.

raphy" Quarto Contributo alia Storia degli Studi Classiai e

del Mondo Antico (Rome: Storia e letteratura, 1969) 77-94,
esp. p. 8 1 , and "Ancient History and the Antiquarian" Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950) 285-315 and
Contributo alia Storia degli Studi Classiai (Roma: Storia e
letteratura, 1955) 67-106. Some useful remarks may also be
found in H. J. Cadbury, "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of
Writing History" The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. F. J.
Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; London: MacMillan, 1922) II. 7-15.

''An exception to this generalization is occasionally

cited from Cicero, Brutus 4 2 . He had been comparing Themisto-
cles and Coriolanus: "si quidem uterque cum civis egregius
fuisset, populi ingrati pulsus iniuria se ad hostis contulit
conatumque iracundiae suae morte sedavit. Nam etsi aliter
apud te est, Attice, de Coriolano, concede tamen ut huic
generi mortis potius assentiar." To which Atticus replies,
"At ille ridens: 'Tuo vero,' inquit, "arbitratu, quoniam
quidem coneessum est rhetoribus ementiri in historiis, ut
aliquid dicere possint argutius.'" The point here is not that
rhetors are allowed the latitude of falsification whe n compos-
ing historical works, but that orators are free to falsify the
historical exempla which they use in their speeches to make a
more telling point. L. H. Feldman (Cicero's Conception of
Historiography [Diss. Harvard, 1951] 179) comments on this
issue in detail.
2
This theoretical rejection of the poetic or tragic does
not imply that contemporary political historiography was de-
void of literary considerations. The work on his own consul-
ship which Cicero requested from Lucceius would have conformed
to many of the literary expectations of his day. Cf. Ad Fam.
5.12.2-6 (On this letter cf. the discussion of R. Reitzenstein,
48

The well known remarks of Polybius on the subject occur in the

course of his critique of Phylarchus, one of the earlier Hel-
lenistic historians who apparently exemplified well the methods
of "tragic" or "pathetic" h i s t o r y . 1
Polybius writes:

The object of tragedy is not the same as that

of history, but quite the opposite. The
tragic poet should thrill and charm (sHTtAfjEcu
>ca.l iliuxo.Y'aY'naaO his audience for the moment
by the verisimilitude of the words he puts

Sellenistische Wunderemahlungen [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschaft, 1963; a photo reprint of the 1906 edition).
Schalit (Introduction xi-xv) notes some of the ways in which,
the Bellum fulfills the criteria for a literary monograph in
Cicero's letter. The work is conceived as an organic whole ,
highlighting the activity of a single individual, Titus, cli-
maxing with the dramatic scenes of the temple's destruction.
Some of these features are general literary ideals to which
even the most rigorous and critical historian could subscribe.
E.g. Polybius made the claim that his history was "as it were
an organic w h o l e " (oioveu uaya.Toei.6ris Eist. 1 . 3 . 4 ) . Walbank
(Polybius 67) discusses this remark of Polybius and, its impli-
cations .
1
0 n Phylarchus, cf. Jacoby, FG3 # 8 1 , and T. W . Africa,
Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Univ. of California
Publications in History 68; Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. of
California Press, 1 9 6 1 ) . The modern category "tragic history"
derives from the description of Phylarchus by Polybius. The
other fragmentarily preserved historian most closely connected
with the term is Duris (FGB # 7 6 ) . It has frequently been sug-
gested that the dramatic, emotional elements in these and
other hellenistic historians derive from a deliberate attempt
to apply to history aristotelian notions of tragedy. So E .
Schwartz, Funf Vortrage uber den griechischen Roman (Berlin,
1896; second ed. 1943) and P. Scheller, De hellenistica his-
toriae consoribenda arte (Leipzig, 1 9 1 1 ) . The alternative
that this type of historiography arose under the influence of
Isocrates, especially in the writings of his pupils Ephorus
(FGE #70) and Theopompus (FGE # 1 1 5 ) , was advanced by B. L.
Ullman, "History and Tragedy" TAPA 73 (1942) 27ff. Both of
these theories were rightly criticized by Walbank, "Tragic
History: A Reconsideration" BIOS 2 (1955) 4-14 and Polybius
34-38. For a more recent discussion examining especially the
significance of Aristotle c f . K. von Fritz, "Die Bedeutung des
Aristoteles fur die Geschichtsschreibung," Eistoire et his-
toriens dans I' antiquite, Pondation Hardt, Entretiens 4 (1956)
85-145, and N. Zegers, Wesen und Ursprung der Tragischen
Geschichtsschreibung (Diss. Koln, 1 9 5 9 ) . For our assessment
of the historiographical elements of Josephus it is not neces-
sary to enter into this disputed question. Neither Josephus
nor his immediate instructors in historiography consciously
adopted a theory of "tragic" history, although they often used
and admired the narrative techniques associated with this type
of writing. By using the term rhetorical historiography to
 49

in his characters' mouths, but it is the

task of the historian to instruct (6t6dgcu).

Even more explicit in Josephus than the repudiation of

poetic elements and the pleasure which follows them is the
repudiation of propaganda, in the form of either invective
(xaxnYopCcO or encomium, and Josephus criticizes others who
had written accounts of the war for having composed out of a
desire to flatter the Romans. Such partisanship is constantly
condemned by critical historians as inconsistent with the ideal
of truthful objectivity. Some of the more striking remarks of
Polybius on the subject occur in his discussion of Theopompus,
who is criticized for being foremost among those whose works
"are not so much history as panegyric," while Polybius claims
that it is proper "neither to revile kings falsely nor to ex-
tol (6YK0Hn.dCet.v) t h e m . " 3

describe the theory and practice of Dionysius, I do not mea n to

imply that Isocrates was responsible for all the features of
hellenistic historical literature.

^ffist. 2.56.11-12. In order to see the continuity of

this and other dicta of critical contemporary historiography,
it is worthwhile to compare the remarks of Lucian in the tract
Quomodo kistoria consevibenda est, a satirical piece ridiculing
the rash of histories which appeared during and after the
Parthian War of 162-65 A.D. It adopts the Thucydidean-Polybian
view of history and it offers the former as the primary model
to emulate, although it is not entirely consistent in this.
On the integrity of the historical genre, cf. Quomodo 7-8.
For a general discussion of the work, cf. Avenarius, Lukians
Sahrift zur Gesahiahtssahreibung (Meisenheim/Glan: Hain,
1956).

2
BeZl. 1-2.
3
Hist. 8.8-11. On the subject of partisanship Lucian is
emphatic. He accuses his contemporaries of writing to flatter
their own leaders, unaware that history and encomium are "sepa-
rated not by a narrow isthmus, but by a high wall" (Quomodo 7 ) .
He goes on to criticize the view that history has two aims, the
pleasurable (x& x e p 7 i v 6 v ) and the beneficial ( T O xptfaiuov) and
the pleasure is provided through encomia. History has but one
aim, the beneficial (Quomodo 9 ) . Later he makes a plea for
the historian to be independent in his judgment, fearing no
one and hoping for no reward, in imitation of Thucydides (Quo-
modo 38 i* 42) .
On a specific point the parallel between Josephus and
this tractate is quite close. Josephus (Bell. 1.7-8) criti-
cizes those who disparage the Jews while exalting the Romans.
50

The claim of Josephus to detached, non-partisan objectivi-

ty is hardly supported by the details of the narrative of the
Bellum. What is significant from our perspective is that'the
claim is made and is, in fact, reinforced by the apology Jose-
phus makes for his "display of compassion which is contrary to
the law of history."''" This display occurs in connection with
the destruction of the temple in civil strife instigated by the
Jewish "tyrants." Objectivity is highlighted here in two ways.
First by the admission that it has not always been observed,
the claim is indirectly made that objectivity is the norm.
Secondly, by calling attention to his censure of his own peo-
ple, Josephus indicates that he is not writing to make a
blanket defense of them. Precisely the same points are made
by Polybius in an excursus toward the end of his work, where
he reflects, two centuries before the Jewish war, on the mis-
fortune of his own people. Like Josephus, he asks for indul-
gence for "abandoning the style more proper to historical nar-
rative" and for expressing himself in a "more declamatory and
ambitious manner." His account will n o t , he claims, "throw a
veil over the offenses of the Greeks," but will record the
facts, despite the reproach some may make that he is writing
2
from animosity.
Thus in the Bellum the aim of historical writing is de-
fined simply as the objective presentation of the truth, a
definition made largely by a via negativa, wherein elements
not properly characteristic of history are criticized. Lack-
ing from the programmatic statements of the Bellum is any con-
sideration of the usefulness of such a history, despite the
fact that it was a commonplace among historians of contemporary
military and political affairs to claim that their accounts
would have practical value for the men of affairs who read

The enterprise is self-defeating, since if the Jews were such

a paltry nation it hardly redounds' to the glory of Rome to
have defeated them. Lucian (Quomodo 14) claims to have read
a historian who did likewise, by comparing the Roman leader
to Achilles and his opponent to Thersites.

*6L66TK> ivxpa. T O V TT\Q i.o-topCas v6uov auYYvc&unv T5> TC&SSI.

Bell. 1.11.

©i.XaTcexSnS Hist.
2
38.4.
 51

them. 1

The contrast with the Antiquities is striking. Here much

more attention is devoted to the aims and intended effects of
the w o r k and in each category there is clearly discernible
both a difference from the norms of critical historiography
and an affinity with the rhetorical ideals represented by
Dionysius. On a relatively minor point, the place of aesthetic
considerations, Josephus now declares, in the introduction to
Bk. XIV:

the relation and recording of events that

are unknown to most people because of their
antiquity require charm of exposition, such
as is imparted by the choice of words and
their proper arrangement and by whatever
else contributes elegance to the narrative,
in order that readers may receive such
information with a certain degree of grati-
fication and p l e a s u r e .
2

Josephus does not claim to be writing "tragic" history, al-

though that is often what he does. He does indicate here that
he is aware of the literary requirements which were expected
especially of an antiquarian, rhetorical h i s t o r i a n . 3

More important than the last remark are the claims which
are made at the start of the Antiquities, where Josephus says
that he will dispel the ignorance which prevails about matters
Jewish CI- 3 ) . He also claims that his work is instructive in
a special way, not simply because it provides a storehouse of
information useful to a politician or general, but especially
because it teaches a m o r a l , namely that the godly and righteous
fare w e l l , while the wicked suffer CI- 1 4 , 2 0 ) . The claim that
he is providing moral instruction through ethical exempla is

•"•On the utility of history, cf. Thucydides 1.22. Polybius

(Eist. 9.1.4-5) says that his work is written for the "politi-
cal type, the man interested in the doings of nations, cities,
monarchs." Cf. also 3.118.12; 12.25b; 8.4.8; 1.35.1-10 and
Walbank, Polybius 66-96.

Ant. XIV. 1-2. Contrast IV. 196 and V I I I . 56. Compare

2

Dionysius in the introduction to the Ant. Rom. 11 and contrast

Lucian, Quomodo 9,
3
C f . above, pp. 38-40.
52

echoed through the n a r r a t i v e . 1

Finally, this history is to make an apologetic plea for

the Jewish people and their customs. This plea is already
implicit in the claim that Josephus is dispelling ignorance,
7
but it is made explicit twice in the course of the preface,
once when Josephus writes:
At the outset, then, I entreat those who will
read these volumes to fix their thoughts on
God and to test whether our lawgiver has had

•"•E.g. Ant. V I . 343 where the life and death of Saul is

said to be a "subject profitable to States, peoples, and na-
tions and of interest to all good m e n - one whereby all should
be induced to pursue virtue and to aspire to those things which
may procure them glory and eternal renown." Cf. also XVII. 60
and XVIII. 128.
2
It is interesting to speculate on the duplication in-
volved in these remarks. The repetition of the moral of his-
tory [14, 2 0 ) , the appeal to the reader (15, 2 4 ) , the repudia-
tion of mythology (15, 22) and the description of the content
as involving eOaepei.a and Ape-cri (6, 20-21) might suggest the
possibility that the preface has gone through at least one
revision. It may be advanced in support of this suggestion
that the preface could well end at 1 7 . There Josephus writes:
"The precise details of our Scripture records w i l l , then, be
set forth, each in its place, as my narrative proceeds, that
being the procedure that I have promised to follow throughout
this work, neither adding nor omitting anything." We might
expect the narrative to begin immediately. Instead, there
follows the discussion of M o s e s , which could have been inserted
in a revision of the VOTTH.

The possibility of a second edition of the Antiquities has

often been discussed. R. Laqueur (Her judisohe Sistoriker
Flavius Josephus [Giessen: Munchow, 1920] 65, 88) noted doub-
lets in III. 212, 222 which suggested the possibility of inter-
polation. Perhaps the suggestion of Thackeray, that the text
has here been revised, is more appropriate. That situation
would provide a parallel to the condition of the proem. Thack-
eray also thought that much of the legal material of III. 224ff.
was incorporated in a revision. The allegorical material of
III. 189-97 is an excursus which may well have been included
as part of the same revising process. For more on the subject
of a revised edition of the Antiquities, cf. Shutt (Studies 77-
78) who cites as material from a revision the discussion in
XVI. 395-404, which is lacking in the Latin. The thesis of a'
reworking is defended by 0. Michel ("Zur Arbeit an den Text-
zeugen des Josephus" ZATW 83 [1971] 101-02) and is rejected by
H. Schreckenberg ("Beitr'age zur Kritik des Josephustextes"
Theokratia 2 [1973] 86, note 3 ) . Laqueur's arguments about a
second epilogue, consisting of XX. 259-66 (in addition to XX.
258, 267-68) are treated critically by Wacholder (Eupolemus
299, n. 1 S 9 ) .
 S3

a worthy conception of His nature and has

always assigned to Him such actions as be-
fit His power, keeping his words concerning
Him pure of that unseemly mythology current
among others (Ant. I. 1 5 ) .

The force of this language about the "nature" of God will have
to be examined later. What the passage clearly illustrates is
that the history to follow claims to be teaching important
religious truths which also illustrate the beliefs of the
people. The second plea to the reader is quite similar:

our legislator, on the contrary, having

shown that God possesses the very perfec-
tion of virtue, thought that m e n should
strive to participate in it, and inexora-
bly punished those who did not hold with
or believe in these doctrines. I there-
fore entreat my readers to examine my work
from this point of view. For, studying it
in this spirit, nothing will appear to
them unreasonable, nothing incongruous
with the majesty of God and His love for
men (Ant. I. 2 3 - 2 4 ) .

In both of these passages the fact that history teaches an

important lesson is cited as evidence for the wisdom of the
lawgiver who was responsible for the original composition of
part of that history. By implication, of course, the people
who follow that legislator's lead are to be admired because
of their virtue and their concept of the divine.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus also wrote to dispel ignorance
and remove erroneous impressions about Romans among the
1 2
Greeks. His work, too, is free of unseemly mythology, and
it is designed to have an effect on the morality of its read-
ers. 3
Toward this end his history will contain:

infinite examples of virtue in men whose

superiors, whether for piety or for justice

1
Ant. Rom. 1.5.1.

Ibid. 2.20.2. Dionysius recognizes that Greek m y t h s ,

when properly interpreted, may be useful, but he feels that
Roman attitudes to the gods are superior.
3
On the variety of attitudes toward Rome in Greek litera-
ture in the period, cf. J. Palm, Rom, Romertum und Imperium in
der grieehisehen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Lund: Gleerup, 1959).
54

or for life-long self control or for warlike

valour, no city, either Greek or barbarian,
has ever produced.1

The first effect of the recounting of such noble exempla will

be that "both the present and future descendants of those god-
like m e n will choose, not the pleasantest and easiest of lives,
2
but rather the noblest and most honorable." The shining
morality of early Roman history also serves to justify the
Roman imperium. They rule not by chance, but because they
•z

deserve to. Thus the function of the ethical lessons of his-

tory in both Josephus and his model are closely parallel.*
The historiographical program of both Josephus and
Dionysius is reflected in and illuminated by the discussion
of the theory of history in the latter's literary critical
essays, especially in his remarks on Thucydides. Here some
of the basic objections to critical "pragmatic" history are
expressed. Dionysius says of the Athenian that despite many
admirable qualities, he was inferior to Herodotus, among
others, because he chose to narrate what was neither edifying
nor patriotic. H e told of the downfall of the Athenians,
rather than of their days of glory. The war he describes was
neither "noble nor fortunate," and in such passages as the
5

Ant. Rom. 1.5.3. Note also the moral evaluations of

leading figures in Ant. Rom. 11.3 8.6, 11.46.1, 15.88.1.
2
Ibid. 1.6.3. Dionysius also suggests a more "pragmatic"
view of the educative value of history when he says that
political types will gain from history valuable experience
(Ant. Rom. 1 1 . 1 . 3 ) ; however, the dominant theme in his program-
matic remarks is the value of history for the improvement of
personal morality. For similar remarks on the utility of his-
tory with emphasis on morality, cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl.
Hist. 30.15 and Livy 1.9.
'Ant. Rom. 1.4.2: St* auTOuaxLoudv TLva M O L L TOxnv aSiwov
3

siv.fi Stiipouuevriv ra u ^ Y ^ ^ o . T&\> dyaSffiv rots a.veTtt.Tn6ei.oT&Toi.c,-

*Schalit (Introduction xxiv-xxv) notes the parallel be-

tween Josephus and Dionysius in their common reading of his-
tory as a compendium of ethical exempla. He fails to note how
in both this reading serves a further purpose than simply that
of moral instruction. In each case the virtue of the fore-
bears is expounded to prove a contemporary point.

Ad Pomp. 3.4.
 55

famous Melian dialogue, he painted an erroneously black pic-

ture of his c i t y . 1
Nor did Thucydides know where to begin or
end his account. H e started with the injustices of the Greeks,
instead of recounting, like Herodotus, the injustices of the
Persians. H e thus acted out of envy (cpaovep3cJ , intending to
attach to his own city the blame for the w a r . 2
Likewise, he
did not care to tell the whole story of the w a r , concluding
his account with the defeat of the Athenians and not with the
expulsion of the Spartan garrison, when the city regained some
autonomy. 3
In short, Dionysius blames Thucydides because he
was hostilely disposed toward his own people.*
It is also of interest to note the judgment of Dionysius
on one other earlier historian, Theopompus, w h o had been
treated unkindly by Polybius. There were many points at issue
in the evaluation of his work, but the one which Polybius
severely criticized was the extensive use of evaluative
digressions and the excessive praise and censure of various
figures. For Dionysius these traits were virtues, not vices.
At one point, the evaluative activity of Theopompus is com-
pared favorably to the mythical judgment of the departed. 5

Thus the historian is advanced as a model who includes moral

evaluation of his material, but who does not do so in an

'-De Thuc. 41.

2
Ad Pomp. 3.9. Recall in this connection the remarks of
Polybius in Hist. 2 8 . 4 , where he anticipates the objection
that in blaming the Greeks for their subjugation to the Romans
he would be acting cpiAcnxexSus •
3
Ad Pomp. 3.10; cf. De Thuc. 10-12 for similar criticism.
^Ad Pomp. 3.15. The charge of bias or malice was appar-
ently a frequent o n e , often made on the grounds of offended
local pride. It is no coincidence that Bionysius of Hali-
earnassus should have valued Herodotus of Halicarnassus more
than Thucydides of Athens. Compare the charges made against
Herodotus by Plutarch, who was apparently offended by the
historian's treatment of his native Boeotia. In the De
malignitate Serodoti he criticizes the Mcutoi'iSsi.a of the
father of history for a variety of reasons, his choice of
diction, his omission of what was noble and inclusion of the
ignoble, his cynical analysis of motives, etc. (855a-856c).

5
Ad Pomp. 6.8.
56

unpatriotic w a y . 1

It should now be clear that there are important similari-

ties between Josephus and Dionysius in their historiographical
approach. It should also be clear that the theoretical per-
spective of the Antiquities is quite different from that of
the Bellum. 2
One might explain the shift simply as a result
of the change in subject matter. The viewpoint of Dionysius
was thus more appropriate to the antiquarian subject matter
-

of the Antiquities. Yet the relationship between subject mat-

ter and historiographical theory may be just the reverse. The
decision to treat the ancient history of the Jews may well
have arisen from the realization of the possibilities of his-
torical literature as they were defined by rhetorical histori-
ans like Dionysius. They certainly saw their work as educative
in a broader sense than that allowed for by "pragmatic" his-
torians of contemporary political and military affairs. This
educational process Involved both an emphasis on the basics
of personal morality and also an explanation and defense of
particular national traditions. Such an educational program
could best be conducted by attention to the remote past. This
whole approach was certainly congenial to Josephus. His Antiq-
uities then is an attempt to illustrate and inculcate a reli-
giously based morality and to demonstrate the significance of
Jewish tradition.
The importance of similarity between Josephus and Dionysi-
us in the programmatic statements of their respective Antiqui-
ties should now be understood. It is a matter of traditional
cliches, but these cliches reveal something Important about
the thrust of the works they introduce. It remains to be seen
whether similarity between the two historians extends in any

The object of most of the venom of Theopompus seems to

have been the Macedonian king, Philip.
7
A. Momigliano ("Time i Ancient Historiography" History
n

and Theory, Beiheft 6 [1966] 1-23 = Quarto Contribute [Rome:

Storia e letterature, 1969] 1-41, esp-. 30-31) noted that two
criteria were operative in the selection of historical materi-
al, qualitative importance and reliability. Polybius and
Dionysius represent different ends of the spectrum in their
judgments about what was qualitatively important. The two
major works of Josephus also stand at the two different ex-
tremes .
 57

significant way to the details of the narrative. Also, while

we can see that Josephus is writing an apologetic history, the
method of that apologetic has not been explained by the brief
programmatic statements we have examined. Some data bearing
on both of these issues is to b e found in the proem and we
shall examine it in section VI of this chapter.

V. Excursus: Minor Parallels in Programmatic Remarks

The narrative methods and techniques which we described

in the second part of this chapter are often common to Josephus
and Dionysius, although there is little in the programmatic
statements which indicates this. One point, however, deserves
comment. Josephus emphasizes, as did many of the rhetorical
historians whom w e have discussed, the use of written sources
as the primary data for composition of history. It is hardly
surprising that antiquarian historians should rely on written
records. The personal experience demanded of the writer of
recent history simply was not available to t h e m . 1
The signifi-
cant point of comparison here is the strong insistence on the
faithful reproduction of reliable records as the responsibili-
2
ty of the historian.
A t several points Josephus insists on the accuracy of his
reproduction of the ancient sources. A t the close of the
Cf. Thucydides 1.222-23, Herodotus 2.29.1. The remarks
of Polybius on the subject are legion. Cf. especially hi-4
critique of Timaeus in Hist. 12.253, 25h, 25k.1-2, 28a.6-8.
Walbank ("Polemic in Polybius" JRS 52 [1962] 5-12) discusses
this critique. In the Bellum Josephus emphasizes, in the man-
ner of Thucydides and Polybius, his participation in the events
described (Bell. 1.3, 1 6 ) .
o
It is important to note the parallels between Josephus
in the Antiquities and Dionysius on their attitude toward
ancient sources because of the incorrect evaluation of the re-
marks of Josephus on the subject by P. Collomp, "La place."
He suggested that in those remarks and in the discussion of
Greek historians in C.Ap. 1.42-46, Josephus took a critical
stand vis-a-vis Dionysius and maintained that "il y a une
historiographie grecque, litteraire et depourvue de documents,
et une historiographie barbare a laquelle il s'agrSge, lit-
terairement bien inferieure (C.Ap. 1 . 2 7 ) , mais appuyee sur
des sources stires et respectees." Feldman (Scholarship 49)
correctly dismisses Collomp and notes that Josephus is rather
close to Dionysius, while the C.Ap. is not a serious theoreti-
cal discussion of historiography.
58

second section of the preface, he writes:

The precise details of our w r i t t e n records

1

w i l l , then, be set forth, each in Its p l a c e ,

as my narrative proceeds, that being the
procedure that I have promised to follow
throughout this work, neither adding any-
thing nor omitting anything (Ant. I. 1 7 ) .

In his summary of the Mosaic Law he notes that "nothing have

we added for the sake of embellishment (Ka.AAami.auoc.) , nothing
which has not been bequeathed by Moses. Our one innovation
has been to classify the several subjects" (IV. 1 9 7 ) . In
introducing the Solomon-Hiram correspondence he carefully
indicates its source, "Because I wish my readers to know that
we have said nothing more than what is true, and have not, by
inserting into the history various plausible and seductive
passages meant to deceive and entertain" (VIII. 5 6 ) . Finally,
near the end of the biblical material (X. 2 1 8 ) , he claims to
be only a translator, who neither added nor subtracted any-
thing from his written sources.
It is obvious that Josephus does not abide strictly by
his pronouncements and he admits as much in the preface to Bk.
XIV, cited a b o v e . 3
In embellishing the scriptural text, he
follows the literary conventions of historiography in general.*''
His insistence on the importance of faithfully reproducing
written sources reflects a particular concern of scholarly,
antiquarian historiography.

•'•The Loeb translates dvaypacpaC as "Scripture records." A

religious dimension is not necessarily implied by the term.
2
Note the Greek expressions: oiiSev T C P O C T ' T E I S ouS' a 5 rtapa-
AiTcrfiv (I. 17) and unxe TtpoaxuSeus xotc, TcpdYuacav aOxfig C6i*a
Unx' dgxxi.p*&v uTceaxnu^vos (X. 2 1 8 ) . Compare p. 5 9 , n. 4 .
Cf. above p. 51.

^Historians of whatever theoretical persuasion used rough

drafts or written sources of some kind (commentarii, uito-
uvr*uaxa) . The final product would usually have more polish
than such a preliminary stage. Lucian (Quomodo 48) gives rec-
ommendations for the composition and reworking of such drafts.
The importance of the reworking was apparent in Cicero's re-
quest to Lucceius, Ad Fam. 5.12.4, in his claim that history is
a branch of rhetoric (Or. 37) and his suggestion that the ora-
tor is the person best qualified to give historical narrative
the required fluency and diversity of diction (De or. 2.51).
 59

In the preface to his Antiquitates Romanae Dionysius

indicates clearly that his work was conducted in such a schol-
arly fashion, with the careful use of the most reliable
sources. In 1.6-7 Dionysius sketches a history of scholar-
ship on Roman antiquities, noting that several earlier Greeks
had written of Rome with only the barest mention of its early
history. Lest he be accused of inventing the stories which
he relates about that early period, he indicates that he knew
Latin and had access to the proper documentation (Aoyoi. T E Mat
OnoirunucurLCTuo":). Some of his information he received via oral
tradition (6i.6axQ AaufJdvanO , but he also relied on the approved
Roman a u t h o r s . 1

A n interesting parallel to the assertions of Josephus

that he is neither adding anything nor removing anything ap-
pears in one of the critical essays of Dionysius. In his dis-
cussion of Thucydides he describes preceding historians and
notes that for the most part they reproduced older records,
temple chronicles and the like, "neither adding anything to
them nor taking anything away." While these writers are
criticized for the naivete (xd fiAC'Hov) of their compositions,
Dionysius admits that they have a certain charm which has in-
3

sured their preservation. While Dionysius did not recommend

emulation of these authors, he certainly valued the accurate
production of ancient records in his own work.*
The disingenuous claim of Josephus that he is neither
adding nor deleting anything from the scriptural records may
well be inspired by the warnings of Deuteronomy.*' His claims,

Ant. Rom. 1.7.2-3: ot npog auxSv eTCatvoOuevOL Puiiaiov.

2
De Thue. 5: ui*xe Ttpoaxi.-Sevres auxatc xu utfxe dqxxLpouvxes-
3
De Thue. 5: £th,xpexsl uevxoi, xi£ o*tpa xots S p y o l S auxffiv
Ka\ xdpi-c, xoLg u?":v uAeCcov, xots 6' eAdxxtov, 6t,' f)v gxi
uevouauv at. YPa.<pa.C.
4
Cf. Ant. Rom. 8.56.1, where Dionysius also claims to be
reproducing "scriptural" records exactly. Cf. below, Ch. 5,
pp. 162-63.
*"Cf. especially Deut. 4:2: ot Tcpoa9r*CTea9e TtpSs xb pf}ua 6
SY& evxeAAoyau tvZv naE otyi dcpsAEtxe an' aOxoO and 12:32: rcav
pfjua, 6 eycb evx^AAoyoLL uuCv af'-LiEpov, xouxo cpuAdirj tcolsCv, o O
itpoa9i"|oels etc' a C x 6 , 0666 d<p£Aei.e, ait' auxoO.
60

however, function in the same way as the assurances of Dionysi-

us that he is faithfully utilizing his primarily written
sources. This minor example indicates a more general princi-
ple which should be remembered in evaluating Josephus. Even
when a particular dictum or interpretative motif has obvious
or plausible Jewish sources, its meaning should be assessed
in the context of the Greek traditions to which it is ad-
dressed. This brings us to our next topic.

VI. The Adaptive and Explanatory Function of Apologetic

In the first chapter we suggested that Josephus should

be understood as a serious interpreter of Jewish tradition and
that this interpretation consists primarily in the adaptive
dimension of his apologetic enterprise. In this chapter we
have seen that Josephus adopted the model of Dionysius at
least in part because of the warrant which that model pro-
vided for writing patriotic and apologetic history. Some re-
marks in the preface reflect the concerns of previous Jewish
apologetics and shed some light on the way Josephus executes
his own program.
In the second section of the proem (9b-17), where Jose-
phus cites the tradition of the Letter of Arieteas, there a T e
several overt, defensive remarks, displaying one aspect of
the apologetic, enterprise. He compares his own generosity in
making available to the general public the elements of Jewish
tradition which had been previously unknown with the generosi-
ty of the high priest Eleazar, who had made available the
Pentateuch to Ptolemy Philadelphos.^ In this comparison there
9
is, as Schalit noted, an implicit rebuttal of the charge of
misanthropy which was often laid at the feet of the Jews.
Another important apologetic item in the same section is the
insistence on the antiquity of the Jews (16-17), a thesis

Ant. I. 11-12. Cf. in Aristeas, the letter of Eleazar,

44-45.

S c h a l i t , V o l . 2, p . 2, n. 1 1 . M. Friedl'ander (A.pologetik
2

328-333) cites the preface, the speech of Solomon in Ant. V I I I .

106-21 and the editorial comment of X V I . 175 as important
apologetic statements.
 61

which is dominant in the first book of the Contra Apionem.

In the third section of the proem, the apology is more
muted, but may be seen in the raising of the question about
the place of cosmology at the beginning of the Jewish legal
2
and historical text (18). This theme is reminiscent of Philo,
along with the other subjects raised h e r e , the harmony of the
•z

Jewish laws with nature, and the principles of interpretation

applicable to the Jewish s c r i p t u r e s . 4

The defensive apologetic of the second part of the proem,

and the Philonic reminiscences of the third, play a limited
role in the course of- the paraphrase. The defensive apologetic
is largely a negative one, consisting in the removal of poten-
tially damaging material, and in a few passages where positive
statements are made which seem designed to counter hostile
opinions. 5
The Philonic themes have a positive, interpretative
function. Their use, however, is quite limited. Josephus
seems to recognize this limitation when he defers from present-
ing the "highly philosophical" speculation which an allegorical
interpretation would entail. Only in the description of the
Cf. C.Ap. 1.3, 59 and passim.
2
Cf. Thackeray in the Loeb, V o l . IV, p . 1 1 , and Philo,
Vit. Mos. 11.47. As noted previously (p. 36, n . 5 ) , the Phi-
lonic type material is, in fact, quite commonplace in con-
temporary Judaism.
3
Ant. 19, 24 and Op. mun. 1-3.
Ant.
4
24. Schalit (Vol. 2, p . 3, n. 24) makes the sug-
gestion that the theory of three possible levels of meaning
mentioned by Josephus in Ant. I. 24 reflects the division
found in rabbinic sources between iatss, anT and TD~I. Cf.
Tanahuma 5 8.3.

N o t e for example the omissions of the story of Micah and

5

his idolatry from Judges 17-18, the story of the destruction

by Gideon of the Baal altar from Judg 6:25-32, and the story
of the golden calf from Ex 32. A defensive apologetic also
seems to be involved in the speech of Solomon, Ant. VIII. 108-
18.

^The description of the allegorical significance of the

laws in Ant. I. 25, f) decopfoc Mat Xiav cpi.A6ao<pos should also be
compared with the remarks of Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 2.20.2) on
myth, where the designation T O &ecoperi.MOv Trie cpiAoaotpi'ag uepoc,
is applied to the allegorical interpretation of Greek myth by
Romulus. Allegory is described in a similar way by the alle-
gorist Heraclitus, Allegoriae 12.
 62

temple and the vestments of the high priest does this type of
allegorizing a p p e a r . 1

In the preface the adaptive and explanatory thrust of the

apologetic of Josephus appears first in the language which he
uses to describe in a general way the nature of Jewish tradi-
tion and then in the description of the major lessons to be
learned from Jewish history. In the elaboration of those
themes he provides what Philo does through his allegory, name-
ly an interpretatio gvaeea of Greek tradition. We shall see
this in detail w h e n we follow the major interpretative themes
through the text, where the particular contribution of Jose-
phus is most apparent. A similar process can be seen in the
general descriptive language of the preface, although the cate-
gories used here are hardly peculiar to Josephus.
A striking feature of the preface is its use of political
language, especially the terms "lawgiver" and "constitution."
The content of the Antiquities i s , in the most general terms,
said to be "our entire ancient history and political constitu-
tion."'" In the second section of the proem, Josephus describes
the interest of Ptolemy Philadelphos in "our law and the polit-
ical constitution based t h e r e o n . " 3
Also in the course of the
exposition of the Jewish law in the Antiquities, the most fre-
quent designation for the material is TioA.iTe'a. 4

This description of the Torah as the Jewish constitution

and of Moses as the lawgiver is hardly original with Josephus.
It is firmly rooted in the traditions of Greek speaking Juda-

C£.1
Ant. III. 123, 179-87 for the cultic allegory and
compare Philo, Vit. Mos. I I . 88, 117. Outside the biblical
paraphrase, allegory appears in C.Ap. II. 2S5 and a dream is
interpreted allegorically in Ant. XVII. 345-54.
We have noted (p. 52) the doublets in the preface and sug-
gested the possibility of a second edition or at least a re-
working of the Antiquities. If the third part of the preface,
with its references to allegory, is secondary, perhaps the
allegorical segments of the text are also secondary insertions.
2
I. 5: 6L&Tagi,£ xoO TcoAuxEiiuaxos.
3
I. 10: x&v fjuexspov v6uov Mat Tf*,v molt' auxov 6i.dTa.gi.-v
Tf"g UOXITS i"ac.

C f . III. 213; IV. 193, 196, 312; V. 179.

4
Cf. Schwark,
"Matthaus" 148.
 6 3

ism. What is important to note is that such language, is not

an attempt to isolate a single aspect of Jewish tradition, a
form of reductionism, as it w e r e . It is rather an eminently
meaningful way of describing and interpreting Jewish religious
tradition as a whole, because of the religious overtones of
the language in many Greek contexts.
In particular, the subject of ancient lawgivers and the
products of their labors is a prominent feature of the his-
torians with whom Josephus was most closely aligned. Several
famous lawgivers are described as having the same sorts of
interests and orientations as that of Moses. One good example
of the type of lawgiver with whom Moses might easily be com-
pared is Zeleucus, the Pythagorean legislator o£ Italian Locri,
described by Diodorus Siculus thus:

Having been accorded high favour in his

native city, he was chosen lawmaker and
committed to writing a thoroughly novel
system of law, making his beginning, first
of a l l , with the gods of the heavens. For
at the outset in the introduction to his
legislation as a whole he declared it to
be necessary that the inhabitants of the
city should first of all assume as an
article of their creed that gods exist,
and that, as their minds survey the heav-
ens and its orderly scheme and arrangement,
they should judge that these creations are
not the result of Chance or the work of
men's hands; that they should revere the
gods as the cause of all that is noble and
good in the life of mankind; and that they
should keep the soul pure from every kind
of evil, in the belief that the gods take
no pleasure in either sacrifices or costly
gifts of the wicked but in the just and
honourable practices of good men. And
after inviting the citizens in this intro-
duction to reverence and justice (eoaepsLa

For a general survey of the term TtoAuTeuuct-, including its

usage in Jewish sources, both literary and epigraphical, cf. W.
Ruppel, "Politeuma, Bedeutungsgeschichte eines Staatsrecht-
lichen Terminus" Philologus 8 2 ( 1 9 2 7 ) 2 6 8 - 3 1 2 and 4 3 3 - 5 5 . See
also M. Engers, "TcoACreuya" Mnemosyne 5 4 ( 1 9 2 6 ) 1 5 4 - 6 1 . On
TtoA.(.xsCa cf. Strathman, " T C O X L S , H T V TDNT V I . 5 1 6 - 3 5 , esp. 5 3 4 .
For examples of the Jewish usage, cf. 2 Mac 8 : 1 7 ; 4 : 1 1 and
4 Mac 1 7 : 9 . In Philo it is often a designation for the con-
tents of scripture (.Spec. Leg. I V . 5 5 ) by which Jews continue
to live (In Flaecum 5 3 ; Virt. 1 0 8 ) .
64

Mat StMaioaovri) he appended the further

command that they should consider no o n e 1

of their fellow citizens as an enemy ...

Particularly noteworthy features of this summary are the func-

tion accorded to a natural theology as the "basis of social
order and the prominent place accorded piety (eflasBeua) in the
code devised by Zaleucus.
The Pythagorean is not unique. In the work of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus the descriptions of Romulus and Numa both dis-
play similarities to the Zaleucus passage and to the descrip-
tion of Moses in Josephus' preface. Like M o s e s , both of these
figures begin their legislation on a religious basis. Of
Romulus, Dionysius writes:

He understood that the good government of

cities was due to certain causes which
all statesmen prate of but few succeed in
making effective: first, the favour of
the gods, the enjoyment of which gives
success to men's every e n t e r p r i s e .
2

Likewise it is said of •Numa:

He then addressed himself to the other

measures of government, labouring to
inculcate these two things by the posses-
sion of which he conceived the State
would become prosperous and great: first,
piety (ciiai3£i.a) , by informing his sub-
jects that the gods are the givers and ,
guardians of every blessing to mortal men.

Romulus, like Moses, moreover had a critical attitude toward

myths:

He rejected all the traditional myths con-

cerning the gods that contain blasphemies
or calumnies against them, looking upon
these as wicked, useless and indecent, and

^Bibl. Hist. 12.20,1-3. Diodorus also pays particular

attention to the legislative activity of Bocchoris [1.65.1;
79.1; 9 4 . 5 ) , a king of the twenty-fourth dynasty (726-712
B.C.E.) and some of his predecessors (1.94.1-4),
2

Ant. Rom. 2.1S.1.

3
Ibid. 2.62.5.
 65

unworthy, not only of the gods, but even

of good men; and he accustomed people both
to think and to speak the best of the gods
and to attribute to them no conduct un-
worthy of their blessed nature.1

Josephus may have adopted some of the details of his descrip-

tion of Moses from discussions such as these. Because of the
widespread attestation of the topic, it is difficult to say
2
with certainty. What these interesting parallels illustrate
is the potential religious significance of the political lan-
guage which Josephus utilizes. The Greco-Roman audience to
whom Josephus addressed his work was familiar with the pic-
ture of a lawgiver whose concern it was to insure the proper
relations between God and man, and who attempted to convey in
his laws an accurate notion of that relationship. H e n c e , far
from distorting the religious content of the Jewish scriptures
by cloaking it in political terms,* Josephus and the apologetic

Ibid. 2 . 1 8 . 3 . Note the remarks of Josephus in Ant. I.

22.
2
Note e.g. Philo, Op. mun. 1 . Gager [Moses 2 5 - 1 1 2 ) gives
a survey of most of the literature directly bearing on the
status of Moses as a lawgiver.
The process of adaptation involved in Josephus and in
other Jewish apologetic literature can also be seen as directed
at the Jewish community, as well as to the non-Jewish world, as
V. Tcherikover ("Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered"
Eos 4 8 [ 1 9 5 6 ] I I I . 1 6 9 - 1 9 3 ) has noted. Thus the process of
self-explanation effects self-understanding. The formal ad-
dressees are, in any case, non-Jews and it is their presup-
positions and categories which Josephus uses.

*This assessment of the political terminology of Josephus

is m a d e , for example, by Strathman ( " T I 6 A . L C " 5 2 7 ) , "The use of
terms taken from the political sphere is calculated to con-
ceal the religious orientation of the political thought of
Israel." More correct is Strathman's observation that "Ex-
pressions taken from the political sphere w i l l , he h o p e s , help
his Greco-Roman public to penetrate the alien world of Israel
and Judah." Another inadequate evaluation of the political
terminology is made by Schwark ("Matthaus" 1 4 9 ) . After a sur-
vey of the terminology he infers that "Sein Verstandnis der
Religion ist durchaus rationalistisch: Religion ist die
Bedingung fur das Funktionieren des Staatswesens, sie ist weder
Selbstzweck, noch zielt sie auf Frommigkeit, Moral und Heils-
gewissheit des einzelnen ab." It is true that both in Josephus
and in Dionysius religion has a utilitarian value (Ant. I. 2 1
and Ant. Rom. 2 . 1 8 . 1 ) . In both cases, however, it is not
66

tradition on which he may have here relied were making a case

for Judaism that would be comprehensible in the Greco-Roman
world at l a r g e . 1
Certain themes connected with this political
terminology will appear in subsequent b o o k s , especially B k s.
IV and V. However, Josephus does not constantly elaborate the
basic points about the "constitution" made here. Two otheT
themes which w e meet in the preface are more significant for
the actual presentation of biblical history. They function as
the elements of the theology of the Antiquities and they also
operate in the same way as the "constitution" language, i.e.
as a device for interpretative apologetic.

simply seen as a political tool. Rather it is seen to convey

truths having socio-political value. Compare also Livy's re-
marks on Numa (1.19.4-5). Note the evaluation of Livy by S.
Usher (The Historians of Greece and Rome [London: Hamilton,
1969] 1 7 4 ) , "He (sail. Livy) sets out to show that a state
with a strong priesthood and universally practiced rituals is
assured of a healthy body politic and a good reserve In times
of adversity." Both of the evaluations of Josephus failed to
note h'ow the categories of politics are used throughout the
Antiquities and what force they had in similar literature.

""Some scholars have noted the importance and positive

value of the political terminology in Josephus. Delling
("Heidnische Religionen" 5 1 ) , for example, remarks: "Mit
diesem Vokabular der Umwelt wirbt__er urn ein wenig Verstandnis
filr das Volk, das iiber die ganze Okumene verstreut ist." Cf.
also Van Unnik ("Josephus' Account" 2 2 5 ) , and H. Schecker ("Die
Hellenisierung des Hexateuchs in der Archaeologie des Josephus"
Ver'nandlungen des SS Versammlung deutsaher Philologen [Leipzig,
1926] 5 4 ) . Kamlah ("Frommigkeit" 229) comments on the topos
of Sparta and Jerusalem. A complete study of political cate-
gories and their use in Judaism of this period needs to be
made. Pagan ethnographic accounts need to be considered (cf.
Gager, Moses) as well as polemical political tracts which use
Greek terminology (cf. Lebram, "Idealstaat"). Finally the
moralizing use of political terminology needs to be examined.
On one aspect of this, cf. E . Rivkin, "The Internal City" JSSR
5 (1966) 225-240. We shall see some .examples of this usage in
Chs. IV and V. E. Brehier (Les idees philosophiques et reli-
gieuses de Philon d'Alexandrie [Paris: V r i n , 1950]) comments
on legislators in Philo, as does Wacholder (Eupolemus 83-85)
on Eupolemus. In any case, it should be noted that the inter-
pretatio graeaa of Judaism did not only categorize Judaism as
a philosophy, a topic discussed by M. Hengel (Judenium und
Hellenismus [Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1969] 464-73) . For
Philo, Josephus and other hellenized J e w s , another model was
available and utilized.
 67

VII. The Major Interpretative Themes

The first and most important of these elements w e have

already noted in our discussion of the historiographical prin-
ciples of J o s e p h u s . 1
In both of the apologetically oriented
segments of the proem, Josephus suggests that the particular
excellence of the work of Moses lay in its conception of God
(15, 2 5 ] . These statements are somewhat misleading, since no
systematic philosophical treatment of God appears in the fol-
lowing materials. It is not God's nature in the abstract,
but the nature of his relations with the world that is con-
sidered. History is a series of examples substantiating the
belief that God exercises providential concern that justice
be done:

But, speaking generally, the main lesson to

be learnt from this history by any who care
to peruse it is that men who conform to the
will of God, and do not venture to trans-
gress the laws that have been excellently
laid down, prosper in all things beyond b e -
lief (KaTopSoOxai Tiepa utotecoc) > and for ,
their reward are offered by God felicity,
whereas, in proportion as they depart from
the strict observance of these laws, things
(else) practicable become impracticable,
and whatever imaginary good thing they
strive to do ends in irretrievable disas-
ters .3

This brief summary is significant not only because it

encapsulates the dominant interpretative motif of the para-
phrase-, but also because it provides a hint of some of the
ways in which that motif is to be elaborated. Josephus
promises that the examples of divine retribution which he
will give are going to be rather spectacular ones, wherein
the good are rewarded "beyond belief" while the wicked are to
be punished in an equally amazing fashion. Both types of

Cf. above, p. 52.

On the sOScuuovfa terminology cf. Ch. 4, p . 119, n. 1-

^Ant. I. 14. Contrast the statement of Philo (Vit. Mos.

II. 47) who also connects the notion of retribution with the
historical side of the scriptures. There, however, the
emphasis on spectacular reversals is missing.
68

example are probably to be understood as instances of the

"surprising reversals" (uap&Xoyoi TtspL-aeTSlai 13) which Jose-
phus promised just before the statement of the moral of Jewish
history. In this description of the details of the lesson and
in the association of this lesson with the term TcepuTi^TSi.a, 1

there probably are further effects of rhetorical historiogra-

phy. As w e noted earlier in the chapter and as we shall see
in the next chapter, dramatic moments of biblical history are
highlighted and their dramatic qualities enhanced. That
elaboration is n o t , however, made simply for aesthetic effect,
but also to furnish a suitable illustration of the basic theo-
logical principles.

The summary of the moral of the work w h i c h appears in the

final section of the proem repeats the major point of the
passage just cited. Here Josephus notes that Moses had in-
tended to teach:

that God, as the universal Father and Lord

who beholds all things, grants to such as
follow Him a life of b l i s s , but involves in
dire calamities those who step outside the
path of virtue (Ant. I. 2 0 ) .

What Is slightly different here is the mention of virtue as

the criterion which determines how God treats m e n . This is
to be an important part of the elaboration of the motif of
God's providence. Thus the passage also points to the second
major interpretative feature of the Antiquities•
True to the ideals of hellenistic historiography, Jose-
phus lays stress on the exemplary virtues of the ancients and
on the moral lessons to be drawn from their vices. In the
proem, he is not content with a statement to the effect that

The term is common among historians. Polybius can use it

simply to describe military or political reversals (Sist. 1.13.
11). It can also be used to describe an unexpected deliver-
ance, hence a reversal with religious overtones, in Diodorus
Siculus (Bibl. Sist. 4 . 4 3 ) . It is used in literary critical
discussion to designate the turning point of a plot. Cf. Aris-
totle, Poetics 14S0a34 and 1452a22. Precisely that sense of
the term can be applied to. the reversals in history. So we
find Dionysius of pre-Thucydidean historians noting the
SgaxpLKaC Ttvec - a s p m e r e L C U TTO/UJ T O AXidiov £xetv T O L S ^ O V
6oHo0aa.L (De Thuc S) . The reversals in Josephus are certainly
dramatic, as we shall see in the next chapter.
 69

the biblical characters provide good exempla virtutis. He

makes the claim that the virtue which Moses tried to inculcate
is a quality of God, in which men could participate:

our legislator, on the contrary (sail, to

myth making legislators), having shown that
God possesses the very perfection of virtue,
thought that men should strive to partici-
pate in i t , and inexorably punished those
1

who did not hold with or believe in these

doctrines (Ant. I. 2 3 ) .

We do not find in the course of the Antiquities any systematic

discussion of the virtues of God, any more than we find a
theoretical discussion of God's providence. Like the earlier
statement, this programmatic remark calls attention to an
important feature of the narrative to follow, namely the
moralizing, which it places at the heart of the message of
2
the scriptures. The emphasis is extremely significant, al-
though it should not be taken to imply a reduction of Judaism
•z

to a rationalist or utilitarian ethical system. In the

formulation of the passage just cited, morals are seen to be
important because of their religious foundation and because
of their religious function, i.e. participation in the divine.
This emphasis in the summary of the moralizing dimension of
the Antiquities is something which we shall see continued in
the portrayal of piety (etioi&sia).
Summary

The Antiquities draws on a variety of sources, biblical

and non-biblical, but it does not simply copy them. Rather,

Georgi (Die Gegner 173) cites this passage as an example

of the "rationalistic optimism" characteristic of Jewish reli-
gious propaganda in the hellenistic and Greco-Roman world. It
is important to note that this optimism is based on the possi-
bility of attaining moral excellence. Cf. Ch. 3, p . 89, n. 4
2
As we noted in Ch. 1, Guttmann (Darstellung 35) called
attention to the ethical orientation of the Antiquities, but
he did not describe what that orientation meant for the over-
all interpretation of scripture.

Schlatter, in particular, seemed to have this opinion of

the moralizing of the Antiquities. Cf. Ch. 4, p . 119, n. 1.
70

it elaborates them according to fairly clear patterns. The

preface tells us something about the aims and interpretative
methods of that elaboration. W e have seen the various his-
toriographical cliches which advertise the work as a certain
type of moralistic and patriotic history. W e have also seen
how certain Greek categories have been employed in a tradi-
tional way to explain and interpret Jewish tradition. In the
following chapters we shall see the elaboration of the major
interpretative themes and the details of the process of an
adaptive apologetic.
 THE ROLE OF GOD IN THE ANTIQUITIES

In the previous chapter w e began to explore the basic

interpretative tendencies of the biblical paraphrase in the
Antiquities as these appear in the preface. W e also saw some
of the literary influences which might affect the presenta-
tion of ancient history. In this chapter and the next w e
shall pursue the two major interpretative elements through a
detailed examination of the narrative of the first ten books
of the Antiquities. The first theme is that adumbrated in
the proem's "dogmatic" affirmation of God's just governance
of history. This finds expression in the course of the work
primarily in remarks about the providence ( T t p i v c a a ) 1
of God.
In this chapter w e shall see the importance of that theme and
of the motifs connected with it.

I. The npovoia Motif

That God exercises Tcpovoia, which w e may provisionally
understand as watchful, concerned forethought and considera-
2
tion, is a belief shared by many of the major figures in the

As noted in our history of scholarship, several earlier

scholars have commented on the frequency of such terms as
Ttp6voia., in particular Bretschneider, Capita 25-38 ; Lewinsky,
Beitrage 28-45; Poznanski, Ansahauungen 6-12; Montgomery,
"Religion" 285-91; and Stahlin, "Schicksal". Their treatment
of the term and the issues connected with it was usually
superficial, ranging over the whole corpus of the historian.
Schlatter in his Theologie did not isolate the term for spe-
cial consideration, although he did deal with some of the
issues which it raises. Cf. esp. 24-37, 46-51. In Bie Sprack
49-50, h e does devote some attention to the term, but his
treatment there is hardly a comprehensive one.
2
The term TtpdvoLo; is used not only of God in the Antiq-
uities, but also of human leaders, of Moses: II. 329; III.
13, (This instance is, in fact, ambiguous. The npovoia men-
tioned could be either that of God or of Moses. Cf. p. 9 7 ,
n. 1, below.~] 6 8 ; V. 4; of his successors: IV. 184; V. 9 1 ;
of various kings: VIII. 1 2 4 , 297, 335, 357; X. 104; and of
numerous other individuals: Jacob: I. 327; Joseph: II. 39;

71
72

biblical paraphrase. Moses himself gives evidence of this in

numerous pericopae. His display before Pharoah is designed,
he claims, to demonstrate that God's T C P O V O L O . , and not magic,
is at work in him (II. 2 8 6 ) . He faces and calms the rebel-
lious m o b , trusting in God's c a r e . 1
Upon his return to the
camp after receiving the tablets of the Law, he causes general
rejoicing among the people and declares to them God's provi-
dence, which was shown in that bestowal of the Law (III. 9 9 ) .
In another revolt situation he beseeches God to take his side
against Dathan and Abiram, thus displaying His providence
(IV. 4 7 ) . Later in the same book he delivers an important
speech exhorting the people to obey the laws. H e r e , too, the
notion of providence is prominent (IV. 1 8 5 - 9 0 ) . Perhaps the
most impressive manifestation of this belief is at the time
of the Exodus, when Moses delivers an elaborate speech to
encourage the threatened Israelites (II. 3 3 0 - 3 3 ) .

Before Moses, Abraham agreed to sacrifice his son because

of his belief that whatever came the way of those favored by
God came through His p r o v i d e n c e . 2
Similarly, Amram decided

Benjamin: II. 1 0 4 ; the Egyptians: II. 1 8 9 ; Aaron: III. 1 9 1 ;

as part of the duties of the king: IV. 2 2 3 ; of Israelites:
IV. 2 3 9 ; V. 8 , 1 7 3 ; Boas: V. 3 3 2 ; Eli: V I . 3 4 ; et at: VI.
2 9 6 , 3 0 0 , 3 1 5 ; V I I . 2 3 , 4 3 , 2 5 9 , 3 8 7 ; X. 1 5 7 , 1 7 7 ; XII. 9 4 .
In these cases, too, the terra connotes basically watchful
care or forethought. Our present definition is a provisional
one. As we shall see, the term takes on further specific
connotations when used of God. We shall not at this point
discuss the possible background and parallels to the use of
this terminology in the Antiquities. We may simply note that
It was common in the first century to view pvovidentia or
itpdvoia as virtues characteristic of a good ruler as well as
of God. Cf. M. P. CHarlesworth, "Providentia and Aeternitas,"
STR 29 ( 1 9 3 6 ) 1 0 7 - 3 2 .

"^Here the term used is xnfieuovCa. (III. 1 4 ) . Except where

noted in the passages which follow, the term in the text of
the Antiquities translated by "providence" is Ttpivoiou . This
is not, of course, the only term used to refer to God's active
watchful care. Kri6euovCo:, for example, also appears in II.
2 6 . Cf. also Ant. XX. 1 2 and Bellum I. 1 6 9 . The noun U T | S E U < O V
appears in Ant. I. 2 3 1 ; III. 9 8 ; V I I . 3 8 0 ; X I . 3 9 ; and XX. 8 4 .
2
I. 2 2 5 . The text here is certainly corrupt. The Loeb
edition further complicates matters with a misprint, where
euuevtls i"j appears for etiy.evflg The text would be much
improved by adopting the conjecture of Niese and reading
aTtdvrciJv aTcavTcSvccav instead of simply drtavxtivTcov. As the
text stands, the lack of a subject for the participle in the
 73

to entrust the care of his son to God, and he was not disap-
pointed ( I I . 219).
Later the Israelites come to believe that God does indeed
care for the w o r l d . 1
David affirms the doctrine upon seeing
the fall of N a b a l , 2
while Solomon, in dedicating the temple,
declares that the fulfillment of the prophecies to his father
is proof of God's Ttpovoia (VIII. 1 0 9 ) . Finally Isaiah prophe-
sies to Zedekiah that God will see to the destruction of
Sennacherib (X. 1 4 ) .
In addition to the above passages where important charac-
ters in the Hebrew past proclaim a belief in God's providence,
that belief is affirmed in the course of the narrative and in
editorializing comments where Josephus reflects on the devel-
opments of the story. Such, for example, is the remark to-
ward the beginning of the second book which summarizes the
course of the action to follow. The immense prosperity of
Jacob is described and it is further noted that God had
"such providential care for his welfare" (itpovcaa xai; xfjs
euSaLUovfag; £Tuu£A.eia) that he effected the deliverance of
his descendants from Egypt (II. 8 ) . In the Joseph story the
hero trusted entirely in God and made no response to the un-
just accusations directed against him by Potiphar's wife.
He believed that God knew the true cause of his misfortune
and that he would experience His providential care (II. 60)..
After the fall of Saul there is a bit of moralistic reflection

genitive absolute is awkward and haplography here would be

readily understandable. The other possibility, of reading
draxvxiav D & V T G J V on the basis of the Lat. vivunt omnes, is not
an attractive one, paae Thackeray (Loeb, ad loe.~). The im-
port of that reading would be that Abraham knew that his tri-
al was not a real one and there is no indication of that in
the rest of the narrative. Niese's conjecture aligns Abra-
ham's sentiment with that of other biblical heroes who trust
in providence.
The term used here for God's provident concern, euueviig
occurs frequently in the biblical paraphrase, cf. below, p. 79,
'n. 1.

I I I . 33; IV. 2, 10, 60.

1

2
V I . 306-309. Here David does not make an explicit
statement about itp6voua. Rather, he notes that God does not
overlook (urtepopSv) any human affair and that He provides
retribution for both good and evil.
74

in which the change in character effected by power is noted.

A major feature of that change was the abandonment of the be-
lief in divine concern for, and oversight of, human affairs
(VI. 263). In reflecting on the prosperity of another king,
Asa, it is noted that this prosperity shows "how close a
watch" (ettLOTpocp-rt) the deity.maintains over human a f f a i r s . 1

Finally, in the long discussion of the prophecy of Daniel

which concludes Bk. X and the first half of the Antiquities,
there is an emphatic assertion of the validity of the belief
in divine providence (X. 2 7 8 ) .
There is one further passage where the doctrine of provi-
dence is quite prominent. Here the belief is not expressed
by a hero of the Hebrew p a s t , nor does it appear in editorial
comment. Rather, it is placed in the mouth of the foreign
prophet Balaam, who has been summoned to curse the Israelites
but can only utter blessings over them. In the first oracle
Balaam proclaims that God has granted his own TtpoMOLa (IV.
114) to Israel, as an ally and guide. At the close of the
same oracle he prophesies military prowess for the Israelites,
a prowess achieved by the miraculous Intervention of God's
providence (117). Finally, before he takes his leave of
Balak, he offers some suggestions to the Midianites for gain-
ing a temporary superiority over the Hebrews, but remarks that
God's providence will keep them from any ultimate disaster
(128). 2

V I I I . 314. In a similar passage in the same book,

where comment is made on the fall of Achab (VIII. 4 1 9 ) , men-
tion is made of the power of necessity (f) T O O xpct& loxus) •
v

This language is certainly relevant to a discussion of God's

providence. It is not at all typical of the Antiquities ,
although it does recall certain features of the Bellum. This
passage will be discussed in detail in p. 101, n. 2. Cf.
also Ch. 5, p . 154, n. 1, for further discussion of the
Bellum language for providence.
7
Another common term in the biblical paraphrase, not
unrelated to TtpovoLa, is PooA.noi.g, the designation for the
will of God. Laban (I. 2 5 4 ) , Joseph's brothers (II. 2 0 ) ,
Joseph (II. 1 6 1 ) , God himself (II. 2 1 3 ) , Moses (II. 335, IV.
1 8 5 ) , Aaron (III. 2 0 8 ) , David (VII, 9 0 ) , all affirm that
things happen according to the SoiSA.Tio'ie. SeoO. Editorial com-
ments often reiterate the same belief, in connection with
Abraham (I. 1 5 7 ) , the destruction of Sodom (I, 2 2 3 ) , prophe-
cies (VIII. 218, 241) and the Esther story (XI. 2 3 7 ) . The
 75

The terminology to which we have drawn attention is

clearly an editorial element in the Antiquities. npovoia and
forms of the verb Tipovoem do occur in the LXX, but primarily
in the later b o o k s , Wisdom, Daniel, 1-4 Maccabees. In materi-
al paraphrased in the first half of the Antiquities the only
occurrence of either verb or noun is at Num 23:9, one of the
Balaam oracles. There the verb means simply to look at or
observe. 1
Similarly, eouAnai£ occurs in the LXX only once,
2

m a variant in a single witness to Lev 22:29. In neither

case does the text of the Antiquities have the word. In fact,
the Leviticus passage is not part of the paraphrase at all and

term is also used by various figures in the narrative, not as

a reference to the cause of events, but as the norm to which
human behavior should conform: So Jacob (II. 1 7 1 ) , Balaam
(IV. 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 ) , Samuel CVI. 102, 147) and Ptolemy Philadelphus
CXI I. 2 6 ) .
Especially significant is the remark in II. 347 concern-
ing a parallel to the Exodus in the history of Alexander the
Great. It is noted that two contrasting explanations of the
event are possible: S I T E K O T S . BouAnoLv SeoO etxe Kara
xa6x6uaxov. A similar contrast between rcpivoia and xotux6-
uaxov appears in X. 278. Thus the implications of both terms
are obviously similar. Both affirm that history is somehow
directed by God. The " J O O X T I O L E terminology, however, is a
more general affirmation of that belief. The more specific
implications of the belief are developed in connection with
the descriptions of God's rcpdvoua. Schlatter (F/ie Sprach
26) called attention to the Poo\ri i.£ language, but did not
a

analyze it in connection with the Tcpovoia motif.

^The verb has this meaning also in Job 24:15. It can

mean "keep in mind," as at Prov 3:4. It often means "take
care of" or "take thought for," as in 2 Mac 14:9; 3 Mac 3:24;
and 4 Mac 7:18. In this sense it can be applied to God, as
in Wis 6:7. The noun, meaning human providence or fore-
thought, occurs in 2 Mac 4:6. Applied to God, it appears in
Wis 14:3; 17:2; 3 Mac 4:21 and 5:30. That the terminology
occurs- in such sources is significant, as w e shall suggest
in Ch. 5. What we need to note here is that it is not an
element derived by Josephus from the narrative material which
he paraphrases. Hence it is misleading, at least, to assert
with Stahlin ["Das Schicksal" 335 n. 72) that " T E P O V O L O . ist
sowohl in der biblischen wie in hellenistischer Theologie
beheimatet."
2
The reading, a marginal correction, probably indicative
of a hexaplaric reading, occurs in the tenth century Codex
Coislinianus.
76

the verse o£ Numbers, while part of the Balaam oracles, is

not explicitly paraphrased.
The recurrence of this particular terminology for divine
providence throughout the work, especially in passages such
as speeches and editorial comments where editorial activity-
is most obvious, shows that it is a major factor in the
evaluation and interpretation of biblical history in the
Antiquities. In the following sections we shall explore how
this recurrent language functions and what precise notion of
divine providence it is designed to convey.

II. An Example of Providence at Work

We started this chapter with a working definition of

providence as watchful care. Now we want to see what it is
about which God particularly cares and how He shows His con-
cern according to the Antiquities. To focus our investiga-
tion of these Issues and to provide a clear example of the
interpretative activity of Josephus we may begin our discus-
sion with the speech of Moses delivered just before the
crossing of the Red Sea. The text of the speech runs as fol-
lows :

It would not be just for y o u to suspect

that men who have conducted themselves
toward you properly in regard to present
affairs would not be similar in regard to
future m a t t e r s , but it would be complete-
ly foolish to despair now of the provi-
dence of God, from whom there has come
to you everything that He promised to
perform through me for your salvation
and deliverance from bondage, though far
beyond your expectations. Rather ought
y e , in straits such as ye deem hopeless,
to expect help from God, who has even now
caused you to be compassed about on this
difficult ground, to the end that, in
extricating y o u from extremities, whence
neither ye nor the enemy think ye can es-
cape, He may display both His own power
and His tender care for you. For it is
not in trivial circumstances that the
Deity lends His own aid to whom H e favours
 77

but where He sees men have lost all hope

of ameliorating their lot. Wherefore,
have faith in such a defender, who has
power alike to make the little great and
to sentence such mighty hosts as these to
impotence. Be not dismayed at the Egyp-
tians' array, nor, because yonder sea and
the mountains behind you offer no means of
escape, for that reason despair of your
salvation; for ye may see these hills
levelled to a plain , should God so w i l l ,
or land emerge from the deep C H - 3 3 0 - 3 3 ) .

The context of the speech should be noted. The melo-

dramatic potential of the climactic situation is fully ex-
ploited, not only within the speech itself, but also, and to
an even greater degree, in the paragraphs preceding it (325-
28). There the despair of the folk is the focus of atten-
tion. Terrified women and children bemoaning their impending
doom fill center stage. This is quintessentially rhetorical
historiography and it conforms to the dramatizing pattern
displayed in many other sections of the w o r k . 1

It should also be noted that there are numerous other

non-biblical elements within these last two chapters of Bk.
II, some of which may be simply extracts from sources, though
some are surely the composition of Josephus. Among these are
2

the list of Moses' reasons for taking the route he did, the
prayer of Moses which follows directly after the speech quoted
above (334-37), the details of the destruction of the Egyp-
tians, 3
a parallel even from the history of Alexander (347-
4 8 ) , and the explanation of how the Israelites obtained their
weapons. 4
The specially constructed speech fits into the

Cf. Ch. 2 and the discussions of the dramatic techniques

of Josephus, especially in the works of Braun and Moehring.
• 2
II. 322-23. This is one passage where Thackeray de-
tected the hand of an assistant, specifically a "Sophoclean"
assistant, who had a "fondness for trichotomy" (Loeb ed. V o l .
IV, x v i ) . Cf. Ch. 2, p . 39, n. 2, for the criticism of this
hypothesis.
I I . 340-44. These added details, deriving perhaps from
3

Ps 77:17-19, appear also, in part, in Artapanus and frequent-

ly in targumic and midrashic texts. Cf. S. Rappaport, Agada,
30, 31 and 119.
4
II. 348. A similar report about the arming of the
78

pattern of editorial reworking evidenced in the end of Bk.

II. Hence it draws our attention not only as an elaborate
piece of purple prose but also as a major element within
editorial material at a dramatically pivotal point of the
biblical paraphrase.
There are three things which the speech implies about
divine providence. These will form the framework for the com-
ments to follow. In the first p l a c e , the speech suggests that
God's providence is specially directed toward Israel. Second-
ly, it asserts that this providence is made manifest in mirac-
ulous' salvific acts, that, in fact, such acts are intimately
connected with God's providence. Finally, the speech has a
paraenetic conclusion urging the people to be faithful to God,
in the hope that he will intervene in their affairs. This
exhortation is certainly appropriate to the dramatic situa-
tion, but it is also easily interpreted as the moral to the
whole episode. We shall have to consider how far it is to be
so taken.

III. Providence as Alliance with Israel and as Retributive

Justice
In his exhortation at the Red Sea, Moses claims that God
grants an alliance (owuax£cO to those whom He favors (oEc. &v
euvouv fi) (II. 3 3 2 ) . This assertion paraphrases the belief
in providence. Providence consists, in other w o r d s , of God,
the divine POT)96S (331, 332) granting His aid to certain
favored people, in this case the Israelites.
This language refers to God as the one who favors, aids
and acts as an ally, the eouevfic & O T I 9 6 S and aOu-uaxos, whom
Moses mentions in his speech and in the prayer which follows
(II. 3 3 4 ) . 1
These and similar terms occur throughout the
first half of the Antiquities, usually on the lips of biblical

Israelites occurs in the fragments of the Jewish historian

Demetrius. Midrashic texts speak of the precious stones and
treasures which the Israelites acquired from the drowned
Egyptians. Cf. Rappaport, Agada, 3 1 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 .

"'it is interesting that Schlatter did not treat these

terms in his discussion of terminology for God in Josephus
(Vie S-pracK) , and gave them but scant attention in his major
work on the theology of the historian.
 79

characters and often in prayer invoking God's aid and protec-

tion. 1
The language is intimately connected with the theme of
God's Tcpovoua. The connection is made implicitly in the speech
and prayer of Moses at the Red Sea. It is found explicitly in
a phrase from the Balaam oracles which we have already noticed.
There CIV. 114) God is said to have granted his N P 6 V O L O T as a
aouuaxoe. and nYeutSv to the Israelites. 2
Any attempt to under-
stand the implications of the Ttpivoict theme must take into
account this language and the relationship between God and
Israel which it expresses.
The terminology of benefactor and ally is parallel in
some ways to the theology of covenant in the biblical texts
which Josephus paraphrases. However, the language of Josephus
is not simply a device for translating the biblical notion of
covenant. It seems, rather, to be a replacement for it.^ One

^f. Abraham [I. 2 2 9 ) , Isaac (I. 2 7 3 ) , Joseuh C H - 1 2 2 ) ,

Moses C H I - 3 0 2 , IV. 1 8 2 , 185) and God himself (II. 172, 2 1 4 ) ,
who use epithets of fSonSoc; or ouuuaxos- For further examples"
of the use of orjuuaxos cf. I. 268; II. 278; IV. 2, 114, 296;
V. 98; V I . 25, 189; IX. 55, 259. Israel receives JJorleeLa from
God frequently: V. 65, 206, 216; V I . 181; IX. 1 4 , as well as
his ouuuax^o: X. 24 and his O U V ^ P Y E L O . V. 60. God is described
as eOusvVjg even more frequently: I. 9 8 , 208, 210, 225, 2 2 7 ,
229, 272, 273; II. 161, 276; III. 7 2 , 78, 80, 8 4 ; IV. 122,
180, 243, 292, 296, 316, 318; V I . 20, 25, 9 2 , 148, 3 0 5 , 342;
VII. 8 7 , 158, 3 2 1, 333, 357; VIII. 1 1 2 , 344; IX. 199, 259,
262; X. 4 2 , 59, 64.
2
Another passage where TCPOVOLCI is closely linked with the
language of benefactor and ally is the brief notice in VII.
245 that Achimas, the son of Zadok, wanted to announce to
David that he had obtained Ttpovoua and &orV&ei.a from God.
On the covenant theologies of the O T , cf. W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1961) and G. V o n Rad, Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh and
London: Oliver and Boyd, 1962-65) I. 129-35. Several rela-
tively recent monographs have dealt with this central motif
of the biblical tradition, see especially K. Baltzer, The
Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; E.T. by
D. E. Green of Das Bundesformular [Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag, I960]); D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a •
Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1 9 6 9 ) , G. W.
Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant (Studia Post
Biblica 20; Leiden: Brill, 1970) and A. Jaubert, La notion
d'alliance dans le Judaisme (Patristica Sorbonensia 6; Paris:
Editions du Seuil, 1 9 6 3 ) . This last work is a comprehensive
study not of the biblical ideas of covenant, but of their
use in the literature of the second temple period.
80

indication of the displacement of the covenant theme is the

fact that in the Antiquities explicit descriptions of an agree-
ment made between God and man have been deleted. For exam-
ple, in the case of Noah, the explicit covenant material of
Gen 9:8-12 has been omitted and only the reference to the
rainbow remains (I. 103*). In the case of Abraham, the 'cove-
nant between the pieces' of Genesis 15 becomes merely a sacri-
fice on the part of the patriarch. The covenant of 15:18,
with its divine promise of the land from Egypt to the Euphrates
for the descendants of Abraham, becomes merely a prediction
from an anonymous 'divine voice' of the future appropriation
of the land of Canaan (I. 1 8 5 ) . Similarly, circumcision,
which was the sign of God's covenant with Abraham in Gen 17:
9-10, becomes a distinguishing feature of the offspring of
Abraham, to keep them separate from their neighbors, but not
a covenantal bond between the people and God ( I . 1 9 2 ) . Fur-
thermore, in all the material dealing with Sinai and the giv-
ing of the Law, there is no mention at all of a covenant.
The failure of Josephus to express the notion of covenant
in these passages is not due to the lack of suitable Greek
terminology. The language of alliance, could certainly have
served in this capacity. However much it may remind us of the
notion of covenant, it surely is significant that such termi-

Schlatter [Theologie 47) noted that there was no explic-

it doctrine of covenant in the writings of Josephus, but he
claimed that. God did all that was expected of one who made a
covenant, i.e. the activities described in such terms as
o u v e p y s L v , auuuotxstv, gor)SsT.v, itpo Jo"Taa'"tai., n a p *arao3aL.
Similarly, Jaubert (La notion 345) called the utilization
of the motif in the Antiquities a "Presentation edulcoree
de 1'alliance biblique" and noted that "le caractere unique
de l'alliance et du choix divin s'affadit, comme si Dieu
souvent predisait les arrets d'un Destin qui lui serait
superieur." Jaubert is certainly correct to draw attention
to the phenomenon of some modification in the picture of
covenant in the Antiquities. Her attempt to associate that
with a doctrine of fatalism is unfounded. We have already
seen the emphasis placed on the will of God in this portion
of Josephus. In Ch. 5 w e shall see the sharp contrast of
the doctrine of the Antiquities and that of the Bellum on
the mode of God's relationship to men and history. What
Jaubert says of this may apply to the Bellum, it does not
apply to the Antiquities. Covenant in the Antiquities has
been made a less willful and capricious thing than it often
seems in the O T , but it is not simply an expression of Fate.
 81

nology is not used to express in those passages where covenant

figures so prominently in the scriptural narratives. It
should also be noted that other possibilities were available
for making a meaningful translation of covenant terminology.
At one point in his narrative Josephus uses the term "agree-
ment" (duoAoYia) for the relationship between God and David.
The existence of this relationship explains the fact that God
•i

did not destroy the wicked Judean king Joram. This passage,
however, is quite unique. Neither the term ov-oXoyCa, nor the
connotation of a lasting relationship which it conveys, ap-
pears elsewhere in the work.
These observations about the absence of an explicit doc-
trine of covenant raises the question of whether the benefac-
tor and alliance terminology connotes something which distin-
guishes it from the notion of covenant. There appear to be
two possible answers. First, in regard to the benefactor
terminology, there is a potential for universal application,
whereas covenant implies an exclusive arrangement between God
and a single people. The universality of the benefactor
language appears clearly in one passage, where Solomon, in
dedicating the temple, asks that God's aid (Pori§e<,a) be avail-
able not only to Israelites in their times of need, but also
2
to all men. Another note of universality appears in the
quite general way that statements about God's beneficent
action are made. One of these occurs in the Moses speech
(II. 3 3 2 ) . A second possible explanation, which affects
primarily the alliance language, is that this terminology does

IX. 96. The text of 2 Chr 21:7 , which forms the basis
of the Antiquities here, reads 6ia$"TH.Ti, a term which Josephus
completely ignores in any religious, and hence non-classical,
sense.
7
VIII. 116-117. This particular note of universality was
already in the scriptural source for the Antiquities. In both
1 Kgs 8:41-43 and 2 Chr 6:32-33, Solomon makes a similar
prayer. What is significant here is the fact that the same
language can be used in the Antiquities to describe God's
role vis-a-vis the gentiles and Israel. That is not the case
with the biblical sources. God does not enter into a covenant
with others as He here is asked to give them His PoASeia. The
implicit universalism in the passage is stressed by Belling
("Religionen" 4 9 ) .
82

not imply any necessary, formal, long-term or automatic com-

mitment on the part of God to act on behalf of the Israelites.
Terms such as ouuuotxos refer primarily to God's role in times
of need, and not to a fundamental agreement which determines
the relationship between God and Israel.^
,The Antiquities never denies that there is a special
relationship between God and Israel. Israel, in the words of
M o s e s , is the race "which He esteemed above all mankind" (III.
313). He makes that statement after telling the people that
they have been condemned to wander for forty years in the
desert because of their disobedience to God. His remark sug-
gests the reason for which God will not utterly obliterate His
wayward folk, as He might be expected to do under the circum-
2
stances. This particular affirmation recalls again the proph-
ecies of Balaam, where the strongest assertion of God's special
relationship with Israel is made and precisely in terms of His
providence and aid. First, in the remark at the start of the
oracle i t s e l f , 3
where the Ttpdvoua of God is described as the
a6y,uaxo£ of Israel, that ouuuaxCa is said to be forever (sic

Apologetic concerns surface in the speech of Solomon in a

striking way. On the basis of his request to grant aid to a l l ,
Solomon makes the non-scriptural inference that thereby men
will know "that we are not inhumane (dndvSpcoTtol rfjv <pt3olv) by
nature, nor unfriendly to those who are not of our country."
On this explicit, defensively apologetic theme in Josephus cf.
Schalit, Introduction lxxix. Recently the prayer of Solomon
on this occasion was analyzed by W. C. van TJnnik ("Eine
merkwurdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus." Josephus
Studien 3 6 2 - 6 9 ) .

Ch. 4 , p. 1 1 8 , n. 1 .
2
Cf. III. 3 1 1 , where it is noted that God will exact
retribution, but one not proportionate to the errors of the
people. This seems to be an interpretation of Num 1 4 : 1 8 T[p1
npJ i K~?. The remark of 3 1 3 that the Israelites are the most
esteemed of races does not seem to have any scriptural basis
in the text of Numbers. The passage does not explain if God
esteemed (§axe Sua T L U T I S ) the people for any particular rea-
son. A very similar passage in IV. 1 3 , in connection with the
desert revolts, does seem to indicate that Moses was responsi-
ble for their light treatment. This suggests that even in
exceptional cases such as these, God's just retribution was at
work.
The material from .Numbers 2 3 - 2 4 has been substantially
modified in the paraphrase of Josephus. In Numbers there were
 83

orcavxa IV. 1 1 4 ) . Then, in his parting advice to Balak, Balaam

notes that because of God's npovoua, it is impossible to harm
His people permanently (IV. 1 2 8 ) . It is interesting that
these assertions are found in the mouth of a gentile seer and
are not made by God or His prophet. The only similar affirma-
tion of any long term commitment appears in the prayer of
Isaac for his son, where he reminds God that He had promised
to be ever (deC) the gracious goridoe. to his descendants (I.
273"). This remark is in its context more a pious wish than a
dogmatic affirmation. The words of the pagan seer, on the
other hand, may have some truth in them from the point of view
of Josephus, but they do not explain adequately the relation-
ship between God and Israel.
A special relationship between God and Israel exists, but
it is not stressed in the Antiquities. In fact it is limited
by another factor which also explains the basis for that rela-
tionship. This is the fact that the major component in God's
providential care for the world is His retributive interven-
tion to reward the righteous and punish'the wicked. His
special concern for Israel is ultimately due to the special
virtue of the people or its leaders.
We noted in the last chapter the programmatic statements
about the moral to be drawn from the history of the Jews.
These asserted in no uncertain terms that God provides
eoScauovfat to the good and the opposite to the w i c k e d . 1
The'
same belief is repeated frequently. After the flood God care-
fully instructs Noah that it was not divine caprice which led
to the destruction of the world, but rather the "outrages
against the piety and virtue due m e " on the part of the flood
2
generation which brought about its destruction. The brothers

four prophecies, in Josephus only one. A similar combination

was made in Ps-Philo. Cf. the remarks of Feldman in his
introduction to the re-edition of M. R. James, The Biblical.
Antiquities of Philo (The Library of Biblical Studies, ed.
H. M. Orlinsky; New York: Ktav, 1971) lix. His reference to
Josephus should be corrected to read 4. 114 and not 9. 199.

"'"I. 1 4 , 20. Cf. the discussion of the preceding chapter.

2
I.' 99-100. The Loeb translation here is in error. It
is not attributes of God which are in question, i.e. "my
reverent regard and goodness," but rather the qualities in men
84

of Joseph, when Benjamin has been arrested, consider Joseph

lucky, because, if dead, he had been freed from life's woes
and, if alive, he had received through their sufferings a
just recompense for his sufferings. Preceding the narration
of the plagues, two introductory remarks emphasize the general
applicability of the story. In his confrontation with Phar-
aoh, Moses warns him not to oppose the commands of God, for
those who do so find themselves at odds with all nature.
Then, in the editorial comment immediately preceding the
plagues, it is noted that their relation will be profitable,
since men will learn from them to keep from doing the things
which displease the Divine (II. 293).
In the second half of the biblical paraphrase, corre-
sponding to the Deuteronomistic history, the belief in divine
retribution is constantly repeated. It recurs in several of
the passages we have already cited as examples of the belief
2
in providence. It also occurs frequently apart from any

which are due to God. The adjective expresses an objective

and not a subjective relationship between these qualities and
their possessor. Cf. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge:
Harvard, 1956) N o . 1197. Cf. also 4 Mac 16:14 S> uflrep 6 L -

E 6 O £ 3 E I O . V -SeaO arpaziaixi. Tipsa&UTi, xat yuvai. and Ant. IX. 265:

UETo&euevoi Tupbe, tfiv sOafigEUav xou dcoO.
The passage in Ant. I addresses specifically the problem
of theodicy, or at least one aspect of it. It is not a prima-
ry objective of the Antiquities to justify all God's ways to
men. However, since he insists on the justice of God's retri-
bution as the major element of Providence, Josephus is com-
pelled to treat, at least superficially, cases where that
retribution seems unjust. Cf. also III. 315. There, the
desert generation has been sentenced to wander for forty
years outside of Canaan, and Moses insists that this punish-
ment is not arbitrary or willful, but is rather the result of
a careful and deliberate judgment. In IV. 60 the Israelites
claim that God's anger has been excessive and provoked by
Moses. They are subsequently proven wrong. The possibility
of unjustified suffering seems to be dealt with in common
w a y s , as educative (III. 15) or as the "interest" accumulated
on an unpaid debt (VIII. 2 0 ) .

292. C f . Philo, Vit. Mos. I. 96; I I. 53 and W i s 5:

21-23. It should be noted that all the passages in the Antiq-
uities mentioned in this paragraph are obviously editorial
elements with no direct scriptural basis.

Cf. the remarks on Saul in V I . 263; on David in V I . 307

and on Asa in VIII. 314-15.
 85

explicit mention of providence. Solomon, in his remarks to

the people at the dedication of the temple, urges them to main-
tain their Spricmsi'o. and SIKCIIOCTUVTI , in return for which they
will be the happiest of m e n . 1
The sentiment expressed here
may well be in conformity with that of the Deuteronomic his-
tory, but the remarks of Solomon in 1 Kings 8 do not contain
2

such a developed or explicit doctrine of retribution.

In several other passages, too, there has been increased
emphasis on, or clearer expression of, the notion of retribu-
tion which is already in the sources of the Antiquities. Aft-
er recording the fact that Jeroboam had constructed two golden
heifers for the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan, it is noted
that this was the beginning of the Hebrews' woes (VIII. 2 2 9 ) ,
a remark not made in the source, 1 Kgs 12:25-33. Punishment
of the whole people comes, but not simply for the sins of
kings. Rather, as is explained in a brief moralizing comment,
all the people imitated the bad example o£ their rulers out of
a desire not to displease t h e m . 3
As a result, God sends
against them the Egyptian king Shishak. In making explicit

VIII. 120. Later in the same set of remarks (121),

Solomon uses the terms eOa^Beua and 6i.jtai.oo-6vri in the same
way. Schlatter (Theologie 37) notes the occurrence of this
pair of terms in several passages, IX. 236, V I I . 384 and XV.
376. He claimed that in using them "Damit hat J. den phar-
isaischen Standpunkt energisch vertreten." Such an assess- .
ment is probably unjustified. See the discussion of these
terms in the next chapter and in Ch. 5.
2
It should be noted that the assurance to Solomon, which
follows in V I I I . 126, seems to be taken directly from the
biblical text of 1 Kgs 9:4-9. Perhaps this passage should
therefore be included among those listed in the following
section, i.e. among passages where Josephus has amplified a
motif already in his scriptural Vorlage.
3
V I I I . 251-53. This passage bears all the marks of the
editorial activity characteristic of the Antiquities. The
general moralizing comment which introduces the section:
"But often, I think, a cause of men's falling into evil ways
and lawlessness lies in the greatness of their affairs and in
the improvement of their position," recalls the remarks on
the change in Saul's character in V I . 263. The psychologizing
found in both i s , as noted in the last chapter, present
throughout the work. With the notion that the evil of a
people is due to imitation of rulers, cf. VIII. 300, where
it is one of Jeroboam's successors who is said to imitate him
in vice.
86

the connection between sin and punishment here the Antiquities

follows closely the text of 2 Chr 12:5 and repeats a motif com-
mon also in Rabbinic s o u r c e s . 1
Similarly, Abijah in his con-
frontation with Jeroboam stresses the necessity of piety to
insure victory (VIII. 280) and in response God grants His
faithful ones carnage the like of which neither Greek nor
barbarian had ever seen (VIII. 2 8 4 ) . In the time of Hezekiah
an invitation was sent to the north calling upon the Israel-
ites to join in the reformed worship of the Jerusalem temple.
They responded by attacking the messengers and God duly pun-
ished them by subjecting them t?o their enemies.
It is obvious, then, that in the Antiquities the theology
of the Deuteronomistic history has been adopted and often
reinforced. The affirmation that God exercises providential
care for the world is equivalent to saying that He effects
proper retribution for good and evil within history. The

The notion that a foreign nation can be God's scourge is

already present in Isa 10:5. The principle is later used to
explain theologically one or another of the foreign invasions
which are often simply recorded in the scriptures. This would
seem to be the force of the verse in 2 Chr, where the connec-
tion between sin and invasion is made explicit. For an exam-
ple of this explanatory technique at work in rabbinic exege-
s i s , cf. Mechilta, Amalek 2 (Horowitz-Rabin edition; Jerusa-
lem: Wahrmann, 1970; 1 8 1 - 8 2 ) . For further parallels in
Josephus cf. VIII. 392 and IX. 170. In the latter passage,
we find another case where the narrative of Chronicles (here
2 Chr 24:24) is incorporated with its acre explicit and
detailed doctrine of retribution. On the general tendency of
the Chronicler to explain historical events in a neat and
rational scheme of retribution,cf. Von Rad, Old Testament
Theology I. 347-54,
2
IX. 265-66. This is one of the passages discussed by
0. Steck (Israel und das gewaltsame Gesahiak der Propheten
[WMANT 25; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967] 8 2 ) .
He claims that this insertion into the narrative comes from
a living tradition of levitical preaching based on the
deuteronomic view of history and including a special remark
on the suffering of the prophets. Some such oral tradition
may lie behind this non-biblical material in the Antiquities.
What is important for assessing Josephus is not the possible
derivation of such a theologoumenon, but its role as a part
of" the general development of the motif of retribution. More
examples of this tendency could be discussed than have been
adduced in the text, cf. V. 168, 253; V I I I . 314-15; X. 60;
XI. 268.
 87

belief in a special providence for Israel is subordinated to

that general principle and is seen to be a particular instance
of it. Two pericopae especially illustrate this relationship.
The first is one which we have discussed briefly on
several occasions, the account of the Aqedah in Bk. I. Many
earlier commentators have treated this pericope and have
noted the abundant parallels to it in Apocrypha, Pseude-
pigrapha, Targumim and M i d r a s h i m . 1
Few, however, have dis-
cussed the theological significance which Abraham in general
or this incident in particular might have in the context of
the whole of the Antiquities. Some tend to dismiss the whole
account of Abraham as a superficial compilation, without any
implications for the general understanding of the work.
Others have noted features of the Abraham stories In
general which suggest that the extremely negative assessment
is not entirely correct. Georgi, relying on the earlier work
of K n o x , 3
suggested that the picture of Abraham in Egypt (I.
161-68) was an ideal for Jewish missionaries.''' This would
indicate something at least about the type of tradition on
which Josephus was relying in composing his account. Feldman

"In addition to Sandmel, Philo 's Place 59-77 and Rappa-

port, Agada, 2 0 , 1 0 8 ; cf. D. Lerch, Isaaks Opferung christlieh
gedeutet (Tubingen: M o h r , 1950) 25-27; S. Speigel, The Last
Trial (New York: Schocken, 1967; E.T. of Me'aggadot Ha'aqedah
1 9 5 0 ) , and G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism
(Studia Post Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1 9 6 1 ) . In Ch. 8 on
"Redemption and Genesis X X I I " Vermes assembles parallels to
the Aqedah, including material from Josephus. R. Le Deaut,
La Nuit Pascale (Rome: Institut Biblique Pontifical, 1963)
does so as well. On Josephus, cf. especially 22, 184-88.
2
Most notable among these is perhaps S. Sandmel {Philo's
Place 7 6 ) : "The picture (soil, of Abraham) is a most super-
ficial one . . . To put it another way, Josephus omits in his
presentation of Abraham those very distinctive qualities which
exalted Abraham in Jubilees and in the later rabbinic litera-
ture; by a touch here and there . . . Josephus gives Abraham
something of a hellenistic color, but only a faint one."
W . L- Knox, "Abraham and the Quest for God," HTS 28
3

(1935) 55-60.
4
D. Georgi, Die Gegner 69-73. He also cites similar
material about Abraham in earlier apologists such as Arta-
panus. He discusses Sandmel and is critical of his assess-
ment of Josephus.
88

noted that in the apologetic picture of Abraham in Egypt there

is something "distinctly original in his sophisticated inver-
sion of the teleological argument for the existence of God."""'
This feature, too, may be a bit of tradition taken over from
Hellenistic Jewish religious propaganda. It i s , however,
unparalleled, and Feldman's suggestion that Josephus himself
was responsible for this bit of theologizing is an attractive
one.
There are elements in the story of the Aqedah in par-
ticular which show the mark of careful editorial elaboration.
This is a chapter in the patriarchal history on which could
be lavished the penchant for the pathetic and melodramatic
characteristic of the Antiquities. The loss to Abraham which
Isaac's sacrifice would have involved is heightened by the
stress laid on the delight which the virtuous and pious lad
caused his parents (I. 2 2 2 ) . Abraham's emotional stake in
his only son is depicted in the remark that he placed all his
own well-being (e06aLU.ovi"a) only in leaving his son unharmed
when he himself departed from this life (223). When the time
to perform the sacrifice arrives, Abraham delivers a long
speech, one of the major pieces of rhetoric in the first book
of the Antiquities (228-31). All of this dramatizing paral-
lels closely the reworking of the narrative in connection
with the crossing of the Red Sea, where much effort was spent
to heighten the effect of the Hebrews' plight. H e r e, as in
that later passage, some generally important theological
points are made.
In our original remarks on the significance of the Tcp6-
voua theme, we noted that it was Abraham's belief in provi-
dence which motivated him to obey God's strange command (I.
225). The same point is made once again using the benefactor
and ally terminology, when Abraham addresses his son. There
the patriarch says that he will perform the sacrifice "in
return for the gracious favor He has shown me as my supporter
and ally (napaoT&TTiS nal o o u u a x o s ) " (229). If the devotion

L. Feldman ("Abraham" 146) refers to the inference of

Abraham from the irregularity of the heavenly bodies to the
existence of one who guides them for human benefit in Ant. I .
155-57.
 89

of Abraham which manifests itself here is a response to God's

providential favor, that favor itself is a response to Abra-
ham's virtue. Earlier in the account of Abraham, immediately
before the promise of a son, God assured the patriarch that
he would receive the proper reward for his good d e e d s . 1
His
son Isaac is certainly to be viewed as an important element
in that reward. Now, by his willingness to sacrifice him,
Abraham merits even further the support and favor of God. By
his obedient response he demonstrates his devotion (apnaHeCa) ,'
and again is suitably rewarded by God, who promises a "life
of felicity" to the offspring of the patriarch.
Abraham's faith in God's providence was justified. 3
That
trust and the action which it entailed elicited God's con-
tinued favor. It would seem to be the case that in the whole
portrayal of Abraham as a m a n of such intellectual power that
he could come to the knowledge of God and of such piety that
he was ready to sacrifice his only son, in short, as a man of
outstanding virtue,'' there is some attempt to explain the

I . 183. The scriptural text of Gen 15:1 has been slight-

ly expanded here. Both M T and LXX record the simple remark of
God to Abraham that his reward is great. The Antiquities has
the plural uca&oiig for the singular of the LXX and adds that
this is for "such good deeds" of Abraham as have been recorded.
The last phrase is unscriptural and its inclusion emphasizes
the notion of retribution here. Schlatter (Theologie 39)
-

already made note of this expansion.

I . 222, 234. Schlatter (Theologie 99} claimed that this

2

term is used exclusively of cultic worship. H e r e, at least,

it would seem th at it has a somewhat broader connotation,
since it encompasses the whole response of the religious indi-
vidual to God. While it does have cultic overtones, it is
almost synonymous with euae'psto.. Cp. its use parallel with
the latter term in II. 211-212 and IX. 260. In the Aqedah
episode the Loeb translates SpnaHeCo. correctly as "worship"
and "piety". For a discussion of the significance of euo£{}ei,a
in the Antiquities, cf. the following chapter.

I use "faith" here deliberately. As shall be seen below

3

and in the next chapter, Josephus emphasizes that the appro-

priate human response to the fact of God's providence is an
attitude of faith and trust in it. He does not thereby be-
come a disciple of P a u l , but he may well be a witness to the
type of Jewish belief reflected in texts, such as Romans 4 and
Hebrews 11.

'''Cf. I. 165. Georgi (Vie Gegnev 72) argues that the

term dpen" here denotes more than moTal excellence. It is
90

special position which, the Israelites had in God's providence.

For the people as a w h o l e , just as for any individual within
or outside of it, God's providence is simply the actualiza-.
tion of His retributive justice. God's care for men is not
an arbitrary exercise of divine w i l l , but is closely connected
to human morals. This belief colors the presentation of the
Aqedah episode her.e.
The most explicit statement explaining the notion of-
divine providence in terms of God's rewarding virtue and pun-
ishing vice occurs in the last speech of Moses which intro-
duces the final summary of the laws CIV. 1 7 6 - 9 5 ) . The speech
is a loose paraphrase of Deuteronomy, which, of course, pur-
ports to be the "testament" or last words of M o s e s . The gen-
eral paraenetic quality of the composition 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. Present in the
speech are most of the themes which w e have seen connected
with the providence motif.
After an exordium in which he claims that he should be
trusted because of the imminence of his death as well as his
previous efforts for his people, Moses forcefully asserts that
the source of prosperity is a gracious (EOU.EVT"I£.) G o d . 1
This

true enough that apexrl may be applied to qualities of intel-

lect or character which are not "virtues" in a narrow moral-
istic sense. However, it is doubtful whether the term can
mean "Lob" or "Preis" as Georgi suggests. On I. 165 he re-
marks: "Die Zusammenordnung mit So£a (vg. auch das en' ailxij)
zeigt, dass mindestens 'Lob' oder 'Preis' gemeint ist." What
ever apexi is h e r e , it is certainly something different from
66£a. It is the quality of Abraham, on account of which (ETC'
cxuxfi) he has renown (66ga). In any case, the usual meaning
of apexi in the Antiquities is virtue in the moral sense.

1
T h e term generally does not imply an unmotivated good
will on the part of God, any more than the other "benefactor"
and "ally" designations. (Cf. p . 79, n. L ) It is often
used in prayers imploring God's aid, and it is surely appro-
priate in those contexts (cf. I. 272; III. 72; IV. 243; V I I .
321, 333, 357; V I I I . 112; IX. 262; X. 4 2 ) .
That God's good will is dependent on virtue is implied
elsewhere in the description of Jehoshaphat (VIII. 394) where
it is said that "he had the favor and assistance of the deity
slxev euusv£c. xe Hat O U V E P Y Q V T O Sstov since he was upright
and pious and daily sought to do something pleasing and
 91

assertion is not meant to convey a theology of grace or elec-

tion, since it is immediately glossed with the explanation
that God alone is able to requite good to the virtuous and
evil to sinners (IV. 1 8 0 ) , implying that his graciousness con-
sists in his justice.
In the body of the speech the special relationship of God
to Israel is mentioned, but the conditional nature of that
relationship is emphasized. God is the por)S6s of the Israel-
ites, but His aid depends on conformity to His will (181).
The same belief is expressed in a summary form that conveys
concisely the doctrine of providence as we have found- it
throughout the Antiquities:

And God, who heretofore has governed you, and

by whose will (pooXriais) I too have been of
service to you, will not at this point set a
term to His providence (updvoia) but so long
as ye yourselves desire to have His protec-
tion, by continuing in the paths of virtue,
so long will ye enjoy His watchful care
(npoufiSeia.).

In concluding this section we might note that there is a

certain tension between the two different aspects of divine
providence treated here. On the one hand, Josephus, follow-
ing the obvious tendency of his scriptural sources, empha-
sizes the special position of Israel in the sight of God.
To do this, he utilizes the special categories of "ally" and
"benefactor". However, the relationship designated by these
terms is not seen to be based on a special agreement, disposi-
tion, or favor of the Deity. Josephus subordinates the rela-
tionship to more universally applicable and acceptable belief

acceptable to God." Cp. I. 208, 229; IV. 318; V I . 342. Like

the other benefactor terms, eOuevric. describes an aspect of
God which appears as a response to human virtue. The last
speech of Moses makes this quite clear.

"'"IV. 18 5. For further examples of the primacy of the

notion of just retribution within the concept of God's provi-
dence, cf. I I . 212, on the delivery of Moses as an infant.
This deliverance is seen as a reward for the etioi&eia of the
patriarchs. Note too the remark at II. 3 4 7 , the conclusion
to our paradigm case of God's special providential interven-
tion. It is not surprising, claims Josephus, that salvation
was provided for those men of old who were "innocent of crime"
(TcovnpCac. ansLpoi).
 92

in the governance of the moral order by God. The history of

the people is taken to be an example of h o w that moral govern-
ance operates. Whatever special position Israel enjoys is to
be understood as a result of its special v i r t u e . 1

IV. The Demonstration of God's Providence: Ttepi.TieTei.cu and

TtpocpriTs la.
In his exhortation to the beleaguered Israelites, Moses
suggested that they take comfort in the thought that it was
in fact God who had brought them to the straits they were in,
so that he might display his own power and providential care
for them by performing a marvellous and unexpected act of
deliverance. The text of his remarks again is:

Rather ought y e , in straits such as ye deem

hopeless, to expect help from God, w h o has
even now caused you to be compassed about on
this difficult ground, to the end that, in
extricating y o u from extremities, whence
neither ye nor the enemy think ye can escape,
He may display both His own power and His
tender care for you. (II. 332)

This word of encouragement is followed by two gnomic state-

ments about the way God intervenes in human affairs. It is
said that He grants His aid not in trivial matters but only
in those of some moment. Then, In the face of the massive
Egyptian force, Moses affirms that God "has the power to make
the little great and to sentence the mighty to impotence." He
. has the poweT, in other w o r d s , to make dramatic reversals in
human affairs.

For more of the elements which stand in tension with the

dominant theme of retribution cf. p. 106, n. 1. The impor-
tance of the retributive element in the notion of God's
providence in the Antiquities was constantly overlooked in
the philosophical assessments of Josephus by nineteenth cen-
tury scholars. It is also missing from most of the recent
discussion of the terminology for providence in Josephus.
Note the article by L. Wachter, "Die unterschiedliche Haltung
der Pharisaer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des
Josephus," ZRGG 21 (1969) 97-114. His description of provi-
dence (101) as "die sinnvolle, auf ein Ziel hinfuhrende
Lenkung.der menschlichen Geschichte durch Gott," may well
apply to eCuapu^vri in the Bellum, but it is definitely not
the connotation of T I P 6 V O I . a in the Antiquities. The latter
term does not refer to God's plan for history, but rather to
His constant care that justice be done among men. On Stahlih,
"Schicksal" cf. Ch. 5, p . 154, n. 1.
 93

In these remarks we see another of the major theological

motifs of the Antiquities. This theme was first enunciated
in the Proem, where it was said that the history to follow
was one in which there would be related all sorts of sur-
prising reverses (TtavxoiaL ... TrapAXoyca iiEpntfciai) which
consist in the good prospering "beyond belief" (nepa TtcaxscoG),
while for the evil, the "practicable becomes impracticable"
(aTtopa x & Tt6pi.ua) and whatever good they attempt to do ends
in "irretrievable disasters" (I. 1 4 ) . One of the editorial
techniques of the Antiquities is to call attention to cases
of reversals which fall under these general headings, to
heighten their dramatic impact and to note how they demon-
strate the theological point, that God's power is revealed
and made manifest in miraculous interventions in human affairs.
The first clear example of this technique is a passage
which was treated extensively in the last section, the Aqedah
episode. We have analyzed that story as one illustrating be-
lief in providence and at the same time clarifying the meaning
of that term. The stOTy is also one in which there is a
rather dramatic reversal, namely in the status of Isaac who
changes from sacrificial victim to recipient of divine bless-
ings. Again, the events of the narrative are mirrored in the
belief of the characters, specifically in the response of
Abraham to Isaac's question about the absence of a sacrificial
victim. He tells his son that God will provide, as he does in
the biblical account, but then he adds: "seeing that He has
power alike to give men abundance of what they have not and
to deprive of what they have those who felt assured of their
possessions." 1
The neatly balanced gnomic form of this

I. 227. ovxa txavov Hat TGJV O 6 M 6vxuv etc eOTtopCav

dv&pilmous TtapaYayetv Mat x& ovxa xcov ETC' auxotc Sappodvxcov
acpEAeaSaL. The text and its translation here present some
problems. The M S S read the dative dvOpcfmoie, and Niese keeps
that reading. Previous editors had emended to the accusative,
dvSpc&Tcoug, and this is the reading adopted by Thackeray in the
Loeb. His translation, however,, is more appropriate to the
reading of the M S S and of Niese's edition. A somewhat more
literal translation of Niese's text would be: "and of things
they have not h e provides for men in abundance." napdyco here
means to create, produce, as is attested in several later Gk.
authors. Cf. L S J Sub voce. On the expression xSv O U K S V T C D V ,
cf. H. F. W e i s s , Untersuehungen zur Kosmotogie des hellenis-
94

expression is quite similar.to the remarks in the speech of

Moses at the exodus to which we have drawn a t t e n t i o n . 1
Like
that remark, it reflects the type of divine intervention which
occurs in the events of the narrative.
Another incident which is embellished with the same tech-
niques as the two already discussed is the story of the deliv-
ery of Moses as an infant. This is part of the extensive leg-
endary material on Moses which is incorporated into the second
book of the Antiquities. These legends deal with the birth
(205-33), youth (228-37) and early career of the hero as a
courtier and general (238-57) . Many of these stories have
extensive parallels in Jewish apologetic and homiletic litera-
ture and they have been studied from that point of view.
What is of interest here is the pattern in which at least one
of these incidents has been presented.

The pericope in question is the description of the deliv-

erance of the infant Moses. In the prayer of Amram, the father
of Moses, and in God's response to it, we hear again the theol-
ogy of divine providential retribution. Amram had Implored God
to "take some pity at length on m e n who had in no wise trans-

tisohen und Pal'dstinisehen Judenturns (TU 9 7 ; Berlin: Akademie,

1966) . If the accusative is read, na.pi.yw would probably mean
"lead aside from." It might then be possible to translate "He
leads m e n away from things that are not into abundance." This
does not make as good sense as the reading of the M S S . Also
the correspondence with the second part of the sentence is
closer with that reading. Hence the emendation is unnecessary.
1
C f . I I . 337. In addition to the gnomic statements which
accompany the examples of dramatic reversals, two other in-
stances of this type of reference to God's power should be
noted. At the conclusion to his oracle following a prophecy
of military prowess for the Israelites, Balaam remarks: "With
such superabundant valor have ye been invested by the provi-
dence of God, who has power alike to diminish what is in ex-
cess and to make good that which is lacking" (IV. 1 1 7 ) . The
editorial comment at the end of the story of Ruth, while not
as neat as some of these remarks, expresses a similar senti-
ment. The story is said to have shown "the power of God and
how easy it is for Him to promote even ordinary folk to rank
so illustrious" (V. 3 3 7 ) . The fondness for such phrases is
part of the rhetorical embellishment of Josephus.
2
Cf. M e e k s , Prophet-King, and Tiede, Figure. Rappaport
(Agada, 24-29, 113-17) collects a large number of the paral-
lels from rabbinic and apologetic texts.
 95

gressed in their worship (dpnaxeLa) of Him, and to grant them

deliverance from the tribulations of the present time (211)."
God answered that He did indeed have their piety (sOa£0et.a) in
mind and would repay them for it (212). He then catalogued
His past benefactions to Amram's ancestors, noting among other
things His military "alliance" with Isaac (214). Such benefac-
tions constitute proof that H e was exercising providential
care (TtpovooOuE'uoc.) over the patriarchs.
Thus encouraged in his d r e a m , 1
Amram proceeds to take an
extraordinary step, the motives of which are spelled out in
the narrative, as those of Abraham had been earlier. Amram de-
cides to expose his son, w h o , according to God's promise, would
be the deliverer of His people. H e did this, assured that God
would provide complete security so that "nothing should be
falsified of that which H e had spoken" (220).
God took this occasion to accomplish a remarkable deliv-
erance which elicits the following editorial comment:

Then once again did God plainly show that human

intelligence is nothing worth, but that all that
He wills to accomplish reaches its perfect end,
and that they w h o , to save themselves, condemn
others to destruction utterly fail, whatever
diligence they may employ, while those are
saved by a miracle (ex Tiotpa6ogou) and attain
2

success almost from the very jaws of disaster,

who hazard all by divine decree. Even so did
the fate that befell this child display the
power of God (II. 222-23).

Rappaport (Agada 1 1 4 , note 129) notes that the detail

that God appeared to Amram in a dream is unique to the Antiq-
uities. In haggadic literature Amram does receive a predic-
tion of the greatness of his son, but this usually comes
through a prophecy of Miriam. The note by W e i l l , repeated
uncritically by Thackeray (Loeb, ad loe.~) that Amram's dream
also occurs in the Mechilta, is simply incorrect.
2
MacRae ("Miracle" 143) notes the use of the term TtapdL-
6ogov to refer to miraculous events in Josephus and notes its
application to the manna in the desert (III. 3 0 ) , the water
from the rock (III. 38) and the activities of Elisha (IX. 60)
He also notes the use of the adverb in X. 214. H e claims in
general that there is a sparing use of this term and more em-
phasis placed on eTU<pavei.a and its cognates in referring to
the miraculous and extraordinary. In fact, several other
significant instances occur where the Ttapci6ogov expressions
are used of the miraculous: I I . 216, 223 in connection with
the rescue of Moses; II. 345 on the passage through the Red
Sea; III. 1 in the emphatic position as the first word of the
96

The parallels between this episode and the Aqedah are obvious.
In both the piety and devotion (Spnaweiot and euaepei.a) of the
Jewish people calls forth the response of divine providence,
which manifests itself in an utterly unexpected way. S o , too,
are there obvious connections between this deliverance and
that of the Israelites at the crossing of the Red Sea. In
both cases the just, who are in extremis, are comforted and
made confident by the knowledge that God has been keeping
watch over them in the p a s t . 1
Their confidence is rewarded
by yet another display of divine aid.
Another dramatic reversal occurs during one of the desert
revolts against Moses . This is not a case of the attainment
of "prosperity beyond belief," in the words of the Proem, but
rather an "irretrievable disaster." The sedition is that of
Korah and Dathan which is related in Numbers 16. This single
chapter of Numbers is richly elaborated and a disproportion-
ately large share of Ant. IV is devoted to it. Part of the
reason for this i s , no doubt, the inherent dramatic potential
of the material and also its suitability for exemplifying the
theological message of the work.
The whole episode is introduced by an editorial comment,
which offers some socio-psychological reflections about sedi-
tion, to the effect that it is the sort of thing that one
would expect to happen in a large military body beset with
2
adverse circumstances. Josephus also claims that the

book, again in reference to the exodus; and in X. 24 of the

deliverance from Sennacherib. Cp. also II. 267, 285, 295;
III. 1 4 , 1 8 ; V. 28; IX. 1 4 , 58, 6 0 , 182; X. 214, 235. MacRae
and Delling ("Das Wunderbare") before him, are correct in
indicating that the primary thrust of "miraculous" or "won-
drous" events is to reveal and make manifest something about
the divine. See below, p . 9 8 , n. 3.

""•This trust on the basis of past evidence of providential

care is a common motif. W e shall see a further particular
example of it momentarily. Another instance of it occurs with
an expression closely parallel to the introductory remarks of
the speech of Moses at the Red Sea in I I . 330. When Moses is
confronted with the burning bush and the divine commission, he
claims that to distrust God's power, made manifest to his fore-
b e a r s , would be "madness too gross, I trow, for my mind to con-
ceive" (II. 2 7 0 ) .
2
Thackeray (Loeb, ad loa.) cites Thuc. V I I . 80 as a pos-
sible source of inspiration for this remark. A similar sort
 97

magnitude of the revolt surpassed anything ever experienced by

Greeks or barbarians CIV. 1 1 - 1 2 ) . Finally it is intimated that
the story displays both the providential care of God and the
excellence of Moses' conduct CIV. 13).'"'
The narration of the initial development of the revolt
proceeds with a few minor elaborations, about the wealth of
Korah ( 1 4 ) , his motives in opposing Moses (20) and the attempt
9
to stone M o s e s . The major elaboration takes place in the
speeches exchanged between Moses and his opponents. Moses
first makes a plea defending his choice of Aaron as high
priest, which, of course, had been the issue over which the
revolt began. He argues that far from being an example of
cheap nepotism, this decision was based on God's w i l l , not his
own. For, had he made his own choice, he would not have
picked his brother, but rather himself (26-27)! The climax
of the affair is reached in the confrontation of the follow-
ing day, and here we find another long piece of rhetoric com-
posed for Moses. Now he addresses God as the cause of a long
list of wondrous deliverances. He solemnly invokes Him to

of generalizing reflection occurs elsewhere in the Antiquities.

Cf. that on Saul in V I . 262-268; on Korah in IV. 17 and on the
mob in IV. 37. I doubt that we need to look for a direct
source in Thucydides.

The Loeb translation would seem to be in error here.

The subject of the verb Tcpov6noe, like that of the other
verbs in the sentence is probably Seos, and not Mcouarjs. cp.
III. 13 where a similar ambiguity is resolved in the same way
by Thackeray.
2
IV. 22. Rappaport (Agada 36-37) cites haggadic paral-
lels for these details.
I V . 44-4S. Although this historical retrospective is
3

not in the immediate source for the story of the rebellion,

it is certainly cast in a common biblical mold. Cf. esp. Pss
78, 106, Ezek 36:22-33 and Nehemiah 9. The last passage is
especially interesting with its remark in 9:10 that by His
wonders Yahweh "won for Himself a name." This motif may be
a source for the motif in the Antiquities of the revelation
of God's providence via His mirabilia.
The historical retrospective appears in less elaborate
form in several other contexts in the Antiquities. In II.
172-75 God appears to Jacob in a dream and tells him that he
should remember the one who provided such aid for his fore-
bears. In III. 86-87 Moses delivers the decalogue. He intro-
duces it by defining the giver as the one who saved the
98

bear witness to his own honesty in selecting Aaron and to

prove (Ttapaaxfiaai.) now once again that all

is directed by thy providence (Tcpdvota) ,
that nothing befalls fortuitously (oUTopd-
rac.),! but that it is thy will that over-
rules and brings everything to its end;
prove that thou carest for those who would
benefit the Hebrews by pursuing Abiram and
Dathan . . . thou wilt make manifest (noifjaai.
<pavepdv) thy judgment upon them . . . by re-
moving them in no common manner out of exist-
ence CIV. 4 7 - 4 8 ) .

2
They are, of course, spectacularly removed.
This episode might be another passage adduced to show the
intimate connection between providence and retribution in the
Antiquities. What it shows even more clearly is the connec-
tion of motifs which we noted in the speech of Moses at the
Red Sea, in the Aqedah episode, and in the rescue of the in-
fant Moses. In the designation of the preface they are all
dramatic and extraordinary TispuTt^TELaL . All have the same
characteristic that they make m a n i f e s t 3
God's providence, His
active retributive justice intervening in the affairs of m e n .

Israelites from Egypt and who had given various aids to the
patriarchs. In both cases these lists are editorial composi-
tions .

""As MacRae C"Miracle" 139) noted, the same contrast b e -

tween fortuitous events and ones happening by the will of God
appears here, in the remarks following the crossing of the Red
Sea (II. 347) and in the discussion of Daniel's prophecy (X.
277-80). In each case the fortuitous is clearly rejected as
an inadequate explanation for events, although on the Exodus,
Josephus allows his readers to "decide for themselves" (II.
348). The common contrast, using the same vocabulary, is yet
further evidence of uniform editorial activity. The force of
the remarks is not that there is some foreordained divine plan,
but rather that events of history are indeed results of God's
provident retribution. Cp. Ch. 5, p . 1 5 3 , n. 3.
2
The destruction, of the rebels is elaborated in many of
its details. Thackeray suggests some parallels to these
details from Thucydides (Loeb, ad loo.). Rappaport (Agada 37)
cites several rabbinic elaborations as well as Samaritan mate-
rials .
3
T h e "manifestation" vocabulary, clearly in evidence here
(•aapoaxtlaaL, Ttoufioai. cpavepdv, IV. 47-48) appears also at the
 99

The motif of the mirabiZia dei and their significance is

dominant in the first four books of the Antiquities. Although
there are some echoes of it in books V - X , 1
another theme pre-
dominates there, namely the manifestation of God's providence
2
by means of prophecy. To be sure, the phenomenon of prophecy
is not neglected in the earlier books. The prophet is seen
as an integral part of the divinely ordained constitution of
Israel (IV. 218) . It is recorded that the flashing of the
oracular stones on the garment of the high priest provides a
•z

criterion for determining the validity of prophecy. Balaam

is described as a prophet (IV. 125) and in connection with
his appearance a theory of inspiration is o u t l i n e d . 4
Finally,
deliverance of the infant Moses (euwotvfSsiv rfjv Ccrx&v roO SeoO
II. 2 2 3 ) ; at the rescue at the Red Sea (tv' . . . xrjv T E Caxuv
gTuSeigriTCU . . . Mat xf|v Ttepl O U A S Ttpovocav II. 332 and xf)v
en;i.(pdvsi.av xou deoO II. 339) and in the remarks of Moses at
the burning bush (5rJvaui,S • • • Tcpoyovoue . - . qjavepd Y E V O J I E V T I
II. 2 7 0 ) . MacRae ("Miracle" 144-47) comments on II. 339 and
the use o f ETC L<pdVv£tec. Several other instances of the use of
the t e r m are cited (I. 255; VIII-. 109, 119; IX. 6 0 ) . There is
a certain variety in the vocabulary referring to "manifesta-
tions," but the point of most of t h e m i s the same. As MacRae
observed, "What is revealed in an 'epiphany' of this sort is
precisely the providential power of God" (Ibid. 1 4 5 ) .

"""Note t h e deliverance of Jerusalem f r o m the Assyrians in

X. 11 and the rescue of Hezekiah in X. 24.
2
Important earlier studies of prophecy in the Antiquities
are the monographs of Gerlach, Weissagungen, and Dienstfertig,
PvophetoZogie. More recently cf. G. Delling, "Die biblische
Prophetie bei Josephus" Josephus Studien 109-121.
I I I . 214-15. The reference is to the Urim and Thummim.
3

Cf. Rappaport (Agada 35, 123-24) for a discussion of this

interpretation. It is interesting that the activity of prophe-
cy is here subordinated to the office of h i g h priest. As noted
in the survey of scholarship (Ch. 1, p . 1 6 , n. 2 ) , some have
found a special pro-priestly tendency in the Antiquities and
throughout t h e corpus of Josephus. Rappaport claims that the
passage on the Urim and Thummim has a p r o - H a s m o n e a n and priest-
ly tendency, on the basis of the remark that the stones stopped
flashing two-hundred years earlier, i.e. under Hyrcanus, who is
described (XIII. 299) as the ideal p T i e s t , prophet and king.
In Ant. Ill there is no explicit reference to Hyrcanus and it
may be disputed whether this is in fact a pro-Hasmonean remark.
For further consideration of the connection of priesthood and
prophecy, cf. Wacholder, Eupolemus 1 4 4 .

I V . 118. With the explicit doctrine o f prophetic inspi-

4

ration here should.be compared the description of the delivery

100

Moses himself is described as a p r o p h e t . 1

Despite this atten-
tion to the fact and theory of prophecy in Israel's early his-
tory, prophecy is not described as a means by which God's
providence is made manifest. The connection of the two themes
occurs in the latter half of the biblical paraphrase.
The first significant expression of the connection ap-
pears in the speech of Solomon at the dedication of the temple.
Here, after a solemn prayer, the king addressed the people and
"made clear to them the power and providence of God, in that
most of the future events which He had revealed to David, his
father, had actually come to pass." These are the things
2
which had happened "according to his (David's) prophecy." At
the time of the division of the Solomonic kingdom a similar
notation is made. In this case it is the pTophecy of Ahijah
to Jeroboam which is fulfilled through the arrogance of Reho-
boam. 3
It is admitted that false prophets existed, but they
were always failures. One of their number, Jadon, is destroyed
by a lion, so that Jeroboam would not believe in his lies, an
episode not recorded in scripture (VIII. 2 4 1 ) . In the same
passage there is another non-scriptural detail which confirms
positively the accuracy of prophecy, in the prediction to

of the Decalogue in III. 83ff. As Georgi (.Die Gegner 163)

notes, this passage expresses a belief about the inspiration
of the Law in its insistence on the divine authorship of the
Law and the subsidiary role of the spokesman, Moses.

I I . 293 and IV. 320.

1
On this topic cf. especially W.
Meeks, Prophet-King.

"Till. 109-110. As noted above, MacRae had included this

passage among those describing divine epiphanies. Actually in
109, it is Solomon who makes manifest God's providence, on the
basis of the fulfillment of prophecy. "ETtucpdvcLa is also ap-
plied to the consumption of the offerings by a divine fire at
the consecration of the temple (VIII. 1 1 9 ) . That conforms
more closely to the descriptions of epiphanies discussed
above. It should be noted that there has been extensive
editorial activity in connection with the pericope on the
temple dedication. For a discussion of the apologetic nature
of this material, cf. Thackeray (Loeb, ad loa.) and Schalit
(Introduction lxxix-lxxx).

VIII. 218. The prophecy of the division of the kingdom

and the mode of its fulfillment are both biblical. Cf. 1 Kgs
11-12. The remark making explicit the connection between the
two is an addition.
 101

Jadon of the manner of his death (240).

The prophecy of Elijah about the end of Ahab and the
prophecy of Micaiah about the failure of the campaign of Ahab
against the Syrians are biblical prophecies in which the ful-
fillment is quite unexpected, because they seem to contradict
one another. Their fulfillment i s , of course, all the more
impressive on that account. The reworking of this material at
the end of Bk. VIII of the Antiquities exploits its potential
well . The story is told as it is in 1 Kings 2 2 , with minor
differences in detail." " 1
Then an editorial remark concludes
the book and draws the appropriate moral. The story is said
to show how great God (T6 S E L O V ) is and how beneficial the
words of prophecy (VIII. 4 1 8 - 2 0 ) .
This passage is interesting for the general theme of this
section of the Antiquities connecting providence and prophecy,
because of the somewhat unusual terminology which appears
here. The fulfillment of the two prophecies is not said to
demonstrate 7tp6vot,a, but rather the "strength of necessity"
(fi T O U xpe&v lax^s VIII. 4 1 9 ) . The key term in this expres-
2
sion, xpe&Vv, is rare in the Antiquities. It recalls the
terminology for divine determinism in the Bellum, including
E t u a p u ^ w i and rOxn. However, it has little of the force of
that terminology, which, as Lindner has shown, refers to
world-wide political events and mirrors an apocalyptically
based determinism. 3
The term used here refers to the same

The most significant departure is the removal of the

scriptural reference to the lying spirit put into the mouths
of the false prophets by God. Cf. 1 Kgs 22:21.
2
In the biblical paraphrase it appears elsewhere only in
VIII. 307, 409, 412. There it refers to the alloted span of
an individual's life. Cp. Bellum V. 572, V I . 314. It could
have the same meaning h e r e , although some reference to the
divine ordering of things is more likely. The translation of
"fate" used in the Loeb is probably somewhat inaccurate, as is
the discussion of the passage by W. Lutgert {Das Problem der
Wiltensfreiheit in der Vorchristlichen Synagoge [Halle:
Waisenhaus, 1906] 1 6 ) . The term does not refer to a cosmic
power apart from God, as G. Stahlin ("Schicksal" 336) seems to
imply. Belling ("Prophetie" 120) and Betz ("Problem" 29) com-
ment on this passage in a way similar to Stahlin.

^Lindner, Gesahiahtsauffassung 42-48, 89-94. For a dis-

cussion of this language cf. Ch. 5, p. 154, n. 1.
102

moral providence which has been the constant concern of the

Antiquities. It emphasizes more strongly than Tcpdvoi.a the
unalterable power of the divine w i l l , which effected the just
settlement of Ahab's affairs, not despite but through his very
resistance. •*•
In the ninth and tenth books there are numerous references
to prophets and their activity, primarily from the historical
books of the scriptures, but also from the books of written
prophecy. In some of these passages there are editorial re-
marks emphasizing the accuracy of the prophecies. W e do not
find the elaborate development of the theme, such as we have

Cp. X. 142 and the remarks there on divine tpuoic.. Cf.

n. 3 below.
2
The story o f Jonah is retold in IX. 208-14. A few some-
what modified verses from Nahum 2 appear in IX. 239-41 and
there is a brief description of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in X. 79-
80. "Historical material from Jeremiah 26 appears in X. 88-95
and material on Zedekiah from Jeremiah 34, 37 and Ezekiel 12
appears in X. 103-107. Various bits on the fall of Jerusalem
from Jeremiah 3 7 , 38 and 39 appear in X. 108-41. Further his-
torical material on Jeremiah and Jerusalem after the deporta-
tions, from Jeremiah 40-43, appears, in X. 155-85.' From that
point onward, Bk. X paraphrases Daniel, also considered to be
a prophet according to Ant. X. 266. Prophecies of Isaiah are
also recorded at X I . 5-6 (Is 44:28) and XIII. 6 4 , 68 (Is 19:
19).
3
S o m e of the more noteworthy comments to that effect are
first, the notice that Hezekiah was kept accurately informed of
the future by Isaiah (IX. 2 7 6 ) ; that Isaiah, "acknowledged to
be a man of God and marvellously possessed of truth," and "con-
fident of never having spoken what was false" set down his
prophecies in writing (X. 3 5 ) . In an expansion of the prophe-
cy of Hulda from 2 Kings 22, she warns that God will exact
retribution in order that all may know that He is God and that
"He was not speaking falsely about any of the things which He
had announced to them through the prophets" (X. 6 1 ) . Finally,
in another editorial comment following the mention of the
prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem b y Jeremiah and its fulfill-
ment (X. 142) , it is noted how these events manifest the
"varied and manifold" (TCOIML'A.TI x a u T C O W T P O T I O S ) nature of God,
"which foretells all which must take place, duly at the ap-
pointed hour." The text here is problematic. Niese unneces-
sarily emends dTtavra to dwavTcJ. in the phrase not Mad' copav
aTtavra TeraYuevcos, d re Set yev£o$a.i, npoXiyei. Cp. the same
emendation, also unnecessary, in X. 266. Thackeray further
complicates matters by translating "and how those things which
He foretells must come to p a s s , duly take place at the ap-
pointed hour." That translation would require the further
emendation of Set to Setv. For further references to ful-
filled prophecies, cf. IX. 7 2 , 74, 86, 175, 179, 184.
 103

seen in Solomon's speech and at the conclusion to Bk. V I I I ,

until the end of Bk. X and the remarks on the prophecy of
Daniel. Here the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies of the
destructions of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes and the
Romans, and by implication all the fulfilled prophecies
recorded in the previous books, is said to demonstrate God's
providence. 1
The conclusion merits extended citation. Jose-
phus claims that one w h o reads Daniel should:

learn from these facts how mistaken are

the Epicureans, who exclude Providence from
human life and refuse to believe that God
governs its affairs or that the universe is
directed by a blessed and immortal Being to
the end that the whole of it may endure,
but say that the world runs by its own move-
ment without knowing a guide or another's
care. If it were leaderless in this fash-
ion, it would be shattered through taking a
blind course and so end in destruction,
just as we see ships go down when they
have no drivers. It therefore seems to m e ,
in view of the things foretold by Daniel,
that they are very far from holding a true
opinion who declare that God takes no
thought for human affairs. For if it were
the case that the world goes on by some
automatism, w e should not have seen all
these things happen in accordance with his'
prophecy (X. 27 8-81).

While the notion of providence is expressed here in

imagery which highlights the divine governance of the world
as a whole, the particular events referred to, the persecution
of Israel under Antiochus Epiphanes and the destruction of
the temple by the Romans, are clearly events in which divine

This passage has drawn a good deal of comment from

students of Josephus. Cf. Gerlach, Weissagungen 50-52;
Poznansky, Ansehauungen 7; Guttmann, Darstellung 1 2 ; I. Hahn,
"Josephus und die Eschatologie von Qumran," Qumran Probleme
(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1 9 6 3 ) ; F. F. Bruce, "Josephus
and Daniel," ASTI 4 (1965) 148-62, and most recently W. C.
van Unnik, "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius Josephus"
in Romanitas et Chrisiianitas, Studia Iano Henrico ffaesink
oblata (ed. W. den Boer et at. Amsterdam: North-Holland,
1973j.
104

retribution is at w o r k . 1
Thus in the conclusion of the first
half of the Antiquities, after the destruction of the first
temple and in connection with a prophecy of the destruction
of the second, Josephus conveys much the same message that
Solomon did at the inauguration of that first temple. The
argument here is also the same. The act of divine retribution
which has taken place has been made known beforehand by God
and that very fact proves that He exercises providential care
for His creation and His people.
In this section we have seen how the theme of the demon-
stration of God's providence, which rewards good and punishes
evil is a major motif which unites the whole biblical para-
phrase of the Antiquities. The ancient history of the Jewish
people is, in the eyes of Josephus, a compendium of the won-
drous acts of God in human affairs and of the accurate pre-
dictions of future events, both of which reveal the way God
relates to men.

V. The exhortation to trust in the providential God

In the last chapter we saw that the preface contained an
explicit moralizing element which centered on a belief in a
just and provident God. The reader was Instructed that his
reading of the ancient history of the Jews was to teach him a
very definite lesson about God and the proper way to relate to
Him. There is not here an explicit call to "conversion" or
even to reliance upon this God. Similarly in the course of
the narrative there are no editorial comments which make an
explicit religious claim on the basis of the sacred ancient
history. Such a claim on the reader, which had been explicit
in the proem, is implicit in the subsequent narrative.
A t the conclusion of his speech to the Israelites sur-
rounded on the banks of the Red Sea, Moses urges that they
trust in the God who has been their standby in the past and
not fear the Egyptian host C H - 3 3 3 ) . W e have seen up to now
that this speech of Moses encapsulates the motifs which con-
tinually recur and dominate the paraphrase of biblical history

Cp. IV. 311-14, where the curses of Deuteronomy 28 are

reduced to the razing of the city, the destruction of the
temple and being sold into slavery.
 105

in the Antiquities. This paraenetical conclusion is obvious-

ly an element adapted to the particular dramatic situation be-
fore the crossing of the Red Sea. It is also precisely the
type of implicit paraenesis which appears throughout the work.
This paraenesis shares a characteristic of the general Ttp6voi.a
theme, which we noted at the conclusion to the third section
of this chapter. That motif was seen to be a transformation
of a doctrine specially appropriate to Israel into one capable
of more general applicability. Similarly, the paraenesis usu-
ally has its greatest point w h e n conceived as addressed to a
Jewish audience, although within the framework of this literary
work it does have a more general appeal.
The conclusion to the speech of Moses advocated reliance
on God. There are several brief indications that the biblical
history, especially in its prophetic dimension, provided for
Josephus a basis for continuing to rely on a providential God.
One of these hints occurs in the last pericope discussed in
the previous section, that dealing with the prophecy of Daniel.
There the prophet is described as "one of the greatest proph-
ets" CX. 2 6 7 ) . There are two reasons for that evaluation.
The first is that he prophesied not only what was to happen,
but when. The second is that "whereas the other prophets
foretold disasters and were for that reason in disfavor with
kings and people, Daniel was a prophet of good tidings" (268) .
The good tidings which Daniel prophesied are not recorded in
the subsequent material, which records the vision of Daniel 8,
which is applied to the Persians, the Medes and the Greeks,
not to any particular Jewish prosperity. The good tidings to
which Josephus refers may well be the prophecy of restoration
of Dan 9:24ff., although this is not brought into the discus-
sion in the Antiquities. If there is any basis for confidence
expressed here it is simply the proof of God's providence
which one may derive from the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy.

On this subject, cf. Gerlach (Weissagungen 65-66) and

Guttmann (Darstellung 4 0 ) . What Josephus may have had in mind
with these "good tidings" may also have been the vision of the
four kingdoms of Daniel 2, with its reference to an eternal
kingdom symbolized by the stone ( w . 33, 44-45) . This vision
is mentioned by Josephus in Ant. X. 210, but he refrains from
recording its interpretation, for obvious reasons.
106

In any case, the positive note is thereby suggested.

A more explicit hope for the future is expressed at the
conclusion to the first four books, in the words of the other
great prophet of the Antiquities. Upon finishing his summary
of the Law, Moses predicts what will happen whe n the laws are
not observed, summarizing the curses of Deuteronomy 28 with a
non-scriptural reference to the temple. He adds another
notice not in Deuteronomy, namely the remark that God wil l
restore the temple and cities again and they shall be lost
not once, but often. In this remark may be detected the be-
lief of Josephus that the current desolation of Jerusalem was
only a temporary thing and that yet another restoration could
be expected. 1

In the few passages briefly treated in this last section,

we have seen some hints of an important part of the moralizing
element in the Antiquities, namely the specific role of piety,
a trusting, yet non-presumptuous response to the facts of
divine providence. There is another important vehicle for
conveying that theme, in addition to the rhetorical elabora-
tion, editorial comment, and the like, which we have been
examining in this chapter. This is the description of the
virtues and vices of the various figures of biblical history,
where the paraenetic point Is most clearly made. To examine
that dimension of the biblical paraphrase is the task of the
next chapter.

VI. Summary
In the analysis of this chapter we have seen a consistent
pattern of interpretation of the events of biblical history in
the Antiquities. These events are seen to give evidence for
a general truth stated in the preface, namely that God exer-

The hopeful eschatological element implicit in the

A.ntiquities has often been noted. For the most recent dis-
cussions of the issue, cf. G. Celling ("Prophetie" 117-21) and
M . de Jonge ("Zukunftserwartungen"), although he deals primari-
ly with the Bellum. The key passages indicating such a per-
spective in the biblical paraphrase, in addition to the
prophecy of Daniel, are the theory expressed by Moses that
Israel is only chastened, not completely punished for her sins
[III. 311) and the prophecy of Balaam that God would never let
Israel be completely destroyed (IV. 1 2 8 ) .
 107

cises providential care for the world. This providence con-

sists primarily in the rewarding of virtue and punishing of
vice. The history of Israel is seen to be a collection of
miraculous and prophetical evidence for the truth of that
belief. In working out that theme in the history of Israel,
Josephus wrestles with the problem which its status as "Chosen
people" presents. Ultimately God's special care for Israel is
seen to be simply a particular case of his general mode of
relating to the world. And finally there is inherent in the
narrative a paraenetic theme, stated explicitly in the speech
of Moses at the Red Sea. The history of Israel provides a
basis for continued hope and confidence in the God who can and
will aid in an unexpected way those who follow His law.
 THE MORALIZING OF THE ANTIQUITIES

In the second chapter we saw how the Antiquities in its

programmatic statements reflects the ideals of rhetorical
historiography, in which much value was placed on the moral
lessons to be derived from the past. We saw several explicit
statements indicating that the ethical elements of the Jewish
scriptures were considered an important part of their message
and meaning. In the last chapter we saw further how the
recurrent motif of God's providence is intimately connected
with morals. The exercise of God's providential care in His
alliance with some men and His rejection of others was seen
to be determined primarily by their virtue and vice. In this
chapter we shall focus our attention directly on those virtues
and vices which Josephus explicitly elaborates, in his attempt
to show the value of scripture as a guide for conduct.
Our approach to this material w i l l , of necessity, be some-
what different from that of the previous chapter. There, our
investigation was governed by the recurrent pattern of motifs
and vocabulary connected with the notion of npovOLn. We saw
this pattern illustrated in a single paradigm of the exercise
of God's care, namely the exodus account, and repeated through-
out the work. Here the material is more diffuse and diverse.
A few major blocks of moralizing appear, but in general the
ethical points of the Antiquities are presented in various
brief additions and alterations to the narrative. Initially,
then, our approach will be to isolate the moralistic terminol-
ogy used in evaluating biblical figures. Afterwards we shall
examine some significant motifs which do structure a major part
of the narrative.

I. Character Evaluation
The most concentrated collections of obviously edifying
material occur in the encomia of the major figures which appear

109
110

from time to time. These do not exhibit a completely uniform

pattern of evaluation, but certain virtues appear frequently.
One of the first of these encomia is the description of Joshua
upon his appointment by Moses to lead the Israelite army. He
was given this position because he was
a m a n of extreme courage (dvSpsi.6Ta.TOc),
valiant in endurance of toil (ndvouc.
uTtooTfjvaL v e w a t o g ) , highly gifted in
intellect and speech, and withal one who
worshipped God with a singular piety
(euaeBsi-a) which he had learnt from Moses
[III. 4 9 ) .
M o s e s , too, receives his word of praise. That has special
features which w e shall examine l a t e r . 1
Another list of ideal
virtues appears in the story of the selection of David, based
on 1 Sam 16:7. In the scriptural text God tells the prophet,
"Take no account of it if he is handsome and tall; I reject
him. The Lord does not see as m a n sees; m e n judge by appear-
ances but the Lord by the heart." The last phrase has been
expanded in the Antiquities to read, "I seek one who in full
measure is distinguished by this {sail, virtue of s o u l ) , one
adorned with piety, justice, fortitude and obedience, quali-
ties whereof beauty of soul consists." Saul is later praised
as "just, courageous and w i s e . " 3
David is eulogized as a king
who was "courageous, prudent, mild, kind, just and humane."*

The virtues which are clustered in the encomia on the

leading characters are also frequently applied individually
in particular situations. The u s e of such moralizing descrip-
tions often simply makes explicit the moral qualities implicit

Cf. section V of this chapter. The encomium on Moses

appears at IV. 329-31.
2
V I . 160: etioepeua, SiKaioauvn, dvSpsfa, TceiScS. "Obedi-
ence" in this list is the Loeb translation for the Greek TieL&i
which may m e a n that, although a more common meaning is "per-
suasion". T h e fact that forensic ability is often viewed as
an accomplishment characteristic of the biblical heroes might
be a reason to take it In that sense, here. Note the descrip-
tion of Abraham in I. 1 5 4 , Moses in III. 13; IV. 329 and the
remarks on Joshua cited just above from III. 49.
3
6i.xai.oc., avSpetog, acocppcov V I . 3 4 6.
d v S p s t o g , aaVppayv, eTtLet,ut)g, xpi"|o"cog, S u w x l o s , and
cpiAd-uSpcoTEoe V I I . 390-91.
 Ill

in the narrative. Many of the terms so used illustrate virtue

not in the narrow moral sense, but in the broader sense of
human excellence. Abraham, for example, was a man "of ready
intelligence (6euv6s <3v ouvLevai.) on all matters, persuasive
with his hearers, and not mistaken in his inferences" (I. 1 5 4 ) .
Similarly Abraham's descendants are "strong at labor and quick
of understanding."'*' Precisely the same qualities are displayed
by the sons of Jacob, who were "courageous for manual labor and
endurance of toil" and "were withal quick of understanding"
(II. 7 ) . Similarly Nathan the prophet is "a man of tact and
understanding." Several figures are characterized in this
offhand way as being "energetic" CSpaoTi^piog) . These include
Judah C I 1- 1 3 9 ) , Keniaz the judge (V. 1 8 2 ) , and the Syrian
King Azaelos (i-e. Hazael IX. 9 3 ) . Forensic excellence such
as that of Abraham also characterized such less reputable
figures as Korah C I V . 1 4 ) . Also in this category of virtue
in the broad sense are the strength of Samson C V . 317) and
the physical charm and natural intelligence of the youth
Moses.* 5
Such are the attributes which heroes and exemplary
political and military leaders have. They are indeed examples
of valor, which "it is but right to admire" C V . 3 1 7 ) , but they
form only a small part of the moralistic interpretation of his-
tory. They are hardly presented as major qualities to be
cultivated.
Among the more significant and more narrowly moral vir-
tues, otixppooovn plays an important role. We have seen how
both Saul and David were praised for this q u a l i t y . 4
Much
earlier, Hagar had been told by an angel that she would obtain
a better lot if she behaved in a properly sensible w a y . 5
The

6si.vot a u v L S v a i I. 238.
2
VII. 147: doTEtog Mat auverdg. The translation of
doretog might be improved. The term usually means polite.or
witty. Nathan displays not only his tact, but also his mental
agility in devising the parable.
3
II. 224, 229, 230.
4
C f . p. 110, Ant. V I . 346, V I I . 391.
5
aoqjpovpOpa I. 189.
112

Israelites of the exodus generation acquire this virtue only

after the bitter experience of the desert revolts (IV. 4 9 ) ,
while Moses chides his people with the aim that they might
learn "moderation" (aaxppovricei.v) and not rebel against their
leaders in the future (IV. 1 8 9 ) . In these examples the recom-
mended virtue is closely connected with the issue of obedience
and respect toward authority. W e might even paraphrase it as
a sensible restraint based on the recognition of the possi-
bilities of one's own position. This suggestion fits nicely
the use of the term to describe the behavior of Saul when he
is selected to be Icing. As in the biblical account of 1 Sam
10:20, the king-designate evidences a certain reluctance to
assume office. This behavior is taken by Josephus as an indi-
cation of Saul's praiseworthy character:

Nay, such was the restraint (EYMpdreua) and

modesty (acocppoaovri) displayed by him that,
whereas most persons are unable to contain
their joy over the slightest success but
rush to display themselves before all the
world, h e , far from showing any such pride
on obtaining a kingdom and being appointed
lord of all those mighty peoples, actually
stole away from the view of his future sub-
jects . 1

The vices corresponding to this moderate restraint are

portrayed with equal, if not greater, clarity. The antithesis
of moderation and restraint is a thoughtless, reckless atti-
tude, designated as dBouXia, dvoua, and dtppoaovn. It is evi-
denced in the actions of the brothers of Joseph, which are

V I . 63. Similar praise for the modesty of Saul is found

in Rabbinic sources. Cf. Rappaport (Agada 48) and Ginsberg
(The Legends of the Jews - [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1909] V I . 2 3 1 ) . Related to the material on acxppoo-ovri
recorded in the text are descriptions of other rational vir-
tues. The Joseph story has several examples. At the begin-
ning of the account of his life in Egypt a brief summary notes
that "even under this change of fortune he abandoned not that
virtue that enveloped him, but displayed how a noble spirit
(cppivriua.) can surmount the trials of life, where it is genuine
and does not simply accommodate itself to passing prosperity"
(II. 4 0 ) . In the encomium which follows the report of his
death, a similar remark is made, noting that the patriarch was
a man who "directed all affairs by the dictates of reason
(A.oyi.au6s)" (II. 1 9 8 ) .
 113

described by Joseph himself as "imprudence". Pharoah's

resistance to the request of Moses is motivated, at least
partially, by his foolishness. Similarly, Rehoboam was a
•7

man of a "boastful and foolish nature" who thereby lost his

royal power. Achab, by building temples for foreign gods,
surpassed all the other Israelite kings in his folly and wick-
edness,* although Ahaz later followed in the same path, being
"stupid (&V6TITO£) and unmindful of his own g o o d . " 5

Another virtue frequently emphasized is courage

(dv6pe"a)^. Moses displays this in aiding the daughters
of Raguel (III. 65) and in facing the hostility of the rebel-
7
lious Israelites. It also characterized Phineas, Ehud, David
D

and Asanos (i.e. Asa) w h o imitated David. Saul Is the prin-

cipal exemplar of this virtue. As w e have noted, the encomium
afJooAi'a II. 163.
2

dcppOCTUvn I I . 307.
3
dAaC"ov wat dvdnros VIII. 264.
4
d v o u a and novripCa V I I I . 318.
5
I X . 255. Just as the possession or exercise of Aoyt-oyds
was considered as a virtue close to acocppoauvn, so its lack
should be noted as another form of dtppoodvn. In particular
the vow of Jephthah (V. 266) is castigated because he had not
"by reflection (Aovi.ay.6s) probed" what might have resulted
from it. Among later kings there are several examples of
similar faults. Jeroboam, "a youth of ardent nature (cpuoei.
8epy,6s)" led an unsuccessful revolt against Solomon (VIII.
2 0 9 ) . Also condemned as foolish (dvdnxoc.) are the crowd (VI.
43) and the man who would lean on a broken reed (X. 7 ) . The
term is occasionally used in less significant ways: II. 112;
VII. 185; VIII. 243, 343; IX. 265; and X. 15. Nabal (VI. 302)
is taken as an example of dcppoaovn since that is the meaning
of his name.

''The term av&payadCo. is occasionally used of acts of

courage and not of the interior virtue. So I. 13; IV- 154.
'AvSpeCa is the most common word for the virtue. In addition
to the individuals cited in the text, the virtue is prophet-
ically applied to the whole people by Balaam (IV. 1 1 7 ) , and to
the m e n of Jabesh-Gilead, who recover the body of Saul (VI.
376). The adjective, dvSpeTog, is used to describe particular-
ly courageous men, but substantivized it serves as a common
term for warriors: V I I . 124, 139, 307, 323.
7
I I I . 13-21, IV. 4 2 .

° For Ehud cf. IV. 152-53; V. 188. For David cf. V I . 196
and V I I . 390. For Asa cf. V I I I . 315. See also above p. 110.
114

which follows the account of his death lists several of his

virtues, 1
but it is especially his bravery which is high-
lighted in this section, which is the most extensive moral-
izing addition to the biblical material. Immediately after
the remark about the general virtues of the king, he is com-
pared to others w h o go off to war with the hope of conquering.
These, suggest Josephus, are improperly called valiant
(ctvepstoi.). It is rather the man like Saul, who knows that
2
he will die for his efforts, who truly deserves this title.
A n apologetic concern to illustrate the best in the Jew-
ish past may be at work in the encomium on Saul and through-
out the moralizing material. The extraordinary length of the
panegyric on the king indicates a special interest in this
type of comment. Josephus may be concerned.to offset the very
negative picture of the first Jewish king which would have
resulted from the bare retelling of the biblical narrative of
1 Sam 28:16-20. This pericope records the disobedience and
subsequent punishment of Saul. Josephus does retain this
material in V I . 335-36, since he is in basic agreement with
the theology involved in it. HoweveT, he does not allow the
story of Saul to end on that note and hence the lavish encomi-
um follows.
One final example of moralizing on the theme of courage
appears in the address of Moses to the assembly on the occasion

V I . 346. Saul is a major peg on which moralizing reflec-

tion is hung. In addition to the encomium discussed h e r e , cf.
the analysis of Saul's sins in V I . 264-67. On this passage
cf. below p . 125.

Another example of the "noble death" theme appears in

connection wit h Samson, whom, according to Josephus, it is
"right to admire . . . for his valor, his strength, and his
nobility at death" (V. 3 1 7 ) . The Loeb translation here of
"the grandeur of his end" for tot) ixepi; Tfiv T E X S U X ^ V
ueyaAocppovos is misleading. What is suggested as an object
of admiration is not the spectacular exit of the h e r o , but
his own noble or generous attitude. Compare, too, the atti-
tude of Jephthah's daughter, who accepted her fate, "without
displeasure" (o<"m cuiSwc), since she was to die "for her
father's victory and the liberation of her fellow-citizens"
Cent V I / K T J xou Tcarpbs >cai eAsuSepCo: T U V T C O A . I . T 6 J V T S & V T I g o u £ v n
V. 2 6 5 ) . Cp. also the end of Uzziah V I I . 138-40. For a
general discussion of the theme of the noble death, cf. S.
Williams, Jesus' Death as Saving Event (Thesis Harvard, 1 9 7 1 ) .
 US

of the revolt of Zambrias. He notes there that it behooves

the Israelites to think that courage (&v6peia) consists "not
in violating the laws, but in resisting their passions" CIV.
143). Here we see a combination of concerns which first ap-
peared in connection with some of the remarks on o-axppocrovri.
That virtue referred, at least in part , to the proper attitude
toward authority and some of the moralizing closely related to
it emphasized the restraint of e m o t i o n . 1
These two themes
will take on greater importance as our analysis develops.
The most common virtue to be proffered as an object of
emulation is surely "justice" C -"<O;I.OCTOVTI)
5 I
. It is so common
as to be virtually without content. Atjcaios is applied by
Josephus to almost every positively evaluated figure in the
biblical history. The term thus functions as the most
inclusive designation for virtue in general. If there is
any limitation to its range, it is that it applies to rela-
tions among m e n , while "piety" (eiici&eia) is used for man's
relationship with God. The fact that the two terms often oc-
cur together probably indicates that they do delimit one
another in precisely this w a y . 3

•"•Cf. above, p. 112, and especially IV. 189 and V I . 63.

2
I t is used of Abel (I. 5 3 ) , Noah CI- 9 9 ) , Jacob (II.
149), Samuel • (VI. 2 9 4 ) , Saul (VI. 3 4 3 - 5 0 ) , David (VI. 308, V I I .
130), Solomon (VIII. 2 1 ) , and Jehoshaphat (VIII. 394, IX. 1 6 ) .

Schlatter (Theologie 37) notes the occurrence of this

pair of terms in several passages: V I I . 3 8 4 , IX. 236, and XV.
376. He claimed that in using them: "Damit hat J. den
pharisaischen Standpunkt energisch vertreten." The use of
these two terms together is compatible with the supposition
that Josephus was a Pharisee, but it hardly constitutes evi-
dence for that view. The terms were readily used in conjunc-
tion by some who were certainly not Pharisees. Cp. the re-
marks of Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Numa. In his legisla-
tion he introduced two things by which he supposed that the
city would be prosperous, eua^Peia and 6(.>«XI.OOTJVTI (2. 6 2 . S) .
The terms are often used in tandem by Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.3.
2; 1.5.3; 2.18; 4.9.2; 6.6.2; 13.5.3) and by Diodorus (Bibl.
Hist. 1.2.2). There it is noted that human relations with
the gods should be governed by euo"s$sLa and oaudxriTi., while
affairs among men are to be governed by etKcuoativn and
6ai6rnTL. Cf. also 12.20.1-3. The two terms linked togeth-
er are, in fact, a traditional rhetorical expression for com-
plete virtue. Cf. Isocrates 3.2 and Xenophon, Memorabilia
4-8, 11. Cp. the remarks of lebram ("Idealstaat" 2 3 7 ) . In
the Antiquities the combination is even more common than
116

The second half of that pair, £ua6geLa, is more signifi-

cant than its counterpart. There was an indication of this
in the Proem where it was contrasted with the exercise of all
other virtue.'*' That contrast seemed to imply that this vir-
tue holds a particular place in the moral hierarchy. Like
SiKai-oauvri, stia£[3EL0L is a virtue exemplified by almost every
major character. Occasionally piety is seen to be manifested
primarily in worship (dpricmELa.) , as in the speech of Solomon
(VIII. 120) and especially in the proper worship of the one
God, as in the remarks of Hezekiah (IX. 260) and Josiah (X.
SO). As was noted in connection with the Aqedah e p i s o d e , 3

worship in the Antiquities is not simply an affair of cultic

externals, but involves a complete devotion to God and a
willingness to obey His law, including His moral law.
'EuaegCLa, then, in the Antiquities is the proper human
response to the fact of God's p r o v i d e n c e . 4

The vice which corresponds to this most important of the

virtues is graphically depicted. The height of impiety con-
sists in an improper attitude toward God's providence, either
in the presumption of automatic assistance from God, or in the

Schlatter suggested. In addition to the passages which he

mentioned cf. V I . 160, 265; V I I I . 120-21, 300, 314, 394; IX.
16, 260, 276; X. 5 0 ; XVIIII. 117. The pair also appears in
Philo, e.g. Deeccl. 50-51, De Ab. 208.

""•In I. 6 Josephus had promised to tell of "the great law-

giver under whom they (the Hebrews) were trained in piety
(eCaSgeia) and the exercise of the other virtues." The primacy
of piety is also apparent at C. Ap. II. 146.
2
The major examples of the virtue are: Jacob (II. 1 9 6 ) ,
the patriarchs in general (II. 2 1 2 ) , Joshua (III. 4 9 ) , Boaz
(V. 3 2 7 ) , Jephthah (VI. 1 2 7 ) , Saul (VI. 1 6 0 ) , David (VII. 1 3 0 ,
V I I I . 196, 2 0 8 ) , Solomon (VIII. 1 3 ) , Asa (VIII. 3 1 4 ) , Jehosa-
phat (VIII. 394, IX. 1 6 ) , Hezekiah (IX. 260, 2 7 6 ) , Josiah (X.
50, 5 6 ) .
3
Cf. Ch. 3, p. 89, n. 2.

T h e notion that piety is basically a proper conception of

4

and response to the reality of God's retributive providence is

implied by the Proem, Ant. I. 20-21. With the moralistic con-
notations of piety mentioned here should be compared the re-
mark of C. Ap. II. 192, where God is described as the creator
and it is said, "Him must we worship by the practice of virtue
(dOKoOvTEc dpExrVv) for that is the most saintly manner of wor-
shipping God (&eou SepaTceCa) ."
 117

assumption that He is not responsible at all for human affairs.

The second attitude is, of course, that of the "Epicureans,"
castigated in connection with the prophecy of D a n i e l . 1
It was
also the fault of two characters in particular, Nimrod and
Samson. Nimrod (Nebrodes in the Antiquities), an audacious
'-roAuriPoe) m a n , persuaded the people of his day "to attribute
their prosperity not to God, but to their own v a l o r , " 2
and
gradually instituted a tyranny by leading men away from God.
This resulted in the construction of the tower of Babel, with
its well-known consequences. 3

Samson was hardly the sinner that Nimrod w a s , although

he did meet a bad end after associating with the wrong people.
Before that, however, he did make one slip which recalls the
fault of Nimrod. After jawboning his enemies into submission
he "became unduly proud of this feat" and "did not say that
it was God's assistance that had brought it to p a s s , but
ascribed the issue to his own v a l o r . " 4
He is quickly dis-
abused of this notion when he notices that he is thirsty and
unable to quench that thirst by his own p o w e r . 5

Cf. Ch. 3, p. 103. The attack on the Epicureans occurs

in X. 278.
2
fi i&ta. aperr* I. 113.
3
T h e wickedness of Nimrod is a commonplace in Jewish
haggada. Cf. Rappaport (Agada 1 3 , 98-99) for extensive paral-
lels. It is interesting that in all of this parallel material
only a single example is adduced of Nimrod as a "Beispiel
sundigen Hochmuts," as Rappaport calls it. This is the essen-
tial element in the account of the Antiquities. The source
cited is the late poet Imrani. Cf. W. Bacher, Zwei judisefi-
persisahe Diehter: Sohahin und Imrani (Budapest: von
Alkalay, 1907-08). In fact it might be argued that such a
quality is implied in the notice (cf. b. Erubin 53a, and
Siphra Behuqothai 2.2) that Amraphel (Gen 14:1) was called
Nimrod because he caused the whole world to rebel (himrid)
against the sovereignty of God.
The notion of tyranny which w e find connected here with
the figure of Nimrod becomes an important one for the moraliz-
ing dimension of the Antiquities. Cf. section III of this
chapter, especially p . 139, n. 2.
A
n i6i"a open" V. 301.
5
T h e fact that Samson became thirsty after his victory
is taken from Judg 15:18; the rest is amplification, further
examples of impiety are to be found in the angels (I. 7 2 - 7 4 ) ,
118

The first of the two failings vis-a-vis God's providence,

the trust that God's assistance to His people would be auto-
matic, is equally conspicuous. Such blind trust is attrib-
uted, for example, to the desert generation, which disobeyed
M o s e s , confident that God would not fail to give them aid.
Their belief is

that it was from no favour for Moses that

God succoured them, but because in general
He had a care for (xr)66uevoc.) their race out
of regard for their ancestors whom He had
taken under His protection. It was thanks
to them and to their own valour that He had
in the past given them their liberty, and
now, would they but exert themselves. He
would be ever at their side as ally.l

Convinced that God was on their side, they went forth to con-
quer Canaan, "claiming God as their leader and without waiting
for any concurrence on the part of their legislator" (IV. 6) .
The disastrous results of their rash attack are recorded as in
Numbers 14. The implications of the defeat are obvious. Pre-
sumption of God's assistance is an Improper and impious
response to his providence.
Our analysis of e u c e f 3 s L a and its opposite has led us from
the more narrow lexical confines of our initial analysis of
virtue and vice. This is hardly accidental. While much of
the moralizing material in the Antiquities simply explicates
what is implicit in the narrative, the virtue and vice which
we have just investigated receive greater elaboration, for
they touch the heart of the message which Josephus sees con-
veyed in Jewish scripture. The emphasis on piety on the one

the offspring of Noah (I. 1 1 2 ) , Pharaoh (II. 30 7 ) , the Israel-

ites (III. 5 8 , IV. 1-6, V. 2 1 5 ) , Abimelech (V. 2 3 4 ) , the sons
of Eli (V. 3 3 9 ) , both of whom figure also as examples of
tyranny, Jeroboam (VIII. 245, IX. 2 0 5 ) , Basanos (VIII. 2 9 9 ) ,
Achab (IX. 1 ) , Joram (IX. 27, 9 5 - 9 9 ) , and Ozias (IX. 222-23) .

I V . 2. Note in this section the concern with the motives

1

of the people. As we noted in Ch. 2, this sort of concern

characterizes much of the Antiquities. In the next section
we shall examine more closely how it functions as a tool of
the moralizing dimension of interpretation. It should also
be noted here that the highlighting of this vice of presump-
tion reinforces the analysis of the Ttpovoia motif suggested
in the last chapter, p. 82.
 119

hand balances the emphasis on morality as the criterion for

divine intervention into human affairs. Hence the message
of the work remains religious and is not reduced to a ration-
alistic e t h i c . 1
On the other hand, careful elaborations of
improper responses to God's providence reinforces the treat-
ment of the notion of providence which we examined in the last
chapter. The point is clearly made that God does intervene in
human affairs, but that intervention is not an arbitrary one.

II. The Analysis of Moral Deeay

In the first section of this chapter we saw how charac-
terizations of the leading figures in the narrative serve as
a technique for introducing moral reflection into the account.
The narrative frequently takes on a moralistic tone through
other m e a n s , such as the expression of suitably edifying sen-
timents by various characters. This moralizing might take the
form of an exhortation of one character to another, as when it
is reported of David that he forbade pillaging the property of
Nabal. He charged his men:

to see that these flocks should be safe and

unharmed, and that neither through greed nor
want nor because they were in the wilderness
and could escape detection, should they do
them any injury, but should, hold it more
important than all these things to wrong no
man and should reckon it a crime and an of-
fence against God to touch what belonged to
another. 2

Schlatter (Theologie pp. 5, 186") is certainly misleading

in his suggestion that with such terms as soSaLuovCa Josephus
has introduced into the scriptural narrative a rationalistic
"eudaimonism." He equates this with a Jewish liberalism, and
remarks: "Wurde die religose Verpflichtung auf die Satzungen
des Pentateuchs beschrankt, so blieb der grosste Teil des
Handelns von jeder religiosen Verpflichtung frei. Damit war
fur eine Ethik der Raum geschaffen, die den Eudamonismus zum
regierended Ziel machte und keinem anderen Motiv Geltung
zugestand als dem der Zweckmassigkeit." Whether or not there
was such a Jewish liberalism in the first century need not
detain us here. It is at least clear that Josephus did not
represent it. In the Antiquities man's relationship to God,
his apuoMeCa and euoigeuct, is important for determining his
share in Et">6cauov ".a.
2
VI. 295. All of this material is foreign to the scrip-
tural account.of the relations of David and Nabal, recorded in
120

Similar to this is the long reply by Joseph to the improper

advances of Potiphar's wife. The hero resists the force of
pity and fear, thinking it better to suffer than to do wrong.
He urges the woman to keep her conscience clean and herself
chaste. He rejects her suggestion that they can keep an af-
fair hidden with the remark that, even if they did, they would
suffer remorse and fear of detection. He argues that in any
case it is better not to try to get away with such things.
He clinches his point with the bromide which concludes the
sermonette: "It was far better to put faith in a known reputa-
tiqn for a well-spent life than in the secrecy of crime.""'"
Even more frequent than this type of admonition are state-
ments analyzing the motives behind the actions of the biblical
characters. Such psychological probing i s , as we have noted,
a standard technique for explaining the causes of historical
events among hellenistic h i s t o r i a n s . 2

We occasionally find, for instance, the simple expression

of high ideals, such as that of obedient Ruth, who regarded
"it as a pious duty in nothing to gainsay the behests of.her
mother-in-law (V. 3 2 9 ) . " Saul, while preparing for his cam-
paign against the Amalekites, reflects that "obedience to God
lay not merely in making this campaign . . . but would be dis-
played yet more by an alacrity and haste that brooked no delay
(VI. 134)." David spares the life of Saul at En-gedi remark-
ing, "It is not right to murder one's own master or one whom
God has accounted worthy of kingship. And even though he
treats me ill, yet I must not do the like to h i m . " 3

1 Samuel 25. There David orders his men to tell Nabal, "Your
shepherds have been with us lately and we did not molest them"
(27:7). There is nothing of a prior command on the part of
David to refrain from touching the sheep.

"*II. 50-52. Moralistic speeches are also put in the

mouth of Reuben, who addresses his brothers when they decide
to do away with Joseph (II. 22) and in the mouth of Moses. We
have already noted some of these passages, e.g. IV. 143 and
186. The last pericope contains the speech of Moses upon the
occasion of the delivery of the laws. It contains much im-
portant material and we shall see more of it in this chapter.
Note also David's speech to Solomon VII. 338.
2
Cf. Ch. 2, pp. 38-40.

''in the scriptural account David scruples to do anything

 121

Much of this material, like the character evaluations we

have already seen, is diverse in subject matter, and it mani-
fests neither a systematic ethic nor a major moralizing theme.
Many of the reflections attributed to the biblical characters,
although they are not in the scriptural text itself, are easi-
ly derivable from it and fit naturally in the context where
they are found. They serve, nonetheless, as an illustration
of the paraenetic potential of the biblical material.
The most interesting aspect of the psychological dimen-
sion which has been introduced into the biblical narrative is
not the rational assessment of events and the ethical judg-
ments of various characters, but rather the attention devoted
to the non-rational, to the emotions and passions which sway
individuals and groups. Concern with emotion had been appar-
ent in the dramatic pericopae illustrating the power of God's
providence, where the feelings of the leading figures are por-
trayed and an attempt is often made to evoke a sympathetic
response in the reader. The narrative as a whole continually
deals with such factors and they play a particularly important
role in the development of the moralizing tendency.
Most significant in this regard are the examples of envy
(ip86vos), anger (OPYTI) , hatred (utaos;) , greed for money or
power, and lust (e7i:LdL>ij.'a) for sensual pleasure ('i'lSo'vri) .
These are the passions which Josephus emphasizes as the driving
forces in human nature, forces which ultimately can lead to the
abandonment of the divinely-ordained way of life. Virtue con-
sists primarily in the ability to resist and overcome these,
especially the latter two.
Envy and a n g e r 1
appear as destructive forces in a few
obvious passages. Abimelech envies Isaac CI- 2 5 9 - 6 0 ) , his
brothers hate and envy Joseph (II. 1 0 ) . Envy on the part of
Pharaoh for the military successes of Moses is a major reason

to the Lord's anointed (1 Sam 24:6 [LXX 7 ] ) , but there is

lacking the final remark which occurs in the Antiquities pas-
sage. This tends to add a note of selfless nobility to
David's action and it may even suggest a more generally appli-
cable norm than simply "Don't touch a king."

"''Gk: <?S6vo£, 6 P Y T " I . It should be noted that anger can

occasionally be seen as a positive force, as in the zealous
act of Phineas (IV. 152) or in Samson (V. 3 1 7 ) .
122

for the flight of the latter from Egypt (II. 2 5 5 ) . Korah's

envy is the cause of the great revolt against Moses C I V . 14-
1 6 ) , and envy along with hatred governs the behavior of Saul
toward David (VI. 1 9 3 ) . The prime example of unbridled pas-
sion, Potiphar's wife, like many another rejected lover, re-
acts in anger toward the object of her attention C H . 5 5 ) .
The Israelite mobs react with indignation toward Moses when
their situation becomes difficult C H I . 1 2 ) . Nathan, aware of
the lengths to which a ruler's rage may lead him, disguises
his rebuke of David in the Bathsheba episode with a parable
CVII. 1 4 7 ) . In some of these passages, such as those on the
brothers of Joseph and on Saul, Josephus uses the explicit
psychologizing of the scriptural accounts. In others, such
as those on Pharaoh, Korah, Potiphar's w i f e , and the Israel-
ites at Elim, Josephus has developed an element which is at
most implicit in his scriptural source. In all of-these pas-
sages he constantly introduces appropriate psychological
terminology and highlights and emphasizes the emotional fac-
tors .
Greed for either money, power or position emerges as one
of the most significant vices in the annals of the Hebrews and
it is inserted in several places where there is little or no
scriptural foundation. For the first instance of this vice,
however, there is a biblical basis. Cain, whose name both for
the bible and for Josephus -means "acquisition", is described
as "thoroughly depraved CrcovTipdraTOs)" with "an eye only to
gain". 1
He was responsible for the invention of ploughing and
the other appurtenances of civilization. His wickedness was
not confined only to greed, but also involved sensual depravi-
ty. A long passage is devoted to the description of his de-
.generacy:

He indulged in every bodily pleasure, even

if it entailed outraging his companions; he
increased his substance with wealth am'assed
by rapine and violence; he incited to luxury
CT|6OVJ"I) and pillage all whom he m e t , and be-
came their instructor in wicked practices.
He put an end to that simplicity in which m e n

Tcpds T 5 nepSaCvELV u6vov I. 53.

 123

lived before by the invention of weights and

measures; the guileless and g e n e r o u s exist-
ence w h i c h they had enjoyed in ignorance of
these things he converted into a life of
craftiness (I. 6 1 ) .

Some of the details of Cain's depravity are paralleled in

various haggadic s o u r c e s , 1
and the notion that Cain and his
descendants represented a decline in the human condition from
the pristine state of its naive innocence certainly has paral-
7
lels in hellenistic descriptions of human devolution. For
understanding the evaluative tendency of the biblical para-
phrase of the Antiquities it is not sufficient merely to note
these. What is more significant is the fact that the elabora-
tion of this particular complex of vices is a recurring fea-
ture in the rhetorical amplification of the biblical narrative.
In the Genesis account it is not specified what sin it is
which prompts the anger of God against the Sodomites. In the
Antiquities it is that t h e y are " o v e T w e a n i n g l y proud of their
n u m b e r s and the extent of theiT wealth." They therefore b e -
come "insolent to m e n and impious to the Divinity." This
Note the sources cited by Rappaport (Agada S, 83) and V .
Aptowitzer (Kain und Abel [Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation
I; Vienna: Kohut, 1922] 13, 1 5 ) , who discusses them in some
detail.
2
On this issue, cf. L. Feldman ("Hellenizations"). He is
concerned primarily to establish the fact of a close parallel-
ism to Greek and Latin literature in the motif of man's de-
cline. He is certainly correct to note these parallels and to
broaden the discussion beyond the realm of rabbinic parallels.
However, his analysis of such basically ethical motifs in Jose-
phus should be expanded. It is not enough to note the super-
ficial hellenization, as does Feldman on p . 353: "It seems
more likely (than to assume Rabbinic models) that in attempting
to defend Judaism before a Greek-speaking audience Josephus
would.clothe the Biblical narrative in a classical dress famil-
iar to them. Finally, even where Josephus' embellishments have
rabbinic parallels one must stress the significance of Jose-
phus' choice of those which would especially appeal to a Greek
audience." The description of the moralizing within Greek
categories as simply a "dress" might lead us to overlook the
significance that such moralizing had for Josephus himself and
for a substantial portion of Greek-speaking Jewry as well. We
shall consider this matter again in Ch. 5.

T h e same pair of epithets, O&piaTric and &JS&AQ>

3
is used
of the sons of Eli in V. 339. On the symbolic importance of
these figures cf. below, p . 138.
124

arrogance CuTtspncpcivCa.) based on wealth and power is what God

punishes ( I . 194-95). Similarly there is no general descrip-
tion of the Egyptians and their vices in the exodus narrative,
although there is at the corresponding spot in the Antiqui-
ties. They are there described as "a voluptuous people and
slack to labor, slaves to pleasure in general and to a love
of lucre (<p\.Xov.ip6eicO in p a r t i c u l a r . " 1
This particular fault
leads them to oppress the Israelites, who had grown wealthy by
their hard work in Egypt C H . 202).
In the exhortations by Moses to the people before the
crossing into the promised land, he warns them against the
dire effects of the wealth CTTAOOTOS) which they will acquire
when they invade (IV. 1 8 9 ) . In the following books the dele-
terious effects of wealth and power are frequently mentioned.
There is only one reference to monetary greed alone, that is
in the men of Ziph, who betray David "from obsequiousness and
in the expectation of receiving gain Cx£pSous TipoaSouia) from
the king" (VI. 2 8 0 ) . More frequent are the discussions of the
corrupting effects of wealth and power together on those who
have obtained them. A prime example of this is Saul. We have
seen how the first king was used by Josephus as a suitable
subject for reflections on the courage which can lead to a
noble death (VI. 3 4 6 - 4 7 ) . He also serves as the paradigmatic
case for the thesis that power corrupts. In connection with
the account of the massacre of Ahimelech and his kin CI Sam
22:16) Josephus reflects on human nature (6 dwdpc&ruvoe.
xp6ito£) . Private individuals are generally prudent and god-
fearing, but w h e n they come to power (6uvaaxe£a.) they "assume
audacity, recklessness, contempt for things human and divine."
They become subject to mindless passion as bad as that of the
sensual profligate. Josephus expiates on this theme in a way
not particularly relevant to the incident of the priests'
murder:
Their fear of rumors, their wilful hates,
their irrational loves - these they regard
as valid, sure and true, acceptable to man
and God, but of the future they take not the

I I . 201. The use of the Egyptians and Egypt generally

as symbolic of carnal pleasure and voluptuousness is familiar
from Philo, e.g. Wig. Ah. 13-15.
 125

least account. They first honor those w h o

have toiled in their servitude, and then en-
vy them the honors which they have conferred;
and, after promoting m e n to high distinction
they deprive them not only of this, b u t , on
its account, of life itself, on malicious
charges which their extravagance renders in-
credible. 1

A similar theme is briefly suggested in the reflective comment

on Rehoboam's degeneracy. There Josephus asserts, "But often,
I think, a caus'e of men's falling into evil ways and lawless-
ness lies in the greatness of their affairs and in the improve-
ment of their position (VIII. 2 5 1 ) . " The same analysis is of-
fered for the decline of Uzziah:

He was corrupted in mind through pride and,

being filled with vanity on account of his
mortal prosperity, h e became contemptuous of
the power that is immortal and endures for
all time, that i s , piety toward God and
observance of the laws. And s o , because of
his successes, he slipped and became involved
in the same sins as those of his father, who
had also been led into them by his brilliant
good fortune and the greatness of his power
(TO USYE&OC. TCOV npctyudTCov) , which he had not
been able to direct rightly (IX. 222-23) .

Power, which led those kings to neglect God's worship, despise

his providential retribution and commit various heinous crimes,
also attracted m e n and induced them to forsake morality. This
is the reflection which Josephus appends to the account of the
murder of Abner by Joab:
From this one may perceive to what lengths
of recklessness men will go for the sake of
a m b i t i o n and power (TtAeovegc'a . . . dpxrl)
2

V I . 264-67. Josephus has in mind here not only Saul's

treatment of Ahimelech, but even more so his treatment of
David. H e may also have in mind here more contemporary ty-
rants such as Herod or perhaps even Nero.
2
The Loeb translation of "ambition" for TiXeovegCo is
questionable. The word usually means, in both classical and
patristic Greek, "greediness," "covetousness," "gain," or
"possession of excess." Thus it can denote either the interi-
or emotion directed toward the acquisition of more than one's
126

and in order not to let these things go to

another; for, in their fear of losing them,
they ensure the continuance of their pos-
session by much worse acts, their belief be-
ing that it is not so great an evil to obtain
a very great degree of authority as to lose
it after having become accustomed to the bene-
fits derived therefrom (VII. 3 7 - 3 8 ) .

This last quotation, with its psychological analysis of the

man of authority and ambition, is a good example of the moral-
izing interpretation of the biblical narrative in the Antiq-
uities. It summarizes in a clear and succinct way the first
important thread which we have seen running through the para-
phrase, namely the theme that the desire for and the possession
of material goods, wealth and power, can corrupt and lead to
tyrannical behavior.

III. Passion and Tyranny: The Abandonment of the Patrioi

Nomoi
An equally important theme is that of the corrupting ef-
fects of pleasure and its pursuit. It is primarily in connec-
tion with this factor that the most dramatic examples of tyran-
ny and of the rejection of the ancestral Jewish "constitution"
appear. We have already seen that the vice in question was
exemplified in connection with greed in Cain and his descend-
ants (I. 61) and in the Egyptians (II. 2 0 1 ) . We have also
seen some of the moralizing elements in the story of Joseph,
where the character of the hero and his prudent resistance to
various emotions was highlighted, and where the contrasting
figure of Potiphar's wife and her complete submission to pas-
sion was no less elaborated. The most powerful emotion in-
volved here i s , of course, lust for sexual gratification."*

share of material goods or it can denote the resultant state.

Here, since it is in parallel with & R X T * , which designates the
objective possession of power, it too probably should be taken
to denote some objective' state. It may well have monetary
connotations. Joab then would have pursued "excessive wealth
and power."

"*The usual terms for lust are siuSout'a and £pme,. The
former is somewhat more general, although usually pejorative.
The latter can be positive, as when it designates a love for
 127

Although it is an obvious feature of the story, Josephus takes

pains to emphasize it:

He besought her to govern her passions, repre-

senting the hopelessness of satisfying her
lust ( E T I L & U U £ O . ) which would shrink and die
y

when she saw no prospect of gratifying it,

. . . But the woman's love (SPCDC.) was only
the more intensified by this unexpected op-
position of Joseph, and being sorely beset b y
her wicked passion (6eiv3£ imb T O U H O M O U
TtoAuopHouuevri) , she determined by a renewed
assault to subdue him (II. 4 3 ) .

A major development of the theme of the danger of sex,

along with a portrayal of its implications for religious ob-
servance, appears in Bk. IV. The implications are first sug-
gested in an editorial comment at the end of Bk. Ill, where
Josephus notes that the Jews are distinguished by their firm
maintenance of tradition. There he describes how four visi-
tors from Mesopotamia had come to Jerusalem to offer sacri-
fice, 1
but were prevented from partaking of the victims. They
all "went their way, preferring to conform to the injunctions
of Moses rather than to act in accordance with their own
will." A second instance is recorded, which transpired during
a famine shortly before the war against R o m e . 2
At that time,
despite the danger of starvation the priests refused to eat
leavened bread, because it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
However faithful people may have been to the tradition
and however submissive to its authority, it seems from the
material in the following book that they needed to be encour-
aged to be more s o . In the narrative material of that book

children (I. 2 8 8 ) , for one's homeland (I. 317) or for liberty

(II. 2 8 1 ) .

""The topic of sacrifice had been suggested by the pre-

ceding material, which was primarily a compilation of ritual
and purity laws from Leviticus. The sections in question are
III. 224-57 on sacrifices and feasts; 258-73 on purity laws
and 274-86 on miscellaneous matters. Note the standard propa-
g a n d i s t s theme here of the excellence of the lawgiver being
reflected in his laws.
2
The precise date of this famine is problematic, as
Thackeray (Loeb V o l . IV. 474-75) indicates.
128

the dominant theme is rebellion. The book opens with the

defiant folk going off to attack Canaan without Moses (IV. 1-
10). Following an editorial preface (11-13), we learn of the
great sedition of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (14-66). A collec-
tion of miscellaneous events and institutions follows (67-
99). 1
The n comes a lengthy recounting of the story of Balaam
(100-130) and the corruption of the Hebrew youths which ensues
on his advice (131-55). A short word of praise for Moses
closes the record of the incident (156-58). A brief summary
of the remaining events in Numbers and the opening of Deuter-
onomy (159-76) precedes the final speech of M o s e s , which in-
cludes the summary of legal material both from Deuteronomy and
from the earlier legal sections of the Pentateuch (177-319).
The book closes with an account of his passing and an encomium
on the lawgiver (320-31). From this summary it is obvious how
significant a role the stories of the two revolts, that of
Korah and that of Zambrias, play. Between them they comprise
more than half of the narrative material in the book. Once
again we find in the dramatically reshaped material of these
sections the vehicle for a major interpretative point.
It is primarily in the second major section (131-55) that
the most significant moralizing elements appear. We have al-
ready noted in passing one interesting remark from this ac-
count, where Moses counselled the Israelites to equate courage
with resistance of passion (IV. 143) . The section as a whole
is a fascinating one, developed with great care and atten-
tion. One aspect of this embellishment is a series of
affinities of the story of the seduction of the Hebrew youths
by Midianite women with a passage in H e r o d o t u s . 3
It does

The material covered in this section includes details

from Leviticus, Deuteronomy as well as from Numbers, at least
through 75. From 75-96 there is primarily narrative from
Numbers 20-21. In 96-99 we find material from Deuteronomy 3.
2
Recently there appeared a detailed and perceptive study
of this section by C. Van Unnik ("Josephus' A c c o u n t " ) . The
main lines of his analysis are sound. Here we shall try to
see how this episode fits into the overall editorial activity
of Bks . IV and V.

H e r o d o t u s , 4. lllff. Cf. Thackeray (Loeb, V o l . IV.

3

540-41). Van Unnik ("Josephus' Account" 249) casts doubt on

 129

indeed seem that Josephus may have adopted certain stylistic

features of the episode to elaborate his account, although
there are important elements in the Antiquities account not
paralleled in Herodotus. These indicate fairly clearly the
tendency of the Jewish historian.
In Herodotus w e have an aetiological legend explaining
the customs of the Sauromatians. It describes how a band of
shipwrecked Amazons who are stranded in Scythia pillage their
way through the country. The Scythians strike back but find
their foes to be women. They then decide not to fight but to
join the enemy, with the intent of rearing a superior breed of
warriors. A band of youths is sent off and eventually they
ingratiate themselves with the invaders and join in a common
life of hunting and pillaging. Finally, the Scythian lads
tire of these pursuits and tell their liberated lovers that
they have "parents and possessions" and that they all should
take advantage of t h e m . 1
The Amazons agree but claim that they
are unable to live with the unliberated Scythian women who
don't employ the martial arts as do they. They also express
fear of living without paternal protection in a land which they
have ravaged. They make a proposition to the Scythians to take
their patrimony and move. The lads accept and they all live
happily ever after as Sauromatians.
In the Antiquities there is also the notice by the settled
group, here the female Midianites, that they have homes and
parents (IV. 1 3 4 ) . The Midianites also express a f e a r 3
and

Thackeray's thesis that Josephus used Herodotus. H e bases his

critique on the discrepancies between the two accounts. These,
however, are not surprising. Josephus follows the basic struc-
ture of the biblical story, and has his own point to make as
well. It is not suggested that he is rewriting Herodotus! The
detailed parallels are striking and they strongly suggest some
use of the Greek historian.

'''The Scythian lads claim: i h u l v etot u e v xonieQ, etat 6e

M a t MT^aLes (Herodotus 4 . 1 1 4 ) . Cp. nutv . . . oZnot T£ eCca
TcarpSOL xat M T T I O L S ctyaSSv ScpSovoc. (Ant. IV. 1 3 4 ) .
2
The Amazons say of the Scythian women: 06 y & P ret aura
youata fiutv re M O M S I VTJCL taxu (Herodotus 4 . 1 1 4 ) . Cp. the
references to the "particular laws" of the Jews: uaxd. T O O S
C6Cou£ ' u d u o u c (Ant. IV. 1 3 8 ) and rdov CSftov eStauSv ( 1 4 0 ) .
3
T h e Amazons say, fiu£as exet cp6{Jos re M a t &ios, 8MCOG xpfl
OCMSELV S V TS6e T 2 x<£ptf (Herodotus 4 . 1 1 5 ) . Cp. 6£og yap, ufj
130

make a proposition, although the content of each is different

from that of the corresponding elements in Herodotus. Rhetoric
plays an important role in both accounts, although Josephus has
a single two-part speech given by the women, interrupted only
by the observation that their paramours assented to their pro-
posal ( 1 3 6 ) , while Herodotus allows the male interlocutors
more of the dialogue. Despite the differences occasioned by
the basic story line, the parallels are striking. It seems
probable that Josephus did use the story in Herodotus as a
source for dramatic details in the construction of his little
morality play.
The important differences are first, that the erotic-
romantic element is heightened in Josephus. The Midianite
women, like many of the heroines of contemporary Greco-Roman
fiction 1
and like the patriarchal hero Joseph, claim to be in-
tent on preserving their chastity. This had been the least of
the Amazons' worries. In the Antiquities attention is focused
on the plight of the young men, and their emotional state is
frequently described. In the course of the story the youths
"are overmastered by their passions"." 5
They are "captivated
by their (sail, the women's) charms" ( 1 3 1 ) . The women, "hav-
ing enchained them with love towards themselves, at the moment
when their passion was at its height, they made ready to go"
(132). As a result, the youths swear fidelity "invoking God
as arbiter of their promises, and by their tears and by every
other means seeking to render themselves an object of the
women's compassion" ( 1 3 3 ) . In the words of Moses , they act
"in a manner neither worthy of themselves nor of their fathers
in preferring voluptuousness (f|6ovri) to God and to a God-fear-
ing life" (143).

wxl x.6po-o xfjg nuexepctc, &ui.A£cts Aaf36vxeg eneuS' 6pp£oT)xe Mat

ctTiOTceuilmxs Ttpoc. X O O Q yovets {.Ant. IV. 1 3 6 ) . The parallel con-
sists in the expression of fear by a party in each account.
The object feared is almost the opposite in the two cases.
The Amazons fear to stay, the Midianites fear that they will
be sent away.
C f . the comparisons made by Braun (Griechisehe
1
Raman')
to the Hippolytus motif.
2
Cf. Herodotus 4 . 1 1 3 ,
3
nexet-pcouevoi. • - • xcug ETT.I.OOU.I'CILC; IV. 1 3 0 .
 131

The story does not simply point to the danger of un-

bridled emotion, it develops a theme which plays little role
at all in the story of Herodotus. Instead of the proposal
made in the latter by the Amazons to pack up and leave the
in-laws, the girls in the Antiquities ask that the Jewish lads,
in effect, assimilate, giving up their own customs which are
unsuitable for the world at large:

They (the Hebrews) must either fall in with

the beliefs of all men or look for another
world, where they could live alone in accord-
ance with their peculiar laws (oi. C 6 L O L V 6 U ° 0
(IV. 1 3 9 ) .
Capitulation to the demand involves the adoption of polytheism
and a participation in the requisite worship.*' Doing such
would provide for the Midianite women a testimony of goodwill
(137). Their demands, however, are even more extensive, in-
volving the complete surrender to their ways: "They (the
Hebrews) revelled in strange meats and, to please these women,
ceased not to do everything contrary to that which their Law
ordained" (139). Hence a sedition "far graver than the last
descended upon them, with a danger of complete ruin of their
own institutions".*' It should be clear by now that the whole
episode has been carefully exploited for its dramatic poten-
tial. It should also be clear that the episode describes a
general danger, namely that sexual passion can lead to the
rejection of the authority of tradition.
In the confrontation between Moses- and those who had been
seduced in this way by the Midianite women, there is a remark-
able speech by Zambrias which summarizes the attitudes of the
dissidents in the first half of the fourth book. The speech
is an eloquent plea for personal freedom and it accuses Moses
and his laws of tyrannizing over the Hebrews. This speech in
fact surpasses those made by Korah and co. (IV. 14-19) as an
expression of defiance of authority. The earlier orations had

Polytheism: Scoos T E TtA.ei'ovas sCvau IV. 139, Corre-

sponding worship: Hat Stieiv auxote Maxft vouov T 6 V entx^Pi-ov
(139). Van Unnik ("Josephus' Account" 258) cites Philonic
parallels to the notion that passion leads to apostasy. These
are also discussed by Wolfson (philo I. 73-76).
2
oC. CSIOL &Siay.oC IV. 140.
132

declared grievances which were personal to Korah, hence

adapted to the requirements of the dramatic situation, but
without broader relevance. In this speech, however, the pro-
test against Moses is made on more general grounds. The speech
is too long to reproduce in full, but it is worth citing its
leading arguments:

Nay, do thou, M o s e s , keep these laws on

which thou has bestowed thy pains, having
secured confirmation for them only through
these men's simplicity; for were they not
m e n of that character, thou wouldest often
ere now have learnt through chastisement
that Hebrews are not duped so easily. But
me thou shalt not get to follow thy tyran-
nical orders; for thou hast done nought
else until now save by wicked artifice,
under the pretext of 'laws' and 'God', to
contrive servitude for us and sovereignty
for thyself, robbing us of life's sweets
and of that liberty of action, which be-
longs to free men who own no master . . .
And woe be to any m a n who declares himself
to have more mastery over my actions than
my own will (145-50).

The speech of Zambrias transcends the specific issue of

his foreign w i f e . It constitutes a vivid example of an indi-
vidualistic rejection of the Mosaic way. The fact that this
apostasy arose from the specific issue is significant. Sexual
passion is thus portrayed as a fatally damaging force.
In both rebellions, tyranny and liberty were opposed. 1

The opposition is one which dominates the moralizing remarks

of this and subsequent books. The revolts had challenged the
Mosaic law as tyrannical. In the hands of Josephus, the bib-
lical narrative replies by showing repeatedly that subjection
to passion is true tyranny both for individuals and ultimately
for the community as a whole.

The accusation of tyranny was also made in the earlier

revolt, but not in such a forceful way. Korah had claimed that
Moses was "hunting round to create glory for himself and m i s -
chievously working to attain this in the pretended name of
God" (IV. 1 5 ) . The people, in denouncing M o s e s , shout: "Away
with the tyrant and let the people be rid of their bondage to
one w h o , in the pretended name of God, imposes his despotic
orders" (IV. 22) .
 133

Later in the book the same problems are addressed again

in a direct way, in the last speech of M o s e s , which w e have
already studied in connection with the providence m o t i f , 1

Another prominent element here is the admonition to obey

legitimate authority. Moses tells the people to follow the
dictates of Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua, as well as
the "council of elders and the magistrates of the tribes." He
adds a general remark about the proper attitude toward authori-
ty:

And think not that liberty lies in resenting

what your rulers require you to d o . For now
indeed it is in naught but insulting your
benefactors that ye reckon freedom of speech
to consist; whereof henceforth if ye beware,
things will go better with you (IV. 1 8 6 - 8 7 ) .

He thus warns the people against the sort of attitude por-

trayed in the chapter. He also warns against the major threat
to good order under the authority of tradition which he had
recommended. This threat is posed by the wealth of Canaan
which could corrupt the Israelites (IV. 1 8 9 ) , and even more by
the possibility of intercourse with the locals. After his re-
marks on virtue and its necessity for maintaining God's provi-
dence and his warning about wealth, he advises the people to
exterminate the Canaanites, "lest, should they live, ye having
had but a taste of any of their ways (fi EXECVCOV ETCLTV"6EUO"L C.)

should corrupt the constitution of your fathers (f| TidtpLog

TCOALTEfee)." In the following book, which includes the para-
phrase of Joshua, J u d g e s , Ruth and the beginning of the first
book of Samuel, the intercourse takes place with spectacularly
disastrous results.
Connected with the moralizing thrust of this part of the
paraphrase is a feature of Bk. V which has often puzzled com-
mentators. This feature is a major transposition of some
Judges material which shifts the story of the Levite of Ephraim
and the war between the Benjaminites and the other tribes from
its position at the end of the scriptural account (Judges 19-

1
C f . Ch. 3, p. 9 0 .
2
IV. 191. This material with the TcoXuxEca vocabulary is
134

21) to a position near the beginning of the Judges material.

Part of the reason for the shift may be a concern for histori-
cal plausibility. A more important consideration may be the
moralizing structure of the whole book. For the effect of the
transposition is to distribute accounts of corruption through-
out the period covered by Bk. V. The shift thus enables the

obviously an editorial addition to the biblical speech of

Moses.

'"'There are other divergences in the order of the material

in the Antiquities from that of the biblical source. The m a -
terial transposed is seldom embellished to any extent and these
passages do not seem to have any special evaluative signifi-
cance. The report that Joshua camped at Gilgal (Josh 5:9 -
Ant. V. 34) has been moved from before to after the report of
the taking of Jericho. The erection of an altar at Shechem
(Josh 8:30, LXX 9:3 = Ant. V. 68-70) has been shifted from its
position early in the conquest narrative, after the conquest of
A i , and is connected with the account of the installation of
the tabernacle at Shilo (Josh 1 8 : 1 ) . Thackeray (Loeb, V o l . V .
33) suggests the reason was that "the scriptural ordeT was un-
natural , . . northern Palestine had not then (at the conquest
of A i ) been conquered." Another minor transposition is the
placement of 1 Samuel 2 before 1 Samuel 1 in Ant. V. 338-47,
perhaps to make more prominent the wickedness of the sons of
Eli.
Other noticeable alterations of the biblical narrative in
these books are the omissions of certain pericopae. The major
one is that of Judges 17 and 18, the story of Micah and his
idolatry. It may have been suppressed for apologetic reasons,
as is often suggested in connection with the omission of the
similar story of the worship of the golden calf. Such an
apologetic concern to show that Jews are not sacrilegious ap-
pears in the non-biblical .halacha in IV. 207 . Cp. C. Ap. II.
211-14 and Schalit (Introduction lxxix). The similar episode
of the smashing by Gideon of the Baal altar (Judg 6:25-32) is
omitted from V. 214. An omission understandable on aesthetic
grounds is that of Joshua 12-17, the lists of the kings over-
come and the portions of the land alloted to each tribe. These
are briefly summarized in V. 21-24. There are also some inci-
dents which are extremely condensed in the Antiquities account,
e.g. Joshua's covenant ceremony, summarized in V. 116, and p o -
etic sections such as Deborah's Song (Judges 5) and the prayer
of Hannah (1 Samuel 2 ) , which are omitted.
2
Some attempts have been made to explain the transposition
of the material from the end of Judges. Thackeray (Loeb, V o l .
V. 62-63) suggests that Josephus was concerned to allow enough
time between the virtual destruction of the tribe of Benjamin
and the emergence from it of the first king of Israel. Such a
concern may have been operative here although there is no indi-
cation of any chronological interest at this point. The whole
pattern of editorial activity in the book is emphatically
moralistic. The transposition fits neatly into that pattern.
 135

moralizing point of the whole section to be made more consist-

ently. That such considerations did influence the transposi-
tion might be supported by the remarks prefaced to the whole
story, where the moralizing theme of the book is encapsulated:

Thereafter the Israelites relaxed the strug-

gle (nctAaxCs sfxov) against their enemies
and devoted themselves to the soil and to
labors thereon. And as their riches in-
creased, under the mastery of luxury and
voluptuousness (xpxxpft wat ii6ovr") , they
recked little of the ordeT of their consti-
tution (6 J t o a u o s xfls noXneta.Q') and no long-
er hearkened diligently to its laws. In-
censed thereat, the Deity warned them . . .
But the Israelites, while despondent at this
message from God, were yet ill disposed for
warfare, for they h a d w o n much from the
Canaanites and luxury (fj xpucpri) had by now
unnerved them for fatigues. A y e , even that
aristocracy of theirs was now becoming cor-
rupted . . . (they) lived on their estates,
enslaved to the pleasures of lucre (riSovf)
T O O W£p6cuvei.v) . And so, by reason of this
gross listlessness grave discord again as-
sailed them.l

This editorial preface to the story, which follows a repe-

tition of the order to exterminate the local population, this
time from the mouth of Joshua (V. 9 0 ) , Contains an analysis of
the development of Israelite history from the time when the
people failed to follow that command. That analysis has a
different emphasis from its biblical prototype. Like the bib-
lical book, Josephus sees the developments of the period as
exemplifying a general principle. For Judges this law was ex-
pressed in the refrain that the Israelites sought after other
gods, without t-he guidance of a king. By not driving out the
inhabitants of Canaan in the conquest, Israel opened itseif to

Schalit (Introduction, liii) suggests the possibility that

Josephus may have had a moralizing point to make h e r e , but he
does not press the issue very forcefully.

^V. 132-35. Here appears clearly the moralizing use of

political terminology which we encountered in the "tyranny"
language of the revolts of Bk. IV.
136

the possibility of i d o l a t r y . 1
In the Antiquities failure to
carry out the divine command results first in moral decay,
from which issues civil strife, tyranny and finally apostasy.
In the paraphrase of Judges material the section most
elaborated with dramatic historiographical techniques is the
transposed pericope about the Levite of Ephraim and the War
with Benjamin. It is now no longer a concubine about whom
such a fuss is raised, but rather the man's w i f e , with whom he
is "deeply in love". What separates the two is not the fact
that the woman "played the harlot against him" (Judg 1 9 : 2 ) , but
rather the fact that she did not requite her husband's love
with equal passion. He "met with no like return from h e r , "
and she "held aloof" from h i m . 3
This enflamed his passion
still further, just as unrequited love had inflamed Potiphar's
wife. Constant quarrels (•U-*>UI|IEI.C O U V E X E L S 137) ensued. The
story then develops more or less as it Is told in Judges until
the m e n of the city, Gaba, appear. Unlike the scriptural ac-
count they do not ask for the man who had come [Judg 1 9 : 2 2 ) .
Here there may be an "apologetic" attempt to expunge homo-
sexuality from the account, although a more important con-
sideration may have b e e n the concern to create a consistent
and melodramatic story of love lost. Into that framework a
homosexual episode would hardly f i t . 4
Unlike the scriptural
story the man does not yield up his consort, but she is seized
by the men of the town and brutalized all n i g h t . 5

The bathos deepens as the dawn breaks. The woman returns

from the night's ordeal, exhausted and ashamed, thinking that

1
C f . Judg 1:27-2:3.
2
ep<ov 6 E ato66pa V. 136.

V . 136-137:
3
H e : ntuxei. ttov Tcap' exei"vri£ oox auo'cov
TCEi.p<">uevog. She: aAAorpCcos 6' aOTfjc, SxoOoris.

J o s e p h u s had no scruples in recording the incident of

4

homosexual behavior among the Sodomites, w h o , of course, re-

ceived their just deserts. Cf. Ant. I. 200. It is also worth
noting that Pseudo-Philo, 4 5 . 3-5 also deemphasizes the homo-
sexual element in the story. The whole episode is one which
the rabbis felt some sensitivity for. Cf. b . Megillah 25b.

'Ant. V. 146. Cf. Judg 19:25.

 137

her husband will be inconsolable at the evening's events.

She is so mortified that she dies of her shame on the doorstep
of their lodging. The melodramatic effect of the scene is
heightened still further when the husband appears, thinking
that the woman is simply slumbering soundly. He tries to
wake her and console her with the thought that she had not
gone along with the local toughs of her own accord (148). He
soon discovers her true condition and the war with the Ben-
jaminites is on.
It is certainly significant that this careful reworking
of the biblical text occurred in the section whose position
had been so radically s h i f t e d . 2
Like the other highly drama-
tized episodes w e have studied, this passage is a major vehi-
cle for the interpretative component of the paraphrase. It
exemplifies the ethical notion which Josephus records explicit-
ly in his preface to the passage, namely that luxury and a
devotion to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, corrupts the
good order of the commonwealth.
The same assembly of motifs which appeared in the preface
to the Judges material reappears at intervals in the course of
the paraphrase. In V. 179-80, Judg 3:5 is rephrased and it is

V. 147. Note the elaboration of the interior psycho-

logical elements here.
Z
E l s e w h e r e in the paraphrase of Judges there are obvious
attempts to make a more vivid dramatic presentation, but in
these passages the concern seems to be primarily to provide
appropriate window dressing. None are related to a signifi-
cant passage such as that of the Levite of Benjamin. E.g.
there is a certain amount of suspense and tension introduced
into the.account of the erection of an altar by the trans-
Jordanian tribes. The Palestinian Israelites want to fight
and are only restrained by the efforts of Joshua and Eleazar,
the high priest (V. 1 0 3 ) . In the story of the assassination
of Eglon, King of M o a b , by Judes (biblical Ehud) there are
several details changed to make the account a more plausible
one. Judes lived in Jericho, the capital of the kingdom, and
had become familiar with the king before the attempt (V. 1 8 9 ) .
The inattentiveness of the guards is partially explained thus,
and partially by the additional detail that it was slimmer
(190). Where the scripture recorded Ehud as saying to the king
that he had a secret errand and a message from God (Judg 3:19-
2 0 ) , Josephus has him say that he has a dream to tell the king
upon the command of God. Since the king delighted in hearing
dreams, he let Judes approach. Such modifications make the
tale more plausible and consistent. They don't highlight a
passage significant for the interpretation of the whole book.
138

said that the situation deteriorated because the Israelites

became soft and forgot God. They changed the shape of their
constitution so as to live according to the pleasure principle
among the Canaanites. On account of luxury, pleasure and ca-
price 'rpucpi, fiSovn, potiAnais) , they abandoned the happy con-
dition which God had given them. Later Samson, despite all
his virtue, provides another example of "transgressing the
laws of his forefathers and debasing his own rule of life
(SCCUTCO by the imitation of foreign usages; and this proved
the beginning of his disaster. For being enamored of a woman
7

who was a harlot, he consorted with her."

The darkest picture of vice in the paraphrase of Bk. V
appears toward the end, In the description of the sons of Eli.
In the scriptural account of their activity, it is noted that
they practiced extortion in obtaining an unfair share of the
sacrifices (1 Sam 2:16) and that they exercised a rather un-
wholesome influence on the sanctuary maids (1 Sam 2:22). Jose-
phus generalizes from these specific reports and notes that the
two wayward sons became:
both insolent to men and impious to the
Divinity, they abstained from no iniquity:
of the offerings some they carried off as
the prizes of office, others they seized in
robber fashion; they dishonored the women who
came for worship, doing violence to some and
seducing others by presents; in short, their
manner of life differed in no whit from a
tyranny C V . 3 3 9 ) .

Here without adding anything new of substance to the narrative

Josephus has concentrated the elements found in scripture and

Further occurrences of the refrain that the Israelites

gave up their devotion to God and disobeyed the laws appear at
V. 185, 198. A less striking instance of the corruption theme
may be seen in the remark that the Danites were forced to flee
to the north because they had given up military practice and
had devoted themselves to agriculture C V . 1 7 6 ) . The deprecat-
ing reference to agriculture here should be compared with the
remark in V. 135, where the Israelites are described as living
on their estates, enslaved to lucre. Even in the story of Cain
a similar bias had appeared. Cf. I. 54.
2
V. 306. This succumbing to the charms of a woman is
taken to be an example of "human nature which succumbs to sins"
CV. 3 1 7 ) . Cf. section IV of this chapter for treatment of
"nature" in the moralizing of the Antiquities.
 139

made more forceful the picture of the wicked sons. He does

this by using the same categories for human evil which gov-
erned his evaluation of the period as a whole.
At this point the degeneracy among the Israelites reaches
its nadir. The people who at the end of Bk. I V 1
had been giv-
en the perfect constitution have now, through progressive
stages of immorality, sunk to a base tyranny. Here the polit-
ico-moral interpretation of the work of Moses which we saw al-
ready in the preface is reinforced by a dramatic illustration
of its opposite, and the accusations levelled in Bk. IV
against Moses and his constitution are definitively refuted.
In the eyes of Josephus the logical outcome of the abandonment
of the principles of Moses as embodied in his laws is the
tyranny of the sons of E l i . 2
It is because these two figures
represent so well the point that the paraphrase of Judges has
been making that their story is transposed and now appears b e -
fore the call of Samuel. He represents a new era, where the
3
constitution, though not in its best , i.e. aristocratic, form

Recall the "constitution" language in the last speech of

M o s e s , IV. 193', 196, 312, as well as the play on tyranny in
connection with the revolts. This type of language also ap-
pears in the editorial summary prefaced to the story of the
Levite of Benjamin, V. 132; cf. also V. 179. Cf. above, p".
132, n. 1 and p . 13S, n. 1.
2
A n o t h e r example of tyranny as the epitome of human
depravity is Abimelech. He "transformed the government into a
tyranny, setting himself up to do whatsoever he pleased in de-
fiance of the laws and showing bitter animosity against the
champions of justice" CV. 2 3 4 ) . We already noted the example
of Nimrod who wanted to "detach men from the fear of God" and
hence initiated a tyranny C I . 1 1 4 ) . Cf. p . 117, n. 3.

^"Aristocracy," i.e. rule of the laws with God as king,

was presented by Josephus as the best form of political ar-
rangement in IV. 223, a brief preface to the "law of the king"
of Deuteronomy 17. It also appears in V. 135. Cf. above p .
135. It may be doubted whether Josephus had a consistent or
carefully thought-out political theory. His affection for
"aristocracy" in the Antiquities might be an attitude congeni-
al to his Roman audience, one that he had absorbed with his
mother's milk in Jerusalem, or perhaps one that was in accord
with the contemporary political realities of Jews in Palestine.
Cf. M. Smith's theory of the importance of the last factor in
his attitude to the Pharisees, Ch. 1, p . 1 3 , n. 4.
Whatever the personal political philosophy of Josephus
might have been, it is clear that political language and forms
are used in the Antiquities as vehicles for conveying a moral
message.
140

at least represents an acceptable level of virtuous piety.

In the later books, the vices which were depicted so vividly
in Bk. V appear only in isolated instances.

IV. Excursus: "Nature" in the Moralizing of the Antiquities

In his study of Jewish theology according to Josephus,
Schlatter had much to say on the subject of the concept of
nature found in the writings of the historian and the sig-
nificance of that concept for understanding Judaism of the
period. Schlatter noted correctly that Josephus was not him-
self a fervent contemplator of "nature," as was perhaps Philo.
He claimed, however, that "nature" was presupposed in the
thinking of Josephus as an objective force, which governed the
conduct of men, and with which the Mosaic law is in conformi-
ty. 4
This position is somewhat misleading, because it suggests
a single coherent and consistent theory on the subject which

Recall the extensive moralizing which is connected with

Saul in V I . 262-68 and 340-50. In this material and in brief
comments made on David, Solomon and the other Israelite kings,
the moralizing interpretation is maintained. In most of these
instances virtue and vice are mixed together. There is not the
clear contrast of the two as there is between Moses and his
laws in Bk. IV and the decadent Israelites of Bk. V , although
specific instances of "tyranny" are recorded. Cf. p . 125.

E.g. the case of Solomon, who "became enamored of women

and indulged in excess of passion" (VIII. 1 9 0 ) .
3
Theologie 1 2 , "J. entnahm aus s e m e n Gottesglauben einzig
einen starken Antrieb zur Politik, nicht aber zur anhaltenden,
wachen Beobachtung der Natur. Auch an ihm ist sichtbar, dass
sich die pilarisaische Theologie gegen die griechische Lehre
von der Natur verschlossen hat, damit der einzige Gegenstand,
der sie bewegte, Gottes Forderung an den Menschen und seine
Verheissung fur ihn sei." Although there was no theoretical
interest in "nature," human nature was considered as a factor
in ethics, as Schlatter himself recognized. Cf. the next note.
Hence the last part of this remark is somewhat inaccurate,
even within Schlatter's analysis of "nature" in Josephus.
^Ibid. 15-16.• "Damit (i.e. with an altered view of
nature) trat neben dem gottlichen Willen eine zweite Macht
hervor, die das Verhalten des Menschen regelte und zwingend
gestaltete, und die Frage w a r gegeben, wie sich das Gesetz
Gottes zu diesem Gesetz verhalte. J. versichert, dass das
mosaische Gesetz in allem mit der Natur des Alls uberein-
stimme." Schlatter cites Ant. I. 24 in this connection. The
use of "nature" here is not typical as we shall see.
 141

is presupposed in the various uses of the term cpuoug through-

out the writings of Josephus. In fact, in the first half of
the Antiquities as in all of the corpus, there is a wide vari-
ety of usages, which indicates a lack of any systematic reflec-
tion on the s u b j e c t . 1

The initial remarks made about nature in the preface are

definitely not characteristic of the normal treatment of the
subject through the biblical paraphrase. There (I. 24) Jose-
phus had claimed that the law of Moses is in conformity with
nature, a notion which may reflect Philonic, or at least com-
mon apologetic, theory, as we have noted. This thesis is
elaborated in the Antiquities in only one other context, where
the allegorical significance of the tabernacle is discussed.
In the simple description of the structure of the tabernacle,
it was already noted that its partition was "an imitation of
universal nature" (III. 1 2 3 ) . LateT there is a detailed
exposition of the symbolism of the tabernacle and the vest-
ments. Natural elements which correspond to the various fea-
tures of the ritual apparatus are adduced. In particular it
is noted that the "tapestries woven of four materials denote
the nature of the elements." A somewhat similar remark is
made in the course of the detailed exposition of the laws.
The prohibition against mixing different types of seed or
animal (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9) is justified on the grounds that
"nature do.es not delight in the conjunction of things dissimi-
lar". Shortly preceding this remark there is another refer-
ence to nature which does not fit the pattern. A person is

F o r a collection of most of the instances of the use of

1

the term <pi>a\.c in Josephus, cf. H. Koester, "(piScae" TWNT, IX,

246-71 (on Josephus cf. p p . 263-64). He quite properly notes
that the use of this terminology simply reflects the variety
of popular usage.

I I I . 183. The fact that the thesis of the conformity of

2

law and nature occurs virtually only in the material in Jose-

phus which has close parallels in Philo might be taken as evi-
dence for his dependence on a specific source like Philo. For
the Philonic parallels to the allegorical interpretation of
the tabernacle cf. Vit Mos I I . 6 (88) and 12 (117).
3
IV. 228. It may be that the reason adduced for the
acceptance of the sacrifice of Abel over that of Cain should
also be considered in connection with this theme, although the
precise connection is not made explicitly in the Antiquities.
142

not to harvest fruit produced before the fourth year of a

tree's life (Lev 1 9 : 2 7 ) , because "what nature has forced un-
timely is befitting neither for God nor for the use of the
owner himself" (IV. 2 2 6 ) . Nature is here seen as a force
which can act in an undesirable w a y .
In many instances (poaig simply denotes the character of
God, individual m e n , or a n g e l s . 1
However, the most interest-
ing use of the term in connection with the themes which w e
have been exploring is as a designation of a constant or basic
human characteristic which tends toward depravity and needs to
be resisted. The Mosaic law is in direct opposition to (DUCTUS
understood in this sense.
Reference to human cpticas as basically depraved and inimi-
cal to the requirements of morality appears first in a speech
of Moses in defense of his selection of Aaron to be the high
priest. He argues that had he been the one w h o had made the
selection, h e would n o t have chosen his brother, b u t rather
himself, "from that self love (CPLACIUTOS) that is innate
(tpdoei) in a l l " (III. 1 9 0 ) . Moses again, in his final address
to the people offers a moralizing rationale for the laws. He
has given these laws "lest through ignorance of the better way
your nature should incline y o u to the w o r s e " (IV. 1 9 3 ) . The
particular ways in which human nature inclines to the worse
are specified In several remarks from the following books,
which, as w e have seen, are concerned with precisely the issue
of proclivity toward evil. In the Judges material God tells
Gideon n o t to go to battle with a large force, showing "to him
the proneness of human nature to self love and the hatred that
it bore to those of surpassing merit, and how, far from attrib-
o
uting the victory to God, they would regard it as their o w n . "

The reason, according to our text, is that God "is honored by

things that grow spontaneously and. in accordance with natural
laws, and not by the products forced from nature by the ingenu-
ity of grasping m a n " (dvdpcoTtos TtAsovcitTOs) . This seems to be
an implicit allusion to the weakness of human nature, to be
illustrated below.
""This usage is extremely frequent, as Koester ("tpdcfLg,"
263) remarks, with numerous examples.
2
V. 215. The parallel to the remark in III. 190 is evi-
dent. The denial of divine aid is similar to the sins against
belief in God's providence which w e noted above on p . 116, n. 4.
 143

The fall of Samson is explicitly attributed to "human nature

which succumbs to sins" (V. 3 1 7 ) . The long moralizing reflec-
tion on Saul's accession to power suggests that from him it is
possible to learn human character (6 dv&p<">TiLvo£ T P O T C O C ) • Spe-
cifically, it teaches that private individuals aTe unable to
"indulge their natural instincts" 'xpfiadat rij cpOaei.), but do
so w h e n in power (VI. 2 6 2 - 6 3 ) . Another comment on human self-
seeking accompanies the praise of the generosity of the witch
of Endor, who acted differently from m o s t , who "are by nature
w o n t either to emulate those wh o have bestowed some kindness
upon them or to be beforehand in flattering those from whom
they may possibly receive some benefit" (VI. 3 4 1 ) .
It is clear, then, that the remarks in the Antiquities on
"nature" bear only superficial affinities with more specula-
tive philosophy, whereas the moralistic assumption is made
that human nature is subject to dangerous passions which
should be suppressed and overcome.

V. The Positive Ideal: Moses

The antithesis of the "natural" degradation of the
Israelites, after their contact with Canaanite civilization,
the perfect example of the mastery of passion and of self i s ,
of course, Moses. We have seen in the previous collection of
.virtues how he figures in almost every category. It might be
worthwhile here as a summary to review the relevant passages
and note a few more features of the description of his life
which contribute to his special status.
He is certainly a prime example of the non-moral excel-
lences which characterize the hero (II. 2 2 4 - 3 0 ) . More im-
portantly, he thoroughly exemplifies that central virtue of
piety, which involves the belief in God's providence and the
trust that God will indeed aid those who have confidence in
Him and who obey His law. We saw emphasis on this virtue
especially in the exhortations of Moses discussed in the last
chapter. Moses also is a man of courage, who did not fear to
assist the maidens in distress (III. 65) nor to face the angry
mob. 1
Despite the force of self-seeking human nature, he is

III. 13-21, IV. 4 2 .

144

also a selfless and humble m a n , who worked only for the good
of his people." ' 1
H e bore them no malice for their transgres-
sions 2
and was even generous enough to take no credit for
another's prophecy.* 5
In contrast to the long list of figures
from Cain to Solomon and beyond who gave way to sensual pleas-
ure, Moses accepted toil and tribulation. 4
On the basis of
this careful elaboration of the noble qualities of the Jewish
lawgiver, Josephus can provide a eulogy which expresses the
positive moral ideal which h e sees In the scriptures:

He departed . . . having surpassed in under-

standing all men that ever lived and put to
noblest use the fruit of his reflections. In
speech and in addresses to a crowd h e found
favor in every w a y , but chiefly through his
thorough command of his passions (rav TtctSSv
auxoKpdxcop), which was such that he seemed to
have no place for them at all in his soul, and
only knew their names through seeing them in
others rather than himself . . . . Nor was
he regretted only by those who had known him
by experience, but the very readers of his
laws have sadly felt his loss, deducing from
these the superlative quality of his virtue
(x5 T C E P L S V auxou x f j s d p e x f i s ) •

Much has been written on the figure of Moses in the Juda-

ism of this period, and there are many ways in which he can be
presented. ' 1
The material is complex and there are other fac-
ets to the portrait in Josephus, but the central feature, the
feature which reflects the constant concern for a moralizing
interpretation of the biblical narrative, is the portrait of
the m a n of self-mastery and of superlative virtue.

•*III. 212, 313.

2
I V . 13
3
IV. 156-58.
4
TT.6VO£ , xcaaiTOopi'a I I . 229, 290; IV. 4 2 .
S
IV. 329, 331. Cp. the encomia discussed above, p p . 109-
116.
Cf. the works of V e r m e s , M e e k s , Georgi, Tiede and
Haacker listed in Ch. 1, p . 24, n. 2.
 AFFINITIES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESENTATION

OF BIBLICAL HISTORY IN THE ANTIQUITIES

In the two preceding chapters we isolated what appear to

be the dominant interpretative elements of the biblical narra-
tives of the Antiquities. It remains to be seen why Josephus
highlighted and developed the particular items of vocabulary
and the thematic complexes which he did utilize. Some answers
to that question are suggested by a comparative analysis of
the material which we have isolated thus far.
Each of the interpretative elements reflects in varying
degrees the forces operating on the production of the Antiqui-
ties. Hence we can only appreciate their full force when we
see them against the background of traditional Jewish belief
and its contemporary development, the personal experience of
Josephus, and the values and connotations of related themes in
Hellenistic historical literature. The historical theology of
Josephus constitutes a complex reaction to those forces, and
each must be given its due in assessing the resulting equilib-
rium.

I. A Just Providence

In Chapter 3 we saw the details of the major religious

affirmation of the Antiquities. The most important element
here was the assertion that God continually exercises provi-
dential care over men by rewarding the righteous and punishing
the wicked. This theme was clearly based on scriptural models,
although the emphasis was different from that of the sources,
primarily because of the transformation of the covenant theme.
Josephus had altered covenant theology by focusing the retrib-
utive dimension of God's relationship with men and by explain-
ing the special position of Israel simply as a case of God's
just reward given a most virtuous people.

145
146

Aspects of this theology of divine justice have clear

affinities with several common themes in later Jewish litera-
ture. Rabbinic homiletic midrash often emphasizes the justice
of God's retributive activity," " although there is also an
1

emphasis on divine mercy which is not explicit in the Antiqui-

ties. A l s o , the special place which the virtue of the patri-
archs and of Moses plays in the Antiquities might be paralleled
in the theme of the "merits of the fathers" which appears in
Rabbinic l i t e r a t u r e . 3

The parallels from Rabbinic texts are interesting, but

not really very instructive. More significant examples of an
emphatic theology of retribution are to be found in other exam-
ples of Jewish historiography. We have already noted in the
immediate sources of part of the biblical paraphrase of the
Antiquities, e.g. in Chronicles, an attempt to apply more con-
sistently and completely the doctrine of retribution ultimately
derived from the deuteronomistic h i s t o r y . 4
We find a similar

The dictum of b . Sotah 8b is frequently repeated: "In

the measure with which a man measures, it is meted out to him."
For one particular example of the .principle, cf. Ch. 3, p . 8 6 ,
n. 1. On this subject in general, cf. G. F. M o o r e , Judaism in
the First Centuries of the Christian Bra, The Age of the
Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927) I I . 9 2 , 248-56, E . E .
TJrbach, Sazal, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs (Hebrew;
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971) 233, 384-92, and Bousset-Gressman,
Religion 42.

C f . Moore, Judaism II. 389-91 and Urbach, Hazal 396-407.

2

Such an element may be implicit in the subdued eschatological

hope of the Antiquities. Cf. Ch. 3, p p . 104-106.

C f . Moore, Judaism I. 537-43. As Moore (Judaism I. 543)

3

notes, there is often a critique of this notion, or at least a

discussion of the limits of the t n n K ti"i3T . Cf. b . Shabbat 55a.
Some notion of ancestral merit seemed to be involved in the
story of Abraham. Cf. p . 9 0 . The notion is also criticized.
Cf. pp. 118-19.

C f . Ch. 3, p . 86, n. 1. In addition to the works cited

4

there on the theological position of Chronicles, cf. the recent

studies by P. Welten, Gesohiohte und Gesehiohtsdarstellung in
den Chronikbuohern (WMANT 4 2 ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1973); T. W i l l i , Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1 9 7 2 ) ; and R. M o s i s ,
Vntersuahungen zur Theologie des Chronistisshen Geschichts-
werkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien 9 2 ; Freiburg/Basel/
Wien: Herder, 19 7 3 ) ; and the judicious review of these studies
by D. Petersen, JBL 93 (1974) 603-05.
 147

tendency in several passages of Jubilees- 1

and in 2 Maccabees.
Perhaps the most elaborate development of the theme appears in
the extensive biblical paraphrase of Pseudo-Philo." 5

The lex talionis completely dominates Pseudo-Philo. The

theme Is most clearly enunciated after the prophecy of the
punishment of Micah:

Et nunc sciat genus hominum quoniam non zela-

bunt in adinventionibus suis. Nec solum his
qui faciunt idola erit punitio, sed omnis homo
in quo peccaverit in eo et iudicabitur. (44.10)

In accord with this principle, various sinners are duly pun-

ished. Those who built the tower of Babel are reduced to dig-
ging in the e a r t h . 4
Samson is blinded, because his eyes had
led him astray. 5
The spectacular destruction of prominent
sinners is emphasized, as was the destruction of the rebellious
Israelites in J o s e p h u s . 6
Saul, who had been the focus of much
of the moralizing commentary of Josephus, frequently illus-
trates the constant theme of Pseudo-Philo. Like Josephus,

Jub 4:31, where the jus talionis is derived from the

punishment of Cain and inscribed on the "heavenly tablets."
Cf. 48:14, where the Egyptians are drowned because they had
tried to drown all the Israelite children.

2 Mac 4:38, 5:10, 9:5-6, 13:8. Cf. especially 6:12-17,

2

where a distinction between Jews and gentiles is made. The

gentiles are not punished until their sins are complete, where-
as the Jews are chastened. A similar theory appears in Ant.
III. 311, in a speech of Moses. The theory is not stressed in
the Antiquities. Instead, the certainty of God's punishment
is made the important point.
3
C f . Ch. 2, p. 33, n. 2.
4
Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum 7.3.
Ibid. 43.5.
5

^Ibid. 45.3. Josephus obviously has not carried the prin-

ciple to such extremes in his version of the story of the des-
ert revolts. Cf. Ch. 3, pp. 96-98.
Fire plays a prominent part in the destruction of other
sinners as well. Those who tried to burn Abraham are them-
selves incinerated (6.17). The idolaters in the non-biblical
story of Kenaz, the judge, similarly perish (25-26). Micah,
who was never properly punished for his idolatry in scripture,
is also consigned to the flames (44.9, 4 7 . 1 2 ) . Cf. Judges 17-
18.
7
Saul is given to the people because of their untimely re-
quest for a king (56.1-3). Saul spares the king of the Amale-
148

this anonymous author rearranges and structures biblical mate-

rial to suit his purpose. The clearest case of that activity
is the placement of the story of the idolatry of Micah,"'' which
now provides the explanation for the repeated defeats of the
2

Israelites at Gibeah.
Pseudo-Philo thus represents a rather mechanical applica-
tion of the principle that the sinner - and he alone - suffers,
and such strictness is lacking in Josephus. Other important
differences distinguish the two approaches to traditional mate-
rial, such as the insistence on the importance of God's cove-
nants in Pseudo-Philo. The difference in technique and de-
tails may reflect an interest in slightly different problems.
Pseudo-Philo seems to be primarily concerned with the question
of theodicy and his work denies any validity to the notion of
righteous s u f f e r i n g . 4
Josephus is not concerned to demonstrate
simply that sin is punished and that suffering is always caused
by human evil."' His own work illustrates the thesis that Isra-
el's relationship to God does not represent a departure from
the general truth that God intervenes in history to enforce
and support the moral order.

kites and his w i f e , w h o subsequently bears a son who eventually

kills Saul (58.1-5; 6 5 . 4 ) . Saul fears lest he himself die, if
he should kill David (62.5).
'''The story of Micah from Judges 17-18 had been omitted by
Josephus. On the general destruction caused by Micah, cf.
Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum 44.6-8; 47.7.

^Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum 47.7. Pseudo-Philo here

deals with the problem presented by the fact that in the war
against the Benjaminites in Judges 20, the Israelites advance
to the attack.on God's orders (20:18, 23) yet are defeated.
Josephus had avoided the problem by not reporting any divine
oracle which authorized the assault. Cf. Ant. V. 157.

""Cf. Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum 3.4, 11; 4.11; 7.4; 9.

3, 8; 11.1; 13.10; 1 9 . 2 , 11; 20.1; 22.7; 23.4-9. Note the
eschatology in 3.10; 19.10-15; 23.13 and messianism in 21.4-5.
4
The concubine of the Levite of Ephraim is raped because
she had committed adultery ( 4 5 . 3 ) . The eyes of Samson are re-
moved because they had led him astray (43.5). This point is
stressed by L. Greenspoon and D. Levenson, "Sin-Punishment and
Eschatology in Pseudo-Philo, II Baruch and IV Ezra" unpubl.
paper from Harvard NT Seminar, Fall 1971.
W h a t theodicy there is in the Antiquities
5
is discussed
in Ch. 3, p . 83, n. 2.
 149

Two factors were probably decisive in the development .of

this particular theology of God's justice. On the one hand, a
consideration of the non-Jewish audience of the Antiquities
may have played a part. In particular, the attentuation and
subordination of the covenant theme might simply be under-
standable as features of an apologetic work, where it would
be impolitic to claim an exclusive status for a particular
people, 1
although, in fact, claims to special status were often
in this period, and indeed in Josephus himself, major apolo-
getic t o o l s . 2

The other factor to be considered is the personal experi-

ence of the historian in the Jewish w a r . For the doctrine of
providence in the Antiquities represents a continuation of the
reflections of Josephus on the fall of Jerusalem and his cri-
3
tique of the theology of the zealots. A key element in that

!AS Kamlah ("Frommigkeit" 224) noted, the theme of cove-

nant is frequently absent from Jewish apologetic literature in
this period. It is understandable that a claim to be specially
selected or elected could arouse opposition. On the problem,
cf. Urbach, nasal 466-480. Reflection of a similar unease with
the divine arbitrariness and willfullness which a theology of
election seems to imply appears in IV. Eichrodt (Th.eclogy of the
Old Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961] 2 8 6 ) :
"Incomparably more profound (sail, than the objection of im-
morality in the OT) is the objection that God in general allows
himself to be ruled by a favoritism which is not based on moral
excellence and so makes his love appear to be something arbi-
trary." A similar objection has often been raised w i t h in the
Christian tradition to doctrines of election. Note, e.g. in
antiquity, the controversy between Augustine and Julian of
Eclanum. Cf. P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley/Los Ange-
les, U. Calif. 1969) 381-407. A sensitivity to this issue may
be behind the remarks of the Proem, Ant. I . 24.
2
Georgi (Vie Gegner 60-82) discusses the significance of
such terms as ' Iopan^i-Tt'c and ortepua *A$paau within the reli-
gious propaganda of hellenistic Judaism. Cf. the arguments of
Paul in Galatians 3-4. His congregation obviously was im-
pressed with the privileges attached to membership in the Jew-
ish nation. Josephus approaches such propaganda w h e n h e ex-
tolls the Jewish nation on the basis of the antiquity of its
traditions in C.Ap. The Antiquities, however, is not the same
type of proselytizing apologetic. It is addressed to the type
of sophisticated audience which might have had the objections
to the doctrines of election and covenant which we outlined in
the last note.
3
Cf. Jaubert (la notion 343) and Lindner's (Geschiaht-
sauffassung 25- 33) analysis of the long speech of Josephus in
Bellum V.
150

revolutionary theology, as presented by Josephus, was the be-

lief that Rod, as the ally (atiuyot.'itoe) of his people, would
intervene to save those faithful to Him. This expectation
appears on the lips of the defenders of Jerusalem in their
response to the speech of Josephus before the walls of the
besieged city. After expressing disdain for the temple, which
Josephus had claimed they were desecrating, they nonetheless
maintained the hope that God would preserve both them and it:

But they added, it (sail, the temple) would

yet be saved by Him who dwelt therein, and
while they had Him for their ally ( O T J U . U O . X O S )
they would deride all menaces unsupported by
action. 1

Later, after the destruction of the Antonia and the cessation

of the daily sacrifices, Josephus makes an address to the reb-
el leader, John, and the Jews with him in the city. The rebels
claim that the city will never fall, since it belongs to God.
Josephus responds with biting irony, remarking that John and
his companions, by their activities in the temple, certainly
acted piously toward the ally in whom they trusted. He then
asks how God will possibly remain their ally since his eternal
worship (dpricmsCa) has been ended.
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 the 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

Bell. V. 459. Cf. 2 M a c . 3:39, the report of Heliodorus

that "the place is really haunted by some power of God. He
who dwells in heaven above has his eye upon that Place and de-
fends it, smiting and destroying those w h o approach it for ill
ends." Although that attitude- is not necessarily that of 2
Maccabees (cf. 5:20) , it does represent the attitude of the
zealots as portrayed by Josephus. He could hardly subscribe
to such confidence. Hence his insistence on the certainty of
God's punishment of sin.

2
Bell. V I . 99-101.
 151

and maintenance o£ the temple c u l t . 1

In the Antiquities it is
virtue, which is epitomized in piety, but which is more in-
clusive. 2

II. Deliverance

We saw in Chapter 3 another dimension to the motif of

the Antiquities, the repeated manifestation of God's concern
to see justice done by means of spectacular reversals of for-
tune, in which the righteous often were delivered from grave
peril. A related pattern of evidencing God's T t p i v o i a was
found in the comments on prophecy. As w e also saw in the
third chapter, the connection of prophecy and providence
formed the basis for an element of hope that the righteous,
and especially the righteous among the J e w s , would eventually
receive their proper reward.
The theme of unexpected miraculous deliverances is ex-
tremely common, not only in Scripture, but also in the litera-
ture of the second temple period g e n e r a l l y . 3
It is interest-
ing that the techniques and the language used in the Antiqui-
ties to conceptualize and present this belief appear primarily
in a single work, 3 Maccabees.
Several literary features of that work recall the drama-
tizing touches used by Josephus to structure the major epi-
sodes where the theology of the Antiquities is expressed. The
work as a whole deals with a Ttepirc.si'Ei.a or dramatic reversal
in which the threatened Jews are saved by a miraculous etcu-

Lindner (Geschichtsauffassung 33) compares Josephus to

Jeremiah and describes his train of thought as a "heils-
geschichtlich-kultische Argumentation." Cp. Jer 7:4-15. The
continuity between the Antiquities and the Bellum is not com-
plete. Cf. below, p. 1 5 4 , n. 1. It has occasionally been
noted that anti-zealot polemic may appear in the Antiquities,
e.g. in the Elias stories in Ant. V I I . Cf. 0. Betz, "Problem"
33-34.
7
Note that even piety is not simply cultic. Cf. Ch. 3,
p. 8 9 , n. 2.

C f . 2 and 3 Maccabees, Daniel, Judith, Esther. On the

3

rabbinic sources, cf. Moore, Judaism I. 376 and I I . 102 and

Urbach, Hazal 88-95. Cf. also the story of Abraham's deliver-
ance in Ps-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum 6.15-18,
reminiscent of the story of the three youths in Daniel 3.
152

tpdveua. Like Moses in the Antiquities, the Jewish leader

Eleazar in 3 Maccabees calls on God's aid by citing a long
list of His miraculous interventions in the past history of
2

the people. Finally, the most significant detail is that the

salvation of the Jews here is described as a manifestation of
God's providence. First, when the plan of the king to hold a
census fails because the writing implements had given out, it
is noted that "This was the working of the invincible provi-
dence of Him who aided the Jews from heaven." Similarly,
when the king first makes plans to massacre the Jews and orders
the wild beasts readied for the deed, he is told by a subordi-
nate that the preparations have been made, but he forgets that
he had given the orders, "because by God's providence in this
matter all his reason had been dispersed." 4
Thus the Jews re-
ceive a reprieve once again.
The parallels from 3 Maccabees to the Antiquities and to
one aspect of its theology of providence are interesting, al-
though the material in 3 Maccabees is rather limited and does
not form a dominant, recurrent interpretative pattern as does
the corresponding material in the Antiquities. In any case,

Note especially the description of the miracle at 3 Mac

6:18: rote 6 ueyoAdeogoc. TtavTo-Kpartop nat dXnSi-voc. Sedc •
eiugdvac T O dyiov auxoO TcpdacoTiov fivewgev T & £ otjpovdoue uuXaC
eg 5v 6e6ogaauevoi. 6i5o cpoBepoei.Sei's dyveXoi. Haxsgnaav cpa-uepoi:
Ttaaiv. The epiphany language here and in the preceding prayer
of Eleazar ( 6 : 2 - 1 6 ) was noted by MacRae ("Miracle" 1 4 3 - 4 5 ) .
Similar epiphany language appears in 2 Mac 2 : Z 1 ; 3 : 2 2 - 3 0 ; 5:1-
4; 12:22; 14:15; and 1 5 : 2 7 . The comparison with Josephus rests
not simply on this terminology, but also on the connection with
updvoLa. See p. 1 5 9 , n. 1 , below.
2
Such retrospectives occur in the Antiquities at I I . 1 7 2 -
75; III. 8 6 - 8 7 ; I V . 4 0 - 4 5 . The last of these offers the clos-
est parallel in terms of the dramatic situation.

3 Mac 4 : 2 1 :
3
TOOTO 5 6 ifv tvipyzia T T I S TO€> &OT|SOUVTO£
TOLS Iou6a'oi.e eg oopcwou npovotas dvt.HriTOU. The translation
is from M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maeaabees
(Dropsie College Edition of Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New
York: Harper, 1 9 5 3 ) . Note the term ponScov, recalling the
"benefactor language" used of God's special providence in the
Antiquities.

5 : 3 0 :
4
5i& T 6 mpl T O O T C O V TcpovoCg SeoO SLaoTteSdaSau Ttav
aOroO T O voxiua. That divine providence will see to the pun-
ishment of an unjust tyrant is also a hope voiced by one of
the youthful martyrs in 4 Mac 9 : 2 4 .
 153

it is improbable that Josephus used 3 Maccabees directly as

the inspiration for the presentation of his spectacular deliv-
erances. He does seem to know of a similar story, but this
diverges in many important details from 3 Maccabees. This sug-
gests that he knew the story from a different s o u r c e . 1
What
the parallels do indicate is that not only the belief in spec-
tacular divine intervention, but also the language used to
describe them were already current among some Greek-speaking
Jews prior to Josephus.
In the development of this aspect of his biblical presen-
tation, Josephus clearly represents some patterns which were
traditionally Jewish. As in the first factor we examined, the
emphasis on divine justice, so also here, on the question of
spectacular deliverance, personal experience also seems to
have been important. It is quite clear that Josephus in his
report in the Bellum interpreted his own survival of the Jew-
ish revolt according to the pattern of divine intervention
evidenced in the rescues of biblical heroes. The familiar
story of his deliverance, surely a dramatic "reversal" of his
fortune, is told in Bell. III. 345-91. The climax of the
whole episode occurs when Josephus proposes to his companions
in the cave at Jotapata that they draw lots to see who will
first commit suicide. Josephus makes the proposal, and "trust-
ing to God's protection (6 w.n6ei±cbv S E 6 S ) he put his life to
the hazard." When most of his companions had perished, he
found himself alone with a single other survivor, "should one
say by fortune or by the providence (rcpovoLot) of God?" (391) .
The answer, of course, is obvious, just as it was in the case
•z
of the crossing of the Red Sea.

""Cf. C.Ap. II. 52-56. Most scholars w h o have discussed

Josephus and 3 Maccabees agree that it is unlikely that Jose-
phus used the latter work. So Charles (APOT 1.159), Thackeray
(in a note to the Loeb translation of C.Ap. 11.55) and Hadas
(Maeaabees 10-11) w h o criticizes the suggestion of C. C. Torrey
(Apocryphal Literature [New Haven: Yale, 1945] 80) that the
story in C.A.p. may be a "memory version" of 3 Maccabees.
2
Bell. III. 387. Note that jtnSeuovi'a is one of the terms
used for God's providence in the Antiquities. Cf. p . 7 2 , n. 1.
3
C f . Ant. II. 347 and p . 98, n. 1, above. Also M. de
Jonge ("Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes"
Josephus Studien 215) calls attention to the similar language
154

III. The Historiographical Use of Tip6vot,a Terminology

From the foregoing discussion it is clear that w e can

understand a good deal of the theological concerns of Josephus
in the interpretative patterns of the Antiquities, w h e n w e see
them in the perspective of contemporary Judaism and of the life
of the historian. Two problems remain which call for some fur-
ther discussion. Firstly, there seems to b e a certain discon-
tinuity between the Bellum and the Antiquities in their use of
language for divine providence. In the Bellum w e constantly
meet terminology such as el yap-pi v n , xOxn and xpec&v. 1
These
terms are rare in the Antiquities, and their use is carefully
2
circumscribed. Secondly, despite the similarities in content

of the speech of Eleazar in Bell. VII. 3 1 8 - 3 2 .

•"•Recall the facts on xpeciv cited in Ch. 3 , p . 1 0 1 , n. 2 ,

and the discussion by Lindner of fatalistic terminology cited
there. Euuapuivn, so prominent in the Bellum, appears there
at I.' 6 2 8 , 6 6 2 ; II. 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 (passages n the Jewish s e c t s ) ;
0

IV. 2 9 7 , 6 2 2 ; V I . 8 4 , 1 0 8 , 2 6 7 , 4 2 8 . It is infrequent in the

Antiquities and appears not at all in the biblical paraphrase.
It is used in the discussions of the sects in XIII. 1 7 2 - 3 ;
XVIII. 1 3 and also in XVI. 3 9 7 and XIX. 3 4 7 . T ^ X T I never ap-
pears as a cosmic factor in the biblical paraphrase. The word
is occasionally used in the plural to refer to misfortunes or
accidental events: I. 6 , 8 , 1 3 ; IV. 2 6 6 , and once to refer to
an individual's l o t , II. 3 9 . It appears with eiuapucvn in
XVI. 3 9 7 .
2
The implications of the uses of the terminology for fate
later in the Antiquities have often been exaggerated. E.g.
Stahlin ("Schicksal" 3 3 6 ) sees in the description of Essene
beliefs in Ant, XIII. 1 7 2 a reference to a personal power.
Furthermore, he takes the connection of T U X I , euuapu^vn and
dvdYKn in XVI. 3 9 7 to refer to a force which displaces divine
power. Several things should b e noted about both these pas-
sages, a) It is not necessary to take the description of
Essene belief as a statement personifying ei.jiapu.evri. The pas-
sage reads T O 6 S Tffiv Eaorivcov yevog Ttdvrav Tfiv eiuapuevnv
)tupi"av dTtocpauverai.. Kupua can, of course, b e a noun meaning
mistress, and it is taken thus by the Loeb and apparently by
Stahlin. It may, however, b e used simply as an adjective mean-
i n g "sovereign" or "dominant over," without necessarily imply-
ing personification, b ) However the passage is to b e read, it
does n o t represent the thinking of Josephus, but is an attempt
to explain the determinist thinking of the Essenes in the
clearest way. c) The second passage in question, X V I . 3 9 7 ,
does indeed accord an important place to the force described
by TOxri and eIyapuevT]; however, this is a position immediately
rejected by Josephus! H e himself favors an account of causa-
tion in line with, the position described as Pharisaic in XVIII.
 155

between the Antiquities and Jewish literature, there really

were no significant parallels to the use of the theological
vocabulary of the Antiquities. 1
Both of these facts suggest
that perhaps a new model for theological discourse is influ-
encing the Antiquities.
Because of the repudiation of the Epicureans in Bk. X,
it is somewhat tempting to associate the language of Josephus
with philosophical discussion, as did many in the last century.
T h i s , however, would clearly be a mistake. What characterizes
virtually all the philosophical literature on p r o v i d e n c e 3
is a
strong interest in teleology. The discussion of divine retri-
bution does, of course, play a part, but it is never the pri-
mary content of or support for a philosophical belief in provi-
dence.* Such support is usually found in the observations of

12-15 and XIII. 172. Cf. X V I . 398. We find a similar mis-

reading of fatalistic terminology in the Antiquities by W.
Liitger.t (Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der vorahristliahen
Synagoge [Halle: Waisenhaus, 1906] 13 f f . ) .

^As w e saw above, 3 Maccabees presented the closest simi-

larities. There both the language for the miraculous and the
npivoia terminology appeared, although they were not as close-
ly linked as in the Antiquities. Furthermore, TT.P6VOLO. was not
as central a motif, nor did it have the same association with
retribution as it does in the Antiquities.
2
Ant. X. 277-81. Cf. the discussion of the passage in
Ch. 3, p. 103.
i m p o r t a n t treatments of the ancient discussion of provi-
dence include W. Capelle, "Zur antiken Theodicee" Arahiv fur
Gesehiahte der Philosophie 20 (1907) 173-95; W. Theiler,
"Tacitus und die antike Schicksalslehre" Phyllobolia fur Peter
von der Muhll (Basel, 1946) 35-90; P. Gundel, "Heimarmene"
PWRE 1 4 , 2622-45; and J. Behm, "npovoeo" TDNT IV, 1009-17. A
brief survey of the major ancient treatises on the subject of
providence is given in the introduction to the tractates of
Plotinus, Enneads III.2-3 in the edition of R. Harder, R.
Beutler and W. Theiler (Hamburg: Meiner, 1 9 5 6 - 7 1 ) . A n im-
portant study of one of those tracts is P. Wendland, Pkilos
Sehrift uber die Vorsehung, Ein Beitrag zur Gesehiahte der
naaharistotelisahen Philosophie (Berlin: Gartner, 1892) .
4
For texts of the earlier Stoics dealing with the ques-
tion, cf. H. von Arnim, S7F 1168-86. Cf. also the discussions
of Epictetus 1.6.36, Seneca,. De providentia and Plutarch, De
sera numinis vindiata. All of these works are attempts to an-
swer the objection to a doctrine of providence raised by seem-
ing injustice among men. On this issue in hellenistic Judaism,
cf. H. A. Wolfson, Philo I I . 280-83. Cf. below, p. 1 5 8 , n. 3.
156

the regularity of nature, the harmony of the universe, the way

that nature cooperates with m a n , etc. No considerations of
this sort accompany the -rtp6voLa language of the Antiquities.^
Another important feature of the philosophical discussion
of divine providence is the question of free w i l l. Josephus
is certainly aware that a belief in providence does have impli-
cations for the assessment of an individual's freedom and
responsibility. This is apparent in his discussions of the
2

Jewish sects. This awareness does n o t , however, surface in

his own treatment of God's Ttpovotct. It may b e an assumption
implicit in the moralizing of Josephus that "to act rightly or
otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with m e n , " 3
but h e
does not use the scriptural narratives to demonstrate or sup-
port that proposition directly.
It is interesting in assessing the change of the primary
theological vocabulary from the Bellum to the Antiquities to
note the specific connotations of the two types of terminology
in philosophical literature. Et-uapuevri and its cognates were
closely identified with T C P O V O L O . in the materialistic monism of
early Stoicism.* Even within such a metaphysical system, the

In fact, as noted earlier, in the one place in the course

of the narrative where such considerations would be appropri-
ate, they are completely lacking. Abraham proves to himself
the existence of God by noting, not the regularities of nature,
but its irregularity. Cf. Ant., I. 154-57.

Bell.
1
II. 162-65, Ant. XIII. 172-73 and . III. 11-22.
Cf. p . 154, n. 1, above,
3
BeU. II. 163.
4
C f . Plutarch, de Stoic, repugn. 34 (SVF II . 9 3 7 ) : 6TI. 6'
f) uoivri cpn5aL£ K a C 6 HOLvSg xfjg cpuascog X6yoQ stuapuevT] x a f Zeiig
ecxLv, O I S S E xoi*Jg dvxCixooag X£Xry&£, and Stobaeus, Eclog. 1.79
(SF? 1 1 . 9 1 3 ) : etuotpuEVTi E O X L V 6 xou Kdouou Xoyog ri \6yos. xSv
tv xdp wiayxp TtpovoCa. S L O L M O U U E V C O V f| Aoyog na&° Sv xd us"v
yeyovdxa Y ^ Y O V E , xd 6s" Yt-vdu-eva yivexat, xd 6 E YEvncrovteva
YEvr^cexau, and Chalcidius, In Timaeum 144 (SVF 1 1 . 9 3 3 ) : Ita-
que nonnulli putant, praesumi differentials providentiae fatique
cum reapse u n a sit. quippe providentiam dei fore voluntatem,
voluntatem porro eius seriem esse causarum, et ex eo quidem,
quia voluntas providentia e s t , porro quia eadem series causarum
est, fatum cognominatam. Ex quo fieri, ut quae secundum fatum
sunt etiam ex providentia sint, eodemque modo quae secundum -
providentiam ex fato, ut putat Chrysippus. On this subject cf.
also Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen (ed. F. Lortzing, W .
Nestle, and E . Wellmann; Leipzig: Reisland, 1920-23) III.l.
 157

connotations of Ttp6voi.a were personal and volitional. In

later stages of Greek philosophy, primarily as a result of the
critique of Stoic fatalism by Carneades and the sceptical mid-
die Academy, etyctpu^vri and Ttp6voi.a regularly designated two
separate spheres of causation, and up6voi.ci was seen to be the
more proper term for God's a c t i v i t y . 3
Perhaps one part of the

160; Gundel, "Heimarmene" 2628; and Theiler, "Schicksalslehre"

45. Theiler (p. 46) notes that the two terms are closely re-
lated for Josephus, but this only seems to be true foT the
Bellum. Cf. above, p . 154, n. 1.

""The definition given in the passage from Chalcidius is

probably an accurate indication of the normal connotation of
the term: "providentiam dei fore voluntatem." The application
of this concept to the power of fate could easily lead to a
"piety of joyous confidence," as Behm ( " T I P O V O E C O " 1013) notes.
Cf. also Diogenes Laertius 7.138, 1 4 7 . The use of the con-
cept in Josephus leads, as w e have seen, to a similar attitude
of hopeful confidence, not on the grounds that all in the world
is rationally ordained, b u t because of the assurance that jus-
tice will be done. The definition of providence which w e see
in Chalcidius certainly should make us wary of the type of
facile contrast made by Behm ("Ttpovoeco" 1014) : "The OT concept
of providence is theocentric and volitional. It is thus sepa-
rated by a deep cleft from anthropocentric and rational ideas
which the world of Greek and Roman antiquity linked with
npovoua."

On the critique of Stoic fatalism cf. Wendland (Vorsehung

7 7 - 8 8 ) , who discusses the arguments of Carneades from Cicero,
Be Republica 3.14 and De Natura Deorum 3. For a general
treatment of the position of Carneades and its impact on later
philosophy, cf. D. Armand, Fatalisme et liberte dans I'antiq-
uite greaque (Louvain, 1 9 4 5 ) . Behm's remark that Plutarch
"separates the concept of n.p6voi.o from the Stoic belief in
destiny" ("ttpovoeo" 1013) is somewhat misleading. The divorce
had been effected prior to Plutarch. For the part which
Posidonius might have played in the new assessment of Provi-
dence and fate, cf. Gundel, "Heimarmene" 2634-35, and Diels,
Doxographi Graeai (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1 9 2 9 ) .2
It should b e
noted that even among some of the early Stoics the two terms
had been seen to refer to different realms or levels of causa-
tion. The quote from Chalcidius cited in the previous note
continues: alii vero, quae quidem ex providentiae auetoritate,
fataliter quoque, n e c tamen quae fataliter ex providentia, ut
Cleanthes. This position of Cleanthes, subordinating the realm
of fate to that of providence, did not represent what came to
be orthodox Stoicism.

•2
A good example of what came to be the later doctrine of
providence as formulated by Platonists using some Stoic themes
is to be found in a second century tract, Ttepl eluapuivrie,
attributed to Plutarch, but probably to be assigned to the
school of the Platohist Gaius. There the realms of providence
158

reason for the shift to rtpdvoia language in the Antiquities

was a sensitivity, similar to that which w e see among philoso-
phers, to the possible fatalistic implications of eluapuevii
and rtfxn l a n g u a g e . 1
This development in philosophical termi-
nology for providence still does not provide us the context
from which the Antiquities is best understood.
In the literature of Greek speaking Judaism where w e find
extended treatments of providence, the philosophical concerns
2

and usages are dominant. This is true especially of Wisdom

and Philo. In Philo's writings the "forethought" of God is
frequently associated with cosmic o r d e r . 4
God also exercises
his Ttpdvoia for individuals and miracles are certainly a pos-
sible manifestation of p r o v i d e n c e . 5
However, the two are not

and fate are sharply differentiated, and the "highest and

first" form of providence is T O O TCPCOTOU SeoO V O T I O L S etre xou.
gouXrio-LC (ch. 9) . A good short introduction to this treatise
and some useful notes may b e found in the Loeb edition of
Plutarch, P. De Lacey and B . Einarson, eds. V o l . V I I . 330-59.
Cf. also Amand, Fatalisme 104-06. Theiler ("Schicksalslehre")
comments on the importance of the school of Gaius.

''While r^xn in general does n o t strictly express a deter-

minist position, It has this force in the Bellum.
2
Wis 14:3, 1 7 : 2 . For further data on the use of npovoucx
terminology in the LXX, cf. Ch. 3, p . 75, n. 1.
T h e use of the term Ttpivoia in Philo is representative of
3

the normal range of Greek usage. Applied to human actions, it

indicates "forethought" or even "intent." So Fuga 7 8 , Som. I I .
137; Op. mun. 1 2 8 ; Past. Cain. 11; Quod Deus 47.

E . g . Sobv.
4
6 3 ; Ebr. 199; Op. mun. 10; Praem. et Poen. 4 2 ;
Virt. 215.

E . g . Agrie. SO; Jos. 99; Spec. Leg. 1.308-10, 3 1 8 ; Praem.

5

et Poen. 1 0 4 . Perhaps the closest parallel in Philo to the

development of the providence theme in the Antiquities is to
be found n o t in his allegorical work, but rather in his more
historical Legatio ad Gaium, which seeks to demonstrate T Q
Tipovoetv T O Setov dvSpcoTcajv (3) . It is interesting that, like
Josephus, Philo seeks to universalize to a certain extent the
domain of this providence beyond simply the nation of Israel.
He does this by his common etymological interpretation of the
name Israel, as the 6p5v deoG. Furthermore, in this treatise,
the fact of divine providence is demonstrated by God's retrib-
utive activity ( 6 ^ 7 ) . On the whole issue, cf. Wolfson, Philo
II. 279-303. That treatment should be corrected on one detail.
Wolfson (Philo I I . 283) claimed that there was no individual
providence for Greek philosophy. The Stoics, somewhat incon-
sistently to b e sure, did allow for this, as Theiler ("Schicks-
alslehre" 47) notes.
 159

regularly joined as they are in Josephus and the almost exclu-

sive association of Tcp6voia with just retribution is not char-
acteristic of Philo.
The closest parallels to the language of Josephus with
its specific connotations occur in more popular religious con-
texts and in the historical literature which reflects the
popular, non-philosophical belief and usage. The one Jewish
text with similar terminology to Josephus, 3 Maccabees, cer-
tainly falls in this category. The language for miracles i s ,
of course, widespread, 1
and it is associated with Ttpivcucx in
2
some popular religious propaganda. This type of account of-
ten finds its way into historical works.
Even in an eminently critical historian like Polybius, it
is possible to find examples of a belief in divine interven-
tions designed to effect retribution. 3
Such incidents are more

On ETn-cpdveua and raxpdSogov, cf. Ch. 3, p . 9 5 , n. 2, for

the most important instances of the terminology in josephus.
For examples of the terminology in Greek religious sources, cf.
M. Nilsson, Gesehiahte der grieehisehen Religion (Munich:
Beck, 1961) II. 183, 225-27 and F. Pfister, PWRB Suppl IV
(Stuttgart, 1929) 277-323. Some of this terminology already
was used in the LXX, even apart from the passages from 2 and 3
Maccabees cited above, p . 1 5 2 , n. 1. Often eTticpdvei-a and its
cognates can simply refer to appearances, e.g. Gen 35:7; Num
6:25; 2 Kgs 7:23; Dan 9:17. Frequently these appearances be-
come miraculous interventions of God in human affairs: Deut
33:2; Ps 30:16; 66:1; 79:3, 7, 19.
2
For evidence of the widespread popular use of rcpdvoia
and related language, cf. Nilsson, GGR I I . 705 and 0. Wein-
reich, Antike Eeilungswunder (Giessen: Topelmann, 1909) 117-
36. The primary focus of Weinreich's discuss'ion are the ac-
counts of the miraculous in Aelian. He suggests that these
derive ultimately from Stoic Ttpdvoia literature and in particu-
lar from Chrysippus. The evidence for that dependence i s , how-
ever, rather weak. Weinreich admits as much (p. 1 3 3 ) : "Ob
schon Chrysippos, von dem die Pronoia-Literatur im wesentlichen
abhangig 1st, in so freigebiger Weise,- wie Aelian, mit wunder-
geschichten aufwartete, ist mit sicherheit nicht zu sagen; die
von Gercke (Jahr. klass. Phil. Suppl. Bd. XIV, p 705) gesam-
melten Fragmente seiner Schrift Ttspl TtpovoCccc geben dafiir kein
entscheidendes Material." As we have seen above, the extant
philosophical literature on Ttpdvoua is not primarily concerned
with miraculous interventions of the divine.

^Hist. 18,54.8-12 on Dicaearchus, an admiral of Philip,

who offered sacrifice to Paranomia and Asebeia and was duly
punished. Similar is the case of the Seleucid Antiochus IV,
who died, "as some say," as a result of his attempt to despoil
a sanctuary at Elymais (Hist. 3 1 . 9 . 3 ) .
1 6 0

frequent in the pages of an historian like Diodorus Siculus,

and occasionally the divine punishment inflicted on evildoers
2

is said to be an effect of God's Tipdvota. The aid granted to

the virtuous is even more conspicuous and it is often seen as
an example of updvoia at work. In several such cases God's
providence is said to manifest itself in a miraculous and
marvelous way to effect a dramatic r e v e r s a l . 4
One passage in
particular is worth citing because of its collocation of the
Various terms which appear so prominently in the Antiquities.
In recounting the story of the Argonauts, Diodorus writes:

But there came on a great storm and the

chieftains had given up hope of being
saved, w h e n Orpheus, they say, w h o was the
only one on shipboard w h o had ever been
initiated in the mysteries of the deities
of Samothrace, offered to these deities
the prayers for their salvation (otoxnpba) .
And immediately the wind died down and two

In Bibl. Sist. 1 5 . 4 8 . 1 - 4 a series of earthquakes and

natural disasters in Greece is attributed to the impious treat-
ment of Ionian ambassadors by the inhabitants of Helice. In
the course of the discussion the contrast is made between ra-
tionalists (OL < P U O L X O O i w h o attribute everything to natural
circumstances (etc <puainds TLvac K C U MaxsvaYjtaouewg H E P L O —
xdaei-s) and those w h o are piously disposed (eOoejJSg 6taxe£-
Uevoi.) , w h o properly attribute such things to the wrath of the
gods (_9eS>v ufjVLcJ • A similar account occurs at Bibl. Hist. 1 6 .
6 1 . Another temple despoiler is punished in 3 4 / 3 5 . 2 8 . 2 .
2
Impious Phociaiis, contrary to their expectations, are in
a wondrous way [TtapoSogcog) burned alive w h e n they take refuge
in a temple, due to -Seta rug Tipdvota. (Bibl. Hist. 1 6 . 5 8 . 5 ) . A
man who maltreats a priest of the Great Mother dies of a fever,
because of Seta xi.g T T . P 6 V O L Q , (Bibl. Hist. 3 6 . 1 3 . 3 ; cf. also 2 0 .
7 0 . 1 1 ) .

""It is Hard Se lav Ttp6-yoi.av that the child Kybele is pre-

served, according to the euhemeristic account in Bibl. Hist. 3 .
58.1. 9eQv xLg Tcpdvoua assembles those w h o fight for liberty
against the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius, 1 4 . 6 7 . 2 . Philip is
Warned of a plot &3Tcep Sefg T L V I Ttp6voi.g 1 6 . 9 2 . 2 .

'A dramatic reversal is often said to b e the w o r k of fate:

Tfic xtfxns coortep Spduoci xo Ttapd6ogov xflg Tcepi/rtexe tag dYauorig
eug S Y X A T I U O : (Bibl. Hist. 3 2 . 1 0 . 5 , cf. 2 0 . 1 3 . 3 ) . The same type
of event can b e attributed to God's ttpdvoLct, as in Bibl. Hist.
1 7 . 4 9 . 4 , where a sudden Tainfall relieves the thirst of Alex-
ander's m e n TcctpaSdgcog, therefore apparently through SeSv
Ttpdvoia. Ptolemy, too, is saved in a wondrous way (Ttapd6ogov)
Which some attribute to aedov Ttpovoia (Bibl. Hist. 1 7 . 1 0 3 . 7 ) .
 161

stars fell over the heads of the Dioscori,

and the whole company was amazed at the
marvel (rd rcapdSogov) which had taken place
and concluded that they had been rescued
from their perils by an act of Providence
(Se&v Ttpdvota) • For this reason, the story
of this reversal of fortune 'itepi-TceTeia.}
for the Argonauts has been handed down to
succeeding generations and sailors when
caught in storms always direct their pray-
ers to the deities of Samothrace and at-
tribute the appearance of the two stars to
the epiphany (eTtupdveia.) of the Dioscuri.

The work of Diodorus shows how the language about divine provi-
dential retribution was used in historical descriptions, al-
though there is no evidence that Josephus knew him. Similar
usages also appear in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who was cer-
tainly of importance to Josephus. Dionysius is not particular-
ly concerned to stress the role of the divine in the rise of
Rome, and h e certainly opposes the belief, apparently held by
some of his countrymen, that the Roman imperium was due to
some blind and unjust chance. Rather, he Is concerned to
emphasize the inspiring virtues of the ancient Romans, as w e
noted in Ch. 2. H e claims that the success of the Roman people
should be attributed to their moral fibre. Nevertheless the
high value placed on exemplary morality by Dionysius is not
incompatible with the attributing to the gods and to their

Bibl. Hist. 4.43.1-2. Cp. 11.14.4, where the preserva-

tion of Delphi from despoliation at the time of the Persian
wars through an appearance of Athena is recorded.
2
Ant. Rom. 1.4.2: 6 L aOxouotxi-auov xuva J t a t xOxnv dSunov
etKfj 6wpouu£vnv xd u£YUO"xa rffiv dyaSSv rote dveTtt,xr]6Ei.OTdxoi.£.
It may be that the opposition to notions of fate and chance in
Dionysius could have Influenced Josephus in his choice of
vocabulary for divine providence. In any case, the role of the
divine, however conceived and formulated, is not as prominent
in the preface of Dionysius as it was in other historians. Cf.
Diodorus, where historians are designated as U T T O U P Y O C xfjg e-eiag
TipovoLag (Bibl. Hist. 1 . 1 . 3 ) , for they assemble on paper what
divine providence has assembled in the cosmos. Diodorus was
especially a servant of providence in his recording of in-
stances of providential intervention to punish evil and reward
virtue. Dionysius does likewise.
^Ant. Rom. 1.S.3: oCx" euaePeaxcpoug ouxe 6LMaLoxspoug
OOXE aocppoouvTj nXsloviivxpa Ttdvxa xov B"ov xpnaau^voug oiiSe Y E
xd TtoXeuto: jtpsCxxoug dycovtaxag ou6ey.£a T C O X L C U V E Y M E V .
162

providential care an important role in the rise of Rome.

Hence, he can have Minucius Felix proclaim in recounting Rome's
strengths that:

the greatest assistance of all, and one

which in times of danger has never betrayed
our h o p e s , and better too than all human
strength combined is the favour ( E U V O L O O of
the gods, by whom this city, which we in-
habit, not only continues to this day to
preserve her liberty for already the eighth
generation, but is also flourishing and the
ruler over many n a t i o n s . 1

As in Diodorus, divine providence is especially concerned

2
with the punishment of the wicked and the reward and preserva-
tion of the virtuous. As in Diodorus and in Josephus, the
most spectacular displays of providential care occur in rescu-
ing the endangered righteous. In one such instance, the story
of divine intervention provides an opportunity for making a
general theological point. Before describing the miraculous
exoneration of two vestal virgins unjustly accused of unchas-
tity, Dionysius writes:
However, it is also well worth relating in
what manner the goddess has manifested her-
self (ETT.I6ECgao-SaO in favour of those vir-
gins w h o have been falsely accused. For
these things, however incredible they may
b e , have been believed by the Romans and
their historians have related much about
them. To be sure, the professors of the
atheistic philosophies, - if, indeed, their
theories deserve the name of philosophy, -
who ridicule all the manifestations (ETCL-
cpdveucO of the gods which have taken place
among either the Greeks or the barbarians,
will also laugh these reports to scorn and
attribute them to human imposture, on the

Ibid. 8.26.3. Cf. 4.26.2 and 5.54.1, where providence is

shown to be active in the period of the early monarchy, provi-
dence which o&Zovoa. T * Y V T C 6 A . L V xal y.£xpt- rSv H O L T ' E U E xpovcov.
2
Pyrrhus despoils a temple but fi 6iHai!a Tcp6voua T T IV atixfic.
66vautv aTcsSe'gaxo by sinking the ships which were transport-
ing the booty (Ant. Rom. 20.9.2, cf. Diodorus, Bibl. Hist. 31.
9.3). Divine punishments are also recorded in Ant. Rom. 3.5.1;
3.35.2-6; 25.5.2. Spectacular deliverances are described in
3.28.7; 6.10.1; 15.3.1.
 163

ground that none of the gods concern them-

selves in anything relating to mankind.
Those, however, who do not absolve the gods
from the care (eTtuye^eLa) of human affairs,
but, after looking deeply into history, hold
that they are favourable to the good and hos-
tile to the wicked, will not regard.even
these manifestations as incredible.

This set of remarks on the part of Dionysius is not

unique. In at least one other passage he returns to the same
theme. In this second case there is no remarkable deliverance
as there had been in the first. There is a miraculous mani-
festation of divine power and the theological implications of
it are the same:

It would be in harmony with a formal history

and in the interest of correcting those w h o
think the gods are neither pleased with the
honours they receive from men nor displeased
with impious and unjust actions, to make
known the epiphany of the goddess (sail. For-
tuna muliebris) at that time, not once, but
twice, as it is recorded in the books of the
pontiffs, to the end that, by those who are
more scrupulous about preserving the opinions
concerning the gods which they have received
from their ancestors, such belief may be
maintained firm and undisturbed by misgiv-
ings, and that those who , despising the cus-
toms of their forefathers (uaxpCcov e&LauSv) ,
hold that the gods have no power over man's
reason, may preferably retract their opinion,
or if they are incurable, that they may be-
come still more odious to the gods and more
wretched. 2

Ant. Bom. 2.68.1-2. This passage was cited by MacRae

("Miracle" 146) as a possible source for the use of epiphany
language in Josephus. He compares with it Ant. XV. 425. What
is more significant is the close association of providence with
spectacular divine interventions to effect just retribution.
Other discussions of miracle in Josephus, e.g. Betz ("Problem")
pay little attention to the connection of this terminology with
the npovoLa theme. Schalit (Introduction xxiv) also cites the
text from Dionysius as an indication of the possible contact
between Josephus and Dionysius, particularly on the issue of
providence, but only in connection with the remarks on the sub-
ject in the preface to the Antiquities. We can now see that
the notion of providence is formulated in a certain w a y and
used throughout the work as an interpretative device.
2
Ant. Rom. 8.56.1. Compare the condemnation of "atheists"
here and in the previous passage cited with the remarks of
Diodorus (Bibl. Hist. 15.48.1) and Josephus (Ant. X. 277-78).
164

It is this concern to show the gods' desire to enforce the

moral order that animates the numerous references to np6uoLa
in the Antiquitates Romanae.
1

Thus Dionysius, too, sees in the study of the past what

he considers to be a profound message, one which can be
grasped by those who "look deeply" into history (6LCI TtoAAfJe
eA-rjAu^dxec. ".OTOpLaeJ . To draw this moral from accounts of
past divine interventions into human affairs is certainly a
concern of Dionysius, even though he did not articulate that
concern in his programmatic remarks at the start of his work.
Thus what had been a common and important, though not dominant
element in earlier Greek historiography has been adopted by
Josephus as the vehicle for the formulation of the central
message of the Jewish scriptures, both in the programmatic r e -
marks at the beginning of the work and in the construction of
particular episodes in the course of the narrative. The motif
primarily involves an affirmation of a divine providence which
consists of and is manifested in interventions in history by
which the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished.
T h u s , in the first half of this chapter w e have seen how
the providential theology of the Antiquities has important
affinities with various strains of Jewish historical litera-
ture inspired ultimately by the Deuteronomistic history. At
the same time the particular emphases of the interpretative
comments of Josephus reflect some of his own personal perspec-
tives as those had been formed by his experience in the Jewish
revolt. Finally, the terminology which has been used in the
Antiquities closely parallels the discussion of the lessons
of history as they were expounded in the moralizing, rhetori-
cal historiography which Josephus had adopted as his model.
This last fact confirms the suggestions which we made in Ch. 2

Providence uncovers dangerous plots: Ant. Rom. 5.7.1; 5.

33.4; 5.54.1; 10.10.2 and determines the outcome of the Hora-
tii-Curatii contest: 2.13.3. Note also the various divine
interventions mentioned in p. 162, n . 2 .
In one of the cases of divine manifestation in Dionysius
(Ant. Rom. 6.13.5) there is a further interesting parallel to
the language of Josephus. The appearance of Castor and Pollux,
who assist the Romans in w a r , is taken as evidence that the
old Romans were close to the gods. Cf. the remarks of Jose-
phus in Ant. III. 348.
 165

about the process of adaptation in the Antiquities. Theolog-

ically significant categories from Greek literature enable
Josephus to express his interpretation of biblical history.

IV. The Patterns of Moralizing

As we saw in the fourth chapter of this study, the Antiq-

uities does not exhibit a theoretical or systematic approach
to ethical questions. Nevertheless, there has obviously been
an attempt to emphasize the significance of biblical narra-
tives for conduct through the repeated use of certain moraliz-
ing motifs, and through their dramatic elaboration and struc-
tural placement. The most important of these were a) the
possibility of virtuous living exemplified in the heroes of
the Jewish past, especially" M o s e s ; b) the danger of various
passions, in particular greed, ambition and lust; and c) the
decadence and departure from the excellent ancestral customs
which continually resulted in private and public life when
these passions held sway. The highlighting of these factors
accords with the programmatic statements examined in Ch. 2 and
with the moralizing ideals of rhetorical historiography which
we also encountered there. It remains to be seen if any of
these motifs have more specific affinities.
The type of moralistic reflection which we have seen is
even more commonplace than the beliefs which form the basis
of the theme of divine providence in the Antiquities. The
virtues and vices exemplified by the biblical figures are
found throughout the Greek paraenetic literature of the period,
a literature characterized largely by Stoic and Cynic presup-
positions. 1
The importance attached to the passions and the
danger which they present may well reflect the general Stoic
preoccupation with the topic of the emotions. In particular,

On the popular ethics of later antiquity, cf. Zeller,

Philosophie II. 210-260, P. Wendland, Die hellenistisoh-
romisehe Kultur (HNT 2; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 9 7 2 4 ) , espe-
cially the section on "Die philosophische Propaganda und die
Diatribe" 75-96, A. Dihle, "Ethik" SAC 646-796, especially 660-
670.
C f . SVF I. 205-15; III. 377-490. One division of Stoic
2

ethics, according to Diogenes Laertius 7.84, was rcepl naQtov.

It was common to discuss the passions under four headings,
166

the final eulogy of Moses embraces the Stoic ideal of freedom

from e m o t i o n . 1
At the end of the fourth book of the Antiqui-
ties Moses was described as remarkable:

chiefly through his thorough command of his

passions ( T S V Tta&uv a6TOKpdTcop) , which was
such that he seemed to have no place for them
at all in his soul, and only knew their names
through seeing them in others rather than him-
self. (IV. 328-29).

This insistence on the complete elimination of emotion is a

specifically Cynic-Stoic ideal, as opposed to the ideal of
moderation and control of emotion espoused by Academics and
2

Peripatetics. Another characteristic of Moses, his willing-

ness to undergo toil ( T C & V O S ) , is also featured prominently in
the Cynic-Stoic diatribe.- 5

The utilization of moralizing of this sort is hardly

unique to Josephus. The ideal of eliminating emotion is prom-
inent in the fragments of A r i s t o b u l u s 4
and it appears in Philo,
complete with the technical Stoic vocabulary which is missing

fi6ovri, eTn.'duviCa, W T T J I and cpoE-os. This list of cardinal emo-

tions is already found in Plato, Phaedo 83B, as Zeller (Philos-
ophie 1 1 .235} notes, but it became an important principle of
organization for the Stoics. Cf. Cicero, De fin. 3.85 (SVF
III. 3 8 1 ) , Tusc. Disp. 4.7.14 (SVF III. 393) and Stobaeus, Eal.
2.90.7 (SVF III.394). For a discussion of the development of
Stoic thinking on the emotions, cf. I. G. Kidd, "Posidonius on
Emotions" Problems in Stoieism (ed. A. A. Long; London: Ath-
lone, 1971) 200-215.

"*Cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.110; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5.15.43;

5.14.42; De Fin. 3.35; Epictetus 3. 22 .13; Seneca, De Ira 1.16.7;
De Ben. 4.2.4. Ps.-Plutarch Vit. Bom. 134. Cf. also Zeller,
Philosophie H . Z 3 8 and SVF III.443-45.
2
Cf. Zeller, Philosophie 11.238. Note the definition of
courage in Ant. IV. 143.
3
C f . Ant. II. 229, 290; IV. 4 2 . This unbiblical charac-
teristic is also attributed to Joshua in III. 49. Cf. Epic-
tetus 3.22.100; 4.1.176; 4.4.43; Musonius Rufus 7.
4
Aristobulus (apud Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 13.12.7): fi 6e
T O O vduou KaTaoweufj naoa T O U xa-3* Aua£ Ttept euaeU Silas xat
6uxai.ooovTiQ xoa EYXpaTeoas xoa rSv A O U T I S V dyaScov rffiv ward
dXn&ELav and (apud Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.16.138.3)
dKoXoudouvTec oSv ctuTtp (i.e. God, w h o rested on the sabbath)
6t,'5Xou T O U BCou dnaSeLg KadiardueSa.
 167

from Josephus. Philo's allegorical interpretation of the Song

of the Sea of Exodus 15 is that "if the soul be won by exemp-
tion from passion (dud-SeLo:) , it will have perfect bliss.""''
Philo, too, portrays Moses as the ideal sage w h o desires
nothing less than the complete elimination of passion:

Moses ... thinks it necessary to use the knife

on the seat of anger in. its entirety, and to
cut it clean out of the soul, for no modera-
tion of passion (uexpi-oTcdSELa.) can satisfy him;
he is content with nothing but complete absence
of passion (drcd&Ei.a) . '

Stoic ethical ideals were not confined to Philo among hel-

lenized J e w s , as we can see from the moralizing language of
•z

4 Maccabees. At the same time, both in this work and in

Philo, there are many elements which diverge from the common
teachings of Stoicism and many that deliberately contradict
them. 4
This opposition to some aspects of Stoicism is quite
absent from the superficial moralizing of the Antiquities. If
there is a significant feature distinguishing the moralizing
here from Stoicism, it lies in the special position accorded
to piety (eua^S-ELa) . This emphasis is characteristic also of
the other hellenistic Jewish works which we have discussed. 3

Thus the denigration of base emotion and the exaltation

of perfect control or passionlessness are found throughout
the moralizing literature of the early Roman empire, both

Leg. All. 11.102. Cp. Om Pvob. l.b.83.

2
Leg. All. III.129. In the context of this discussion,
Moses is contrasted with Aaron, who does not aim at total
elimination of passion, but rather attempts to "curb and con-
trol" it (depcote-je i jtat S T C L O T T O U - ' J E L 1 2 8 ) .
3
N o t e the list of Stoic expressions given by Hadas (Mao-
aabees 117, note 5 7 ) .
4
H a d a s (Maacabees 115-118) argues that the primary philo-
sophical affiliation of 4 Maccabees is platonist. Wolfson
(Philo 268-79) notes the eclectic nature of Philo's remarks on
virtue and the divergences from Stoicism which are involved in
them.

^Cf. Ant. I. 6 and the discussion in Ch. 4, p . 115. This

emphasis on piety is especially clear in 4 Maccabees, where it
is not simply reason which masters the passions, but "pious
reason" (6 eucepris 1.1).
168

gentile and Jewish. Josephus was simply following the tenden-

cy of many hellenized Jews in focusing on these themes as a
significant dimension of the scriptures. It is the third part
of the moralizing of the Antiquities which suggests a more
definite provenance.
In the second chapter, where w e examined the proem, w e
noted the use of "political" categories to interpret the work
of Moses. We suggested that the use of such language repre-
sented one type of interpretatio gvaeea of Judaism and that
its use by Josephus was motivated in part by the interest of
learned antiquarians such as Dionysius in ancient constitu-
tions. In the fourth chapter w e saw how the political termi-
nology was exploited in the Antiquities. The Mosaic law was
an "aristocracy" in the truest sense of that word. It was not
simply a priestly oligarchy, but a rule of virtue embodied in
virtuous m e n . Deviations from the ideal lead to the abandon-
ment of tradition and eventually to tyranny in both the body
politic and in individuals. 1
The theme of degradation and
devolution governed B k s . IV and V of the Antiquities, which
was presented as a story of increasing vice and tyranny. The
primary driving force of this process was seen to be sensual
lust. 2

Josephus obviously reproduces a traditional Jewish theme

in the question of preserving the ancestral laws, and w e find
quite similar language in, e.g. 2 Maccabees, although there
the intimate connections with moral decay are absent. It may
well be that the concern with maintenance of tradition in the
Antiquities took on special urgency because of the personal
experience of Josephus as a Jew in the environment of Rome.
There is some evidence for a. special concern with diaspora
life in the text early in Bk. IV. The'prophecy of Balaam seems

Cf.
x
Ch. 4, p . 132, 138.
2
We have seen that other factors were operative in the
corruption of truly political characters, cf. Ch. 4, p . 125,
n. 1. However, in B k s , IV and V, sexual corruption was high-
lighted.
3 . •
6:1. Antiochus sends yepovxa ASirvauov dva.yxd££Lv rous
'IouSaxoug uerotBai'veiv duo TCO\J TcarpCcov vojicov xal T O U Q T O U Seou
vduots uf) TtoXi,TEL)ea-&aL.
 169

to have a quite non-biblical reference to the world wide dis-

persion of the Jews:

Aye and ye shall suffice for the world, to

furnish every land with inhabitants sprung
from your race. Marvel ye then, blessed,
army, that from a single sire ye have grown
so great? Nay, those numbers now are small
and shall be contained by the land of Canaan;
but the habitable world, be sure, lies before
y o u as an eternal habitation, and your multi-
tudes shall find abode on islands and con-
tinent, more numerous than the stars in heav-
en.!

The story of Balaam, which the prophecy concludes, preceded

the episode of the seduction of the Hebrew youths by the Midi-
anite women, an episode which w e saw to be carefully elabo-
rated. Particularly notable were, first, the description of
the Midianite demands, which amounted to an invitation to com-
plete assimilation, and, subsequently, the remarkable speech
of Zambrias, which was a passionate plea for autonomy and
liberation from the Mosaic l a w . 2
These passages are certainly
indicative of the tensions which were especially acute in the
life of the diaspora and it is easy to see how the biblical
incidents might have been read in the light of the problems of
that l i f e . 3

Thus the personal experience of Josephus may have been a

factor shaping the narratives which w e have studied. That sug-
gestion does not, however, explain the particular pattern (tyr-
anny = moral decay) which informs the narrative in these books.

Ant. IV. 115-16. Schalit (introduction lxxxi) remarked

on this passage and suggested that it might reflect the "com-
mitment" of Josephus to the possibility of life in the dias-
pora.
Ant. IV. 145-50.
2
Cf. Ch. 4, p . 1 3 2 . Van Unnik ("Jose-
phus' Account" 261) makes a similar point about this speech to
that which Schalit made about the Balaam oracle. He sees that
Josephus has actualized history by importing-into the account
the concerns of his own day and situation.

W e saw in Ch. 1, p. 1 3 , n. 1, that some

3
scholars have
seen in Josephus the gradual development of a more national-
istic or more "Jewish" attitude. The special concern of the
Antiquities with the maintenance of ancestral tradition is an
instance of this general development.
170

This pattern is more than a testimony to a personal political

preference.
The theme of political transformations is, of course, a
common one in Greek thought. Attempts were frequently made to
reduce to a neat formula the types of constitutions and the
genetic relationships among t h e m . 1
In several sources we find
that the process of degeneration move.s from aristocracy to tyr-
2
anny. Josephus parallels this very general format of the
schema, but his moralistic reflections do not represent any-
thing as elaborate and sophisticated as the theory which we
find in Polybius and his philosophical forebears.
In the simple form that we find in Josephus the theme of
politico-moral devolution also appears in two well-known re-
ports about Jews in Greek sources, S t r a b o 3
and Diodorus Sicu-
lus. 4
These pieces have often been attributed to Greek au-
thors, the first usually to P o s i d o n i u s , 3
and the second to
Hecataeus of Abdera.® The reasons for those attributions are

On the earlier examples of political theorizing, cf. H.

Ryffel, METABOAH nOAITEIQH, Her Uandel der Siaatsverfassungen
(Bern: Haupt, 1949). For Polybius, cf. K. von Fritz, The
Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity , a Critical Anal-
ysis of Polybius' Political Ideas (New York: Columbia, 1 9 5 4 ) .
The concept of progressive decay w a s , of course, widespread.
Feldman ("Hellenizations") discusses the relation of the Antiq-
uities to the "Golden A g e " motif from Hesiod onward. He does
not deal with the appearances of the degeneration theme in his-
torians. Polybius is not mentioned, nor is there a discussion
of Posidonius, the inspiration for Seneca Ep. 9 0, which Feld-
m a n does use ("Hellenizations" 3 4 4 ) . The combination of
political and moral degradation is most clear in historical
texts and it is this combination which offers the closest
parallel to the interpretative motif which we have found in
the A.ntiquities.
2
E.g. Plato, Rep. 545-575 and Posidonius in Seneca Ep. 90.
5-6.
"'Geographica 16.2.35-37.
4
Bibl. Hist. Bk. 40, frag. 3, an excerpt from Photius,
Bibliotheca 244 (ed. I. Bekker; Berlin, 1824-25).
S o E. Norden, "Jahwe und Moses in hellenistischer Theolo-
5

gie" Festgabe A. von Harnaek (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1921)

292-301, and K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios uber Ursprung und Ent-
artung (Heidelberg: Winter, 1928} 6.

"'This text purports to be from the fifth century Hecataeus

of Miletus, but it is usually attributed to the third century
 171

rather weak and it is quite possible that these fragments are

to be seen as pieces of Jewish propaganda or apologetic. 1
The
2
account in Strabo may be the work of an anti-Hasmonean Jew.
In any case, it displays a cosmopolitan, philhellenic tendency
and records the decay of the pure Mosaic constitution to one
characterized by superstition and tyranny (6eicTL6aLuov£a and
TupavvCcJ . 3
The second fragment reports a Mosaic constitution
with strong resemblances to the Hasmonean kingdom. ' It tells
of the decay and abandonment of the ancestral laws (T& Ttdxpua
vouv&a) which occurred only when the Jews intermingled with
foreigners.^
These texts indicate that the schema of political degrada-
tion may have been used by Jews prior to Josephus. These
texts, however, probably did not serve as the direct inspira-
tion for the schema as we find it in the Antiquities, for they

Hecataeus of Abdera. So H. Willrich, Juden und Grieehen vor

der makkabaischen Erhebung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1898) 48; T. Reinach, Testes d'auteur3 greas et
romains reldtifs au Judaisme (Paris: Leroux, 189S) 14-20; W.
Jaeger, "Greeks and Jews: The First Records of Jewish Reli-
gion and Civilization" JR 18 (1938) 127-43; F. Jacoby, FGH 111
a 46 and B. Schaller, "Hekataios von Abdera uber die Juden"
ZNTW 54 (1969) 15-31.

""A strong case for this was recently made by Lebram

("Idealstaat"). Other alternatives had been suggested earlier.
E. Schiirer (Geschichte des judisahen Volkes im Zeitalter Je-su
Christi [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901-07 ] III.156) had claimed
4

that the piece in Strabo was Jewish. A. D. Nock ("Posidonius"

JRS 49 [1959] 1-15 [= Essays on Religion and the Ancient World
ed. Z. Stewart, Cambridge: Harvard, 1972, Vol; II. 853-76])
suggested that it might be a Jew who was acquainted with Pasi-
donian ideas who wrote the piece. Gager {Moses 44-47) follows
Nock. Lebram seems to have been unaware of these latter two
discussions.

2
S o Lebram, "Idealstaat" 241-44.
3
S t r a b o , Geographiea 16.2.37.
4
L e b r a m has less precedent here for disputing the attribu-
tion to Hecataeus. Only F. Dornseiff (Echtheitsfragen antik-
griechischer Literatur [Berlin: De Gruyter, 1939] 52-65) dis-
puted it and he upheld the attribution to Hecataeus of Miletus
found in Diodorus. Nevertheless, the suggestion of Lebram
("Idealstaat" 247-50) merits serious consideration, especially
since the two texts seem closely related.

Diodorus, Bibl. Hist. 40, frag. 3.8.

172

lack the explicit connection of tyranny, abandonment of ances-

tral customs and lust.
The specific combination of these themes is traditional
in the moralistic reflection on political decay found in much
Greek historiography. 1
Once again, significant parallels oc-
cur in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. As in the Jewish Antiqui-
ties, so in the work of Dionysius, there is one particular
period which serves as the paradigm of politico-moral decay,
the reign of the decemviri. Dionysius illustrates a variety
of sources for corruption during this period and these recall
many of the vices attributed to political figures in Josephus.
The reign of the decemviri, in the words of one of their oppo-
nents, is characterized by "insolence and greed" (OBpLS nal
n.XEo-uegu'a) . He recommends that these be eliminated and that
the ancient constitution be restored to the state (T6 dpvaEo-v
crxfiua TTJ rtoXi.xeL'a) . 3
The very desire for power or ambition
(<PLXOXIULOI) is also a corrupting factor, and is illustrated by
Appius Claudius, the leader of the tyrants, who:

when he had been honoured with this great

majesty, did not preserve his probity, but
corrupted by the greatness of his authority

The most complete collection of such reflections Is to be

found in A. Passerini, "La Tpucpri nella storiographia ellenis-
tica," Studi Italiani di Philologia Claseioa NS 11 (1934) 35-
56. A typical statement of tyrannical behavior appears in
Herodotus, 3.80: TO. 6£ uiyuara £pxouau e p e u v voucud re X L V E I
udxpi,a Hat Bi.aTai Yuvoaxae, xxstvei. re djiptrous. As Passerini
notes, the notion that hedonism causes political and social
decay becomes a quite general principle applicable to all types
of political organization. For examples of the theme in Dio-
dorus, cf. Bibl. Sist. 1.45.1-3 and 11.46.1.

There is another, less pronounced, period of decay after

Numa, when the Romans came to neglect the gods and Instead be-
came "devoted to the pursuit of war and gain" and "were no
longer cultivating the land" (Ant. Rom. 3.36.2). This attitude
is the opposite of the opinion of Josephus that decay came
through civilization, which includes agriculture. Cf. Ch. 4,
p. 135. Recall the similarities between the presentation of
Moses and the description o£ Numa, cf. Ch. 2, p. 64,

Ant. Bom. 11.8.2.

i
Cf. Ant. IV. 189, where God warns the
people of the dangers of wealth, and V. 179, where the neglect
of Rod (SAiYcopta) is mentioned along with moral decadence. In
both, the dissolution of the ancient TT.oXLxe£ot. is also men-
tioned. Cf. also Ant. I. 194-95; II. 201; V I . 280 for in-
 173

(UTT.6 jieysSous egouai'ac 6icupSap£Ls) suc-

cumbed to an irresistible passion for hold-
ing office.1

The major form of corruption, which induces men to become

tyrannical and which marks the reign of the despots w h o have
destroyed the traditional forms of social and political organi-
zation, is lust. Similar incidents are recorded in connection
with two periods of tyrannical rule. The first is the case of
Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings. His regime is
described by Brutus, who led the movement for his expulsion,
in the colors most suitable for a tyrant. It was in short
"the subversion and extinction of all that is sanctioned by
our laws and c u s t o m s . " 2
It is described in similar terms by
Dionysius himself, when he writes that Tarquinius:

confounded and abolished the customs, the

laws, and the whole native form of govern-
ment (6 e n L x & p L o s Hdayos), by which the
former kings had ordered the commonwealth,
and transformed his rule into an avowed
tyranny. (Ant. Bom. 4.41.2)

What brought that rule to an end was primarily the seduction

of the noblewoman, Lucretia, by Sextus, the son of Tarquinius.
That act and the subsequent suicide of the heroine are dramat-
ically portrayed by Dionysius and the pathos of the girl's end
becomes evidence for the horror of the tyranny.
A n even more' striking use of the same melodramatic tech-
niques appears in the account of the end of the rule of the
decemviri. Their leader, Appius Claudius, fell for a plebian
maid and was driven mad with passion. H e tried by various
ruses to get possession of the lass, but failed. Finally this

stances of greed.

^Ant. Bom. 10.54.7. Cf. 5.71 on the dangers inherent In

the appointment of a dictator. All the decemviri are described
by an opponent in terms of their greed for power, 11.13.1.
Power, once obtained, corrupts as much as wealth, as in the
case of Lars Porsena, an "arrogant m a n , whose mind was cor-
rupted by both his wealth and the greatness of his power"
(Ant. Rom. 5.21.2). Cf. Ant. V I . 37-38; 264-67; V I I . 251; IX.
222-23.

'Ant. Rom. 4.80.1.

174

passion led him to commit an openly tyrannical act. At this

point Dionysius describes the tyrant's emotional degradation
and its effects:

But Appius, inasmuch as he was not by nature

sound of mind and was now spoiled by the
greatness of his power, his soul turgid and
his bowels inflamed because of his love for
the girl (oCSSv X E T A V I|IOXT)V xat £ecov xa
o-TtX&YXva Sua x&v epcoxa xfjs TCaLSos) ... He
resented the sympathy shown for her by the
bystanders, as though he himself deserved
greater pity and had suffered greater tor-
ments from the comeliness which had en-
slaved him. Goaded, therefore, by all
these emotions, he not only had the effron-
tery to make a shameless speech, by which
he made it clear to those who had suspected
as much that he himself had contrived the
fraudulent charge against the girl, but he
also dared to commit a tyrannical and cruel
deed (xupo.vvi.x6v Ttpagcu uat tou&v) . 1

Finally the tyranny of Appius and his colleagues is overthrown

because of the reaction to the death of the maid in question,
just as earlier the tyranny of Tarquinius had ended after the
crime of his son.
In the various descriptions of tyranny in the pages of
Dionysius there is usually an objectively political component
to the "change of the ancestral constitution'.' which he
describes. However, this change is often caused b y , and al-
ways expressed in, a degradation of moral standards. The most
spectacular examples of this degradation appear in the sexual-
ly based crimes of the tyrants which we have just described.
The actual political element is often.secondary or even purely
symbolic in Josephus. What is changed in the alteration of
the vouoi. is not primarily the objective forms of political
organization, but the whole gamut of Jewish social and reli-
gious customs. The designation of that change with the title
of tyranny and the association of the change with sexual

^Ant. Bom. 11.35.4-5. Compare with the love induced mad-

ness of Appius the remarks in 11.28.38; 33.5 and the desires
of tyrants in general in 11.41.5.

T h i s is certainly the case with the sons of E l i , who ap-

2

pear at the climactic conclusion to Bk. V (Ant. V. 339) .

 175

degradation strongly suggests that Josephus was influenced by

Dionysius in his account of Israelite decadence.
Before closing this section, it might be useful to men-
tion some of the examples of moral probity and rectitude ad-
vanced by Dionysius from the history of the early days of
Rome, examples where the same control of emotion is portrayed
as Josephus attributed to Moses and other Jewish heroes. In
his acceptance of toil for the common good, Moses resembles
Quintius, who was called to the position of leadership from
the plough, and who exemplified those early leaders, who
"worked with their own hands (cttjxoupYOI) , led frugal lives and
did not chafe under honorable poverty" (TC£\uav otxauav oil
Papuvduevoi.). 1
In his encomium on Coriolanus, Dionysius notes
that despite the flaws in his character, he w a s :

superior to all the pleasures that dominate

young men and practiced justice, not so much
through compulsion of the law with its threat
of punishment and against his will, but volun-
tarily and from a natural propensity (necpuxciic. ...
E C ) to i t .
2

Finally Publicola is taken to represent those nobly conserva-

tive virtues which all the great sinners in Dionysius and Jose-
phus lacked. In his encomium on this figure, Dionysius offers
once again the rationale which governed his own moralizing and
also that of Josephus. Hence the passage merits extended cita-
tion:

For I look upon it as the greatest duty of

the historian not only to relate the mili-
tary achievements of illustrious generals
and any excellent and salutary measures that
they have devised and put into practice for
the benefit of their states, but also to
note their private lives, whether they have
lived with moderation and self-control ( U E T P I . -
O L Mat acScppoves) and in strict adherence to
the traditions of their country (xctC u£vovxes
ini xots TiaxpCoLS €TCLxn6et3uac3L Suex^Xriaav) .
This man ... was not overcome by avarice (<pi.Xo-
XPnuaxucO , the vice which enslaves all m e n and
forces them to act unworthily ... but he con-

~Ant. Rom. 10.17.6. On Moses cf. Ch. 4, pp. 143-44.

'•Ibid. 8.60.1.
176

tinued ... leading a life of self control

and frugality superior to every desire
(ccocppcov Mat at)T&pMr)£ Mat TI&OTI£ eTU-o\>Lua£
MPECTTUV gCoc). (Ant. Bom. 5.48.1-2)

The parallels between Josephus and Dionysius on these general

moralizing points are not specific enough to suggest any spe-
cial relationship in particular pericopae. They indicate that
the overall framework of the moralizing approach was shared by
both authors.
In summary then, the ethics of the Antiquities, an impor-
tant part of the interpretative element which we discovered in
our earlier analysis, is composed largely of commonplaces of
Greek and Jewish moralizing. In one theme we find a more par-
ticular Influence. The structural importance of that theme in
the Antiquities makes the correspondence significant. Again
Josephus has used a meaningful pattern from related Greek lit-
erature to convey the moral significance of the Jewish past.

V. Excursus: Sectarian Affiliation in the Biblical Paraphrase

Before concluding our analysis of Josephus as a theologi-

cal historian, we might revert briefly to the question of his
affiliation with specific groups within Judaism, as that re-
lates to the interpretative activity of the Antiquities. In
fact, there is little in what we have dealt with which en-
ables us to determine in any more precise way the association
of Josephus with known groups within the Judaism of his day.
There is certainly nothing in what we have explored which
would tend to support the description of Josephus as a "priest-
ly apocalyptist" in the sense advanced by Lindner. There are,
to be s u r e , some rather weak indications that Josephus did
read and understand his people's history from a priestly view-
point, 1
but this aspect of the biblical paraphrase hardly

We remarked in the first chapter how others before Lind-

ner, such as Creuzer, Montgomery, Foakes-Jackson and Moore
noted certain "priestly" elements at various points in the
writings of Josephus. The most complete collection of materi-
al appears in Rappaport, Agada xxxiv and nos. 190a-e and 212.
Several of these passages imply that priests had a favored
position in the community. In III. 209, when the rebels are
punished, Nadab and A b i h u , w h o were sons of Aaron (Lev 1 0 : 2 ) ,
are burned by the avenging fire, but are not totally destroyed,
 177

enters into the level of interpretation which we have been

investigating. There is nothing especially "priestly" in the
interpretation of biblical history as a record of God's retrib-
utive providence or in the morality which Josephus sees implic-
1 2
it in the lives of the ancient Jews. As for "apocalypticism"
although there is an implicit element of hope for the future,

as was Korah in the later revolt. Frequently Josephus accords

priests an important governing role even where none appears in
the biblical narrative. E.g. V I I . 71. Such remarks may simply
be an anachronism based on the importance of priests in the
second temple period. Once Josephus explains the punishment
of seventy'villagers of Bethes (1 Sara 6:19) on the grounds
'that they touched the ark, but were not priests. This explana-
tion may be based on the similar story in 2 Sam 6:6, and is
not a significant expansion. On occasion, Josephus seems to
insert an apologetic remark on behalf of priests. He notes
that the priests of Josiah who served idols and were punished
for it were not of the race of Aaron (X. 6 5 ) . Very tenuous is
the suggestion that the account of David before the ark is pro-
priestly [VII. 9 5 ) . There the king is represented as nsoav snt
Ttp6ac0nov, which Rappaport takes as a bit of pro-Hasmonean
polemic contrasting the king unfavorably with the priests.
This is more likely simply free variation. Heller ("Grundzuge"
238) also cites the prohibition on wine in III. 279, the sacri-
ficial details of III. 240-43, and the description of the sac-
rifice of Isaiah in X. 12 as indications of a priestly perspec-
tive. These are hardly significant. Certainly the judgment
of Guttmann (Darste I lung 4 ) , "Er mochte in der Bibel iiberall
etwas religibses, womoglich sogar etwas kultisches sehen," is
incorrect insofar as it stresses the cultic, which is simply
not that prominent.

"'"In the two places where cultic matters are discussed at

length, no special pleading for priests appears. In dealing
with the priests and vestments (III. 179-87) allegorical sym-
bolism is developed, as in Philo. In the description of the
dedication of the temple (VIII. 111-117) universalist senti-
ments are expressed.
2
The scholarly discussion of apocalyptic literature and
apocalypticism as a type of Jewish thought and world view is,
of course, extensive. For some of the most recent discussion,
cf. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1 9 6 4 ) ; P. Vielhauer, "Apocalypses
and Related Subjects" and "Apocalyptic in Early Christianity"
New Testament Apocrypha (eds. E. Hennecke § W . Schneemelcher,
Tubingen: M o h r , 1964; ET London: Lutterworth, 1965) 581-642;
R. W. Funk, Apocalypticism (Journal of Theology and the Church
V I ; New York, 1 9 6 9 ) ; W. D. Rollins, "The New Testament and
Apocalyptic" NTS 17 (1970-71) 454-76; J. J. Collins, "Apoca-
lyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death" CBQ 36 (1974)
21-43; and P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1 9 7 5 ) .
178

which may be eschatological, there is none of the apocalyptic

structuring of history into distinct periods subject to divine
determination as there had been in the Bellum.^" As w e have
seen, the language of the Bellum which Lindner found most sug-
gestive of an apocalyptic background has been eliminated in
the Antiquities. 2

On the perennial problem of the relationship of Josephus

to Pharisaism, the biblical interpretation provides little
light. In some detailed matters, such as the use of the terms
euaEBeia and Sixcuoativri, we have noted parallels from Greek
sources which show that Pharisaic theology need not be invoked
at all. On the other hand, we have seen that many of the
interpretative elements in the Antiquities are not inconsistent
with Rabbinic Judaism, and thus perhaps with Pharisaism. These
agreements, however, are not so specific that we are compelled
to call Josephus a Pharisee because of them.
The precise nature of Pharisaism in the first century re-
mains to be clarified. Where particular criteria for dis-
tinguishing the sect are available, they do not show any close
conformity to the significant interpretative themes of the bib-
lical paraphrase of the Antiquities. For instance, those
themes do not deal directly with the issues of free will and
determinism on which Josephus' own description of the sects
focuses.* Or if we are to concentrate on halachic aspects of

For parallels to the periodization, cf. Daniel 2 and 8-

12; Syriac Baruch 35-40, 53-71; Ethiopic Enoch 85-90, 93; Tes-
tament of Levi 16-18; Assumption of Moses 2-10; and Apocalypse
of Abraham 27-30.
2
C f . above, p . 154, n. 1 and Ch. 3, p . 101, n . 2 .
3
C f . Ch. 1, p . 13.

*It i s , of course, debatable whether the description of

Josephus accurately represents Pharisaic thinking. The most
recent study claiming that the description is valid and that
first century Pharisaism may be accurately reconstructed on
Its basis has been E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees" BUCA
40-41 (1969-70) 205-49, and "Prolegomenon" to Judaism and
Christianity (New York: Ktav, 1 9 6 9 ) . The more common opinion
is that Josephus relied upon a non-Jewish ethnographic source.
So G. F. Moore, "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies
according to Josephus," STB 22 (1929) 371-89 and M. Smith, "The
Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena,"
JQB 49 (1958) 292-300. Whatever their source, the descriptions
 179

Pharisaism as its most characteristic feature, the biblical

paraphrase of Josephus offers little evidence of an especially
Pharisaic point of v i e w . 1
However we are to describe Pharisa-
ism in the late first century, the major interpretative themes
of the biblical paraphrase do not need that tradition to be un-
derstood. At most they may help to understand the reaction of
one within that tradition to the Greco-Roman world, if, that
is, the self-proclaimed Pharisaism of Josephus has any validity.

of the sects are obviously interpretative and they may omit or

gloss over significant characteristics of the movements in
question. It is clear, however, that some of the philosophical
issue's which Josephus mentions were live ones in the Palestini-
an Judaism of the period. Cf. M. Hengel, Judentum und Sellen-
ismus (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1969) 256-60. All of the hel-
lenizing does not come directly from Josephus, pace Wachter
("Haltung"). Thus, it is worthwhile to attempt to relate the
descriptions of the sects and the issues presented there to
what is otherwise known of these groups and their successors,
as does Urbach (Bazal 229-44). The avoidance of fatalistic
terminology may represent an accommodation to the "pharisaic"
position. Cf. p . 154, n. 1, above and Ant. X V I . 398, which
might be an attempt to relate the description of the Pharisees
to the biblical paraphrase. If it does function in this w a y ,
it does so as an afterthought. Other considerations apart from
Pharisaic theology have influenced the terminological shift
even more directly.

^Examination of the legal passages in the Antiquities is

somewhat disappointing. Much of the material in B k s . Ill and
IV is simply biblical quotation with no appreciable halachic
development. The most significant divergences from the bibli-
cal text serve clearly apologetic ends, such as the refutation
of the charge of leprosy levelled against Moses and his follow-
ers (III. 265-68); the prohibition of despoliation of foreign
temples (IV. 2 0 7 ) ; the glorification of aristocracy (IV. 223-
24) and the conservatism said to be exemplified in the prohibi-
tions against removal of landmarks (IV. 225) and against un-
natural mixing (IV. 2 2 8 - 3 0 ) . Detailed divergences of legal
material in the Antiquities from biblical laws have frequently
been studied and parallels from later halachic sources have
been adduced. Cf. B. Ritter, Philo und die Halaeha: Eine
vergleichende Studie unter steter Berucksichtigung des Josephus
(Leipzig, 1 8 7 9 ) ; P. Grunbaura, Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius
Josephus (Diss. Halle, 1 8 8 7 ) ; M. Olitski, "Der judische Sklave
nach Josephus und die Halaeha," Magazin f.d. Wiss. d. Jud. 16
(1889) 73-83; A. J o n a s , De ratione quae inter Josephum et lit-
teras rabbiniaas intercedit (Vratislav, 1 9 1 5 ) ; B. Revel, "Anti-
traditional laws of Josephus," JQR 14 (1923-24) 293-302; S.
Belkin, The Alexandrian Balakah in Apologetic Literature of the
First Century C.E. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1936) and Bloch, Quellen 133-40. These studies show no con-
sistent relation between Josephus and later halachic tradition.
 CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation of the biblical paraphrase of the Antiq-

uities began as an attempt to clarify the position of Josephus
as a representative of Jewish religious thought. The theolog-
ically reflective dimension of his writing has often been mini-
mized or entirely neglected because of certain preconceptions
about the nature of theology and because of inadequate analysis
of the apologetic activity of Josephus. Our study attempts to
provide both a different model of theologizing and a more sat-
isfactory analysis of the means by which apologetics is con-
ducted by Josephus.
We initially suggested that theology in Josephus is not
to be understood as a systematic, quasi-philosophical, enter-
p r i s e , but rather as a literary one, which reinterprets tradi-
tional religious formulations in a historiographical medium.
In the process of paraphrasing the narratives of the ancient
history of the Jews, Josephus redefines the significant ele-
ments of that history. In this redefinition lies the heart of
the apologetic process, which is not a simple defensive re-
sponse to hostility, but a creative adaptation of the tradi-
tion, which makes that tradition relevant, comprehensible and
attractive in a new environment.
Two features of the Antiquities are particularly important
for our assessment of the process of interpretative apologetic.
These are the choice of a particular literary form and the
elaboration of certain themes in the course of the biblical
narratives. The proem to the Antiquities, as well as other
programmatic statements in the course of the work, indicates
that it conforms to a definite historiographical pattern,
which allows for, indeed requires, encomiastic and edifying
history. Thus Josephus had found Greek historiographical mod-
els which gave a warrant for the type of propagandistic his-
tory which he wanted to produce. The historiographical cliches
say a great deal about the aims of the Antiquities. The domi-

181
182

nant motifs of the biblical paraphrase say more.

The two central themes were suggested by certain remarks
in the proem which emphasized the reality of God's retributive
providence and the moral relevance of the Jewish past. Their
development manifests both an internal consistency and a subtle
but clear transformation of important themes of the underlying
sacred text, especially those associated with covenant theolo-
gy. The process of reinterpretation of biblical material is
clearly present in the deployment of these themes.
As we noted in the last chapter, the reinterpretation is
accomplished with materials most at home in a certain type of
historical literature, the same type which provided Josephus
with his theoretical justification for composing apologetic
history. It may yet be asked how adequate an interpretation
these Greek terms and motifs provide. This material was not
simply, as some have claimed, window dressing for a basically
"Palestinian-Pharisaic" point of view, nor did it represent a
wholesale abandonment of Jewish tradition. It was n o t , to use
a metaphor, simply a tinted glass which provided a direct view
of traditional belief, nor an opaque shield which prevented
any adequate view at all. Instead the Greek terminology and
motifs constituted a prism which selected and distorted the
tradition in specific ways . They were the carefully chosen
medium through which Josephus conceptualized the message of
scripture.
Some of the care with which the interpretative elements
were chosen was noted in the last chapter. In connection with
the language for divine providence, we noted the specific asso-
ciation with the miraculous in Greek historiography. We also
noted the virtually complete, and surely deliberate, absence
of language which could be construed as fatalist. The fact
that certain Greek connotations are deliberately assumed while
a certain range of associations are excluded indicates that
the terminology is not simply window dressing designed to add
a superficial hellenistic coloration.
It cannot be denied that the biblical paraphrase sup-
presses certain elements in the underlying source, and it in-
troduces others, such as the concern with ancestral traditions
and the dangers which these face. These features of the bib-
 183

lical paraphrase are not simply a function of the Greek cate-

gories used to conceptualize and present biblical narratives.
It was the personal experience of Josephus as much as anything
else which was responsible for his particular brand of covenant
theology. As we noted in the last chapter there was a continu-
ity and a growing consistency in his basic theological outlook
which is in large part responsible for his choice of a Greek
terminology for providence which excludes the fatalistic lan-
guage of the Bellum. Finally the experience of Josephus is
also a factor in the moralizing of the Antiquities with its
special concern for life in the diaspora and for the mainte-
nance of ancestral tradition despite the temptation to assimi-
late.
The fact that the personal experience of Josephus was a
significant force in the selection of the interpretative mate-
rials through the Antiquities is important for assessing those
materials. If they were not simply window dressing, they were
also not a means of suppressing Jewish tradition. They were
chosen by Josephus because they gave expression to Jewish tra-
dition as shaped by his preconceptions, attitudes and require-
ments .
The requirements of Josephus were .partly determined by
his past experiences in the Jewish revolt, and in the life of
the diaspora. In part they were also shaped by his apologetic
project. The Greek terminology and motifs do more than simply
translate significant elements in the Jewish sacred texts.
They' are transformed and acquire new'significance by their
deployment in the Antiquities. Hellenistic historians could
conceive of themselves as servants of providence, but they did
not elevate to absolute centrality the complex of themes which
Josephus uses. They did not write completely theocentric his-
tory, nor did they stress, as did Josephus, the importance of
the specifically religious response (e6a£Bei.a) to the facts of
providence. By laying so much weight on these factors, Jose-
phus transforms the genre of antiquarian, rhetorical histori-
ography and succeeds in producing a Greek version of Jewish
sacred history with specifically religious implications. Here-
in lies the basic achievement of the apologetics of the Antiq-
uities. Greek materials have been made the vehicles of a
184

profoundly religious and forthrightly Jewish interpretation

of history.
As we suggested at first, and as our analysis confirmed,
the connection of Josephus with particular segments of Judaism
is largely irrelevant to his literary product in the Antiqui-
ties. Whether his particular form of hellenized Judaism is
representative of any wider group of Jews is difficult to
determine. The fact that personal factors loom so large in
the forces operating on the biblical paraphrase may suggest
that what w e find in the Antiquities is a very individual pro-
duction. Similarly the heavy literary dependence on particular
Greek historical sources is further evidence for the individu-
ality of the interpretation. Yet it should also be noted that
the factors to which Josephus responded were not entirely
unique, although he may have felt them in a particularly acute
way. Other Jews as well as he had to grapple with the implica-
tions of the destruction of the temple and had to reconcile
this fact with the hope that the promises of scripture would
remain valid. Other Jews had to confront the allurement and
challenge of life in the hellenized Roman empire. In each case
they, like Josephus, could have responded in a positive and
creative way, by emphatically proclaiming, through the cate-
gories of their Greco-Roman environment, the enduring values
of their tradition and the lessons to be learned from their
history.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: Classical authors have been cited according to the Loeb

edition except where otherwise indicated. The short title of
works frequently cited is listed after the main entry.

Africa, T. W. Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley/

Los Angeles: U. Calif., 1 9 6 1 ) .

Amand, D. Fatalisme et Liberte dans l antiquite

f
grecque
(Louvain, 1945) .

Aptowitzer, V. Kain und Abel in der Agada (Leipzig, 1 9 2 2 ) .

Auerbach, E . A. "The Personality of Josephus in the Light of

his Account of the Burning of the Temple" Bitzaron 7
(1942-43) 290-99.

Avenarius, G. Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung

(Meisenheim/Glan: Hain, 1956) = Avenarius, Lukians
Schrift.

Bacher, W. Zwei judisch-persische Dichter: Schahin und Imrani

(Budapest: Alkalay, 1907-08).

Baltzer, K. The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress,

1971) ; E.T. of Das Bundesformular (Neukirchen: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1 9 6 0 ) .

Barber, G. L. The Historian Ephoros (Cambridge, 1935) .

Bauernfeind, 0. and Michel, 0. "Die beide Eleazarreden in

J o s . Bell. 7. 323-336, 7. 341-388" ZNTW 58 (1967) 267-72.

Baumbach, G. "Das Saduzaerverstandnis bei Josephus Flavius

und im N . T . " Kairos NF 13 (1971) 17-37.

Baumgarten, M. "Der schriftstellerische Charakter des Jose-

phus" Jahrbuch fur deutsche Theologie 13 (1864) 613-48.

Behm, J. "Ttpo\>o£co, 7tp6voi,a" TDNT IV. 1009-17 = Behm,

"rcpovoeco".

Bergmann, J. Judis che Apologetik im neutestamentlichen

Zeitalter (Berlin, 1 9 0 8 ) .

Belkin, S. The Alexandrian Halakah in Apologetic Literature

of the First Century C.E. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publica-
tion Society, 1 9 3 6 ).

185
186

Eentwich, N. Josepkus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society, 1 9 1 4 ) .

Bernstein, L, Flavius Josephus and his Critics (New York:

Liveright, 1 9 3 8 ) .

Bertram, G. "Josephus und die abendlandische Geschichtsidee"

Germanentum, Christentum und Judentum (ed. W. Grundmann;
Leipzig, 1942) 41-82.

Best, E. "The Use and Non-use of Pneuma by Josephus" NT 3

(1959) 218-25.

Betz, 0. "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im

Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im
Johannesevangelium" Josephus Studien 23-44 = B e t z , "Prob-
1 em''.

Betz, 0., Haacker, K., and Hengel, M. Josephus Studien:

Festschrift 0. Michel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 19 74) = Josephus Studien.

Bewer, J. A. "Josephus' Account of Mehemiah" JBL 43 (1924)

224-26.

Blenkinsopp, J. "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus" JJS 25

(1974) 239-62.

Bloch, H. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Arahae-

ologie (Leipzig, 1879) = Bloch, Quellen.

Bloch, R. "Note methodologique pour 1'etude de la litterature

rabbinique" RSR 43 (1955) 206-07.

Bocher, 0. "Die heilige Stadt im Volkerkrieg" Josephus studi-

en 55-76.

Bonner, S. F. The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Bali-

aarnassus: A Study in the Development of Critical Method
(Cambridge, 1 9 3 9 ) .

Bousset, W. Judisch-christliehen Schulbetrieb in Alexandria

und Bom (FRLANT 23; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht,
1915) .

Bousset, W. and Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im

spathellenistischen Zeitalter (HNT 21; Tubingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1 9 2 6 ) = Bousset, Religion.
3

Braun, M. Grieahisaher Roman und helleniatische Gesohicht-

schreibung (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1935).

. History and Bomance in Graeao-Oriental Literature

(Oxford, 1938) .

Brehier, 'Les idees philosophigv.es et religieuses de Philon

d'Alexandrie (Paris: Vrin, 1 9 5 0 ) .
 187

Bretschneider, C. Capita theologiae Judaeorum dogmatioae e

Flavii Josephi scriptis colleata (Leipzig, 1812) =
Bretschneider, Capita.

Brown, T. S. Timaeus of Tauromenium (U. of Calif. Publ, in

history 55; Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1 9 5 8 ) .

Brown, P. Augustine, of Hippo, a Biography (Berkeley/Los Ange-

les, U. of California, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Bruce, F. F. "Josephus and Daniel" ASTI 4 (1965) 148-62.

Brune, B. Flavius Josephus und seine Sahriften in ihrem

Verh'dttnis sum Judentum, zur grieahisahen-rdmischen Welt
und zum Christentum (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1913; rpt'd.
Wiesbaden: Sandig, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Buchanan, G. W. The Consequences of the Covenant (Suppl to

NT 20; Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) .

Burck, E. Die Erz'dhlungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin: Wied-

mann, 1934) .

Bury, J. B. A.ncient Greek Historians (New York: MacMillan,

1909).

Cadbury, H. J. "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing

History" The Beginnings of Christianity (eds. F. J.
Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; London: MacMillan, 1922)
II. 7-15.

Capelle, W. "Zur antiken Theodicee" Arahiv fur Gesehiahte der

Philosophie 20 (1907) 173-195.

Charles, R. H. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa-

ment (Oxford, 1913) = Charles, APOT.

Cohen, N. G. "Josephus and Scripture. Is Josephus' Treatment

of the Scriptural Narrative Similar Throughout the Antiq-
uities I-XI" JQR 54 (1963/64) 311-32.

Collins, J. J. "Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence

of Death" CBQ 36 (1974) 21-43.

Collomp, P. "La place de Josephe dans la technique de 1'his-

toriographie hellgnistique" Etudes historiques de la
Facultie des Lettres de Strasbourg (= Publ. de la Fac. d.
Lett, de I'Univ. de Strasbourg 106; Melanges 1945, III:
Etudes historiques; Paris, 1947) 81-92.

Creuzer, F. "Josephus und seine griechischen und hellen-

istischen Fuhrer" TSK 26 (1853) 45-86.

Cross, F. M. "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts" 1972

Proceedings IOSCS, Pseudepigrapha Seminar (Missoula:
Montana, 1972) 108-26.

Dahne, A. F. Geschichtliche Darstellung der judiseh-alexan-

drinischen Religionsphilosophie (Halle, 1 8 3 4 ) .
188

Dalbext, P. Die Theologie den hellenistisch-judischen Mis-

sions -Literatur unter Aussehluse von Philo und Josephus
(Theologische Forschung 4 ; Hamburg: Reich, 1 9 5 4 ) .

Bale, A. von. Traetatus de origine ae progressu idololatriae

(Amsterdam, 1 6 9 6 ) .

Helling, G. " M e biblische Prophetie bei Josephus" Josephus

Studien 1 0 9 - 2 1 = Delling, "Prophetie".

. "Josephus und das Wunderbare" NT 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) 2 9 1 - 3 0 9

= Delling, "Wunderbare".

"Josephus und die heidnischen Religionen" Klio 4 3

( 1 9 6 5 )
2 6 3 - 6 9 = Studien zum N.T. und zum hellenistisohen
Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze 1 9 5 0 - 6 8 (Gottingen: Van-
denhoeck und Ruprecht, 1 9 7 0 ) 3 4 - 4 2 = Delling, "Reli-
gionen". Ufi--u

Denis, A. M . Fragmenta pseudepigraphorum quae suversunt graeea

(Leiden: Brill, 1 9 7 0 ) .

Destinon, J. von. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus (Kiel,

1 8 8 2 ) .

Diels, H. Doxographi Graeei (Berlin: Reimer, 1 8 7 9 ; reprinted

Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter, 1 9 2 9 ) .

Dienstfertig, M . Die Prophetologie in der Seligionsphilosophie

des ersten naehchristliahen Jahrhunderts (Breslau, 1 8 9 2 )
= Dienstfertig, Prophetologie.

Dihle, A. "Ethik" P.AC 6 4 6 - 7 9 6 .

Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Opuscula (ed. H. Usener and L.

Rademacher; Leipzig: Teubner, 1 8 9 9 ) .

Dodds , E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of A.nxiety (Cam-

bridge, 1 9 6 5 ; rpt'd Mew York: Norton, 1 9 7 0 ) .

Dornseiff, F. Bohtheitsfragen antik-grieahischer Literatur

(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1 9 3 9 ) .

Dubnow, S. "Die Historiographie des Flavius Josephus" Welt-

gesehiohte des judisahen Volkes (Berlin: Judischer Ver-
lag, 1 9 2 6 ) .

Duschak, M . Flavius Josephus und die Tradition (Vienna:

Schlossberg, 1 8 6 4 ) .

Ek, S. "Herodotismen in der judischen Archaeologie des Jose-

p h u s " EVLA ( 1 9 4 5 - 4 6 ) 2 7 - 6 2 .

Engers, M . "TCOXLTEUUO." Mnemosyne 5 4 ( 1 9 2 6 ) 1 5 4 - 6 1 .

Ernesti, I . A. Exeraitationum Flavianarum prima de fontibus

Archaeologiae (Leipzig, 1 7 5 6 ) = Ernesti, Opuscula Philo-
logiea Critiaa (Leiden, 1 7 7 6 ) .
 189

Feldman, L. H. "Abraham the Greek Philosopher in Josephus"

TAPA 99 (1968) 143-56 = Feldman, "Abraham".

. Cicero's Conception of Historiography (Diss.

Harvard, 1 9 5 1 ) .

. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Portrayal of Man's

Decline" Religions in Antiquity: Festschrift E. R. Good-
enough [ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 336-53 =
Feldman, "Hellenizations".

. "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther [Ant.

Jud. 11. 185-295) " TAPA 101 (1970) 143-70.

. Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-1962) (New

York: Yeshiva Univ., 1962) = Feldman, Scholarship.

Fischer, J. B. "The term 6EOTX6TTIC in Josephus" JQR 49 (1958/

59) 132-38.

Foakes-Jackson, F. Josephus and the Jews (New York: Smith,

1930) .

Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1 9 7 2 ) .

Freudenthal, J. Hellenistische Studien [Breslau, 1 8 7 4 - 7 5 ) .

Friedlander, M. Gesehiahte der judisahen Apologetik (Zurich:

Schmidt, 1903) = Friedlander, Apologetik.

Fritz, K. von. "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fur die

Geschichtsschreibung" Histoire et historiens dans
l'antiquit$,Entretiens Hardt 4 (1958) 85-145.

. The Theory of the Mixed Constitution in Antiquity:

A Critical Analysis of Polybius' Political Ideas (New.
York: Columbia, 1954) .

Funk, R. W. Apocalypticism (Journal of Theology and the Church

6; New Y o r k , 1 9 6 9 ) .

Gager, John G. Moses in Greao-Roman Paganism (JBL Monograph

Series 16; Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 19 72) = Gager,
Moses.'

Georgi, D. Die Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief (WMANT

11; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964) =
Georgi, Die Gegner.

Gerlach, E. Die Weissagungen des alien Testaments in den

Sahriften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: H e r t z , 1863) =
Gerlach, Weissagungen.

Gfrorer, A. F. Gesehiahte des Vrahristenthums (Stuttgart:

Schweizerbart, 1 8 3 8 ) .

Philo und die judiseh-alexandrinische Theosophie

(Stuttgart: Schweizerbart,' 1835) .
190

Ginsberg, L. The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish

Publication Society, 1909-25) = Ginsberg, Legends.

Giovannini, G. "The Connection between Tragedy and History in

Ancient Civilization" Philological Quarterly 22 (1943)
308-14.

Graetz, H. Gesehiahte der Juden (Leipzig: Von Brann, 1 8 7 8 ) .3

Greenspoon, L. and Levenson, D. "Sin-Punishment and Escha-

tology in Pseudo-Philo, I I . Baruch and IV Ezra" Harvard
NT Seminar Papers (Fall 19 7 1 ) .

Grube, G. M. The Greek and Roman Critics (London: Methuen,

1965) .

Grunbaum, P. Die Pviestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus (Diss.

Halle, 1 8 8 7 ) .

Gundel, P. "Heimarmene" PWRE 1 4 , 2622-45.

Guttmann, H. Die Darstellung der judische Religion bei Flavi-

us Josephus (Breslau: Marcus, 1928) = Guttmann, Darstel-
lung.

Haacker, K. and Schafer, P. "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom

Tod des Mose" Josephus Studien 147-74 = Haaclcer and
Schafer, "Traditionen".

Hadas, M. The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (Dropsie

College Jewish Apocryphal Literature; New York: Harper,
1953) = Hadas, Maccabees.

H a h n , I. "Josephus und die Eschatologie von Qumran" Qumran

Probleme (Berlin: Akademie, 1 9 6 3 ) .

Halbfas, F. Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtsschreibung

bei Dionysius von Halikarnassus (Munster, 1910) .

Hanson, P. D. "Jewish Apocalyptic Against Its Near Eastern

Environment" RB 78 (1971) 31-58.

Harrington, D. Text and Biblical Text in Pseudo-Philo 's Liber

Antiquitatum Bibliearum (Diss. Harvard, 1 9 7 0 ) .

. "Abraham Traditions in the Testament of Abraham and

in the 'Rewritten Bible' of the Intertestamental Period"
1972 Proceedings IOSCS and SBL Pseudepigrapha Seminar
155-161.

Heller, B. "Grundzuge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus" MGWJ

80 (1936) 237-46 = Heller, "Grundzuge".

Hengel, M. Judentum und Hellenismus (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck,

1969).

Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1 9 6 9 ) .
 191

Holscher, G. "Josephus" PWRE 9 (1916) 1934-2000.

Hornbostel, W. De Flavii Josephi Studiis rhetorieis quaesti-

ones selectae (Halle, 1 9 1 2 ) .

Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der grieehischen Eistoriker (Leiden:

Brill, 1958 f f ) .

Jaeger, W . "Greeks and J e w s , the first Greek Records of Jew-

ish Religion and Civilization" Journal of Religion 18
(1938) 127-43.

Jahn, E . Observationes eritieae in Flavii Josephi Ant. Jud.

(Erlangen, 1 8 9 1 ) .

Jaubert, A. La notion d'alliance dans le Judaisme aux abords

de I'ere ehr&tienne (Patristica Sorbonensia 6; Paris:
Editions du Seuil, 196 3) = Jaubert, La notion.

Jervell, J. "Imagines und Imago Dei. Aus der Genesis Exegese

des Josephus" Josephus Studien 197-204.

Ionas, A. De ratione quae inter Josephum et letteras rabbini-

cas interaedit (Breslau, 1915) .

de Jonge, M. "Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines

Volkes" Josephus Studien 205-219.

Josephus Studien, see Betz.

Justus, B. "Zur Erzahlkunst des Flavius Josephus" Theokratia

2 (1970-72) 107-36.

Kamlah, E. "Frommigkeit und Tugend. Die Gesetzesapologie des

Josephus in C. A p . 2, 145-295" Josephus Studien 220-232 =
Kamlah, "Frommigkeit".

Koester, H. "cpuats, cpucaxos, cpucaxSJc;" TWST IX. 251-277.

KIdd, I. G. "Posidonius on Emotions" Problems in Stoicism

(ed. A. A. Long; London: Athlone, 1971) 200-215.

Knox, W. L. "Abraham and the Quest for God" HTR 28 (1935) 55-
60.

Kriiger, P. Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums

(Leipzig: Dorr, 1906) .

Langen, J. Das Judentum in Pal'dstina zur Zeit Christi (Frei-

burg im Breisgau, 1866) = Langen, Judentum.

. "Der theologische Standpunkt des Flavius Josephus"

Theologische Quartalechrift 47 (1865) 3-59 = Langen,
"Standpunkt".

Laqueur, R. Der judisahe Eistoriker Flavius Josephus, Fin

biographisehen Versuch auf neuer quellenkritische Grund-
lage (Giessen: Munchow, 1920) .
192

Lebram, J. C. H. "Der Idealstaat der Juden" Josephus Studien

233-53 = Lebram, "Idealstaat".

LeDeaut, R. La nuit pascale. Essai sur la signification de

la Taque juive a partir du Targum d'Exode XII.42 (Rome:
Inst. Bibl. Pont., 1 9 6 3 ) .

Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduaeens (Paris: LeCoffre, 1972) = Le

M o y n e , Sadduaeens.

Lerch, D.. Isaaks opferung Chris tlich aedeutet (Tubingen:

Mohr, 19 5 0 ) .

Lewinsky, A. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der religionsphiloso-

phischen Ansahauungen des Flavius Josephus (Breslau:
Preuss, 1887) = Lewinsky, Beitrage.

Lewitz, F. Be Flavii Josephi fide atque auetoritate (K'dnigs-

berg, 1 8 5 7 ) .

L i e r s , H. Die Theorie der C-eschichtssohreibv.ng des Dionysius

von Balikarnassus (Waldenburg, 1886) .

Lindner, H. Die Gesahichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im

Bellum Judaiaum, Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur Quellen-
frage (Diss. Tubingen, 1970 and Leiden: B r i l l, 1972) =
Lindner, Gesahichtsauffassung.

Long, A. A. "Freedom and Determinism in the Stoic Theory of

Human Action" Problems in Stoicism (ed. A. A. Long;
London: Athlone, 1971) 173-199.

Luhrmann, D. "Pistis im Judentum" ZtiTW 64 (1973) 19-38.

Lutgert, W. Das Problem der Willensfreiheit in der vorchrist-

lichen Synagoge (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1 9 0 6 ) .

MacRae, G. W. "Miracle in the Antiquities of Josephus" Mira-

cles, Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History
(ed. C. F. D. Moule; London: Mowbray, 1965) 129-47.

Mack, B. L. "Imitatio M o s i s " Studia Philonica 1 (1972) 27-55.

Mayer, R. and MSller, C. "Josephus - Politiker und Prophet"

Josephus Studien 273-84.

Mayer, R. "Geschichtserfahrung und Schriftauslegung, zur

Hermeneutik des friihen Judentums" Die hermeneutische
Fraae in der Theologie (ed. 0. Loretz et al. ; Freiburg,
1968) 290-355.

Meeks, W. The Prophet-King, Moses Traditions and the Johanine

Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1 9 6 7 ) .

Menard, J. E. "Les Rapports de Philon avec le Judaisme pales-

tinien et Josephe" DBS 7, 41 (1966) 1299-1304.

M e z , A. Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht f'v.r Buah 7-VII des

A.rchaeologie (Basel: Jaeger, 1895) = M e z , Die Bibel.
 193

Michel, 0. "Zur Arbeit an den Textzeugen des Josephus" ZATW

83 (1971) 101-02.

. "SpStjiidisches Prophetentum" Weutestamentliahe Stu-

dien fur S. Bultmann (Berlin, 1 9 5 4 ) .

. "Ich komrae (Jos Bell. I I I . 4 0 0 ) " ThZ 24 (1968) 123-

24.

. "Studien zur Josephus, Apokalyptische Heilsansagen

im Bericht des Josephus (BJ 6, 290f., 293-95) ; ihre
Umdeutung bei Josephus" Neotestamentiea et Semitiaa
(Festschrift Black; Edinburgh: Clark, 1969) 240-44.

Moehring, H. R. Novelistie Elements in the Writings of Flavius

Josephus (Diss. Chicago, 1 9 5 7 ) .

Momigliano, A. "Ancient History and the Antiquarian" Journal

of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950) 285-315
= Momigliano, Contributo alia storia degli studi alassiei
(Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1955) 67-106.

. "The Place of Herodotus in the History of Histori-

ography" History 43 (1958) 1-13 = MoTfligliano, Seaundo
Contributo (Rome, 1960) 29-44.

. "Problems of Ancient Biography" Quarto Contributo

(Rome, 1969) 77-94.

. "Time in Ancient Historiography" History and Theory

Beiheft 6 (1966) 1-23 = Momigliano, Quarto Contributo
(Rome, 1969) 13-41.

Montgomery, J. A. "The Religion of Flavius Josephus" JQR 11

(1920/21) 277-305 = Montgomery, "Religion".

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian

Era, The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge: Harvard, 1927) =
Moore, Judaism.

_ "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies

according to Josephus" HTR 22 (1929) 371-89.

Mosis, R. Vntersuehungen zur Theologie des Chronistisohen

Gesohiahtswerkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien 92;
Freiburg: Herder, 1 9 7 3 ) .

Nestle, E. "Miscellen - 1. Die Bibel des Josephus" ZATW 30

(1910) 152-53.

Neusner, J. "Josephus" Pharisees" Ex orbe religionum (Fest-

schrift G. Widengren; Leiden: Brill, 1972) I. 224-244.

. The Rabbinie Traditions about the Pharisees before

70 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) = Neusner, Traditions.

Niese, B. "Josephus" ERE 6. 569-79.

194

Nilsson, M. Gesehiahte der grieahisahen Religion (Munich:

Beck, 1961) = Nilsson, GGR.

Nock, A. D. "Posidonius" JRS 49 (1959) 1-15.

Norden, E. "Jahwe und Moses in hellenistischer Theologie"

Festga.be A. von Harnack (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1921)
292-301.

Olitzki, M. Flavius Josephus und die Halaeha (Berlin, 1 8 8 5 ) .

. "Der' judische Sklave nach Josephus und der Halaeha"

Magazin fur die Wissensahaft des Judentums 16 (1889) 73-
83.

Palm, J. Rom, Romertum und Imperium in der grieahisahen

Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Lund: Gleerup, 1 9 5 9 ) .

Paret, H. "Ueber den Pharis'aismus des Josephus" TSK 29 (1856)

809-844 = Paret, "Pharisaismus".

Passerini, A. "La rpuiprl nella storiografia ellenistica" Studi

Ilatiani di Filologia Classiaa (1934) NS 12. 35-56.

Paur, H. Observationes et adnotationes ad Flavii Josephi

eloautionem (Nurnberg, 1 8 9 2 ) .

Pedech, P. La methode historique de Polybe (Paris: Les

Belles Lettres, 1 9 6 4 ) .

Pelletier, A. Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre d'Aris-

tle (Etudes et commentaires 45; Paris: Klincksieck,
1962) .

Pepin, J. My the et allegorie (Paris: Aubier, 1 9 5 8 ) .

Perry, B. E. The Ancient Romances, A Literary Historical

Account of their Origins (Berkeley/Los Angeles: U. of
Calif., 1 9 6 7 ) .

Petersen, H. "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus"

AJPh 79 (1958) 259-74.

Pfister, F. PURE Suppl IV (Stuttgart, 1929) 277-323.

Pick, B. "A Study on Josephus with special Reference to the

Old Testament" Lutheran Quarterly 19 (1889) 325-46, 599-
616.

Plaut, E. Flavius Josephus und die Bibel, eine kritisah-

exegetisahe Studie (Berlin, 1867) .

Pliimacher, E. Lukas als hellenistischer Sahriftsteller, Studi-

en zur Apostelgesahichte (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1 9 7 2 ) .

Poznanski, A. Ueber die Religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen

des Flavius Josephus (Diss. Halle, 1887) = Poznanski,
Anschauungen.
 195

Raab, C. De Flavii Josephi elocutione quaestiones aritiaae

et observationes grammatieae (Erlangen, 1890).

Rad, G. von. Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh/London: Oliver

and Boyd, 1962-65) .

Rahlfs, A. Septuagintastudien (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und

Ruprecht, 1904-11) = Rahlfs, Septuagintastudien.

R a j a k , T . S. Review of Lindner, Gesahichtsauffassung, JJS 25

(1974) 327-28.

Rappaport, S. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, (Vienna.:

Kohut, 1930) = Rappaport, Agada.

Rasp, H. "Flavius Josephus und die jiidischen Religions-

parteien" ZBTW 23 (1924) 27-47.

Reese, G. Die Gesehiahte Israels in der Auffassung des fruhen

Judentums (Diss. Heidelberg, 1 9 6 7 ) .

Reiling, J. "The use of iJjeu6oTtpo(pntric in the Septuagint,

Philo and Josephus" NT 13 (1971) 147-56.

Reinach, T. Textes d'auteurs grec3 et romains relatifs au

Judaisme (Paris: Leroux, 1895).

Reinhardt, K. Poseidonius 'uber Ursprung und Entartung (Heidel-

berg: Winter, 1928).

Reitzenstein, R. Hellenistische Wundererz'dhlungen (Stuttgart:

Teubner, 1906; rpt'd Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1963) .

Revel, B. "Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus" JQR 14 (1923-24)

293-302.

Richards, G. C. and Shutt, R. J. H. "The Composition of Jose-

p h u s Antiquities" CQ 33 (1939) 36-40.
1

. "Critical Notes on Josephus' Antiquities" CQ 31

(1937) 170-77 and 33 (1939) 180-83.

Ritter, B, Philo und die Halaeha: Sine vergleichende Studie

unter stetev Berucksichtigung des Josephus (Leipzig,
1879).

Rivkin, E. "Defining the Pharisees" HUCA 40-41 (1969-70) 205-

49.

. "The Internal City" JSSR 5 (1966) 225-40.

. "Prolegomenon" Judaism and Christianity (New York:

Ktav, 1969).

Robertson, J. "Liber Antiquitatum Bibliearum Pseudo-Philonis:

The Micah/Gibeah Stories" Unpb. Minutes of the NT Seminar,
Harvard (Fall, 19 7 1 ) .
196

Rollins, W. "The New Testament and Apocalyptic" NTS 17 (1970-

71) 454-76.

Rossler, D. Gesetz und Gesehiahte. Untersuchungen SUP Theolo-

gie der j'udisahen Apokalyptik und der pharisaisahen Or-
thodoxie (WMANT 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1962) .

Ryffel, H. METABOAH nOAITEIQN. Der Wandel der Staats-

Verfassungen (Bern: Haupt, 1 9 4 9 ) .

Sandmel, S. "Abraham's knowledge of the Existence of God"

STR 44 (1951) 137-39.

. Philo's Place in Judaism (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union

College, 1956; rpt'd New York: Ktav, 1971) = Sandmel,
Philo 's Place.

Schalit, A. Introduction to the Hebrew Translation of the

Antiquities (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1967) = Schalit,
Introduction.

Schaller, B. "Hekataios von Abdera iiber die Juden" ZNTU 54

(1969) 15-31.

Schecker., H. "Die Hellenisierung des Hexateuchs in der Archa-

ologie des Josephus" Verhandlungen der SS Versammlung
deutsaher Philologen (Leipzig, 1926) 54.

Scheller, P. De hellenistiaa historiae consaribendae arte

(Leipzig: Born, 1 9 1 1 ) .

Schlatter, A. Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht

des Josefus (Giitersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932) = Schlatter,
Theologie.

. "Eupolemus als Chronolog und seine Beziehungen zu

Josephus und Manetho" TSK (1891) 633-703.

. Wie Sprach Josephus von Gott (Giitersloh: Bertels-

mann, 1910; rpt'd in Kleinere Sahriften zu Flavius Jose-
phus, ed. K. Rengstorf; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1970) = Schlatter, Wie Sprach.

Schmidt, W. De Flavii Josephi elocutione observationes ariti-

aae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1893) .

Schreckenberg, H. Bibliogravhie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden:

Brill, 1 9 6 8 ) .

. "Neue Beitrage zur Kritik des Josephus-textes"

Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 81-106.

. "Vermutungen zum Josephustext" Theokratia 1 (1967-

697 64-75.

Schiirer, E. Gesehiahte des judtsohen Volkes im zeitalter Jesu

Christi (Leipzig: Henrichs, 1 9 0 1 - 0 7 ) .
4
 197

Schwark, J. "Matthaus der Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der

Priester, Ein Vergleich" Theokratia 2 (1970-72) 137-54 =
Schwark, "Matthaus".

Schwartz, E . Grieahische Gesdhiahtssahreiber (Leipzig:

Kohlen und Amelang, 1957) .

Shutt, R. J. H. "Biblical Names and Their Meanings in Jose-

phus' Jewish Antiquities, Books I f I I , 1-200" JSJ 2
(1971) 167-82.

. Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1 9 6 1 ) .

Siegfried, W. Studien zur gesehiahtliahen Ansahauung des

Polybios (Diss. Heidelberg, 1 9 2 8 ) .

Smith, M. "The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and

the Philosophumena" HUCA 29 (1958) 273-313.

. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century" Israel:

Its Role in Civilization (ed. M. Davis; New York: Harper,
1956) .

Smyth, H. W. Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard, 1966 ).4

Sobel, R. B. Josephus ' Conception of History in Relationship

to the Ventateueh as a Source of Historical Data (Diss.
Hebrew Union College, 1 9 6 2 ) .

Sowers, S. "On the Reinterpretation of Biblical History in

Hellenistic Judaism" Oikonomia, Heilsgesehiahte als
Thema der Theologie (Festschrift 0. Cullmann, ed. F.
Christ; Hamburg-Bergstadt: Evang. Verlag, 1967) 18-25.

Spiegel, S. The Last Trial (Mew York: Schocken, 1967) E.T.

of Me'aggadot Ha'aqedah (Jewish Theological Seminary,
1950).

Spiro, A. A. "Pseudo-Philo's Saul and the Rabbi's Messiah

ben Ephraim" PAAJR 21 (1952) 119-37.

Spittler, L. De usu versionis Alexandriensis apud Josephum

(Gottingen, 1779).

Sprodowsky, H. Die Hellenisierung der Gesehiahte von Joseph

in Aegyptem bei Flavius Josephus (Diss. Griefswald;
Griefswalder Beitrage zur Literatur und Stilistik 1 8 ,
1937) .

Stahlin, G. "Das Schicksal im Neuen Testament und bei Jose-

p h u s " Josephus Studien 319-43 = Stahlin, "Schicksal".

Steck, 0. Israel und das, gewaltsame Gesahick der Propheten

(WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1 9 6 7 ) .

Stein, E . De Hoordenkeuze im het Bellum Judaicum van Flavius

Josephus (Amsterdam, 1 9 3 7 ) .
198

Stein, E. "De Flavii Josephi arte narrandi" Eos 33 (1930-31)

641-50.

Stern, M. "Flavius Josephus' Method of Writing History" (hebr)

in Historia, Eistorioni'm ve askolot (Jerusalem: Israel
Historical Society, 1962) 22-28.

Strathman, H. "uoXis, *rX" TDST V I . 516-35.

Tachauer, G. Das Verhaltnis von Flavius zur Bibel und zur

Tradition (Erlangen: Junge, 1 8 7 1 ) .

Tcherikover, V. "Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered"

Eos 48 (1956) III. 169-93.

Thackeray, H. St. J. Josevhus, The Man and the Historian (New

York: JIR, 1929; rpt'd New York: Ktav, 1967) = Thack-
eray, Josephus.

Theiler, W. "Tacitus und die antike Schicksalslehre" Phyllo-

bolia fur Peter von der Muhll (Basel, 1946) 35-90 =
Theiler, "Schicksalslehre".

Thoma, C. "Die Weltanschauung des Flavius Josephus dargestellt

an Hand seiner Schilderung des jildischen Aufstandes gegen
Rom (66-73 n. C h r . ) " Kairos 11 (1969) 39-52.

Tiede, D. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBL Diss.

Series 1; Missoula: U. M o n t . , 1 9 7 2 ) .

Torrey, C. C. Apocryphal Literature (New Haven: Yale, 1945).

Oilman, B. L. "History and Tragedy" TAPA 73 (1942) 25-53.

Unnik, W. c. van. "An Attack on the Epicureans by Flavius

Josephus" Romanitas et Christianitas (Festschrift H.
Waszink, ed. W. den Boer, et at. ; Amsterdam, 1973) 349-
50.

. "Eine merkwurdige liturgische Aussage bei Josephus

(Jos. A n t . 8, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 ) " Josephus Studien 362-369.

"Josephus' Account of the story of Israel's Sin

with Alien Women" Travels in the World of the OT (Assen:
Van Gorcum, 1974) 241-261 = van Unnik, "Josephus* Ac-
count" .

llrbach, E. E. Hazal, The Sages, Their Concepts and Beliefs

(Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971) = Urbach, Hazal.

Usher, S. The Historians of Greece and Rome (London: Hamil-

ton, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Vermes, G. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Studia Post

Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961).

Wacholder, B . - Z . Eupolemus, A Study of Greco-Jewish Litera-

ture (Heb. Un. Col.-Jw. Inst. Rel.: Cincinnati, New
 199

Wacholder, B . - Z . Nicholas of Damascus [IT. of Calif, publica-

tions in History 75; Berkeley/Los Angeles: D. Calif.,
1962) .

Wachter, L. "Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisaer

Sadduzaer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht
des Josephus" ZRGG 21 [1969) 9 7-114.

Walbank, F. W. Polybius (Berkeley/Los Angeles: U. of Calif.,

1972) .

- "Tragic History: A Reconsideration" Bulletin of

the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of
London 2 (1955) 4-14.

Walsh, P. G. Livy, Bis Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge,

1961) .

Walter, N. "Zur Ueberlieferung einiger Reste friiher judisch-

hellenistischen Literatur bei Josenhus, Clemens und
Eusebius" Studia Patristica VII/1 314-320 (TU 92; Berlin:
Akademie, 1 9 6 6 ) .

. Der Toraausleger Aristobulos (TU 86; Berlin: Akad-

emie, 1964).

Wehrli, F. "Die Geschichtsschreibung im Lichte der antiken

Theorie" Eumusia, Festgabe fur Ernst Howald (Zurich,
1947) 54-71.

Weinreich, 0. Antike Heilungsounder (Giessen: Topelmann,

1909).

W e i s s , H. F. Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des heltenistisahen

und pal'dstinischen Judentums (TU 9 7 ; Berlin: Akademie,
1966) .

Welten, P. Gesehiahte und Gesahichtsdarstellung in den

Chronikbuchem (WMANT 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1 9 7 3 ) .

Wendland, P. Die hellenistisch-r'dmische Kultur (HNT 2;

Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1 9 7 2 ) . 4

. Philos Schrift uber die Vorsehung, Ein Beitrag zur

Gesehiahte der nacharistotelischen Philosophie (Berlin:
Gartner, 1892) = Wendland, Vorsehung.

W e y l , H. Die j'udischen Strafgesetze bei Flavius Josephus in

ihrem Verhaltnis zu Schrift und Halaeha (Berlin, 1 9 0 0 ) .

Whiston, W. H. "That Josephus the Jew was an Ebionite" Collec-

tion of Authentic Records Belonging to the Old and New
Testament (London, 1 7 2 8 ) .

Willi, J. Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1 9 7 2 ) .
200

Williams, S. K. Jesus' death as Saving Event (Harvard Disser-

tations in Religion 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1 9 7 5 ) .

Williamson, G. A. The World of Josephus (Boston: Little-

Brown, 1 9 6 5 ) .

Willrich, H. Judaiea, Forsahungen zur hellenistisah-judisahen

Gesehiahte und Litteraiur (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1 9 0 0 ) .

. Juden und Grieehen vor der makk'dbaischen Erhebung

(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1 8 9 5 ) .

Wochenmark, J. Die Sehiaksalsidee im Judentum (Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1 9 3 3 ) .

Wolfson, H. A. Philo (Cambridge: Harvard, 1968 ).

4

Zegers, N. Wesen und Ursprung des tragisahen Geschiahts-

sahreibung (Diss. Koln, 1 9 5 9 ) .

Zeitlin, S. "The Account of the Essenes in Josephus and the

Philosophumena" JQB 49 (1958/9) 292-300.

. "A Survey of Jewish Historiography from the Biblical

Books to the Sepher ha-kabbalah with special emphasis on
Josephus" JQB 59 (1969) 171-214.

Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Grieehen in ihrer Gesahiaht-

lichen Eniwiaklung (Leipzig: Reisland, 1 9 2 0 - 2 3 ) = Zel-
s

ler, Philosophie.
 INDEX

Passages from the works of Josephus cited in the text:

Be Hum Contra Apionem Antiquitates

1.1-2 49 1.218 35 1.77 36
1.3 57 2.21 15 1.93 35
1.7-8 49 2.52-56 153 1.94 35
1.11 50 2.146 116 1.98 79
1.13-15 45 2.192 116 1.96-103 40
1.16 57 2.211-14 134 1.99 83,115
1.17 45 2.255 62 1.103 80
1.169 72 1.108 18,35,44
1.571 11 Vita 1.112 118
1.628 154 1-6 15 1.113 117
1.662 154 7-10 6 1.114 139
2.19 6 11 6,14 1.118-19 34
2.162 154,156 208 16 1.154 110,111,156
2.163- 1.155 88
65 156 Antiquitates 1.157 74,88,156
2.345- 1.1-17 29,41,60 1.161-68 35,87
404 5 1.5 43,62 1.165 90
3.350- 1.6 43,52,154, 1.176 40
54 15 167 1.177 36
3.352 11,16 1.9 45 1.183 89
3.374 6 1.10 45,62 1.185 80
3.387 153 1.11 45 1.189 111
3.400 10 1.13 113,154 1.192 80
4.297 154 1.14 52,67,83, 1.194-95 124,172
4.622 154 93 1.196-98 17
5.362- 1.15 52,53 1.200 136
419 5 1.17 52,58 1.208 79,91
5.459 150 1.18-24 29,42 1.210 79
5.572 101 1.19 61 1.222-36 40
6.84 154 1.20 52,68,83, 1.222 88,89
6.99-101 150 116 1.223 74,88
6.108 154 1.21 52,65,116 1.225 72,88
6.267 154 1.22 52,65 1.225-29 79
6.314 101 1.23 53,69 1.227 93
6.428 154 1.24 52,53,61, 1.228-31 88
7.318-22 154 140,141, 1.229 76,91
7.323-32 5,11,154 149 1.231 72
7.323-36 5,11 1.25 61 1.234 89
7.337-88 S 1.39 32 1.238 111
1.53 115,122 1.239-41 34
Contra Apionem 1.54 32,138 1.254 74
1.3 61 1.59 40 1.255 99
1.27 57 1.61 123,126 1.259-60 121
1. 42-46 57 1.72 117 1.264 17,40
1.59 60 1.74 40,117 1.272 79,90

201
202

Antiquitates Antiquitates Antiquitates

1.273 79,83 2.222-23 95 3.49 110,116,166
1.277 40 2.224 111,143 3.58 118
1.288 127 2.229 111,143, 3.65 113,143
1.304 32 144,166 3.68 71
1.305 40 2.230 111,143 3.72 90
1.317 127 2.232-53 34 3.81 18,44
1.327 40,71 2.255 40,122 3.83 100
2.7 111 2.260 40 3.86-87 97,152
2.8 73 2.267 96 3.91-98 9
2.10 121 2.270 96 3.98 72
2.18 40 2.276 79 3.99 72
2.20 74 2.278 79 3.123 36,62,141
2.22 120 2.281 127 3.151 32
2.26 72 2.285 96 3.179-87 36,62,177
2.39 71,154 2.286 72 3.1S3 141
2.39-167 40 2.290 100,144, 3.189-97 52
2.40 112 166 3.190 142
2.43 127 2.292 84 3.191 72
2.50-52 40,120 2.293 84 3.208 74
2.53-54 40 2.295 96 3.209 176
2.55 122 2.299 40 3.212 52,144
2.60 73 2.307 113,118 3.213 62
2.61 36 2.313 32 3.214-15 99
2.72 79 2.320 40 3.222 52
2.78,80 7g 2.321 34,40 3.224-86 127
2.84 79 2.322-23 40,77 3.224 52
2.92 32 2.325-28 40,77 3.240-43 177
2.94 40 2.329 40,71 3.252 32
2.104 72 2.330 40,96 3.265-68 179
2.112 113 2.331 40,72,77, 3.274 40
2.119 40 78 3.276 32
2.122 79 2.332 40,78,81, 3.279 177
2.133 40 92,99 3.302 79
2.139 111 2.333 40,72,77, 3.311-13 82
2.149 115 104 3.311 106
2.161 74,79 2.334 40,77,78 3.315 84
2.163 113 2.335 40,74,77 3.322 18
2.170-71 40 2.336-37 40,77 3.348 164
2.172-75 97,152 2.339 40,99 4.1-6 118
2.172 79 2.340-44 40,77 4.2 73,79
2.189 72 2.345 40,95 4.10 73
2.196 116 4.11-66 40
2.347 40,75,91,
2.198 112 4.11-12 97
98,153
2.201 124,126, 2.348 18,44,77, 4.13 82
172 98 4.14-19 122,131
2.202 124 3.1 95 4.14 97,111
2.205-57 94 3.11 156 4.15 132
2.206 40 3.12 122,156 4.17 97
2.210 40 3.13-21 113,143, 4.20 97
2.211 89,95 1S6 4.22 97,32
2.212 89,91,95, 3.13 71,97,110 4.26-27 96
116 3.14 72,96 4.37 97
2.213 74,95 3.15 84 4.40-45 152
2.214 79,95 3.18 96 4.42 113,143,144,
2.216 95 3.30 95 166
2.219 40,73 3.33 73 4.44-45 97
2.220 95 3.38 95 4.47 72,98
 203

Antiquitates A.ntiquitates Antiquita tes

4.48 98 4.318 79,91 5.337 94
4.49 112 4.320 100 5.338-47 134
4.60 73,84 4.326 9,44 5.339 118,123,138,
4.63 40 4.329 110,144 174
4.114 73,79, 83 4.331 144 6.20,25 79
4.115-16 169 5.4 71 6.34 72
4.117 74,94,113 5.7 32 6.37-38 173
4.118 99 5.8 72 6.43 113
4.121 75 5.28 96 6.54 31
4.122 79 5.34 134 6.59 40
4.125 99 5.60 79 6.63 112,115
4.127 75 5.65 79 6.92 79
4.128 74,83,106 5.68-70 134 6.102 75
4.130 130 5.90 135 6.127 116
4.131-33 40,128,130 5.91 71 6.134 31,120
4.134-55 40,128 5.98 79 6.140 32
4.134 129 5.103 137 6.147 75
4.136 130 5.116 134 6.148 79
4.138-40 129,131 5.128 31 6.160 116
4.143 115,120, 5.132 135,139 6.181 79
130,166 5.135 135,138, 6.186 31
4.145-50 132,169 139 6.189 79
4.152 113,121 5.136-37 136 6.193 122
4.153 113 5.146 136 6.196 113
4.154 113 5.147 137 6.205 40
4.156-58 144 5.148 137 6.213 40
4.176-95 90 5.157 148 6.217 31
4.180 79,91 5.160 110 6.259 40
4.181 91 5.165 89 6.262-68 97,140
4.182 79 5.168 86 6.262 143
4.184 71 5.169 40 6.263 74,84,85,
4.185 72,74,79, 5.173 72 143
91 5.179 62,137, 6.264-67 114,116,
4.186 72,120,133 139,172 125,173
4.187 133 5.180 137 6.265 116
4.189 72,112,115, 5.182 111 6.274-75 31
124,133,172 5.185 138 6.280 31,124,172
4.190 72 5.187 32 6.294 115
4.191 133 5.188 113 6.295 119
4.193 62,139,142 5.189-90 137 6.296 72
4.196 51,62,139 5.198 138 6.300 72
4.197 58 5.206 79 6.302 113
4.207 134,179 5.214 134 6.305 79
4.218 99 5.215 118,142 6.307 84
4.223 15,72,139, 5.216 79 6.308 115
179 5.234 118,139 6.315 72
4.224-25 179 5.253 86 6.335-36 114
4.226 142,154 5.265 114 6.340-50 140
4.228 141,179 5.266 113 6.341 143
4.229-30 179 5.301 117 6.342 79,91
4.239 72 5.306 138 6.343-50 115
4.243 79,90 5.317 111,114 6.343 52
4.292, 121,138, 6.346 110,111,
296 79 143 114,124
4.311-14 104 5.327 116 6.347 124
4.312 62,139 5.329 120 6.352 31
4.316 79 5.332 72 6.376 113
204

Antiouitates Antiquitates Antiquitates

7.23 72 8.206 31 9.236 85,115
7.31 40 8.208 116 9.239-41 102
7.36 40 8.209 113 9.240 32
7.37-38 126 8.218 74,100 9.255 113
7.43 72 8.227 18 9.259 79
7.48 31 8.229 85 9.260 89,116
7.71 177 8.236 32 9.262 79,90
7.87 79 8.240 101 9.265 84,86,113
7.90 74 8.241 74,100 9.266 86
7.95 177 8.243 113 9.276 102,116
7.104-05 31 8.245 118 10.7 113
7.124 113 8.251-53 85 10.11 99
7.127 32 8.251 125 10.12 177
7.130 115,116 8.264 113 10.14 73
7.138-40 114 8.280 86 10.15 113
7.139 113 8.284 86 10.23 35
7.147 111,122 8. 297 71 10.24 79,96,99
7.158 79 8.299 118 10.35 102
7.185 113 10.42 79,90
8.300 85,116
7.190 31 10.50 116
8.307 101
7.251 173
8.314 74,84,86, 10.56 116
7.259 72 10.39 40,79
116
7.307 113
8.315 84,86,113 10.60 86
7.321 79,90
8.318 113 10.61 102
7.323 113
8.335 71 10.64 79
7.333 79
7.338 120 8.343 113 10.65 177
7.346 32 8.344 79 10.69 32
7.357 79, 90 8.357 71 10.79-80 102
7.380 72 8.362 32 10.88-95
7.384 85,115 8.394 90,115,116 10.99 40
7.387 72 8.409 101 10.103-07 102
8.412 101 10.104 71
7.390 110,113 8.414 32 10.142 102
7.391 110,111 8.418-20 101 10.155-85 102
8.13 31,40,116 8.419 74 10.157 72
8.20 84 9.1 118 10.177 72
8.21 115 9.8-9 40 10.185 34
8.35-38 31 9.14 79,96 10.210 105
8.42 31 9.16 115,116 10.214 95,96
8.50 32 9.27 118 10.218 58
8.56 51,58 9.55 79 10.235 96
8.85 31 9.58 96 10.266 102
8.106-21 60 9.60 95,96,99 10.277-80 98,155
10.278 74,75,103
8.107 9 9.72,74 102
8.108 18,61 9.86 102 117,163
8.109 73,99,100 9.93 111 10.279-81 103
8.110 100 9.95-99 118 11.5-6 102
8.111-13 26,177 9.96 81 11.39 72
8.112 79,90 9.117 32 11.185-
8.116-17 81,177 9.175 102 295 26
8.119 99,100 9.179 102 11.237 74
8.120-21 85,116 9.182 96 11.268 79,86
8.124 71 9.184 102 12.26 75
8.142 32 9.199 79 12.94 72
8.190 140 9.205 118 13.64,68 102
8.196 116 9.208-14 102 13.172-
8.204 32 9.222-23 118,125,173 73 6,154,156
 205

Antiquitates
13.172 11
13.293-
98 11
13.299 99
13.372-
78 11
14.1-2 51
15.376 85,115
15.425 163
16.175 60
16.395-
404 52
16.397 6,154
16.398 155,179
17.15 13
17.41 11
17.60 52
17.345-
54 62
17.354 6
18.11 6
18.13 154
18.117 116
18.128 52
19.347 154
20.84 72
20.258-
68 52
20.12 72